Happiness & God? (part 3)
*Again taken from my friend's blog with the commentsI know I've treaded on dangerous waters, but I just couldn't leave the entry open-ended without finishing it off... So please bear with me as I write my concluding thoughts on this matter... And I'd like to continue where 'Unconvinced' left off (iltalics 'Unconvinced')
"Since you agreed that no one needs a doctor when they're well and healthy, and since you have been referring to God as the one true divine doctor, doesnt this mean that you yourself don't need God when things are going ok?"
No, it doesn't. Firstly, I said no one needs to see a doctor when they're well and healthy, but it doesn't mean they don't need a doctor. If our bodies were perfect and we will never get sick, then yeah maybe we don't need doctors anyway. But fact is our bodies deteriorate, and we do get sick, thus we do need doctors. Secondly, I need God even when things are going ok, because the fact is, I sin. Sin is the spiritual 'sickness' that I intended to make analogous to our physical illnesses - and we all have it. It's a spiritual abnormality, and because of it we cannot be perfect, and we cannot have a relationship with God, who is holy. Yet God loves us so much that He sent His son to pay the penalty for me, and all of humanity, such that through Him we can receive forgiveness, and enjoy eternal relationship with God once again. It doesn't mean I have suddenly become perfect and won't sin anymore, I still sin. But by God's power, I know I can overcome, and sin less! I am no longer in the bondage of sin! I am free...
"Since you believe in only the one God and believe that you only need the one God, does it then follow that you believe you only need the one doctor."
Again, no... the analogy was not meant to go the other way round, so I don't believe I only need one doctor! Definitely not. By the time I'm 70 (if i live that long), I'm sure I would've seen various different specialists already :P You can say I chose a bad analogy, or that 'Unconvinced' interpreted the analogy further than what I intended...
"It would be funny to read how you came to the conclusion that there is only one true divine doctor or God. I'm sure the religious fanatics in the world who kill for their religion have arguments that are the same as yours."
I don't think I have the wisdom to draw out another analogy to show how I have come to believe there is only one true God. And no I wouldn't be surprised at all if the 'religious fanatics' have the same arguments as me... Islam, Hindu, and Christianity (and some other religions as well) all believe in only one God - would the arguments be the same? I'm not sure but it's possible! But I'm sure they won't be all the same. But if you ask me why I believe what I believe in, I can only say it's because of what Christ has done for me on the cross...
"If you want your own religion to be respected and accepted, you should learn to do the same for the other religions. Your comment is the kind of behaviour that fosters narrow-minded thinking rather than the understanding and compromise Jesus himself tries to instill in his followers. I think this message gets lost in all the hype. But it is clear that Jesus was looking for people to more considerate and tolerant. Question is: are you? Unfortunately, calling their religions' head as 'god' and calling your own God as 'God' is the first step in the wrong direction. It breeds intolerance rather than understanding, narrow-minds rather than open minds."
As I said in my letter to 'Unconvinced', the difference in using 'god' and 'God' was not out of intolerance or disrespect. Guess using Chinese would have rid 'Unconvinced' of this argument :P But true, I do only believe in one God, and I do not call any other gods God. Also, tolerance != compromise (for non-computing people, that means not equals to). I am not intolerant (if I were I wouldn't associate with anyone but Christians), and I respect people's choices, but that does not mean compromising my own belief. I do not try to convince people by force, but I do not stop telling others about God either because I believe He is true. When you know something is good and true, you would want to share with others too wouldn't you?
After all that, you may ask, what is my conclusion?
My conclusion is that, when we are sailing well in life, we often don't realise our greatest need. Neither do we realise our limitations as human beings. We do not realise we are sinful, and that we have no hope beyond this life. Not all of you will agree with me on this one I know, but I do believe our greatest need is only fulfilled by God. So, even when life is going well, and we are happy with life, it doesn't nullify our need, and we still need God... And we know He can be found, because He found us first :
posted by chronicblogger @ 2:03 AM
8 Comments:
my intolerance to unconvinced's intolerance to your intolerance
"True religion is real living; living with all one's soul, with all one's goodness and righteousness."
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." --A. Einstein
err irene, so let me get this straight: you're being intolerant to my intolerance of isabella's intolerance?
this is gonna sound weird but if you're defending her, it doesnt help to say u think she's being intolerant haaha especially since she already mentioned before she didn't think she was herself ;)
also it's funny that you left the same quotes on my blog, though you should look at a few ppl's comments inviting you to explain what you meant by the quotes. There's at least 3 ppl there asking for more info. Would be happy to have an explanation either here or on my blog. At least it would be good to give it in the context of the topic at hand. I don't understand off-hand what you're trying to say with it - maybe it's just me but some clarity would be appreciated.
