Today is the day of the grand celebration of the betrothal of Jonathan Field & Katie Gunn!
Understandably, more and more people are asking me "So what exactly is betrothal?"
My previous attempt to help the serious students answer the question for themselves, failed miserably. One eager student (you know who you are - and I love you all the same :o) ) obviously jumped on Google and looked up other people's definitions of betrothal - which is fascinating stuff - but which completely missed the point that the Bible itself sufficiently defines betrothal.
There is no need to learn about Jewish culture in bygone millenia.
There is no need to worry about cups of wine or grape juice.
There is no need to resort to Google, nor to an encyclopedia - although of course you can find out interesting ancillary information on the topic that way.
But my biggest concern is that if you turn to the ancillary information, you might miss the heart of it - the essential ingredients defined clearly in the Bible, and which are all you need to know.
Katie & I are betrothed. I didn't follow any of the old Jewish customs. There was no cup of wine. Go ahead and do it that way if you want, but understand that Scriptural Betrothal is far simpler than it can seem if you start considering the myriad cultural elements. Much like a wedding. A wedding before God really is a simple thing. The white dress, the bridal party, the flowers - all are fabulous things - and I recommend you have them - but they really don't matter. The essential ingredients of a marriage are few and simple. Likewise with betrothal. And Katie & I had a very simple betrothal.
So what are the essential defining characteristics of betrothal?
Well - time is very short.
So forgive me for making an ultra uber summary.
You really were supposed to look up those verses I gave in the last blog post and ask intelligent questions and figure it out for yourself.
e.g. why on earth does Gabriel when speaking to Joseph, refer to Mary as Joseph's wife, before they were married?
But, back to the rushed summary. Oh - and I expect you to be shocked and horrified by this summary. If you'd gone to the Scriptures and figured it out yourself, you could have directed your shock and horror some other direction. But since I don't have time to graciously reveal the extensive topic to you, and since I want to answer the question, I'm left with having to risk reprisals. Se la vive.
Essential characteristic #1 : Betrothal is AS BINDING AS MARRIAGE. Joseph would have required a divorce to break up with Mary, even though they weren't yet married!
Essential characteristic #2 : Betrothal is AS PROTECTED AS MARRIAGE. Note in the Deuteronomy passage that if a betrothed woman has sex with some other guy, that is deemed adultery, punishable by death.
Essential characteristic #3 : Betrothal is a committed relationship where a guy & a girl are definitely going to marry (DV) but have not yet actually married. Traditionally the fella uses this time to prepare financially to begin their new life living together. And that is a wise (but non-essential) tradition.
Essential characteristic #4 : Betrothal becomes marriage at the point that the relationship is consumated. (Re-read the Deuteronomy passage, and note what is conspicuously absent.)
In short then, we can define betrothal as "an unconsummated marriage" or as "an engagement that is as binding as marriage itself". (The latter is slightly technically inaccurate, but doesn't use the big long word "consummated" that might trip some people up.)
So the first question some of you young impatient hormone-pumping lacking-self-control-which-is-a-fruit-of-the-Spirit people are going to ask me is "if betrothal becomes marriage at the point you have sex, then why don't you just rush out and have sex? After all, you're saying it's morally legit for you to do so." Aha. You got the morally legit point correctly. But you obviously have no comprehension of times and seasons. Read Ecclesiastes. There is a time and a season for everything. And betrothal is a time and a season of enjoying getting to know each other even better, before there is a full physical union.
So Katie & I, in timeless betrothal style, are waiting whilst I "prepare a house", and our marriage will be joyously consummated in due time. We are waiting and will wait for our official wedding day.
So boys and girls, there endeth Betrothal 101. We hope you enjoyed the lesson. :o)
P.S. The verses once again : Matthew 1:18-20 and Deuteronomy 22:22-29.
P.P.S. Note that engagement and betrothal are mutually exclusive. By definition, an engagement can be broken without notice, without warning, and without penalty. In contrast, by definition, a betrothal is as binding as marriage. Thus, whilst Katie & I loosely refer to ourselves at times as "engaged", we are actually technically not engaged, but betrothed, and only betrothed.
P.P.P.S. Consequently, if an engaged couple decide "Oh well - we're engaged - we can have sex any time we want anyway", they actually Scripturally fall not under the liberties of a betrothed couple, but under the penalties of two single people who engage in sexual intercourse outside of wedlock. I cannot state it strongly enough - do not use anything I have said here as an excuse for your impatience or lack of self-control before marriage! You are sinning if you, as an engaged couple, engage in sexual intercourse before the wedding. And let me state it one more time - as a betrothed couple, the moral equation is different, but wisdom still demands respect for timing. God has designed that there is a process - a sequence - that a couple will generally have a period of permanent commitment yet unconsummated. This is a good and glorious thing. Learn to enjoy God's timing, instead of spoiling the picture the Master Artist has designed.
Friday, 14 December 2007
Tuesday, 27 November 2007
What is betrothal?
Read Matthew 1:18-20 and Deuteronomy 22:22-29. See anything strange? And anything missing? The diligent student, meditating on these passages, will understand what Biblical betrothal is. I would explain it to you - and likely yet will - but it's a question being asked of me very often these days, now that I am a betrothed man, and I do not have the time to spoon-feed you the answer right now. So if you really care to know, I've given you all the help you need. Read those two passages at least seven times each, and ask the obvious questions, and let the obvious (albeit counter-cultural) answers reshape your thinking.
In Christ,
Jonathan Field
In Christ,
Jonathan Field
Tuesday, 30 October 2007
Principles for us to found our marriage on
More general :
1) The ultimate model of marriage is Jesus Christ and His bride, the Church.
2) The Bible is the ultimate guidebook to marriage and all human affairs. It gives general guidelines applicable in all circumstances, and within those guidelines, God's Spirit helps us use our God-given brain to determine the best course of action for the specific situations we face. Thus, for example, the Bible is not a sex manual, but it provides many principles for interpersonal relationships that guide our thinking and help us make decisions in that and every other aspect of marriage and life.
3) Marriage is designed to be good and fulfilling, spiritually, mentally, emotionally, physically, and sexually. The intended perfection is no longer fully attainable in this disrupted world, but is largely attainable. Striving for maximal attainance of God's design for marriage is worthwhile as it advertises God's love and beauty and it minimises disruption within the marriage relationship.
4) The many pleasures of married life - as with pleasures generally - are best enjoyed in a purposeful and focussed pursuit of God's pleasure. Human pleasure, when made the end-goal of human endeavour, tends to evaporate. Thus, a human's experience of pleasure is highest when encountered during a higher pursuit. Personal pleasure as one's principal goal is a recipe for frustration and dissatisfaction.
5) Growth and learning are of greater value than comfort.
6) God designed marriage to be the ideal environment in which to create eternal souls. We joyfully embrace His design, gladly accepting from His hand the children He will give. This does not mean that we will never use contraceptive measures, but it does mean that we will not use modern culture as a benchmark for making decisions about family size.
7) We embrace God's design for authority and responsibility within marriage. We recognise that God's design of a "help meet" does not create "his jobs vs her jobs" but rather "his jobs and his helper". His helper is particularly well suited to certain jobs, and in general ("as nature teaches") this represents a good and natural division of labour. But we reject the notion that it is always inherently sinful for a woman to undertake certain tasks within the family or for the maintenance of the home, and likewise with the man.
---
More specific :
1) We are not afraid of human disapproval.
2) We actively and continuously solicit the input of older and wiser couples, older and wiser individuals, and wise men and women whose teaching and training is captured in books, videos, or other media.
3) We experiment and try new things and new ways of doing things, and are not afraid of having other humans label us or our efforts as failures.
We expect that not everything we try will "be successful", but we would rather try ten things and find one of great value and the other nine as total failures, than to try nothing at all.
This applies to every aspect of human endeavour, except only where Scriptural guidelines or other evidence make it clear that experimentation is unwise or inappropriate.
4) That said, we undertake risks with advice, and seek to learn from others' experience rather than repeating their mistakes.
We recognise - particularly where life or health are concerned - that many risks are not worth taking.
5) We are lovers of hospitality. Our home is a ministry centre. It is an appropriately-protected haven of rest. But it is also a place into which we frequently invite others to experience the love and fellowship of Christ.
6) We seek a brilliant marriage. We do not naively think we are the first to do so, nor that we will be the first to succeed. Many brilliant marriages have preceded ours - although relatively speaking they are a small fraction of marriages. We seek to identify and learn from other couples with a brilliant marriage.
7) We honour both sets of parents who have gone before us as imperfect humans to whom God has given much grace, and through whom we have learned much of great value.
We forgive them for their many failings and do not use the bad examples they have set before us as an excuse to disdain God's design for marriage, parenting or family life.
We thank them for their responsiveness to God's dealings, and are glad for the many ways and many times they have modelled Christlike love and Christian discipleship.
---
Now the only question left is : who is the other in "us"? Applications, anyone? :o)
On a more serious note than the preceding line, I am interested in your ideas on other principles worth including. I intend this to be the basis of a "founding document" which I and my Mrs (whenever she shows up) can refer to for the rest of our lives.
(P.S. My time is in extremely high demand at present - and has been for a few months now. Consequently - and I wish it were otherwise - some of my blog posts have to be thrown together extremely hurriedly. This is true of at least the last four or so posts. I trust that you still derive great value from them, despite me not having had opportunity to polish them to perfection. Thankyou! :o) )
1) The ultimate model of marriage is Jesus Christ and His bride, the Church.
2) The Bible is the ultimate guidebook to marriage and all human affairs. It gives general guidelines applicable in all circumstances, and within those guidelines, God's Spirit helps us use our God-given brain to determine the best course of action for the specific situations we face. Thus, for example, the Bible is not a sex manual, but it provides many principles for interpersonal relationships that guide our thinking and help us make decisions in that and every other aspect of marriage and life.
3) Marriage is designed to be good and fulfilling, spiritually, mentally, emotionally, physically, and sexually. The intended perfection is no longer fully attainable in this disrupted world, but is largely attainable. Striving for maximal attainance of God's design for marriage is worthwhile as it advertises God's love and beauty and it minimises disruption within the marriage relationship.
4) The many pleasures of married life - as with pleasures generally - are best enjoyed in a purposeful and focussed pursuit of God's pleasure. Human pleasure, when made the end-goal of human endeavour, tends to evaporate. Thus, a human's experience of pleasure is highest when encountered during a higher pursuit. Personal pleasure as one's principal goal is a recipe for frustration and dissatisfaction.
5) Growth and learning are of greater value than comfort.
6) God designed marriage to be the ideal environment in which to create eternal souls. We joyfully embrace His design, gladly accepting from His hand the children He will give. This does not mean that we will never use contraceptive measures, but it does mean that we will not use modern culture as a benchmark for making decisions about family size.
7) We embrace God's design for authority and responsibility within marriage. We recognise that God's design of a "help meet" does not create "his jobs vs her jobs" but rather "his jobs and his helper". His helper is particularly well suited to certain jobs, and in general ("as nature teaches") this represents a good and natural division of labour. But we reject the notion that it is always inherently sinful for a woman to undertake certain tasks within the family or for the maintenance of the home, and likewise with the man.
---
More specific :
1) We are not afraid of human disapproval.
2) We actively and continuously solicit the input of older and wiser couples, older and wiser individuals, and wise men and women whose teaching and training is captured in books, videos, or other media.
3) We experiment and try new things and new ways of doing things, and are not afraid of having other humans label us or our efforts as failures.
We expect that not everything we try will "be successful", but we would rather try ten things and find one of great value and the other nine as total failures, than to try nothing at all.
This applies to every aspect of human endeavour, except only where Scriptural guidelines or other evidence make it clear that experimentation is unwise or inappropriate.
