By Tarun Stevenson

As I commenced my first day of living on $2 worth of food each day for the Live Below the Line challenge this week, I found myself pondering some of the added bonuses of taking on a challenge like this. Hey I might loses bit of weight (Lord knows I need to). It?s a great exercise in self-control and discipline. It?s a great way to teach my children about being grateful for what they have and I get to feel good about myself, doing something for those who are less fortunate than me.

But as I pondered these things, my mind wandered back to when I, as a child lived in India, to an example of what would have to be the greatest reason for doing a challenge like this.

My parents were missionaries and I was fortunate to have been raised with an acute awareness of the intense struggle that billions of people face every day, just to survive. Despite my upbringing it is amazing how easy it is to forget or even be oblivious to this struggle, as I live in the comfort of a developed country such as Australia. Taking for granted even the simple comforts of shopping around for the best priced food and having a place to cook my tasty $2/day meals.

My mind meandered into my past, and I remember an old lady who lived near our house in India. She was a beggar, living on the street. She was frail and her days consisted of begging passes by for small change so that she could scrape together enough to have at least one meal a day.

One day this poor wretch came to our door with a bag of potatoes and offered them to my mother for our family. Some well-meaning passer-by had given them to her, in an attempt to alleviate her need. My mother refused and insisted that she keep them for herself, but the old woman replied, ?I have nowhere to cook them, they are useless to me?. The cruel irony of that bag of potatoes, offered the gift of food she desperately needed yet, would never enjoy for want of a simple stove to cook them on.

As I reflect on all the ?good reasons? for taking on this challenges, 1.4 billion stories just like this one, remind me that even though this week is for me, a small inconvenience - at worst- and a feel good experience - at best -, for those living in poverty, it is life changing.

The money raised by participants will transform the lives of individuals and communities who fight for survival every day. Giving the choice and option to improve their lives through education and community rejuvenation. Afford them the basics that we so often take for granted without so much as a thought.

YOU CAN MAKE THAT DIFFERENCE!

Even if you can?t do the challenge you can still donate and make a difference in the lives of some of the 1.4 billion people who live below the poverty line. Will you join me?

To donate and make a difference, goto: https://www.livebelowtheline.com/me/taruns

Epilogue: My mother ended up cooking meals for the old lady each day and helping her in what ever way she could. From this chance meeting a beautiful relationship was born, and from this and many other examples , I am thankful to say that I have developed a passion to do what I can to change the lives of those less fortunate than myself. The Live Below the Line challenge is just one way that I remind myself how blessed and privileged we really are in Australia.

I will continue to post my reflections and other stories of my child hood as this week progresses. Please feel free to share my blogs with others just include my details on the page. Thanks to all who have already supported me in this challenge, your generosity is changing lives!

Among other things I am a: Husband, Father, Singer, Songwriter, Guitarist, Poet, Theology Nerd, Activist, Passionate Christ Follower, Blogger and School Teacher

Please check out my blog: www.tarunstevenson.com/activist or follow my progress on twitter @tarunstevenson

Photograph from: http://www.drradhakrishna.com/2011/10/pardon-me-dear-lady/

(see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stations_of_the_Cross for more)

There are a number of different meditations that can be used and the one we used this morning was “Everyone’s Way of the Cross” by Clarence Enzler.

I was particularly taken by station 6 and would like to share it with you:

Christ Speaks -

Can you be brave enough, my other self,

to wipe my bloody face?

Where is my face, you ask?

At home whenever eyes fill up with tears,

at work when tensions rise,

on playgrounds,

in the slums,

the courts, the hospitals, the jails -

where ever suffering exists-

my face is there.

And there I look for you to wipe away my blood and tears.

In a world where we have so many promoters and consumers of Christ’s message, it is timely to remember that we have been called to “follow” and “embody” his message. As James 1:27 reminds us: True religion is not demonstrated by the size of our conference, the slogan on our t-shirt or the number of people reading our blog, but in our care for the orphans, the widows and the down trodden.

At this time of the year as we reflect on Jesus’ walk to the cross, his sacrifice and call to follow his example, in the words of Clarence Enzler, I reply:

Lord, what you ask is hard.

It calls for courage and self-sacrifice,

and I am weak.

Please, give me strength.

Don’t let me run away because of fear.

Lord, live in me

and act in me

and love in me.

And not in me alone - in all of us -

so that we may reveal

no more your bloody but your glorious

face on earth.

Happy Easter to you all, may you follow in the example of Christ and become his redemption and salvation to the world you live.

The Jewish scriptures frequently talk about extending hospitality to the Widow, orphan and stranger, yet is this concept lost in translation for modern readers?

Is it enough to provide a meal and a bed or are we being challenged to protect and restore dignity, humanity and civilian rights to those that have none? To the “lest of these”?

This is a focus I am looking to take in my thesis on the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. I would love to get your thoughts on how you understand “hospitality” in a modern context.

The Narrative of Sodom and Gomorrah’s destruction (gen 19) has long been used as an example of how not to live. Certainly no other OT narrative is more often cited as a warning in either testament than this one.

But what is the main theme or warning contained within this narrative of destruction. How have you heard it traditionally interpreted and to whom is the warning directed?

