Deeply unsatisfying cell today... as usual. This is the first time I am blogging about it though.
Sometimes I just can't understand the christian form of logic. Let's start with chinese new year greetings. An innocent discussion about chinese new year turned into how some christians do not wish others gong xi fa cai and do not allow others to do the same, which means something like congratulations and may you strike it rich, purely on the basis of how striking it rich contains an element of luck, because, apparently, luck excludes God from the equation. Why can't God work through the process of blind chance? (in this case, whereas evolution isn't blind chance, but thats for another time) Isn't that restricting what God can or cannot do? (Note: This will turn up again) But I digress. The most important thing is about how they do not allow others to say it too, which I have observed now from 2 friends and family as well. It may well be 4 words, but if a simple greeting can be disallowed on the basis of flawed reasoning, how tolerant would a religious government be?
I say the above because of the dangerous call recently in my church for more christians to be involved in politics, from the grassroots to the national level. I find this an affont to all those who have suffered due to religious persecution and our current secular democracy.(And lets not forget, Christians have done their fair share of persecution. In fact, as one talkshow host mentioned, the Christians have kicked the Muslims ass in terms of body count when it comes to persecution). In case anyone forgot, the last time europe combined religious and political power was the dark ages!
Enough about that. Back to the cell session. The highlight of the session was a discussion about cause and effect, and the evil in the world. After a lengthy discussion where they put up false analogies like how parents cannot control their children (environment has its effect, and God controls the environment as well), the cell leaders fell back on the defence that God 'merely' allowed evil to happen as a result of free will, and that he could not do anything about it. On further challenge, they conceeded that an omnipotent God could change it but did not want to, for a reason that is beyond us. The argument that what we cannot understand is God's doing and beyond us is flawed and dangerous, and often bandied around today, regardless of the fact that science has always been about understanding that which is beyond us, but I digress again. The argument boils down to one simple thing: If you were walking down a street, and saw a rape in progress, and could stop it, and just did nothing but allowed it to happen, was your action good?
I put forward that regardless of the reasoning, the action was not good. It may not be evil, because you bear no malice towards the victim, but it was definitely not good. The argument applies even more to natural events. Recall this paraphrase from an american pastor after the floods in New Orleans: 'God let this happen because it allowed people to show their kindness...' The reasoning is akind to that of a besotted fool getting his friend to 'attack' a woman so that the fool could rescue her!
Questions, questions. How odd that what could have been a mechanism for the rich to control the poor (having absolute faith in a divine being that would provide a better afterlife, thus reducing the desire to improve the present) would have such a large effect beyond its intended purposes?
Personally I have no problems with religion-- as long as it keeps its nose out of real life. Inspirational stories, inspirational songs and group identity are all good things if they didn't come along with faith, hidden agendas, and an all so human quest for power on this earth. Maybe religion isn't so divinely inspired afterall. Till the next rant,
Edwin
