The Word and God

[Jesus said,] "...the Scripture cannot be broken -- what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, 'I am God's Son'? Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does."

--John 10:35b-37 (NIV)

Today, I returned to the Quiet Time I used to know. A few weeks ago, I picked up the September/October 2006 issue of Every Day with Jesus (EDWJ), written by Selwyn Hughes. This issue is titled 'Life Convictions' and it is a collection of Selwyn's writings on several convictions that, in his words, held him through life. He passed away recently.

The first reading was for today, 1 September, and the Scripture was taken from John 10, part of which is quoted above. I was gripped by the two verses that frame the excerpt, namely verses 35 and 37.

Two statements:
(i) The Scripture cannot be broken
(ii) Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does

I realise that the Christian faith rests upon these two foundations: that the written Word (the Bible) is the voice of God, and that the incarnate Word (Jesus) is God himself. If either one of these is false, then our faith amounts to nothing.

Somehow, I think it resonated very strongly with me because I'm going to confront Ahmad Deedat's efforts at debunking the Bible; I'll be getting a VCD of one of Deedat's lectures/debates from Danial soon. Of course, another reason would be the very significance of the implications of those two verses. Oh, and the numbers 10:35 and 10:37. *wink*

* * * * *

The promised photos are here. I've decided to montage some of them, so as to accelerate the loading of this page.


These were from dinner at Chili's last Friday with the debaters. Clockwise from top left: Kishan (a.k.a. Mortar) and his GPS device, Ben (a.k.a. Smart Bomb) and the famous Chili's bottomless orange juice, Danial (a.k.a. Rocket Launcher) and the can't-visit-Chili's-without-ordering-it Chocolate Brownie, and Dinesh (a.k.a. Stinger) popping the cherry that adorned the brownie's ice-cream.

We're really quite a diverse group, with Indian, Malay, Chinese and Burmese blood between us, and interests that span philosophy, economics, science, law, religion and the performing arts. Our university studies are taking us as far as the UK and Australia, and Danial recently debated in the Philippines.


Before David and Sam would leave the country (again) on 31 August and 1 September respectively, a few of us decided to meet up at Mid Valley. We made it a late lunch on Saturday, and after much hassle (as usual), decided on Delifrance, as Swensen's had closed down and the Irish Pub idea wasn't too much favoured.

Clockwise from top left: Sam and the gadget we put together using a straw and the menu holder (which one of us mistook to be a wallet!), Yen getting excited with Sam's camera (as usual), David looking very focused (as usual), and Soo Tian being Soo Tian!


I had to rush off in the middle of the d'NA get-together because I needed to get ready for the MPO Gala Concert that night. It's the (now) customary birthday treat for Leanne, and we had a light dinner at Dome; we were trying not to fill ourselves as food would be served at the Gala (as usual). From left: pancakes with berries (from the All-Day Breakfast menu), sausage rolls, my Café Vienna (some espresso concoction topped with a mountain of whipped cream), and Leanne's Choco-cino.


Taken after the concert. Thus begins the 06/07 Concert Season! For the Gala, the MPO performed Leopold Stokowski's arrangement of Bach's Toccata and Fugue in D Minor, Sergei Rachmaninov's Piano Concerto No. 3 in D Minor (with Alexander Toradze on piano), and Antonin Dvořák's 9th Symphony 'From the New World'. Matthias Bamert conducted.

Dvořák was enjoyable and replete with memorable melodic themes (as usual) and the Toccata and Fugue provided a dramatic start to the season. But the highlight of the night was probably Rachmaninov's concerto; and Toradze played so intensely that it was breathtaking at times! In fact, I think I like the piece because it is so deep and layered with profundity like Shostakovich's symphonies.

* * * * *


This morning, Ryan (a.k.a. the Panda Dog) created such a mess in the garden (compared to the past few mornings) that Dad and I had to spend some 10 minutes cleaning up. Dad was understandably angry and scolded Ryan. A thought occurred to me, that it is easy to look at a dog like Ryan and say, 'How could you possibly scold such a cute little fellow?'

But discipline must not be fooled by appearances. A wrong deed is a wrong deed, no matter who does it. Yet there is certainly a difference between scolding a dog/person to point out a mistake, and exacting some form of retribution; the one is a rehabilitative process that tries to bring out the good in something/someone, while the other is a restrictive process that tries to suppress the evil.

And this made me think of the Batman dilemma. Near the end of the movie, Batman says something to Ra's al-Ghul that continues to disturb me: "I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you." After that, he jumps out of the train, while it brings Ra's to an explosive end. Valerie (I think it was her) commented that Batman is, in a way, contradicting himself because leaving Ra's to his death is effectively the same as killing him.

However, I now realise that Batman was perhaps surrendering his right to judge. If it's one thing that torments the soul of Batman, it is the idea of vengeance and justice. And if it's one thing that sets him apart from most (if not all) other heroes, it is something that was uttered by Commissioner Gordon in the animated movie The Mask of the Phantasm; "The Batman does not kill. Period."

Dandelion knows how much I wanted to be Batman (metaphorically speaking), but now I realise that being Batman isn't what I thought it would be. I thought Batman was someone who took the law into his own hands because the city was corrupt; I now understand that Batman is not the law, but merely a servant of it. Would I be able to do as he did, to come so close to revenge, yet stop and concede that 'vengeance is not mine'?

Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, "VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY," says the Lord.

--Romans 12:19 (NASB)

Yet we must be careful. This sort of statement is subject to abuse, as when people blame everything on God, and attribute every mishap or tragedy to His judgement. It is perhaps no less than murder to say, "He deserved his cancer because of the sinful life he led; God is judging him." For who are we to judge if God is judging someone? God can do it without our help!

After all, we're in the same boat and the judgement of God falls upon all in equal measure.

* * * * *

This morning, I awoke at 3 a.m. and decided to go back to sleep. A few days ago, it was the other. Today, it was me... *sigh*