I think Warren Buffett is one of my new heroes. I read an article about him in Time today, and he's pretty cool. He's the third richest man in the world yet he lives in a house in Omaha which he bought in 1958 for $31,500. He drives himself around in a 2006 Cadillac DTS which is worth about $12,000. He likes eating at his local club (like an RSL Club I think) and he drinks almost 2 litres of Coke a day. He thinks the rich should be taxed more and there should be less private schools so rich people invest in public education. Oh and he's giving 99% of his $45 billion fortune away to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Warren Buffett is who I would love to be, rich, humble, a lefty, and the owner of 8.6% of the Coca-Cola Company. Winner!

I really enjoyed this article. It is quite good at showing the absurdities of some current political correctness/free speech issues. I don't know who the guy who wrote it is. He's probably some right wing scary person who I'd disagree with on almost everything. However, I liked this article. I'm pretty on board with freedom of speech. Even if someone wants to say terrible things about my back hair, my faith or my family, I'll be sad, and hurt, but I don't think the government should tell us what we can and cannot say. And I don't think people should get in trouble from the law for the things they say which are offensive. I don't want people to say things that offend me or my friends but I want the right to say things which offend them.

So I say, let's all speak freely and offend liberally. Except perhaps politicians and the political correctness thought police, I think we can all agree those guys should shut up, they've said enough.

"On 9/11 I thought, For the most powerful, militarized nation in the world also to think of itself as an innocent victim is deadly. It was a rare prophetic moment for me, considering Presidents Bush and Obama have spent billions asking the military to rectify the crime of a small band of lawless individuals, destroying a couple of nations who had little to do with it, in the costliest, longest series of wars in the history of the United States. The silence of most Christians and the giddy enthusiasm of a few, as well as the ubiquity of flags and patriotic extravaganzas in allegedly evangelical churches, says to me that American Christians may look back on our response to 9/11 as our greatest Christological defeat. It was shattering to admit that we had lost the theological means to distinguish between the United States and the kingdom of God. The criminals who perpetrated 9/11 and the flag-waving boosters of our almost exclusively martial response were of one mind: that the non-violent way of Jesus is stupid. All of us preachers share the shame; when our people felt very vulnerable, they reached for the flag, not the Cross. September 11 has changed me. I’m going to preach as never before about Christ crucified as the answer to the question of what’s wrong with the world. I have also resolved to relentlessly reiterate from the pulpit that the worst day in history was not a Tuesday in New York, but a Friday in Jerusalem when a consortium of clergy and politicians colluded to run the world on their own terms by crucifying the Son of God.” - Bishop Will Willamon

From here.

I was happy that the High Court told the Government they couldn't do offshore processing. If it drives them into the arms of the Libs so they can legalise more inhumain ways of dealing with asylum seekers, I'm not so pleased. If only the High Court was able to rule on the morality of the issue and not just the legality. I don't really what the High Court ruling on the morality of things. But just this once it would have been nice.

I like the carbon tax.

I'm happy to pay more for my pollution, though I might end up ahead because of this scheme.

I'm excited about the innovation into clean energy that this should promote.

I wish we weren't so selfish and the questions weren't "How much will this cost me?" but "How can we do the right thing?"

I think Julia did well on Qanda tonight. Especially the last 10 minutes, though I think perhaps that may have been set up the the producers. Letting the last question come from that kid who is "the future", pure political gold. But she still did well, and I enjoy a big finish anyway.

I think I might eat less meat.

I'm also planning on catching the train to work tomorrow. But that might be because I enjoy the sleep in the train gives me.

It's been interesting watching everyone's reactions to the death of Osama. It's rather distressing to see scenes of Americans waving flags and rejoicing in the death of another human. I take no joy in the death of anyone. I have no feeling that justice has been done.

How does shooting and killing Osama make payment for the thousands of lives he took? Death seems too easy. He deserved worse.

However I do feel like his death is an inevitable consequence of a life lived at war with the most powerful nation on earth. I have no dreams of the US capturing him and locking him up and reforming him. The US could not change his heart. They could not bring back the thousands who he killed. They could only take his life. They could only execute their role to be "agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer." It was justice done man's way.