So here's my reply to your 2nd last post - been a bit too busy lately to check out all the blog entries hahaa
Well that first question was more of a logical question which followed from your analogy. Which I think we've all already established is flawed and doesn't apply. I'm glad that you find you need God when you're ok. It's good that you don't take this for granted when you feel that you aren't in your hour of need.
If the analogy wasn't meant to go the other way around then it is flawed because it doesn't really fit what you're trying to say. but anyway that's a moot point and it's been discussed to death elsewhere.
The arguments won't all be the same as in they have exactly the same reasons, the same wording used in all the reasons, but it's essentially the same gist. I was referring more to how one person would say so-and-so's God/god can't be the true one because their God/god did this and that and that other person's God/god can't.
Tolerance to others' beliefs includes fraternising with them (as you already do), but also respect. Mind you, I don't want you to think this is a personal attack - this is only an example of something that I myself have experienced so you don't think I'm making this up. I have met others who constantly try to convert people to their own religion. What seems like an innocent play, talk or discussion group ends as a session on why their religion is the one true religion - essentially a propaganda session to gain converts.
That's where most of my beef lies as I believe that in wrapping this ulterior motive in something seemingly harmless as a play is not only disrespectful of the attendant's religion but also dishonest. And doesn't the 10 commandments ask us not to lie. Nope I agree tolerance != compromise and I actually never said it was. I just used it in the same sentence, tolerance and compromise, but I never said they were the same. And nor did I ask you to compromise your beliefs.
Rather I mentioned this in relation to trying to find some common ground with the rest of the people who live in this world. Although there are a lot of Christians, there are also numbers of Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims to name a few. When you know something is good and true and people are willing to listen, then by all means share. If people are not willing to listen, don't you think that this is essentially trying to convince people by peer pressure or coercion.
How would you feel if you had other people contiuously sharing with you their thoughts on the one true religion, or asking you to come to performances, only to find out later that it has turned into a session to convert you from Christianity to another religion altogether. I think if you put yourself in other people's shoes, you would definitely see how they feel sometimes about having their own beliefs continuously questioned, or the benefits of another religion sounded out to them all the time. That's what I mean by respect for other religions. I think if most of the people in this world can show the same tolerance, respect and compromise, alot of our relgious wars and religious discrimination would disappear
hi there, i couldn't be bothered to write into so many blogs, so i'll just write in this one, bear with my laziness :P
okay, yeah, wasn't attacking or a strikeback or anything when i post in either your blog or this blog, cos, in fact, i find this whole debate a waste of time, yet it's good to stimulate thinking.
why i said i am intolerant to ur intolerance is because i wanna express a point that when u do that in the first place, there's never ending. just as u can easily say ppl are intolerant, you urself can become intolerant, and hence i can also easily become intolerant. Don't get me wrong, i am not even trying to judge you or anyone on earth or start an argument, but i am merely trying to express this chain of "intolerance" is often due to individual's opinion + feelings (which is subjective), and at the end, (in fact, there will be no end) it's meaningless.
that's why i quoted what Einstein said about religion, because at the end, it's a personal thing with God or god or GOD (which ever version you like). IF you can be sure about ur relationship with GOD, great, if not, then you should think about it. And one ought to examine a religion, not merely dismiss it; but personally when i examine a religion, i would like to look for stuff that Einstein puts in his quote: "True religion is real living; living with all one's soul, with all one's goodness and righteousness."
i appologize that i didn't clarify in what i said, and take note that to defend bear is not my intention. may be the fact that i am a christian made u feel that i am on her side and trying to attack u or sthing. in fact, what made me write in ur blog is not the debate or the topic, but after how many years..? 7 years that we know each other, that i was a bit upset cos u were inflammed by such matters. I really don't know how to put it, lesley, i can't really express why i am upset, may be i am upset cos i didn't get to talk to u more in the past and get to know u more.
anyway, hope u understand what i said, and hope all the other 3 ppl understand as well.
but i still hope u and the rest who read this blog can open up to GOD himself, because when you truly seek him, and experience him, you may understand the real crux of what we have been talking so far.
will pray for all who read this.
luv,
irene
Chocolates/ChronicBlogger's comments so far is about respecting other's believe/religion, and not claiming one's god is more "true" or "devine" over the others.
In Irene's comments, she said that she would examine a religion with Einstein's quotes in mind. And that "one ought to examine a religion, not merely dismiss it". Well have you ever actually examined other religions with his quotes in mind and not merely dismiss them? (this is simply a question for one to reflect on, rather than eliciting a reply).
To many of you who are reading this blog (especially friends of Bear who are Christians), the comments that I (and possibly Chocolates) have posted so far was not to attack you or your God, but rather that we should accept other people's believes, and not have "their own beliefs continuously questioned, or the benefits of another religion sounded out to them all the time".
