To Love is "More than Words"

It has been more than three years since I last shared in front of everybody on our church's Wednesday service.  And this is my first time to share as a cell group leader (since during the past two years of leading my own cell group, as part of their training, I assigned my cell members to do the sharing whenever it's our cell group's turn to share.  Now that all the [regular] members have shared already, it's now my time to do it)...       

(RE: John 13:31-38)

One of my favorite songs is entitled “More than Words” which states that merely saying “I love you” is not at all an absolute confirmation of the authenticity of one’s love.  There is also the saying, “Love is a verb.”  It means that love is something that requires actions. 

In our passage, Jesus commands us to love each other.  And according to verse 34, the love that we show has to be the same kind of love that Jesus has shown us.  And Jesus’ kind of love is packed with substantial self-denying actions.  This is the kind of love that made him willingly humble himself to wash the feet of his disciples.  And this is the kind of love that made him willingly lay his life on the cross for us. 

Therefore – just like what the song “More than Words” stated – there is more to loving our brethren than just saying to them “I love you in the Lord” whenever we congregate.  We should show it through Christ-like action, also.  There should be willingness to serve, to be deferent, and to sacrifice with glad hearts.  We should be ready to give up our privilege, resources, or convenience to show the love of Jesus Christ.  And this love even extends to the point we should be ready to lay our lives for each other.  Just like Jesus.     

Now, carrying out this command to love each other in such a way that Jesus showed is incredibly difficult, if not virtually impossible – especially if the mandated recipient of our love is “unlovable.”  That’s why to carry out Christ-like deeds, we definitely need Christ-like motivations.  Where did Jesus draw his strength to love the unlovable?  The glory of God (verse 31 and 32)!   Jesus knew that the glory of God is supremely worth every sacrifice and every labor.  Jesus loves his Father and His glory, and Jesus loves glorifying His Father.    

In the same way, the only we can truly carry out Christ’s command to love – or any of His commands for that matter – is if we also supremely love and value Jesus Christ.  That He is a Superior Treasure that is worth giving up everything in this world.  And, thus, for Jesus’ sake, we will love others as He loved us – willing to deny any personal benefits, comforts, and advantages for others.  Jesus is infinitely worth it.  And through our loving actions, others can also see and experience this truth.        

So, basically, the key for us to be able to love our neighbors as ourselves is to first love God with all our heart and with all our soul and with all our strength and with all our mind.  Before we can sincerely tell others, “I love you in the Lord”, we should be able to sincerely say, “I love you, Lord.”  Furthermore, we can also logically conclude that the extent of how we carry out the commandment of loving others is directly proportional to the state of our love-relationship with God.  Our love for God is reflected on how we demonstrate our love for others. 

But, personally, when I evaluate myself of the times I say “I love you, Lord” or “I love you in the Lord” – of how substantial or shallow my words really are – I feel like Peter who declared, “I will lay down my life for you” (verse 37) but when action was required of him succumbed to denying Jesus three times.  My hypocrisy distresses and appalls me. 

But I’m comforted of the fact that Jesus grants repentance and restoration.  Through the work of the Holy Spirit, Peter was transformed into a resolute, courageous apostle of Christ – used by God to considerably spread the Gospel after Jesus’ ascension.  And when the time came that it was required for Peter to lay down his life, he truly did, as legend tells us that Peter was crucified upside down (by his refusal to be crucified the same way as his Savior, since he felt unworthy to be so) for his faith.  There is truly redemption in Jesus Christ, and for that, I’m eternally thankful.       

As application, I ask forgiveness for my hypocrisy, idolatry, selfishness, and lack of love.  And I thank God for his promises of granting anything I ask that will ensure my joy in His glory.  Thus, I ask the Holy Spirit to truly renew my nature so that I can totally love and value God above everything else, and, as a result, I can also be able to have genuine, Christ-like love for others.       

Thank you and to God be the glory.

Read More

The 3rd Bernel Zone Awards for Big Screen & Small Screen

For your reference of my picks for the best TV shows and movies of 2014:

TV Shows - Top 10 TV Shows of 2014

Movies Part 1 - Top 10 Movies of 2014 That I've Seen So Far

Movies Part 2 - Top 20 Movies I've Seen in the Second-Half of the Year 

Movies Part 3 - Top 10 Movies of 2014 That I've Only Got to Watch in January

In accordance to this blog’s tradition (which started in 2013), whenever it’s Oscar season, I do my own informal awarding for random, ever-changing categories.  For this year, I decided to just merge the Bernels for cinema and TV (that’s why I didn’t write a Bernels for TV last January), and I think, this combined approach is going to be the set format from now on.   

Best Movie Hero: John Wick (John Wick)

 

I think John Wick is now my favorite Keanu Reeve’s character (yep, even over Neo).  The character’s not only a very skilled badass, but is also chock-full of personality.  I mightily like how the character was built up, forced into the conflict, and then his real reputation eventually revealed.       

Runners-up: Batman (Lego Movie), Captain America (Captain America: The Winter Soldier), Chris “The Legend” Kyle (American Sniper), Joseph Cooper (Interstellar)

Best TV Hero: Sherlock Holmes (Sherlock)

 

Duh.  This guy will probably always win this award whenever it’s a year that has a season of Sherlockon.

