Did the feminists get the recipe wrong when they took women out of the kitchen? I believe they did.
I strongly believe that feminism has damaged womanhood. I believe that in their bid to liberate women and make bigger pieces of the pie more readily available to women, the feminist movement has done more to tarnish many men and women’s perception of women than it has done to help.
It is true that women were treated like second class citizens for a long time. And it was right that women got their act together and fought for what they should have always had. Where I think the feminists got it wrong was when they started demanding to be like men.
I strongly believe men and women are meant to be co-dependent on each other. And for such a relationship to work and work well, both parties have to bring something different to what the other is bringing to the table. It’s all about finding the balance and one not overpowering the other. It’s for everyone to understand that without the woman, the man is an unloaded gun. Needless to say the woman is the bullet. And without the man, the woman is like a bow without an arrow. Men need women and women need men.
Also when I say the feminists were wrong when they made it their primary aim to get women out of the kitchen, I don’t for a second mean the kitchen is a woman’s place. I just believe that the feminist movement fought the wrong battle. I think the right to do would have been to go for a “let’s do this together or...” approach rather than the “we’re leaving. You can replace us if you like” approach they are famous for. With the suffragettes movement, they campaigned for a share of the pie. They campaigned to be able to find the same opportunities that the men got without having to do twice as much work. There is nothing wrong with that and anyone that says otherwise needs to have their heads checked out.
A woman cannot be replaced with anything. And anyone with two brain cells will not arguing too vehemently against women being the most important creature to ever walk this planet. To try to keep them down would just be ignorant and pointless but there has to be a point where the line is drawn between fighting for what is rightfully yours and trying to rob someone else to enrich yourself. And I believe the latter is what feminism seeks to do – to enrich women at men’s cost if necessary
Feminism to me is like racism – rating yourself higher than someone else, not because of what you have earned or achieved but because of what you think you are. Feminism has given many women the impression that they have a divine right to have a look in. That they should have automatic respect and be regarded highly by all. Feminism has made many women believe they can do it all by themselves and that they do not a man to help them on as they help him on as well. This has only contributed to the breakdown in society and family values as well as creating more problems
Saturday, 25 September 2010
Monday, 10 May 2010
In My Full Mind... by Mide Oguns
In my full mind I must imagine
that at the point of decease
as the inexorable blades of eternity
sever us from this plummeting reality,
it is not intense pain
Sorrowful remorse, fear,
Languishing terror or regret,
but acute hope that here will perhaps
prove more inhabitable
For some other soul;
that wars continue un-fought
in the coarse fields of evanescent minds
calloused into disrepair
from retreading the careworn
Attempts to seize some wild peace.
Hope. Such as is possible
only in the harsh actuality
of irrevocable departure;
passed on like a waning baton
as life dissolves smoothly
into the flailing airs in the absence
of wailing heirs, wives or exes.
But for that illustrious instant
reserved for the abysmal leap
into the oasis of unbridled being -
a gift: certain and unassailable,
Knowable too late to be necessary;
Clarity at the moment of death.
that at the point of decease
as the inexorable blades of eternity
sever us from this plummeting reality,
it is not intense pain
Sorrowful remorse, fear,
Languishing terror or regret,
but acute hope that here will perhaps
prove more inhabitable
For some other soul;
that wars continue un-fought
in the coarse fields of evanescent minds
calloused into disrepair
from retreading the careworn
Attempts to seize some wild peace.
Hope. Such as is possible
only in the harsh actuality
of irrevocable departure;
passed on like a waning baton
as life dissolves smoothly
into the flailing airs in the absence
of wailing heirs, wives or exes.
But for that illustrious instant
reserved for the abysmal leap
into the oasis of unbridled being -
a gift: certain and unassailable,
Knowable too late to be necessary;
Clarity at the moment of death.
Thursday, 6 May 2010
You can't just "do what you want"
In a bid to assert some sort of authority or make a statement, you will often hear people ask why they cannot do what they want. Truth be told, many of these people have legitimate axes to grind or are in situations that need some radical changes but does this justify a total disregard for the system in place.
If you are one of the people described above, my advice is to put careful thought into the way things are and to look at how you can either adapt yourself or point out aspects of the existing system that are not being put into practise and might help your situation.
I know this might sound like a ludicrous idea but the fact remains that law and order are in place for a reason. In most cases, people come together with a common view and it is this view that forms the basis of a desire to either initiate or reinforce that view that they feel will strengthen their society and bring people to a greater mutual understanding and appreciation of each other. In going against this, you will in turn be placing your own personal needs and sentiments above that of your wider community
You might now ask why is it necessary to put the needs of the wider community ahead of yours. The simple answer to this question is that to run a civilised society, the needs of the wider community will have to be greater than the needs of the individual. The individual will have to make allowances for the greater good of the wider community even if it means the individual having to do things he/she doesn’t want. Also, if everyone did what they wanted and there wasn’t a law in place, that will surely lead to anarchy.
