A few people have complained that I haven't posted in a while. They're right, of course, but I have a good excuse. There's been a huge project on at work so I've been working almost every weekend on top of all the other things I do, and on the occasions I did manage to carve out a little time for myself I spent it recovering instead of blogging.
However there are some things important enough to bring even the most reluctant out of retirement, and one of them has just occurred. Gordon Brown has announced a general election to be held on May 6th.
Now this isn't a political blog and I won't presume to tell you how you should vote, but I am very concerned that you do.
You see, I've been hearing a worrying number of people recently saying they "don't think they will bother", and though I'm a mild-mannered man I'm afraid that sort of sentiment makes me indignant to the point of shouting.
Our vote, the privilege we have to influence the way our country is run and by whom, is one of the most precious things we posess. Yes, they might be all as bad as eachother. And no, your vote might not change the outcome, particularly if your allegiance is to a minority party, but you should thank God with all your heart that you have the freedom to cast it.
Thank God you live in a democracy, and not a dictatorship or a one-party state with an all-seeing secret police and a nice network of labour camps for those who don't agree. Some people don't have the opportunity you view as such a light thing. What would they say to your apathy?
'Use it, or lose it' springs to mind.
Think I'm being extreme? Do you not feel a debt to the dead of two world wars who fell amid unthinkable, inhuman carnage so you could have the privilege you now treat with such indifference? If you are a woman, do the heroic struggles of the suffragettes mean nothing to you? Or the sacrifices of so many who have fought and died to buy your freedom down through the ages?
Shame on us if we have become so self-absorbed as a society and individuals that we "can't be bothered" any more. Shame on us if these things no longer move us. Shame on us if through our apathy and indifference we allow an unsavoury candidate or government to take office and then go whining about the consequences. If we can't be bothered to vote, we get the leaders we deserve.
Make the effort, then. Turn off the TV, log off Facebook for half an hour, leave Twitter for the birds, let the grass grow and the carpet stay dirty. Don't even read my blog. Take your children with you to the polling station and explain to them what you're doing and just how important it is. Get out there on May 6th and, when you hold that ballot in your hand, reflect for a moment and give thanks.
Then cast your vote with gratitude and pride, but don't - whatever you do - tell me that you "can't be bothered".
Tuesday, 6 April 2010
Saturday, 13 February 2010
Pancake Day
This coming Tuesday, the 16th February, is Pancake Day here in the UK.
Officially this day is Shrove Tuesday, the day before Ash Wednesday which is the first day of the season of Lent. The word shrove comes from the old English word shrive, which means to obtain forgiveness of sins by confession and penance. On a lighter note, Shrove Tuesday was also the last opportunity for a feast involving things like sugar, flour and eggs which were often given up for lent and therefore needed using up. If you put those ingredients together and add a bit of righteous haste, you get pancakes!
We celebrate this edible family tradition every year without fail, and if you'd like to partake too but are 'culinarily challenged', here's all you need:
Add a little vegetable oil to a fying pan and heat until hot. This is a key; for good pancakes the oil needs to be so hot it is just beginning to smoke. So open a window then pour some batter into the pan, tilting the pan around so it gets filled by a thin, even layer. Cook this for about 30 seconds or until the bottom is golden brown, then flip and cook the other side. Take the pancake out onto a warmed plate (keep it flat, don't fold) and cover to keep warm. Repeat with the rest of the batter, occasionally adding a little more oil to the pan as required.
Great! Now you've got your pancakes the next question, of course, is how to eat them. Basically you need to coat the pancake with a dollop of something nice then fold it or roll it up. Here are some variants:
Have a great pancake day! And let me know how you ate yours.
Officially this day is Shrove Tuesday, the day before Ash Wednesday which is the first day of the season of Lent. The word shrove comes from the old English word shrive, which means to obtain forgiveness of sins by confession and penance. On a lighter note, Shrove Tuesday was also the last opportunity for a feast involving things like sugar, flour and eggs which were often given up for lent and therefore needed using up. If you put those ingredients together and add a bit of righteous haste, you get pancakes!
