Never mind the title, but I'm going through a book by John Eldredge (Fathered by God) in order to lead the bible study Sat morning. It's interesting how things get drawn together, but I think I see another reason why women should not be in church government as a general principle.
It's all to do with the heart, and as both young and older men, we tend to give our hearts to our leaders. Men generally draw the hearts of other men out and up, if they're good. Women do not handle men's hearts like that, and will generally (often unintentionally) crush them instead.
This isn't intended as a poke at anyone, but I've known male and female leadership within and without the church. And if we respond to the call of God then He won't reject us. At the same time, I have to see women in positions of government as being against basic scriptural principles and human nature, and it's nothing to do with equality or otherwise. However for our part, we men have not treated women as we ought - it's FAR from one sided in it's harmfulness.
Just thoughts.
Wednesday, 30 March 2011
Tuesday, 29 March 2011
Love wins - and so does Rob Bell's publisher.
However regardless of that, here is a careful and balanced review of the book, from the Evangelical Alliance. If any of you have bought it then I'd be interested in your thoughts.
Monday, 28 March 2011
I had an interesting 'discussion' about faith yesterday.
It started in all innocence, and I'm not sure we disagreed in what we really meant.
It came from a song that was sung at what we believed was going to be a time of revival. But the revival didn't happen, and we've heard so many messages of a similar nature at various times that Chris and I now reject them unless there is a good reason to believe they are true. How does one know if a prophet is telling what God has given or is speaking out of his own will? You get the picture.
My point is that faith needs to have a Hebrews 11 result. You don't get the result *before* the faith, but the faith should be accompanied sooner or later by the result.
One doesn't always see the result in one's own lifetime, but if I hear someone say 'today is the day' then today had, in fact, better be THE day.
I take issue with the idea that faith is hoping for something that we won't see in this life. It's almost funny:
Heb 11 v29: By faith the people passed through the Red Sea in the spiritual realms; but when the Egyptians tried to do so, they were drowned.
Heb 11 v30: By faith the walls of Jericho fell in the spiritual realms, after the army had marched around them for seven days.
I could change quite a lot to make them funny, but the point is obvious. If faith doesn't result in a real change to a real outcome then what use is it? In one sense, salvation is easy to believe for, because the colossal up-front change doesn't have to happen now, and the gradual change as we slowly become a little less nasty and a little more like Jesus is progressive. But receiving your dead back isn't progressive - it's very immediate and right here, right now. Not being eaten by lions isn't something that gradually develops in your life or takes place in the heavenlies.
I know this is a slightly perverse way of looking at things, but I'm sick of hearing about the spirit-man this and the heavenlies that without seeing that faith re-shaping the real world. Either faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see, or it's just safe, wishful thinking about stuff that's safely 'out there, somewhere' that doesn't have to become real.
It came from a song that was sung at what we believed was going to be a time of revival. But the revival didn't happen, and we've heard so many messages of a similar nature at various times that Chris and I now reject them unless there is a good reason to believe they are true. How does one know if a prophet is telling what God has given or is speaking out of his own will? You get the picture.
My point is that faith needs to have a Hebrews 11 result. You don't get the result *before* the faith, but the faith should be accompanied sooner or later by the result.
One doesn't always see the result in one's own lifetime, but if I hear someone say 'today is the day' then today had, in fact, better be THE day.
I take issue with the idea that faith is hoping for something that we won't see in this life. It's almost funny:
Heb 11 v29: By faith the people passed through the Red Sea in the spiritual realms; but when the Egyptians tried to do so, they were drowned.
Heb 11 v30: By faith the walls of Jericho fell in the spiritual realms, after the army had marched around them for seven days.
I could change quite a lot to make them funny, but the point is obvious. If faith doesn't result in a real change to a real outcome then what use is it? In one sense, salvation is easy to believe for, because the colossal up-front change doesn't have to happen now, and the gradual change as we slowly become a little less nasty and a little more like Jesus is progressive. But receiving your dead back isn't progressive - it's very immediate and right here, right now. Not being eaten by lions isn't something that gradually develops in your life or takes place in the heavenlies.
I know this is a slightly perverse way of looking at things, but I'm sick of hearing about the spirit-man this and the heavenlies that without seeing that faith re-shaping the real world. Either faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see, or it's just safe, wishful thinking about stuff that's safely 'out there, somewhere' that doesn't have to become real.
Sat here feeling miserable.
Had a friend come over, and they've been telling me all sorts of bad things they've experienced at the hands of other good friends. Life was so much easier when everything was black & white and one either completely supported one side or another.
But life isn't like that. People do things from what seems to them, the best of motives, yet from another standpoint they seem to be crapping all over someone else. And sometimes people are insecure, threatened, detached or apparently aloof.
I know that when we moved from the last church to this we very definitely felt we knew 'the right way' to do things, and at times were not at all nice or subtle about it. And the irony is that we probably did, to a degree, and didn't know how to reign that all back in. But the problem is a little bit like working with an ugly person. You can look at them and say "my goodness, did you realise that you're so ugly" or you can get in there and work with them and learn to appreciate the good bits, maybe later suggesting they start washing their hair and stop wearing lime green and orange at the same time. We're still learning, but I need to see things humorously sometimes or I'll start to feel down about it.
But I wonder if this is what they (the first friend) has been affected by, a little. That and the way that we have a natural mis-trust of what falls outside our experience or our control. We're all so darn difficult, self-reliant, insecure and trying to live up to the standard that we know we should, yet failing and carrying the guilt that goes with that too. The more I look at most church leaders too, the more I realise than many of them simply aren't fit for the job, and certainly aren't the ones we'd have chosen. It seems to me that God is always looking for those workers who will come when He calls, and when they stand up to come He doesn't reject them, even though they're flawed.
And I'm still trying to work out what this means for me.
But life isn't like that. People do things from what seems to them, the best of motives, yet from another standpoint they seem to be crapping all over someone else. And sometimes people are insecure, threatened, detached or apparently aloof.
I know that when we moved from the last church to this we very definitely felt we knew 'the right way' to do things, and at times were not at all nice or subtle about it. And the irony is that we probably did, to a degree, and didn't know how to reign that all back in. But the problem is a little bit like working with an ugly person. You can look at them and say "my goodness, did you realise that you're so ugly" or you can get in there and work with them and learn to appreciate the good bits, maybe later suggesting they start washing their hair and stop wearing lime green and orange at the same time. We're still learning, but I need to see things humorously sometimes or I'll start to feel down about it.
