關於 skeptical meaning ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

Thoughts on love

Today my mother shared with me some of her observations after several years living with my brother and sister-in-law. She claimed my brother is such a romantic husband, and I was skeptical: “Are you sure?”. My mother replied: “He brought her to watch movies, go shopping and travel! It’s so nice! I have never been anywhere”. I laughed: “Mom, for my generation, watching movies, going shopping and travelling together are very common things every couple does, it is not considered particularly romantic though”. The more I thought about our conversation, the more I found it interesting to compare the idea of romance between our two generations.

My mom was born during the Vietnam war, the year Republic of Vietnam in the South was proclaimed. Both my grandfather and my father, as well as most of the men in our city went to war. During my mother's youth, unlike us, she did not go to any music festivals or movie dates, she learned to carry a rifle, she refused to attend university so that she could help out my grandmother in the rice field, she walked 18 km a day and sometimes the road was filled with landmines.

I strongly feel that for my mother and many Vietnamese women of her generation, love’s meaning lies in sacrifice for their country, family and children. My mother did not have any fancy wedding photos (none at all, in fact), and she was left alone raising my brother while my dad and his troops operated along the Vietnam border. During a time when romantic love was considered a weakness and people’s lives are threatened by famine, there was very little room for “romance”.

I was born after the war ended, there was no military aircraft in the sky, no fighting, no bombs, people called us the “fruits of peace”. There are thousands of fancy ways to show how romantic we are. It is wonderful now compared to my mother’s younger years, but, sometimes I’m not so sure if we are happier and feel more content in our relationships. Having more could also mean wanting more, and even though we are more well connected than ever, love can still be misunderstood.

I seldom write about love unless it is for a magazine article, but today after reflecting on my mother’s point of view, I learned love also means sacrifice, loyalty and a lot of other things. Her idea of romance could be totally different from ours, but I couldn’t help smiling when she thought going for a movie, or shopping together is so… romantic. Through her many hardships in the past, she appreciated the little things a lot more than I did.

Maybe we don’t need a thousand ways to show love, but with a little bit more patience, more understanding, more gratitude, we can make each other feel loved.

Happy Valentine’s Day.

Mai Trung Thu, L'heure du thé (Tea time)

Ideologies just got mixed into doctrinal basis ...

For my friends who are interested in the Evangelical Theological Society, please take a look at this important message from past president Stan Gundry, who, like me, is vitally interested in the continuing health of the Society. He has given me permission to copy it here.

WHENCE AND WHITHER ETS?
An Open Letter to the Members of ETS
Stanley N. Gundry
President of the Evangelical Theological Society, 1978

