It almost seemed a little odd. With his beetle-back to us, Matthias Bamert threw his arms this way and that, using his fingers in grabbing motions to clutch the sound out of the first violins with his left hand as his right poked the violas with his baton, and his head dipped in exaggerated actions to the woodwind. He turned this side and that, and played the orchestra as though it was an instrument all of his own. Brahms First Symphony was being extracted perfectly with all the diligence of a master who knew his music without need for the book. But what was that about the tempo?

The tempo… it was just perfect too, but there was something funny going on. The baton moved… and then the note was played. We caught it every time… the little part-second lag, like a syncopated dance, a little secret shared between conductor and conducted. But what a performance! Brahms was certainly a genius, as the Schumanns had proclaimed, and our own national orchestra did him justice on the night.

And then there was Chopin. It was a good night for tempo, Chopin with his characteristic way of stringing his innovations together by slowing down or speeding up the right hand while the left hand accompaniment stayed constant. Ever since I managed the Minute Waltz in nearly 60 seconds flat (although I might have missed a bar or two) I have loved Chopin with his chromatic scales and fancy frilly bits. Joseph Kalichstein is an absolute master on the keys, a pianist of huge talent and versatility. What’s more, he smiles as he plays. He enjoys his work, a happy seeming soul.

The elderly lady sitting just along from me, whose name I still don’t know although it doesn’t really matter, the same one who another night declared the oboe player to be so dishy, was delighted when she could claim the pianist as her own. “Oh, he is Israeli just like me!” she announced. “And brilliant too!” I teased her back. She gave a little choke on some sudden modesty.

Hubby wasn’t quite so sure… about Chopin, that is. He couldn’t quite figure where Chopin’s No 1 was going. “But that’s easy,” I explained. “When he’s right up the treble clef, there is only one other way, and that is right down to the bass clef. Likewise, when he is right down the bass clef…” Hubby catching on quickly figured the rest, “…he canters right up to the treble clef!” Well, more or less so, in rather general terms. A layman’s description of course.

Next time I might just have to take a needle and thread with me, though. The concertmaster, as gorgeous as he is, still has not stitched up the lower hem of his trousers. I know these things, sitting right up the front in the cheapy-cheap seats.

And dare I mention the brief introductory modern piece? Although the whole orchestra appeared to be playing, what I think really had happened was that some rogue had tossed a handful of lighted fire crackers into a revolving oil drum attended by a dance party of myoclonic clarinets. But I did like little parts of it. It certainly was lively, I’ll give it that. The Israeli lady would give it nothing, and nor did hubby. I don’t think either of them liked being s-t-r-e-t-c-h-e-d.

In response to my poem about blogging, a friend commented the following:

There is plenty of each person that can be shared. Transparancy is attractive to seekers. If more unvarnished truth were shared, about the lives of believers, then we as Christians might seem more approachable. More people might be attracted to the faith by knowing they don’t have to be perfect first…

I think he made a good point.

I guess we all have different levels of comfort with sharing what is personal and private. And about how much to share, with whom, for what purpose, and in what context.

Before I wrote my poem, I had been reading the blog of someone who seemed like she valued herself very little, and the degree of intimate self disclosure was more than I had seen in a long time. Everything was laid bare, and it seemed as though she was spilling out into the universe and losing herself in the process. She was cut and bleeding out loud, bleeding her life into cyberspace. Was she looking for acceptance, looking for something to clothe her with dignity and say she was real and of infinite value?

I felt for her exposure in the same way you want to protect those who are vulnerable from hurting themselves.
Why risk hurting oneself? What kind of need drives oneself to shed all and be so exposed to everything out there, both good and bad?
As it happens I did once know that need… the desperation of wanting to be seen wholly and totally; the desperation of wanting to be loved for all that you are, every tiny cell of you with nothing hidden, nothing rejected, all profoundly and intimately loved; as the songs of Bilitis, to know and be known.
Oh how much we risk ourselves sometimes in order to be loved.

I now know that nothing we do is hidden from God, and that we have witnesses among the heavenly hosts. But surely this is exposure to those who would have our best interests at heart? We stand in the light, not in the dark where evil lurks. We ask for protection from evil.

