A 4 hour afternoon nap, uneventful rock climbing session, 50 pages of The Joke, couple of milk M&Ms, and about 2 shots worth of Bombay Sapphire after, and to the sound of Jazz Fusion...
...we don't think in grammatical sentences...some things are just hard to put down in words...maybe the feeling CAN be 100% explained through words and sentences, and maybe I just don't know how at times. That's when we quote. And even then, I might take a quote and interpret it the way I want it to be, and then cite that quote as some idol. It's amazing how we can link two things together - almost any two things that we want to believe have a connection. There is a power in delusion. Is delusion wrong? That's another question. But I am open to accepting delusion as a way of life. Without an absolute such as God, nihilism or my variant of it at least seems acceptable. In such, any approach to anything seems fine because they are all as bad as the other.
...we don't think in words...or do we? Our language decides how we think because it gives a name and an easy recollection of an emotion or a thought, a revelation, and it puts it nearer and more accessible for us to dig out from our very loaded brains. And even the grammar can affect the way we think. I will be finding more from my Language Acquisition of semantics and pragmatics class.
-
It all started with that poster. And in my memory that poster, which I can barely remember if it was in the form of a hard paper of A4 size or of something larger, or on some crappy colored such as yellow or maybe plain white paper with black wordings, seems like something I can recollect and reference. But as just described, I really don't remember the poster, if it should even be classified as a poster should I see it again. That poster, on was it the 4th or 5th floor, of the Theology building, by the Philosophy department. And what were the words? I don't recall. It was a notice, yes notice would be a more reliable word, of an upcoming talk of a sort. The topic involved two matters and a relationship between them. Isn't that the subject of so many intellectual talks these days? It must have been something like "XYZ and saving the environment", though it could more than well have been "beliefs of the ABC people and Christianity" or "Artifacts of XXX and modern religious beliefs". Whatever the case, it was another talk on how one thing agrees with another. Not so much causality but correlation. A relation. And there it struck me, what, another talk linking one thing to another. Just like how one could link carbon dioxide levels to rising global temperatures, or agreements between Eastern ancient thought and growing worldviews in the modern world, and it became absurb and obvious to me that it should not surprise us if we encounter a proposal on relations between two intuitively unrelated subjects such as methodology of distilling today's popular alcoholic drinks and success in the competitive business markets. And examples of casual correlation abound, though not lodged in my memory in concise and coherent sentences, maybe not in words or grammatical phrases, but images, though images nonetheless hardly reliable just as I could not recollect the image of the notice which I called a poster, but perhaps just the essence remains in my mind. And what is the essence? Just the gaps that I have no other word for at the moment. And if essence had to be more specifically defined, then maybe my memories did not keep any essence but something else. See, casual correlation can be found in the church. But let us not jump ahead into arguments for or against God. I am referring to the church and the sermons or teachings heard in church activities such as sermons from men or women from the pulpit or in a more classroom like setting. And we will not go into whether the teachings were divinely inspired. It was however words from a mortal person, who as Christianity teaches us, is no better or worse than us. The preacher is not a higher being; if he should claim to be lower, it is similarly absurd and contradictory. A human being creates links between events through some mechanism we have developed over our evolution be it from apes or from our ancestors. It is a biological trait, I believe though not originally conceived by me, that is advantageous to us over not having the ability or tendency to generalize, stereotype, or otherwise invent causalities and correlations between two subjects which may in reality, however defined, have or have no real relevant relationship.
A pearl is so beautiful and prized. Ladies, how many of you walk past the jewelry shops and marvel and those wondrous pearls? Gentlemen, how many of you have gotten these smooth and brightly charactered orbs for your wives and girlfriends? Do you know how a pearl is formed? From dust in the clam, over a long period of time, polished, until at last you have a beautiful pearl. And that's how it's like with us. We have our troubles et cetera and through being tested and polished, like in the clam, we will ultimately emerge as beautiful as pearls.
Sure I've heard something like that before in a sermon. Whether or not pearls actually come from dust or secretions against irritants is not important to me here. Whether the facts are all clearly scientifically justified and agreed upon is another matter. The point is that we see similarities in different things. But really, if you don't have a worldview or religious view that suffering is a form of polishing, this analogy would not fit. This would not function as a good parable. We might get smitten by it from its poetry or from the images of pearls, or maybe from the great storytelling, which I am not mocking but merely establishing that the above paragraph is what I consider a told story, but whether or not the sermon means anything is another matter altogether, one that must be decided by dogma and doctrine of the church if it falls under a bigger denomination, and if not than one that must acceptable and receivable by the audience, caused by their level of education, social codes, moral codes, or any other matter, and one that is decided or conceived by the preacher or by his source.
-
Tomorrow, another article will be published linking one thing to another. Another dissertation must be written for graduation requirements. Another book will be published to be read and to have its author's ideas, however useful to anyone other than himself, heard. A whole wealth of knowledge is still growing. And not only do we need to know how to filter junk from treasure, but we might want to wonder if everything is junk, or perhaps if everything is treasure. Probably, the intuitive decision is that it depends. Are ideas accepted and popularized after the thinker's, artist's, or musician's death, what we may glorify as genius ahead of its time, worthy of glorification? I don't know enough of either categories to analyze sufficiently.
