Why won't god heal amputees? Some initial thoughts

whywontgodhealamputees.com is a big website that would take months to explore. It is interesting as it contains loads of stories of both religious people and atheists as they struggle to work out if there is a God. I have only had a quick explore of the site but it has already got me thinking about what I think is a common misconception about Xy.

That is... God is all powerful and God answers prayer by intervening in our world.

I’d like to argue that God is not all powerful. God is creator and powerful but not all powerful. Part of the reason that God is not all powerful is that God has given us power we have the power of free will power to choose for ourselves power to do what we like with no consequence that is external to the community in which we live. God created us not to worship God and not to and not be controlled by God but that we might have a relationship with God. This is not explicit in the Bible rather implicit for unless you have servant master relationship every relationship is based on negotiation whether that be two friends, partners or parent and child. There is negotiation because one party does not have all the power. And that is the nature of our relationship with God.

I'd also like to argue that God does not change our world. Rather, God changes us. This is something I've hinted at previously in my Not praying for car parking spaces and There will be no "deux ex machina!" posts. We live outside of Eden, in an imperfect world a world with floods, earthquakes and missing limbs. No matter how good it would be not to have them they are part of the reality of this world. A world is just good enough for us to suspect something very good is behind it and just bad enough for us to suspect that this is not as good as it gets. For example: We see other animals growing back limbs but yet it doesn't happen for humans. I guess for me I believe this is not as good as it gets and it won't be better until we are reconciled with each other, we are reconciled with God and that reconciliation has culminated with our return to Eden.

Finally I'd like to say the world or creation, though it doesn't seem as good as it could be, it is not evil. Far from it. Like humanity it is not what it could be and, according to Paul, groans for that final redemption.

Mr Sheen is running the country

Today it was pointed out to me that John Howard is in fact Mr Sheen.

Veggie Explosion

Well it was 6 months ago that I built some veggie boxes and now they have stuff growing in them. What's more some of that stuff is edible!

This is the snow peas and pumpkins, As you can see we underestimated how big the snowpeas would get and we killed the pumpkins, hence half the box is empty. I have no idea how they seemed to grow like weeds last time I tried.

This is the carrots and broccoli. Way more than we expected.

This is the cauliflower and spinach. Way more than we expected.

This is the herbs - more to plant later.

This is the strawberries - only planted recently.

All in all I'm pretty happy with our first stab we should have enough carrots, broccoli, cauliflower and spinach to feed the entire street. The spinach tastes great as does the herbs we are yet to eat anything else. I can recommend Eden Seeds if you like the idea of 98% of your seeds turning into plants. I have an aim to be growing at least 50% of everything we eat. We also have apples, peach, plums, grapes, avocado, mango, fig, pear, apricot, lime and mandarin trees. We got to eat a hand full of delicious plums this year. I think we could be on our way to 50%. Hopefully we can prove that sustainable living in a regular suburb with regular off the shelf house is possible.

My future sustainability projects include setting up a water tank and solar power. Solar will be for the unpowered shed to start and eventually I'd like to do the whole house but have no idea who to get help from. I need someone who will let me DIY most of it (it's way expensive if you get someone to set the whole thing up for you).

Feeling Inspired to Rock

Having been in quite a few bands all with lots of potential but eventually fizzling out I had all but given up on playing and writing music. That was until a series of things happened.

Firstly about a week ago I stumbled upon a strangely marked wav file on my computer and played it. It was some slide guitar and I instantly thought that it was some rare Jeff Lang (a guitar hero of mine) song. I thought that until about 2 minutes in when I noticed that the voice faintly singing in the background was a friend of mine and after a couple of bum notes on the guitar I realised that it was me who was playing. Then on the weekend after a short jam with a very talented singer they asked if I wanted to jam on a regular basis. Finally last night having put these two events out of my mind my wife was on the computer and I could hear this great blues riff coming out of the room. "Who's that?" I yelled and ran into the room "That sounds great" I thought to myself. Again that sound was me. My wife had videoed me playing to my little daughter.