You cannot just do what you want. It is very counterproductive and ultimately leads to no good thing. Laws are given to contain self-centred desires and prevent chaos. It is in finding the discipline and maturity to do what is best for the people around you, potentially at your own expense, that you find true happiness and satisfaction in life
If you are one of the people described above, my advice is to put careful thought into the way things are and to look at how you can either adapt yourself or point out aspects of the existing system that are not being put into practise and might help your situation.
I know this might sound like a ludicrous idea but the fact remains that law and order are in place for a reason. In most cases, people come together with a common view and it is this view that forms the basis of a desire to either initiate or reinforce that view that they feel will strengthen their society and bring people to a greater mutual understanding and appreciation of each other. In going against this, you will in turn be placing your own personal needs and sentiments above that of your wider community
You might now ask why is it necessary to put the needs of the wider community ahead of yours. The simple answer to this question is that to run a civilised society, the needs of the wider community will have to be greater than the needs of the individual. The individual will have to make allowances for the greater good of the wider community even if it means the individual having to do things he/she doesn’t want. Also, if everyone did what they wanted and there wasn’t a law in place, that will surely lead to anarchy.
You cannot just do what you want. It is very counterproductive and ultimately leads to no good thing. Laws are given to contain self-centred desires and prevent chaos. It is in finding the discipline and maturity to do what is best for the people around you, potentially at your own expense, that you find true happiness and satisfaction in life
Monday, 3 May 2010
Millionairess Leaves Daughters 90p Each
A millionaire socialite has left her daughters less than a pound each because she believed they conspired in her mother's death. Skip related content
Australian Valmai Roche, who died last year aged 81, bequeathed her children and ex-husband $1.5 AUD "blood money" - worth 90p - from her estate, which is reported to be worth around £2.1m.
But two of her daughters have claimed their mother was "delusional" and are challenging her will in the South Australian Supreme Court.
The former mayoress of Adelaide left "30 pieces of silver of the lowest denomination of currency" to her family - which translates as 30 five cent coins each - claiming it was "blood money due to Judas".
The rest of her fortune was left to the Catholic men's charity Southern Cross, according to Australian newspaper reports.
Her mother Dorothy Maude Haber was cared for in a nursing home before her death, but documents do not say how or when she died.
Ms Roche's daughters - Deborah Hamilton, Fiona Roche and Shauna Roche - can also claim equal shares in their mother's jewellery.
However they must correctly answer questions about her personal diaries which were kept from January 1974 until October 1981, the date her will was written.
But Ms Hamilton has accused her mother of "fixed, false and incorrigible views" over the death of Ms Haber and alleges her "delusions" meant she was incapable of "making a reasonable and proper disposition of her estate".
Along with her sisters she has taken the case to court claiming they should be "entitled to inherit" their mother's fortune.
Ms Roche went as far as to "specifically exclude" her children and ex-husband "from any further benefits" claiming they "have been adequately provided for" during the later years of her life.
Mr Roche, who was Adelaide City Council Lord Mayor from 1975 until 1977, was also excluded from further benefit due to the "irretrievable breakdown" of their marriage in 1983.
Only one change was made to her will in 1987 to bequeath a French Empire style desk to her daughter Fiona, who now heads the family's Roche Group which is regularly listed among the top 200 rich companies in Australia.
Court documents reveal Ms Roche enquired about changing her will in 2007, but no new will could be found.
Lawyers for the family have refused to comment on the case, which returns to court next month.
Australian Valmai Roche, who died last year aged 81, bequeathed her children and ex-husband $1.5 AUD "blood money" - worth 90p - from her estate, which is reported to be worth around £2.1m.
But two of her daughters have claimed their mother was "delusional" and are challenging her will in the South Australian Supreme Court.
The former mayoress of Adelaide left "30 pieces of silver of the lowest denomination of currency" to her family - which translates as 30 five cent coins each - claiming it was "blood money due to Judas".
The rest of her fortune was left to the Catholic men's charity Southern Cross, according to Australian newspaper reports.
Her mother Dorothy Maude Haber was cared for in a nursing home before her death, but documents do not say how or when she died.
Ms Roche's daughters - Deborah Hamilton, Fiona Roche and Shauna Roche - can also claim equal shares in their mother's jewellery.
However they must correctly answer questions about her personal diaries which were kept from January 1974 until October 1981, the date her will was written.
But Ms Hamilton has accused her mother of "fixed, false and incorrigible views" over the death of Ms Haber and alleges her "delusions" meant she was incapable of "making a reasonable and proper disposition of her estate".
Along with her sisters she has taken the case to court claiming they should be "entitled to inherit" their mother's fortune.
Ms Roche went as far as to "specifically exclude" her children and ex-husband "from any further benefits" claiming they "have been adequately provided for" during the later years of her life.
Mr Roche, who was Adelaide City Council Lord Mayor from 1975 until 1977, was also excluded from further benefit due to the "irretrievable breakdown" of their marriage in 1983.
