Earlier this year, I was explaining to someone about how God teaches us in ways that we often don’t understand at the moment – but how He always reveals later what was taught.

To illustrate, I talked about “Karate Kid,” the movie.

I assume everyone has watched this, but for those who didn’t, the part I’m referring to is when Daniel goes to Mr. Miyagi seeking to learn karate from him.  Mr. Miyagi agrees, but tells Daniel that he has to follow everything he says – no questions asked.  Daniel agrees.

And well, I’ll let the videos (below) tell the rest of the story:

Lesson 1: Wax On, Wax Off

Lesson 2: Sand the Floor

Lesson 4: Paint the Fence

Conclusion:

Came across this story.  Would like to comment on it when I get the chance. But even if I don’t, I felt it was good to share:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/How-to-Live-Happily-on-75-usnews-2822136231.html?x=0&.v=1

Came across this new release for a new book based on research by the Gallup organization.  Felt what was shared in it was worth passing along and also noting for my own reference as well.  Hope you find it useful:

The Myth of the Well-Rounded Leader

One of the most startling conclusions of Gallup’s research is that there is no one strength that all good leaders possess. What’s more, the most effective leaders are not well-rounded at all, but instead are acutely aware of their talents and use them to their best advantage. The late Donald O. Clifton, the Father of Strengths Psychology, was asked a few months before his death in 2003 what he considered to be the greatest discovery in more than 30 years of leadership research.

Clifton responded, “A leader needs to know his strengths as a carpenter knows his tools, or as a physician knows the instruments at her disposal. What great leaders have in common is that each truly knows his or her strengths — and can call on the right strength at the right time. This explains why there is no definitive list of characteristics that describes all leaders.” It also explains why the calm and quiet approach of Mahatma Gandhi was equally as effective as the domineering and confrontational style of Winston Churchill.

Gallup scientists surveyed more than one million work teams, conducted more than 20,000 in-depth interviews with leaders, and even interviewed more than 10,000 followers around the world to ask exactly why they followed the most important leader in their life. Here’s what they found:

• The most effective leaders are always investing in strengths. In the workplace, when an organization’s leadership fails to focus on individuals’ strengths, the odds of an employee being engaged are a dismal 1 in 11 (9%). But when an organization’s leadership focuses on the strengths of its employees, the odds soar to almost 3 in 4 (73%). When leaders focus on and invest in their employees’ strengths, the odds of each person being engaged goes up eightfold.
• The most effective leaders surround themselves with the right people and then maximize their team. While the best leaders are not well-rounded, the best teams are. Gallup’s research found that top-performing teams have strengths in four specific domains. (See below.)
• The most effective leaders understand their followers’ needs. People follow leaders for very specific reasons. When asked, followers were able to describe exactly what they need from a leader with remarkable clarity: trust, compassion, stability, and hope.

For more information about the book, go to http://www.gallup.com/press/113536/Press-Release-Strengths-Based-Leadership.aspx#1

I heard  this story quite a while ago.  Was reminded of it again today, but took quite a while to find it. Surprised how very few sites have posted this story.  Anyway, since I haven’t blogged in quite a while and since I felt this story should be more widely disseminated, I decided to repost it at this time.  Hope it serves as a good reminder to us all to look at what it is we’re doing and ask “What am I doing?” – especially believers.

The story:

While walking down the street, I came upon a construction site. There were three men there working in the heat of broad daylight. I asked the first one, “What are you doing?”
He replied, “I’m putting some cement on a brick, and then I’m going to put another brick on top of it.”
I asked the second man, “What are you doing?”
He replied, “I am building a brick wall.”
I asked the third man, “What are you doing?”
He replied, “I am building a house of worship.”

I realized that I have two different audiences I’m reaching to through this blog. 1) the unreached, 2) believers.  So rather than mix them together here (which I think may make it less effective as a tool for the unreached), I’m going to write posts in here specifically for believers and use my blogspot account to write for unbelievers.