We celebrate this edible family tradition every year without fail, and if you'd like to partake too but are 'culinarily challenged', here's all you need:
- 100g plain flour
- 2 eggs
- 300ml milk
- 1 tablespoon vegetable or sunflower oil
- pinch of salt
Add a little vegetable oil to a fying pan and heat until hot. This is a key; for good pancakes the oil needs to be so hot it is just beginning to smoke. So open a window then pour some batter into the pan, tilting the pan around so it gets filled by a thin, even layer. Cook this for about 30 seconds or until the bottom is golden brown, then flip and cook the other side. Take the pancake out onto a warmed plate (keep it flat, don't fold) and cover to keep warm. Repeat with the rest of the batter, occasionally adding a little more oil to the pan as required.
Great! Now you've got your pancakes the next question, of course, is how to eat them. Basically you need to coat the pancake with a dollop of something nice then fold it or roll it up. Here are some variants:
- Tate & Lyle's Golden Syrup - Sorry if you can't buy this overseas; it's a British thing. Its a thick, thick, golden liquid that sticks to your spoon and is sweeter than anything could ever be.
- Honey - Not bad; give it a try. The runny sort is easier to work with.
- Maple Syrup - A sweet American import. Just pour it on.
- Mincemeat and squirty cream - Another British thing; this is not minced meat; it's the heavy concoction of preserved fruits you get in minced pies and Christmas puddings. Use a spoonful straight from the jar and let the kids enjoy adding their own aerosol cream.
- Pie fillings - The fruit kind you get in tins. Just drop in a spoonful and maybe add some squirty cream or sugar.
- Chocolate spread - Personally I think this is going too far, but each to his own.
- Fresh fruit - Thinly sliced strawberries, with a sprinkling of sugar or a hint of cream, are very good.
- Ice cream - Use a soft type, don't add too much and eat quickly.
Have a great pancake day! And let me know how you ate yours.
Tuesday, 9 February 2010
A Snowball's Chance
Ah, I do love quantum physics. It's the strange scientific realm where everything is possible - and I do mean everything.
In the 'real world', if a ball bounces off a solid object or another ball, even if both of them are moving, we can say with certainty what will happen. Observe this same collision ten thousand times and every time the result will be the same - which is just as well if you're trying to learn how to play squash or pocket the eight-ball in pool.
Scale things down to the quantum level, however, and strange things start to happen. If we watch two particles colliding, for example, the outcome according to quantum physics becomes anything but certain and the predictability of conventional Newtonian science lets us down. Not only do things happen that we would expect to see happening, but things we wouldn't expect also happen, and occasionally things take place that seem completely impossible. In real-world terms, it would be like throwing a snowball at someone but having it turn aside in mid-air and miss the target. Or, even more bizarrely, flying straight back to smack you in the face.
Sounds insane, doesn't it? But these aren't the deranged ramblings of a mad theorist who ate too much cheese before settling down for the night; these are real, measurable effects.
At the quantum level of matter every outcome is possible, even the impossible ones, and if you watch for long enough you will see them actually happen. Thus it becomes impossible for us to say that in a given situation a particular outcome will occur; all we can do is quote the probability, or chance, of each concievable (and inconcievable) result.
This kind of thinking is weird and uncomfortable, so weird that even Einstein didn't like it and made his now famous assertion that "God does not play dice". Developments since then have shown, however, that God really does play dice - and He's very good at it.
