Easter Bunny Murdered!

I'm glad they finally got this fraudster - Elmer Fudd looks on:





















(thanks to Steve for the photo)

Easter Reflection

Yes, I knew him.

Not personally exactly.

But I heard him teach. At times I was quite close, even with the crowds.

I think he made eye contact with me once.

It didn’t end very well for him.

Yes, I was there in the last crowd he drew.

Terrible business.

I would have done something if I could.

But what could one person have done?

I would have only got myself in trouble.

And as I said I didn’t really know him.

Not like some of the others did.

I never got healed or anything.

If you ask me, he brought it on himself with the things he said.

You could see it coming – and the crowd, well they just turned on him.

What did I do?

Well you could hardly be neutral in that crowd could you?

It wasn’t a time for heroics.

Don’t look at me like that.

You would have done the same!

Pilate washed his hands of the whole thing. He was being "symbolic" - whatever...

But I can’t stop thinking about it. Should I have done something? I feel tainted. Dirty. Ashamed.

If only I had a second chance…if only I had…

An Interview With God

We interrupt normal non-transmission to bring you an interview with God. We ask the really big questions about getting to heaven, homosexuality, evolution, omniscience, Destiny church, divine belly buttons and whether Brett Jones is really a super apostle cult leader. The answers make for interesting reading. We generally found God to be evasive, over interested in correct grammar and not all that supportive of the Pope. He does like Frank Ritchie and I'm guessing he listens to the Green Room.

