Sunday School

It was one of the best time to talk, and reflect upon our lives. Normal sunday school lessons often cannot leave enough time to discuss real issues. But today is different. It was great talking to them, and finding out some problems which I would never have found out. It was the honesty and ease of identifying with them that comfort not just me, but perhaps all of us. And perhaps like he said, it was great to have Christian friends around to support one another. It was really comforting to know that we all share one common doctrine: of one Lord, one God, one Father, one Spirit, one body, one hope, one faith, one baptism. Without God, I guess we would probably never meet, save being such good brothers-in-Christ.

Thank God for this time together.

I get upset when I see this

From somebody's blog:

"This spark me thinking, is it (casual sex) because of morality that I think this is wrong? Or is it because the act itself is wrong? Then again, I realised, there is no wrong or right answer to anything, its how its perceived by the majority."

Once again, pure pragmatism. If you replace casual sex with abortion, rape and murder, what will you get? I believe moral values formed along pragmatic lines is really no moral values. They are just pragmatic values.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Don't worry, my daughter, rape is not wrong...it is absolutely accepted by the majority..."

Highway Code Test

I get totally stunned at one of the questions they asked:

53. Who carries a white walking stick?

A. A blind man
B. A lame man
C. An old man
D. All of the above.


Ok. So the toad that I was chose D. Answer is A btw. I chose D because I believe Man is essentially a free being, and whoever chooses to carry a white walking stick, is allowed to. Talk about being brought up in a democratic society. And why white? And why is only the blind man allowed to carry it? If that old man and that lame man, or a young fellow, or a pretty woman walking down the street, for that matter, desires to carry a white walking stick, surely you will not deny him or her that choice!

And thus I learnt that sometimes thinking too much of a simple question makes you stupid.

Driving

In case you haven't known, I am posted to a driving course now for about 2 months. Ok, I cannot drive very well at the moment, but thankfully I haven't killed anyone.

Yet.

The interesting thing is... its almost like a philosophy lesson in the theory lesson. As you walk down the corridor you see a instruction telling you that if you see a kangaroo (yes you read correctly), try to jam your brake. If you really cannot stop, then you will have to run it over to prevent an accident. I would like to hear how one of my army friends will react (who believes morality is man made and relative), if the instruction says, if a kid runs across the road, and if you cannot make it, run him over. Why is it okay to run over an animal but not another human being?

Fact is, there is no way a decision can be made without moral consideration. Decisions, on and off the road, cannot be totally rational.

Not convinced? Here's another one. When you are on a road, and have the right of way, and then a vehicle suddenly comes and illegally made a turn into your path (when he should give way to you), even though it is your right, you will still be responsible to prevent an accident. Rationally speaking, you will not be in the wrong to just whack his vehicle and kill him. Morally speaking though, you will be inhuman and insane to do so. This is what they call 'defensive driving'.

Thus, even on the road, there is a right and wrong thing to do...

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Or, as my friend says...

[ J Y ] [ 460 000 ] says:
school teach u safe defensive driving la
[ J Y ] [ 460 000 ] says:
is nonsense
[ J Y ] [ 460 000 ] says:
is teaching u how NOT to be piss off when pple bastard u