What ought?
For those of you that read my post on wealth, the previous post, you might want to read it again for I have updated it.
The thought for the day/week is simple. We are holistic. There is no emotional part that can be divorced fro the rational part. There is no 'past you' totally unrelated to the present you. There is no you that lost control that is not the you that is in control now. I may grant that there are different degrees of overlap but there is certainly overlap. (Ok not a very serious argument, just a observation, not going to defend it much).
I shall make a number of claims on material wealth and try to justify them. Do keep in mind that I am only 21 years old, not theologically nor philosophically trained and that these are personal opinions though I think they are grounded in (biblical) truth and logic. I might change my mind like the socialist Russian nobleman of Nagel.
If anyone wants to challenge me on any of these points I am willing to listen.
Why am I writing this? I am writing mainly because I see that many professing Christians are seeking wealth which I think is hardly ideal. Secondarily, I am writing this so that if I have any mistakes in thinking they can be exposed and my thoughts can hold a position more desirable to God.
Wealth- Wealth here is defined as material riches. Wealth is independent of timeframe. You can inherit wealth for example. To be wealthy, you need to have wealth over time. Let me arbitrarily set it at 2 years but it doesn't have to be 2 years obviously, just for example. There are differing degrees of wealthy but all are considered wealthy.
Main claim
As a Christian, I think it would be better for one to not be wealthy than to be wealthy. Hence, I ought to not seek wealth at all (not primarily, not secondarily). In fact, I think that we ought to, where possible, seek to be unwealthy as a rule of thumb.
Supporting idea
Influx of wealth is fine as long as you do not hold on to them and seek to use them in a wise and God-pleasing manner as soon as possible. In doing so, you will no longer be wealthy in the material sense. If your influx of wealth is so vast that you cannot help but be wealthy it is perfectly fine and desirable.
Qualifiers
I think that being wealthy is not a sin.
I am not advocating a ascetic lifestyle.
I will also include some other comments on wealth (such as wealth as a side effect- I think that you ought to give it away such that you are considered not wealthy, societal ideal of wealth and how it affects the church)
Lets start from the story of the young rich man in Matthew 19, Mark 10 and Luke 18. For the non-Christian, I shall provide a link. Basically after the young rich man said that he had obeyed the commandments Jesus said that there is still one thing that he hasn't done- he should also sell all his possessions and give the money to the poor to obtain treasure in heaven and then come and follow Jesus. The man was sad, for he was rich and he left. Jesus then remarked that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God. The disciples ask who can enter the kingdom of God. Jesus answers that with man it is impossible with the caveat that with God all things are possible.
It seems to imply that selling all possessions and following Christ is required for obtaining eternal life/ entering the kingdom of heaven. It can be interpreted as with God it is possible for the grace of God to convince the rich to give up all things and follow Jesus (unlike what the man did, given that he left. Well he might leave in sorrow to give his money away but it is not recorded I guess.). This conclusion can be easily reached by holding on to what Jesus said earlier as unchangeable truths- that to get eternal life one has to keep the commandments and sell all things, give the money to the poor and follow Christ. Still, Jesus hardly imposed that requirement on anyone else. This article makes a good claim for that, arguing that Jesus set this strict requirement for a person that desired to inherit eternal life on his own terms. So yes, I do not think that selling all your possessions is necessary for eternal life. Elsewhere in the Bible it is clear that salvation is by grace through faith.
I think that this story illustrates how hard it is for a rich person to enter into the kingdom of God. The young rich man clearly had abundant willpower and a desire to follow God. Firstly, he ran and knelt at Jesus's feet. Secondly, he was able to (confidently) reply that he had kept the commandments from youth. I don't know about you, but to me that is no small feat. Yet he appears to be stumbled by his riches, being unwilling to relinquish them for God's sake. For this young man it is clear that he would be much better of if he were not rich, he wouldn't have faced this obstacle.
How is it logical for us to seek to add an obstacle in our walk with Christ? How can we pray lead us not into temptation yet seek wealth which is arguably a temptation? Why do you want to be like a camel squeezing through the eye of the needle when you can be something else like a dog or a cat, for instance.
