Are you working too hard? Many people are. A caller to a talkback radio station boasted he had worked everyday for three years, getting up at 4am and arriving home between 11pm and 1am each night. Having recently taken a month long break he said he was now back in the groove and had reached another 106 days consecutive days of labour.
The radio announcer, himself also employed for seven days a week albeit with shorter hours than the caller, was very impressed and praised this 50 year chef by calling him an inspiration.
A slightly inebriated businessman caught a taxi home from the pub one night and was lamenting the break down of his marriage. He warned the taxi driver with these words. 'I worked my guts out for seven days a week year after year to provide for my family, to give them everything they ever wanted. But mate,' he said, 'All they ever wanted was more of me.'
The taxi driver had already determined not to let work dominate his life, but perhaps the businessman and the chef should have a chat.
Work has become a god to many people. There is a difference between working to live and living to work. When a man spends the majority of his waking hours for most of his life doing a job which he doesn't enjoy but feels he has to do in order to live, then he is a slave.
There are many slaves in our society who need to receive Jesus' offer of freedom, rest and abundant life.
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Prisoner Of Obscurity
Natalie Tran. Have you heard that name? What? You haven't? You must have been living in a cave in Kathmandau. Natalie Tran is the most watched Australian on YouTube. In fact she has made it on to the top 20 most watched YouTube videos in the world. In the world, I said. Guess how many hits we are talking about here? Go on, guess. 224 million hits worldwide. 224 million.
I'm at a loss for words which is really bad when you a writer. Check out the story and her video or just the video at http://www.news.com.au/technology/meet-youtubes-224-million-girl-natalie-tran/story-e6 (copy and paste the URL into your browser) and come back here.
So Natalie draws a six pack on herself with a black marker and it's entertaining.I'm not sure if this makes me despair for the future of rational humanity or just insanely jealous. Popularity is like a disease and I want to catch it. The thing is I don't know how. I am apparently inoculated against it by qualities like averageness and blend in with everyone and everything else-ness. I am a prisoner of obscurity. My video had an unbelievable number of hits. I forget the exact number but it was somewhere under twenty. It was supposed to help sell my book. I talk about the book and my writing influences, and it's pretty interesting but 224 million people have watched Natalie Tran draw a six pack on herself with a black marker.
I draw two conclusions. I have virtually no hope, and I have virtually no idea of what appeals to people who like to watch Natalie Tran draw on herself. Okay she's way better looking than me but I bet I could kill her at Scrabble. And apart from the fact that it does not feature an attractive young lady in a bikini top and shorts, my video is an infinitely superior product.
YouTubers of the world. Enjoy your grabs of the mundane and the insane by all means but please at least consider buying my book. You too, Natalie Tran.
I'm at a loss for words which is really bad when you a writer. Check out the story and her video or just the video at http://www.news.com.au/technology/meet-youtubes-224-million-girl-natalie-tran/story-e6 (copy and paste the URL into your browser) and come back here.
So Natalie draws a six pack on herself with a black marker and it's entertaining.I'm not sure if this makes me despair for the future of rational humanity or just insanely jealous. Popularity is like a disease and I want to catch it. The thing is I don't know how. I am apparently inoculated against it by qualities like averageness and blend in with everyone and everything else-ness. I am a prisoner of obscurity. My video had an unbelievable number of hits. I forget the exact number but it was somewhere under twenty. It was supposed to help sell my book. I talk about the book and my writing influences, and it's pretty interesting but 224 million people have watched Natalie Tran draw a six pack on herself with a black marker.
I draw two conclusions. I have virtually no hope, and I have virtually no idea of what appeals to people who like to watch Natalie Tran draw on herself. Okay she's way better looking than me but I bet I could kill her at Scrabble. And apart from the fact that it does not feature an attractive young lady in a bikini top and shorts, my video is an infinitely superior product.
YouTubers of the world. Enjoy your grabs of the mundane and the insane by all means but please at least consider buying my book. You too, Natalie Tran.
Saturday, March 13, 2010
Honour Among Thieves
What was truly frightening about the Godfather, and the many gangster films which followed it, was the fact the mafia did not believe society's laws applied to them. Using extortion, intimidation, and extreme violence they said, 'we will do what we want to do.'
