-
-
Answered here: http://briggs.id.au/jour/2011/01/qa-do-you-think-youre-cool/
I now answer questions through Q&A on my blog: http://briggs.id.au/jour/qanda/ -
Answered here: http://briggs.id.au/jour/2010/12/qa-imagine-you-are-atheist/
(I now answer questions through my blog at http://briggs.id.au/jour/qanda/ ) -
This question is answered here: http://briggs.id.au/jour/2010/12/what-is-your-current-reason-for-living/
(I now field questions here: http://briggs.id.au/jour/qanda/ ) -
Answered here: http://briggs.id.au/jour/2010/12/qa-in-heaven-those-who-endured/
(I now receive questions here: http://briggs.id.au/jour/qanda/ ) -
I've migrated Q&A to my new blog site at http://briggs.id.au/jour
Questions can be asked through the form at http://briggs.id.au/jour/qanda
When formspring (finally) release their API I may consider integrating the blog and formspring more closely, but in the mean time, please ask questions through the blog.
Thanks. -
An interesting thought. And thinking about it I can see how some people's yearning for the afterlife is a variant of materialism.
But I generally tend to associate thoughts (or expectations) about the things after this life with the human passion not for "more things" but for "more knowledge" or "more understanding." In other words it wells up from the human trait of enquiry - to find pattern in chaos, meaning in mystery, to understand where things are not understood.
We have looked to the miniscule and the astronomic, the visible and the invisible - why would we stop that enquiry when it comes to the shape, purpose and finitude of human life?
In that sense I do not think it is wrong to want "more." While there is value in a sense of being content with "what is" - without the passion to look further, look beyond, a key driver of human activism for good grinds to a halt. -
The answer you are quoting from was very much a personal reflection. It also was an answer that highlights the degree of internal lack of logic that that exists within me when I doubt.
If there is an other-than-me reflection in it at all it would be towards those that profess Christian belief but fail to live like it. To the extent of my failings, I consider myself in that number.
I'm not sure if I would use the phrase "not being sensible" to describe those who doubt the Christian God in a way that is entirely in accord with their worldview and philosophical framework.
I'm not sure that there is one phrase that would demarcate those of a Christian worldview from those of atheistic worldview. For instance, I know of some atheists who have come to faith through the path of logic (i.e. they have applied "sense" within their own framework and reframed their conclusions about God), others along the path of moral conviction, others along the path of grappling with some form of revelation that rendered their previous worldview untenable. "Becoming sensible" certainly would not adequately or consistently describe these transitions.
I know some current atheists / holders of other religion who are quite "sensible" (in the sense of coherent internal framework). And there are others who are less sensible - in that they espouse one thing and live like another.
In other words, it's a mixed bag all round, and I don't know if the internal sensibleness of a worldview is a useful tool for demarcating the debate. -
I have been God's enemy. Without Jesus I would still be God's enemy. And I would, of myself, choose to be that still.
Thank God for Jesus. He has made me his friend. And now I would be nothing else. -
Not offended. Not offended at all.
I remember when I was five telling my mother I didn't believe in God. I'm not sure why. It was probably precociousness. It's the last time I remember doubting the _existence_ of God.
I remember toying with the idea in my teens. What would it be like if God wasn't real and I could live as a non-Christian? As a hormone-ravaged young lad the initial preoccupation were about the rampant amounts of premarital sex I could (hypothetically) then have. But even then I realised that even that preoccupation would become meaningless if there was nothing else "under the sun" except what I could experience. And emotionally speaking I teetered on the edge of having nothing to hold on to, nothing to refer to, nothing to guide, uphold, support, correct, or shape me. To be defined by and limited to... me, my own thoughts, my own experiences, my own strategems and philosophies. It literally scared me.
The doubts I have now, when I have them, are usually associated with moments of depression - when my emotions have moved away from what is actually True (arguably a good definition for depression). But these doubts would not be about the existence of God, or his goodness - but of his ability to love me, save me, care for me, nurture me, to not turn his back on me or forget me. In other words, in times of depression, I have a tendency to forget the reality and extent of God's grace and embrace the self-centered notion that the love of God revealed in Christ is big enough for everybody except me.
As with all doubts of depression these doubts are irrational and somewhat nonsensical. These doubts are undermined by the truths of the Christian gospel.
So no, I don't doubt God's existence.
And when I do doubt, I am not being sensible. -
Thanks for the question, which I assume derives from an article on my blog ( http://god-s-will.blogspot.com/2010/09/asking-right-question-in-marriage.html ). Caveat: These are initial thoughts only.