Runners-up: The 12th Doctor (Doctor Who), Raymond “Red” Reddington (The Blacklist)

Best Movie Heroine: Veronica Mars (Veronica Mars)

It’s not only because she’s my second favorite female fictional character ever that I gave her this award.  I objectively don’t have any 2014 movie heroine in mind that was able to be more interesting than Veronica Mars.   

Runner-up: Black Widow (Captain America: The Winter Soldier)

Best TV Heroine: Felicity Smoak (Arrow)

 

Arrows’ Felicity Smoak is based on a forgotten hacker character in the DC comics.  But I bet that the comics’ Felicity Smoak isn’t as awesome as the one Emily Bett Rickards is portraying in Arrow.  She’s easily the most attractive, the most fun, the most magnetic, and the most interesting female character in Arrow.  Her geeky charm, quick wit, winning personality, strong characterization, and mean hacker skills make her the female character I enjoy watching most in TV right now     

Runners-up:  Cosima Niehaus, Sarah Manning, Alison Hendrix, and Helena (Orphan Black)

Best Movie Villain: The Winter Soldier (Captain America: The Winter Soldier)

 

I was initially wary to give this award to Bucky Barnes a.k.a. the Winter Soldier considering the fact that the character is expected to eventually return being a hero.  Nonetheless, Sebastian Stan’s performance as a brainswashed Hydra assassin was deliciously menacing and engaging. 

Runners-up: Koba (Dawn of the Planet of the Apes), Conrad Stonebanks a.k.a. Victor Menz (The Expendables 3), Terence Fletcher (Whiplash)

Best TV Villain: Harrison Wells (The Flash)

 

I adore Grant Gustin’s Barry Allen, but the most fascinating character of The Flash is Dr. Harrison Wells.  It’s kinda unique that the big bad is actually among the good guys.  And the character is wrapped with too much mystery, too much intrigued, as well as natural screen charisma, that Dr. Wells is the most engaging villain I’ve seen in 2014 TV.

Runners-up: Min Joon-gook (I Hear Your Voice), Deathstroke (Arrow), Captain Cold (The Flash)

Best Movie Villainess: Amy Dunne (Gone Girl)

 

I thought Eva Green’s Artemisia in 300: Rise of an Empire already had this award in the bag, that it was unlikely to top the ruthless Persian general.  Then I saw Gone Girl and Rosamund Pike’s psychopathic Amy Dunne made me forget Artemisia’s badassery.  Mrs. Dunne is a distinctive, captivatingly unsettling villainess.  Her cold-hearted, manipulative, and cunning personality is disturbingly chilling.

      

Runners-up: Artemisia (300: Rise of an Empire), Mason (Snowpiercer), Hammer Girl (The Raid 2: Berandal)

Best TV Villainess: Missy (Doctor Who)

 

I’m new to Doctor Who but I’m knowledgeable enough of the mythology to appreciate the twist that The Master had turned into The Mistress. 

Runners-up: Margot Al-Harazi (24: Live Another Day)

Best Movie Couple: Peter Parker and Gwen Stacy (The Amazing Spider-Man 2)

Even critics of the movie would agree with me that one of the good things about it is the adorably corny, “lovey-dovey” chemistry of Peter Parker and Gwen Stacy.     

Runners-up: Dylan Kershaw and Rebecca Porter (In Your Eyes), Logan Echols and Veronica Mars (Veronica Mars)

Best TV Couple: Park Soo-ha and Jang Hye-sung (I Hear Your Voice)

Because their story has kept me absorbed and made me swoon!

Runner-up: Richard Castle and Kate Becket (Castle)

Best Movie Duo: Hiccup Horrendous Haddock III and Hiccup

 

Probably the greatest “rider and his mount” tandem in fiction. 

Best TV Duo: Sherlock Holmes & John Watson (Sherlock)

Again, duh.  Few duos can ever match the compelling work that Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman have done with their respective characters in Sherlock.     

Runner-up: Rusty Cohle and Marty Hart (True Detective)

Most Adorable Movie Character: Baymax (Big Hero 6)

I really get the vibes that Baymax – like everything else about Big Hero 6 – has been consciously, painstakingly designed to win everyone’s hearts.  And though it would feel “synthetic” if indeed so, I’m nonetheless fine with what resulted from the intent.  Baymax is awesomely adorable, and if there’s a real-life Baymax, I definitely want one.  “Bah-la-la-la-la.” 

Most Adorable TV Character: Bernadette Rostenkowski-Walowitz (The Big Bang Theory)

Last 2014, I got to marathon The Big Bang Theory, and I discovered that this show is extremely hilarious.  The last time I had fan-level enjoyment from sitcoms was during the days I was watching sitcom reruns of shows like Blackadder Goes Forth, Mork & Mindy, and Happy Days; I also occasionally watched 3^rd Rock from the Sun back in the 2000’s.  But I was never really into modern sitcoms.  So The Big Bang Theory is my first real fandom on a sitcom since Happy Days.      

The show has always been funny, but the early seasons were kinda plagued with negative social behaviors of the male characters.  However, once female characters Amy Farah Fowler and Bernadette Rostenkowski had been introduced into the show, the appalling stereotyping of geek social cluelessness and awkwardness have been smoothed off.  The girls – especially Bernadette – were great additions to the show, and definitely improved it a lot.    

