Phoenix Ramblings. Sorry.

Having finished Order of the Phoenix er a few nights ago, and being now a good 200 pages into Half Blood Prince (which is, incidentally, up there as a favourite), it seems odd to come back and write about the fifth harry potter book, but I have to, because I had several observations. I hadn't read this book for ages, so a lot of things stood out for me. (This post is long. I'll forgive you if you don't read the whole thing)

1) This book is long. Seems pretty obvious, but when I was setting a target of at least 100 pages a day just to get through it in a week, that tells you something. But while it's long it is also...

2) Quite a good story, yarn, tale etc etc. Well, I don't actually know how to articulate it, but it's just that there's so much in this story about one boy's year at school that it's just kind of engrossing. Okay, so much happens and...I give up on this point.

3) It's well told. I don't know if you've ever actually tried writing a story with so much dialogue and movement, but J.K does a really fantastic job of simply describing the way people say and do things that makes it easy to visualise, and not repetitive (you know the classic bunch of quotation marks followed by said all in a row. She avoids this) This is true of all the books, but I've never really noticed. I just really admire the variation and cleverness in her choice of description.

4) The fight in the ministry is really good! So I used to just kind of skim through this whole book I think I dunno, but I suddenly realised how er enthralling those whole two chapters are. The movie adaptation completely decimated the greatness of this bit. I mean the teenagers are running around in the depths of the ministry, dropping one by one .... it's suspenseful! Haha

Also, the book is humorous, but then again, they all are, so it doesn't make the list. As this was such a long book, it needs a longer post than this so I'll add a few quotes too. Had to be very selective, much to my consternation.

He was never going to see Ron and Hermione again - And their faces burst clearly into his mind as he fought for breath. 'EXPECTO PATRONUM!'

One of the great things about the books, and this sounds cliche but it's actually true, is how much they value friendship. In the quote above, it's this massively powerful thing that allows Harry to defeat dementors. And for Harry, Ron and Hermione are it, they are the people that mean the most to him for so long. It's just....amazing.

'Ron,' said Hermione, 'you are the most insensitive wart I have ever had the misfortune to meet.'

Okay, so I had to pick only one quote from this whole hilarious, four page discussion by the trio. I just love it, I laugh the whole way through every time. Anyway...

'Has it not occurred to you, my poor puffed-up popin jay...' [Phineas Nigellus to Harry]

Love a bit of alliteration, and how many people do you hear using this expression? Fantastic.

Ron had caused a dinner plate to mutate into a large mushroom and had no idea how it had happened.

I just was struck by (and loved) the fact that their mistakes in exams can be this bizarre. If you read through the whole OWLs section, it's like a list of bizarre mistakes, listed almost nonchalantly. The worst we can do is answer the wrong question.

And finally that's it. Oh, one more thing. I've juts got to say how much I love McGonagall. She's amazing; the scenes that she and Umbridge are in are hilarious/excellent because McGonagall completely owns Umbridge. So that's it. I'm off to read the sixth!

Physicists, Take Note

I read a book about James Clerk Maxwell, and now I am almost a Maxwellian. So I'm determined to tell you all everything you DON'T know about JCM.

Okay, so before I started this book I knew that Maxwell had come up with some equations and talked about light a little, and that this helped Hertz discover the photoelectric effect and....the consequences go on. But while Maxwell got ONE page in our textbook, he did SO much for physics that we didn't get told. Okay. Basic summary, Maxwell did for electromagnetism what Newton did for gravity.

Before Maxwell's equations, the only fully developed, complete and mathematical theory in physics was Newton's universal law of gravitation. So, everyone was trying to apply its basic form to electricity etc. And it worked, but they had this weird view. 'Newtonians' believed in action-at-a-distance. i.e. that the space around a magnet is empty with regard to the action of the force, which when iit acts between say a nail and magnet leaps across the space between them without affecting that space. Now, I don't quite get this, its a weird concept but, do you know why its strange? Because of Faraday and Maxwell.

So, Faraday, armed only with basic geometry, developed the idea of a magnetic feild, which Maxwell took and hammered away on to get his equations, and eventually the field idea was accepted, when proof came for Maxwell's equations i think, and now we get it, and don't get action-at-distance. In the process of developing a way to describe mathematically the relationship between electricity and magnetism and Faraday's fields, Maxwell took the recent idea of vectors and used it, thus naming many operations involving vectors, including the curl and divergence. Plus, the curl is pretty much the right hand grip rule - how you determine the direction of a magnetic/electric field. So awesome.

Maxwell was also the first to develop a completely mathematically based theory, or like one without a physical image or analogy. Whilst physicists are used to such use of maths now then they wanted more concrete images to work with. Maxwell's equations have had enormous ramifications too. They are behind many many technologies we now use, and play a vital role in quantum electrodynamics. Maxwell also came up with the basic idea for the Michaelson-Morely experiment, and his equations have been found to be applicable at relativistic speeds and on the quantum level.

I hope you followed all that. You really have to read the book to really get how significant this guy was, I think. Not that I really understand half of what I just talked about (quantum electrodynamics, for instance), but I have a new appreciation for this guy who appears to be on the same level as Newton and Einstein. Also, the book is like a biography as well, so you get a glimpse of what the guy was like which is also cool. One of the funniest things I found was his group of friends' nicknames for each other. So, Maxwell's nickname was dp/dt because dp/dt=JCM, JCM being his initials - as the author says a 'mathematical allusion or in-joke" which simply humorously understates the wonderful geekiness of it (for want of a much better word.)

And that is what I've learnt. I don't think I really communicated much of what I wanted to, spent more time on Newtonians etc, but whatever. My blog needed a post and I needed an outlet other than my family, wouldn't care, so you are stuck with this mess of facts instead. Sorry they're terribly organised, they just spilled onto the page, so to speak.

I'll try and be more relatable next time.

And 3.5 Months Later I Return Shame Faced....

So, last night I thought "hey, whatever happened to my blog?" and then "what happened to all those other blogs i visited?" Well in my mind they'd all ceased to exist as I'd recently forgotten about them amongst everything else in life that had made me busy. But everyone else's blogs were still there and mine was too, so i spent half an hour reading what I'd been writing to virtually no one for two years and I was like, "yeah, this is interesting." Then - wait, that's arrogant, cos it was me writing those things!

