Of course, I believe that it is the holy bible. why else would I be spending my time here talking about all these if I believed otherwise?
I will attempt to talk about the authenticity of the bible and its claims here. it won't be very convincing to some of you but hoping that you would keep your mind as objective as possible, however hard it may be, you might just agree with me on some points, if not all of them.
I used to think that the bible was some moral code for Christians to follow. you must not do this.. you must do that.. it was only 2 years ago when I started reading the bible that I realised it isn't a book about dos and don'ts. it is also not a self-help book for you to inspire yourself or encourage yourself when you are down. it is not a book of quotes for you to impress anyone. it is not a bedtime story book. it is also not a book containing mysterious sayings and codes and prophecies about the present world. most importantly, the bible we have today is not something that is cooked up by many creative authors, nor is it invented by cunning Christian leaders who wanted to start a cult.
the bible is a collection of books written by over 40 authors over a period of 1600 years. wait! didn't you just say that it is not cooked up by people? don't Christians all claim that the bible is God's word? how can you say that it is written by God when there are 40 over human authors who breathed and died just like all of us?
again, this won't be convincing to some of you but lets try.. yes, the bible is God's word. although it is written by so many human authors, God himself is the ultimate author of the books. he probably didn't use a pen to write it down. but through his spoken word and what he did on earth, people diligently recorded down these things in the books. in the 4 gospels of Luke, Mark, Matthew and John, we have the eye-witness account of what Jesus did and said.. I always like analogies so lets say LKY wants to have a biography of himself. but he won't be the one writing it down right? normally, these great people will be telling the biographers what they did in their lives. or they might relate it verbally and voice-record it down before someone translates it into words and pages. so is LKY's biography any less authentic or is there any doubt to the real authorship even though he didn't pen the words himself? probably no right? so that's what happened in the bible. we, as Christians, have no doubt that the real authorship of the bible is God himself.
the bible is divided into the Old Testament and the New Testament. the OT contains books about the creation of the world, God's promises to his people, his commandments, about kings, prophets.. there are also songs and poems. as you can see, it wont be very necessary to talk about the OT as yet, not that it is any less important.
the New Testament begins with the 4 gospels of Luke, Mark, Matthew and John. Gospel means good news. good news about what? good news about Jesus Christ who had come into the world to save people from their sins. (in the OT, the people had been told that a saviour will come into the world to save them) the rest of the NT contains mostly letters to the early Christians encouraging them to stand firm despite all their sufferings, reminding them about what Jesus had done for them and teaching them to hold firm to the truths and not believing in the other false teachers..
so how do we know that the bible is really true and explains events that really happened, specifically that Jesus died and rose again? how do we know that people did not fancifully make this up and create a new religion?
for a start, the 4 gospels that talked about Jesus Christ were based on eye-witness testimony.. they were based on real-life witnessing of what happened.. these witnesses were not merely bystanders who caught bits and pieces of what happened to Jesus. they were also not your usual market-place aunties who heard something from someone else who got it from another someone. the 4 gospels are testimonies of people who interacted with Jesus, listened to his teachings, witnessed his death and even saw him and talked to him after his resurrection.
before I go further, Jesus had 12 disciples whom he picked. these 12 people were very close to him and went with him wherever he went, and he taught them personally about many things. of these 12, Judas Ischariot eventually betrayed him and was excluded. these people are also known as the apostles.
the 4 gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John were written by the people whose names have been attached to the books. how do you know? anyone can write any book and claims that this is the gospel of whatever.. he can even claim that Jesus took a pen and wrote it himself.. that would be more convincing right? why didn't the Christians then think of this? because they didn't make all these up! Strictly speaking, the gospels are anonymous. but the early church and probably people who interacted with these 4 authors mostly agreed to the authorship of the gospels. Matthew, also known as Levi, the tax collector and one of the 12 apostles, wrote the first gospel in the NT. John Mark, a companion of Peter the apostle, wrote the gospel of Mark. Luke, a medical doctor (!) and follower of Paul the apostle, wrote the gospel of Luke. Lastly, John the apostle wrote the gospel of John himself. how do I know all these? I don't. but there are many scholars who devote their whole lives investigating the NT and delving deep into historical documents and they are convinced that the 4 gospels were really written by those 4 people and these were first- or second-hand eye-witness accounts of events. The earliest historical document is that of Papias, a Christian writer, in AD 125 who affirmed that Mark had carefully and accurately recorded Peter's eyewitness observations. another writer called Irenaeus also wrote in AD 180 to confirm the authorship of these 4 gospels.
to tell you the truth, the 4 gospels don't seem like your usual biographies or historical texts when you read them. they are written a bit "weirdly" in modern day context; there are no dates; and specific events are told in great detail while large parts of Jesus' life are left out. but we have to remember that these were written about 2 thousand years ago. most of the literary texts of that time were written this way. more importantly, the authors had specific reasons for describing some events in greater detail than others, to spread the message that Christ had come and died and resurrected and through which we have the forgiveness of sins.
and this leads me nicely to my next point. non-Christians will never argue or question about the discrepancies among the 4 gospels or about whether specific events took place in this place or that or the family lines of Jesus and stuff simply because you have never flipped open the bible. but you will argue with me: aren't all these gospels written by Christians? definitely, they have every reason to fabricate and lie to push their own agenda and to twist and colour history to the specific shade they wanted.. Don't their theological motivations to make Jesus out to be God, to be the saviour cast serious doubt on their ability and willingness to accurately record what happened? this was one of the many questions and doubts at the back of my head when I started reading the bible. and until now, I have to admit that there can be no satisfactory answer.. there is no doubt that these 4 people were Christians. 2 were apostles. the other 2 were disciples of Peter and Paul, both apostles. so the possibility that they embellished certain events to make their story more convincing remains. but in the past and even now, people rarely wrote about dispassionate, objective history with no ideological purpose. from an alternative point of view, an unbeliever who witnessed all that Jesus did and yet refused to believe in him would never write a book about him, or perhaps he would even write a book that distorts certain things about him so as to convince people not to believe in him.