4) That said, we undertake risks with advice, and seek to learn from others' experience rather than repeating their mistakes.
We recognise - particularly where life or health are concerned - that many risks are not worth taking.
5) We are lovers of hospitality. Our home is a ministry centre. It is an appropriately-protected haven of rest. But it is also a place into which we frequently invite others to experience the love and fellowship of Christ.
6) We seek a brilliant marriage. We do not naively think we are the first to do so, nor that we will be the first to succeed. Many brilliant marriages have preceded ours - although relatively speaking they are a small fraction of marriages. We seek to identify and learn from other couples with a brilliant marriage.
7) We honour both sets of parents who have gone before us as imperfect humans to whom God has given much grace, and through whom we have learned much of great value.
We forgive them for their many failings and do not use the bad examples they have set before us as an excuse to disdain God's design for marriage, parenting or family life.
We thank them for their responsiveness to God's dealings, and are glad for the many ways and many times they have modelled Christlike love and Christian discipleship.
---
Now the only question left is : who is the other in "us"? Applications, anyone? :o)
On a more serious note than the preceding line, I am interested in your ideas on other principles worth including. I intend this to be the basis of a "founding document" which I and my Mrs (whenever she shows up) can refer to for the rest of our lives.
(P.S. My time is in extremely high demand at present - and has been for a few months now. Consequently - and I wish it were otherwise - some of my blog posts have to be thrown together extremely hurriedly. This is true of at least the last four or so posts. I trust that you still derive great value from them, despite me not having had opportunity to polish them to perfection. Thankyou! :o) )
Monday, 1 October 2007
What Is Reality?
A friend of mine recently asked "What is reality?" I whipped-up the following comments, then thought you might find them interesting too...
According to Buddhism, reality is that nothing is real, except for the ultimate oneness in which there is no consciousness and no distinction.
According to Islam, reality is that which Allah decrees. All that is or ever will be is exactly what Allah has always wanted. Even the infidels are infidels because Allah wanted infidels and so he created them. And thus Allah also wanted their perpetual torture in hell, and created both hell and infidels expressly for that purpose. Thus, reality is an illusion, in which we naively think we are actors in the play, when we are in fact the audience and our bodies run a pre-determined course over which we have no control.
According to Atheism, reality is anything we can consistently measure in a laboratory. But this creates huge problems for them in the realm of philosophy, for logic itself cannot be tested in the lab. And who is to say these same scientists aren't unwittingly in a virtual Matrix-esque world and thus all they are convinced is reality is but a fiction?
According to Marxism, reality is The Dialectic. Oppression, struggle and violence are reality. Life is cruel and cruel is ultimately good.
According to some hyper-zealous Pentecostals (whom I can criticise because I am a Pentecostal), reality is the "spiritual realm", and this physical world is a mere illusion.
According to Jesus, reality is that which exists. This includes that which we measure in the lab, and includes powers that exist outside the dimensions with which we are most familiar, and includes logic and love, joy and suffering, and everything else. Thus, when we are feeling pain, we cannot console ourself in the "knowledge" that life, including pain, is just a bothersome illusion that will disappear soon enough. We must rather acknowledge the reality of the pain and ask the next question : why this reality and what to do about it.
(As a side note, materialistic assumptions about "reality" are really quite hilarious. There is absolutely no way for a materialist to prove that there are not other random universes "out there" which operate on completely different laws and paradigms and have no connection and no capacity to connect to our own universe. Thus, the materialist's dogmatism that "matter and energy are all that is" is meaningless stupidity. Even if - as they clearly hope - there is no God, there can still be vastly more in existence than materialists acknowledge. And so materialism is a matter of chanting a nursery rhyme to yourself over and over until you're sure you believe it, instead of actually being a philosophically or scientifically defensible view. The moment a materialist can prove that this universe is the only universe that can possibly ever exist or have existed, and that there is absolutely no way that paradigms and powers unknown to our universe and impossible in our universe could exist in other universes, then materialism will be valid. But of course, such proof of the non-existence of other universes and other laws and powers in those universes, or even of a super-universe of which our own is just a tiny part, such proof is impossible to create, and thus dogmatic materialists (including most Atheists) are squeezing their eyes tightly shut and reciting a mantra instead of believing anything intelligent.)
Friday, 7 September 2007
Centrefold Lounge
I get a lot of cold-calls on my telephone. Sometimes three or four in a single day. But never one like this before.
2:15pm Phone rings. I answer. "Hello, can I help you?"
A young woman on the other end says "Hello, I'm calling from Centrefold Lounge and we have a free membership for Relative Systems. Can I confirm, is this Relative Systems?"
"Yes it is" I say, but she'd kinda mumbled her company name and all I really heard was "lounge", so I asked "What did you say your company name is again?"
"Centrefold Lounge", she said, clearly this time.
"Centrefold Lounge. So why would you be giving a free membership to my company? I mean, I have no idea what benefit it would be. Sell me on it." I say. My brain is stuck on the word "lounge". I'm thinking maybe it's like a cafe where business owners can meet and talk business. But something in the back of my brain is ticking over and saying something's not quite right here. So even as I ask her what the lounge is about and why I'd care about this free membership, I'm firing up Google and typing in "Centrefold Lounge".
First match is the company in question. Click. Oh. I'm slow, but I get there. "Centrefold". I should have guessed. Staring at me from the website is a woman in immodest attire, to put it gently.
This has only taken a few seconds, and the girl on the other end hasn't begun to answer my question yet. And so I jump in.
"Ah, I've found the website." <slight pause as I thought about how to say this to her> "You're obviously a woman. I'm surprised you're supporting something that encourages men to treat women like sex objects." There was no hardness in my voice. I spoke it as a simple matter of fact. I didn't tell her she was doing the wrong thing, or that the company would go to hell, or that they're all sluts, or anything like that. I simply made that one statement, sincerely hoping to engage her conscience instead of triggering a hate reaction on her part.
It's amazing the power of a few words.
In a broken, crackling voice, she managed to reply "It's just a job." But it was hard for her to say it. I had touched a nerve. Clearly she recognised it was not a business worthy of her support.
"I understand that. But maybe you should think about getting a job supporting something worth supporting." Again, it was not said with any antagonism. I spoke a sincere and direct word to her heart, encouraging her to believe that she can and should make a difference by where she chooses to work. She hurriedly mumbled a few words and hung up.
---
1) Meet people where they're at, but help them see where they could be. Are you painting a vision of hope for the sightless around you, or are you confirming what everyone else around them is telling them, that they may as well just run with the crowd? If I'd responded angrily to this woman or simply hung up, I would never have planted that seed in her mind that she can make a difference. How can you be less of a reactionary and more of a proactive seed-planter in your daily life?
2) Is your job "just a job", or are you recognising that your tiny bit of power can be exercised to make a difference? If we all do our tiny bit, the world will be a better place.
3) Guys, when you're invited to lust, how deep is your passion for purity? Join The Fight. Breakaway from the crowd. Find freedom in Christ. For more information on ways to say yes to purity and no to lust, drop me a line, or to suggest good resources I can recommend to others, add a comment or drop me a line. This world will forever invite you to sin. If your gameplan relies solely on avoiding temptation, you will fail. Learn how to face temptation and win. Others have done it. So can you.
2:15pm Phone rings. I answer. "Hello, can I help you?"
A young woman on the other end says "Hello, I'm calling from Centrefold Lounge and we have a free membership for Relative Systems. Can I confirm, is this Relative Systems?"
"Yes it is" I say, but she'd kinda mumbled her company name and all I really heard was "lounge", so I asked "What did you say your company name is again?"
"Centrefold Lounge", she said, clearly this time.
"Centrefold Lounge. So why would you be giving a free membership to my company? I mean, I have no idea what benefit it would be. Sell me on it." I say. My brain is stuck on the word "lounge". I'm thinking maybe it's like a cafe where business owners can meet and talk business. But something in the back of my brain is ticking over and saying something's not quite right here. So even as I ask her what the lounge is about and why I'd care about this free membership, I'm firing up Google and typing in "Centrefold Lounge".
First match is the company in question. Click. Oh. I'm slow, but I get there. "Centrefold". I should have guessed. Staring at me from the website is a woman in immodest attire, to put it gently.
This has only taken a few seconds, and the girl on the other end hasn't begun to answer my question yet. And so I jump in.
"Ah, I've found the website." <slight pause as I thought about how to say this to her> "You're obviously a woman. I'm surprised you're supporting something that encourages men to treat women like sex objects." There was no hardness in my voice. I spoke it as a simple matter of fact. I didn't tell her she was doing the wrong thing, or that the company would go to hell, or that they're all sluts, or anything like that. I simply made that one statement, sincerely hoping to engage her conscience instead of triggering a hate reaction on her part.
It's amazing the power of a few words.
In a broken, crackling voice, she managed to reply "It's just a job." But it was hard for her to say it. I had touched a nerve. Clearly she recognised it was not a business worthy of her support.
"I understand that. But maybe you should think about getting a job supporting something worth supporting." Again, it was not said with any antagonism. I spoke a sincere and direct word to her heart, encouraging her to believe that she can and should make a difference by where she chooses to work. She hurriedly mumbled a few words and hung up.
---
1) Meet people where they're at, but help them see where they could be. Are you painting a vision of hope for the sightless around you, or are you confirming what everyone else around them is telling them, that they may as well just run with the crowd? If I'd responded angrily to this woman or simply hung up, I would never have planted that seed in her mind that she can make a difference. How can you be less of a reactionary and more of a proactive seed-planter in your daily life?
2) Is your job "just a job", or are you recognising that your tiny bit of power can be exercised to make a difference? If we all do our tiny bit, the world will be a better place.
3) Guys, when you're invited to lust, how deep is your passion for purity? Join The Fight. Breakaway from the crowd. Find freedom in Christ. For more information on ways to say yes to purity and no to lust, drop me a line, or to suggest good resources I can recommend to others, add a comment or drop me a line. This world will forever invite you to sin. If your gameplan relies solely on avoiding temptation, you will fail. Learn how to face temptation and win. Others have done it. So can you.
Wednesday, 29 August 2007
Young Man, Arise!
(Note : to help you with the rhythm, the first letter of the main beat syllables is emphasized.)
Must we wait 'til we're twenty-eight to do a thing of worth?
Is youth a time of hapless wont, frivolity and mirth?
Was nothing great ordained for us, awaiting us from birth?
Come choose with me a man to be and stem the fatal dearth.
Rise up and take your place as men. Stand tall and strong and proud.
Embrace the life God made for you - stand out above the crowd.
Instead of fear and aimlessness, don't let yourself be cowed.
Where you have found the Truth and Life, proclaim it out aloud.
A waiting world now needs your voice. Now's not the time to hide.
Equip yourself. Begin to stand, and stem the rising tide.
Learn from those who've gone before, then take the saddle. Ride!
And live your life in sacrifice like He who came and died.
There is a future far away but soon it will be here.
Are you merely marking time or helping it draw near?
The world we know will quickly fade, and all we hold as dear.
Are you merely passeng'ring ....... or will you help us now to steer?
Society expects of you ten years of pointless fun.
I don't know why they think that this appeals to anyone!
We're made for better things than this. Gird up your loins and run!
And join with me, come eagerly pursue the Risen Son.
Christ is the only pilot who can guide us through the night.
Our society is black and dark - we need His brilliant light.
He's calling now, inviting you to walk by faith not sight.
So come around and take the ground and be the Lord's delight.
There cannot be an answer where the Truth cannot be found,
So society now needs you to declare the solid Ground.
There is a Rock, and all that's built thereon is safe and sound.
So lift the Truth of Jesus high and let it be renowned.
Must we wait 'til we're twenty-eight to do a thing of worth?
Is youth a time of hapless wont, frivolity and mirth?
Was nothing great ordained for us, awaiting us from birth?