But (and here's my point), sometime I forgot it was me and it was this other person talking about everything that came into their head. Weird, actually, because once you're distanced from yourself by time its like you see that past self as a different person, in a sense. Well to me anyway. And you can learn again from them things you'd forgotten or note the things that have changed. And that is what I think is really interesting about journals and blogs, that whole 'other-person' aspect, that the present self sees in the past self because we're continually changing.

So my advice for today? Keep a journal, because that way you can remember the smallest detail from 4 years ago that you'd otherwise have forgotten. It's sweet. And you can read over your life and say, 'yeah, that was good.' haha, perhaps. In any case blogs/journals can be rewarding.

Also, as a side note, I realised I used to do quite a lot of thinking. I was a crazy kid. I'll try and do some more for you now that I have 3-4 months of holidays in which i'm unlikely to get a job! So, I'll read the paper or get inspired by quotes, or by Maxwell or Lamb. Yes....Maxwell physicists! I'll tell you more about him on Monday!

Back Again, Sane thing

So i posted yesterday, and i still stand by it, but now I'm also going to quote a large section from a book I'm reading. I really liked what it says, more than what i said (because this dude has much more experience than me). This extract is from The Myths of Science edited by Kirsten Birkett, pages 114 - 117. At this point, Birkett is writing about Darwin and the Fundamentalists, in particular, Charles Hodge:

"Darwinism aside, [Hodge] wished to discuss why it was that scientists and
religious thinkers, as two classes, were so commonly perceived to be in
conflict. It was not because science and religion were in conflict; as we have [not haha]
seen, in Hodge's opinion the two could not be in conflict because both
revealed truth. Yet it was evident that, however misplaced it might be in his
view, there was an antagonism between scientists as a class and religious believers
as a class. Why?

Firstly, Hodge pointed out that the two groups adopt different
rules of evidence. Scientific 'knowledge' was restricted to the facts of
nature or the external world. Science, in common usage, was the ordered
knowledge of the phenomena which we recognise through the senses. This means
that a conviction resting on any other grounds was not science. "Darwin admits
that the contrivances in nature May be accounted for by assuming that they are due
to design on the part of God. But, her says, that would not be
science."

This was all very well; but it was illegitimate to assume that therefore the only valid
convictions are those based on sense data. Yet sadly, Hodge said, scientists
often let themselves fall into this very trap:
"It is inevitable that minds addicted to scientific investigation should receive a
strong bias to undervalue any other kind of evidence except that of the
senses...The tendency...of a mind addicted to the consideration
of one kind of evidence to become more or less insensible to to her kinds of proof
in undeniable."

As religion does not rest on the testimony of the sense, such people
therefore ignore its evidence; even though the evidence is still there, and
still just as reliable in its own sphere.

The second reason Hodge gives for why scientists fall into conflict with
theologians was the failure to make the due distinction between facts
and the explanation of those facts or the theories deduced from
them...Facts were beyond question. They were revelation from God, 'peices of
truth' so to speak, and so Christians would and had change their views when
necessary before the facts (e.g. geocentric/heliocentric). However Hodge
combined with this high opinion of fact a fairly cautious appraisal of human
ability to infer correctly from fact. In other words, the willingness of
Christians to change their views in face of the facts ought to satisfy
scientific men, Hodge insisted,; but instead, men of science want Christians to
bow to their explanations and inferences too...It is rather unreaosnable, Hodge
complained, that Chrssitians are called upon to change thier faith with every
new scientific discovery."

After all my thinking and reading the last two days, I've decided that I am just a bit sick and tired of the christianity verses science debate. I mean, it's all very well and good that the people in this book can discredit scientifically the things that the some scientists have said, but the more i read, especially in the 5th chapter (one quoted), the more i am convinced that the more we try and convince them scientifically the more we are scorned and vice versa. As James Orr says, well theologians can't realy intrude in on them. Page 129 of the above book:

The theologian may be to blame when he rashly or dogmatically intrudes into
the domain of science; on the other hand, it is not his place to be silent when
the scientist makes bold inroads into his domain, and, in the name of
science, would sweep away spirtitual facts which stand on their own grounds of
evidence as securely as facts of external nature.

Basically, as i heard recently, they are either going to believe or not and if they've got the mindset, the world view, that god doesn't exist, they will keep scorning those that try to 'prove' it, no matter how scientifically or logically they argue. You see what I mean? And really, the debates that christians get focused on today don't matter as much as losing sight of their salvation, do they? I mean, it's important to know your position on issues that seem to contend with biblical authority, but convincing others shouldn't consume all your time. It's nto noecessarily the best way to promote the gospel. But yes, I just relaised a moment ago how frustrating this whole thing is.

GAAAAH.

