Absurdity

Do you ever get the feeling that life sometimes just doesn't make sense? That it is incongruous to the point of absurdity? That ridiculously tragic things happen seemingly by coincidence, ridiculous enough to make you laugh but tragic enough to make you cry?

Consider the following true story. A few years ago, a new library was under construction on my university campus. It was huge, new, big and beautiful. One day, a bunch of drunk college students decided to party at the top floor of the still unfinished building. One of them spied am opening which he believed was the entrance of a laundry chute. As alcohol can drive men to do strange things, he decided to embrace his inner wild self and jump in "for a ride". The "laundry chute" turned out to be a garbage chute and he was crushed to death beneath a garbage compactor. The library is now finished, and it is big and grand indeed, but nobody ever goes there anymore. It is now scheduled to be sold and possibly torn down, believed as it is to be "cursed" and haunted.

Consider also the following fictional, yet all too possibly true story. A man walks down a lonely street. He is a Harvard graduate with a major in astrophysics, a highly intelligent man and a potential Nobel Prize laureate. He is recently married, with a beautiful wife and baby. He has recently published a highly-acclaimed article in one of the best scientific journals. In short, he has everything going for him. Then a truck carrying a shipment of adult diapers turns the corner in a speeding rush and knocks him down. He dies on the spot, killed by a truckload of huge diapers.

Can you not sense the absurdity of it all? Can you not see the incongruity of the thrill the college boy experienced as he slid down the chute with the emotionless, unthinking, mechanical crushing force of the garbage compactor that takes his life? Or the ridiculousness of living a full life at one moment and being killed by, of all things, a truckload of adult diapers the next? Yes, one can laugh at the absurdity of it, and yet it is tragic enough that it is not funny at all.

Imagine the following conversation in heaven:

"Hey there, how did you die?"

"Me? Haha, I got crushed by vending machine when it fell over as I kicked it because it stole my money. That's pretty stupid, ain't it?"

"Not as stupid as mine. I was about to propose to my girlfriend when I choked on a meatball and suffocated to death."

"I was recording a parachuting course when I mistook the camera on my back for a parachute and jumped off the plane."

"I am a three-times Olympic gold medallist swimmer and I drowned in my bathtub."

"And I got hit by a truckload of diapers."

Funny, yes. How ridiculously absurd! And yet, the sobering truth is that the laws of nature are completely ignorant of mankind's thoughts, actions, and emotions. Nature doesn't care who we are. No matter how much we try to understand it or harness it or bend it to our will, the fact is that the physical world we live in is completely indifferent about whether we live or die. We call ourselves the masters of nature, but in reality all we do is adapt to a physical world that changes constantly regardless of our needs and wants. We expect nature to conform to our needs and wants: we tell ourselves that it MUST rain because the crops MUST grow, that it MUST stop raining because we WANT to go on a picnic, that it MUST snow because HELLO, it's CHRISTMAS! But time and tide wait for no man. That truckload of diapers speeding towards you isn't going to stop just because you're the President of the United States or a Nobel Laureate, it's going to hit you anyway because objects in motions stay in motion and the brakes are gone.

I will close with a scene from an anonymous comic strip. A man and his wife are having a picnic dinner under the vast, starry night shy. The woman looks up and says, "Don't you just feel so small and insignificant sometimes?" The man turns to the woman with an incredulous look in his eyes and replies, "Me, small? I've just been elected as the CEO of Barney and Co.!!"

Ironic, isn't it?

Ah, life. So absurd, yet so beautiful.

God, Death, and the Meaning of Life (part 3)

IV. What is the meaning of life?

Assuming that God exists and that we will survive our deaths, what then is the meaning of life? Should God’s existence and the possibility of an afterlife affect how we live? The second question can be answered without hesitation: yes. God’s existence and the possibility of an afterlife clearly matters in determining what sort of “world-view” (i.e. perspective on life) we adopt. This, however, brings us to the first question, which is rather more difficult to answer.

To truly answer that question, two things must first be established. The first is that there are two types of meaning: objective meaning and subjective meaning. Objective meaning is meaning that is universal and always true regardless of circumstances. In that sense, it cannot be dependent upon human subjective evaluation, and thus must be either inherent to the universe, or dependent upon some external agency other than human evaluation. Subjective meaning, on the other hand, is totally dependent upon human evaluation. Subjective meaning is meaning that is we determine for ourselves, or in other words, it is we who assign value and meaning to that particular object or action. Secondly, we must also establish the definition of meaning. What does it mean to say that something is meaningful? I believe that something that is meaningful is something that has value and is worthwhile. But more than that, anything meaningful must also fulfill a higher, lasting purpose. It can be a means to an end or an end in itself, but that end must achieve something of significance beyond the present. That is what meaning means to me.

With that it mind, what can be said about the meaning of life? Assuming the existence of God and the afterlife, I believe that meaning in life must be grounded in religion. This is because I believe that it is only in God that something can be objectively meaningful, as it does not seem possible for me that objective meaning can be found inherent in a universe that science has shown to be impersonal and indifferent. Since religion deals with the purposes and “will” of God, I believe that it is only through religion that we can find objective meaning in life. As such, those meaningful things must revolve around things that last beyond the life we live on earth, or in other words, that meaningful things and worthwhile pursuits are those that have or potentially have significance in the existence beyond this one. From my perspective, this involves the development of one’s character. For in a way, the only thing in which we can bring into the life beyond this one is ourselves. Thus, meaningful pursuits are those that develop one’s character in one way or another, such as in establishing relationships that develop kindness, courage, honesty, and love with other people. Also, I believe that the development of one’s character involves the development of one’s talents and gifts, as that would lead to a flourishing of one’s character. As for obedience to an objective moral code (such as those found in religion), I believe that that is also essential for the development of one’s character, for it seems obvious that good acts build one’s character whereas evil acts tear it down. There is thus a clear answer and reason for the question “Why be moral?” In short, I believe that the existence of God and the possibility of an afterlife mean that there is objective meaning in the development of one’s character and adherence to moral law, and thus what separates a meaningful life from one which lacks meaning is the extent to which the individual has developed his or her character.

Furthermore, I also believe that one who disagrees with my positions on God and the afterlife cannot give an adequate account of the meaning of life. Without God, one is condemned to search for meaning within a universe that is utterly impersonal and indifferent to the needs and wants of the individual. Without God, I do not believe that one can give a good reason for morality in the absence of true justice. Also, without the possibility of an afterlife, I believe that one would be forced to accept that life is, in the end, pointless, because everything physical must eventually come to an end. In short, I believe that without God and the possibility of an afterlife, one would be forced to accept cosmological pessimism (which states that nothing is meaningful).

There are, nonetheless, a number of worthwhile objections that can be raised against my argument. The strongest of these, in my opinion, claim that life can be subjectively meaningful. Although supporters of this objection agree that a universe without God is devoid of any objective meaning, they contend that by assigning value to different things, we can forge our own meaning and live meaningful lives. Through subjective evaluation, man can give color and light to an otherwise neutral universe and thus find life worthwhile. In that way, transient things such as knowledge, art, love, and work can greatly enrich one’s life and thus make it meaningful. In short, the objection claims that there is no need for a God or an afterlife to make life meaningful, for little things such as a beautiful song or a loving touch is sufficient to make life worthwhile and joyful.

To its credit, I believe that the objection successfully establishes that one can find subjective meaning in life, and this is not insignificant. Ultimately, however, I believe that subjective meaning cannot give true meaning to life because it will still ultimately fade away. In the physical world, in the future (say one hundred million years from now) it will eventually be as if one had never existed regardless of how significant the things we find subjectively meaningful (such as love) seem to us now. Thus, subjectively meaningful things to me lack the lasting significance for true meaning if God and the afterlife do not exist.

In conclusion, I believe that the true meaning of life is found in the objective meaning that only God can provide. The meaning of life is therefore inextricably linked with the existence of God and the afterlife, and can be found in the development of one’s character in preparation for the afterlife.

V. Conclusion

To sum up, I believe that I have provided a sufficient explanation as to why I believe that God exists, why I believe that it is possible to exist after death, and why the meaning of life can be found in the development of one’s character. I nonetheless have to concede that my arguments fall largely to personal opinion and are thus non-conclusive. As such, I continue to believe that a measure of faith is needed, for if all the mysteries of the universe were revealed, life would be a boring place indeed.

