Bits and Pieces of Interest #2

1/ I've recently been watching comedian 'Jon Reep' on YouTube. He's funny and pretty clean about his jokes. Another guy has been 'Jeremy Hotz' who has an interesting way of being funny. If anyone hasn't seen 'Pablo Francisco' then check him out too, he does a wicked 'movie preview guy' impersonation.

2/ So I eat alot of kiwifruit - happily without the side affects that more 'older' people get. It has recently been announced a 'super fruit.'

"ZESPRI™ Kiwifruit is full of nutrients, with high levels of vitamins C and E, anti-oxidants and fibre. It is considered to be one of the new 'superfruits' because of its added benefits to the body over and above basic nutrition."

Read the rest of the article here.

3/ I'm thinking about changing to KiwiBank, and apparently this guy needs a funny bone transplant.

4/ Here is a bunch of info on driving over the next week. Includes stats and other stuff like on average 14 people die in car crashes over the next week.

5/ For all those spiritually experiential driven people there is a peace Labrynth setup in Latimer Square in Christchurch for the next wee while.

6/ Some top spots for road trips.

/7 and finally, Turitea wants a new windfarm. She is a pretty on-to-it lady and so far I respect her.

A funny blog I read.

Titles I would purchase.

Funny Picture #1

This is a funny as photo I think I found on GetFrank.co.nz. It pretty much speaks for itself but the funny part is the white guy crashing the serious gangsta type photo.

The Recession...

So the recession continues for NZ. BNZ has just announced that they are closing their branch in Dunedin, leaving some more people unemployed. While some can shift to another branch, not all will find jobs. This is their third closure of a branch this year in the south island. I hope this isn't indicative of other banks as well.
Along with this tertiary providers are gearing up with packages to assist the recently unemployed, encouraging them to retrain. Within the same article I read this:

"According to BERL research commissioned by ITP New Zealand, there will be 46,500 to 76,400 more people unemployed or out of the labour force by March 2011. Unemployment will peak in March 2010 and people with lower skills are likely to make up 75% of the increase."

Which sorta came as a surprise to me, I was under the impression we were leveling out. Seeing this makes me hope the government is making plans to lower these stats. Sorta sad really, cause what choice do we have but to ride out this recession brought on by a few too many greedy people.

A Phenomenon of God

Different objects, and even the same object, can draw different meanings. Take for instance the flower of a plant. Many people (commonly our female counter-parts) take pleasure in the flower of a rose. Why? I guess usually because of the smell, colour, shape, and the cultural significance of the rose. A red rose from a boyfriend to a girlfriend can signify love and romance. However, a red rose is also often used at the funeral of a person in loving memory of them. The variation also streches across cultures. One persons flower of beauty is another persons weed. Some look at a flower with delight, another with disgust. Meaning seems to come from humanity - not the rose. So how do we interpret God? Or, how does God manifest himself to people (I have in mind un-believers here)? Is one persons observation of the manifestation of God beauty, while to another it is disgust? One would assume (and I think NZ people do believe this) that God manifests himself in a favourable way that would bring a person into a full [believing] relationship with him. So is every manifestation of God a good one? Or, how do we know that what we observe is actually God and not a human interpretation placing God in the event? It doesn't take a long look into contemporary protestantism to notice the many denominations and doctrines. How can one manifestation of God be contrary to another? For example, those who believe that the Gifts of the Spirit ended in the first century vs. those who believe it's in full swing today. I think there are two sides to this. I think there is the, what I will temporarily dub, 'the external' manifestation of God - where God is actually active in an event. And then there is (also temporarily dubbed) 'the internal' operation of God. That he is working in the interpretations of a person as they observe the external manifestation of God, or as they place God in an event. The external requires the internal observation, whether the observer believes the external manifestation is God or not, God is still working in the interpretation. Whereas the internal does not need the external, as observers can place God in an event, regardless of God's actual manifestation.