Messy problems require messy solutions.

But this isn't really a solution, is it? Terrorism will go on. War and violence will continue. Atrocities will continue on both sides. No one will win.

With this in mind, once again the violence and tragedy of this world points me to the God of this world, who brings justice not through a gun but through a cross. The life of one evil man cannot atone for the lives of the thousands of people he killed. But the life of one innocent God-man can, and does, atone for all the terror and atrocity done and to be done. The killing of an infinite God is justice for the sins of a finite race. And those who put their trust in this cross are put to death with Jesus, that they might also be given new life in the risen Jesus. It's a mercy undeserved through a death undeserved.

But justice does not just come through the cross. And Jesus will come again, and he will wield the sword. He will not let the unrepentant escape with just a simple death. Evil will meet its match.

One way or another the evil will be put to death, either at the cross of Christ, or at the sword of Christ. Justice will be done. Fear will end. Pain will cease. Life will reign. Goodness will prevail. God has won.

But until that day, I will not celebrate the death of the wicked at the hands of the wicked because I know that I too am wicked, and I too deserve a death worse that of being killed by a gun.

I will work for peace in this world. I will seek to do no violence and I will not encourage violence to be done in my name. But when evil is done, and terrible solutions are sought, I will look forward to the new and better world to come.

A new day is coming. God has won.

5 years ago yesterday (today in other parts of the world) Twitter was born and it took the world by storm.

5 years ago yesterday I got a haircut and it took my head by storm.

Since the creation of Twitter I have written 3 tweets and retweeted Justin Beiber once.

Since my haircut I have continued to worry that I have too little hair on my head and too much on my back.

Happy Birthday Twitter.

So I had a coffee today with one of my friends who is a staunch Liberal supporter. I always enjoy meeting up with him because politically we tend to disagree on almost everything while theologically we agree on almost everything. It's always amazing to me that two people can have such similar views of faith, and of what we want the final outcome in society to be, and such vastly different views on how to get there. We have very enjoyable conversations. I like people who can disagree and argue their case well. I think he argues better than me. One day he could be Prime Minsiter. I hope so.

At one stage I mentioned that I'd consider voting Greens in this state election. I wasn't saying that I was voting Greens, merely expressing that I was an undecided voter and I like some of the Green policies. Anyway, he was pretty firm in letting me know that voting Green is a terrible idea for a Christian. He was telling me that the Australian Christian Lobby doesn't support any party they just tell you not to support the Greens. Good Christians don't vote Greens.

I often think about how in politics the Christian is generally faced with the issue of choosing between voting for conservative parties which are strong on individual morality, or the leftist parties which are strong on corporate morality. No parties seem to be able to handle being both, from a Christian point of view.

Anyway, I'm not sure who to vote for this state election. I told him he was allowed to send me whatever he wanted to show why I shouldn't vote Greens.

Meanwhile, I'm gonna try and work out who to vote for. This state election is even more uninspiring than the federal, which is a real shame because I like politics when you have good choices to make. Feel free to give me some voting advice.

I was going to vote for my friend Chris Simpson but it turns out I miss out on his electorate by a street. But if you're in Willoughby, I reckon, vote for Chris, he's a good guy, and he's not a Green.

Why don’t folks who criticize Rob Bell for wanting to let too many people in also go after people like that who want to keep too many people out? Why are we rougher on salvific generosity than on salvific stinginess? - Richard Mouw, President of Fuller Seminary

From here

Prime Minister Gillard was on Q and A tonight, and it was a ripper of a show. Gillard was on fire. She did a really impressive performance. Political skills wise, it was kinda like watching John Howard at work, she was that good, plus, unlike with Howard, I didn't feel dirty afterwards.

I'm still not sure I'm a Gillard fan, but I think I have more respect for her. And I agreed with her on most stuff. I enjoyed her pragmatism and willingness to answer questions. I didn't ever really feel like she avoided the questions, even the tough ones. She didn't always seem like she was giving the most genuine answer, when have you ever felt that with pollie?

Even if you don't like Gillard, you can be impressed by some quality question handling, just like I'm impressed by Howard's skills. If you haven't seen the show, go watch it on iview. It was a cracker.

