- 1 Corinthians 3:18 - 20
Agree to disagree? That is only your own opinion. That is only their perception.
I agree there are some things that we can agree to disagree. Such as which flavour of ice cream is the best. What features constitutes physical attractiveness to an individual. How we choose to eat our food - do we prefer soup or kon low. Those are considered trivial to me and not worth participating in an argument over.
What I cannot agree to disagree are universal truths. In particular, my faith. The faith which is shared with many others. I do not wish to refer to it as a religion for we see it as more of a relationship with our God. If theology is not your cup of tea, kindly leave this article. Though I am in no means seeking to preach, I do wish to share about point of views. Perceptions.
It bothers me that there are those who do not wish to accept the truth of reality. They live in their own world thinking their logic and supposed wisdom is all they need as their moral compass to get by in life and partake in the splendours of the sweet hereafters when they die. In my faith, it is called heaven.
But if there are already guidelines, more experienced and elder people who may provide more insights into the beliefs and practice, it would not make any sense to not listen to them. If only to learn a fragment more than before. It would be something to gain compared to gaining nothing.
When a person denies everything else except for his own interpretations, how then can he claim to be a part of a larger group? If a person cherry picks what he wants to hear while throwing out all that is unpleasant to his ears, though he knows there is truths in them... how then can he claim to know enough?
It should be obvious if he who has done things his way for many years only to reach the same disappointing ending, that he would try to seek alternatives. Seeking alternatives, trying other practices that would even remotely seem like they have produced favourable results for other people.
Would that not pique his interest, causing him to ask, "What has that person been doing, that he has successful results? Maybe I should try it to see if it works."
Or should he go, "That is a different case, it surely won't work for me."
* * * * *
As I was relating this to a friend. I realised that a certain government also behaved the same way. Where international researches have showed the country's poor governance. And all the government would respond is by saying the research results were merely the researchers' perception. While majority of the citizens of the country are feeling first hand, the research results. However the government chooses to stick its head in the sand.
* * * * *
As long there is no improvement needed, nothing will change. If nothing changes, there will be no improvement. Sadly, some people never see change in their lifetime. They should have asked themselves what could they have done to improve, rather than saying that they did all that they could. Nobody is perfect. So how can one self-regulate himself accurately? If there are others to learn from, would it not make sense to take advantage of that opportunity? Why reject them, thinking their views are not good? If they are not good, then why is what they have otherwise been employing, proven to be unsuccessful time and time again?
* * * * *
How can one shun the act of condemning a soul to be hopeless in being saved or helped when one condemns the land and its collective of people so easily of being hopeless in being saved? It may take years and years. Some people went through years and years of disappointment only to experience results eventually. So who is to say something cannot be saved when one has not even done anything in his capacity to help?
Agree to disagree? That is only your own opinion. That is only their perception.
I agree there are some things that we can agree to disagree. Such as which flavour of ice cream is the best. What features constitutes physical attractiveness to an individual. How we choose to eat our food - do we prefer soup or kon low. Those are considered trivial to me and not worth participating in an argument over.
What I cannot agree to disagree are universal truths. In particular, my faith. The faith which is shared with many others. I do not wish to refer to it as a religion for we see it as more of a relationship with our God. If theology is not your cup of tea, kindly leave this article. Though I am in no means seeking to preach, I do wish to share about point of views. Perceptions.
It bothers me that there are those who do not wish to accept the truth of reality. They live in their own world thinking their logic and supposed wisdom is all they need as their moral compass to get by in life and partake in the splendours of the sweet hereafters when they die. In my faith, it is called heaven.
But if there are already guidelines, more experienced and elder people who may provide more insights into the beliefs and practice, it would not make any sense to not listen to them. If only to learn a fragment more than before. It would be something to gain compared to gaining nothing.
When a person denies everything else except for his own interpretations, how then can he claim to be a part of a larger group? If a person cherry picks what he wants to hear while throwing out all that is unpleasant to his ears, though he knows there is truths in them... how then can he claim to know enough?
It should be obvious if he who has done things his way for many years only to reach the same disappointing ending, that he would try to seek alternatives. Seeking alternatives, trying other practices that would even remotely seem like they have produced favourable results for other people.
Would that not pique his interest, causing him to ask, "What has that person been doing, that he has successful results? Maybe I should try it to see if it works."
Or should he go, "That is a different case, it surely won't work for me."
* * * * *
As I was relating this to a friend. I realised that a certain government also behaved the same way. Where international researches have showed the country's poor governance. And all the government would respond is by saying the research results were merely the researchers' perception. While majority of the citizens of the country are feeling first hand, the research results. However the government chooses to stick its head in the sand.
* * * * *
As long there is no improvement needed, nothing will change. If nothing changes, there will be no improvement. Sadly, some people never see change in their lifetime. They should have asked themselves what could they have done to improve, rather than saying that they did all that they could. Nobody is perfect. So how can one self-regulate himself accurately? If there are others to learn from, would it not make sense to take advantage of that opportunity? Why reject them, thinking their views are not good? If they are not good, then why is what they have otherwise been employing, proven to be unsuccessful time and time again?
* * * * *
How can one shun the act of condemning a soul to be hopeless in being saved or helped when one condemns the land and its collective of people so easily of being hopeless in being saved? It may take years and years. Some people went through years and years of disappointment only to experience results eventually. So who is to say something cannot be saved when one has not even done anything in his capacity to help?
No comments:
Post a Comment