Friday, October 31, 2003
Tom is a wise man...
I didn't want to post about the same topic twice. I didn't want to be one of those people who has their argument and they can never talk about anything else. I just wanted to put my point of view out there so that I could read it back to myself and discover what I think. The problem is I have to clear something up because in hindsight I feel I was a little to black and white on some issues that are a tad more monochromatic. So this is me eating a couple of my words.
I had a good discussion with Tom about some of this stuff and he brought a couple of things to light, the main one being in regard to the whole Genesis creation discrepency which, although smoothed over in the NIV is more obvious in other versions, such as the New American Standard. There is a discrepency between 1:1 and 2:5, and it's not the only thing in Genesis that seems to contradict itself. On Day 2 God created light and darkness, but he created the Sun and Moon on Day 4. So where did the light come from before?
I would like to say this and then I'll shut up and won't blog about this anymore. Discussion is great because we learn so many things when we hear other peoples point of view. It doesn't mean we change our mind, for example everything I said about the metaphor issue I am still completely solid on. It means we get to learn from the time that other people have invested into thinking about these issues. I have a feeling God sits up there somewhere having a good old chuckle as we try and figure it all out.
At the end of the day, I'm here on this planet because God put me here. He put me here because he wanted me here and really, that's all I need to know. That, and what he wants me to do now that I am here...
I didn't want to post about the same topic twice. I didn't want to be one of those people who has their argument and they can never talk about anything else. I just wanted to put my point of view out there so that I could read it back to myself and discover what I think. The problem is I have to clear something up because in hindsight I feel I was a little to black and white on some issues that are a tad more monochromatic. So this is me eating a couple of my words.
I had a good discussion with Tom about some of this stuff and he brought a couple of things to light, the main one being in regard to the whole Genesis creation discrepency which, although smoothed over in the NIV is more obvious in other versions, such as the New American Standard. There is a discrepency between 1:1 and 2:5, and it's not the only thing in Genesis that seems to contradict itself. On Day 2 God created light and darkness, but he created the Sun and Moon on Day 4. So where did the light come from before?
I would like to say this and then I'll shut up and won't blog about this anymore. Discussion is great because we learn so many things when we hear other peoples point of view. It doesn't mean we change our mind, for example everything I said about the metaphor issue I am still completely solid on. It means we get to learn from the time that other people have invested into thinking about these issues. I have a feeling God sits up there somewhere having a good old chuckle as we try and figure it all out.
At the end of the day, I'm here on this planet because God put me here. He put me here because he wanted me here and really, that's all I need to know. That, and what he wants me to do now that I am here...
Wednesday, October 29, 2003
I've been thinking a lot recently about this argument by many Christians that parts of the Bible are metaphorical. Obviously some parts are, such as the parables, but I've had to come to a decision for myself regarding this whole idea. My decision is this - unless the Bible tells me that what it is saying is metaphorical, then I am going to base my beliefs on the fact that it is literal. Let me explain myself, for my own benefit as much as anything.
I think human beings have an inherent need to be able to explain things. We want to feel in control and our feelings of control are increased when our feelings of understanding are greater. So, when we come to things that we don't understand we have to do something with that feeling, because more often than not "I don't know" is not an option. One way to explain things in the Bible that appear to contradict other things is this idea that perhaps God is speaking through metaphor.
The strongest example of this is the idea of "Christian-evolution". Prior to perhaps twelve months ago I wasn't even aware that this concept was in existence, but through conversations with people and listening to the ideas of those around me I've come to understand it a little more. Basically the argument is that God used the evolutionary process to create the world as we know it and that large portions of Genesis are in fact metaphorical.
Up until this point I've largely avoided this whole debate. I'd adopted the postmodern philosophy that you believe what you believe and I'll believe what I believe and we'll leave it at that. I still agree with this but I've come to realise that I was hiding behind that argument so that I didn't have to answer the questions that beconned. It was my way of excusing my lack of understanding.
Not anymore. I heard someone say something over the weekend regarding the whole "metaphorical" argument and it triggered something in me. I decided that I don't agree with it, and more strongly than that, I think it can be a dangerous philosophy.
A decision that Genesis is metaphorical is a solution that people have come up with to answer un-answered questions. Questions like, could it really have happened in six days? How did we get different races? How did the human race increase if Adam and Eve only had Cain, Abel and Seth? (See Gen 5:4) I think there is a tendency to take scientists' explanations for the way the world came about (an argument developed to cut God out), slap God in on top of it and say there you go - got it. Therefore, Genesis must have been simplified so that we could understand it. My problem with that is that we are taking a scientist's explanation over God's. We are saying the scientists got it right (minus the God bit) and God was playing word games. Why? Because that sits better in our little human brains.
If we start doing that, if we begin to take chunks from the Bible that we don't understand and we tack this metaphor label on it then, in my opinion, we walk a very fine line. Because where do you stop? Was Noah and the flood a metaphor? Surely the whole world wasn't covered in water. What about the Israelites, surely they weren't in the desert for forty years? Samson pushed the whole temple down? Give me a break. Elijah went to heaven in a chariot of fire? Maybe God was being a bit melodramatic. Jesus? Dieing on a cross and taking the sins of the whole world, past, present and future on himself so that we could have eternal life? Maybe God was just simplifying it so that we could understand...
The idea that the Genesis explanation for creation is metaphorical for our benefit (so that we could understand it) doesn't make any sense. Evolution is a much more complex argument and people seem to be getting a grasp of those ideas. Did God think we couldn't handle anything more than six days and a garden?
I've heard it said that there are two accounts of creation in Genesis (1:1 and 2:5) and that they contradict each other. I've since read them a number of times and I can't see how they contradict each other at all. If you read it carefully the creation is in the same order in both accounts. If that's the argument for going with a scientist explanation over God's then that doesn't make sense to me. That would be saying that God created a "simple metaphor" so that we could understand it easier but accidentally put a contradictory account in the next chapter. It doesn't wash with me.
Allow me to write down what I believe. I believe creation happened according to the Bible. I don't believe Genesis is metaphorical. I believe it happened in six days because why couldn't it have? Why do we need to come up with an explanation for why God couldn't possibly have done it in six days. Six thousand years he could have done it, we say, but not six days. He's God. He says there was morning and evening each day and He says He did it in six. That's good enough for me.
I believe he made Adam from dust and Eve from Adam's rib because that's what it says. I don't believe humans evolved from apes. In the Genesis account the Bible repeatedly says that God made the animals and plants "according to their kind". He doesn't say he made one organism that slowly changed and became something else and then changed again and became something else until human beings turned up.