References

1. Craig, William Lane. “The Kalam Cosmological Argument.” Philosophy of Religion: Selected Readings. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.

2. Edwards, Paul. “Introduction: The Objections to Materialism.” Immortality. New York: Prometheus Books, 1997.

3. Edwards, Paul. “The dependence of consciousness on the brain.” Immortality. New York: Prometheus Books, 1997.

4. Jackson, Frank. “Perception: A Representative Theory.” Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977.

5. Mackie, J.L. “Critique of the Cosmological Argument.” Philosophy of Religion: Selected Readings. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.

6. Nagel, Thomas. “The View From Nowhere.” New York: Oxford University Press, 1986.

7. Reichenbach, Bruce. “Cosmological Argument.” September 2004, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/#3.4

8. Reichenbach, Bruce. “The Cosmological Argument.” Philosophy of Religion: Selected Readings. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.

9. Smith, Quentin. “A Defense of a Principle of Sufficient Reason.” Metaphilosophy. Vol. 26, No. 1 & 2 (1995): 97-106.

10. Klemke, E.D. "Leaving without Appeal: An affirmative philosophy for life." The Meaning of Life. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.

God, Death, and the Meaning of Life (part 2)

III. Is it possible to exist after death?

It is an immutable fact of life that we must all one day die. Our bodies will grow old, stop functioning, and eventually decay. Even if science manages to halt aging and cure every disease in the world, life in its physical form will eventually come to end when the sun dies (or if that is not enough, at least when the universe suffers “heat death”), barring some miraculous intervention by God. Is it possible, then, to continue to exist after death? My answer would have to be a definitive yes. This is because I believe that we human beings have an immaterial component (the mind or soul) which is the essence of who we are, and thus the death of the body does not cause the person to cease to exist.

That said, to establish the possibility of an afterlife, we must first discuss what it means to be a person. In other words, we must first establish the basis for our identity as a personal being (the ubiquitous “Who am I?” question). There are three possibilities. As a person, we are either only our minds (or souls), or only our bodies, or some combination of both. To say that we are only minds is to say that our bodies are distinct from our minds, and that our identities (our sense of self) are solely based upon what we perceive as our minds or souls, which means that our bodies are merely “containers” for our souls, which form the entirety of who we are. This theory is known as dualism or the “container” theory. On the opposite end is the idea that we are identical solely with our bodies, and that our minds are merely a part of our bodies and thus indistinct and inseparable. This is known as materialism. The third theory is known as the mind-body composite theory, which states that each of us are partly composed of a living, organic body and partly composed of an immaterial soul. Only one of these three possibilities can be true.

I am personally in favor of the first theory, dualism, which states that the mind and the body are distinct from each other, that we are identical with our minds, and that the body is merely a “container” or “seat” for the mind. To be more specific, I believe in dualistic interactionism, which maintains that there are causal connections between mind and body in both directions.³ This is because there are a number of significant differences between mental and physical events that seem irreconcilable. Firstly, mental events have a subjective quality that physical events do not. For example, one can ask what a burned finger feels like, what the blueness of the sky looks like, or what nice music sounds like.⁷ Also, one can know everything there is to know about the physical aspect of something (say, the taste of ice-cream) and yet still not truly know what it means to actually experience it (a mental event).⁵ Besides that, many mental events are directed towards an object or a “target” in a way that physical events seem unable to account for (this characteristic is technically known as “intentionality”).³ For example, one can think that the lemonade he or she is drinking tastes good, yet the concurrent neuronal activity going on inside that person’s brain says nothing in itself about the taste of the drink. It thus seems that physical events and conditions differ from mental acts because they are unable to indicate anything beyond themselves the way mental acts can. Last but not least, there is the question of the immaterial nature of mental events. For example, one cannot directly observe anger in another person. One can only see the effects the anger causes on the person (an increase in neural activity, perhaps, or a change in demeanor). It thus seems obvious that mental events are immaterial (i.e. unobservable) in a way that physical events are not. To sum it up, these four points indicate that the physical and mental are distinct from each other, and thus it can be concluded that the body and mind are also similarly separate

Assuming that the “container” theory is true, our continued existence after death seems to me to be highly plausible. For if the body is merely the “seat” of the mind, the mind’s existence will not be affected by the death of the body. Here I would like to say that I do not believe that a bodily resurrection is necessary for an afterlife. It is sufficient for me that my mind continues to exist, for my mind is me.

Nonetheless, there are a number of significant objections to the idea of the mind as wholly separate from the body. Chief among these is the mind-body dependence argument. The mind-body dependence argument attempts to disprove the idea that the mind and body are distinct by looking at the effect of physical events on the mind. Specifically, the mind-body dependence argument argues that there is a direct correlation between damage to the brain and damage to the mind. For example, brain diseases such as Alzheimer’s alter the mental capacities (memory, cognitive thinking, perception, etc.) and behavior of the victim. As the disease gets progressively worse, the degeneration of mental capacities accelerates and the changes in behavior become more and more significant. Supporters of the mind-body dependence argument argue that this indicates that the mind is ontologically dependent upon the brain (meaning that the mind is wholly dependent on the brain for its existence), and thus the mind is not distinct and separate from the body such as claimed by supporters of the “container theory”. This argument is also used against the notion of disembodied survival (that is, survival beyond the death of the body in the form of a mind or soul) by claiming that the mind, because it is ontologically dependent upon the brain, will cease to exist the moment the brain dies.

Ultimately, however, I believe that this objection fails to conclusively refute the theory that the mind and body are separate and distinct. This is because it is not necessarily true that the mind is ontologically dependent upon the brain despite the seeming correlation between damage to one’s brain and the loss of mental capacities. The evidence merely shows that the mind and the body are inextricably linked in the physical world. It is thus still possible that the body and mind are metaphysically distinct, and that the mind merely uses the body as an “instrument” to express itself in the physical world (meaning that the mind is merely functionally and not ontologically dependent upon the brain). The “container” theory is thus still a viable theory regarding human nature and the possibility of an afterlife.

In short, I believe that it is possible for us to continue to exist after we die because our minds are distinct and not ontologically dependent upon our bodies, and thus will continue to survive beyond our physical deaths. Since I believe that we are our minds (in other words, we are identical with our souls), it follows that we will also survive the deaths of our bodies.

God, Death, and the Meaning of Life (part 1)

In this and the next few posts, I'm going to put up excerpts from my final paper for my Philosophy class in which I establish and defend my views on the existence of God, the possibility of an afterlife, and the meaning of life. I do not expect anyone to read it all or even to fully understand them; they are more as reminders to me of what I believe in so that five years from now I can look back and see how my views have changed. Nonetheless, any questions or points of dispute are extremely welcome. Here goes...

I. Introduction

Is there a God? Is it possible for us to continue to exist after we die? What is the meaning of life? These three questions are, in my opinion, some of the most important questions that one should ask his or her self. Why? Because these three questions are integral to determining how we live. Answering these three questions allows us to have a specific “world view” that can guide us through life. That being the case, I personally believe that God does exist, that an afterlife is possible, and that the meaning of life is found in developing one’s character as much as he or she is able in accordance with objective moral laws. I will thus proceed to explain as best as I can the basis for my beliefs, and defend it from what I believe are the most serious objections to my arguments.

II. Does God exist?

There are three main arguments for the existence of God: the ontological argument, the cosmological argument, and the teleological argument. The ontological argument argues that we can prove God’s existence based on reason alone. The cosmological argument, on the other hand, attempts to justify God’s existence by attempting to prove that the universe has a first cause. Finally, the teleological argument argues that the universe exhibits design by an intelligent being. Of the three arguments, it is my opinion that the strongest argument is the cosmological argument. Of the other two, the teleological argument is possibly viable, although not as convincing, whereas the ontological argument (in my opinion) fails because it confuses metaphysical necessity with logical necessity. Nonetheless, I believe that the cosmological argument alone provides sufficient reason to believe in the existence of God.

