... on ridiculous selfie... sticks

Sorry, but this one is a bit of a rant. So if you don't agree (and you probably won't agree) then feel free to comment as much!


So, with the lovely Sarah (my sister-in-law) the 4 of us went to London on Saturday to go Shaun hunting. It was great fun and I'd recommend it for anyone really, but it's good with children as long as they won't mind walking. (My top tip is to print the map out from the webpage, as trying to follow satnav / street maps was hard work. You can only pick up printed maps in a few locations).


Anyway... The single thing that frustrated me most, all day, was the prevalence of people blithely (see definition no 2 here) waving around metal golf clubs all over the place. Yes, a selfie stick with phone attached is pretty much a golf club.  I lost count the number of times one of us very nearly got brained by a whirling ball of metal barely under control by its owner.


If you stop and watch some of these self-photo obsessed people you'll see an almost comedic performance of trying to get the phone into the right location, at the right angle, pointing at the right people, by the process of waving the stick-with-phone-attached around, up and down, in and out, trying to counter the bend on the pole created by phone. The phone appears to move around the same amount a phone does when someone drunk is trying to send a text message!


Not one single time did I see someone extend their selfie stick, use it, then collapse it again. I know that all you selfie stick owners will protest and say that you do extend, use and then collapse your stick being careful of people around you (1 has already said this to me) but this wasn't my experience on Saturday!


Why the need to be in every one of your own photos? If you're by yourself or maybe even in a couple then I can see that you might want some photo's with everyone included, but I saw repeated attempts to cram 10 or more people into 1 selfie! Just let someone else take the photo.


I think in the whole day of Shaun hunting (we found 26 out of 50 taking at least 1 photo at each) we only took 1 selfie. No stupid stick was used, just the length of an arm in full control by its owner! All the rest were taken by someone, either one of our group or by a friendly passer-by. Was the day ruined because we didn't have a golf club with us? No.


Rant over... for now...

...on eating breakfast or not?

So I decided this year that I should try and lose some weight. There's 2 sides to this:-
1. Doing more exercise
2. Eating less
At the moment it seems that I barely have enough time to see my family, let alone have time to do more exercise. So I've been focusing on no. 2.


My plan was to not eat breakfast, have little or no lunch, and then eat a smaller portion of dinner. I'm not being anal about this, so if the opportunity for a full English breakfast comes up I still say yes! But I'm doing it where I sensibly can.


What follows now is not a discussion about the various methods for weight-loss and their benefits and drawbacks...


Various people have said to me that I shouldn't skip breakfast. I'd already heard this as it seems to be the standard accepted knowledge. As far as I can see this is for 2 main reasons, 1 physiological and 1 psychological:-
1. Eating breakfast kick-starts the body's daily metabolism. It starts the body burning fat again, knowing that more food has come. Therefore, by not eating breakfast, this kick-start doesn't happen and the body stays in 'keep fat just-in-case' mode.
2. Skipping breakfast means that I'm more likely to be tempted by high-fat, high-sugar snacks during the morning, which would be worse for me than eating breakfast.


I can see the logic of no. 1 and it is this that spurred me on to today's course of action. Whilst I can see that no.2 is important, it will affect different people to a different extent. I work in a busy office environment which doesn't have an abundance of snack foods available, so I don't feel particularly tempted in this regard.


So this morning I decided I would have just 1 slice of toast with margarine, to see if it would indeed kick-start my metabolism. Well, wow, by the time I got to work I could start to feel the hunger! I've even felt slightly light-headed this morning. Before you say, yes, I fully understand that this may be a one-off and not representative of my norm. It needs testing further. But I could feel the difference this morning straight away, no other morning (of skipping breakfast) has felt like this.


Lastly, and interestingly, this study appears to show that skipping breakfast has no effect on overall weight loss. Though it does admit that it doesn't allow for the other health benefits of eating breakfast, concentrating solely on the effect on weight loss.

