Questionnaire For Last Will And Testament: Fill & Download for Free

Thank you for interpretative question, “What are your thoughts on John 18:2–9?”The question being asked is a vague as one wonders if the questionnaire has a textual criticism issue or an interpretative question on the passage.The cited text is as follows from the NIV, “When he had finished praying, Jesus left with his disciples and crossed the Kidron Valley. On the other side there was a garden, and he and his disciples went into it. 2 Now Judas, who betrayed him, knew the place, because Jesus had often met there with his disciples. 3 So Judas came to the garden, guiding a detachment of soldiers and some officials from the chief priests and the Pharisees. They were carrying torches, lanterns and weapons. 4 Jesus, knowing all that was going to happen to him, went out and asked them, “Who is it you want?” 5 “Jesus of Nazareth,” they replied. “I am he,” Jesus said. (And Judas the traitor was standing there with them.) 6 When Jesus said, “I am he,” they drew back and fell to the ground. 7 Again he asked them, “Who is it you want?” “Jesus of Nazareth,” they said. 8 Jesus answered, “I told you that I am he. If you are looking for me, then let these men go.” 9 This happened so that the words he had spoken would be fulfilled: “I have not lost one of those you gave me” (A searchable online Bible in over 150 versions and 50 languages).If one desires a critical study of the text, I recommend the NASB-NIV Parallel New Testament in Greek and English. The KJV or the NIV is a translation of the Greek text.Here are four key issues for atheists and Christians on John 18:1–11 on the broader context for one’s consideration:A. The sovereign will of God and the choice by Judas.B. The foreknowledge of Jesus of future events whether based on his deity or on Scriptures.C. The sovereign will of God and the chice by Jesus.D. The interpretation of verse 9 whether Jesus’ phrase includes Judas Iscariot?As one ponders the Old Testament Scriptures and depending on one’s interpretation of the text, Judas Iscariot’s heart attitude toward spiritual things were not right with God. Judas saw and heard firsthand what his master/teacher was saying and doing. There were two paths before him and he continued to chose his own path. No one knew who the betrayer was until Jesus revealed it at the Last Passover Supper. It was not Judas intention to betray Jesus, not that he intended to have Jesus killed. The Pharisees had that as their intention. Was Judas seeking to force Jesus’ hand to use his powers to bring in the kingdom whereby he will be the treasurer of the kingdom of God with all its worldly riches. From Judas’ perspective, Jesus nor the 11 other disciples knew what he was doing and he could only imagine what it will be like for him to be treasurer of the Kingdom of God. Was that his true motive? That is a conjecture on my part even as the disciples in hindsight saw that Judas was a thief. He was willing to betray Jesus for 30 pieces of silver. Judas’ choice was his own every step of the way for in each step he harden his own heart to the words of Jesus.Jesus revealed to Judas that he knew who it was that was going to betray him. He did not deny it when Judas asked him, “Surely not I, Rabbi” while Jesus answered, “Yes, it is you.” (Matt. 26:25–26). Could Jesus avoided going to the Olive Grove to pray as was his custom? Certainly he could have gone elsewhere or in the confusion Jesus could have fled from the men who came to arrest him. Jesus had ample opportunity to flee for his own safety. Jesus knew the Scriptures that spoke about him and he willingly submitted to the Heavenly Father. On the Road to Emmaus, Jesus explained to two followers all the Scriptures said about himself from Moses through the Prophets (Luke 24:25–27).Perhaps one can understand it in this way the sovereign will of God and the choice of men. They are one coin with two sides on it: the will of God and the choice by men. On the face side of the coin by men, one may not see what is God’s will unless it is revealed. Each person makes their choice at every given moment. Thus for an agnostic or atheist, that person may continue to say “No” or “I don’t believe in heaven or hell” even though one reads it on Quora or hear about God’s offer of salvation. Will that person have a change of heart and mind before the end of life. No one knows what the future holds for that person on the man’s side of the coin. Does God know, absolutely but it is unrevealed to man. Each person makes his/her own choice just as Judas made his choice each step of the way. Could he repented when he first stole money for himself? From our human perspective, “Yes.” Could Judas confess and repented when Jesus confronted him? Yes, in my perspective, but that would mean that he would have to break his deal with the Pharisees and return the money back to them. He would face perhaps the anger of his “friends” if he was to publicly confess before them all. The stake was too high and so he refused to do so. One’s pride keeps one from being humbled. Judas made his decision and so every person will make their own decision. Saul of Tarsus in his stubborn way would have continued to persecute the Christians except the grace of God intervene into his life. No one would have thought that Saul of Tarsus would become a follower and defender of Jesus. No Pharisee would have conceived that Saul would be a follower for he was a zealous for the Jewish faith.Each person makes a conscious decision based on one’s values and beliefs that will have eternal impact on oneself and on others. Unless God intervenes into a person’s life that person continues in the path that he thinks is best for him or her. Judas made his choice and he lived with his regret and guilt that led him to forfeit his own life.SUMMARY: God’s will and man’s choice is one coin with two sides on it. The Scriptures offers salvation to everyone who is willing? Is anyone willing to accept God’s offer or will one continue in one’s own pathway? The choice is yours.