President: Barrack Obama

I've decided that there is decisive problem with democracy. It's something that's obviously been recognised for ages, but it's what causes division, angry argumentsa etc etc. That's a bit pessimistic, and a bit over the top, but the thing is, people will never agree. And so what you get is a hosue full of representatives all clamouring for their view to be heard, who are then criticised because the people they're representing don't actually agree with them, and then ordinary people have huge political debates but...
People will have different ideas to you, and what i hate is that many people seem to be incapable of sharing they're own view (on anything) without trying to convert the person they're talking to. We need to be able to just throw ideas out there, into the big black vortex of 'maybe it'll chaneg their mind, but maybe it won't, and i don't mind either way, it doesn't affect me, i still hold my views.' People have different ideas and that's somethign that we all need to accept. Whatever it is that's created those ideas - a different life experience, belief system or simply personality - you can't change. You can add to it, maybe get them, to think but we all have to respect other people's views.
This comes particularly the day after the election in America, as indicated by my expectedly cliche title. I hold this position particularly after experiencing the effect an election campaign can have twice in one year. Parties and people have different policies they support, eys, but here's my take on it (after all that preamble):
We cannot force ourbeliefs and priorities on other people. We can't. And that's where i see slight issues with democracy. I have nothing againsta democracy, i do bleieve it is a good political system. The people vote in a praty/person and that party/person makes decisions about the country. I will be one of those people that says youc an't complain about a policy if you voted for the party, even if you didn't, because its a fair system. But in this system, you still have a group of people effectively forcing their beliefs and priorities on a whole nation.
I dunno, but it seems flawed in some major way that a small group of people can take what they see to be true and apply to others lives. True, it makes no great difference in countries like Australia and America who is in power, butas i say it's fundamental. Some religious people would say they have the right to enforce their world beliefs on others as they blieve that they know THE TRUTH. I am a christian and am tempted to say that soemtimes, but people would react the same way to me that i woudl to a .... another religion saying that. The person doesn't believe, they dont' have to live that way. Hey, i think the Bible is the truth, but i can't make everyone in australia live that way just because i think so. I can try to tell them why i think so and get them to think about it, but i will not enforce what i believe on others.
What has this to dp with democracy? Lots in the many controversial issues floating around. You all know what they are, i don't need to tell you. What i think is this: if everyone making the decision claims to believe the same thing (think Anglicans and minister appointment - we all claim to believe the Bible) go ahead and press your point, but if a collection of people al with different ideas about life, god, justice etc, (like government), just think about it. I'm not going to be president or PM ever, so what i propose that i will do is to simply hold my beliefs close to my heart and act on them when voting etc. Re-examine them yes, it would be foolish not to, but nto "Bible-bash" (in chirstian circles), only throw my ideas out there for considereation.
Hope i've been clear in what i'm saying. Just please don't get angry at people who don't think the same way you do. I'll just close with a quote, it sums this up nicely:

-Do not think of knocking out another person's brains because he differs in
opinion from you. It would be as rational to knock yourself on the head because
you differ from yourself ten years ago. -Horace Mann, educational reformer
(1796-1859)

I think this guy had a sensible head on his shouders.

Books or Blogging?

Hi everybody, my name's a alyssa, and i'm the ghost blogger around here. It's interesting that all the blogs i'm part of/share an interest in (i.e. read) aren't being updated, ever. [Except for trifling facts cz that's easier] Well, i thought i'd just explain to you why the blogs aren't being updated - maybe you'll empathise.
Firsta nd foremostly, i'll explain myself away. Actually, i'll onlye xplain myself away - it'll probably answer for the others as well.

REASON NUMBER ONE:
I'm Lazy
Yep, that's the number one unerlying reason. I can't be bother, because now i only spend 10 minutes a day on the computer (on average) and i can't be bothered to come up with a blog post, because i know there are much better and mroe worthwhile things i could be doing (primarily as no one reads this anymore). Some of these more worthwile things belnd into:
REASON NUMBER TWO:
Shh I'm Reading
I enjoy reading more than blogging and these holidays i have about 10 books to get through. See where i'm coming from?
REASON NUMBER THREE:
Exams and Study
I like to think exams kick-started this whole "not-blogging" thing, because a week before i simply didn't have time. That's when the computer lots its place in my life (which is very nice still thank you). BUT i think i probably would have stopped blogging anyway. Human nature and all that, eh Miss Marple?

So there you have it. My lame reasons for not blogging (except for reason two and three which i take as very valid, so really only reason one). Yes. Hope everyone is enjoying their holidays cz i sure am. I made cookies, and now i'm reading terry pratchett (which is always one of the best things about holidays). In fact, i think after these holidays, youc an probably only reasonably expect a post from me once a month at the most.
Good luck surviving Blog of a Girl.

The Nasty Little Letter C

The appropriately beautiful or ugly sound of any word is an illusion wrought on
us by what the word connotes.

Max Beerbohm, writer, critic, and caricaturist (1872-1956)

I've been pondering this quote for a long time. Since it grabbed my attention in the AWAD emails i get and made it the part of my email signature which i always erase anyway (only certain people get it) actually. The point is...so it actually hasn't been a long time. I have no idea why i said a long time, that was stupid, so was just putting a space before a comma, but whatever. THE POINT is that i've been thinking about it and then another little post prompted even further thought ( as seems to be hapening alot lately) so that this post, was born.
I think its true.
To an extent.
The extent being when the words you are comparing don't mean the same thing (as an aside, that's the correct spellign of mean int hat context isn't it? Gosh i prove Miss. Tate theory worng. But only to an extent. I'll not tell you to what extent, that's too divergant). See, i've seen his theory proven right in all the owrds i can think of but amicable and amiable are two that i ahve a problem with.
Hmm i think i just foudn a porblem with this whole post. Connotes could in this case mean "means" right? So... the definitions of the above words (from dictioanry.com of course) are:

a·mi·a·ble
–adjective
1.having or showing pleasant,
good-natured personal qualities; affable: an amiable disposition.
2.friendly; sociable
3.Friendly and agreeable in disposition; good-natured and likable

And this is where i'm proven worng because i thought they meant the same thign btu the slight differences in their meanings affects their connotations (which actually cannot mean "meaning" because a connotation is a suggestion besaides the primary meaning.

am·i·ca·ble
–adjective
Characterized by or
showing goodwill; friendly; peaceable:
Characterized by or exhibiting
friendliness or goodwill; friendly

And really they pretty much are the same word and can be used mostly inter-changably, but shades of meanign suggest i was wrong. I [the whole 'i' thing is important, becaus ebeauty is in the eye of the beholder isn't it?) see being amicable as having great potential to just being a show,a facde, a mask of pleasantness and friendliness (see the word characterised? [i 'corrected' the spelling]). On the other hand being amiable, you are likeable and firnedly and pleasant and don't only have the potential (less potential too i think) to be a fraudster, but in more likelihood actually possess these qualities. (see the word having). Also, lovable or lovely is an obslete meaning, suggesting (connoting) actually possession of "likeabliity."
And of course i think amiable is a much more lovely looking word than amicable. Personally, i belive that it is due to not only the connotations of the words (previously explained) that lend this illussion, as Max Beerbom suggests. I think it aslo due to the letter c and its not so fortunate placement within the word amicable. I think, mis-placed, that the letetr c can mark the difference between an ugly word and a beautiful one, not that amicable is an ugly word but it's ot beautiful.
If you don't believe me just take the letter 'c' out of the word amicable.