One of the 'shouldn't-ever-happen-but-sometimes-does' effects that occur at the quantum level is really strange. To use a real-world example again, if we saw a car being driven at speed toward a solid wall what we'd expect would be a loud bang followed by the tinkle of falling glass and the quiet hiss of escaping steam. What we definitely wouldn't expect is for the car to pass through the wall as if it simply wasn't there and continue on it's way totally unaffected. Quantum particles do this sometimes; it's called tunneling. If moving particles hit a barrier, most of them get stopped but some pass straight through it, like the girl in the X-Men films who can walk through solid walls. It sounds quite insane, but it's an observable effect and it's coming to a smartphone near you.
This wierdness is harnessed in a material called QTC (Quantum Tunelling Composite) recently invented by a Yorkshire-based company and already licensed by two Japanese corporations that make components, particularly touch screens, for mobile phones and other portable devices. Embedded within the material are conductive nanoparticles which, if they were in contact, would allow the material to conduct electricity. It doesn't, however, because the particles are slightly separated - except for the tiny current that flows anyway because some of the electrons quantum-tunnel through the insulation that surrounds them. Compressing the material forces the conductive particles closer together, this increases the probability that tunneling will occur and so the current rises.
What does this give us? Pressure sensitive material!
Think of a touch screen that responds not only to the speed of the finger swiped across it but also to how hard the finger presses and how that pressure varies throughout the stroke. It would make the best of today's touch-screen devices seem as clumsy as a mechanical keyboard. Imagine also placing that material on the surface of a mechanical hand and giving it what we humans take for granted - touch sensitive skin. A robot with a hand like that would be able to sense how much pressure it was applying with it's fingers and adjust accordingly - enter the gentle robot surgeon, the kitchen helper that can hold an egg without crushing it, or the prosthetic that allows the wearer not just to move but also to feel. That's a massive improvement over a simple motorised claw, and it's all thanks to quantum physics.
Regular readers will be wondering if there's a spiritual angle to all this. Well, sometimes we humans gain a little knowledge and then become arrogant, strutting intellectually around God's universe like we own the place and telling him how He should behave. That's when God lets us discover something like quantum physics to show us that there's far more to Him and to the hidden mysteries He's created than we're ever likely to understand. As the book of Ecclesiastes so neatly puts it, "God is in Heaven and you are on the earth. Therefore let your words be few."
The Bible states, and quantum physics confirms, that "With God, nothing is impossible." So be careful next time you decide to throw a snowball, because if there's one thing that quantum physics shows us above all else, it's that God has a really mischievous sense of humour.
In the 'real world', if a ball bounces off a solid object or another ball, even if both of them are moving, we can say with certainty what will happen. Observe this same collision ten thousand times and every time the result will be the same - which is just as well if you're trying to learn how to play squash or pocket the eight-ball in pool.
Scale things down to the quantum level, however, and strange things start to happen. If we watch two particles colliding, for example, the outcome according to quantum physics becomes anything but certain and the predictability of conventional Newtonian science lets us down. Not only do things happen that we would expect to see happening, but things we wouldn't expect also happen, and occasionally things take place that seem completely impossible. In real-world terms, it would be like throwing a snowball at someone but having it turn aside in mid-air and miss the target. Or, even more bizarrely, flying straight back to smack you in the face.
Sounds insane, doesn't it? But these aren't the deranged ramblings of a mad theorist who ate too much cheese before settling down for the night; these are real, measurable effects.
At the quantum level of matter every outcome is possible, even the impossible ones, and if you watch for long enough you will see them actually happen. Thus it becomes impossible for us to say that in a given situation a particular outcome will occur; all we can do is quote the probability, or chance, of each concievable (and inconcievable) result.
This kind of thinking is weird and uncomfortable, so weird that even Einstein didn't like it and made his now famous assertion that "God does not play dice". Developments since then have shown, however, that God really does play dice - and He's very good at it.