Only one change was made to her will in 1987 to bequeath a French Empire style desk to her daughter Fiona, who now heads the family's Roche Group which is regularly listed among the top 200 rich companies in Australia.
Court documents reveal Ms Roche enquired about changing her will in 2007, but no new will could be found.
Lawyers for the family have refused to comment on the case, which returns to court next month.
German man 'marries' his dying cat (BBC)
A German man has unofficially married his cat after the animal fell ill and vets told him it might not live much longer, Bild newspaper reports.
It says Uwe Mitzscherlich, 39, paid an actress 300 euros (£260,$395) to officiate at the ceremony, as marrying an animal is illegal in Germany.
Mr Mitzscherlich said he had wanted to tie the knot before his asthmatic cat Cecilia died.
"Cecilia is such a trusting creature. We cuddle all the time and she has always slept in my bed," Mr Mitzscherlich, a postman from the eastern town of Possendorf, told Bild.
Actress Christin-Maria Lohri, who officiated the ceremony, was quoted as saying: "At first I thought it was a joke. But for Mr Mitzscherlich it's a dream come true".
It says Uwe Mitzscherlich, 39, paid an actress 300 euros (£260,$395) to officiate at the ceremony, as marrying an animal is illegal in Germany.
Mr Mitzscherlich said he had wanted to tie the knot before his asthmatic cat Cecilia died.
"Cecilia is such a trusting creature. We cuddle all the time and she has always slept in my bed," Mr Mitzscherlich, a postman from the eastern town of Possendorf, told Bild.
Actress Christin-Maria Lohri, who officiated the ceremony, was quoted as saying: "At first I thought it was a joke. But for Mr Mitzscherlich it's a dream come true".
Tuesday, 27 April 2010
Sex as God, gross and gift by Mark Driscoll
Q:Do your religious beliefs exalt or stigmatize sex (or both)? Is religion a useful tool for helping young people navigate the treacherous world of sex, love and relationships? Does religion present an alternative view of sex and sexual relationships to the culture at large? Should it?
Worship is giving our money, body, and life to a person or thing as our highest commitment or functional god. Practically, this means that sex is a worship act and beds are really altars.
Religious belief systems have always held widely divergent views regarding sexuality. The three most prominent views are sex as god, gross, or gift.
The view that sex is god has a long history. From the days of the Old Testament, various nations had fertility cults and various religions had temples that included male and female prostitutes, such as the Temple of Aphrodite. Canaanite gods were depicted naked and were honored with erotic poetry. Asherah poles were male phallic symbols used as gathering places for orgies. Some religions even had manuals for sexuality, such as the Kama Sutra.
Those who see sex as a functional god use it for identity, pleasure, reward, and comfort. Furthermore, those who hold sex as a god tend to evangelize others, encouraging them to join in and worship their god by participating in whatever their sexual preferences and practices are. This explains why in America today there is nothing short of a religious zeal for sex of all kinds. We now spend more money every year on pornography than all professional football, baseball, and basketball franchises combined; more than the combined revenues of ABC, CBS, and NBC; and roughly the same amount as we give to foreign aid. The number one consumer of porn is twelve- to seventeen-year-old boys, who now expect their girlfriends to send them naked photos that they can keep on their phones and forward to their buddies.
In an overreaction to those who treat sex as god are those more prudishly religious people who instead see sex as gross. In the days of the early Greeks (who saw the body as an undesirable shell for the soul to be shed at death), many Stoic philosophers taught that sex was only for procreation and that celibacy was a desirable lifestyle. Sadly, many of the early church fathers in Christianity were influenced heavily by this erroneous thinking. Tertullian and Ambrose preferred the extinction of humanity to sex. Origen not only allegorized the biblical love story of the Song of Songs, but also castrated himself. Chrysostom taught that Adam and Eve did not have sex before the fall. Jerome was known to throw himself into sticker bushes when sexually tempted. Gregory of Nyssa said Adam and Eve were without sexual desire until sin entered the world, and that she became pregnant by eating a special plant from the Garden of Eden.
Some years later, the Catholic Church forbade priests to marry, regulated sexual frequency, positions, and sensations for married couples, and went so far as to ban marital intercourse for a total of roughly half of the year. Today, this kind of thinking is promulgated perhaps most emphatically in exceedingly conservative, fundamentalist churches and their youth ministries, where they teach students that sex is dirty, nasty, vile, wrong, and to be saved for the one you love, which is an inherently confusing message.
According to the Bible, sex was God's idea. The Bible starts by revealing that God made us male and female with bodies built for sexual pleasure. God also created the covenant of marriage as the hearth in which the passionate flame of sexual desire is to be contained and enjoyed.
