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.

i am going to say something very simple today. but i think everyone of us have heard the moral of the story, so i guess it might be pretty boring. hmm, let me see. maybe i should change the story and come up with the same moral of the story? hahax.

everyone of us meet different people at different times. schools, work, social meetings, chance meetings, co-incidence, miracles, saviors, whatever. many people come and many people go. some stay with us longer and some not. some give us good memories and some not. familiar? yea, i guess i am repeating what the others before me had said so far.

i had good friends, and still do. you know, the thing with good friends is that when you are with them, whether man or woman, you think we will always be good friends. because the current friendship is so sweet, so stable. but after a while, as in many years, and experiences, i came to realized that good friends can be split into 2 categories - permanent good friends and temporary good friends. regarding the permanent good friends, i guess there is no need to say anything more.

temporary good friends. i had temporary good friends, both male and female. there were things you would talk to a boy and not to a girl, and things you would talk to a girl and not to a boy. the thing about temporary good friends is that after some time, the relationship falls apart, or got distant. no, there need not neccessary be conflict or strife. it just happens as surely as ice melts and as the sun sets. maybe the setting sun would be a good example. it happens. when you look at it and observe it by the seconds you would not notice the difference. the sun looked as if it is not setting. it looked as if it would always be there. turn your back, go into the toilet and come out in say, 2 minutes? the sky darkened. it is fast. same as temporary friends, before you know it, they are gone.

maybe not gone. maybe not a total breakdown. but surely, the relationship is not as close as before. is there anything you can do? sometimes. sometimes not. i tried to save it sometimes, sometimes i don't. so far, none of them worked. if it did, it would not be called a temporary friendship. the old saying goes, it takes 2 hands to clap. builidng a relationship is like buiding bridges. you build, and the other side at least need to connect it to his/her side, even if he/she does not want to build it.

a relationship, i take it as building and connecting bridges. building bridges can be done by either 2 or 1 person. certainly it is harder for one person to build. but the fact is it can be done. the thing that cannot be done is the connecting part. you may build the best bridge, but ultimately the act of connecting to the other side, the heart of the person, lies with the person's decision. you may persuade, talk, scold, cry, whatever. you can influence, but not make the decision. if the other side do not even bother to connect it, there is nothing you can do, as far as my limited experiences tell me. sometimes you try too hard, and people think you are irritating. that is when you know you have to give up. at least it is for me.

why am i writing this? because i have lost another temporary good friend. so maybe when i am writing a blog i thought of this. of course, this is not to say that if your friendship is going to be temporary, you will not give your best. you never know if that good relationship will turn permanent or not. even if it does not, a relationship should require that both parties give their best. of course, i am saying this as a close relationship between 2 parties, not just aquaintances. sometimes we touch people's lives, sometimes they touch our lives. if we can make a positive impact on others, even if it is temporary, does it really matter? maybe, God put you there temporary to make an impact on that person's life. and when your job is done, you will need to go to another person. maybe that is the whole plan. of course, it is a pity to see a good relationship gone like that. it just break down. suddenly, you might not feel close at all. but, maybe out there, there is another person waiting for you.

if you want a good friend, the moral of the story i want to say is, Jesus is your permanent Friend. actually, does my moral of the story fit the story itself?