One of the 'shouldn't-ever-happen-but-sometimes-does' effects that occur at the quantum level is really strange. To use a real-world example again, if we saw a car being driven at speed toward a solid wall what we'd expect would be a loud bang followed by the tinkle of falling glass and the quiet hiss of escaping steam. What we definitely wouldn't expect is for the car to pass through the wall as if it simply wasn't there and continue on it's way totally unaffected. Quantum particles do this sometimes; it's called tunneling. If moving particles hit a barrier, most of them get stopped but some pass straight through it, like the girl in the X-Men films who can walk through solid walls. It sounds quite insane, but it's an observable effect and it's coming to a smartphone near you.
This wierdness is harnessed in a material called QTC (Quantum Tunelling Composite) recently invented by a Yorkshire-based company and already licensed by two Japanese corporations that make components, particularly touch screens, for mobile phones and other portable devices. Embedded within the material are conductive nanoparticles which, if they were in contact, would allow the material to conduct electricity. It doesn't, however, because the particles are slightly separated - except for the tiny current that flows anyway because some of the electrons quantum-tunnel through the insulation that surrounds them. Compressing the material forces the conductive particles closer together, this increases the probability that tunneling will occur and so the current rises.
What does this give us? Pressure sensitive material!
Think of a touch screen that responds not only to the speed of the finger swiped across it but also to how hard the finger presses and how that pressure varies throughout the stroke. It would make the best of today's touch-screen devices seem as clumsy as a mechanical keyboard. Imagine also placing that material on the surface of a mechanical hand and giving it what we humans take for granted - touch sensitive skin. A robot with a hand like that would be able to sense how much pressure it was applying with it's fingers and adjust accordingly - enter the gentle robot surgeon, the kitchen helper that can hold an egg without crushing it, or the prosthetic that allows the wearer not just to move but also to feel. That's a massive improvement over a simple motorised claw, and it's all thanks to quantum physics.
Regular readers will be wondering if there's a spiritual angle to all this. Well, sometimes we humans gain a little knowledge and then become arrogant, strutting intellectually around God's universe like we own the place and telling him how He should behave. That's when God lets us discover something like quantum physics to show us that there's far more to Him and to the hidden mysteries He's created than we're ever likely to understand. As the book of Ecclesiastes so neatly puts it, "God is in Heaven and you are on the earth. Therefore let your words be few."
The Bible states, and quantum physics confirms, that "With God, nothing is impossible." So be careful next time you decide to throw a snowball, because if there's one thing that quantum physics shows us above all else, it's that God has a really mischievous sense of humour.
Monday, 8 February 2010
The Foam Strikes Back
A while ago I promised you an update on my experiences with the memory foam pillow. I know it's been a while, but I wanted to make very sure I was happy before I came back with an endorsement.
I'm still sleeping better and glad to find I'm not permanently tired like I used to be. Sleep is certainly an under-rated activity and something we probably all should be doing more of. But in my case it wasn't so much the quantity of sleep as the quality of it; I could sleep for ten hours and still wake up shattered, which was no good at all. The new pillow is helping, though.
I'm also glad to report that so far the pillow hasn't developed a head-shaped cavity. It has, though, become a little softer and more willing to mould - perhaps an indication that memory foam gets better with age and that you have to persevere to get the best from it.
All in all, then, the foam pillow has got to be the best forty quid I've ever spent, and if it ever becomes unserviceable I'll be getting another to replace it.
Hmm. I wonder what memory foam matresses are like?
I'm still sleeping better and glad to find I'm not permanently tired like I used to be. Sleep is certainly an under-rated activity and something we probably all should be doing more of. But in my case it wasn't so much the quantity of sleep as the quality of it; I could sleep for ten hours and still wake up shattered, which was no good at all. The new pillow is helping, though.
I'm also glad to report that so far the pillow hasn't developed a head-shaped cavity. It has, though, become a little softer and more willing to mould - perhaps an indication that memory foam gets better with age and that you have to persevere to get the best from it.
All in all, then, the foam pillow has got to be the best forty quid I've ever spent, and if it ever becomes unserviceable I'll be getting another to replace it.