The Sheep, the Kanga and the One Authority - Part Two

Continued from yesterday's post about the sheep getting discriminated against, today i continue with a little discussion on the "holy universal church."

Gay death knell for the Anglican Church
So the gist of this article is basically that, firstly, in North America a "450-year old communion has little hope of holding together" - a little ambiguous because of the the use of the word "a", but anyway. Secondly, that the conference being held soon in Jerusalem is not about homosexuality, as many would probably believe. But now that I've read SMH's Good Weekend, this post is about more than just that article.
Today i was eating breakfast and spied the paper. I generally pick up Spectrum first to look uselessly at the book section (useless cz i get there and realise i don't care cz i don't know the authors and I've discovered a little dislike of the words section). But today i saw, on the front of Good Weekend a picture of two bishops and the title, "The Great Schism - is this the end of the Anglican church as we know it?" This immediately pricked my interest a) because I'm an Anglican - not a high Anglican, an evangelical Anglican and b) because of the article i just introduced you to. So i read the three page article on the issues in the Anglican Church, littered with quote from Peter Jensen, and i think it was great that i did before writing this. It's made me think much more carefully about the issues and how i approach them and what I'll say.
I've decided not to say too much, just a little.
Firstly, I just want to say that this is a tricky issue, but i think it's being handled well by our diocese. The North American church is really arguing that this whole thing is about homosexuality and the Good Weekend article seems to think so too.

"The church has held together despite Charles Darwin, the bells-and-smells
insurgents of Anglo-Catholicism, the collapse of the British Empire, the
discovery of the pill, the arrival off divorce, women as priests and even
women as bishops. But the gathering in Jerusalem (GAFCON) is intent on
'scattering' this communion of 75 million believers because the North American
church has gone soft on homosexuality"

This leads straight into my next point, but before that i have an underdeveloped thought to jot down. Thankfully John Woodhouse (principal of Moore college)makes our stance on homosexuality clear later on in the article, when he says that

. . . there is forgiveness available through Christ, but homosexuals who persist in
having sex are wicked sinners breaking God's law. . .

Of course, there's going to be misunderstanding of what we believe when its communicated to the wider non-christian community, but i think that was important to say. It also needs to be said that every sin is equally wicked in God's eyes, homosexuality is not worse than any other sin, which non-Christians often think we believe, i think. This issue is getting the Anglican church a fair amount of media time, and i just think, following on form the previous thought, that as we are speaking through this to those who aren't of the faith, we need to be careful of what we say and how it may be interpreted.
Following straight on form this and the quote form the article (before John Woodhouse's) is another point i want to make. The article in the Good Weekend seems to think the issue is over homosexuality, they made that rather explicit in the above quote. They are thus blatantly ignoring what Jensen says later int he article. "This dispute is not really about homosexuality. It's about authority and who runs the church. To most of the rest of us, God runs the church through the Bible." For that i say thank you Peter Jensen, but also, if the article is going to talk about this controversial issue, it needs to not take sides. It just looks really bad to me that they would do that. Also, i wouldn't take sides if you don't fully understand all the issues there are int he church, which i think this article doesnt. There's way more it than just morals - its an issue of theology and who is taking God as authority, and who is bending him around the society of today.
And that brings me into my last point. I just wanted to comment on the situation of the Anglican church in Australia. For those of you who don't know, the Sydney Anglican diocese is, as far as i gather, generally the only major Anglican diocese that is totally evangelical (bible believing) and not steeped in tradition. I admit i don't know heaps about the functioning of the national church but that's what i do know. I've come across some ridiculous comments made by Anglicans from other areas in Australia, such as the chief Anglican in Australia (sorry i forget his name and title) who's aid that we have no single authoritative text. My brother and i couldn't believe that the guy who said that and more was head of our denomination in Australia. Also what i found in this article. "But in many eyes its [the Sydney diocese] is hardly Anglican at all. Visitors from Melbourne worshipping in a Sydney parish might think they've wandered into a protestant chapel: where are the crosses and vestments? What's this demand that all believers be Born Again in Jesus Christ?" This is really, to me, unbelievable.

• The Anglican church is protestant. The basis of it is being saved through faith alone and being born again.

I'm not going to try and explain myself further, other than say how much such statements irk me, because I'll end up saying something wrong accidentally and i dont want to do that.

So here is whee I finish, an hour later than when i started and ready to finish staring at a screen and go do something useful. Sorry, productive -> for school. I wasn't calling my blog useless! Hope I'm not entirely misunderstood. Sorry id didnt really talk about the article. Ha ha, i just got tied up int he issues surrounding it. Later dudes.

The Sheep, the Kanga and the One Authority - Part One

Today i read the paper, and you should know it was solely for your benefit. Don't get me wrong, i like to read the paper, i just often think about it/don't have time. Anyway, point is i came across two articles that i found interesting. Two, out of the whole paper, which you may be thinking is a small number but it's actually more than usual. Which is quite sad. Anyway, without further ado they were titled:

• Adidas boycotts sheep mulesing



• Gay death knell for the Anglican communion
  

So, firstly, a little game called guess-what-the-article-is-about. So that's really easy for the first, but even i don't understand the second one and I've read the article. [Editor's note: "Gay death knell for the Anglican communion" coming at you tomorrow or Sunday, because this was long enough]

Adidas boycotts sheep mulseing
The gist of this article was that "Adidas is the latest clothing business to refuse to buy wool from Australian sheep that have been mulsed."

Main Entry: mules·ing
Pronunciation: 'myül-zi[ng]
Function: noun: the use of Mules
operation to reduce the occurrence of blowfly strike —
mulesed /'myülzd/
adjective

I have a couple of points to make here. First, about the definition, i just want to say that if that "operation" is named after a person, it needs an apostrophe. If that be the case, I'm deeply grieved at the poor editing of dictionary.com.

Secondly, i would have absolutely no problem at all with this if it weren't for what they said later on in the article. Okay that's a big lie, but i would have much less of a problem if it weren't for what they said later on in the article.