The fundamental question to ask is whether or not we want marriage law to be _passive_ or _active_. The passive sense of law is to reflect society - to enact or provide a legal model that encapsulates societal reality and allows for legally guided (and bound) interactions between members of society according to those reflected norms. The active sense of law is to guide, shape or even control society - to provide rights, assert responsibilities, and enable punitive measures in order to modify behaviour or shape cultural norms.
FLOW OF THOUGHT #1 - We need something in the passive sense, to reflect society.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The problem is that if we look at society I don't think this "something" is the Marriage Act. In particular, it is not the concept encapsulated in the Marriage Act that is the "solemnisation" of a marriage.
Solemnisation is not just about something being solemn or heartfelt. Legally speaking we can consider it to be a "formality necessary to validate a deed, act, contract." I guess its much like the settlement on a house - something happens when the keys are exchanged. It is not wrong to think of a solemnified marriage as an enacted contract then, in two senses:
a) A contract between the parties. Entering into marriage implies (as is recognised in law) a whole bunch of rights and responsibilities. These only usually come into play when a marriage ends (e.g. inheritance rights) or breaks down and where some form of reparation for obligations-not-met are required - alimony, custody of children, separation of assets etc.
b) A contract with society. Entering into marriage implies a legal state that is recognised and taken into account when it comes to affairs external to the couple - everything from taxation, social welfare, interaction with the education system, issues relating to privacy, issues relating to next-of-kin, and (topically for NSW at the moment) the adoption of children etc. - all take into account (to a greater or lesser extent) the existence, or not, of a marriage contract.
But solemnnisation, legally speaking, is becoming more and more meaningless. For instance, the "common law" or "de facto" marriage, is now pretty much taken as an implied contract even thought it has never been "solemnifed." This is true in both sense of the contract. As a contract between the parties the implications of a relationship breakdown financially and in terms of children etc. is now pretty much identical to that of "real" marriages. Similarly, as a contract with society, there is very little distinction made between solemnified and registered marriages, and de facto situations.
To a lesser extent, the advent of "civil unions" or the ability in some jurisdictions to register a same-sex relationship, also provides the rights of the contract without the solemnisation of a marriage. This is particularly the case in the sense of the contract between the partners (shared property rights etc.), yet increasingly so in the sense of the contract with society (availability of the privilege to adopt etc.)
As the distinctiveness of solemnised marriage is reduced, so is its value.
Solemnisation alone, therefore, provides very few things, legally, that are not provided for by other means. Perhaps this is simplistic, but the only thing you can get via legally solemnised marriage that you can't get anywhere else is:
a) Convenience. Sign four or five pieces of paper and you have the legal recognition of your relationship in a few easy steps. More importantly: your relationship can be enacted by proclamation (we are now married) rather than by demonstration (we are cohabiting, so consider us married).
b) Cross-recognition. Generally speaking (and less uniquely now that there is provision for cross-recognition of civil unions), a legal marriage in one jurisdiction is recognised in another.
c) Symbolism - you get to refer to your relationship, unquestioningly, as a "marriage" and have the certificate to prove it.
And none of these things are inherent to any deeper concept of "marriage."
Personally, I would, for instance, and for some good theological reasons (for another time), define a marriage relationship as: a faithful, sexual, lifelong relationship between a man and a woman in a covenant freely entered before God, each other and the community. If any of those characteristics were not present a relationship would not easily be classified as a marriage in my thinking.
Legal solemnisation is not needed for any of these characteristics to exist. It is not even needed for a relationship with these characteristics to be legally recognised (although it is a possible way in which that legal recognition can occur).
So why have legal solemnisation at all? Let relationships be formed either by behaviour or voiced intention or religious rite and then them recognised as legal by registering them. Let the legal reality be a _recognition_ of relationship rather than the creation of the relationship. Let marriage (defined by man-and-woman) be, legally, simply one form of recognised civil union (defined more broadly as the case may be - including non-sexual relationships).
After all, that is, in practice, what we have now. And if we are looking at representing reality, let us represent it.
Freedom can still be exercised. Ministers of Religion would, just like now, be able to lead people through religious rites - to solemnify spiritually - and exercise their conscience and religious freedom as to who they would do this for and who they wouldn't do it for. Relationships covenanted within those rites would be able to be registered and recognised legally. All is well.
The debate about what gets to be called "marriage" therefore becomes what it actually is - a cultural debate about definitions and nomenclature.
