OCF
It has been a while since I felt enthusiastic about writing here; be it about my life in London or thoughts that I have had. This entry will include a bit of both. Before continuing, I must make the disclaimer that the author does not have any religious affiliations and that the author did not intend to pass any insensitive remarks or discuss any content inaccurately. If the reader is easily offended by the above mentioned, he/she should read on at his/her own risk.
After the routine gym class earlier, I decided to attend the weekly OCF meeting held at ULU. To be honest I wasn't so sure about showing up because, first, I would have been at least an hour late, second, it is already nearing the end of the academic year and lastly (a most minor and insignificant point), I'm not a believer. However, yuchian had been asking me to join them for weeks and she is one of those whom you can't comfortably say no to. Hence I showed up at ULU (surprise surprise, it is the back-up room for my latin classes) and rewarded myself with the awkward stares from those who didn't know me as well as those who knew me (well enough to know that I am not, you know...)
After a slightly awkward introduction that followed... (okay, this is not doing justice to those who were in my group, they were actually really friendly and welcoming) I was in yuchian's group with (in sitting order) Edward, Jireh, Ben(jamin), Minghao, Ruiling, Monica, and Stacey. They were discussing questions that had arisen from the verses in Roman 13. I suppose what made this experience slightly different from all my rest is the fact that the discussions about the applications were in the areas which I can empthise with; as opposed to a middle-aged pastor's preaching or maybe a very abstract, theoretical study of the Bible. I'll try to reiterate as many of the intriguing questions that arose as I can.
1) Value: To follow authority
Question: Whether it is always right to follow instructions, even in the case of a serviceman in the likes of a Nazi Germany regime.
There were a couple of stories shared about believers who lied and hid jews from the soldiers or SS so as to protect them. The difficult in reconciling with the teaching arose from the attempt to justify choosing between values which lead to conflicting results. The group leader mentioned something about the possibility to arriving at the same result without the actor's intervention (ie even if the person who hid the Jews did not lie, they might still be saved in another manner). This hinges a little on deterministic ideas. What concerned me was the similarity that this scenario shared with some criminal cases that I studied. My stance remained the same in that the end justifies the means. I never perceived any rules to be rigid enough to warrant no contravention under even the most extreme situations. Edward curiously mentioned Asimov's 3 laws of robotics, which I don't think everyone was familiar with. I did not see his point at first but soon realised that it is another scenario in which strict adherence to certain doctrines can lead to catastrophic outcomes (which was the exact reason that triggered the circumvention of the 3 laws). Back to the point of following authority, I still have a mixed view. It is in the best interest of the organisation that only the top leadership makes the big decisions. To question its validity at every level of management will render any action impossible. Then again, "just following instructions" was and never will be a sufficient justification to commit atrocities. This is simply because we are not automatons that can shed all responsibilities just by throwing the blame on our superiors. Once again this is in direct conflict with what I purported earlier, that the end justifies the means. Hence, to put my stance in the most extreme situation, if Nazi Germany won the 2nd world war, their act of genocide will not be deemed cruel and unlawful. That of course, is not how I perceive it.
2) Value: To love others as much as one loves oneself
Question: Why do we love those around us?
This bit is a lot more interesting as I wasn't aware of the belief that since we are created in the image of God and that God loves all, therefore we are capable of loving all too. The discussion got even more exciting when everyone started suggesting how non believers can also love. Someone said that it is because there is a bit of the holy spirit in everyone hence the ability to love disregards faith. That wasn't agreed by everyone because apparently there is something (I can't rmb what) which only believers possess. The other explanation was that regardless of faith, everyone was still created in the image of God hence having no physical difference in construction. The ability to love all is hence inherited by all.