Just so you know, the image isn't from this Qanda, it's from last year, but tonight's one isn't around the web yet.

So here's a question we were pondering tonight, what happens with hens and bucks nights in gay marriage? I know everyone is debating about gay marriage at the moment but this is an issue that nobody is talking about.

Say two gay men decide to get married. Is Groom One allowed to go to the bucks' night of Groom Two? Or do they stay away? And are their male friends obligated to go to two separate bucks nights? Or do they just have to choose the groom they like the most?

Also, what about the men's female friends? What party do they go to? They don't have a party to go to. The men get two parties and the girls get zero. I know people feel that not allowing gay marriage is discriminatory, but allowing gay marriage is potentially discriminatory for all those who will be left out of bucks and hens nights everywhere. It's a catch-22 really. Someone's gonna have their rights impinged, the question is just who?

I have tried to avoid blogging about gay marriage, but Dicker just wrote a good post on it which you should read, so I just thought I'd agree.

My general feeling is I'm quite happy for homosexual marriage to be allowed. Christians don't own marriage and I don't think we have the right to dictate who gets married and who doesn't. It's silly for us to impose our morality on a bunch of people who don't agree with our beliefs.

I do think that Churches should have the right to not marry homosexual couples. We shouldn't be forced to sanction something which we fundamentally disagree with.

What I'm wondering is, does the church currently have the right to discriminate against hetrosexual couples who want to get married? Could my pastor refuse to marry a couple who formed as an adulterous relationship? Could they refuse to marry someone who got divorced but didn't meet the Biblical guidelines for divorce? I assume they can, but I wonder if that will always be the case.

It's interesting that there is an article in SMH today about religious organisations fighting to maintain their rights to hire and fire in relation to the moral (particulaly sexual) behaviour of their employees and potential employees.

The writer seems pretty outraged that religious organisations would be so callous as to destroy someone's career because of an adulterous relationship even if their sexual conduct isn't directly related to their job. But I think if the religious institutions make clear the standards of behaviour expected from the outset they should be allowed to decide who they do and don't employ if it's vital to their faith.

If the NRL can fire or suspend a footballer for bad sexual conduct, though their sex life has nothing to do with how well they play football, then religious organisations should have similar rights, even if their standards of behaviour are a little more exacting.

Anyway, I'm sure there's something here for everyone to disagree with. But thems are my thoughts.

Personally I'm happy to pay a levy to rebuild Queensland. I won't because I don't earn enough, but if they decided to take 0.5% of my pay to go get a car out of a creek or something, that'd be fine by me.

I can't see what everyone's complaining about.

I remember hearing a lot during the early part of the Iraq war/occupation about people getting shot at checkpoints. The soldiers manning the checkpoint would signal for cars to stop and they'd keep coming, so the soldiers thinking they were a threat would shoot them. Then they'd find that in the car it was a just a family going to visit relatives or something equally benign.

I remember thinking "Why wouldn't those people stop?" I couldn't imagine why they would just keep driving and get shot up.

I read in Time magazine that when the soldiers would signal a car to stop they would hold out "an open palm, waving downward". It's a symbol we all know means "stop". Unfortunately for Iraqis it means "come". So they would come thinking they were doing the right thing, the soldiers would think they were a threat, and shoot them.

These days the soldiers stop cars by holding out a clenched fist.

I've kept thinking about that since I first read it. Something so simple, some small bit of cultural knowledge, could have saved so many innocent lives.

Communication is a dangerous and tricky business.

I found out today that your friend and mine, Natalie Portman is engaged and pregnant.

While I wish her all the best, it's hard when all the people you've been holding a flame for fall for other people, and get on with life. First it was Winnie from The Wonder Years and now Natalie.

What's a man to do?

It's times like this when we need James Blunt to sing for our hearts. Sing it for me tonight Blunty:

I just started following this Ivanhoe Grammar thing.

The story goes Hannah Williams at Ivanhoe Girls Grammar invited her girlfriend, Savannah Supski, to the year 11 formal. Unfortunately Hannah was told she couldn't take Savannah, but she could bring a boy. This made Hannah angry. She told her friends, her parents, and the Equal Opportunity Commission. Somehow this made it to the papers, and now it's a big thing. Unfortunately for the school, they've kinda stuffed up their PR on this one.

