Because I chose to take a leave day to make it go for a full four days instead of ``just'' the three.
And why would I do that, one might wonder.
A good question that, unfortunately, I have no answer to. I just felt that it was necessary to take that extra day, and so I took it.
Was it worth that one-day of paid time off? Well... it's already accounted for (otherwise it won't be called ``paid time off''), and since I have no intention to travel during these few years, it will always be worth it.
Contrary to popular belief, single people do have their own lives to lead too, even if their lives do not revolve around running after their own children, or trying to pamper some significant other.
There is nothing inherently valueless doing something that one likes that does not harm/involve others, even if it is way off what is mainstream and/or considered acceptable.
Anyone who is trying to force their own interpretation of what is right upon others is a giant asshole. And yes, this statement is directed also to those who claim to be followers of Christ as well.
Not referencing Roe v Wade and/or 377A in SIN city in particular, I am just tired of hearing any particular groups of people who follow this pattern:
- Claim that a certain behaviour is prescribed by their rule book (be it Scripture or something else);
- Declare that anything that falls outside of said prescription is heretical;
- Persecute others whose faith does not include said rule book for not following the prescribed behaviour;
- ...while hypocritically not following their own rule book properly.
The rules that one believes in are only applicable to oneself because of one's faith---it is therefore important for the one who believes to fulfill the requirements of those rules. It is not the case that one's belief in a certain set of rules gives them the power and automatic right to force others to subscribe to the same beliefs through enforcing these rules from faith/belief on others. It sickens me to a great degree whenever I hear of people claiming that this is the way to bring more of the unsaved towards Christ (obviously this comment is only targetted at those who use the Lord's name to justify their heinous actions).
Last I checked from Scripture, Jesus didn't tell us to drag people kicking and screaming towards believing in Him as their saviour. In fact, there is a strong sense of the Great Commission being the spreading of the gospel of salvation through the birth, death, and resurrection of Jesus, and letting the Holy Spirit sort out the individual's eventual spiritual alignment towards something that is more pleasing to God.
And the last I checked Scripture, God did not make Man to be a mindless follower---Man has the ability to think and decide whether to worship God or to reject God, either action having their own consequences.
So why do we still have such coercive behaviours, many of which are proclaimed to be of divine inspiration in the name of God?
The easiest and probably most correct answer is to refer to the point that Man is a sinful creature, always being tempted by his own desires, and not keeping his life centred around that of God. As long as the flesh remains, we will forever be sinners---it takes time and effort for our fleshly selves to allow the Holy Spirit to guide us towards godliness.
The problem with this easy and most correct answer is that it relies heavily on the reader agreeing with the tenets of my faith, a tall order to ask for.
Which is why secularity is a thing that was eventually borne out of the old theocratic institutions. It is not that God's Word is wrong, but that we try too hard to directly transpose first century writings from a culturally homogenous set up of God's chosen people to the twenty-first century cosmopolitan diversity that globalisation and hyper-connectedness brings, and this is not even counting the inevitable corruption from incumbency and personal interests of the human executors.
All words as recorded are to communicate the same fundamental principles to the people whom the words are written for, and to take such words two thousand years later at face value is disingenious. Scripture is literal and inerrant---it is written and inspired by God, but is penned down by Man. God is unknowable; His reality is also unknowable. Therefore His Word should be taken as God trying to dumb things down to a level that allows us to understand, without dumbing it down too much that it is wrong. Reality isn't a bag of words---reality just is, inasmuch as God is just I AM. Thus, any sequence of words that claims to describe reality necessarily is incomplete in some manner, and will require interpretation.
It is that gap of interpretation that gave theocratic systems of ruling people the opportunity to corrupt the teachings and twist things that can benefit them carnally. It did not help that much of the world was illiterate, which gave the clerics a monopoly of the actual reading (and thus interpretation) of Scripture.
Secularity tries to attain some form of unity through reducing the errors that are possible from interpretation by relying on objectively measurable outcomes, in the hopes that using something objective allows any doubters to simply pull up their measurement tools and measure reality accordingly, with no need to agree upon the tenets of someone else's faith. My acceptance of God and someone else's rejection of God does not change the mass of one kilogram of sugar, because, nor does it change the generally objective principle of ``killing another person without provocation is not acceptable''.
The devil, as they always say, is in the details. It is one thing for one to keep to the rules of one's faith strictly, and it is another to force someone else who doesn't believe/care about one's faith to do the same---while it seems like a good idea because we are making people follow what we know to be right, it is A Bad Thing.
Because if ``we'' can force others to follow ``our'' rules/interpretations because ``we'' are currently in power, then it sets a precedent for ``they'' whom do not agree with ``our'' rules/interpretations to force ``us'' to follow ``their'' rules/interpretations when ``they'' come to power. Human power plays are always dynamic, and there is never any way of knowing if any group will suddenly gain power through happenstance (or God's Will).
Comparing that against keeping it generally at the lowest common denominator (or what we call more ``universal'' principles), I'd take the latter as it is the most fair for all of us, even though we are pretty sure that the other side is wrong [for the sole reason that they do not follow our faith]. An uneasy truce in a way, but it at least provides a social contract that allows for an objectively better outcome of the society on the whole without having to fight against the mass that is cosmopolitan diversity.
Does this nullify the various positions on modern day problems that our faith ``demands'' that we take? No, it doesn't---the secularity rules give us the right to police ourselves more harshly on our own if we choose to do so, and it protects us from being policed by others whose faith we do not follow. Short of evicting all who do not follow our faith, this is the next best thing that allows us freedom of faith, and freedom of association.
If we were alone, we can do whatever we want. Unfortunately for all, we live in a society, and as long as we are living in a society, we will undoubtedly have to interact with many other people, and not all of them are ``like'' us. The objectiveness that undergirds the concept of secularity then is the way to protect us from them (inasmuch as it is a way of protecting them from us) by forcing communication to be on terms that can be verified with a framework based on falsifiability.
So, what's the point of writing all these?
What's the point of existing on earth?
Till the next update.
No comments:
Post a Comment