I read up on some things about Neanderthal man, the supposed link between humans and apes. The first skeleton found was later shown to be that of an arthritic old man, thus the stooped posture. Scientists have concluded that ALL of the Neanderthal people had rickets, a condition caused by lack of vitamin D which causes bones to become soft and deformed. They were fully human, not apes at all. Many of the other so called ape-men have been disproven. Piltdown Man was a hoax constructed by the combining of an human skull and ape jaw. Nebraska Man was fabricated from a pig's tooth. Ramapithecus and Ocre Man were found to be an orangutan and a donkey respectively. Scientists have been searching for a way to disprove the Bible and they do not have the fossil evidence to prove their assumptions. Why do Christians need to buy into that? We have it explained for us. Sure there are parts that we do not understand but we're human, we're not God. Why can't we act in a manner of faith and trust that God knows what he's talking about, more so than an atheist-white-coat?
I believe Adam and Eve were the first two people because that is how God describes the fall of mankind - Adam and Eve eating the apple. If Adam and Eve are metaphors for a mankind in general then how did they all collectively fall from grace? Were they all tempted all over the world at once?
See Christian-evolution creates more questions than it solves, but the problem is those who believe it cannot turn to the Bible for answers because they've dismissed it as nothing more than a story.
Perhaps one reason for leaning towards the metaphor explanation is that, from an evangelical point of view, people don't believe that a non-Christian would buy the Genesis explanation, especially if they've been taught evolution all through school. Perhaps the temptation is to combine the two for convenience sake - therefore we avoid the debate. Consider this instead. How weak does our faith sound when we begin to excuse large portions of our Bible (the foundation of our faith - the Word of God) as metaphor. We don't know exactly where it ends and where it begins because we made up the idea of it being metaphorical to begin with.
One thing that has been a big question of course is the origin of races. Where did Africans and Asians and Caucasians come from? I don't really know. I suspect the tower of Babel has a lot to do with it. I also know that the assumption that Adam and Eve were Caucasian and not multi-racial is not biblical. The thing is, evolution doesn't explain it either. Consider this - evolutionists themselves admit that in order for races (or sub-species) to arise a population must be split into small, isolated groups, leading to "inbreeding". Have they read Gen 11? The Tower of Babel: where the entire population was split into small groups based on language differences.
When we start to excuse things as metaphorical we get into all sorts of problems. My decision is to take the Bible at face value, unless the Bible tells me otherwise. I heard recently that the 144,000 mentioned in Revelations was dismissed to a Jehovah's Witness as "metaphorical". This is what stirred up my desire to write down my opinions on the subject. The temptation is there to throw this idea of metaphor around regarding whatever we don't understand. How about just saying that the idea of a limited population in heaven directly contradicts John 3:16 - "that whosoever believes in me shall not perish but have eternal life"? How about saying that according to Rev 7, 144,000 is refferring to a number from the tribes of Israel, and those tribes are listed? How about drawing their attention to the multitude of other places in Revelations that refer to the great countless numbers in heaven.
I know that there are lots of people who disagree with me on this and that's absolutely fine. This is not meant as an attack on anyone. This is for me to put down what I believe. This is so that people can read what I believe. I've made a decision to think about this stuff and decide that I don't buy the metaphorical thing. I think it's a dangerous path to walk, and I don't think it's a path that leads anywhere...
I think human beings have an inherent need to be able to explain things. We want to feel in control and our feelings of control are increased when our feelings of understanding are greater. So, when we come to things that we don't understand we have to do something with that feeling, because more often than not "I don't know" is not an option. One way to explain things in the Bible that appear to contradict other things is this idea that perhaps God is speaking through metaphor.
The strongest example of this is the idea of "Christian-evolution". Prior to perhaps twelve months ago I wasn't even aware that this concept was in existence, but through conversations with people and listening to the ideas of those around me I've come to understand it a little more. Basically the argument is that God used the evolutionary process to create the world as we know it and that large portions of Genesis are in fact metaphorical.
Up until this point I've largely avoided this whole debate. I'd adopted the postmodern philosophy that you believe what you believe and I'll believe what I believe and we'll leave it at that. I still agree with this but I've come to realise that I was hiding behind that argument so that I didn't have to answer the questions that beconned. It was my way of excusing my lack of understanding.
Not anymore. I heard someone say something over the weekend regarding the whole "metaphorical" argument and it triggered something in me. I decided that I don't agree with it, and more strongly than that, I think it can be a dangerous philosophy.
A decision that Genesis is metaphorical is a solution that people have come up with to answer un-answered questions. Questions like, could it really have happened in six days? How did we get different races? How did the human race increase if Adam and Eve only had Cain, Abel and Seth? (See Gen 5:4) I think there is a tendency to take scientists' explanations for the way the world came about (an argument developed to cut God out), slap God in on top of it and say there you go - got it. Therefore, Genesis must have been simplified so that we could understand it. My problem with that is that we are taking a scientist's explanation over God's. We are saying the scientists got it right (minus the God bit) and God was playing word games. Why? Because that sits better in our little human brains.
If we start doing that, if we begin to take chunks from the Bible that we don't understand and we tack this metaphor label on it then, in my opinion, we walk a very fine line. Because where do you stop? Was Noah and the flood a metaphor? Surely the whole world wasn't covered in water. What about the Israelites, surely they weren't in the desert for forty years? Samson pushed the whole temple down? Give me a break. Elijah went to heaven in a chariot of fire? Maybe God was being a bit melodramatic. Jesus? Dieing on a cross and taking the sins of the whole world, past, present and future on himself so that we could have eternal life? Maybe God was just simplifying it so that we could understand...
The idea that the Genesis explanation for creation is metaphorical for our benefit (so that we could understand it) doesn't make any sense. Evolution is a much more complex argument and people seem to be getting a grasp of those ideas. Did God think we couldn't handle anything more than six days and a garden?
I've heard it said that there are two accounts of creation in Genesis (1:1 and 2:5) and that they contradict each other. I've since read them a number of times and I can't see how they contradict each other at all. If you read it carefully the creation is in the same order in both accounts. If that's the argument for going with a scientist explanation over God's then that doesn't make sense to me. That would be saying that God created a "simple metaphor" so that we could understand it easier but accidentally put a contradictory account in the next chapter. It doesn't wash with me.
Allow me to write down what I believe. I believe creation happened according to the Bible. I don't believe Genesis is metaphorical. I believe it happened in six days because why couldn't it have? Why do we need to come up with an explanation for why God couldn't possibly have done it in six days. Six thousand years he could have done it, we say, but not six days. He's God. He says there was morning and evening each day and He says He did it in six. That's good enough for me.