What I like however, are Milan Kundera's works. Personally, it lets me experience first-hand how good works are actually good, or at least they could possibly be popular due to work that appeals to people rather than become elevated to greatness simply because of advertisement. I chanced upon Kundera's work while doing my own research for topics I myself was interested in. And though it may have helped that his name appeared in earlier Google results out of his popularity, I found his work interesting without knowing of his apparent fame until I had completed one of his novels. Likewise, I had known Neitzsche by name from earlier references. I had however never read his works or read a summary of his ideas. I have however, come to find him as a necessary read because his ideas are relating to what I have been pondering over. No doubt, I will be blinded and lose connection with my own personal thoughts by reading his work, no doubt that I will fall into the human tendency of seeing what may not actually apply to me as really applicable to me, nonetheless in a nihilistic view, there is no harm.
The question of God is one thing. The question of which God is another. And beyond that lies many other questions, such as how one can get to God, what happens after death, is there only one way, how should we live, et cetera. Anyone who has read the Bible must have noticed the inconsistencies. I treated it as the holy book divinely received from heaven in the past. I had tried to read it from the beginning. In Genesis and Exodus, as I recall, I was already confused by irregularities. I pondered these irregularies and decided that must be a reason, probably also decided to find out more about this, but did not question the authority of the Bible. Today, though do not take it as a representative of anything other, I do not believe in the Bible having been divinely, as written in modern version, and apart from language translations, received directly from the heavens and from God. What I am afraid of is of those who notice the irregulaities and purposefully blind themselves to thinking that the Bible is divinely dropped from heaven and who create seemingly self-deceiving justifications. Now, let me explain a little. It could have dropped from heaven. I merely do not think so. The justifications, though some may consider self-deceiving in order to preserve a prior belief, may actually turn out to be true. I am not passing judgement. I am however more aware that, if I am right n my observations, there are many people who do not take a step into evaluting if they really believe what they believe. And yes, if nihilism is fine, then self-deception is alright. As I link this psychology to my current thoughts, as linking though I find excessive in modern intellectual affairs is not a crime though mine might very well be, then I would have to add this confession, though I feel inadequately dwelt upon, that I am inventing or finding justification (and these actions are not criminal either, except in intolerantly athetist thought perhaps) to as yet still deny that God does not exist. That is why I want to know what is neccesary for having the right faith, defined by me as doing the neccesary actions to find myself on the right side of things after mortal death, if there is any thing after.
Strangely, this seeming losing of my religion has made me aware that, if I have lost it, then I have not really had a religion. Let me explain. In my troubles and fears, I still call on God. I had done so prior, and I still do so. This does not mean that God does not exist and that it is all made up out of a need to call on something which I then relegate as God. This means that I was no more religious than I am now. Those many things change in my thoughts and worries in my evaluation of my religion, I have found that many things have not changed. As this is still an ongoing ordeal, I find it hard to elaborate further. It may perhaps be a lost in faith in the organized religion of Christianity, though there are many aspects and some I had rejected long ago without committing heresy, and the finding of a personal religion, which though sounds heretical, may be or may not be. I'll leave it at this for now.
Did Nietzsche mention that the 'death' of God, the loss of belief in God, may lead to nihilism? Whoever came up with that idea, if it were revolutionary, probably is only as smart as me, though I would suspect a lot of people can individually come to this conclusion on their own. It is true, in my life, that when I started to question the existence of God, more specifically a God that requires a moral code for our mortal lives, that nihilism seems acceptable, in fact natural. Whether superman is the solution is another matter I find slightly absurb at the moment.
-
And now I must decide if my blog post must be titled, be named that is, or if it need not, maybe must not. A word changes everything or at least something. It would put my post in the shadow of the title which must then be very well and appropriately chosen to avoid creating an artificial barrier to understanding my post. What if the title were written at the end of the post? Then the title would be seen in the shadow of the post, though a title might not be neccesary then other than if for dramatic effect or summarization, which surely is a bane, for to summarize all thoughts into an existing word silently destroys the expansion of ideas and negates everything said prior, though all those writings may deserve to be trashed for being more junk in the wealth of junk already available and mostly useless. A title is after all there to add organization in the overall blog and ineffective (or not?), by being at the bottom. Its purpose was after all to be enlarged in font and to claim attention. But so I must see that nobody cares for what I write. It is not an evil. It is just hard to care about other minds. To apologize for sounding judgemental, I myself don't care about other minds often. A title therefore grows a purpose. And a title, though maybe not neccesary, IS neccesary in a different (maybe it is the same after all, and after all assigning such variants to one thing is just an abstraction that is as much genius as stupidity) semantic value of the word.
Friday, January 16, 2009
Thursday, January 8, 2009
what does "bye" mean to us?
If i have lived with you, or worked with you for 10 years, and now i'm leaving, to a place far away, where our lives will not cross except unless we make an out of the way phonecall, which might not be practical if say we both have our own families or work and chatting with friends far away via phone is not a luxury we want or can afford, then will a simple "bye" suffice? Or should it come at least with a handshake? A hug? A look into the eye? "Goodbye"? "Will miss you"?
