What ought?
ghost-normal
weak- dark
resists- bug, poison
immune- fight, normal, ghost
Stab attacks hits neutral on all monotypes. Only resisted by steel/dark, rock/dark, steel/normal, rock/normal of which, I don't think there are many. Immune to itself though.
Sick type coverage.
Brooms
Imagine a special attacker of like porygon-z, if not fast enough 1x agility to sweep, if fast enough 1x nasty plot = gg. Tri-attack/BOOM BURST?!?! + Shadowball + agility/nasty plot + sub/protect/focus blast/hp fighting? @ life-orb/sash (I imagine it to be fragile, idk)
Or a physical attacker like raticate GUTS RATICATE with additional ghost typing. FACADE sweeeeeeeeeeep. Can just have knock-off for coverage. Facade + Knock-off + Drainpunch + ddance would be awesome. Could add in suckerpunch/quick attack for priority.
Honestly, if same sex marriage was legalised in Singapore I wouldn't die, in fact, I wouldn't even be enraged. To a certain extent, I agree with what they say, it is their prerogative to do whatever they want.
Now I want to say that I believe 100% that a homosexual lifestyle is sin, wrong, despicable in the eyes of God and ought not be accepted by any professing Christian in the same way as lying, cheating, stealing, slandering, coveting, adultery, pre-marital sex.etc. We must know, and be clear of this. The law in the penal code or the constitution is not our standard, the bible is our standard and by it everyone will be judged.
I am quite skeptical over the power of political legislation, especially for 'Christian agenda' (yuck that phrase is disgusting). I think it is quite clear that Christ's kingdom is not of this world. Christ's body is us, within the world and we ought to make a change where we can but I am very skeptical over using legislation to achieve it. Here I am limiting most of the discussion to 'gay marriage ought to be banned because God said so' kind of threads. If you are arguing that gay marriage ought to be banned due to societal whatnot, go ahead.
Worldly kingdoms are not here to enforce God's decrees. Worldly kingdoms are subjected to God's authority, of course, but it is not biblical to expect worldly kingdoms to enforce God's laws, that will be done in heaven and all will be pleasing to God there anyway. The only country that was supposed to be God's country was ancient Israel. And politically speaking, that didn't turn out too well, practically speaking the people didn't obey God's laws too well either. If I am not wrong, no other country has been chosen by God for this purpose up until the end of time.
Here I would like to include my personal opinion that Rome's embracing of Christianity corrupted it way too much, hence the need for the reformation. I would rather Rome not embrace Christianity, but I am not the keeper of time nor the one that created the universe so this second opinion is just pure speculation.
That being said, I am not saying that Christians ought to be politically apathetic or politically inactive. If a democratic country is 75% Christian and they stonewall gay marriage I think that is well and good and a perfectly justifiable outcome of democracy (not that I think very highly of democracy anyway). Christians ought to make their stance clear, that homosexuality is a sin and will not be condoned by us, yet Christians have no right to assert and impose this on other non-believers. That is not to say that Christians do not dissuade, or try any other means in trying to help others sin less. In love we ought to reach out to other fellow sinners but it is nowhere an imposition, least of all a political one.
I am saying that if a country, such as USA, chooses to go down the path of legalising gay marriage, the Christians ought not be too sad. Yes they can be sad that the USA is not a Christian country, yes they can be sad that the society at large rejects the Christian standard of sin. Yes you can be sad that USA is not God's own country (It never was ok. lolol. ok dont cry. Bible has 0 recorded instances of USA and Jesus was not white. ok, that was patronising. Pardon me.) It is tragic that the puritan hope on which USA was founded on seems to be lost but it is to be expected.
I am saying that Christians ought not insist on their way to political authorities because they are Christian. A Christian takes on his cross and follows Christ and suffers for Christ. There is no demanding, no banging on the table and no politically privileged position. Christians ought to shine for Christ in their whole lives, through their suffering, witness and example. I am rather certain that political campaigning like any other lobby group is not shining for Christ, whatever the original intent is.