So everyone thinks that mulesing is this huge thing because its animal cruelty. Yeah, and its not cruel to just let a sheep die an "agonising death." We even figured out an alternative to cutting the tail off, a nice little clip, but Adidas doesn't like that either! Here's news:

It's a sheep.

I think we can safely say its brain isn't big enough to be too worried about a clip hanging off its backside that's stopping it dying. Really.

Here's the clincher. Adidas protests that mulseing is animal cruelty when its for a good cause, but they're happy to shoot kangaroos just to make boots. Which is better: to simply shear sheep that are being saved form death and are too stupid to realise it anyway, or shoot kangaroos for leather. Wool grows back, kangaroos die to give up leather.

And no I'm not one of those naive people who doesn't know the kangaroo is a pest. Sure shoot 'em, as long as they don't die out. I'm just not a fan of hypocrites, who do what they criticise on a higher level.

Lastly, this women argues in the end of the article that it is:

"Outrageous the Federal Government opposed whaling but sanctioned the "cruel"
kangaroo kill that supplies Adidas."

Despite the fact that she's president of the Australian Wildlife Protection Council, I'm going to ignore that, cz i get the vibe that she's just an animal loving vegan. I know that's not fair but i don't care. Whaling is killing an endangered species; kangaroo-ing is killing a pest. As long as the government has their eye on how many are allowed to be killed, it's all sweet mate.

Sorry, not lastly. PETA (People for the Ethical treatment of Animals) insists that

"there are methods other than chopping and clipping such as sheep bred with
naturally bare breech areas that do not need to have flesh cut away to protect
them from burrowing blowfly maggots"

Sorry, a sheep that's intentionally bred differently to how it was originally designed is not "natural" to me, and i think I'd rather just clip the sheep and shear it than mess with God's creation. Adidas needs to just give it up and buy our wool, or fail that, at least juts avoid the hypocrisy. I really do think they doth protest too much.

Seeking some . . i dunno

Okay everyone, please go here before reading this going-to-be-incredibly-long post:
http://aponderingheart.com/blog/?p=353#comment-1076 then (or perhaps before)
http://aponderingheart.com/blog/?p=341

Not to go out and bible bash or get arrogant christian angry, but i hate to seebiblically incorrect views, supported witht he bible, reply to them, then get corrected and told im biblically incorrect (which i found quite distressing to read). So, eric and paul, the only two that read my blog but also two biblically sound guys, if u read this just i seekign some other opinions. Okay.

So that first link up there is an article by this home schooled girl in America called Jocelyn or something. She has very different ideas to me and my primary concern is her idea about God's perfect will for women. Not saying I'm not open to other ideas, just . . . i don't wanna give the wrong idea, so below is my reply to her post, and following her reply to my comment.

MY REPLY:
Sorry to sound very critical in this comment, i think it might just be my nature :)I just wouldn’t want any christian to read their beliefs into the bible. Having only skim read much of this article and part one i may have got the wrong idea, forgive me if i have, particularly in relation to this first point:I hope you are not condoning the belief that men are above women and that we are not created equal; we are created equal but differently. And, although i would need to check this, i believe that men are to be in authority within the church, in regards to teaching the word (something being sadly ignored increasingly by many churches). Your mention of college (or university here in Australia!) being full of unbelievers and partly reason not to go worried me. Our great commission in this world is the preach the gospel to all! How are we to do this if we don’t know any unbelievers because we keep away from them out of fear of influence? (I believe genuine personal relationship to be the most effective form of evangelism.) Influence by the secular world is a concern, but having non-christian friends is not the only way we are influenced by a sinful world. we live in it!I also must, finally before i earn myself the reputation of an arrogant, severely opinionated Christian (perhaps too late?), emphasise that i don’t believe God’s single, utmost role for women is to be married. (1 Corinthians 7). In fact, the previously mentioned passage states that we can do more for the work of God single than we can married! Which appears to some to be against marriage at all - but it’s not. Many women never do marry, and without the cares of a husband or family, that woman can focus wholly on the work of the Lord, such as in mission (not to say only single women may perform mission successfully, but it’s certainly, in a sense, ‘easier’). The most important work that God has set before us is to go into the world and be a light - to have such love for ‘our neighbour’ that our utmost concern for them will be their eternal future and as a result we will share the gospel with them.Again, sorry if this sounds overly critical, but i just wanted to express my concerns. I would be deeply concerned if i have expressed any of this in such a way that it appears biblically incorrect. Plus there’s probably lots of typos sorry, i just can’t seem to type without them.So anyway, just an attempt at constructive criticism, please don’t be offended.

