Why I became a Christian - Part 1: Philosophy

Hi everyone,

This is a beginning of a 4-part series on why I became a Christian. As someone who was born to a Buddhist family and came from an atheist country, it wasn't a logical choice for me to convert to Christianity. In this series of posts I will do my best to expound on the reason for my change of faith and hope that it will help you to strengthen your faith in God, help you come closer to Him or at least be more open to Christianity overall - as it will change your life one day when you choose to believe in it.

The 4 parts will be:

1) Philosophical

2) Emotional (coming up)

3) Supernatural (coming up)

4) Practical (coming up)

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

For the first part of this series, I will be giving my take on why becoming a Christian made sense to me on a philosophical level. This sounds like a strange start to a series since philosophies are boring and aren't the first choice to engage an audience with. However as posts in my 4-part series can be read separately, I decided to write on this first as it's an unusually personal reason for me.

To talk about philosophical reasons, I need to go back to the time when I first decided to follow a philosophical school of thought. Though I was born to a Buddhist family, I wasn't so interested in it - not when there were a plethora of rituals and practices which I had to follow with little to no understanding. My parents and grandma didn't understand them very well too - they were following traditions and normal practices for Buddhists most of the times. 

My idea about Buddhism coupled with my interests in social sciences subjects left me with a question to ponder on - if Buddhism isn't something that I should base my principles, what then shall be my guide?  So once I was given more freedom and internet became faster (dial-up to ADSL, if you still remember them), I spent a fair bit of time on the net reading on philosophies, talking to my friends about it and joining an array of forums to discuss about them.

I chose socialism, or more specifically, Titoism, as the baseline for my principles. Since it is closely related to communism, communist ideas had an effect on my ideas of good and evil as well. 

Why socialism? Did you not know about Gulags, the Iron Curtain and the multitude of massacres?

That's a question you might have in mind - after all, communists are best known for massacres, bloody conflicts and intense surveillance. Among those who researched on this topic, communism is widely regarded as impractical due to its economical inefficiency, disregard of individualism and susceptibility to moral failures (which gives rise to corruption, war crimes and other abhorrent acts) - so it's not a great system at all. 

I agreed with all the above points. In fact, I was well aware that communism didn't work unless everyone involved - yes, everyone, not 99.99% of the people - was ready to sacrifice themselves for the greater good. 

But the idea of a communist utopia still sounded great to me - since everyone would be cared for and people would work for the greater good instead of their own. This, combined with the imbalanced wealth distribution and growing influence of billionaires (especially Big Tech founders) in capitalist countries made me steer my ideology away from the prevailing political system of most countries. I believed most of the rich deserved being wealthy - as they were smart and hard-working - but not to the current extent where they can't even use up their wealth. 

Thus, I decided to follow socialism as it seemed to provide a good balance between communism and free market ideology. And among socialist ideas, I considered Titoism to be the among the most humane.

I. Yugoslavia

Before talking about Tito, let's go through a quick summary about Yugoslavia in case you're unfamiliar with the nation. 

Yugoslavia was a Balkan federal republic consisted of present-day Serbia, Kosovo, Macedonia, Montenegro, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Croatia and Slovenia. 


Source: Yugotour

That's A LOT of countries on a small patch of land. Just imagine Malaysia or New Zealand divided into seven parts.

Why did so many nations form? 

The answer lies in the multi-ethnic nature of Yugoslavia

You might have noticed two countries - Italy and Greece- that shared borders with Yugoslavia on this map. They were both ancient superpowers  (Italy was the Roman Empire back then) so it was natural for Yugoslavia to be influenced by both of these countries.  Siting between these countries also meant being a middleman for their trades and cultures.


Source: Google Maps

Zooming out further, we can see that the former Yugoslav nations are situated below Austria & Hungary and to the west of Turkey. Both of these nations were superpowers in medieval and late medieval areas  (Austro-Hungarian Empire and Ottoman Empire) - so they exerted a lot of influences on their neighbors, particularly in spreading Catholicism and Muslim in the region.