If i have lived with you, or worked with you for 10 years, and now i'm leaving, to a place far away, where our lives will not cross except unless we make an out of the way phonecall, which might not be practical if say we both have our own families or work and chatting with friends far away via phone is not a luxury we want or can afford, then will a simple "bye" suffice? Or should it come at least with a handshake? A hug? A look into the eye? "Goodbye"? "Will miss you"?
I won't lie...I am questioning my religion. I need to. I plan to start reading up on the history of religions, rise and fall, spreading, conversion, comparisons with other religions...etc. I think I am like a tribal person somewhere in early 20th century Africa, whose religion is taught to him, but seems absurd to outsiders who later come to convert them to, usually, Christianity. What is Christianity is absurd? It would be a blessing if I never questioned or felt the need to question, and if nobody who challenged me on my religion was able to convince me to examine it. But Christianity claims that Jesus is the only way to God, and that he was God too. That means that Muslims are wrong. That means Buddhists are wrong et cetera. And Muslims, I think, believe that non-Muslims are infidels.
I think alot of Christians are extremely ignorant. I'm not saying that I'm smart, but I have met a lot of Christians who say ridiculous things. One lady's husband was in hospital and when she found out his doctor was Muslim, she panicked. She saw a little bit of negligence in his work and confronted him. It was settled. But in her relating this story to her audience, of which I was one, she later half-jokingly said "I think they [Muslims] are trying to kill every one of us [Christians]." Actually she wasn't half-joking. I'm sure, from what I saw, she meant it. But the situation quickly turned into drama and laughter - laughter to poison and make things ridiculous - such that the comment is preferably thought to be a joke, or a half-joke.
There are people who attribute so many things to God. Thank God. Oh, that's good, praise God. Ah, you see that's God's work. No, we cannot understand God's ways, he has a plan.
I never really bought into this when I was not the one saying it. Everything can be explained by God's mysterious ways simply because they are mysterious. Right now, the reference of "God" is the Christian God. Yes, which brings the point. Some say all gods are the same. Like different roads leading to the same point. The Christians through Jesus and Christian faith. The Muslims through I believe Mohammud (I never actually researched, so for all I know it could be not through Mohammud). The problem is that Christian faith demands that all other ways are wrong. Perhaps they all lead to the same God in that once, people agreed correctly on God, and then over time, one group thought that believing that person A did so and so is a must to God, another thought that a crucial element to God accepting that you accept him as God is that you believe that this particular person B who did so and so died for your wrongs. And you cannot adhere to both sides.
But then, another question. What exactly is Christian belief? What is the important thing? Is it important that I believe that every time I participate in the holy communion, the liquid that I physically drink actually cleanses me of my sins. Is it important that I reject that belief? Or does it not matter? Is it neccessary to believe that God exists in a Trinity? Would it be wrong and damning in the sight of God if I thought that maybe he could be more than a trinity. Maybe he could be 10-nity except he didn't reveal the rest, or maybe he could be anything, trinity now, but actually one, but actually 800 is fine, all at the same time, maybe not at the same time. A problem is that God is God which in my definition, is just simply hard to define. Basically, if I say God is just, does he always have to be just? Is he a subset of justice? Could he not be just? He is God after all. But let's not get distracted into that yet. What is important in Chrisitian belief?
See, there is a comparison between the Eygptian entity Horus and with Jesus of the Christian faith. Certain comparisons, which some say is unfounded but that would be another distraction for now, go that both were born of a virgin. The names might even be shown to be similar. Both were baptized by someone who was later beheaded. Both walked on water. Both had 12 disciples. Both died and rose again 3 days later. Now now now...lots of issues to deal with. But firstly, I would say most people will simply reject the Horus story. I don't know about people in Eygpt now. But the thing is that the Horus story isn't a major religion for sure. In fact, I think it is mostly regarded as a story in astrology, basically a story derived from looking at the stars, where the 3 wise men were the 3 stars of Orion and Horus the East star or something. And 12 because of the zodiac. But Christianity is a major religion. I will not go into whether Jesus is an "imitation of Horus" because I don't have research material. But the question I have to ask is, which events are important to the Christian belief? Does it matter if I don't believe that Jesus was born of a virgin? and if someone says "how can God be born of human sexual affairs" as if it is corrupt, I might say "it's not corrupt except you think it so, just as it is possible that it is corrupt that God was conceived through a human being even though a virgin". Is it important I believe in the virgin birth? Does it matter if I don't care, just as I don't care if Jesus was right handed or left handed. Does it matter if I don't believe the virgin birth. Okay, so it's in the bible right? But I subscribe to the belief that the bible was written or at least edited, maybe compiled selectively (since apocrypha is not in the bible) or something like that. Basically, I don't believe that the bible had a first incarnation, be it in Latin or Chinese, that was divinely sent from heaven in one piece, and that that incarnation of the bible is what I'm getting in stores now, albeit translated. The books of the bible were written by people. Maybe not the people it is named after. Maybe it is a bunch of records. That's what I think it is. Maybe some of the writings were divinely inspired, I don't know. Does Christian faith require me to believe so?
Is it alright for Christian faith if I don't believe that Jonah was in a whale's or fish's belly? Or if I believe only some portions of it, like maybe I think he was on a whale for 3 days and not in the whale? Or if I believe but with doubt that I never bother to resolve, like me believing that people of ancient China knew martial arts that let them jump really high and stand on thin branches of trees like in "Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon", but somewhat I doubt it, but can't be bother to research it?