Having hung up my guitar thinking that I won't ever amount to anything musically good I'm thinking maybe I should don the groovy flares, pick up my slide and stop doubting myself...

Not So Intelligent (and definitely not Biblical) Design

Intelligent Design is something I thought would have a short life and be largely ignored by mainstream media, but it has popped up again most recently on Radio National's Encounter program (See here) .

For me when talking to pro intellegent design people it often feels like I am being asked to side with the Bible and a bunch of fundamentalist who think that the value of pi is still 3 because that's what the Bible says (1 Kings 7:24 and 2 Chronicles 4:3) or side with a bunch of atheist scientists and intelligence.

So what's wrong with Creationism and it's newer cousin Intelligent Design? Well I am not a scientist, but I do dabble in theology and from my little dabbling I know one thing, the mechanics of how the world was created is not important why the world was created and by whom is what is important. Further more this is what was important to the writer(s) of Genesis.

In a podcast I heard of NT Wright I remember him suggesting that we should affirm what’s good with something, critique what’s' bad and subvert what can be changed (or something to that affect) and he suggests that this is what Paul often did and I'd like to suggest that this is exactly what the writer Genesis 1:1-2:3 does with the Babylonian creation account Enuma Elish.

Genesis 1:1-2:3 Affirms the mechanics of how the world was made and what it is now like. Both accounts have a common cosmology, a dome like world where the waters of ocean and sky (Gen 1:6) are separated, and references sea dragons, sun and moon. It subverts the Babylonian creation account by using strikingly similar imagery. Finally, it critiques the Babylonian creation account by giving us a different insight into who created the earth and why they did.

Here's how it works...

The Babylonian Creation account: The god’s are disorderly “Discord broke out among the gods although they were brothers, warring and jarring in the belly of Tiamat, heaven shook, it reeled with the surge of the dance; Apsu could not silence the clamour, their behaviour was bad, overbearing and proud.” Compare this to the Genesis 1:1-2:3 account: God is orderly. Every thing is made in a week. We also see day four filling day one, five filling two and six filling and day six filling day three. Each act of creation also starts with (1) an announcement of what God said (2) the command by which God created (3) the assertion that what God commanded did happen (4) God’s assessment that what had been created was good (5) A statement about when the creative act concluded.

The Babylonian Creation account: Heavens and earth are a result of a fierce battle between Marduk and Tiamat. Compare this to the Genesis 1:1-2:3 account: God just says and creation happens, Genesis 1:3,6,9,11,14,20,24,26

The Babylonian Creation account: Tiamat’s dead body forms the land and the blood of a dead god forms humans. The world is a result of violence. Apsu and Tiamat created bickering gods that need to be controlled. Compare this to the Genesis 1:1-2:3 account: The world is good. Genesis 1:4,10,12,18,21,25,31 (very good) The world is blessed by God. Genesis 1:22,28 The world has a peaceful and tranquil beginning.

The Babylonian Creation account: Many gods are created including the sun, moon and rival sea creatures. Compare this to the Genesis 1:1-2:3 account: Everything that is not God is created by God including the sun, moon and sea creatures.

In the Babylonian Creation account: Humans are formed by the blood of one of the vanquished god’s, who aided Tiamat. They are created to work for the God’s. In the city of Babylon order is created and Man is charged with looking after it. Compare this to the Genesis 1:1-2:3 account: Humans are formed in the image of God. In Genesis the created order is created by God for humans. Humans are charged with the purpose of looking after the land Genesis 1:28.

In the Babylonian Creation account: The world is created as an accidental by product of the waring Gods. The purpose of humanity is an after thought. Humanity is formed out of chaos and it is up to humanity to keep things ordered. Compare this to the Genesis 1:1-2:3 account: Humans are the pinnacle of creation. God creates them by just saying and it is only until after humans are made that God sees everything he has made, and declares it “very good” (Gen 1:31)

In the Babylonian Creation account: Marduk is given fifty names. Compare this to the Genesis 1:1-2:3 account: Yahweh is given no name.