In regards to the seemingly contrary nature of God and the Church (i.e. Spiritual Gifts, Calvinism vs. Armenianism vs. Open Theism vs. Process Theism), I think it is to be remembered that there is a mystery to God. As humans we are unable to speak adequately of God, and therefore must not assign our beliefs to one logical way of thinking about God. It would seem that God isn't overly concerned with fitting into the logic of humans - hence Jesus as flying in the face of this - and would rather leave us in mystery as we observe and try to take part in the unfolding plans of God.

As a side note I think that external manifestations are more what people look for. They are defintely a more conscious awareness of God. This is opposed to the internal which is a more unconcious operation of God, though, I guess, we can be aware of the conviction/discernment of the Spirit in some circumstances without any external manifestation.

Telecom

It's not often I think of Telecom with good thoughts. The money hungry giant's internet is over priced, cellphones are nothing great, service unreliable and their help desk has operators that are hard to understand. Not a gleaming example of a company putting the customers first. But I was happy to read this article where they have donated just over 3 tonnes of food to the Salvation Army's food bank! This is great as it comes at a time where the Sallies were struggling to find food for the 'underpriveleged' people. Kudos for that one Telecom!

NZ Education Report

I was interested to see that the amount of people studying at level 4 and above has increased over the last year. I had heard that this was a trend in recessions, people get laid off so why not do a bit of study for either fun or re-training. 51% of NZers apparently have a tertiary qualification, but I was surprised that only 18% hold Bachelors or higher qualification!

Since NZ doesn't have alot of natural resources to trade with, nor alot of land to build lots of cities and sweat-shops to keep up with larger economies, perhaps NZ could become one big agricultural think tank. Where if you want to get educated in the world, you come to NZ! But that's about a million years away, and am sure there are much better plans out there.

Read the Article Here.

The Good Cardinal

Just read that Avery Dulles died yesterday morning. I read some of his stuff for church theology and really enjoyed it. Hope he lives well in the next life and I'm sure heaps of people will miss him.

Full Article.

Monopoly - the devils game.

I went through a phase a few months ago where I wanted to play monopoly. I couldn't find anyone else who would want to play so ended up getting it out of my system by downloading it on cellphone. Since then I've come to realise that it is in fact the devils game. It represents everything that Christians are supposed to be against; power, cheating, monopolizing, getting rich at others expense that often contributes to poverty, acquire land by any means, high rent, backstabbing and a player can even buy their way out of prison. So my monopoly fever has died, now I just need to find another one.

Philip

The Tension

There has been a tension within the churches over history as they swing between Unity and Purity. The reformation and consequent denominations (i.e. Anabaptists) are examples of a move to purity. From what I've seen we are currently swinging in the side of unity. Leading protestants and catholics are looking at finding unity between the two as well as lots of other inter-faith talk that's going on. There seems to be more free churches (those that call themselves non-denominational) who, at least theologically, state that they are part of the same big family - church. Most young people I meet are happy going to any denomination.

More recently I have been thinking about a tension between Grace and Holiness. I'm not exactly sure where the churches currently swing on this; perhaps they are at the bottom of the pendulum swinging left to grace? An example of a church swinging the way of holiness would be a church who see's themself as seperate from the world. Church membership requires various hurdles and hoops, and there is a clear definition of who is saved and who isn't - usually done through confessions etc. But then there seems to be this post-modern push of the church towards grace. Perhaps the Emerging Church represents an aspect of this as they focus on reaching culture in whatever form that may be required. The belief that there is no set of proper ways, but that God will accept all types of worship, theologies, beliefs and people. However, this is still something I'm workin out.

$43.5 million

Someone brought a block of land in the Auckland CBD yesterday for $43.5 million dollars! And we're supposed to be in a recession, if that was cheap I'd not like to see what it would sell for other days. Imagine what could be done with that much money....$40,000 could be given to Briar and I for instance and we could live off it for a year :P. Imagine how many people could be picked off the streets and be supplied with needs like proper nutrition, clothing, hygiene, shelter etc. Or how many family homes could do with some basic fix ups to improve warmth, leaks and other stuff in their houses. If only there was another $43.5 million to go around...

