Articles and Opinion
Answers to questions on serious topics
Love with a Married Man, Divorce, Abortion,
Scandal in Church, Appearance
I'm in love with a married man. Do you think I'm doing something wrong?
There are only three possible endings for a love story but so many variations; and for many who are love-stricken it is not something to joke about and for women who have found themselves in unusual situations it is both a curse and a blessing. My advise here is more on the practical side because if a couple are genuinely in love the modern, progressive world will not do much to stop them. And for what reason, anyway? My opinion on the above subject is to be careful and avoid getting involved with a married man while you can. The man might just be out for fun and had seen you as gullible and had you tripping and falling all over his charms. Some men say they are single or divorced until they have the girl hooked on them; that's when they let the truth out that they're married and the poor girl can't extricate herself easily from the situation anymore.
But if your are already in the depths of loving a married man, examine your situation once again. Where do you stand on the issue? Where does he stand, too? What are the consequences and can both of you, and other parties such as relatives and associates, take it? An important question to answer is to find out whether it is true love or security or something else which draws you to him. Many lives would be affected and probably destroyed if your relationship was to push through and consummated and later on will end in another divorce.
There is nothing wrong in loving a married man if your love and his love is genuine, but I don't think this should be let out in the open until he gets a divorce. If both of you try to flaunt your relationship while he is still married, it may hurt the other party; therefore, it would be in the interest of all parties concerned if you are discreet. If the man carries on an affair while he is married, it's being unfaithful to his wife and she has a right to be informed of his future plans, too. Once he has decided to leave his wife for you, if his love is really genuine, he should be open about it and get a divorce. He can't carry on with an affair and stay married at the same time, would he? And his wife, and society, won't like it either.
What do you think of divorce?
I don't see anything wrong with divorce. People make mistakes in their professional and personal lives, and if these can be corrected, then why not? A married man or woman should not be stopped from loving and marrying a new partner just because he or she is already married. Give them a divorce and a second chance to be happy.
Most people who are against divorce give the emotional and physical well-being of the children as the reason why the parents should stay together through happiness and in sorrow. If the parents are not in love with each other anymore, their attitude will pass onto their children. What is worse is if the indifference of the couple to one another turns to hatred, it will have a deep impact on the children. They will grow up not knowing what love from parents mean. Let us take the following example: A man is divorced from his wife and she has custody of their children. If there were no divorce and the couple were required to live together, without love for each other, the children will feel it. The couple cannot pretend all the time to be happy with each other in the presence of their children and this will get to the kids. They will grow up affected and will not see their parents really happy for their own selves. On the other hand, if the couple were divorced and living separately, there would be peace in each of the couple's personal being. When they are happy, the children too will be aware of this and will understand the situation. In other words, an environment where there is even just one happy parent is more conducive to normal nurture and growth of the children than a complete family where the parents do not love each other anymore.
I have just read an article that says couples who are seeking divorce are better off in the long run by sticking together than couples who are already divorced. This is supported by a study which shows that getting a divorce does not guarantee happiness for either of the previously married partners. According to the study, if they stick it out together there is a possibility that they would learn to accept and adapt to each other, leading to a happy domestic life. I always thought anyway that before filing for a divorce, the couple had already tried personal and family dialogues, counseling, and trial separation. What I am advocating is if all other options fail, then the couple can go for a divorce. We cannot be all movie stars who divorce after every box hit; we should try to preserve the institution of marriage but should not exclude the option of divorce. The members of society who are qualified in determining whether divorce should be accepted or not are the married members, not the celibate priests, bachelors and spinsters. I am sure that even couples who are happily married would still favor divorce as a solution to the incompatibility problems of other couples who are not happily married and have to bear the suffering.
What about abortion?
I was just reading about abortion where in one European country, the electorate voted to have it legalized. Switzerland is about forty percent Catholics and they voted that a pregnancy can be terminated up to eight weeks. According to the news, some European countries allow abortion up to the seventh month of pregnancy if the mother's health is in peril by the unborn baby.
There is nothing wrong with abortion if it is performed in the early stages of pregnancy because the fetus is still without a soul. And when the mother's life or health is in danger as a result of continuing with her ongoing pregnancy, then it can be terminated to save her life or alleviate her suffering. Its about time to legalize abortion, not only to prevent the prevalence of incompetent practitioners and incomplete and unsanitary dangerous abortion clinics, but to prevent unwanted, unloved children.