I think we Christians ought to take a leaf from Jesus's book. Political imposition was never his priority. Arguably, people have the right to chose sin (wow, I used the word 'right' P.S I am actually strongly against the concept of rights). We have the responsibility to do everything we can to help them turn to Christ for the forgiveness of sin and the hope that we have in the future but that does not mean that we should force them. Go forth and love them into Christ. That will be great!
Arguably, nobody will campaign for a law that says all citizens of X must be of Y religion (ok maybe Islam? might? I'm not sure). Why campaign that all citizens of X must follow practices of Y? I think that gay marriage does fit the somewhat normal ideas of not hurting anyone else (come on, the see gay turn gay argument is bullshit ok), being an act between two consenting adults and whatnot.
Finally, on the institution of marriage. It is obvious (at least in multi-religious Singapore) that the societal definition of marriage is not the Christian definition of marriage. Traditional Chinese marriages and Malay marriages all do not have a marriage service. For us Christians, man and woman are united in Christ. This concept is not present anywhere else. The law accepts the others as perfectly acceptable form of marriages, why not gay marriage? (woah careful careful, might be stepping on a few toes here.) What I mean is that the Christian concept of marriage remains unchanged whatever the law says marriage is. We Christians stick to our Christian concept of marriage (which I think rules out ever having a gay marriage) but it should be fine for the law to accept other forms of marriage, it does not affect our concept which is already different from what the law encompasses.
Feel free to raise whatever you have to say on the tagboard.
Before the holidays I sort of made a mental note to myself that this would, like the post-ORD holiday, be a gauge of how disciplined I can be having unstructured time. And the conclusion, as of now, is 'not very'.
Now, I wrote an article last week. Spent most of last week on it actually. Most of last week's not gaming and not going out time, that is. Article can be found here. Actually im quite glad it went through in the end. Even though I don't really like redoing edits. Sighs. I must bear in mind that I am writing for a specific audience and what I should write is what caters to them and not to myself.
Now let us discuss 'What does the bible say about identity?'. Or rather, what is God's conception of identity.
In the previous semester, I was introduced to two views of identity by Parfit. The complex view and the simple view. The simple view is just the everyday view that most people hold, that a person is an entity that persists over time. The complex view argues that a person over time is the not entirely the same entity yet not entirely different entities but entities that differ in degrees. Basically the complex view says that me now and me 10 seconds ago are more or less the same person, but the me now and the me 10 years ago differ significantly. The difference can be due to memories, character, physical replacement of cells .etc. Basically the complex view proposes that there is no unchanging persisting entity within an individual and hence, the identity of the individual has to be in degrees over time.
I wonder what is God's view of humankind, y'know, the right view. The only view that matters. Preliminarily I would like to note a few observations.
1. It seems that to God, humankind is on entire being and each individual human is part of a larger being. This makes sense given that God is our creator. I don't know the exact mechanism that works here but it seems that God views us as not entirely discrete from our forefathers an ancestors.
This is most obvious in the concept of original sin. That in the sin of Adam, humankind and all of Adam's descendants fell. All humans henceforth were conceived into sin. This is also evidenced in us being termed 'sons of Adam' or 'son of man' as opposed to like just us alone.
This can also be seen in the promises made to Abraham and David where their posterity are blessed due to their righteousness. Conversely, offspring are also 'punished' for the misdeeds of their parents as in the case of the Edomites (Esau) and Solomon. All these would seem quite queer under today's law which draws a clear discrete line between individuals, especially after 21 years old (for Singapore law).
It appears that to God, we are part of our parents. And they are part of our parents and so on and so forth. If that assertion is too hard to make, at least some part of our parents is transferred to us. This is not that hard to understand once you look at it from the perspective of a creator to created humans rather than as a human looking at other humans. At least that is how I interpret it.
There is another interpretation that it is for the individual sin of the offspring that they are punished (in the cases of punishments over generations). I think no contradiction here.
2. Yet it does say that one is only held accountable for their own sin. A preliminary google search shows Ezekiel 18:20 which says that the one who sins is the one who dies. I think this is also quite obvious in the new testament. That the individual has to repent of his sin and believe in Jesus Christ to be saved. A parent's salvation certainly does not transfer to their child (unlike sin). Perhaps this has something to do with the concept of bodies. That we are in our sinful bodies until the day where we are given new bodies.