I believe he made Adam from dust and Eve from Adam's rib because that's what it says. I don't believe humans evolved from apes. In the Genesis account the Bible repeatedly says that God made the animals and plants "according to their kind". He doesn't say he made one organism that slowly changed and became something else and then changed again and became something else until human beings turned up.
I read up on some things about Neanderthal man, the supposed link between humans and apes. The first skeleton found was later shown to be that of an arthritic old man, thus the stooped posture. Scientists have concluded that ALL of the Neanderthal people had rickets, a condition caused by lack of vitamin D which causes bones to become soft and deformed. They were fully human, not apes at all. Many of the other so called ape-men have been disproven. Piltdown Man was a hoax constructed by the combining of an human skull and ape jaw. Nebraska Man was fabricated from a pig's tooth. Ramapithecus and Ocre Man were found to be an orangutan and a donkey respectively. Scientists have been searching for a way to disprove the Bible and they do not have the fossil evidence to prove their assumptions. Why do Christians need to buy into that? We have it explained for us. Sure there are parts that we do not understand but we're human, we're not God. Why can't we act in a manner of faith and trust that God knows what he's talking about, more so than an atheist-white-coat?
I believe Adam and Eve were the first two people because that is how God describes the fall of mankind - Adam and Eve eating the apple. If Adam and Eve are metaphors for a mankind in general then how did they all collectively fall from grace? Were they all tempted all over the world at once?
See Christian-evolution creates more questions than it solves, but the problem is those who believe it cannot turn to the Bible for answers because they've dismissed it as nothing more than a story.
Perhaps one reason for leaning towards the metaphor explanation is that, from an evangelical point of view, people don't believe that a non-Christian would buy the Genesis explanation, especially if they've been taught evolution all through school. Perhaps the temptation is to combine the two for convenience sake - therefore we avoid the debate. Consider this instead. How weak does our faith sound when we begin to excuse large portions of our Bible (the foundation of our faith - the Word of God) as metaphor. We don't know exactly where it ends and where it begins because we made up the idea of it being metaphorical to begin with.
One thing that has been a big question of course is the origin of races. Where did Africans and Asians and Caucasians come from? I don't really know. I suspect the tower of Babel has a lot to do with it. I also know that the assumption that Adam and Eve were Caucasian and not multi-racial is not biblical. The thing is, evolution doesn't explain it either. Consider this - evolutionists themselves admit that in order for races (or sub-species) to arise a population must be split into small, isolated groups, leading to "inbreeding". Have they read Gen 11? The Tower of Babel: where the entire population was split into small groups based on language differences.
When we start to excuse things as metaphorical we get into all sorts of problems. My decision is to take the Bible at face value, unless the Bible tells me otherwise. I heard recently that the 144,000 mentioned in Revelations was dismissed to a Jehovah's Witness as "metaphorical". This is what stirred up my desire to write down my opinions on the subject. The temptation is there to throw this idea of metaphor around regarding whatever we don't understand. How about just saying that the idea of a limited population in heaven directly contradicts John 3:16 - "that whosoever believes in me shall not perish but have eternal life"? How about saying that according to Rev 7, 144,000 is refferring to a number from the tribes of Israel, and those tribes are listed? How about drawing their attention to the multitude of other places in Revelations that refer to the great countless numbers in heaven.
I know that there are lots of people who disagree with me on this and that's absolutely fine. This is not meant as an attack on anyone. This is for me to put down what I believe. This is so that people can read what I believe. I've made a decision to think about this stuff and decide that I don't buy the metaphorical thing. I think it's a dangerous path to walk, and I don't think it's a path that leads anywhere...
Sunday, October 26, 2003
Sometimes I find the diversity of people so inspiring. Isn't it brilliant that we're all so different? I love hearing about peoples idiosynchrisies. About the tiny things that makes one person unique from another.
I'm really glad God is so creative...
I'm really glad God is so creative...
Wednesday, October 22, 2003
I think that Guiness World Records is an attempt by people to gain a form of immortality. I'm determined to find more examples of people attempting to gain "eternal life". Fame of course would be another one - ie. the huge lines for Australian Idol auditions.
I recently read "The Hours" by Michael Cunningham and he touched on this idea. It's an interesting concept that's got me thinking. Is it driven by self-image problems, where a person would feel better about themselves if they were immortalised in popular culture? Their name would live on after their own death.
It's the whole idea of making a mark, making a name for yourself, making a difference, changing the world. The endless quest to be significant. The irony of course is that one would never know if it had worked or not, for you'd be dead. Vincent Van Gogh never sold a painting while he was alive. He committed suicide in his early thirties. He never realised he would make a mark. So really what people are after is that feeling on their death bed that they had made a difference to the world, that they will not be forgotten.
Is that our greatest fear, that we might be forgotten? That our time spent on this planet has not made an impact, possibly questioning, in the mind of the person dying, the value of their whole existence.
Is this something that everyone feels to various extents or is it something that only a few are afflicted with? I can't quite work out whether it's a good thing or not...
I recently read "The Hours" by Michael Cunningham and he touched on this idea. It's an interesting concept that's got me thinking. Is it driven by self-image problems, where a person would feel better about themselves if they were immortalised in popular culture? Their name would live on after their own death.
It's the whole idea of making a mark, making a name for yourself, making a difference, changing the world. The endless quest to be significant. The irony of course is that one would never know if it had worked or not, for you'd be dead. Vincent Van Gogh never sold a painting while he was alive. He committed suicide in his early thirties. He never realised he would make a mark. So really what people are after is that feeling on their death bed that they had made a difference to the world, that they will not be forgotten.
Is that our greatest fear, that we might be forgotten? That our time spent on this planet has not made an impact, possibly questioning, in the mind of the person dying, the value of their whole existence.
Is this something that everyone feels to various extents or is it something that only a few are afflicted with? I can't quite work out whether it's a good thing or not...
Tuesday, October 21, 2003
What does it mean to hand something over to God? How do you do that - especially in relation to temptations and burdens? I was talking to some friends about the "not testing you beyond what you can bear" verses. What exactly does "beyond what you can bear" mean?
A good mate suggested that maybe we do get tested beyond what we can manage and that is the time when we must hand things over to God. I just really don't understand how you do that.
Sometimes I'm really definate on my opinions - especially things that I feel passionate about and have thought about. Other things just confuse the hell out of me and I don't know what to do. It usually means in discussions I tend to sit back and not say anything or I throw in questions like the ones above and they just piss everyone off I think.
I think sometimes we like to think things and believe things and then render them unchallengable so that we can stay in our little comfort zone where we understand everything. I have to learn not to do that.
You know what I do know for absolute certain though? Something I don't mind being challenged about?
Above everything, no matter what is going on, no matter whether we feel up or down, left or right, our God is good.