to draw a modern day parallel, some people, for anti-Semitic purposes, downplay the atrocities of the holocaust. similarly, the Japanese refuse to admit the great number of massacres and atrocities they did. but it has been the Jewish scholars who deligently recorded eyewitness accounts, preserved documents and wrote books to record accurate history about the holocaust. the Chinese and the Malayan people would probably have done the same thing about the Japanese invasion. these people are the ones who are the most faithful and objective in their reporting of historical truth. I believe that is what happened regarding the Christians and the bible.
and some of the things described in the gospels are really outrageously bold and even "absurd". some things like Jesus making a blind see again. Jesus walking on the sea.. Jesus rising from the dead.. if these things didn't really happen, and there were so many other people at that time, people would have stood up and condemned the teachings of the apostles, rather than allow these things to be written down and accepted as truths. in fact, there were many critics and opponents of Christ at that time, mostly Jews who refused to accept that Jesus is the saviour promised in the Old Testament. based on the "political" climate at that time, when the Christians were outnumbered and "outpowered", it would have been easy for the critics to simply point out the falsehoods, inaccuracies and discrepancies in the Christian message. instead of saying Jesus did not perform the miracles, some of them wrote that Jesus was a sorcerer but he did not do those things by God, as he claimed.
the early Christian movement was weak and fragile, started mainly by the apostles and their disciples. for persevering in reporting what they saw and heard and touched, most of them were jailed, tortured and crucified. if Jesus did not perform those miracles, if he did not die and rose again, I cannot understand why these people were willing to go to such an extent to insist that Jesus did those things, let alone make up all these things out of nothing.. human reasoning tells us that they must have seen and heard the risen Christ. and the early Christians must have been really convinced that all these things occurred or they would not have diligently copied what the original authors wrote and faithfully passed it down.
inevitably, when you start flipping through the bible, you will read about really unimaginable things. the parting of the red sea. Jesus making a paralytic walk again. I am a big skeptic of miracles and supernatural events, even till today.. when I first started going to church, I am always amazed how those people can believe in such things.. then I talked to some of these people and they were surprisingly sane, educated and intelligent.. in the words of our great Father of all ministers, "you said that you went to JC and university, and you are telling me that you believe" in all these miracles and rising from the dead and stuff.. and some of them are even working full-time in church.. and studying the bible as if it is some textbook and analysing it verse by verse.. if this is just something invented by Christians, why the heck are these people getting so serious about it and spending their entire lives working in a church? why are they giving up precious time to study the bible and to teach the bible? why are they so fervent about it and passionately asking people to believe? I reasoned that if something so absurd and ridiculous as a blind man seeing again and demons going into pigs can be believed by these people, there probably might be some truth in them..
and every saturday or sunday, as I stepped into the church or like today at the indoor stadium where over 10,000 people were present to commemorate the Presbyterian Synod's 125th anniversary, I am somehow convinced that we all believed in all that is described in the bible.. even before we start examining the evidence for them.
Sunday, April 23, 2006
Sunday, April 16, 2006
The Bloody Truth
It has been a hectic Easter weekend for me. 3 sermons plus 1 online sermon. 2 bible studies cum discussion. and 1 church wedding. I have a number of things to share with u but i shall not jump the gun..
first, I think I should summarise what I wanted to say in the last post. I am sorry for being so long-winded. anyway, here's the summary: according to the bible, there is one god. God had sent his son down to this world about 2006 years ago to do certain things and say certain things that revealed God to us. those deeds and words were recorded in the bible and we are able to know God today through the bible. and the bible is God's word.
I didn't believe in all those right away so I don't expect you to accept those as gospel truth.. but lets assume first that those things are true, that there is a god and he has spoken to us through the bible..
that will allow me to explain the events of Good Friday and its significance. I have deliberately left out something so fundamental and central to Christianity thus far and that something or someone is Jesus Christ. without Jesus Christ, there is no Christianity.. and the things he did and said are central to Christianity and form the basis for the Christian faith.
on Good Friday some 2040 years ago, Jesus Christ was nailed to death on the cross. even my secondary 1 cousin has heard of it and so has everyone of u who are reading this. and the whole crucifixion has been so vividly depicted in Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ.. when I watched the film, I was still a non-Christian. but I was already investigating the faith so it had extra significance for me then.. behind the blood and the gore, what does all these mean for me? what has it got to do with me?
I had already read then that Jesus died on the cross because of our sins. this is also one of the most important points of Christianity. and possibly the hardest to fully understand and accept. Jesus died on the cross for my sins. I thought of that statement for many months. in the beginning, it was utter disbelief. it just did not make sense. I thought it was some idea conjured up by Christians. that was my idea of religion then, that they were all made up by man..
but as I started to attend Just Looking and church services, I realised that the Christians really believed that it happened. it was a historical event that really took place. and they took it really seriously. I was amazed but at the same time bewildered. I cannot believe that the people there, some of them lawyers, teachers, doctors, undergraduates, can believe in something like that. that this person called Jesus Christ was crucified on the cross and because of this act, it wipes off all our past wrongdoing and we are saved.. it was ridiculous and absurd to me then..