Hmm. I wonder what memory foam matresses are like?
Wednesday, 3 February 2010
Have Your Say?
So, Gordon Brown is suddenly anxious to make sure that we, the great British people, have the chance of a referendum on his proposed changes to the voting system.
That's nice.
Pity about all the other critical referenda that he and his Government carefully avoided giving us. There's the Lisbon Treaty (in violation of a manifesto promise), the war in Iraq, the identity card proposals and the question of whether expense-fiddling MPs should be thrown into the town stocks and pelted with rotting fruit to name just a few.
Let's face it - none of the current crop of politicians want to risk a possible public veto. They'd rather hide behind their election mandate and implement their ideology for five years regardless of what anybody thinks.
Yes, our political system does need to change. But not by tinkering with it so a bunch of ploiticians who know they're doomed can climb back onto the gravy train that much sooner. The change we really need is for politicians of all colours to realise their high office is a position of accountability and trust and that they are there not to build a career or make money but to serve those that elected them.
That's nice.
Pity about all the other critical referenda that he and his Government carefully avoided giving us. There's the Lisbon Treaty (in violation of a manifesto promise), the war in Iraq, the identity card proposals and the question of whether expense-fiddling MPs should be thrown into the town stocks and pelted with rotting fruit to name just a few.
Let's face it - none of the current crop of politicians want to risk a possible public veto. They'd rather hide behind their election mandate and implement their ideology for five years regardless of what anybody thinks.
Yes, our political system does need to change. But not by tinkering with it so a bunch of ploiticians who know they're doomed can climb back onto the gravy train that much sooner. The change we really need is for politicians of all colours to realise their high office is a position of accountability and trust and that they are there not to build a career or make money but to serve those that elected them.
Sunday, 17 January 2010
On Shaky Ground
The recent earthquake in Haiti was a terrible disaster which caused a lot of damage, and regrettably some of the recent comment about it on BBC Radio 4 has been rather similar.
It all Started on Wednesday's Today programme when John Humphries decided to interview a notable Anglican Archbishop about the tragedy. I was at work with the radio playing quietly in the background when Humphries threw the Archbishop the 'old chestnut' question; If there really is an all-powerful and loving God, why did he allow such death and destruction to happen? I pricked up my ears at this, turned up the volume and waited for the Archbishop to answer.
He didn't.
He waffled, manoeuvred and came out with such rarified theological vagueness that I had no idea what he was talking about.
"I'm sorry, Archbishop," Humphries said, "But I don't think I understood that, and you didn't answer the question. How could a loving God permit such a tragedy?"
Again he evaded the issue, and as the interview ended I was left shaking my head and thinking, 'If I was a non-believer, I'd walk away from that thinking that he didn't answer because he had no answer; that in the face of such suffering faith comes up empty and those who profess it are left with nothing to say.
That was bad enough, but in true 'unbiased' BBC fashion two days later Humphries replayed a clip of the Archbishop's flounderings and then wheeled out a humanist.
"Simple logic," he declared dismissively. "If God really existed, and was all-powerful and all-loving then there is no way he would have allowed this to happen. No earthly father who loved his children would build a home for them knowing it was dangerous; knowing the roof might fall in and crush them, knowing they were likely to suffer injury or death. No earthly parent would do that."
Ah, there it is. The mistake these people so often make is that they insist on building their tower of logic on a false foundation using only the bricks that happen to come in their favourite colour. And the Archbishop didn't help, because although the Bible offers clear and authoritative answers to these questions he didn't seem to know what they were. So the poor listeners were left to sift through the mess left by an expert who didn't know his subject and a fool who delicately left out the one thing that would otherwise have blown his argument to shreds.
No wonder our nation is in such spiritual darkness.