Bernadette could be my most favorite Big Bang Theory character (next to Bernadette, I just equally like the other characters).  Not only is she the most attractive cast member, but her charming personality, small stature, and squeaky voice (especially this) makes her overwhelmingly adorable.

Best Dance in Movie: Baby Groot dance (Guardians of the Galaxy)

No contest. 

Best Dance in TV: Clone Party (Orphan Black)

The awesomeness of Orphan Black is summarized in this epic sequence. 

Best TV Smile: Sherlock Holmes (Sherlock)

The smile of a “high-functioning sociopath.”

Best Movie Smile: Maleficent (Maleficent)

The best three seconds of the movie.

Best Movie Fight Scene: Rama vs. Hammer Girl, Baseball Bat Boy, and the Assassin (The Raid 2: Berandal)

Every fight sequence in The Raid 2: Berandal is incredibly badass.  But the most notable for me is Rama’s gauntlet against a couple of goons, then Hammer Girl and Baseball Bat Boy, and then, finally, a “boss level” duel with The Assassin.

 

Runners-up: The highway fight between Captain America and the Winter Soldier, the elevator fight scene between Cap and those Hydra-S.H.I.E.L.D  troopers, and Cap vs. Batroc the Leaper (Captain America: The Winter Soldier); Shishio vs. Kenshin, Saito, Sanosukue, and Aoshi (Rurouni Kenshin: The Legend Ends); John Wick vs. Russian mobsters (John Wick)

Best TV Fight Scene: Flash vs. Arrow (The Flash)

This terrific fight scene happened in the first episode of The Flash and Arrow crossover.  Considering the limitations and budget of TV programming, I applaud everyone involved in that fight scene for overachieving.  I think I have re-watched the scene at least a dozen times over.   

Runner-up: Agent May vs. Agent May copycat (Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.)

Best Movie Ensemble of Characters: Guardians of the Galaxy

Seeing Star-Lord, Rocket Raccoon, Gamora, Drax the Destroyer, and Groot stand together in the big screen is almost as exciting as seeing the Avengers assemble back in 2012.

Runners-up: The Lego Movie, Captain America: The Winter Soldier

Best TV Ensemble of Characters: Castle

With Psych done, Castle is now the current ongoing TV series that I’ve followed the longest.  Hence, I’ve already grown invested and fond of all of the show’s characters.  So, in terms of volume of TV characters I like, Castlehas the ensemble I enjoy watching the most.

  

Expression of the Year:

   

Twist of the Year: X-Men: The Last Stand is erased from continuity (X-Men: Days of Future Past)

It was not necessarily a mindblowing twist, but the knowledge that the deaths of Jean Grey and Cyclops are negated and that everyone is blissfully together in Xaviers’ School for Gifted Youngsters, really provided a warm-hearted, delightful feeling.

 

Runner-up: The story is being “imagined” by a boy while playing with his father’s Lego collection (The Lego Movie); Skye is the MCU’s Daisy Johnson a.k.a. Quake, and Ward is Hydra (Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.); Mary is a spook (Sherlock)

Most Memorable Quote of the Year: Rust Cohle (True Detective)

“This is a world where nothing is solved. Someone once told me, 'Time is a flat circle.' Everything we've ever done or will do, we're gonna do over and over and over again.” 

Speech of the Year: Sherlock’s speech during John and Mary’s wedding (Sherlock)

Sherlock Holmes’ best man speech was hilarious, touching, memorable, and just plain awesome.  An important excerpt:

“If I burden myself with a little helpmate during my adventures, this is not out of sentiment or caprice. It is that he has many fine qualities of his own he has overlooked in his obsession with me. Indeed, any reputation I have for mental acuity and sharpness comes, in truth, from the extraordinary contrast John so selflessly provides. It is a fact, I believe, that brides tend to favor exceptionally plain bridesmaids for their big day...
“There is a certain analogy there, I feel - and contrast is, after all, God's own plan to enhance the beauty of his creation. Or it would be if God were not a ludicrous fantasy, designed to provide a career opportunity for the family idiot.
[awkward pause]
“Point I'm trying to make is that I am the most unpleasant, rude, ignorant, and all-round obnoxious arsehole that anyone could possibly have the misfortune to meet. I am dismissive of the virtuous, unaware of the beautiful, and uncomprehending in the face of the happy, so if I didn't understand I was being asked to be best man, it is because I never expected to be anybody's best friend, and certainly not the best friend of the bravest and kindest and wisest human being I have ever had the good fortune of knowing.” 

Make-Up Job of the Year: Tilda Swinton in Snowpiercer and Grand Budapest Hotel

It was a considerable time after I’ve seen Snowpiercer and Grand Budapest Hotel that I only learned that Tilda Swinton was in them!  I was blown away; I never recognized her at all.  Uncanny.   

Actor That I Got to Like for the First Time in 2014: James Spader

I had encountered James Spader before in films like Stargate and Secretary, but he never struck me as a versatile and captivating actor then.  Only when I started watching The Blacklist did I get to see how great John Spader is.  His performance as Raymond Reddington in The Blacklistis extremely enthralling – his voice is magnetic; his control and delivery of emotion is convincing and defined; he lights up every scene he’s in; and, just like his character, he seems to be always in control. 