Similarly the writer of Genesis 2:4-25 does the same, not so much with the Enuma Elish creation account but it draws on references to a number of Ancient eastern creation accounts and other accounts including: the Atrathaisis account from the Mesopotamian tradition and snake and tree (plant) of life imagery from the Epic of Gilgamesh.

What is even more worth of note is that the mechanics of how the world was made in Genesis 1:1-2:3 and Genesis 2:4-25 are obviously different. For example man is created first not last and man is created from dirt instead of by God’s saying. This is again further evidence that the why and by whom are what is important not the mechanics of how. I don't see these two accounts as a contradiction, it is like light which can be measured as both particles and waves. In the Genesis creation accounts we meet a God with two sides, which we often hold as opposites, coexisting in the one being. We see a God of sovereignty and intimacy and deity and humanity. We see a God who is both powerful and playful.

All this, I think is important because we live in a world where our dominant creation story (evolution) is chaotic, accidental and a ‘survival of the fittest’. I think Xns once again have similar problems with this cosmology as our ancient ancestors did with the chaotic and accidental nature of the Babylonian creation account. We can argue, not about the mechanics of creation, but that it was ordered and purposeful and that humanity is the penultimate point of God’s creation. That we are not to fight against each other for our own survival but to work in harmony with each other and to work in harmony with earth.

The Beautiful Game

As someone who booked my wedding day on the day of the AFL grand final it's probably not too hard to guess that I'm not really into sport. I find the Olympics tedious and although I and used to watch cricket and AFL when I was younger I just don't really care anymore. This is pretty much a blanket rule to all sporting events. All but one. The World Cup. Every four years I am mesmorised by the beautiful game. Argentina's 2nd goal against Serbia & Montenegro was a moment that made me uncontrolably yell with delight.

It is not just the skill of the players that is so enchanting but each tournament there always seems to be at least one small African or South American nation who rises above all expectations and wins games they are just not supposed to, this year that nation is Ecuador. What's more they win purely by playing bravely, adventurously and with big hearts. Conversely there is always a squad full of great players fail to deliver, England is on the verge of shaping up that way this year.

With the advent of computer games it I think it is easy to become blasé when we see a running player pass the ball straight to the feet of a team mate on the other side of the field, and they to another player, it looks so easy, just like it might be in a computer game. But it's a real ball and the players are a long way from each other, every time I remind myself of this I am again impressed by even the weakest of teams in the World Cup.

Football is a simple game. Just a ball and two goals and this means that even the poorest nations can triumph at the game and regularly do. Football may just be one of the few great levellers left in the world, where being a rich like the US or autocratic like China seems to give no advantage. For this reason I would like to suggest that this will be the game that we will play in heaven and not rugby where skinny guys like me will be asked to peel oranges.

Long live the beautiful game and go Ecuador!

Crikey Explains Government Immigration Policy

Like many Australians I'm both alarmed by and embarrassed by many of our immigration laws. Crikey reports that Federal Immigration Minister Amanda Vanstone (in an interview on the 7:30 report) says the Federal Government "we are taking into account what the Indonesians want because they're very helpful to us on border protection,"

Crikey goes on to suggest that this logic is what provides a useful framework for formulating other highly sensitive Australian policies. Like:

• Media ownership laws that increase concentration of ownership: "Yes, we are taking into account what Mr Murdoch wants because he's very helpful to us on government re-election strategies."
  
  
• Refusal to acknowledge the threat of global warming: "Yes, we are taking into account what the oil industry wants because it's very helpful to us on Coalition election funding when things get tight."
  
  
• Decision to start a faux nuclear debate: "Yes, we are taking into account what the coal industry wants because they're very helpful to us on Coalition election funding when things get tight."
  
  
• Snowy Hydro backflip: "Yes, we are taking into account what Alan Jones thinks because he's always very helpful to the Coalition."
  
