The Baptism, The Veil, and The Video
Glad to be back blogging. Been busy for quite some time.
Three recent issues drew my interest:
Do the unbaptized babies go to heaven and escaped limbo? The issue was a rather low-profile one than the other issue that will be discussed later.
I don't think being baptized or not will be God's only basis for judging whether a soul is worthy for a place in heaven. The unbaptized babies in this discussion are the ones who died before being able to receive baptism. The question may be that whether they deserve a place in heaven. Well, why not? Why do those poor souls deserve a place in limbo? They didn't have any sins other than the "original sin". I also think that everyone inherit the "original sin" unwillingly. Blame it on the first two if you want.
Besides, I believe that God is surely wise enough not to be so rigid with His judgements on humans. If those who repent are spared, how come the innocents not? Also, whether people go to heaven or hell, it will be His decision, not ours.
I'm not saying that baptisms are not necessary, but seeing it as the prime requirement to attain a place up there in heaven is the one view which is not necessary. This is just my opinion.
I used to feel uneasy whenever I hear people telling others that they are bad and will go to hell, or that they do things inapproriate to God's will. I mean, let Him judges and decides later on on someone's fate. That saying, I don't think death penalty is necessary. Who are we to determine someone's end of life? But that'll be another story.
So, essentially, the thought that the souls of unbaptized dead babies are stuck in limbo is somewhat ridiculous to me. Our original sins were inherited, not committed. Our responsibility should be to live our lives well and to be humans as God intended us to be.
What about the second issue? This one has been a high-profile.
Surely, Mr Jack Straw had sparked a heated debate over the veil worn by Muslim women.
Similar religion-related issue occured in France a few years ago when the government banned the religious symbols. One of the laws was to ban headscarves from schools, but not universities and Muslim schools.
Straw's suggestion that the veil is to be removed was said to be for the sake of the cultural integration in UK. So far, some people considered that tolerance which supposed to be to support cultural differences and to avoid racial & cultural discrimination had been actually promoting segregation.
I don't think that wearing religious symbols would mean that we are distancing away from the community. People can do that without wearing such symbols. And would veil removal ensure integration? Integration can be achieved without banning symbols. It is more important to achieve integration through nationalism instead of prohibiting people wearing religious symbols. It is not important whether someone is wearing any religous symbols or not, but it is very much important that everyone holds a spirit of togetherness and nationalism in his/her heart everyday regardless what his/her faith/religion is.
Thus, if Mr Straw is worried about the community being segregated, I think he looked at the wrong direction. He should look on how to make every UK citizen, regardless of his/her faith, to be proud of being British. Such ban practiced in France, in my opinion, is somewhat unnecessary.
Another problem may also be brewing in Denmark after a tv station broadcast a video showing a contest on the best caricature of the Prophet Mohammed organised by the youth group of the right-wing Danish People's Party (PDD). I don't think such thing is appropriate at all. Doing it is one thing, but broadcasting it is another. If this kind of thing keeps on happening in the near future, one could only wonder when the patience of the Muslim world will last. Especially after Israel's move towards Lebanon, Pope's loose lips, and Mr Straw's comment. I mean, some people are pushing their luck too far.
Well, another weekend here. Will spend another one watching DVDs. See ya later.
Three recent issues drew my interest:
Do the unbaptized babies go to heaven and escaped limbo? The issue was a rather low-profile one than the other issue that will be discussed later.
I don't think being baptized or not will be God's only basis for judging whether a soul is worthy for a place in heaven. The unbaptized babies in this discussion are the ones who died before being able to receive baptism. The question may be that whether they deserve a place in heaven. Well, why not? Why do those poor souls deserve a place in limbo? They didn't have any sins other than the "original sin". I also think that everyone inherit the "original sin" unwillingly. Blame it on the first two if you want.
Besides, I believe that God is surely wise enough not to be so rigid with His judgements on humans. If those who repent are spared, how come the innocents not? Also, whether people go to heaven or hell, it will be His decision, not ours.
I'm not saying that baptisms are not necessary, but seeing it as the prime requirement to attain a place up there in heaven is the one view which is not necessary. This is just my opinion.
I used to feel uneasy whenever I hear people telling others that they are bad and will go to hell, or that they do things inapproriate to God's will. I mean, let Him judges and decides later on on someone's fate. That saying, I don't think death penalty is necessary. Who are we to determine someone's end of life? But that'll be another story.
So, essentially, the thought that the souls of unbaptized dead babies are stuck in limbo is somewhat ridiculous to me. Our original sins were inherited, not committed. Our responsibility should be to live our lives well and to be humans as God intended us to be.
What about the second issue? This one has been a high-profile.
Surely, Mr Jack Straw had sparked a heated debate over the veil worn by Muslim women.
Similar religion-related issue occured in France a few years ago when the government banned the religious symbols. One of the laws was to ban headscarves from schools, but not universities and Muslim schools.
Straw's suggestion that the veil is to be removed was said to be for the sake of the cultural integration in UK. So far, some people considered that tolerance which supposed to be to support cultural differences and to avoid racial & cultural discrimination had been actually promoting segregation.
I don't think that wearing religious symbols would mean that we are distancing away from the community. People can do that without wearing such symbols. And would veil removal ensure integration? Integration can be achieved without banning symbols. It is more important to achieve integration through nationalism instead of prohibiting people wearing religious symbols. It is not important whether someone is wearing any religous symbols or not, but it is very much important that everyone holds a spirit of togetherness and nationalism in his/her heart everyday regardless what his/her faith/religion is.
Thus, if Mr Straw is worried about the community being segregated, I think he looked at the wrong direction. He should look on how to make every UK citizen, regardless of his/her faith, to be proud of being British. Such ban practiced in France, in my opinion, is somewhat unnecessary.
Another problem may also be brewing in Denmark after a tv station broadcast a video showing a contest on the best caricature of the Prophet Mohammed organised by the youth group of the right-wing Danish People's Party (PDD). I don't think such thing is appropriate at all. Doing it is one thing, but broadcasting it is another. If this kind of thing keeps on happening in the near future, one could only wonder when the patience of the Muslim world will last. Especially after Israel's move towards Lebanon, Pope's loose lips, and Mr Straw's comment. I mean, some people are pushing their luck too far.
Well, another weekend here. Will spend another one watching DVDs. See ya later.
posted by E.F. at 8:10 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home