A soundtrack for life

If your life was a movie, what would the soundtrack be?
How to do it:
1. Open your library (iTunes, Winamp, Media Player, iPod, etc).
2. Put it on Shuffle.
3. Press Play.
4. For every question, type the song that's playing.
5. When you go to a new question, press the "next" button.
6. Be honest.

Opening Credits: If I were you- Kasey Chambers (Aussie country singer) "If I were you, I would notice me, if I were you I would wait for me, if I were you I would call and say "It's all gonna be ok."

Waking Up: King of Creation, Vineyard Music. "I'll be dancing in the kingdom."

First day of school: Fell on black days - Soundgarden. Hey yeah, some kid took my brand new school bag ran off with it and threw it in the mud and it got all scratched up. I remember his name: Daniel Matochek. Wonder how he is. He was a Czech immigrant. I think he wanted to be my friend.

Falling in Love: "Love of a true blue girl" -John Williamson (another Aussie country singer). Uncanny.

Fight Song: "Unspeakable joy." Dwell CD- Vineyard. Hmmm. Cos Jesus wins all my fights for me??!!! Or maybe if I'm tempted to fight, I should just worship instead.

Breaking Up: "Beautiful"- Moby, from his hotel album.... "I love you baby, look at us we're beautiful..."

Prom (High School formal):"Find Rest." -Vineyard. "Find rest, my soul, in God...." That's right, I didn't go to it.

Life is Good: Cry Like a Baby- Kasey Chambers. "Well I never lived through the great depression.... I don't have answers for everything.... that's ok cos I'm just a kid."

Mental Breakdown: "All I want is you" U2. I have never had a mental breakdown, but I think the circus character in this song did.

Driving: "Wonder" King's X. A very "expansive" song. Must be for driving on the open road.

Flashback: Mezzanine Floor- Delirious? "I'm on the mezzanine floor, never been here before... and I'll get to heaven."

Getting back together: Jesus take the wheel- Carrie Underwood. Shouldn't this be the driving song?

Wedding: Haircut- Keith Green. Very male, in preparation for a wedding!

Final Battle: Pied Piper- Petra cover. Sorry, this song just doesn't work.

Death Scene: Tire Me- Rage Against the Machine

Funeral Song: Summer Rain- U2

End Credits: All in a Day- The Corrs.

Apocalypto

I had the chance to see "Apocalypto" the other day. There are many things I could say in response to this movie. But I doubt I will articulate them all. This is because Mel Gibson was successful in making a movie that is very far removed from my western world view. It is very hard for me to place this movie in any category in my life. I am greatly appreciative for a movie that opened my eyes to a very different world and way of life.



In this sense, it was a brilliant movie. It was extremely realistic to my eyes and senses, it did not appear to be fantastic in any way at all. I liked the life of the tribe in the village. While their culture may not have been perfect and they may not have known God personally (although I have no claims in either direction), they seemed to be peace loving people.



The people who attacked them, the Mayans seemed to be terribly evil people. Mayan culture is known to be one of the most advanced cultures in history, yet their approach to spirituality was evil and sadisitic, full of bloodthirsty human sacrifices.

I recently had a discussion with an evangelical friend who I like a lot. But I felt his response to this movie was so cliche and standard, that he could not possibly have thought about it all. "There was an awful lot of nudity, in the movie." (Was there? I didn't notice anything of a sexual nature what so ever.) "Wasn't it all about idolatry?" (Well it didn't say that idolatry was good!)
We have to be careful in evangelical cultures to not view the world with blinders on. This movie was brilliantly made. Maybe too cryptic for the average evangelical, I could see plainly the points that Mel Gibson was making.



And for those that can't work it out, let me quote Mel Gibson for you:

"APOCALYPTO is an action-adventure set against the turbulent times at the end of the great Maya civilization.

I have always been fascinated by the precipitous collapse of the ancient Maya civilization and the social and spiritual reasons behind it. The more I learned about it, the more I believed it is a story that has many similarities to society today.

Apocalypto is a story about Jaguar Paw, a man whose idyllic existence is disrupted by a violent invading force. He is taken on a perilous journey to a world ruled by fear and oppression, where a harrowing end awaits him. Through a twist of fate and spurred by the power of his love for his wife, family and his unwavering faith in what he believes is right, he will make a desperate break to return home and to ultimately save his way of life.

In making APOCALYPTO, I hoped to compose a portrait of a society heading towards its final days, but I also wanted to include another vital concept: hope. The story of Jaguar Paw is a universal story of the spark of life that exists even in a civilization in decay. APOCALYPTO means “new beginning”, however in order to have a new beginning, something has to end… and with every ending, there is also a new beginning."

The phone or the computer?

In an earlier post I wrote about the concept of merging technologies. I have been predicting (it's not like this is a genius prediction), that eventually we will all walk around with hand held communication devices that carry out all needs; i.e the applications of a computer, internet, television, stereo, telephone, video conference, camera, photo album... the list goes on. These devices will carry out every conceivable communication concept we can come up with.