Urban Word for the Day: academic bulemia

Academic Bulemia:
When someones memorizes copious amounts of info leading up to something like an exam. Once they have spewed all the answers out onto the paper they pretty much forget straight away what they memorized. This is academic bulemia.

Or as the site put it:

The process of learning or memorizing by rote, subsequently followed by the regurgitation of that knowledge onto an exam answer sheet. Just as with the serious eating disorder, this form of bulemia results in no real retention of substance. This term is frequently applied to describe a common practice of young medical students. "I can't remember anything that I learned last night. It's like I grabbed the answer sheet, puked out all the answers and forgot everything immediately. I'd say that's academic bulemia."

See article here.

Bits and Pieces of Interest

The following is just a few things I've watched over the last few days.

I wonder if anything deconstructs humanities hypocrisies better than robots. I watched this video of a young robot learning and making judgment calls. You can check it out here.

This is an interesting way of killing off invasive fire ants with brain eating flies.

This is a photographer who almost dies when a car hit the wall next to him but brushes it off. "Take it like a man."

Mario Kart love song.

And finally, one of my favourite people - Bruce Lee - as he lights a cigarette with his nun chucks!

Hope you guys enjoy them!

A Relationship of 3: Faith, Theology, & Philosophy

As I continue marching towards the end of this book, Graven Ideologies by Bruce Benson (I've had to stop and start due to exams and stuff) I reached some stuff on Martin Heidegger, faith, theology and philosophy. I'm just gonna write an excerpt below:

"Faith is the lived experience of the Christian believer, mediated by revelation and Christian history. Theology is "the science that faith motivates and justifies" (Heidegger, Pathmarks, 1998). Thus the task of theology is to understand the experience of faith. Faith is the content and theology merely supplies the form. Now, "if faith would totally oppose a conceptual interpretation, then theology would be a thoroughly inappropriate means of grasping its object, faith" (Heidegger, Pathmarks, 1998). Yet Heidegger clearly thinks that faith does not oppose (and should not oppose) the attempt of theology to make sense of faith. For faith needs the "formation" supplied by theology." pg 184.

So then what of philosophy? How does that come into the mix? Benson writes that he see's at least two roles that Heidegger outlines. Firstly, it helps us understand the experience of faith. There are some things that remain particular to Christian faith - i.e. guilt. He believes that philosophy can explain a more general human experience of guilt (as opposed to the particular) that does not replace the faith experience, but creates a larger experiential context and broader understanding.

Secondly, theology is not a philosophy-free zone. Heidegger points out that theology is founded in faith, but it also use what he calls "free operations of reason" which by Benson's read lends itself towards philosophy (perhaps more specifically, metaphysics). But this "free operations of reason" is not some disembodied logic that seeks to disemble theology, but corrective reasoning that clarifies theology.

So all up faith experience is the content, theology is the form that is founded in faith and draws from reason, philosophy supplies this reason and is able to provide a corrective by being able to observe the more general human experience rather than just the particular faith experience.

Does God Have A Head?

As Briar and I were flying over NZ last night I was looking down on the land and wondering if this is what it is like for God to be looking down on us. At least by my experience most people - including myself - tend to think of God as 'out there somewhere,' even though at the same time we try to think of him around us. So does he have a head up above the clouds looking down on us? Or is he an invisible Spirit around us in the world? Or is it the Holy Spirit that is around us in spirit form while God and Jesus both have heads up in the skies talking somewhere? Or are head's anthropomorphisms and God really is best described as a spirit that is both here and there, while Jesus remains in human form? Or has Jesus rid himself of his body and taken on Spirit form and resides around us too? Does the difference between the Trinity come down to function then as all three are Spirits? What does it mean for humans to have a body then if Jesus got rid of his?