I thought about deleting (or rather moving) my past posts here, but I’ll just go ahead and keep them here and move relevant posts to my blogspot account.

Sound good?

Think this will work out well.  Will give the address to my blogspot after I take the time to set it up.  TTYL!

Another short post.  I remember that before becoming a Christian, I didn’t go to Church because I didn’t think that there was much I could gain from it. Looking at the Christians that I knew, I felt that they were just like any other person I knew.  Some were even worse than the non-Christians I knew.

And I’m sure many people feel the same way.

But let me just say this.  Even the Greatest Teacher has not-so-good students.  Ultimately, while the Teacher may be Great, it’s up to the students how well they learn.  So don’t judge a class by its students, but by the Teacher.  And if you don’t know the Teacher very well, at least sit through a few classes before deciding or – better yet – talk to a student that really appears to be learning well and doing well.  At least make an attempt to find out about this Great Teacher that so many hail as great before automatically keeping him off your course list.  Else, you may be missing out on the Greatest Teacher you’ve ever had.

On a similar note: Good scientists are ones that don’t just come up with a hypothesis and call it a theory or a truth.  Good scientists investigate, experiment, research, and all that good stuff before coming up with a conclusion.

Just wanted to make some brief comments.  Though my hope of course is that everyone comes to seek and believe in God and to trust and follow Christ, I know  that there’s little I can do to change a person’s heart.  But I would hope that everyone – regardless of what they believe – would at least have as a desire for thier life to love people and touch the lives of as many as possible during their lifetime. Sen. Edward Kennedy died yesterday and newspapers have splashed his image just about everywhere.  Though we may not all get that kind of recognition when we die,  I would hope that we all would want to make as big of an impact in this world as we can.  Rather than living to receive as much as we can, living to do as much as we can.

I think this really makes a good case for Christianity as well – for those who are adamantly opposed to the faith.  Because the life of a true Christian is a win-win situation (as mentioned in a previous post).  Even if (big if) Christians were wrong about God or about Christ, we’ll still have lived a very fulfilling, meaningful, and influential life.

Really, even thinking about this logically, rationally, or what-have-you, the life of a devoted believer is a life well lived.  the leap of faith has little (if any risk).  We might miss out on the drinking, the partying, the “freedom” from moral obligations – but are those really “losses”?  The leap of unfaith, however – yeah, it has very high risk and consquences of eternal proportions.   Are you so sure that God doesn’t exist and that Christ was wrong that you’d bet your eternal soul on it?

As evangelist Greg Laurie recently stressed, our souls are all eternal.  Everyone has a soul that lives for all eternity. The question though is, where will it spend all of eternity?

Be sure you know what the destination is of the train that you’re boarding before making your pick in this “train station” we call earth.  And keep in mind that you may not have 80, 90 or 100 years to decide.  It might be even a few months, a few weeks, a few days, or even a few hours.  Only God knows when we’ll die.

So my hope is that anyone who reads this – regardless of what they believe – will deeply and sincerely think about their life and ask themselves “What am I living for?” and “What if there is more to come after life on this world?”  At least seek this out.  Because he (or she) who seeks, finds.

Do you believe in atoms?

If so, is it because …

1. You’ve seen one?

2. Your textbook/teacher told you they exist?

3. Simple logic compels you to believe they exist?

4. You’ve done scientific tests to proove their existence?

5. You trust what countless scientists have testified to throughout the past several decades?

More on this later … though I’m sure you can figure out where I’m going with this.

(Hint: there’s a lot more believers in the world throughout recorded history who have testified to God’s existence and presence than there have been scientists mentioned in No. 5)

Haven’t written in a while though I really wanted to.  Lots of topics I could have addressed but didn’t.  Regretful, yes.

Something I read today, however, really lit a fire under me that just couldn’t be contained.  It was an Op-Ed by Sam Harris, a popular atheist whose arguments have been criticized even among other atheists.

