Thoughts on process

I'm sure plenty have thought these thoughts before, but I've not, and so I'm going to post a bit about them.

It's interesting that God chose to act within a history. Within time. He didn't simply make heaven in an instant and keep things rigidly that way for eternity, but instead he decided to stretch that creation process out over the course of human history. Not only so, but God's saving action is recorded for us in an unfolding of his character that took place over centuries.

It's also interesting that God is not bound by this process-type-thing of history that we're stuck in. He's all those 'omni-' words. Impassable and all that. Particularly, he's not bound in time as we are.

So why did he stretch things out into time like he did? What are the implications of it? How can he interact in time if he's omni-everything? (Ie, how could he ever 'react' to something we'd do? Or change his mind, or be surprised?)

So, I'm going to have a crack at thinking through a few implications of this reality over the next few posts. You guys all with me? Going to come help out and correct my thinking where it's messed up?

Great! See you soon. :) I'm off to Splendour.

Some more equal than others?

An very helpful angle being played here by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, author of Infidel and Nomad. Her perspective is that while individuals are equal, not all cultures are. While people all must be treated as having rights, the same ought not to be said for all cultures.

I like the fact that she cuts against the grain of a unilateral deification of tolerance in western culture. She points out that citing 'cultural tolerance' is no justification for supporting a culture that promotes human rights abuse. She'd prefer all cultures to be equally up for critique.

Now, I'm not sure I agree with everything she says, but the principle of individual rights over and against the right for a culture to exist seems to me to have something going for it. How can you claim to protect individuals and at the same time protect a culture that abuses them?

NB. This post is not a shot at any culture in particular, but a protest that we all ought to open ourselves up to the examination of others.

Honest!

I swear I'm hurt. Really, I am sir!

It's not often I choose to dislike a player, but I truly dislike Sergio Busquets. A genuinely fantastic footballer, but...

Anything goes in Texas

Apparently the Texas House of Representatives doesn't really bother looking too closely at the fine print of the bills that it passes. Back in April 1971, Rep. Tom Moore thought he'd see just how bad it could get. So he sponsored a resolution honouring the venerable Albert de Salvo:

This compassionate gentleman’s dedication and devotion to his work has enabled the weak and the lonely throughout the nation to achieve and maintain a new degree of concern for their future. He has been officially recognized by the state of Massachusetts for his noted activities and unconventional techniques involving population control and applied psychology.

Moore's facts are ostensibly correct. He did, however, omit to mention that Albert de Salvo's particular contributions at 'population control' were also the activities that earned him the moniker "the Boston Strangler".

The measure passed unanimously.

Here comes the bride...

A few weeks ago my wife was opining that banana skins don't really appear to be that treacherous, and that perhaps their reputation has been garnered more on the back of slapstick shtick and cliche rather than genuine intent to effect the downfall of unsuspecting by-treaders.

I have since discovered, in the carpark of a Lutwyche shopping centre, that banana skins are indeed slippery. Very slippery.