I understand that it has been ages since I last did a new blog, and I am sorry. This one wont be very good, it's just something to help me get back into the habit of writing blogs, a habit I have evidently fallen out of!
I was unsure of what to title this one but went with radio waves, which is the analogy in my head as I read 1 Kings 19:9-17.
This is the story of Elijah in the cave and he is despairing for his life, because Israel has turned its back on God and he feels he is the only one left. God says He will pass by Elijah,
"And he said, "Go out and stand on the mount before the LORD." And behold, the LORD passed by, and a great and strong wind tore the mountains and broke in pieces the rocks before the LORD, but the LORD was not in the wind. And after the wind an earthquake, but the LORD was not in the earthquake. And after the earthquake a fire, but the LORD was not in the fire. And after the fire the sound of a low whisper. And when Elijah heard it, he wrapped his face in his cloak and went out and stood at the entrance of the cave. And behold, there came a voice to him and said, "What are you doing here, Elijah?"" 1 Kings 19:11-13.
This got me to thinking about the gift of prophecy (by which I mean hearing the Lord's voice, not telling the future) and if God is pretty much always speaking to us.
You might be thinking 'he just read God wasn't in the wind, earthquake, fire and asks the question is God always speaking?'
Well I think that perhaps He is. That He is speaking and it is us to tune in. We have a radio in our spirits and Elijah couldn't hear God in those things because the radio of his spirit was not tuned to do so. So God's voice is like a radio wave, we need to tune into it to hear it. How? By being still and knowing He is God. Some theologian, I think it was Helmut Thielicke, said that when we are being still (still being the route of the English word vacate in this instance) we are vacating our 'position' as God and allowing God to be God. That's tuning in. Remember, "Be still, and know that I am God. I will be exalted among the nations, I will be exalted in the earth!" (Psalm 46:10)
PS, I also love that God answers Elijah's despair by reminding him there are 7,000 others like him (v17). If you feel alone as you read this remember you are not. God has men and women in your town, county, country, too.
Saturday 22 December 2012
Friday 30 November 2012
No cutbacks, no fees
I read the title of an article today that brings a whole new view on the no cutbacks to student grants and no increases in student contributions to third and fourth level debate. It was the effect these cutbacks on the local Cork economy. The article heading stated that cutbacks to grants has taken 33million Euro from the Cork economy since 2008.
At first reading that sum seems over exaggerated but then I thought about it a little bit more... When I started UCC in 2008 the grants was 3500 Euro and the student contribution was €750. This year, as far as I'm aware, it's just a few Euro over 3000 for the grant (3024 I think) and the student contribution is 2500. On top of that the distance people can be from UCC and CIT has been lessened. This could, reasonably, lead to a major loss in finances for the local economy.
The first reason is renting. With a narrowing of the distance you can be from your college to qualify for the non-adjacent rate (3024) you only get the adjacent (1512ish). This, for the normal student, means that they can no longer afford to live in student accommodation meaning that the Cork landlords and supermarkets (and off licenses and pubs and clubs) lose out on the money those students would have spent while they were living in Cork. That's probably the biggest one because you are likely talking about 5000 per student (I have no idea how many or how few students that has effected though).
On top of that smaller grants and larger fees means that students have less 'disposable income' and so the economy of Cork suffers as a result...
In conclusion, business owners and landlords should be as opposed to few increases and cut backs to student grants as students are. The entire city of Cork (and Limerick, Galway and Dublin, as well as Waterford, Maynooth, Tralee, Clonmel, Thurles, Letterkenny, Athlone, Sligo, Carlow etc etc etc) will suffer (and 33,000,000 in 4 years is nothing to be sniffed at!!)
At first reading that sum seems over exaggerated but then I thought about it a little bit more... When I started UCC in 2008 the grants was 3500 Euro and the student contribution was €750. This year, as far as I'm aware, it's just a few Euro over 3000 for the grant (3024 I think) and the student contribution is 2500. On top of that the distance people can be from UCC and CIT has been lessened. This could, reasonably, lead to a major loss in finances for the local economy.
The first reason is renting. With a narrowing of the distance you can be from your college to qualify for the non-adjacent rate (3024) you only get the adjacent (1512ish). This, for the normal student, means that they can no longer afford to live in student accommodation meaning that the Cork landlords and supermarkets (and off licenses and pubs and clubs) lose out on the money those students would have spent while they were living in Cork. That's probably the biggest one because you are likely talking about 5000 per student (I have no idea how many or how few students that has effected though).
On top of that smaller grants and larger fees means that students have less 'disposable income' and so the economy of Cork suffers as a result...
In conclusion, business owners and landlords should be as opposed to few increases and cut backs to student grants as students are. The entire city of Cork (and Limerick, Galway and Dublin, as well as Waterford, Maynooth, Tralee, Clonmel, Thurles, Letterkenny, Athlone, Sligo, Carlow etc etc etc) will suffer (and 33,000,000 in 4 years is nothing to be sniffed at!!)
Thursday 29 November 2012
TotD: Water You turned into Wine
The story of the Wedding at Cana often made no sense to me, I wondered why Jesus would make tonnes of wine so people would get drunk, a thing He says we shouldn't do.
I recently heard a preacher say that the water into wine episode is about a lot more than a fancy party trick, but it is about how we, in the 21st century, know we can trust Jesus completely.
One of the first things we need to note about this story is Mary's role. She hears that the wedding party has run out of wine. In Jewish society if you ran out of wine at a wedding it brought shame on you, your new wife, your parents, your in-laws, your extended family and sometimes even your whole village. This shame effected your life, business and possibly freedom (you could apparently be arrested for running out of wine).
Mary comes to Jesus, knowing the wine was almost gone and that this shame would soon befall her friend. She also knew that Jesus could do something about it.
Notice Jesus' interesting response. "Woman, why do you involve me?" This seems a little harsh of Jesus. It is like He is angry at her for coming to Him. In actuality this could be seen as a statement of inclusivity. Jesus was saying that Mary does not have exclusive rights to Jesus and God's power, but He is there for everyone. He goes on to say, "my time has not yet come," I wonder if Mary ever got sick of Jesus' profound statements.
I think what Mary does next is really interesting. The words recorded don't make it sound like Jesus was particularly willing to help but Mary goes to the servants at the wedding and says, "Do whatever He tells you."
Interestingly that's the same advice I would give you today. It's the same advice any godly Christian leader would give you today, "Do whatever He tells you." That is really the best advice. It's life-giving. Jesus is life and the way to abide in Him and have His life is to be the person He designed you to be, to live the life He wants you to live. The best way to have abundant life, life to the full, as mentioned in John 10:10, is to do whatever He tells you.
The servants do as Jesus tells them but I wonder what they are thinking as they do. There were no taps in those days so they probably had to take the massive jars and fill them from a little bucket lowered into a well. They must of been thinking they were mad listening to Jesus, who told them to fetch water, when they needed wine. Sometimes, more often than not, when Jesus tells you to do something it will seem like a crazy and senseless task. This is because of the way God works. He does things the way that will bring you and I the least glory and Hum the most, lest no man should boast.
Another interesting thing here is that Jesus provides abundantly. He makes gallons of wine that, when tasted, is declared better than any of the wine that came before it. Jesus is a giving God, He is kind and generous and will constantly give us more than we can fathom or imagine. That's the God we serve and His abundant blessings are the results of us listening to Him and doing whatever He says to us to do.
Imagine how that groom felt? He was worried that he would be ostracised by his community over his lack of wine but now; now the best wine was available and normally people gave the best firs and the worst when people were a little tipsy. This meant the guy had a better reputation for the wine. He saved the best tip last. He gave the best when it might not have been noticed.
Jesus removed this guys shame... Jesus is like the shame whisperer. He takes our shame and transforms into something glorious, that brings God glory. Andy has a theory, and I completely agree, that the things that are worst about you, when you aren't a Christian, are the things that God transforms to being the best things about you when you live a life for Him...
That is our God. That is what Jesus does. He makes our worst into our best. He transforms us into His image. Water into wine is a little picture of that, a small picture of how Jesus does Inga strangely when we do whatever He says. Then He turns our shame into His glory!
I recently heard a preacher say that the water into wine episode is about a lot more than a fancy party trick, but it is about how we, in the 21st century, know we can trust Jesus completely.
One of the first things we need to note about this story is Mary's role. She hears that the wedding party has run out of wine. In Jewish society if you ran out of wine at a wedding it brought shame on you, your new wife, your parents, your in-laws, your extended family and sometimes even your whole village. This shame effected your life, business and possibly freedom (you could apparently be arrested for running out of wine).
Mary comes to Jesus, knowing the wine was almost gone and that this shame would soon befall her friend. She also knew that Jesus could do something about it.
Notice Jesus' interesting response. "Woman, why do you involve me?" This seems a little harsh of Jesus. It is like He is angry at her for coming to Him. In actuality this could be seen as a statement of inclusivity. Jesus was saying that Mary does not have exclusive rights to Jesus and God's power, but He is there for everyone. He goes on to say, "my time has not yet come," I wonder if Mary ever got sick of Jesus' profound statements.
I think what Mary does next is really interesting. The words recorded don't make it sound like Jesus was particularly willing to help but Mary goes to the servants at the wedding and says, "Do whatever He tells you."
Interestingly that's the same advice I would give you today. It's the same advice any godly Christian leader would give you today, "Do whatever He tells you." That is really the best advice. It's life-giving. Jesus is life and the way to abide in Him and have His life is to be the person He designed you to be, to live the life He wants you to live. The best way to have abundant life, life to the full, as mentioned in John 10:10, is to do whatever He tells you.
The servants do as Jesus tells them but I wonder what they are thinking as they do. There were no taps in those days so they probably had to take the massive jars and fill them from a little bucket lowered into a well. They must of been thinking they were mad listening to Jesus, who told them to fetch water, when they needed wine. Sometimes, more often than not, when Jesus tells you to do something it will seem like a crazy and senseless task. This is because of the way God works. He does things the way that will bring you and I the least glory and Hum the most, lest no man should boast.
Another interesting thing here is that Jesus provides abundantly. He makes gallons of wine that, when tasted, is declared better than any of the wine that came before it. Jesus is a giving God, He is kind and generous and will constantly give us more than we can fathom or imagine. That's the God we serve and His abundant blessings are the results of us listening to Him and doing whatever He says to us to do.
Imagine how that groom felt? He was worried that he would be ostracised by his community over his lack of wine but now; now the best wine was available and normally people gave the best firs and the worst when people were a little tipsy. This meant the guy had a better reputation for the wine. He saved the best tip last. He gave the best when it might not have been noticed.
Jesus removed this guys shame... Jesus is like the shame whisperer. He takes our shame and transforms into something glorious, that brings God glory. Andy has a theory, and I completely agree, that the things that are worst about you, when you aren't a Christian, are the things that God transforms to being the best things about you when you live a life for Him...
That is our God. That is what Jesus does. He makes our worst into our best. He transforms us into His image. Water into wine is a little picture of that, a small picture of how Jesus does Inga strangely when we do whatever He says. Then He turns our shame into His glory!
Tuesday 27 November 2012
Wavey's Stuff Christians Like- Praying Before Communion
I discovered recently I have two old blogs. This is from one of them. Like the funny Bible acronyms I thought it would be worth reposting
1. Praying as the bread and wine goes around.
This is one all Christians do. It's a time when we come to reflect on all the amazing things our God has done for us through His Son Jesus Christ on the cross. It is also a time for personal reflection as we look back on our week to see if there is any un-confessed sins, or bad feeling between us and a brother or sister in the Lord. We sort out these things with God in that prayer time.
What I notice about it though is, seriously, is that actually the best time to bow your head and close your eyes? This behaviour puts the person beside you through a mini dilemma. This dilemma, 'do I wait for them to finish praying or interrupt their personal time with God. What if they aren't ready to take the bread? What if they are in the middle of confessing their sins to God when I tap them on the shoulder and then their taking of the bread without a clean heart is just adding to the sins they'll have to confess later? I always find it tough to know either way what to do. Normally you go for the interrupt because there is a limited time given over to the breaking of bread in the service, but even though that logic wins out you sometimes feel as if you shouldn't tap them on the shoulder.
(if you haven't thought about this before wait til next time you're in Church and the person beside you is praying as you come to pass them the bread, you'll become very conscious of having to tap them on the shoulder after reading this).
One of the other things with this issue is the having to tap them. Here you are holding a basket/plate of bread (sometimes cut into little pieces) and you have to tap the person that's five seats away to get their attention so they will take the bread from you. You look around, everyone seems to be praying and it is the quietest the Church has been all morning. You now have to get that bread to that person without making too much noise.
I've found that very few people will actually stand up from their seat and walk to the other person, that is too public and attention seeking. So instead we do this edging thing where we move over one chair closer and lean in with the bread and make a wee noise in hopes of catching their attention. This never works though and so you have to lean in further to tap on the shoulder while balancing the bread precariously in the other hand, praying it doesn't fall. Finally we get it to the next person and sigh a sigh of relief (who would have thought this Communion thing was so hard right?)
Maybe the Catholics and Church of Ireland got it right, in their Churches you walk up to the front to take the bread and wine from the priest/reverend. (ok doctrinally the RCC hasn't got it right what with all that transubstantiation malarkey) but credit where credit is due.
The other way Churches do it is people walk around with it from person to person. That can be embarrassing when someone doesn't put money in the collection which came first though and so I would suggest completely avoiding that method.
My last observation on praying during breaking of bread is: have you ever seen those people who start praying when the bread is about five people away from them? They see it coming and automatically start praying and you think 'look at this guy, pretending to the person beside him that he's all spiritual.' What else could it be though? If they really wanted to pray they would have started when the rest of the room did. Why wait until you have only about thirty seconds to actually make yourself right with God before the cup reaches you? That might just be me though, maybe I normally have so many sins to confess that it takes me longer (I do it in the car on the way in to MSH or before I stand up in PCG (which do the walking to the front thing).
Or else maybe other people just find it scary to come into the presence of God on a Sunday morning in Church where they have been worshipping Him for the past hour and a half or so. But I don't think so I think I'm sticking with my original hypotheses on the people who close their eyes and start 'praying' five people before the bread gets to them, they just want to be seen to be praying.... a little like a Pharisee but probably not as bad
1. Praying as the bread and wine goes around.
This is one all Christians do. It's a time when we come to reflect on all the amazing things our God has done for us through His Son Jesus Christ on the cross. It is also a time for personal reflection as we look back on our week to see if there is any un-confessed sins, or bad feeling between us and a brother or sister in the Lord. We sort out these things with God in that prayer time.
What I notice about it though is, seriously, is that actually the best time to bow your head and close your eyes? This behaviour puts the person beside you through a mini dilemma. This dilemma, 'do I wait for them to finish praying or interrupt their personal time with God. What if they aren't ready to take the bread? What if they are in the middle of confessing their sins to God when I tap them on the shoulder and then their taking of the bread without a clean heart is just adding to the sins they'll have to confess later? I always find it tough to know either way what to do. Normally you go for the interrupt because there is a limited time given over to the breaking of bread in the service, but even though that logic wins out you sometimes feel as if you shouldn't tap them on the shoulder.
(if you haven't thought about this before wait til next time you're in Church and the person beside you is praying as you come to pass them the bread, you'll become very conscious of having to tap them on the shoulder after reading this).