What about if it's not about Jonah, but about whether the 10 commandments as we know it, as 10 bulletpoints so to speak were inscribed on rocks? Or what if the issue is about whether Moses split the sea?
Are those neccessary to believe, since they are in the bible? Let's say there was this man who believed in God and was under attack by cannibals. And i'm making this up, but say he prayed to God and received strength such that he fought the cannibals with his bare body, bare hands and feet, unable to be hurt by the weapons such as spears not because he evaded them but because he was somewhat invulnerable. And say he defeated them. If such a story existed, it is not in the bible and I don't need to believe it. In fact, I probably shouldn't believe it within the context of Christianity. I shouldn't think that such a man existed who prayed to the same God as I do who did all that in around 1000BC. But because Samson is in the bible, must I believe? Is it needed? David and Goliath?
Let's move on to stuff regarding Jesus. As said before, must I believe the virgin birth? Ok, must I believe he was baptized? Must I believe he walked on water? Must I believe he healed the sick and raised the dead? Must I believe his father's occupation? Must I believe he had 12 disciples? Must I believe he had the last supper and must I believe that we should keep up this ceremony because we should "do this is rememberance of me" ? Must I believe he died on the cross? Must I believe that his death cleansed me of my sins? Must I believe he rose again from the dead? Must I believe he was God? Must I believe in the Trinity and not in 3 separate gods or any other thing? Must I believe in Jesus's existence?
Which stuff are required?
I recently read someone saying that Herod died in 4BC. He criticized Christians for changing the dates of the birth of Christ to "make it fit". What this means to me is that a lot of things are unreliable. The date...is it neccessary to believe the dates to be of Christian faith? And when I mean of Christian faith, basically I mean that when I die I will, assuming Christianity true, be in Heaven and not Hell. Changing the dates, if really happened, could mean Christians had the dates wrong and adjusted, sounds good for them. But it doesn't refute Christianity. To me, that embarrasses me. But I'm looking...honestly speaking, the salvation of my soul. And it doesn't matter if the dates were messed up. Or if every thing about Christianity such as the story of Ruth is refuted, or if Paul was actually a group of people and not one person (I'm making this up)...etc. I want to know what is really neccessary, and I want to believe it. I want to. I don't want to be condemned to Hell.
"Do you believe that Jesus is the way, the truth and the light, that there is no other way to the Father except through Him, that He died for your sins and rose again on the third day?"
"Yes"
I think it's something like that right? So, does that correctly (in God's eyes) list the fundamental requirements to God and to Heaven? Belief in the existence of Jesus seems like one of them. Which parts of Jesus must I believe? Can I believe he existed, but don't believe that he changed water into wine, while believing the next few parts, that is he is the way truth light...etc?
Oh i forgot, there's usually the phrase "personal saviour". Of course, it seems like these words are chosen by people.
I'm guessing the main thing I need to believe in is that sin separated us from God, and Jesus died for my sins and opened the way. I acknowledge that, and I'm back with God again.
But that raises questions like "what about people who never heard of Jesus, but it's not that they rejected him?" With this, it seems like we are fitting God into the confines of our concept of justice if we should think that those people will go to Hell (let's not argue if Hell exists). If they can still be saved, then what happens to Jesus being the only way to salvation? Perhaps it is more complicated than that. But to say it is more complicated, to be fair, seems like human rationalizing, like trying to avoid the troublesome issue that God might want to let those people suffer for not happening to know Jesus. Again, the fact that God might not be just by our standards does not refute that this God does exist. Really, it does nothing.
Maybe another question along the same lines could be "what about the person who died while Jesus was on Earth, but was in China and didn't know about Jesus?"
Or "what about the person who passed Jesus on the street but didn't know he was God?"
Or "what about the person who was sitting in his town, heard about Jesus, some stories about him raising the dead and changing water into wine, and this person was fascinated, and he continued working his farm near the town, later died without accepting Jesus as Saviour because he didn't know he should"
You can imagine more scenarios for yourself.
Or, I think quite popularly, "what about the people who died before Jesus came?" They didn't have Jesus to believe in.
so on and so forth.
Maybe the answer lies in the personal relationship with God, to convince me that God exists. Well, there are a few things I want to be convinced of actually (that doesn't mean I don't believe it now, it just means I want to be convinced, like a girl who wants to be told she's loved). There's the issue of whether God exists. And there's the issue of whether the Christian faith (whatever is neccessary including beliefs in and rejections of certain things) is true.