The Bible says that sex serves many purposes, such as:
1. Pleasure (Song of Songs is an entire book on this fact)
2. Children (Genesis 1:28)
3. Oneness (Genesis 2:24)
4. Knowledge (Genesis 4:1)
5. Comfort (2 Samuel 12:24)
6. Protection from sexual sin (1 Corinthians 7:2-5)
Furthermore, the biblical book Song of Songs gives great liberty for sexual freedom in marriage, including:
1. Kissing (1:2)
2. Oral sex (fellatio), by her initiative (2:3)
3. Manual stimulation, by her invitation (2:6)
4. Petting, by his initiative (4:5)
5. Oral sex (cunnilingus), by his initiative (4:12-5:1)
6. Striptease (6:13-7:9)
7. New places, including the outdoors, and positions, by her initiative (7:11-13)
Therefore, biblical Christianity promotes free and frequent sex solely in the context of marriage. In an age of sexual abuse, sexual addiction, sexual prostitution and slavery, sexually transmitted diseases, and unwanted pregnancies, the timeless wisdom of Scripture provides timely counsel for a culture that worships sex with all the passion of a fundamentalist religion.
Worship is giving our money, body, and life to a person or thing as our highest commitment or functional god. Practically, this means that sex is a worship act and beds are really altars.
Religious belief systems have always held widely divergent views regarding sexuality. The three most prominent views are sex as god, gross, or gift.
The view that sex is god has a long history. From the days of the Old Testament, various nations had fertility cults and various religions had temples that included male and female prostitutes, such as the Temple of Aphrodite. Canaanite gods were depicted naked and were honored with erotic poetry. Asherah poles were male phallic symbols used as gathering places for orgies. Some religions even had manuals for sexuality, such as the Kama Sutra.
Those who see sex as a functional god use it for identity, pleasure, reward, and comfort. Furthermore, those who hold sex as a god tend to evangelize others, encouraging them to join in and worship their god by participating in whatever their sexual preferences and practices are. This explains why in America today there is nothing short of a religious zeal for sex of all kinds. We now spend more money every year on pornography than all professional football, baseball, and basketball franchises combined; more than the combined revenues of ABC, CBS, and NBC; and roughly the same amount as we give to foreign aid. The number one consumer of porn is twelve- to seventeen-year-old boys, who now expect their girlfriends to send them naked photos that they can keep on their phones and forward to their buddies.
In an overreaction to those who treat sex as god are those more prudishly religious people who instead see sex as gross. In the days of the early Greeks (who saw the body as an undesirable shell for the soul to be shed at death), many Stoic philosophers taught that sex was only for procreation and that celibacy was a desirable lifestyle. Sadly, many of the early church fathers in Christianity were influenced heavily by this erroneous thinking. Tertullian and Ambrose preferred the extinction of humanity to sex. Origen not only allegorized the biblical love story of the Song of Songs, but also castrated himself. Chrysostom taught that Adam and Eve did not have sex before the fall. Jerome was known to throw himself into sticker bushes when sexually tempted. Gregory of Nyssa said Adam and Eve were without sexual desire until sin entered the world, and that she became pregnant by eating a special plant from the Garden of Eden.
Some years later, the Catholic Church forbade priests to marry, regulated sexual frequency, positions, and sensations for married couples, and went so far as to ban marital intercourse for a total of roughly half of the year. Today, this kind of thinking is promulgated perhaps most emphatically in exceedingly conservative, fundamentalist churches and their youth ministries, where they teach students that sex is dirty, nasty, vile, wrong, and to be saved for the one you love, which is an inherently confusing message.
According to the Bible, sex was God's idea. The Bible starts by revealing that God made us male and female with bodies built for sexual pleasure. God also created the covenant of marriage as the hearth in which the passionate flame of sexual desire is to be contained and enjoyed.
The Bible says that sex serves many purposes, such as:
1. Pleasure (Song of Songs is an entire book on this fact)
2. Children (Genesis 1:28)
3. Oneness (Genesis 2:24)
4. Knowledge (Genesis 4:1)
5. Comfort (2 Samuel 12:24)
6. Protection from sexual sin (1 Corinthians 7:2-5)
Furthermore, the biblical book Song of Songs gives great liberty for sexual freedom in marriage, including:
1. Kissing (1:2)
2. Oral sex (fellatio), by her initiative (2:3)
3. Manual stimulation, by her invitation (2:6)
4. Petting, by his initiative (4:5)
5. Oral sex (cunnilingus), by his initiative (4:12-5:1)
6. Striptease (6:13-7:9)
7. New places, including the outdoors, and positions, by her initiative (7:11-13)
Therefore, biblical Christianity promotes free and frequent sex solely in the context of marriage. In an age of sexual abuse, sexual addiction, sexual prostitution and slavery, sexually transmitted diseases, and unwanted pregnancies, the timeless wisdom of Scripture provides timely counsel for a culture that worships sex with all the passion of a fundamentalist religion.
The revolution will not be televised....or should it?