One of the other things with this issue is the having to tap them. Here you are holding a basket/plate of bread (sometimes cut into little pieces) and you have to tap the person that's five seats away to get their attention so they will take the bread from you. You look around, everyone seems to be praying and it is the quietest the Church has been all morning. You now have to get that bread to that person without making too much noise.
I've found that very few people will actually stand up from their seat and walk to the other person, that is too public and attention seeking. So instead we do this edging thing where we move over one chair closer and lean in with the bread and make a wee noise in hopes of catching their attention. This never works though and so you have to lean in further to tap on the shoulder while balancing the bread precariously in the other hand, praying it doesn't fall. Finally we get it to the next person and sigh a sigh of relief (who would have thought this Communion thing was so hard right?)
Maybe the Catholics and Church of Ireland got it right, in their Churches you walk up to the front to take the bread and wine from the priest/reverend. (ok doctrinally the RCC hasn't got it right what with all that transubstantiation malarkey) but credit where credit is due.
The other way Churches do it is people walk around with it from person to person. That can be embarrassing when someone doesn't put money in the collection which came first though and so I would suggest completely avoiding that method.
My last observation on praying during breaking of bread is: have you ever seen those people who start praying when the bread is about five people away from them? They see it coming and automatically start praying and you think 'look at this guy, pretending to the person beside him that he's all spiritual.' What else could it be though? If they really wanted to pray they would have started when the rest of the room did. Why wait until you have only about thirty seconds to actually make yourself right with God before the cup reaches you? That might just be me though, maybe I normally have so many sins to confess that it takes me longer (I do it in the car on the way in to MSH or before I stand up in PCG (which do the walking to the front thing).
Or else maybe other people just find it scary to come into the presence of God on a Sunday morning in Church where they have been worshipping Him for the past hour and a half or so. But I don't think so I think I'm sticking with my original hypotheses on the people who close their eyes and start 'praying' five people before the bread gets to them, they just want to be seen to be praying.... a little like a Pharisee but probably not as bad
Saturday 24 November 2012
Christmas 1
Today (24-11-12) in my house is Christmas dinner day.
The reason it is a month earlier than the traditional 25-12 date is because of Tesco.
Tesco brought out their Christmas products in late August. They usually bring them out in late September. So, working it out mathematically, Christmas is a month earlier this year than it is normal years.
Prompted by this I am, today, going to talk about Christmas.
I never realised until I moved away from home how like my mother, and consequently her mother, I am. Christmas, when my mother was a child, was the biggest festival in the house. Mum's family are really large and were not particularly well to do (they called their mother mam) but Christmas was saved for all year and caution was thrown to the wind when it came to Nana and Christmas.
Nana decked the house to the nines and had everybody's favourites (which meant it was like cooking five Christmas dinners instead of one). She went all out.
That love of loving people by giving them food on Christmas has passed to mum (who on the first of December this year is doing a Christmas dinner for some of the long servers in the Church, and following that is doing a homeless Christmas dinner [I'm not sure of the date of that one though]) and has now been passed to me.
Last year, in Number 2, I did my first independent of my family (as in the Cowpars and Ryans) Christmas dinner. It was so fun I loved it. 2 Years ago, also in Number 2 I first bought Christmas decorations.
Neither of these can compare with this year. This year I completely redid the Christmas decorations thing decorating not just the sitting room but also the kitchen, hallway and landing. I bought my first tree (5 foot) and decorated it, new hanging decorations and tinsel... I love Christmas (pictures of most of these can be seen on Facebook).
Another big change this year, and the one that makes me really happy, is the table.
We have a colour scheme (blue and silver, red and gold) so the tree is mostly blue and silver with bits of red and a small bit of gold, the hanging decorations are all blue and silver or red and gold and now... so is the table. I bought a red table cloth in Dunnes with a gold runner along it... There is a red and green centerpiece with a gold candle, two red place mats sit on the gold runner and there are gold napkins on the table and in the glasses with gold and red Christmas crackers... Yay.
Ok so long story short, I love planning Christmas stuff... but it means the kitchen has been out of bounds since 2:30 today haha
The reason it is a month earlier than the traditional 25-12 date is because of Tesco.
Tesco brought out their Christmas products in late August. They usually bring them out in late September. So, working it out mathematically, Christmas is a month earlier this year than it is normal years.
Prompted by this I am, today, going to talk about Christmas.
I never realised until I moved away from home how like my mother, and consequently her mother, I am. Christmas, when my mother was a child, was the biggest festival in the house. Mum's family are really large and were not particularly well to do (they called their mother mam) but Christmas was saved for all year and caution was thrown to the wind when it came to Nana and Christmas.
Nana decked the house to the nines and had everybody's favourites (which meant it was like cooking five Christmas dinners instead of one). She went all out.
That love of loving people by giving them food on Christmas has passed to mum (who on the first of December this year is doing a Christmas dinner for some of the long servers in the Church, and following that is doing a homeless Christmas dinner [I'm not sure of the date of that one though]) and has now been passed to me.
Last year, in Number 2, I did my first independent of my family (as in the Cowpars and Ryans) Christmas dinner. It was so fun I loved it. 2 Years ago, also in Number 2 I first bought Christmas decorations.
Neither of these can compare with this year. This year I completely redid the Christmas decorations thing decorating not just the sitting room but also the kitchen, hallway and landing. I bought my first tree (5 foot) and decorated it, new hanging decorations and tinsel... I love Christmas (pictures of most of these can be seen on Facebook).
Another big change this year, and the one that makes me really happy, is the table.
We have a colour scheme (blue and silver, red and gold) so the tree is mostly blue and silver with bits of red and a small bit of gold, the hanging decorations are all blue and silver or red and gold and now... so is the table. I bought a red table cloth in Dunnes with a gold runner along it... There is a red and green centerpiece with a gold candle, two red place mats sit on the gold runner and there are gold napkins on the table and in the glasses with gold and red Christmas crackers... Yay.
Ok so long story short, I love planning Christmas stuff... but it means the kitchen has been out of bounds since 2:30 today haha
Sunday 18 November 2012
The meaning of the Bible acronyms.
I found this on an old blog called 'David's Thoughts (Maybe)' and I thought it was worth reposting.
ESV= The Extra Spiritual Version (P.S. this is the best one to get, it's extra spiritual)
ESV= The Extra Spiritual Version (P.S. this is the best one to get, it's extra spiritual)
NIV= The Nearly Inspired Version (This is the most popular for some reason when it clearly states it is only 'nearly' inspired.)
NLT= The Not Literal Translation
NCV= The Non-Christian Version
AV= The Anti-Christ's Version.
TM= The Mistake
NKJV= Not Knowledge, Jokes Version
GW= Goofy Words (Conor's)
ASV- Almost Satanic Version.
HCSB- Heavenly Choir of Saints Bible
In case you don't know what they claim to mean themselves
ESV- English Standard Version
NIV- New International Version
NLT- New Living Translation
NCV- New Century Version
AV- Authorised (King James) Version
TM- The Message.
NKJV- New King James Version, (only half as confusing to read as the AV)
GW- God's Word.
ASV- American Standard Version
HCSB- Holman's Christian Standard Bible
TotD: Abortion
I'm doing this blog because it is really topical at the moment, I'm surprised to find myself wanting to write it.
Abortion... The murder of babies or the removal of inconveniences?
The answer to that question has to come about where you define life as beginning. Many people say that life begins at birth. That is when human rights kick in, not before. Before birth the only human who's rights matter is the mother's.
Christians, by in large, say that life begins the moment the sperm reaches the egg. This idea comes from verses in the Bible such as Psalm 51:5 and Jeremiah 1:5, (the former of which talks about being sinful from conception and the latter being about how God knitted us together in our mother's wombs and knew us and had a plan for us even from then.)
Traditionally I think I would be of the first paragraph in my mindset. As a member of the Labour Party, who are traditionally (at least in perception) pro-abortion (pro-choice, really the same thing), I would have mentally been fairly in line with their thinking.
We did classes on abortion with Jonathan (Lawes) in RE in school and after that I was a little less pro and a little more 'this is over my head'. In a Labour meeting on whether we would continue to support a pro-choice campaign I did not vote, I was so unsure that I abstained.
I don't think, and I still don't think, that I have any right to decide for an individual, based on the law of the God that they most likely don't follow, to tell women that they can or can't do anything. In general I believe that the law of God, where it is not a universal right, universal truth or an understood international law (which I understand come from God in their origins) I don't think it has a place in Irish society...
Having said that I would also, if I was to ever be in the strange and extremely unlikely situation of getting a girl pregnant, do anything... ANYTHING to stop her from aborting... I would sell the kid to Madonna or one of those other loonies (they don't have Irish babies yet)... as long as she did not abort... Ultimately though I would have to accept that beyond all my begging and pleading it would be her choice, though I would not be for it.
In recent times, my opinion has changed largely. I have met someone who has had an abortion. It wasn't their choice and it was heart wrenching and still is. I won't say anymore than that for, if they read this, having this paragraph in it might be hard enough.
I am, on Facebook, a 'liker' of the keep Ireland pro-life thingy (in my opinion pro-life is anti-abortion, pro-life is a little too broad for what they do). They recently have posted some stuff I want to mention here.
-One is about the search for single celled micro-organisms on Mars. If we found those we would consider it life but a single (and growing celled living organism in another organisms body isn't life?)
- The second is one that says that in 2008 in the USA there were 1.21 million abortions... That roughly equates to one every 26 seconds. So in the time it takes you to read this sentence a baby in the US has been aborted, going on 2008 figures. Making a cup of tea, 7 babies aborted; while you sleep for 8 hours tonight there will be 1105 babies aborted in the US....
-In the second World War the US, in the three or four years it was involved lost 418,500 people (that includes soldiers, civilians and victims of crimes against humanity. The US population in 1941 was apparently 133,402,471 people. Today it is 314,785,000. So it was roughly one third of what it is now, basically this means that as many people as died in a three year war (the one we all point to as the worst ever) die every year to abortion in the US... That is fairly shocking.
Another thing that annoys me about all this abortion talk is that it finds its origins from places outside of Ireland, like the European Court, or the husband of a wife lost in a tragedy. Internal affairs guys, get your noses out.
Finally, I think it would be really sad to see abortion legalised and abused here, as it is in many other nations. I do think it is God's will that the child He created be born and live in the world as He intended it. Abortion is right in very very few circumstances and a consumer approach to something as important as this is not the way to go.
Ireland needs to be careful of what it does and how it reacts to all this pressure. I, personally, think we should remain as we are. It would be interesting to see a referendum campaign and results though.
Abortion... The murder of babies or the removal of inconveniences?
The answer to that question has to come about where you define life as beginning. Many people say that life begins at birth. That is when human rights kick in, not before. Before birth the only human who's rights matter is the mother's.
Christians, by in large, say that life begins the moment the sperm reaches the egg. This idea comes from verses in the Bible such as Psalm 51:5 and Jeremiah 1:5, (the former of which talks about being sinful from conception and the latter being about how God knitted us together in our mother's wombs and knew us and had a plan for us even from then.)
Traditionally I think I would be of the first paragraph in my mindset. As a member of the Labour Party, who are traditionally (at least in perception) pro-abortion (pro-choice, really the same thing), I would have mentally been fairly in line with their thinking.
We did classes on abortion with Jonathan (Lawes) in RE in school and after that I was a little less pro and a little more 'this is over my head'. In a Labour meeting on whether we would continue to support a pro-choice campaign I did not vote, I was so unsure that I abstained.
I don't think, and I still don't think, that I have any right to decide for an individual, based on the law of the God that they most likely don't follow, to tell women that they can or can't do anything. In general I believe that the law of God, where it is not a universal right, universal truth or an understood international law (which I understand come from God in their origins) I don't think it has a place in Irish society...
Having said that I would also, if I was to ever be in the strange and extremely unlikely situation of getting a girl pregnant, do anything... ANYTHING to stop her from aborting... I would sell the kid to Madonna or one of those other loonies (they don't have Irish babies yet)... as long as she did not abort... Ultimately though I would have to accept that beyond all my begging and pleading it would be her choice, though I would not be for it.
In recent times, my opinion has changed largely. I have met someone who has had an abortion. It wasn't their choice and it was heart wrenching and still is. I won't say anymore than that for, if they read this, having this paragraph in it might be hard enough.
I am, on Facebook, a 'liker' of the keep Ireland pro-life thingy (in my opinion pro-life is anti-abortion, pro-life is a little too broad for what they do). They recently have posted some stuff I want to mention here.
-One is about the search for single celled micro-organisms on Mars. If we found those we would consider it life but a single (and growing celled living organism in another organisms body isn't life?)
- The second is one that says that in 2008 in the USA there were 1.21 million abortions... That roughly equates to one every 26 seconds. So in the time it takes you to read this sentence a baby in the US has been aborted, going on 2008 figures. Making a cup of tea, 7 babies aborted; while you sleep for 8 hours tonight there will be 1105 babies aborted in the US....
-In the second World War the US, in the three or four years it was involved lost 418,500 people (that includes soldiers, civilians and victims of crimes against humanity. The US population in 1941 was apparently 133,402,471 people. Today it is 314,785,000. So it was roughly one third of what it is now, basically this means that as many people as died in a three year war (the one we all point to as the worst ever) die every year to abortion in the US... That is fairly shocking.
Another thing that annoys me about all this abortion talk is that it finds its origins from places outside of Ireland, like the European Court, or the husband of a wife lost in a tragedy. Internal affairs guys, get your noses out.
Finally, I think it would be really sad to see abortion legalised and abused here, as it is in many other nations. I do think it is God's will that the child He created be born and live in the world as He intended it. Abortion is right in very very few circumstances and a consumer approach to something as important as this is not the way to go.
Ireland needs to be careful of what it does and how it reacts to all this pressure. I, personally, think we should remain as we are. It would be interesting to see a referendum campaign and results though.
Monday 12 November 2012
TotD: Law the opposite of Grace
Some time ago I posted a blog on grace and the definitions of it. One of those definitions was like a smack in the face to me. If you remember (if not you can go look) I said in that blog that there would be more on that idea in a future post. Welcome to the future.
The premise of this blog post will be "law is the opposite of grace?"
The reason this is such a shocker to me is that I, as a person and a Christian, am quite legalistic. So, therefore, the law is important to me. To Hear that the law is actually the opposite to God's grace is quite a difficult thing for me. But as soon as I read it I felt the Spirit of God in me confirming it to be true! The definition comes from the Bible College course I have been doing on line and it was based on Romans 6-8. So that's where I've turned for this.
The first hint I have found that these are, in fact, opposites comes in Romans 6:14 "For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace." It says that it is no longer law but grace that makes sin have no dominion over us! This is interesting for we often believe that it is by keeping God's law that we avoid sin but it is in fact by God's grace that we are free of sin!
Following this Romans 7:4 says "Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to Him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God." In other words when we are saved we die not just to sin but also to the law. This is so God can work in and through us. When we die we are no longer under the law and Galatians 2:20 says that we have been crucified with Christ so that it is no longer we who live but Christ who lives in us. We have died with Christ and so are dead to the law. We are now alive in the Spirit so our obedience and allegiance lies not with the law but with the Spirit.