Okay, a personal relationship...a personal experience is, as of yet, the most convincing thing I have to lead me to believe in Christianity. To be more precise, to believe in God, and since I pray to Him as Jesus and with the idea that He is the God in Christian scriptuers, I also am believing in the Christian faith. But I've never prayed to God as another god. I've never prayed to any other god or if they are the same god, then I've never prayed to him as though he were another god. Also, maybe the feelings of relationship with God is no more than chemicals. But then again, love, hate, maybe hunger or sleepiness may be just chemical reactions but that doesn't mean anything. It doesn't mean that if the feeling of a relationship with God can be observed and explained through brain scans, that the relationship doesn't exist. Faith, yes...I guess it will come to a point where you have to decide if you believe or not. "That's why it's called faith" right? Yes, but how should I handle this? Should I research on the science explanations and then decide on faith (I don't know how much science at the moment or future will support or scorn a decision on believing in the relationship with God, on a decision on "faith" but judging from the fact that the word used is "faith", i'm thinking science most likely will work against it. Isn't that interesting?) and then decide on faith? When I mean "should I?", I really mean, will this end up bringing me away from the salvation of my soul (if there is) and end up bringing me more likely to eternal damnation? "Should I?" also means "is it pleasing to God (assuming His existence)?". After all, it wouldn't be flattering at all if a son goes through a bunch of DNA tests just to convince himself (or futher convince himself) that his dad really is his father. But should the son do it? And then we know DNA tests aren't 100% accurate (in fact I think they are not accurate at all, well, not to 80% even i think, maybe even 50%) so similarly, science could be wrong on the issue of God in this analogy)
Okay, getting tired. What did I leave out? Probably a lot. Discussions have this nasty power of growing super huge to require research in too many things.
I think alot of Christians are extremely ignorant. I'm not saying that I'm smart, but I have met a lot of Christians who say ridiculous things. One lady's husband was in hospital and when she found out his doctor was Muslim, she panicked. She saw a little bit of negligence in his work and confronted him. It was settled. But in her relating this story to her audience, of which I was one, she later half-jokingly said "I think they [Muslims] are trying to kill every one of us [Christians]." Actually she wasn't half-joking. I'm sure, from what I saw, she meant it. But the situation quickly turned into drama and laughter - laughter to poison and make things ridiculous - such that the comment is preferably thought to be a joke, or a half-joke.
There are people who attribute so many things to God. Thank God. Oh, that's good, praise God. Ah, you see that's God's work. No, we cannot understand God's ways, he has a plan.
I never really bought into this when I was not the one saying it. Everything can be explained by God's mysterious ways simply because they are mysterious. Right now, the reference of "God" is the Christian God. Yes, which brings the point. Some say all gods are the same. Like different roads leading to the same point. The Christians through Jesus and Christian faith. The Muslims through I believe Mohammud (I never actually researched, so for all I know it could be not through Mohammud). The problem is that Christian faith demands that all other ways are wrong. Perhaps they all lead to the same God in that once, people agreed correctly on God, and then over time, one group thought that believing that person A did so and so is a must to God, another thought that a crucial element to God accepting that you accept him as God is that you believe that this particular person B who did so and so died for your wrongs. And you cannot adhere to both sides.
But then, another question. What exactly is Christian belief? What is the important thing? Is it important that I believe that every time I participate in the holy communion, the liquid that I physically drink actually cleanses me of my sins. Is it important that I reject that belief? Or does it not matter? Is it neccessary to believe that God exists in a Trinity? Would it be wrong and damning in the sight of God if I thought that maybe he could be more than a trinity. Maybe he could be 10-nity except he didn't reveal the rest, or maybe he could be anything, trinity now, but actually one, but actually 800 is fine, all at the same time, maybe not at the same time. A problem is that God is God which in my definition, is just simply hard to define. Basically, if I say God is just, does he always have to be just? Is he a subset of justice? Could he not be just? He is God after all. But let's not get distracted into that yet. What is important in Chrisitian belief?
See, there is a comparison between the Eygptian entity Horus and with Jesus of the Christian faith. Certain comparisons, which some say is unfounded but that would be another distraction for now, go that both were born of a virgin. The names might even be shown to be similar. Both were baptized by someone who was later beheaded. Both walked on water. Both had 12 disciples. Both died and rose again 3 days later. Now now now...lots of issues to deal with. But firstly, I would say most people will simply reject the Horus story. I don't know about people in Eygpt now. But the thing is that the Horus story isn't a major religion for sure. In fact, I think it is mostly regarded as a story in astrology, basically a story derived from looking at the stars, where the 3 wise men were the 3 stars of Orion and Horus the East star or something. And 12 because of the zodiac. But Christianity is a major religion. I will not go into whether Jesus is an "imitation of Horus" because I don't have research material. But the question I have to ask is, which events are important to the Christian belief? Does it matter if I don't believe that Jesus was born of a virgin? and if someone says "how can God be born of human sexual affairs" as if it is corrupt, I might say "it's not corrupt except you think it so, just as it is possible that it is corrupt that God was conceived through a human being even though a virgin". Is it important I believe in the virgin birth? Does it matter if I don't care, just as I don't care if Jesus was right handed or left handed. Does it matter if I don't believe the virgin birth. Okay, so it's in the bible right? But I subscribe to the belief that the bible was written or at least edited, maybe compiled selectively (since apocrypha is not in the bible) or something like that. Basically, I don't believe that the bible had a first incarnation, be it in Latin or Chinese, that was divinely sent from heaven in one piece, and that that incarnation of the bible is what I'm getting in stores now, albeit translated. The books of the bible were written by people. Maybe not the people it is named after. Maybe it is a bunch of records. That's what I think it is. Maybe some of the writings were divinely inspired, I don't know. Does Christian faith require me to believe so?