Come choose with me a man to be and stem the fatal dearth.
Rise up and take your place as men. Stand tall and strong and proud.
Embrace the life God made for you - stand out above the crowd.
Instead of fear and aimlessness, don't let yourself be cowed.
Where you have found the Truth and Life, proclaim it out aloud.
A waiting world now needs your voice. Now's not the time to hide.
Equip yourself. Begin to stand, and stem the rising tide.
Learn from those who've gone before, then take the saddle. Ride!
And live your life in sacrifice like He who came and died.
There is a future far away but soon it will be here.
Are you merely marking time or helping it draw near?
The world we know will quickly fade, and all we hold as dear.
Are you merely passeng'ring ....... or will you help us now to steer?
Society expects of you ten years of pointless fun.
I don't know why they think that this appeals to anyone!
We're made for better things than this. Gird up your loins and run!
And join with me, come eagerly pursue the Risen Son.
Christ is the only pilot who can guide us through the night.
Our society is black and dark - we need His brilliant light.
He's calling now, inviting you to walk by faith not sight.
So come around and take the ground and be the Lord's delight.
There cannot be an answer where the Truth cannot be found,
So society now needs you to declare the solid Ground.
There is a Rock, and all that's built thereon is safe and sound.
So lift the Truth of Jesus high and let it be renowned.
The Adult Manifesto
Society is confused. On the one hand, it worships youth as the apex of life. On the other, it disdains it, saying nothing of lasting worth is done by those therein.
A rising tide of teenagers reject this fallacy. Here, for the sake of all who sense a call to greatness beyond the mediocrity society expects, I have penned The Adult Manifesto. This is not a document for those recognised by society as adults. This is a document for those molley-coddled by society, disparagingly labelled "teenagers", deemed incompetent, insignificant, and merely passing time.
1) The first and foremost aspect of adulthood is that our word means something. We take responsibility to make our yes mean yes and our no mean no. We recognise that western society has promoted many wimps and liars to adulthood, and so we will not naively take all others at their word. But our word carries weight, for we mean what we say and we say what we mean, and we stick to our commitments when the going gets tough.
2) We reject the notion that random Evolutionary forces demand of us a decade of uncertainty, indecisiveness and frivolity. We have powerful, purposeful and significant things to accomplish for our world and our communities, whether those recognised as adults will aid us or not.
3) We recognise our self-worth before God and do not need the approval of others young or old. We are glad for approval when it comes from others we respect, but we do not rely on their approval or the approval of any humans for our sense of self worth.
4) We derive pleasure and deep satisfaction from knowing that our contribution to society is meaningful and significant. Our life is worth more than pointless binge drinking each weekend.
5) We recognise our minds as creative and powerful. Mindless entertainment may be amusing from time to time, but does not define us or our way of life.
6) We believe that adulthood is not a function of sexual maturity nor the mere passage of time, but is a calling before God. We actively embrace that calling with delight. Borrowing from traditional cultures which have gone before, we recognise that a male may attain adulthood as young as thirteen years of age.
7) We recognise that responsibility is a powerful gift. There can be no power to benefit others without a corresponding power to harm. We are glad to have our skills developed and our capacities stretched and increased as we exercise increasing responsibility for the benefit of those around us.
8) We reject the notion that new is inherently better than old. We actively solicit the input of our seniors and those who have gone before, not because their perspective is necessarily right, but because we can learn much from their experience and avoid their mistakes. We are doomed to repeat past follies if we do not learn anything from those who have gone before.
9) We recognise the concept of authority as having a legitimate place in the organisation of societies. We do not recognise all purported authorities, but we do recognise that there are legitimate authorities, necessary for the good of society, and we willingly submit ourselves to their jurisdiction. We are not revolutionaries seeking to overthrow society, but rather strategic visionaries seeking to repair it's gaping holes.
A rising tide of teenagers reject this fallacy. Here, for the sake of all who sense a call to greatness beyond the mediocrity society expects, I have penned The Adult Manifesto. This is not a document for those recognised by society as adults. This is a document for those molley-coddled by society, disparagingly labelled "teenagers", deemed incompetent, insignificant, and merely passing time.
The Adult Manifesto
1) The first and foremost aspect of adulthood is that our word means something. We take responsibility to make our yes mean yes and our no mean no. We recognise that western society has promoted many wimps and liars to adulthood, and so we will not naively take all others at their word. But our word carries weight, for we mean what we say and we say what we mean, and we stick to our commitments when the going gets tough.
2) We reject the notion that random Evolutionary forces demand of us a decade of uncertainty, indecisiveness and frivolity. We have powerful, purposeful and significant things to accomplish for our world and our communities, whether those recognised as adults will aid us or not.
3) We recognise our self-worth before God and do not need the approval of others young or old. We are glad for approval when it comes from others we respect, but we do not rely on their approval or the approval of any humans for our sense of self worth.
4) We derive pleasure and deep satisfaction from knowing that our contribution to society is meaningful and significant. Our life is worth more than pointless binge drinking each weekend.
5) We recognise our minds as creative and powerful. Mindless entertainment may be amusing from time to time, but does not define us or our way of life.
6) We believe that adulthood is not a function of sexual maturity nor the mere passage of time, but is a calling before God. We actively embrace that calling with delight. Borrowing from traditional cultures which have gone before, we recognise that a male may attain adulthood as young as thirteen years of age.
7) We recognise that responsibility is a powerful gift. There can be no power to benefit others without a corresponding power to harm. We are glad to have our skills developed and our capacities stretched and increased as we exercise increasing responsibility for the benefit of those around us.
8) We reject the notion that new is inherently better than old. We actively solicit the input of our seniors and those who have gone before, not because their perspective is necessarily right, but because we can learn much from their experience and avoid their mistakes. We are doomed to repeat past follies if we do not learn anything from those who have gone before.
9) We recognise the concept of authority as having a legitimate place in the organisation of societies. We do not recognise all purported authorities, but we do recognise that there are legitimate authorities, necessary for the good of society, and we willingly submit ourselves to their jurisdiction. We are not revolutionaries seeking to overthrow society, but rather strategic visionaries seeking to repair it's gaping holes.
Friday, 27 July 2007
Amazing Grace, the movie
Last night I had the privilege - and I say privilege - of watching "Amazing Grace" on it's opening night in Australia cinemas.
This reviewer said it best :
And be warned : some complain about the swearing in the movie. Rightly or wrongly, I didn't have an issue with it. That's another topic. But if you have zero tolerance for swearing, that's another reason to consider giving the movie the flick.
Overall? I loved the movie and was inspired to see how "ordinary people" can make extraordinary changes for the better. But I must recommend it with a modicum of caution.
(And yes, my full report on Hillsong is a-comin', just it's takin' a while. Thanks for your patience. :o) )
This reviewer said it best :
It's very rare to find a historic movie long on accuracy and short on titillation, yet still beautiful to watch. We always do research after seeing such a movie, and this one stands out for its accuracy. One reviewer described it as dull, but in a way that makes it all the more appealing, as the work done by people like Wilberforce is, in real life, not dramatically enhanced by orchestration or noble recognition. It makes his effort through long years of perseverance an example of what it's really like to campaign for justice in a fallen world.And whilst it was a great movie and I shall almost certainly watch it again, I also find myself agreeing with at least one of the nay-sayers :
I was especially impressed that the director did not overplay Wilberforce's romantic relationship with his wife. They actually did marry two weeks after meeting, and I've no doubt that their relationship gave him a great deal of encouragement to continue with what had to be an extremely discouraging campaign.
I expected to cry at this movie, but the director did not stoop to portraying horrify re-enactments of slaves being tortured and killed. We got the message in the same way the British people got it - through the testimony of people who had seen or experienced it. Imagine trying to convince the world of atrocities without CNN!
- fayrho223 on Yahoo Movies
I do not recommend this movie. Yes, it was a wonderfully done historical movie, and William Wilberforce's story is an excellent one to study and to be an inspiration to us of living our convictions. And that is the very reason I cannot recommend this movie. I felt like we were morally violated, especially our boys. There were extended periods in which the audience was staring into an extremely low-cut busty female from above; basically, you saw most of her breasts for several fairly lengthy periods as she and Wilberforce conversed.To state it bluntly, the lead actress was very sexy. The problem is, she's not my wife, so why should I need to be exposed to her sexiness? And whilst I won't say "don't watch this movie" on that basis alone, I must urge caution, and I am reconsidering whether I will buy a copy for my own library. (Before watching it, I had assumed I definitely would.)
This was not a situation like a mall where Christians can look away from immodest images. It was a movie where you are a captive audience and you are there for the sole purpose of staring at the screen for entertainment. I walked out of the movie, but there were many Christians at that showing who chose to do the very thing that Wilberforce so passionately believed was wrong -- staying and accepting whatever the culture tolerates, whether or not it is biblical.
I realize that some Christians would say that this is tame compared to all the other stuff that's out there. But, we don't hold 'other stuff' as our standard of comparison because all that does is constantly lower the bar of morality. For that same reason, we don't accept sexual content in the name of 'historical or cultural accuracy.' Watching historically accurate sexual images doesn't suddenly make it 'pure .... of good repute ... worthy of praise.' (Phil. 4:8)
- Barb on ChristianAnswers.net
And be warned : some complain about the swearing in the movie. Rightly or wrongly, I didn't have an issue with it. That's another topic. But if you have zero tolerance for swearing, that's another reason to consider giving the movie the flick.
Overall? I loved the movie and was inspired to see how "ordinary people" can make extraordinary changes for the better. But I must recommend it with a modicum of caution.
(And yes, my full report on Hillsong is a-comin', just it's takin' a while. Thanks for your patience. :o) )
Tuesday, 3 July 2007
Hillsong 2007, Tuesday arvo
Hillsong 2007, Tuesday arvo
What an awesome conference this has been so far! And it's only just begun!
I came uncertain and marginally skeptical, but so far I've been blown away.
Gary Skinner was the opening speaker on Monday night, with a stirring presentation on effective community outreach, as demonstrated in the Waitoto community in Uganda. The key to community transformation is simply to start somewhere and let it grow.
John Bevere spoke this morning, with the best and clearest challenge to humility I've heard in years. The Spirit of God was powerfully in the room, convicting people to change their ways and live in humility, and intimacy with Christ through humility.
Brian Houston gave the second morning talk, and I was amazed as he shared his heart to see a new generation of Christian leaders raised up across this nation. His talk was practical and also filled with simple principles we can take home and apply around us as those of us in the new generation seek to learn from the wisdom of those who have gone before, and those who have gone before help to release us into the fullness of what God has prepared for us.
In the Community Transformation elective, Gary Skinner spoke again, and once again, all I can say is WOW!!! This man has a deep understanding of community transformation through the power of Christ. He listed seven primary spheres of influence. The first four we hear all the time - family, church/religion, government, business/work, and to these he added education, arts/entertainment and the media (newspaper etc). It was AWESOME, as was his initial session last night. If you get a chance to hear him, I HIGHLY RECOMMEND IT.
And the other elective I attended - a panel of folk involved in reaching out to the world around them - was stimulating and inspiring too.
Bring earplugs. :-)
OK, here we go - it's 4:30pm and the second night's sessions are starting now. I'll catch you 'round!
(P.S. In case I never get around to blogging it, you might like to ask me a) why I decided to go to this controversial conference; and b) my position specifically regarding Hillsong music.)
What an awesome conference this has been so far! And it's only just begun!
I came uncertain and marginally skeptical, but so far I've been blown away.
Gary Skinner was the opening speaker on Monday night, with a stirring presentation on effective community outreach, as demonstrated in the Waitoto community in Uganda. The key to community transformation is simply to start somewhere and let it grow.
John Bevere spoke this morning, with the best and clearest challenge to humility I've heard in years. The Spirit of God was powerfully in the room, convicting people to change their ways and live in humility, and intimacy with Christ through humility.