  
• Decision to go into Iraq: "Yes, we are taking into account what the Americans want because they're so helpful when the PM wants to be seen as a player on the world stage."
  
  
• Government opposition to allowing advertising on the ABC: "Yes, we are taking into account what the Packer and Stokes families want because they are very helpful to us on election support policies."

See the original article at Crikey

The Australian Federal Liberal party seems to be a horrible machine. I can remember when Amanda Vanstone was considered a compassionate, progressive Liberal with comfort able appearances on left leaning television shows like Good News Week. But I fear this is part of the Liberal party strategy anyone who might have a compassionate agenda is thrown into a soul selling portfolio like immigration. I feel sorry for Amanda and sorry for Phillip Ruddock minister before her who used to be a member of Amnesty International, and I'm told was once considered to be a more compassionate kind of person.

It seems that ministers are forced to choose between the party line and there own conscious and the only was to climb through the ranks is to show you can tow the party line under any circumstance. Some call this strong leadership I'd argue otherwise.

The a just Australia website will help you write a letter to your local member if you want to see some change happen.

A call to Vegetarianism?

I have been recently hit by a desire to become vegetarian. Killing animals to eat them has never sat well with me but buying meat at the supermarket is fine. However I think it's time to stop pretending they are two unconnected things.

I always remember the first time I read Genesis and realised humanity was vegetarian until after the flood. I'm guessing there wouldn't have been an abundance of fruit and vegetables after a flood. (Here are the passages)

God said, "See, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food. And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food." And it was so. God saw everything that he had made, and indeed, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.

Genesis 1:29-31

Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you; and just as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything.

Genesis 9:3

Part of my own theology has always been an idea to "Get back to the Garden". That is that God's desire is not to wisk us away to some ethereal church like heaven, rather it's to get us back to Eden. So, in every thing I think how can I make the world more Eden like. And, I think being vegetarian just might be one of those things. My sister, who used to own a t-shirt with the slogan: if animals could talk they'd say "please don't eat me", will be happy and it's going to be much better for the planet if we are all vegetarian. It doesn't take a genius to figure that out. But if you think it does here's a quote...

Nothing will benefit human health, and increase the chances for survival of life on Earth, as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet.

Albert Einstein

The key to keeping a selective Blog audience

After signing up to a stat site I have discovered that unlike many bloggers I have a an audience of about 30 people a month. Now given that about 15 people a month were writing spam replies previously that leaves 15 real people and given that most people check a Blog say once a week that means just 4 people and since I check my own blog at home and work that brings it down to just 2 readers. So thanks to you both.

So what is the key to successfully keep such a select audience? I'm glad you asked.

1. Don't post intelligent things on other peoples sites or forums, especially widely read ones as this will only bring people your way.
2. Put up loads of posts especially on a wide range of subjects.
3. Talk mainly about your self. Like your vegie garden without vegetables, and movies you watched and didn't like.
4. Talk about issues that were relevant 3 months ago. Like this.
5. Credit people you get information and ideas from. Like this. That way people will by pass your site and go straight to theirs.

Relating to a Postmodern Mind - Part 2

A few posts ago I looked at the five ways Xy can relate to other faiths and asked you to choose which one you'd choose. Well it's probably no surprise that my answer and I think the Post Modern answer is (6) none of the above.

The problem with all of the 5 views I outlined (including theological pluralism which is different from a pluralistic society and often considered to be Post-Modern answer) is that all of these assume that the Xn has the privileged vantage point of the aeroplane. That is, in our illustration of people of different faiths climbing up a mountain to some ultimate reality / salvation or what ever, the little stick man Xn sees not only the immediate path but they can also see a view from an aeroplane flying by the mountain telling them where they are going and also where everyone else is going.

