Oxidized Aurum: September 2007

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.