But I wonder if this is what they (the first friend) has been affected by, a little. That and the way that we have a natural mis-trust of what falls outside our experience or our control. We're all so darn difficult, self-reliant, insecure and trying to live up to the standard that we know we should, yet failing and carrying the guilt that goes with that too. The more I look at most church leaders too, the more I realise than many of them simply aren't fit for the job, and certainly aren't the ones we'd have chosen. It seems to me that God is always looking for those workers who will come when He calls, and when they stand up to come He doesn't reject them, even though they're flawed.
And I'm still trying to work out what this means for me.
Friday, 25 March 2011
Another boring computer post
I've moved to Firefox 4.
It's fast, better looking than Safari, more customisable than Chrome.
Seems OK then.
It's fast, better looking than Safari, more customisable than Chrome.
Seems OK then.
Monday, 21 March 2011
This really makes me sad.
Another article from Aunty Beeb.
But the craziest, saddest thing is the chap at the end who says:
""I disagree with it, but at the end of the day it's just what happens, like. You can't do anything about it. You're just here to have fun, and do things you won't get away with back home." "
He doesn't seem to be able to see that he (and others like him) are the specific cause of the problem. A bit like using drugs recreationally and being shocked that the money spent supports crime and violence.
But the craziest, saddest thing is the chap at the end who says:
""I disagree with it, but at the end of the day it's just what happens, like. You can't do anything about it. You're just here to have fun, and do things you won't get away with back home." "
He doesn't seem to be able to see that he (and others like him) are the specific cause of the problem. A bit like using drugs recreationally and being shocked that the money spent supports crime and violence.
Sunday, 20 March 2011
A Christian manifesto IV: the finish.
Well, I've read through it all, *think* I understand it, and am trying to digest it.
Schaeffer is undoubtedly correct about some things. As an example, the arbitrary creation of law based on society rather than a higher authority is something that I've known instinctively was wrong.
But underlying this manifesto are a number of issues that I'm not at all sure are either right or good. One of these is a justification of civil disobedience up to the point of the use of force of arms against an 'illegitimate' government (i.e. one that does not base itself on the 10 commandments) although it treads carefully around this issue. Another is the assumption that a society that does base it's legal structure around the 10 Cs will provide freedom, when in fact I'd be much more concerned about it providing a modern form of Judeo-Christian sharia law.
He uses a historical perspective in part to justify this stance: protestants in europe who raised arms survived and those that did not were wiped out. However the picture is much less clear in my opinion than it is painted, because those protestants were often fighting the armed forces of a 'mother church' who saw them as the rebels, breaking 'God's order'. While to a degree the church was also controlling the government (therefore by his American standards out of place) it was still very much one line of theology against another, and not the godly against the godless. The founding of the United States is portrayed as being righteous, but I have very serious doubts about either the righteousness of it's founding, or the 'freedom' that the constitution produced. Quite the opposite in fact - the US seems to have been a centre of hardship, greed and oppression toward minority groups until the humanists were thoroughly entrenched in the system, undermining it's 'Christian' values. Racial segregation was given a 'theological' justification!
As I said, I'm trying to digest it.
The problem is STILL the one I mentioned much earlier on - that having these rules or those rules doesn't fix man's natural inhumanity to man. We don't segregate blacks or imprison gays any more, but instead we'll quietly kill millions of babies every year in abortion. We don't lock away and hide single mums now (as the Swiss were doing until the start of the 1980s!) but sex outside marriage and even homo-sex is now entirely socially acceptable and normal - even expected. We've just exchanged one set of screwed up values for another set.
There's one more observation that is interesting, and I think Schaeffer is right about.
When a set of absolute rules are replaced with arbitrary ones and the basis of thought behind government is that we are here by chance and evolution then government will change from righteous authority to oppressive autocracy. With the surge in terrorism of the last decade we have seen an erosion of freedoms in both the UK and US. Some of this loss is reasonable and some is not, yet it has all been brought in under the guise of protecting the public in the face of the present threat. I applaud the reduction in the time period a 'terror suspect' may be held without charge, recently brought about by the present coalition government, but there have been many such laws enacted by the outgoing labour government (a government with humanism at it's heart, even if it had Christian roots). I wonder if there will be a reluctance to rescind many more such laws, and if we are witnessing an 'authority creep' of government power.
Guess in 20 years time we'll see.
Schaeffer is undoubtedly correct about some things. As an example, the arbitrary creation of law based on society rather than a higher authority is something that I've known instinctively was wrong.
But underlying this manifesto are a number of issues that I'm not at all sure are either right or good. One of these is a justification of civil disobedience up to the point of the use of force of arms against an 'illegitimate' government (i.e. one that does not base itself on the 10 commandments) although it treads carefully around this issue. Another is the assumption that a society that does base it's legal structure around the 10 Cs will provide freedom, when in fact I'd be much more concerned about it providing a modern form of Judeo-Christian sharia law.
He uses a historical perspective in part to justify this stance: protestants in europe who raised arms survived and those that did not were wiped out. However the picture is much less clear in my opinion than it is painted, because those protestants were often fighting the armed forces of a 'mother church' who saw them as the rebels, breaking 'God's order'. While to a degree the church was also controlling the government (therefore by his American standards out of place) it was still very much one line of theology against another, and not the godly against the godless. The founding of the United States is portrayed as being righteous, but I have very serious doubts about either the righteousness of it's founding, or the 'freedom' that the constitution produced. Quite the opposite in fact - the US seems to have been a centre of hardship, greed and oppression toward minority groups until the humanists were thoroughly entrenched in the system, undermining it's 'Christian' values. Racial segregation was given a 'theological' justification!
As I said, I'm trying to digest it.
The problem is STILL the one I mentioned much earlier on - that having these rules or those rules doesn't fix man's natural inhumanity to man. We don't segregate blacks or imprison gays any more, but instead we'll quietly kill millions of babies every year in abortion. We don't lock away and hide single mums now (as the Swiss were doing until the start of the 1980s!) but sex outside marriage and even homo-sex is now entirely socially acceptable and normal - even expected. We've just exchanged one set of screwed up values for another set.