This in a nut shell is the difference between the modern and post modern mind. Whatever the idea of where the stickmen are the modernist is in the plane and the post modernist is on the ground. And on the ground is where I like to be. I have faith in where I am going but not proof. I am limited by what I know and the one thing I know is that there's a good chance I don't know everything. Right now I believe I am on a path way up the mountain faith to the flag of salvation or ultimate reality. Unfortunately I cannot fly above the mountain so I cannot judge wether other faiths are on that same path or even on the same mountain, or if I'm not on that path. As a result I am keen to put my faith in to the market place. A market place where I am willing to explore other peoples faith out of respect for them and to overcome my own ignorance. A market place where I might challenge others to explore my faith. A faith which I believe to be true as a result of the exploring I have done but which is relative to my time and to my space. It is a faith which I have a sneaking suspicion could be relevant to any one in any time and space. But I am not them so I cannot know that it will be. To have more than a snaking suspicion would be to claim knowledge of an absolute truth, a view from the aeroplane, which I do not have.

Here are the problems I have with those five ways of looking at faith...

(1) The Exclusivist position denies the opinion and experience of others. (2) The Pluralist position denies the reality of difference between faiths. (3) The Inclusivist refuses to look at the world through any opinion but there own seeing others only through there own values and standards. (4) The Inclusivist and Pluralist denies that some beliefs are unacceptable (such as murder) and are afraid to call a spade a spade. (5) The Exclusivist and Pluralist position is self centred and fails to see the value of learning from others and teaching others.

Post Modern people have no problem that "you think what you think" about a particular issue it's inability to say "this is what I think, but I could be wrong and I might learn something from you" that is the problem.

So here we all are on journey's together sometimes on the same path some times on different paths sometimes on different mountains all try to figure out what life means. All I want is for everyone to talk to each other about why they are walking where they are walking. Learn from each other not so that one can convert the other but so that we learn from each other and the truth may set us free.

5 of 101 things to do as a churchless Xn - Meditation

Today Richard Rohr's Daily Reflections posted this...

"Silence Is Golden"
As a people, we are afraid of silence. That’s our major barrier to prayer. I believe silence and words are related. Words that don’t come out of silence probably don’t say much. They probably are more an unloading than a communicating. Yet words feed silence, and that’s why we have the word of God- the read word, the proclaimed word, the written word. But that written and proclaimed word, doesn’t bear a great deal of fruit- it doesn’t really break open the heart of the Spirit- unless it’s tasted and chewed, unless it’s felt and suffered and enjoyed at a level beyond words. Blaise Pascal said all human evil comes into the world because people can’t sit still in a chair for thirty minutes! I hope that’s an exaggeration. Maybe he’s saying that running from silence is undoubtedly running from our souls, ourselves, and therefore, from God. If I had to advise one thing for spiritual growth, it would be silence.
from Letting Go: A Spirituality of Subtraction

And that got me thinking about meditating, my fifth thing you can do as a churchless Xn.

Name: Meditating

Category: Connect

Size: Solo

Description: Meditating is one of those mysterious things that is pretty hard to pick up from reading an article or a post like this and most of them tend to just talk about the bvalue of it. Fortunately it's much easier to learn how to do it from a podcast, and the World Community for Xn Meditation do just that. I found there podcasts on meditation really helpful and talks one two and three from Series A were all I needed to get me going. The key to meditating or praying silently is to use a Mantra, a word that is said silently over and over. This empties your head of any replaying things in the past or worry about things in the future so you can just focus on the present.

Emerging Church sense of humour dangerous and not appreciated

He He,

In their eager zeal to bag out the Emerging Church (see my Emerging Church: Just as bad as the Da Vinci Code? post) the Sydney Anglican newspaper has come unstuck. Attacking UK site emergingchurch.info for promoting a nude beach mission, led by Rev Adam Sapple and Eve Ennsong on Wyndup Beach and of course the story was written on the 1st of April.

ABC's Media Watch even ran a story on it you can see it here or you can read it here.

Apparently they've apolgised, but it's still very funny.

Thanks to Hamo for the tip off.

