About Christianity

1 kid touch the other kid, either by accident or on purpose. the other kid touch him back. then the first kid touch the second kid back. it goes on. then one of them got impatient and started to use a bit more strength to 'touch' the other kid. and then it goes on, until they used all their strength, or maybe most of it. one of the kids would always lose. in every fight, there has to be someone who lose. but before that, they would hit each other really hard. why? because both of them wanted to be the last one who touch the other. both wanted to get the last touch.

is it applicable to adults? yes, at least that is what i think. i think, adults do that too. of course we don't touch other people and beat people up. well, at least most of us don't. one fine example. in the office. maybe this guy backstab another. then the victim got angry and backstab the unfriendly staff. this goes on. or maybe one woman gossip bad stuffs about another woman. she got angry and in turn do the same. this goes on.

of course, if you notice it, there are similarities between adults and children. both wanted to win and be the last to deal the final blow, be it just a touch, a knife in the back or others. the difference is, kids usually don't deal out blows that are so... heavy? and that after a while, they go back as friends. for adults, because the stakes are sometimes high, the ego and pride, and of course the seriousness of the situation, sometimes the whole relationship, be it friendship or not, is spoilt. adults do remember offences, unlike kids.

of course, if we get disturbed for no apparent reason, and because of it we are greatly affected, we have the tendency to strike back. that is the natural thing to do. maybe we lost something. maybe we suffer because of it. so we also strike back. and then it goes on. maybe i have no right to say this, but again, i am a hypocrite who don't do what i say, so just let me say. you decide on what you want to do.

i think, if we look at it another way, things might be better.

for example (i am going to use a simple analogy), A and B are both selling apples. suppose B want to sell more apples, and he spread a rumor that A sells bad apples. so customers go to B to buy apples. because of that A lost quite a fair bit of customers. so A spread a bad rumor about B too. B is now affected and he too spread an even badder (is this even correct english?) rumor about A. this goes on. both gets lesser and lesser customers. why? because both do not give good impressions.

this is what the normal case is. what if A do not strike back and decide to do something constructive?

supposed B already spread rumors and A gets lesser customers. instead of spreading another rumor about B, A works hard to convince customers that he sells good apples. he used the time to prove to others he too has good apples. through time, people will know A sells good apples and it was B who was doing something bad. A's business go up.

of course, if we compare this 2, the second choice is a better one. of course, A lose customers at first. he don't feel happy. who would? but instead of taking revenge, he did something constructive. first, compared to the first case, A in the second case did not end up losing more and more customers. secondly, compared to the first case, A might get back his old customers or even more.

of course, this is just a simple illustration. replace A with you and B with whoever is doing that to you. naturally, no human is insane enough to be happy when the other 'touch me first'. but, if we hit back, do we benefit. will the exchange be escalated to a point of no return and end up with both suffering heavy losses. if we don't hit back and do something to salvage our situation, although we might not be able to get back what we used to have. but at least, maybe we can stop our losses.

this is not to say we let person B go and do what he wants. in my opinion, if he is going to do harm to others, we should of course warn his 'victims' first. but we are not supposed to take revenge. God would know what to do to him. it would be not christian-like to take revenge. wrath might lead to hate, hate might lead to death. of course this is the extreme, but it is not to say it would not happen. constant conflict will lead us to not be able to forgive and love each other, and if we don't forgive and love each other, how can we say we are christians? how can we say we will get to heaven?

like i say, this is what i think. and i don't do what i say. sometimes i try, sometimes i don't. there is no need to flame me. i admit i am not as holy as i might look. see what i say if it makes sense and try it out. this is hard, but you have a God whom you can depend on, right? if He determines you need those apples which was taken from you, would He not provide you with them? if He determines the apples you had are harmful for you, maybe B is a man sent by God to save you. who knows? who can say?

but if the apples are maybe your spouse, your career, your family, your wealth, your health, then they might be a bit too much to handle. i have not experienced something that big before. i cannot say anything much, because to those who lose these things and more, i could not understand the suffering. all i can say is still to trust the Lord. because everything is under His control.

this is all i can say. trust God. and if people touch you, don't touch them back. it is not to say you obediently let B touch you again. you take measures against B, just don't take revenge. do i make sense?

as usual, if my blog post contradicts the Bible, email me.