The fetus at several months has no soul yet and is not an entity by itself. At two or three months it may be aborted if the parents, particularly the mother, would not like to finish the term of pregnancy. If there is a medical reason for going through with an abortion then it may proceed even if the fetus is some months older.
Legalizing abortion will not pave the way for euthanasia and assisted suicide because these are killing persons already endowed with a soul. The basis for all of these is whether the soul is present and presently inhabiting the body of the person concerned. As a side remark, cloning will never be able to duplicate the personality of another person although the original person and his clone may be physically identical, precisely because they are different entities each with his own talent and spirit.
There may be many reasons why a woman may prefer to have an abortion. She is the one undergoing the pregnancy, the risk, the pain, and if the unwanted baby is born, she is usually the one who will take care of it. The medical adviser and couple may talk things together but the final decision rests on the woman.
What do you think of the sex scandal going on in the Catholic Church? Do you think this is the start of its fall?
The sex scandal going on in the Catholic Church will not be the cause of its downfall although the church is not handling the accusations correctly which causes some doubts and breaks in its structure. The leaders of the church should not harbor undesirable elements in its ranks because the whole structure is affected; besides nobody is above the law.
The weakening of the Catholic Church and other sects and religions except Buddhism, Hinduism, and Judaism is due mainly to their choice of dogma. What they teach is not generally accepted as universal salvation for all mankind and living creatures but only to select members of their creed; other creatures are not acknowledged as capable of possessing a soul. Except for Buddhism, Hinduism and Judaism, other religions and sects are, I believe, very selective in who are going to attain salvation and paradise because they have expressly declared that only their members enjoy full salvation that their religion has to offer. They recognize that other religions too have their own kinds of salvation and that each religion is just the means and path of getting there; but such path is not open to nonmembers. Once these churches and religions open their teachings to allow acceptance of outsiders into their system of beliefs, their dogmas are changed into universal mode. And once church dogma incorporates universal acceptance and salvation to all mankind and presently known and unknown living creatures, that is, including extraterrestrials, there would be no longer exclusivity in the ranks of the organization. The Christian religion and others that were founded after it are only a couple of thousands of years old or less; their teachings are not based on older "universal" religions which have been tested through the centuries, remained unchanged, and never had to undergo internal turmoil, so that the probability of the collapse or absorption of the former is imminent.
A thorn sticking out in these newer religions is their denial or non-provision of the possibility that alien life exists. Hinduism and Buddhism which tolerate and respect all kinds of life already provide for the future when alien life is accepted as fact; I believe that Judaism, too, is open to the possibility of the existence of alien life and beings as glimpsed from their history: that their prophets were able to converse with "God" manifesting physical presence, characteristics and signs. Enlightened and modern Jews believe that God is a spirit although in their history, their God always managed to come down and converse with their prophets and leaders. And as far as I know, the doors of salvation in the Jewish religion are never closed and limited to any one particular belief.
Pardon me for a being a bit brusque...but how will you make an appearance to the world to convince believers and nonbelievers alike of your dialogue? Will there be some kind of magic?
You know there is a time for everything. When the time comes for my message to be known and accepted it will be done so. I don't need to make my appearance to a large group of people to convince them, nor shall there be magic to entertain the nonbelievers. We are so used in watching television in our living rooms that we sometimes believe that to be able to reach out, one has to appear in it. I won't even use telepathy and mind power to send my messages to people. If I could do these to large groups of people, there would be no need for me teach, I'll just keep on sending waves and waves of peaceful and benevolent thoughts to mankind. Even congregations of well-meaning persons cannot change the thoughts of large masses of people, they are just too motley, each individual with his own agenda and intentions as well as having different levels of comprehension and understanding. In other words, I will not use mind power to bring my message across.
Not using mind power means not having to use magic either. Understanding and faith should come naturally from the believer. It is when people start believing in magic and miracles that the growth of true faith becomes impeded. Of course, I cannot perform a miracle either because as I have said true faith is based on the sensibility of my teachings, whether they have helped you or not, and not on sensationalism.
So, will I appear on tv to break the news? The answer is no. This is because the news will run ahead of me.