The iPod has been filling a niche in the market based upon that which is cool and young people demand. It started out as a simple mp3 player, then Apple improved the display and design, then eventually video was added. A new product is being released this year which is the next big step in the internet revolution: the iPhone.

Watch your tv shows or movies, with this full screen display. Show of your slideshows of photos. Notice on the right that there is an iSight camera. (2 megapixels).


The phone carries GSM coverage for mobile calls. The internet can be accessed this way. The phone also comes with Airport (or Wi-Fi), so the internet can be accessed in a cafe without racking up mobile charges.


There are multiple software applications. Future versions are bound to be capable of carrying out many more applicatons. There is every application that one could hope for in a PDA.



The web browser enables viewing of web pages as they were designed to be viewed.


The screen is fully touch sensitive and intuitive. It has text predictive typing which means that a full keypad is not required.
Choose your music simply by touching it.


The next question is, as these technologies merge, what will we call this device? A computer, a phone, something else? This will be interesting to see how our language develops.

Why do I believe?

I have decided to record some of the reasons why I believe in God.

Faith in God rests on multiple layers: creation, history, community, personal experience, experience of others, theology. That is a little too many layers to address in one post.

Let me start wit the first layer. Creation. When ever I get out of the city I am always overawed by the beauty I see and experience: the majesty of the mountains, the power of the ocean, the vast expanse of the night sky reaching light years away, northern lights displays. At a closer level there is the beauty and simplicity of the flowers, birds and animals. Then of course there is the complexity of the human being. Each of these examples to me speak to my heart that there is a creator. Within me there is a resonation that there is a God who is far greater than all of these things and made them all.

But what about scientific arguments that claim everything started with a big bang, and then gradually evolved to what we have today? This delves into the realm of philosopy but it is worth addressing. Firstly I think there are some major problems with the scientific world view. The age of enlightenment started in the 1700s after the renaissance period. The age of enlightenment was when man said that he could search, find and prove the answers to everything. A self confidence in his own worth and ability. If God is true, then that is a huge stretch for man to say that he will ever be able to explain everything. Even if God is not real, it is actually a huge slice of arrogance to say that man through science can explain all of the wonders of the universe. The universe is so large, that man could not explain it in a million ages. Therefore to argue that God does not exist is unprovable. This is where atheism falls flat on his face. If the doubting scientist says that God is not real and insists on searching the world through those criteria how can he ever know whether my faith is real or just a fabrication. He cannot prove this, and this is the achilles heel of science.

So science does not have all the answers. The death of modernism is heralded. Nietzsche proclaimed that God was dead. Atheism is a concept that only came about from the modernist world view. Post modernism has begun. People know that science can not answer spiritual questions. It seems that Nietzsche was wrong and that God has risen from the dead again!

I am not even tackling the question of who God is today. I am simply establishing why I believe in God, and then debunking the atheist lie that tries to undermine this. Most of the world's population would agree that there is a God. Most would even agree that there is an unkwown God who made everything. I think that this Creator God must be pretty amazing, from looking at creation.

I have faith that God exists. This is not such a stupid proposition these days. In the age of modernism many people ridiculed this proposition. But modernism had failed to answer this all important question. In the words of Douglas Adams (a self proclaimed atheist): The answer to the question of life, the universe and everything is...... 42. Now you could say that he was ridiculing the question. But I have read his works closely and he asks the question many times. But he never found his answer. He insisted on looking at the question through a scientific world view. In reality the best answer you can come up with through a scientific world view is 42.

To believe that God is not real and personal requires a modernist scientific world view. A post modernist can not think this way. If a post modernist is to become an atheist they must first digress back into modernism.

My reasons for believing are not because of philosophical arguments. My reasons for believing are because of the witness and story that I see in creation around me. Such beauty and inspiration. It inspires me to have faith- faith in a God who is much, much bigger than me.

5 things most people don't know about me

1) I am albino: Redheads are about 5% albino.

2) I am actually descended from Slavs: My name is a slavic root which means "Jacob."

3) I think time travel is possible: I can debate about this one for hours.

4) I have been a swing voter: I have voted both left and right. Can you guess where I sit now?

5) I believe Jesus is coming back, but not as soon as most evangelicals: The gospel must first be preached to all nations and then the end will come. Considering that there are still about 10 000 of these to go, I don't buy all the trumped up rubbish about credit cards being the mark of the beast etc. It does not threaten my faith if Jesus does not return for another 500 years. He is not willing that any should perish, but will wait as long as necessary so that as many as possible would have the chance to believe. (Apostle Peter).

What kind of car am I?

I'm a Chevrolet Corvette!

You're a classic - powerful, athletic, and competitive. You're all about winning the race and getting the job done. While you have a practical everyday side, you get wild when anyone pushes your pedal. You hate to lose, but you hardly ever do.

Take the Which Sports Car Are You? quiz.

Post-post-modernism

I have been a post modernist. It tasted good for quite a while. But I have moved on.