It is also individuals whose names are written in the book of life I believe, and not families. So there is a concept of individual, we are not all interchangeable and the same. We possess autonomy and responsibility for our actions.
So yeah. I think both this positions can be held without contradiction. I would classify it under the "God's perspective that we cannot fully understand".
3. There is a clear change of identity for a non-believer turning to become a believer. To such an extent that I think it would be rational to say things like, my unbelieving self was mean to so and so where one distances himself from the self that he was.
I think this is also straightforward, the old self that was a slave to sin dies on the cross with Christ and the new self that is a son of God is free to love God. It is a clear change of identity, I think, true conversion is. (I would like to omit the true, but it is there you know, because I think there are 'untrue' conversions in the sense of not every claimed conversion is a conversion.)
Rush rush. Should be complete enough eh.
When I ruminate over something, the right answer seems so obvious and so clear that it ought to be based on the word of God. Yet when I do not think or when I do not think enough, I am always blind sided into some sin or the other or a course of action that is decidedly sub-optimal.
Maybe it is something that needs training. Like chess.Like how a new player needs a longer time to find a move that an experienced player can make with ease. I hope to one day make the right decisions and right actions in a 顺手 fashion but until then, I think thinking and moving and limiting the mistakes is the way to go.
ICT went ok. Thanks be to God for seeing me through it.
I think I have mentioned it before, but I have doubts about whether the sermon, as we know it now, is the best method for the preaching of God's word. This is assuming that the question of what is the best method for the preaching of God's word should be fielded at all which assumes that there is a best method.
By sermon as we know it now, I mean the distinctive centerpiece of most worship services in most churches nowadays. You know, the one where the pastor goes up to the stage and speaks into the mike for a period of time while the audience passively absorbs what is being said. Questions are not fielded (or fielded privately at the end by certain members).
Weird? for a non-apostle to have the sole stage.
Home churches
Early church
Creation of sermons as a means of preaching the word by Roman Catholicism with implementation of mass?
This is unfinished but Im just gonna post it nonetheless.
Lol hi guys,
So on Monday, I will be going back for reservist. It is going to be a 6 day event. And I must say, I am not looking forward to it (contrary to what I said earlier during the meeting).
That is not to say that I lied during the meeting. I am looking forward to meeting the people whom I had spent my NS days with. However, this positivity is outweighed by the negativity in going back to the army.
I think at the core of it is the simple fact that one is coerced to do something, by force of law and on pain of jail/criminal record. Conscription is a pain in the ass. It is a clear cut case of a forcible breach of the individuals negative liberty. Negative liberty essentially means 'slave to nothing'. Under the conscription act we are basically slaves to the state/army. Very few Nsmen or NSFs of all ranks asked to be away from home, to do unpleasant tasks for minimal remuneration, we are compelled and coerced to do so by the law.
I guess there are always individuals that really want to be conscripted or be called back for reservist but these are few and far between. That is not to say that I think NS is without justification. I do see the need for NS, I guess, to a certain extent. It is just an unfortunate burden to be shouldering, an unfortunate infringement of our liberty (for the 'greater' good of the state).
If I could not do it, I would really rather not do it. But since I have to do it, I will do a decent job of it, make the most out of it .etc. Still, it is not ideal. This book in sickness is epic. From my very first book in to now, a NSman commander, I still face the same sinking feeling of sianness at having my time and energy confiscated by the state.
This is much closer to forced labor than taxation, Nozick.
I guess this post will be some low quality drabble. I have been rather lazy and yet I find my time is spent rather... hmm. unideal but yet not that bad. Perhaps I have lowered my standards. I have been mooching at home. I try to seek God yet I am constantly distracted.
Anyway, what I wanna say is that being offended is worthless. This term 'offended' seems to hide an assumption that you 'taking offense' at something is worth something, which I disagree. Seems to mean that your feelings have some intrinsic worth. Maybe they have intrinsic worth to you but do you have intrinsic worth to anything else? There are two ways of looking at this, that being offended is caused by something someone else did or being offended is a choice one makes to 'take offense'.