but even before I get further, do u think u have done anything wrong? for myself, it was not hard for me to accept that I have sinned. maybe not the word sin then. but I can readily accept that I am not a good person. I have done many wrong things in the past. including things like cheating in a common test.. telling lies to my parents.. watching and surfing pornography.. and many more. and yup, u can never judge a book by its cover and I believe each of us has his/her own darkest secrets.. and u know what, it is not as if we do not know what is right or what is wrong. we know that it is wrong to cheat and lie and surf porn.. our conscience tells us that they are wrong. even the most cold-blooded murderer knows that it is wrong to kill.. yet in a moment of impulse or caught in this self-perpetuating cycle of denial and wrongdoing, we continue to do wrong.. of course, it is easy to condemn the rapists and the serial murderers who made it to the frontpages but the only difference between our wrongdoings and theirs is that theirs are punishable by law and ours aren't or ours are still under cover and haven't yet been caught. and interestingly, I realise that there are times I deperately want to do what is right but end up giving in to my temptations and doing the opposite. do u feel at times u can't help it when u utter a vulgarity, talk bad about someone or hate someone? do u feel that as u grow older, u start to rationalise things and start to accept your wrongdoings?
and I suggest to u that that is the essence of sin, that we know what is right and yet persist in doing wrong. and at the heart of sin is the rejection of God and a stubborn disobedience to his laws and commands. we want to do things our way.. we do things to gratify our desires.. we do things to please ourselves. we don't want God in our lives to dictate what we should do. we even choose not to believe in God..
and the result of all these is punishment and death. why? because God cannot stand our rebellion and wrongdoings.. he cannot turn a blind eye to our sin.. he is not a "bochup" god. the best way i can put it is this. God is like a human father who loves his son dearly. yet his son did all sorts of things that upset him.. his son rejected his father's authority over him and even refused to recognise him. as a result, the father punished his son and disowned him.. he can no longer go back to his home..
yet God, out of his love, gave us a lifeline.. which we have done nothing to deserve. this lifeline is his son Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is God who came in human form. He was perfect and without sin. yet he sacrificed his life for all our sins. so that because of his sacrifice, God can now accept us and forgive us if we put our trust in Jesus Christ.. and we know that God had accepted this sacrifice because Jesus Christ was resurrected on the third day. if he had remained dead like all mankind, it would have meant that the sacrifice was futile and insufficient.
to put it back into the analogy, despite the father's anger, he still loved his son. one day his son was caught for drug trafficking and was sentenced to death. at this point, the judge took off his robe and wig and pronounced this son not guilty. instead, the judge walked over and took his son's place and would be the one who would be sent to the gallows. the son finally realised his father's love for him.
as much as this analogy is imperfect, the bible sums it up "For God so loved the world that he sent his one and only son to die on the cross for our sins, that whoever believes in him would never perish but have everlasting life."
and that is the bloody truth I have for u.. again this is one big chunk of info which I emphasise again I am not forcing u to believe in. I am just trying to explain the Christian faith here.. if u think it's rubbish, I will urge u to think why it is rubbish and what evidence do u have to support that it is rubbish.. and I will give my two cents worth in my next post about why it is not rubbish. but I guess most people will play the goody-two-shoe and say, "well, I respect your religion but I have the right to believe in anything." and I have to say this must be the most effective statement in response to everything I have said. I say man have sinned. you say: that's what u say or what ur bible says, I am entitled to my own beliefs. I say those who don't believe will be punished. you say: I don't buy your crap and you guys are bloody arrogant for insisting that your bible is superior to everything else on earth.
you see, I am trying to reason with you here. we believe in what we believe because of the bible. your defence is based on human emotion and gut feel. I feel that there is no God. I feel that there are many Gods. I feel that God loves me. I feel that God allows me to do this.. if there is no one God, then there is no right and there is no wrong. our world teaches us to believe in diversity, multi-truths and relativity. versus absolute Christianity. if absolute Christianity is to be right, then it better has some strong proof and basis for its claims. then again, u can always say that Christianity is absolutely right and the others are absolutely right as well.
I shall attempt to explain why the bible, and thus Christianity, is true in my next post.. and I would rather at the end of it all, u take either one of these 2 stands: Christianity is right vs Christianity is wrong..
first, I think I should summarise what I wanted to say in the last post. I am sorry for being so long-winded. anyway, here's the summary: according to the bible, there is one god. God had sent his son down to this world about 2006 years ago to do certain things and say certain things that revealed God to us. those deeds and words were recorded in the bible and we are able to know God today through the bible. and the bible is God's word.
I didn't believe in all those right away so I don't expect you to accept those as gospel truth.. but lets assume first that those things are true, that there is a god and he has spoken to us through the bible..
that will allow me to explain the events of Good Friday and its significance. I have deliberately left out something so fundamental and central to Christianity thus far and that something or someone is Jesus Christ. without Jesus Christ, there is no Christianity.. and the things he did and said are central to Christianity and form the basis for the Christian faith.
on Good Friday some 2040 years ago, Jesus Christ was nailed to death on the cross. even my secondary 1 cousin has heard of it and so has everyone of u who are reading this. and the whole crucifixion has been so vividly depicted in Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ.. when I watched the film, I was still a non-Christian. but I was already investigating the faith so it had extra significance for me then.. behind the blood and the gore, what does all these mean for me? what has it got to do with me?
