What will happen to public services in years to come? Will we still enjoy the "free" facilities that our taxes pay for? Or will everything be so commercialised and "user-pays" that there becomes nothing to enjoy in the future?
Gone are the days when University courses were free. In fact, tertiary education is big, international business nowadays. In fact, there is talk that University fees will go up in price in order to fund education for primary and secondary school children.
Public libraries are something that I have enjoyed, but apparently, the facilities are not there in every country I have lived in. Now, in this age of e-books and broadband internet being available almost everywhere, will public libraries still be useful in the future? I appreciate that libraries are useful for more purposes than just the books, but the people who run and fund these facilities may not.
I heard the other day the proposal that people be charged for using the parks; ie. if they take a dog for a walk or go for a jog or something. I heard that the city councils have rejected the idea, but do you think it might happen someday in the future?
Parking is still free at some times in some places, but no longer in the streets of the big cities anymore, it seems. Then, as the statistics say that more people are using these streets, there has been talk of reducing the free parking faciltiies. Even shopping complexes do not all have 3-hour free parking nowadays.
As the trend changes, what other facilities do you think might disappear? Will you miss these facilties?
What if you have to pay the police if you use their services? Would that mean that criminals can pay the police so that they don't get caught? Would the same principle apply to judges and law courts?
As it is, the fire services are asking for money from the insurance companies and the property taxes in order to pay for their services.
What do you think might change? Do you like the prospect of such user-pay services?
28 April 2013
25 April 2013
Singing at church
Do you go to church? Do you sing with the others there? Or do you find that culture too strange? The songs to unusual? The practice of singing with the congregation too awkward?
I stumbled across David Murrow's blog post on this subject a few days ago. I found it quite thought provoking.
Apparently, church used to be such that professionals would sing in a foreign language (Latin), and the congregation didn't. Then the Reformation happened. People began to read the Bible for themselves, and there became a movement to express their worship themselves also. Hymns were written. When printing became popular, the hymn books were published and circulated and everybody was able to sing together. Such became the culture of the church.
Then came the days of the projectors. Song books became less used, as people projected the words on screen. At first, the projected words were the songs that were in the hymn books and other song books. But, as people came out to write and sing newer songs, these were no longer circulated in the song books at churches. Then song leaders would get excited to introduce newer songs so often that the congregations do not sing the new songs often enough and do not learn them well enough to join in.
So we are back to the pre-Reformation age where the song-leaders sing, and the congregation doesn't.
Do you find this phenomenon at your church?
What do you think about it?
Why should/shouldn't we sing at churches? What is the singing all about?
Are we at an age of information overload? I mean, while there were too few songs, it was boring. While there are too many, it becomes impossible to learn. Have we passed the ideal stage of having roughly the right number to not be boring, but yet able to learn?
What do you think?
I stumbled across David Murrow's blog post on this subject a few days ago. I found it quite thought provoking.
Apparently, church used to be such that professionals would sing in a foreign language (Latin), and the congregation didn't. Then the Reformation happened. People began to read the Bible for themselves, and there became a movement to express their worship themselves also. Hymns were written. When printing became popular, the hymn books were published and circulated and everybody was able to sing together. Such became the culture of the church.
Then came the days of the projectors. Song books became less used, as people projected the words on screen. At first, the projected words were the songs that were in the hymn books and other song books. But, as people came out to write and sing newer songs, these were no longer circulated in the song books at churches. Then song leaders would get excited to introduce newer songs so often that the congregations do not sing the new songs often enough and do not learn them well enough to join in.
So we are back to the pre-Reformation age where the song-leaders sing, and the congregation doesn't.
Do you find this phenomenon at your church?
What do you think about it?
Why should/shouldn't we sing at churches? What is the singing all about?
Are we at an age of information overload? I mean, while there were too few songs, it was boring. While there are too many, it becomes impossible to learn. Have we passed the ideal stage of having roughly the right number to not be boring, but yet able to learn?
What do you think?
19 April 2013
Popular belief vs. Godly belief
I think that democracy works well, without tension, when the society is uniform in its beliefs and its beliefs are based on the same theology. Tension builds when the convictions are diverse.
Take, for example, the issue of gay marriages. They now call this "marriage equality" as though as though heterosexual marriages are unequal ... but this is a different matter.
In my society, those who favour "marriage equality" are thinking that the church is wrong to believe that God ordained for marriage to be the union of man and woman. They think that people should be allowed to choose any way they think is right.