As a non-believer, I attempted the question differently in my mind. The idea of love, hate and most other emotions stem from reciprocity. Logically, if someone loves you and treats you well, it is almost instinctive to love and be nice in return. Conversely, if someone attempts to harm you physically, you may instinctively avoid or retaliate with the same amount of harm or hatred. This of course is not true for all cases. We are intelligent beings and it is reasonable for us to choose the way we react. There are cases of one sided love as well as people who are unbelievably forgiving. With some soul searching I do feel that I want to be nicer to people who are nice to me or whom I want to be nice to me. I am not sure if I can love all but it almost never seem too daunting to try.
The more challenging question was the method of loving oneself as much as one loves others. My group generally seem to perceive human beings to be more likely to put their own interest before others. I seem to think of it the other way. It is foreseeable and morally acceptable for one to have one's own interest at top priority when taking food at a buffet. However how would a person normally react when there is a shortage of food and the amount available is only sufficient to keep one person alive (when 2 friends are trapped in a cave maybe)? I can hardly ever imagine myself snatching that chance of survival for the guilt that I'll have to live with for the rest of my life. In any scenario, I find myself more prone to putting other's interest before mine. This is especially true when the stake is huge. My question is how in every scenario, can we distribute love equally? Do i split the sustenance with my friend in the cave and cause the both of us to die? Do I desperately hang onto the only parachute and kill the both of us? Can 2 deaths ever be better than 1? This puzzles me.
3) Question: Believers are promised to be fed and clothed, what about the starving believers in third world countries?
Minghao's question about a verse in Matthew if I remember correctly. After a vaguely heated discussion, there are many suggestions as to how trust should not be based on observable rewards and how perception of being clothed and being fed differs in different social context. A mildly humourous yet valid point is that if we are to claim that people in third world countries are not sufficiently fed, the fact that many of them are still living deserves some explanation. I believe that they are not fed or clothed to a standard which we perceive acceptable but that does not mean that they have not been clothed or fed at all. Before I elaborate on my point and address the issue of people dying from hunger or malnutrition, I want to explore something which yuchian shared about her mother's beliefs.
In short, the idea is that God has his reasons and methods, most often beyond human understanding. That being said, just because there are natural catastrophe as well as death, it doesn't allow us to question the validity of God's decisions and actions. Faith is not based upon what we ask of God but how we have unfaltering trust in him.
This came across as a very valid logical form of reasoning despite asking for unquestioning faith (which in some ways is the definition of faith anyways). To use an analogy, if I meet a person today and I need to entrust him with certain information, there is no way for me to be absolutely sure whether he is trustworthy or not. I may get testimonies or references to his character and form a prediction but that still does not guarantee the outcome. Furthermore even if he has abused my trust, I am still not able to conclude that he is completely untrustworthy. The only way for me to find out if I can trust him with Task A will be to let him complete Task A, no other ways seem possible.
Moving on, the question of why are some believers not fed or clothed.
My explanation is that God never give you what you physically need. The fact that I am hungry right now will not warrant a plate of Char Kway Teow appearing before me. The hunger drives me to search food. In my case with considerable ease as I take some cash and walk to the nearest chinese restaurant to order one. Regardless of how easy it is to obtain food or clothes, it is impossible for one to do it with zero effort. Hence how are we to say that someone living in a third world country is any different in the sense that they are driven to find food when they experience hunger? One may argue that the outcome is drastically different because I get to find my food but the person living in a third world country will ultimately fail to do the same.
Firstly, I will argue that the pursuit of a better quality of life cannot be viewed on an individual level. This is simply an economics idea. The collective drive of a population to be well fed will lead to a pattern of resource allocation that will maximise consumption. In a third world country it is the same, the collective need for better living conditions will drive the population in a certain direction. It may start from primitive methods such as collecting plants, rainwater but eventually the goal is to be able meet the needs of the population.