Two verses later we see this, "But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code." The way of God is no longer obedience to the law but obedience to the Spirit of God in us. This Spirit (as God is the same yesterday, today and forever) will continue many of what are the laws into a life of obedience to Him but it is no longer the law that you are obedient to, it is the Spirit of God.
All interesting stuff, it seems like there is most certainly a distinction. Paul does go on and say that the law is not evil it just shows up the sin that is there.
The reason that law is the opposite to grace is because the law is about us working towards working to God ourselves. The law is about self effort. Salvation is not based on works but is based on the effort of God in what He did on the cross, not about our 'dirty rags' and what we can do to get ourselves to God.
Grace then is God at work, Louie Giglio's definition of grace. God at work is not us at work and the law is us at work. So it is the opposite; so legalism therefore is not life in the Spirit. Legalism is self effort.
Lord I pray those of us who are legalistic; myself on the very top of the list, will gain a fuller understanding of your Holy Spirit and how it is by grace we live a life in you. Help us (me) to see that legalism is futile and insulting to the God who would come to the earth to die for me. For me to try gaining heaven by my own effort and legalism is insulting the cross of Christ and what You did for me on it. Sorry for insulting you Lord. Forgive me and help me to live more in the Spirit of your life and love. Amen
The premise of this blog post will be "law is the opposite of grace?"
The reason this is such a shocker to me is that I, as a person and a Christian, am quite legalistic. So, therefore, the law is important to me. To Hear that the law is actually the opposite to God's grace is quite a difficult thing for me. But as soon as I read it I felt the Spirit of God in me confirming it to be true! The definition comes from the Bible College course I have been doing on line and it was based on Romans 6-8. So that's where I've turned for this.
The first hint I have found that these are, in fact, opposites comes in Romans 6:14 "For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace." It says that it is no longer law but grace that makes sin have no dominion over us! This is interesting for we often believe that it is by keeping God's law that we avoid sin but it is in fact by God's grace that we are free of sin!
Following this Romans 7:4 says "Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to Him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God." In other words when we are saved we die not just to sin but also to the law. This is so God can work in and through us. When we die we are no longer under the law and Galatians 2:20 says that we have been crucified with Christ so that it is no longer we who live but Christ who lives in us. We have died with Christ and so are dead to the law. We are now alive in the Spirit so our obedience and allegiance lies not with the law but with the Spirit.
Two verses later we see this, "But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code." The way of God is no longer obedience to the law but obedience to the Spirit of God in us. This Spirit (as God is the same yesterday, today and forever) will continue many of what are the laws into a life of obedience to Him but it is no longer the law that you are obedient to, it is the Spirit of God.
All interesting stuff, it seems like there is most certainly a distinction. Paul does go on and say that the law is not evil it just shows up the sin that is there.
The reason that law is the opposite to grace is because the law is about us working towards working to God ourselves. The law is about self effort. Salvation is not based on works but is based on the effort of God in what He did on the cross, not about our 'dirty rags' and what we can do to get ourselves to God.
Grace then is God at work, Louie Giglio's definition of grace. God at work is not us at work and the law is us at work. So it is the opposite; so legalism therefore is not life in the Spirit. Legalism is self effort.
Lord I pray those of us who are legalistic; myself on the very top of the list, will gain a fuller understanding of your Holy Spirit and how it is by grace we live a life in you. Help us (me) to see that legalism is futile and insulting to the God who would come to the earth to die for me. For me to try gaining heaven by my own effort and legalism is insulting the cross of Christ and what You did for me on it. Sorry for insulting you Lord. Forgive me and help me to live more in the Spirit of your life and love. Amen
Saturday 10 November 2012
My Ring
Hey people, it has been awhile since I did a blog and seeing as this is coming live from Conor and Sarah's wedding I am using my phone so can't italicise, as far as I know!
Okay for those of you who don't know I wear a ring on my wedding ring finger. Most of you have seen it though little of you know, like actually know, what it means.
I have often been asked if it's a purity ring, it's not, I was too late on that one. Others asked am I married? Nope. Others think I must be a priest or some form of Christian leader because it has crosses on it. Nope though I might be a pastor some day.
My ring is a promise. My ring is a vow that I made before God. This vow was inspired by Pete Greig and the 24-7 Prayer Team, who are themselves inspired by the community of people in Hernhert, Germany, that prayed non-stop for one hundred years. They made a vow before The Lord and wore rings (not on their ring finger) to symbolise that promise.
This story is found in a book called "The Vision and the Vow" by Pete Greig.
My ring has a very different meaning from the ones that the 24-7 Prayer people, or the Hernhert people (who had fairly similar meanings for both of theirs).
The first part of the promise relates to a besetting sin I once struggled with; the ring is about how that sin no longer has any power over me.
The second is a promise to God that I will train to be the best version of Wavey there is and that I will follow Him wherever He takes me.
The final thing my ring symbolises is the fact that God is enough for me. I need nothing but The Lord my God. It is for this reason that it sits on the finger it does. It is a sign that I am ok if the only ring that is ever found on that finger is the one with the crosses on it. In other words if my life ends up being me and God, and no Mrs. Wavey then I am ok with that. God is more than enough :)
As a PS. I used to have another ring, for the same vow and promise as the present one, but my fingers got too small for it and it fell into a girl's top; at which point I decided to get a size smaller haha. The promise and vows are transferred from the first ring to the second of course :)
Now you know the meaning behind my ring; and I can point people to this blog from now on. It's not about my purity (or lack thereof), it's not about my place in the church establishment, it's not even about my marital status. It is, in fact, about my whole life. It's about me becoming the person God planned for me to be and designed me to be and something to remind me of my promises everyday, because its always there!
Go mbeannaà Dia dhuit ~
Okay for those of you who don't know I wear a ring on my wedding ring finger. Most of you have seen it though little of you know, like actually know, what it means.
I have often been asked if it's a purity ring, it's not, I was too late on that one. Others asked am I married? Nope. Others think I must be a priest or some form of Christian leader because it has crosses on it. Nope though I might be a pastor some day.
My ring is a promise. My ring is a vow that I made before God. This vow was inspired by Pete Greig and the 24-7 Prayer Team, who are themselves inspired by the community of people in Hernhert, Germany, that prayed non-stop for one hundred years. They made a vow before The Lord and wore rings (not on their ring finger) to symbolise that promise.
This story is found in a book called "The Vision and the Vow" by Pete Greig.
My ring has a very different meaning from the ones that the 24-7 Prayer people, or the Hernhert people (who had fairly similar meanings for both of theirs).
The first part of the promise relates to a besetting sin I once struggled with; the ring is about how that sin no longer has any power over me.
The second is a promise to God that I will train to be the best version of Wavey there is and that I will follow Him wherever He takes me.
The final thing my ring symbolises is the fact that God is enough for me. I need nothing but The Lord my God. It is for this reason that it sits on the finger it does. It is a sign that I am ok if the only ring that is ever found on that finger is the one with the crosses on it. In other words if my life ends up being me and God, and no Mrs. Wavey then I am ok with that. God is more than enough :)
As a PS. I used to have another ring, for the same vow and promise as the present one, but my fingers got too small for it and it fell into a girl's top; at which point I decided to get a size smaller haha. The promise and vows are transferred from the first ring to the second of course :)
Now you know the meaning behind my ring; and I can point people to this blog from now on. It's not about my purity (or lack thereof), it's not about my place in the church establishment, it's not even about my marital status. It is, in fact, about my whole life. It's about me becoming the person God planned for me to be and designed me to be and something to remind me of my promises everyday, because its always there!
Go mbeannaà Dia dhuit ~
Monday 5 November 2012
TotD: King Training
This one will be fairly short.
Reading further into 1 Samuel we see David forced to leave court because Saul wants him dead. This causing David to go to some outskirts cities were those who are not liked by Saul become his men (400 and then 600 after they protect a city).
Eli is disgraced by his sons and his own indulgence in their wrongdoings, but he gets a new joy from the Lord in training Samuel.
Samuel is disgraced by the sins of his sons in their unfair judgments. He finds a new joy in training Saul.
Saul is disgraced by doing things a king, in God's Kingdom, has no right to do such as offering up sacrifices, his new joy in the Lord would not have come from a dynasty but from training David to be King.
Saul didn't do this, he was jealous of David.
David went into exile.
Saul begins to chase David instead of training him to be King.
God always finds a way to make what has to happen happen. In this case he sends a small community to David and David has to hide them from Saul and look after them. He even goes and rescues a nearby town from the looting of the Philistines, an act that could be seen as asserting his authority as King over Saul. God, in the wilds of the Judah and other Israeli hills, has David in a form of King training. All because Saul won't do it, for he is jealous.
Saul comes to do a poo in a cave David is hiding in in 1 Samuel 24. David cuts off a piece of his robe and follows him out of the cave and tells him he could have killed him, but look, he hasn't and doesn't intend too.
Far be it for him, a flea or a dead dog, to harm the Lord's anointed.
In Saul's response we get a picture of what things could have been like. Saul says that David is more righteous than he and will make a fine King for Israel. For a time, David and Saul are reconciled.
This can teach us something. When Saul was using the cave the men told David that the Lord had given Saul into David's hand and that he should kill him, which he was tempted to do. David did not do this and instead learned that God meant this encounter for another purpose. Reconciliation.
Saul pretty much apologised to David on that hill. We can learn something from this. Sometimes it looks like God has given us an opportunity to so something to boost ourselves; we need to check if that is in God's character and plan; killing Saul wouldn't have been good for David, although it appeared God had given him the opportunity to do so. God meant the opportunity to be one for reconciliation though. Perhaps there is something, or will be something similar in your life.
Reading further into 1 Samuel we see David forced to leave court because Saul wants him dead. This causing David to go to some outskirts cities were those who are not liked by Saul become his men (400 and then 600 after they protect a city).
Eli is disgraced by his sons and his own indulgence in their wrongdoings, but he gets a new joy from the Lord in training Samuel.
Samuel is disgraced by the sins of his sons in their unfair judgments. He finds a new joy in training Saul.
Saul is disgraced by doing things a king, in God's Kingdom, has no right to do such as offering up sacrifices, his new joy in the Lord would not have come from a dynasty but from training David to be King.
Saul didn't do this, he was jealous of David.
David went into exile.
Saul begins to chase David instead of training him to be King.
God always finds a way to make what has to happen happen. In this case he sends a small community to David and David has to hide them from Saul and look after them. He even goes and rescues a nearby town from the looting of the Philistines, an act that could be seen as asserting his authority as King over Saul. God, in the wilds of the Judah and other Israeli hills, has David in a form of King training. All because Saul won't do it, for he is jealous.
Saul comes to do a poo in a cave David is hiding in in 1 Samuel 24. David cuts off a piece of his robe and follows him out of the cave and tells him he could have killed him, but look, he hasn't and doesn't intend too.
Far be it for him, a flea or a dead dog, to harm the Lord's anointed.
In Saul's response we get a picture of what things could have been like. Saul says that David is more righteous than he and will make a fine King for Israel. For a time, David and Saul are reconciled.
This can teach us something. When Saul was using the cave the men told David that the Lord had given Saul into David's hand and that he should kill him, which he was tempted to do. David did not do this and instead learned that God meant this encounter for another purpose. Reconciliation.
Saul pretty much apologised to David on that hill. We can learn something from this. Sometimes it looks like God has given us an opportunity to so something to boost ourselves; we need to check if that is in God's character and plan; killing Saul wouldn't have been good for David, although it appeared God had given him the opportunity to do so. God meant the opportunity to be one for reconciliation though. Perhaps there is something, or will be something similar in your life.
CIT vs UCC
I have been thinking today about the differences between CIT and UCC in terms of its graduates and where it appears their college is preparing them to go in the future.
In this discussion we must not include arts courses in UCC. As they are likely the exception that proves the rule.
My old housemate Dan did Architectural Technology in CIT. According to Dan himself this qualification will not allow him to own an architects office but will allow him be the person in the architects office that does all the work while the architect whose name is over the door gets all the credit.
In other words Dan was being trained to be an employee.
Similarly Andy, who recently transferred from Electronic Engineering in CIT to the same course in UCC notes that the course in CIT is much more focused on group work while UCC is independent working. Last year, while in CIT, Andy had to do a project and had difficulty getting the college to agree to allow him do something different from his colleagues.
In other words CIT was training Andy to be an employee! He was being trained not to think but to work with his colleagues on the task set by his boss. He wasn't being trained to be the boss. I imagine that if I compared other UCC degrees with other people's CIT degrees of the same type it would prove to be the same!
Therefore I have accurately concluded, based on the evidence I have seen, that CIT trains you to become an employee while UCC trains you to be the employer.
Perhaps CIT should change its slogan: "Come to CIT and when you leave someone will hire you." While UCC's can be "come to UCC, there's another college down the road teaming with people who will be more than willing to work on your ideas when you graduate."
In this discussion we must not include arts courses in UCC. As they are likely the exception that proves the rule.
My old housemate Dan did Architectural Technology in CIT. According to Dan himself this qualification will not allow him to own an architects office but will allow him be the person in the architects office that does all the work while the architect whose name is over the door gets all the credit.
In other words Dan was being trained to be an employee.
Similarly Andy, who recently transferred from Electronic Engineering in CIT to the same course in UCC notes that the course in CIT is much more focused on group work while UCC is independent working. Last year, while in CIT, Andy had to do a project and had difficulty getting the college to agree to allow him do something different from his colleagues.
In other words CIT was training Andy to be an employee! He was being trained not to think but to work with his colleagues on the task set by his boss. He wasn't being trained to be the boss. I imagine that if I compared other UCC degrees with other people's CIT degrees of the same type it would prove to be the same!
Therefore I have accurately concluded, based on the evidence I have seen, that CIT trains you to become an employee while UCC trains you to be the employer.
Perhaps CIT should change its slogan: "Come to CIT and when you leave someone will hire you." While UCC's can be "come to UCC, there's another college down the road teaming with people who will be more than willing to work on your ideas when you graduate."
David Murphy
In my last blog on the ODDs I talked a little bit about how David Murphy, my main character, is not the same person as David Cowpar. I wanted to go into that a little bit further today.
When I first began to write the ODDs I wrote it as if it was me in that situation, facing those things. At that time though the ODDs was not the name of the book, it was called 'David, the Demon Slayer' and had a very Buffy spin-off feel to it, which, at the time, was what I wanted it to have.
David, the third Demon Slayer is David Cowpar. He is pretty much me in outrageous situations, having to be brave, take charge and be in command and be responsible for the lives of those around him.
In a large sense DtDS was a way for me to cope with my life. It provided some escapism from the things my teenage self was putting me through. In the ODDs world I could be whoever I wanted, I could be the hero I could not be in real life; where I am not very outgoing, rather shy and the like. David Cowpar, in the original stories of DtDS is what I wanted to be, the person who did what was right no matter the cost, the person who made mistakes and learned from them, the person who paid for their mistakes and took responsibility. All something I was not between the ages of 12 and 16.