All of these factors turned the Yugoslav nations and the Balkan region as a whole to an ethnic, religious and cultural melting pot. It was an existing place to be but it's also a recipe for disaster should things go wrong.

Below is the map on distribution of races in Yugoslavia - noticed how 'messy' it is. It's an important factor in the dissolution of Yugoslavia later on.


Source: University of Texas 

Within most former region of Yugoslavia, there were a mixture of races - especially Bosnia & Herzegovina where there are no racial majority. But how different are they exactly? Some differences can be summarized as below (taken from Encyclopedia.com):    

- Serbs: majority are wage earners in cities. They are strongly influenced by Eastern European culture (e.g. Russia) and follows Eastern Orthodox.

- Bosniaks: ethnically similar to Serbs but are predominantly Muslims, live mostly in cities as professionals, business owners, and government workers. 

- Kosovars: the majority was also Muslims but are ethnic Albanians. Generally poorer and less recognized than other races

- Croats: mostly are rural farmers, but many live in cities of southern Croatia. They are strongly influenced by the Western European culture, particularly Italian. Croats are Roman Catholic.

- Slovenes: similar to Croats, but are culturally closer to Austria and Germans than Croats.

So they're similar to Singapore, but bigger and more complex. There were so many factors that could give rise to ethnic conflicts. The only common attribute among them is their Slavic identity - hence the name Yugoslavia (land of Southern Slavs).

This shared identity was the basis for the formation of the country and sustained its existence. It was emphasized by the government through education, public infrastructures (the Highway of Brotherhood and Unity) and popular culture such as football as shown in this book.

And the mastermind behind this united identity was no other than Tito.

II. Tito - the benevolent dictator

To prevent boring you further, here's some interesting facts about Josip Broz Tito - the man whose ideas became Titoism:

  • He was the president of Yugoslavia (the Balkan country that no longer exists) from 1953 to 1980. 
  • Despite leading a communist country, he advocated market economy and forms social enterprises where workers co-owned companies  
  • He encouraged Yugoslavs to travel abroad - including Western, capitalist countries - and opened Yugoslavia's borders. He even abolished visa requirements in 1967.
  • He gave all republics within Yugoslavia (such as present-day Croatia, Bosnia, Serbia) freedom to govern themselves and rights to secede from Yugoslavia. 
  • He formed the Non-Aligned Movement which consists of countries who did not align themselves with both sides of the Cold War. In fact, he supported the Hungarian revolution in 1956 and Prague Spring in 1968 - both against the Soviet Union.
Under Tito's leadership, Yugoslavia enjoyed some successes:

- Its Human Development Index of 0.913 was the 30th highest in the world in 1990, above Singapore and South Korea at that point in time.

- GDP grew steadily at a rate of 6%/year. GDP per capita in 1990 was $6,203 which was comparable to Taiwan and Portugal

- Being considered an open and stable country, it was chosen as the host for the 1984 Winter Olympics.

With such successes, it was no surprise that Tito was well respected by leaders worldwide. When he passed away, a whopping 128 out of 154 United Nations' members' representatives attended his funeral - it was the largest state funeral in history. Reporting on his death, The New York Times commented:

Tito sought to improve life. Unlike others who rose to power on the communist wave after WWII, Tito did not long demand that his people suffer for a distant vision of a better life. After an initial Soviet-influenced bleak period, Tito moved toward radical improvement of life in the country. Yugoslavia gradually became a bright spot amid the general grayness of Eastern Europe.

— The New York Times, 5 May 1980.

Some of Tito's numerous awards and medals from countries around the world. 

Source: Wikipedia

Apart from his multiple marriages and some political suppression, every aspect of Tito's leadership seemed perfect to me. Especially in comparison to the like of Stalin, Nicolae Ceaușescu and Erich Honecker, Tito was the ideal leader that people in other Eastern Bloc countries could only hope for.

But what about the multi-ethnic issue? How were racial tensions resolved?

I titled this section the benevolent dictator. You have seen the benevolent part, now get ready for Tito the dictator.