HER REPLY TO ME:
Hi there Allison [Editors note: okay, she called me allison. My name was there cut and copy! lol],Thanks for taking the time to comment and state your opinion. Here is my reply:
“I hope you are not condoning the belief that men are above women and that we are not created equal”First of all, men and women are created quite differently. Some things they are equal in, some things they’re not. Men and Women are absolutely spiritually equal in God’s sight. We are both sinful, and we both need God’s grace to be forgiven. However, the Bible portrays clear and distinct roles for men and women. Men are to be leaders, and women are to be followers. The Bible does NOT say that women are to be submissive to all men. Girls are to be under the authority of their fathers and wives are to be under the authority of their husbands.
I definitely agree with your statement here “men are to be in authority within the church, in regards to teaching the word (something being sadly ignored increasingly by many churches)”. You are absolutely right. This is clearly stated in 1 Timothy 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
I think that the whole idea of “going to college to fulfill the Great Commission” is one of Satan’s lies to get people into the world, especially young ladies, when satan knows their place is at home. Satan is the Father of Lies and he has been working on his techniques of conniving Believers into such situations and beliefs for AGES. You said you didn’t really read my post, and I would encourage you do so AND read the comments.
The Lord can use ANYTHING for His glory. He is God, but that doesn’t mean it’s his PERFECT will for your life!
Are you saying that because you’re not going to a public place you’re not fulfilling the Great Commission? I believe that in everything I do and say, if it is of Christ, it will be a light and a witness that Jesus Christ is reigning in my life and that he is Saviour of ALL! Besides the fact that I know of several young ladies who are taking college at home.
Please make sure you read these comments:http://aponderingheart.com/blog/?p=353#comment-1073http://aponderingheart.com/blog/?p=353#comment-1076
As for your comment on i don’t believe God’s single, utmost role for women is to be married. The verse you referred is often used out of context. The verses before Paul talks about remaining single are about man and woman being married, and THEN he says “I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.”, which is him saying it’s not the Lord’s commandment or words. Those are Paul’s, a human’s, words. Not God’s. In the beginning God made woman to be the helpmeet. That is purpose and design. It is God’s plan for woman to marry.
In the Beginning God made Adam and then he made Eve to be a helpmeet to Adam, to her husband, and to bear him children. That is our purpose as women. Not that we are lowly, worthless creatures because we ARE NOT! But did God change our design since the beginning? No.
I don’t believe in single woman being missionaries. I believe that if she is to go to another country, it will be with a man and she will be his helpmeet in that ministry. Just because many great women have done works for the Lord, doesn’t mean that was His plan for her. The Bible says there is God’s acceptable will, his good will, and perfect will (Romans 12: 2). Obviously I would want the perfect will but that is not always possible. Read here: http://aponderingheart.com/blog/?p=367
I think you are mistaken about your view on single women. In Genesis 2:24 says that a man is to leave is wife and mother and cleave unto his wife and they shall be as one flesh. So if you’re not going to marry, you are to remain under your parents, doing everything to serve the Lord.
Please don’t ever believe that being a wife and mother is burden, which prevents you from focusing on the Lord. I know a great many women who are married and are fully devoted to serving the Lord, and they do. Besides do we realize that when Jesus gave the GC he was only talking to his disciples? Not to the multitudes? Now, this doesn’t mean we aren’t to share the Gospel, because we are. However, it doesn’t mean that everyone is called to the work of a missionary and go out into the world. The Bible says they will know you are my disciples if you love one another - which means if we are Christians people should be able to see that in EVERYTHING we do.
I really do thank you for taking the time to write out all your thoughts on the matter, but in some areas, I think you are truly misinformed and some things you are Biblically-incorrect.
Blessings to you!



So hopefully you can see what I'm worried about?

The verses before Paul talks about remaining single are about man and woman
being married, and THEN he says “I speak this by permission, and not of
commandment.”, which is him saying it’s not the Lord’s commandment or words.
Those are Paul’s, a human’s, words

First I'm worried at her saying anything in the bible is not god breathed or the word of god. I see her point but . . .
I also don't really understand what she means when she says that the verses about remaining single are about being married??If anyone has an idea? But I'll say that the verses that deal with being single are about being single. We've had a sermon on that passage and it was very clear i thought.

That is purpose and design. It is God’s plan for woman to marry.

I can't coherently form a reply to this statement. But I'm sure its not correct. Please help? Because that is her big thing. She goes on to say that because women are to be submissive and be married we can't go to college or be missionaries while single.

College? University? So while we wait to get married, we hang around home and suck our parents money while we could be out earning a living of our own. I can't remember the reference (sorry) but Paul tells possibly the Thessos (?) to make sure they work by their own hands and are not a burden on anyone. What if the women never marries? Sorry Jocelyn, but you seem to think everyone will marry, but they don't. What happens when her parents die? What does she do then? she's a burden to society.

Plus, as i said in my reply to her article, I don't think God's perfect will is for women to get married! It's for us to tell everyone we can about Him!! If we are held back form doing this because we're single (as in being a missionary) what does that say? She also said:

However, it doesn’t mean that everyone is called to the work of a
missionary and go out into the world. The Bible says they will know you are my
disciples if you love one another - which means if we are Christians people
should be able to see that in EVERYTHING we do.

Which was in reply to my comment on her saying college was full of non-Christians but i said if we cut ourselves off from non-chritsians, how are we to evangelise? No not everyone is to be a missionary, but we are all called to spread God's word, which means in a sense we are all called to be missionaries. Get me? What use is it to say that people will see we are christian by our acts if we don't SEE non-christian people at all. I wasn't saying your actions can't show our faith. In fact i said personal relationship is a very effective form of evangelism, and tied up in that is that person seeing just by the way you live that there is something different.

Ahh guys i feel I'm doing a bad job at presenting a biblically correct view (spec. as i don't quite the bible!). I think I'm pretty bad at explaining stuff but just an opinion would be nice if you can spare the time?? And i don't want to go back and be like HA look at this. I was right do dooo.

So yeah, long post, but important. I'm just worried! I hate biblically incorrect views!! And her going on abotu a helpmeet was a bit perplexing. God designed woman ebcause man needed her so he wasn't lonely, not just to look after the home i thought. If there's some part of the Bible that supports that and i've missed it . . . enlighten me please!! She quote a verse that said something about women (among other things) keeping the home but *sigh* that surely isn't decrying any career for women if they keep home as well? ahhh
(Seriously that bit that said i was truly misinformed was totally upsetting, cos i take it as a comment on everyone who's taught me!)
[Editor's note] okay so this girl has thoroughly confused me as to what she'd saying. I think she'd totally against women havign a career. But she talks of some people who run their own business and says she wants to pursue graphic design and publishing? She quote the bible for her view, but times were different then would be my reply. As i have said, sh'es thoroughly confused me.
:( i'm sad now.

Fact vs Fiction - A "politically Incorrect View" - Ironic? I think so...

Goodness me i just realised i have previously tried to explain my views of global warming on my blog, but did a rather dreadful job of it. Then i thought, just now, 'Ha i have a great piece of writing on just that that i did for English recently!' And so, here is my A grade piece on global warming. (not to boast or anything . . .) You'll be pleased to know, as an aside, that i believe all this blog writing has helped me in my already stronger form of writing: the opinionated piece. Much easier do i find it to compile a piece containing my opinions and beliefs than craft a good creative story.