I had already read then that Jesus died on the cross because of our sins. this is also one of the most important points of Christianity. and possibly the hardest to fully understand and accept. Jesus died on the cross for my sins. I thought of that statement for many months. in the beginning, it was utter disbelief. it just did not make sense. I thought it was some idea conjured up by Christians. that was my idea of religion then, that they were all made up by man..
but as I started to attend Just Looking and church services, I realised that the Christians really believed that it happened. it was a historical event that really took place. and they took it really seriously. I was amazed but at the same time bewildered. I cannot believe that the people there, some of them lawyers, teachers, doctors, undergraduates, can believe in something like that. that this person called Jesus Christ was crucified on the cross and because of this act, it wipes off all our past wrongdoing and we are saved.. it was ridiculous and absurd to me then..
but even before I get further, do u think u have done anything wrong? for myself, it was not hard for me to accept that I have sinned. maybe not the word sin then. but I can readily accept that I am not a good person. I have done many wrong things in the past. including things like cheating in a common test.. telling lies to my parents.. watching and surfing pornography.. and many more. and yup, u can never judge a book by its cover and I believe each of us has his/her own darkest secrets.. and u know what, it is not as if we do not know what is right or what is wrong. we know that it is wrong to cheat and lie and surf porn.. our conscience tells us that they are wrong. even the most cold-blooded murderer knows that it is wrong to kill.. yet in a moment of impulse or caught in this self-perpetuating cycle of denial and wrongdoing, we continue to do wrong.. of course, it is easy to condemn the rapists and the serial murderers who made it to the frontpages but the only difference between our wrongdoings and theirs is that theirs are punishable by law and ours aren't or ours are still under cover and haven't yet been caught. and interestingly, I realise that there are times I deperately want to do what is right but end up giving in to my temptations and doing the opposite. do u feel at times u can't help it when u utter a vulgarity, talk bad about someone or hate someone? do u feel that as u grow older, u start to rationalise things and start to accept your wrongdoings?
and I suggest to u that that is the essence of sin, that we know what is right and yet persist in doing wrong. and at the heart of sin is the rejection of God and a stubborn disobedience to his laws and commands. we want to do things our way.. we do things to gratify our desires.. we do things to please ourselves. we don't want God in our lives to dictate what we should do. we even choose not to believe in God..
and the result of all these is punishment and death. why? because God cannot stand our rebellion and wrongdoings.. he cannot turn a blind eye to our sin.. he is not a "bochup" god. the best way i can put it is this. God is like a human father who loves his son dearly. yet his son did all sorts of things that upset him.. his son rejected his father's authority over him and even refused to recognise him. as a result, the father punished his son and disowned him.. he can no longer go back to his home..
yet God, out of his love, gave us a lifeline.. which we have done nothing to deserve. this lifeline is his son Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is God who came in human form. He was perfect and without sin. yet he sacrificed his life for all our sins. so that because of his sacrifice, God can now accept us and forgive us if we put our trust in Jesus Christ.. and we know that God had accepted this sacrifice because Jesus Christ was resurrected on the third day. if he had remained dead like all mankind, it would have meant that the sacrifice was futile and insufficient.
to put it back into the analogy, despite the father's anger, he still loved his son. one day his son was caught for drug trafficking and was sentenced to death. at this point, the judge took off his robe and wig and pronounced this son not guilty. instead, the judge walked over and took his son's place and would be the one who would be sent to the gallows. the son finally realised his father's love for him.
as much as this analogy is imperfect, the bible sums it up "For God so loved the world that he sent his one and only son to die on the cross for our sins, that whoever believes in him would never perish but have everlasting life."
and that is the bloody truth I have for u.. again this is one big chunk of info which I emphasise again I am not forcing u to believe in. I am just trying to explain the Christian faith here.. if u think it's rubbish, I will urge u to think why it is rubbish and what evidence do u have to support that it is rubbish.. and I will give my two cents worth in my next post about why it is not rubbish. but I guess most people will play the goody-two-shoe and say, "well, I respect your religion but I have the right to believe in anything." and I have to say this must be the most effective statement in response to everything I have said. I say man have sinned. you say: that's what u say or what ur bible says, I am entitled to my own beliefs. I say those who don't believe will be punished. you say: I don't buy your crap and you guys are bloody arrogant for insisting that your bible is superior to everything else on earth.
you see, I am trying to reason with you here. we believe in what we believe because of the bible. your defence is based on human emotion and gut feel. I feel that there is no God. I feel that there are many Gods. I feel that God loves me. I feel that God allows me to do this.. if there is no one God, then there is no right and there is no wrong. our world teaches us to believe in diversity, multi-truths and relativity. versus absolute Christianity. if absolute Christianity is to be right, then it better has some strong proof and basis for its claims. then again, u can always say that Christianity is absolutely right and the others are absolutely right as well.
I shall attempt to explain why the bible, and thus Christianity, is true in my next post.. and I would rather at the end of it all, u take either one of these 2 stands: Christianity is right vs Christianity is wrong..
Monday, April 10, 2006
Godiva chocolates
Since Good Friday and Easter are coming, and my clinical group decided to have an early day at the polyclinic, and I just haven't been able to start typing my case write-up, I might as well use this time to share with you about.. no, not chocolates.. God.. haha..
There are a few ways I can start talking about Christianity. I can begin with the bible, about Jesus Christ, about the meaning and purpose of life, about sin, about religion as a whole blah blah.. But I feel that without a common platform to start off, there is really not much point talking about anything else. And that common point is the existence of God.
I used to be very constrained and narrow-minded in my thinking when I ponder over the existence of God. I think at some points in our lives, whether or not we believe in a god, we start to think about how we came into existence, how this world came about and stuff.. And it is a very unsatisfying process thinking about such things, cos by looking at ourselves and at the things around us, we are no better understanding how these things came about. For myself, as I grew older, I began to reject the idea of God. All the scientific education I got taught me that unless something is evidence-based and scientifically proven, it cannot be true. We are constrained by what we see and hear now. We are constrained to think that science can explain everything in the world.