Please contribute-

I am conducting a poll of popular Christian opinion and interpretation for my research, so any comments researched or otherwise are welcome.

Thanks
Tarun

I have a special request, please take a moment to read...

I am a new school teacher and have just comenced teaching a year four class with a high number of special needs children. Needs include Autism, Hearing Impairment, ESL, Behavioural problems and Intellectual impairment just to name a few. 

I have been doing allot of research into the use of iPhones/iPod touch education apps to improve engagement and results with special needs students. I am very keen to trial some of these approaches and believe they can make a huge difference in the lives of some really needy kids, however I am unable to get the funding for iPod Touches through the school I am working for. 

Not being one to give up that easily, I thought I'd ask if any of you have an old iPhone / iPod touch that you no longer use and might be willing to donate to education?

If you are able to help please message me to arrange details. Even if you can't help, please consider sharing this note with your friends to help spread the word. 

Thanks for taking the time to read to the end, I look forward to hearing from you.

Tarun

Just last week I was listening to my 6-year-old son walk around the house singing “Santa Claus is coming to Town”, a song that one can’t help but be familiar with at this time of the year. Although it is a song I’ve heard dozens of times before, something about the lyrics caught my attention this time. “He knows when you’ve been bad or good, so be good for goodness sake.” How is it that the incredibly inspiring story of the generous and caring St Nicholas - who gave a gift of fruit to the poor children of his town on Christmas Eve, (children who otherwise had very little to look forward to) - has been turned into a tool for parents to manipulate and scare their children into behaving? As I thought about this, only 2 days later my wife and I listened bemused as a parent in a shopping centre cajoled her misbehaving child with the words ” you know Santa is watching…”

Santa beliefs aside, it strikes me that this is exactly what we have done with the god of the Bible. The god* ‘Yahweh’ who is presented as the central character in the Judea-Christian Scriptures is consistently portrayed not as an angry god who is looking to punish humanity, but rather (unlike the many other gods of the surrounding culture) one who cares for and loves her** creation. A god who is relational, personal, patient and dare I say it accommodating of human failings. The Christian story continues this theme by introducing us to a god who so wants to relate to creation that he enters human existence in the person of Jesus, and shows us a ‘Way’ to live in connection with Yahweh, the world around us and each other, that is more in tune with the way she intended.

Somehow throughout history this incredibly inspiring story of the generous and caring god - who offers a gift of hope, and redemption in spite of the poverty of human existence - has been turned into a tool for the religious elite to manipulate and scare their children into behaving? A divine person who ‘knows when you’ve be bad or good…’ Who will reward the good and punish the bad.

Now before you start protesting about my peace and love hippy Jesus narrative, I want to acknowledge that yes, there are pictures and images of Yahweh/Jesus that convey anger and punishment, however this is not a picture of a merciless tyrant who hits you with a stick if you talk out of turn, or only gives gifts to the ‘good’ kids. Rather it is a picture of a loving parent who cares too much to let his children just do what ever they want, and as such places guides and boundaries on us for our own sake. In the same way that my children have to face the consequences of their choices at times it does not mean I don’t love them, in fact it’s quite the opposite, I love them too much to let them do what ever they want before they are able to make healthy choices for themselves. Although these images of an angry god have often dominated the Christian churches portrayal of ?God? it is not the dominant image portrayed in scripture.

If you (like me) are someone who has been manipulated, abused or turned off the story of Yahweh/Jesus by over enthusiastic followers of an angry Santa Claus god, I want to invite you - as you consider the real meaning of Santa - to reconsider the story of Yahweh/Jesus. Not as the over commercialized, vindictive and partial ?God? who only likes the good kids, but rather the generous and caring Yahweh/Jesus, who came to the physically, emotionally and spiritually poor of humanity, and offered the gift of hope, love and redemption. No matter who you are - good or bad.

May you encounter a new picture of the loving god in the scriptures at this time of Love, Peace and Joy. I look forward to hearing your questions, comments and thoughts….have a very Merry Christmas and Happy 2012 - Tarun

*In the traditional Hebrew Scriptures the word we translate as god is not a proper noun (name), it is a noun that describes the many divine beings referred to by each culture. The god character of the Judeo-Christian narrative is most often referred to as Lord or Yahweh. In the Christian narrative, Jesus is this god in human form. Without over complicating the discussion, I have tried to use the proper noun Yahweh or Jesus rather than the traditionally rendered ?God?.

(Christopher J. H. Wright, Old Testament Ethics for the People of God. IVP Academic , July 23, 2004)

** The Judeo ? Christian Scriptures do not teach that god Yahweh is either male or female exclusively, rather we find that the god of Judeo ? Christian Scripture transcends gender designation. In an attempt to describe this god, the writers of the bible do most often use male nouns and pronouns such as He and Father, however there are many beautiful female images where God is likened to a mother (see the prophets). For many in today?s society, male images such as ?father? carry negative and harmful stereotypes, which render the loving god of the bible inaccessible. Where possible, I have tried to limit this impact and interchange male and female images regularly.