Brian Houston gave the second morning talk, and I was amazed as he shared his heart to see a new generation of Christian leaders raised up across this nation. His talk was practical and also filled with simple principles we can take home and apply around us as those of us in the new generation seek to learn from the wisdom of those who have gone before, and those who have gone before help to release us into the fullness of what God has prepared for us.
In the Community Transformation elective, Gary Skinner spoke again, and once again, all I can say is WOW!!! This man has a deep understanding of community transformation through the power of Christ. He listed seven primary spheres of influence. The first four we hear all the time - family, church/religion, government, business/work, and to these he added education, arts/entertainment and the media (newspaper etc). It was AWESOME, as was his initial session last night. If you get a chance to hear him, I HIGHLY RECOMMEND IT.
And the other elective I attended - a panel of folk involved in reaching out to the world around them - was stimulating and inspiring too.
Bring earplugs. :-)
OK, here we go - it's 4:30pm and the second night's sessions are starting now. I'll catch you 'round!
(P.S. In case I never get around to blogging it, you might like to ask me a) why I decided to go to this controversial conference; and b) my position specifically regarding Hillsong music.)
Sunday, 11 March 2007
Congratulations Australian Skeptics
Congratulations Australian Skeptics! You make Skeptics look like bone-heads.
If I was a Skeptic, I'd be very angry right now with Drs Paul Willis, Alex Ritchie and Ken Smith and their feeble mishandling of a debate with Answers In Genesis (now Creation Ministries International).
I used to think that Skeptics were basically men like me - men who loved reason, men who listened patiently and carefully to opposing views, even if ultimately disagreeing, and men who liked to focus on the issues instead of playing dodgeball. But if these three doctors were the best the Australian Skeptics could muster, my respect for the lot of them is substantially damaged.
The debate : "Did the universe and life evolve, or was it specially created in 6 days?" was held in three rounds and was published in full by the Sydney Morning Herald. To keep the articles relatively short for a newspaper audience, a limit of 1,500 words was placed per side per round. Read the debate for yourself : Round 1, Round 2, Round 3. UPDATE : These links have been pulled off the web! See details and alternate link at the end of this article...
But before you read it, let me warn you...
If you read just the Skeptics' arguments, you'd be convinced the Creationists were grossly misguided and didn't have a fact to stand on.
If you just read the Creationists' arguments, you'd be convinced the Creationists were raising some serious issues and you'd assume the Skeptics must be doing the same.
But when you read the two together, you see, as plain as the daylight sun, that the Skeptics are constantly ignoring the real issues and forever grossly misrepresenting their opponent's views.
If I was trying to be nice, and not hurt their feelings, I might chide them for intellectual dishonesty. At best, perhaps if they really were in a mad rush and had such terrible contempt for the Creationists that they just glanced at the Creationists' arguments instead of reading them properly, they might honestly have thought they did a good job.
But the evidence doesn't support such lenience. Indeed, when the Skeptics repeatedly and consistently misrepresent their opponent's arguments, one doubts their open-mindedness. And when they flatly ignore large portions of their opponent's arguments, pretending the arguments don't even exist, it becomes clear that these Skeptics aren't interested in addressing the issues - they're only interested in saving face. All they care about is making sure that a casual reader glancing inattentively through the debate (and let's face it - many readers will only give it that much attention) will be strongly impressed with the apparent strength of the Skeptics' position. It's all bluff and bravado. "If we sound confident and keep saying the Creationists don't have a leg to stand on, we'll minimise the damage that would be caused if people checked out the Creationists' claims for themselves." Wow! And these are the best the Australian Skeptics can muster.
I really don't want to dwell on Skeptic stupidity, but some concrete examples for those who won't bother reading the debate for themselves (in no particular order) :
i) The Skeptics claim that the Creationists don't offer any evidence for a young earth. In fact, the Creationists cite a range of evidence, including hard scientific evidence such as the presence of Carbon 14 inside coal and inside diamonds. Carbon 14 inside diamonds is just one of many things that by itself spells a death-knell to Evolution. The Skeptics ingenious response? Continue to insist that the Creationists haven't offered any evidence! Crikey! Are the Skeptics actually even reading their opponent's arguments, or just skimming for keywords so that inattentive readers won't notice the Skeptics constantly dodging the issues?
ii) The Creationists make a clear and valid point that it is not a debate of "Creationism versus Science", but rather "Creationism versus Materialism, with both appealing to science" (my paraphrase). Some Skeptic, who left his brain at grade school, responds with the preposterous claim that the Creationists are attempting to remove science from the debate. The Creationists never said such a thing, and their references to hard science reveal that just the opposite is the case. There is no way that you can jump to the conclusion the Skeptic did, based on anything in the debate thus far. The only reasonable interpretation? The Skeptics were deliberately and maliciously misrepresenting (in fact, ridiculing) their opponents in an attempt to avoid the real issues.
iii) The Creationists point to the woeful lack of "missing links" (that even Charles Darwin himself expected were Evolution true). "Not a problem!" exclaim the Skeptics, "look at horse and whale Evolution! The evidence is incontrovertible!" Of course, in what is beginning to appear to be a stark contrast to the Skeptics, I am open-minded, and am very eager to know of real "missing links" if they exist. And so of course I clicked through immediately to the link the Skeptics provided to a page on horse evolution. What struck me very quickly is that the majority of these supposed "missing links" were all, in fact, horses. Variations of horses! A horse getting bigger or smaller or stronger or leaner or whatever - what's the big deal? This is variation within existing genetic potential! It's a pity the site didn't have pictures. There was just a mountain of text with "just-so" statements of incontrovertible fact that this evolved into that evolved into the next thing and so on. Nice theory. But all this unequivocable certitude is sounding a lot more like a religious faith than anything else. And then of course when I read further into the third phase of the debate, the Creationists did a nice job of pointing out the paucity of the "whale evolution is incontrovertible" side of things that the Skeptics said in a just-so fashion earlier in the debate. [UPDATE : See for example The non-evolution of the horse]
iv) The Skeptics claimed a few times that "Creationism is not testable and is not falsifiable, and thus is not scientific" (paraphrase), despite the Creationists mounting a superb demonstration of the stupidity of that claim. In fact, the Skeptics repeated this "point" in their closing arguments in phase 3, without bothering to respond to the Creationists' valid criticism of the point! Just one more thing which leads me to believe the Skeptics either a) weren't even reading the Creationists' arguments; or much more likely b) were deliberately and maliciously intent on misrepresenting their opponents. (If you think I'm being too harsh, take half an hour and carefully read the three pages of debate for yourself!)
I could go on.
My issue is not that the Skeptics disagree with Creationism. My issue is not that they think they have evidence to support their beliefs. My issue is not that they are haughty and arrogant (although the ones in this debate most certainly are!). My issue isn't even that they derisively dismiss almost everything the Creationists have to say, without seeming to pause long enough to even understand what they're dismissing. All of the proceeding could be done as an honest mistake - albeit an ugly mistake.
Until today (when I read this debate) I had thought many times of going along to a Skeptics meeting and hearing what they have to say. Doing them the justice of treating them like rational men who may have something of value to contribute.
But illusions of fairness and impartial open-mindedness have been stripped away. The Australian Skeptics have proven themselves willing to say anything they want, even directly in the face of the evidence, grossly misrepresenting their opponents and ignoring serious claims, as if bravado was the only measure of truth.
Congratulations, Australian Skeptics. You have lost my respect.
---
UPDATE Sun 10-Jun-2007 : Ladies and gentlemen, the game continues! The Sydney Morning Herald website has removed it's copy of the debate! One wonders if they did so under pressure from Skeptics, who are intent on ensuring only their side of the story is told. For example, Google for "did the universe and life evolve, or was it". Include the quote marks. Then click the "show all results" link. What do you notice? A HUGE number of matches on Skeptic websites. Go to the websites and what do you find? The Skeptics have published copies of their side of the debate, instead of publishing the debate in full. They're terrified of looking like morons if both sides of the debate were presented side-by-side.
I have been criticised for the strong language I have used to describe the actions of the Skeptics in regards to this debate. But an unbiased reading of both sides of the debate show the Skeptics to be consistently and deliberately misrepresenting almost everything they can. They're interested in tactics, not truth.
But enough pondering Skeptic censorship and their hatred of well-reasoned free speech that disagrees with their position. At least CMI, in contrast to the Skeptics, has been kind enough to present both sides of the debate, and they've made it available in PDFhere .
If I was a Skeptic, I'd be very angry right now with Drs Paul Willis, Alex Ritchie and Ken Smith and their feeble mishandling of a debate with Answers In Genesis (now Creation Ministries International).
I used to think that Skeptics were basically men like me - men who loved reason, men who listened patiently and carefully to opposing views, even if ultimately disagreeing, and men who liked to focus on the issues instead of playing dodgeball. But if these three doctors were the best the Australian Skeptics could muster, my respect for the lot of them is substantially damaged.
The debate : "Did the universe and life evolve, or was it specially created in 6 days?" was held in three rounds and was published in full by the Sydney Morning Herald. To keep the articles relatively short for a newspaper audience, a limit of 1,500 words was placed per side per round. Read the debate for yourself : Round 1, Round 2, Round 3. UPDATE : These links have been pulled off the web! See details and alternate link at the end of this article...
But before you read it, let me warn you...
If you read just the Skeptics' arguments, you'd be convinced the Creationists were grossly misguided and didn't have a fact to stand on.
If you just read the Creationists' arguments, you'd be convinced the Creationists were raising some serious issues and you'd assume the Skeptics must be doing the same.
But when you read the two together, you see, as plain as the daylight sun, that the Skeptics are constantly ignoring the real issues and forever grossly misrepresenting their opponent's views.
If I was trying to be nice, and not hurt their feelings, I might chide them for intellectual dishonesty. At best, perhaps if they really were in a mad rush and had such terrible contempt for the Creationists that they just glanced at the Creationists' arguments instead of reading them properly, they might honestly have thought they did a good job.
But the evidence doesn't support such lenience. Indeed, when the Skeptics repeatedly and consistently misrepresent their opponent's arguments, one doubts their open-mindedness. And when they flatly ignore large portions of their opponent's arguments, pretending the arguments don't even exist, it becomes clear that these Skeptics aren't interested in addressing the issues - they're only interested in saving face. All they care about is making sure that a casual reader glancing inattentively through the debate (and let's face it - many readers will only give it that much attention) will be strongly impressed with the apparent strength of the Skeptics' position. It's all bluff and bravado. "If we sound confident and keep saying the Creationists don't have a leg to stand on, we'll minimise the damage that would be caused if people checked out the Creationists' claims for themselves." Wow! And these are the best the Australian Skeptics can muster.