Because I am not sure that in some ways (althought it's not intended in the last few posts), some of you are feeling that your believes/religion/god is being questioned. And from the reactions in all the posts, you don't seem to like it either.
I'm still confused by Irene's babbling. Someone care to paraphrase?
I didn't think anything bad about you commenting on our discussion - so I don't know why you would think that way. Especially since bear wanted comments on her blog, and so do I. I don't see that as attacking, merely that you wanted to express your own opinion which is fair enough. And no I'm not attacking you or anything because you're Christian, I just didn't understand what you meant so I asked you back in a comment :) In the same way, you or anyone else reading these comments shouldn't think that it's an attack on yourselves - again merely my own point of view which I wanted to share.
Personally I don't think any discussion is a waste of time. If people didn't discuss anything how can we possibly learn and improve ourselves. If you find that disagreeing with people is meaningless, I totally disagree with that. If people always agreed with each other - mankind would never improve. If Galileo agreed with all the other astronomers in his time who said that the sun revolved around the earth, we would have accepted it and never found out the truth.
How does telling someone your own opinion equate to intolerance? Are you saying that if you disagree with someone you should just keep it to yourself and not tell the other person because they might think you're intolerant and become intolerant themselves of your intolerance? If people did that, yeah we wouldn't have any wars - that's cause the people who would fight against oppression would just accept their fate and tolerate it. Didn't Moses himself disagree and became intolerant with how the Israelites began creating and worshipping false idols, in a fit of rage he broke the stone tablets on which the 10 commandments were written. Did his intolerance provide a good outcome for future generations? I think so.
I think you misunderstand the meaning of the word 'intolerance' and how it was used in the context of the original post. That was that the comments made breed intolerance. Not that the person themselves were intolerant. I don't see how saying that suddenly becomes an act of intolerance itself. That just means I'm pointing it out - I'm not even doing much about it, just saying what I think. Just like you are - but I don't think you're really being 'intolerant', you're just disagreeing with me ahhaa :)
Again no one is disagreeing with your own relationship with God or attacking your religion. What is under discussion and I should say - the crux of what we have been talking about so far - has been the following points:
+ do you need God when you're happy and the whole doctor-God analogy?
+ one true divine doctor/God
+ tolerance for other religions and beliefs
We haven't been talking about how to find the one true religion or one true God. All we've been talking about is how at least I think we should be mindful of other ppl's beliefs and respect that they will have different beliefs to us, like you have different beliefs to mine. And that there's nothing wrong with that whatsoever. Having said that we shouldn't keep trying to change everyone over to our side because there're no sides, only personal beliefs and maybe if we respect that in everyone else we will have a better understanding of everyone else.
This is where your idea of religion being a personal thing comes in - yes it is a personal thing I totally agree with that. That's why I think we should all be tolerant of other religions and beliefs. Because (and I know I'm repeating myself here) I don't think that anyone would want to have their beliefs continuously questioned, or the benefits of another religion sounded out to them all the time - it's a personal relationship and no one should take that away from you.
Well I apologise if you became upset that you thought I was inflamed. But I wasn't :) Maybe the post sounded too serious haha but I was just disagreeing with some points that bear raised. What's wrong with that? Should I be really upset that you're inflamed with me and that you're disagreeing with my opinions? I'm not taking it personally - I hope you don't too, and neither does bear - she doesn't sound like she does ;)
Yep we have known each other for 7 years but don't you think that the oldest of friends or acquaintances even disagree with each other sometimes and that disagreeing doesn't signal the end of a friendship. Only that people are getting to know more about each other. I would actually be glad that we're all talking about something serious after all these years. That means that we've all grown into a mature relationship with each other. Anyway I think that's it for this post - bit too long already. And just to end it I would have to say that it's discussions like these that allow you to know the other person more. I've learned alot about bear and lina from what they've been posting, and this includes your posts too irene.
Finally I just want to second lina's post - totally agree with what she said and I couldn't have said it more concisely - I really can't hahaah I've never been able to write short posts.
err to paraphrase irene's last comment and I probably won't do it justice as I'm going to keep it short:
+ she thinks the whole debate is a waste of time
+ she thinks i'm intolerant and she's being intolerant herself of me
+ the chain of intolerance is thus meaningless
+ religion is a personal thing - and she uses Einstein's quotes to examine religions
+ she's "a bit upset cos I was inflammed by such matters. I really don't know how to put it, lesley, i can't really express why i am upset, may be i am upset cos i didn't get to talk to u more in the past and get to know u more." <-- didn't want to paraphrase this in case i get it wrong.
+ she hopes we understand and experience what we've been talking abt.
read my last comment for my reply :)
Post a Comment
<< Home