(For further discussion about the images of Yahweh/Jesus in the bible that I have eluded to here, Dr. John Goldingay?s Pentateuch lecture series on iTunes U is an excellent jumping off point: http://itunes.apple.com/au/itunes-u/ot501-pentateuch/id380159249)

Posted by Julien Burnside - Leading Australian Barrister and Human Rights activist. Get the facts and Ignore the Myths…

1. Boat people are illegal.

Asylum seekers who enter Australia by sea (or plane) without a valid visa are not illegal. They do not break any Australian law by coming here without papers and asking for protection.

The right to enter without prior authorisation is protected by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) which Australia helped to draft.

2. Boat people are queue jumpers.

There is no queue for asylum seekers to join.

Only 2% of the world?s refugees are in a queue. If all the millions of refugees worldwide were to join a queue, the wait for resettlement would be 135 years.

Australia is the only country where the term ?queue-jumper? is used.

Interestingly, the address of the Australian Embassy in Kabul is kept secret, for security reasons. Not much chance of queuing there! And it has no ?visa function? wither, so if you find it, you cannot apply for a visa. Some queue!

3. Boat arrivals are not genuine asylum seekers.

For obvious reasons, those who risk their lives in attempting the perilous journey by boat are more likely to be genuinely in need of protection.

While only around 20-40% of plane arrivals are found to be genuine refugees, the proportion for boat arrivals is 85-90%.


4. Boat arrivals present a security risk.

No boat arrival who could have been a potential threat to national security has ever gained entry into Australia.

A potential terrorist is more likely to arrive by plane because boat arrivals are subject to the most scrutinised security checks. The very act of arriving without documentation alerts authorities to undertake rigorous screening.

It is much easier and safer for a terrorist to arrive undetected in Australia by plane, either with a valid visa or false documentation.


5. Asylum seekers who can afford to come by boat are economic migrants.

A person who is rich and who is not persecuted is most unlikely to risk their life by trying to get to Australia on a leaky boat.

You can be wealthy and still be tortured. In some countries authorities are more likely to target the well-educated and wealthy as they are the greatest threat to an authoritarian regime. Remember the Jews who fled Germany in the 1930s: quite a few were rich, but they were still genuine refugees.

6. Australia is losing control of its borders.

No country in the world has greater control over its borders than Australia. Australia is an island continent with vast surrounding seas. This natural barrier makes irregular arrival very difficult.

Australia has around 4 million authorized arrivals each year: people coming for holidays, or business or study. The largest number of unauthorized arrivals in any one year was 7,100. In 2010, there were 6,502 unauthorized boat arrivals to Australia. So far in 2011, there have been around 2500. These are small numbers. The average over the past 30 years is 1000 per year.

7. Mandatory detention is necessary for border security.

Australia is one of few nations in the world which locks up asylum seekers who arrive without visas. Not only is the detention mandatory, it is indefinite as well. The detention lasts as long as the process takes - 6 months, a year, 2 years, 4 years ? it varies. At present, it is averaging around 2-3 years.

Australian practice has shown that asylum seekers allowed to live in the community while their asylum claims are processed are highly unlikely to abscond. This is because they have a vested interest in cooperating in order to gain full protection rights.

In 2005, Australia introduced a community-based detention system which allowed some asylum seekers to live unsupervised in the community, supported by the Red Cross. Of the 244 people placed in this program between July 2005 and May 2009, the Department of Immigration and Citizenship reports that only two people had absconded.


8. We no longer have children in detention.

Whilst there are no children in high security detention centres today, as at the end of July 2011, there were still however 872 children in immigration detention of some kind.

446 were detained in the community under residence determinations.

329 were in alternative places of detention. People in this form of detention are still locked in secure facilities, kept under guard and have no freedom of movement. Many 5-15 year olds go to school, but not all of them, and for under 5s they do not go to pre-school and have very little recreation.

45 were in immigration residential housing and 52 were in immigration transit accommodation.


9. Australia has one of the most generous refugee intakes in the world.

Australia is the world’s 14th largest economy, yet in 2010, we accepted 0.03% of the world?s refugees. From over 40 million refugees globally, we took just 13,750.

In 2009, twenty industrialised countries accepted more asylum seekers per capita than Australia.

The overwhelming majority of the world?s refugees are situated in the developing world in countries neighbouring their own. Pakistan, Syria and Iran each host more than a million refugees and asylum seekers.


10. Asylum seekers coming to Australia could stop in another country along the way.

Asylum seekers who arrive from Africa, the Middle East and South Asia often travel through intermediary countries before arriving in Australia. However, there is nothing unjust or deceptive about this.

These countries are typically not signatories to the Refugee Convention and do not offer protection for refugees.

Indonesia has not signed the Refuges Convention. Asylum seekers in Indonesia are at risk of being jailed if they are found by the authorities. Even if they are assessed as refugees by UNHCR, they are not allowed to work or send their children to school, and they face a wait of 10 to 40 years before a western country offers to resettle them.

Faced with life in the shadows for decades, some of them are brave enough to get on a leaky boat in an attempt to reach safety in Australia. If you were in their shoes, what would you do?

11. Stopping the boats will save lives.

For people who are desperate, people smugglers are their only escape route. Cutting off a person?s last line of escape is no great favour.

And if you are killed by the Taliban, you are just as dead as if you drown.

Since there is no ?queue?, refugees deterred from a boat trip are also effectively prevented from ever gaining resettlement in Australia. This is the real reason behind the ?stop the boats? mantra.