The following resolutions were adopted in the last business session of the 2015 national meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society:
(1) We affirm that all persons are created in the image and likeness of God and thus possess inherent dignity and worth.
(2) We affirm that marriage is the covenantal union of one man and one woman, for life.
(3) We affirm that Scripture teaches that sexual intimacy is reserved for marriage as defined above. This excludes all other forms of sexual intimacy.
(4) We affirm that God created men and women, imbued with the distinct traits of manhood and womanhood, and that each is an unchangeable gift of God that constitutes personal identity.
In the immediate aftermath of this business session, many ETS members were deeply troubled that any ETS members would vote against these resolutions. The post-ETS blogs of a few ETS members and the comments of their followers expressed dismay that anyone who claims to be evangelical and subscribes to the Doctrinal Basis of the Society would cast a negative vote.
But there was also a significant minority that opposed and voted against these resolutions. These members were troubled that such resolutions would be introduced, that they were not ruled out of order or at least tabled, and that they were passed by a significant majority of those present and voting. I was among the minority that voted “Nay.”
Why? It is a question that deserves to be answered because I am convinced that the future of ETS depends on our repudiation of what happened in that session and that ETS members must realize that resolutions of this nature are not consistent with the nature of the Society. In fact, the issue at stake is whether or not ETS will remain committed to the original purpose for which ETS was formed. I have not taken even an informal poll of others who voted against the resolutions, but I have discussed the matter with enough members to give me confidence that many members agree that the future of ETS is at stake.
My history within ETS uniquely qualifies me to address the concerns these resolutions raise. I have been immersed in the culture and affairs of ETS since my student days in the 1950s and 1960s. I knew on a first-name basis many of the first-generation ETS members. I was taught by some of them. I have been a full member of the Society since about 1968. I have attended most national meetings since 1970, and in the 1970s I was an active participant in the Midwestern section of ETS, serving also as president of that section and on its leadership committee. Then in 1978 I served as the national president of ETS and planned the program for the 30th Annual Meeting of ETS in collaboration with Dr. Kenneth Kantzer, followed by serving the allotted time on the ETS Executive Committee. Relevant to the concerns at hand, my first-hand knowledge of the workings of ETS and its Constitution, most especially the Purpose and Doctrinal Basis of the Society as stated in the Constitution, and my acquaintance with many of the founders and first-generation members of ETS give me insight into their intentions in forming the Society.
So why did I vote against the resolutions? Because the resolutions went beyond the Doctrinal Basis of the Society and were inconsistent with the clearly stated Purpose of ETS. But I run ahead of myself and it is a bit more complicated than that. So let me start at the beginning, the resolutions themselves.
First, it is unfortunate that the resolutions were presented at the last business meeting and then discussed and voted on as a group. My understanding is that those responsible for the agenda did not anticipate that the resolutions would be controversial and so they were scheduled to be considered in the last business session. This was not inconsistent as such with the ETS Constitution or Bylaws, but in a case like this, members should have had advance warning of the nature of the resolutions and ample opportunity to discuss them among themselves and on the floor of the business meeting. Further, many members had already left the conference or were absent for other reasons. Thus, members could not deliberately consider in advance whether or not voting on such resolutions was even consistent with the Purpose of ETS; and, given the time constraints of the program, there was not sufficient time to debate the merits of the individual resolutions and to vote up or down on each one.
The resolutions were so poorly stated that they needed such careful consideration. For instance, the second resolution ignored the question of biblical grounds for divorce and remarriage. And given the diversity of views on divorce and remarriage within ETS, is this really a question on which ETS should be taking a position even in the form of a resolution? What about the third resolution? Viewed superficially, who could possibly object to that resolution? But looked at more closely, “sexual intimacy” and “all other forms of sexual intimacy” are squishy descriptors. Are they intended to refer to physical sexual intimacy, and if so, are holding hands, kissing, or hugging forbidden? My fundamentalist and separatist father would have thought so, but what about the membership of ETS? Would we have a consensus on that question?
And what about the fourth resolution affirming “distinct traits of manhood and womanhood”? While I suspect all members of ETS (even those of us who self-identify as biblical egalitarians) believe that men and women in many respects are complementary to one another, many of us also believe that the terms “manhood” and “womanhood” are reifications of socially and culturally conditioned patterns of behavior more than they are descriptors of biblically supported male and female characteristics. Rather than being biblically supported, the terms tend to refer to stereotypical lists of alleged gender characteristics to which men and women are expected to conform. Even self-avowed complementarians have no consensus on what constitutes “manhood and womanhood,” so why would a scholarly society like ETS that includes both complementarians and egalitarians even take such a resolution seriously?
So I return to the opening statement of this first point—scheduling the resolutions for consideration as a group at the second business meeting without prior notice meant there was not adequate time to consider and debate the merits and wording of the resolutions and it made it impossible to carefully consider whether or not voting on such resolutions was even consistent with the Purpose of ETS.
Second, this broader issue needs to be considered by the Society. Is it even appropriate for resolutions to be introduced, debated, and voted on that go beyond the Doctrinal Basis and officially stated Purpose of the Society? I believe the answer is a clear and unequivocal “No!” Members tend to forget that ETS was never intended to have a doctrinal statement to which members had to subscribe. We have a “Doctrinal Basis,” one that originally had one affirmation: The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and is therefore inerrant in the autographs. Years later, the Trinitarian statement was added to the Doctrinal Basis out of concern that anti-Trinitarians such as Jehovah’s Witnesses might successfully claim membership in ETS. But even with that addition, it remains a Doctrinal Basis, not a doctrinal statement. Some members seem not to understand and/or remember the significance of the fact that we function as a scholarly society with a Doctrinal Basis. But even many who remember that we have a Doctrinal Basis all too easily and sloppily refer to it using the phrases “doctrinal basis” and “doctrinal statement” interchangeably, suggesting they do not really understand (or perhaps accept) the significance of the distinction. But this distinction is at the very heart and Purpose of ETS. A bit of historical context will be useful here.