The school principal, Heather Schnagl, said in defense of the school's decision: "I don't think it's appropriate they feel discriminated against, and I'm very upset they feel that... If we opened it up and said girls could bring another female they would all bring females; the policy is trying to create an event where boys are invited. We are a school that has an all-girls environment, and they are meant to invite guests, not partners."

She then goes on to give a second reason for not letting the girl take her girl, "It's an event for year 11s and the student's guest was in year 10."

This is an absurd thing to say.

From what I know of teenage girls, if given the opportunity to have a dinner dance event and they're told they can bring a partner, I cannot think there is any group except perhaps the Teenage Lesbians Alliance (if one exists) where all the girls would bring girls instead of guys. And I'm sure the girls who opted to bring no one were not told they must bring someone as they would throw out the girl:boy ratio.

The other issue is that the school also wants to say the problem is the students age, year 10s are not allowed at the year 11 event. This is a much better argument and the one the school should have stuck with the whole time, because age discrimination is encouraged and necessary in a school. And Savannah's age has nothing to do with her gender or sexual preference. Unfortunately for the school they didn't stick to that argument or to that rule, and they allowed boys at the event who were in year 10.

What is interesting is that same-sex couples are allowed at the year 12 formal, which means that the school's argument for not allowing a same sex couple to attend a year 11 formal holds even less water, unless the event really is for the girls to meet boys. This does seem terribly old fashioned as if girls at all girls schools have no way of finding boys. Girls and boys know how to find each other. I'm pretty sure they don't need a school to help them, but it's nice that the school would try.

I'm not sure but there may be something going on here with the faith of the school. The school doesn't seem to have said it publicly but it may be that because it is a school built upon Christian foundations (according to the website) that's why they don't allow the gay couple to attend. But I have no idea how Christian the school is. Probably not very.

Whatever is going on, this feels to me like a case of teenage outrage (which is a fact of life when you're a teenager, I encounter small scale teenage outrage on a regular basis) exacerbated by a school unable to find (or at least articulate) a good reason not to allow a same sex couple to a dance.

Oh, and now a whole lot of fuel has been added to the fire by the media's love of all things gay, especially lesbians, especially, especially pretty, teenage lesbians. Freakin' SMH.

Whatever the case it got me thinking about what I would do. If I was the school principal, I'd probably allow the couple to attend. If my only real reason for not allowing the student to attend was because she was a girl, I'd let it slide. If I hadn't been consistent in enforcing the rules I was referring to I'd know I didn't really have a leg to stand on, so I'd have to allow them to go together.

If there was a lesbian couple who wanted to attend my youth group, I reckon I'd let them. If my youth group was having a formal (as youth groups do from time to time) and a girl who attended youth group wanted to bring her female partner, I'd probably let her. If the girl said she was a Christian, then I reckon there'd be other conversations to be had first which were bigger than whether or not she could bring her girlfriend along.

I know this isn't what the story is about but it gets me thinking about the church. I'm sure that over the next 10 years Christian organisations are only going to face more and more issues with discrimination of people with a same sex preference. The Church is going to have to find the best way forward to be loving and welcoming without compromising on it's beliefs. But even then it'll probably still get hammered.

The recent issue with the Brethren campsite that didn't allow a gay support group to meet on its site is probably indicative of what's to come. The problem was that the Christian organisation didn't want to have its facilities used for the promotion of something that they felt was immoral. Unfortunately the Brethren were running a corporation, which is legally obliged to provide the same services to anyone regardless of their sexual preference. And so they lost the case on anti-discrimination grounds, despite the fact that they are clearly Christian.

People seem to feel like whenever Christians express a view about homosexuality that it's motivated by bigotry and homophopia. Except that for many Christians it's not an issue of bigotry and homophobia*. How they feel about homosexuality comes from a respect for and desire to obey the Bible. Christians aren't out to make the life of gay people hard, they're out to live their lives as an act of worship in obedience to the God they see revealed in the Bible. Rightly or wrongly the choice to do that has to be as acceptable in society as being gay.

