|����|�峹|���W�о�|UFO|�G��R��|�C����������|���������|�K�O�귽|�����s��|�p�����D| The article is written by Simon Fong to his brother 9 December 2000 Dear Brother, Enclosed is my sincere Christmas gift for you in this year. It is my heartfelt sharing for a topic "Why I choose to be a Christian, not others". I had prepared this sharing a few months ago when I thought to myself that what are the important words I must feel sorry for having no chance to talk with you at the time I leave this world, which may perhaps be earlier than you. Please don't mind my writing of this in English because my Chinese- typing speed is quite slow. This sharing will be divided into four sub-topics, viz.: Why don't choose to believe non-existence of God? Why don't simply choose an 'unable to know' and hence 'ignoring' attitude? Why don't choose to believe other god(s)? Why choose to believe Christ as the Son of God and choose to live in Him? To be a sincere brother, I think this should be the most precious thing in my life that I can share with you at this moment. And I truly hope that you could also find from it something precious and important to you too. Would you mind to read it through in Christmas just like as to unpack a meaningful Christmas gift? Yours sincere brother Simon Why don't choose to believe non-existence of God? This is a question that I could have much sharing. But for simplicity here, I just share one point which have initiated me to perceive that to believe existence of God (the Creator) should be more reasonable than to believe non-existence of God. I try to imagine with an ultimate view to the very beginning of time and space. I think that there could have only two possible pictures: - either "materials exist by their own before the existence of time and space", or "God exists by His own before the existence of time and space". In other words, either "all materials" or "the God" should exist automatically. And I cannot think out any other possibilities. So I have to find out which of these two possibilities should be the truth. I go on to find, but subsequently understand that both ultimate scenarios should not be within the scope of imagination for a finite man. However, it should be reasonable within our perception that one cannot imagine the latter because it is reasonable that finite man cannot see through infinite God, just like a cup cannot contain an ocean. Whereas it does not seem reasonable within our daily life perception that "materials" can be located on a particular place at a particular time but without previous causes. Why don't simply choose an 'unable to know' and hence 'ignoring' attitude? Why don't simply choose an 'unable to know' attitude towards the issue of God's existence? It is true that this attitude is the simplest and easiest way for one to avoid facing the said issue. Many people also like to adopt this attitude so as to justify their ignorance of God. Perhaps they may regard this as a freedom and wisdom, despite that it is in fact completely the opposite. To some extent, 'unable to know' sounds like to be right. But this is not completely true. At least, many things could hint to tell us large possibility for happening of a great creation (instead of just happenings of many occasional explosions and random combinations of materials and energy; and with all these materials and energy already automatically existed before existence of time and space). In macro view, we see the infinite, great and wonderful cosmos. We also see the beautiful nature and all kind of amazing natural rules (physical, chemical, biological and in conscience). In micro view, we see much delicate and astonishing innermost structure for each and numerous kind of living creatures and also non-living materials. In spiritual view, we wonder to feel non-physical existence of conscience which can only be found in human (Why? Because of a soul to which God could communicate His will and solely for man, just as the Bible says?) To me, creation would be a more convincing explanation for all of these. And the creator is the God. (Just as, manufacturing should be a more convincing explanation for existence of a watch and the manufacturer is man.) But I admit that finite man cannot by himself know much about the infinite God, unless God directly show more about Himself to us. However, I see that 'unable to know much' is different from 'unwilling to know more'. Very often, man is 'unwilling' rather than 'unable' to know the God. But I perceive that whether God exist (and if so, whether one knows and believes His existence, and whether one can have close relationship with Him) is in fact a very important topic of life. It is because this could have a completely different impact on one's values, on one's attitude towards life, and one one's peace and joy of life. So I chose to face this issue. I trusted that back to the truth (rather than ignoring the truth) is the only way to the true freedom and wisdom. And in the fourth essay, I am eager to share with you what the truth that I found. Why don't choose to believe other god(s)? Truly, there are quite a lot of religions in the world. If for simplicity, I would then categorize Dynamic, New Era, Buddhism etc. as belonging to type (1). But for simplicity here, I would just share my view about Buddhism. In one aspect, Buddhism seeks to achieve state of life in emptiness, no desire, no persistence, calmness, kindness and forgiveness etc. in another aspect, Buddhism has its own description on what would happen after death. As to its doctrine in relation to emptiness, no desire and no persistence, I would have some kind of reservation. On one hand, I would prefer to seek for the God occupying my heart rather than seeking for nothing occupying my heart. On another hand, I think although some desires or persistence may not be good, some are however good such as love, peace, sympathy, justice etc. And even if some desires are just for materials, they are not necessarily evil, e.g. desires for basic needs. I thus cannot perceive the doctrine of emptiness, no desire and no persistence as an adequate or ideal solution (but distortion) to the ultimate problems or the ultimate needs of human's heart (or soul). In respect of its doctrine for calmness, kindness and forgiveness etc, it is no doubt that they can bring up wisdom and goodness of life yet it is not exclusively for Buddhism. (It is true that the drive for calmness, kindness and forgiveness etc may be different from persons to persons, from non-religionist, their drive may be based on reasons of wisdom, sympathy or goodness of life etc. For religionist, their drive may be for same reasons but accompanied with their belief in what would happen after death.) Buddhism believes that what would happen after death depends on what one has done on earth and what spiritual state one has achieved during his life. It believes in possibility of life recurrence back into this world after death and would be in different form of creatures (including men). It also believes in another possibility as that one could otherwise become a Buddha after death (hence can leave the cycle of life recurrence in this world) as long as one can attain adequate goodness on earth. There are also various attainable level of Buddha depends on various level of goodness one had ever achieved on earth. Buddhism actually does not believe in existence of God, but existence of Buddha (which was however originally human). Buddhism would avoid dealing with those ultimate questions such as how did the universe, the world, all lives and all nature rules come from. It would also ignore those questions such as who set the said life-recurrence rule or the Buddha levels attainment rule. It seem that the higher the Buddha level one can attain, the higher is one's being in the universe. In other worlds, the greatest being in the universe would be the one who had achieved the highest level of Buddha (rather than is the one who create the universe and all lives). I would thus classify Buddhism as belonging to the first type of religions as stated at above, and I do not choose to believe in Buddhism because I find that much of my doubts in ultimate questions of the universe and lives could not be resolved therefrom. The second type of religion is worship of idols as God. There are many religions in various corners of the world falling with this type. In this regard, the said idol may be of one just artificially created by man, or may be of a person in the past, or even may be of a person at present. Some people worship them for pragmatic reasons and some believe them for soul-consoling reasons. But I do not choose to worship them because I find that (1) they are supposed to be able to accept bribes from man with materials in the world; or (2) they are not themselves the answer to ultimate questions of the universe and lives (they do not dare to admit themselves as to be the ultimate source too); or (3) some may even have moral faults in their conduct or doctrine. The third type of religion is worship of the God through acceptance of His salvation and words via Christ. This is the one I choose and I will share this separately in the fourth essay. The fourth type of religion is some kind of mixture of the three types above. However, this would be an insult rather than worship towards the one who is the true God. Just as we should no greet any man on the road as "father", so I do not choose to greet any untrue god as "the God".