When ETS was formed in 1949, evangelical biblical and theological scholarship was just beginning to emerge from its decline in the dark days of the modernist-fundamentalist debate and the loss of so many mainline denominations and associated colleges, seminaries, and missionary agencies to the takeover of these institutions by theological liberals. For at least fifteen or twenty years, fundamentalists and evangelicals at the local church and grassroots level had a profound suspicion of serious biblical and theological scholarship. But in the mid and late 1940s, this began to change as scholars who were willing to self-identify as fundamentalists (in the classic meaning of that term) and/or evangelical began to find each other, come together, and realize that in spite of all that divided them, they held one thing in common—the Bible and the Bible alone in its entirety is God’s Word written, it speaks truthfully on whatever it intends to say and teach, and hence it is the only rule for Christian faith and practice. Eventually in 1949 many of the fundamentalist and evangelical scholars who shared this conviction agreed there was a need for a scholarly society where members shared the same basis on which conservative scholarship and research should be discussed and debated. On that Doctrinal Basis, they formed the Evangelical Theological Society.
It is easy to forget, or perhaps many ETS members do not know, how deep and sometimes rancorous the divisions were that otherwise separated these same scholars. These divisions ranged from matters of church polity to biblical hermeneutics to the various loci of systematic theology. In fact, dispensational and amillennial theologians were accustomed to trading charges that the hermeneutical methods and theological systems of the other undermined the authority of Scripture. Scholars who practiced secondary separation risked their reputations if they joined with other evangelical scholars who practiced only primary separation or who were inclusivists. At least four of the ETS presidents in the first twenty years of the society would have been sympathetic to what is now known as biblical egalitarianism, a matter over which ETS members today have profound disagreements. Yet these scholars came together in ETS as did Pentecostals and cessationists, believer-immersionists and paedo-sprinklers, Arminians and Wesleyans and Reformed and Lutheran, as well as those who held to congregational, or presbyterial, or episcopal church polity.
A quick scan of the listing of ETS presidents over the past sixty-seven years and the institutions they represented makes the same point. Schools represented range from Wycliffe College, to Dallas Theological Seminary, to Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, to Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, to Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary, to Moody Bible Institute. The theological spectrum represented by ETS presidents is also quite remarkable. As I look at the list I can identify at least twelve presidents associated with one of five or six varieties of Presbyterian and Reformed communions, thirteen who were dispensationalists, five who were covenant premillennialists, one Pentecostal, three Wesleyans, and twelve sympathetic with biblical egalitarianism.
Throughout its history, ETS has been a demonstration of the Purpose for which ETS was formed: The Purpose of the Society shall be to foster conservative biblical scholarship by providing a medium for the oral exchange and written expression of thought and research in the general field of the theological disciplines as centered in the Scriptures.
So I return to the opening question and statement of my second point—“Is it even appropriate for resolutions to be introduced, debated, and voted on that go beyond the Doctrinal Basis and officially stated Purpose of the Society?” I believe the answer is a clear and unequivocal “No!” Why? Because such resolutions are inconsistent with the Purpose of ETS and the reason why we have a Doctrinal Basis and not a doctrinal statement.
Third, the introduction and passage of the four-fold resolution package and the internet conversations following the 67th Annual Meeting are symptomatic of the desire of some ETS members to move the Society in the direction of precise, doctrinal, and interpretive clarity and definition, ideally in the form of a doctrinal statement and other “position statements.” I am trained not only as a theologian but as a church historian; consequently I am inclined to be skeptical of conspiracy theories unless there is compelling evidence. Nevertheless, based on the evidence, some of us are now wondering if there is a conspiracy within ETS to:
1) ease out biblical egalitarians,
2) exclude women from the leadership of ETS,
3) let qualified women scholars know they are not part of “the old boys network,”
4) shut down discussion of contentious ethical and theological issues,
5) marginalize those who do not come out on the “right side” of those issues,
6) “pack” the nominating committee so as to get their compatriots in the positions of leadership,
7) question the evangelical and inerrantist bona fides of those who ask hard questions and come up with answers that most of us are not persuaded by, and
8) propose and pass a poorly framed set of four resolutions that makes the Society sound more like the Family Research Council or the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood than the intentionally diverse “medium for the oral and written expressions of thought and research in the general field of the theological disciplines as centered in the Scriptures” as stated in the ETS Purpose statement.
Lest I be misunderstood, I do believe that theological boundaries are important within the church and its institutions, and as an evangelical Protestant, I believe it is appropriate for churches and parachurch organizations to draw those boundary lines, based on their understanding of Scripture. But ETS is not a church and it was formed to serve a clearly defined purpose. It is significant that it takes an 80% majority vote to amend only three things in the ETS constitution—the Doctrinal Basis, the Society’s Purpose, and the requirement for an 80% majority to amend the first two items. The founders of our Society could hardly have made it clearer that they regarded the Purpose and Doctrinal Basis of ETS to be essential to the organization they were creating.
Why is it important to guard the integrity of the original Purpose and Basis of ETS? I will answer with another question. What better forum is there for collegial discussion and debate of complementarianism and egalitarianism, open theism and classical theism and all points in between, eschatology, the “new perspective” on Paul, and yes, even the question of whether same-sex “marriages” can be defended biblically, than a forum where we have agreed to appeal to the sole source of authority for Christian faith and practice, the Bible, God’s Word written?
Copyright © 2016 by Stanley N. Gundry. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Which of the 9 pictures captures your attention the most?.. Then look for your number and read the personality description. Does it fit well with your personality?
Personality Test Results:


1. Freedom loving
Freedom is important to you - nothing is worse than when you feel tied down. You may find you move jobs or location frequently because the idea of staying in one place too long unnerves you. The same can apply to relationships! People see you as fun loving, and you are. You attempt to enjoy life to the full, in accordance with the motto: "You only live once." You tend to attract less energetic people as friends or partners, like moths to a flame, they see you as the light. Careful they don't drain you! You are very curious and open about everything new and thrive on change. Quite simply, you are a breath of fresh air.

2. Independent and unconventional
Your lifestyle is highly individualistic. You do not follow the crowd, on the contrary, you seek to live according to your own ideas and convictions, even if this means swimming against the tide. You need a free and unattached life that allows you to determine your own course. You have an artistic bent in your work or leisure activities. Your urge for freedom sometimes causes you to do exactly the opposite of what is expected of you. You are rather unique, so don't bother comparing yourself to anyone else. Live life your way.

3. Sensitive and reflective
You are comfortable spending hours alone with your thoughts and rarely become bored. You dislike superficiality; you'd rather be alone than have to suffer through small talk. Your relationships with your friends are very strong, which gives you the inner tranquillity and harmony that you require. You love deeply but if someone betrays you it is next to impossible to forgive. You are an old soul, someone who has lived many times before and has seen it all. All you crave now is simplicity and the chance to focus your attention on a meaningful existence.

4. Down to earth and charming
You have a natural authentic charm, what you see is what you get. People admire you because you seem so 'together'. You have both feet planted firmly on the ground and they can depend on you. While others complicate their life with ifs and buts, you know your own mind. You provide security and space to those close to you. You are a rock, and although others may not tell you, you are the sun around which they revolve. You dislike superficiality and tend to be skeptical toward the whims of trends. Where others crash and burn, you motor on, quietly achieving all you need to do. You are a woman (or man) of substance.

5. Professional and self-assured
You take charge of your life, and place less faith in your luck and more in your own actions. You solve problems in a practical, uncomplicated manner. You take a realistic view of things in your daily life and tackle them without fuss. You are given responsibility at work, because people know that you can be depended upon. You project self-assurance to others. You are a born leader and organiser. Although you work well in a team, ideally you should be the one giving the orders. After all, you are usually right!

6. Peaceful and timeless
You are easy-going yet discreet. There is a timeless elegance about you (think Audrey Hepburn). You make friends effortlessly, yet enjoy your privacy and independence. You like to get away from it all and be alone from time to time to contemplate the meaning of life. You need space, so you escape to hideaways, but you are not a loner. You are at peace with yourself and the world, and you appreciate life and what this world has to offer. You have a strong life purpose and when you discover it, you project your personal brand of magic on the world.

7. Cultured and classical
Cultured and sophisticated you value the things money can't necessarily buy - good conversation, original ideas, music and the arts. You have a fair mind and can see both sides of an argument. You rarely let emotions get the better of you, preferring to assess situations rationally. Calm, logical and yet compassionate and kind. You have 'old-fashioned' principles, which at heart make you a real lady (or gentleman). A timeless, vintage classic - the sort of person everyone secretly admires and likes to copy.

8. Sensitive and spiritual
You are a highly sensitive and spiritual person. You refuse to see life only from a rational view point. You have great intuition and trust your feelings. You must have dreams to aspire towards or you won't feel happy. You like to improve yourself, and in so doing make a difference in the world - even if only in little ways. You find it hard to understand people who are only guided rationality. You form true relationships with open souls, people who know there is more to life than we can touch, see or hear. Your psychic sense is highly evolved, trust it and work with it.

9. Dynamic and sparkly
You are a mover and a shaker! You are willing to take risks in return for interesting and varied work. Routine tends to have a paralysing effect on you. Being stuck behind a desk 9-5 would destroy your soul and enthusiasm for life. You need to be given the chance to express your ideas and put them into action. You have a rainbow personality, and can cheer others up, even on the gloomiest of days. If you ever feel you have lost your sparkle it is because the situation you find yourself in is not right for you. Follow your enthusiasm, even if it means you chop and change for years. The journey is as important as the destination.