However,
FLOW OF THOUGHT #2 - Do we need something in the active sense, to shape society?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Starting with my definition of the characteristics of marriage - a faithful, sexual, lifelong relationship between a man and a woman in a covenant freely entered before God, each other and the community. Is it possible to ensure that the legal representation of marriage reflects that definition?
Only partially, but substantially. Solemnisation, with any effect, can only insist on the objective characteristics of a relationship - that it is a covenant freely entered before the civic community, and that it is between a "man and a woman."
The debate is about whether to reduce the restriction of this latter characteristic to "between two people." Some would even like to see the characteristic further liberalise to recognise polyamory - i.e. more than two people.
The fact that the law is resistant to change in this characterisation of marriage is itself a "shaping of society." The law is active. And there is value to that.
The problem is that it is only active in a shallow sense. If the legal affirmation of marriage will only extend to the depths to which solemnisation under the marriage act extends then this is not very far because the activity of solemnisation is of lessening practical effect (see previous flow of thought). It confers fewer and fewer particular rights and the choice to not seek legal solemnisation of a relationship carries less and less penalty.
Those who are intent on marriage law maintaining a particular objective definition of marriage need to not only argue for the retention of that definition but also consider the extent of its enforceability. Their needs to be an increased discussion of how the law can actively assert that definition. The argument needs to not just be about what legal marriage _is_ but what legal marriage _does_ - what unique rights does it bestow? What things are unavailable to those who do not avail themselves of legal marriage? What penalties apply where a marriage covenant is broken?
The question becomes: where do we draw the line as to what the law should do?
Which is where I'll leave it - unanswered for now. -
Flying. That'd be cool.
-
From the fact that you have been able to discern that the teaching at your church is not good I suspect that you are reasonably empowered in your spirituality and knowledge of the Bible etc. My gut says that here is an opportunity for you to be a giver rather than a taker.
If you remain in your church you can remain part of the (only) community of faith in your town. You can speak life where you can, lead "up" with humility and love to those who are appointed in the church to teach. You can use sacrificial service as a platform for the gospel. Without knowing the detail of your situation, my default advice is "stay in and bless."
A couple of caveats though:
1) You do need to ensure that you are being fed. Bible study with godly friends is one option. There is plenty of teaching material available online which you could access. Be careful to maintain your own discipline of devotions.
2) If the church is militantly anti-gospel (some are, I'm just not assuming that for yours) then it may be untenable for you to remain part of that church. But be very very careful here. It is very easy to be correct in your theology but not right in your attitude. It is very easy to "leave" in a way that is unwise and does damage to people. Seek godly counsel from people who know your context before you consider making this step - and if you do it, do it with humility, humility, humility.
Blessings,
W. -
Because, unless there's a significant issue at stake that relates to the mission of God through his church, flying my party-political colours simply gets in the way of doing my job. I do not want the reality, or the perception, that I use my "pulpit" to spruik for politicians or political parties. I try and stick to the issues.
-
I am not disappointed that it's a hung parliament. I am no Antony Green but I think the prediction of Coalition 73, Labor 72 or 73 (depending on Denison which is now, sadly, is predicted for Labor), 1 Green, and 3 Formerly-National Independents is a good guess. This would make it anyone's game as the 3 Independents would truly hold the balance (able to bring the Coalition up to 76 or Labor+Green up to 76). If the Coalition lose Hasluck and are stuck on 72 then I think we'll see Gillard returned with the Independents support because there is no way the Independents will be able to offer stable government to the Coalition.
So I'm hoping for a 73-73 result with the independents (who seem to be quite sensible people) empowered to do some good.
If they choose for the Coalition I think there would be a push for a change in policy on regional infrastructure, including the NBN. I would suspect a decent commitment to _regional_ broadband at least. That would be a good thing.
If they choose for the ALP I think there would be a benefit in the form of increased transparency in government and parliamentary processes and some sort of detail (in terms of cabinet positions or so forth) that may reduce the power of personalities in the government ranks. That would also be a good thing.
Let wisdom and principle prevail. I will be disappointed if the three independents settle for some extra pork in their own electorates. Their rhetoric is that this is a "national interest" issue and I hope they stick to that.
It's obvious that Tasmania was sacrificed in this election. The 5% swing to the ALP in Tasmania was all about the NBN and the Libs knew it. Guy Barnett is right to be peeved at his machine just as much as Sid Sidebottom can blame his 2004 defeat on Latham's forest policy. I am hoping for Wilkie to get up in Denison just to prove a point that you can't/shouldn't ignore Tasmania.