It?s not about saving the lives of asylum seekers. It?s about keeping them out of Australia.


12. Refugees do not contribute to society

By definition, refugees are survivors. They have survived because they have the courage and initiative to do so. These are exactly the qualities we value.

Refugees, who have fought for survival and overcome great traumas, have risked everything to make it to safety. They express immense gratitude and dedication to their new country.

The challenge for Australia is to help newly arrived refugees to rebuild their lives. If we do this, we will reap the benefit of the qualities and experiences they bring to Australia.

There are many refugees in this country who have gone on to do great things and have served us well in the fields of medicine, science, the arts, politics and much more.


Sources:
Refugee Council of Australia - Myths about refugees and asylum seekers
Asylum Seeker Resource Centre - Myths, facts and solutions
Uniting Justice Australia ? Asylum seekers and refugees: myths and facts
Chilout (Children out of detention)
Department of Immigration and Citizenship

Our conversation took in a number of factors however the thing that really got me thinking is the kind of community that we seem to value in Australia. The social life is certainly lorded in Australia, and given our climate, it is often seen as desirable to spend significant amounts of time “out” with “friends”, but how many of these relationships that we have as men ever really go beyond arms length? Conversations around the BBQ frequently revolve around footy, work, fishing and in my case guitars and music. Do we ever truly let our guard down? Talk honestly about the challenges that we face

Now I’m not suggesting the old get bare chested in the woods, cry and sing Kumbya together, but what do we do about statistics that show:

- Around one in six Australian men suffer from depression at any given time.

- Four times more young men than young women commit suicide (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2000) - Depression in men is associated with an increased risk of a variety of disorders, including cardiovascular disease and diabetes.

- The experience of male depression is complicated by the fact that men are more likely than women to shy away from medical treatment of any kind. Instead of discussing psychological problems, or seeking appropriate treatment, men may turn to alcohol or drugs when they are depressed or anxious.

- The statistics for teenage boys and young men are a concern. In the past 30 years, the suicide rate for males aged 15 to 24 years tripled.

- For older Australian men (aged 65 years and over) the suicide rate remains very high. Risk factors for depression and suicide for this age group include death of a spouse, isolation, physical illness and chronic pain.(www.beyondblue.com)

I’m no expert and can’t pretend that I have all the answers, but it seems clear that the quality of our connections and community in Australia need to improve if we are going to remedy the condition. Not just for us but for the many boys and young men who are watching us to learn how to do life…

As Psychologist Peter Janetzki Notes “a community of men is not a bunch of guys encouraging each other to behave badly” or sharing a common interest to escape the mundane routine of their life… It’s about authentic honest relationships that support each other through the challenges of life. Challenging each other to be the best they can be. Standing shoulder to shoulder in the trenches of life and facing the challenges together rather than in isolation. (paraphrased - Being a Bloke; Peter Janetzki p155)

Sound ridiculous!? Yeah maybe, but I think that if your anything like me it’s because we’re not familiar with this style of “mate-ship”, not because its not true. I do think he’s onto something and perhaps the more we talk about it, the closer we can get to breaking masculine stereotypes that push us into our worlds of isolation and silence.

What are your thoughts?

If you’re in Brisbane on the Sat 27/08 I’ll be speaking at a BLOKES BBQ BREAKY on the ‘importance in connecting as a man.’ - Mabel Park, Slacks Ck. 7.30am. There is no cost, a voluntary donation will be collected. For catering RSVP is a MUST, please sms RSVP to 0422015173

Love to have you along and hear what you think on this important topic.

For anyone else, please feel free to comment, like, RT and share if you feel as strongly about this topic as I do. www.tarunstevenson.com

There is no actual queue that asylum seekers are in. Under the International Refugee Convention which Australia has signed, everyone has the right to seek and enjoy in other countries freedom from persecution”. - Article 14, Universal Declaration of Human Rights. There is absolutely nothing illegal about claiming asylum, which is what the majority of boat people are. Incidentally 85 ? 90% of boat people are approved for refugee status, yet only make up 5% of the total number of unauthorised persons coming into Australia. So to imply that there is some queue that they are bypassing or that they are illegal is in-fact the non sequitur argument here.

Add to that, the fact that the countries where most boat people are coming from (Iran, Afghanistan etc) do not have Australian Embassies or access to UNHCR to register their refugee status, so the only way they can, is to take a risky journey to a country that has signed the treaty. They are not breaking the law according to the agreements that Australia chooses to abide by.

Interestingly under Australian and international human rights law, it is illegal to incarcerate any individual indefinitely without trial, representation or charge. It is also against international human rights to lock up a child for any reason especially without charge. Most boat people are locked up for an average of 15months including children. I would certainly call this disgusting & inhumane and that is based on humanitarian standards that Australia agrees to and supposedly upholds. If you?d like to justify it by saying that we feed, house and look after them, well we do that for our mass murderers too. It?s still called imprisonment, and I really don?t think we need to spell out the difference.

Of the equal number of asylum seekers arriving by plane, none are locked up and only approximately 40 - 60% are found to be genuine. Seems alot of attention on a very small group of people who are mostly genuine, so maybe racism is not an appropriate description but discriminatory would be. It is a policy that is largely based on media hype and ignorant voter reactions. It is not about protecting Australia, it is completely politically motivated. Labour?s back flip on their boarder protection attitudes are a clear indication of that. As far as threats to the community, the Director general of ASIO reported in 2002 that there had not been 1 security risk detected amongst boat people.