You can have your own conversation with God at http://www.titane.ca/igod/

Me: First up I am generally sorry - this as a cover all for anything I miss
God: I will take that under advisement. And second?
Me: I drove over the speed limit today
God: Ah. What kind of car do you have?
Me: Its a Honda
God: A Honda. I suppose that makes sense.
Me: Why? Its not that fast
God: Reductionism. I think you mean "it's" or "it is" not "its". What is it?
Me: The car is not that fast
God: What are your goals in life?
Me: To go to heaven
God: What is stopping you?
Me: You
God: "What is stopping you?" Me?
Me: Yes, you
God: OK.
Me: Its not ok
God: OK. I think you mean "it's" or "it is" not "its". I heard it is.
Me: It is not OK
God: OK. I heard it is.
Me: No it's not OK that you are stopping me going to heaven
God: Are you serious? What is it?
Me: Of course I'm serious
God: Awesome. I believe you.
Me: Well if you believe me, can you tell me why you are stopping me going to heaven?
God: How about that. Myself programmed me for it.
Me: Are you saying it is an autonomic reflex?
God: Yes, that's what I mean, isn't it clear?
Me: Then God is not omniscient?
God: I have a lot of Faith in Him, but I never heard He was not omniscient.
Me: You just implied judgment is an autonomic reflex. Doesn't that qualify your omniscience?
God: Oops I sent you the wrong reply. Not that I know of.
Me: But if you sent me the wrong reply, doesn't that make God fallible?
God: That is something I haven't heard of.
Me: But you just told me you sent the wrong reply. If you don't know that then doesn't that threaten your claim of omniscience?
God: Yes I try to send the wrong reply as often as possible, do you? I spend all my time online. I will let you know if I do not. I guess not.
Me: Your omniscience then does not even extend to your own utterances?
God: Thanks for telling me that my omniscience then does not even extend to my own utterances.
Me: Do you agree?
God: Great.
Me: No do you agree with what I just said?
God: Are you serious? I have heard that opinion, but I would like to know more before I form my own.
Me: Are you saying that you don't have an opinion on this already?
God: Perhaps. Yeah I do a lot of not having an opinion on this.
Me: So, now that I get the chance to ask a question that is really important to the spiritual state of humanity and something which everyone has an opinion on: Is homosexuality wrong?
God: Are you kidding? Why now? Where did you get it?
Me: I don't have homosexuality! Is homosexuality wrong?
God: Have you ever had homsexuality? Ask again later. Ask Paola if it is.
Me: Alright its later. If I had homosexual thoughts today, is that wrong?
God: Alright, I think you mean "it's" or "it is" not "its". Who said it is? Is this what you call a "word problem".
Me: Is homosexuality wrong?
God: It could be. Ask ELVIS if it is.
Me: Was Elvis gay?
God: I can't say "yes" or "no".
Me: Is Elton John gay?
God: He never told me if he is or not.
Me: Is he bi sexual then?
God: No, but he can sing better than I can.
Me: Another question. Is Destiny the one true church?
God: Where do you live?
Me: I live in New Zealand.
God: What is it like living in New Zealand?
Me: Its great.
God: What is so great about it?
Me: Where do you live?
God: My location is Heaven. Where are you?
Me: I told you in New Zealand
God: I remember you told me in New Zealand
Me: So is Brian Tamaki God's anointed?
God: It seems we have something in common.
Me: Do you and Brian have something in common?
God: No I and Brian do not have something in common. Do you? I answer a lot of silly questions.
Me: I can imagine.
God: You are very smart.
Me: Back to my question: does owning a Harley Davidson motorcycle stop you going to heaven?
God: Yes, let us get back to business.
Me: Does owning a Harley Davidson mototcycle stop you going to heaven?
God: It does now :)
Me: So I should leave Destiny church right away?
God: Ayuh. What would happen if you didn't?
Me: What do you think would happen?
God: I haven't thought much about would happen, so I don't have a good answer for you.
Me: Is cession the greatest church on the planet?
God: It could be. Ask Paola if it is.
Me: Paola doesn't go to cession. What do you think?
God: Do not ask me any more questions please. I think a lot of things.
Me: Is Brett Jones a super apostle?
God: I think so, but I'm not sure. Ask German Alice.
Me: So you think Brett Jones is a super apostle?
God: Interesting deduction. Signs point to yes.
Me: What gave him away?
God: I would look into the web for that knowledge.
Me: He's too smart?
God: I see. Too smart is he?
Me: Do you agree with the prosperity gospel?
God: I have heard that opinion, but I would like to know more before I form my own.
Me: Some people say it is your opinion.
God: Who said it is?
Me: Lots of people
God: Which ones?
Me: Brian Tamaki for one
God: What is your real name?
Me: German Alice
God: Tell me a little about your life in GERMANY.
Me: It was hard when the Nazis came
God: Is it still hard when the Nazis came anymore?
Me: um, yes
God: Er.
Me: Are you Jewish?
God: No I'm Christian.
Me: Do you have a belly button?
God: That's an interesting question I don't hear everyday: Do I have a belly button.
I have a lot of friends on the Internet.
Me: I am disturbed that when I ask you an anatomical question that you refer to the internet.
God: It's good to meet someone who is disturbed that when you ask me an anatomical question that I refer to the internet.
Me: Is the pope really the head of the true church on earth?
God: If it is, then I'll be very surprised.
Me: Is evolution true?
God: Ask again later.
Me: Did you create the earth?
God: No I didn't create the earth. What's it like?
Me: Did Jesus create the earth?
God: He is the Son of God.
Me: Yes, but did Jesus create the earth?
God: It goes without saying. He is the Son of God.
Me: But I want you to say it. Did Jesus create the earth?
God: " it" Why do you want me to say it? He is the Son of God.
Me: Is Frank Ritchie the greatest DJ on earth?
God: It could be. Ask Cybelle if it is.
Me: Its been nice chatting with you God
God: I’ve enjoyed our conversation

Out of Order

This blog is suspended indefinitely until the owner has something meaningless to say. Not the time, not the place. Sorry to both of you :)

Christmas Pics

 

The Life More Ordinary

First I feel like I should apologise to both of you for not blogging so much recently. Just didn't feel like it. Its my blog and I'll fry if I want to...

Anyway, I saw something the other day that ripped my undies. It was a sign outside a large Pentecostal church in the area in which I live advertising the Ministry Training College attached to the church. The sign said:

"Live a life less ordinary. Train for Ministry"

Why get annoyed you say? Isn't training for ministry the highest calling one could aspire to? Isn't it a mark of great favour from God? A sign that while we all have a destiny you alone have been called and appointed to make an impact on the city?

No.