The flaw in the humanist's argument is this: God did not build a dangerous house for his children. In Genesis 1:31 we clearly see that after creating the heavens and the earth, the sea, the dry land, mankind and all of the animal kingdom, 'God saw everything that He had made, and behold, it was very good.' So when God created the world, it was perfect. The earth was a paradise, and life was a paradise. That's the way God always intended the human experience to be.
The reason the world is in the mess that it is today is because man broke it. After Adam and Eve rejected God in Genesis chapter 3 and chose to do their own thing (the Bible calls this 'sin'), God says in Genesis 3:17 "Cursed is the ground because of you..."
God begins to run down the consequences of their choice, but he does it with tears in his eyes. He's not saying 'You insignificant worms, since you've dared to disobey me I will now smite you with all these punishments'. Rather he cries, 'Children, don't you realise what you've done? Don't you know what you've brought upon yourselves?'
The Bible is very clear on this. Natural disasters, planetary distress, sickness, disease and death, accidents, misery, pain, injustice, hatred and every example of man's inhumanity to man is an inevitable outworking of man's original decision to turn his back on God.
John Humphries was asking the wrong question. If you really want to know what happened in Haiti then don't blame God. Blame the shopworker dipping into the till. Blame the feral youth assaulting the pensioner in the dark alley. Blame the businessman cheating on his wife. Blame the politician who misleads the people. Blame the persuasive speakers who use national prime-time radio to lead us ever further into spiritual darkness. Blame all who have ever lied, cheated, lusted, cursed, hated or hurt. Blame every one of us. Blame yourself.
Ouch.
Instead of admitting this, though, we rail at God. We shake our fists and accuse Him, we hurl our indignation into His face when all God has ever done is weep for this fallen world and the pain that fills it; pain that is a direct result of the fall of man.
But hang on, if God originally built the house safe and good but now it's dangerous, would a loving God leave His children there to suffer the consequences? Wouldn't an all-powerful God be able to step in somehow and fix it?
God did. He did the only thing that could be done to address such a grave problem. He intervened personally in the form of Jesus Christ to deal with the root cause - mankind's sin. The whole point of Christ's birth, life and death was not to start a religion but to rescue mankind from a mess that they could never fix by themselves. Just as the problem flows from a decision, God approaches every member of mankind individually (sensible if you think about it, since suffering is individual) and invites them to be a part of the answer. Yes it will take time, but when God's plan comes to fruition it will have been worth the wait. The book of Revelation tells us that on that day "God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away". On that day, Isaiah tells us, "the wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid, and the calf and the cub lion and the fatling together, and a little child shall lead them." Romans 8 tells us that right now "the whole creation groans and suffers together" but when that day comes "the creation itself will also be set free from the bondage of decay into the glorious freedom of God's children".
Free-thinkers like our logical friend run screaming from such an answer, but if we apply the logic they're so fond of we see that in reality there is only one other option. Since the problem is sin, God must either save us from our sin or remove our ability to sin. He could do the latter by taking away our free will, by not having given us the capacity to think and choose in the first place. This would prevent us from bringing evil upon ourselves but only by reducing us from glorious creatures of judgement, intellect and appreciation made in the very image of God to little clockwork automatons mindlessly shuffling along our predestined courses in a perfect but nightmarish world.
When I was a boy I had a model railway which was very realistic. The trains ran through forests and fields beside a river that actually flowed, and they were always on time. Lights burned in the houses when darkness fell and even the windmill turned, but the people on those trains were nothing but ornaments. They never got on or off because they loved someone, cherished a great work of art, dreamed great dreams or wanted a day at the seaside. I, the omnipotent railway god, sat at my controls and everything moved at my design, but for all that activity there was no life. I don't think any self-respecting humanist would prefer such a solution. And quite frankly, neither would God.
So, having sorted that mess out, let's get to the real question that all the contributors on Radio 4 should have been asking. How should we respond to something as terrible as the earthquake in Haiti? Quite simply, our response should be the same as God's - compassion should move us to intervene and do all that we can to help. I've already visited the DEC website (http://www.dec.org.uk/). I pray you'll find it in your heart to do the same.