Here’s  an excerpt from his piece on the nomination of Francis S. Collins to lead the National Institutes of Health (NIH):

Dr. Collins has written that “science offers no answers to the most pressing questions of human existence” and that “the claims of atheistic materialism must be steadfastly resisted.”

One can only hope that these convictions will not affect his judgment at the institutes of health. After all, understanding human well-being at the level of the brain might very well offer some “answers to the most pressing questions of human existence” — questions like, Why do we suffer? Or, indeed, is it possible to love one’s neighbor as oneself? And wouldn’t any effort to explain human nature without reference to a soul, and to explain morality without reference to God, necessarily constitute “atheistic materialism”?

Francis Collins is an accomplished scientist and a man who is sincere in his beliefs. And that is precisely what makes me so uncomfortable about his nomination. Must we really entrust the future of biomedical research in the United States to a man who sincerely believes that a scientific understanding of human nature is impossible?

Now, there’s really a lot I could say, but I’m short on time and have some work to wrap up.  So I’ll just say a few words (promise 🙂 hehe).

First of all, yes, science – like man – has its limits.  Scientists can no more unravel all the mysteries of the universe on their own than man can come to know all things on his own.

But what’s impossible for man, is possible for God and possible with God.

As Ken Connor of the Center for a Just Society wrote last month, “Faith in the goodness of God’s creation and the intelligibility of its design inspired history’s great minds to forge ahead into new worlds of knowledge and discovery.”

“Indeed, many of the great heroes of science pioneered their discoveries under the auspices of this inspiration. Groundbreaking advances in astronomy, chemistry, physics, mathematics, genetics, and other fields of knowledge were made by men dedicated to systematically investigating God’s creation-men like Copernicus, Kepler, Pascal, Boyle, Kelvin, Mendel, and Faraday,” he added.

Furthermore, I should add, what has been discovered, invented, produced, and etc. from the beginning of time until now was not by the efforts, intelligence, abilities of man alone.

Consider how many inventors or pioneers stumbled across a breakthrough after many trials and errors.

Some might argue that, yes, it was because they were geniuses or because they were great.  Many would admit that there has almost always been an element of “luck,” chance, or probability involved.

I say, “It’s always been by grace.”

Luck?  What is luck?  It’s essentially grace.  Chance?  By chance?  Some would be inclined believe that much of what happens around us is random – merely the products of chance.

But they’re certainly not.  It’s more foolish to believe that everything is random than to believe that there is an order to EVERYTHING.  Scientists, of all people, should be the most religious upon seeing how precisely everything works.

(yeah, I said I’d keep this short but you know how it is with me)

But I think the very idea that a single book (the Bible) can reveal answers to the deepest questions of man, or that a man (Jesus) could be the living revelation of the Creator of all things – this can automatically draw “no ways” because it sounds so far out there.

It shouldn’t though.  Scientists should by nature (or perhaps by profession) weigh and consider everything very carefully before coming to a conclusion.

That’s what this UCLA Computer Science & Engineering student did before accepting Christ.

As someone whose strong point has always been science and math, and as a person of reason and logic, I have found more evidence to irrefutable support for the belief in a Creator than not.

And as I study the Bible more, I only gain further affirmation that absolute truth exists, that everything around us came to be not by chance but according to a plan, that there is a spiritual world that exists, and that there is an unseen Force that guides all things.

Though I don’t know all things and won’t until the day I meet my Maker, I am certain that there is an answer to all questions and a Creator for all creations.  Though it may be “impossible” for us to uncover everything on our own, I believe a person who trusts in the Almighty in his heart, mind, and soul – as Collins proclaims he does – is not cause for “concern” but a blessing to the scientific community, which relies just as much on grace as the rest of us – if not more.

I’m a bit busy right now, but I’ll keep this brief.  As I was perusing the news this morning, I came across a comment made by V. Gene Robinson following New Hamphsire’s approval of same-sex marriage.