There's one more observation that is interesting, and I think Schaeffer is right about.
When a set of absolute rules are replaced with arbitrary ones and the basis of thought behind government is that we are here by chance and evolution then government will change from righteous authority to oppressive autocracy. With the surge in terrorism of the last decade we have seen an erosion of freedoms in both the UK and US. Some of this loss is reasonable and some is not, yet it has all been brought in under the guise of protecting the public in the face of the present threat. I applaud the reduction in the time period a 'terror suspect' may be held without charge, recently brought about by the present coalition government, but there have been many such laws enacted by the outgoing labour government (a government with humanism at it's heart, even if it had Christian roots). I wonder if there will be a reluctance to rescind many more such laws, and if we are witnessing an 'authority creep' of government power.
Guess in 20 years time we'll see.
Friday, 18 March 2011
Secret cinema
I've just found out about Secret Cinema.
Basically you don't know what you're going to see, but are required to turn up dressed in a manner appropriate costume (guidelines given by email) and are primed to watch by actors and surroundings being created to match the film. See the Ribbed Magazine review.
Maybe this is the antedote to the DVD age.
Basically you don't know what you're going to see, but are required to turn up dressed in a manner appropriate costume (guidelines given by email) and are primed to watch by actors and surroundings being created to match the film. See the Ribbed Magazine review.
Maybe this is the antedote to the DVD age.
Tuesday, 15 March 2011
Just tried Gnome 3 desktop
It's in beta, but the demo I downloaded *looked8 really nice.
Since it's in beta it can be forgiven for not actually working properly, but if this represents what they'll launch then it'll be a very serious competitor for KDE.
In other news, openSUSE 11.4 has just been released to very favourable reviews and user comments. I've downloaded the full install already, but since Sabayon is running so nicely right now, I've no incentive to change yet (apart from still not being able to print grrrr). Because Sabayon is continuously updated, even though 11.4 comes with all the latest stuff, there's nothing I need that is more recent there.
Sometime though, I just wonder whether life would be so much simpler (and less exciting) with XP.
Since it's in beta it can be forgiven for not actually working properly, but if this represents what they'll launch then it'll be a very serious competitor for KDE.
In other news, openSUSE 11.4 has just been released to very favourable reviews and user comments. I've downloaded the full install already, but since Sabayon is running so nicely right now, I've no incentive to change yet (apart from still not being able to print grrrr). Because Sabayon is continuously updated, even though 11.4 comes with all the latest stuff, there's nothing I need that is more recent there.
Sometime though, I just wonder whether life would be so much simpler (and less exciting) with XP.
Thinking about.....
.....going to India.
We'll have to wait & see, but through Expedia it's incredibly cheap.
We'll have to wait & see, but through Expedia it's incredibly cheap.
LED kitchen lights
Are now possible - but not very good, although MUCH better than budget compact fluorescent spots. I guess the best of the new Cree and Seoul LED units haven't made it through to mass manufacture yet, and these things are obviously not very efficient from the sheer amount of heat they generate compared to the high efficiency units.
The other issues - poor lenses and colour temperature - could do with some more work as well. An incandescent spot light has a bright single point of light, and is focussed by collecting the light in a reflector, which helps provide a softer, more diffuse beam because the light is directed from a wide area. An LED produces light from a flat surface with a spread of around 120 degrees, and is usually focussed with a lens. This produces a hot spot instead of a smoothly distributed beam, and also results in hard shadows. In addition, LEDs still tend toward a blue-white light with a colour temperature around 5000K or higher, rather than the warmer light from an incandescent unit at around 2500K to 3000K. These 2 characteristics combine to make the lighting harsh.
Warmer colour temperature light units are available - we have a 3W Philips unit that starts off with a pinkish colour until the unit has warmed up and the colour caste diminishes. But that's not *quite* bright enough, and was horribly expensive.
A week ago I bought some of these, and although they're bright enough, they have all the faults I listed above. The hot-spot issue can be dealt with by removing the plastic lens, but the light then spreads a little too far. Next up is to create some better diffusers using photographic warm-up filters (I should have some laying around, somewhere) and maybe extend the reflector outward to reduce the spread and improve focussing.
It was tempting to return them as simply not very good, but I'd rather make them work (and save a lot of electricity - 6W instead of 50W per bulb) and also reduce the number of bulbs we have to replace. Because the supply here is unstable, continual voltage surges cause the halogen bulbs to fail quickly. We have probably replaced about 15 bulbs over the last 12 months, which is enough to pay for the 4 LED units we just bought. That gives us quite an incentive to make these things work.
Incidentally there are a LOT of different bulb replacements available - some for as little as £5 on ebay, some as much as £28, and all of variable effectiveness. The Jobs made up of lots of tiny LEDs really aren't worth a wet slap, other than for 'decor' lighting.
The other issues - poor lenses and colour temperature - could do with some more work as well. An incandescent spot light has a bright single point of light, and is focussed by collecting the light in a reflector, which helps provide a softer, more diffuse beam because the light is directed from a wide area. An LED produces light from a flat surface with a spread of around 120 degrees, and is usually focussed with a lens. This produces a hot spot instead of a smoothly distributed beam, and also results in hard shadows. In addition, LEDs still tend toward a blue-white light with a colour temperature around 5000K or higher, rather than the warmer light from an incandescent unit at around 2500K to 3000K. These 2 characteristics combine to make the lighting harsh.
Warmer colour temperature light units are available - we have a 3W Philips unit that starts off with a pinkish colour until the unit has warmed up and the colour caste diminishes. But that's not *quite* bright enough, and was horribly expensive.
A week ago I bought some of these, and although they're bright enough, they have all the faults I listed above. The hot-spot issue can be dealt with by removing the plastic lens, but the light then spreads a little too far. Next up is to create some better diffusers using photographic warm-up filters (I should have some laying around, somewhere) and maybe extend the reflector outward to reduce the spread and improve focussing.
It was tempting to return them as simply not very good, but I'd rather make them work (and save a lot of electricity - 6W instead of 50W per bulb) and also reduce the number of bulbs we have to replace. Because the supply here is unstable, continual voltage surges cause the halogen bulbs to fail quickly. We have probably replaced about 15 bulbs over the last 12 months, which is enough to pay for the 4 LED units we just bought. That gives us quite an incentive to make these things work.