A good mate suggested that maybe we do get tested beyond what we can manage and that is the time when we must hand things over to God. I just really don't understand how you do that.
Sometimes I'm really definate on my opinions - especially things that I feel passionate about and have thought about. Other things just confuse the hell out of me and I don't know what to do. It usually means in discussions I tend to sit back and not say anything or I throw in questions like the ones above and they just piss everyone off I think.
I think sometimes we like to think things and believe things and then render them unchallengable so that we can stay in our little comfort zone where we understand everything. I have to learn not to do that.
You know what I do know for absolute certain though? Something I don't mind being challenged about?
Above everything, no matter what is going on, no matter whether we feel up or down, left or right, our God is good.
Monday, October 20, 2003
I wonder if people see me as a straight-down-the-line kind of guy
Or am I an enigma?
I wonder if I look like I'm completely screwed
Or like I have it all together?
I wonder if life was once defined as simple
And we tangled it up?
Or was it always supposed to be complicated
We just never looked it up?
Or am I an enigma?
I wonder if I look like I'm completely screwed
Or like I have it all together?
I wonder if life was once defined as simple
And we tangled it up?
Or was it always supposed to be complicated
We just never looked it up?
Sunday, October 19, 2003
When you sit down and count the good things in your life, there are usually more than you think. I don't do it enough, count the good things. I don't think the world does it enough.
"If it bleeds it leads" - that was a saying I heard tonight, referring to the way the nightly news is put together. I wonder why it is so much easier, so much more interesting, so much more popular to focus on the things that don't work? Especially when there is so much that does.
God is in the good things. I know that. We can find Him there in the positive. Sometimes we have to look but we know that all good things come from Him. And if we live in a world that focuses on the negative, no wonder it's so hard for people to find God.
I wonder if I could change that? I wonder if one person could? It's idealistic, I know, but when we live in such a pesimistic world, what's so bad about a little idealism? Imagine if I could be the person who pulls the positive out of things. Imagine if, without being false, we could live lives that reflect the wonders of the world around us. Maybe that would help people see God...
Just a thought...
"If it bleeds it leads" - that was a saying I heard tonight, referring to the way the nightly news is put together. I wonder why it is so much easier, so much more interesting, so much more popular to focus on the things that don't work? Especially when there is so much that does.
God is in the good things. I know that. We can find Him there in the positive. Sometimes we have to look but we know that all good things come from Him. And if we live in a world that focuses on the negative, no wonder it's so hard for people to find God.
I wonder if I could change that? I wonder if one person could? It's idealistic, I know, but when we live in such a pesimistic world, what's so bad about a little idealism? Imagine if I could be the person who pulls the positive out of things. Imagine if, without being false, we could live lives that reflect the wonders of the world around us. Maybe that would help people see God...
Just a thought...
Saturday, October 18, 2003
I'm learning something at the moment and I'm posting this so that I can look back on it and remind myself of this lesson that I'm learning. It might help me.
Some things are hard. And it's okay that they're hard. Sometimes we have to do things or see people and for a period it's difficult. We don't have to apologise for it. We don't have to pretend it's not difficult. Really we just acknowledge that it's tough and we grit our teeth and clench our fists until our knuckles are white. We say, this is hard and for a while it's not going to get any easier but one day, one day I'll wake up and things will start to get better.
At least, that's how it looks from this end...
Some things are hard. And it's okay that they're hard. Sometimes we have to do things or see people and for a period it's difficult. We don't have to apologise for it. We don't have to pretend it's not difficult. Really we just acknowledge that it's tough and we grit our teeth and clench our fists until our knuckles are white. We say, this is hard and for a while it's not going to get any easier but one day, one day I'll wake up and things will start to get better.
At least, that's how it looks from this end...
Friday, October 17, 2003
I was told of a preacher the other day, who I won't name (because he may or may not be a relative) who said from the pulpit that it is wrong to go after your career. He said that it was not right in God's eyes to be career minded, instead God calls us to trust and wait on Him rather than striving after anything.
I don't think I've ever disagreed with something more whole-heartedly and aggressively than I do with that line of teaching!
I think there tends to be a belief that floats around churches that verses like Prov 3:5-6 mean "sit on your butt and wait for a lightening strike". We say, I don't know where God wants me, I don't know what gifts or talents I have, I'm waiting for God's direction. Then, either we end up doing a nothing job, or we study something we're not interested in or we start working at the church because that must be what God wants. Please don't read that wrong, some people are called to work within the church, I don't doubt that for a second. Just not everyone. Sometimes church can be an easy answer to the "where does God want me" question.
There is so much more to our lives than careers. What we do for a job is just one part of our Christian walk, it's one part of our daily life. And God can use us in ANY career if we are open to Him moving through us. I think it is SO dangerous to teach people that they need to wait for God to reveal something before they head in any direction. Sometimes I think God says, "Harvey, I'll leave this one to you. I've given you a brain. I've given you abilities and strengths and I've given you things you are passionate about. If you're open, I'll use you no matter where you are." I think there are too many Christians who live aimless lives, drifting from one dead-end job to another because they're still waiting for God to reveal to them what He wants them to do.
I prefer to think of it like this. God has given me desires and dreams. I believe they are from him and my job is to constantly surrender them to Him and say "God, whatever you want". However, until I get some sort of lightening-bolt-direction I'm going to follow the dreams that I believe He has given me. I'm going to work as though I'm working for Him, I'm going to try the best I can to make the most of what I have. Maybe I'll get there, maybe I won't, but I'll try my best to be open to Him, to put Him (as the God who created dreams) above the dreams themselves and I'm still available if the lightening strike comes. I'm just not going to sit on my bum and wait for it.
I think it is such an incredibly dangerous thing to preach from a pulpit. I really wish I'd been there because I would have loved to have taken issue with it...
I don't think I've ever disagreed with something more whole-heartedly and aggressively than I do with that line of teaching!
I think there tends to be a belief that floats around churches that verses like Prov 3:5-6 mean "sit on your butt and wait for a lightening strike". We say, I don't know where God wants me, I don't know what gifts or talents I have, I'm waiting for God's direction. Then, either we end up doing a nothing job, or we study something we're not interested in or we start working at the church because that must be what God wants. Please don't read that wrong, some people are called to work within the church, I don't doubt that for a second. Just not everyone. Sometimes church can be an easy answer to the "where does God want me" question.
There is so much more to our lives than careers. What we do for a job is just one part of our Christian walk, it's one part of our daily life. And God can use us in ANY career if we are open to Him moving through us. I think it is SO dangerous to teach people that they need to wait for God to reveal something before they head in any direction. Sometimes I think God says, "Harvey, I'll leave this one to you. I've given you a brain. I've given you abilities and strengths and I've given you things you are passionate about. If you're open, I'll use you no matter where you are." I think there are too many Christians who live aimless lives, drifting from one dead-end job to another because they're still waiting for God to reveal to them what He wants them to do.