I will begin first of all with the premise that the universe had a beginning. In my opinion, Big Bang cosmology has provided sufficient evidence to believe that the universe has a finite age (specifically around 14 billion years old). Also, the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that if the universe had always existed, it would have already suffered “heat death” (which is a state of cosmic equilibrium in which matter no longer has enough thermodynamic free energy to sustain motion or life). The universe thus has not always existed, and had a beginning. This tells us two things. Firstly, it suggests that the universe was caused by something that preceded the universe, for it is not possible that something should come from absolutely nothing. Secondly, because the universe did not always exist, we can coherently entertain the notion of metaphysical worlds in which the universe does not exist. This means that the universe is contingent (it might not have existed) as opposed to necessary (something which, if it exists, it could not have failed to exist). The moderate Principal of Sufficient Reason (PSR) states that for every contingently existing object, there is a causally sufficient explanation as to why that object exists rather than not. This means that there must be a causally sufficient explanation for the existence of the universe. This explanation must involve a necessary being because contingent beings alone cannot be causally sufficient for the existence of the universe (for there is no contingent object that is not either part of the universe or the universe itself, and contingent objects cannot logically be generated or sustained by itself or a part of itself). The universe is therefore ontologically (metaphysically) dependent upon a necessary being. In other words, the existence of the universe is wholly dependent upon a necessary being that preceded the universe. Since the universe exists, it can be concluded that that necessary being must also exist.

How then does this “necessary being” relate to God? Well, the necessary being which is causally responsible for the existence of the universe must provide either a personal or natural explanation for the existence of the cosmos. A personal explanation is an explanation derived from the intentional action of a person, and thus requires no other explanation, whereas a natural explanation is an explanation based on naturally existing laws, precepts, processes, and conditions. Since prior to the existence of the universe there was no space, no time, no beings related in space and time, and no principles describing their regular patterns of behavior (in other words, there were no antecedent physical conditions), the necessary being causally responsible for the existence of the universe can only provide a personal explanation. It follows from that that this necessary being must also be a personal being (that is, a being who knows and acts), and not some mindless “force” or “power”. This personal being is God.

This argument for the existence of God is, of course, not infallible. The chief problem is that it makes an assumption that the atheist is free to reject. This assumption is that the Principle of Sufficient Reason is always true, which may or may not be the case. The PSR is not true a priori, which means that it is not a conceptual or deductible truth (in other words, it is not automatically true). The PSR is merely derived from our experiences in the world, and thus may not be always true. In applying the PSR to the argument, one must assume that what is true of some events is true of all events, thus possibly committing the Fallacy of Composition (which is to incorrectly assume that the whole has the same properties as its parts). Moreover, physics has suggested the some things, such as virtual particles that begin to exist in a quantum mechanical vacuum, begin to exist without a sufficient reason.¹⁰ This is known as quantum indeterminacy, and if true, would refute the assumption that the PSR is always true. It is thus still possible that there is simply no reason why the world exists.

I nonetheless believe that the cosmological argument still succeeds despite the objections raised against it. In particular, I believe that it is still reasonable to believe that the PSR is always true because the principle that everything contingent requires a sufficient explanation is constantly confirmed by our experiences, and indeed is used to make sense of those experiences. Just as it is possible for something that may be true to not be true, it is also possible for something that may not be true to actually be true, and in my opinion the fact that the PSR is constantly confirmed by our senses is sufficient reason to believe that the PSR is always true. As for the theory of quantum indeterminacy, it is as such an argument from ignorance, and there may very well be underlying reasons for the existence of virtual particles in a quantum mechanical vacuum that we do not know of, although I must concede that if it is ever conclusively proven that quantum indeterminacy is true, my argument would fail in its entirety. Nonetheless, as the matter stands, I believe that the PSR is most probably true (or at least, more likely than not), and so the cosmological argument remains viable.

In conclusion, I believe that the cosmological argument provides sufficient reason for believing in the existence of God. It must be conceded, however, that the cosmological argument is not conclusive; it merely demonstrates that it is possible (in my opinion probable) that God exists.

Today I learned...

...that there's no such thing as a climax community. Ecosystems are continuously adapting to the last distubance in the environment. Hah, take that, Form 4 Biologi Chapter 9!

Snow!

And snow it has... finally! We were hit by a cold front yesterday, and when I stepped out the door of my dorm this morning, I saw tiny white flakes floating in the air, coating everything.

There's something about snow that makes me happy. Something in the whiteness and purity of it that makes me smile even when my teeth are chattering. Perhaps it's the glimpse of beauty when the rest of nature seems cold and dreary. Perhaps its the sense of 'anointing' upon an otherwise barren landscape. Or maybe I'm just feeling good today. =)

Truly, though, it's small things like this that makes life beautiful. The first snowfall of winter, the first spring rain, the colour of the leaves in the autumn, the sight of turkey vultures soaring in the summer, things so perfectly natural yet so beautifully real. The poets were right. Life is not worth living until you're alive.

From you have I been absent in the spring,
When proud-pied April, dress'd in all his trim,
Hath put a spirit of youth in every thing,
That heavy Saturn laughed and leapt with him.
Yet nor the lays of birds, nor the sweet smell
Of different flowers in odour and in hue,
Could make me any summer's story tell,
Or from their proud lap pluck them where they grew:
Nor did I wonder at the lily's white,
Nor praise the deep vermilion in the rose;
They were but sweet, but figures of delight,
Drawn after you, you pattern of all those.
Yet seemed it winter still, and you away,
As with your shadow I with these did play.

-William Shakespeare, Sonnet 98-

Sovereign

Thou sovereign of my heart treasured in the deepest fastness of my chest, in the fullness of my thought, there ... unknown divinity!

Oh, can I really believe the poet's tales, that when one first sees the object of one's love, one imagines one has seen her long ago, that all love like all knowledge is remembrance, that love too has its prophecies in the individual.

It seems to me that I should have to possess the beauty of all girls in order to draw out a beauty equal to yours; that I should have to circumnavigate the world in order to find the place I lack and which the deepest mystery of my whole being points towards, and at the next moment you are so near to me, filling my spirit so powerfully that I am transfigured for myself, and feel that it's good to be here.

– Søren Kierkegaard, Journals

Facebook bumper stickers

Ok, maybe that last one wasn't PG-13, but you gotta appreciate the humor. *chuckles*

Come what may

In the dark I searched
In the light I saw
Even without much
I believed in it all

In the past I hid
In the now I show
Then I knew I did
Now I know what for

Oh, what a vain hope it was!
But now I know it was never lost

You gave me a reason to smile
You just brightened my day
And now I can't wipe
That silly grin from my face

It's been really quite awhile
But now I've reason to say
There's meaning to life
I can see through the haze

Tomorrow's a brand new day
Come what may
Come what may

Living triumphantly

"Once a man from Syria led a camel through the desert; but when he came to a dark abyss, the camel suddenly, with teeth showing and eyes protruding, pushed the unsuspecting paragon of the camel-driving profession into the pit. The clothes of the Syrian were caught by a rosebush, and he was held suspended over the pit, at the bottom of which an enormous dragon was waiting to swallow him. Moreover, two mice were busily engaged in chewing away roots of the already sagging plant. Yet, in this desperate condition, the Syrian was thralled to the point of utmost contentment by the rose which adorned the bush and wafted its fragrance into his face."

-Leo Tolstoy-

Now THAT is what it really means to stop and smell the roses.

Who am I?

Am I the face I see in the mirror? Am I the person I think I see? Am I that short dude with weird hair and an uncertain look who stares back a me? Am I the guy who pumps his fists in the air and yells just because he can and because he think no one can hear him? Is that really me I see?

Am I the person whose eyes I look through, whose mouth tastes foul in the morning, whose smelly feet stink up the whole room? Am I the man who can't bear the taste of celery, whose mouth waters at the smell of durian, whose nose gets blocked every time he sneezes? Am I the guy who loves the smell and feel of rain, who walks ten miles in a thunderstorm just because the wetness makes him happy? Is that me?

Am I the person whose thoughts run through my head, faster than I can catch it? Am I the little boy who wakes up every morning feeling overawed, but for the life of him he just can't remember what he dreamed? Am I him whose eyes get drawn by a frolicking squirrel, who can only stand in awe at a flock of soaring turkey vultures? Am I he who feels what he writes but fails to write what he feels? Am I he who dreams forgotten dreams, brilliant but ephemeral, high-sounding but short-lived? Is that me or not me?