Will the revolution be televised? Will the movements that cause a fundamental change in the things that shape our thoughts, words and actions receive widespread media coverage? Will the real forces behind the changes that we will see get the airtime their efforts deserve or will we have to wait and settle for the faces of the foot soldiers
A revolution, simply put, is a movement that causes fundamental change. History records many gallant men and women who have disregarded their lives in pursuit of a change that they believed will steer the ship of their people’s destiny in a better direction. But in this day and age where mainstream coverage is the offspring of a diluted version of whatever you believe, carefully trimmed down and remodelled to fit into the bigger picture of the big media corporation along with a huge dose of political correctness, does the mainstream coverage constitute too much of a sacrifice? Or is it a necessary evil for the sake of a greater good.
Careful consideration should also be given to the word mainstream. What exactly is mainstream and what is not? Is Youtube, with claims of over 30 million people worldwide viewing at least 60 seconds of video on its website everyday a mainstream outlet or still very much the opium of the underground revolutionary?
Also, when virtually every household has a tv set, the reach of the mainstream media can, in some cases, be the tonic some revolutions need to get them started or get enough “va va voom” for people to take it serious
Another thought we have to consider is whether a lack of mainstream appeal makes a revolution more valid and/or more radical? Does it mean the struggles of that revolution with the powers-that-be (the mainstream) in its quest for coverage is akin to the fight of good against evil?
I am fairly certain that when whoever coined the statement in question did he/she did not envisage the growth of the online world and its ability to connect people, thus creating a “power in numbers” situation. That a movement doesn’t get a great deal of mainstream coverage doesn’t mean it will not reach a good amount of people. The online world has afforded us the privilege of making things happen without having to solicit the backing of the mainstream. All you need is the right outlets and a good number of committed followers. In that, you have your underbelly and it will be a case of seizing opportunity after that. Mainstream or not, a good understanding of the web and the ability to communicate your views clearly to the ever curious world will be of great benefit to a revolution.
Revolutions in the past were few and far between. But in today’s world, with things changing at a pace that defies human logic, I believe the success or failure of a revolution should be based on the long term reaction/reception of the people and what difference it makes to their live. As long as the general public are the winners, and not a microscopic few, I believe the route to the public eye is of very little importance
A revolution, simply put, is a movement that causes fundamental change. History records many gallant men and women who have disregarded their lives in pursuit of a change that they believed will steer the ship of their people’s destiny in a better direction. But in this day and age where mainstream coverage is the offspring of a diluted version of whatever you believe, carefully trimmed down and remodelled to fit into the bigger picture of the big media corporation along with a huge dose of political correctness, does the mainstream coverage constitute too much of a sacrifice? Or is it a necessary evil for the sake of a greater good.
Careful consideration should also be given to the word mainstream. What exactly is mainstream and what is not? Is Youtube, with claims of over 30 million people worldwide viewing at least 60 seconds of video on its website everyday a mainstream outlet or still very much the opium of the underground revolutionary?
Also, when virtually every household has a tv set, the reach of the mainstream media can, in some cases, be the tonic some revolutions need to get them started or get enough “va va voom” for people to take it serious
Another thought we have to consider is whether a lack of mainstream appeal makes a revolution more valid and/or more radical? Does it mean the struggles of that revolution with the powers-that-be (the mainstream) in its quest for coverage is akin to the fight of good against evil?
I am fairly certain that when whoever coined the statement in question did he/she did not envisage the growth of the online world and its ability to connect people, thus creating a “power in numbers” situation. That a movement doesn’t get a great deal of mainstream coverage doesn’t mean it will not reach a good amount of people. The online world has afforded us the privilege of making things happen without having to solicit the backing of the mainstream. All you need is the right outlets and a good number of committed followers. In that, you have your underbelly and it will be a case of seizing opportunity after that. Mainstream or not, a good understanding of the web and the ability to communicate your views clearly to the ever curious world will be of great benefit to a revolution.
Revolutions in the past were few and far between. But in today’s world, with things changing at a pace that defies human logic, I believe the success or failure of a revolution should be based on the long term reaction/reception of the people and what difference it makes to their live. As long as the general public are the winners, and not a microscopic few, I believe the route to the public eye is of very little importance
Thursday, 15 April 2010
Is There Conflict Between Christianity and Science? by Mark Driscoll
Before turning to the opening pages of Genesis where creation commences, a few prefatory comments are in order.
First, there is no conflict between Christianity and science itself. This is because the Christian worldview, which believes that God created the world with natural 'laws' and orderliness, is what undergirds the entire scientific enterprise. For example, inductive reasoning and the scientific method are based on the assumption of the regularity of the laws of nature. . . . Without this kind of regularity, we could not learn from experience, including the experiences of scientific testing. This also helps to explain why in cultures where creation is said to be an illusion or disorderly chaos because it was not created by an orderly God, the sciences have not historically flourished; indeed, the scientific method depends upon the kind of underlying worldview that a creating and providentially ruling God of the Bible provides.
Second, there is total conflict between Christianity and scientific naturalism. Naturalism is the belief that all phenomena can be explained in terms of presently operating natural causes and laws. The only true knowledge is that which comes through observable experiments. When natural science is the arbiter of all truth claims, religion becomes superstition and God is omitted from discussion.