Is it alright for Christian faith if I don't believe that Jonah was in a whale's or fish's belly? Or if I believe only some portions of it, like maybe I think he was on a whale for 3 days and not in the whale? Or if I believe but with doubt that I never bother to resolve, like me believing that people of ancient China knew martial arts that let them jump really high and stand on thin branches of trees like in "Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon", but somewhat I doubt it, but can't be bother to research it?
What about if it's not about Jonah, but about whether the 10 commandments as we know it, as 10 bulletpoints so to speak were inscribed on rocks? Or what if the issue is about whether Moses split the sea?
Are those neccessary to believe, since they are in the bible? Let's say there was this man who believed in God and was under attack by cannibals. And i'm making this up, but say he prayed to God and received strength such that he fought the cannibals with his bare body, bare hands and feet, unable to be hurt by the weapons such as spears not because he evaded them but because he was somewhat invulnerable. And say he defeated them. If such a story existed, it is not in the bible and I don't need to believe it. In fact, I probably shouldn't believe it within the context of Christianity. I shouldn't think that such a man existed who prayed to the same God as I do who did all that in around 1000BC. But because Samson is in the bible, must I believe? Is it needed? David and Goliath?
Let's move on to stuff regarding Jesus. As said before, must I believe the virgin birth? Ok, must I believe he was baptized? Must I believe he walked on water? Must I believe he healed the sick and raised the dead? Must I believe his father's occupation? Must I believe he had 12 disciples? Must I believe he had the last supper and must I believe that we should keep up this ceremony because we should "do this is rememberance of me" ? Must I believe he died on the cross? Must I believe that his death cleansed me of my sins? Must I believe he rose again from the dead? Must I believe he was God? Must I believe in the Trinity and not in 3 separate gods or any other thing? Must I believe in Jesus's existence?
Which stuff are required?
I recently read someone saying that Herod died in 4BC. He criticized Christians for changing the dates of the birth of Christ to "make it fit". What this means to me is that a lot of things are unreliable. The date...is it neccessary to believe the dates to be of Christian faith? And when I mean of Christian faith, basically I mean that when I die I will, assuming Christianity true, be in Heaven and not Hell. Changing the dates, if really happened, could mean Christians had the dates wrong and adjusted, sounds good for them. But it doesn't refute Christianity. To me, that embarrasses me. But I'm looking...honestly speaking, the salvation of my soul. And it doesn't matter if the dates were messed up. Or if every thing about Christianity such as the story of Ruth is refuted, or if Paul was actually a group of people and not one person (I'm making this up)...etc. I want to know what is really neccessary, and I want to believe it. I want to. I don't want to be condemned to Hell.
"Do you believe that Jesus is the way, the truth and the light, that there is no other way to the Father except through Him, that He died for your sins and rose again on the third day?"
"Yes"
I think it's something like that right? So, does that correctly (in God's eyes) list the fundamental requirements to God and to Heaven? Belief in the existence of Jesus seems like one of them. Which parts of Jesus must I believe? Can I believe he existed, but don't believe that he changed water into wine, while believing the next few parts, that is he is the way truth light...etc?
Oh i forgot, there's usually the phrase "personal saviour". Of course, it seems like these words are chosen by people.
I'm guessing the main thing I need to believe in is that sin separated us from God, and Jesus died for my sins and opened the way. I acknowledge that, and I'm back with God again.
But that raises questions like "what about people who never heard of Jesus, but it's not that they rejected him?" With this, it seems like we are fitting God into the confines of our concept of justice if we should think that those people will go to Hell (let's not argue if Hell exists). If they can still be saved, then what happens to Jesus being the only way to salvation? Perhaps it is more complicated than that. But to say it is more complicated, to be fair, seems like human rationalizing, like trying to avoid the troublesome issue that God might want to let those people suffer for not happening to know Jesus. Again, the fact that God might not be just by our standards does not refute that this God does exist. Really, it does nothing.
Maybe another question along the same lines could be "what about the person who died while Jesus was on Earth, but was in China and didn't know about Jesus?"
Or "what about the person who passed Jesus on the street but didn't know he was God?"
Or "what about the person who was sitting in his town, heard about Jesus, some stories about him raising the dead and changing water into wine, and this person was fascinated, and he continued working his farm near the town, later died without accepting Jesus as Saviour because he didn't know he should"
You can imagine more scenarios for yourself.
Or, I think quite popularly, "what about the people who died before Jesus came?" They didn't have Jesus to believe in.
so on and so forth.
Maybe the answer lies in the personal relationship with God, to convince me that God exists. Well, there are a few things I want to be convinced of actually (that doesn't mean I don't believe it now, it just means I want to be convinced, like a girl who wants to be told she's loved). There's the issue of whether God exists. And there's the issue of whether the Christian faith (whatever is neccessary including beliefs in and rejections of certain things) is true.