The company I work for has been in existence as a smaller but global business unit of a much larger corporation. The ELT has been juggling supply chain management in response to all of the international tariff games for the last few years. They have made several adjustments to the overall organization chart and reporting structure with several positions already in remote and some, mine included, that had already been set up for remote because of need (when my wife underwent surgery a few years ago I got set up so I could be home till she was rehabilitated enough). When COVID-19 hit, all global office personnel that did not directly support on site production was ordered to work remotely. In the early stages we had weekly global town halls to make sure everyone was adequately informed and to ensure that everyone had access to everything they needed to continue for the long haul. As time went on and as people adapted and proved they could continue to perform at high levels of productivity, there has been more discussion about looking into various models for a balance of remote and on site work. I don't believe we will remain at the level we are now once a vaccine is available but there will be more flexibility as far as people being able to opt for a certain amount of remote time. The proof is in the numbers. When this hit we were in the midst of rolling out several new products while sunsetting some older ones. We were just learning how to function with teams consisting of members from various different global offices. There was some anxiety in the executive ranks already because of mandatory, temporary closures of some of our global production facilities. But some amazing things occured rapidly. Production in other facilities picked up to cover for the ones that were closed while the developments on new products merely experienced a slight bump in the road. While we obviously didn't quite reach our projected goals for Q1 and Q2, we remained strong overall and within striking distance. The new CFO was quite impressed, the president had renewed confidence and the folks in parent corporate are staying positive that this can be sustained. These are the factors that determine how a company will function post pandemic. If an organization is able to trust that its employees can continue to remain highly productive during a time like this, it will reward its workers by continuing that trust. Additionally, they have done amazing things to keep our production people as safe as possible and have recognized their efforts as well. So far there has been no mention of staff reductions and there have even been a few new hires. I know this is a rare and unusual situation but it's a testament to the willingness and desire of each and every member of the organization to go the extra mile to make it all happen. I can't speak to other organizations but I believe that a generous remote capability is in our future.

So . This is the video-See the video before read my opinion to better understand everything.It's basically about middle east, it's a talk show. Two anchors are there. They invited an American man who seems to have great knowledge about middle east. He is some kind of documentary maker and lived long time in middle east (gulf region actually). He knows Arabian language etc etc.He is right in most things except few.Now two anchors were highly appreciative of him naturally and showed themselves as ignorant about middle east or Islam. And refer to themselves from time to time as questionnaire of stupid questions.No. They weren't as ignorant Americans as they thought about themselves. Infact, their perspective of middle east was actually surprisingly right than that so called middle eastern expert named Mr Small.Now I am not saying that he doesn't know anything about middle east. He was right about 90% of things about middle east.But he wasn't right about rest.And I was little surprised that he didn't know those issues.Now what are those?He said that rise of extremism happened after the fall of autocad empire in middle east. Various factions rose to power to capture that power vacuum. Before that middle east was peaceful. And border line creation of England and other European countries in middle east wasn't that big of a factor for conflict among middle eastern nations.Now that's not simply correct. Middle East was never peaceful. Never.Even in fairy tale stories such as Arabian Nights, one can see the infighting and backstabbing through various factions of middle eastern society. Even made up stories are based on some form of reality.Here's the fact- middle east was never peaceful with or without autocad empire.European countries were also like that. That's not surprising considering the fact that white people and Arabian people's mixed breed are modern day middle eastern people.Even oldest civilization like Egyptian were half white and half Arabian. Don't forget Greek Macedonia is very close to it.Oldest civilization in Iraq, Syria had white civilization. They had similar sort of culture like roman gladiator.Original Arab people in middle east were minority. They were beduins, they used to roam around from one desert to another in middle east.When Profet Muhammad created Islam, he hoped that common religion would bring people together in middle east and create some sort of common goal with structural discipline. That's why so much restrictions were put forward. Every part of the lives were controlled through Quran.This kind of extra discipline because middle eastern people were always extra chaotic.That's why Jihad was mentioned in Quran. It was supposed to forcefully convert other Arabian people for unity and that's why religious spreading was so important to Profet Muhammad.Now in European societies kind of same thing happened with earlier Bible which was then called Old Testament with their own version of Sharia laws such as eye for an eye.But the difference was that it was way before birth of Muhammad and later Jesus Christ changed the game with new discovery of Christian religion which was more empathic and tolerant in nature. It was natural revolution. And later modern lives came to existence through such natural evolution. Example- discovery of science and modern education system.But sadly it didn't happen in middle east(except in little period of golden era of Islam which didn't last for very long). Islam actually made things worse. People found different interpretations to fight their own battle using holy war or Jihad as excuse. It didn't matter to them what was the correct interpretation of Quran. They preferred their version as it gave them meaning in their lives which created different sections of Islam and different divisions of Islamists like Sia, Sunni etc.Iran vs Saudi Arabia etc.Now England and other European countries' forced boundary line, made things even worse because they were already