It is interesting that at 16 I rewrote the second draft of the first ODDs to change the concept from David the Demon Slayer to David the Demon Eliminator. This moved it away from my Buffy comfort zone and towards what it is now. At the same time in my life I had become a little bit more comfortable with myself (though this did not last) and so in the first version of the fourth ODDs we see movement away from Limerick, away from my life, away from my needing to be the hero of the story. Editors note Also third and fourth ODDs book spoiler alert. Skip past the italics if you don't want those books ruined: In the fourth book David isn't the hero. It is in this period that I think my brain started dealing with my own failures as a person and so David went through that as well. His failures are a lot more visible though. The end of the third book sees a victory but the destruction of Limerick and the death of a lot of people close to him. This has an effect on him that pushes him towards alcohol and eventually he loses the ODDs to someone else who is sub sequentially murdered by one of David's supporters. This is a spiral if ever there was one.
It wasn't until I lived in my own house (Number 2) and knew exactly who I am that I could go back and properly re-write the ODDs. This time I wanted it to not focus on the one character as it is hard to tell a story from one perspective. I have elements of that in the ODDs still; the characters can think and if I include their thoughts, which I often do, I italicize them. So it might look like this.
"You will meet your doom if you go that way," the guardian said to David.
Many things have tried to introduce me to my doom before, David thought, but none have been successful as of yet. You'd think doom was avoiding me or something, he decided to decline offering this thought to the guardian and opted for:
"I'll bear that in mind; but either way, I have to keep going."
but it is less about the one character and other characters can have thoughts as well. So in college David Cowpar got scrapped from the ODDs storyline and was replaced with David Murphy, who is largely based on Jason Kelly, a guy called David Murphy and a sprinkling of me... I would put them in that order. But he is living a wacked up version of my life from when I was 12 until when I was 16.
Another big change is the age. I wrote what was going on in my life at 12 so David was 12. Now he is 16 in book one, making him a lot older in the situations he is in (besides school, which has been updated appropriately). This also gives distance between me and David Murphy.
The second book will be a large departure from who I am and who David Murphy is. He goes other places, he becomes a rebel, he causes trouble for the Guiders, he takes over some stuff, he becomes more powerful and is more recognizable as the boss. This change, though not out of character for David Murphy, is what prompts me to feel closer to some of the Possibles like Robert, Tom, Anton and Romeo, who are now the underdogs that David was in book 1.
Finally when I put myself in the ODDs world I often still think of myself as David the Demon Slayer. It's like I'm a concept of the eventuality of the story line. Which is a fascinating thought; in my own head I'm only a scrapped concept because David Murphy isn't me. He is better. David Cowpar, in his world, could not compare.
When I first began to write the ODDs I wrote it as if it was me in that situation, facing those things. At that time though the ODDs was not the name of the book, it was called 'David, the Demon Slayer' and had a very Buffy spin-off feel to it, which, at the time, was what I wanted it to have.
David, the third Demon Slayer is David Cowpar. He is pretty much me in outrageous situations, having to be brave, take charge and be in command and be responsible for the lives of those around him.
In a large sense DtDS was a way for me to cope with my life. It provided some escapism from the things my teenage self was putting me through. In the ODDs world I could be whoever I wanted, I could be the hero I could not be in real life; where I am not very outgoing, rather shy and the like. David Cowpar, in the original stories of DtDS is what I wanted to be, the person who did what was right no matter the cost, the person who made mistakes and learned from them, the person who paid for their mistakes and took responsibility. All something I was not between the ages of 12 and 16.
It is interesting that at 16 I rewrote the second draft of the first ODDs to change the concept from David the Demon Slayer to David the Demon Eliminator. This moved it away from my Buffy comfort zone and towards what it is now. At the same time in my life I had become a little bit more comfortable with myself (though this did not last) and so in the first version of the fourth ODDs we see movement away from Limerick, away from my life, away from my needing to be the hero of the story. Editors note Also third and fourth ODDs book spoiler alert. Skip past the italics if you don't want those books ruined: In the fourth book David isn't the hero. It is in this period that I think my brain started dealing with my own failures as a person and so David went through that as well. His failures are a lot more visible though. The end of the third book sees a victory but the destruction of Limerick and the death of a lot of people close to him. This has an effect on him that pushes him towards alcohol and eventually he loses the ODDs to someone else who is sub sequentially murdered by one of David's supporters. This is a spiral if ever there was one.
It wasn't until I lived in my own house (Number 2) and knew exactly who I am that I could go back and properly re-write the ODDs. This time I wanted it to not focus on the one character as it is hard to tell a story from one perspective. I have elements of that in the ODDs still; the characters can think and if I include their thoughts, which I often do, I italicize them. So it might look like this.
"You will meet your doom if you go that way," the guardian said to David.
Many things have tried to introduce me to my doom before, David thought, but none have been successful as of yet. You'd think doom was avoiding me or something, he decided to decline offering this thought to the guardian and opted for:
"I'll bear that in mind; but either way, I have to keep going."
but it is less about the one character and other characters can have thoughts as well. So in college David Cowpar got scrapped from the ODDs storyline and was replaced with David Murphy, who is largely based on Jason Kelly, a guy called David Murphy and a sprinkling of me... I would put them in that order. But he is living a wacked up version of my life from when I was 12 until when I was 16.
Another big change is the age. I wrote what was going on in my life at 12 so David was 12. Now he is 16 in book one, making him a lot older in the situations he is in (besides school, which has been updated appropriately). This also gives distance between me and David Murphy.
The second book will be a large departure from who I am and who David Murphy is. He goes other places, he becomes a rebel, he causes trouble for the Guiders, he takes over some stuff, he becomes more powerful and is more recognizable as the boss. This change, though not out of character for David Murphy, is what prompts me to feel closer to some of the Possibles like Robert, Tom, Anton and Romeo, who are now the underdogs that David was in book 1.
Finally when I put myself in the ODDs world I often still think of myself as David the Demon Slayer. It's like I'm a concept of the eventuality of the story line. Which is a fascinating thought; in my own head I'm only a scrapped concept because David Murphy isn't me. He is better. David Cowpar, in his world, could not compare.
Writing the ODDs
Earlier in my blog (I think in the first post) I said I would do some pieces on writing, not just the stuff I write (of which there are two pieces here: 'Bedtime Little Fly' and 'Romeo Promotes the ODDs'), but on the process of writing. I don't feel fully qualified to do this, it's not like I'm published by anyone other than myself in partnership with Amazon but still, why not tell you about the origins of my writing-need.
May, 2002, Loutraki, Greece (somewhere near Corinth).
Me and my family had been visiting my aunt and uncle in Greece, my cousin, their son, was getting married in Athens. The wedding ceremony was over, meaning it was the second week of our holiday.
After all the excitement of the previous Saturday we were having a relaxing day, with no plans to visit anything anywhere.
I had brought with me some Star Wars figures. There was Obi-Wan Kenobi with a magnetic hand that attached to that scouting droid he breaks through Senator Amidala's window to catch the bounty hunter, there was Anakin with two lightsabers and an arm that magnetically attached so you could chop it off, as seen in the fight with Count Dooku near the end of the movie and there was a Padme with a pillar and a chain from where she and Anakin go to Geonosis to rescue Obi Wan but get captured themselves. This is right before all available Jedi burst in and end up getting killed before Yoda comes with the clone troopers.
I had bought these figures prior to the release of Star Wars episode 2 as that was released the 16th of May* and I left for Greece on the 5th,* the figures were bought in Ireland.
Anyway, there are only so many games you can play with three good guy figures (in Loutraki toy store I had found a little Jedi Anakin from episode 1 as well, so four good guys) before you get bored of it.
I decided it was time to go to town, so mum, I and Jamie went down and I bought a refill pad, a pencil and a sharpener. The sharpener I still have and if I hand write anything, or draw anything for the ODDs using a pencil I still sharpen them with that same sharpener. There is nothing special about it, it is a normal, plain, blue, cracked, ten cent sharpener. It doesn't even have a place for the pairings. But it is the ODDs sharpener and I have always used it and will continue to do so. :)
I bought that refill pad to sketch on, but have never been one for sketching. I have a scanner now so I might upload some ODDs concept art and such to a site that allows for that kind of thing. I quickly gave up on the sketching and instead started writing a story about my holiday, but with a twist. In the story I was the hero, well Jamie wasn't powerless he helped lots, and we had to protect our families and others from monsters. This is the foundation stone of the ODDs.
The entire first book, which I have plans to upload here (the present available version of the ODDs Beginnings on amazon.com is the sixth version of the first book. The first version, that I wrote as the events happened, is missing. I do, however, have the second version of the first ODDs in Limerick.) So I plan to upload a chapter or two to here with the actual Amazon version so you can see the difference :). I think that would be fun.
The ODDs then has characters that are real people in my real life. The fifth and sixth versions of the ODDs Beginnings started to move away from them being those people and towards them being characters in and of themselves. The first book, because it is very grass roots-y has a lot of the same elements of my life in it, though I don't think of David Murphy as being me. As the story goes on he becomes less and less like me. He is braver than I, stronger than I, smarter than I, more commanding than I, stricter than I and a few other things. I identify a lot more with the little guy in the ODDs; in book one that is David but he becomes in charge and powerful and the boss and people faff about him and so I, in the second book, relate more to other characters, especially the Possibles.
That's why in the second book the Possibles take a much more prominent role in the story than they did in the first book. In the first book they are merely cannon fodder. In the second they do research, help on missions and Romeo does his own mission, will have his own book and has his own stroyline. My point is David Cowpar is not David Murphy.
*I remember the dates because the ODDs is written as if it was a diary. So all the dates are accurate to the actual events of my life at the time.
May, 2002, Loutraki, Greece (somewhere near Corinth).
Me and my family had been visiting my aunt and uncle in Greece, my cousin, their son, was getting married in Athens. The wedding ceremony was over, meaning it was the second week of our holiday.
After all the excitement of the previous Saturday we were having a relaxing day, with no plans to visit anything anywhere.
I had brought with me some Star Wars figures. There was Obi-Wan Kenobi with a magnetic hand that attached to that scouting droid he breaks through Senator Amidala's window to catch the bounty hunter, there was Anakin with two lightsabers and an arm that magnetically attached so you could chop it off, as seen in the fight with Count Dooku near the end of the movie and there was a Padme with a pillar and a chain from where she and Anakin go to Geonosis to rescue Obi Wan but get captured themselves. This is right before all available Jedi burst in and end up getting killed before Yoda comes with the clone troopers.
I had bought these figures prior to the release of Star Wars episode 2 as that was released the 16th of May* and I left for Greece on the 5th,* the figures were bought in Ireland.
Anyway, there are only so many games you can play with three good guy figures (in Loutraki toy store I had found a little Jedi Anakin from episode 1 as well, so four good guys) before you get bored of it.
I decided it was time to go to town, so mum, I and Jamie went down and I bought a refill pad, a pencil and a sharpener. The sharpener I still have and if I hand write anything, or draw anything for the ODDs using a pencil I still sharpen them with that same sharpener. There is nothing special about it, it is a normal, plain, blue, cracked, ten cent sharpener. It doesn't even have a place for the pairings. But it is the ODDs sharpener and I have always used it and will continue to do so. :)
I bought that refill pad to sketch on, but have never been one for sketching. I have a scanner now so I might upload some ODDs concept art and such to a site that allows for that kind of thing. I quickly gave up on the sketching and instead started writing a story about my holiday, but with a twist. In the story I was the hero, well Jamie wasn't powerless he helped lots, and we had to protect our families and others from monsters. This is the foundation stone of the ODDs.
The entire first book, which I have plans to upload here (the present available version of the ODDs Beginnings on amazon.com is the sixth version of the first book. The first version, that I wrote as the events happened, is missing. I do, however, have the second version of the first ODDs in Limerick.) So I plan to upload a chapter or two to here with the actual Amazon version so you can see the difference :). I think that would be fun.
The ODDs then has characters that are real people in my real life. The fifth and sixth versions of the ODDs Beginnings started to move away from them being those people and towards them being characters in and of themselves. The first book, because it is very grass roots-y has a lot of the same elements of my life in it, though I don't think of David Murphy as being me. As the story goes on he becomes less and less like me. He is braver than I, stronger than I, smarter than I, more commanding than I, stricter than I and a few other things. I identify a lot more with the little guy in the ODDs; in book one that is David but he becomes in charge and powerful and the boss and people faff about him and so I, in the second book, relate more to other characters, especially the Possibles.
That's why in the second book the Possibles take a much more prominent role in the story than they did in the first book. In the first book they are merely cannon fodder. In the second they do research, help on missions and Romeo does his own mission, will have his own book and has his own stroyline. My point is David Cowpar is not David Murphy.
*I remember the dates because the ODDs is written as if it was a diary. So all the dates are accurate to the actual events of my life at the time.
Sunday 4 November 2012
TotD: Taps of the Day
So this TotD is a little different, because it's a Sunday and, although I read some of Samuel I have little to say today. So, you will notice in the title that 'Thought' has changed to 'Taps'
For those of you who might be needing some context here I am talking about the way my housemate, Colman, shows his appreciation of something he finds funny. The person who makes him laugh, gets a number of what he calls 'taps'. These taps are where Colman comes and wallops you on the back repeatedly; the number of taps being proportionate to how much you have made him laugh.
The majority of people, perhaps besides Conor and Dan, would rather that he did not engage in this practice, as Colman doesn't know his own strength. He does realise that they are hard but it is likely he doesn't realise how hard. Each 'tap' is slightly bone jarring, it sends a shock through your shoulders and down the arm he has tapped at. Here are three things I got tapped for today.
1. Stories of CEF in Limerick that he found funny. He particularly enjoyed a contrast between my and Shane's worst story and JJ's. JJs worst memory of CEF in Limerick was when some lower socio-economic background children came and threw stones at us and I came and blocked them from hitting her, getting hit myself instead. (This one is actually so normal to me that I don't remember it specifically). Mine, is what we affectionately know as the war. Hearing it called the war had Colman laughing before he heard the story.
For security reasons, specifically the security of Shane and I, I cannot divulge the full information of what we know as (at least from tonight) the war. Let us say it involved some rioting and a pregnant lady getting hurt, all over two children's squabbles.
2. This weekend Dominic paid a little visit to the gangland (other people call the place they are from the homeland, I thought this specific word was more apt to describe the warm fuzzy feelings I get when I think of Limerick city; I wish my parents would move!). He was gone for the whole weekend (hiking in Kerry, not in Limerick at all) and so, when it was getting a little late on Sunday and the housemates and I were wondering where he was, we came up with Limerick, for we knew he was certainly there on Thursday.
A mix of I and Shane said something to the effect of, "If Dominic isn't back from Limerick soon we will have to call the Guards." The thought of Shane and I saying that we would have to call the guards because someone was in our home city for a little bit longer than expected was hilarious to Colman (I apologise that the end of this sentence has been missing up until the day after. I must have deleted by accident)
3-4. Later on I made some tea for a newly returned Dominic, Colman, Shane and I. Shane made some comment, which escapes me right now and I handed him his tea with a 'whatever Shane' like comment.
Shane took his tea, but also had the milk in his hand and so he shouted out in pain as the mug began to burn him.
I simply turned around and said,
"Don't cross me."
This ^ gained me my third set of taps for the evening, and my fourth, when we were trying to remember the things I got taps for to put them in this blog.
There is a reason I wrote about taps tonight. That's because, for the first time ever, Colman got taps today.
C. 1. His first was when Dominic said he was talking to God on the bus on the way back from Kerry and Colman, not fully catching the word God, asked "Who?... God? Oh Him."
So Dominic and I had a laugh about Colman saying, 'Oh, Him' about God and gave Colman taps.