I prefer to think of it like this. God has given me desires and dreams. I believe they are from him and my job is to constantly surrender them to Him and say "God, whatever you want". However, until I get some sort of lightening-bolt-direction I'm going to follow the dreams that I believe He has given me. I'm going to work as though I'm working for Him, I'm going to try the best I can to make the most of what I have. Maybe I'll get there, maybe I won't, but I'll try my best to be open to Him, to put Him (as the God who created dreams) above the dreams themselves and I'm still available if the lightening strike comes. I'm just not going to sit on my bum and wait for it.
I think it is such an incredibly dangerous thing to preach from a pulpit. I really wish I'd been there because I would have loved to have taken issue with it...
Thursday, October 16, 2003
It's so inspiring to see someone do something well. It's even more inspiring to see someone following their dreams. I think we all have dreams, don't we? People say they don't, they say they're content and they're not sure what they want, but surely everyone wants something. Surely if you thought about it long enough you could come up with one thing or eleven things that you'd love to see your life evolve into?
I know what mine are. Some of them are blurred and kind of mixed up. Some of them are clearer than (cringe for incoming cliche) crystal. Today I had something happen that brought me one step closer to seeing some of them happen and that's exciting. I also saw someone doing something well and following her dream and that's also exciting.
You know what? Dreams are exciting. I can't imagine living without them...
I know what mine are. Some of them are blurred and kind of mixed up. Some of them are clearer than (cringe for incoming cliche) crystal. Today I had something happen that brought me one step closer to seeing some of them happen and that's exciting. I also saw someone doing something well and following her dream and that's also exciting.
You know what? Dreams are exciting. I can't imagine living without them...
Wednesday, October 15, 2003
Today I decided that one day I would like to get stuck in an elevator.
The people of the people of Navatusila, a remote Fijian village, are going to officially apologise for eating Rev Thomas Baker, an English missionary, 136 years ago. That's nice of them.
Now they're going to apologise because they believe they are being cursed for the actions of their forefathers and therefore a traditional apology needs to be made. However, for me it raised the whole question about saying sorry. Do we, or should we, apologise for something that we did not do? No prizes for guessing I have Aboriginal reconciliation in mind when I phrase that question. I'll be really honest and say I don't know heaps about the topic. I do know some abhorent things were done to Aboriginal families. I know people were killed, women were raped, families were broken and culture was squashed. We don't need to know much more to say that we, as caucasian Australians, have things in our collective past that we should be ashamed of.
But do I need to apologise to Aboriginal people for the actions of my forefathers? Well first of all, I'd like to address a perhaps overlooked part of that question, and that is the whole issue of forefathers to begin with. My ancestors on my father's side are Finish and Scottish, and on my mother's side, English (and that's only going back 3 generations). Therefore I have absolutely no genetic connection with early White Settlers in Australia. So, therefore, am I being grouped into collective "White Australia"? Because, forgive me for saying so, but that would be catagorising me based purely on my skin colour, which I believe was the problem in the first place.
Next, if my grandfather (hypothetically speaking of course) was a racist, say he came out of the war bitter against people of Asian appearance, am I accountable for his actions? I don't think anyone could argue that I was. I believe I am responsible for my actions and my attitudes. That means I am responsible for how I respond to his comments, how I react to anything he does wrong in regard to that, and I am responsible for how I perceive the people whom his racism is directed at. I am not responsible for what he does.
I think what happened to the Aboriginese, as native original Australians, was shocking. It is a dark stain on our history as a nation. However, I will not apologise for it because I didn't do it. I had no say in whether it happened or not. Apology should be based on choice; in that situation I made the wrong decision and I am sorry for it. In my opinion, apologising is an acceptance of guilt and neither I, nor John Howard nor anyone else who was not personally involved in that part of our history need do that.
I don't buy the argument that "sorry" is recquired in the nature of, "I'm sorry your mother died". That is not an apology, that's sympathy and I don't think there are many people who do not think that what happened was wrong and Aboriginal people were hurt by it. My issue is that if we start apologising for things we didn't do then where do we stop? Do I apologise to the Scottish because my Grandmother was English and England ruled violently over Scotland for hundreds of years? I could go on. The past is the past. Half the time it hurts and a lot of it is black, but at the end of the day we learn from it, we pick ourselves up and we move on. We say, I'm going to do things differently, I'm going to do things right and I'm going to live a better life.
So I'm sure Rev Baker's family appreciate this Fijian apology but I don't think the curse of our forefathers' actions is going to disappear by us accepting guilt for things we had no part in...
Now they're going to apologise because they believe they are being cursed for the actions of their forefathers and therefore a traditional apology needs to be made. However, for me it raised the whole question about saying sorry. Do we, or should we, apologise for something that we did not do? No prizes for guessing I have Aboriginal reconciliation in mind when I phrase that question. I'll be really honest and say I don't know heaps about the topic. I do know some abhorent things were done to Aboriginal families. I know people were killed, women were raped, families were broken and culture was squashed. We don't need to know much more to say that we, as caucasian Australians, have things in our collective past that we should be ashamed of.
But do I need to apologise to Aboriginal people for the actions of my forefathers? Well first of all, I'd like to address a perhaps overlooked part of that question, and that is the whole issue of forefathers to begin with. My ancestors on my father's side are Finish and Scottish, and on my mother's side, English (and that's only going back 3 generations). Therefore I have absolutely no genetic connection with early White Settlers in Australia. So, therefore, am I being grouped into collective "White Australia"? Because, forgive me for saying so, but that would be catagorising me based purely on my skin colour, which I believe was the problem in the first place.
Next, if my grandfather (hypothetically speaking of course) was a racist, say he came out of the war bitter against people of Asian appearance, am I accountable for his actions? I don't think anyone could argue that I was. I believe I am responsible for my actions and my attitudes. That means I am responsible for how I respond to his comments, how I react to anything he does wrong in regard to that, and I am responsible for how I perceive the people whom his racism is directed at. I am not responsible for what he does.
I think what happened to the Aboriginese, as native original Australians, was shocking. It is a dark stain on our history as a nation. However, I will not apologise for it because I didn't do it. I had no say in whether it happened or not. Apology should be based on choice; in that situation I made the wrong decision and I am sorry for it. In my opinion, apologising is an acceptance of guilt and neither I, nor John Howard nor anyone else who was not personally involved in that part of our history need do that.