Am I the guy whose heart thunders so crazily in moments of suspense? Am I he who stumbles over words and stutters when he faces a crowd? Am I the person who feels so much and yet so little? Who thinks he knows and yet knows not what he thinks? Am I he whose blood races, whose mind goes blank, who feels such joy and such despair? Is that or is that not me?

Who is that man whose thoughts I think, whose emotions I feel, whose eyes I see through? Who is that man whose burdens I carry, whose sorrows I wallow in, whose joys uplift me? Who is that man I see in the mirror, staring back at me? Who is he, indeed?

And all this time I've been asking the wrong questions.


"I am not what I am" - William Shakespeare, Othello

Logic

Premise 1: If A, then B
Premise 2: A ok.
Conclusion: B. Duh.

It follows that..

It follows that...

From this we can conclude that...

The logical consequence of this is...

From this we can infer that...

This means that...

So...

Yeah, so...

Duh.


On a colder note, the weather is now.... cold.

Duh.

Significant?

Intelligence. Beauty. Caste. Race. Birth. Country. State. Nobility. Education. Manners. They all have one thing in common: overvalued-ness.

Why? Because choice is an integral part of pride. Because pride without choice is an illusion, or merely superficial, like a little child trying to act like an adult.

I can't choose my country. I can't choose where I'm born. Thus I have no inherent right to take pride in my place of birth. I have no right to say I'm a better person than you just because my country is better than yours. Thus patriotism is misplaced.

I can't choose my intelligence. It doesn't matter whether it's nature or nurture, there's no room for personal choice in either. So what if I have an IQ way higher than yours? I didn't choose my genetic disposition. Neither did I choose the environment I grew up in. I didn't work for my intelligence, I merely developed it as a result of factors beyond my control. Thus I'm no better or worse than you are just because I'm smarter or dumberer than you. Pride in intelligence is also misplaced.

I didn't choose the way I look. I didn't pick it out of a list or a book. I didn't arrange my chromosomes to express the way they do. So why should I take pride in my body or the way I look? (Unless, of course, I had a silicon implant or plastic surgery... but that's a different story.) So beauty is overrated too.

The same goes for much of what we all value. Noble birth? Pah, so what? You're the King of England? I couldn't care less, you didn't work for it. You're "untouchable"? Nah, you didn't choose it. And so what if you're white or black or yellow or brown or even blue? It's not as if you're Michael Jackson. You didn't choose it, you didn't work for it, you didn't earn it. It simply doesn't matter.

I respect Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, and all those who chose to be who they are. But I refuse to bow down to Prince Charles or the DYMM Seri Paduka Baginda Yang di-Pertuan Agong Whateverhisnameisnow because they didn't earn their authority. And I refuse to give you credit or be intimidated by you just because you have a higher IQ or have looks to die for or are from a "superior" race.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that respect isn't inherent. It is a consequence of our actions. So don't live your pride. Earn it.

***

"Why, Mr. Anderson, why? Why do you persist? Why get up? Why fight on against the inevitable? Why, why, why??"

"Because I choose to."

-The Matrix Revolutions-

***

Tagged...

And here I was thinking I'd never do this...

LIST OUT THE TOP 5 PRESENTS YOU WISH FOR:

1. A brain that can function without having to sleep.
2. A crystal globe that can see into the future.
3. A clear purpose.
4. A personal heating device.
5. Telepathy.

LIST OUT THE REASONS FOR YOUR CHOICES:

1. So I don't have to sleep. Duh.
2. So I can see into the future. Duh.
3. Duh.
4. It's cold. Duh.
5. So "nobody ain't never gonna be lonely no more".


WHO TAGGED YOU: Shaun and Stella

5 IMPRESSIONS OF HIM/HER:

Shaun:
1. Caring
2. Wise
3. Intelligent
4. Idiosyncratic
5. A lady's man. =P

Stella:
1. Interesting
2. Enigmatic
3. Pretty
4. Nice
5. Complex (in a good way) =)


MOST MEMORABLE THINGS HE/SHE HAS DONE FOR YOU:

Shaun: Beating me in the General Knowledge SAMAR Quiz. =P And yodelling in falsetto. *chuckles*

Stella: Murdering me with those dark eyes and super-long eyelashes of hers in exasperation. (Her exasperated "stare" is deadly, so exasperators beware!)


THE MOST MEMORABLE WORDS HE/SHE HAS SAID TO YOU:

Shaun: "I'd die for you."/"You take 20 damage. You die."

Stella: "Urrrrhhhhhh!!!!" (Her moan/groan/scream of fustration before unleashing that deadly exasperated stare)


IF HE/SHE BECOMES YOUR LOVER , YOU WILL:

Shaun: Exasperate Stella so that she'll kill me with her stare.

Stella: Grin exasperatingly at her, ditto the above.


IF HE/SHE BECOMES YOUR LOVER , THEY HAVE TO IMPROVE ON WILL BE:

Shaun: Gender. And sexual orientation, of course.

Stella: Her killing stare.


IF HE/SHE BECOME YOUR ENEMY , YOU WILL:

Shaun: Lose 20 hitpoints and die.

Stella: Die for obvious reasons. (Her stare, duh!)


IF HE/SHE BECOME YOUR ENEMY , THE REASON WILL BE:

Shaun: A grammatical mistake.

Stella: Becoming immune to her stare.


MOST LOVED INVENTION (does not need to be technologically advanced):
The English language.


WHAT DO YOU DESPISE THE MOST:
Despise. (Note: It's "despise" the noun, not the verb. I despise despise. Get it?)


I refuse to tag anyone else. Let sleeping dogs lie.

Guilty

From PostSecret.

It

Do you feel it? Creeping slowly inside you, howling and screaming and threatening to pull your heart into pieces? Making your skin tingle and your face flush, so that you can barely stand to look yourself in the mirror? Do you feel it?

Do you see it? When you rub your red eyes in sleepiness, trying to make the blurriness go away? How it causes you to look down, and not around, unable to meet other people's eyes? When you close your eyes and turn away, and bury your head in the shoulder of the person next to you, horrified, afraid? Do you see it?

Do you hear it? Closing your ears and screaming, trying to make the whispering voice in your head go away? Drowning yourself in music, trying to lose yourself in someone else's screams and tears? Or in the silence so loud that you hide under your bed? Do you hear it?

Do you smell it? When you choke and cough and sneeze, subsiding into an emotional mess? When you take a deep breath, feeling emotions burn the house down inside you? When you sniff the cool wind, trying to smell that woebegone smell of life? Do you smell it?

Can you taste it? That bitter taste in your mouth when you know he/she doesn't care? Or the sickly sweet taste of knowing that the beautiful past is forever gone? Or the acidic, sour tang of life clobbering you over the head? Can you taste it?

Can you sense it? That foreboding feeling of doom? That ominous thunder in the air? That electrifying sense of terror and awe? That sense of freedom unachievable, when the shackles ring in the darkness? Or feeling hidden eyes watching your every step, trailing you, haunting you, the ghosts of Christmas past? Can you sense it?

Do you feel it? Do you see it? Do you hear it? Do you smell it? Can you taste it? Can you sense it?

It is the most beautiful thing in the world.

Happyness

I can't seem to define it. Is it a state of mind? Or an emotion? Or the warm fuzzy feeling of being around people you know and like? A state of blissful ignorance? Escapism or a rejection of reality? What is happiness, really?

Are you happy when you're content? Or are you content when you're happy? Is happiness a result of success and achievement? Or by embracing a set of religious ideals, i.e. "divine" joy? Or when love is found and recognized, and drowned by the swirl of passion?

What's so great about happiness anyway? It is inherently a temporal event. Constant happiness requires a constant renewal of reasons to be happy. Otherwise those reasons fade into meaninglessness. Its like a fire, which burns up the fuel that drives it. And all it ultimately does is provide a contrast for when the fire is out and you're miserably shivering in your boots.

