christian books

sigh...! ive got a fair few that look really good, and i havent even read them yet. so usually whenever i see new ones, or ones that tell you in no uncertain terms "OI, You, buy this or else, 'cause its good" i pass them by becuase i should be looking at the ones ive got.


but the cover and the premise of this book really interests me =)

boiling coke is weird

i got recommended by a cookbook to simmer gammon in coke before roasting it. apparently this is to help it taste less mouth-droppingly salty..so i tried it out! im not convinced yet, but it might work well in conjuction with something cool but flavourless like in a salad.

as an aside,
it's well difficult to tell the difference between coke simmering or boiling because it's carbonated, and you get froth and bubbles reaching the surface whatever happens. just an odd experience all round..!

(proof omitted)

a couple of weeks ago, Josh posted a blog relating God in the lovely language of mathematics. as its my degree, ive had some thoughts on the idea recently. this thought comes with the disclaimer of potentially nasty looking maths jargon... you have been warned =)

okay.

the bulk of maths works like this; we have axioms, that is, obvservations about the way a branch of maths works - on a very basic level. We just assume they are true because often it just makes logical sense that they do. Then, people make new ideas, or 'propositions'. Then these people use the axiom, the given true thing, to explain how they got to their proposition - the explanation being the 'proof'. After that, you can make more propositions, where the proofs can be based not just on the axiom, but on all the other previous propositions that have been made before it. So you get a tirade of propositions, proofs, more propositions, more proofs etc until you have the maths we know and (err-hem) like today.

but the good thing about this is, is that if the beginning puzzle piece of maths, the axioms, is invalid - then everything else that follows it is brought into dispute and all the theories and proposition made dont count for anything, because the base is shaky. The axioms themselves, for the most part, are never proved, because theyre 'just a given'. So from the start, mathematics is very much a matter of faith.

What I find interesting is the way that people talk about God. Ive heard a couple of my non-christian friends lament the 'lack of proof'. They would like to believe the things I believe, and they could see they would find it to be a refuge and very helpful, but as far as they can see, theres been no proof shown to them that God's out there. Its funny that people think then, of God as a "proposition", where proof would need to be made of God's existence, and principally thered have to be something before God to base the proofs upon!

"id give everything i have, for something i dont have to prove" - john ellis

"he is before all things, and in him all things hold together." - colossians 1-17

"This is what the kingdom of God is like. A man scatters seed on the ground. Night and day, whether he sleeps or gets up, the seed sprouts and grows, though he does not know how" - mark 4-26-27


We're making it difficult for ourselves if we approach the idea of God as 'something to be proved'. It is much easier to consider God as an axiom, just a given, whereupon looking at it, we are convinced (but never proved) that it is true. Axioms, if they ever had a voice would say "believe in me, and all the other mathematics holds together. Look what the capabilities are for when you accept me. why, maths would be nonsense and chaos if it didnt have me!" These claims are wonderfully similar to Jesus's claims to be the son of God, that im happy enough to say, in regards to him, i am convinced, and the proof is omitted =)

randomly kept awake

in keeping with sleep related blog entries, i had a thought that refused to let me sleep until it was fully fledged! and then i went to bed. but, here it is after some fresh sleep.

i dont know why, but it was about the "random shuffle" feature on most media players, on pc's, on mp3 players, whatever. i like using random on media players quite a lot.

my opinion is, i don't really trust it to be all that random. what do i mean? well ok, theres some artists that take up a disproportionately large amount of space on my media library in comparison to others (switchfoot take up 67 tracks all by themselves, relient k 59), and there are other artists where i have just one or two of their songs (like public enemy - bring the noiiiiise). furthermore, theres some artists where one album may take up about 20 tracks (manu chao's esperanza), and ep's that might be made up of just 5 or 6 (iron & wine's woman king). so what happens when the whole library is played on random? i mostly get to hear the artists or albums that have the most tracks - because of their sheer numbers, they have a higher probability of being chosen at random. that means i barely get to hear the little one-offs at all, or bands that have small albums. hearing the same thing? not very random in my eyes, even if the means of generating it is strictly 'random'.

i thought it'd be cool if media players made up a function where it takes a list of all the artists in the library (no repetitions), and randomises that list - then probability of an arist being repeated is considerably less, and not dependent on how many songs of theirs are in the library. then once the artists are randomised, and the time's come to play a song of theirs, the next tier would be to pick a song of that artist at random.

so, in summary, a two step randomisation, choosing;-

-an artist at random from a list of all artists (no repetitions)
-a song at random from the random artist


from this, i imagine youd get to hear all those strange songs that you thought youd forgot or deleted but hey they just werent chosen on random before.

pants, i never said Your Majesty

i had a dream last night that ive only just remembered!

i dreamt that i happened to see The Queen, and had a conversation with her. the problem was that i didnt know what proper protocol to use when addressing the queen, so the only thing i said in response to her couple of questions was "yes". be that as it may, i still felt the conversation went well, and afterwards i had it in mind to shoot my mouth off to everyone that i knew, that i had exchanged words with none other than HRH Queen Elizabeth II.

thats all i remember. i dont know if i ever did manage to tell the whole world. or if i got run over by a car before i was able to, or the queen told everyone on facebook first and beat me to it. who knows.

getting what you wish for

Sometimes when praying for something to happen, I have a picture in my mind as to what a positive response from God would look like. So much so, that when it doesnt look like he gives my 'model answer' to prayer, I wrongly assume God never answered at all. However, I have to remember that his ways are not my ways. I am not praying to some version of me, so predictable that I could read his responses like a book, but I pray to God. Knowable, but mysterious. 'God is in heaven; he does whatever pleases him.'

Its possible that I stare answers to prayer in the face every day, and never acknowledge them as his answers. If for every cry of "lord, im on my own again" brings about conversation with scores of people I wish to avoid with all my heart, then it looks like I pray the wrong prayer, and have the wrong heart. Why should God please me in letting me relate to people, if in relating to people, Gods glory and his personality is not being shown?

So, be careful what you pray for. It cannot be assumed that you are just filling empty spaces with words - God willing, they can be a means to effect in this world. Gods answers to prayers have the potential to humiliate you, but they always lead us back to Him, the inventor of all things good.