Sommer net ‘n nota

May 21, 2012

Ek vat gou ‘n breek by die werk, en was sommer lus om bietjie te skryf.

Hier is ‘n paar gedagtes wat ek gehad het gedurende die laaste paar weke:

  • Vryheid het sy voordele, maar indien ek ‘n keuse sou hê, sou ek eerder in ‘n verhouding wees – as die meisie reg is.
  • Being a Christian should humble you, not make you proud.
  • Die storie oor die barmhartige Samaritaan was ‘n antwoord op die vraag “Wie is my naaste?” En mens moet mooi dink om die betekenis te vang: die Samaritaan is die naaste van die man wat beroof is. Ek dink die eintlike betekenis van die gelykenis lê daarin dat geen ‘klassifikasie’ bestaan vir ‘wie jy moet liefhê’ nie – behalwe dat dit enige iemand is wat jou pad kruis. Dis baie meer profound as die ‘moral of the story’ wat mense gewoonlik uithaal, naamlik: “wees soos die Samaritaan”.
  • Die Here loop met elkeen van ons ‘n unieke pad. Dinge wat die Here wil hê ek moet doen, is nie noodwendig van toepassing op my mede-Christen nie. Natuurlik is daar Christen ‘basics’ wat op alle Christene van toepassing is, maar dit beteken geensis dat ons almal moet beweeg na dieselfde gewoontes en roetines en leefwyses nie.
  • Vriendskappe vergaan. Dis eerder die reël as die uitsondering. Soos die dood, is dit iets wat jammer is, maar dit is maar deel van die lewe. Party van my vriende vir wie ek so lief was dat ek met graagte my lewe vir hulle sou aflê, doen nie nou meer eers die moeite om ‘n uur of twee af te knyp om bietjie kwaliteit tyd met my te spandeer een keer in twee maande nie. En die enigste rede vir hierdie agteruitgang in ons vriendskap, is dat hulle aanbeweeg het in die lewe (meeste van die tyd is ernstige verhoudings met meisies ‘n groot gedeelte hiervan). Eerder as om ontsteld te raak oor die skemer van ‘n vriendskap of om verbete daarteen te baklei – vorm nuwe vriendskappe en geniet daardie mense wat ook tyd en moeite op die tafel wil sit om jou vriend te wees. Wat my aanbetref, wil ek egter nie ooit so vriend wees wat verantwoordlelik is vir die afsterwing van ‘n vriendskap nie, maar ons sal seker maar moet kyk of ek die daad by die woord kan voeg wat dit aanbetref.
  • Hoe meer besittings jy het, hoe meer kos dit jou om dit te hê (versekering geld, stoor spasie, tyd om jou besittings te bestuur, tyd en geld om dit te onderhou en reg te maak). Om tevrede te wees met min het inderdaad groot voordele.
  • Demokrasie, soos beofen in die moderne westerse wêreld, is ‘n klug. Gee my eerder ‘n monargie. Daar is waardevolle orde daaraan om ondergeskik te wees aan iemand, terwyl iemand ook ondergeskik is aan jou.
  • Die impak wat mens se ouers op jou lewensbaan het, kan nie oorskat word nie. So baie mense wat ouers gehad het wat geskei het, beland in disfunksionele verhoudings met soortgelyke probleme as hul ouers, en gereeld skei hulle ook. Die gebrek aan ‘n goeie pa strem beide mans en meisies op ‘n baie diep vlak. Daar is baie hoop vir kinders uit gebroke huise wat hulleself onderwerp aan Bybelse leiding, maar daarsonder, baie min.
  • Hoe skaars is mense wat jou actually terugbel wanneer hulle dit beloof het. As jy *’n verskil* wil maak in die wêreld, hou jou belofte om iemand terug te bel. Glo my: dis baie verskillend!

OK, tyd op. Thanks vir die lees! 🙂

As jy ‘n gedagte het om te deel oor enige van my gedagtes – deel asb!

Advertisements

“Where are we heading?” A Christian’s thoughts on modern liberalism

October 30, 2011

There is a debate going on at the University of Stellenbosch. In the center of campus, a statue of a demon-like being, with its male genitals showing, has been erected. Some like it. Some want it to be taken down.