Does the determination of right and wrong lie with the people? Or is it in believing what God has said? Is society righteous enough to make this determination? Or does democracy fall in a heap when the majority of the people believe that they have the power to choose right and wrong ... and then they believe that the wrong is right?
What do you think?
Take, for example, the issue of gay marriages. They now call this "marriage equality" as though as though heterosexual marriages are unequal ... but this is a different matter.
In my society, those who favour "marriage equality" are thinking that the church is wrong to believe that God ordained for marriage to be the union of man and woman. They think that people should be allowed to choose any way they think is right.
Does the determination of right and wrong lie with the people? Or is it in believing what God has said? Is society righteous enough to make this determination? Or does democracy fall in a heap when the majority of the people believe that they have the power to choose right and wrong ... and then they believe that the wrong is right?
What do you think?
11 April 2013
Greed and selfishness
Sheikh tweeted that ""humans biggest downfall is selfishness and greed"". Would you agree? Why or why not?
Sam disagreed. He thought that "staying away from GOD is the biggest downfall.". What do you think?
Is there a difference between what Sam said and what Sheikh said?
I think that selfishness and greed either leads us to stay away from God, or staying away from God leads us to selfishness and greed. It is part of our human nature to want to think that we are good enough ... and our egoistic nature brings out the selfishness and greed that is a part of us. Simply put, we have a sinful nature within us that causes us to want to do things that displease God even though deep down, we know better. Or we should know better.
Rob769 ran a blog under the title "People are fools because of greed and selfishness". He listed many examples of where selfishness and greed has let us down.
So why are we like this, even so? Can we get out of our bad nature, and change our ways for the better? Are some of us better than others? Who is good enough for God?
What do you think?
Sam disagreed. He thought that "staying away from GOD is the biggest downfall.". What do you think?
Is there a difference between what Sam said and what Sheikh said?
I think that selfishness and greed either leads us to stay away from God, or staying away from God leads us to selfishness and greed. It is part of our human nature to want to think that we are good enough ... and our egoistic nature brings out the selfishness and greed that is a part of us. Simply put, we have a sinful nature within us that causes us to want to do things that displease God even though deep down, we know better. Or we should know better.
Rob769 ran a blog under the title "People are fools because of greed and selfishness". He listed many examples of where selfishness and greed has let us down.
So why are we like this, even so? Can we get out of our bad nature, and change our ways for the better? Are some of us better than others? Who is good enough for God?
What do you think?
05 April 2013
Sex education
How do our children and young people learn about sex if not from us? What are we teaching them?
I am remembering a time when we used to talk about AIDS and other STDs. It was at a time when the rate of infections were lower. Why have we stopped? Is it because there is now a cure in some cases? I heard a case on ABC radio where somebody is living longer than what the doctors told her to expect.
But there are still the morality issues. Fiona Philips said that "our children are being failed by a lack of proper, structured information about loving partnerships and how to negotiate them because a squeamish, ignorant few would rather their children found out the hard way.". They learn from porn, etc. because their parents and school teachers forget or are too squeamish to tell them the real story. Would you agree?
Does church have a role to play also?
Another article that caught my eye is a father's letter to Victoria Secrets. The letter basically said that advertising, etc. has made the work of the parents a lot harder, in upholding morality when manufacturers and sales encourage our young people to "flaunt it". What do you think of that?
Because we who should know better are not educatiing your younger ones the way we should, Rebekah Maxwell reckons that our youth are more likely to get STDs than to get a job. Do you think she is exaggerating?
What is the truth about this matter? How should young people behave sexually? Who has the power and right to teach them? What do you think?
I am remembering a time when we used to talk about AIDS and other STDs. It was at a time when the rate of infections were lower. Why have we stopped? Is it because there is now a cure in some cases? I heard a case on ABC radio where somebody is living longer than what the doctors told her to expect.
But there are still the morality issues. Fiona Philips said that "our children are being failed by a lack of proper, structured information about loving partnerships and how to negotiate them because a squeamish, ignorant few would rather their children found out the hard way.". They learn from porn, etc. because their parents and school teachers forget or are too squeamish to tell them the real story. Would you agree?
Does church have a role to play also?
Another article that caught my eye is a father's letter to Victoria Secrets. The letter basically said that advertising, etc. has made the work of the parents a lot harder, in upholding morality when manufacturers and sales encourage our young people to "flaunt it". What do you think of that?
Because we who should know better are not educatiing your younger ones the way we should, Rebekah Maxwell reckons that our youth are more likely to get STDs than to get a job. Do you think she is exaggerating?
What is the truth about this matter? How should young people behave sexually? Who has the power and right to teach them? What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)