The lady that gave 2 copper coins provides a good counterexample to the idea that if you give more in absolute terms you are doing a 'favor' to God. Basically Jesus said that the poor woman gave more than the rich for she gave all she had to live on while the rich gave out of their abundance. The gist of the story is on the giving. God does not look at things on an absolute scale (i.e numerical scale), but at our heart (the posture of how we give). I do not think that God necessarily wants us to be 'hurt' by the pain of sacrifice (such as in other cultures where something valuable must be given up to get the approval of God) but that God appreciates us giving our all to him freely rather than giving our extras or 'leftovers'.
I think it is obvious that God doesn't need our money. He is God and he can achieve whatever he wants by whatever means he wants. It is our privilege to be used by him. The idea that more money in absolute terms is 'worth more' to God is couched largely in terms of utility- the thousands that the rich gave would pay the temple expenses more than the cents that the old lady gave. This is looking at it from man's perspective I guess. Man looks at the bills that needs to be paid, the food that needs to be placed on the table. I think God doesn't really look at these. For he has all the power in the world to pay the bills and place food on the table. This utilitarian consideration is clearly not a priority to God.
Another way to look at the above point is that God is not a beggar. He is not asking for your spare change. He is not going to favor the rich because they give away large amounts of extra money. He is not a taxman seeking to maximise tax revenue (maybe some so-called churches are) but God isn't. He is self-sufficient and all powerful. He wants people to worship him and give themselves to him like how we were originally created for.
So I think the next hypothetical question is what if the rich man gave everything and the poor woman gave everything as well? What then? The scripture does not explicitly draw that scenario but I have some remarks concerning this. First, it is arguably harder, much harder, for the rich to give everything. This is also linked to the first parable brought up here. Obviously once you give everything you will be no longer rich right. Secondly, I think it may possibly be looked on with equal favor by God. This is because both have given their all to him. Thirdly, it would seem that if both are equal to God and one has more utility to man we ought to, perhaps, earn more money to give it all away. However, this falls prey to the earlier point of it being incredulously hard. For example, If one is really convicted by the holy spirit to donate a million dollars to build a hospital somewhere and he only has 500 dollars perhaps he ought to work towards getting a million dollars rather than just dumping the 500 to buy a 'mere' toilet bowl. It is hard though, to focus on getting the million dollars for that end and not be 顺便 sidetracked into leading a more comfortable life.
Stewardship of money is the next point that ought to be discussed. Well then, you might say, I shall dump all my money into the church offering bag next week and fulfil this requirement. That is not ideal either. Basically the big idea is that money is given to you to be a steward of. Just like time is given to you to be a steward of. If only it were so easy, that there was a checklist that you could do to be counted righteous. Well, there isn't. Nobody is saved through their works alone. Let us be clear on this point. Even if you dump all your money you ever made and every bit of money you will ever make into the offering bag you will not be saved because of that.
I shall not elaborate too much on the how here. Perhaps it can be done another time. Briefly, I will say though, that wisdom and holy spirit's guidance is required in knowing how to spend the money. There is no hard and fast rule such as 'maximise souls won for Christ' (even though that would be swell it falls to all sorts of practical definitional errors such as 'who sees the soul as being won?'). A closer walk with God will help in this though. The closer you walk with God, the easier it is to discern and understand the will of God.
Now I shall present a short point about the early church. Essentially the parts that are relevant are that the believers had all things in common and they were selling their possessions and distributing their proceeds to all as they had need. This was right after the pentecost. Well, this is quite self-explanatory. I think it is a good example. Selling possessions is way more than dumping loose change or even tithing.
Nomnom suggested 2 cor 8. Paul was urging the church in corinth to give generously to the church in Jerusalem. That one's abundance will satisfy another's need. This does not mean give spare change, though, for he follows it up with "whoever gathered much had nothing left over and whoever gathered little had no lack". Just today I was told about the great needs in churches overseas. It is always easier to spend money on ourselves (and even on our churches) yes? I do think we have much left over, especially if the criterion is on a needs basis.
I think the stance is clear. If you are rich and believe you must be willing to give away everything. If you give away everything then you will no longer be rich. If you are not rich and believe, then, just set your eyes on God, there is no place for a secondary consideration of wealth. If God gives you riches then you ought to spend it in a way that glorifies God (which I think would involve very little spending on yourself).
At least this is what I am going with personally luh...