Okay, a personal relationship...a personal experience is, as of yet, the most convincing thing I have to lead me to believe in Christianity. To be more precise, to believe in God, and since I pray to Him as Jesus and with the idea that He is the God in Christian scriptuers, I also am believing in the Christian faith. But I've never prayed to God as another god. I've never prayed to any other god or if they are the same god, then I've never prayed to him as though he were another god. Also, maybe the feelings of relationship with God is no more than chemicals. But then again, love, hate, maybe hunger or sleepiness may be just chemical reactions but that doesn't mean anything. It doesn't mean that if the feeling of a relationship with God can be observed and explained through brain scans, that the relationship doesn't exist. Faith, yes...I guess it will come to a point where you have to decide if you believe or not. "That's why it's called faith" right? Yes, but how should I handle this? Should I research on the science explanations and then decide on faith (I don't know how much science at the moment or future will support or scorn a decision on believing in the relationship with God, on a decision on "faith" but judging from the fact that the word used is "faith", i'm thinking science most likely will work against it. Isn't that interesting?) and then decide on faith? When I mean "should I?", I really mean, will this end up bringing me away from the salvation of my soul (if there is) and end up bringing me more likely to eternal damnation? "Should I?" also means "is it pleasing to God (assuming His existence)?". After all, it wouldn't be flattering at all if a son goes through a bunch of DNA tests just to convince himself (or futher convince himself) that his dad really is his father. But should the son do it? And then we know DNA tests aren't 100% accurate (in fact I think they are not accurate at all, well, not to 80% even i think, maybe even 50%) so similarly, science could be wrong on the issue of God in this analogy)
Okay, getting tired. What did I leave out? Probably a lot. Discussions have this nasty power of growing super huge to require research in too many things.
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
thinking about the past, about someone of the past, brings memories. sense of want. it's so addictive...but it's BAD!!!!! it's like a druggggg!!!!~~~~ ahhhH!
truth is, we all move...we had some times...and objects in the rear view mirror may appear closer than they are.
no! i can't obsess into this. i want to be like forest gump....always forward...no need...maybe no capacity for narcissistic thinking of the past...nonoonoo
think happy! we laugh. we forget. but then maybe i need something else to fill that space when it happens. so go go go...meaningless! good. meaningless is goodness...because than i shouldn't hold on to anything. a name, a past...without it you lose your identity. but it is just that. don't live in the past. ever
truth is, we all move...we had some times...and objects in the rear view mirror may appear closer than they are.
no! i can't obsess into this. i want to be like forest gump....always forward...no need...maybe no capacity for narcissistic thinking of the past...nonoonoo
think happy! we laugh. we forget. but then maybe i need something else to fill that space when it happens. so go go go...meaningless! good. meaningless is goodness...because than i shouldn't hold on to anything. a name, a past...without it you lose your identity. but it is just that. don't live in the past. ever
Friday, January 2, 2009
what makes something beautiful?
what makes a picture, a piece of art, a scene, a person's face...etc...what makes it good to the eyes and what makes it not?
is it a question of culture and society?
is there a innate default mentality, generalizable for all people to not be considered a cultural thing?
all the questions below the first aren't even questions i'm interested in. i had them written hoping it will help me remember the context of my first question if i forget it soon.
WHAT!
Read the alchemist today.
it's a really great book. good. live life simply. live for the present. it's all been what i've been pondering over recently. but when i hear "live for the present", i am reminded of some TV commercials...a white backdrop, lots of colors like in splashes of paint...red..green...blue...yellow...all vibrant....young people in jeans and colorful splashy t shirts jumping around, all so cool....."live in the present"! Ok, reminded is a wrong word, because i made that commercial image in my head, i think. but that's not what i'm thinking. i mean, live simply. all is meaningless. today is as good a die to die as any other
what makes a picture, a piece of art, a scene, a person's face...etc...what makes it good to the eyes and what makes it not?
is it a question of culture and society?
is there a innate default mentality, generalizable for all people to not be considered a cultural thing?
all the questions below the first aren't even questions i'm interested in. i had them written hoping it will help me remember the context of my first question if i forget it soon.
WHAT!
Read the alchemist today.
it's a really great book. good. live life simply. live for the present. it's all been what i've been pondering over recently. but when i hear "live for the present", i am reminded of some TV commercials...a white backdrop, lots of colors like in splashes of paint...red..green...blue...yellow...all vibrant....young people in jeans and colorful splashy t shirts jumping around, all so cool....."live in the present"! Ok, reminded is a wrong word, because i made that commercial image in my head, i think. but that's not what i'm thinking. i mean, live simply. all is meaningless. today is as good a die to die as any other
Thursday, January 1, 2009
Readings.
So my last entry on readings was on "The book of laughter and forgetting" by Milan Kundera. Okay. Why am i blogging on them? I'm trying to pen some thoughts down, perhaps a summary or just portions that I want to remember the book by, just so I don't entire forget I've read the book. I need to feel like I have accomplished something and added something to my living collection by reading the book. Do I enjoy reading or am I doing it to fulfill a goal? Sometimes I enjoy reading. Often in fact. I really liked Kundera's work until I was halfway through "The unbearable lightness of being" Then I found myself concentrating to find a way to enjoy the book. This, ironically, was perhaps what made me lose interest. Nonetheless I completed it. Do i remember it? Let's find out...