According to The Associated Press article, Robinson says tougher than getting New Hampshire’s lawmakers and governor to approve gay marriage is getting churches to fully embrace gay marriage and gay people.

“But now we need to be working in our religious institutions to come to this new place about what is God’s will about this,” Robinson said. “I think a close look at that will reveal God loves all of God’s children, not just certain ones, and that’s the harder work.”

For someone who has been at the center of the homosexual row in the worldwide Anglican Communion for the past six years ago, Robinson sure has got it wrong.  It just baffles me how he can still make a comment like the one he made less than a week ago.

The issue is not about whether God loves homosexuals.

This, undoutedly is true: God loves all people. And all people are sinners.

But God hates sin.

Pro-homosexuality activists in the Church (not to mention society) are constantly making out the gay marriage debate as if it was about people hating gays or treating gays as lesser-value people or as if the other side (those in support of traditional marriage) are arguing that God doesn’t love homosexuals.

These kinds of distortions are what mislead people in this issue.

But, as stated earlier, God loves all people.  All people are sinners.

But God hates sin.  And the issue here is whether homosexuality is a sin.  Or, in secular forum, the issue is whether sodomy should be legalized and get society’s approval as something that is morally okay (or socially acceptable).

I personally believe that homosexuality is a sin.  That’s pretty clear from the Bible.

In naming some of the many types of sinners that there are, the Apostle Paul listed “fornicators, idolaters,  adulterers, effeminate, homosexuals,  thieves, the covetous, drunkards, revilers, swindlers” (1 Cor 6 NASB) .

Of course, the list could go on –   murderers, false witnesses, etc.  But the point is, yes, if you believe the Bible is the Word of God, then you can’t deny that homosexuality is a sin.  End of story (or it should be).  Yes God is still speaking, but He has also already spoken.  And while people change, God doesn’t.

As for my societal view, well, yes, I don’t believe society should be forced to give sodomy the stamp of moral or societal approval.  If couples (same-sex or otherwise) engage in it privately, that’s their business.  But if you want for society (through laws), schools (through curriculum), and other public forums to accept sodomy as normal, natural, or moral – um, sorry.

And the homosexual community knows that they can’t win the case for sodomy when presented frankly.  So, naturally, they shift the debate to one being about human rights, about marriage, about intolerance, etc.

And they sway people this way.  Because, well yeah, all people should have equal rights.  Two people who love each other should be allowed to commit themselves to one another.  Many do have a problem with homosexuals because they are different.

But should men be allowed to go into womens’ restrooms because all people should be equal?  If all homosexual couples want are the same legal rights as heterosexual couples, why push so hard for “marriage” and not settle for civil unions (not that I’m okay with the latter, necessarily)?  And just because some people have problems with homosexuals and are hostile toward them, does that imply that all people who don’t approve of homosexuality are intolerant bigots?

It really boils down to a battle of words, doesn’t it?  How you paint the picture.

Well, it seems that Robinson is still painting his effort as one to get all churches to love homosexuals, though it’s actually about getting all churches to disregard Paul’s mention of homosexuality as sin, not to mention God’s.

But those who are trying to get the public’s approval of homosexuality, may find that while they may be able to initially sway people with what they’re saying now, eventually people will wise up and realize  the reason why they feel homosexuality is abnormal and unnatural is because, quite frankly, it is.

That’s one of the things that the majority of the religious community and the scientific community can agree on.

But if people don’t wise up, well, I guess then the line of morality will just drop down then.  At least pedophilia and incest are still widely considered as immoral.

But who knows?  If enough brothers and sisters come out pressing for the right to marry and paint themselves as victims of an “old fashioned” society, who knows how the public might be swayed and misled?

Not saying that that’s next in line.  But certainly, if the moral stamp is ever given one day to sodomy, there will be another sin waiting to cross the border.  People will go at great lengths to avoid confessing their sins – even as far as getting them condoned.

And in an increasingly sin-desensitized society, they might just succeed, sadly.