Incidentally there are a LOT of different bulb replacements available - some for as little as £5 on ebay, some as much as £28, and all of variable effectiveness. The Jobs made up of lots of tiny LEDs really aren't worth a wet slap, other than for 'decor' lighting.
Next month I'm off to Germany
It's a one-day business trip - the gate closes at 5.40am on the way out!
But it's got me wanting to travel in Europe again, and looking up the location in google maps made me start checking out how long it would take to drive from Calais to Stockholm (that's a LONG way) Calais to Amsterdam (about 4 hours) and various other possibilities.
Watch out Europe - there's a chance we may come calling again soon.
But it's got me wanting to travel in Europe again, and looking up the location in google maps made me start checking out how long it would take to drive from Calais to Stockholm (that's a LONG way) Calais to Amsterdam (about 4 hours) and various other possibilities.
Watch out Europe - there's a chance we may come calling again soon.
Sunday, 13 March 2011
Survived preaching today.
Well, no-one visibly fell asleep anyway.
I was talking about the nature of God, how He's one God and yet Jesus, Holy Spirit and the Father at the same time.
Ian B has large pink & hairy hands (and will probably read this some time).
;-)
I was talking about the nature of God, how He's one God and yet Jesus, Holy Spirit and the Father at the same time.
Ian B has large pink & hairy hands (and will probably read this some time).
;-)
Sunday, 6 March 2011
A Christian manifesto III : the peace.
OK - made it through to the end of chapter 1!
If this blog were an essay for submission, investigating the book then I'd have blown my marks by now. However as it's just a place to record my thoughts and feelings as I work through things then it's all right!
Schaeffer's description of the source of the basis for law goes back beyond Christ to the original mosaic law. On the one hand this is good, because (as he explains later) it provides a basis for law that is greater than a government or a king (lex rex for you latin students) while providing inalienable rights for humanity. However the downside is, as I noted below, that while the law is good, it brings death to sinners, and on that basis it will always fail to create a peaceful and just society - a point that he has not looked at so far.
This sounds pretty poor (and it is) but he then contrasts this with the humanist system, where man is the centre and plumb line against which everything is to be judged, and one sees anarchy and oppression as the natural ultimate end. He also exposed liberal theology for humanism given a theological explanation, and how, when it is all boiled away it comes down to basic humanism instead of a God-centred theology. This is where I've found my peace so far - it reflects what I always 'knew' but never really found the words for.
That's enough for now. I'm hoping I'll find a way that will help bring life, rather than a justification for a law that, while stabilising society, still only brings condemnation & death in the end.
If this blog were an essay for submission, investigating the book then I'd have blown my marks by now. However as it's just a place to record my thoughts and feelings as I work through things then it's all right!
Schaeffer's description of the source of the basis for law goes back beyond Christ to the original mosaic law. On the one hand this is good, because (as he explains later) it provides a basis for law that is greater than a government or a king (lex rex for you latin students) while providing inalienable rights for humanity. However the downside is, as I noted below, that while the law is good, it brings death to sinners, and on that basis it will always fail to create a peaceful and just society - a point that he has not looked at so far.
This sounds pretty poor (and it is) but he then contrasts this with the humanist system, where man is the centre and plumb line against which everything is to be judged, and one sees anarchy and oppression as the natural ultimate end. He also exposed liberal theology for humanism given a theological explanation, and how, when it is all boiled away it comes down to basic humanism instead of a God-centred theology. This is where I've found my peace so far - it reflects what I always 'knew' but never really found the words for.
That's enough for now. I'm hoping I'll find a way that will help bring life, rather than a justification for a law that, while stabilising society, still only brings condemnation & death in the end.
Friday, 4 March 2011
A Christian manifesto II : the conflict.
I have a feeling this is going to be hard work.
The problem I'm having is that my perception of history and law in Northern Europe (he includes north America) differs from Schaeffer's. It's VERY early days in the book yet, but I look back at the manner in which laws have been applied and people have actually *behaved* while living under those laws, and have made the judgement that while the people may have had a memory of Christianity (his expression) and the laws been based in church thinking, the times were evil and the manner in which society function under those laws was as fallen and evil as anything today. His view appears to be that society was a better place because it had laws based on Christianity, and that because people had at least a remembrance of Christian things, society was less bad.
There's a side of me that wishes it were so simple. Christian laws = good, humanistic laws = bad.
It's almost true, except that some of those laws, and particularly the manner in which they were applied was frequently callous, brutal, cruel and destructive.
The thing is, ordinary citizens were not typically kind, generous, well balanced individuals, but instead were typical of people today. Possibly the biggest difference is that people these days are more open & less repressive, more aware of their own value and less inclined toward conformity, and particularly more open and comfortable with sexuality instead of being inclined to discretion and secrecy.
It's got me working back into my own thinking "have I become liberal?", but the answer is a definite NO! However I am a product of post-WWII freedoms and social patterns, and have been shaped by them whether I have embraced or rejected them. I have to keep going back to the bible to attempt to find a baseline, but scripture needs careful interpretation, to ensure I don't spin it to my own world view. Schaeffer was a product of an earlier, very different age, and inevitably it will have shaped his thinking. That doesn't mean that either of us are wrong, but we may be coming at things from very different perspectives.
It's a little Rumsfeldian: there are things I know I don't know and things I don't know I don't know etc.
There is a cop out clause, but it's one I'm reluctant to use: life by the Spirit or death through the law. Looking back at those earlier times with a more 'christian' society I can see that the law, while of itself good, brought death to the society that could not live by the spirit. In this respect I can see that the humanism that is trying to colour every shade of modern life is an attempt to cheat death and pretend that everything is good. To borrow a quote found by a friend (Phil Loseth) on facebook:
Post-modern theology:
"A God without wrath brought men without sin into a kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a cross”
H. Richard Niebuhr
So society tries to deny the sin by hiding the law. Of course it won't help but having a good law won't save them either. The only way society will live is if they do it by the Holy Spirit, and how will they do that etc etc.
This post was NEVER meant to be this long!
The problem I'm having is that my perception of history and law in Northern Europe (he includes north America) differs from Schaeffer's. It's VERY early days in the book yet, but I look back at the manner in which laws have been applied and people have actually *behaved* while living under those laws, and have made the judgement that while the people may have had a memory of Christianity (his expression) and the laws been based in church thinking, the times were evil and the manner in which society function under those laws was as fallen and evil as anything today. His view appears to be that society was a better place because it had laws based on Christianity, and that because people had at least a remembrance of Christian things, society was less bad.