So what of the other 50000 + illegal immigrants who the immigration dept reports enter the country legally and overstay their visa. According to immigration, most do not leave promptly but stay on an average of 1 year. Yes I revised my figure from 20000 to 50000 to include the over stayers from other non-western countries. So if you want to talk about queue jumpers or illegal immigrants then maybe we should get our terminology right.

As far as my comment about past practices, bringing Google and Facebook into the discussion has absolutely no correlation to what we are talking about and I?m pretty sure you know that. We currently allow asylum seekers in the community if they arrive by plane and traditionally that has been the practice in the past. I think we can learn from the past and that doesn?t mean ?going back to the good old days? it just means acknowledging that not everything we do now is necessarily best practice.

As for policy being about protecting boat people from potential death, it is absolute nonsense. This is not an altruistic policy that is concerned for the well being of boat people. Research shows that most refugees who opt for people smuggling are not aware of any of the foreign policy of the destination country. They are desperate people taking desperate measures to escape a desperate situation. Sending them to another country that does not have refugee favourable policies, and is not in accordance with human rights treaties, is not going to ?save more lives? or going to deter refugees. Its going to merely compound the human rights abuses that they suffer and extend their imprisonment for up to 10 years at a time - as is the case in Indonesia now. All that so that we can say ?oh well they are not in Australia so it?s not our problem anymore!?? Well here?s the kicker, we?ll be footing the bill to sweep our dirty little secret under the Malaysian rug, so that uninformed voters believe that the government has done something to stop the tidal wave of illegal immigration. The government mean while is spending billions of dollars to hide the human rights abuses against a minority of people who are not coming here illegally but are responding to the refugee convention that we agreed to. This IS our problem!

Getting tough on boat people will not stem the tide. Numbers of boat people are affected world wide by conflicts of the time. The spike we experienced recently was not because the Labour government got soft, it was a spike experienced by all nations who accept refugees and it was largely due to the rise in conflict in Sri Lanka, Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq. Conflicts in the world ebb and flow and as such will effect the numbers of refugees attempting to enter the country. Interestingly, of all the developed countries that have signed the International refugee Convention, Australia is the only country that uses mandatory detention as a means of processing asylum claims.

Sure people smuggling is a heinous business that exploits vunerable people, so punish the people smugglers, they are the criminals. Not the refugees. If we actually give a damn about the plight of these people as you suggest, we should be setting up methods of processing them expediently and restoring some of their dignity as quickly as possible, not finding solutions that prolong the suffering that they have already endured.

As for saying its Un-Australian, well I?m going to stand by my claim. I agree that the term Un-Australian is over used for just about anything, however If Australia has chosen to 1. Sign a refugee Convention allowing asylum seekers to come here and apply for asylum (even if they don?t have the correct documentation) then that forms a part of who we are as a country. Not all countries have signed the convention. We have chosen to portray our country as one that is willing to welcome refugees.2. We have also chosen to abide by the International Human rights agreements, again not something all countries do. IF this is how we want the world to view us then I Do believe that the way in which we respond to refugees and human rights IS part of our identity as a nation. If we choose not to abide by the conventions that we have agreed to, then I would argue we are not presenting an Australia that we would have the rest of the world believe we are. YES it is Un-Australian. If we want to continue like this, well we best withdraw our support from the International human rights treaties and refugee conventions. Refugees will know not to come here because they will not be protected or cared for. That?ll fix the problem, and then we can proudly call ourselves Australian all we like, because at least we won?t be trading in hypocrisy.

I believe Australia truly is a great nation and I?ll be damned if I sit by silently and let the tabloid media and reactionist government policy turn us into a country that no longer values the rights of a human being.

Are boat people queue jumpers? No I think we can clearly see that they are not. They are not in direct competition with residency and migration applicants from other parts of the world. Illegal immigrants? No that is a tag that does not apply, it is not illegal to seek asylum. If we are going to tackle illegal immigration and queue jumping, well lets tackle the real problem, not politicise a small minority who mostly do not fit into either of those categories, for the sake of votes. That my friend is disgusting!

Some additional facts that might interest:

The UNHCR, who handles the processing of refugees worldwide, reports that only 0.5% of global asylum applications are made to Australia

Australia is ranked 47^th in the world for taking in refugees. The top countries are Pakistan, Iran, Syria, and Germany.

We?re ranked 91^st in relation to the nation?s wealth? those which can afford to take in refugees.

Australia has an annual immigration program of 200 000, but takes less than 4000 asylum seekers.

90% of ?boat people? are eventually found to be legitimate asylum seekers, fleeing persecution and death in their home country. This is who Abbott wants to just ?turn around?.

In 2009, South Africa took in 222,324 asylum seekers. France took 42,118. Australia took 3,441.

But we did resettle 11,080 refugees from overseas.

Australia was one of the first nations in the world to sign the UNHCR?s convention for Refugees, which agrees to accept asylum seekers without refusal.

Australia has an army deployed in Iraq but is refusing to recognise the refugee status of Iraqi asylum seekers.