C. 2. He got a further tap when talking about his future missus possibly being foreign. There were two funny instances in this short conversation. The first was when Colman said his children would be freaks (because if he married someone from another country (he was clearly counting the UK and Ireland as the same country in this statement) then his children would know English, Irish and her language; making them freaks and getting them beaten up in school.
C. 3. The other funny thing that Colman got taps for was when Dominic said "just because your children speak three languages is no reason for them to be beaten up" (or something to that effect).
Colman's reaction was priceless, "I wouldn't beat them up."
He got taps for that.
Okay, so that's me done on taps.
Go mbeannaà Dia dhuit :)
For those of you who might be needing some context here I am talking about the way my housemate, Colman, shows his appreciation of something he finds funny. The person who makes him laugh, gets a number of what he calls 'taps'. These taps are where Colman comes and wallops you on the back repeatedly; the number of taps being proportionate to how much you have made him laugh.
The majority of people, perhaps besides Conor and Dan, would rather that he did not engage in this practice, as Colman doesn't know his own strength. He does realise that they are hard but it is likely he doesn't realise how hard. Each 'tap' is slightly bone jarring, it sends a shock through your shoulders and down the arm he has tapped at. Here are three things I got tapped for today.
1. Stories of CEF in Limerick that he found funny. He particularly enjoyed a contrast between my and Shane's worst story and JJ's. JJs worst memory of CEF in Limerick was when some lower socio-economic background children came and threw stones at us and I came and blocked them from hitting her, getting hit myself instead. (This one is actually so normal to me that I don't remember it specifically). Mine, is what we affectionately know as the war. Hearing it called the war had Colman laughing before he heard the story.
For security reasons, specifically the security of Shane and I, I cannot divulge the full information of what we know as (at least from tonight) the war. Let us say it involved some rioting and a pregnant lady getting hurt, all over two children's squabbles.
2. This weekend Dominic paid a little visit to the gangland (other people call the place they are from the homeland, I thought this specific word was more apt to describe the warm fuzzy feelings I get when I think of Limerick city; I wish my parents would move!). He was gone for the whole weekend (hiking in Kerry, not in Limerick at all) and so, when it was getting a little late on Sunday and the housemates and I were wondering where he was, we came up with Limerick, for we knew he was certainly there on Thursday.
A mix of I and Shane said something to the effect of, "If Dominic isn't back from Limerick soon we will have to call the Guards." The thought of Shane and I saying that we would have to call the guards because someone was in our home city for a little bit longer than expected was hilarious to Colman (I apologise that the end of this sentence has been missing up until the day after. I must have deleted by accident)
3-4. Later on I made some tea for a newly returned Dominic, Colman, Shane and I. Shane made some comment, which escapes me right now and I handed him his tea with a 'whatever Shane' like comment.
Shane took his tea, but also had the milk in his hand and so he shouted out in pain as the mug began to burn him.
I simply turned around and said,
"Don't cross me."
This ^ gained me my third set of taps for the evening, and my fourth, when we were trying to remember the things I got taps for to put them in this blog.
There is a reason I wrote about taps tonight. That's because, for the first time ever, Colman got taps today.
C. 1. His first was when Dominic said he was talking to God on the bus on the way back from Kerry and Colman, not fully catching the word God, asked "Who?... God? Oh Him."
So Dominic and I had a laugh about Colman saying, 'Oh, Him' about God and gave Colman taps.
C. 2. He got a further tap when talking about his future missus possibly being foreign. There were two funny instances in this short conversation. The first was when Colman said his children would be freaks (because if he married someone from another country (he was clearly counting the UK and Ireland as the same country in this statement) then his children would know English, Irish and her language; making them freaks and getting them beaten up in school.
C. 3. The other funny thing that Colman got taps for was when Dominic said "just because your children speak three languages is no reason for them to be beaten up" (or something to that effect).
Colman's reaction was priceless, "I wouldn't beat them up."
He got taps for that.
Okay, so that's me done on taps.
Go mbeannaà Dia dhuit :)
Saturday 3 November 2012
TotD Grace, part 2
This blog on grace stems from the fact that the last blog on grace I made was really about definitions of grace, which although not very interesting, was not very interesting. So this one is a little more about actual grace.
In Paul's writings we are told a bit about grace and how important it is to the Christian and their walk with God.
"For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God..." Ephesians 2:8. Not only is it by grace we have been justified but it is also by grace that we are being sanctified. All to often as Christians we get into this rut where we realise we are saved by grace but then we think that we are changed to be like Jesus by works.
This is, of course, incorrect. For if we are saved by grace through faith then we must be transformed by grace through faith as well.
Romans 5:1-2 gives an indication of this grace that is not just for the moment of salvation: "Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Through him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in hope of the glory of God."
Through Jesus we have entered INTO the grace in which we NOW stand. Not only have we entered into it but it is also where we, as people of God, now stand. It is God's grace that sanctifies us.
We have to here acknowledge the verse from Corinthians that goes:
"But he said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness." Therefore I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may rest upon me." 2 Corinthians 12:9.
This verse tells us two important things; 1. That we will have weaknesses and we should expect them to come, and expect times When everything goes wrong, and 2. That God shows His power in our weaknesses, of which I know I certainly have many. Yet God says that His grace is sufficient for us, when we face troubles and hardships, His grace is sufficient. When things seem too big to handle, His grace is sufficient. When Satan has the gate surrounded, His grace is sufficient. When it seems like the world is falling apart around you and you don't know where to turn, His grace is sufficient.
“Do you find life too difficult for you? So did we, but not now, with the amplitudes of grace there are for us in Jesus Christ, it grows satisfying and successful and exciting beyond measure, becomes another and a richer thing.”- A. J. Gossip.
“Grace, then, is grace,–that is to say, it is sovereign, it is free, it is sure, it is unconditional, and it is everlasting.”- Alexander Whyte.
“Intoxicated with unbroken success, we have become too self sufficient to feel the necessity of redeeming and preserving grace, too proud to pray to the God that made us.”- Abraham Lincoln.
Thank you Lord for you all sufficient grace. I just pray that each of us will grasp what it means for us, stop living on our own strength and rely on you, the God who saved us, to also be the God who keeps us. Lord I pray we would grasp how deep, how high, how wide and how long is the the love of God that surpasses all understanding. Amen
In Paul's writings we are told a bit about grace and how important it is to the Christian and their walk with God.
"For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God..." Ephesians 2:8. Not only is it by grace we have been justified but it is also by grace that we are being sanctified. All to often as Christians we get into this rut where we realise we are saved by grace but then we think that we are changed to be like Jesus by works.
This is, of course, incorrect. For if we are saved by grace through faith then we must be transformed by grace through faith as well.
Romans 5:1-2 gives an indication of this grace that is not just for the moment of salvation: "Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Through him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in hope of the glory of God."
Through Jesus we have entered INTO the grace in which we NOW stand. Not only have we entered into it but it is also where we, as people of God, now stand. It is God's grace that sanctifies us.
We have to here acknowledge the verse from Corinthians that goes:
"But he said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness." Therefore I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may rest upon me." 2 Corinthians 12:9.
This verse tells us two important things; 1. That we will have weaknesses and we should expect them to come, and expect times When everything goes wrong, and 2. That God shows His power in our weaknesses, of which I know I certainly have many. Yet God says that His grace is sufficient for us, when we face troubles and hardships, His grace is sufficient. When things seem too big to handle, His grace is sufficient. When Satan has the gate surrounded, His grace is sufficient. When it seems like the world is falling apart around you and you don't know where to turn, His grace is sufficient.
“Do you find life too difficult for you? So did we, but not now, with the amplitudes of grace there are for us in Jesus Christ, it grows satisfying and successful and exciting beyond measure, becomes another and a richer thing.”- A. J. Gossip.
“Grace, then, is grace,–that is to say, it is sovereign, it is free, it is sure, it is unconditional, and it is everlasting.”- Alexander Whyte.
“Intoxicated with unbroken success, we have become too self sufficient to feel the necessity of redeeming and preserving grace, too proud to pray to the God that made us.”- Abraham Lincoln.
Thank you Lord for you all sufficient grace. I just pray that each of us will grasp what it means for us, stop living on our own strength and rely on you, the God who saved us, to also be the God who keeps us. Lord I pray we would grasp how deep, how high, how wide and how long is the the love of God that surpasses all understanding. Amen
Thursday 1 November 2012
TotD: King David?
This is just one I have thought about before, did King David have a right to the throne other than the anointing of Samuel seventeen to twenty years before Saul's death.
In general monarchies are not very good at letting go of their power, so I think we have to take a look at the family of Saul.
Saul had four sons and two daughters. His oldest son was Jonathan, followed by Abinadab, Malchishua and Ish-Bosheth. His two daughters were Michal and Mereb.
Jonathan and David, as we know, were best friends though it is likely that David was a good bit younger than Jonathan, he was probably in his twenties when he met David (early twenties, while David was about 16). This meant that the second son, Abinadab, was probably around David's age. Michal was older than David, because Saul offers Mereb to David after he defeats Goliath, meaning she was maybe 14 when David fought Goliath.
David marries Michal, the second daughter of Saul, and maybe fourth child after Jonathan, Mereb and Abinadab, though I think it is more likely that Michal was older than Abinadab.
So David marries Michal, making him Saul's son-in-law and Jonathan's brother-in-law. Later on Saul, Jonathan, Abinadab and Malchishua are killed on the battlefield. This leaves Ish-Bosheth, who is younger than his sisters, and the two sisters as well as Jonathan's crippled son Mephibosheth who is but a weaning child (under 5) at the time.
As far as I know we don't hear of Mereb again but we know Michal was remarried after Saul banished David and Ish-Bosheth was declared King of Israel by Abner, the leader of Saul's army who survives the battle that took the other four.
From what I understand of scripture Mephibosheth disappears when his wet nurse learns of Saul and Jonathan's death.
The other contender to the throne, and one that is likely older in age than Ish-Bosheth, is David. He has a claim through his wife Michal, who is also older (though admittedly less male) than her younger brother.
This is David's claim to the throne and this is what, as well as his anointing by God (which he probably doesn't necessarily hold onto).
David takes the Kingdom of Judah and then fights against Israel until Ish-bosheth gives up on staying king as well.
I just wonder if David had never married Michal would he have, even with the anointing of God, had a chance at getting the throne of all Israel (whatever about Judah). It's interesting to see how God works things out for our good, even though there was so much pain from that relationship it probably did help David to make his claim on the throne. Yay God.
Go Mbeannaà Dia dhuit.
In general monarchies are not very good at letting go of their power, so I think we have to take a look at the family of Saul.
Saul had four sons and two daughters. His oldest son was Jonathan, followed by Abinadab, Malchishua and Ish-Bosheth. His two daughters were Michal and Mereb.
Jonathan and David, as we know, were best friends though it is likely that David was a good bit younger than Jonathan, he was probably in his twenties when he met David (early twenties, while David was about 16). This meant that the second son, Abinadab, was probably around David's age. Michal was older than David, because Saul offers Mereb to David after he defeats Goliath, meaning she was maybe 14 when David fought Goliath.
David marries Michal, the second daughter of Saul, and maybe fourth child after Jonathan, Mereb and Abinadab, though I think it is more likely that Michal was older than Abinadab.
So David marries Michal, making him Saul's son-in-law and Jonathan's brother-in-law. Later on Saul, Jonathan, Abinadab and Malchishua are killed on the battlefield. This leaves Ish-Bosheth, who is younger than his sisters, and the two sisters as well as Jonathan's crippled son Mephibosheth who is but a weaning child (under 5) at the time.
As far as I know we don't hear of Mereb again but we know Michal was remarried after Saul banished David and Ish-Bosheth was declared King of Israel by Abner, the leader of Saul's army who survives the battle that took the other four.
From what I understand of scripture Mephibosheth disappears when his wet nurse learns of Saul and Jonathan's death.
The other contender to the throne, and one that is likely older in age than Ish-Bosheth, is David. He has a claim through his wife Michal, who is also older (though admittedly less male) than her younger brother.
This is David's claim to the throne and this is what, as well as his anointing by God (which he probably doesn't necessarily hold onto).
David takes the Kingdom of Judah and then fights against Israel until Ish-bosheth gives up on staying king as well.
I just wonder if David had never married Michal would he have, even with the anointing of God, had a chance at getting the throne of all Israel (whatever about Judah). It's interesting to see how God works things out for our good, even though there was so much pain from that relationship it probably did help David to make his claim on the throne. Yay God.
Go Mbeannaà Dia dhuit.
TotD: King David's Patience
In case you are only tuning in today I have been recently reading Samuel, yesterday was a break from the norm with a post on the grace of God, with one or two more of those, but today we go back to the book of Samuel.
There once was a King, a very bad King, a king that offered a sacrifice himself, not allowing the priest (Samuel) to do it, a king who did not offer up all the Amalekites to destruction when commanded by God to do so.
God rejected this king, who was called Saul by the way, and chose a new King for His people Israel.
This new King, whom I am named after in my name's original form, was called David.
The story takes place in 1 Samuel 16 when God tells Samuel to stop moping (this is not mopping, but hanging around the place being sad) about the place because He has moved on from Saul. So he sends Samuel to appoint the new King. He is sent to Bethlehem where he is to find Jesse, as one of his sons is to be the next King.
Samuel meets each son in turn and God rejects them all saying that though they might look like a king God sees their heart and does not judge on the outward appearance.
Samuel then has to ask if there are any other sons and David, a rugged, well-built, beautiful eyed boy who minds sheep, comes before Samuel and God tells Samuel to anoint him King; which he does.
Now the point (besides that this guy is actually appointed melek not nagid) is that David was anointed king but Saul was still king. It is estimated that David was between 10 and 13 when he was anointed and thusly between 12 and 15 when he defeated Goliath. So imagine he was anointed at 13, he did not become King until he was 30 (not sure if that's biblical or extra-biblical, not that far yet.)
My point is he had to wait; he had to wait for 17 years, or maybe 20. I'm 22 so that's pretty much my whole life. Now, I wonder what David did with this calling. Did he laze around and act as the king he was not yet? No he did not. He was found out in the field minding the sheep. Then he is hired to come play his harp for King Saul, both of which he does without complaint and to the best of his ability in the Lord.
After this (in 1 Samuel 17) he comes and beats Goliath in the name of the Lord and the army of Israel, again without complaining.
This guy is king anointed, sometimes called 'the young pretender'. Yet he lives his life serving Saul and his father and the nation of Israel, but not as king, merely as shepherd, armour bearer, musician, servant.
We can all learn a lesson for this. You may feel like you have a calling in your life, be it a pastor, minister, youth worker, teacher, electrical engineer or whatever else it may be; and, you may not be there yet. If that is the case don't look so far ahead in your life that you miss the here and now. Don't miss the opportunity to serve in your Christian Union (or start a Christian Union) in college, don't miss the small opportunities in Church and don't miss the opportunities to become part of the place, even a small part of the place, God wants you to be. As God says in His word, if you are faithful in a little you can be trusted with more.
Go mbeannaà Dia dhuit.
There once was a King, a very bad King, a king that offered a sacrifice himself, not allowing the priest (Samuel) to do it, a king who did not offer up all the Amalekites to destruction when commanded by God to do so.
God rejected this king, who was called Saul by the way, and chose a new King for His people Israel.