This is not an isolated case and the statue is truly an embodiment of a global shift. All over the world, liberalism is gaining ground: Societies begin more and more to accept sex outside of marriage,  embrace homosexualism, legalise and encourage abortion, admire perversity in ‘art’ and do away with institutional authority. Many abandon religion altogether, while others live secular lives that are in complete contradiction with the values and standards that their religion teaches. In liberal thought, the only moral law  is that you should not do something which damages the interest of another. There is no absolute ‘right’ and ‘wrong’.

This trend is not new. It has been gaining momentum for decades, but it has not been around forever. Not that immorality is a new thing – it has indeed been with us from the beginning of history. However, the widespread acceptance of what would be considered ‘immoral’ in the past, is a new thing. I know this, not because religious people told me so, but because secular literature and art make it obvious. In all of history, among most cultures that I have heard of, there were dire consequences when a girl lost her virginity before marriage.  Go ahead and watch series and movies from 30 years ago and compare it to their current equivalents. There is an undeniable difference in the approach to sexual relationships. In modern entertainment, sex between unmarried couples is shown as if it is a normal thing.  30 years ago this was definitely not the case. Modern pop hits like “Make Love in This Club”, “My Humps” and “The Bad Touch” (that Discovery Channel song) explicitly celebrate sex outside of marriage and society does not really raise an eyebrow.

I do not think that us Christians are called to stop this trend. Jesus said that we are in this world but not of it. We are not meant to be trend-setters for non-believers. The important thing is to stay holy and to not take part in the immorallity. We must also always remember to not alienate worldly people because they do worldly things. Jesus came for sinners. However, once we have laid down our lives for Him, we can no longer practice the immoral things that the world does, and we can also hold our fellow believers to this.

But for me the interesting question is actually: “What will be the consequence of liberalism by the world for the world?”

Simply put, I do not think it ends well for the modern world. And by that I do not even mean God will smite them with his wrath. God’s wrath against sin will come, yes, but only eventually. Until then, I believe that the world will suffer at the hands of the monster that it is creating through liberalism. The celebrated ‘freedom’ that liberalism brings has already blossomed into pain as family structures in liberal societies collapse. Divorced couples hurt, and their children suffer. Teen pregnancy takes its toll. But I expect that the blossom will turn into a fruit. I believe liberal societies will bring terrible things upon themselves and that there will be immense hardship and suffering as a consequence of this way of life. I don’t quite know what form these things will take, but wisdom tells me that the further you move away from God, his truth and his justice, the closer you move to destruction. And I say again: not destruction by the Lord. Sinners bring destruction upon themselves.

As for us Christians, I do not think that we will be spared from the suffering and hardship that the society that we live in brings upon itself. But we will always have a hope for the future, we will be strengthened by His spirit that dwells inside of us and we will always have a source of joy in Him. And believers will have each other to help bear the burdens. Our objective will remain the same as ever: to make disciples of all nations. This is the only way to save people from perishing.

Elite evolutionists’ arguments are formidable

October 25, 2010

OK, my fellow believers, let’s get one thing straight: Richard Dawkins, the world’s most influential anti-creationist is not stupid. In fact, he is a renowned scientist. Why is it important for us to realise this? Because, by trying to ridicule his work, or by saying he made mistakes, we prove ourselves to be any combination of overzealous, stupid, uninformed, arrogant or dishonest. When we do that, we damage the credibility of Christians in the evolution “debate” * and therefore completely shoot ourselves in the foot.

I recently received yet another email criticising his work, complete with a simulation program and everything. It’s not even my field, but I could, after some investigation and time on Wikipedia  see that whoever wrote it, was too determined to prove Dawkins wrong to follow his argument in the first place. To demonstrate: the “christian” compares Dawkins’ theory to gambling on  a slot machine which “helps” you win, by allowing you to decide to “freeze” the spinners when they stop on symbols you want, and then allowing you to spin the other symbols again until you have a matching set. He then gives his “final blow” against Dawkins:

If gambling was that easy, not a single casino would still be standing!

He just re-iterated the point that Dawkins was trying to make in the first place! Dawkins said that evolution is like a rigged slot machine and that is why evolution, which would otherwise seem impossible (just like gambling a casino out of business) is actually possible!

* * *

3 years ago, a Christian apologetic geologist revealed a truth to me that really stuck: neither the creationists nor the evolutionists will ever be proved right. Why? Because none of us were around when the world was created, and that which was recorded (i.e. Genesis in the Bible and similar accounts) was not scientifically peer-reviewed as far as we know. All we have are some clues. These clues, whether they are fossils, rocks, ice or organisms  are lying around and may be used in support of creation or evolution depending on your interpretation, perspective or argument. So, instead of this bickering, mud casting and constant attempts to shoot each other down, let us both present our theories and our exhibits (interpreted clues) and leave it to the reader to choose what they want to believe. I say believe because there is no way to know outside of faith.