At the same time it is more than a fire. Fire can run on the same type of fuel over and over again. Happiness is rather more greedy. Once you give happiness a reason for being, you'll have to give it a better reason the next time. And and even better one the next time over. And in this world, there are only so many reasons you can give. A finite world begets finite happiness.

Fie, Happiness, fie! Go prey upon some other sad soul. Better to be content, says I.

"I've found a reason for me
To change who I used to be
A reason for all that I do
And the reason is you."

I wish.

Brr....

Its getting cold over here.

*stamps feet and rubs hands together*

Free Burma

Leave Britney Alone!!

Th hottest video on YouTube at the moment, apparently. Weird.

I wish...

...I knew how to create stuff like that.

Bruises....

....are what you get when you play paintball. Guaranteed.

Hahaha

This has to be seen with the sound on to get the effect it deserves. =P

A discourse on religion/philosophy

Warning: EXTREMELY long post ahead!


This is a repost of a discussion that a bunch of us had in Multiply in reply to Javier's blog post. Rather esoteric, but interesting nonetheless.

***

sjsdm wrote on Sep 23 But if God loved us, why let the Devil corrupt Man unto sin?

sjsdm wrote on Sep 23 For my part, salvation comes from within, not without. The only person who can save you is yourself, not some omnipotent being. After all, does not choice govern the mechanism of salvation?

multipleimages wrote on Sep 24 Romans 9:17 "I have appointed you for the very purpose of displaying my purpose of displaying my power in you, and so that my fame might spread throughout the earth." Romans 9:22 God has every right to exercise His judgement and His power, but He also has the right to be very patient with those who are the objects of His judgement and are fit only for destruction. For the first question, I admit that I myself have questioned God so. But in my humble opinion, if Man had not sinned, what is God gonna do? And, God gave Man free will and choice, God commanded Man to obey Him, but Man decided to disobey God. So I don't think it's God's fault that Man sinned. It is true, salvation is through choice. But, salvation is a gift from God. It is not obtained through our own good deeds. Ephesians 3:9 Salvation is not a reward for the good things we have done, so no one of us can boast about it. Yeah, we must choose to be saved, but God chose us first. Ultimately, it's up to you to believe. I stand by what I believe in, and I extend to you the same invitation to accept Christ. Revelations 3:20 Look! Here I stand at the door and knock. If you hear me calling and open the door, I will come in, and we will share a meal as friends. God bless you.

relativedefinitions wrote on Sep 24, edited on Sep 24 Hehe. Why let the Devil corrupt man unto sin? It all goes back to free will. In giving Man free will, there had to be an alternative choice, in this case, evil. Only with an alternative choice can love be manifested in the highest degree. Say, if I didn't have a choice, BUT to love God, I don't think that can be categorized as true love, right? It's not like I had a choice! I was MADE to love Him. Imagine a girl telling you this," Hey Shaun, I love you - because I had to. No other guy mah." Ouch. I don't think God would enjoy this kind of love from His creations. I don't think it's even called love. xP But if I had the choice to choose whether I would follow Him or the Devil, and I decided that I would follow Him, no matter how appealing the other side seems to me, that's what I'd call true love. So it all goes back to free will. Evil had to exist so that true love could as well. Paradoxical, but yeah. Our faith is a reasonable faith, you know? =)

sjsdm wrote on Sep 24 "so that my fame might spread throughout the earth." " Why would an omnipotent being concern Himself with self-aggrandizement? Smells of the Sin of Pride. Is not God above all these? And are you saying that God let Man sin so that He would have something to do? To create lesser beings to worship Him is tantamount to self-aggrandizement, fulfilling one's desire to love and be loved, and again, close to the Sin of Pride because it fuels the ego as one is worshipped. As I see it, any higher power should not pride themselves on having lesser beings worship them. How different is that from an egotistical human who builds a personality cult? Is this not ego, even from a higher power? I don't deny that it isn't God's fault that Man sinned, however, refer to the previous argument, because this one is merely supporting the previous paragraph. Additionally, I'd agree with Ephesians that salvation is not achieved through good deeds. However, salvation, in my beliefs, is achieved through gradually purging one's self of attachments. If God chose you, why are you not Jewish? As I understand it, God's chosen people were the 144, 000 Jews, which I add have given rise to many controversies. Though I may add that were the Rapture to occur, it would probably be the Fundamentalists that'll enter Heaven. Strictly speaking, wouldn't a firm, unyielding adherent to the Bible be accepted in Heaven provided s/he has done as the Bible says? What of the other groups, the Protestants? The Roman Catholics? Strictly speaking again, they would not be accepted to Heaven because a majority of them barely subscribe to the Bible, unlike the hardcore Fundamentalists. And what of non-believers who still lead good lives and perform good deeds? Just because they don't believe in Him they are also damned to Hell? If they were pernicious and despicable perhaps I'd understand the following punishment.

pulsarfr3ak wrote on Sep 24 God doesn't need us to "fuel his ego". The concept of God needing anything goes against the very idea of an omnipotent God. Thus, if we take that God does not need anything, we can safely assume that He didn't let us sin just so that He would have "something to do". He didn't create us so that we would love Him or worship Him, instead He created us because He loved us. Is it not better to have existed rather than to not have existed at all? Remember that God has to be omniscient, thus He knew us before we came into existence, thus out of love He brought us into existence. If a mother truly loved her son, would she not want him to exist? Would she not give birth to him, even though she knows that life is far from perfect? How would "purging yourself from attachments" equate to salvation? Salvation inherently presupposes damnation, and I don't really think that being attached to things is anything like Hell. I'd say that "purging yourself from attachment" is more personal achievement than salvation. And isn't personal achievement ultimately meaningless because it doesn't help anyone? The idea of being God's "chosen" is rather complex, and yes, it did originate with the the concept that God chose the Israelites to "save the world". Yet being "chosen" does not mean that He loved them, or us, more than anyone else. It simply means that we have been "chosen" for a task, or a purpose. And that "task" or "purpose" would mean different things to different people. Thus the 144,000 Jews were "chosen" for a particular task, but this does not mean that they are the only people that God "chose". The Christian doctrine holds that those who enter heaven are not those who "strictly adhere to the Bible", but rather those who are true disciples of God/Christ. What being a "true disciple" means is, again, open to interpretation, but the point is, adhering to something does not mean you believe in it. The term "non-believer" is also rather vague and open to interpretation. But the basic doctrine is that EVERYONE is "pernicious and despicable" because everyone sins. And living good lives and doing good deeds do not erase those sins. And that's where Jesus comes in. So those people are not "damned to Hell for not believing in Him", rather its more of a case of falling overboard and ignoring the thrown lifeline. The belief is that we are ALL "damned to Hell", except that Jesus saves. And so it is our choice whether to accept that lifeline or not.

multipleimages wrote on Sep 24 Okay, to provide some answers to Shaun's questions... Romans 9:17 "I have appointed you for the very purpose of displaying my purpose of displaying my power in you, and so that my fame might spread throughout the earth." That's the New Living Translation version. (NLT is considered a more contemporary version.) I looked up the New International Version (more widely read and used), it says "name" instead of "fame". So here, it's a matter of interpretation. I admit my weakness here. Since the Bible was originally in Hebrew and Aramaic and Greek, the meanings of the words are sometimes lost in translation. I'm guessing the original word meant something different than the English word "fame". But based on my interpretation, God really is asking for us believers to make Him famous. He asks for glory - why not give it to Him? He deserves glory, and in my opinion, there's nothing wrong with Him demanding from me (or from us) what He deserves. God is so mighty, so wonderful, so amazing. All glory belongs to Him. So I repeat - there's nothing wrong with Him asking for what He deserves. In the Bible, the Jews were God's chosen people, they were the special people. God's plan for salvation was originally for the Jews. But the Jews didn't obey. So God accepted the Gentiles as well. Mark 7:27-29 Jesus told her (a Caanite/Gentile/non-Jew woman), "First I should help my own family, the Jews. It isn't right to take food from the children and to throw it to the dogs." She replied, "That is true, Lord, but even the dogs under the table are given some crumbs from the children's plates." "Good answer!" He said. Let me explain about the term "dogs" here. Of course in modern times, to call a person a dog is insulting and abasing. But back in those days, dogs are not the stray kind; dogs are looked upon as servants of their master. They are seen as faithful servants who do service to their human masters. So, the dogs are not considered low-class. The humans come first, but the dogs are not left out. Humans come first. Dogs, second. The "dogs" can symbolise the Gentiles because the Jews came first. And about non-believers who lead good lives and perform good deeds... Man is imperfect, and at some point in everyone's lives, each and every of us are sure to sin, to make a mistake, to fall short of God's glorious standard. No matter how small that mistake is, sin is still sin, and sin means separation from God. Romans 6:23 "For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life through Christ Jesus our Lord." My answers might not satisfy you, my answers might seem biased and based on narrow-minded thinking, they might even spark more questions. But whatever I say to answer your questions, I put it all down based on my own conviction. I've experienced God in my own personal way, you can deny all you want, but God is real. There will be no end to our debate, but I will not give up. I don't mean any hostility but I just want you to know that my answers are for defense, not attacking. (haiyah dunno how to say what I'm trying to say) If there are any more questions, I will answer as best as I can. But I'm imperfect, my knowledge about God is really limited, so if I can't provide an answer, it doesn't mean there isn't one. (aiyak, that last sentence sounded very defensive and very mencucuk...) God bless you, Shaun.