I guess what I think is that God does not necessarily have a head (although he may do - I've never seen him, except I know Jesus was a human). So I describe him as something like a Spirit, but I do this understanding that the description of Spirit probably doesn't do justice to what God actually is (which I am guessing is something we aren't able to comprehend). I think Jesus remains in his human form, and that when the second coming happens and everything is wrapped up we will remain in a renewed human form. This is opposed to the idea that we become spirits in heaven or leave this body behind and move into eternity. God and Jesus are somewhere, I dunno where, and the Holy Spirit is what is in us and around us. The Holy Spirit connects us and the world to Jesus, and Jesus connects us to God. Yet weirdly we have to remember that they are at the same time all one. So I dunno how to reconcile a God in which we describe as one third human, and two thirds Spirit, but I'm sure God has that sussed and one day, when he reveals himself to us, we'll understand.

A Chat with a Hare Krishna

I ended up having a good yarn with a Hare Krishna today while taking a DVD back to the store. She was quite intelligent in the sense that she could explain some underlying philosophies and beliefs behind much of the religion. It got me thinking though as I walked home. If faith is the overflow of reason then it always seems to come down to what a person wants to believe. I am a strong Christian, she was a strong Hare Krishna. She could argue relatively consistently how her religion operates, I could talk the same about mine. How can we determine the difference? Well I believe that God is active in the world, I could talk about the Spirit and things I've seen. She could also come see them with me. A traditional Christian would say that the power of God is the defining difference. But this does not seem so, without God directly convicted her of his reality, then she will continue interpreting the work of the Holy Spirit as the work of Krishna or some other being. So what can I do about this? Nothing except allow God to do his stuff through me, I can't convince nor save her. God has to do that, until she finds God revealed to her then she will continue to interpret the world from her own worldview.

Philip

P.S. Briar and I are going south for my sisters birthday so posts will be a little irregular over the weekend - if there are any at all.

Positive Theology

Positive theology (by my understanding) is 'how to speak about God' - which seems to be a good question in itself. While negative theology is talking about what God is not, we reach a place where we talk about what God is. For example, God is sovereign over all things or God is limited by the bounds of time. This seems the more traditional and common approach to talk about God. The bible is read, and a statement about God is made. "God parted the Red Sea and therefore controls the natural elements."

However it also seems that too much positive talk also risks the creation of idols rather than recognizing God. God is not an object waiting to be defined, he is a subject in which we are to try understand. I think the key is to not hold too strongly to a definition of God, but allow fluidity and remain open to change. As humans I feel that we are unable to adequately talk about God, but find ourselves in a position where we are forced to. Positive Theology will never capture everything that God is because it is always limited to human language. Thus we must remain fluid and aware of the inadequacy of any sort of speech about God. The positive and negative should be used to temper each other.

Roger Oakland vs. Emerging Church

Steve Taylor was on Radio Rhema this morning responding to this guy Roger Oakland who is cruising round NZ having a go at the Emerging Church (EC). I didn't hear what Steve said - I was making Briar pancakes :) - but I did go have a look at some of Oakland's stuff on YouTube.

I think there are better critiques of the movement than what he has to say. He seems to take a slanted view on the movement. I get the sense that he has it in his head that the emerging movement is trying to integrate the demonic with Christianity. He criticizes the EC for focusing on experience over scripture. He even refers to Hinduism and other Eastern Religions and suggests that the EC is following their lead in trying to read God through experience. This seems contrary to stuff I've read - sure the post-modern society prefers experiential activity - like the Labyrinths - but there are plenty of EC's that still look at scripture as well as experience. While people like Brian McLaren are leaders in the EC I wouldn't take them as normative for the whole movement. But you guys should go give him a listen at YouTube and see what you think. Like I said, there are better critiques.

Our Christmas Tree

This is our Christmas tree we finally managed to dress up today. Not bad for $50 all up! Briar managed to show me how to take this shot with no other lights on except the Christmas tree lights :).
Hope your Christmas' are going well.