In that spirit, I say as a believer in creation:  if you can point out a flaw in an evolutionist’s argument, whoop whoop, you go! Because this matter is important to the body of Christ. But, keep in mind that, to point out a flaw in an argument, you have to first listen to the argument. This is what makes me very angry at some fellow christians who engage in this debate.

Let’s take the email that provoked this post: The argument stemmed from the infinite monkey theorem, which hypothesizes that a monkey could type a sentence if he tried randomly for a very very long time. In out practical world, that is nonsense, yes. In scientifical terms though, a very long time is well, infinitely long, so the monkey would eventually type the complete works of Shakespeare without even intending to. It’s a fact. Because an infinitely long time is enough time for anything, no matter how ‘lucky’, to occur by chance.

However, even the evolutionists concede that in the real universe there has not been enough time to get that lucky. However, through his weasel program,  Dawkins used a modified typing monkey analogy to show that, if some element of selection could be introduced into a random process, the required time to get “lucky” could be drastically reduced.

So, what does this “christian”, creationist critic do? He attacks this demonstration of Dawkins from multiple angles – from math theory, to Excel Macros to analogies with houses and earthquakes. But he missed the point: the demonstration is simply trying to demonstrate the principle that selection could drastically increase probabilities.

If you were not a very insightful person, you would read his criticisms and recognise that there is truth is many of them, so it follows that Dawkins must be wrong, not so? However, if you read Dawkins’ theory a second time or you are a bit more informed or insightful to start with, you would realise that the “christian” critic did not even understand what point Dawkins was trying to make in the first place! Or you would suspect that he did in fact understand, but attacked the detail rather than the essential, in order to draw uninformed people (the so-called “laymen”)  into the creationist camp. So, insightful and informed people see this christian as either overzealous, stupid, desperate, or cheap and will now associate this with the school of creationism, which of course does it no credit.

I imagine that, as soon as he realised that the world’s greatest atheist made some detail errors, this christian jumped at the opportunity to attack without bothering to properly read Dawkins’ work prior to criticising it. So, I sympathetically think of him as overzealous.

Even though I am no expert in this field  (origins of life, biology), I understand enough to know that Dawkins’ model does prove his assertion that selection can increase probabilities. Even if I did not know enough to understand that, I would probably rather believe a world-renowned scientist, than some guy that nobody knows about who has a religious motivation to attack Dawkins’ claims anyway. Unless, of course, I wasn’t an honest seeker myself and was more interested in “proving” my faith correct to others than in having a fair debate about it.

On a brighter note: I did read another commentory by a christian who criticises Dawkins work which was nothing short of excellent, in my opinion. It basically said: well, for any type of  ‘selection’ to happen, there must be self-reproducing entity. The most basic self-reproducing entity is a cell. He then uses a reference and makes a few assumptions which are very generous toward the atheists and shows mathematically that the probabilities are ludicrously against a cell EVER, within the context of the possible age of our universe (as seen by the evolutionists), forming accidentally. So then, having asserted that selection can not happen without self-reproduction and having proved that cells – the simples form of self-reproducing entity –  could not have formed accidentally, he has pulled the carpet from under Dawkins’ feet. Not be disproving him, but by rendering his model completely irrelevant. The mathematical correctness, or logic or anything of Dawkins’ model did not matter, and were never even mentioned. The christian just showed that the circumstances under which the model might have applied, could never have existed, even under the assumptions that atheists make.

The christian then asserts, not that Dawkins is stupid, nor that he made a mistake not even that he is evil, but that he knows full well that he was using an invalid argument in order to substantiate his own beliefs. This would leave Dawkins supporters with two uncomfortable choices: admit that Dawkins is a scaly propagator, or assert that Dawkins did not realise the irrelevance of his model and does not seem to be quite as brilliant as they thought he was. Either way, it’s Dawkins and not creationism that is discredited.

Or they could disagree with the christian’s criticism, but at least it was, as far as I can tell, not one that discredits creationism.

*I say it in parenthesis, since it would be like the French resistance talking about the “war” against the Germans in 1942. They had already lost all their territory and infrastructure, yet they have not given up the fight. If you asked a German about the “war” with France, they would say “Var vith France? Have you not heard? Ve von that in 1940?” . Similarily, while the creationists still see it as a debate, the vast majority of scientists no longer considers it as such and accept the evolution as the only plausible (and fundamentally useful) theory around.