Also, I'm thinking of giving up Moby Dick (at least for now, maybe forever though)
Book of laughter and forgetting
all i remember is that the 2nd short story is called "mama" and it's about a wife who for some reason...well basically the whole story paints images and lets you see how she was thinking...and makes a threesome possible for her husband. a lot of other stuff. i guess books like these are hard to summarize because they are more about the psychology of the person at a time...and the thoughts can change, can contradict...just like in real life. i should read it again if i want to actually piece the puzzle together, though the very action of piecing it together may make me blind to seeing it from another angle or may make me see it in a way i never actually saw it when i read the book, and this new view of mind will be called the "clearer" view. clearer? don't know. maybe you just lose stuff along the way in life. but from dust to dust. not only do we not bring our possessions such sa my ipod with me when i die, but maybe i don't bring my thoughts...my prized thoughts...my worldview...my whatevers...maybe i lose my identity. is that a bad thing? sounds like it when phrased that way. well...we forget don't we? can't study so much and remember everything. gotta just do what's relevent so i can keep doing it and be fresh on that topic.
sigh.
then there's a story about "angels"
basically the main drift i get is that when you group together for some cause, you may find your whole direction going off-target but it won't even concern you. you (as a group, reinforcing each other maybe) just go...go...go....like aristocrats...la la la la la....into another world...and people left behind are like "what the frree....?" lalalalallalalalallalalal
the story about that waitress in the bar. oh. lost letters. she wants her letters back. but why? bla bla bla bla bla....so on and so forth...lalaaalallalaaa zzz...
MAN this book is just something to be read and enjoyed at the moment. i feel like i've learnt things. like it has increased my understanding the way you go into some new place and when you come back you feel like you have more knowledge...but of what? like i see the sunrise but i'm not feeling more knowledgable in the sense that OH now i saw the sun rise..OH the colors...OH...lalala...no...you just feel like you had a moment with life.
so i will stop on this book.
and i will not start writing about the other book.
as for
"The sorrows of young werther"
zzz..
guy goes to this town. meets this girl. warned not to like her. likes her. meets her fiance. he knows the guy like his fiance but they are friends. ah he can't take it anymore, he leaves and gets that government job. class issues. some problems arising from class. oh yah, good part about some old woman, left with nothing but the protection of her "class" because she is supposed, and is still considered as, middle class or slightly higher. otherwise she might be seen by people as just some old worthless uncared for 'beggar (she's not a beggar)' woman. anyway, finally, this guy leaves his job goes back to find the girl...lala....knows he can't be with her. decides to kill himself. bang. good game.
So my last entry on readings was on "The book of laughter and forgetting" by Milan Kundera. Okay. Why am i blogging on them? I'm trying to pen some thoughts down, perhaps a summary or just portions that I want to remember the book by, just so I don't entire forget I've read the book. I need to feel like I have accomplished something and added something to my living collection by reading the book. Do I enjoy reading or am I doing it to fulfill a goal? Sometimes I enjoy reading. Often in fact. I really liked Kundera's work until I was halfway through "The unbearable lightness of being" Then I found myself concentrating to find a way to enjoy the book. This, ironically, was perhaps what made me lose interest. Nonetheless I completed it. Do i remember it? Let's find out...
Also, I'm thinking of giving up Moby Dick (at least for now, maybe forever though)
Book of laughter and forgetting
all i remember is that the 2nd short story is called "mama" and it's about a wife who for some reason...well basically the whole story paints images and lets you see how she was thinking...and makes a threesome possible for her husband. a lot of other stuff. i guess books like these are hard to summarize because they are more about the psychology of the person at a time...and the thoughts can change, can contradict...just like in real life. i should read it again if i want to actually piece the puzzle together, though the very action of piecing it together may make me blind to seeing it from another angle or may make me see it in a way i never actually saw it when i read the book, and this new view of mind will be called the "clearer" view. clearer? don't know. maybe you just lose stuff along the way in life. but from dust to dust. not only do we not bring our possessions such sa my ipod with me when i die, but maybe i don't bring my thoughts...my prized thoughts...my worldview...my whatevers...maybe i lose my identity. is that a bad thing? sounds like it when phrased that way. well...we forget don't we? can't study so much and remember everything. gotta just do what's relevent so i can keep doing it and be fresh on that topic.
sigh.
then there's a story about "angels"
basically the main drift i get is that when you group together for some cause, you may find your whole direction going off-target but it won't even concern you. you (as a group, reinforcing each other maybe) just go...go...go....like aristocrats...la la la la la....into another world...and people left behind are like "what the frree....?" lalalalallalalalallalalal
the story about that waitress in the bar. oh. lost letters. she wants her letters back. but why? bla bla bla bla bla....so on and so forth...lalaaalallalaaa zzz...
MAN this book is just something to be read and enjoyed at the moment. i feel like i've learnt things. like it has increased my understanding the way you go into some new place and when you come back you feel like you have more knowledge...but of what? like i see the sunrise but i'm not feeling more knowledgable in the sense that OH now i saw the sun rise..OH the colors...OH...lalala...no...you just feel like you had a moment with life.
so i will stop on this book.
and i will not start writing about the other book.
as for
"The sorrows of young werther"
zzz..
guy goes to this town. meets this girl. warned not to like her. likes her. meets her fiance. he knows the guy like his fiance but they are friends. ah he can't take it anymore, he leaves and gets that government job. class issues. some problems arising from class. oh yah, good part about some old woman, left with nothing but the protection of her "class" because she is supposed, and is still considered as, middle class or slightly higher. otherwise she might be seen by people as just some old worthless uncared for 'beggar (she's not a beggar)' woman. anyway, finally, this guy leaves his job goes back to find the girl...lala....knows he can't be with her. decides to kill himself. bang. good game.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
