No, this isn't an account of the whole life of Christ as described in the New Testament, rather, I wanted to say that I had the most amazing day today ! We went to Wintershall in Surrey to see this open air play (entitled "The Life of Christ") which is described as: "The greatest story of all time, movingly recreated by a cast of over 200, authentic detail, outstanding quality, sound and music." It was running all this past week (and has been every year since 1999, although this is the first year I've ever heard of it !) and today was the last day.
It was amazing. It lasted all day (10 til just after 4), but I forgot that it was a play, and actually feel like I have spent the day sitting in Palestine watching the Biblical story unfold. It really brings it to life in a way that I find very hard to sense from just reading the narrative.
For one: I was really struck by the vibrancy of the community that Jesus lived in. For some reason, I've always pictured it more like just streets of dust/desert, (I guess cause it's such a foreign place to me, never ever having been to that area of the world - though I would like to go to Israel someday, if it ever stabilises a bit more). But here were streets of people running about, and showing emotions just like us, and dressed in the most amazing array of colours you have ever seen. Wonderful music at the wedding...basically, it just brought it home how Jesus was actually living with real people, at a real time in history, in a real place.
Second: I really felt a part of what was going on (which I think was part of their intention in putting this on). Especially when it came to the sermon on the mount and the feeding of the 5000 I really felt a part of the crowd that Jesus was speaking to; and like he was speaking directly to me in a way I've never experienced before. And, although I knew he wasn't actually Jesus, I still had this overwhelming desire for him to just look at me, and see me in the crowd. But, then that made me realise, that actually, Jesus does see me in the crowd; and in fact, amazingly (I can't get my head round this however much I try) he sees each one of us in the crowd, no matter who we are. Wow.
Third and just generally: it was amazing to get a big picture, as so often when I read the Bible, I don't have/make time to read a whole gospel, but only read a part; this gave us a picture of how all the different parts of Jesus' life fitted together.
There are many more things that struck me too, but it would take too long to go into all of them. All in all though, it was very very moving. I didn't really cry much as such, but was very deeply moved.
It was also very interesting to note the different reactions of the people in the crowd to what was going on; just as in the day of Jesus. Some were crying and clearly moved, others were chatting and more interested in finishing their lunches, some laughed, many applauded which I found odd - yes, ok, at the end of the day it was a play, and it was amazing, but the point is, that I wasn't watching the story, I was IN it. And to be suddenly jolted back out of that by people reminding you it was a play I found a bit unhelpful, and slightly missing the point (although I did join in with the standing ovation at the end, but that's different). So, the real question at the end of all of this, is, how would you have responded ? If you had been there in the real Biblical times, or even there today, what effect would Jesus' words and deeds and life have had on you ? It's a question worth pondering.
And from a practical point of view, I would also highly recommend anyone to go and see it - whether they are a Christian or not. I think it is the kind of thing that whoever you are, (and even however many times you've been to see it before) you would take something away from it. They've finished for this year now, but hopefully it will be back next year; so why not go along and find an answer to that question ? (Tho I would advise a sunhat, lots and lots of water, and a fold-up chair!) The same people also run "The Acts of the Apostles" in October, and "The Nativity" at Christmas time, which I would also be interested in now seeing (in particular "The Acts of the Apostles.)
p.s. If you're my friend on facebook and you want to know more about today, for a bit of a taste do go and have a look at my facebook photo album (just uploaded). I have something from the majority of the major scenes.
Showing posts with label question. Show all posts
Showing posts with label question. Show all posts
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Monday, February 19, 2007
Blog tech issues
To all you users of blogger out there who still read this, I have a couple of tech questions to ask...
1) You know you can now add labels to posts? Well, how do you get the different labels to appear down the right sidebar of the blog, so you can click and find all posts with that label (like on the woodies worship blog, or on Rob's blog) ? I may just be being really dense, but I can't seem to find any option which allows me to add them !
2) How do you change the settings so that your blog appears on your user profile ? I now contribute to two blogs, but only the Woodies worship leaders comes up on my profile. Currently the only way of finding my blog from my profile is because I've set it as my homepage. When I go to the settings page which says "Select blogs to appear on profile", Ro's ramblings isn't one of the blogs listed there. Hmmmm...
Help appreciated !
In other news, my guitar sounds nice again thanks to a spare hour and a spare set of guitar strings ! :-)
1) You know you can now add labels to posts? Well, how do you get the different labels to appear down the right sidebar of the blog, so you can click and find all posts with that label (like on the woodies worship blog, or on Rob's blog) ? I may just be being really dense, but I can't seem to find any option which allows me to add them !