Third, the Bible in general, and the book of Genesis in particular, was not written with the intention of being a scientific textbook. Rather, it is a theological narrative written to reveal the God of creation, which means its emphasis is on God and his relationship with humanity and not on creation. Genesis is far more concerned with the questions of who made creation and why he made creation than exactly when he did. Therefore, as Galileo said, "The Holy Ghost intended to teach us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go."
Fourth, one's view of the date of creation should not be the litmus test for Christian faithfulness. Within Christian theology there are open- and closed-handed issues. Biblical authority is a closed-handed issue. Christians receive what the Bible actually teaches as truth from God to be believed and obeyed. Regarding creation, anyone who claims to be a Bible-believing Christian must reject such things as the atheistic evolutionists' claims that there is no God and that creation is not a gift but rather an epic purposeless accident. Nevertheless, Bible-believing Christians, as we will explore in this chapter, can and do disagree over the open-handed issues, such as exactly how God made the heavens and the earth, whether the six days of Genesis 1–2 are literal twenty-four-hour days, and the age of the earth. These sorts of issues must remain in the open hand.
From Doctrine, Chapter 3. Creation: God Makes (pgs. 80—81). Get Doctrine now.
First, there is no conflict between Christianity and science itself. This is because the Christian worldview, which believes that God created the world with natural 'laws' and orderliness, is what undergirds the entire scientific enterprise. For example, inductive reasoning and the scientific method are based on the assumption of the regularity of the laws of nature. . . . Without this kind of regularity, we could not learn from experience, including the experiences of scientific testing. This also helps to explain why in cultures where creation is said to be an illusion or disorderly chaos because it was not created by an orderly God, the sciences have not historically flourished; indeed, the scientific method depends upon the kind of underlying worldview that a creating and providentially ruling God of the Bible provides.
Second, there is total conflict between Christianity and scientific naturalism. Naturalism is the belief that all phenomena can be explained in terms of presently operating natural causes and laws. The only true knowledge is that which comes through observable experiments. When natural science is the arbiter of all truth claims, religion becomes superstition and God is omitted from discussion.
Third, the Bible in general, and the book of Genesis in particular, was not written with the intention of being a scientific textbook. Rather, it is a theological narrative written to reveal the God of creation, which means its emphasis is on God and his relationship with humanity and not on creation. Genesis is far more concerned with the questions of who made creation and why he made creation than exactly when he did. Therefore, as Galileo said, "The Holy Ghost intended to teach us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go."
Fourth, one's view of the date of creation should not be the litmus test for Christian faithfulness. Within Christian theology there are open- and closed-handed issues. Biblical authority is a closed-handed issue. Christians receive what the Bible actually teaches as truth from God to be believed and obeyed. Regarding creation, anyone who claims to be a Bible-believing Christian must reject such things as the atheistic evolutionists' claims that there is no God and that creation is not a gift but rather an epic purposeless accident. Nevertheless, Bible-believing Christians, as we will explore in this chapter, can and do disagree over the open-handed issues, such as exactly how God made the heavens and the earth, whether the six days of Genesis 1–2 are literal twenty-four-hour days, and the age of the earth. These sorts of issues must remain in the open hand.
From Doctrine, Chapter 3. Creation: God Makes (pgs. 80—81). Get Doctrine now.
Monday, 22 March 2010
Sport Relief Smithy's rant at sport stars
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/front_page/8578061.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/front_page/8578061.stm
If you didn't already know, SMITHY'S A LEGEND!!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/front_page/8578061.stm
If you didn't already know, SMITHY'S A LEGEND!!
Friday, 19 February 2010
Did You Know 3.0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpEnFwiqdx8
After watching this clip, one thought had permanent residence in my mind. That if I had any intentions of being more than a passer-by in the future in which I am going to live, I will have to get to work from yesterday.
"Heights attained by great men were not achieved by sudden flight. But they, when their companions were sleeping, kept toiling on onward through the night"
Thoughts - 18022010
Life is a game of wits, opinions and points of view. And as is the nature of our world, a day rarely goes by that we do not meet people that see things a different way to how we do. Our natural reaction is to go defensive and try to defend our beliefs and this often creates unnecessary conflict. The case is often that we feel so strongly about what we believe that we give no audience to what anyone else might have to say. But is this the best way to deal with this ever present conflict?
A single-minded arrogance is definitely not the way to deal with the situation. As much as you might think and/or know that you are right, your failure to listen can be highly counterproductive. The greatest leaders that have ever walked this earth have all been great speakers and great listeners. Jesus Christ spoke many great words but the Bible also records Him listening to people and responding to their queries with relevant words that met their needs and we all know how that story goes. At the other end of the leadership spectrum, another leader who understood the power of attending to people’s needs and fear was Adolf Hitler. As much as he has gone down in history as one of the most evil men to ever live, he was able to take the concerns of a section of the German public that feared the Jews would take over and use that as a point of entry into the hearts and minds of his people and we also know how that story ends. Closer to home, the British National Party are fast gaining ground by feeding on legitimate concerns on immigration and the rise of Islam and using that as a platform to propagate their other distasteful messages. We don’t know how that story will end but as long as the major parties seek to push the “we know what’s best for the people” agenda, get ready for more success from the BNP.
