The other day a very strange imagination caught me. I do often think of God. In many ways I am trying to imagine him. The sceptic might ask ‘so you’re imagining him up?’. No, God needs to be imagined as we imagine our loved ones when they are not physically present with us.
So the strange imagination. I imagined God as some’thing’ simple. I use the word thing as an abstraction. I imagined God at a sub-atomic level being three particles. In what these are and how they interact with each other, God is. From this God overflows out into creation. Yet there none like this. Or I should say thise to merge the singular and plural. There is nothing or none like thise. In this simple beingness God is most primal.
I had always imagined God to stand outside of creation and create it. Like a ball which God holds. Now I imagine God creating outside himself. The particles and the energy flow from God to create the origin of universe. Since God in my imagination now is smaller than the smallest imagined particle, he flows through all, guiding, pleading, ordering, cajoling, scolding creation, giving it the fullness of himself, love.
It feels as though I’ve suddenly lost any flow that I had in writing. I know I wasn’t great but still it felt as though it almost held together. Now it’s gone. Lack of practice plus anger plus lack of any real reading. Aaargh!
My old friend Matt invited me to an event called Open Source which was held at LICC. The event was 3 talks about technology and faith. Check this out to see what happened.
As many are, I was quite nervous at going to an event where I would know only one person. I wasn’t sure whether to spend £9 and head there or not. But I did and I’m glad I did… sort of.
First off, the food. I just don’t get the way English do food. I have tried but I can’t. they are happy with dried bits of wheat stuffed with any tasteless old thing marginally gooified with some strange coloured liquid to make it all better. It’s not that the English can’t cook or don’t have good food. I love English food. But they don’t take the effort to make it or they don’t think much of it. I don’t know. It’s worth further investigation.
Now the talks. I loved Matt‘s talk. I felt that his talk was consistent and grounded. That could be because I share many common worldview points with him. The way that he brought technology as true tool for sacremental living was brilliant and that’s what he’s doing with Rhythms.
Next was Phil Hewinson who was the keynote speaker. He brought out a lot of cool facts about the technology industry and gave some projections as to some possibilities as to where the technologies could go. I could say it was interesting but I felt I didn’t learn anything new there. I kind of had seen the facts and figures elsewhere and the projections felt like overpositive futurology. The truth is that futurology is highly inexact. And for the most part people get it wrong. I didn’t really understand the purpose of throwing all that stuff in the air. It’s fun, I suppose. Big companies put money into it with a hope of selling it I suppose. But in the end unless we ask a question as to what it actually means then it becomes an empty forgotten dream of the past.
Lastly was Ben Whitnall the media head at Bible Society. He was quite engaging his main point being that the technology has to be seen as a human tool and the human must not be forgotten. I liked his talk, I thought he had the best presentation of all the three and he actually used… wait for it, Scripture! However I think he overstressed his point of the importance of humanity almost negating the way technology does mould us and makes us who we are. I think technology for the sake of technology is important. Otherwise we come to a purely needs based technology which in the end might not meet any of our needs. A lot of the great technology that we have is the result of endless pointless tinkering.
There wasn’t enough time for real time discussion or questions. I suppose a lot of that is happening online. Interestingly I couldn’t see anything from my brief search anything that was critical of the event or the talk. Is there a sheen of the positive that covers these things? Or maybe I’m far too critical.So I’ll just leave this post here for the two people who ocassionally land up at my blog.
Anyhow, interesting evening. Thanks Matt.