speltbackwards wrote on Sep 24 I read your post, I want to comment so I *finally* set up a Multiply account, when its finally done, I come back and... What I want to say has already been said! I think I'll just keep an eye on this discussion and say something when more noteworthy issues arise.

sjsdm wrote on Sep 24, edited on Sep 24 "How would "purging yourself from attachments" equate to salvation? Salvation inherently presupposes damnation, and I don't really think that being attached to things is anything like Hell. I'd say that "purging yourself from attachment" is more personal achievement than salvation. And isn't personal achievement ultimately meaningless because it doesn't help anyone? " It wouldn't equate to salvation in the terms of your religion. Suffering exists because of attachment. The very desire to live creates suffering, because not a moment goes in our lives that we do not worry about the most trivial of matters. The very act of worrying constitutes suffering. Hence, by discarding attachment, we 'save' ourselves from suffering and thus have already gained salvation. But of course, that's my religion, not yours. Frankly, I'd rather choose not to have existed rather than to taste it with suffering. If existence never existed, then all these wouldn't have happened, and probably for the better. How would you explain some parents abandoning their child after they have been brought into existence? Destitution isn't the answer, otherwise why would the phrase, 'love conquers everything' come into being? Or are you limiting that to Man's weakness of the flesh? Personal achievement matters if it's to ultimately save yourself. If everyone piggybacked onto each other to save each other, then it would give rise to lazy 'parasites' who'd let the hardworking ones save them. You might say your God won't let these 'parasites' in because of insincerity, however, I believe that salvation is on an individual basis, and not a group thing. Helping someone else will not save them, yes, but if you point them in the right direction, as I'm sure you're trying to do now, will save them provided they travel down that path. Then again, I'm also trying to point you in MY direction but that's beside the point. As for doing good deeds and helping people, that isn't going to save me in the long run, but the act of being altruistic means that I have a lot less time to dwell on the darker side of human nature, like Greed or Lust. Unless of course my motives are far from pure. Isn't it akin to praying? When you pray, your mind isn't focused on sinning. The concept is similar to helping people. You don't focus on sinning, unless you already plan to help people with darker motives behind it. Of course, I help people not solely from a religious aspect, but because of something more 'Earthly', shall we say. Are you telling me the 2nd La Sallian Regional Convention was bullsh*t when they said to 'help the community'? Or when our school diary motto read 'Reaching Out, Touching Hearts?' Helping your fellow Man does not require any religious doctrine to tell you that. Mankind has been helping each other long before the introduction of secular religion, proving that it is innately human nature to seek the betterment of not only ourselves, but that of our fellow Man. But that's beside my point, so I'll return to the discussion. What of other religions with their own ideas of salvation? Are you going to say those are wrong in comparison to yours? It would be very egotistical to assume others' beliefs are wrong, but yours isn't. Having a large number of followers is not synonymous with truth. A majority of the world once believed that Earth was flat, until it was proven wrong. Now I'm not saying your religion will be proven wrong, but the point is that having a lot of people believing in something doesn't automatically make it right. I pass the ball back to you. On a more positive note, welcome aboard, David!

multipleimages wrote on Sep 25 thanks for clarifying salvation from your point of view. it does make things clearer. now that we know both sides' definition of salvation, i guess the discussion on salvation can be considered "finished". but i agree, salvation really is an individual thing. parents abandoning children? sad but true. it's the parents' fault. (i'm saying this based on personal opinion.) a couple - a husband and a wife - who want children, are already really committed and are ready to be responsible. but nowadays, marriage isn't a sacred thing anymore, it isn't about spending your life with your spouse till you die anymore. so i think that these parents who abandon their children did not think deeply and plan well. they just go ahead, and then they realise that they can't handle it.... then tahi hit the fan. about comparing doing good deeds to prayer... hmm, i guess that's acceptable. yeah it's true when we pray (or do good things) we remove ourselves from sin, we avoid sin. but i never said that doing good things without religious basis is wrong. if a person naturally wants to help others without being instructed by a religion, it's fine. there's nothing wrong with the desire to help others, nothing wrong with doing good. it's true the desire to be good and to help others is natural and it doesn't require any doctrines to be good. i agree with that, and i did not say anything that meant otherwise. if i have, please forgive. you are right when you said "having a lot of people believing in something doesn't automatically make it right". i totally agree. but for myself, i've experienced things which i can't explain. perhaps the miracles i've seen and experienced were just really pure Luck, but i still strongly believe it's God's doing. i believe in what i believe in because it is right - it doesn't become right because of faith. then again, what are we? we have our limits - sometimes faith goes a long way. ***and to D. I. Vadgnil, if i'm not mistaken, someone famous once said repetition is good. bleh

sjsdm wrote on Sep 25 Good, we're done here, it seems. I've nothing else to add, unless someone wants to continue with these, I'm satisfied to leave it be at my side.

speltbackwards wrote on Sep 25 Romans 8:28 And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. (NKJV) Everything that happens in life happens for a reason, not because of luck or fate etc... This includes good things and bad things. A well-known pastor (Mr Beram Kumar) said that coincidences are miracles happening where God remains anonymous. God has a purpose for every one of us, whether we choose to go along with Him or go our own separate paths is entirely up to us. However, if we seek God for His guidance, you have the assurance that no matter what happens, it will always work out for good. How about when sin/our fallen nature/Mr S. A. Tan (all the same thing lah) comes by and trips us up? You may ask, 'how then can that be meant for good, when I lost my money in the stock exchange/I got beaten up and robbed by Ah Long/my friend backstab me/Mourinho quit Chelsea etc etc'? Well, let's look at the story of the prodigal son (Luke 15:11-31). If you do not know the story I suggest you grab a bible and read it. *** The younger son asks his rich dad for his inheritance, spends it all on chicks, chariots and condos, loses it all just as famine strikes the land, and ends up feeding pigs for a living. He decides to go back to his dad and ask to work as one of his servants, as even his dad's servants have better standards of living. Goes back, but before he can utter a word his dad embraces him with open arms, then throws a big Welcome Home party for him. I will share the two ways I look at this story: 1. What Satan means for evil, God can turn into good. The prodigal son fell head-first into the trap of worldly pleasures and completely lost it. He could have just given up hope, committed suicide (which unfortunately is happening too often these days). However, something clicked in him, maybe he still had a tiny bit of common sense left in him. He goes back humbly expecting to be a servant, but his dad forgives him completely and welcomes him with open arms. If you were in the prodigal son's shoes, how would you feel, especially after all the s*** you had gone through (and spending all your dad's money along the way)? 2. Secondly, there is a more symbolic meaning to the story. It signifies the love and grace of God for us small human beings. We rob, we steal, we cheat, we slander, we lie, we look round at hot chicks in church during prayer because everyone's eyes are closed, we fall asleep during sermons, we procrastinate... The list goes on. Everyone, Christian or non-Christian, has the fallen sinful nature in them. And if you seriously think about it, no matter how many good deeds you do in your life, how many grannys you help across the street, how many gallons of blood you donate, how many La Sallian conventions you join, the number of times you succumb to that human nature (Lust, Pride, Greed, Adultery etc) will always outweigh your good works. Jesus said that when you look at a girl lustfully, you have already committed adultery. And if we follow earthly law, in the Old Testament it equates adultery to murder. So, every time you open that porn site, every time a movie with Jessica Alba is shown on TV, every time a girl walks past you in hot pants and a tank top, you 'commit murder'. Even victorious men of God like King David and Paul struggled with sin, what more to say us? That is why this story reminds me of the hope Jesus gave to me when He died on the cross for ALL my sins. It is only by God's grace that we can be set free from lusts of the flesh (ie sinful human nature). Sure I still am not perfect, I still fall into sin, but I know that I can come to Him with a repentant heart, knowing He will forgive me of my sins. And I no longer need to feel guilty and condemned because Jesus took it all upon Him when He died upon the cross. (If you're skeptical, look it up in the bible. And to date no one has even come close to that standard of writing if you think the bible is fiction.) And with Him living in me and guiding my life, I now feel much more secure, compared to the time when I tried to live by my own wisdom. (Romans 8:1) There's nothing wrong with good deeds; in fact one of the greatest testimonies to non-believers is the way we live our lives. And frankly speaking, 'religion' is simply man's way of trying to fit God into a box; so that we can understand Him fully. Intellectual people, myself included in the past, tend to fall for this, as we think our wisdom should be able to decode and comprehend this 'God'. But if we truly, fully 100% understand God, won't that make us on the same level as God ourselves? And if that happens, we won't need God right, since we're all gods in our own right? The very reason why religious wars and strife has prevailed till today just proves how fragile and worthless 'religion' is. No matter how hard you try to fit God into that box, you will always fail miserably. True Christianity isn't about all the religious rituals and aspects of it, rather it is about your personal relationship with God and what place you give Him in your life.