I have no doubt that science is real and true. But the role of science is constrained in itself. It is not all-encompassing. We can go as deep as the smallest particles including the electrons and the protons to explain how sodium and chlorine can form sodium chloride and as far as Jupiter and Saturn and beyond to explain what goes on in their atmospheres. But thats about all science can explain. It can only explain the things we can see and observe. Whether or not there is something behind and beyond the things science observes - something of a different kind - this is not something science can answer. I am not yet saying if there is "something behind", I am just saying that science is limited in such a way that it cannot make any statement on whether or not there is an existence of such a "something". In other words, what I am getting at is this: just because we have not seen God, we cannot conclude that God does not exist (and at this point we also cannot conclude that he exists).
Once you agree with me on this point and be open to the idea of god, we can start to find out whether God really exists. This will not be easy and it will take some time to grapple with.. that is if you think it is an important issue to think over..
It is not an easy task finding out whether there is a higher being up there (or anywhere) because we cannot rely on science to help us (as explained above). I have to copy an idea wholesale from a book I read, hopefully Vaughan Roberts wouldn't mind.. This is the scenario:
A group of people were born in a locked room and lived their entire lives in it. The people had frequent discussions about the world outside. A says that he has studied the room for years and that it was very well-designed. He also found an electric fan which he had dismantled and found out its mechanisms, how it worked and stuff. Could the room and the fan have come about by chance? But doesn't the marvelous design of the fan point to the existence of a "something" outside the room who made it and put it there? But he acknowledges that, since no one has seen anything except what exists inside the room, it is possible that there is nothing else besides the room.
B1 protests violently. His mother has told him that the world outside is inhabited by many creatures of which the monsters have long long ago locked man's ancestors in the room. But one day the angels will come and open up the room and liberate the people living in the room. B2 disagrees and says the truth is that there are no monsters, only angels who have placed people in the room for a little while to look after it. One day, they will be released.
C brushed aside all of them. The room is all that there is. Why waste time thinking about the outside world? The most important thing is the here and now. Enjoy things while they last. Why get so uptight over things that we have no definite answer to?
D told the people that he had visions and dreams of giants ruling the world outside. And there were many such rooms with people inside. They will be inside the rooms forever. He feels that different people will have different ideas of the outside world. The truth lives inside everyone, according to what he/she thinks/feels. People should not condemn what others feel or think about the outside world because everybody has a right to decide for himself what is true.
I think it is not hard to see the point I am trying to make here. We are like the people living in the room trying to find out if there is a god out there. It will be a good start to be like A. At least, he is open to the idea of a god out there. B1 and B2 believe in God/s. But they have different ideas of who God is and what he does. Can both their gods possibly co-exist? What is the basis for their beliefs? Is there proof? Or is it plain family tradition? C is the materialist who lives for the present. Eat, drink and be merry. Refuses to entertain thoughts about God. D is the goody-two-shoe and is most well-liked. He understands the need for some purpose in life and chooses to believe in some religion. He lives a moral and "godly" life. He is tolerant of other religions. You have the right to believe in your God. I have my right to believe in mine. All are true. All can coexist in harmony. As long as we don't do anything harmful and treat people well, we are good people.
There is a diversity of beliefs and non-beliefs. Is there one truth? Is there one God? Can we ever know the truth about God, if there is one? The Christian answer is there is one. And only one. I know Christians have always been accused of being proud, arrogant, snobbish and full-of-themselves because they (from a non-Christian point of view) insist that their religion is the only true religion. Their god is the only god. Their religion is the only way to get into heaven. Slams door. Throws eggs at them. Spit. Full of rubbish. Don't ever try to talk about Christianity to me again. The eggs and the spit can remain. But perhaps you can open the door slightly and listen to me for a while.. At least listen to the whole story before you slam the door..
If we are forever trapped in this "room" and have no idea of the world outside, we can only at best speculate about whether there is a god outside. We can formulate our own set of beliefs about God. We can listen to passed-down stories about God from our ancestors. There is no definite truth. Then it makes D's argument logical. Everyone is right about God. God is whatever we make him out to be. That makes C's argument logical too. Cos then it doesnt really matter how we live our lives. Eat, drink and be merry and then die. After death? We will think of it when we die. Enjoy the present first. If there is no real truth and no real God, I will be a strong proponent of C. What does it matter? We will all die anyway, lets enjoy it while it lasts!
But the Christian bible has some very strong claims about God. God exists. He created the "room". He created human beings. In the past, he "popped" into the "room" now and then to appear to one or two people. He told them his plans for the world and what humans should do. He also had a son, who was with him from the beginning. More recently (that is 2000++ years ago), he sent his son into the "room" for a little while. This would be the definitive appearance of God. He would not appear again until one specific day in future. While in the "room", God's son told the people about God. A group of people who were closest to God's son wrote down everything he said and did during that short while (with the help of God) and compiled them into the 4 gospels.
And that is what we have today. Everything that we can know about God is in the bible. And it is all that we have. His son has appeared personally to our ancestors and they have dutifully passed the message down to us. If we are in a room, the only true way to be sure that God exists is if he comes into the room and tells us. Or theoretically we can get out of the room, see God and come back to tell the others. No one has done the latter. The former? No one living now has ever seen God.. because God has chosen to appear only once 2000 years ago to some people. (I don't know why) But he had come into the room before.. so there is indeed a god. The bible says that he exists.
I cannot say anything about other religions and their Gods. Maybe they have some basis for their beliefs, maybe not.. But the bible says that there is only one god. So if the bible is not something made up by man, then Christianity is true and the rest are false. If I say that the rest are true also, then Christianity becomes a lie and I am wasting my time here being a goody-two-shoe.