There's a side of me that wishes it were so simple. Christian laws = good, humanistic laws = bad.
It's almost true, except that some of those laws, and particularly the manner in which they were applied was frequently callous, brutal, cruel and destructive.
The thing is, ordinary citizens were not typically kind, generous, well balanced individuals, but instead were typical of people today. Possibly the biggest difference is that people these days are more open & less repressive, more aware of their own value and less inclined toward conformity, and particularly more open and comfortable with sexuality instead of being inclined to discretion and secrecy.
It's got me working back into my own thinking "have I become liberal?", but the answer is a definite NO! However I am a product of post-WWII freedoms and social patterns, and have been shaped by them whether I have embraced or rejected them. I have to keep going back to the bible to attempt to find a baseline, but scripture needs careful interpretation, to ensure I don't spin it to my own world view. Schaeffer was a product of an earlier, very different age, and inevitably it will have shaped his thinking. That doesn't mean that either of us are wrong, but we may be coming at things from very different perspectives.
It's a little Rumsfeldian: there are things I know I don't know and things I don't know I don't know etc.
There is a cop out clause, but it's one I'm reluctant to use: life by the Spirit or death through the law. Looking back at those earlier times with a more 'christian' society I can see that the law, while of itself good, brought death to the society that could not live by the spirit. In this respect I can see that the humanism that is trying to colour every shade of modern life is an attempt to cheat death and pretend that everything is good. To borrow a quote found by a friend (Phil Loseth) on facebook:
Post-modern theology:
"A God without wrath brought men without sin into a kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a cross”
H. Richard Niebuhr
So society tries to deny the sin by hiding the law. Of course it won't help but having a good law won't save them either. The only way society will live is if they do it by the Holy Spirit, and how will they do that etc etc.
This post was NEVER meant to be this long!
Wednesday, 2 March 2011
OK learned peoples - a question.
As we see Jesus - He is the Son of God to humanity, but to God, God.
Any thoughts/comments?
Any thoughts/comments?
Monday, 28 February 2011
After a week back on Sabayon
I'm glad I went back. Screen fonts are the best in the *nix business, everything (right now) is working smoothly and crisply and the audio is much better than with PCLOS & associated codecs & drivers.
Hopefully it'll remain stable and reliable.....
Hopefully it'll remain stable and reliable.....
I heard an interesting comment yesterday
We heard Terry Virgo speak yesterday when we were down in London. One of his asides, talking about grace, was that when we describe someone having fallen from grace we usually mean that they've sinned. He described instead that a fall from grace was failing to rely on God, and instead doing all the right things in your own strength - following the rules rather than the Spirit.
An interesting perspective.
An interesting perspective.
Monday, 21 February 2011
A Christian Manifesto
is the title of a book by Francis Shaeffer that I've almost started reading.
Almost?
Well, I've just finished the introduction by O.R.Johnson, who was then the director of the Nationwide Festival of Light. He describes the gradual moral corruption of the laws of the United Kingdom by humanists and socialists who gradually have obscenity laws, censorship for performing arts, laws governing medicine, divorce and sexual practice all reformed to enable a complete removal of moral restraint. He also describes the burgeoning media and entertainment industries as promoting immorality in order to capture the attention and finances of an affluent youth. At the same time it became socially acceptable to do many things that would have once been publicly shameful, and names were changed (promiscuity, adultery and fornication became sleeping around, swinging and pre-marital sex) to ease the change in moral perception. In social interaction good manners were deprecated, while humour became cruel and cutting and people's private lives were exposed 'in the public interest'.
What was so striking is that while reading some of this stuff I was challenged because my own view point was quite liberal in relation to some of what he was describing. Should we imprison people because they want to enjoy perverted sex in private/should all theatre and cinema scripts still be subject to censorship?
One of the biggest problems with freedom is that having it is all very good as long as no-one actually wants to exercise it. Some of these laws *sounded* to me as oppressive as some aspects Sharia law - not unreasonable since they both had their origins in religious suppression of immorality. My family also has a long enough memory to remember British law as immoral enough to imprison people for preaching outside of the Church of England too.
Yet without question, morals in western society truly have gone to hell in a hangbasket. I guess the real issue is that as a faith, Christianity has tried to deal with human sinfulness and morality just like old-testament Jews. Draconian rules have been created, punishment meted out by the state to those who broke them and all supported by a religious priesthood with control that went right to the top.The west is truly in a crappy place, and getting more faecal all the time, and more rules couldn't possibly change hearts that want to do wicked things anyway.
Recognising my own weakness, how much I look forward to life in the Spirit instead of death under a set of laws that neither my parents, nor leaders, nor I can possibly hope to obey fully. Britain under the rules was not the good, kind, loving and wholesome place that some rose-tinted reviewing might project it as, but removing the restraint certainly hasn't made it any better.
At the end of the day I'm not looking for more moral or just laws - I'm looking for people that will live live of love and purity regardless (and maybe in spite) of the laws around them.
Almost?
Well, I've just finished the introduction by O.R.Johnson, who was then the director of the Nationwide Festival of Light. He describes the gradual moral corruption of the laws of the United Kingdom by humanists and socialists who gradually have obscenity laws, censorship for performing arts, laws governing medicine, divorce and sexual practice all reformed to enable a complete removal of moral restraint. He also describes the burgeoning media and entertainment industries as promoting immorality in order to capture the attention and finances of an affluent youth. At the same time it became socially acceptable to do many things that would have once been publicly shameful, and names were changed (promiscuity, adultery and fornication became sleeping around, swinging and pre-marital sex) to ease the change in moral perception. In social interaction good manners were deprecated, while humour became cruel and cutting and people's private lives were exposed 'in the public interest'.
What was so striking is that while reading some of this stuff I was challenged because my own view point was quite liberal in relation to some of what he was describing. Should we imprison people because they want to enjoy perverted sex in private/should all theatre and cinema scripts still be subject to censorship?