Actress That I Got to Like for the First Time in 2014: Tatiana Maslany

Portraying distinctively the different clones in Orphan Black makes her the epitome the versatility.  Can’t help but be mesmerized by her prowess.

Best Movie Posters of 2014: Captain America: The Winter Soldier

The most awesomely badass and gorgeously designed posters ever...

Read More

Making It More Colin Firth-Centric Would Have Improved the Already Awesome ‘Kingsman: The Secret Service’ Greatly

Kingsman: The Secret Service is the greatest adaptation of a Mark Millar comicbook to date.  Though I’m an avid comicbook reader, I’m not aware of this movie’s source material, so I can’t tell if how much of the awesomeness of this movie can be attributed to Millar’s ideas.  But I have a feeling that most of the credit for making Kingsman pretty awesome belongs to the guy that adapted this into the big screen, Matthew Vaughn (the director & co-writer of the screenplay). 

Kingsman is consistently entertaining from start to finish.  I appreciate all the tongue-in-cheek referencing of popular spy fiction properties and tropes, and it has some of the most viciously beautiful fight scenes this side of The Raid movies. 

But my most favorite thing about this movie is Colin Firth and his character, Harry Hart (codename: Galahad) – a simultaneous terrific parody and modernization of the gentleman super-spy trope.  I’ve always thought of Colin Firth as a decent actor; he was amazing as King George VI in the 2010 Academy Award-winning movie, The King’s Speech.  But it was in Kingsman that showed us what kind of character Colin Firth is born to play.  He was a natural being a gentleman-spy character – not necessarily 007-like, but in a delightfully distinctive way.  He carried an effortless elegant demeanor, and was able to gracefully execute the brutal choreography (unless, most of the work is done by his stunt double) of his fight scenes (heck, most of the awesome fight scenes in the movie involved Galahad). 

Colin Firth’s Galahad was definitely the best character in the movie by a mile (the runner-up is Sofia Boutella’s Gazelle, an early contender for my Best Movie Villainess of 2015) and I find it disappointing that the movie was not made all about him.  Galahad merely had a “mentor role” to the lead protagonist, Gary “Eggsy” Unwin, played by Taron Egerton.  Now, Taron’s Eggsy is okay.  He’s not boring, and he actually has a couple of great character moments.  But Eggsy really pales in comparison with Galahad.  At the final act of the movie, when (SPOILERS) Galahad was killed, Eggsy was put in a “filling his mentor’s shoes” moment, and it was pretty apparent that he had big shoes to fill – there was a bit of clumsiness in his manner and motions.

No doubt, Kingsman is incredibly fun and will likely make my list for best movies of the year.  But if it had been delivered as a Galahad story, I believe it would have been much, much, MUCH better.

And I think Matt Vaughn realizes this, too.  There are already reports that a sequel is understandably on the works, and Vaughn is working on ideas in bringing Galahad back.  Because, seriously, a Kingsman 2 without Colin Firth?  That won’t do at all.

Read More

The Third Time’s Not the Charm With ‘Taken 3’

Taken 2, despite the critical panning it received, was something I tolerated and even enjoyed.  Taken 3?  Not so.  It’s simply an unremarkable, forgettable movie – neither good enough to be impressed and satisfied about, nor even bad enough to enjoy lampooning.  I thought that a “being-set-up-for-murder” premise instead of another “kidnapping” premise would provide a fresh adventure for the franchise, but what resulted was a dumb, mediocre story.  If it hadn’t been a part of a popular franchise, if it didn’t star Liam Neeson, and if it hadn’t featured Brian Mills, one of the most notably badass fictional spooks ever, by itself, Taken 3 can be easily dismissed as an averagely bad direct-to-video movie.  

Liam Neeson will always have an awesome screen presence, and this holds true in Taken 3.  However, the characterization of Bryan Mills in Taken 3 is poor.   The character seemed to be less smart, less badass, and less well-layered.  It felt like Mills was downgraded into a clichéd action hero.  Most of the blame is definitely on the bad script, but the likelihood of Neeson getting tired working on a franchise that is getting uninspired by the movie could probably have contributed, too

Good, engaging characters often distract me from most of a story’s problems.  So without that aspect unavailable, finding things to nitpick is made easier.  The narrative was lazy and insipid.  The directing, editing, and camera job were untidy.  The bulk of the action scenes were unexciting and unoriginal.  The musical choice was awful.  Most of the characters were uninteresting.  In summary, Taken 3 is a waste of a great character in Bryan Mills, a waste of a great actor in Liam Neeson, a waste of the first Taken movie’s goodwill and world-building, and an overall waste of time.                      

(/Sigh)  John Wick probably ruined every action movie for me.     

Read More

Top 10 Variations of Chess

Even if there are already several strategy video games (especially in PC) that have been developed to have more intellectual gameplays than chess, this timeless boardgame is still as popular and esteemed as ever.   But did you know that there are actually numerous variations of chess out there?  Here are my favorite modified versions of chess that employed a couple of twists to make the game more complex or crazier – hence, more interesting.      

10.) THREE-DIMENSIONAL CHESS

 

Three-Dimensional (3-D) Chess has its origins from the late 19^th century.  It features multiple boards at different levels, on which the pieces could move in three-dimensions.  This variant features different variants itself, but the most popular is the “Star Trek” version.  Star Trek’s 3-D Chess has been seen many times throughout the franchise’s TV series and movies.  Originally intended to be merely fictional, fans developed detailed mechanics to make it playable in real life. 