I really don't want to dwell on Skeptic stupidity, but some concrete examples for those who won't bother reading the debate for themselves (in no particular order) :
i) The Skeptics claim that the Creationists don't offer any evidence for a young earth. In fact, the Creationists cite a range of evidence, including hard scientific evidence such as the presence of Carbon 14 inside coal and inside diamonds. Carbon 14 inside diamonds is just one of many things that by itself spells a death-knell to Evolution. The Skeptics ingenious response? Continue to insist that the Creationists haven't offered any evidence! Crikey! Are the Skeptics actually even reading their opponent's arguments, or just skimming for keywords so that inattentive readers won't notice the Skeptics constantly dodging the issues?
ii) The Creationists make a clear and valid point that it is not a debate of "Creationism versus Science", but rather "Creationism versus Materialism, with both appealing to science" (my paraphrase). Some Skeptic, who left his brain at grade school, responds with the preposterous claim that the Creationists are attempting to remove science from the debate. The Creationists never said such a thing, and their references to hard science reveal that just the opposite is the case. There is no way that you can jump to the conclusion the Skeptic did, based on anything in the debate thus far. The only reasonable interpretation? The Skeptics were deliberately and maliciously misrepresenting (in fact, ridiculing) their opponents in an attempt to avoid the real issues.
iii) The Creationists point to the woeful lack of "missing links" (that even Charles Darwin himself expected were Evolution true). "Not a problem!" exclaim the Skeptics, "look at horse and whale Evolution! The evidence is incontrovertible!" Of course, in what is beginning to appear to be a stark contrast to the Skeptics, I am open-minded, and am very eager to know of real "missing links" if they exist. And so of course I clicked through immediately to the link the Skeptics provided to a page on horse evolution. What struck me very quickly is that the majority of these supposed "missing links" were all, in fact, horses. Variations of horses! A horse getting bigger or smaller or stronger or leaner or whatever - what's the big deal? This is variation within existing genetic potential! It's a pity the site didn't have pictures. There was just a mountain of text with "just-so" statements of incontrovertible fact that this evolved into that evolved into the next thing and so on. Nice theory. But all this unequivocable certitude is sounding a lot more like a religious faith than anything else. And then of course when I read further into the third phase of the debate, the Creationists did a nice job of pointing out the paucity of the "whale evolution is incontrovertible" side of things that the Skeptics said in a just-so fashion earlier in the debate. [UPDATE : See for example The non-evolution of the horse]
iv) The Skeptics claimed a few times that "Creationism is not testable and is not falsifiable, and thus is not scientific" (paraphrase), despite the Creationists mounting a superb demonstration of the stupidity of that claim. In fact, the Skeptics repeated this "point" in their closing arguments in phase 3, without bothering to respond to the Creationists' valid criticism of the point! Just one more thing which leads me to believe the Skeptics either a) weren't even reading the Creationists' arguments; or much more likely b) were deliberately and maliciously intent on misrepresenting their opponents. (If you think I'm being too harsh, take half an hour and carefully read the three pages of debate for yourself!)
I could go on.
My issue is not that the Skeptics disagree with Creationism. My issue is not that they think they have evidence to support their beliefs. My issue is not that they are haughty and arrogant (although the ones in this debate most certainly are!). My issue isn't even that they derisively dismiss almost everything the Creationists have to say, without seeming to pause long enough to even understand what they're dismissing. All of the proceeding could be done as an honest mistake - albeit an ugly mistake.
Until today (when I read this debate) I had thought many times of going along to a Skeptics meeting and hearing what they have to say. Doing them the justice of treating them like rational men who may have something of value to contribute.
But illusions of fairness and impartial open-mindedness have been stripped away. The Australian Skeptics have proven themselves willing to say anything they want, even directly in the face of the evidence, grossly misrepresenting their opponents and ignoring serious claims, as if bravado was the only measure of truth.
Congratulations, Australian Skeptics. You have lost my respect.
---
UPDATE Sun 10-Jun-2007 : Ladies and gentlemen, the game continues! The Sydney Morning Herald website has removed it's copy of the debate! One wonders if they did so under pressure from Skeptics, who are intent on ensuring only their side of the story is told. For example, Google for "did the universe and life evolve, or was it". Include the quote marks. Then click the "show all results" link. What do you notice? A HUGE number of matches on Skeptic websites. Go to the websites and what do you find? The Skeptics have published copies of their side of the debate, instead of publishing the debate in full. They're terrified of looking like morons if both sides of the debate were presented side-by-side.
I have been criticised for the strong language I have used to describe the actions of the Skeptics in regards to this debate. But an unbiased reading of both sides of the debate show the Skeptics to be consistently and deliberately misrepresenting almost everything they can. They're interested in tactics, not truth.
But enough pondering Skeptic censorship and their hatred of well-reasoned free speech that disagrees with their position. At least CMI, in contrast to the Skeptics, has been kind enough to present both sides of the debate, and they've made it available in PDF
Good Slavery, Bad Slavery
There's a lot of talk about slavery going on right now, and many Christians are campaigning (and many Christians have very successfully campaigned in the past) against slavery.
But in our zeal for righteousness, let's not be completely Biblically illiterate. Yes, pretty much everything we know as modern slavery is a sinful practice condemned in the Bible (and punishable by death to the slave traders).
But did you know that there was a Biblically-prescribed form of slavery, very different to anything we've seen in recent centuries, that resulted in dignified labour and a faithful slave's inevitable rise in social status? Wow! Imagine a welfare program that permanently improved the social status of it's recipients! I suppose we shall have to find some word other than "slavery" for it. In practice, it was a fixed-term employment contract, at the end of which, the 'slave' would be given a share in the profits he brought to his 'master'! Wow! Almost sounds like some of the sophisticated employee-reward-schemes used in the corporate world! :o) What's more, it offered guaranteed employment.
I could go on and on about the God-given scheme of "slavehood" and it's benefits and peculiarities, but for now, I just want to remind you that it exists. With the superb movie "Wilberforce" hitting our screens this year (I for one am waiting excitedly for it to hit Australian shores!), and for those of us with a commitment to thinking Biblically not just pseudo-Christianly on every topic, let's not fall into the trap of denouncing all forms of slavery as inherently evil.
However, since most of us don't have a clue what the Biblical version of "slavery" looks like, let me mention a few stark contrasts from the sinful slave trade that pervaded England and the USA :
Under God's law, kidnapping was a capital offence. Let me spell it out : kidnap someone, you die. Biblical slavery was an honourable institution to help the destitute get back on their feet financially. The guaranteed income was so attractive that many voluntarily spent time as a slave, without financial necessity forcing them to do so. In contrast, the English and U.S. slave trades were fueled by mass kidnappings.
Furthermore, detaining a kidnappee was a capital offence. You couldn't be holding someone against their will and claim "well I wasn't the one who actually kidnapped them, therefore I don't deserve as harsh a penalty". No, under Biblical law, the kidnapper, and anyone found participating in the kidnapping by detaining the kidnappee, are all guilty of a capital crime. England and the U.S.A. could not simply turn a blind eye to the source of these slaves and say "Well, we don't actually do the kidnapping so it's irrelevant where these slaves came from".
But if a person voluntarily sells themselves into slavery, and assuming the slave-owner is fulfiling his God-given duties of care towards his slaves, nothing inherently sinful has been done. So whilst the modern slave-trades are thoroughly evil, let's not naively fall into the trap of labeling everything that looks like slavery a sin.
Recommended links :
o Anti-slavery activist William Wilberforce: Christian hero by Jonathan Sarfati.
o Zach Hunter: Fighting Modern Day Slavery - Awesome! Zach is 15 years old, and is fighting the remnants of slavery that are alive and well today.
But in our zeal for righteousness, let's not be completely Biblically illiterate. Yes, pretty much everything we know as modern slavery is a sinful practice condemned in the Bible (and punishable by death to the slave traders).
But did you know that there was a Biblically-prescribed form of slavery, very different to anything we've seen in recent centuries, that resulted in dignified labour and a faithful slave's inevitable rise in social status? Wow! Imagine a welfare program that permanently improved the social status of it's recipients! I suppose we shall have to find some word other than "slavery" for it. In practice, it was a fixed-term employment contract, at the end of which, the 'slave' would be given a share in the profits he brought to his 'master'! Wow! Almost sounds like some of the sophisticated employee-reward-schemes used in the corporate world! :o) What's more, it offered guaranteed employment.
I could go on and on about the God-given scheme of "slavehood" and it's benefits and peculiarities, but for now, I just want to remind you that it exists. With the superb movie "Wilberforce" hitting our screens this year (I for one am waiting excitedly for it to hit Australian shores!), and for those of us with a commitment to thinking Biblically not just pseudo-Christianly on every topic, let's not fall into the trap of denouncing all forms of slavery as inherently evil.
However, since most of us don't have a clue what the Biblical version of "slavery" looks like, let me mention a few stark contrasts from the sinful slave trade that pervaded England and the USA :
Under God's law, kidnapping was a capital offence. Let me spell it out : kidnap someone, you die. Biblical slavery was an honourable institution to help the destitute get back on their feet financially. The guaranteed income was so attractive that many voluntarily spent time as a slave, without financial necessity forcing them to do so. In contrast, the English and U.S. slave trades were fueled by mass kidnappings.
Furthermore, detaining a kidnappee was a capital offence. You couldn't be holding someone against their will and claim "well I wasn't the one who actually kidnapped them, therefore I don't deserve as harsh a penalty". No, under Biblical law, the kidnapper, and anyone found participating in the kidnapping by detaining the kidnappee, are all guilty of a capital crime. England and the U.S.A. could not simply turn a blind eye to the source of these slaves and say "Well, we don't actually do the kidnapping so it's irrelevant where these slaves came from".
But if a person voluntarily sells themselves into slavery, and assuming the slave-owner is fulfiling his God-given duties of care towards his slaves, nothing inherently sinful has been done. So whilst the modern slave-trades are thoroughly evil, let's not naively fall into the trap of labeling everything that looks like slavery a sin.
Recommended links :
o Anti-slavery activist William Wilberforce: Christian hero by Jonathan Sarfati.
o Zach Hunter: Fighting Modern Day Slavery - Awesome! Zach is 15 years old, and is fighting the remnants of slavery that are alive and well today.
Where Are All The Men?
Every now & then I write an article which, years later, still brings a smile to my face. This is one of them... (First published on 100thousandyouth.com, Friday 8th April 2005, 5:25pm EST)
UPDATE Thu 31-May-2007 : Lightly edited to be more suitable for non-Australian readers.
Where are all the men? Yes, where are all the men? That’s what I began asking myself, oh, I suppose ten years ago.
Where are all the men? No, I don’t just mean “any male who's turned eighteen”. A true man would be a “father”, not just a “dad”, and the makings of a man can be seen – equally well the absence of the makings of a man – in any male long before they were ‘of age’.
What is manhood? Are we chasing a pipe-dream, like the long-promised but ill-defined “revivals” that were to have swept our nation a hundred times by now? I wonder where are all the men, but what am I even looking for? Who can tell me?
I once met a young lass born on the same day as myself – same day, and same year. With such a precious piece of history in common we spent a good deal of time getting to know each the other. Not timid was I, and having thought much on the topic, when asked by this maiden who was I and what did I do, I replied that I was, simply, a man. I further informed her that it was my opinion that I had been a man since my thirteenth birthday, and that our society encourages men to put off manhood for a good many years beyond the time they ought to have claimed it for themselves. She was clearly amused. But did that matter? I was not a man because she bestowed manhood upon me. It was mine to keep.
I hear it all around now – “We need real men!” they say, and little (and not so little) groups of males spring up here and there to, well, be men, I suppose, or at least, so they intend.
But does anybody really know what they’re looking for? And have they realised that it, “it”, the realisation of manhood, may come at the cost of many long-cherished and comfortable ways of living? “Aha! That’s the answer! Comfort! Bah comfort! The essence of the masculine spirit is wild adventure! Get muddy! Go bush! Be uncomfortable! Let us glory in pain and sweat and scars, for therein our manhood is found!”
Or are we just noisy boys throwing sand to the wind and thinking overly grandly of our estate? We enjoy our time outside, but is that all there is? Manhood is outdoor-ism?
Who can tell us? Where are all the men? What is a man? Who can tell us?
Only He who invented manhood can tell us with total certainty what it’s all about.
Sure, many are convinced they've found the answer, but most are guessing, and any success they seem to have comes from the fact that manhood is so poorly understood that almost any change to the modern western idea is an improvement!!!
At the end of the day, God makes us a man or a woman. The first man epitomises God’s plan for manhood – work, creativity, communication, companionship and replication.
The only way you can stand there and say “I am a man” with full confidence and due humility, at all times and in all circumstances, is to realise that it is God who has made you a man, not your parents in giving you an 18th birthday party, not society nor legislation.