The whole truth (or lie) of Christianity hangs on the reliability of the bible. There is nothing else. If any part of the bible is proven to be false, we Christians are no more than fools believing in a lie and trying to rope in others to believe in the same lie, while getting ridiculed, spat and thrown eggs at.. Ok la, it is not that bad.. I am exaggerating a bit. Then again, people in some countries are being tortured and executed for converting to Christianity. So much trouble for a lie and a god that doesn't exist?
I am thankful to God if you are a non-Christian and patient enough to read till this line.. I will blog again soon =) Do keep your door slightly open.. ha..
There are a few ways I can start talking about Christianity. I can begin with the bible, about Jesus Christ, about the meaning and purpose of life, about sin, about religion as a whole blah blah.. But I feel that without a common platform to start off, there is really not much point talking about anything else. And that common point is the existence of God.
I used to be very constrained and narrow-minded in my thinking when I ponder over the existence of God. I think at some points in our lives, whether or not we believe in a god, we start to think about how we came into existence, how this world came about and stuff.. And it is a very unsatisfying process thinking about such things, cos by looking at ourselves and at the things around us, we are no better understanding how these things came about. For myself, as I grew older, I began to reject the idea of God. All the scientific education I got taught me that unless something is evidence-based and scientifically proven, it cannot be true. We are constrained by what we see and hear now. We are constrained to think that science can explain everything in the world.
I have no doubt that science is real and true. But the role of science is constrained in itself. It is not all-encompassing. We can go as deep as the smallest particles including the electrons and the protons to explain how sodium and chlorine can form sodium chloride and as far as Jupiter and Saturn and beyond to explain what goes on in their atmospheres. But thats about all science can explain. It can only explain the things we can see and observe. Whether or not there is something behind and beyond the things science observes - something of a different kind - this is not something science can answer. I am not yet saying if there is "something behind", I am just saying that science is limited in such a way that it cannot make any statement on whether or not there is an existence of such a "something". In other words, what I am getting at is this: just because we have not seen God, we cannot conclude that God does not exist (and at this point we also cannot conclude that he exists).
Once you agree with me on this point and be open to the idea of god, we can start to find out whether God really exists. This will not be easy and it will take some time to grapple with.. that is if you think it is an important issue to think over..
It is not an easy task finding out whether there is a higher being up there (or anywhere) because we cannot rely on science to help us (as explained above). I have to copy an idea wholesale from a book I read, hopefully Vaughan Roberts wouldn't mind.. This is the scenario:
A group of people were born in a locked room and lived their entire lives in it. The people had frequent discussions about the world outside. A says that he has studied the room for years and that it was very well-designed. He also found an electric fan which he had dismantled and found out its mechanisms, how it worked and stuff. Could the room and the fan have come about by chance? But doesn't the marvelous design of the fan point to the existence of a "something" outside the room who made it and put it there? But he acknowledges that, since no one has seen anything except what exists inside the room, it is possible that there is nothing else besides the room.
B1 protests violently. His mother has told him that the world outside is inhabited by many creatures of which the monsters have long long ago locked man's ancestors in the room. But one day the angels will come and open up the room and liberate the people living in the room. B2 disagrees and says the truth is that there are no monsters, only angels who have placed people in the room for a little while to look after it. One day, they will be released.
C brushed aside all of them. The room is all that there is. Why waste time thinking about the outside world? The most important thing is the here and now. Enjoy things while they last. Why get so uptight over things that we have no definite answer to?
D told the people that he had visions and dreams of giants ruling the world outside. And there were many such rooms with people inside. They will be inside the rooms forever. He feels that different people will have different ideas of the outside world. The truth lives inside everyone, according to what he/she thinks/feels. People should not condemn what others feel or think about the outside world because everybody has a right to decide for himself what is true.
I think it is not hard to see the point I am trying to make here. We are like the people living in the room trying to find out if there is a god out there. It will be a good start to be like A. At least, he is open to the idea of a god out there. B1 and B2 believe in God/s. But they have different ideas of who God is and what he does. Can both their gods possibly co-exist? What is the basis for their beliefs? Is there proof? Or is it plain family tradition? C is the materialist who lives for the present. Eat, drink and be merry. Refuses to entertain thoughts about God. D is the goody-two-shoe and is most well-liked. He understands the need for some purpose in life and chooses to believe in some religion. He lives a moral and "godly" life. He is tolerant of other religions. You have the right to believe in your God. I have my right to believe in mine. All are true. All can coexist in harmony. As long as we don't do anything harmful and treat people well, we are good people.
There is a diversity of beliefs and non-beliefs. Is there one truth? Is there one God? Can we ever know the truth about God, if there is one? The Christian answer is there is one. And only one. I know Christians have always been accused of being proud, arrogant, snobbish and full-of-themselves because they (from a non-Christian point of view) insist that their religion is the only true religion. Their god is the only god. Their religion is the only way to get into heaven. Slams door. Throws eggs at them. Spit. Full of rubbish. Don't ever try to talk about Christianity to me again. The eggs and the spit can remain. But perhaps you can open the door slightly and listen to me for a while.. At least listen to the whole story before you slam the door..
If we are forever trapped in this "room" and have no idea of the world outside, we can only at best speculate about whether there is a god outside. We can formulate our own set of beliefs about God. We can listen to passed-down stories about God from our ancestors. There is no definite truth. Then it makes D's argument logical. Everyone is right about God. God is whatever we make him out to be. That makes C's argument logical too. Cos then it doesnt really matter how we live our lives. Eat, drink and be merry and then die. After death? We will think of it when we die. Enjoy the present first. If there is no real truth and no real God, I will be a strong proponent of C. What does it matter? We will all die anyway, lets enjoy it while it lasts!