I have drawn on mostly new testament texts so as to not have to go into the 'how much of the old testament is applicable? discussion' to make things simpler. OT texts can be tenable as well, perhaps I will undertake them next time.
First let us assume that everyone is able to make their own choices in selecting who they want to date. We further assume that the freedom they have, if not complete, is at least close enough to complete such that it does not interfere with the choices that one ultimately makes.
I also note that people want different things to different degrees in a potential partner. This is key. There is no universal attractiveness index where people just aim to maximise the attractiveness index of their partner. If there were an universal attractiveness index it would follow that in a sample, the top two most attractive of each sex would date each other, the next two... so on and so forth until the least attractive of both sex date each other. Because there is no universal attractiveness index, such a case would be overly simplistic. Clearly there is no one singular woman that all the males are attracted to greatly and vice versa. Instead, people would seek to find the partner that scores the best on their own individual custom attractiveness index. In other words, one would seek a partner most to their individual liking or taste. Sounds simple eh.
That would be the case if partners were products and we could each buy the product that we desired the most. But partners are not differentiated products. They are other humans. Hence, the case becomes one of a mutual 'buying' where both have to agree to the purchase before anything can happen. From one person's perspective, it seems simple. You just go down the list of people you are most attracted to and stop when you hit a match (or decide that you rather not date at a certain level, say a minimum threshold).
Obviously this does not happen in real life (at least not that I have observed). People do not always tell the person they are most attracted to that they are most attracted to them and so on and so forth. There is a huge whatnot of complex signalling that messes up the final message sent across. There are other factors also, such as timing. A could find B attractive but B could be in a relationship and A chooses to not act on it. Many many other reasons.
What I want to say, which is only tangentially related to the above observations, actually, is that one ought to (or at the least, ponder on whether to) work on being as attractive as possible to the people one finds attractive. Here, as in the whole essay, I use the word attractive to mean more than physical attraction obviously. Based on your own key or major criterions that make up your custom attractiveness index, one ought to generalise and tweak oneself according to the likely criterions that the people they are attracted to have. The assumption here is that most people have a certain kind of pattern and that their attributes are related somehow. Like how a person interested in doing business would also have decent fashion sense. Or like how a sportsperson will generally have less regard for unhealthy peoples. Alternatively you could just stick to being your pure and unadulterated self and accept whatever comes your way.
So say that A really likes guys that are good at math. What ought she do? Perhaps guys that are good at math like girls that can play computer games. Perhaps she ought to learn how to play computer games. Perhaps guys that are good at math are apathetic towards fashion. Perhaps she ought to care less about fashion. The idea is not a drastic change in personality for the end of attaining a chance to date another person but the gradual improvement of self in line with these criterion anyway.
I find that one cannot 'attract' certain qualities with contradictory qualities. I am broadly generalising and all. Like you cannot attract a Godly person with wealth or secular success.
I think much of my writings have a positive spin on it. This is despite me being an inherently negative person. When I write about problems, thoughts and struggles I always conclude that it will be alright in the end, that God is overall in control, that God is good, that God will provide a way out. That God is enough. It is how the psalmist concludes. And it is the truth. And I believe in this.
Yet, yet. Yet it is not always so easy to see the light. For days, for weeks, for months on end I chase after the things of the earth. I fret over the unimportant and I lose sleep over that which I have no control over. The trivial matters control my emotions and how I spend my time. I say I believe in God's promises yet I do not act as if I believe in God's promises. (and acting is a true gauge i strongly believe).
Such is life. What can I do? Pray more, believe more, do more? The struggle is really really hard. I am really really struggling. I am afraid, I am whatnot. I am nowhere near perfect. I think everybody has their own problems. It is whether you know it.
And of course, whether you have God with you.
First off! Reading week isn't here yet so who needs to read? Rhetorical question, I know.
Anyway, post after the first line was delayed until now... And I regret the first sentence lol.
So the topic is fairness of deadline extensions. As a student I am sure that we have had our fair share of deadline extensions. When you are the one asking for it it seems like an answered wish, when you haven't done it it seems like a fortunate event, when you have already done it you seem ambivalent or annoyed if you had rushed it like crazy at the cost of sleep or other activities.
I think deadline extensions are unfair. I do not take the further step to say that it being unfair means it shouldn't be done. I think there are reasons that can justify unfairness such as love and compassion and whatnot. I also don't think that fairness is not obtainable on this side of mortality. I should define fairness but I am not going to, just a common conception shall suffice.