3-D Chess is probably the most complex chess variant I’ve encountered (yes, even more complex than Quantum Chess) that I didn’t even bother to thoroughly learn the rules.  But this is probably the most popular chess variant out there because of its connection with Star Trek, so I gave it the tenth spot.  And, besides, I have to admit that I also find it fascinating because of its intimidating set-up.     

9.) DRINKING CHESS

 

When I first encountered the image above back in 2011, I shared it in Facebook and jokingly captioned it...

   

So during my research while constructing this list, I was surprised to discover that I was spot on with my jesting deduction. 

8.) PLAY IT BY TRUST

 

This chess variant is developed by Yoko Ono (yes, that Yoko Ono) as an art project.   Both players’ pieces are white.  Therefore, after a few moves, the board gets confusing; the players will have the difficulty of determining which pieces are theirs.  Of course, those with genius-level eidetic memory would be able to play it with ease as if it’s a normal chess game.  But for most players, they must trust each other in determining whose pieces are whose. 

“Play It By Trust” is supposed to serve as a metaphor for the senselessness of war.  Through it, Yoko Ono intended to eliminate the “conflict” in a chess game, rendering the “battle” to eventual futility after a couple of moves.  So – if I get her intentions right – the set-up instead promotes “peace” and “unity” by forcing the players to rely on each other’s memories and honesty if there’s hope of finishing the game. 

It’s either stupid or profound.  Your call.  Either way, it’s truly unique.        

7.) MONSTER CHESS

In Monster Chess (also called Super King Chess), Black has the standard set of pieces while White only has a king and four – sometimes two, sometimes eight – pieces of pawns.  However, White can move two successive moves per turn. 

On paper, Black seems to have the advantage because he has a complete set of pieces.  But White’s “two moves against Black’s one move” function actually can make the game very winnable for him, especially if White plays with eight pawns.   

6.) EXTINCTION CHESS

To win, instead of checkmating the king, one has to capture all pieces of a particular kind of chess piece.  Therefore, he can win by doing one of the following: capturing the king, capturing the queen, capturing the two bishops, capturing the two knights, capturing the two rooks, or capturing all eight pawns.  Since the king is just a normal piece here, the restrictions in castling in check are suspended.  Moreover, a pawn can now also be promoted to a king.  Also, the queen should be taken good care of, since there is only one queen and its elimination would automatically mean losing (unless a pawn has been promoted to another queen prior to the initial queen’s elimination).      

5.) ATOMIC CHESS & STRATOMIC

I will be doing a “two item in one spot” entry here because both variations make an interesting use of a “nuke” option, but in different methods. 

In Atomic Chess, standard board and rules apply.  The twist is whenever a “capture” happens in a particular square, an “atomic bomb explosion” happens; all pieces – whether belonging to the player or his opponent – in the eight surrounding squares are removed from play.  Pawns, however, are immune to an “atomic bomb explosion”, hence, they can’t be removed from play by it. 

In Stratomic (illustration above), the game happens in a 10x10 board.  There are two extra pawns, and, instead of rooks, the two extreme bottom pieces are nuclear missiles (those that look like inverted kings in the illustration above).  A nuclear missile moves and captures one step at a time, like a king piece.  However, a nuclear missile can also be launched.  When launched, it “nukes” – removes from play – the piece on the square it is targeting as well as all the pieces on its eight surrounding squares.  The “nuclear missile” piece is also removed from play after its use.  The king is, understandably, immune to nukes.  There are two prerequisites before a “nuke” can be launched: 1.) a non-pawn piece must have been captured prior to using it; and 2.) the nuclear missile should not be on a “state of attack” – can be captured on the next turn – by an enemy piece at time of launch.  Lastly, pawns can be promoted to nuclear missiles.    

4.) ABSORPTION CHESS

Standard board and rules apply.  But whenever a “capture” happens, the capturer gains the movement ability of the capturee.  Example, if a rook captures a bishop, it can now also move diagonally (basically, making the rook capable of doing what a queen can do).  Or if a queen captures a knight, it is now also capable of executing an “L” movement.   

3.) FOUR-PLAYER CHESS & THREE-PLAYER CHESS

 

The number three spot is for Three-Player Chess and Four-Player Chess – another “two items in one spot” entry.  Sometimes, a few additional rules are applied but they are basically, at their core, three-way or four-way games of chess.  The “multi-player” aspect, simple of a twist it may be, actually enhances the difficulty and stakes.   There will always be “Unholy Alliance” and “Mexican stand-off” aspects hanging on the game.  It really makes the strategizing more complicated and exciting.

2.) BUGHOUSE CHESS

 

Bughouse Chess (which has also been called in other names like Exchange Chess, Siamese Chess, and Tandem chess) involves four players divided into two teams and playing against each other in two boards.  The set-up, as what the above picture illustrates, involves one of the players playing white on his board while his teammate is black on the other board, and the teammates should sit side by side.  Standard chess rules apply.  However, whenever a player captures an enemy piece, he can hand it to his partner and his partner has the option of putting it into play on his own board by placing it on any vacant square.  The team wins when either one of the two players checkmates his opponent or his opponent ran out of time.        