One of the biggest problems with freedom is that having it is all very good as long as no-one actually wants to exercise it. Some of these laws *sounded* to me as oppressive as some aspects Sharia law - not unreasonable since they both had their origins in religious suppression of immorality. My family also has a long enough memory to remember British law as immoral enough to imprison people for preaching outside of the Church of England too.
Yet without question, morals in western society truly have gone to hell in a hangbasket. I guess the real issue is that as a faith, Christianity has tried to deal with human sinfulness and morality just like old-testament Jews. Draconian rules have been created, punishment meted out by the state to those who broke them and all supported by a religious priesthood with control that went right to the top.The west is truly in a crappy place, and getting more faecal all the time, and more rules couldn't possibly change hearts that want to do wicked things anyway.
Recognising my own weakness, how much I look forward to life in the Spirit instead of death under a set of laws that neither my parents, nor leaders, nor I can possibly hope to obey fully. Britain under the rules was not the good, kind, loving and wholesome place that some rose-tinted reviewing might project it as, but removing the restraint certainly hasn't made it any better.
At the end of the day I'm not looking for more moral or just laws - I'm looking for people that will live live of love and purity regardless (and maybe in spite) of the laws around them.
Sleep tonight is a mutually exclusive experience
That is to say, when I was (briefly) asleep my snoring kept Chris awake.
Apparently I was snoring to wake the dead, snorted so hugely that I woke myself up and she then made the most of the opportunity to access the land of nod while I was quiet.
Y'know, for a slim and lovely woman she can make a heck of a din too!
So I've migrated downstairs to the settee. However tonight in my enthusiasm to take cold medication I accidentally too the 'Max strength flu relief' jobbies. The ones with a caffeine payload that helps stimulate you for work.
Thus I have a couple of free hours now, with a slightly dim-witted head and a desire to change to OS on our downstairs computer back to Sabayon. I've somehow never managed to get DVD playback to be fully satisfactory under PCLOS, and although it's playing discs OK now, the audio is always a little out of sync.
Another thing:
Melx - you're following the blog. I don't know how long you've been doing it, but great to see you, feller. I came across yours the other day, just after Phil gave Mark a 3 month ban on HC. Let me tell you, you've made me want to start building pedals now!
Right, time to start backing up files, then find a DVD. I may post more from the Macbook later.
*edit*
Finally got it installed, but there's no sound at all! That's tonight's fix.
Apparently I was snoring to wake the dead, snorted so hugely that I woke myself up and she then made the most of the opportunity to access the land of nod while I was quiet.
Y'know, for a slim and lovely woman she can make a heck of a din too!
So I've migrated downstairs to the settee. However tonight in my enthusiasm to take cold medication I accidentally too the 'Max strength flu relief' jobbies. The ones with a caffeine payload that helps stimulate you for work.
Thus I have a couple of free hours now, with a slightly dim-witted head and a desire to change to OS on our downstairs computer back to Sabayon. I've somehow never managed to get DVD playback to be fully satisfactory under PCLOS, and although it's playing discs OK now, the audio is always a little out of sync.
Another thing:
Melx - you're following the blog. I don't know how long you've been doing it, but great to see you, feller. I came across yours the other day, just after Phil gave Mark a 3 month ban on HC. Let me tell you, you've made me want to start building pedals now!
Right, time to start backing up files, then find a DVD. I may post more from the Macbook later.
*edit*
Finally got it installed, but there's no sound at all! That's tonight's fix.
Thursday, 17 February 2011
Chris is making dinner right now.
I've been home sick this afternoon, with areally nasty cold. Yesterday was manic - well the whole week has been *feeling* manic, even when I've been sat around in meetings.
But I just have a sense of enormous gratitude that she'll get out in that kitchen, make dinner for me when all I've done is sit around, sleep a little and cough till it hurts.
Colds do odd things to me, and I don't really understand why they affect sleep and emotions as they do. There is a biochemical mechanism at work, through elevated temperature, interferon metabolism etc but I find they profoundly affect how I feel. Monday & Tuesday I was working away doing the 'job that pays the bills' and just felt a complete desperation to get away: resign and leave. Tuesday particularly it was necessary to take myself repeatedly by the psychological collar and give a good shake - to tell myself to get back in that lab, to continue the process I'd started and then later on, to salvage whatever could be saved to generate data for the project (and it was worth saving too).
Yesterday by contrast I was back in my 'own' lab, happy, briskly busy, productive and toward the end of the day, aware that I was gradually succumbing.
Some people may wonder what I'm doing (or have forgotten). I've made cell lines that secrete specific antibodies that recognise part of a natural hormone. The idea is to create a test to measure the hormone that people will use for research, possibly even as a diagnostic aid later, though that's fairly unlikely. The process was started in March/April 2010 when I selected which bits of protein the antibodies should react with, and will hopefully be more-or-less completed before the end of the summer when I'll have a test kit available for sale. At the moment I'm purifying antibody from cell culture fluid that was used to support the growth of antibody producing cells, and that's generally been working well.
The next stage will be to chemically couple the antibodies to certain markers and coat them onto plastic surfaces - then I can find out which ones may work and which may not. Some have done really well, and given surprisingly high yields - I hope they have high affinity, specificity, low non-specific binding and come from cells that grow well. Not too much to ask. ;-)
So anyway, I'm really grateful to have a wife who lets me rest while preparing dinner. At the end of the day, in so many ways, having dinner is what it's all about.
But I just have a sense of enormous gratitude that she'll get out in that kitchen, make dinner for me when all I've done is sit around, sleep a little and cough till it hurts.
Colds do odd things to me, and I don't really understand why they affect sleep and emotions as they do. There is a biochemical mechanism at work, through elevated temperature, interferon metabolism etc but I find they profoundly affect how I feel. Monday & Tuesday I was working away doing the 'job that pays the bills' and just felt a complete desperation to get away: resign and leave. Tuesday particularly it was necessary to take myself repeatedly by the psychological collar and give a good shake - to tell myself to get back in that lab, to continue the process I'd started and then later on, to salvage whatever could be saved to generate data for the project (and it was worth saving too).
Yesterday by contrast I was back in my 'own' lab, happy, briskly busy, productive and toward the end of the day, aware that I was gradually succumbing.