This new King, whom I am named after in my name's original form, was called David.
The story takes place in 1 Samuel 16 when God tells Samuel to stop moping (this is not mopping, but hanging around the place being sad) about the place because He has moved on from Saul. So he sends Samuel to appoint the new King. He is sent to Bethlehem where he is to find Jesse, as one of his sons is to be the next King.
Samuel meets each son in turn and God rejects them all saying that though they might look like a king God sees their heart and does not judge on the outward appearance.
Samuel then has to ask if there are any other sons and David, a rugged, well-built, beautiful eyed boy who minds sheep, comes before Samuel and God tells Samuel to anoint him King; which he does.
Now the point (besides that this guy is actually appointed melek not nagid) is that David was anointed king but Saul was still king. It is estimated that David was between 10 and 13 when he was anointed and thusly between 12 and 15 when he defeated Goliath. So imagine he was anointed at 13, he did not become King until he was 30 (not sure if that's biblical or extra-biblical, not that far yet.)
My point is he had to wait; he had to wait for 17 years, or maybe 20. I'm 22 so that's pretty much my whole life. Now, I wonder what David did with this calling. Did he laze around and act as the king he was not yet? No he did not. He was found out in the field minding the sheep. Then he is hired to come play his harp for King Saul, both of which he does without complaint and to the best of his ability in the Lord.
After this (in 1 Samuel 17) he comes and beats Goliath in the name of the Lord and the army of Israel, again without complaining.
This guy is king anointed, sometimes called 'the young pretender'. Yet he lives his life serving Saul and his father and the nation of Israel, but not as king, merely as shepherd, armour bearer, musician, servant.
We can all learn a lesson for this. You may feel like you have a calling in your life, be it a pastor, minister, youth worker, teacher, electrical engineer or whatever else it may be; and, you may not be there yet. If that is the case don't look so far ahead in your life that you miss the here and now. Don't miss the opportunity to serve in your Christian Union (or start a Christian Union) in college, don't miss the small opportunities in Church and don't miss the opportunities to become part of the place, even a small part of the place, God wants you to be. As God says in His word, if you are faithful in a little you can be trusted with more.
Go mbeannaà Dia dhuit.
Ice on the Bridge
Last night, the eve of Hallow's, Shane's girlfriend was working as a dancer in a nightclub. She finished at three am and so he was going to pick her up. I went too as ya, loud scary night.
So we are walking along Pope's Quay and about to cross the footbridge outside Apartment 87 when I find it is a little hard to walk on it. The bridge had a tiny layer of ice.
How annoying is that? Ice, in October-November first.
I am not a big fan of ice.
Shane once wrote a song with the lyrics:
"Angels cried out to me in a deep, red, sunrise shepherd's warning; not to step out of line.
But I am too good for advice, I'd rather slip on the frozen ice with you love, with you, my love."
In absolutely no circumstances ever would I rather slip on frozen ice yet the stuff gets me once a year every year (in December).
2009- I was back in Limerick it is the 30th of December and I went to stay in Shane's house. We went to see Avatar in the cinema but, unbeknownst to myself there was a pothole that was now a skating rink.
I slipped on it and managed to regain my balance, after much flailing about and slipping and a lot of help from Shane I regained my balance on pothole ice pool. Then, as soon as Shane let go and I moved a foot, I actually fell and landed on my backside. Ice 1, Wavey 0.
2010 in a walk to Izzy's house to watch 'The Late Late Toy Show' I did what has come to be known as my 'interpretive dance on the economy'. This was when, outside the Lough Church, I slipped and fell in another largely flailing about the place way but got up pretty quickly (as was our hopes after economic depression set in). Ice 2, Wavey 0.
Also at Christmas (later in Decmember) it snowed and Dan, Colman and I went to play in the Quad in the snow and went on for 1.50 pizzas in Four Star. It was a horrible walk but the playing in the snow, despite the ice, was fun and although it took 3 times as long (we ate in 4*) I did not slip and fall, though came close many times. Ice 2, Wavey 1.
Last year, 2011, while a teacher in Deerpark CBS, it got icy during exam week and I had to walk to school in it, meaning that a trip that generally takes me 20 minutes took me 35 (so I was a little late, not much the exam hadn't started). As I came into Deerpark someone slipped and fell and slid down the hill towards the school. I slipped and slide-d towards the grass and used the grass to walk down the hill to avoid the fall.
Ice 2, Wavey 2. I fell in the Lough Church on the red marked out path that I so legalistically walk along even when it is treacherous, on my way home that day though. Ice 3, Wavey 2.
Lastly, on my way to the Deerpark staff dinner, the little bridge that is very hilly on both sides, that leads to the River Lee Hotel had a sheet of ice up and down it (when we were leaving). I managed, holding onto the rail for dear life, to get across it without falling. Ice 3, Wavey 3.
Well Mr. Ice, as you begin to make your come back it seems we are at a tie... It will be interesting to battle you again this year.
PLEASE DON'T FREEZE CORK AND LIMERICK. LEAVE ME ALONE.
That is all, thank you!
So we are walking along Pope's Quay and about to cross the footbridge outside Apartment 87 when I find it is a little hard to walk on it. The bridge had a tiny layer of ice.
How annoying is that? Ice, in October-November first.
I am not a big fan of ice.
Shane once wrote a song with the lyrics:
"Angels cried out to me in a deep, red, sunrise shepherd's warning; not to step out of line.
But I am too good for advice, I'd rather slip on the frozen ice with you love, with you, my love."
In absolutely no circumstances ever would I rather slip on frozen ice yet the stuff gets me once a year every year (in December).
2009- I was back in Limerick it is the 30th of December and I went to stay in Shane's house. We went to see Avatar in the cinema but, unbeknownst to myself there was a pothole that was now a skating rink.
I slipped on it and managed to regain my balance, after much flailing about and slipping and a lot of help from Shane I regained my balance on pothole ice pool. Then, as soon as Shane let go and I moved a foot, I actually fell and landed on my backside. Ice 1, Wavey 0.
2010 in a walk to Izzy's house to watch 'The Late Late Toy Show' I did what has come to be known as my 'interpretive dance on the economy'. This was when, outside the Lough Church, I slipped and fell in another largely flailing about the place way but got up pretty quickly (as was our hopes after economic depression set in). Ice 2, Wavey 0.
Also at Christmas (later in Decmember) it snowed and Dan, Colman and I went to play in the Quad in the snow and went on for 1.50 pizzas in Four Star. It was a horrible walk but the playing in the snow, despite the ice, was fun and although it took 3 times as long (we ate in 4*) I did not slip and fall, though came close many times. Ice 2, Wavey 1.
Last year, 2011, while a teacher in Deerpark CBS, it got icy during exam week and I had to walk to school in it, meaning that a trip that generally takes me 20 minutes took me 35 (so I was a little late, not much the exam hadn't started). As I came into Deerpark someone slipped and fell and slid down the hill towards the school. I slipped and slide-d towards the grass and used the grass to walk down the hill to avoid the fall.
Ice 2, Wavey 2. I fell in the Lough Church on the red marked out path that I so legalistically walk along even when it is treacherous, on my way home that day though. Ice 3, Wavey 2.
Lastly, on my way to the Deerpark staff dinner, the little bridge that is very hilly on both sides, that leads to the River Lee Hotel had a sheet of ice up and down it (when we were leaving). I managed, holding onto the rail for dear life, to get across it without falling. Ice 3, Wavey 3.
Well Mr. Ice, as you begin to make your come back it seems we are at a tie... It will be interesting to battle you again this year.
PLEASE DON'T FREEZE CORK AND LIMERICK. LEAVE ME ALONE.
That is all, thank you!
Wednesday 31 October 2012
TotD: Grace
Grace, as in the Grace of God, not the Church, not Grace Campbell and not Grace Cronin... All very confusing!
So I have been thinking about Grace today as the online Bible College course I do is focused on grace today.
I want to talk about defining grace because of lot of people do and everyone comes up with something a little different than anyone else.
CEF, specifically Mags Adamson defines Grace as
God's
Riches
At
Christ's
Expense
that is a definition I love because in one sentence, which is an acronym, you get the cross and the promise if you trust in the work done at the cross. It is used for talking to children about growth as Christians and sometimes even evangelistically. For those purposes it is a really good definition. However, and I mean this with no offence, it is a limited definition. What I mean is grace is so much more than what God blesses those who believe with, scripture also talks about general grace given to all people. For example rain falling and the Sun shining are examples of general grace given to everyone, whether saved or unsaved so then there is grace that falls out of this definition.
Louie Giglio, of the Passion Movement who has all those DVDs such as 'Indescribable', 'How Great is Our God', etc. He defines grace as 'God at work'.
When I first heard this definition I wondered about it and thought 'why just this?' It seemed too simple. I was confused by it but in one of his DVDs, I think it's either 'Symphony' or 'Fruitcake and Ice-cream', where he says that he defines grace as God at work because it means it's not me at work.
That makes it a little more genius because grace is God at work. It is Him working when we realise there is nothing we can do for our salvation or even for His work. We are weak and He is strong. It is not by our works but by His work that anything happens in our lives. Louie Giglio's definition is great in that sense but it still feels limited.
The Bible College Course I am doing (www.onlinebiblecollege.com, found by Andy) defines grace twice. It says no one definition is enough for us to begin to grasp what grace is. The first definition is God doing what we did not deserve and the second is God doing what we cannot do ourselves.
The course goes on to give a few opposites of grace. The first is debt. If it was not for the grace of God at the cross we would still have the "wages of sin" upon us and be indebted to God (which we are for His grace but in a different way). The second is self-effort. We need to realise, as Philip Yancey said once, "there is nothing you can do to make God love you more; there is nothing you can do to make God love you more." God's love for us is not dependent on us at all! Self-effort is the spiritual ewquivalent of giving God the finger. The third, and final definition for the opposite of grace is law. I'll talk about that one in a different blog I think as it would take up a lot of room in this one.
Both of those definitions, from the Online Bible College, capture the definitions of Louie Giglio and Mags Adamson. God's Riches At Christ's Expense is there and so is God at work. The first definition is one that really stands out in a way that the others do not.
God did things for us that we do not deserve, God is still doing things for us that we do not deserve. Every breath I take I do not deserve (general grace) but by the grace of God, He allows people to continue to breathe. Every good moment in my life I do not deserve, I deserve only punishment for my sins. Yet, God, in His mercy and grace has given me a life full of happiness, friendships, joy and love.
I do not deserve to be loved, but again God in His grace loves me and because He first loved I love Him and other people and other people love me.
I am a sinner, of the worst kind, I do not deserve the life He has given and the promise I have of eternal life in Heaven after this good life is over. I do not deserve that, I deserve the pit of Hell but God, in His grace, says: "There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus." (Romans 8:1 ESV). That's insane.
I pray that as I look to serve my Lord and my God, the author of my faith and the procurer of my salvation that I will realise this verse as a reality in my life and not just a piece of knowledge in my head:
"But he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may rest upon me."
(2 Corinthians 12:9 ESV)
So I have been thinking about Grace today as the online Bible College course I do is focused on grace today.
I want to talk about defining grace because of lot of people do and everyone comes up with something a little different than anyone else.
CEF, specifically Mags Adamson defines Grace as
God's
Riches
At
Christ's
Expense
that is a definition I love because in one sentence, which is an acronym, you get the cross and the promise if you trust in the work done at the cross. It is used for talking to children about growth as Christians and sometimes even evangelistically. For those purposes it is a really good definition. However, and I mean this with no offence, it is a limited definition. What I mean is grace is so much more than what God blesses those who believe with, scripture also talks about general grace given to all people. For example rain falling and the Sun shining are examples of general grace given to everyone, whether saved or unsaved so then there is grace that falls out of this definition.
Louie Giglio, of the Passion Movement who has all those DVDs such as 'Indescribable', 'How Great is Our God', etc. He defines grace as 'God at work'.
When I first heard this definition I wondered about it and thought 'why just this?' It seemed too simple. I was confused by it but in one of his DVDs, I think it's either 'Symphony' or 'Fruitcake and Ice-cream', where he says that he defines grace as God at work because it means it's not me at work.
That makes it a little more genius because grace is God at work. It is Him working when we realise there is nothing we can do for our salvation or even for His work. We are weak and He is strong. It is not by our works but by His work that anything happens in our lives. Louie Giglio's definition is great in that sense but it still feels limited.
The Bible College Course I am doing (www.onlinebiblecollege.com, found by Andy) defines grace twice. It says no one definition is enough for us to begin to grasp what grace is. The first definition is God doing what we did not deserve and the second is God doing what we cannot do ourselves.
The course goes on to give a few opposites of grace. The first is debt. If it was not for the grace of God at the cross we would still have the "wages of sin" upon us and be indebted to God (which we are for His grace but in a different way). The second is self-effort. We need to realise, as Philip Yancey said once, "there is nothing you can do to make God love you more; there is nothing you can do to make God love you more." God's love for us is not dependent on us at all! Self-effort is the spiritual ewquivalent of giving God the finger. The third, and final definition for the opposite of grace is law. I'll talk about that one in a different blog I think as it would take up a lot of room in this one.
Both of those definitions, from the Online Bible College, capture the definitions of Louie Giglio and Mags Adamson. God's Riches At Christ's Expense is there and so is God at work. The first definition is one that really stands out in a way that the others do not.
God did things for us that we do not deserve, God is still doing things for us that we do not deserve. Every breath I take I do not deserve (general grace) but by the grace of God, He allows people to continue to breathe. Every good moment in my life I do not deserve, I deserve only punishment for my sins. Yet, God, in His mercy and grace has given me a life full of happiness, friendships, joy and love.
I do not deserve to be loved, but again God in His grace loves me and because He first loved I love Him and other people and other people love me.
I am a sinner, of the worst kind, I do not deserve the life He has given and the promise I have of eternal life in Heaven after this good life is over. I do not deserve that, I deserve the pit of Hell but God, in His grace, says: "There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus." (Romans 8:1 ESV). That's insane.
I pray that as I look to serve my Lord and my God, the author of my faith and the procurer of my salvation that I will realise this verse as a reality in my life and not just a piece of knowledge in my head:
"But he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may rest upon me."
(2 Corinthians 12:9 ESV)
Tuesday 30 October 2012
TotD: Saul the Judge
At the time of Samuel in Israel God did not have kings but prophets and judges. The latter of these were appointed to judge the Israelites and make decisions for them, they also fought and won battles for their God and His people. In some instances judges were also priests, such is the case with Eli, and in others they were also prophets, like Samuel.
God successively chose judges from different lines, tribes and families throughout the early history of the nation of Israel.
Then Samuel appointed his sons as judges. 1 Samuel 8 talks about the corruption of Samuel's sons (Joel and Abijah) and how the people came to Samuel and complained about them. This forced Samuel to remove them from their positions. The people no longer wanted a judge and demanded a king instead (like the other nations had).
1 Samuel 9-10:8 introduces that king; Saul. Saul was of the tribe of Benjamin. He was about a head and shoulders taller than all the other Israelites and no other Jew matched him in physical attractiveness. His family was wealthy (we know because they owned donkeys) and it seems people were aware of their business, they may have been influential in their community. This is despite the fact that Saul claims he is from an unimportant tribe, clan and family and that he himself is the least of that family. (I imagine anyone would in the face of an anointing from God.)