My own definition of post modernism: To take all of the rules, structures and norms of society, church, institution etcetera, throw them up in the air; let them fall down any which way; try to make sense of them; question them to see if they have any value or not; throw them out if the don't have any value and keep them if they do.

I personally think that people do need to go through this process. The western world started the post modern movement in the 60s, so in many ways it is already quite old. The church has been quite afraid of the post modern movement. But if truth is truth then it should quite easily stand up to scrutiny and we should not be afraid to allow it to be tested. This has been the downfall of parts of the church- they have resisted questioning and scrutiny. Something should never be the way it is, just because that is the way it is. Everything is up for questioning.

Here is the crux though. There are two starting points for such questioning. 1) God is true and eternal- and I am therefore testing everything that is a human construction. OR 2) God is a human construction and he is also up for questioning. People have to be free to take the line of questioning in number 2 if they so choose. But it has to be said that this is not necessary for someone who already has a faith in God. I will readily admit that my line of questioning has been that of number 1, but then I have had real and tangible experiences with the true and eternal God. But I have thoroughly been through the questioning of world view number 1.

To ask a true and honest post-modern question it is necessary to not expect an answer any time soon. Allow the question to sink in. Allow it to permeate the soul and mind. The answer could take months or years. But here is the second crux- if God is true and eternal, there must always be an answer eventually. Modernism insists that the answer is obtainable now and through logic. Post modernism does not buy into such dogmatism. Post modernism says "I am a person and there is something much bigger than me, something I may never understand." But the truth is; God does understand me and he will help me to understand if I want to. The good news is, that God is not in a hurry.

The dangerous aspect of post modernism is that people can be self indulgent in the midst of it. It is right and necessary to question, but unhealthy to stay in the questioning for ever. I find it unhealthy when people are so bitter at the church and those in the church. This is not honest questioning. Yes, people in the institutional church need to question for themselves, but I think we should have some grace for them as they have not begun the process yet.

I would like to take the time to quote a great post-modern thinker, Alan Hirsch; "There is simplicity before complexity and simplicity after complexity. You need to take the time to go through the complexity, but eventually come out into simplicity on the other side."

Post-post-modernism is the simplicity on the other side. The post-post-modernist knows that there are no easy answers. The post-post-modernist thinks that modernism is a waste of time. The post-post-modernist has been through the complexity.

This post-post-modernist says "question, question, question, but do not be self indulgent in your questioning; resist the urge to be bitter in your questioning; be honest with yourself; know that God is true and eternal and that there is simplicity on the other side; take your time, there's no hurry, but don't be late and don't hate me for walking on and leaving the complexity behind."

Open the trapdoor

For the adventurous blogger- I have another blog. Why another one? Well I guess I like to keep my ideas neatly organised. Waking up the Sleeping Land will remain my blog about Siberia. In One Ear is a chance for me to say anything I want. The next bunny trail is for specific crazy stories about visas and immigration control etc. As a traveler these things come up quite often. I thought it would be fun to collect as many of my own and other people's stories as possible.

Check out http://visatales.blogspot.com

Pluto is NOT a planet

It's official. There are only 8 planets in our solar system. Pluto has been demoted to the status of "dwarf planet." This was decided by a vote during the congress of the International Astronomical Union on August 24th in Prague.
This is not the first time such a demotion has occured. Ceres, in the asteroid belt was formerly a planet 150 years ago, but was demoted because many other objects in the asteroid belt would have been planets too. Thus the new term "asteroid" was created.
The solar system is made up in neat layers: the first four planets- Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars are rock planets; then comes the asteroid belt; then comes the four gas giants- Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune; lastly comes the Kuiber belt- ice objects that orbit the sun.
The new definition of a planet is: 1) Must be an object that orbits the sun. 2) Must have enough gravity of its own to make itself spherical. 3) Must have significantly cleared other objects from its path. 4) Must not orbit another sattelite of the Sun.
Ceres is not a planet because it has many asteroids in close vicinity. Ceres has been elevated to the status of "dwarf planet." Xena, Pluto and Charon (a satellite of Pluto) are not planets, due to their location in the Kuiber belt, in close vicinity to thousands of ice satellites.
Throw this trivia question at some one to stump them! How many planets does our solar system have? 9. Wrong- it's now 8.

Interplanetary Wars

August 24 is the date set for the showdown in Prague. There are two camps in Astronomical circles. One camp believes that the definition of a planet should be "any star-orbiting object so large that its own gravity pulls in its rough edges and produces a near-perfect sphere." The other camp believes that it should be based upon size and Pluto would miss the cut.
Three new candidates have been put forward that fall in line with the gravity definition. It is thought that the vote is likely to go through. The smaller camp want Pluto struck off the list. Their dissent over the matter is because the gravity definition would leave the door open for hundreds of new planets in our solar system. The size definition camp believe these smaller star orbiting objects should be called Plutons.
Personally I am rather excited that the holiday options for space tourism have just broadened. However I not relish teaching 100 planets to my daughter. So I think I lean towards striking Pluto from the list. Siberia is cold enough without going to Pluto.