On being "triggered"

Seriously, how does a person hope to make it through life if they get "triggered" by things?!?

Sure, some parts of life are downright ugly, and many of us would hope that we would never have to experience those things. But unfortunately, some of us end up experiencing those ugly parts of life. If we get ourselves "triggered" by them, then we only do ourselves a disservice.

That last sentence deliberately implies that it is a person's choice to be triggered... because it is. Some things genuinely are disturbing, and that's why we have counsellors and psychologists. But just because a person chooses to not like something (like name-calling or certain topics of statistical analysis), that doesn't put it on the same level as having actually experienced the horrors of war, death and disease.

The world is not a happy, fluffy place full of unicorns and cuddly teddy bears.
But it's also not as harsh as a lot of people make it out to be.

Some times it's worth just growing up... and growing a pair.*


* Metaphorically, not literally. Because for 50% of the population, that would be impossible.

A "multicultural" church??

Is there a requirement for a church to be "multicultural"?

Sure, Christians are to spread the good news to all nations (Matthew 28:19), but does this mean that every church should have every nation under its roof?

Sure, in eternity, all nations will worship God in unity (Revelation 7:9-10), but this side of eternity? We know full well that there are so many denominations because of petty differences and interpretations of Scripture. So why do some church leaders have a drive to see all nations represented in their congregations?

People from different nations are... different. And that means that - this side of eternity - the way they offer worship to God is different. I'm not suggesting that all ways lead to God, as if worshipping other gods is just the same as worshipping the God of the Bible. Just that...

• Black African churches are usually loud and filled with dancing.
• White Western churches are usually quieter and display Christianity in a straight jacket.
• Other ethnicities may well worship God completely differently.

And what's wrong with different churches having a different style, one that might attract more of one people group than another? In this way, all people can at least find a church that really helps and encourages them to worship God.

Perhaps the real question is:

Are we really so arrogant to think that our church will properly cater for the different styles of worship of every ethnicity?

True equality

I'm all for equality.

But let's make sure we're talking about the same thing.
I'm talking about actual equality, not a reversal of an assumed state of affairs in the past. Modern-day "equality" seems to be all about women getting one-up on men because of a victimhood culture that says that because some women were treated in a derogatory manner a long time ago, all women should now be viewed as more important than men.

I'm not talking about that. Because that's a load of rubbish and will only exacerbate any problems in modern society.

I'm talking about actual equality.
I appreciate it when a woman hold the door open for me.
I appreciate it when a woman puts out her arm to stop me walking across a road with a car coming.
I have no issue with women in the army, as long as they pass the same tests.
I have no issue with a woman earning more money than me, if their work is deserving of it.
I have no issue with a female prime minister or president, as long as they do a good job.

The problem is that the modern understanding of equality is about lowering standards, as if that gives women a chance in "a man's world":
Women in the army - but they need a different test because, in general, they are not as strong.
Equal pay - but women can take time off (and be paid for it) when they have a baby... and maybe men should get leave too? Screw the company...?!

No. True equality should be about raising standards.
I have no problem with a woman who works hard to get that promotion.
I have no issue with women who train in the army until they can carry their wounded comrades off the field of battle.

I am delighted beyond words when a woman shows a man up not by pointing the finger and making demands, but by doing the man's job better than him!

Let's work together to raise standards, not lower them.

You want me to laugh?

You want me to laugh?
I'll laugh if it's funny,
A look at the world through a lens of irony,
Something that's true,
An ingenious reflection on what we do.

You want me to laugh?
I will not laugh if it's harsh,
If you degrade a person or use words that are crass,
Stab in the back,
Take a cheap hit to hide your lack.

I am able to laugh,
But it must be earned:
You'll have to work for it, an art well learned.
Hide your stupidity,
Your arrogant ignorance, and have some morality.

Paypal's acceptable use policy

Paypal have updated their "acceptable use policy".

As always, it seems like it's nothing to worry about... except for the vague terminology that could easily land someone in trouble. Regarding hate, violence, racial intolerance and the financial exploitation of a crime, they change to:

"You may not use the Paypal service for activities that ... relate to transactions involving ... the promotion of hate, violence, racial or other forms of intolerance that is discriminatory or the financial exploitation of a crime ..."

Sounds pretty harmless? Sounds like "common sense"?
But who's to say what counts as "a form of intolerance"?

Are Paypal users allowed to have their own moral code?
Or is this another excuse for a company to force a left-wing ("far-left") ideology on the common people?

Beware.

Problems with Dawkins' atheism

In his book, The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins attempts to prove that not only the Christian God, but any god, is a "delusion". He says of the "unpleasant character" of the Christian/Jewish Scriptures that it would be "unfair to attack such an easy target." His "God Hypothesis" is:

"there exists a superhuman, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us." (Chapter 2)

There are a few brief points to make.

Firstly, despite being a scientist, The God Delusion is filled with very unscientific language and argumentation: it is filled with derogatory and insulting language for anyone who might possible hold a different view. As such, the book is not objective, and therefore not particularly scientific.

Secondly, Dawkins views God as something physical and therefore subject to scientific experimentation and explanation. Yet, the Christian Scriptures say that whilst God may have had some sort of physical presence on earth at times (such as the Ark of the Covenant or Jesus), God is, by nature, spiritual. As science can only test physical things, all science has "proved" is that God (if he exists) is not physical, which is what the Bible says anyway: "God is spirit" (John 4:24).

Thirdly, Dawkins assumes that to say some things are created must imply that all things are created, even God. Essentially a form of Aristotle's "unmoved mover", Dawkins always asks of Christians, "Well, who created God?" And yet, by the very same argument, it could be asked of Dawkins, "Well, what caused the Big Bang?" By denying the existence of a being which is outside of time, Dawkins and his followers now have no explanation of how the universe came into existence. Science, by nature, examines "cause" and "effect": what is the "first cause"?

To rational thinking, intelligent readers, The God Delusion will only reveal an author who is ignorant of religious ideas and is not effective at applying the scientific method, relying instead on childish insults.

(Note: Dawkins apparently is a good scientist - biologist - but this is not apparent in the pages of this book.)

One of the major problems with the idea of evolution and science is that science assumes consistency. An experiment performed last year will yield the same results as today and next year. Yet evolution is about gradual change. Essentially, if evolution is correct, this means that current science is not effective for observing the past or future, only the present (and a small amount of time either side).

The political spectrum

Seriously, what hope do we have???