What was Saul anointed as though? The ESV translates the Hebrew word 'nagid' as prince. In this sense the KJV is better as it uses captain. The word is actually the word used for judge in the book of Judges. This means that Samuel appoints Saul not as King over Israel but as a judge.
It is very possible that Saul was intended to be the next judge after Samuel, who was beginning to retire from public ministry and leave it to his sons. God had chosen Saul to be the next judge of Israel.
However, God takes the desires and wants of His people seriously. He wants to work with them and not against them. Thusly He appoints the next judge he had chosen as King over Israel. So the judge (nagid) becomes the king (melek) not necessarily because Saul deserved to be King but because the people demanded that he would be.
In the passage mentioned above we see that Saul had leadership aspirations when Samuel meets him and tells him the donkeys have been found and are safe but then goes on to say that in the morning they would speak of what was in Saul's heart. Saul's reaction also hints at his aspirations for leadership when he mentions about his humble background. His reaction to Samuel's comment is insane and seems really presumptuous. Even if Samuel mentioned him and his family as the desire of all Israel...
Finally some people say that Samuel made a mistake in appointing Saul as King over Israel. This is not the case. The LORD says to Samuel that someone will come during the offering feast the next day and that he is to be appointed nagid. When Samuel meets Saul the LORD confirms that this is the man he meant when he said the one will arrive tomorrow who is to be appointed nagid. The Lord gives three signs (people saying the donkeys have been found, three men heading to Bethel that will give him some bread, and prophets filled with the Spirit prophesying) all of these come to pass and so Saul knows it is God behind the appointment. Saul is even filled with the Spirit and prophesies himself.
David also, whenever he has the possibility to kill Saul says he will never harm God's anointed. David recognises Saul as someone anointed by God, even if he has lost his way.
So Saul is chosen by God to be nagid over Israel. It is Samuel that appoints him king. Nowhere does God specifically say that he wants Saul appointed as Melek, which is what Samuel calls him to the assembled Israelites at Mizpah. This is the first time the word is used for Saul...
On the other hand David is appointed King by God. 1 Samuel 16:1 ends, "for I have provided me a king among his (Jesse's) sons." The word used in this sentence is melek. Does leave it open to the idea that Saul should never have been King specifically though was appointed by God to be their leader.
However, the passage does go on to talk about men of valour who were moved in their hearts to follow Saul and become a sort of army for him. Evans, in her commentary, says that despite the fact God never intended there to be a King other than Himself that He begins to move and work in the new system of government that the people have called for. He appoints Saul King and then moves people in their hearts so that they decide to serve the new King.
I'm not sure about God appointing Saul King as he uses nagid but he did accept him to be King after Samuel appointed him king. This can be seen in the men of valour and when, in 1 Samuel 15:11,35* God admits he regrets making Saul king (melek is used here) perhaps as opposed to his original plan for Saul to be just a judge like Samson, Gideon, Eli, Samuel and others.
*Thanks to Andy for adding these verses to my thoughts when I told him I would be posting this today.
God successively chose judges from different lines, tribes and families throughout the early history of the nation of Israel.
Then Samuel appointed his sons as judges. 1 Samuel 8 talks about the corruption of Samuel's sons (Joel and Abijah) and how the people came to Samuel and complained about them. This forced Samuel to remove them from their positions. The people no longer wanted a judge and demanded a king instead (like the other nations had).
1 Samuel 9-10:8 introduces that king; Saul. Saul was of the tribe of Benjamin. He was about a head and shoulders taller than all the other Israelites and no other Jew matched him in physical attractiveness. His family was wealthy (we know because they owned donkeys) and it seems people were aware of their business, they may have been influential in their community. This is despite the fact that Saul claims he is from an unimportant tribe, clan and family and that he himself is the least of that family. (I imagine anyone would in the face of an anointing from God.)
What was Saul anointed as though? The ESV translates the Hebrew word 'nagid' as prince. In this sense the KJV is better as it uses captain. The word is actually the word used for judge in the book of Judges. This means that Samuel appoints Saul not as King over Israel but as a judge.
It is very possible that Saul was intended to be the next judge after Samuel, who was beginning to retire from public ministry and leave it to his sons. God had chosen Saul to be the next judge of Israel.
However, God takes the desires and wants of His people seriously. He wants to work with them and not against them. Thusly He appoints the next judge he had chosen as King over Israel. So the judge (nagid) becomes the king (melek) not necessarily because Saul deserved to be King but because the people demanded that he would be.
In the passage mentioned above we see that Saul had leadership aspirations when Samuel meets him and tells him the donkeys have been found and are safe but then goes on to say that in the morning they would speak of what was in Saul's heart. Saul's reaction also hints at his aspirations for leadership when he mentions about his humble background. His reaction to Samuel's comment is insane and seems really presumptuous. Even if Samuel mentioned him and his family as the desire of all Israel...
Finally some people say that Samuel made a mistake in appointing Saul as King over Israel. This is not the case. The LORD says to Samuel that someone will come during the offering feast the next day and that he is to be appointed nagid. When Samuel meets Saul the LORD confirms that this is the man he meant when he said the one will arrive tomorrow who is to be appointed nagid. The Lord gives three signs (people saying the donkeys have been found, three men heading to Bethel that will give him some bread, and prophets filled with the Spirit prophesying) all of these come to pass and so Saul knows it is God behind the appointment. Saul is even filled with the Spirit and prophesies himself.
David also, whenever he has the possibility to kill Saul says he will never harm God's anointed. David recognises Saul as someone anointed by God, even if he has lost his way.
So Saul is chosen by God to be nagid over Israel. It is Samuel that appoints him king. Nowhere does God specifically say that he wants Saul appointed as Melek, which is what Samuel calls him to the assembled Israelites at Mizpah. This is the first time the word is used for Saul...
On the other hand David is appointed King by God. 1 Samuel 16:1 ends, "for I have provided me a king among his (Jesse's) sons." The word used in this sentence is melek. Does leave it open to the idea that Saul should never have been King specifically though was appointed by God to be their leader.
However, the passage does go on to talk about men of valour who were moved in their hearts to follow Saul and become a sort of army for him. Evans, in her commentary, says that despite the fact God never intended there to be a King other than Himself that He begins to move and work in the new system of government that the people have called for. He appoints Saul King and then moves people in their hearts so that they decide to serve the new King.
I'm not sure about God appointing Saul King as he uses nagid but he did accept him to be King after Samuel appointed him king. This can be seen in the men of valour and when, in 1 Samuel 15:11,35* God admits he regrets making Saul king (melek is used here) perhaps as opposed to his original plan for Saul to be just a judge like Samson, Gideon, Eli, Samuel and others.
*Thanks to Andy for adding these verses to my thoughts when I told him I would be posting this today.
Monday 29 October 2012
TotD: God versus Dagon.
So, if you haven't guessed by now my present reading of Scripture is 1 Samuel. I have bought a book that is basically an exegetical commentary of the books of Samuel, which I am now using in my time with God (which is considerably longer reading than it has been before.) One of the things I love to do is discuss with Him the things going on as I read them and the commentary is one of the ways He tells me about the passage. Another is the fact that these daily thoughts generally are not on passages I have looked at TODAY but usually YESTERDAY but I can't get them out of my head.
Some of you won't know who Dagon is. There was a nation north west of the nation of Israel during the time of the Judges, Samuel, Saul and David called Philistia. It is from here that Goliath and the Philistines come. One of their gods was an invention known as Dagon. In iconography Dagon was portrayed as a creature similar to a merman. He had a fish like body with a human torso and head. (You can Google Image him if you like).
The Philistines were the main enemies of the Israelites and were often at war with them (pretty much at any given opportunity actually). In one of these wars the people of Israel were not doing so well so they sent people to the Tabernacle in Shiloh (were Samuel and Eli were probably still living at this time) and they took the Ark of the Covenant out of 'Samuel's bedroom', the Holy of Holies. They brought the Ark, as if it were a good luck charm, to the battle and believed that they would now win the battle because Yahweh was in the camp (remember they believed He dwelt on the mercy seat between the two cherubim decorating the lid of the ark).
The Philistines were terrified when they saw the Ark of the Covenant enter into the camp of their enemies for they knew there was now a god there and this particular God, they knew, had done wonders in Egypt and the wilderness (though they were confused as to the exact details). They had never fought a war against a god before and this gave the Philistines a new sense of determination; they would fight with everything they had.
The Israelites on the other hand seem to have grown complacent. Now that the Ark of the LORD was in their midst they did not need to worry about the battle anymore. The way Scripture records their defeat is interesting because it sounds as if they just sat there while the Philistines killed them. "So the Philistines fought, and Israel was defeated, and they fled, every man to his home. And there was a very great slaughter, for thirty thousand foot soldiers of Israel fell." (1 Samuel 4:10 ESV)
See how that's worded? The Philistines fought but the Israelites were just defeated.
The Ark of the Covenant is taken by the Philistines as part of the spoils of war. They had taken, not just money, weapons, animals, women etc etc; but an actual god. They brought the Ark to Ashdod in Philistia, one of the five major cities.
In the meantime news of the Ark's capture gets back to Eli in the Tabernacle. His sons, who had carried the Ark, were dead, the army was defeated and the Ark gone. On hearing the third of these Eli faints and because he is so fat his own weight causes his neck to be broken and he dies.
In Ashdod the people are getting tumours and boils. According to extra-biblical writings these boils and tumours appeared on the people's groins (which would be more irritating and more painful than anywhere else) also there was a plague of rats. Ultimately it was for this reason that the Philistines sent the Ark back to Israel but not before both of the gods could do battle.
The Ark was stored in the temple of Dagon in Ashdod. Each morning it was there the Philistine priests would come in to find the statue of Dagon bowing, face first, to the Ark; or broken.
I wonder what the Philistines thought as they saw this the second time. Seeing as Dagon was their god I imagine he had some form of power, and as he was half fish I assume it was power over water. God brought down fire on Sodom and Gomorrah so I think the Philistines, had they seen Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix would imagine a battle between the two deities as similar to the battle between Dumbledore and Voldemort in that movie.
In the film Voldemort the bad guy, shoots a fire snake creature at Dumbledore who defeats it and temporarily traps Voldemort in a massive floating ball of water. The reason my mind went here is the water-fire thing and also the fact that to the followers of Dagon, Yahweh would be Voldemort in this situation. They would see Him as this evil foreign God that cannot accept that He and His people have been defeated and has come to do battle with their beloved Dumbledore.
Of course in this instance Dumbledore loses, and rightly so because the Lord is not the bad guy. He is the all-powerful and only true God. The actuality of the 'battle' between Yahweh and Dagon went more like this.
The Ark of the Covenant is placed beside the statue to Dagon. God's presence in with the Ark. The Lord watches until nightfall. The whole time Dagon stares at Him, unmoving, unwavering and even unaware of His existence at all. There is nothing behind those carved and sculpted eyes. There is no Dagon. The Lord watches in despair as the last ritual is performed in front of this inanimate object. He is a jealous God, but loving, God. He does not want that the Philistines would perish but that they would repent and sacrifice with the Israelites after they repented too. Yahweh looks the statue in the eye for a nano second and the statue falls, face to the floor, in front of the one true God.
The experience of the defeat of their god is both not lost and lost on the Philistines. They realise the boils and tumours and rats are from the fact that the Ark is in their cities (they move it around a bit and the disasters follow) but they still do not recognise Him as the one true God. They offer Him and offering (of gold rats and tumour models) and send the Ark in a new cart with two cows who have recently become mothers.
There is reverence there but not to the right degree. God has proven Himself more powerful than Dagon, more than once, and the Philistines recognise His power; but they just send Him back across the border and wait for the day they can attack the Israelites again. They learned nothing.
This is evidenced in chapter 7 when Samuel gathers the people together, all of Israel, at Mizpah. The exact amount of time between both events (the Ark coming home and this all-Israel meeting) is not mentioned but what is is that while the meeting goes on the lords of the Philistines decide it is a good time to go to battle with the Israelites again. " Now when the Philistines heard that the people of Israel had gathered at Mizpah, the lords of the Philistines went up against Israel. And when the people of Israel heard of it, they were afraid of the Philistines." (1 Samuel 7:7 ESV). It seems no one learned anything from the time the Ark was in Philistia.
We can, however, we can see that God is the most powerful. We can see that nothing should come above Him and we can praise and serve the God that other gods bow before!
Some of you won't know who Dagon is. There was a nation north west of the nation of Israel during the time of the Judges, Samuel, Saul and David called Philistia. It is from here that Goliath and the Philistines come. One of their gods was an invention known as Dagon. In iconography Dagon was portrayed as a creature similar to a merman. He had a fish like body with a human torso and head. (You can Google Image him if you like).
The Philistines were the main enemies of the Israelites and were often at war with them (pretty much at any given opportunity actually). In one of these wars the people of Israel were not doing so well so they sent people to the Tabernacle in Shiloh (were Samuel and Eli were probably still living at this time) and they took the Ark of the Covenant out of 'Samuel's bedroom', the Holy of Holies. They brought the Ark, as if it were a good luck charm, to the battle and believed that they would now win the battle because Yahweh was in the camp (remember they believed He dwelt on the mercy seat between the two cherubim decorating the lid of the ark).
The Philistines were terrified when they saw the Ark of the Covenant enter into the camp of their enemies for they knew there was now a god there and this particular God, they knew, had done wonders in Egypt and the wilderness (though they were confused as to the exact details). They had never fought a war against a god before and this gave the Philistines a new sense of determination; they would fight with everything they had.
The Israelites on the other hand seem to have grown complacent. Now that the Ark of the LORD was in their midst they did not need to worry about the battle anymore. The way Scripture records their defeat is interesting because it sounds as if they just sat there while the Philistines killed them. "So the Philistines fought, and Israel was defeated, and they fled, every man to his home. And there was a very great slaughter, for thirty thousand foot soldiers of Israel fell." (1 Samuel 4:10 ESV)
See how that's worded? The Philistines fought but the Israelites were just defeated.
The Ark of the Covenant is taken by the Philistines as part of the spoils of war. They had taken, not just money, weapons, animals, women etc etc; but an actual god. They brought the Ark to Ashdod in Philistia, one of the five major cities.
In the meantime news of the Ark's capture gets back to Eli in the Tabernacle. His sons, who had carried the Ark, were dead, the army was defeated and the Ark gone. On hearing the third of these Eli faints and because he is so fat his own weight causes his neck to be broken and he dies.
In Ashdod the people are getting tumours and boils. According to extra-biblical writings these boils and tumours appeared on the people's groins (which would be more irritating and more painful than anywhere else) also there was a plague of rats. Ultimately it was for this reason that the Philistines sent the Ark back to Israel but not before both of the gods could do battle.
The Ark was stored in the temple of Dagon in Ashdod. Each morning it was there the Philistine priests would come in to find the statue of Dagon bowing, face first, to the Ark; or broken.
I wonder what the Philistines thought as they saw this the second time. Seeing as Dagon was their god I imagine he had some form of power, and as he was half fish I assume it was power over water. God brought down fire on Sodom and Gomorrah so I think the Philistines, had they seen Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix would imagine a battle between the two deities as similar to the battle between Dumbledore and Voldemort in that movie.