sjsdm wrote on Sep 25 "And if you seriously think about it, no matter how many good deeds you do in your life, how many grannys you help across the street, how many gallons of blood you donate, how many La Sallian conventions you join, the number of times you succumb to that human nature (Lust, Pride, Greed, Adultery etc) will always outweigh your good works. " I disagree. When you perform good deeds, you are not focused on sinning. And if you don't sin, how would the evils of human nature outweigh the deeds when the mind is focused? Again, it's the same as prayer. When you either pray or help people, provided you have no impure motives behind it, you wouldn't be spending time sinning. I suppose you've done more charity work than I did in the name of your churches. Don't tell me you think of Lust, or Greed while you're helping the needy? I agree, however, that when you look at a girl lustfully, you've sinned. Now I'll finally quote my own beliefs to support that statement. “Intention (cetana) , monks, is kamma, I say. Having willed, one acts through body, speech and mind”. - Anguttara Nikaya (Great Collection), discourse by Gautama Buddha. It means that in Buddhist philosophy, karma is generated through actions, words, or thoughts. Most importantly, however, is that karma generated is strongest through thought. Because it is through thoughts that we can perform conscious acts, such as sinning. So by thinking lustfully of someone means you've created bad karma for yourself, even if it's just a thought. Personally, I beliieve no entity in existence can remove my sins, or others for that matter. Because in Buddhist philosophy, sin is merely an act that generates bad karma, which will in turn culminate in an unfortunate occurrence in a life. When you sin a lot, then you have more bad karma, which will in turn come back in the form of misfortunes in future lives. Only then is that sin absolved through your own punishment by yourself, not by some supreme being. In other words, our sins will result in our own self-punishment in the future. Obviously, with this belief in mind, the logical thing would be to sin as infrequently as possible, so as not to accumulate misfortunes. I say this because, ultimately, if a great sinner like a mass murderer finally does sincerely repent of his sins on his deathbed, I personally cannot believe that God can absolve all of his heinous crimes just like that. The sinner will pay, in his own time, for all his pernicious acts in his life. I concur that true religion, not just Christianity, would make the world a better place, if not for the failings of Man to continuously subvert the foolish and weak to their own twisted ends. However, I'd still like to imagine if things would be drastically better had secular religion not existed at all. By the way, as for grabbing a copy of a Bible, I distinctly remember blatantly hinting for a nice Bible for my 18th Birthday all throughout last year. I was conveniently stuck in a hellhole called Betong for NS and it turns out I never got the Good Book upon my return. You think I was kidding and that I'd forget? Anyway, just wishful thinking.

pulsarfr3ak wrote on Sep 26, edited on Sep 26 "Suffering exists because of attachment. The very desire to live creates suffering, because not a moment goes in our lives that we do not worry about the most trivial of matters. The very act of worrying constitutes suffering. " Well, love and friendship are attachments, and if they equate suffering, then I'm a masochist. In my opinion, attachments are part of what defines us as worthwhile beings. Without attachments, one might as well be a rock or a tree. Same lack of attachment or purpose. But then again, you're right. Suffering means different things to different religions. You think it's better not to have existed than to have to suffer? I understand your position, but doesn't the possibility of achieving "salvation" negate the fact that one has to suffer? For instance, why do we go to college, even though we know that we have to "suffer" in some way? Because we know that going to college enables us to obtain a degree, which enables us to get better jobs. Mind you, getting a degree is a mere POSSIBILITY, not a certainty, yet we go for it anyway. In the same way I think that giving someone the CHANCE to succeed/attain salvation compensates for the knowledge that suffering is part of our existence. Besides that, even if you take suffering into account, I'm sure most of us would agree that human existence is better than non-existence, else we would all have committed suicide a long time ago. It's true that personal achievement matters, but ONLY to yourself. Thus, it is ultimately meaningless, for meaning has to be something that affects more than just yourself. If I lived only to save myself, I don't think that would be classified as a meaningful existence. Sure, it matters, but it is ultimately meaningless. I agree with you, though, that no-one can 'piggy-back' another into salvation, it has to be a personal journey/choice. Does that make salvation in itself meaningless? Maybe, but that is a discussion for another time. Altruism is by no means "bullsh*t". In fact, I think altruism is the only thing that brings meaning to life. But the Christian take on this is that good deeds are not the CAUSE of salvation, they are the RESULT of it. Of course this doesn't mean that one HAS to be saved to be altruistic, merely that if one IS saved, s/he should be altruistic. Like you said, it doesn't take religion for us to know that we should help others, religion just tells us WHY we should help others. You also said that "It would be very egotistical to assume others' beliefs are wrong, but yours isn't." It does seem that way, doesn't it? But you wouldn't be a Buddhist if you didn't think that Buddhism is true and all the other religions false. Neither would I be a Christian if I didn't think that Christianity was more "correct" than all other religions. I mean, the reason for believing in a religion is that you believe it is better than all others. Of course, you could believe in all or none, but then you'd be a Freethinker, and not a member of any particular religion. Does that mean that everyone who believes in a religion is egotistical? Maybe. *chuckle* But in no way do I advocate forcing one's religion on another. That would just be plain wrong. Neither do I think that you are any less for believing in something different. Nonetheless, freedom cannot exist without options, and so I believe it's important to share what our beliefs are and why we believe in them. I don't understand why you said "I disagree. When you perform good deeds, you are not focused on sinning. And if you don't sin, how would the evils of human nature outweigh the deeds when the mind is focused?" Of course we're not sinning when we do good deeds. But we don't do good deeds all the time, and when we don't, we sin. Unless you claim to be focused on doing good deeds all the time, which is, frankly, impossible. For that matter, even being "focused" on doing good deeds does not prevent you from doing bad ones. You could be "focused" on not telling lies and yet still find yourself telling one. Many sins are spontaneous. If you believe that no entity can remove your sins, on what grounds do you believe that you can remove them yourselves? Or do you believe that your sins grow less as you "pay" for your sins by receiving misfortune? If you've told a lie, I don't think you become any less a liar when that lie causes you to go to bed hungry. You'd still be, ultimately, a liar. Your comments about a mass murderer not getting what he deserves is a classic argument against Christianity, and a strong one, I must say. Christianity's answer is to say that all sins are equal, in that ALL sins deserve death/Hell. Thus a liar is no more righteous then a mass murderer. And if a liar can repent and go to heaven, so too can a mass murderer. For EVERYONE deserves to go to Hell, and it's only by God's grace that we can be saved. The mass murderer SHOULD pay the price for his pernicious acts in his life. But Jesus paid the price for him because He loved him. It doesn't appeal to our traditional sense of justice, I know, but that's what makes Christianity special in my eyes. Sorry for missing your hints about wanting a Bible, Shaun. I thought you already have one, since you quote Bible verses well enough. Still, the entire Bible can be found online, though I suppose you already know that. Take care, y'all. Keep the discussion going. I'm lovin' it. =)