Even in cases where the extension is granted across the board, the unfairness is there. One might possibly object by saying that because this 'benefit' is given to everyone equally, it is fair. I think here a distinction has to be made between equal outcomes and fairness in process. I think the unfairness is in two parts. First, the amending of the agreement without consent and secondly, the different impact of the same deadline extension on each person's final grade (let us assume the final grade matters, lol).
Basically the first argument goes something like this. When the assignment is set with a deadline, it is sort of an agreement made between the setter and the student. The agreement is basically that full credit will be given if the assignment is turned in on time, there will be consequences if it is late. Each and every student knows this and gives their tacit agreement presumably by not immediately objecting (I guess if you immediately object then it will be another case altogether, here I am imagining a case where it was assigned 2 months ago but 3 days before the deadline, an extension is given due to requests). This agreement should not be changed without the consent of all the parties involved. I personally think that if there were no bell curve and everyone were just doing independent learning for the sake of knowledge there would be no unfairness in deadline extensions. But with the bell curve and competition, every student assigned the assignment is involved in the original agreement and their consent should be solicited before any changes are made.
This is analogous to the idea that competition rules (well well, so studies is a competition eh? I guess so, with the bell curve, it is certainly a competition for grades. Ought it be treated as one is another question for another time, I would say no perfunctorily) cannot be altered. Imagine a bowling competition when halfway into the competition the referee announces that both you and your opponent will bowl 12 frames instead of 10. Clearly unfair (doesn't matter at whose request or at no one's request).
Secondly, the impact of the deadline extension is unequal. Obviously the person that benefits least is the one that has done the work by the deadline. The person that benefits the most is the person that just starts when the deadline extension is announced. In stating these two claims I am obviously holding on to two assumptions. Firstly, that the more time you spend on a piece of work , the better it will be. Secondly, the marginal utility of work done per unit time decreases as amount of work completed increases (Basically the closer you are to finishing the less helpful extra time is because there is not that much that can be improved easily).
Even if one does not hold the two assumptions it is obvious that were there no deadline extension, the person that finished the work on the deadline would clearly have an advantage over the person that used the deadline extension to do the work.
One cannot trivialise prayer. One should not pray 'lead me not into temptation' and run towards temptation with open arms. One cannot pray 'help me be a good steward of my God given time' and while the time away.
There has to be a distinct effort that accompanies the prayer. Here we run into the question of causality. Does God cause you to do the action that pleases him or is it in part due to your own effort? Related is the question of if God is the causal power how can one be faulted? I think I shall not discuss this issue. Maybe I shall leave it as mechanism unknown. The point I am trying to make is that for one to pray sincerely, one must act accordingly to how one prays.
I read a book on Paul saying 'I know whom I believe'. Do I know who I believe? When I read spiritual truths I see to grasp, for awhile, by the grace of God, glimpses of eternity. But then the pressures of the world seep in and it slips out of my active consciousness, I become blinded, I lose sight of Christ, of eternity, of what I was made for. It seems like what Hume says about skepticism, powerful but for a moment, unable to put into reality. But what I am dealing is not with reason (Hume uses reason as the 'criterion'), but with God who is more than even reason (I think I am right to say that).
I have confidence even though I lack confidence that God's will will be done. For humankind and for me.
I think that any question that one asks of another requires two other elements to it, importance and ideal-ness.
So an example will be like, music. I fancy myself a decently musical person though I won't say music is my life or anywhere near that. I do listen to songs and all but I somehow cannot study while listening to music. I can go prolonged periods without music. I think the current situation is decently ideal, I might pick up another instrument but chances are, probably not cos I am lazy.
To have a description without importance would lack the element of 'comparative weight'. Idealness provides the element of envisioned weight.
And now, a list of things that would be good to know about another. In no particular order.
Religion. Philosophy. Health. Exercise. Sports. Music. Political ideal. Family. Past institutions (e.g schools). Friends. Hobbies. Personality. Discipline. Daily routine. Sleep pattern. Food. Drinks. Peeves. (Personal) Grooming. Spending habits. Clothes. Hygiene. Outdoors/indoors. Values.
