A friend of mine, along with two of her bosom buddies, visited about 20 to 30 temples about 200km away over a 2 day period. This was a couple of months back.
Today, one of the three (not my friend) has lost her husband, the other two, well, if i said life has been a little difficult for both of them, then that would be a gross understatement.
My friend's husband has been involved in a misdemeanor. My friend, who is a very upright person, found this act very distasteful.
Well i had a conversation with her today. It went something like this:
Me: Just 2 days visiting temples and then all 3 of you had so many serious problems. Yet you continue doing similar things.
She: It has nothing to do with this. Serious problems are fateful .... Destiny.
Me: What your husband did was a serious problem?
She: Oh yes. That's man made serious problem. Nothing to do with God.
Me: Your logic is wrong. Think about it. If both sets of problems (one concerning the aftermath of Temple visit and the 2nd being the misdemeanor by my friend's husband) are serious and hence, as per your logic, they are both fateful. But in the first set, you exonerate God. But in your husband's case, you hold him accountable for a serious, hence fateful, problem. How do you explain it?
End of conversation
My explanation:
If there are 2 problems, both serious and hence "fateful" and if we think We can't hold God responsible for the 1st fateful problem (meaning even God can't handle those), how can we hold man accountable for the 2nd serious and fateful problem?
What logic is my friend using? I asked her to take time to respond. I am predicting that she will stick to her opinion about God not being responsible but holding her husband still responsible. And that she will recant or rephrase her logic avoiding "serious =fateful".
The word fateful that my friend used was what caused all this confusion.
The question is: why did she use the word fateful when i asked her about the problems after the Temple visit.
Why does she want to exonerate God who is so powerful and hold a simple poor man completely accountable?
I would hold a bigger person more accountable for the same/similar serious crime. Holding a much smaller man more accountable just isn't conscientious. Nope.
If the meek husband is going to be held accountable for a serious issue, and if the omnipotent God is going to be just given a slap on the wrist or even completely exonerated, then the meek shall not inherit the Earth.
After reading this, would she ask her father (a very rational person) for his opinion and hence perhaps change hers and not judge her husband too harshly? I doubt it. She is wedded to her pet opinion (that man and children should take responsibility for their actions while women and God don't).
After reading this, would she ask her father (a very rational person) for his opinion and hence perhaps change hers and not judge her husband too harshly? I doubt it. She is wedded to her pet opinion (that man and children should take responsibility for their actions while women and God don't).
No comments:
Post a Comment