They were not a lawless group of people however. They merely adhered to their own laws and their own standards. They had their own morality regardless of its legality. The argument goes, just because something is illegal does not make it immoral. A whole book could be written on the immoral acts of history which were legal. Of course the judgement on what was immoral would be the author's point of view. Does that mean, therefore, that morals are only a matter of opinion? Who sets the standard?
All the social problems and crimes which occur in our world result from different standards; standards which do not measure up to the ultimate standard of goodness.
How many arguments, how many actions have been perpetrated by people believing their behaviour was okay or justified in the circumstances? In one family swearing and drunkenness is acceptable, in another it is not. Punching a man is okay if he throws the first punch. Working for cash to avoid tax is acceptable to many while others feel it is dishonest. These are examples of relative morality and relative morality is a conflict causing plague in society and in the world.
Surely the basis for society's morals must be an absolute standard. Surely it must be God's revelation of his Character and His will for us which is in the Bible. Even those who feel certain laws don't apply to them, like the mafia will be judged in the end by their Maker. Who can decide what is truly good apart from one who is perfect?
They were not a lawless group of people however. They merely adhered to their own laws and their own standards. They had their own morality regardless of its legality. The argument goes, just because something is illegal does not make it immoral. A whole book could be written on the immoral acts of history which were legal. Of course the judgement on what was immoral would be the author's point of view. Does that mean, therefore, that morals are only a matter of opinion? Who sets the standard?
All the social problems and crimes which occur in our world result from different standards; standards which do not measure up to the ultimate standard of goodness.
How many arguments, how many actions have been perpetrated by people believing their behaviour was okay or justified in the circumstances? In one family swearing and drunkenness is acceptable, in another it is not. Punching a man is okay if he throws the first punch. Working for cash to avoid tax is acceptable to many while others feel it is dishonest. These are examples of relative morality and relative morality is a conflict causing plague in society and in the world.
Surely the basis for society's morals must be an absolute standard. Surely it must be God's revelation of his Character and His will for us which is in the Bible. Even those who feel certain laws don't apply to them, like the mafia will be judged in the end by their Maker. Who can decide what is truly good apart from one who is perfect?
Saturday, March 6, 2010
Quick! Call the Doctor
Everybody knows the Australian health system is sick. In fact it's terminally ill. State governments have struggled for many years to cope with funding what is the single biggest expense in their budgets. We can't brush off the troubling reality that our public hospitals are doubled over under the strain of caring for the sick and injured in society. Understaffed and under resourced, they battle on but the war is being lost. Somebody needs to do something. We need a saviour.
In strides Prime Minister Kevin Rudd who said during the election campaign in 2007 that he would launch a federal take over of our bedraggled and inefficient state health systems. Many cheered. Hope was renewed. Those who wish to dispose of state governments entirely, enthusiastically applauded the first step on the road to the removal of an unnecessary tier of government. However, three years have passed and nothing has changed.
The government held an inquiry, but nothing has happened yet. Critics complain about the lack of action. The opposition rolls out the cliches about elected prime ministers not keeping their promises, and cynics tell everyone that they told them so. The government announces other exciting developements to try to distract the masses from the perceived lack of action in some areas.
There are two important points to be made here. Firstly, three years is not enough time for an elected government to implement the reforms for which they were given a mandate by the voters. Year 1: keeping as many of the easier promises as possible and making excuses for the ones they break. Year 2: action and genuine reform begins. Year 3: preparation for the next election. That is, reminding the electorate of what they have done, and making some new promises for the next term if elected.
Four year fixed terms would help remove or at least lessen this problem. We have them for the NSW state government. Let's introduce them for the feds.
Secondly, fixing the health system is not like you or I changing our health insurance provider. Mr Rudd has already admitted that he and his government have underestimated the complexity of the issues. They needed all they time they have taken, and they will need a lot more. Our Prime Minster is not a magician. There is no magic wand to wave over our public hospitals. There is no quick fix. To hear members of the opposition say he is taking too long, makes me sick. They should shut up and jump behind the public hospitals reform agenda and push it with all the strength they possess.
Politics is an invasive species. It permeates every aspect of a our lives, public and private. It is a weed which chokes the plants of progress and reform, and it should not play a role in the ongoing drama of our public health system. Mr Rudd says he will fix it and I believe he will, given the time to do it properly, and cooperation.
