Tuesday, August 19, 2008 ;
9:40 PM
I just watched finish the debate sponsored by SMH just today. And something struck me, I remembered that that preacher said that most such debates, it is always about science vs science backed religious arguments. An interesting thing is that the govt who supports that the world would be better without religion actually used some materials from the bible. Mostly to highlight the negatives of God.
My opinion is this, we should not actually debate whether religion should be done with or not. In fact, it should be there because as all books are, they teach. The problem comes when people become extremists, those who hold that their book is the ultimate truth and should be followed zealously. Like how their nation should be, how their laws should be and all those things which we can pick up from news so often.
How can we enjoy the beauty of creation, or God, has given us if all we ever do is to live life to the book. To live like how it was millenniums ago. Would we be able to appreciate space, the wonderful colours of supernovas, stars, suns if all we ever do is to read the holy books all day and all night? The book doesn't teach how to appreciate living beings, doesn't teach that we can cure diseases, doesn't teach that there are more than this Earth (materially speaking). We need science for that. So that we can be at awe that our human body and by extension all things in this universe follow the proportions outlined in the Vitruvian Man. So that we can cure stupid illnesses like flu so that we are healthy again. Or that we would be shocked to know that the universe is so much bigger than our eyes can absorb. It is because of scientific advancements that we can appreciate God more.
I often feel sad for those zealots. An audience spoke during the audience session time. I do not remember the whole thing of what he said, but the gist is that ' He is glad that there is God. Because without him there wouldn't be Jesus to carry his sins. And that the sins he bear are too much for him to carry alone. And that Jesus died on that cross so that he would be relieved of his sins and to bring him eternal life.' And damn, he said it with a serious convistion and faith. The kind of tone that he wouldn't let any other views to change that.
From my own minute readings of the Bible, I come to one conclusion that the reason that the Old Testament was there before the New Testament, it not entirely because that they came first, but it shows to chronicles of how human come out of its hole to learn more about things. If God have all the knowledge and morality in the universe, he would have given the ten commandments to Adam and Eve or anytime then in the beginning of time. But why would he only give to humans after the ostracities that happened in Egypt? It is because people have to learn through experiences of what is wrong and what is right before they can gain that knowledge and morality. If we do not know that stealing is an action where it deprives another person of their possibly hard-earned efforts, how can we be told that it is wrong? If we do not know that the extensive lawlessness and evil in Israel, how would we know that our sins are becoming too great to carry? In extension, we are all learning along the way, up until now. So to those who live by the book, please do not be comsumed by it. Even people who are living during Jesus' time, who were reading the old Testaments and living it like crazy, still accepted a new teacher, more knowledge through Jesus.
Finally, how I view sin is like this. For example, I killed a father. The wife would grieve, the children would mourn. The sons would direct his feelings to seek revenge, the wife would scream for justice. Sin is created. How? Because of those negative feelings that are generated by them, and all of them are directed to me. I am now bearing the sin(feelings) of my actions. The only way to pay what I have taken is the equal amount, my life. So to be relieved of that, I must be killed. On a side note, Jesus made the ultimate sacrifice by getting killed, because nothing else is worse than that (Don't say slow torture please = ='). So if the son kill me, my wife and children would grieve and mourn. And the wife would scream for justice and the son would direct his feelings to seek revenge. And the cycle of sin continues....
The only way we do not generate sin is to not do things that causes people to direct negative feelings to you. If many people hate you, ah, your sin is becoming heavier (ala Herod). And the way to relieve sins are to, obviously, generate good feelings from other people. This may sound stupid for some, but if you are willing to clear off all pre-judgments and prejudices, why do sentences such as these appear in all those many holy books: "Do not do unto others what you do not want others do unto you", "Love yourself, love your neightbours and love your enemies". Which simply means that do not do things to other people if you would make them feel unhappy, and treat all and even your enemies as good as yourself. Simplifying further, making people unhappy creates sin, loving people relieves sin and simultaneously, in the context of not seeking revenge, you would not generate sins for yourself.
Jesus said if you do those, together with loving God, you will have eternal life (for the sake of it, Luke 10:27). But the impression I get from that guy, and many many Christians I'd seen and heard, have the view that it is because that Jesus died on the Cross that we may have eternal life. PLEASE! He did that to teach you people, not to bring you to Heaven and eternal life. And while I'm on this, since feelings are so powerful, with that kind of notion that Jesus would bear your sins and you trusts him totally on that, and you continue to sin, you are actually directing your sins to him, which he needs to bear. AGAIN, PLEASE! Give that poor guy Jesus a break. Deal with your own sins and get your 'eternal life' on your own. I doubt if you do wonder what eternal life basically means or not >.>
light my way ♥