Fact Vs Fiction - What Will We Risk Our Economy On?
Recent years have shown the development and climax of a Great Fear over the problem of global warming, carbon levels in the atmosphere and climate change. Already world and regional summits have been held and world leaders have promised to spend time and money on cutting national carbon emissions, while the individual tries to do their bit by planting a tomato plant or cycling ten minutes to work. And it’s all due to the environmental frenzy sweeping the world to become the greatest, most useful fad.
Sorry, did I say useful?
I do not by any means claim to possess All Knowledge attached to the subject, but I do mean to make the point that global warming fanatics - believers, call them what you will – need a closer look at the numbers and a nudge – no more of a shove – in the opposite direction.

“The normally begin thus: ‘How does this come about?’ But does it do so? That is what they ought to be asking.”[1]

Indeed they should, although our generation has already answered the question of ‘how’- or so they think – and now searches for ways to slow even stop global warming occurring, before we melt in 10 years time. However, they ought to be asking does it really, will it really, have the effect we think? No. Could you do anything if it did and you tried? No. The effort would be as negligible as an ant pushing against a concrete wall. You may as well just climb to the top and enjoy the view – the amazing view of carbon cycles and the atmosphere and what’s really happening to stop us dying.
I empathise with Michel de Montaigne; things believed because of the sheer number of believers, and those numbers made of ignorant fools, that we should be saying it is not like that, but that if we do, we will be seen as ignorant and it is hard to ‘stiffen your judgment against widely held opinions.’ People are opposing these views though. Over 19,000 American scientists have signed a petition urging the U.S government to reject the Kyoto Protocol because they believe anthropogenic carbon dioxide causes no catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere. That’s their basic reason, and it actually well sums up why we should be ‘stiffening our judgment’ against the view of the Earth’s catastrophic heating.
Firstly, how do I define this widely held view of global warming? From experience I have gathered that people believe i) the ‘greenhouse effect’ will cause the Earth to heat up to a point causing, eventually, death for its inhabitants; ii) that man-made carbon dioxide produces most of the carbon in the world atmosphere, hence anthropogenic (man-made) carbon dioxide causes the greenhouse effect, and thus if we reduce carbon dioxide emissions, the greenhouse effect will be slowed and life on Earth saved. Problem found, solved and forgotten.
And it makes sense.
If we “conveniently” ignore the basic figures.
And basic scientific fact.
Let’ start out big and then hone in on the details.
Firstly, “Global Warming”, the process that supposedly spells Big Trouble for the human race, has actually been happening for ages – since the time of the cave men, more or less continuously and slowly. It is a normal state in the world that occurs between ice ages, and is exactly what should be happening. Be worried if it’s not - it more than likely means another ice age is on its way.
Secondly, the “greenhouse effect”, the process that is supposed to be causing global warming, helps to moderate temperatures on the Earth. In fact, the warming due to the greenhouse effect is limited mainly to night time temperatures; day time high temperatures are negligibly affected. Without the greenhouse effect, the average temperature here would be minus 18 degrees Celsius – and we’d be frozen stiff. It’s generally accepted that the greenhouse effect is also the primary cause of global warming, but it’s not. The primary cause of global warming is instead, believe it or not, ‘orbital eccentricities of Earth and variations in the Sun’s output.’[2] Other main causes are atmospheric (i.e. the greenhouse effect: yes it does come in second) and tectonic.
Thirdly, carbon dioxide, known as the main contributor to the greenhouse effect, has had so many wrong things attributed to it, I almost feel sorry for the diatonic gas; I almost don’t know where to begin. Its main trespass these days is its position as the main greenhouse gas and the cause of all out problems.
Wrong!
Any scientist who tells you that is ignoring the 95% of the greenhouse effect that is the result of water vapour – and they’re probably not associated with climatology at all. Water vapour is the reason day time temperatures are so negligibly affected by the greenhouse effect. When held in suspension, water vapour (commonly: clouds) makes for good thermal insulation, but almost as good a reflector as well.
So how much carbon dioxide actually makes up the total amount of greenhouse gases? About 3.618%. How much of the atmosphere actually comprises of carbon dioxide? About 0.04%.
As an aside, carbon dioxide doesn’t actually stay in the atmosphere. It is continually being recycled by trees (which use it to make oxygen, without which we would cease to exist) and the ocean. (Without carbon dioxide, the trees would kick it off pretty quickly.)
The intriguing thing about popular greenhouse theory is that it states the earth’s temperature correlates directly with the amount of carbon dioxide. In the face of these statistics alone that fact is highly disputable, but historically there has been much more CO2 in the atmosphere than exists today, and if we follow popular greenhouse theory, in those times the Earth should have been exceptionally hot.
But it wasn’t – it was no hotter than now. (But alas, if we follow popular theory they’d have no reason to be hot – less man-made carbon dioxide you know!)
Which leads me to my last happy point about carbon dioxide: as humans we are sadly blamed for all of the supposed destruction that will one day collapse in on our once proud heads. Fortunately, if all that is generally believed - except for this last point - were true, it would not be our fault. You seem man-made carbon dioxide is in such minority that all the promised cuts in emission will do nothing to help the world and everything to damage our economy. The amount of anthropogenic carbon dioxide that actually contributes to the greenhouse effect is 0.117%. Next to nothing. And besides statistics, there’s other inferential proof. One is that after World War II, there was a boom in industrialization but – a global temperature drop. Another is that recently mid troposphere temperatures (the place to measure if you want to see CO2 having an effect) have decreased slightly as carbon dioxide levels increase. Another? Ice core records suggest that the correlation between temperature and CO2 is actually the reverse of popular belief: carbon dioxide follows temperature changes. If we believe our politicians and the media, something seems to be missing, but on the above evidence, everything fits. Carbon dioxide acquitted and cleared of all charges?
Catastrophic global warming theory is a product of our society and the power of a ‘multitude of believers’ swaying those few left undecided by sheer number. There’s so much proof to the contrary of what those people believe that no one could condense it into two pages (but I try to please). To all misguided souls in the world, please think for yourself and find out the facts! This Great Fear isn’t so frightening after all.