These sources of tensions were successfully alleviated by Tito through a series of internal policies and constitutional changes that ensured minorities' voices were heard:

- The communist party was split up into a league of smaller parties for each republic. Each republic also had its own congress, military and police.   
- Economy was increasingly decentralized and liberalized throughout the years, which comes with freedom in using and allocating economic resources  
- A national quota system (similar to that of Singapore) were in place in all public institutions to ensure these ethnic groups are adequately represented in decision-making bodies. Minorities like Kosovars were ensured veto rights in the parliament.
- Each individual was entitled freedom of expressions for their culture and religions. Faith institutions are well protected by the state.

Sounds good, right? But with such a multi-racial state, these policies couldn't please everyone - especially the nationalist politicians. No concessions could be made as the nationalist's demands would undermine the idea of a unified Yugoslavia.

This is where things didn't look great anymore. 

Tito followed what other socialist countries did to dissidents: crush them. Tito forced them to resign and imprison them. Labour camps were set up with tens of thousands of people being incarcerated over the years with hundreds died during the process. It's not as much of an atrocity as Gulag, but the oppression made most countries considered Tito to be a dictator. 

But silencing opponents was just one part of the puzzle - gathering supporters was equally important. Thus, Tito started to build a cult personality around himself. Statues of him were erected; public places, roads and a city were named after him (Titograd). There was even a yearly torch relay around Yugoslavia to celebrate his birthday. 

With the growing economy and the constant reminder of Tito on national broadcasts, it was easy for Yugoslavs to attribute Yugoslavia's peace and prosperity to Tito and become fervent supporters of their leaders. Dissenting voices were overwhelmed by the growing number of supporters and the issue was considered resolved.

Well, only until Tito passed away. Yugoslavia had a great leader, but not a good system. And this, was the cause of its downfall.

You see, Tito was a true dictator - he was the supreme leader for more than 30 years, overseeing almost every aspect of the country. It meant that other government officials didn't learn how to govern as a president, and the country itself wasn't prepared for a transition of power. Tito created a shadow of himself so big that expectations of his successor were insurmountable.

Thus, when Tito passed away, no one was able to convince other politicians that he was able to lead the country the way Tito did. Being a federal democratic country, Yugoslavia decided to rotate the president role on a yearly basis among the republics. It appeased the general population at first - but over the years nationalist sentiment rose in each republic and they, in turn, elected leaders who sought to benefit their own race.

When the time came for these nationalist leaders to be the president of Yugoslavia, they continued pushing for their own agenda. The common 'Yugoslav' identity faded away and bitterness set in. Tensions rose and ultimately culminated in a 10-year civil war which claimed the lives of 140 thousands people - the Yugoslav Wars. It was notorious for holding a few titles:

- Having the longest siege in modern history (Siege of Sarajevo, 3 years 10 months)

- Being the first war to reject UN's official intervention which prompted NATO bombing.

- Marked the first time which rape was considered as a weapon of war - in fact it was considered to be the second most serious crime against humanity (with the first being genocide) due to its systematic nature.

And that's not to mention the ethnic cleansing, systemic violence and displacements of millions of people. In case you are interested in finding out more, this video explains the breakup of Yugoslavia very well. 

Below are some images from The Atlantic which captures the difference in Sarajevo, where the Olympic was held in 1984 and where the most intense fighting took place less than 10 years later:

1984: American luger Bonny Warner on a luge track. (Associated Press)


2012: The same track was abandoned, covered with wild plants and bullet holes (Dado Ruvic/Reuters)
1984: An ice hockey match between US and Canada. (Associated Press)
1995: UN soldier stood inside the above, destroyed, indoor stadium. (Associated Press)


Left: a US and Soviet citizen in Kosevo stadium during a ceremony at the 1984 Olympics. 

Right: a gravedigger at a makeshift cemetery outside Kosevo in 1997. 

And all of these happened in a civil war. A war among people who were fellow countrymen for more than 40 years, who enjoyed the peace and relative prosperity of the country together. 