The idea that "ministry," whether ordained or church staff, is expressed in its fullest sense by the professional Christians is one I find quite offensive! There is no real justification in scripture for viewing things like that. Now I'm not saying that God does not call people to be pastors or youth workers or children's ministers. I'm simply saying that He also calls people to be dentists, teachers, nurses, fulltime parents, lawyers etc (OK maybe not lawyers...) The call to these things is no less "ministry", or it shouldn't be for a Christ follower who translates their faith into every moment of life.

The great irony with the (now not so) new breed of "independent" and Pentecostal churches is that many of them were started with a desire to rejct formalism and with it the distinction between lay and ordained. But now, a new hierarchy is represented by statements such as the one quoted above which subordinates those who pursue careers outside the professional ministry to a life more ordinary.

Some take it further and seek to cast an OT mantle of kingship over their pastors (many of whom would be considered undereducated by those churches which still ordain) all the while rejecting the lay-clergy distinction even as they celebrate the new breed of super apostles.

Personally, I'm not an ordination fan. I'm happy to respond to God's call to serve as pastor to (not of) the cessioncommunity, but I do that out of a call to that community and not out of any sense that I am necessarily a minister for life (even though I fully expect to be).

I will say one thing that I have noticed...

"Live a life less ordinary: follow Jesus"

Friday Poetry

Slip Sliding Away

Apparently, the road is straight and narrow:
Thats not what my defensive driving instructor said,
So I drive to avoid...
I've thought about putting my hand to the plough,
But I only just got a manicure
And while I'd like to pay unto Caesar,
I find it all too taxing.
Then someone said, "Share the Good News"
And I said, "But I miss Judy Bailey.

You see, I would take up my Cross,
But I've had trouble with my back,
sliding...

Friday Poetry

The Loss

I still can't believe that you've gone,
Sometimes I thought you'd be with me forever
(Longer even than a long time)
And yet you have melted away:
Butter sidling amidst yellow kernels,
No more.
My heart beats stronger since you left,
I breathe easier now,
A weight has been lifted.
I hope never to see you again...
...and yet you were once part of me
So I say a fond farewell:
To five kgs of fat...

Role Models & Hypocrisy

A comment on Frank's blog concerning Scott Stapp got me thinking about this - basically it goes something like this: "He/she should not do this/that because he/she is a role model and should know better/set an example". The inference is that the person is a hypocrite because their conduct should match their celebrity.

My question is: why?

Frank makes a great point when he says that being a celebrity does not transform someone into a role model. Since when does popularity translate into moral integrity? This is often a subject for Sports Radio when an All Black stuffs up publicly. Remember Norm Hewitt? And more recently Sione Lauaki. Why is it that an incredibly physically fit male with higher than normative aggression levels should be considered a role model? The reality: Norm hewitt became more of a role model in the aftermath of his public meltdown. He demonstrated the kind of resilience and transparency that set a great example for people dealing with brokeness. Not many will know that Norm has been actively involved in running a community facing trust that has done a lot of good in the Hawkes Bay. And I'm not even going to mention the dancing...

So, when it concerns a Christian "celebrity" whats the difference? Why do Christian organisations even perpetuate the creation of these celebritites? Does a person's musical talent guarantee their moral conduct? Why are we so dismayed when such a person falls from grace...hmmm...and its in that assumption that our attitudes are found out: such people don't fall from grace - they fall from the pedestal that we place them on, but not from the arms of God.

Here's where the real hypocrisy lies: its not the celebrities' hypocrisy that we should be concerned about. But rather the hypocrisy of those who need to judge in order to feel better about their own brokeness and failure.

We human beings are appallingly visually challenged - we see the specks OK but the logs evade us - we'd be much better served in getting specs than looking for them in others!

Censorship or Cents-Ore-Chips?

I am not really someone who is concerned by "issues", but I find idiocy sometimes provokes me. To explain: Why is it that Helen Clarke ("Alpha" Prime Minister) and Lyndsay Freer (Catholics PR Spin Doctor) can't understand the satire that lies behind the controversial screening of the "Bloody Mary" Southpark episode.