Secondly, on the point of people dying from hunger, I contend that it is an inevitable part of the process. No one escapes death, so it does not make a fundamental difference that we die for various reasons. I can be well fed and well clothed my whole life. However, in an expedition to the North Pole, I made a serious underestimation as to the warm clothing that I need. If in that case I die because I wasn't sufficiently clothed, does that mean God has not provided me sufficiently? The reason of my death is not that God did not provide but rather when the need arise I am not able to secure the clothing/ food. How is my encounter in the strictest sense fundamentally different from an average 30 year old person who eventually dies of hunger in a third world country? He had the urge, he could not find the means as well. What about me getting knocked over by a car on my way to purchase my pack of cha kway teow? It is true that I did not die from hunger but I did die in the pursuit of getting fed. How is that different from a man in a third world country risking his life to earn money enough to feed himself?
Slotted between those serious questions were a number of theories and ideas that mixed a small amount of logic with a huge load of humour. Here are some of the funny bits which I thought were worth sharing:
1) By the evolution idea of survival of the fittest, the prettier women would have been eliminated because they are more likely to find mates and hence get pregnant. When they are pregnant, it is harder for them to run away from the cheetahs which prey on men. (says yuchian)
Response 1: That is why woman always look for stronger man as her mate for protection.
Response 2: It doesn't matter if she is pregnant what, even a human being who is not pregnant cannot outrun a cheetah.
Response 3: BUT cheetahs will eat the pregnant woman first because she will look as though she has more flesh.
2) How people in the past find their mates.
Jireh: the men will say "me love you" (deep voice), use the club to whack the woman and bring them back
After that there was a joke about how 8 ppl travelling became 9 ppl because one of them used a club to bring a woman back.
3) Another evolution theory: if all the nice self-sacrificial people give their lives for others, eventually none of them will be left.
4) The reason for self-help payment kiosks, suggested by Edward.
The person who invented it must've been embarrassed trying to avoid eye contact when buying condoms or female sanitary products
I realise that in my reasonings I tried my best to explain ideas in such a way that is compatible with what is in the Bible. This is not because I find myself becoming a believer. I find it engaging to consider how, if I were to become a believer, will I reconcile my personal beliefs with Biblical doctrines. When I can eventually find a compatible answer to all the clashes of ideologies (or the failure to do so), I believe I will no longer be slightly embarrassed to declare my faith (whatever it may be by then).
Jia you bah
After the routine gym class earlier, I decided to attend the weekly OCF meeting held at ULU. To be honest I wasn't so sure about showing up because, first, I would have been at least an hour late, second, it is already nearing the end of the academic year and lastly (a most minor and insignificant point), I'm not a believer. However, yuchian had been asking me to join them for weeks and she is one of those whom you can't comfortably say no to. Hence I showed up at ULU (surprise surprise, it is the back-up room for my latin classes) and rewarded myself with the awkward stares from those who didn't know me as well as those who knew me (well enough to know that I am not, you know...)
After a slightly awkward introduction that followed... (okay, this is not doing justice to those who were in my group, they were actually really friendly and welcoming) I was in yuchian's group with (in sitting order) Edward, Jireh, Ben(jamin), Minghao, Ruiling, Monica, and Stacey. They were discussing questions that had arisen from the verses in Roman 13. I suppose what made this experience slightly different from all my rest is the fact that the discussions about the applications were in the areas which I can empthise with; as opposed to a middle-aged pastor's preaching or maybe a very abstract, theoretical study of the Bible. I'll try to reiterate as many of the intriguing questions that arose as I can.
1) Value: To follow authority
Question: Whether it is always right to follow instructions, even in the case of a serviceman in the likes of a Nazi Germany regime.