It all Started on Wednesday's Today programme when John Humphries decided to interview a notable Anglican Archbishop about the tragedy. I was at work with the radio playing quietly in the background when Humphries threw the Archbishop the 'old chestnut' question; If there really is an all-powerful and loving God, why did he allow such death and destruction to happen? I pricked up my ears at this, turned up the volume and waited for the Archbishop to answer.
He didn't.
He waffled, manoeuvred and came out with such rarified theological vagueness that I had no idea what he was talking about.
"I'm sorry, Archbishop," Humphries said, "But I don't think I understood that, and you didn't answer the question. How could a loving God permit such a tragedy?"
Again he evaded the issue, and as the interview ended I was left shaking my head and thinking, 'If I was a non-believer, I'd walk away from that thinking that he didn't answer because he had no answer; that in the face of such suffering faith comes up empty and those who profess it are left with nothing to say.
That was bad enough, but in true 'unbiased' BBC fashion two days later Humphries replayed a clip of the Archbishop's flounderings and then wheeled out a humanist.
"Simple logic," he declared dismissively. "If God really existed, and was all-powerful and all-loving then there is no way he would have allowed this to happen. No earthly father who loved his children would build a home for them knowing it was dangerous; knowing the roof might fall in and crush them, knowing they were likely to suffer injury or death. No earthly parent would do that."
Ah, there it is. The mistake these people so often make is that they insist on building their tower of logic on a false foundation using only the bricks that happen to come in their favourite colour. And the Archbishop didn't help, because although the Bible offers clear and authoritative answers to these questions he didn't seem to know what they were. So the poor listeners were left to sift through the mess left by an expert who didn't know his subject and a fool who delicately left out the one thing that would otherwise have blown his argument to shreds.
No wonder our nation is in such spiritual darkness.
The flaw in the humanist's argument is this: God did not build a dangerous house for his children. In Genesis 1:31 we clearly see that after creating the heavens and the earth, the sea, the dry land, mankind and all of the animal kingdom, 'God saw everything that He had made, and behold, it was very good.' So when God created the world, it was perfect. The earth was a paradise, and life was a paradise. That's the way God always intended the human experience to be.
The reason the world is in the mess that it is today is because man broke it. After Adam and Eve rejected God in Genesis chapter 3 and chose to do their own thing (the Bible calls this 'sin'), God says in Genesis 3:17 "Cursed is the ground because of you..."
God begins to run down the consequences of their choice, but he does it with tears in his eyes. He's not saying 'You insignificant worms, since you've dared to disobey me I will now smite you with all these punishments'. Rather he cries, 'Children, don't you realise what you've done? Don't you know what you've brought upon yourselves?'
The Bible is very clear on this. Natural disasters, planetary distress, sickness, disease and death, accidents, misery, pain, injustice, hatred and every example of man's inhumanity to man is an inevitable outworking of man's original decision to turn his back on God.
John Humphries was asking the wrong question. If you really want to know what happened in Haiti then don't blame God. Blame the shopworker dipping into the till. Blame the feral youth assaulting the pensioner in the dark alley. Blame the businessman cheating on his wife. Blame the politician who misleads the people. Blame the persuasive speakers who use national prime-time radio to lead us ever further into spiritual darkness. Blame all who have ever lied, cheated, lusted, cursed, hated or hurt. Blame every one of us. Blame yourself.
Ouch.
Instead of admitting this, though, we rail at God. We shake our fists and accuse Him, we hurl our indignation into His face when all God has ever done is weep for this fallen world and the pain that fills it; pain that is a direct result of the fall of man.
But hang on, if God originally built the house safe and good but now it's dangerous, would a loving God leave His children there to suffer the consequences? Wouldn't an all-powerful God be able to step in somehow and fix it?
