Lynn Green

Tag: UK

  • Happy Birthday To Me!

    Happy Birthday To Me!

    Photo ©Pixabay

     

    **This is a personal website and reflects my thoughts and convictions. It does not represent any official position held by Youth With A Mission.**

    Join me in celebrating my 43rd birthday!  I woke up this morning feeling so energetic and fit that I decided that is what I am—43 years old.

    Never mind that I have some numbers and words written on a birth certificate that says I am in my 71st year.  Those are just scribbles on paper. I choose to self-identify myself 43 because that is what I feel.  I haven’t had any heart arrhythmia issues for 6 months, my energy levels are up and I feel great.  I am really grateful for that, so I would like everybody to join in with me to celebrate my 43rd birthday.

    You may think that I am just making a feeble joke here and perhaps I am.  On the other hand I was thinking about the 69 year old who has been in the papers recently.  He is taking legal action to get his original birth date changed so that he can legally be 49 on his tinder profile, because he is not attracting young enough women to his site.  He figures if he is 49 then more younger women will read his profile.  Good luck with that, Mister!

    AM I JUST BEING SILLY?

    The thing is, most people read that in the newspaper or online and they think it’s silly and dismiss it.  But is it that easy?

    Here is the big question: why do we not take that seriously, but we feel we must take it seriously when a person, who is male, self-identifies as female or a female identifying as male.

    What is the reasonable basis for making a distinction? I am not trying to alienate anybody here; I just want to know how we, as a society based upon law, can make a distinction.  Is it because one seems frivolous, superficial and self-interested but the other must be sincere?  How can we know who is sincere and who is not.  More importantly, how can the law decide that.  How can society decide that?  What is the basis?

    I am really serious about this; it is an issue of great importance to those of us who live in Western democracies.  Do we have any grounds for over-ruling feelings that are sincere and deeply held without doubt?  Why do we feel we must take gender dysphoria seriously but not age dysphoria?  On what basis do we think that?

    I’M NOT INTENDING TO OFFEND

    I know that writing about this is going to seem offensive for some people, but the trouble is we have been assuming feelings are more important than more objective reality for a long time.  I can say that my birthday was assigned to me by the medical profession, so it’s only a date when they say I was born.   Or I can say that my biological gender was assigned to me at birth.  But actually both my date of birth and my sex are objective realities.  There were many people who could witness that I was born a male on April 14, 1948.

    Some people claim that the sex of a baby is often not clear, but that is not true.  There may be one child in 5000 where gender is not clear at birth.  Even then, the chromosomes are almost always clear one way or another.  Gender, or more accurately sex, is not assigned at birth, it is observed.

    IF I AM SUFFICIENTLY SINCERE, IS IT TRUE?

    Let me hasten to say that I am not suggesting here that we don’t take it seriously and compassionately when a person feels their body sexual identity does not match their feelings about their gender.  But neither can we simply agree that the greater truth will always be in their self-identity.  This purely subjective approach to truth will not work for us.  We won’t be able to live with it.  If we decide that deeply-held beliefs trump observed reality, we will unleash chaos.  Such an approach would require our courts to decide whether or not someone holds a particular belief about themselves deeply enough to let it take precedence over objective realities.  And that would be entirely unworkable.

    Many humanities courses in our Universities have promoted this subjective approach to truth for several decades and now we are experiencing consequences.  It is based on the philosophical idea that objects cannot generate truth; truth “is in the eye of the beholder”.  In other words, reality is what we perceive it to be.  There is some truth in that, but by carrying that idea to the extreme we end up with an unlivable world.  When each person decides what is true for themselves, nothing is true.

    HOW CAN WE KNOW?

    Is there a way out of this?  Of course!  There was a time when it was assumed that all truth came only by revelation, so art and philosophy centered round revelation from God.  There is some truth in that too, but it is insufficient.

    Then we gradually transitioned into a new epoch in which people decided that all reality has to be determined by the scientific method.  That is, anything that is true must be verifiable by objective means: experiments must be possible and the resulting data will prove or disprove the proposed truth. That method is also insufficient.  It can often tell us “what or how” but it cannot tell us “why”.

    As a Biblical Christian, I believe in revelation and I also believe in the great value of the scientific method.  When we put those two together, we have a means of knowing what is true.  Human beings can still receive revelation from God.  As the philosopher, Dr Francis Schaeffer said in the title of one of his books, “He is There and He is Not Silent”.  We have also expanded our knowledge hugely over the past two centuries by using the scientific method.  We put those two together and we have a basis for truth that we can live with.