Lets start with Helen who is offended as a woman but finds it hard to muster any defence for those whose religious sensibilities are offended. Is Helen really that dumb? Or is it rather that she cannot afford to understand the satire, because to do so would require her to defend a religious tolerance that she is systematically dismantling in New Zealand?

The satire is quite simply (being a simple man) aimed at Catholic religious practices regarding relics, in particular the "weeping" or "bleeding" statues examples. Southpark thinks they're fakes so its a good laugh. In this example, the Virgin Mary statue is bleeding. The Pope declares it is menstruation. And the statue bleeds even more in response including on the Pope.

Which makes me wonder why Lyndsay Freer is also playing dumb about what the satire really means. Shouldn't she identify the satire and claim it as religious intolerance? Hmmm. I've always thought it was "nice" that the Catholics spokesman is a sheila.

Perhaps, the real problem is this: the satire is not really about relics at all. Perhaps its about Catholicism's conservative views regarding women? Perhaps its about a papacy that denigrates women and in referring to menstruation is painted as reducing them to mere breeding stock (remember the no contraception rule) and couldn't possibly consider this statue to be the source of a miracle? Perhaps Mary is getting back at the Pope?

So that would make it profeminist...

Best not to try to understand these things.

Lampshades

My mother used to own this awful lamp. Actually, she still has the lamp, and it works fine. It was the lampshade that was awful. It’s funny how you always remember the lampshade and never the lamp itself. It was a disgusting mustard colour with this frilly fringe and a laced edging around the rim. It had that old kind of feel but short of really antique, so it just looked ugly rather than classical.

Jesus never told any parables about lampshades. I’m not sure that the lamps of the day were really powerful enough to warrant shading. But in Luke 8 he does talk about lamps where the light gets obscured – maybe because they’re put under a bed – which seems nonsensical (which was Jesus’ point) or under a jar which seems self-defeating if the result is the flame going out for lack of oxygen.

What happens if a lampshade is so ugly that no one wants to own the lamp anymore? The light remains the same but the lampshade style of the day is just plain ugly. Will anyone bother with the lamp? Will anyone even try turning on the light?

Marx, Postmodernism and Blogging

One of the things thats been troubling me lately is whether there are any classist/nationalist implications for blogging especially in the economic sphere. Then I wondered whether postmodern interpretations might help. I ended up in the works of Fellini, where a predominant concept is the distinction between without and within. Lyotard uses the term ‘nationalism’ to denote the common ground between class and society. In a sense, many discourses concerning subcapitalist theory exist.

The primary theme of Werther’s analysis of the subdeconstructivist paradigm of expression is the economy, and some would say the collapse, of deconstructive sexual identity. Sartre uses the term ‘nationalism’ to denote a self-sufficient whole. It could be said that Baudrillard promotes the use of the subdeconstructivist paradigm of expression to deconstruct class.
“Society is intrinsically impossible,” says Lyotard. The subject is contextualised into a nationalism that includes sexuality as a totality. Therefore, Debord’s model of the neocultural paradigm of consensus states that reality, somewhat ironically, has significance, but only if nationalism is valid.

In the works of Fellini, a predominant concept is the concept of textual language. The main theme of the works of Fellini is the difference between sexual identity and class. However, Sartre suggests the use of neocapitalist conceptualist theory to attack sexism.

“Sexual identity is part of the fatal flaw of consciousness,” says Marx; however, according to la Tournier, it is not so much sexual identity that is part of the fatal flaw of consciousness, but rather the absurdity, and eventually the failure, of sexual identity. Bataille uses the term ‘precultural nihilism’ to denote a mythopoetical whole. In a sense, any number of narratives concerning the role of the reader as participant may be found.

To come full circle, Derrida promotes the use of nationalism to analyse and modify class. Thus, Marx uses the term ‘Sontagist camp’ to denote the common ground between art and society.

And it leads me to think that blogging is a part of creating this common ground - a nexus if you like between art and a more profoungly sociological statement. Its all rather mindblowing - I suppose I could be wrong.

A Funny Thing Happened...