1.) CHESSBOXING

This mash-up of chess and boxing is actually a real sport, with federations and tournaments and all that.  It’s definitely one of the most extreme sports in the world as this taxing sport puts both mental and physical toughness into test.  A chessboxing match consists of 11 alternating three-minute rounds between chess and boxing  – 6 for chess and 5 for boxing (with sixty second breaks between rounds).  This means that after one or both players have exhausted the three minutes in the opening chess round (there is a total of 18 minutes worth of chess time; 9 minutes for each player), they would then proceed to a three-minute boxing round, then back to chess, and so on.  Anytime during the match, a player wins it if he wins in either a chess round (checkmating his opponent, opponent exceeds his time limit, opponent resigns) or a boxing round (a knockout, a TKO).  If neither of the players wins within the 11-round match, the chess game ends in a draw and the one leading in the boxing scorecards is the winner.  If it’s also a draw in the scorecard, the player with the black piece wins (I don’t know why such rule). 

Read More

Savoring the Glory of God By Means of Man-Made Pleasures

This essay is somewhat of a sequel to an essay I wrote about two years ago entitled “The Purpose of the World’s Pleasures” (I encourage you to read that one first before proceeding).  These are basically the important points of that particular essay: 

• There are, of course, sinful pleasures – things that God has explicitly commanded us to avoid.  And even innocent pleasures can tempt us to idolatry.  But the act of enjoying the world’s pleasures by itself is not automatically sinful.
• God has designed us to have desires.  And God is the Author of the world’s pleasures.  God intended for us to enjoy them.  God intended for us to be thankful for them.
• The world’s pleasures are not the ends.  The purpose of the world’s pleasures is the same as the purpose of the world’s pains: it should lead us to God.  The world’s pleasures should eventually bring us to the realization that God is the only source of Ultimate Pleasure; the world’s pleasures should help direct our innate desires to Him.  The delight found in Him is incomparable, unspeakable, and full of glory.  Pleasures given up for it and pains endured for it are all going to be infinitely worth it. 
• If we fail to seek the Pleasure beyond the world’s pleasures – settling with and prioritizing these lesser pleasures – then we dishonor God.  We pathetically give up the greatest glory for something preposterously lesser.  We are like, as the great C.S. Lewis puts it, “half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea.”       
• Not all aspects of the world’s pleasures are good or helpful.  Our faith, our understanding for the purpose of pleasure, and our desire to glorify God will serve as “filters” when we are in the act of enjoying the world’s pleasures – retaining the positive, and discarding the negative.   

Now in this new essay, I will be expanding a bit more about the topic, but I will be focusing more on – as the title has made obvious – man-made pleasures. 

“Man-made pleasures”, for a better term escapes me at the moment, are all the products of human arts and mass media that we derive enjoyment from.  This includes pop culture, music, literature, gadgetries, movies, TV shows, games, etc.  In this essay, I will be arguing that God can and will use these “lesser pleasures” in revealing His infinite glory to us.  (Of course, it’s always a possibility that I err with my understanding and, thus, also err with my arguments.  I welcome correction from those wiser than me.) 

HOW TO ENJOY THE WORLD’S PLEASURES WITHOUT BEING “WORLDLY”

I have already tackled this in the previous essay.  But let me elaborate.  Let us start with what 1 Timothy 4:4-5 says:

For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected, provided it is received with thanksgiving; for it is sanctified by God’s word and by prayer.

The passage provided these important points:

1. God’s Creation – which includes the world’s pleasures – is good. 
2. These are God’s gifts.  And we should receive them with thankfulness.
3. These gifts – these pleasures that God allows us to enjoy – are sanctified.  

To be “sanctified” means setting something apart or transforming something into a means or state that can and will be used to glorify God.  This applies to everything (as stated by 1 Timothy 4:4) created by God – which includes, by extension, the creations of His creatures (I’ll get to this later).  Sanctification applies to people (John 17:17, 1 Cor. 1:2, etc.); sanctification applies on other things as well: food, money, property, practices (like what early Christians did with Christmas Day, December 25, which was formerly a date for a pagan festival), etc. 

So how are these things – particularly the world’s pleasures – sanctified?  In two ways, according to 1 Timothy 4:5: God’s Word and prayer. 

Firstly, God’s Word provides us with parameters on how to enjoy the world’s pleasures (no love for money, no sex outside of marriage, no drunkenness, no idolatry, etc.) as well as the revelation that God’s glory is manifested in the physical world and that the delight we derive from them must bring us to the glory of God (Psalm 19:1-4, Romans 1:20, Psalm 148:1-6, Colossians 1:16, Psalm 108:5, etc.).  So our adherence to God’s standards and willingness to learn about what He has to say about these pleasures brings sanctification to our enjoyment of the world’s pleasures. 

Secondly, through prayer, we are able to acknowledge that these pleasures that God allows us to enjoy are His gifts, and thank Him sincerely for we are able to freely enjoy His blessings because Christ already paid for them (Romans 8:32).  But aside from a means to say “thank you” to God, most importantly, prayer is the way we can ask His blessing and the Holy Spirit’s guidance in being able to really see the glory of God through the world’s pleasures.  By our own, we will easily fall to temptation and idolatry.  Only God can truly prepare our hearts to enjoy the world’s pleasures in the way He intended.  Only God can truly sanctify.   