    TRUTH IS LIVEABLE

    All philosophies for life, or presuppositions, have to be evaluated by living them. Post-modern, relativistic thinking leads to chaos.  Religious tyranny springs from claims that all truth comes only by divine revelation.  The scientific method alone provides no answers to the really big issues of life.  We must regain confidence in the idea that there are universal truths and then live by them.

    So am I 43? Well, on another day I might feel like I am 78, so I will just go with the numbers on my birth certificate.  I’m nearer 71 than 70 and I’m just very grateful for the health and energy I am experiencing.

    Lynn Green.

  • Is Britain Going To Pot?

    Is Britain Going To Pot?

     

    **This is a personal website and reflects my thoughts and convictions. It does not represent any official position held by Youth With A Mission.**

    You might be relieved to learn that this blog is not about Brexit.

    This is about pot, weed, cannabis, marijuana, hashish, bhang, kif, Mary Jane, dope, skunk….My goodness, there are so many names for this stuff!

    SOFTENING US UP FOR CHANGE IN THE LAW? My wife, Marti, and I are just back from a visit to Colorado, where cannabis has been approved for medical and recreational use for quite a few years, so we have some recent experience with the results of legalization.  In the few days since we got back, I see that a number of national newspapers and several TV programs have focused on the pros and cons of legalizing cannabis.  It is quite obvious that they usually lean towards the positives, especially since Canada just decided it was in the best interests of the nation to make it legal.    When this kind of media onslaught appears, my experience tells me that it usually implies some measure of government and media coordination.  Someone with quite a lot of clout has decided to change the law, so first they aim to change public opinion.

     

    THE FIRST ARGUMENT The most common argument is summarized by this quote from Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau saying that it had become, “too easy for our kids to get marijuana – and for criminals to reap the profits.”  So we asked around our friends and family in Colorado to see if legalizing stopped illegal dealing in the state.  The answer was;

    “No, there are always people who will grow and sell illegally because they want to avoid the state tax and the regulations which were the inevitable result of legalization.  They can undercut the legal pot shops and make bigger profit.” So that seems to be one argument shot down, or at least seriously holed.

    Since my home state, Colorado, led the USA in legalizing pot, it would be good to know what the Governor thinks now.  In a recent interview with CNN, he explained that the crime rate has been rising since pot was made legal six years ago and he has not ruled out making it illegal again.  He said:

    “Trust me, if the data was coming back and we saw spikes in violent crime, we saw spikes in overall crime, there would be a lot of people looking for that bottle and figuring out how we get the genie back in.  It doesn’t seem likely to me, but I’m not ruling it out.”

    Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper opposed legalizing marijuana, but embraced the choice of his state.

    THE COMPASSIONATE ARGUMENT The second argument is medical and there is no doubt that cannabis or cannabis extracts have proven to be helpful for alleviating some painful illnesses or reducing the symptoms of some diseases such as Parkinson’s disease.  I don’t think there is any case for continuing to criminalize the medical use of cannabis or extracts from it.  However, the medical uses are difficult to monitor.  For example, I recently spoke to a young man who was prescribed cannabis to reduce his anxieties.  I have personal experience that leads me to pretty clear conclusions on that.

     

    MY CANNABIS STORYAt this point, I should make a confession.  In the year before I committed my life to the lordship of Christ, I smoked hashish (cannabis resin) at least a couple of times a week.  I was attending the University of Colorado at the time.  I enjoyed it a lot and wanted to smoke whenever it was possible.  Although I was in my third year of a four-year electrical engineering degree, it was my first year completely away from home, as I had done the first two years at a junior college in my home town.  When I got to the home of CU in Boulder, I joined in the party atmosphere.

    I then proceeded to demonstrate an obvious truism; partying, drunkenness and pot smoking don’t contribute to an engineering degree!  It wasn’t long before I was experiencing anxieties and there was a reason for that.  It’s not much fun to go to a math class, having missed the two previous ones, only to realize that you can’t begin to understand what the professor is talking about.  In those circumstances I could see two choices:  I could stop partying and study with the “nerds” who understood, or I could reduce my anxieties with hashish.  I smoked more. 

    The problem was I was only anxiety free when I was high.  Every high was followed by ever more excruciating anxieties. Back to the young man who was prescribed cannabis to reduce anxiety:  I notice that he is not addressing the reasons for his anxiety.  He is still avoiding the hard choices required to make his life better, but the smoking makes him feel less anxious–at least temporarily.  It seems quite clear to me that his prescription cannabis is not helping him lead a better, more fulfilling and satisfying life.  All he gets is a temporary delusion that things aren’t as bad as he feels they are.