Why did it it happen? How could people living in a relative harmonious society, under such wonderful leadership turn rogue so quickly? Did all of them become insane?

A multi-faceted answer is needed for this question. Unresolved historical conflicts, rising tensions due to frequent interactions of incompatible cultures and beliefs and uneven wealth distribution all contributed to such a horrendous war.

But to me, the root cause was human nature. 

Titoism tried to force people into doing good through laws, stimulation and oppression while not tackling the root cause. But laws and structure are only able to keep human's behavior in check to a certain degree; once the desire to commit evil was strong enough, rules and laws weren't able to deter people from doing it. 

As good as it appeared, Titoism failed eventually. My 'ideal' ideology didn't work. 

III. Selfishness and division

Let's go back to our own lives - to a time when we were still going to school.

Picture this: you caught attention of a classmate who you barely knew talking to his or her friend about a specific teacher which you didn't like. Or rather, they were complaining about how strict and fierce the teacher was.

Noticing that you're keen to join the conversation, that classmate turned to you and asked: What do you think about teacher X?

Like a floodgate being opened, you started to share your opinion. Your classmates nodded their heads in agreement, started to complete your sentence and related it to their own experiences.

You went 'OH YAHH' at every sentence they said. Suddenly there was a spark of connection among you, and from strangers these friends turned into your soulmates in a matter of minutes.

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

The above example might be a little extreme - you might not have forged friendships that quickly. However, I believe we have all found connections with someone over a common dislike or hatred. It might not necessarily be your classmates - relatives, colleagues or even strangers online.

This phenomenon of bonding through negativity is surprisingly common across cultures. A study by the university of Texas suggested that "...sharing a dislike of a third party with a nonintimate may be a particularly powerful bonding agent in the formative phases of friendship...". 

The same study even compared the effects of discovering common interests to common dislikes on friendships, and conclude that "...friendship between two strangers may be more likely if they discover that they both dislike a third party...". A New York Times article and UCLAx article shared the same sentiment.

Interestingly, this is especially true when the common hatred or dislikes is directed towards people instead of objects or animals. According to this article, there are a few reasons:

- Negative experience is "a powerful attractor" for new relationships 

- It "confirms our view of the world and it validates our thinking, and we like people who validate us"

- Finally, it fits with our intuitive "survival of the fittest" way of thinking. The article mentioned  "Finding out good things about someone you’re competing against doesn’t really help you, but finding out negative things is useful"

Personally, I found that the above points apply to me. It's more natural to use animosity as an excuse for my failures, it's more natural to look after my own goals first, and it's easier to keep labelling and hating people than trying to love them. Caring for people is tiring, and sharing good things above people doesn't make sense if we see them as enemies.

This is the human nature that led to the collapse of Yugoslavia and empires in the past. This is the human nature that seeks to benefit oneself and created a "us versus them" (e.g. racist, nationalist) mentality which drove the ethnic conflicts worldwide.

IV. Sin and sacrifices

Even though I know this bonding over negativity is bad and dangerous, I can't help but feel good sometimes when I find out someone has a common dislike with me or when someone I don't like does something silly. This part of me seems to be beyond my control - regardless of my efforts to pursue virtuous living, I simply cannot snuff out such thoughts completely.

And this is one of the places where I find Christianity to be so relatable. In the book of Romans, Paul said "I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do." (Romans 7:15). He went on in verse 17 to 20:

"As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18 For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature.[a] For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it."

That seems like a repetitive chunk of text, but the essence of it is that we do evil because our human nature is sinful - even when we are fully aware that it is evil. 

In case you wonder what sin is in the Christian context, it is defined as anything that goes against God's standards. Things like taking advantage of people, badmouthing them, stealing or shouting at people in our anger. Even plotting against people or looking at them lustfully are sins as well - as we subconsciously know that they are evil in our hearts. 

If you're wondering whether it's natural for all of us to behave this way, the answer is yes. In the book of Romans chapter 3 verse 23, it is written: "...for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God"

Okay, so it's my sinful nature that caused me to behave this way. But what can I do about it since it's part of human nature?