I don't buy the argument that "sorry" is recquired in the nature of, "I'm sorry your mother died". That is not an apology, that's sympathy and I don't think there are many people who do not think that what happened was wrong and Aboriginal people were hurt by it. My issue is that if we start apologising for things we didn't do then where do we stop? Do I apologise to the Scottish because my Grandmother was English and England ruled violently over Scotland for hundreds of years? I could go on. The past is the past. Half the time it hurts and a lot of it is black, but at the end of the day we learn from it, we pick ourselves up and we move on. We say, I'm going to do things differently, I'm going to do things right and I'm going to live a better life.
So I'm sure Rev Baker's family appreciate this Fijian apology but I don't think the curse of our forefathers' actions is going to disappear by us accepting guilt for things we had no part in...
Monday, October 13, 2003
Yesterday was October 12th which means yesterday was the one year anniversary of the Bali Bombings. Although, I don't think I need to tell anyone that because it was plastered all over the TV. The ABC's Insiders: The Bali Anniversary and Compass: Bali Special. Channel Seven had a special edition of Sunday Sunrise as well as a Seven News Special: 88 seconds of silence. Channel Nine; Bali Memorial Service, Sixty Minutes Bali Special, Nightline: Bali, and get this, Backyard Blitz: Bali Anniversary Special. Channel Ten had Ten News: Cry Bali and SBS never mentioned it.
Now I think what happened in Bali was abhorent. I think the guys who did it should be executed. I don't doubt that it changed the lives of hundreds of families in this country and in many more countries around the world (Remembering that Australia lost 88 but 202 were lost altogether). I knew a guy from work who was there at the time for a Rugby Tens Competition - he was in a taxi on his way to the Sari Club, literally a few blocks away when the bombs went off. It completely shook him up. But do we need to go there again?
We saw it with September 11 and we'll continue to see it with any major act of terrorism or disaster in the Western World (emphasis there on Western World). There will be documentary specials, there will be tele-movies, there will be investigations and there will be televised forums. At the time of the event there is always a media saturation and that I can sort of understand. There are lots of questions people have, stories that need to be told and information that needs to be delivered. I don't understand the need to revisit this kind of saturation one year on.
For those who lost people, for those who need to grieve then sure, those people may need to go back there if that's what they want to do. Those people should be allowed to do whatever they want because they are the victims of a catastrophe like this. For the rest of us however, why bring it all back? Why run the funeral service on three channels at the same time?
It was Channel 7's 88 Seconds of Silence that really grated me. I was flicking channels whilst waiting for another program to come on (Okay, Australian Idol I confess) and Chris Bath told us that what would follow was a moving montage of images and interviews, causing us to remember, leading us to the 88 Seconds of Silence - one second for each of the Australians who died. I thought that this could be tastefully done and I decided to watch it. There is a need to remember and I understand and support that. What did follow was a combination of interviews with survivors, black screens filled with highlighted quotes like "life changed" and "my survival" and images of the burning Sari Club. Then, in the middle of this touching memorial to those lost (still leading to the moments of silence) they cut to a commercial break! That's when I ditched it.
When grief is exploited for the sake of advertising and ratings then we have a serious problem with the media in the Western World...
As perhaps a side note, I did love our Prime Minister John Howards remarks at the memorial service that "October 12, 2003 will live on in our memory for the rest of our lives". I thought that was really touching. I mean, it really was a great memorial service, but don't you think that October 12, 2002 was a bit more memorable, it being the year of the actual disaster and all!
Side note number two, and this really is off the topic - Mark Scaiffe got dogged at Bathurst. Bloody officials. (Great race though...) Holden takes it to 5 on the mountain!
Now I think what happened in Bali was abhorent. I think the guys who did it should be executed. I don't doubt that it changed the lives of hundreds of families in this country and in many more countries around the world (Remembering that Australia lost 88 but 202 were lost altogether). I knew a guy from work who was there at the time for a Rugby Tens Competition - he was in a taxi on his way to the Sari Club, literally a few blocks away when the bombs went off. It completely shook him up. But do we need to go there again?
We saw it with September 11 and we'll continue to see it with any major act of terrorism or disaster in the Western World (emphasis there on Western World). There will be documentary specials, there will be tele-movies, there will be investigations and there will be televised forums. At the time of the event there is always a media saturation and that I can sort of understand. There are lots of questions people have, stories that need to be told and information that needs to be delivered. I don't understand the need to revisit this kind of saturation one year on.
For those who lost people, for those who need to grieve then sure, those people may need to go back there if that's what they want to do. Those people should be allowed to do whatever they want because they are the victims of a catastrophe like this. For the rest of us however, why bring it all back? Why run the funeral service on three channels at the same time?
It was Channel 7's 88 Seconds of Silence that really grated me. I was flicking channels whilst waiting for another program to come on (Okay, Australian Idol I confess) and Chris Bath told us that what would follow was a moving montage of images and interviews, causing us to remember, leading us to the 88 Seconds of Silence - one second for each of the Australians who died. I thought that this could be tastefully done and I decided to watch it. There is a need to remember and I understand and support that. What did follow was a combination of interviews with survivors, black screens filled with highlighted quotes like "life changed" and "my survival" and images of the burning Sari Club. Then, in the middle of this touching memorial to those lost (still leading to the moments of silence) they cut to a commercial break! That's when I ditched it.
When grief is exploited for the sake of advertising and ratings then we have a serious problem with the media in the Western World...
As perhaps a side note, I did love our Prime Minister John Howards remarks at the memorial service that "October 12, 2003 will live on in our memory for the rest of our lives". I thought that was really touching. I mean, it really was a great memorial service, but don't you think that October 12, 2002 was a bit more memorable, it being the year of the actual disaster and all!
Side note number two, and this really is off the topic - Mark Scaiffe got dogged at Bathurst. Bloody officials. (Great race though...) Holden takes it to 5 on the mountain!
Sunday, October 12, 2003
The Immune System - ingenious. Mine is working overtime at the moment, has been non-stop for the past week. The Boss has brought in reinforcements. An Antibiotic Army designed to fight off threatening pneumonia. That's a good thing. In the meantime my job is to rest. Rest equals do nothing and I hate doing nothing.
It's very difficult to explain to someone who works hard what a struggle it is doing nothing. It sounds like a cop-out. It sounds like you're having a whinge and you are ungrateful and lazy. People think things like "Oh, that sounds SO tough" in really sarcastic tones. And that's fair enough I guess. They're entitled to think that, especially if they're working nine-to-five in a job they hate or they're struggling to pay bills etc.
But please allow me a moment. I'm finding the whole doing-nothing thing really difficult. I'd love to be working right now. I'd really like to be feeling like I was working towards something because that's the kind of person I am. I operate based on goals and ambitions and ideas. When I've got none and my "job" is to wait by the phone while the people who interviewed me make up their minds then that's difficult. Really.