"Christmas is not a day, it's a state of mind." - Flava Radio Station

Philip

Canaan-o-cide & Morality

This post is partially inspired by a post I wrote on another blog and part from a conversation I had with Briar the other day. It seems hard to deal with texts like Joshua 5 & 6 - i.e. is genocide ok? Recently I was listening to a lecture on morality and the lecturer talked about the possibility of viewing morality in 3 categories:

1) Autonomous: equality, rights, freedom.
2) Community: interdependance, duty, status, hierarchy.
3) Divinity: purity, sin, sanctity.

Apparently Autonomous Morality is what Western philosophers call morality. It is highly rational (Kantian morality is an example of this), e.g. is it ok for two adults who aren't married to sleep together? Autonomous morality would say yes, [Christian] Divinity Morality would say no, Community Morality would ask 'what does our culture and traditions say about this?' The West mostly operates from an autonomous morality, with a mix of the other two. But what does this have to do with genocide in the Old Testament?

I think it's more of a hermeneutical awareness. It has to be noticed that the Israelites didn't work from a rational autonomous morality like the West does. They were Community and Divinity; more concerned about maintaining the commands of the Holy Yahweh [God] than rationalising everything out. I guess I want to note two things here; 1) the Canaan-o-cide is a fulfillment of prophecy made many years before, it was going to come to pass anyway. It is said their inequities had come to fruition and this would have definitely influenced the Israelites if they lived side-by-side.
2) I'm not sure how else they were going to take the land, perhaps the inhabitants would pack up and move off? A natural disaster wipe them out first ready for the Israelites to walk in?

What ever the case God commanded the genocide, and [textually] the Israelites had no quelms executing the order. Which brings me to an interesting thought - how much was God accommodating the development of Israelite e.g. philosophically, psychologically, emotionally, spiritually etc. We are riding on the back of thousands of years of development and experience. We can learn in 3 years at Uni what initially took people their lifetimes. As we are still developing so were the Israelites, they hadn’t moved through an ‘enlightenment’ period which emphasized rationality. My guess is that they still thought in what we would call ‘primitive’ thinking, their conclusions perhaps not making a lot of rational sense e.g. the stoning of a family over stolen goods [Achan]. If you get what I mean here, I wonder how much God accommodated them at their stage of development. He operated in a way that made sense to them, but this way of operating is not indicative of all of God, nor revealing all he is nor how he actually operates if we could somehow manage full comprehension of God. My suspicion is that he continues to operate now in a way that makes some sense to us – which is different as we operate differently to the Israelites. For the sake of this post I might continue this line of thought in another post.

Machen on McLaren: A New Kind of Liberal?

Here is an interesting (while slightly lengthy) article on McLaren. He looks at a number of McLaren's beliefs; like 'living like Jesus is more important than believing in him.' But I'll let you guys read it.

Check it out here.

Philip

Negative Theology

Negative theology, by my understanding, is not speaking about God in a bad way. Rather, it is about how to not speak about him. We define God by saying what he is not. For example; God is not fickle, God is not hateful of all humans, God is not tempted by sin. I think that this is useful to keep in mind as a balance to the more traditional positive theology which will be a post coming soon.

However, to focus too much on 'how to not speak of God' is to create an idol rather than recognize God. One - perhaps influenced by the likes of Nietzsche - can take it too far and say that we can actually say nothing about God. This could be motivated by ideas such as; we cannot truly know 'God' or that any talk about God is just speculation - or both of these. It could also come from the idea that any human definition of God would put humans above God, rather than below. Even by saying what God is not, we are implying what he is, and therefore defining him.

Advent

Well Sunday was the first Advent Sunday for this year. Many people have blogged about it and I'm sure many churches par-took in it. Apparently it is supposed to signify the expectant waiting and preparation of the birth of Jesus - the Messiah. This is not just significant of the four weeks leading up to his actual birth, but the Hebrew Messianic expectation that is found throughout the prophets.
However I find myself pretty apathetic about celebrating advent. While I do celebrate the birth of Jesus I'm not overly fussed with tradition. But this is just one man's view and there are alot of people who do enjoy the advent lead up to Christmas!

Philip