In strides Prime Minister Kevin Rudd who said during the election campaign in 2007 that he would launch a federal take over of our bedraggled and inefficient state health systems. Many cheered. Hope was renewed. Those who wish to dispose of state governments entirely, enthusiastically applauded the first step on the road to the removal of an unnecessary tier of government. However, three years have passed and nothing has changed.
The government held an inquiry, but nothing has happened yet. Critics complain about the lack of action. The opposition rolls out the cliches about elected prime ministers not keeping their promises, and cynics tell everyone that they told them so. The government announces other exciting developements to try to distract the masses from the perceived lack of action in some areas.
There are two important points to be made here. Firstly, three years is not enough time for an elected government to implement the reforms for which they were given a mandate by the voters. Year 1: keeping as many of the easier promises as possible and making excuses for the ones they break. Year 2: action and genuine reform begins. Year 3: preparation for the next election. That is, reminding the electorate of what they have done, and making some new promises for the next term if elected.
Four year fixed terms would help remove or at least lessen this problem. We have them for the NSW state government. Let's introduce them for the feds.
Secondly, fixing the health system is not like you or I changing our health insurance provider. Mr Rudd has already admitted that he and his government have underestimated the complexity of the issues. They needed all they time they have taken, and they will need a lot more. Our Prime Minster is not a magician. There is no magic wand to wave over our public hospitals. There is no quick fix. To hear members of the opposition say he is taking too long, makes me sick. They should shut up and jump behind the public hospitals reform agenda and push it with all the strength they possess.
Politics is an invasive species. It permeates every aspect of a our lives, public and private. It is a weed which chokes the plants of progress and reform, and it should not play a role in the ongoing drama of our public health system. Mr Rudd says he will fix it and I believe he will, given the time to do it properly, and cooperation.
Saturday, February 27, 2010
A Natural Act
I respect the right of people to chose to be in homosexual relationships. I accept that most of those relationships are no more or less committed and genuine than de-facto relationships or marriages. I believe genuine relationships should be recognized by law and the people in those relationships given rights and protections within those laws.To not do that is plainly discriminatory. However, I entirely support the governments decision not to legalize homosexual marriages.
A man called Adrian said this about the government's decision to not legalize gay marriage, 'Please don't call on nature to justify bigotry.The animal kingdom contains many instances of homosexuality.'
The animal kingdom also contains many instances of cannibalism. Should we also say that is natural and not only allow it on our society, but promote and legitimize it?
According to Heather, because we are now in the 21st century, we shouldn't be denying the basic human right of marriage. Other advocates of legalising homosexual unions talk about the fact that no religion holds a monopoly on marriage. Sally goes further to say that no religion is necessary for marriage.
Firstly, the suggestion that because we have been on earth longer means that we should be more intelligent, wiser, more compassionate, and have learned our lessons from history and done away with all prejudice is a naive denial of basic human nature.
Secondly, marriage is actually a part of religion. God invented the concept. As it is his idea and He says that it is between a man and a woman, I think we should leave it at that.
Those who want to pretend they are married: de facto couples and homosexual couples should be satisfied with a civil union. Even those hypocrites who get married in churches, by ministers, and make promises to a God they don't love , know or even believe in, should also be satisfied with civil unions. Marriage should be reserved for those who accept it as God's perfect plan for a man and a woman. The use of the word marriage by homosexual couples is another attempt to legitimize what is in fact illegitimate. The word 'gay' used to mean happy but it was subverted by homosexuals to try to normalize homosexuality. The attempted theft of the word 'marriage' is in the same category.
'Gay marriage' is an oxymoron: A contradiction in terms. Marriage is between a man and a woman united in the sight, and under the authority, of God.
The comments by Adrian, Heather and Sally in this blog were taken from comments in an article called Gay Marriage Bill Fails in the Senate on SBS World News online.
A man called Adrian said this about the government's decision to not legalize gay marriage, 'Please don't call on nature to justify bigotry.The animal kingdom contains many instances of homosexuality.'
The animal kingdom also contains many instances of cannibalism. Should we also say that is natural and not only allow it on our society, but promote and legitimize it?