“If God says I am, then I am.” This must become the fullest confidence of a man’s life, or else he will always wonder, “Am I man enough?”.
What is a man? Work – he has responsibilities and he bears them. He’s not found making excuses. And when the work needs to be done he’s not lounging around. Words like disciplined, focused, and diligent come to mind, although each of these is a study in itself (and we hasten to add that only in a fuller study would it be apparent that we are not advocating here a man who is always driven and can never rest!).
He has responsibilities. Where did he get them? Some by birth. Some by choice. But regardless, he lets the full penalty of failure fall on himself, and of course works to ensure that failure of responsibility does not occur. Without the acceptance of responsibility, a male will forever remain a boy, hiding behind a finger of blame or hidden by overly protective parents or friends. In either case, he misses the opportunity to grow. By attempting to remove the possibility of failure, he also removes the possibility of success, and necessarily lives a most unfulfilling existence.
Creativity. Not all men will be singers, dancers, sculptors, painters, or poets, but latent in most men and present in all is a God-given capacity to invent, to conceive of things never hitherto seen. This does not define manhood but is a reality of manhood. Those who accept before God that they are a man ought equally to realise God has given me a capacity to create. Adam in the garden chose – invented – names for many dozens or hundreds of animals. “Made in the image of God” – this means we can choose (hence responsibility) and that we can create.
Communication. Man was not made to be alone. He was not even made to be alone with his wife, well, not forever at least. Man had daily fellowship with God, but even from the first it was intended that he and his wife have children, and more men and women would fill the globe.
Man was designed to communicate with other men – and not just the transaction of business. Communication is not a mere tool for getting one’s way or winning an argument. Communication is designed to fill the soul with relief and comfort and happiness, for all parties involved! A whole book could be filled further on this topic (and many books have been) but suffice to say, one who recognises himself as a man before God should seek to communicate with God, with his wife, but also with other men, even if for no other reason that God has so designed him.
Companionship. And here I speak of that most intimate – or so it should be – companionship of a man with his wife. Again, not a mark of all men. Many men choose to live their days without this, and are equally blessed with those who claim the pleasures of companionship for themselves. Equally blessed, I say, but not identically blessed. One has one blessing, the other has a different blessing, but both, I say, are equally blessed.
This is not merely a blessing of sexual pleasure – those unfortunate souls who have entered marriage thinking it little more than a sex-fest have been quickly disappointed – but a blessing of knowing and being known, in the context of which a sexual relationship is invigorating and fulfilling. Of course this one major topic of marriage is so vast as to have dozens of sub topics, each of which has filled a multitude of books, so I touch no further on it here.
Replication. Without a doubt, the most satisfying thing a man can do is impart something of lasting value to another in a younger generation. He may physically father a child. He may invest his hours and energies in training future men and women. From the beginning man was designed to reproduce physically, and along with that, to reproduce philosophically in the training of children.
I have seen dozens of aged men in my time, and I cannot think of a case where wealth or fame is their motivating force, but I can think of dozens of men who now seek opportunities to pour their knowledge and experience into the younger generations, and find therein greater pleasure than any other thing they have done in their days.
In Lebanon I stayed with a most remarkable man of God, whom I will now simply call Suheil. He epitomised everything a man should be. He is in his late fifties, or maybe even early sixties now. One day he said to me, “Jonathan, how could the apostle Paul say ‘Imitate me in the same way that I imitate Christ’? Why do so many of us live afraid that others might imitate us? As for me, I want to live a life where I can say, ‘Imitate me, even as I imitate Christ’. I don’t believe I’m there yet, but I believe I’m getting close.”
Wow! That was exciting for me, to find a man willing to step up to the plate, to take responsibility for his own life and commit to following God’s ways so closely! To be honest, I thought he was already a pretty good role-model, but he obviously felt his own weaknesses much more than I had been aware.
Notwithstanding, could you invite others to imitate you, or would you be embarrassed?
Every man should be seeking to find God’s answers, God’s ways of doing things, to learn wisdom, to have a life so worth the living that they can happily say “Imitate me” and “Taste and see that the Lord is good”. Let your life show that devotion to God is possible. And let it show that such devotion is desirable. And you may well be surprised at the ways and opportunities you get to help impart that wisdom and depth of experience to others.
So where are all the men? I began asking many years ago, and frankly, back then, I doubted there were many. I knew I was one. And I knew a few others. But masses of folk walk past, engaged solely in the pursuit of their own pleasures, not taking responsibility for anything much. I’d visit churches and feel that the youth there hadn’t even thought about what it is to be a man of God – they were just having a good time and that was the main thing.
But every now and then God would delight me by introducing one man here, another man there. Often country folk would strike me with their sense of personal responsibility, their openness in communication, their resourcefulness (a form of creativity) and their proactivity (another evidence of a well developed sense of personal responsibility). Young Will was one such fellow. And then I began meeting them in the city too.
The brothers Luke and Andrew strike me as examples to this day. And I began to meet more and mounting volumes more of older folk who epitomise the vital qualities of manhood, and are well into that “giving back” portion of their life where they delight to invest in the up and coming generations. Ken Walker, Peter Daniels, and the list really does go on.
And I began to see that God has many men. Perhaps I wasn’t mature enough in myself to identify them in my younger years. Perhaps things have changed over ten years and there are many more men. Or perhaps I just know a lot more people now than I did then! :o)
But when I ask myself today, “Where are all the men?” my mind jumps from example to example, here and there, young and old, throughout the state and around the globe, and I say to myself, “They’re all around!”.
Postscript: So why don’t we see them more?
If there are a lot of men out there – albeit a small minority, yet still large in absolute numbers – then why don’t we see them more involved in the community, in social action, in Christian journalism, etc? But we do! Not that men can relax now – far from it because many more men are needed! As I myself become more heavily involved in these groups, I am pleased to report that any time I set my hand to a task to further God’s kingdom, I find myself squarely shoulder to shoulder with at least two other equally dedicated men of God, often from widely different backgrounds. Working with me, and me with them!
If you want the pleasure of meeting some awesome men of God, throw yourself into Christian service! No, not necessarily full-time! No, no, I didn’t say become a ‘pastor’! I volunteer one day a week, using my skills to further the work of Wycliffe Bible Translators. I teach Christian Religious Education in public schools. I run a business and get to have significant conversations with clients and employees of clients. Many significant spiritual conversations have come about as a result.
You and I are different parts of the Body – don’t expect that we’ll do the same things or put the same amount of time into it – but do start serving – take the first opportunity that arises and commit to it for a while – and you’ll be surprised as you serve what doors will open. Where are all the men? Why don’t you be one yourself – you’ll soon discover more! :o)
Monday, 26 February 2007
The Verbose Philosopher Recants
These last four weeks have been intense ones for me. They began much like any other month of my life. And then I discovered Steorn. The more I examined Steorn's claims, the more I was convinced they were onto (from an experimental approach) exactly the same principles of energy creation I had "discovered" from a purely mathematical/theoretical approach.
Steorn is releasing their findings in the next month or two (so I gather). It forced a rapid re-evaluation of where I stood on the matter. I was previously convinced that there were extreme dangers with this technology (danger to the world and humanity in general, not to the inventor specifically). Accordingly, I kept it "under wraps", or more accurately, buried.
But with Steorn's imminent release of their "discovery", I had to make some decisions. 1) Was Steorn onto anything at all? 2) Was it anything like what I had discovered? Were the risks with their "discovery" the same as with mine?
And so I threw myself into action, hit the road, and shared my ideas and quandry with three trusted friends in different parts of the state.
At first, I began to question my analysis of the risk factors. Perhaps, despite the risks, the cost of not publishing this technology was greater than the risks. (I speak again of costs and risks to the world, to humanity.) With that in mind, I began to plan an article detailing the principles of energy creation, and planning ways to get the word out as fast as possible.
But things took an unexpected turn. A very unexpected turn.
I had "known" these principles for years, plenty long enough to work through an extensive set of impliciations and have them entrenched deeply in my thinking.
But after seven hours with a trusted friend, analysing this thing from various angles, serious doubts were raised in my mind.
It has taken a few more weeks, and much, much time (running calculations, researching some related topics, thinking through implications once again).
And finally today I decided that there is no doubt left in my mind. Whatever principles of free energy I thought I had found, are non-existent.
I can say that in one sentence and of course the whole world is already divided into those who already believed "free energy" a farce and those who are passionately convinced it's possible.
But I was not only totally convinced it was possible, but totally convinced I knew how. And I was totally wrong.
Selah
It's easy for you to sit there and read my story. But on my end, it's radically altering my life. In four short weeks, a lot has changed. Many long-held beliefs have been thrown out the window, and with them, some extensive sets of implications and ramifications have been discarded.
But I shan't bore you with my troubles.
Let's turn back for a moment to Steorn, the company that triggered this storm in my own little world.
If you'd asked me four weeks ago, I would have said I thought it plausible they were onto something. Some days later, I was doubting they were onto the same thing as me. But by about two-and-a-half weeks ago, I had read enough snippets here and there in Steorn interviews and other documentation that I was 99% convinced that Steorn was onto exactly the same thing as me. I was onto something that worked with gravitation and magnetism, and by piecing clues together, I became convinced that Steorn had, by experimental means, stumbled across an application of these "free energy" principles, but only by way of magnetism, and was ignorant of the potential to use gravity instead of magnetism. Just over two weeks ago, I began my road trip. By Sunday night, 15 days ago (AEST), the Great Doubt had begun. And by today, I am now totally convinced that if Steorn is onto anything at all, it has nothing to do with what I had envisaged.
In fact, I now have a profound and deep respect for the so-called Law of the Conservation of Energy. I never had this profound respect before - who would, if you believed in "free energy"? :) But now I see it in it's beauty. It's mathematical symmetry is a wonder to behold! :) And now I stand by it.
Which leaves me in a state of great skepticism. I am inclined to believe that Steorn has discovered nothing at all. Measurement error, perhaps. Perhaps an error interpreting the measurements. Perhaps the first great hoax of the 21st century! :)
If they're onto something, I tell you, they deserve to be well rewarded. But I'm no longer a believer. I recant.
Steorn is releasing their findings in the next month or two (so I gather). It forced a rapid re-evaluation of where I stood on the matter. I was previously convinced that there were extreme dangers with this technology (danger to the world and humanity in general, not to the inventor specifically). Accordingly, I kept it "under wraps", or more accurately, buried.
But with Steorn's imminent release of their "discovery", I had to make some decisions. 1) Was Steorn onto anything at all? 2) Was it anything like what I had discovered? Were the risks with their "discovery" the same as with mine?
And so I threw myself into action, hit the road, and shared my ideas and quandry with three trusted friends in different parts of the state.
At first, I began to question my analysis of the risk factors. Perhaps, despite the risks, the cost of not publishing this technology was greater than the risks. (I speak again of costs and risks to the world, to humanity.) With that in mind, I began to plan an article detailing the principles of energy creation, and planning ways to get the word out as fast as possible.
But things took an unexpected turn. A very unexpected turn.
I had "known" these principles for years, plenty long enough to work through an extensive set of impliciations and have them entrenched deeply in my thinking.
But after seven hours with a trusted friend, analysing this thing from various angles, serious doubts were raised in my mind.
It has taken a few more weeks, and much, much time (running calculations, researching some related topics, thinking through implications once again).
And finally today I decided that there is no doubt left in my mind. Whatever principles of free energy I thought I had found, are non-existent.
I can say that in one sentence and of course the whole world is already divided into those who already believed "free energy" a farce and those who are passionately convinced it's possible.
But I was not only totally convinced it was possible, but totally convinced I knew how. And I was totally wrong.