highly divided factions and power sectors and various tribes. Now they were asked to live together so naturally only dictatorship worked and brought some kind of stability even at the cost of murdering many people.Now western countries' for their own interests (read oil and other natural resources and war business) invaded these countries masking as democracy saviour and result is modern day chaos and rise of terrorism which existed before as well. Even in the time of Profet Muhammad. It just that it got magnified by western weaponry.He also mentioned Palestine and Israel conflict wrongly. He didn't want to take side as he said that both are responsible. As Israelis were neither evil nor greatest. Palestine people did get a wrong end of the stick but they also chose to be terrorist. So Israel had to defend themselves with their full might. Maybe Palestine needed a Gandhi to take non violence route. Maybe that would make sure more common grounds between Israel and Palestine. They probably won't be in this position today. Maybe their conflict would have been over by now.Now this is not quite true either. It's not so black and white. Even though he tried to stay neutral.Let me explain why he isn't correct here-I am coming back to Gandhi issue later. First of all, as I said before earlier, unlike today, middle east didn't have much population before. Most of the middle east was empty desert. Some minority Arab beduins used to roam around from here and there. They had no country. Nothing.So when Jews declared Israel as their holy land. There's no Palestine used to exist then. There's no such thing as Palestine as tribe ever existed in middle east. There's no such thing as Palestine empire. It's all rubbish.Israel was big empty land and none was living there.There might be some slum of Arab beduins but it wasn't permanent. Because beduins' basic nature was to move from places to places.So when Israelis later created Israel, there's no chance of giving any wrong end of the stick to any Palestines. Because they don't exist.It happened later. Some Arab beduins grew seeing the rise of Israel in those near by slum and started to identify themselves as Palestine people and started to say that Israelis captured their lands. Complete rubbish. An empty infertile desert with nothing happening wasn't anyone's treasure.Now let's come to the Gandhi part. Gandhi didn't liberate India. It happened because of many unknown freedom fighters gave their lives. Also because of Ajad Hind Fauj, British realised that they couldn't hold onto India for long. And most importantly British were tired and home sick after WW2. British economy was declined after such long war so British wanted to get back to Britain. Again it didn't happen because of Gandhi ji's non violent protest. British were just using Gandhi for their benefits. Gandhi Ji also knew that it was great for his political career in India. Plus Gandhi Ji wanted that hero worship bigger than any political stature position in India. If other things didn't happen then British would have been in India for atleast 50 years more. So Gandhi Ji's non violent protest didn't do anything other than giving political kingship to Congress party. Period.Nevertheless, on the topic of Islamic terrorism and rise of ISIS in middle east, he is again wrong.He said that ISIS came into being from the idea of end of days apocalyptic scenario and they wanted western involvement because they think western countries as Roman Empire which would bring end of the world scenario hence it would bring down warriors from heaven to fight against western power house.This is ridiculous assessment of ISIS. This is not the reason for ISIS's growth in middle east. Let me tell you, the people in ISIS are much more rational than this. I don't know where did he get his fact but this is completely white washing their motivation. I don't know how did he even call himself an expert of middle east after this.The reason behind ISIS's rise is searching for identity. Middle East is very diverse and there's constant infighting is going on. Arabian people (read Muslims) killed other Arabian people more than anyone. So ISIS is about creating an Islamic Caliphate. A pan Islamic muslim country throughout middle east and become superpowers through that and take over whole world after that defeating western power house. And building a pan Islamic earth. And living in that utopian Islamic earth. That's the motivation.That's why so many western Muslims are interested in joining ISIS.He explained this phenomena in western muslim joining ISIS wrongly as well. Not completely wrong though. But somewhat incorrect. He said that some western Muslims are criminals and then they seek some kind of redemption so they get attracted to orthodox extreme version of Islam. Yeah, not quite true. He did make sense and there's some truth in it as well but it's not the entire reason.In western countries' muslim feel de-franchised due to secularism. Racism as well. They tend to live in ghetto which further isolate them from mainstream western society. So they feel lost. Islam seems like good thing to bank on. Now these people don't have any clue about Islam because they didn't grow up in middle eastern society so they're vulnerable to radicalisation. Now a lot of educated Muslims are attracted to ISIS because they feel lost and less empowered in western society. They also feel that they're suppressed in western society. So they are looking for things that can make them feel superior in their lives. An Islamic utopian Caliphate seems a dream come true for them. So that's why so many of educated Muslims in western countries are easily radicalized and wanted to fight in Syria.This kind of anger towards western countries because western countries' invasion in middle east as well. They live in western countries and they're educated so they know how western countries are taking advantage of middle eastern countries for their war business. So they are angry towards western countries for that reason as well. They identify with the people that are dying in those war in middle east. They want to destabilize western countries with their own concerted effort of lone wolf terrorism.Also their parents probably super conservative like typical middle eastern parents but they are not like that because they're growing up in liberal secular society where religion take back sit so they are lost. A middle eastern caliphate seems like an answer to their confusion hence natural attractions towards radicalisation even among educated western Muslims.These are the things Mr Small the expert of middle east got wrong. Otherwise he was right in rest. He does know his stuff. So that's why I was so surprised about his lack of knowledge about these issues. I mean these are not even news anymore. Everyone knows this because of social media and constant news reports on middle east.