God did. He did the only thing that could be done to address such a grave problem. He intervened personally in the form of Jesus Christ to deal with the root cause - mankind's sin. The whole point of Christ's birth, life and death was not to start a religion but to rescue mankind from a mess that they could never fix by themselves. Just as the problem flows from a decision, God approaches every member of mankind individually (sensible if you think about it, since suffering is individual) and invites them to be a part of the answer. Yes it will take time, but when God's plan comes to fruition it will have been worth the wait. The book of Revelation tells us that on that day "God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away". On that day, Isaiah tells us, "the wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid, and the calf and the cub lion and the fatling together, and a little child shall lead them." Romans 8 tells us that right now "the whole creation groans and suffers together" but when that day comes "the creation itself will also be set free from the bondage of decay into the glorious freedom of God's children".
Free-thinkers like our logical friend run screaming from such an answer, but if we apply the logic they're so fond of we see that in reality there is only one other option. Since the problem is sin, God must either save us from our sin or remove our ability to sin. He could do the latter by taking away our free will, by not having given us the capacity to think and choose in the first place. This would prevent us from bringing evil upon ourselves but only by reducing us from glorious creatures of judgement, intellect and appreciation made in the very image of God to little clockwork automatons mindlessly shuffling along our predestined courses in a perfect but nightmarish world.
When I was a boy I had a model railway which was very realistic. The trains ran through forests and fields beside a river that actually flowed, and they were always on time. Lights burned in the houses when darkness fell and even the windmill turned, but the people on those trains were nothing but ornaments. They never got on or off because they loved someone, cherished a great work of art, dreamed great dreams or wanted a day at the seaside. I, the omnipotent railway god, sat at my controls and everything moved at my design, but for all that activity there was no life. I don't think any self-respecting humanist would prefer such a solution. And quite frankly, neither would God.
So, having sorted that mess out, let's get to the real question that all the contributors on Radio 4 should have been asking. How should we respond to something as terrible as the earthquake in Haiti? Quite simply, our response should be the same as God's - compassion should move us to intervene and do all that we can to help. I've already visited the DEC website (http://www.dec.org.uk/). I pray you'll find it in your heart to do the same.
Monday, 4 January 2010
Big Brother
Have you seen the Big Brother house? Walls wreathed in flame, skulls, and a kitchen based around a mortuary slab with paintwork described as 'autopsy green', all to express that 'hell lies in others'.
And they call this reality television.
Pardon me, but exactly whose reality is this supposed to be representing? The zero point zero one percent of the population who regularly eat live babies for breakfast and have an unhealthy interest in the works of Aleister Crowley? Since the promoters of this vacuous tripe cannot by any means claim to be representing reality, the more worrying possibility is that in their quest to make money they end up influencing it.
What sort of society have we degenerated into when the most interesting thing we can think of is to watch a bunch of wannabee minor celebrities plunged into a contrived situation under carefully designed psychological pressure just so we can see who gropes who? When we laugh like horses as they posture and scheme to avoid eviction? Have we really toiled through the long night of five thousand years of social, intellectual and moral progress just for this?
As far as I'm concerned, the sooner this sort of stuff disappears from our screens the better.
And they call this reality television.
Pardon me, but exactly whose reality is this supposed to be representing? The zero point zero one percent of the population who regularly eat live babies for breakfast and have an unhealthy interest in the works of Aleister Crowley? Since the promoters of this vacuous tripe cannot by any means claim to be representing reality, the more worrying possibility is that in their quest to make money they end up influencing it.
What sort of society have we degenerated into when the most interesting thing we can think of is to watch a bunch of wannabee minor celebrities plunged into a contrived situation under carefully designed psychological pressure just so we can see who gropes who? When we laugh like horses as they posture and scheme to avoid eviction? Have we really toiled through the long night of five thousand years of social, intellectual and moral progress just for this?
As far as I'm concerned, the sooner this sort of stuff disappears from our screens the better.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