Relating to a Postmodern Mind - Part 1

It is easy to get lost walking through our pluralist, poststructuralist, decentred world. As you listen intently to enveloping intertextual multivocalities, having been forced to trade in your once trusty christocentric metta-narritve for a dictionary that you needed, only to understand that our new post enlightenment deconstructionist reality may not be absolutely true.

Or if you didn't understand that...

Post Modernism can be confusing for Xns. I have seen many an explanation of Xy that starts with a an appeal to disregard post modernism. Which is very hard, if not impossible for someone who has grown up within the last 35 years particularly. I on the other hand struggle to see the world through modern or classical eyes. I understand that a friend might be excited that being Xn is really important to me and say "it's great that your a Xn and that works for you but this is what works for me", rather than "Hey tell me about what you believe because it sounds like Xy might work for me too."

So, if this post modern thing baffles you and the idea that someone's faith is just experience relative to their experience and that they believe that there is a absolute truth that you can persuade them of then read.

Ok, let start with the question "How do Xns relate to people of other faiths?"

There are 5 ways Xns (or any faith) can compare themselves to another faith. So 5 ways a Xn can view someone of another faith or 5 ways some of another faith can view a Xn. All the examples will be from the Xn perspective, so flip roles to see how it works the other way around. To make things easier (hopefully) I will explain what these alternatives mean using the Mountain of Faith at which the flag of salvation or perhaps ultimate reality sits at the top of (for the sake of simplicity I'll just say "the flag" in the following descriptions). I will also have two pilgrims one of Christian Faith (stick man with a C above his head) and one of Other faith (stick man with an O above his head).

1. Exclusivist

The exclusivist position is where one believes that Xy is the only way to "the flag" and that any other faith or belief system has no merits what so ever. This is your typical fundamentalist Xn position.

For our picture, the Xn is on the mountain heading to "the flag" and the person of other faith is not on the mountain.

2. Pluralist
The pluralist position is the relativisation of all religious beliefs including your own. What you believe is not important as all will achieve salvation, so whether you are Xn or another faith it makes no difference, and therefore being of one faith one day and another faith another day or mixing bits of different faiths is fine..

For our picture the Xn is on the mountain traveling up a path to "the flag" and the person of another faith is on the same mountain and traveling up the same path.


3. Inclusivist
The Inclusivist position recognises that there is value to be found in other religions but these are just partial understandings of the truth that can only be found in there own religion. This is a typical more compassionate Evangelical stance, and the Catholic Vatican 2 stance (I think - don't quote me on that).

For our picture the Xn is on the mountain. The person of other faith is behaving very similarly also climbing a mountain. So, they have lots in common, their behaviour looks similar but, it is a different mountain and unfortunately there is no flag at the top of this mountain.


4. Inclusivist and Pluralist
The Inclusivist Pluralist is similar to the Pluralist in that they believe that both people are climbing up the same mountain, but acknowledges the difference between faiths and that can be very different and you can't just jump from one to the other or pick bits of both but you need to choose just one.

For our picture the Xn and the Other are both climbing the same mountain only on different sides on different paths. Both reach "the flag" but via distinct different paths.


5. Exclusivist and Pluralist
The Exclusivist and Pluralist respects the incommensurability of Xy and other beliefs but chooses just to concentrate on their own life and own belief. They are happy for people to believe what ever they like but have no concern as to what consequence that belief might have. This is often thought of as Post Modern approach "this works for me and I'm not really concerned with what works for you".

For our picture the Xn is climbing on the mountain to salvation, the other might also be somewhere else on another mountain climbing to a "flag" but he is not worried that the other person even exists.



So the question to ask yourself at the end of "Relating to a Postmodern Mind part 1" is this... are you a...

1) Exclusivist
2) Pluralist
3) Inclusivist
4) Inclusivist and Pluralist
5) Exclusivist and Pluralist
or
6) None of the above

and, what faith view that others hold do you find it easiest to relate to?