97% of illegal immigrants arrive in Australia through airports on a tourist visa and then overstay

Some reading to give a truer perspective about boat people…:

http://www.novafm.com.au/nova1069/Audio_The-truth-about-seeking-asylum_99178?s=9

http://www.kochie.com.au/20100707165/avoid-the-political-spin-some-facts-on-asylum-seekers

http://www.ajustaustralia.com/informationandresources_factsandstatistics.php

http://www.nowuc.com.au/2011/04/05/illegal-immigration-proves-tough-topic-for-youth/

http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/cib/1999-2000/2000cib13.htm

http://www.news.com.au/national/asylum-seekers-arrive-by-plane-not-boat/story-e6frfkvr-1225790981775

http://webdiary.com.au/cms/?q=node/2809

Post Comments below and follow me on twitter @tarunstevenson @makesomenoize2

I don?t say this to be critical of those that commented, in-fact I applaud you if you did have the courage to enter into a discussion that it seems most are too afraid to. My curiosity is not so much around what was discussed but why so many seemed to be unwilling to put their personal beliefs out there when it came to the topic of hell.

Only yesterday I posted on Facebook the question ?what is your favourite song from a movie sound track?? Within a day I had almost 15 responses. It seems that my friends are not averse to responding to straw polls, just not ones about Hell!

In some Christian circles recently there has been much debate over a certain book that raises questions about our popular perceptions of hell. There are many who have been quite passionate about defending the traditional notion of hell as a burning lake of fire and eternal punishment for all who do not believe in Jesus.

Now certainly if we took Hollywood and the music industry as an example of popular ideology, this view of hell seems to be the most popular. But is that what most people actually believe? In particular is it that what Christians believe? Who knows, nobody wants to talk about it!

I have heard more than a few end-time style preachers when I was growing up, preaching a fire and brimstone massage about hell, but now - at least where I am - this kind of preaching seems to have fallen out of favour (and perhaps that?s a good thing) but what is the alternative? I can?t remember the last time hell was even mentioned in a gospel presentation or in a church service, let alone in conversation among friends. This doesn?t surprise me as the question of hell is certainly something that is most often raised as an opposition by those who wish to reject the church or the message of Jesus. But do we have a response to the question?

If we have cut hell out of our Christian vocabulary, what is it that we actually believe or understand about hell when the Bible mentions it? I suspect most people (including pastors) are largely informed by Hollywood when it comes to hell or the caricature that Dante?s inferno promoted way back in the 14^th century and has found its way onto almost every heavy metal album cover since the 70?s.

But is this really the Christian view of hell? Or are we just content with a form of Christian agnosticism, that says ?I believe there is something, it?s probably not very good, but I don?t really know what it is and I?m not interested in understanding…? After all ignorance really is bliss, isn?t it?

I can understand why many would want to sit on the fence or avoid discussing it. Its an unpopular topic among those who don?t subscribe to Christian belief systems and it seems to be becoming increasingly unpopular among those who do call themselves followers of Christ.

At this point I must confess that I have a real problem with the medieval, Dante?s inferno portrayal of hell, and don?t feel that it is an image or belief that is very consistent with the teachings of the Bible. I also realise that I have painted myself into a corner and you?re probably waiting for me to say what I do believe hell to be. This is a question I am currently wrestling with and one I hope to be able to discuss more confidently in the future (so stay tuned), but for now I want to side step that question and return to the main question of this post, why are we afraid to talk about it? Should I just ignore the question just because I don?t understand it? Should I ridicule those who are brave enough to respond or hope the question just goes away?

I have no doubt that there is more than one view and certainly among theologians there is no consensus, but I don?t believe it is a question that will make any more sense by just ignoring it, and I certainly don?t believe that something horribly catastrophic will happen to you if you talk about it.

Yes I will post my thoughts on hell in a future post, but for now what do you think? Should we discuss hell or would the Christian community prefer the topic of Hell to just go away? Is it just too much of an inconvenient truth or is there something more to it?

Perhaps I?ve just answered my own question…?

Please click the “Comment” link below to share your thoughts. If you like what I’ve said feel free to share it on Twitter, facebook or your blog.

Follow me on Twitter for future blog updates @tarunstevenson

I know there are a number of popular views out there, so which one to you generally believe or subscribe to?

The lake of fire, Dante’s inferno, absence of good, absence of God, nothingness or something else.

This is not a test, there are no right or wrong answers, I am just genuinely curious and trying to do some research for a possible future paper on Hell.

Please help me and share with me your perspectives, I’d love to know.

PS - theological bullies please refrain from attacking anybody over their view of Hell, this is fact finding conversation NOT a debate or theological treatise. I will delete any comments that attack another person’s views.

Thanks, I look forward to hearing your thoughts. -Tarun

A few weeks ago another friend of mine posted a YouTube video of a heavy metal band that he liked. Someone who clearly didn?t like heavy metal expressed their distaste and in reply my friend mentioned that they were Christians. All of a sudden, the Facebook commenter changed their tune and said it was really cool. It got me wondering. Why do we feel the need to make the distinction between what is Christian and what is not, as if it actually makes something ?better? or ?worse? according to the religious label we attached to it.