    A BETTER CURE There are much better cures for anxiety.  Since my conversion, I have aimed to live clear-conscience Christianity and that has given me the key to anxiety management.  Where there are reasons for me to feel anxious, I should never avoid the circumstances causing the anxiety or attempt to anesthetize my conscience; I must face the reasons and make the choices that reduce my anxieties.  However, sometimes anxieties arise for no identifiable reason.  In those cases, once again, a clear Christian faith provides a pathway to overcoming.  I have access to God’s presence, His promises and His reassuring love for me as an individual.  When I focus on those realities, anxiety begins to shrivel.

    I conclude that substance use, whether alcohol or cannabis or another something else, is no way to manage anxiety or fear.  It is so much better to change the way I think and live and thus increase relational harmony and whole-person peace—shalom.

    REVENUE FOR GOVERNMENTS I think the only obvious case for legalizing pot is the case for revenue. When a government legalizes and taxes pot, they will certainly increase their tax income.  How much of that will have to go on extra policing is hard to say because it is so difficult to say that certain crimes are the result of pot use and others are not.  But it’s not just a matter of policing.  Some people will be able to use pot recreationally without it apparently affecting their behavior, but others will lose more time from work, withdraw from relationships, become less industrious and make more mistakes at work.  Some of those mistakes can result in injury or death.  How do we calculate the cost of that?

    Driving under the influence of cannabis can be as dangerous as driving drunk.  Note the following quote from a Canadian news service earlier this year,

    As Canada prepares for legal pot, the federal government plans to spend as much as $80-million to train 750 police officers to smoke out high drivers. But how sound is the test? A Fifth Estate investigation raises serious questions, showing it can lead to false arrests, is prone to police bias and, according to one scientific expert, is no better at detecting high drivers than “flipping a coin”

    The same article states that the Canadian government has spent as much as $80 million to train 750 police officers to “smoke out high drivers”.  So where does all this leave the equation that all governments have to work out?  (Revenue minus costs equals the overall financial benefit.)  The answer is not clear, but it is not likely to be an overall positive income.

    We become used to governments presenting this sort of decision in purely financial terms, but they are always more than that.  This one is certainly about more than mammon.  What impact will legalization have on the character of our nation?  Will it be a help or a hindrance to young people as they grow up?  Will it help develop more reliable and responsible citizens?  The answer to that one is self-evident.

    So is there a case for legalizing pot?  Should Britain go the same way some other liberal western democracies have gone?  Now that it seems many other nations will follow suit, so should we be among them?

    A few months ago I watched a BBC documentary in which about half a dozen British TV celebrities were taken to Colorado where they talked to lots of people about pot.  They toured pot farms and went to the specialist shops where they tried many different kinds of smokes and eats.  They were older celebrities—I would say the average age was middle fifties—so their giggling and fooling around was quite entertaining.  After their fascinating and picturesque tour was over, they were asked the big question:

     

    “Would you recommend that pot be legalised in Britain?” 

     

    I was sure their answer would be yes.  But to my amazement, each one had exactly the same answer. “After all we have seen and experienced on this trip—the answer is no.”

    I agree.

    Lynn Green.

  • Nebuchadnezzar Alive and Well?

    Nebuchadnezzar Alive and Well?

     

    **This is a personal website and reflects my thoughts and convictions. It does not represent any official position held by Youth With A Mission.**

    Have you been following the rise of Xi Jinping?  He is the General Secretary of the Communist Party of China, President of the People’s Republic of China and Chairman of the Central Military Commission.  He is also known as the Paramount Leader, or the Core Leader of China.  As has been said many times, he is the most powerful leader of China since Chairman Mao.

    The New Zealand Herald explained, “China’s Communist Party doesn’t like difference. So it has set about eradicating any trace of it among its 1.38 billion population.

    “First they moved on Tibet. Its ancient spirituality and unique identity has been suppressed for decades. Its remaining leadership has long since been co-opted by the Party.

    “China’s Christian community has also long been a source of embarrassment. The Bible has been banned. Crosses must not be displayed in public. Its leadership must be approved by the Communist Party. Its teachings must now conform to Party ideals, news.com.au reports.

    “ But, for the moment, Beijing has another ancient community in its sights: the Uighurs. China invaded the East Turkestan Republic in 1949. It’s now named Xinjiang province, bordering Pakistan and Afghanistan.”

    Several other media outlets have reported that up to a million Uighurs are in prison camps, primarily because they practice Islam.

    Sometimes we think Christians are the only ones being persecuted for their faith, but the Chinese Communist Party does not limit its restrictions to Christians.  They are out to eradicate all faith.  President Xi has made it very clear that no Communist Party member can practice any religion.

    I have had the opportunity recently to ask several Chinese citizens about these developments and it seems clear to them that their President wants absolute loyalty to himself.  Shades of Caesar, or Kim Jong-un!