DON’T JUST “LOOK AT THE BEAM”, BUT “LOOK ALONG THE BEAM”

The Bible has made it apparent that the majesty of the physical realm – Creation – serves as “appetizers” or “signposts” that should direct us to the glory of the Creator.  As what Psalm 19:1 says of the wonders of the heavens, they “declare” the glory of God.  C.S. Lewis shared this anecdote to wonderfully illustrate how the majesty and pleasures of this world are merely pointing us to the Source of supreme majesty and pleasure:

I was standing today in the dark toolshed. The sun was shining outside and through the crack at the top of the door there came a sunbeam. From where I stood that beam of light, with the specks of dust floating in it, was the most striking thing in the place.  Everything else was almost pitch-black. I was seeing the beam, not seeing things by it. Then I moved so that the beam fell on my eyes. Instantly the whole previous picture vanished. I saw no toolshed, and (above all) no beam. Instead I saw, framed in the irregular cranny at the top of the door, green leaves moving on the branches of a tree outside and beyond that, 90 odd million miles away, the sun. Looking along the beam, and looking at the beam are very different experiences.

“Looking at the beams” is settling with the world’s beauty and pleasures – hence, idolatry.  “Looking along the beams” is tracing back the “beams” of the world’s pleasures towards its Source, which is God, where supreme beauty and pleasure lie. 

BUT DOES THE FUNCTION OF THE WORLD IN POINTING TO THE GLORY OF GOD ALSO EXTEND TO MAN-MADE PLEASURES?

Absolutely. 

We are created by God in His image.  God designed us to have innate creativity, intellect, and capability of making beautiful creations in our own limited attempt to physically express or represent God’s glory, just as what the Creator did with His Creation.  Whenever we create – making the most of our God-given talents and abilities – we also “declare” the glory of God as much as what the heavens do in Psalm 19:1.  Therefore, man-made creations, are still, by extension, part of God’s Creation wherein he reveals His glory. 

Even the artistic outputs of non-believers – people who create without God consciously in mind – can still “declare” the glory of God.  Art is art, and beauty is beauty, regardless of who made it – a Christian or a non-believer.  Art and beauty are concepts invented by God, hence, ultimately, art and beauty comes from God.  Every human being – Christian or non-believer, consciously or unconsciously – deeply aches for God’s glory and is always compelled by the intuitive sense – whether he or she admits to it or not, realizes it or not – that there is Something beyond, Something bigger than what he or she can physically perceive.  Thus, human efforts and artistic outputs are still governed by a sovereign God that directs everything so that His intention of displaying His glory through physical representations – which includes man-made pleasures – comes through, regardless of the creators’ personal motivations.  A non-believing creator might have not honored God with his purpose, but, unbeknownst to him, he was nonetheless used by God to declare His glory when he exercised his creative impulses.    

The danger of a man-made pleasure is not necessarily because of the non-believer that created it.  Enjoying man-made pleasures created by non-believers is never an issue.  In this world, we always come into contact with services, products, and goods handled or built by unbelievers.  Your lunch might have been the cumulative contribution of an unbelieving farmer, an unbelieving fisherman, an unbelieving proprietor, and an unbelieving cook, and yet you still eat it.  The doctor that you have consulted about your health might be an unbeliever.  The mechanic that you went to to fix your car might be an unbeliever.  Your employer – the man providing your income – might be an unbeliever.  And so on.  It’s basically the same principle with enjoying a man-made pleasure created by an unbeliever.  God is sovereign over this world and everything we receive ultimately comes from God by using people – Christians or non-believers.           

Man-made pleasures, even those created by non-believers, are permissible to a Christian to enjoy (1 Cor. 6:12) because they are ultimately from God, and everything from God is good (1 Timothy 4:4), and God can sanctify them (1 Timothy 4:5) and make use of them to reveal His glory.  So for a Christian, someone who knows the truthful connection between the world’s pleasures and God’s glory, there is really no such thing as “secular.”  When he’s enjoying something secular by itself, like a Michael Jackson concert, it becomes sanctified when he is enjoying it with the holy purpose of seeking God’s glory – “looking along the beam” of MJ’s amazing talent. 

FICTION IS THE DEEPER REVELATION OF REALITY BY LIKENING IT TO WHAT IT IS NOT

The world’s pleasures, by stirring our sensations and emotions, arouse our deeper, inherent yearnings for greater awesome things than what we see in this world.  And, personally, outside of the complexity and loveliness of natural Creation, no other pleasure of this world is able to match fiction on blowing my mind away and awakening the desire in me for something bigger beyond my perceived reality.  That’s why I’m extremely fond of fiction. 

Some think that fiction is merely a “distraction” or an “escape” from reality.  Nothing can be more wrong.  Fiction “awakens” us to reality.  Kevin Vanhoozer wrote:

The sad truth is that many of us are, at best, only half awake. We think we’re engaged with the real world—you know, the world of stock markets, stock-car racing, and stockpiles of chemical weapons—but in fact we’re living in what [C.S.] Lewis calls the “shadowlands.” We think we’re awake, but we’re really only daydreaming. We’re sleepwalking our way through life—asleep at the wheel of existence—only semi-conscious of the eternal, those things that are truly solid that bear the weight of glory.

