In today’s church sermon, the pastor was
talking about how the Jews were blinded to the ministry of Jesus because of
their excessive rationalism. The pastor gave the example of how the Pharisees
were blindly opposed to the fact that Jesus was the Messiah when he performed
healing miracles on the Sabbath because for the Pharisees, their erroneous
interpretation of the law proscribe against healing on the Sabbath. The end
message of the pastor is that faith in Christ is a gift from God.
Were the Phariseees opposed to Jesus
because he healed on the Sabbath? At least one counterperspective that I have
heard from a Jewish guy, if I can remember correctly, is that the Pharisees
were not so much opposed to Jesus healing on the Sabbath because there are
provisions in Jewish law that necessity is a vitiation against the strict
prohibition of the Sabbath, and healing on the Sabbath may fall under such an
exception. They were more adamant against Jesus pronouncing his authority to
change the law to allow himself to heal on the Sabbath, which for them is a
complete no-no, because the law was meant to be an eternal and immutable covenant
between them and God.
As for regard to the main point of the
pastor regarding faith and rationalism, I can concur that there is an element
of faith when it comes to religion, and that for most of the time, what helps
one to keep to the faith is to have faith. But I am not too keen on the notion
that faith supersedes rationalism. I can actually understand and sympathise
with the rationalism of atheist, and why they find Christianity unfulfilling.
In part, they are my own sentiments about the Christian religion, and there are
quite many aspects of the Christian religion that don’t make sense to me. But
for now, I feel that it is safer and better to be a Christian than not to be
one. But I allow for myself to have the freedom to be independent on how I see
certain Christian doctrines, and be skeptical about them, especially those
which may come off as being abusive to the average Christian adherent. And I
also allow for myself to evaluate certain issues from a non-religious viewpoint
to give me a more comprehensive perspective on them. And indeed, I sometimes
find that a paradigm of understanding that excludes God from the matrix seems
to explain observations more straightforwardly than if I should assume that God
exists.
I am besettled with the question– Does
an individual require religion in order to be good? My short answer is yes.
Morality seems to me to be simply matters which are affirmed by individuals
according to their different conception of what morality is. That is not to say
that objective morality does not exist, only that there is no absolute way of
apprehending objectivity. The most that individuals can do is to approximate
objectivity using their subjective cognitive and sense faculties. But morality
is unlike the science or math where objectivity based solely on facts exists. It
is something that is partially based on facts, as in we can deem that causing
harm to others is immoral because of the harm that is existent in reality, but
ultimately, any act of deeming one thing or another immoral is subjective to an
individual. And there are some issues which are not so clear-cut, especially
when it pertains to matters of sexual relations. It is an activity that is
largely consensual in nature, and which exhibits no apparent harm amongst its
participants. It is precisely that sort of issue that is strewn across the
cleavage of conservative and liberal moral ideologies. I am not sure how one
can persuade the other without convincing the other of accepting his or her
premise that God either exists or not exists, and affirms a certain value
towards sexual purity or not.
Here’s my rambling for the day. I know I
haven’t been blogging a lot, because I haven’t been feeling well from the
tension headaches. But it has been getting better, with help from medication of
Prozac, and I am hoping that this would all go away someday soon.