Selah
It's easy for you to sit there and read my story. But on my end, it's radically altering my life. In four short weeks, a lot has changed. Many long-held beliefs have been thrown out the window, and with them, some extensive sets of implications and ramifications have been discarded.
But I shan't bore you with my troubles.
Let's turn back for a moment to Steorn, the company that triggered this storm in my own little world.
If you'd asked me four weeks ago, I would have said I thought it plausible they were onto something. Some days later, I was doubting they were onto the same thing as me. But by about two-and-a-half weeks ago, I had read enough snippets here and there in Steorn interviews and other documentation that I was 99% convinced that Steorn was onto exactly the same thing as me. I was onto something that worked with gravitation and magnetism, and by piecing clues together, I became convinced that Steorn had, by experimental means, stumbled across an application of these "free energy" principles, but only by way of magnetism, and was ignorant of the potential to use gravity instead of magnetism. Just over two weeks ago, I began my road trip. By Sunday night, 15 days ago (AEST), the Great Doubt had begun. And by today, I am now totally convinced that if Steorn is onto anything at all, it has nothing to do with what I had envisaged.
In fact, I now have a profound and deep respect for the so-called Law of the Conservation of Energy. I never had this profound respect before - who would, if you believed in "free energy"? :) But now I see it in it's beauty. It's mathematical symmetry is a wonder to behold! :) And now I stand by it.
Which leaves me in a state of great skepticism. I am inclined to believe that Steorn has discovered nothing at all. Measurement error, perhaps. Perhaps an error interpreting the measurements. Perhaps the first great hoax of the 21st century! :)
If they're onto something, I tell you, they deserve to be well rewarded. But I'm no longer a believer. I recant.
Sunday, 28 January 2007
From A Friend In Seminary : Meaning/Purpose Questionnaire
A friend of mine studying archeology at seminary wrote a short questionnaire to help with one of her assignments. I found the questions particularly interesting, and enjoyed answering them, and you might enjoy them too. Her questions are in bold; my answers in italics...
So, what answers would you have given? I'm curious to know - drop a line or leave a comment! :o)
Hi E.
I liked your questions. I don't know how useful you'll find my answers. I'm afraid they may appear terribly "trite" and "Christianese", as if I'd answered how I'm supposed to answer, but not as I truly feel.
But rest assured, my friend, that these answers are as true as the blue sky. If it makes me a freak, that I believe what I'm supposed to and know why I believe it, then a freak I'll glady be. :o)
Q : Where do you find your meaning?
A : Pleasure is pointless, pain is pointless, happiness is pointless, sadness is pointless, being good to others is pointless, being mean to others is pointless, LIFE is pointless, DEATH is pointless, except that The Unchanging One finds pleasure in us, and except that our souls are eternal and the effects of our actions now will echo in our ears forever.
Q : What do you find fulfillment in, purpose in, a reason for living in?
A : Bringing a smile to God's heart. And teaching others to do the same.
Q : What gets you up in the morning and keeps you going throughout the day?
A : The knowledge that what I'm doing is significant, not because it will merely transcend my lifetime, but because it will have good effects that last for eternity.
In contrast, Humanists can gain some mild level of satisfaction in knowing that some good they do to another will transcend their lifetime, but Humanism is ultimately a religion of despair, for no matter how advanced Humanity becomes, it will ultimately die in the inescapable Big Collapse that, by the laws of physics, must eventually follow a Big Bang. That kind of 'legacy', which transcends one's lifetime but ultimately comes to nothing, is pointless.
What keeps me going is the knowledge that the good I do won't be eventually obliterated in an inescapable cosmic smash-up, but will actually endure without cessation. I am not writing in chalk on a chalkboard that will be wiped clean in a few billion years; I am etching in stone that will last forever. And I have learned from the Supreme Artist how to etch well.
Q : What gives you hope?
A : Eternal perpetuity of our souls and of the consequences of our works is a depressing thought if our souls are miserable and our works reprehensible.
HOPE comes not from understanding eternity, but from knowing that The Unchanging One has adopted my soul and cradles it in His love, and so orchestrates my circumstances as to help me grow and cause me good.
Q : What makes you grin like an idiot?
A : When my attempts at subtlety are foiled. The Great One dealt me a scant measure of subtlety, the which I rarely employ, and when I do, it's usually to disastrous consequence! :o)
I could give numerous humorous examples, but it's irrelevant to the questionnaire and my time, like my subtlety, is scant. :o)
And yes, I can see how this question applies to "meaning & purpose" for some folk, but I don't think it does for me.
Q : Where do you find your meaning and purpose?
A : "Meaning" I've already answered. "Purpose" - perhaps my three life goals are relevant. In order of importance, most important first, my three life goals, with me from the cradle to my grave, are as follows :
1) To delight God.
2) To obtain wisdom.
3) To lay up treasure in Heaven.
So, what answers would you have given? I'm curious to know - drop a line or leave a comment! :o)
Energy Is Free, Perpetual Motion Is Fallacious, Steorn Should Not Release Their Findings
UPDATE Mon 26-Feb-2007 : The Verbose Philosopher Recants. The following article no longer reflects the Verbose Philosopher's views.
"For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction." The diligent student identifies two consequences of this law :
1) There is an unalterable universal centre of mass;
2) Energy can be created at will;
The first of these two conclusions is tenuous, based on the assumption that matter and energy cannot be cross-converted.
The second of these conclusions is laughable, defying the law of the conservation of energy.
However, the second of these conclusions is easily demonstrated. Indeed, energy can be created at will.
The implications are staggering, but not as staggering as you might first expect.
Theoretically, if the universe evolved from a big bang (which it clearly did not), then it will end in a huge smash-up. This is an inevitable consequence of gravity's infinite reach and unrelenting pull. If we can create energy at will, surely humans could create a spacecraft to propel themselves in opposition to the force of gravity, and thus escape the doom. But free energy cannot create propulsion without reaction mass. "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction." You can create all the energy you want, but you can't use that energy to go somewhere without flinging fuel, exhaust, parts of the spacecraft, or other expendibles out the back of your craft. Sooner or later, these fleeing humanoids will run out of reaction mass and join the giant squish soup that the universe will become.
So free energy does not mean unlimited propulsion, nor escape from ultimate doom.
That said, free energy does change a lot of things.
I first came upon the principles of free energy in my teenage years - roughly ten years ago. I am the only person I know of in the entire world claiming to understand the principles behind it. However, I am not the only person in the world claiming to be able to demonstrate it with ease.
Every now and then I check up on the web to see if anyone else has discovered the obvious - the inescapable conclusion of Newton's law of momentum - the ability to create energy at will.
Of course, there are ten kadzillion "PMM (Perpetual Motion Machine) Enthusiasts". Some of them are tantalizingly close, yet frustratingly far, from the obvious. It's kind of amusing to see their designs, and their almost religious dedication to perpetual motion. Some of them mighty close, but they're missing some mighty obvious principles that are sitting just under their nose.
For starters, let me make it abundantly clear : "free energy" is NOT "perpetual motion". PMM enthusiasts often confuse the creation of energy and the creation of movement. "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction." Machines designed to levitate and fly around, unaffected by environment, atmosphere, or gravitation, are an impossibility. And that is relatively simple to demonstrate with maths.
But energy - the ability to create abundant truck-loads of energy, at-will - that's simple, and again, very easy to demonstrate with maths.
So what is it that PMM enthusiasts are missing? I could tell you. Let's say #1 it is obvious; and #2 it is a fairly direct consequence of the particular Newtonian law I keep harping on about in this article. The diligent student can discover the rest, as have I.
But perhaps the principles have already been discovered. Only in the last hour or so I stumbled across Steorn, a company in Ireland which claims to have accidently found an arrangement of magnets by which they can produce unlimited power.
Check it out yourself : http://www.steorn.net/en/technology.aspx?p=5.
Curiously, they stumbled across it by accident, and only a few years ago, whereas I 'discovered' it in the search for it, and about ten years ago.
I am presuming here that they are as good as their claim. And I won't be surprised if they are.
What's interesting is that they stumbled across it, and have no explanation for it. Well, until this day, I thought I was the only person who both knew how to do it and understood the physics of it. Perhaps I am no longer the only one who knows how to do it, but it does sound like I'm still the only one who understands the physics of it.
It all ties in very neatly to cosmology, one of my myriad favourite topics, and it was partly to outlay a proper framework for understanding the free energy phenonemon that I commenced writing my series of articles on Biblical Cosmology.
Yes friends, energy is there for the taking. It can be done with magnets. It can be done without magnets. It can be done with any attractive or repulsive force, including gravity, magnetism, pressurised liquids, and probably even springs and other elastic materials. It can possibly even be done with centrifugal force.
The key is so simple that I would only have to say a few words, and those frustrated students so diligently seeking the elusive would, with a little further thought, see it for themselves.
So why will I not utter the magic words?
Simple. I think it 90% likely that Steorn have, as they claim, stumbled across a practical way of easily creating energy out-of-nothing. Now, I understand the cosmological implications, the theological implications, and the likely sociological implications of this. Let me say, free energy is not the ultimate panacea it may initially appear. I've been sitting on the secret myself for these many years, for the simple reason that a rapid proliferation of free energy generators is not actually in humankind's best interests. In the event that Steorn proves mistaken, it will be better that the secret remains just that - a secret.
"What great dangers lie in so great a power?", you ask, incredulous and indignant. I chuckle to myself and think "Poor fools - they don't even understand the physics of it and yet they assume it's 'clean, green, and beneficial'".
However, the skeptic will not be sated be the mere claim of good reasons for the non-proliferation of this technology. And so I will give a partial reason here. A full discussion of the several problems requires disclosure of the operating principles, something I am not willing to engage in here and now. So please excuse me for only giving details of one part of one of my significant concerns, as follows :
Energy is easily created and introduced to the globe. What then? It is employed for propulsion, manufacturing, or by some other means, ultimately resulting in a net increase in the heat on the surface of the earth.
Consider it : if every house had a free-energy-generator out-the-back, and ran all the lights all day, and left all appliances and computers running at all times, and stopped worrying about energy ratings for refrigerators, washing machines, fans, etc, and if industry went bananas with unlimited supplies of power, guess what? We would rapidly (and somewhat irreversibly) increase the surface temperature of the earth.
So much more can be said on this topic, but I refrain. If Steorn prove to actually have discovered the technology, and a practical model becomes widely known, then with some dissappointment I will be more willing to ellucidate the world with the underpinning physics, and a fuller discussion of the dangers of this technology.
But if - as I hope, but doubt, will be the case - Steorn is yet another of the also-rans, convinced of success but sincerely mistaken, I will happily return to my Hobbit-hovel and mind my own business.
Related links :
Steorn website
A video interview with Steorn
UPDATE Mon 29-Jan-2007 : I've run through some maths, calculating the amount of thermal energy received on an ongoing basis from the sun, and concluded that, even with a 100-fold increase in global power consumption, and replacing all existing electrical power generation plants with 'free energy' devices, we would be adding energy to the earth at a rate WELL UNDER 0.1% of that added by the sun. In short : I no longer hold that the Steorn device risks overheating the earth. I continue to have other reservations with the technology - I still continue to think it best for humankind if Steorn prove mistaken - but unfortunately I must leave that as an unsupported opinion in the public eye.
"For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction." The diligent student identifies two consequences of this law :
1) There is an unalterable universal centre of mass;
2) Energy can be created at will;
The first of these two conclusions is tenuous, based on the assumption that matter and energy cannot be cross-converted.
The second of these conclusions is laughable, defying the law of the conservation of energy.
However, the second of these conclusions is easily demonstrated. Indeed, energy can be created at will.
The implications are staggering, but not as staggering as you might first expect.