Killing

February 13, 2010

I watched “Taken” with some friends tonight. Yes, it’s that movie about a guy whose daughter is kidnapped by human traffickers who wants to sell her as a sex slave.

The rest of the movie basically consists of our hero killing the bad guys and following a trail leading him to her. I liked the movie, even though the plot was not very intriguing. The killing is perpetuated. Bad guy upon bad guy dies. Once or twice our hero is in the position to show mercy, but does not even think about it twice. He kills.

Personally, I am so disgusted with what these human trafficers are getting up to, that something inside me applauds their ruthless execution. Even when one is left in a torture chair with electric current running through him until he dies, I think that it is no more than what he deserves. I had a similar sentiment about the fate of the bad guy in Slum Dog Millionaire who is executed by one of the kids whom he tried to enslave. Or when Dale kills the thug that murdered his patron in Jerico. It feels like: Justice is done.

And once again I wonder – when is it… right to kill? Turning to my oldest reference for morals, I see that the Bible recognises death as a penalty for serious crimes – sometimes even for seemingly petty ones like lying (to the Holy Spirit) or taking jewels (that God clearly specified should be destroyed). And sometimes a man’s whole family is killed for the crime which he committed. Often it is God who does it himself, but he also sometimes instructs his servants to do it – some of it by laws, some of it through divine impartation.

Even more questions may be raised: When is it right to take justice into one’s own hands? Who should be the guy to flip the switch to the electric chair?

The bible says that he who takes up the sword will perish by the sword and that every man who sheds the blood of another man, will atone for that blood with his own. In contrast, I notice in the Modern West a sentimentality around human life which does not stand out in the history that I know or in the bible. In the bible, the laws are constructed more around the reverence of justice than the sacrecy of human life. At least that’s my impression.

In my opinion, there are punishments that match crimes. If you take the life of another, you forfeit the right to your own. If you kidnap girls and sell them into sexual slavery… that is almost the same as taking their life: you are reducing them to be pleasure providers to dishonorable men for the rest of their lives with little or no other significance to their lives. I would say death is an appropriate punishment for doing this – or perhaps castration and prolonged torture. I am disgusted by this abomination.

I will admit that I am no angel myself, and I’ve had my share of twisted thoughts and I’ve done things that I am ashamed of. Hell, perhaps I even have the capacity to become like them. But I have not taken from another what they do. And if ever I do, may I be damned.

If the Bible is not the perfect word of God, you can keep your Christian faith for yourself!

January 26, 2010

I just had a long discussion with some friends and a theology student. It was about  the most pressing question in my life these days: do I believe that the Bible is the perfect inspired word of God? My response needs to be either "yes", "no" or "only partly". But, if something is only partly perfect, it must be imperfect as a whole. Which leaves us with only "yes" or "no".

I have always regarded this as a very important question to answer but today, for the first time, I actually verbalised the true dilemma: If I decide I want to follow Jesus Christ, I must somehow figure out what that entails. And if I lay down my life for Him (as He demands in Matthew 10:37 to 39) I had better know how he wants me to live. But how do I know? I can think of three possible places where I can try to find out what Jesus wants from me:

1. Other people – You get some people who claim to know the Lord and I honestly believe that some do. But even the most solid of them can make mistakes. And often, after you have thought someone to be the ultimate Christian, you find out a year or two down the line that they were quite deceived all along or that their faith did not even last a year. So despite the fact that I recognise the great value that impartation from others may have in my life, I will not easily trust people to tell me what to lay my life down for. They may be wrong.

2. Personal spiritual experiences – Emotions, premonitions, spiritual experiences, divine impartations – Yes. These cannot be denied and I have had some myself.  But many Hindu’s, Muslims, Buddhists and other religions claim the same. And I do not think that they are all lying. I think the spiritual realm is real and that there are heavenly as well as other (demonic) spiritual entities out there which can tell you all sorts of things or cause all kinds of thrills or troubles. So, while these experiences may confirm or conflict with your beliefs, the fact that they occur in many different religions implies that you can’t "trust" them to reveal to you just who is the "real" God and what He wants you to do. They may be misleading. 