...on home cooking vs restaurant cooking

So, I was in a pub having dinner the other night and I could see, from where I was sitting, the grill chef doing his thing. As he worked up the different orders, I noticed that the kitchen had a serving area where plates were laid out and the food added as it became ready. (Obviously this is not the first time I've noticed this!) What really struck me this time, though, was that the chef didn't have to time all the different bits to be ready at once, he just served each bit onto the plate as it was ready.

Now, every now and again we have a dinner that we call 'Diner Dinner'. We basically list out all the different choices of freezer food we have and everyone gets to pick whatever they want. As an example, we had Diner Dinner yesterday and the choices were:

Mains
Kiev
Fish
SF chicken goujons and bites
Pork chop
Pizza
chicken breast with SF coating

Potato
Jacket
Chips
Wedges

Veg
Baked beans
Corn cob
Carrots
Broccoli
Cabbage

Sides
Onion rings
Garlic bread
Indian snacks

Unsurprisingly, everyone always wants something different so I end up cooking about 10 different things. Unlike the restaurants I don't have a means of keeping food warm so I have to time everything to all finish at the same time, so that everyone gets what they want and it's all hot and cooked properly!

I've decided that I'm going to have a new kitchen gadget. A bar of lights that pulls down from the ceiling so that I can keep foood warm, then it rises back up out of the way when I'm done.

What do you think???

...on family

For the last couple of days my sister has been in Derby. We don't see each other all that often; it's not deliberate or maliciously like that, just that we live in different cities and we're both busy with our own comings and goings. But it was great to see her and mum and dad were around as well, so there was 7 of us all hanging out together.
What struck me this morning (in the relative quiet of the house as I unloaded the dishwasher) was that when family all get together there's no pretence of what people are 'supposed to do'. Someone makes drinks, others cook dinner, some play with the kids, we all laugh at jokes and talk about stuff, some help each other with tasks, others do jobs and chores. No-one sits in the lounge expected to be waited on hand-and-foot in some aloof pretence of importance. That's what fab about family, the days just go by pretty much as normal just with extra people around and there's something normal and comforting about that.
When 2 particular friends of ours come round I don't need to ask what they'd like to drink. I just make 2 cups of tea (in the biggest mugs I can find. White, no sugar. (Yes, you know who you are!)) and hand them over knowing they'll 'hit-the-spot'. Those people are like family and I half expect to find them one day making their own cups of tea in our kitchen. I'll smile and laugh to myself and it'll all just be very normal and comforting.
At some point in the near future I think I may well get the choice to have my own office away from others or a desk in a shared office. I already know which one I'll choose.
I think humans (and many animals as well) are social creatures. Is this in-built from birth or a product of growing up in families (or social circles that function like families)? The answer doesn't really matter, just that we have a setting in which we can be 'family'.

...on becoming an Anglican?!

My friend/colleague/boss Ally has decided to become an Anglican. For those who know him as a raving 'penty' (pentecostal) then this will seem at odds. However for those who, like me, know his heart for the poor and needy, his desire for social action and justice, and his longing for church unity in mission then his decision really does make a lot of sense.

I have worked at Derby City Mission for over 3 years now and it has given me, amongst others, one opportunity that I wouldn't have got elsewhere. That is the opportunity to visit/preach in a whole range of different churches of different denominations. I have done Anglican, Baptist, Methodist, Congregational, Free, Elim, Evangelical and the list goes on. My own church is Elim Pentecostal, though we are not raving loonies though(!) and my history is in churches of a similar nature. The opportunity afforded me by DCM has really opened my eyes to the wider church and it's beliefs and practices. I have learnt to embrace the liturgy of an Anglican church and enjoy the freedom of an Evangelical Free church; and all the while, in every church I've visited, I've found a congregation of people (varying in numbers) who love each other, who love the Lord and who love reaching out to those around them. And it's this commonality of the Christian faith which transcends denominational lines and barriers that makes 'the' (whole) church of God one force for good together. And, it's this very same reason that I applaud Ally's choice to become and Anglican and follow God's plan for his life. For it matters not which bit of the church you belong to, nor even what other people think about your choice of church, but how you choose to live your life and what you do with it on a daily basis. And these choices are truly non-denominational.