There were a couple of stories shared about believers who lied and hid jews from the soldiers or SS so as to protect them. The difficult in reconciling with the teaching arose from the attempt to justify choosing between values which lead to conflicting results. The group leader mentioned something about the possibility to arriving at the same result without the actor's intervention (ie even if the person who hid the Jews did not lie, they might still be saved in another manner). This hinges a little on deterministic ideas. What concerned me was the similarity that this scenario shared with some criminal cases that I studied. My stance remained the same in that the end justifies the means. I never perceived any rules to be rigid enough to warrant no contravention under even the most extreme situations. Edward curiously mentioned Asimov's 3 laws of robotics, which I don't think everyone was familiar with. I did not see his point at first but soon realised that it is another scenario in which strict adherence to certain doctrines can lead to catastrophic outcomes (which was the exact reason that triggered the circumvention of the 3 laws). Back to the point of following authority, I still have a mixed view. It is in the best interest of the organisation that only the top leadership makes the big decisions. To question its validity at every level of management will render any action impossible. Then again, "just following instructions" was and never will be a sufficient justification to commit atrocities. This is simply because we are not automatons that can shed all responsibilities just by throwing the blame on our superiors. Once again this is in direct conflict with what I purported earlier, that the end justifies the means. Hence, to put my stance in the most extreme situation, if Nazi Germany won the 2nd world war, their act of genocide will not be deemed cruel and unlawful. That of course, is not how I perceive it.
2) Value: To love others as much as one loves oneself
Question: Why do we love those around us?
This bit is a lot more interesting as I wasn't aware of the belief that since we are created in the image of God and that God loves all, therefore we are capable of loving all too. The discussion got even more exciting when everyone started suggesting how non believers can also love. Someone said that it is because there is a bit of the holy spirit in everyone hence the ability to love disregards faith. That wasn't agreed by everyone because apparently there is something (I can't rmb what) which only believers possess. The other explanation was that regardless of faith, everyone was still created in the image of God hence having no physical difference in construction. The ability to love all is hence inherited by all.
As a non-believer, I attempted the question differently in my mind. The idea of love, hate and most other emotions stem from reciprocity. Logically, if someone loves you and treats you well, it is almost instinctive to love and be nice in return. Conversely, if someone attempts to harm you physically, you may instinctively avoid or retaliate with the same amount of harm or hatred. This of course is not true for all cases. We are intelligent beings and it is reasonable for us to choose the way we react. There are cases of one sided love as well as people who are unbelievably forgiving. With some soul searching I do feel that I want to be nicer to people who are nice to me or whom I want to be nice to me. I am not sure if I can love all but it almost never seem too daunting to try.
The more challenging question was the method of loving oneself as much as one loves others. My group generally seem to perceive human beings to be more likely to put their own interest before others. I seem to think of it the other way. It is foreseeable and morally acceptable for one to have one's own interest at top priority when taking food at a buffet. However how would a person normally react when there is a shortage of food and the amount available is only sufficient to keep one person alive (when 2 friends are trapped in a cave maybe)? I can hardly ever imagine myself snatching that chance of survival for the guilt that I'll have to live with for the rest of my life. In any scenario, I find myself more prone to putting other's interest before mine. This is especially true when the stake is huge. My question is how in every scenario, can we distribute love equally? Do i split the sustenance with my friend in the cave and cause the both of us to die? Do I desperately hang onto the only parachute and kill the both of us? Can 2 deaths ever be better than 1? This puzzles me.
3) Question: Believers are promised to be fed and clothed, what about the starving believers in third world countries?
Minghao's question about a verse in Matthew if I remember correctly. After a vaguely heated discussion, there are many suggestions as to how trust should not be based on observable rewards and how perception of being clothed and being fed differs in different social context. A mildly humourous yet valid point is that if we are to claim that people in third world countries are not sufficiently fed, the fact that many of them are still living deserves some explanation. I believe that they are not fed or clothed to a standard which we perceive acceptable but that does not mean that they have not been clothed or fed at all. Before I elaborate on my point and address the issue of people dying from hunger or malnutrition, I want to explore something which yuchian shared about her mother's beliefs.
In short, the idea is that God has his reasons and methods, most often beyond human understanding. That being said, just because there are natural catastrophe as well as death, it doesn't allow us to question the validity of God's decisions and actions. Faith is not based upon what we ask of God but how we have unfaltering trust in him.