[1] “The Essays: A Selection” - Page 352 - Michel de Montaigne
[2] “The Global Warming Test” – http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/GlobWarmTest/A3b.html – Monte Hieb

We're just too young - and relaxed

Okay, so our governments obviously think kids aren't learning enough of Australian history, or something like that, seeing as how their planning to put even more hours of history into the already bloated curriculum. They're always saying that kids don't learn enough of our history. Thing is, we do. Ho ho do we ever. Over the last two years i have been treated with enough Australian history to last me at least 5 years. The thing is, we just forget it. On the majoritie's side i'm sure it's just the fact that they're kids, who don't care about it when they're 14, 15 or 16.
However, I believe one major factor in Australian kids not "knowing" some important parts of Australian history (think dates of the first fleet, first to discover the country, first prime minister etc etc) can be boiled down largely to the fact that we have a short and boring history.
Think about it. Our biggest scandles and such things in politics are the Whitlam dismissal (which I never want to hear another word about, ever again in my life) and the disappearance of Harold Holt. I was taught nothing about the latter in school (and i'm sure most kids would have no idea of even how the guy disappeared).
And if we're not taught nothing about it, the subject is taught to death, a sure way to kill a students enthusiasm for a subject.
But really, having been watching Monarchy lately on the ABC, a programme which traces the histroy of English monarchy, i have realised just how deathly borign our history is. Of course this is due to our late start as a country, when democracy was already THE western government system, religion was not controlled by the state and we had a well established, powerful mother country to look after us through a good deal of our development.
There's just no blood in our history, and it makes us boring.
England had kings, queens and all other associated being killed left, right and centre over any slight claim to throne that they possessed and a whole load of countries in Europe and beyond, not to forget America of course, have had revolutions and civil wars which have shaped the history of their nation, nto to mention assassinations of powerful figures, which in some cases sparked wars - world wars.
In any case, i believe Aussies are too relxed to have started any major, politically centred, conflict - we jsut don't care. Of course, if we'd had a longer history i'd probably be eating my words, but the fact remains, that is one reason kids just plain don't like Australian history.
I would just like to know, why doesn't the government look at taking stuff out of the geography course that isn't geography??

Awesome Lyrics

I think it's time i shared some inspirational lyrics with you from great songs i know. so, without any further ado, i present:

Relient K - Yes relient k is spelt wrong, it's deliberate

More than Useless: Awesome lyrics when you feel useless! Not much more to say of this one.

Whats the purpose? It feels worthless So unwanted like I've lost all my value I can't find it, not in the least bit and I'm just scared, so scared that I'll fail you And sometimes I think that I'm not any good at all And sometimes I wonder why, why I'm even here at all But then you assure me I'm a little more than useless And when I think that I can't do this You promise me that I'll get through this And do something right Do something right for once

Very cool 'cos as you'll see i love lyrics that hit the nail on the head, like these ones.

Bite my tongue: Again lyrics which hit the nail on the head for someone like who has trouble thinking before they speak.

And sometimes I say things that I wish that I could take back The most crucial thing I lack is the thing called "tact"And if you're always so intently listening Then the smartest thing to say Is to tell myself not to say a thing Yeah I gotta keep quiet quiet Don't let it all come undone 'Cause if I dare open my mouth It'll just be to bite my tongue To bit my tongue

Life After Death and Taxes: Just a nice, heavenly message. For one of the faith, very reassuring.

Never forget there's life after death and taxes Forgiveness come and all of the rest is what passes away Death and decay can't touch us now

Also a Nice little bit of typical relient k humour even in a not so cheerful song with the whole 'and taxes' thing.

Apathetic Way To Be: You really need the whole picture to appreciate these lyrics i think, but they're just a little observation on human attitudes really. Plus i like the word apathetic

So take a wild guess It's like I just couldn't care less If all the things you find impressive Just blew up and made those messes That you'll frantically repair Like it's a life or death affair And all the while you're unaware For this, you really shouldn't care But it's so hard to see the reality That the end will be the end of things And our hearts are all we get to bring So let's go ahead and make them worth something

Paul Colman Trio

Move On: Spot on lyrics here. I love people who can make words sound nice but say something so well as well, don't you? Anyway, just like these lyrics, can't voice why, it's just all in my head with no output

Time it won't wait 'til we're ready to say surrender And there's no time like tonight to let it all go So take all your pain and let it go Do you want to know the truth? he said Or are you happy with the lies?'Cause I know a story sounds complete Until you hear the other side

Dear God: Ha again spot on lyrics. Plus it's its a pretty cool tune (all thee songs are, juts some are getting special mention :D ) I agree totally with this song, and the whole thing's going up here, because it's not too long

Dear God I don't understand What you're doing If you're real and you're in control You must see the path we're choosing And I don't understand but somehow I believe It's all in your hands Yeah but I don't believe in a God who gives More of his love to those who say they believe And I've read your book and I think (know) it says It's not what you say but it's how you live Dear God How your name's been used to justify treason And although it hurts me to say Sometimes the enemy's religion

Billy Joel

Vienna : Really just a cool tune, but there are some good lyrics. Really, just, i dunno why i like them, so anyway

Slow down you crazy child Take the phone off the hook And disappear for a while It's lright you can afford to lose a day or two When will you realize...Vienna waits for you

The Who

Baba O'Riley: One line i think is very cool from this song

. . . I don't need to fight To prove I'm right . . .

that's right we don't! End all violence and win with wit and intelligence, it's the best way.

DC Talk - Direct Christian Talk, in case you were wondering

What have we become: Wow, nearly is my art project in words . . . or the general idea, nearly. Still this is a fantastic song deploring the state of humanity. Just now I've come to think that while I'm sure we're not more corrupt than previous generations, maybe this song implies what we've become since the fall? Either way, great lyrics and music

What have we become? A self indulgent people What have we become? Tell me where are the righteous ones? What have we become? In a world degenerating What have we become? . . . What about love? What about God? What about holiness? What about mercy, compassion and selflessness?

Mind's eye: PERFECT lyrics about faith in an invisible God. There's the whole 'wind' thing running throughout, but because it's a great image. Anyway, i just love this song, i love songs which agree with me and my ideas

Can you catch the wind? See a breeze?I ts presence is revealed by The leaves on a tree An image of my faith in the unseen . . . In my mind's eye I see Your face You smile as you show me grace In my mind's eye You take my hand We walk through foreign lands The foreign lands of life