Some people may wonder what I'm doing (or have forgotten). I've made cell lines that secrete specific antibodies that recognise part of a natural hormone. The idea is to create a test to measure the hormone that people will use for research, possibly even as a diagnostic aid later, though that's fairly unlikely. The process was started in March/April 2010 when I selected which bits of protein the antibodies should react with, and will hopefully be more-or-less completed before the end of the summer when I'll have a test kit available for sale. At the moment I'm purifying antibody from cell culture fluid that was used to support the growth of antibody producing cells, and that's generally been working well.
The next stage will be to chemically couple the antibodies to certain markers and coat them onto plastic surfaces - then I can find out which ones may work and which may not. Some have done really well, and given surprisingly high yields - I hope they have high affinity, specificity, low non-specific binding and come from cells that grow well. Not too much to ask. ;-)
So anyway, I'm really grateful to have a wife who lets me rest while preparing dinner. At the end of the day, in so many ways, having dinner is what it's all about.
Wednesday, 2 February 2011
I'm more or less
.......taking a break from blogging, reading others blogs and commenting generally.
Feeling really pooped, work is busy, I've not been sleeping well and just don't have the heart to write or photograph much right now. I'm OK, but just 'elsewhere'.
So thanks to everyone who read up to now. Leave me attached to your RSS feed and in a while I may be back.
Feeling really pooped, work is busy, I've not been sleeping well and just don't have the heart to write or photograph much right now. I'm OK, but just 'elsewhere'.
So thanks to everyone who read up to now. Leave me attached to your RSS feed and in a while I may be back.
Tuesday, 18 January 2011
Hardware can get odd over time.
The 'Safecom' ADSL modem we've been using for the last 6 years started failing last week, and died completely this weekend. About 3-4 years ago I bought another for a friend to use, only for her to then go and get a BT broadband package that included modem etc, and so it was surplus to requirements. Because it was more modern than our existing one I tried to install and use it here, but it simply wouldn't work (it was an ADSL 2+ jobby - maybe BT weren't up to date round here?).
Anyway, tonight I thought I'd just 'see' if it could be persuaded into life. Plugged it in, switched on, VOILA, a connection. I didn't even have to set it up - all the settings had been remembered from when they were installed several years before!
Maybe it's windows that wouldn't work (since this machine is Linux) I wondered, so I got Ben to check for a connection wirelessly and that was fine, ditto Chris's accounts PC upstairs. So I've got 40 quid's worth of modem/router that I don't need on the way from Ebuyer - maybe I should keep it for when this one breaks down?
Anyway, tonight I thought I'd just 'see' if it could be persuaded into life. Plugged it in, switched on, VOILA, a connection. I didn't even have to set it up - all the settings had been remembered from when they were installed several years before!
Maybe it's windows that wouldn't work (since this machine is Linux) I wondered, so I got Ben to check for a connection wirelessly and that was fine, ditto Chris's accounts PC upstairs. So I've got 40 quid's worth of modem/router that I don't need on the way from Ebuyer - maybe I should keep it for when this one breaks down?
Sunday, 16 January 2011
Thursday, 6 January 2011
The mobile phone question is closer to be ing answered.
Criteria are becoming clearer: looks like it'll have to be O2 as a network (also includes Tesco, since they use O2) and it needs to be able to sync with the Mac, which likely excludes nearly everything except Nokia.
Saturday, 1 January 2011
Since I seem to be in a posting mood.... seeking a phone.
Like it says, I'm seeking a replacement phone. There's a strong temptation to defer this until a time when I'm less busy, although the present Sony Ericsson has become tired, with less battery life, occasional hangs and some bad screen artifacts.
The issue is whether to go for a smart phone - will all the advantages and drawbacks of that - or to just do the 'ordinary' candybar thing again that can be used for calls & texts.
Why would I want a smartphone?
Toys aside (and I'm getting a little too old these days to easily justify toys) the advantages would be to collect email and have internet access without having to lug a laptop around, plus as a music/video player when (if?) we travel. Some (like the Nokia N8) also have cameras that actually take pictures that are of acceptable quality.
Why would I NOT want a smartphone?
I think far too few ask this question. The chief arguments against are because they're brick-like, fragile, over-complex, have no battery life to speak of (1 day of 'normal/heavy' usage seems typical) and cost silly amounts of money. With the Christmas deals I've seen this last is less of an issue for some models, although the iPhone loses out really badly in the cost area.
So I don't know.
The Nokia X3.2 candybar looks like a nice compromise, with many advantages (like long battery life, small size - it's beautifully slim, if a little wide, and sensible buttons) while also having a bigger screen with capacitive touch control. And it seems relatively cheap too. Ben has a Sony Ericsson Elm, and that seems good, but it has their daft proprietary headphone connector, making it useless as an MP3 player without an adapter (I can't use typical mini-earphones).
If I'm quick I can probably get almost as good a deal as I have now (600min/500txts/unlimited landline - £20 SIM only) with a phone chucked in. But the offers round here run out 4th Jan.
Maybe waiting is the 'sensible' thing to do - it's rarely good to hurry.
The issue is whether to go for a smart phone - will all the advantages and drawbacks of that - or to just do the 'ordinary' candybar thing again that can be used for calls & texts.
Why would I want a smartphone?
Toys aside (and I'm getting a little too old these days to easily justify toys) the advantages would be to collect email and have internet access without having to lug a laptop around, plus as a music/video player when (if?) we travel. Some (like the Nokia N8) also have cameras that actually take pictures that are of acceptable quality.
Why would I NOT want a smartphone?
I think far too few ask this question. The chief arguments against are because they're brick-like, fragile, over-complex, have no battery life to speak of (1 day of 'normal/heavy' usage seems typical) and cost silly amounts of money. With the Christmas deals I've seen this last is less of an issue for some models, although the iPhone loses out really badly in the cost area.
So I don't know.
The Nokia X3.2 candybar looks like a nice compromise, with many advantages (like long battery life, small size - it's beautifully slim, if a little wide, and sensible buttons) while also having a bigger screen with capacitive touch control. And it seems relatively cheap too. Ben has a Sony Ericsson Elm, and that seems good, but it has their daft proprietary headphone connector, making it useless as an MP3 player without an adapter (I can't use typical mini-earphones).
If I'm quick I can probably get almost as good a deal as I have now (600min/500txts/unlimited landline - £20 SIM only) with a phone chucked in. But the offers round here run out 4th Jan.
Maybe waiting is the 'sensible' thing to do - it's rarely good to hurry.