Next time... Post Modernism and how to live without an Aeroplane

5 in 5 weeks - more depression

This post was going to be "3 in 3 weeks" then "4 in 4 weeks" and now it's "5 in 5 weeks". In the last 5 weeks 5 people close to me (including myself) have been diagnosed with depression or are wanting to go to a doctor to get medication for depression. Previously I asked would Jesus get depressed? now I'm not sure what to ask, perhaps why are so many people depressed and what is it about our lives that makes things so overwhelming. Relative to so many others in the world we have so much. My suspicion is that there is some incongruence between how are lives are and how we and others expect them to be. Firstly, advertising tells us that with purchase of a product we will have freedom, sex appeal and vitality but the reality is we will just have a new car or a shampoo bottle or a fizzy drink. If we purchase the product we are dissatisfied becasue we don't get those things if we don't purchase we are dissatisfied becuase we don't have the product to give us those things. Secondaly, most people around us are projecting an image of contentment and happiness, regardless of how they actually feel, leaving many of us to feel very alone if we feel other wise. Finally, our relative affluence and the common belief that money and things buy happiness keeps us chasing more money more things, and the belief that it must be possible especially when it seems like those around us who have these things are happy. After all that's what advertising tells us and what the people them selves try to project.

So what do we do? I don't know, I probably not in a good state to work it out, but it's something more than the magic white pills that help so many of us get through each day.

Living comfortably with not much

In my quest to try and live simply, I am always try to remind myself that although most of the time most of us feel poor we are actually really rich and I was heartend to hear 70 year old Hugh Stretton say this on Counterpoint.

You may think it's a fanciful idea but I would like to report that I just happen to have had a happy middle class childhood some way out of Melbourne in an outer suburb where's there's plenty of space. I had a brother and a sister and we had an old motor car, the family did, and we went for an annual holiday about 100 miles away, and we did a lot of things that kids want to do now and greatly enjoyed them. There's a great deal of stuff we didn't have and do, but if I cost that happy childhood as it would cost now, if that's all you had now, it wouldn't cost too much, it would be open to nearly everybody. But then there would have to have been, I suppose, better education for more parents, things like that, but those again don't have to cost too much.

This was a life, I suspect, with out $3000 stainless steel BBQ's, plasma screen TV's, ensuites on bedrooms, overseas or interstate holidays, dishwashers, new cars, iPods, mobile phones, etc... But everything someone needs to make them happy.

Synchronicity

Just had some cool Synchronicity. I've started reading Jeremiah - the longest book in the Bible and probably not the easiest to read but I reckon it's probably only two thirds the length it appears to be as it is written in Hebrew poetry, which means that lines are repeated eg: Jer 1:5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you” then “before you were born I consecrated you” This something rarely explained but really easy to pick once you know it is probably there (it’s in the Psalms a lot too). The idea, most likely, is that the church leader reads the first line and the congregation says the repeat. Great to know but incredibly frustrating if you go to one of those churches where they do this with Psalms from the common prayer book because 50% of the time they don’t do it properly! The reader will say the same concept twice then the congregation will say a new concept twice. The repeat thing is how Hebrew poetry works. There is no rhyme or rhythm. Apparently there was a scholar who dedicated his life to trying to work out the original rhythms in Hebrew poetry and ended up killing himself - so don't try this at home!

Anyway after only a few chapters into Jeremiah I was struck by the following Jeremiah is young and no one listens to him God’s people are not worshiping God and are ignoring those in poverty

God is promising to get rid of there most prized religious symbol.

Jer 3:16 And when you have multiplied and increased in the land, in those days,
says the Lord, they shall no longer say, "The ark of the covenant of the Lord."
It shall not come to mind, or be remembered, or missed; nor shall another one be
made.

And God is promising to get rid of their written laws too. (I hadn't read this yet but new it was coming up)

Jer 31:33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write
it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people

I was struck by how this echoed my ritual, doctrine and story post with the Ark analogous to ritual and the law analogous to law.