2) How do you change the settings so that your blog appears on your user profile ? I now contribute to two blogs, but only the Woodies worship leaders comes up on my profile. Currently the only way of finding my blog from my profile is because I've set it as my homepage. When I go to the settings page which says "Select blogs to appear on profile", Ro's ramblings isn't one of the blogs listed there. Hmmmm...
Help appreciated !
In other news, my guitar sounds nice again thanks to a spare hour and a spare set of guitar strings ! :-)
Saturday, November 04, 2006
Driving and superheroes
(Btw, the two words in the title are not related in any way, I shall just be talking about both of them. Just to clear that one up !)
I never thought that I would say this, but I have just gotten back from my second driving lesson in Bristol, and I actually enjoyed it ! I actually am starting to like driving ! Today we did some clutch control exercises (which involved me overcoming my fear of moving backwards down hills), did some reversing in a 'quiet road', and started learning to do turns in the road (which I did two of, doing it in 3-points both times!) And although my legs ache a little now, and it was quite scary learning to do hillstarts, I did enjoy it. My instructor here is really cool. We seem to get on well, and he's really encouraging, which is what I need really ! So, with weekly lessons now happening, hopefully I'll keep progressing, and will at some point in the future get to test standard ! Tres exciting.
Now...the other topic in the header...this is a debate which was started this morning, due to a flatmate talking about a superhero fancy dress party he went to last night. He wasn't wearing a costume, but as he had a black coat on, someone suggested that he looked like Neo (you know, from the Matrix). Debate followed as to whether Neo counts as a 'superhero' or not. Google defines a hero as: "a man distinguished by exceptional courage and nobility and strength" whereas a superhero is: "A superhero is a fictional character who is noted for feats of courage and nobility and who usually has a colorful name and costume and abilities beyond those of normal human beings". i.e. a hero seems to be someone (often who is a real person), who is just a normal person, but who shows great courage etc...whereas a superhero has abilities beyond a normal human. But where is the line ? Is Neo just an ordinary person, who achieves great things, or does he have 'powers beyond a normal human' ? I guess part of the problem is that I've always thought of superheroes to wear funny coloured costumes and be able to fly (at which point, someone points out that Neo could fly in the 3rd film of the trilogy)...So, what does anyone else think ? Is Neo a 'superhero' ? :-)
p.s. It is very almost the year anniversary of the start of this blog, and almost the 100th post. If I am careful, I might be able to coincide the two ! Now that would be exciting. :-D Oh dear !
p.p.s. Anyone else going to the fireworks tonight on the downs, I hope you enjoy them, and who knows I may bump into people there !
I never thought that I would say this, but I have just gotten back from my second driving lesson in Bristol, and I actually enjoyed it ! I actually am starting to like driving ! Today we did some clutch control exercises (which involved me overcoming my fear of moving backwards down hills), did some reversing in a 'quiet road', and started learning to do turns in the road (which I did two of, doing it in 3-points both times!) And although my legs ache a little now, and it was quite scary learning to do hillstarts, I did enjoy it. My instructor here is really cool. We seem to get on well, and he's really encouraging, which is what I need really ! So, with weekly lessons now happening, hopefully I'll keep progressing, and will at some point in the future get to test standard ! Tres exciting.
Now...the other topic in the header...this is a debate which was started this morning, due to a flatmate talking about a superhero fancy dress party he went to last night. He wasn't wearing a costume, but as he had a black coat on, someone suggested that he looked like Neo (you know, from the Matrix). Debate followed as to whether Neo counts as a 'superhero' or not. Google defines a hero as: "a man distinguished by exceptional courage and nobility and strength" whereas a superhero is: "A superhero is a fictional character who is noted for feats of courage and nobility and who usually has a colorful name and costume and abilities beyond those of normal human beings". i.e. a hero seems to be someone (often who is a real person), who is just a normal person, but who shows great courage etc...whereas a superhero has abilities beyond a normal human. But where is the line ? Is Neo just an ordinary person, who achieves great things, or does he have 'powers beyond a normal human' ? I guess part of the problem is that I've always thought of superheroes to wear funny coloured costumes and be able to fly (at which point, someone points out that Neo could fly in the 3rd film of the trilogy)...So, what does anyone else think ? Is Neo a 'superhero' ? :-)
p.s. It is very almost the year anniversary of the start of this blog, and almost the 100th post. If I am careful, I might be able to coincide the two ! Now that would be exciting. :-D Oh dear !
p.p.s. Anyone else going to the fireworks tonight on the downs, I hope you enjoy them, and who knows I may bump into people there !