Yes, there are good reasons to let others see you are real. And there are good reasons to take care of yourself, affording yourself respect and dignity. I believe we can show ourselves to be real, and still keep our dignity…

…that what you blog is testament quite worthy of defence and fair account, or suited sentiment of self well-clothed while rendered bare.

Having survived Desperation Day, it is now the political post mortems and Treachery Times.

The previously incumbent government received 40% of the vote, the main opposition party 39%. Both will be romancing the half dozen or so little parties who together got the remaining 11% to see who can form the most stable government. This is where treachery enters. This is where policy promises can become sacrificed on the altar of expediency. Whichever way it goes, one of the bigger parties will miss out… but a little party will share power instead. That means that a party with only 2% voter support can become part of the governing body while one with around 20 times more voter support is left out in the cold. Now that’s an odd twist on democracy for you.

But here’s a power dressing story with possible potential…

In Australia recently a bloke discovered he could generate sufficient power to burn holes in the carpet and melt plastic with his shoes if he walked about wearing a nylon jacket over a woollen bush shirt. He generated sufficient voltage to almost spontaneously combust, cause the evacuation of a building, and have the fire brigade become involved. Now what if we all did that, wear a nylon jacket over a woollen bush shirt, and go about linked and uploading to the national grid at the same time?

It reminds me of when I once needed a continuous supply of tiny measured amounts of a drug delivered by a little pump through a fine tube inserted under my skin. I had to wear this little pump attached to my body the whole time. The discharge of static electricity build-up in my clothes during the day would cause the pump’s microprocessor to hang up unless I undressed holding on to the tap in the bathroom in order to earth myself. Don’t scoff. That was for real.

You never know… harvesting these unique forms of energy generation may just one day help sustain the planet.

General elections… government… power… energy…
Well, there is some sort of common thread running through all this bloggy blah, but I will admit that another mug of Starbucks wouldn’t go amiss.

Oopsy!

I think I have it working now…

If you had tried before to register to make a comment, I am sorry you were turned away.
You are very welcome to post a comment now that feature has been enabled.
As much as I am quite happy seemingly talking to myself, it is also nice to hear from others who pop in to visit when they do.

It is Election Day today here in NZ. Some are calling it D Day… as in Desperation Day.
Two major political parties are slugging it out, both neck-a-neck with each other. The incumbent government is off to the left, the opposition party is off to the right. There are other small parties dotted all over the place, but one which is more-or-less centre, or as about centre as you can get here, is a the largest of the smaller ones and will likely be the “kingmaker” with regards the outcome.

So, we are in for a fun evening tonight, watching all the TV hype as the results come trickling in. I must check that I have a good wine chilling in the fridge, and some handy snacks to help us sustain the energy while we laugh and groan as the various runners tumble over each other towards the finish line.

And now I must trot off to the nearest polling booth and do my own little scrap of duty in this matter.

I have been told that the belief espoused in my previous blog entry, and the association of it to the Christian message, is offensive. I was told that it is divisive and not unifying.
This reaction came from someone whom I have seen preach unity and inclusiveness and relativism. Why am I not surprised?

The truth is indeed divisive. It separates itself from what is false, wrong, and sinful. Of course it is not unifying. What business has truth and falsehood to be unified?

But it goes deeper than that.

This belief, that truth is objective and absolute, will naturally offend all those who do not believe in the Creator God who is holy and righteous, and who do not see that the source of absolute truth is bound up in the character of this same God. Without a belief in God, we have no moral absolutes. Our values will be relative to the ideals embodied in our human cultures and subcultures, and will vary accordingly. There will be no higher authority to whom to appeal… just one culture ascribing to a value which may or may not be accepted by that of another.

Introduce God, the ultimate authority, and we have His judgement on what is right from wrong. But whose God? All three of the great monotheist faiths - Judaism, Christianity and Islam - share the God of Abraham as their foundation… the holy and righteous God who through Moses gave us the Ten Commandments and the law as spoken through the prophets of the Old Testament. Need there be any doubt which God?