    What do we make of this aspiration to be venerated as a God?  For ordinary people like me—or you, I assume—the idea of wanting to be worshipped is preposterous.  But I suppose that is because we have never been even close to enough power to awaken that ambition.  But a quick over-view of history confirms that powerful men (not usually women) often want more and more loyalty, then adulation, then worship.  It illustrates that human pride knows no bounds.

    Or perhaps it illustrates that recognition by others or even their worship can never satisfy the hunger for assurance that we are significant.  We could call it the Nebuchadnezzar syndrome.

    You can read the first 6 chapters of the book of Daniel, in the Bible, in less than 30 minutes and it provides a fascinating study into the search for power and then worship.  Variations on the theme have been played out countless times in human history.  In some cases, the stage has been huge—as with Caesar, or Nebuchadnezzar, but it happens in smaller circles as well.  It takes the form of leaders who will not stand for any criticism or variance from their views.

    In the end though, the over-riding truth was declared by Nebuchadnezzar himself in Daniel 4:37.  He had just recovered from God’s judgment on his pride: seven years of insanity, living as an animal.  What had he learned?

    “Now I, Nebuchadnezzar, praise and glorify and honour the King of Heaven.  All his acts are just and true, and he is able to humble the proud.”

    May all who exercise any authority over others TAKE NOTE!

    Lynn Green.

  • What does the Gospel say About Acid Attacks?

    What does the Gospel say About Acid Attacks?

     

    **This is a personal website and reflects my thoughts and convictions. It does not represent any official position held by Youth With A Mission.**

    As I write, this morning’s newspapers are headlining with a crime that is particularly horrifying and I think it is good to reflect on why we are horrified—as I think everyone is, or will be, when they read it.

    A three-year-old toddler, sitting in his pushchair in a shop, had acid thrown over his face as his mother, helpless to stop the attack, screamed for her child. There would have been many tragedies this past weekend, as there are each and every day in this suffering world, so why is our attention drawn to the little boy?

    I suppose it is because we can’t imagine how grown men could do that to a child. Four men have been arrested in connection with the crime. (No motives have been established and the toddler is now recovering at home after initial hospitalisation.) I wouldn’t be surprised if the police discover that it was vengeance attack on the father or another member of the family.

    When vengeance is allowed to grow and find expression, we are capable of almost anything. Human history overwhelmingly illustrates that vengeance knows no bounds. Even Biblical history confirms the terrifying human capacity for inhuman behaviour when vengeance grows. A Hebrew poet exiled in cruel Babylon penned Psalm 37, which states:

    “Happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us—he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.”

    (Yes, Judaism as practiced in the OT era was vengeance-based and much of it still is today. So is Islam. No wonder we have an endless cycle of violence. Those who think it can be solved in a generation or less don’t understand the power of worldviews, which are usually generated by religion.)

    Vengeance is at its worst when the powerful prey on the less powerful. That is why men in government are the most prolific murderers in history. Think of Stalin and Mao and Hitler; between them they killed vast numbers of the citizens of their own nations, with estimates running at over 100 million!

    Looking at that, some people would say that the hierarchy of power is to blame and we need governments who believe in equality to do away with all hierarchy. But just a few seconds reflection on that conclusion reveals the inbuilt contradiction: you can’t do away with power by giving greater power to elite leaders.

    That doesn’t mean that there is no solution. When the disciples of Jesus argued with one another about who was greater, they were jockeying for position in what they imagined would be the government that would soon emerge under Jesus, the King. In his response, Jesus did not say there would be no greater and lesser positions for people to fill, because their existence is an ineradicable fact of human nature. (Whether or not it was created to be that way or was a result of sin’s entrance into the world is another discussion.)

    What Jesus said, in effect, confirmed the existence of power hierarchies, but prescribed how power should be used. “He who would be greatest among you must be the servant of all.” Elsewhere he said the humble would be exalted. Jesus did not come to do away with power and the idea of “greater and lesser”, although they will probably not exist in the new heaven and new earth. He commanded us to use whatever power we have to serve others and he said he would promote those who live humbly. The humble do not exploit the weak.

    The gospel is both revolutionary and completely workable—although VERY demanding!

    We react in horror when we learn that men threw acid on a toddler because the teachings of Jesus have saturated our culture for several centuries. In other cultures, that act could be accepted as necessary as long as one family or clan was “evening the score” on another. Not all cultures are equal!

    This subject is another strong argument for missions and missionaries. The Good News about Jesus can transform the quality of life of any community—and illustrations abound!
    But for now, evil men still visit violence on those who are lower down the power hierarchy.   Maranatha! Come Lord Jesus!

    Lynn Green