Wednesday, July 12, 2006
"A head for trouble"
Before I get into this blog post properly, can I just ask: does anyone like my new and updated myspace profile ?!! (I know the guys may not be a huge fan of the colour but it kinda matches my blog now, which is what I wanted.) Also, it now has a proper URl, to make finding it slightly easier.
Anyway...the real reason for this post, is to ask whether anyone else read the above titled article in last week's Sunday Times Magazine ? I read it, and was a bit confused by it, and if anyone else has read it I would appreciate comments/thoughts/opinions etc. It's one of those articles which when you read you know that there is probably some truth in but there also feels to be something not quite right either but you can't put your finger on it...or at least that's how I felt.
Do have a read (I hope the link works). Basically it's saying are we really responsible for our actions or is what we do already predetermined by the wiring of our brains ? To further expand, I have chosen a few select quotes from the article:
"The laws of most societies assume moral decisions are made in the conscious, rational mind. But an influential number of brain researchers disagree. They point to cases like that of Mr C to argue that it is not people, or minds, that commit bad acts, but their brains."
"Arguably, liars, thieves, murderers and paedophiles and Good Samaritans, are not bad or good - just 'different', their brains having disposed them to behaviour outside the moral norm."
The religious doctrines of original sin - meaning that we are prone to prefer wrong by nature - conscience and free will have been eroded by rationalism, science and secularism over the past two centuries, yet a powerful belief in responsibility for our actions remains".
"Philosophers, too, have long suggested that personal responsibility is an illusion"
"'Some of the seven deadly sins' claims Tancredi, 'have already been shown to be affected by biological factors in varying degrees, and in some cases, the individual may have little power or free will to prevent them from happening.'"
"'Your sense of personal identity and free will are in fact no more than the behaviour of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules.'"
Now, I have no doubt in my mind that God can and does use the natural laws He created, and that it is possible (tho this may be a contreversial thing to say) that this brain wiring thing is correct, and that when we come to God and become "new creations" he changes something in our internal wiring? Maybe spiritual blindness is not merely a picture but also has a basis in physiology ? Perhaps this is merely the debate about science vs religeon in a new form, which people are only just beginning to think about, and that it is again an issue of their being no real conflict, but that this new neuroscience and what the Bible says are just saying respectively how and why. (These are only my current thoughts on the subject btw). But however, this is coming at this issue from the side of already believing in God. If, like many scientists, they are coming from the other side...I just think something's back to front here. Help me out here: What does anyone else think ?
Anyway...the real reason for this post, is to ask whether anyone else read the above titled article in last week's Sunday Times Magazine ? I read it, and was a bit confused by it, and if anyone else has read it I would appreciate comments/thoughts/opinions etc. It's one of those articles which when you read you know that there is probably some truth in but there also feels to be something not quite right either but you can't put your finger on it...or at least that's how I felt.
Do have a read (I hope the link works). Basically it's saying are we really responsible for our actions or is what we do already predetermined by the wiring of our brains ? To further expand, I have chosen a few select quotes from the article:
"The laws of most societies assume moral decisions are made in the conscious, rational mind. But an influential number of brain researchers disagree. They point to cases like that of Mr C to argue that it is not people, or minds, that commit bad acts, but their brains."
"Arguably, liars, thieves, murderers and paedophiles and Good Samaritans, are not bad or good - just 'different', their brains having disposed them to behaviour outside the moral norm."
The religious doctrines of original sin - meaning that we are prone to prefer wrong by nature - conscience and free will have been eroded by rationalism, science and secularism over the past two centuries, yet a powerful belief in responsibility for our actions remains".
"Philosophers, too, have long suggested that personal responsibility is an illusion"
"'Some of the seven deadly sins' claims Tancredi, 'have already been shown to be affected by biological factors in varying degrees, and in some cases, the individual may have little power or free will to prevent them from happening.'"
"'Your sense of personal identity and free will are in fact no more than the behaviour of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules.'"
Now, I have no doubt in my mind that God can and does use the natural laws He created, and that it is possible (tho this may be a contreversial thing to say) that this brain wiring thing is correct, and that when we come to God and become "new creations" he changes something in our internal wiring? Maybe spiritual blindness is not merely a picture but also has a basis in physiology ? Perhaps this is merely the debate about science vs religeon in a new form, which people are only just beginning to think about, and that it is again an issue of their being no real conflict, but that this new neuroscience and what the Bible says are just saying respectively how and why. (These are only my current thoughts on the subject btw). But however, this is coming at this issue from the side of already believing in God. If, like many scientists, they are coming from the other side...I just think something's back to front here. Help me out here: What does anyone else think ?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