According to Heather, because we are now in the 21st century, we shouldn't be denying the basic human right of marriage. Other advocates of legalising homosexual unions talk about the fact that no religion holds a monopoly on marriage. Sally goes further to say that no religion is necessary for marriage.
Firstly, the suggestion that because we have been on earth longer means that we should be more intelligent, wiser, more compassionate, and have learned our lessons from history and done away with all prejudice is a naive denial of basic human nature.
Secondly, marriage is actually a part of religion. God invented the concept. As it is his idea and He says that it is between a man and a woman, I think we should leave it at that.
Those who want to pretend they are married: de facto couples and homosexual couples should be satisfied with a civil union. Even those hypocrites who get married in churches, by ministers, and make promises to a God they don't love , know or even believe in, should also be satisfied with civil unions. Marriage should be reserved for those who accept it as God's perfect plan for a man and a woman. The use of the word marriage by homosexual couples is another attempt to legitimize what is in fact illegitimate. The word 'gay' used to mean happy but it was subverted by homosexuals to try to normalize homosexuality. The attempted theft of the word 'marriage' is in the same category.
'Gay marriage' is an oxymoron: A contradiction in terms. Marriage is between a man and a woman united in the sight, and under the authority, of God.
The comments by Adrian, Heather and Sally in this blog were taken from comments in an article called Gay Marriage Bill Fails in the Senate on SBS World News online.
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Why Should the Devil Have all the Good Music?
This is actually the title of a Larry Norman song. I don't know if you remember him. A christian folk/rock singer songwriter who was prominent in the 1970's especially. Norman was an eccentric visionary whose songs drew controversy from both the conservative religious establishment and the secular music press for his lyrical mix of radical religious, political, and social themes.He is known as the father of Christian rock and in 1972 released a record called Only Visiting This Planet which is widely regarded as one of the best of its genre.
A song from that record posed the question, Why should the devil have all the good music? It was Norman's protest against the belief which was common in conservative Christendom that rock and roll was Satanic.
Here's a sample of this anti rock sentiment:The demonic source of rock and roll music with its adverse emotional, physical and spiritual effect upon people is all too evident. The erotic, sensual effect of the rock and roll beat is purposely calculated to arouse lust, the revolutionary theme of rock music often advocates violence, the repetitious beat of rock and roll produces an ecstatic state akin to a trance and there is a close relationship between drug use and rock and roll. Get the picture? The man who wrote these statements, Hobart E. Freeman plainly doesn't like rock and roll. As a Christian, I am embarrassed by his comments. But it gets worse. According to Freeman, Christian rock music is simply a tool of Satan to corrupt and destroy today's youth. It is a compromising alliance with the world against the Kingdom of God.
I wonder if there are still narrow minded Christians who think like this. God forbid the existence of ministers who ban their congregation from watching non Christian movies, listening to non Christian music and reading non Christian books. The sacred/secular divide is a contrivance of graceless men. It is a totally false dichotomy. And to suggest that Christians and even non Christians cannot express truth and give glory to God through rock music is ridiculous. God is not limited by legalistic labels.
It is hard for some people to believe that I could enjoy listening to a band like Lamb of God. Even the name is an insult to Jesus, isn't it? Lamb of God sing songs which are anti-religion, not anti-Christ. Jesus himself is anti-religion so surely its okay for a man to sing/scream about the hypocrisy that he has experienced in the church probably from preachers like Hobart E. Freeman. There are countless other examples but the point is that Larry Norman's question must be answered with the words: he shouldn't have all the good music and in fact, he doesn't.
God invented music. It is an amoral tool which is used for a variety of purposes in our society. Some good, some bad. If rock music can be used to proclaim good news, rescue the lost, open the eyes of the blind, and set prisoners free, then how can it be labelled Satanic? Right minded, grace filled people know this to be true.
As Larry said, "I want the people to know that He saved my soul but I still like to listen to the radio."
A song from that record posed the question, Why should the devil have all the good music? It was Norman's protest against the belief which was common in conservative Christendom that rock and roll was Satanic.