In similar fashion, people of faith, especially Christians, need to be very careful with their beliefs and how they choose to pass them on. One of the underlining factors in the rise of Christianity and the early church was the ability of the apostles and early Christians to reason with the people they came across. The Bible records Paul reasoning daily in the halls of Tyrannus where many people came with their various philosophies. Reasoning is defined as the process by which you reach a conclusion after thinking about all the facts and this is something I do not think many Christians pay attention to. Many are too preoccupied with their self righteousness and pride that they are missing the glaring needs and resounding groans of the people. Christians need to cultivate a listening ear if they are to be relevant in our ever changing world. Things are changing at the speed of light and no one can afford to rest on their laurels. The battle is eternal and the enemy is reinventing himself every day. Failure to keep abreast with the world around you will make your Christianity as relevant as ski boots in Miami.
We all need to learn to humble ourselves enough to listen to whatever people have to say, irrespective of whether or not we think they are spewing the vilest rubbish in the history of human speech. This breeds a trust that a speaker knows that whatever they are saying is being heard and will therefore be more likely to reciprocate the listening. It is also in listening that you identify the legitimate concerns of the people and see how what you have to say can address those concerns. Otherwise, the probability missing those concerns and addressing the irrelevant ones
Single-minded arrogance and ignorance are, in my opinion, not too far apart. One doesn’t know and the other doesn’t want to know. Perhaps you can argue that single-minded arrogance is more dangerous as it has very little interest in knowledge.
A single-minded arrogance is definitely not the way to deal with the situation. As much as you might think and/or know that you are right, your failure to listen can be highly counterproductive. The greatest leaders that have ever walked this earth have all been great speakers and great listeners. Jesus Christ spoke many great words but the Bible also records Him listening to people and responding to their queries with relevant words that met their needs and we all know how that story goes. At the other end of the leadership spectrum, another leader who understood the power of attending to people’s needs and fear was Adolf Hitler. As much as he has gone down in history as one of the most evil men to ever live, he was able to take the concerns of a section of the German public that feared the Jews would take over and use that as a point of entry into the hearts and minds of his people and we also know how that story ends. Closer to home, the British National Party are fast gaining ground by feeding on legitimate concerns on immigration and the rise of Islam and using that as a platform to propagate their other distasteful messages. We don’t know how that story will end but as long as the major parties seek to push the “we know what’s best for the people” agenda, get ready for more success from the BNP.
In similar fashion, people of faith, especially Christians, need to be very careful with their beliefs and how they choose to pass them on. One of the underlining factors in the rise of Christianity and the early church was the ability of the apostles and early Christians to reason with the people they came across. The Bible records Paul reasoning daily in the halls of Tyrannus where many people came with their various philosophies. Reasoning is defined as the process by which you reach a conclusion after thinking about all the facts and this is something I do not think many Christians pay attention to. Many are too preoccupied with their self righteousness and pride that they are missing the glaring needs and resounding groans of the people. Christians need to cultivate a listening ear if they are to be relevant in our ever changing world. Things are changing at the speed of light and no one can afford to rest on their laurels. The battle is eternal and the enemy is reinventing himself every day. Failure to keep abreast with the world around you will make your Christianity as relevant as ski boots in Miami.
We all need to learn to humble ourselves enough to listen to whatever people have to say, irrespective of whether or not we think they are spewing the vilest rubbish in the history of human speech. This breeds a trust that a speaker knows that whatever they are saying is being heard and will therefore be more likely to reciprocate the listening. It is also in listening that you identify the legitimate concerns of the people and see how what you have to say can address those concerns. Otherwise, the probability missing those concerns and addressing the irrelevant ones
Single-minded arrogance and ignorance are, in my opinion, not too far apart. One doesn’t know and the other doesn’t want to know. Perhaps you can argue that single-minded arrogance is more dangerous as it has very little interest in knowledge.
Saturday, 13 February 2010
Thoughts - 13022010
How many times do we hear about people meaning to help but getting it all wrong? How many times do people complain of smug, self righteous people who have no idea of other people’s predicament taking an unwarranted moral high ground?
I am of the opinion that most of us are still eager to help our neighbour (contrary to public opinion) but somewhere between the thought and the action, we get things incredibly messed up. We often forget that we are not the star of the show and get carried away in a sense of good-doing and forget that without the people we are trying to help understanding what we are trying to do, we might as well keep our goodwill to ourselves.