Christian schools, Christian music, Christian Radio, Christian bookshops… OK I get it, from a marketing and promotional purpose identifying yourself as a ?Christian? makes it easier for other Christians to find you. It?s a genre thing, and I?ll admit it, I too have found my self being identified as a ?Christian? musician and being played on ?Christian? radio and performing at ?Christian music festivals. The more I think about it however, the more I am struck with how far this is from what the teachings of Christ seem to be.

The word Christian means ?follower of Christ?. As I understand it, the name was first used as a derogatory term to identify persons who were followers of ?The Way? or the teachings of Jesus. Early followers of the teachings of Jesus didn?t advertise their identity with a title, yet the way they lived seemed to attract enough attention that they were bestowed the title ?Christian?. They were identified by their lives not their title.

The teachings of Jesus are also very clear about our lives bearing witness to this new Jesus reality, not titles, lineage, religious affiliation or ethnicity. The question begs to ask, If I do not identify myself as a Christian, does my life bear enough hallmarks of the one I claim to follow, that others would know? Rob Bell once said, ?Christian? is a lousy adjective but a great noun. Sadly now, the claim of being a Christian carries with it a harsh stigma, which I think is not entirely unjust. It seems to be less the identifier of ?those who follow and live by the teachings of Jesus? and more often - in public opinion - the opposite.

I am a follower of the teachings of Jesus Christ and can often be found talking, blogging or singing about my passionate belief in Christ and convictions about the life He challenges us to live. I have traditional Christian symbols tattooed on my arm and have fallen pray to using the word Christian as an adjective for my life far more often than I care to re-count. I do not however want to be known or refer to my self as a Christian any longer if my life does not reflect the claims I make about myself.

I am no longer a Christian ……. (you fill in the blanks ). I am a follower of Christ and believe the message He taught has great consequence for humanity. These however are nothing but mere words on a page. Empty claims that have no substance if not demonstrated by the fruits of my life. Brash claims? Perhaps. I have no doubt that this now opens me up to scrutiny and criticism by those who wish to do so, and I will be the first to admit I fail more often than I succeed, but I can no longer use this title to deem some acceptable and others (who do not carry the right title) unacceptable.

If someone carries a different religious tag, or title than me, it does not mean they are no longer my brother or sister. I can love my neighbor like I love myself, even if they are Muslim! I can speak up for those without a voice, care for those who have been forgotten and forgive my enemy. None or these life functions require a title, they just require my response.

Let my life be a reflection of my claims or do not call me a Christian any longer….

A few weeks ago another friend of mine posted a YouTube video of a heavy metal band that he liked. Someone who clearly didn?t like heavy metal expressed their distaste and in reply my friend mentioned that they were Christians. All of a sudden, the Facebook commenter changed their tune and said it was really cool. It got me wondering. Why do we feel the need to make the distinction between what is Christian and what is not, as if it actually makes something ?better? or ?worse? according to the religious label we attached to it.

Christian schools, Christian music, Christian Radio, Christian bookshops? OK I get it, from a marketing and promotional purpose identifying yourself as a ?Christian? makes it easier for other Christians to find you. It?s a genre thing, and I?ll admit it, I too have found my self being identified as a ?Christian? musician and being played on ?Christian? radio and performing at ?Christian music festivals. The more I think about it however, the more I am struck with how far this is from what the teachings of Christ seem to be.

The word Christian means ?follower of Christ?. As I understand it, the name was first used as a derogatory term to identify persons who were followers of ?The Way? or the teachings of Jesus. Early followers of the teachings of Jesus didn?t advertise their identity with a title, yet the way they lived seemed to attract enough attention that they were bestowed the title ?Christian?. They were identified by their lives not their title.

The teachings of Jesus are also very clear about our lives bearing witness to this new Jesus reality, not titles, lineage, religious affiliation or ethnicity. The question begs to ask, If I do not identify myself as a Christian, does my life bear enough hallmarks of the one I claim to follow, that others would know? Rob Bell once said, ?Christian? is a lousy adjective but a great noun. Sadly now, the claim of being a Christian carries with it a harsh stigma, which I think is not entirely unjust. It seems to be less the identifier of ?those who follow and live by the teachings of Jesus? and more often - in public opinion - the opposite.

I am a follower of the teachings of Jesus Christ and can often be found talking, blogging or singing about my passionate belief in Christ and convictions about the life He challenges us to live. I have traditional Christian symbols tattooed on my arm and have fallen pray to using the word Christian as an adjective for my life far more often than I care to re-count. I do not however want to be known or refer to my self as a Christian any longer if my life does not reflect the claims I make about myself.

I am no longer a Christian ??. (you fill in the blanks ). I am a follower of Christ and believe the message He taught has great consequence for humanity. These however are nothing but mere words on a page. Empty claims that have no substance if not demonstrated by the fruits of my life. Brash claims? Perhaps. I have no doubt that this now opens me up to scrutiny and criticism by those who wish to do so, and I will be the first to admit I fail more often than I succeed, but I can no longer use this title to deem some acceptable and others (who do not carry the right title) unacceptable.

If someone carries a different religious tag, or title than me, it does not mean they are no longer my brother or sister. I can love my neighbor like I love myself, even if they are Muslim! I can speak up for those without a voice, care for those who have been forgotten and forgive my enemy. None or these life functions require a title, they just require my response.