All in all, this is a fascinating outcome for a governance geek. Any discussion between now and when the seats are officially called (not likely for days) is just commentary in a holding pattern. So I'll hold off further until then. -
I voted pragmatically and cynically. I did not vote informally, but I was tempted. I perceived no clear vision for the nation, nor a set of coherent principles underlying the policy base. The personalities tired me. Only one issue had distinction in my field of view - would I prefer no NBN, or no Internet Filter?
When I received the ballot paper my reaction was "is that it?" My choice (which I shall not reveal to you) was not an affirmation but simply the result of a random vibration in my indecisiveness balancing on the knife edge between two pits of mediocrity. If my numbering had truly reflected my affinity it would have been 1.4999995, 1.5000005, 3 (we had 3 candidates on our form). -
Ouch. Yes. I think this is the disparity that often exists between emotion and reality.
In fact, it is here that faith kicks in.
In the words of a song I greatly appreciate at the moment ( http://www.metrolyrics.com/faithful-lyrics-steven-curtis-chapman.html )
I am broken, I am bleeding,
I'm scared and I'm confused,
but You are faithful.
Yes You are faithful.
I am weary, unbelieving.
God please help my unbelief!
Cuz You are faithful.
Yes You are faithful.
I will proclaim it to the world.
I will declare it to my heart
And sing it when the sun is shining.
I will scream it in the dark.
You are faithful!
You are faithful!
When you give and when You take away,
even then still Your name
is faithful!
You are faithful!
And with everything inside of me,
I am choosing to believe
You are faithful.
I'll leave it at that - if you want to interact more, ask a further question. -
I'm one of those that don't see social media as a "thing" that it's made out to be in the popular media. It is just another form of communication, albeit with some interesting characteristics.
You might as well ask "Should children and parents be getting involved in phone conversations, pen-pals, letters to the editor, radio talk-back through schools?" And the answer would be - why not? I know I had pen-pals organised through schools, and we were encouraged to put our opinions in writing letter-to-the-editor style.
It is a "new" medium, but it's an old form of engagement. And yes, parents and schools should be involved in helping children be good socially. Issues such as etiquette, watching what you say (lest your words come back to haunt you), how to have meaningful and genuine conversation, interact with the real issues, discern fakery from the serious etc. etc. - all are good skills and learning about them in social media would be a good thing. -
What's that Terry Pratchett quote about the obstinate "god" who put pre-fossilised bones in the ground just to confuse archeologists?
By dinosaur I'm assuming you mean the big extinct sort. After all, I was just in Cairns, and I bought a bag of crocodile jerky, and I felt real close to a "terrible lizard."
The Job quotes you refer to are from Job 40:15 and 41:1. The first refers to what is translated as "behemoth" with "a tail" that "sways like a cedar." From the description you can imagine one of those big four-legged dinosaurs - more so than an elephant which, last time I looked, did not have a "tail that sways like a cedar." But I don't know enough Hebrew to be able to analyse the original language - and the NIV footnotes point out that "behemoth" could be "elephant" and "tail" could be "trunk." So perhaps it's referring to an elephant - it would still fit the imagery and the point that is being made at that point in Job.
Similarly with 41:1 which refers to a "leviathan" - a water-based creature from the imagery. Again, imagination allows for a Loch-Ness-Monster type animal. But a crocodile also fits. I also like 41:3-5 which seems to be the inspiration for the song "Never smile at a crocodile."
So basically, if you're looking for a biblical basis for dinosaurs: is the Bible aware of them? In particular, does it have an example of humans and dinosaurs co-existing? Then my answer is: you're asking a question that the Bible is not setting out to answer. The point of Job 40 and 41 is not to answer that question, it's to point out Job's inherent smallness and powerlessness by comparing him to this big animals.
The Bible also doesn't mention kangaroos, polar bears, or boa constrictors. Doesn't mean they didn't exist or didn't coexist with humans. But you can't invent an answer (one way or the other) where the information simply does not exist.
In that sense, a particular view on dinosaurs is not an inherent requirement for holding a Christian world-view. It's an "open hand" question - something on which variation in thought, speculation is allowed, necessary in fact. -
I looked for lobster but could not find it. Scuba diving wasn't on the list but it should have been. Now "become a certified diver" is on the list.
-
Sorry. That URL doesn't see to work.
-
Will Briggs’s Bio
Christ-follower, husband, father, minister and church planter. Currently locum of the Anglican Parish of Burnie including Connections church