(As an afterthought, one could argue that all these experiences are real and also from some "universal" God or divine entity. However let’s make the assumption that Jesus Christ and Buddha could not both have been speaking the truth, since the one said there is a God and the other that there is none. Yes, that’s an assumption and there’s still room for debate, but let’s save the "all roads" argument for another day.)

3. The Bible – The Bible is a complete package in that it explains how everything came to be the way it is and it tells us what we ought to do with our lives. It tells us about Jesus and about what he taught while He was here. If it can be trusted, the guidelines in it may be used to judge the trustworthiness of spiritual impartations from others as well as our personal spiritual experiences.

Without such a book as a reference, you simply don’t have anything reliable or complete enough to base your Christian faith upon or to discern what is true and false. You say: "Who says that the Bible is reliable and complete?" Exactly. That is the friggin’ big question. Which means we have successfully completed the introduction.

I will make my point again: without the Bible, you only have untrustworthy sources on which to build your Christian faith.  So it’s either the Bible or give up Christianity. But now we reach a whole new level of argument: What do you believe the Bible itself to be??  Is it the perfect Truth as given by God to man? Or is it subject to the human flaws and subjectivity of the human authors? Is the Bible perfect?? This is a simple "yes" or "no".

To tell you the truth, I have not made up my mind about this yet (which is not good!). But this I do know:

According to the Bible, Jesus said (in many ways) that if you want to follow him, he requires nothing less than you laying down your life for Him (For example Matthew 10:37-39, Mark 8:34-38, Luke 10:62, John 15:12-14). If you do not accept this from the Bible, I do not think it is possible to base your Christian faith on the Bible at all – no matter what you believe the Bible to be.

Yet I can not live my life for Jesus if I do not know what Jesus wants. And if I don’t trust Scripture to tell me what Jesus wants, there is no other trustworthy way to know! But how can I trust Scripture to tell me how to follow Jesus if I believe that Scripture itself fell victim to human error and subjectivity? I cannot!

 This narrows my options down. If I am to base my Christian faith on the Bible, it has to be based on the Bible as the perfect Truth because I won’t lay my life down for a "flawed" truth. So finally I am left with no more than two options: Follow Christ and believe that the Bible is the perfect Truth, or drop the Christian idea altogether.

And honestly: I mean it. I would sooner just drop Christianity than try to follow Christ without having a True bible to guide me in doing so. And I respect people who are agnostic way more than "Christians" who claim that the Bible is "just a book" or "is subject to human flaws". Not because I’m sure that it is not, but because if you believe the Bible to be anything less than the God-given Truth, how the heck can you know what it means to be a Christian in the first place?

Therefore, next time some liberal theologist or dominee comes up to me and says that he follows Christ, yet we should not think of the Bible to be the perfect Truth from God, I know what I’ll say. I’ll say it like in the blog title… maybe with a bit more colour.

I believe!

January 24, 2010

Last year was characterised by me losing faith in humanity. I looked around and observed that people were, in their masses, self-serving and that it does little good to appeal to their so-called “better nature”. I observed that people – especially in business – are motivated by self-interest. And nothing else.

Of course there were a few exceptions, like myself and some of the people I’ve met. But even my friends that I respect the most disappointed me time and again. And I disappointed myself.

But already this year is bringing a new flavour into my life. It’s coming through Matthew Haden – an American who is the SRC of environmental affairs on who’s committee I serve. He’s super effective, but more than that: he challenges me over and over again to believe. To believe that there is hope. That we can actually make a difference.

I remain convinced that human nature is ultimately self-serving, but I am becoming convinced that we can actually work around that: we can change the system instead of changing the people. (And I know everybody always want to rewrite the system, but what I mean is that we can adapt the system to take self-servingness into account. Here’s what I mean: )

Another friend and (dare I say) mentor of mine, Matthew Kuperus Heun,taught me about how things can increase or decrease in value simply because the accounting system through which it is seen changes. People adapt their behaviour super fast if it means they save money.

Back to the change that Matthew Haden is bringing in my life: he is a Christian who openly claims to be a virgin and that he does not masturbate. He impressively defends his morals in arguments. Morals that I thought could not be defended against post-modernist thought. Yet he can stand his ground and this makes me believe that I could too. He takes life head-on. His life has been an adventure like I have only dreamed of. And it still is. He is not living in the box and that’s how it’s gonna stay. I thought I was daring – until I met this guy.

Either way: in him I see a lot of how I used to see myself. I am reminded. And it feels like, for the first time, somebody is demonstrating to me that it’s possible to live life that…ultimately.