The image of a hairdresser (or barber) springs to mind. Imagine you hadn’t had your hair done for a while or never even had your hair done before and all of a sudden find yourself under the armpit of the hairdresser. Yes, your hair might need some work but to hold you down against your will and apply methods that might seem a bit extreme for an outcome that you are not so sure of will not look like an inviting idea. In the same way, just because someone you happen to come across seems to be in need of help doesn’t give you the right to “help” them. I am not for one second saying that we should pass up an opportunity to help. What I am saying is that you don’t dive in at the deep end at your first time in the pool. You get familiar with the waters before you proceed to the tricky parts. I believe nothing in life should be rushed or rushed into. But you find that most people don’t even know their neighbour’s names or their children’s name or any of the softer details of their life and think they can just jump and play saviour.
In cases where I have been guilty of the issue in question, it has often been because I was in too much of a hurry to get the job done, add that notch to my belt, pull out the cape and soak up the applause. We are too often so caught up in ourselves that we forget that the problem we are trying to help with has very little, if anything, to do with us. We often help out expecting to be praised or rewarded for our efforts. We often give waiting and expecting to get some back in return. But I’d like to propose a different attitude – DO THE RIGHT THING BECAUSE IT’S THE RIGHT THING TO DO. It might sound like something you expect to hear in a Sunday school class but that doesn’t stop it from being true. If we do good expecting people to do the same to us, then what credits do we expect? Don’t even the most evil of men do the same? We have to cultivate the habit of doing the right thing without any thought for who is looking on and who might pat us on the back at the end .
One of our greatest responsibilities is to love anyone that needs our love in the way we would expected to be love. In other words, do to others what you would like them to do to you. If you find your neighbour in hard times and feel like helping, put yourself their shoes and try for a second and think of the best way you would like to be approached and offered help if you were in a similar situation. You must never lose sight of the fact that you are not the main attraction in that episode and that at the end of it all, no fingers should be pointing in your direction
In today’s world where people are obsessed with stardom and fame, it is no surprise that many often hesitate to get involved in anything that doesn’t seem to have any reward in sight. People are more concerned about looking good rather than being good. And more worryingly, we are starting to accept this as the norm. So much that if one person should “do the right thing because it’s the right thing to do”, it feels like they are doing something out of the ordinary. We need to bang the drums of change and determine in our hearts and minds that we will do the right thing regardless of public opinion, regardless of reward or ridicule and regardless of how far out of our comfort zone it may take us. SELAH
The Telligent Blog ©
I am of the opinion that most of us are still eager to help our neighbour (contrary to public opinion) but somewhere between the thought and the action, we get things incredibly messed up. We often forget that we are not the star of the show and get carried away in a sense of good-doing and forget that without the people we are trying to help understanding what we are trying to do, we might as well keep our goodwill to ourselves.
The image of a hairdresser (or barber) springs to mind. Imagine you hadn’t had your hair done for a while or never even had your hair done before and all of a sudden find yourself under the armpit of the hairdresser. Yes, your hair might need some work but to hold you down against your will and apply methods that might seem a bit extreme for an outcome that you are not so sure of will not look like an inviting idea. In the same way, just because someone you happen to come across seems to be in need of help doesn’t give you the right to “help” them. I am not for one second saying that we should pass up an opportunity to help. What I am saying is that you don’t dive in at the deep end at your first time in the pool. You get familiar with the waters before you proceed to the tricky parts. I believe nothing in life should be rushed or rushed into. But you find that most people don’t even know their neighbour’s names or their children’s name or any of the softer details of their life and think they can just jump and play saviour.
In cases where I have been guilty of the issue in question, it has often been because I was in too much of a hurry to get the job done, add that notch to my belt, pull out the cape and soak up the applause. We are too often so caught up in ourselves that we forget that the problem we are trying to help with has very little, if anything, to do with us. We often help out expecting to be praised or rewarded for our efforts. We often give waiting and expecting to get some back in return. But I’d like to propose a different attitude – DO THE RIGHT THING BECAUSE IT’S THE RIGHT THING TO DO. It might sound like something you expect to hear in a Sunday school class but that doesn’t stop it from being true. If we do good expecting people to do the same to us, then what credits do we expect? Don’t even the most evil of men do the same? We have to cultivate the habit of doing the right thing without any thought for who is looking on and who might pat us on the back at the end .
One of our greatest responsibilities is to love anyone that needs our love in the way we would expected to be love. In other words, do to others what you would like them to do to you. If you find your neighbour in hard times and feel like helping, put yourself their shoes and try for a second and think of the best way you would like to be approached and offered help if you were in a similar situation. You must never lose sight of the fact that you are not the main attraction in that episode and that at the end of it all, no fingers should be pointing in your direction
In today’s world where people are obsessed with stardom and fame, it is no surprise that many often hesitate to get involved in anything that doesn’t seem to have any reward in sight. People are more concerned about looking good rather than being good. And more worryingly, we are starting to accept this as the norm. So much that if one person should “do the right thing because it’s the right thing to do”, it feels like they are doing something out of the ordinary. We need to bang the drums of change and determine in our hearts and minds that we will do the right thing regardless of public opinion, regardless of reward or ridicule and regardless of how far out of our comfort zone it may take us. SELAH
The Telligent Blog ©
Monday, 1 February 2010
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)