Christians believe that Jesus is the fullest revelation of God, and accept claims that Jesus made which to many are considered outrageous and obscene. It was actually these claims which, progressing the concept of absolute truth and in their combination, caused such offence.

Orthodox Christianity teaches that truth is objective and absolute, that it is bound up in moral absolutes that exist as a product of the character of God. Absolute truth is not for just one flock, but for all of God’s creation.

This truth is packaged up in the life and death and resurrection of Christ. Jesus was the one who made the claim: “I am the way and the truth and the life.” He also said… “No one comes to the Father except through me.” (John 14:6) This claim is totally consistent with another statement He made: “I and the Father are one.” (John 10:30) These claims are totally outrageous… unless they are true.

The Christian message is about love…. the love of God, which is indeed for all of His creation, embodies His entire character which includes holiness, righteousness and has no tolerance at all for sin. The Christian message is not about God overlooking sin and not minding that you have not accepted His solution for the moral guilt of mankind. After all, in His great love for all of us, He gave His Son to be the propitiation for our sin. God’s love and His truth are intimately related.

Christ offended many by His message. He even evicted the marketeers from His Father’s temple, upturning their tables and wares. I’m sure they did not like that very much. He offended to the point that He was put to death. His message will continue to offend those who choose to find it offensive.

No matter how the message is delivered, the message by it’s very nature will still offend those who do not want to deal with it. Should the message be changed to suit the listener, to not offend him? Should a Christian deny Christ and tell something different that is not His truth? This is not to say how the message should be delivered - of course it should be delivered with respect and thoughtfulness and compassion, without abrasiveness, beginning from the truth known to the listener - but what ultimately the truth should be in that message.

In the interests of unity, relativism and multiculturism, rather than of truth, should we espouse universal acceptance of all truths as truth even when they contradict, regarding that as the key virtue… instead of God’s love?

Others might believe so, but I don’t.

We all create our own reality. Do you believe that?

So, have you noticed how much today’s knowledge takes into account emotions, feelings, intuition, reflection, magic, myth, and mystical experience? These are the things that are now performing in the spotlight. How “I feel” has provided the content to replace what is “known” to be true. If it doesn’t “feel” right, then it probably isn’t right. Do you believe that?

Well, if you do, then you fit right into this post-modern age where there is a blurring of the difference between the self and what objectively exists. If you create your own reality you have blurred the differences. You will fit right in very nicely.

Post-modernism holds all moral values to be relative, each person and culture developing their own values by considering not what is undeniable absolute truth in all circumstances for everyone, but simply what truths just happen to work for oneself… or one’s culture or subculture. There are no absolutes. Tolerance is the key virtue. One must tolerate one’s neighbour because all perspectives have equal value, all are truths, all beliefs are valid, and all experience creates knowledge.

Someone called Steve Turner wrote a poem called Creed, a tongue-in-cheek comment on post-modern society, a verse of which I quote here.
The whole poem can be read by clicking right here.

We believe that each man must find the truth
that is right for him.
Reality will adapt accordingly.
The universe will readjust. History will alter.
We believe that there is no absolute truth
excepting the truth that there is no absolute truth.

Well, do you believe that? Do you really and truly believe that?

Me? I don’t. I don’t believe any of it. I’m a misfit.

Judah’s Journal is a phoenix from out of the ashes

Last week I finished coding my new website, rather unimaginatively named Judah’s Site, a whole five pages now up and aglow, hosted on visiblesoul.org. You are welcome to visit if you came here direct, and the link buttons are there at the very bottom of this page. My blog originally had another name and was hosted a little further afield. Now it is all here together, artfully skinned by DKC to match the rest of my site. With a new look and new features, it is all set to go once again.

And what is the point of all this? Why have a website, and why publish a journal?

“We ourselves feel that what we are doing is just a drop in the ocean. But if that drop was not in the ocean, I think the ocean would be less because of that missing drop. I do not agree with the big way of doing things.” Mother Teresa, 1910-1997

We are what we eat, and we are influenced by what we read. A tiny drop from this small part of the cyber-ocean may not slake a thirst, but it will point to a fountain that can.