I'm not whinging, I'm just explaining. Just because someone does nothing doesn't make them a bludger (not that anyone's called me a bludger, sometimes I feel like one, but that's my own issue). I know there are plenty of people on the dole who would do anything not to be, just for the sake of their own dignity and pride. There's also the flip side of that coin however I think I'll leave that for another post.
Anyway, I've got a small ammunition of drugs waiting for me so I'd better get to them...then there's Bathurst to watch. I love Bathurst....
It's very difficult to explain to someone who works hard what a struggle it is doing nothing. It sounds like a cop-out. It sounds like you're having a whinge and you are ungrateful and lazy. People think things like "Oh, that sounds SO tough" in really sarcastic tones. And that's fair enough I guess. They're entitled to think that, especially if they're working nine-to-five in a job they hate or they're struggling to pay bills etc.
But please allow me a moment. I'm finding the whole doing-nothing thing really difficult. I'd love to be working right now. I'd really like to be feeling like I was working towards something because that's the kind of person I am. I operate based on goals and ambitions and ideas. When I've got none and my "job" is to wait by the phone while the people who interviewed me make up their minds then that's difficult. Really.
I'm not whinging, I'm just explaining. Just because someone does nothing doesn't make them a bludger (not that anyone's called me a bludger, sometimes I feel like one, but that's my own issue). I know there are plenty of people on the dole who would do anything not to be, just for the sake of their own dignity and pride. There's also the flip side of that coin however I think I'll leave that for another post.
Anyway, I've got a small ammunition of drugs waiting for me so I'd better get to them...then there's Bathurst to watch. I love Bathurst....
Saturday, October 11, 2003
I've been doing a lot of social things recently - going out to different places, seeing different people, climbing different mountains. I realised I've been out nearly every night this week and it dawned on me that perhaps this is what it feels like to have a social life. And, I've discovered, I quite enjoy it. I'm feeling like I have lots of friends in different places in different groups and I quite like hanging out with them and just doing....stuff.
Which got me thinking about the correlation between friendship and loneliness and whether in fact they are related at all. To be lonely is to feel solitary and isolated (once again, thank you dictionary) - so can you feel solitary and still be surrounded by mates? I think you can. Correction, I know you can, and it's no reflection on the friendships you have at all. I think loneliness is an emotion rather than a state. In other words, I think we FEEL lonely more than we actually ARE lonely. Therefore, because it's a feeling (but still real and valid, don't get me wrong) it can be linked with other emotions that we may be feeling at the time. I think our sense of loneliness can be accentuated by the fact that we are feeling low, depressed, frustrated, disappointed etc. etc.
So why do we feel lonely? What is it that we are looking for? More than anything else, I think mostly we are looking for a connection. We are looking for common emotions with another person, because with common emotion comes understanding. That's why when someone is grieving the best comfort they can receive is from a friend who has also experienced loss. Common emotions like love. There is not a whole lot more frustrating (at least I'm yet to discover it) than to love someone who doesn't love you. (Please bear in mind that I am using the word love fairly loosely here). Therefore, unrequited love can bring on a feeling of loneliness and of feeling solitary and isolated, simply because we haven't found that connection or common emotion with that person, irrespective of whether we have a whole lot of really good mates or not.
I think it helps to get a grip on that stuff. It may not make us feel better all the time, but perhaps if we can understand what is going on inside our heads and hearts then we can also understand that everything's a phase. A phase that begins and also one that ends. In the meantime, I'm going out to catch up with some mates...
Which got me thinking about the correlation between friendship and loneliness and whether in fact they are related at all. To be lonely is to feel solitary and isolated (once again, thank you dictionary) - so can you feel solitary and still be surrounded by mates? I think you can. Correction, I know you can, and it's no reflection on the friendships you have at all. I think loneliness is an emotion rather than a state. In other words, I think we FEEL lonely more than we actually ARE lonely. Therefore, because it's a feeling (but still real and valid, don't get me wrong) it can be linked with other emotions that we may be feeling at the time. I think our sense of loneliness can be accentuated by the fact that we are feeling low, depressed, frustrated, disappointed etc. etc.
So why do we feel lonely? What is it that we are looking for? More than anything else, I think mostly we are looking for a connection. We are looking for common emotions with another person, because with common emotion comes understanding. That's why when someone is grieving the best comfort they can receive is from a friend who has also experienced loss. Common emotions like love. There is not a whole lot more frustrating (at least I'm yet to discover it) than to love someone who doesn't love you. (Please bear in mind that I am using the word love fairly loosely here). Therefore, unrequited love can bring on a feeling of loneliness and of feeling solitary and isolated, simply because we haven't found that connection or common emotion with that person, irrespective of whether we have a whole lot of really good mates or not.
I think it helps to get a grip on that stuff. It may not make us feel better all the time, but perhaps if we can understand what is going on inside our heads and hearts then we can also understand that everything's a phase. A phase that begins and also one that ends. In the meantime, I'm going out to catch up with some mates...
Friday, October 10, 2003
So Arnold Schwarzneggar is the new governor of California. Who would have thought there was a place in the world dumb enough to see that the solution to a severe budget deficit lay in the hands of a bodybuilder? Mind you, if I had to a pick a place where I thought it might happen, LA probably would have got a mention.
Celebrity is an interesting phenomena and I'm often curious about it. I mean, for starters, try defining it. The dictionary says: "fame; widely known person", but I'm thinking more in terms of the nature of it. I mean, I wouldn't class Osama bin Laden as a celebrity, yet he's widely known. I think the key is the link between celebrity and idolatry. I believe humans have an inbuilt need to idolise. I believe we are creatures created to worship and most of the time we're searching for someone to bestow our worship on. Therefore, because people are constantly looking, celebrities are created. That is, people who are revered and idolised by a community, with or without justification.
When Zac Malise appeared at BlackStump his marketing team tapped into this phenomena by creating him into a celebrity. It gave me an insight into the power of effective marketing, because if you can make people believe that this person is worthy of their worship (ie. other people are already worshiping him/her) then it doesn't take much for them to latch on. And people did. They asked for autographs, they checked tour dates, they came to the show and they talked about this rumoured Zac in the girls bathrooms (or so I was told). And it was all made up!
I believe this comes from our very nature, from our biological/spiritual make-up. We were created to worship the one who created us, only things got a bit screwed along the way and now the human race is searching for people to worship in His place. Therefore, when we come back and worship the only one who deserves it, there should be something that falls into place and a sense that we are slipping back into what we were created to do. I believe that recognition can be found in our worship of God and that's what makes it right.