In the film Voldemort the bad guy, shoots a fire snake creature at Dumbledore who defeats it and temporarily traps Voldemort in a massive floating ball of water. The reason my mind went here is the water-fire thing and also the fact that to the followers of Dagon, Yahweh would be Voldemort in this situation. They would see Him as this evil foreign God that cannot accept that He and His people have been defeated and has come to do battle with their beloved Dumbledore.
Of course in this instance Dumbledore loses, and rightly so because the Lord is not the bad guy. He is the all-powerful and only true God. The actuality of the 'battle' between Yahweh and Dagon went more like this.
The Ark of the Covenant is placed beside the statue to Dagon. God's presence in with the Ark. The Lord watches until nightfall. The whole time Dagon stares at Him, unmoving, unwavering and even unaware of His existence at all. There is nothing behind those carved and sculpted eyes. There is no Dagon. The Lord watches in despair as the last ritual is performed in front of this inanimate object. He is a jealous God, but loving, God. He does not want that the Philistines would perish but that they would repent and sacrifice with the Israelites after they repented too. Yahweh looks the statue in the eye for a nano second and the statue falls, face to the floor, in front of the one true God.
The experience of the defeat of their god is both not lost and lost on the Philistines. They realise the boils and tumours and rats are from the fact that the Ark is in their cities (they move it around a bit and the disasters follow) but they still do not recognise Him as the one true God. They offer Him and offering (of gold rats and tumour models) and send the Ark in a new cart with two cows who have recently become mothers.
There is reverence there but not to the right degree. God has proven Himself more powerful than Dagon, more than once, and the Philistines recognise His power; but they just send Him back across the border and wait for the day they can attack the Israelites again. They learned nothing.
This is evidenced in chapter 7 when Samuel gathers the people together, all of Israel, at Mizpah. The exact amount of time between both events (the Ark coming home and this all-Israel meeting) is not mentioned but what is is that while the meeting goes on the lords of the Philistines decide it is a good time to go to battle with the Israelites again. " Now when the Philistines heard that the people of Israel had gathered at Mizpah, the lords of the Philistines went up against Israel. And when the people of Israel heard of it, they were afraid of the Philistines." (1 Samuel 7:7 ESV). It seems no one learned anything from the time the Ark was in Philistia.
We can, however, we can see that God is the most powerful. We can see that nothing should come above Him and we can praise and serve the God that other gods bow before!
Genesis Fight Club
I mentioned this in my most recent blog. This is a talk given to the UCC Christian Union on the 16th of October 2012. The reason I share it here is because it is linked to the previous blog post.
We’ve been looking at Jacob and
this guy is a guy of strife. He divided his parents, he divided his family, he stole
his father’s blessing, he stripped his older brother of his birth right, he
came into conflict with Laban and then Leah. He caused jealousy in his
household when he was having kids with Leah but not Rachel. This man was a man
of struggles. He pretty much struggles with everyone he has ever known and met.
At
this point in time Jacob is on his way back to meet Esau, his brother, the
brother who’s birth right he stole. Jacob is fearful for his life. He is so
afraid that he gets his wives and kids (in his struggling family as most of his
sexual partners are not fond of any of the others) and he sends them off to
meet his brother with a large gift (think mansion ‘cos that’s the closest
modern day equivalent).
So
we see he is terrified. He is trying to win his brother over and just in case
that fails he isn’t even going to be there when the gift is given and his
people meet Esau’s.
Jacob
himself stays on the other side of the river Jabbock (Hebrew ‘yabbock’ which
sounds like the Hebrew word for wrestle ‘Ye’abeck’ which also sounds like Jacob
‘ya’acob’). The river means wrestle/struggle his name means supplant and
struggle. The Bible is awesome!!
What do you
think he is thinking as he’s there? This is my last night? Is he praying? If so
what is he praying? Something like ‘help me God, shine your favour on me? Bless
me? Protect me?’
Then, while he
is praying the most random thing in the world that could ever happen happens.
Imagine being scared of your life and crying out to God to help when this
random ‘stranger’ shows up and decides it would be a good idea for you two to
wrestle. Firstly I don’t think I’d particularly enjoy that particular method of
communication from God.
I imagine I
would be a bit like ‘ah, d’u mind? I’m in the middle of praying to God here to
help me in my dire and life or death situation. Bugger off.’
Now I’m not
saying that God hasn’t had to wrestle with me. He has, more than you know.
Getting me out of bed on a day that ends in y is a struggle with God somedays
(you know the ones that end in y) and God has to be like ‘Waves, come on I want
to do things.’ And that’s the absolute best example of times God has to wrestle
with me, if I told you any of the other ones I would likely be excommunicated.
One thing to note though, He always wins.
That’s one of
the things that make this piece of scripture so interesting. God isn’t winning
He cannot prevail. When day begins to break Jesus touches Jacob’s hip and blamo
it’s sore. It’s like the opposite of what God on earth will do next time He’s
here (or well the time He’s around longest).
There is a lot
of debate on this topic. Is this dude an angel? Then why does Jacob say he has
seen God face to face? How can God be walking around the earth post ‘Garden of
Eden’ times? Was Hosea doting then? Who’s the ‘Angel of the Lord?’ We could do
a whole other CU time on this but general Christian theology (called
Christology) believes He is a pre-incarnate Christ.
In Exodus it
talks about how God’s name dwells in Him (Ex. 23) His name can literally mean
the ‘Word of God’ and most people who meet Him equate seeing Him with seeing
the face of God. (like Jacob does and Moses does also) as well as that the
Angel of the Lord could forgive sins (Ex. 23:21) and in Mark we see “Who can
forgive sins but God alone?” (Mark 2:7). Anyway that’s why I think the Angel of
the LORD is a pre-incarnation Jesus (which is cool).
In my opinion
this piece of scripture is about struggling. Jacob was a man of struggles and
we are people of struggles too. There is a saying that you can only be sure of
two things in life taxes and death; but I think there is one thing you can be
sure of in life and that’s struggles. People struggle with money, with
friendships, with relationships, with workloads, with themselves and with God.
This struggling (as in with ourselves and God) is a normal experience for
Christians and as such is dealt with quite a bit in scriptures.
Jacob physically
struggled with God which is something the majority of us, if not the entire
population of the CU in UCC through all time, will not have the opportunity to
do. I don’t think I would particularly enjoy Israel’s experience by the River
Jabbock. Imagine God appearing on earth and, from what we can gather from the
passage, not saying anything just attacking you (as it may have appeared to
Israel as he sat there worrying and perhaps even praying).
I want to look
very quickly at three scripture passages about struggle. Then a little on the
last question.
1. The
first is found in Romans 5 and will be on the screen.
“Therefore, since we have been justified by
faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Through him we
have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we
rejoice in hope of the glory of God. Not only that, but we rejoice in our
sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, and endurance produces
character, and character produces hope, and hope does not put us to shame,
because God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who
has been given to us. For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ
died for the ungodly.” (Romans 5:1-6 ESV)
I attempted to
learn this passage when I was about 16 because I read it and I first went yeah,
struggles are a good thing are they? But it is insane to think about it like
this. There is a saying ‘what doesn’t kill you will only make you stronger,’
which is a simplified atheistic version of this passage. Think about all of the
people who make big impacts as Christians. In general they are either well
known or have a story full of struggle that God has turned around to make them
into an amazing witness of the power of God to bless and change lives.
I often look
back on my own life and I think “Lord. I would love to change that time of
suffering and choose a different option at that point.” If God allowed that,
the one I specifically think about, I wouldn’t know His power as much as I do,
I wouldn’t know His presence as much as I do and I wouldn’t be able to speak
about a God that loves so much He could die for someone as wretched as me with
such honesty. My struggles and my mistakes have brought me closer to a God who
cares so much. Now I’m not saying go and make dopey mistakes in the hopes that
it will bring you closer to God but I am saying that your struggles have a
purpose and in your life you can choose the effect they have on you. You can
allow them to produce in you the version of you God designed you to be. I’m
going to say that sentence again because it was a little confusing. You can
allow your struggles to produce in you God’s design for who He wants you to be;
or you can become a victim and wallow in your misery, blaming God and blaming
people. Either way suffering produces character.
2. Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the
strength of his might. Put on the whole armour of God, that you may be able to
stand against the schemes of the devil. For we do not wrestle against flesh and
blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers
over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the
heavenly places. (Ephesians 6:10-12 ESV)
I’m not going to
say anything about this one because it speaks for itself.
3. For I consider that the sufferings of this
present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to
us. (Romans 8:18 ESV)
When we find
ourselves in the midst of struggles we need to give them over to God in order
for endurance and character and hope to be formed. We need to involve Him in
our problems and allow Him to comfort us, strengthen us and renew our hope.
This verse is one to hold onto in those times. The suffering, no matter how
bad, is not even worth comparing with the glory that is to come. When you are
in a struggle that feels like hell it is hard to see the good, even into the
future we often only see this struggle, like with the dark side of the force
‘clouded the future becomes.’ (that’s from Star Wars if you didn’t recognise
it.)
Lastly on Jacob
becoming Israel, he had his name changed by God. One of my sins was a thing
that came to define me, some of you know what that was but others don’t and
that’s okay. You just need to know that it became wrapped up in who David
Cowpar was. It was defining, life changing and how I identified myself for a
number of years. Most of you know me as Wavey. I have adopted the name Wavey so
much that my Facebook page is Wavey Tonntach (which is Wavey in the Irish
language). Although I am still David Cowpar I am also Wavey and there is a
difference. It’s as if, in being granted the name Wavey, the past of David
Cowpar no longer has to define me. The identity that was David Cowpar is not
the identity that is Wavey (even though I am the same person). I know that
sounds a small bit insane but when sin becomes wrapped in who you are it makes
sense that God would grant a new name. This was definitely true for Israel who
went from being the supplanter to the one who strives with God. (which is not
necessarily fights with God but maybe strives beside God).
We don’t have to
be defined by our sins and struggles. God’s dealt with those in the death of
Jesus.
It is suggested one YouTube's "Regrets Igniter Media" after reading this as I closed with it.
Please NB the piece on the Angel of the Lord in this and in "TotD: Samuel and God".
TotD Samuel and God
This was technically yesterday's thought of the day so apologies for late upload.
In the third chapter of first Samuel God calls Samuel. The story goes that Samuel in Shiloh serving the high priest Eli in the Tabernacle. At this point in time the young Samuel does not know the Lord. The Bible tells us that Eli was getting old and was rather fat (due to the corruption of his sons, which he was technically not opposed to as he shared in the spoils). As well as this Eli's eyesight had deteriorated some bit. Samuel was used to helping and serving Eli and he did so without complaining (at least that's what we can gather from the scriptural account).
Note that in verse 3 (1 Samuel 3:3) Samuel is sleeping "where the ark of God is." This is a clear rejection of the standards God has set out in the Torah about how the ark should be approached. It appears as if the Levites in the Tabernacle have forgotten and rejected the word of God on this issue. To me I think it's lucky that Samuel hasn't been punished by God for lying in his presence in a way that should not have been done.
When Samuel hears his name he goes to Eli, and it takes three of these before Eli thinks that it could be God. At this point Samuel goes back to bed and waits for the voice to call him again. The Bible goes on to say:
"And the LORD came and stood, calling as at other times, "Samuel! Samuel!" And Samuel said, "Speak, for your servant hears."" (1 Samuel 3:10)
This verse stood out to me. 'The LORD came and stood, calling as at other times." God came and stood. God came and stood in the Tabernacle by the mercy seat on which He was thought to dwell.
This is very interesting. Why did Samuel (who likely first wrote this passage) use the word stood? It does not go on to say that Samuel saw the Lord in person at this point. The word stood (which is also in the Hebrew 'He came and stationed Himself') implies a lot more than just a voice in little Samuel's head (or even an audible voice in the room) it implies that God Himself stood, in person, in front of Samuel.
Those of you who were in my CU talk recently will know where this is going (those of you who haven't been I will add it here as well).
How can the Lord stand in front of Samuel? Why is the word stood used? This one verse has brought question after question into my head about the Angel of the Lord and such.
The Angel of the Lord is believed, by some Christians, to have been a pre-incarnate Jesus who came to earth in the Old Testament. For example; it is the Angel of the Lord that talks to Abraham about the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah but He talks about Himself as if He is the Lord. It is also this person that stands in the fire with Daniel's friends while they are in exile. Hosea calls this individual an angel but He can forgice sins in the time of Moses and who can forgive sins but God alone (see Mark 2).
It makes for an interesting thought. There is, of course, not much evidence that the Angel of the Lord is in this passage of Scripture but the word 'stood' stands out as odd and an indication that, in fact, Jesus pre-Jesus may have stood in front of Samuel.
Anyway that's what I have been thinking about when reading chapter 3 of Samuel 1.
In the third chapter of first Samuel God calls Samuel. The story goes that Samuel in Shiloh serving the high priest Eli in the Tabernacle. At this point in time the young Samuel does not know the Lord. The Bible tells us that Eli was getting old and was rather fat (due to the corruption of his sons, which he was technically not opposed to as he shared in the spoils). As well as this Eli's eyesight had deteriorated some bit. Samuel was used to helping and serving Eli and he did so without complaining (at least that's what we can gather from the scriptural account).
Note that in verse 3 (1 Samuel 3:3) Samuel is sleeping "where the ark of God is." This is a clear rejection of the standards God has set out in the Torah about how the ark should be approached. It appears as if the Levites in the Tabernacle have forgotten and rejected the word of God on this issue. To me I think it's lucky that Samuel hasn't been punished by God for lying in his presence in a way that should not have been done.
When Samuel hears his name he goes to Eli, and it takes three of these before Eli thinks that it could be God. At this point Samuel goes back to bed and waits for the voice to call him again. The Bible goes on to say:
"And the LORD came and stood, calling as at other times, "Samuel! Samuel!" And Samuel said, "Speak, for your servant hears."" (1 Samuel 3:10)
This verse stood out to me. 'The LORD came and stood, calling as at other times." God came and stood. God came and stood in the Tabernacle by the mercy seat on which He was thought to dwell.
This is very interesting. Why did Samuel (who likely first wrote this passage) use the word stood? It does not go on to say that Samuel saw the Lord in person at this point. The word stood (which is also in the Hebrew 'He came and stationed Himself') implies a lot more than just a voice in little Samuel's head (or even an audible voice in the room) it implies that God Himself stood, in person, in front of Samuel.
Those of you who were in my CU talk recently will know where this is going (those of you who haven't been I will add it here as well).
How can the Lord stand in front of Samuel? Why is the word stood used? This one verse has brought question after question into my head about the Angel of the Lord and such.
The Angel of the Lord is believed, by some Christians, to have been a pre-incarnate Jesus who came to earth in the Old Testament. For example; it is the Angel of the Lord that talks to Abraham about the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah but He talks about Himself as if He is the Lord. It is also this person that stands in the fire with Daniel's friends while they are in exile. Hosea calls this individual an angel but He can forgice sins in the time of Moses and who can forgive sins but God alone (see Mark 2).
It makes for an interesting thought. There is, of course, not much evidence that the Angel of the Lord is in this passage of Scripture but the word 'stood' stands out as odd and an indication that, in fact, Jesus pre-Jesus may have stood in front of Samuel.
Anyway that's what I have been thinking about when reading chapter 3 of Samuel 1.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)