The world is full of wonders.  When we first come in contact with them, we probably had been awed.  But, over time, we got used to these wonders, taking them for granted, and our sense of awe is replaced with boredom and apathy – we “fall asleep.” And one of the best ways for us to “wake up” is through fiction.  For fiction articulates reality in a new light, providing for us an enhanced focus on the actual marvels found in things we had dismissed as ordinary.  As what G.K. Chesterton has perfectly analyzed:

When we are very young children we don’t need fairy tales: we only need tales.  Mere life is interesting enough.  A child of seven is excited by being told that Tommy opened a door and saw a dragon. But a child of three is excited by being told that Tommy opened a door.  Boys like romantic tales; but babies like realistic tales— because they find them romantic… This proves that even nursery tales only echo an almost pre-natal leap of interest and amazement. These tales say that apples are golden only to refresh the forgotten moment when we found that they were green. They make rivers run with wine only to make us remember, for one wild moment, that they run with water.

Once our sense of awe on the world’s wonders and miracles are rekindled, fiction could then further reveal to us what reality really is.  Often it is not enough to just describe reality for what it is.  When the Source of the deepest meaning of reality lies beyond it, then likening reality to what it is not actually reveals more deeply what it is (it’s another C.S. Lewis-ian concept).  Fiction does this. 

Besides, God himself opted to display His Reality through representation, making Creation – our reality – as means of revealing His glory to us.  In the same way, fiction serves as representation of our reality.  Of course, I’m not implying that we are merely God’s “computer simulations” in a The Thirteenth Floor sort of way (it’s a cool, underrated movie by the way) – that our existence lacked no real substance.  It’s just that God’s Reality is so grand, that our physical reality is much of a “figment” of God’s Reality as fiction a “figment” of our physical reality.                  

Simply, we are creatures that often require metaphors and analogies and illustrations and such to thoroughly grasp concepts and aspects of reality.  It’s simply the way we are designed by our Creator.  There’s a reason Jesus spoke in parables.  God has always intended fiction to serve as a means of intensifying our appreciation, understanding, and perspective of reality – and beyond! 

THE DANGER OF MAN-MADE PLEASURES

Of course, the fact that God reveals His glory through man-made pleasures is no excuse for us to consume every piece of it just because.  What do I mean by that?  We still have responsibility of choosing wisely the kind and amount of man-made pleasures that we choose to enjoy.  Seeking God’s glory is the chief reason for everything we Christians do in this world, including our choice of man-made pleasures.  Thus, if it’s already apparent that God’s glory is absent from a particular man-made pleasure, or it’s failing to bring us towards Christ, but, on the contrary, is actually leading us away, then there’s no reason to continue consuming it. 

We all have to constantly remember that the greatest danger of enjoying the world’s pleasures is how easily the Devil can use them to tempt us to idolatry.  If we are just immersing ourselves to banal entertainment – failing to “look along the beam” – we are vulnerable to the Devil’s attack.  Just like with idle hands, idle minds are also the Devil’s playground.  Man-made pleasures, whether enjoying them properly or not, will always arouse our desires.  When we fail to direct these aroused desires towards God, the Devil always jumps at the opportunity to exploit and redirect our desires towards idols.  Looked at how the Serpent tempted Adam and Even to eat the Forbidden Fruit when their imaginations and desires (“You will be like God!”) were aroused. 

Hence, we have to be honest with ourselves if a particular man-made pleasure is truly aiding us in our pursuit of God’s glory, or if it’s turning out to be a genuine unhelpful distraction.  Are we more engrossed during prayer than watching a movie?  Are we spending more time reading our Bibles than novels?  Are we more thrilled with God than Stephen Amell?

If we discover upon reflection that enjoying a particular man-made pleasure is not really helping us in our pursuit of God’s glory, or, worse, it’s actually leading us to sin, then we should completely abstain from it.  The Bible calls for radical cutting off of things that tempt us to sin.  Matthew 18:6-9 tells us:

“If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.  Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to stumble! Such things must come, but woe to the person through whom they come!  If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire.  And if your eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell.”

Jesus means business.  If you’re always being lured towards pornographic sites, then cut off your Internet service.   If you’re spending more time and delighting more in watching TV than praying and reading the Bible, then sell or give it away.  If you’re always succumbing into drunkenness whenever you taste alcohol, then completely abstain from alcoholic beverages.

Take in mind that God doesn’t exclusively reveal His glory through man-made pleasures.  He can use other kinds of innocent pleasures as well.  He can even use suffering.  Abstaining from a man-made pleasure when necessary is not a loss at all.  Don’t think of it that you’re missing out on something.  Ultimate Pleasure is found in God anyway, and God has continually guaranteed that giving up something for Him is infinitely worth it. 

USING CREATION AND MAN-MADE PLEASURES TO DELIGHT IN GOD

In conclusion: if God chooses to display his glory through something, whether through the natural facets and elements of Creation or through man-made pleasures, then we should proceed to enjoy them.  God designed us to have physical desires and sensations so that we can perceive God’s glory through physical manifestations.  And through them, we will realize that there is more to it than these, that there is a Delight that transcends the pleasures of the world.  The world’s pleasures are not the ends.  They are merely the means to sharpen our longings for something – Someone – greater than physical pleasures.  The ultimate objective has always been about finding our complete, supreme joy in God alone.  

Read More