It probably seems like I change operating systems like (some) others change underwear.
Well, hopefully a little less frequently than that - for their sake, rather than mine!
My love affair with openSUSE was on the wain toward the end of the year, with the old irritation of system pauses becoming increasingly evident, as well as overall performance degrading generally and annoying issues with DVD playback that prevented Chris from using the computer. Also that OS tended to use older versions of software, thus Digikam was on v1.2 instead of the current 1.7, KDE on 4.4 instead of 4.5 etc etc and printing was really flakey. To cap it all it refused to access the files in another copy of openSUSE that had been installed on a 250Gb drive that was no longer being used to boot, and had some images that I'd wanted to recover from there.
So a few days ago I'd decided enough was enough, backed up recent work plus firefox/thunderbird/opera and did the re-install from scratch trick with PCLinuxOS 2010.12.
I've tried this distro before, and although I quite liked it, the branding everywhere gets old very quickly, and it lacked the speed of a new SUSE install while looking less attractive than Sabayon. It also comes with much less 'in the box' - just as a single 700Mb CD with enough to get you up and running, plus automated installers to download open office, language packs etc. It doesn't ship with libdvdcss - more later - or even the usual card games. The upside is that installation is fast - around 20min tops to having the system ready to surf. The downside is that you've then got to spend time finding and dowloading the packages you want to use.
It used the Synaptic package manager - slightly unfamiliar to me, and frustrating in that I couldn't make it open downloaded .rpm files. It does however seem to do a good job, and once I'd told it to refresh repository content, a lot of stuff that I'd wanted to DL & install was available. This includes libdvdcss2 that is essential to play commercial DVDs, and that I'd been trying for ages to install without success - it's available from the refreshed repository and worked fine.
Other hassles included a delay on DVD audio playback, putting voice & image out of sync, but I *think* that's fixed now too with more drivers that were installed 'automatically', but only when I started looking at installed drivers in the hardware manager. Ho hum.
What about the perennial bugbear with Linux distros - screen fonts? Well, they're pretty fair, probably as good as SUSE and only a little behind Sabayon. The display is sharp and crisp, probably thanks to the Nvidia driver being used, athough the Nouveau driver in SUSE looks fine too, but in this case I can use full 3D acceleration for the full set of screen effects.
So how long will I keep this one?
Probably either until it develops a fault that I can't put up with, or until something else more interesting comes along that I really want to try. I'm quite enjoying it at the moment: it doesn't have the 'wow-speed' feeling, but it does seem to work smoothly and, so far, effectively. Sometime I should try windows 7, but since I'll have to buy a real commercial copy of that I may just bung it on the Macbook along with Office.
My love affair with openSUSE was on the wain toward the end of the year, with the old irritation of system pauses becoming increasingly evident, as well as overall performance degrading generally and annoying issues with DVD playback that prevented Chris from using the computer. Also that OS tended to use older versions of software, thus Digikam was on v1.2 instead of the current 1.7, KDE on 4.4 instead of 4.5 etc etc and printing was really flakey. To cap it all it refused to access the files in another copy of openSUSE that had been installed on a 250Gb drive that was no longer being used to boot, and had some images that I'd wanted to recover from there.
So a few days ago I'd decided enough was enough, backed up recent work plus firefox/thunderbird/opera and did the re-install from scratch trick with PCLinuxOS 2010.12.
I've tried this distro before, and although I quite liked it, the branding everywhere gets old very quickly, and it lacked the speed of a new SUSE install while looking less attractive than Sabayon. It also comes with much less 'in the box' - just as a single 700Mb CD with enough to get you up and running, plus automated installers to download open office, language packs etc. It doesn't ship with libdvdcss - more later - or even the usual card games. The upside is that installation is fast - around 20min tops to having the system ready to surf. The downside is that you've then got to spend time finding and dowloading the packages you want to use.
It used the Synaptic package manager - slightly unfamiliar to me, and frustrating in that I couldn't make it open downloaded .rpm files. It does however seem to do a good job, and once I'd told it to refresh repository content, a lot of stuff that I'd wanted to DL & install was available. This includes libdvdcss2 that is essential to play commercial DVDs, and that I'd been trying for ages to install without success - it's available from the refreshed repository and worked fine.
Other hassles included a delay on DVD audio playback, putting voice & image out of sync, but I *think* that's fixed now too with more drivers that were installed 'automatically', but only when I started looking at installed drivers in the hardware manager. Ho hum.
What about the perennial bugbear with Linux distros - screen fonts? Well, they're pretty fair, probably as good as SUSE and only a little behind Sabayon. The display is sharp and crisp, probably thanks to the Nvidia driver being used, athough the Nouveau driver in SUSE looks fine too, but in this case I can use full 3D acceleration for the full set of screen effects.
So how long will I keep this one?
Probably either until it develops a fault that I can't put up with, or until something else more interesting comes along that I really want to try. I'm quite enjoying it at the moment: it doesn't have the 'wow-speed' feeling, but it does seem to work smoothly and, so far, effectively. Sometime I should try windows 7, but since I'll have to buy a real commercial copy of that I may just bung it on the Macbook along with Office.
Wednesday, 29 December 2010
We've just seen Tron 3D
And, to be honest, it was a bit disappointing.
The original did well be using simple graphics, clean lines that were almost cartoon-like. This version is incredibly detailed, and as a result it loses so much impact as to be a much weaker film. I can't fault the effects, some of which were extremely clever, but because there is so much detail it stops becoming immersive, which is a real shame. The big, wide shots are too big and wide.
And there's a distinct feeling that they picked up a bunch of ex-Matrix programmers.
The next 'must-see' film is probably 'Voyage of the dawn treader', also in 3D. I understand the story has been changed substantially, which in this case may not be a bad thing at all.
The original did well be using simple graphics, clean lines that were almost cartoon-like. This version is incredibly detailed, and as a result it loses so much impact as to be a much weaker film. I can't fault the effects, some of which were extremely clever, but because there is so much detail it stops becoming immersive, which is a real shame. The big, wide shots are too big and wide.
And there's a distinct feeling that they picked up a bunch of ex-Matrix programmers.
The next 'must-see' film is probably 'Voyage of the dawn treader', also in 3D. I understand the story has been changed substantially, which in this case may not be a bad thing at all.
Saturday, 25 December 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)