But the Christian bible has some very strong claims about God. God exists. He created the "room". He created human beings. In the past, he "popped" into the "room" now and then to appear to one or two people. He told them his plans for the world and what humans should do. He also had a son, who was with him from the beginning. More recently (that is 2000++ years ago), he sent his son into the "room" for a little while. This would be the definitive appearance of God. He would not appear again until one specific day in future. While in the "room", God's son told the people about God. A group of people who were closest to God's son wrote down everything he said and did during that short while (with the help of God) and compiled them into the 4 gospels.
And that is what we have today. Everything that we can know about God is in the bible. And it is all that we have. His son has appeared personally to our ancestors and they have dutifully passed the message down to us. If we are in a room, the only true way to be sure that God exists is if he comes into the room and tells us. Or theoretically we can get out of the room, see God and come back to tell the others. No one has done the latter. The former? No one living now has ever seen God.. because God has chosen to appear only once 2000 years ago to some people. (I don't know why) But he had come into the room before.. so there is indeed a god. The bible says that he exists.
I cannot say anything about other religions and their Gods. Maybe they have some basis for their beliefs, maybe not.. But the bible says that there is only one god. So if the bible is not something made up by man, then Christianity is true and the rest are false. If I say that the rest are true also, then Christianity becomes a lie and I am wasting my time here being a goody-two-shoe.
The whole truth (or lie) of Christianity hangs on the reliability of the bible. There is nothing else. If any part of the bible is proven to be false, we Christians are no more than fools believing in a lie and trying to rope in others to believe in the same lie, while getting ridiculed, spat and thrown eggs at.. Ok la, it is not that bad.. I am exaggerating a bit. Then again, people in some countries are being tortured and executed for converting to Christianity. So much trouble for a lie and a god that doesn't exist?
I am thankful to God if you are a non-Christian and patient enough to read till this line.. I will blog again soon =) Do keep your door slightly open.. ha..
Tuesday, April 04, 2006
Amazing Race!
How shiok is family medicine posting? Now I am slacking at home in front of my comp.. and the GP clinic and the polyclinic is a mere 10, 15 minutes bus ride from my house..
Anyway, it was a much needed rest at home after a gruelling 5 hour plus adventure race in the southern part of Singapore on Sunday. Do you realise that your muscles are the most sore the second day after any sporting activity? Now, almost every other muscle group is suffering from the effects of Sunday's exertion..
But it was extremely fun and enjoyable though tiring. Team comprised of me, Danny (church friend) and William (Danny's friend). It was a team event, meaning three of us would start together and do the race together. Thus each team was only as fast as the slowest guy. We started off from Padang. Waited 30 agonising minutes for the "VVVIP" (which I don't even recognise) to saunter in and finally flag us off at 8.30 am. Ran towards Temasek Tower where our bicycles were deposited earlier. But before we could get on our bikes, our first challenge: inflate this longish balloon and following the instructions given on a piece of paper, make it into a sword. The instructions were simple enough. Problem was: we couldn't even inflate the balloon. We were told to bring a bicycle pump during the race briefing, but no one would have thought that it was for inflating balloons. The nozzle couldn't fit into the opening of the balloon and there was no way we could blow it up. We decided to forfeit the challenge. And take the 15 minute time penalty which will be added on to our final time.
Next, we cycled to Mount Faber, deposited our bikes and ran up to the peak where we were given another challenge. Find the bearing of the place we were given (we got Manila). That was simple enough. Next up. We were supposed to shade "ADVENTURE SINGAPORE 2006" all in capitals, using the tourist information boards or plagues (whatever u call them) on the walls. That was a little tougher than u would imagine. Cos there were only limited capital letters we could find on the walls. And there were so many teams trying to shade the letters. We also ended up improvising and using "A" to shade "V", and inverting "9" to shade "6".
Next stop, Telok Blangah Hill by foot. Challenge: There were 7 different hand signals depicted on a few pieces of paper. They represented 7 alphabets which we were supposed to decipher from the key given to us. A, H, E, T, W, R, E. We were then supposed to unscramble the letters to form a word. Again, it may seem easy while u are sitting down and all the blood is going to your brain. At that moment, with all the adrenaline pumping and the blood shunted from our brains, we could not really think properly. After 10 over minutes, I finally thought of the answer. (By now u should have got it, right?) Should have practised on more Scrabble at home.. it would probably have saved us 10 minutes. Don't think my 10km runs could have saved that much time haha..
Then it was back to our bikes and our next stop was Sentosa. It was Tyrolean Traverse next. Basically, this is like flying fox, just that you are being hung horizontally face up, and you are supposed to pull yourself across from one point to another. That was quite fun!
Team biathlon was next. One bike shared among three of us. We were allowed to take turns to bike and run. This was more tiring than expected and all the cramps started to set in. Furthermore, I volunteered to run the whole route cos of my less-than-fantastic bicycling skills.
We then had our first attempts at Sodoku. Again, if we had known, we would have spend some time practising this rather than clocking mileage on the roads. I don't think the puzzle was very tough and with some collaboration with other teams, we managed to solve the puzzle in about five minutes. I must say Sodoku is quite an interesting game haha..
We were back to the mainland after that and we made our way to Marina South. And got caught in a massive bottleneck under Benjamin Sheares Bridge. The station was ascending ropes. Basically, you are supposed to climb up 2 ropes (about 9 metres or so) using some special equipment provided. Only two members were required to do this. I decided to give it a miss cos Danny and William had done it before (though I did try it during the skills test the week before). Ended up waiting 40 over minutes before completing the station.
Abseiling (or rappeling) was next. One member had to do the free abseiling down Benjamin Sheares. The other two would have to do the diagonal abseil. This was rather fun too.. No muscle power needed, just letting gravity do its job. Furthermore, spirits were high cos we were nearing the end.. We even had the luxury of getting 100 plus along the Esplanade while making our way to the next station. A mixed team that passed us were rather bemused. haha..