This came across as a very valid logical form of reasoning despite asking for unquestioning faith (which in some ways is the definition of faith anyways). To use an analogy, if I meet a person today and I need to entrust him with certain information, there is no way for me to be absolutely sure whether he is trustworthy or not. I may get testimonies or references to his character and form a prediction but that still does not guarantee the outcome. Furthermore even if he has abused my trust, I am still not able to conclude that he is completely untrustworthy. The only way for me to find out if I can trust him with Task A will be to let him complete Task A, no other ways seem possible.
Moving on, the question of why are some believers not fed or clothed.
My explanation is that God never give you what you physically need. The fact that I am hungry right now will not warrant a plate of Char Kway Teow appearing before me. The hunger drives me to search food. In my case with considerable ease as I take some cash and walk to the nearest chinese restaurant to order one. Regardless of how easy it is to obtain food or clothes, it is impossible for one to do it with zero effort. Hence how are we to say that someone living in a third world country is any different in the sense that they are driven to find food when they experience hunger? One may argue that the outcome is drastically different because I get to find my food but the person living in a third world country will ultimately fail to do the same.
Firstly, I will argue that the pursuit of a better quality of life cannot be viewed on an individual level. This is simply an economics idea. The collective drive of a population to be well fed will lead to a pattern of resource allocation that will maximise consumption. In a third world country it is the same, the collective need for better living conditions will drive the population in a certain direction. It may start from primitive methods such as collecting plants, rainwater but eventually the goal is to be able meet the needs of the population.
Secondly, on the point of people dying from hunger, I contend that it is an inevitable part of the process. No one escapes death, so it does not make a fundamental difference that we die for various reasons. I can be well fed and well clothed my whole life. However, in an expedition to the North Pole, I made a serious underestimation as to the warm clothing that I need. If in that case I die because I wasn't sufficiently clothed, does that mean God has not provided me sufficiently? The reason of my death is not that God did not provide but rather when the need arise I am not able to secure the clothing/ food. How is my encounter in the strictest sense fundamentally different from an average 30 year old person who eventually dies of hunger in a third world country? He had the urge, he could not find the means as well. What about me getting knocked over by a car on my way to purchase my pack of cha kway teow? It is true that I did not die from hunger but I did die in the pursuit of getting fed. How is that different from a man in a third world country risking his life to earn money enough to feed himself?
Slotted between those serious questions were a number of theories and ideas that mixed a small amount of logic with a huge load of humour. Here are some of the funny bits which I thought were worth sharing:
1) By the evolution idea of survival of the fittest, the prettier women would have been eliminated because they are more likely to find mates and hence get pregnant. When they are pregnant, it is harder for them to run away from the cheetahs which prey on men. (says yuchian)
Response 1: That is why woman always look for stronger man as her mate for protection.
Response 2: It doesn't matter if she is pregnant what, even a human being who is not pregnant cannot outrun a cheetah.
Response 3: BUT cheetahs will eat the pregnant woman first because she will look as though she has more flesh.
2) How people in the past find their mates.
Jireh: the men will say "me love you" (deep voice), use the club to whack the woman and bring them back
After that there was a joke about how 8 ppl travelling became 9 ppl because one of them used a club to bring a woman back.
3) Another evolution theory: if all the nice self-sacrificial people give their lives for others, eventually none of them will be left.
4) The reason for self-help payment kiosks, suggested by Edward.
The person who invented it must've been embarrassed trying to avoid eye contact when buying condoms or female sanitary products
I realise that in my reasonings I tried my best to explain ideas in such a way that is compatible with what is in the Bible. This is not because I find myself becoming a believer. I find it engaging to consider how, if I were to become a believer, will I reconcile my personal beliefs with Biblical doctrines. When I can eventually find a compatible answer to all the clashes of ideologies (or the failure to do so), I believe I will no longer be slightly embarrassed to declare my faith (whatever it may be by then).
Jia you bah