As for Arnie, well he's got a big job ahead of him. I just hope he doesn't destroy California in the process, after all, it is the place where most celebrities are made...
Celebrity is an interesting phenomena and I'm often curious about it. I mean, for starters, try defining it. The dictionary says: "fame; widely known person", but I'm thinking more in terms of the nature of it. I mean, I wouldn't class Osama bin Laden as a celebrity, yet he's widely known. I think the key is the link between celebrity and idolatry. I believe humans have an inbuilt need to idolise. I believe we are creatures created to worship and most of the time we're searching for someone to bestow our worship on. Therefore, because people are constantly looking, celebrities are created. That is, people who are revered and idolised by a community, with or without justification.
When Zac Malise appeared at BlackStump his marketing team tapped into this phenomena by creating him into a celebrity. It gave me an insight into the power of effective marketing, because if you can make people believe that this person is worthy of their worship (ie. other people are already worshiping him/her) then it doesn't take much for them to latch on. And people did. They asked for autographs, they checked tour dates, they came to the show and they talked about this rumoured Zac in the girls bathrooms (or so I was told). And it was all made up!
I believe this comes from our very nature, from our biological/spiritual make-up. We were created to worship the one who created us, only things got a bit screwed along the way and now the human race is searching for people to worship in His place. Therefore, when we come back and worship the only one who deserves it, there should be something that falls into place and a sense that we are slipping back into what we were created to do. I believe that recognition can be found in our worship of God and that's what makes it right.
As for Arnie, well he's got a big job ahead of him. I just hope he doesn't destroy California in the process, after all, it is the place where most celebrities are made...
Thursday, October 09, 2003
Perhaps I should take a moment to explain my reacquantance with blogger.com. Writer's should write. That's the No. 1, no-arguments rule for writers, or so I've been told (and read in countless books). Usually the sentence that follows that in writing books is something concerning "writing journals". I've tried to keep writing journals but they never really work for me. They usually turn into something that resembles Days of Our Lives cross Shakespearean soliloquoy. That's not a good thing because I don't like Days of Our Lives and I'd prefer to leave the soliloquoys to Will.
So here's an alternative. I'll pretend as though I'm actually writing too someone, like someone's actually reading it (this means YOU) and then I won't feel quite like I'm wasting my time. I'd like to tackle issues, explore thought processes, form arguments and do it all with words, because apparently that's what writers do.
They write.
So here I go...
So here's an alternative. I'll pretend as though I'm actually writing too someone, like someone's actually reading it (this means YOU) and then I won't feel quite like I'm wasting my time. I'd like to tackle issues, explore thought processes, form arguments and do it all with words, because apparently that's what writers do.
They write.
So here I go...
I was talking to a good Christian friend of mine the other day and she was horrified when I said I didn't know the meaning of life. She said that as Christians we should know that, so I asked her what the meaning of life was. She paused for a moment and then said that the meaning of life was to follow Jesus, to which I asked what that meant. She had another think and then said...do good stuff.
Doing good stuff doesn't cut it for me. I mean, I tend to disagree with her on that being the definition for following Jesus anyway, but that's a whole other discussion. If I'm here on this planet for the sole purpose of doing good stuff then I well and trully screwed that up a long time ago. I'd hate to think that annuls my reason for being here.
So what is the meaning of life? The whole world's searching for the answer to that one I think, and as Christians it'd be nice to pull an answer out of the preverbial Christian hat, only I haven't got one. (An answer that is, not a hat) If the meaning of life is to lead people to Jesus, then the following must be true: we were put on the earth for the sole purpose of leading people to Jesus. However, we weren't put on the earth for that reason because the world was intended to be Garden-of-Eden-like where we had a relationship with God, in which case evangelism would have been irrelevant. Therefore, has the meaning of life changed over time? I'm a person who believes in solidarity of definition so I'd like to think that's not the case, but who knows.
Is the meaning of it all to simply be in relationship with God? Perhaps, and relationship with God is very important, don't get me wrong, it's critical - but is that why we're on earth? We'll have relationship with God in heaven for eternity, which doesn't explain what we're doing on the green and blue sphere three planets from the sun.
Another Christian mate of mine asked a similar question the other day - why did God put us on the earth at all? Why didn't he skip the earth bit and jump us all straight to heaven, especially if he knew he was going to have to create a whole new heaven and new earth anyway (Rev - I think). Now there's the whole free-will argument that slots in there, which I won't go into because we've all heard it to death, but I thought he did raise an interesting issue.
I guess for me, at the end of the day, the meaning of life remains this ambiguous question that we sort of have in the back of our minds and will quite possibly have some profound insight on while lying in our death beds. In the meantime, I guess we go one day at a time, looking for the little bits of meaning that we can find in all the little things we do and see and hear. Who knows...
Doing good stuff doesn't cut it for me. I mean, I tend to disagree with her on that being the definition for following Jesus anyway, but that's a whole other discussion. If I'm here on this planet for the sole purpose of doing good stuff then I well and trully screwed that up a long time ago. I'd hate to think that annuls my reason for being here.
So what is the meaning of life? The whole world's searching for the answer to that one I think, and as Christians it'd be nice to pull an answer out of the preverbial Christian hat, only I haven't got one. (An answer that is, not a hat) If the meaning of life is to lead people to Jesus, then the following must be true: we were put on the earth for the sole purpose of leading people to Jesus. However, we weren't put on the earth for that reason because the world was intended to be Garden-of-Eden-like where we had a relationship with God, in which case evangelism would have been irrelevant. Therefore, has the meaning of life changed over time? I'm a person who believes in solidarity of definition so I'd like to think that's not the case, but who knows.
Is the meaning of it all to simply be in relationship with God? Perhaps, and relationship with God is very important, don't get me wrong, it's critical - but is that why we're on earth? We'll have relationship with God in heaven for eternity, which doesn't explain what we're doing on the green and blue sphere three planets from the sun.
Another Christian mate of mine asked a similar question the other day - why did God put us on the earth at all? Why didn't he skip the earth bit and jump us all straight to heaven, especially if he knew he was going to have to create a whole new heaven and new earth anyway (Rev - I think). Now there's the whole free-will argument that slots in there, which I won't go into because we've all heard it to death, but I thought he did raise an interesting issue.
I guess for me, at the end of the day, the meaning of life remains this ambiguous question that we sort of have in the back of our minds and will quite possibly have some profound insight on while lying in our death beds. In the meantime, I guess we go one day at a time, looking for the little bits of meaning that we can find in all the little things we do and see and hear. Who knows...
Wednesday, October 08, 2003
I've decided to try this again...no commitments, just see how it goes...