The answer lies in the next verse:

"...and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus."

You might be confused right now, and rightly so. What does 'redemption' refer to? And why were Jesus able to redeem us human?

To explain this verse, let me give you some context.

In the Bible's Old Testament (the books that were written before Jesus came), the first five books formed what was regarded as "the Law" or Torah. These books was a code of conduct for the Israelites (God's chosen people) on what's right and wrong. They also listed what the Israelites had to do after committing a wrongdoing (also referred to as sin). It usually came in the form of sacrificing an animal (cattle, sheep, goat or pigeon) by letting it burn partially or completely on an altar:



Demonstration of priests sacrificing a lamb

The point of this sacrificial system is not that God needed to punish the Israelites for what they did wrong, neither did God need the sacrifice from them to make up for their wrongdoings.

God required them to do this because God is just - He couldn't let them get away freely after sinning. Otherwise, why would people do the right thing?

Thus, the sacrifices was a way for God to reveal people's sinful nature and that sins had and will always have consequences. The animal being burnt was a direct consequence of their sins, which served as a powerful reminder for them to follow the Torah. Since the animal was not a perfect substitute for sins, Israelites had to perform multiple sacrifices over a year or whenever they sinned.

But following the Torah was not the end goal. The end goal that God had was to reconcile human's broken relationship with Him after the fall of humanity, and the Torah was one way to achieve that goal by making sure people were 'clean' so that they can approach God. (the fall of humanity refers to the event which Adam and Eve were casted out of the Garden of Eden, but that's the topic for another day.)

In case you're wondering why only 'clean' people can approach God, it is because God's nature is against uncleanness and it's something that God cannot change. Think of how fire and water react for example.

Sadly, even with the constant reminder through the sacrificial system, Israelites went astray. They were eventually influenced by their neighbors and lived lives full of violence, crookedness and debauchery - totally against what the Torah taught. 

God's plan through the Torah didn't work out, but He still longs to reconcile with us. That's where Jesus came into the picture.

V. Redemption through Jesus

God decided that the sacrificial system and the Torah wasn't enough, so He sent Jesus down to earth for us.

Jesus wasn't an ordinary human being - he was fully man and fully God. Basically he had God's powers but lived in a human body and experienced everything that a normal human being would. Throughout his life, he performed miracles, cared for the society's outcasts and gained followers through his wise teaching of the Law. He was arrested, tortured and ultimately crucified on a cross for going against the Teachers of the Law at that time. Most importantly, he lived a sinless life before crucifixion. 

                A scene of Jesus' crucifixion from the movie "The Passion of the Christ"

But he didn't remain dead - he rose again from his grave three days later, appeared to people before ascending to heaven. And this is the redemption that I was talking about.



Comparing Jesus' crucifixion to the sacrificial scene above, you could see that Jesus is the lamb that is being sacrificed. 

But where are the priests? 

It's Jesus himself! As God's son, he was able to not only perform miracles but also to minister intercede for people on God's behalf. So no extra priests needed, he was both the priest and the lamb.

But why Jesus and not an animal? Why does he have the power to redeem us? 

The difference between Jesus and an animal was that Jesus was considered the perfect sacrifice by God. It was not because he was God's son but because he lived a sinless life, which no one else was able to do. Because of this, his crucifixion was the ultimate sacrifice that were able to cover for everyone's sins, from that point till the end of the earth.

"For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit" (1 Peter 3:8)

I hope that you were able to catch a glimpse of my reasoning through this article. In case you want to know what is required to become a Christian, it's just a simple act of confession:

"If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." (Romans 10:9)

VI. Final Notes

Thank you for reading through my articles! In case you are interested in reading more about the Yugoslavia and the wars, below are a few interesting links to check out:

Statistics on Yugoslavia

Historical ethnic conflicts in Yugoslavia 

A story about a family whose lives were upended by the Yugoslav Wars - My Mother and the Failed Experiment of Yugoslavia | The New Yorker

See you in the next article!

Comments

Post a Comment