Theoretically, if the universe evolved from a big bang (which it clearly did not), then it will end in a huge smash-up. This is an inevitable consequence of gravity's infinite reach and unrelenting pull. If we can create energy at will, surely humans could create a spacecraft to propel themselves in opposition to the force of gravity, and thus escape the doom. But free energy cannot create propulsion without reaction mass. "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction." You can create all the energy you want, but you can't use that energy to go somewhere without flinging fuel, exhaust, parts of the spacecraft, or other expendibles out the back of your craft. Sooner or later, these fleeing humanoids will run out of reaction mass and join the giant squish soup that the universe will become.
So free energy does not mean unlimited propulsion, nor escape from ultimate doom.
That said, free energy does change a lot of things.
I first came upon the principles of free energy in my teenage years - roughly ten years ago. I am the only person I know of in the entire world claiming to understand the principles behind it. However, I am not the only person in the world claiming to be able to demonstrate it with ease.
Every now and then I check up on the web to see if anyone else has discovered the obvious - the inescapable conclusion of Newton's law of momentum - the ability to create energy at will.
Of course, there are ten kadzillion "PMM (Perpetual Motion Machine) Enthusiasts". Some of them are tantalizingly close, yet frustratingly far, from the obvious. It's kind of amusing to see their designs, and their almost religious dedication to perpetual motion. Some of them mighty close, but they're missing some mighty obvious principles that are sitting just under their nose.
For starters, let me make it abundantly clear : "free energy" is NOT "perpetual motion". PMM enthusiasts often confuse the creation of energy and the creation of movement. "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction." Machines designed to levitate and fly around, unaffected by environment, atmosphere, or gravitation, are an impossibility. And that is relatively simple to demonstrate with maths.
But energy - the ability to create abundant truck-loads of energy, at-will - that's simple, and again, very easy to demonstrate with maths.
So what is it that PMM enthusiasts are missing? I could tell you. Let's say #1 it is obvious; and #2 it is a fairly direct consequence of the particular Newtonian law I keep harping on about in this article. The diligent student can discover the rest, as have I.
But perhaps the principles have already been discovered. Only in the last hour or so I stumbled across Steorn, a company in Ireland which claims to have accidently found an arrangement of magnets by which they can produce unlimited power.
Check it out yourself : http://www.steorn.net/en/technology.aspx?p=5.
Curiously, they stumbled across it by accident, and only a few years ago, whereas I 'discovered' it in the search for it, and about ten years ago.
I am presuming here that they are as good as their claim. And I won't be surprised if they are.
What's interesting is that they stumbled across it, and have no explanation for it. Well, until this day, I thought I was the only person who both knew how to do it and understood the physics of it. Perhaps I am no longer the only one who knows how to do it, but it does sound like I'm still the only one who understands the physics of it.
It all ties in very neatly to cosmology, one of my myriad favourite topics, and it was partly to outlay a proper framework for understanding the free energy phenonemon that I commenced writing my series of articles on Biblical Cosmology.
Yes friends, energy is there for the taking. It can be done with magnets. It can be done without magnets. It can be done with any attractive or repulsive force, including gravity, magnetism, pressurised liquids, and probably even springs and other elastic materials. It can possibly even be done with centrifugal force.
The key is so simple that I would only have to say a few words, and those frustrated students so diligently seeking the elusive would, with a little further thought, see it for themselves.
So why will I not utter the magic words?
Simple. I think it 90% likely that Steorn have, as they claim, stumbled across a practical way of easily creating energy out-of-nothing. Now, I understand the cosmological implications, the theological implications, and the likely sociological implications of this. Let me say, free energy is not the ultimate panacea it may initially appear. I've been sitting on the secret myself for these many years, for the simple reason that a rapid proliferation of free energy generators is not actually in humankind's best interests. In the event that Steorn proves mistaken, it will be better that the secret remains just that - a secret.
"What great dangers lie in so great a power?", you ask, incredulous and indignant. I chuckle to myself and think "Poor fools - they don't even understand the physics of it and yet they assume it's 'clean, green, and beneficial'".
However, the skeptic will not be sated be the mere claim of good reasons for the non-proliferation of this technology. And so I will give a partial reason here. A full discussion of the several problems requires disclosure of the operating principles, something I am not willing to engage in here and now. So please excuse me for only giving details of one part of one of my significant concerns, as follows :
Energy is easily created and introduced to the globe. What then? It is employed for propulsion, manufacturing, or by some other means, ultimately resulting in a net increase in the heat on the surface of the earth.
Consider it : if every house had a free-energy-generator out-the-back, and ran all the lights all day, and left all appliances and computers running at all times, and stopped worrying about energy ratings for refrigerators, washing machines, fans, etc, and if industry went bananas with unlimited supplies of power, guess what? We would rapidly (and somewhat irreversibly) increase the surface temperature of the earth.
So much more can be said on this topic, but I refrain. If Steorn prove to actually have discovered the technology, and a practical model becomes widely known, then with some dissappointment I will be more willing to ellucidate the world with the underpinning physics, and a fuller discussion of the dangers of this technology.
But if - as I hope, but doubt, will be the case - Steorn is yet another of the also-rans, convinced of success but sincerely mistaken, I will happily return to my Hobbit-hovel and mind my own business.
Related links :
Steorn website
A video interview with Steorn
UPDATE Mon 29-Jan-2007 : I've run through some maths, calculating the amount of thermal energy received on an ongoing basis from the sun, and concluded that, even with a 100-fold increase in global power consumption, and replacing all existing electrical power generation plants with 'free energy' devices, we would be adding energy to the earth at a rate WELL UNDER 0.1% of that added by the sun. In short : I no longer hold that the Steorn device risks overheating the earth. I continue to have other reservations with the technology - I still continue to think it best for humankind if Steorn prove mistaken - but unfortunately I must leave that as an unsupported opinion in the public eye.
Wednesday, 3 January 2007
Middle School Girls Gone Wild
I just read this very interesting editorial on the New York Times entitled "Middle School Girls Gone Wild".
What American schools are doing, and American parents allowing and encouraging, is truly disgusting. It's easy for me as an Aussie to say "We're much better than the Americans". Right? Wrong!
I do part-time volunteer teaching at one of the state primary schools near my home in Melbourne, Australia. I and all the other volunteer teachers were invited to come to the annual school concert towards the end of last year.
Now, this happens to be the very primary school which I attended as a kid. (Until I started homeschooling, that is.) I remember fondly the many school concerts in which I took part as a child, and the various costumes I wore and parts I played.
One year I was a farmer, complete with overalls and a big cardboard raincloud which I held up with a stick. The cloud even had a yellow lightening bolt descending from it! :o) Ah - those were the days.
Another year I was a mad scientist, and we still have photos of the dusty grey hair effect we rather successfully pulled-off with copious doses of Johnson & Johnson Baby Powder. (Talcum powder.) :o)
Only fifteen to twenty years have passed, and here I am, looking forward to nostalgic reminders of years gone by as I watched this performance in my childhood school.
And what do I see?
Lots of veeery skimpy femmes.
I'm talking about my grade 3, 4 and 5 students, many in bikinis and other sexually-alluring attire. And ah - parading it, too. Not "cute" sexy, as in "my parents put this on me and I'm getting lots of attention so I think it's fun", but "I know this clothing is sexy and I'll act sexy too whilst I wear it".
Oh, there were plenty of girls who were well-attired, and a few who, despite scant clothing, were oblivious to sexual overtones. But if say 10% to 20% of the girls were sexy & lovin' it - at that tender age - struttin' their stuff in public, proudly to a packed auditorium of many hundreds of parents and siblings... It doesn't bode well for where things are heading in society.
In other words : things aren't as bad in Australia as they are in America - yet. But we're well on the way.
I have written before and at length regarding a proper Christian response to the fabric-reductionism prevelant in society, and curiously, the one common thread (pardon the pun) across all replies I've had so far, is that there is no common thread.
The nearest thing to a helpful suggestion was one young lass suggesting I read Jeff Pollard's "Christian Modesty and the Public Undressing Of America". Well, I happened upon this book at a Vision Forum book table in Virginia USA in July 2006, and now possess a copy, and will read it eventually, I suppose, but have been discouraged by a review of it which said that Jeff only addresses the issues in broad and ill-defined brush strokes.
In dealing with these issues, vague statements and generalisations are not enough, and if you don't understand what I'm talking about, read my "Free Porn With Your Metcard" article on 100thousandyouth. (For our non-Melbourne readers, "trams" are the prevalent mode of public transport here, and "Metcards" are the tickets you buy to ride the trams.)
Yes, our society is highly sexualised, and yes, it is a problem. Step 1) Wake up. Step 2) Rediscover Biblical ideals. Step 3) Live them. Step 4) Help those around you do the same.
And somewhere along the line, for the sake of our children, step 5) Formalise Scriptural principles in legislation, so the wishes of the minority who profit financially from fuelling lust, cannot be freely imposed on those who wish a lifestyle of longer-term satisfaction.
What American schools are doing, and American parents allowing and encouraging, is truly disgusting. It's easy for me as an Aussie to say "We're much better than the Americans". Right? Wrong!
I do part-time volunteer teaching at one of the state primary schools near my home in Melbourne, Australia. I and all the other volunteer teachers were invited to come to the annual school concert towards the end of last year.
Now, this happens to be the very primary school which I attended as a kid. (Until I started homeschooling, that is.) I remember fondly the many school concerts in which I took part as a child, and the various costumes I wore and parts I played.
One year I was a farmer, complete with overalls and a big cardboard raincloud which I held up with a stick. The cloud even had a yellow lightening bolt descending from it! :o) Ah - those were the days.
Another year I was a mad scientist, and we still have photos of the dusty grey hair effect we rather successfully pulled-off with copious doses of Johnson & Johnson Baby Powder. (Talcum powder.) :o)
Only fifteen to twenty years have passed, and here I am, looking forward to nostalgic reminders of years gone by as I watched this performance in my childhood school.
And what do I see?
Lots of veeery skimpy femmes.
I'm talking about my grade 3, 4 and 5 students, many in bikinis and other sexually-alluring attire. And ah - parading it, too. Not "cute" sexy, as in "my parents put this on me and I'm getting lots of attention so I think it's fun", but "I know this clothing is sexy and I'll act sexy too whilst I wear it".
Oh, there were plenty of girls who were well-attired, and a few who, despite scant clothing, were oblivious to sexual overtones. But if say 10% to 20% of the girls were sexy & lovin' it - at that tender age - struttin' their stuff in public, proudly to a packed auditorium of many hundreds of parents and siblings... It doesn't bode well for where things are heading in society.
In other words : things aren't as bad in Australia as they are in America - yet. But we're well on the way.
I have written before and at length regarding a proper Christian response to the fabric-reductionism prevelant in society, and curiously, the one common thread (pardon the pun) across all replies I've had so far, is that there is no common thread.
The nearest thing to a helpful suggestion was one young lass suggesting I read Jeff Pollard's "Christian Modesty and the Public Undressing Of America". Well, I happened upon this book at a Vision Forum book table in Virginia USA in July 2006, and now possess a copy, and will read it eventually, I suppose, but have been discouraged by a review of it which said that Jeff only addresses the issues in broad and ill-defined brush strokes.
In dealing with these issues, vague statements and generalisations are not enough, and if you don't understand what I'm talking about, read my "Free Porn With Your Metcard" article on 100thousandyouth. (For our non-Melbourne readers, "trams" are the prevalent mode of public transport here, and "Metcards" are the tickets you buy to ride the trams.)
Yes, our society is highly sexualised, and yes, it is a problem. Step 1) Wake up. Step 2) Rediscover Biblical ideals. Step 3) Live them. Step 4) Help those around you do the same.
And somewhere along the line, for the sake of our children, step 5) Formalise Scriptural principles in legislation, so the wishes of the minority who profit financially from fuelling lust, cannot be freely imposed on those who wish a lifestyle of longer-term satisfaction.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