...on stark contrasts

Listening to the radio the other morning, I was interested by 2 news items:-

The first was about Cyprus. Someone (can't remember their name) was being interviewed about the possibility of imposing a bank levy on all accounts in the 2 biggest banks. They were saying that it was not impossible for a levy to be set at approx 40% for those depositing over 100k euros.

The very next news item was about the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India and China) and their annual summit which started on Tuesday. The main topic of conversation is to be about how the can get their proposed Development Bank to work, with each putting in $10bn to start.

What struck me about these 2 news items was not whether they were intrinsically right or wrong in their own rights, but simply the contrast between the 2 happening at the same time. Cyprus on the brink of financial collapse in stark contrast the formation of a $40bn bank to fund continued economic development in certain other countries.

Is this a case of 'fair' and 'unfair'? Or is it just simply macro-economics and unfortunate timing?

...on gay marriage and Anglicans

So, no doubt that all the anti-establishment (and needlessly anti-Christian sometimes) supporters will have a field day on this, but this is my blog and it's my opinion

Here is the Guardian's article and if you read the first page of comments at the bottom as well.

Everyone (including the Guardian) seem to be missing something here - the process
1. The government publishes a consultation on plans to change marriage laws, inviting interested groups/people to respond.
2. The Church of England write in with their response, which is, as it has to be, based on it's beliefs. It states what it's beliefs and opinions are and then states what possible measures it might have to implement if the law is indeed changed. All very procedurally correct.

Everyone suddenly berates the CofE for 'forcing' it's opinions on the government. Comments like this by waywardwind

"Boo hoo. If the CofE can't make the rules, it's going to take it's bat and ball and go home"

No, you've completely misunderstood the process! The CofE are simply stating their opinions and the effects on them, which is what the consultation is for! If the CofE didn't comment then everyone would moan that the church is being too passive and not voicing it's opinion. So really the problem all these people have is with the CofE's influence on government. That's a completely different matter.

As for whether the CofE is right or not then, as I currently interpret the Bible on this issue, I agree with the CofE. The Bible makes it clear that marriage is between man and woman (I'm not going to get into the polygamy debate), and I'm very frustrated at Christians (of all denominations) who try and blur the lines in order to fit in with society.

...on Hayley Stevens and HOTS... again...

OK, so Hayley has posted this as her original and real reason for complaining about HOTS. As I read it I drew out 2 main reasons for her complaint...

"...no evidential basis..."

and

"...offer people false hope..."

Firstly can I say that she did go through an awfully traumatic experience that no doubt affects her life to this day and (I) thank God that she is still alive. I also applaud her statement..."I have nothing against Christians."

But to get back to her original 2 reasons.

 1. She has simply not seen any evidence and I wonder how much research she did into real authentic God-caused healing. Unfortunately, there is precious little evidence of God healing people because it is rarely done in a time and place where recording the healing reliably (video etc) is possible. And even if there is evidence, no doubt the skeptics would rebuff it for some reason or other (doctored video, unreliable camera angles etc). Christianity always comes down to 'faith', in the end it is simply a choice whether to believe or not and there will never be any scientific proof either way - that's the whole point of 'faith'! Hebrews 11:1 says "Now faith is being sure of what you hope for and certain of what you do not see."

2. HOTS has never offered anyone false hope. I just don't see how this is an issue. It is an offer of prayer rooted in the faith of the person doing the praying. I would have thought that if the person receiving the prayer doesn't believe in Christianity or even God, then they would put absolutely no hope at all in it's success!