speltbackwards wrote on Sep 26 Once again, someone else says everything I want to say before I get the chance. Just to add on to Jia Wern, altruism (ie, good works) goes hand-in-hand with faith. Without each other, both are meaningless. Ie, works are meaningless if you do them without believing in a reason for doing so (ie faithless). Having faith too is meaningless if you go up to a beggar, say "God bless you richly brother, have faith" (ie no works). Faith however, is present in all of us, the difference is in where we put it. The Muslims have faith in their religion, to the point they would die for it. The atheist has faith that he is god, and therefore he does not need to believe in the existence of higher beings. Christians have faith that Jesus died for all our sins, even though we did not deserve it, therefore we are now saved and do not have to end up in hell after we die. At the end of the day, it is the object if your faith which will determine whether your faith was worth standing up for. The Chinese guy who died after playing computer games 48 hours non-stop had lots of faith, unfortunately it was in the wrong thing (pleasure through gaming). How sure are you that your faith is in the right thing? I'm sure of mine.

sjsdm wrote on Sep 26 Just because I quote the Bible doesn't necessarily mean I have the book. Just as being agnostic doesn't mean I don't accept there is a God. Or Gods. It is by severing all attachments, including that of love and friends means we escape the shackles of existence, because through those attachments, and many others are we continuously grounded in reality. Buddhism states that everything is in a state of anicca, or Impermanence. Everything but the mind is transient. When the mind accepts that it can exist without a physical foundation then is a being considered having achieved Nirvana. When the mind is free from all physical ailments and attachments such as hunger, greed, even love, can it be freed from suffering. And frankly, the ultimate result is that you're the one that's gonna die, not anyone else. What I mean to say is when you die, you don't take anything or anyone else with you but yourself. In a manner of speaking, when you are saved, you only save yourself, not others. What you've done in life is to put people on the same road you take to your own salvation, in the hopes that they will save themselves. That is why I said nobody piggybacks anyone to salvation. Again, that is why I believe salvation is a matter of personal achievement. We're we not to exist, this wouldn't have had to happen. It's akin to sci-fi movies where some crazy scientist develops some technology to the point that unleashing it destroyed his planet. Were he not to have created the technology in the first place, his planet would never have been destroyed. A crude analogy, but I think it relates to my point. You misconstrue my point. I said that anyone who believed his/her religion is right, and forces that belief upon others is egotistical. I did NOT say that merely believing in one's religion is egotistical. However, it is important to share opinions, otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation. Unfortunately, in my perspective, it takes very little for someone to do before I consider that act as proselytizing. Asking me to try God out for a chance is already forcing your beliefs on me. Perhaps if it was mentioned a little more subtly then I wouldn't have brought this matter up. Obviously, we don't perform good deeds all the time every day. But neither do we dwell on evil thoughts all the time every day. I suppose I wouldn't be too far from the truth if I presumed that most people are more concerned about how they're going to finish their assignments rather than how I'm supposed to backstab this worthless friend of mine. However, one can train the mind to focus entirely on pure thoughts, provided one makes the effort to do so. But then, the weaknesses of the flesh such as hunger and sleep prohibit doing that 24/7. And even though you may lose your grip and even think of telling one lie, it is far better than to not have control over one's mind and tell lies everywhere. If one cannot altogether avoid evil, then surely one must attempt to commit the least acts of evil. A liar remains a liar so long as they continue telling lies. If one has resolved not to tell lies anymore, then whatever lies they've told in the past will come back to them in the form of lies told by other people to them. Karmic reciprocation is rather straightforward, in the sense that an eye really is for an eye. If you lie to others, expect others to lie to you. That's your payback. As my beliefs go, it's a rational reason Your sins for lying are thus 'repaid' by others lying to you, but for them, they sin for lying to you. However, that's their problem already. The vicious cycle continues until someone wises up and has the spiritual effort to wholly abstain from lying. Going to bed hungry is not a karmic punishment for lying. As I've said, people lie to you when you lie to them. Karmic reciprocation is wholly straightforward. In relation to that, a murderer's karmic reciprocation for murdering others will be paid in his later lives by those he's murdered. Of course, in order to accept this, you must first believe in the cycle of rebirth, which is part of Buddhist philosophy, and that of Hinduism as well. However, if his victims seek not to fulfil that karmic 'punishment' by killing him when they do happen to be reborn in the same place in the same timespan, then that sin is ultimately forgiven. Unless of course the victim murders him in some other life other than this. We'd never know because of the vastness of the universe and the complex probability of two minds meeting again. The probability of two minds meeting again is determined by the strength of each other's karmic attachment to each other. To understand this concept better, take myself and Richard. I believe that both our karmic attachment to each other is of such strength, that we happened to be best friends since kindergarten. Of course, you can build up that strength with everyone else too. If you and I constantly interacted with each other, we'd build up our own karmic attachment, so that, when the two of us do meet again in a next life (of course your beliefs will contradict with mine) it might be a lot sooner than later. Just as if the murderer-victim had a strong hatred towards each other upon the murder, then perhaps the victim is more tempted to 'repay' the murderer in the next life. Or lives. Anyway, this entire paragraph is based upon your acceptance of the cycle of rebirth. Which I'm pretty sure Christianity, or Islam doesn't condone. Well I think I've covered most of your replies. Though it seems to be getting lengthier and more time-consuming to reply.

sjsdm wrote on Sep 26 "How sure are you that your faith is in the right thing? I'm sure of mine. " Now that's an insinuation if I didn't know better. I'm as sure of mine as you are sure of yours, otherwise I wouldn't have bothered to reinforce my stand on this matter. Atheists don't believe in God, therefore, they cannot believe that they are God. Doing so would contradict their beliefs. However, I'm not an atheist, as I've already mentioned in my reply to Pan. I am an agnostic. If you don't care about the slight difference between those two, then we can't possibly continue picking over this debate if you willingly overlook small matters. You can't put the Muslims as the only people who'd willingly die for their religion. A long time ago, misguided Christians died for their religion too. It's called the Crusades. Also, back then, the Muslims weren't as fervent to actively seek out and destroy Christian nations as they do now. As I see it, it's merely a reversal of roles; during the Crusades, it was Christians who actively sought out Muslim infidels; now it's the Muslims turn to seek out Christian infidels. Being part of neither religion, I say that's a bit too much and it's pretty silly to kill people of other faiths. Karma and enlightenment are what I believe in, and that's where MY faith is and what I'm standing for. If you ask people of other faiths they'd have their own beliefs to subscribe in, and none of us can say for sure who is right, because that would be the arrogance that led to the Crusades and the Jihads we see now, and other religious wars.

multipleimages wrote on Sep 26 well i'm unfortunately.. not knowledgeable enough to say much. but here's my opinion on the crusades.. It was absolutely silly for Christians and Muslims to kill one another. They give both religions bad names. Those people were misguided - it wasn't the religions' fault. Actually, i just wanted to put something here, but there's a lot of stuff to say, sesat already. bleh

speltbackwards wrote today at 4:22 AM That just shows what happens when you turn Christianity into a religion - you get caught up with bureaucracy, and in the case of the crusades and the inquisition, political correctness (and that's being nice). And sorry Shaun, my question was more of a rhetorical one.

sjsdm wrote today at 4:30 AM Yes, wars were fought over lesser things than religion. Rhetorical, huh? Couldn't resist putting my two sen on that though. Anyhow, I've no more points to raise. For my part, I came out of this with a better understanding of Christianity. Though it would be nice if more Muslims put in their own two sen on this matter. Our discussions seem to be focused mostly between a Christian and Buddhist perspective.

***

End of discussion. Well, just something to think about.