So the exams have ended. Could have done better. My exam skills are less than finely honed, something that I will surely improve by the next exam I receive. Perhaps I studied too much (lol) and have too much to write such that the time pressure comes in. I find this limiting factor of handwriting speed very burdensome. Why can't they just let us type the answer? Of what worth is handwriting speed in today's society?
Arghh. I screwed up my exams just maybe 2 hours ago. I planned the essay nicely but I didn't execute it. Why oh why? I sorta ran out of time. And halfway within the essay my brilliant brain decided to deviate from the format I had planned make it seem less coherent. I am disappointed with myself. So much for trying to score well in this module. Bad time management, bad execution. Such basic examination skills really cannot sia. Should not be penalised because of this de lor... Should not... I have yet to clock in the required amount of times I guess? Idk. Lets hope tomorrows paper will be better. I am seriously super sian. This past two weeks. Really probably the shittiest two weeks. Always like that.
Im revising for exams! Hence the lack of posts.
Here I note that for those who want to lead a happy life, past happiness is totally inconsequential. Happiness is a consumable. It is consumed in that moment and gone for the rest of eternity. It is not like drinking water where you drink alot now you can drink less later. You can be very happy now and still be depressed like, almost instantaneously later. There is no compensation whatsover.
Do you take comfort in leading a happy life for the past 18 years upon your enlistment? Does playing a satisfying game of Dota count for anything during your exam?
Secondly, I want to ask, why do they give choices for essay questions? Are they really trying to make life easier for us so that we only have to study certain topics? Is that ideal for our education? Why not just give like 2 compulsory questions instead of 2 choose 1, 2 choose 1? Are you sympathetic to those that are too lazy to study wide or are you favoring the 'exam-smart' people?
[[Book wishlist (lend me pls)]]
[[The Story Thus]]
|January 2008|February 2008|March 2008|April 2008|May 2008|June 2008|July 2008|August 2008|September 2008|October 2008|November 2008|December 2008|January 2009|February 2009|March 2009|April 2009|May 2009|June 2009|July 2009|August 2009|September 2009|October 2009|November 2009|December 2009|January 2010|February 2010|March 2010|April 2010|May 2010|June 2010|July 2010|August 2010|September 2010|October 2010|November 2010|December 2010|January 2011|February 2011|March 2011|April 2011|May 2011|June 2011|July 2011|August 2011|September 2011|October 2011|November 2011|December 2011|January 2012|February 2012|March 2012|April 2012|May 2012|June 2012|July 2012|August 2012|September 2012|October 2012|November 2012|December 2012|January 2013|February 2013|March 2013|April 2013|May 2013|June 2013|July 2013|August 2013|September 2013|October 2013|November 2013|December 2013|January 2014|February 2014|March 2014|April 2014|May 2014|June 2014|July 2014|August 2014|September 2014|October 2014|November 2014|December 2014|January 2015|February 2015|March 2015|April 2015|May 2015|June 2015|July 2015|August 2015|September 2015|October 2015|November 2015|December 2015|January 2016|February 2016|March 2016|April 2016|May 2016|June 2016|July 2016|August 2016|September 2016|October 2016|November 2016|December 2016|January 2017|February 2017|March 2017|April 2017|May 2017|June 2017|July 2017|August 2017|September 2017|October 2017|November 2017|December 2017|January 2018|February 2018|March 2018|April 2018|May 2018|June 2018|July 2018|August 2018|September 2018|October 2018|November 2018|December 2018|January 2019|February 2019|March 2019|April 2019|May 2019|June 2019|July 2019|August 2019|September 2019|October 2019|November 2019|December 2019|January 2020|February 2020|March 2020|April 2020|May 2020|June 2020|July 2020|August 2020|September 2020|October 2020|November 2020|December 2020|January 2021|February 2021|March 2021|April 2021|May 2021|June 2021|July 2021|August 2021|September 2021|October 2021|November 2021|December 2021|January 2022|February 2022|March 2022|April 2022|May 2022|June 2022|July 2022|August 2022|September 2022|October 2022|November 2022|December 2022|January 2023|February 2023|March 2023|April 2023|May 2023|June 2023|July 2023|August 2023|September 2023|October 2023|November 2023|December 2023|January 2024|February 2024|March 2024|April 2024
[[The Talk (also silent)]]
[[The Ancients]]