Here's a sample of this anti rock sentiment:The demonic source of rock and roll music with its adverse emotional, physical and spiritual effect upon people is all too evident. The erotic, sensual effect of the rock and roll beat is purposely calculated to arouse lust, the revolutionary theme of rock music often advocates violence, the repetitious beat of rock and roll produces an ecstatic state akin to a trance and there is a close relationship between drug use and rock and roll. Get the picture? The man who wrote these statements, Hobart E. Freeman plainly doesn't like rock and roll. As a Christian, I am embarrassed by his comments. But it gets worse. According to Freeman, Christian rock music is simply a tool of Satan to corrupt and destroy today's youth. It is a compromising alliance with the world against the Kingdom of God.
I wonder if there are still narrow minded Christians who think like this. God forbid the existence of ministers who ban their congregation from watching non Christian movies, listening to non Christian music and reading non Christian books. The sacred/secular divide is a contrivance of graceless men. It is a totally false dichotomy. And to suggest that Christians and even non Christians cannot express truth and give glory to God through rock music is ridiculous. God is not limited by legalistic labels.
It is hard for some people to believe that I could enjoy listening to a band like Lamb of God. Even the name is an insult to Jesus, isn't it? Lamb of God sing songs which are anti-religion, not anti-Christ. Jesus himself is anti-religion so surely its okay for a man to sing/scream about the hypocrisy that he has experienced in the church probably from preachers like Hobart E. Freeman. There are countless other examples but the point is that Larry Norman's question must be answered with the words: he shouldn't have all the good music and in fact, he doesn't.
God invented music. It is an amoral tool which is used for a variety of purposes in our society. Some good, some bad. If rock music can be used to proclaim good news, rescue the lost, open the eyes of the blind, and set prisoners free, then how can it be labelled Satanic? Right minded, grace filled people know this to be true.
As Larry said, "I want the people to know that He saved my soul but I still like to listen to the radio."
Saturday, February 13, 2010
The Great Pretenders
On their most recent CD, When Angels and Serpents Dance, POD have a track called Rise Against. Here's a few lines from the song which got me thinking.
"What's the point in living?
What's the use in moving on?
If you keep pretending like there's nothing wrong."
2010 Australian of the Year, Dr Patrick McGorry is a mental health expert: a researcher, clinician and advocate for youth mental health reform agenda. He gave an interview on the radio last week and in it he mentioned some disturbing statistics.
In Australia, there is a death by suicide every 4 hours. Every 15 minutes, someone attempts to kill themselves.
These numbers make a absolute lie of the great Australian laid back attitude to life: she'll be right mate. We live in the Lucky Country. We have a few problems but nothing compared to other nations. We survived the GFC, didn't we? Life is great. Wouldn't want to live anywhere else? Rich, affluent, well educated. No worries. Have another beer! Blah! Blah! Blah!
If things are so good here, why is someone, a human being, somebody's husband, wife, brother, sister, son or daughter, trying to kill themselves every 15 minutes. Think about it? One person takes their own life every four hours. That's just here in Australia. And guess what, its getting worse.
We all have problems and we know that problems don't get solved by ignoring them. We know that but we "keep pretending like there's nothing wrong" I'm with POD on this one, "What's the use in living, what's the point in knowing, if all you do is nothing?" Let's stop pretending.
"What's the point in living?
What's the use in moving on?
If you keep pretending like there's nothing wrong."
2010 Australian of the Year, Dr Patrick McGorry is a mental health expert: a researcher, clinician and advocate for youth mental health reform agenda. He gave an interview on the radio last week and in it he mentioned some disturbing statistics.
In Australia, there is a death by suicide every 4 hours. Every 15 minutes, someone attempts to kill themselves.
These numbers make a absolute lie of the great Australian laid back attitude to life: she'll be right mate. We live in the Lucky Country. We have a few problems but nothing compared to other nations. We survived the GFC, didn't we? Life is great. Wouldn't want to live anywhere else? Rich, affluent, well educated. No worries. Have another beer! Blah! Blah! Blah!
If things are so good here, why is someone, a human being, somebody's husband, wife, brother, sister, son or daughter, trying to kill themselves every 15 minutes. Think about it? One person takes their own life every four hours. That's just here in Australia. And guess what, its getting worse.
We all have problems and we know that problems don't get solved by ignoring them. We know that but we "keep pretending like there's nothing wrong" I'm with POD on this one, "What's the use in living, what's the point in knowing, if all you do is nothing?" Let's stop pretending.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)