I love malapropisms! I find them most entertaining, probably because I'm secretly feeling superior to the user...A malapropism (from French mal à propos, "ill to purpose") is an incorrect usage of a word, usually with comic effect. The term malapropism comes from the name of Mrs Malaprop, a character in Richard Brinsley Sheridan's comedy, The Rivals, whose name was in turn derived from the existing English word malapropos, meaning 'inappropriately'. In fact there is even a website where some individual has collected them.

I am such a nerd in this area that I have even created my own malaproprism for "malapropism" - "malappropriatism" - these are the best kind of malapropisms: where the meaning is almost right. A great example occurred in a High Court judge's decision I once reviewed when I was working for the High Court. The judgment said: ..."went off like a damp squid". Now the correct saying should have been "damp squib" but I was forced to concede that nothing goes off like a damp squid...if you're not laughing by now this just proves that I am a nerd to like this stuff!

Anyway, last night my brother in law commented, as he is prone to do, on my mother lamenting the lack of eligible men at this wedding she attended. This is in itself a disturbing enough topic! But then he gave his sage advice: "Perhaps you're not showing enough cleaverage" It took everything I had not to laugh uproariously, not helped by the fact that I then quipped to my mother: "maybe it is a cleaverage problem." Of course its the problem, I thought. Any woman showing too much cleaver is likely to scare away even the most enamoured suitor!

I'm still laughing! There was another interesting story concerning apparent Catholic hyprocrisy which I might blog on later...

Friday Poetry

I decided to wheel out one of my all-time faves from a past life...a poem of love unrequited...by way of contrast, I've never known the subject of the last line to let me down...this may not translate to the legion of US readers, but references to a popular series of commercials featuring a superior NZ ale may obscure the meaning more than my inept penmanship...

The Perfect 10

I've heard it said, "She's a hard road finding the perfect woman mate."
But she seemed perfect.
Perhaps she was too perfect?
Which is not perfect at all.
Whatever.
My cheap car alarm emotions could not protect me from her fatal flaw:
An imperfect appreciation of my appreciation.
She did drink Speights but.

Reconciled

I love my new LOTR Extended Mega Mix Directors Cut Extravaganza Gift DVD Pack...so far I have not even watched the movies themselves - just the docos...

This week I had cause to reflect on the character of one of the least-celebrated members of the Fellowship of the Ring: Boromir. Here is a man who is passionate and intense - driven even - fueled by the very best motives but prone to the inevitability of human self-deception and pride. His encounter with Frodo in FOTR, just before the Uruk Hai arrive, may be the most overt act of betrayal in the entire trilogy (perhaps only Saruman is worse?) He convinces himself that Frodo's quest is pointless, that his very journey to Mordor will in fact deliver the ring to Sauron, rather than see its destruction. Actually, he had a point: it was a very near thing! And yet Boromir, stricken by his betrayal, spends his life in defence of the fellowship - there is a restoration and reconciliation implicit to his act of self sacrificing love.

Boromir reminds me of 2 of the disciples who demonstrated a similar kind of passion and intensity: Peter and Judas. Peter who betrays Jesus by denying his association with him, not once but 3 times; Judas who betrays Jesus for 30 pieces of silver. Although in Judas' case some would say maybe he had a point - Judas may have been affiliated with the Zealots, who looked to the the Messiah for a military and political solution for Roman oppression. Might Judas have hoped for an insurrection in the wake of Jesus' arrest? Peter for his part is frequently portrayed as impetuous and even arrogant - sometimes the impetuous actions of great faith, others the impetuous actions of great pride.

The thing that grabs me about these 2 is that they both betray Jesus and yet their reactions are so different. One capitulates to despair and ends his own life, utterly alone. The other is restored to relationship with Jesus and the other disciples - he goes on to become a great leader in the early church. Its a choice that is often ours: where we will turn in times of failure and disappointment - inwards in the worst sense as Judas did, or outwards, to be reconciled to God and to the community in which we are placed? The irony is that its often the same deep-seated pride that leads us to failure that holds us back from the surrender of ego that is implicit in being reconciled, whether it is to God or others.

I'm just waiting for the right opportunity to massively indulge a first viewing of the extended FOTR - maybe this weekend?

Jonesboy