If it is the latter, and I think it is likely to be the latter, then being offended is a choice, I think it is quite clear cut that you can go and wallow in your own pool of rage. If it is the former due to some circumstances such as, um, I cant think of any to be honest. Let's say that someone insulted your mother. And you are a very societally conditioned person who flies and thinks you fly into a justified righteous rage. I dunno, it seems very weak to have your actions controlled by another. Im not saying that you dont stand up for yourself, it is that you ought to stand up for yourself in a calculated, controlled manner. Maybe insult the person back, I dunno.
Additionally, I think Christianity, of all things, is not a religion of taking offense. Christianity just asserts, it might be offensive, it might claim your mother's beliefs are totally false but it has no room for taking offense. Because taking offense is a very personal, self-centered thing to do. God can take offense, but who are we to take offense. Even if people slander Christianity, Christians have no room to play the offended card. We ought to defend, assert and just leave it at that. Vengeance is God's. Your delicate feelings are your own problem.
The truth doesn't depend on your feelings. What is right doesn't depend on your feelings either.
And I havent completed the insurance post. Soon, soon.
I think that I should not buy insurance (as a Christian). To be more accurate, I think that buying insurance is not the best way to spend money (as are a plethora of other things).
In the justification for these I am going to appeal to ideals set out in the Bible. I personally am seeking to reach these standards even though I am pretty certain I am falling short right now. I am seeking it by God's grace and strength. I am (humanly) ashamed to speak of such ideals with my large shortcomings though I think they are right and hence ought to be expounded and procalimed.
It is a simple argument. Firstly, I shall lay out what does insurance provide. Secondly, I shall explain why these are not required.
Seen through the most favorable, least profit-hungry lenses, the principles of insurance are essentially thus
1. There are risks in life that are low chance and high damage
2. People can pool together resources to mitigate the risk by providing a communal 'safety net'
3. Insurance companies are providing the service of helping people pool resources
A theoretical example would make things clearer. Imagine that if a house burns down, 1 million dollars is required to mitigate that damage. On average, 1 in twenty thousand houses burn down each year (whatever the actual number is, it will be derived from statistical sources with possible extrapolation). 1 million dollars is a lot to pay for any individual. Each year, if each home owner forks out 1 000 000/ 20 000 = 50 dollars each year, to a communal fund and in return, they are entitled to the communal fund if their house burns down, then they would, on average, mitigate the 1 in 20000 risk of losing 1 million dollars with the certainty of losing 50 dollars each year.
Statistically, if you have learnt basic math and probability functions, there is no material difference between losing 50 dollars each year and a 1 in 20 000 risk of losing 1 000 000 dollars each year. They are exactly the same and theoretically have no difference. However, most insurance companies have to feed their staff, have to post record profits for their shareholders so they will charge more than 50 dollars. Let me grant that they are really altruistic and are only there to make a survival.
So looking at things from the consumer perspective again, what you are doing is you are paying 51 dollars for the mitigation of a 1 000 000/ 20 000 risk. Unless you tell me you are purposely providing a livelihood for the insurance company's employees (and I am going to call bullshit on that), you are essentially paying the extra 1 dollar for something else that is not material. For most people it will be peace of mind or like natural human risk-aversion (of the Rawlsian kind eh). I shall now try to show that neither ought to be purchased by the Christian.
As a side note, according to my mum, this earning on the risk is an underwriting profit. There is also an investment profit where the company invests the money that you 'lend' them by paying for the premium in advance so you can get some money back in the end in addition to your insurance coverage. Point is, this is basically a second business model tagged onto the first, namely investment (of the investment banking type) onto the core underwriting business model. Perhaps the profits from the investment is used to offer premiums at no underwriting profit. This does not matter, the underwriting profit is still factored into the total profit. Even if they were to 'give you money' in a sense, by making the premium at a 'loss' just to 'borrow' the money from you to invest, it does not change anything. The opportunity cost is still the same. You would have, theoretically, been able to earn the investment profits or used another firm to give you better returns. I personally think this does not even need to be explained but if you still have problems with these you can tell me.
Ok I will complete the rest tmr.
[[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]]