The penultimate challenge was nothing much.. Just a short 30-metre swim near the Merlion while taking note of 2 photographs on the wall. We were later quizzed on what were on the 2 photographs.
Then the sprint (more like a leisure jog actually) towards the finish line. Then a 5-metre tall kiddy rock wall. 5 hour plus plus plus, without factoring in the 15-minute time penalty. We still have not figured out whether it was 15 minutes per team or 15 minutes per member. But at the end of the day, the goal is really just to finish the race..
It may seem crazy spending a Sunday morning and afternoon torturing ourselves.. Not to mention the amount of money we spent. 60 dollars registration per person, 50 dollars for renting my mountain bike.. and all the racing equipment, attire and food.. But I thought it was worth it. There will not be many more opportunities for me to try this.. Not when I am being caught in a 36-hour shift as a house officer or when I am 50 plus years old..
Anyway, it was a much needed rest at home after a gruelling 5 hour plus adventure race in the southern part of Singapore on Sunday. Do you realise that your muscles are the most sore the second day after any sporting activity? Now, almost every other muscle group is suffering from the effects of Sunday's exertion..
But it was extremely fun and enjoyable though tiring. Team comprised of me, Danny (church friend) and William (Danny's friend). It was a team event, meaning three of us would start together and do the race together. Thus each team was only as fast as the slowest guy. We started off from Padang. Waited 30 agonising minutes for the "VVVIP" (which I don't even recognise) to saunter in and finally flag us off at 8.30 am. Ran towards Temasek Tower where our bicycles were deposited earlier. But before we could get on our bikes, our first challenge: inflate this longish balloon and following the instructions given on a piece of paper, make it into a sword. The instructions were simple enough. Problem was: we couldn't even inflate the balloon. We were told to bring a bicycle pump during the race briefing, but no one would have thought that it was for inflating balloons. The nozzle couldn't fit into the opening of the balloon and there was no way we could blow it up. We decided to forfeit the challenge. And take the 15 minute time penalty which will be added on to our final time.
Next, we cycled to Mount Faber, deposited our bikes and ran up to the peak where we were given another challenge. Find the bearing of the place we were given (we got Manila). That was simple enough. Next up. We were supposed to shade "ADVENTURE SINGAPORE 2006" all in capitals, using the tourist information boards or plagues (whatever u call them) on the walls. That was a little tougher than u would imagine. Cos there were only limited capital letters we could find on the walls. And there were so many teams trying to shade the letters. We also ended up improvising and using "A" to shade "V", and inverting "9" to shade "6".
Next stop, Telok Blangah Hill by foot. Challenge: There were 7 different hand signals depicted on a few pieces of paper. They represented 7 alphabets which we were supposed to decipher from the key given to us. A, H, E, T, W, R, E. We were then supposed to unscramble the letters to form a word. Again, it may seem easy while u are sitting down and all the blood is going to your brain. At that moment, with all the adrenaline pumping and the blood shunted from our brains, we could not really think properly. After 10 over minutes, I finally thought of the answer. (By now u should have got it, right?) Should have practised on more Scrabble at home.. it would probably have saved us 10 minutes. Don't think my 10km runs could have saved that much time haha..
Then it was back to our bikes and our next stop was Sentosa. It was Tyrolean Traverse next. Basically, this is like flying fox, just that you are being hung horizontally face up, and you are supposed to pull yourself across from one point to another. That was quite fun!
Team biathlon was next. One bike shared among three of us. We were allowed to take turns to bike and run. This was more tiring than expected and all the cramps started to set in. Furthermore, I volunteered to run the whole route cos of my less-than-fantastic bicycling skills.
We then had our first attempts at Sodoku. Again, if we had known, we would have spend some time practising this rather than clocking mileage on the roads. I don't think the puzzle was very tough and with some collaboration with other teams, we managed to solve the puzzle in about five minutes. I must say Sodoku is quite an interesting game haha..
We were back to the mainland after that and we made our way to Marina South. And got caught in a massive bottleneck under Benjamin Sheares Bridge. The station was ascending ropes. Basically, you are supposed to climb up 2 ropes (about 9 metres or so) using some special equipment provided. Only two members were required to do this. I decided to give it a miss cos Danny and William had done it before (though I did try it during the skills test the week before). Ended up waiting 40 over minutes before completing the station.
Abseiling (or rappeling) was next. One member had to do the free abseiling down Benjamin Sheares. The other two would have to do the diagonal abseil. This was rather fun too.. No muscle power needed, just letting gravity do its job. Furthermore, spirits were high cos we were nearing the end.. We even had the luxury of getting 100 plus along the Esplanade while making our way to the next station. A mixed team that passed us were rather bemused. haha..
The penultimate challenge was nothing much.. Just a short 30-metre swim near the Merlion while taking note of 2 photographs on the wall. We were later quizzed on what were on the 2 photographs.
Then the sprint (more like a leisure jog actually) towards the finish line. Then a 5-metre tall kiddy rock wall. 5 hour plus plus plus, without factoring in the 15-minute time penalty. We still have not figured out whether it was 15 minutes per team or 15 minutes per member. But at the end of the day, the goal is really just to finish the race..
It may seem crazy spending a Sunday morning and afternoon torturing ourselves.. Not to mention the amount of money we spent. 60 dollars registration per person, 50 dollars for renting my mountain bike.. and all the racing equipment, attire and food.. But I thought it was worth it. There will not be many more opportunities for me to try this.. Not when I am being caught in a 36-hour shift as a house officer or when I am 50 plus years old..
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)