It feels like the bias at the moment is leaning towards legally forcing Christian organisations to let all people do everything. But I'd say forcing the Church to be endorsing homosexuality as a valid lifestyle choice is as discriminatory as forcing gay people to believe that following Jesus is the only valid lifestyle choice.

I guess what I'm saying is that freedom of religious expression should be just as valid a right as freedom of sexual expression. And just as we should allow people people the right to have whatever sexual lifestyle they choose (within the context of non-abusive, consensual behaviour) and the right to advocate for that lifestyle, I also think Christians should have the right to hold different views, to publicly state those views and expect a certain type behaviour from those who want to work within the structures of the Christian community. If the Christian community wants to waive that right, so be it, but it should be their choice not one forced upon them by those who hold different values and beliefs.

*Of course sometimes it is and I ain't down with that.

Update: I accidentally deleated a paragraph before posting about bigotry and homophobia. I have added a sentence because I can't remember the paragraph, just to make sense of the paragraph a little better.

Don't pretend to have sex with your colleague's dog. It'll only end in tears.


That's a contrast to the last post.

For those of us who use the NIV on Bible Gateway, it quietly changed itself up a few days ago.

The new translation of the NIV (the NNIV perhaps?) has been dubbed NIV 2011, but it'll probably just be called the NIV. It won't be out in print till next year but on Tuesday it quietly arrived online. The first I noticed was when I was working on my sermon on Wednesday night and was surprised by the gender inclusive language. It said "brothers and sisters" instead of just "brothers". I thought that perhaps that was just a abnormal translation for this verse that I'd never noticed, and thought nothing more.

But then I found out that it's a new translation. It's odd because it's the NIV but then suddenly it slips a word in your weren't ready for. For instance in youth group tonight we were doing Philippians 2:1-11 and when I was expecting the boys to read this:

Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, - Phil 2:5-6 (NIV 1984)

But instead they read this:

In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:
Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; - Phil 2:5-6 (NIV 2010)

I think it's a better translation, but it jars the ears because you're expecting NIV but you get NNIV. And especially there it jars because you want to sing "Highest Place", that song with too many words per bar, in your head, but you just get thrown out. I'm so used to the NIV and now it's not the NIV and nobody warned me.

I assume they did it to compete with the ESV. Just like Coke brought out New Coke in 1985 to compete with Pepsi. But while you can't improve on Coke's formula, you can always get a better translation.

Anyway as far as I can tell it's a better translation. The language seems more accurate and less clunky. The gender inclusive language is good, and it saves people from having to add it themselves. And as far as I can tell, the translation from the greek is more accurate, but I'm no expert on that.

The NNIV is set to replace both the NIV and the tNIV next year. And it won't be called the NNIV, that's just me being stupid.

If you're interested 60.55% of the NNIV's verses are the same as the NIV. While 8.25% of the NNIV has something completely new from the NIV. If you want to track all the changes you can go here. It's pretty interesting if you're a bible nerd.

As is my sometimes tradition, let me tell you my pick for the Melbourne Cup. I think I might be in staff meeting tomorrow during the Cup. Perhaps we'll stop for the race that stops the nation. Or maybe we'll ignore it. Perhaps I'll suggest we pay attention as a matter of OH&S. I found out today that at every staff meeting there should be a time set aside for OH&S, I'm pretty sure that's the time for watching a horse race.

Anyway, I'm getting distracted.

This year I recommend: Shocking

I know everyone's believing in So You Think, but Shocking is gonna bring it home for trainer Michael Rodd. In my view Rodds having an excellent year, and So You Think's recent form leaves me questioning whether there's anything left for a Cup victory. The smart money goes with Shocking.

You just watch. I'm an expert. I know what I'm talking about.

- Australia dominates colonies and the mother land, proving that criminals make the best athletes.
- Making fun of Indians is still rather acceptable, just don't call them monkeys.
- Robert De Castella has gotten fat, and good on him, he deserves it.
- Empty stadiums make me sad.
- Sally Pearson has a disqualification, a gold medal, and quite the set of abs.