Let my life be a reflection of my claims or do not call me a Christian any longer?.

A recent discussion on @scotmcknight ‘s blog Jesus Creed, got me thinking about all the talk lately about the cross, sacrifice and blood for atonement. What is meant by all this talk of blood and sacrifice and who is it actually for?

NB: for the scholar this is just a sketch which I hope will stimulate discussion (not an exhaustive paper), for the uninitiated, I do assume a bit of prior knowledge, so please feel free to ask questions if you get lost.

Many have asked as of late, if the theory of Substitutionary Atonement or Penal Substitution is actually more akin to a form of cosmic child abuse. Because of His holiness and our sinfulness, is God really incapable of relationship with humanity unless there is some form of blood sacrifice?

My thoughts are thus; certainly the reformed stance of blood sacrifice being necessary is evident in many passages in the bible, however I would question whom this blood sacrifice was actually for. If it is, as reformed theology suggests primarily because God’s holiness demands it and that there is no way that humanity can relate to God in it’s sinful state without the atonement of the blood, then I would say there are some gaping holes in the narrative.

If God’s holiness precludes covenant (relationship) with humanity without blood sacrifice, there are many instances prior to Mosaic Law where this is simply not the case. The most notable of these is Abraham. God makes a covenant with Abraham prior to the dream of sacrifice (and mosaic law) and as Hebrews reminds us, it was Abraham’s faith that was counted unto him for righteous (not his sacrifice)

God attempts to come down to be with his people at Sinai prior to the instituting of the mosaic law and it was the people that asked God to distance Himself from them because they were afraid.

The God/Man (Jesus) himself comes and relates to humanity intimately and personally, prior to the final atoning work on the Cross and teaches that God the Father embraces humanity in their “sinful state” without the requirement of ritualistic cleansing (prodigal son).

I am not suggesting that the blood sacrifice was not required; I question whether it was God that required it because of his inability to draw near to a sinful humanity.

The bible narrative comes to us repeatedly from religious/cultural climates that view the gods as angry and demanding of a truly great sacrifice (often a blood sacrifice). The gods were capricious and could not be pleased. I believe the sacrificial and atonement narrative thread in the Bible, is God’s way of speaking humanities language. ?You think I can?t be pleased even with a blood sacrifice? I’ll show you that I can be pleased… here?s how and you don’t even have to do it.?

The cry for punishment, sacrifice and blood in exchange for injustice is not the cry of holiness rather the cry of sinful humanity, who demand ?just deserts? in the face of offense. The cry for justice and punishment is the cry of humanity even today.

There is no question in my mind that the images of blood sacrifice and the cross are helpful in understanding the person and the work of Jesus, but they are certainly not the only pictures that the scriptures provide us. To reduce the whole atoning work to be primarily about blood, I think, does Christ and the scandal of the cross a gross disservice.

If Jesus had come to earth today, in the 21^st Century to reveal his ultimate act of atonement, would he have used a cross? I wonder…?

Please feel free to comment, RT, reblog and share this blog.

If you would like some back ground to my post check out the Jesus Creed blog that I mentioned above: http://www.patheos.com/community/jesuscreed/2011/04/07/kings-cross-9/comment-page-1/#comment-133201

Suggested Reading: If you’d like to delve into this discussion further, James Alison writes a very in-depth article in a similar style to what I have sketched. http://www.jamesalison.co.uk/texts/eng11.html

photo by vincepal on flickr

What to do? Inspired by a recent tweet by @peterrollins I have decided to put my many thoughts and ideas to virtual paper and see if my writing is even worth reading. Stumbling Toward Something is exactly that. I have no agenda than to share the many musings I feel passionate about and put them out in the blogosphere for input, critique and feedback. My hope is that with your input, this will gradually hone and articulate my passion to write. I would be honoured if you would join me on my journey and add your thoughts to mine as I Stumble Toward Something.

Journeyman - A poem by Tarun Stevenson

I am a Journeyman!

I am not defined by my title, my job description or life station.

My life is not defined by my failures or sucess, for I am on a journey with my creator.

It is not a journey of destination or events, but a journey of lessons and experience.

So, I will choose to greet each new day, with arms wide open.

I will take joy in my blessings, and find beauty in the ashes.

I will live each day without regret, Because I, am a journeyman!

photo by vincepal on flickr

What to do? Inspired by a recent tweet by @peterrollins I have decided to put my many thoughts and ideas to virtual paper and see if my writing is even worth reading. Stumbling Toward Something is exactly that. I have no agenda than to share the many musings I feel passionate about and put them out in the blogosphere for input, critique and feedback. My hope is that with your input, this will gradually hone and articulate my passion to write. I would be honoured if you would join me on my journey and add your thoughts to mine as I Stumble Toward Something.

Journeyman - A poem by Tarun Stevenson

I am a Journeyman!

I am not defined by my title, my job description or life station.

My life is not defined by my failures or sucess, for I am on a journey with my creator.

It is not a journey of destination or events, but a journey of lessons and experience.

So, I will choose to greet each new day, with arms wide open.

I will take joy in my blessings, and find beauty in the ashes.

I will live each day without regret, Because I, am a journeyman!