And I want to do it. Again.

rus voor die storm

May 10, 2009

Die besluit om vandag sabbat te neem of nie was vir my so ietwat van ‘n dilemna. Ek het op die ou end besluit:  ja. Dit is actually belangriker om die Here te eer as om alles betyds en tevrede in te gee. So, my werkslading, of eerder, my deadline konsentrasie, is hoër vir hierdie week as vir enige ander een wat ek kan onthou. Maar somehowsomehow is ek rustig daaroor.

Rustigheid is nogal iets wat ek herontdek nadat ek nie meer by my Cara is nie. Ek was so vasberade om haar bewondering te wen, dat ek amper nooit gerus het nie. Dit was nie vir my goed genoeg om ‘n dag by die huis rond te lê, of om ‘n video uit te neem of so iets nie. Ek moes engage met mense of besig wees om die wêreld te verander… of natuurlik by haar wees.

Dit was nie haar skuld in enige iets meer as dat dit was wat dit gevat het om haar ogies te laat blink nie. En as ek nou dink hoe ek ‘n verhouding sou wou hê, dan sou dit nie so wees nie. Dit sou wees dat ‘n mens saam mission en opgewonde word oor mekaar se rolle in die mission(s)  en dat mens dan

kan

rus.

saam.

Maar vir nou rus ek maar op my eie. En geniet dit as Stiaan op my bean bag kom sit tot ‘n stilte van langer as 10 sekondes hom ongemaklik genoeg maak en hy die kamer verlaat 😉 (ek slaag darem deesdae daarin om hom so 5 tot 10 minute te stall 🙂 ).

So, ek geniet vandag my sabbat. ‘Het kerk toe gegaan, ‘n video gekyk, ‘n middagslapie gevat en gekuier saam met my boesem vriende. Dit was goed. Revitalising. Nou staal ek myself maar vir die komende week, maar met die wete dat die Here vir my belangriker is as die werk. En dat Hy groot is en goed is. En dat sy wil vir my goed is. Mag die Ultimate Pikster weer sy gesig kom wys tydens die komende storm!

a beautiful girl in the rain

May 7, 2009

I was the victim of beautiful coincidence today. I was rushing back to class after a meeting during lunch. As I approached the door, I noticed that it had started raining. I gave an exaggerated moan of exasperation to express my infuriation with the fact that I will now be both late and wet by the time I get to class.

Nevertheless, I ran on down the stairs, and as I rounded the corner I noticed I was not the only one running towards the engineering faculty in the rain. And I paused. Smiled. It was her!

I lowered my head in determination. I caught up easily since she was running at a feminine pace.

Then we ran together through the rain. Over a bridge and down the stairs.

She wore clothes that I liked a lot and she smiled. Maybe at me. And she laughed. And I liked it. I liked running through the rain with her.

Interlude

May 5, 2009

Ek weet nie of jy al Interlude gelees het nie? Dis ‘n gedig. Ek google dit gou…

O, wag. Dis Preludes.  Hier is die link.  Hoop hy werk nog teen die tyd wat jy hierdie lees.

Ons het hierdie gedig in Engels eerste taal behandel in matriek of standerd nege in Fish Hoek Senior High. Ek het dit nogal regtig geniet om engelse gedigte te behandel. Die konsepte, uitkyk en wêrelde wat ons teëgekom het in daai gedigte het my som fassineer en ander kere net lekker laat nadink.

Inelkgeval, dit was sommer die eerste ding wat in by my opgekom het toe ek begin skryf het.

Ek sit in my gemaklike, goed-ingerigte kamer. Ek blog want ek wil ‘n breek vat van die Termovloei tut toetse wat ek moet merk. Ek geniet dit nogal, maar mens moet ‘n breek vat. My rekenaar speel deur die Logitech speakers vir my die musiek waarvan ek hou en wat ek al goed ken. Ek geniet hierdie aand.

My wêreld het nogal anders geword hierdie jaar. Orde het vir my belangriker geword. Ek maak my bed op en fokus daarop om my nagklere netjies op te vou. My beursie bêre ek in my boonste laai, al weet ek ek gaan hom weer binnekort uithaal. My rugsak hang agter die deur aan sy haak. Dalk is ek besig om groot te word… of dalk is dit iets anders. Either way, dis where I’m at.

Hoekom blog ek? Wel, ek dink elke mens kan eintlik maar ‘n blog hê. Of dit nou is om hulle geliefdes op hoogte te hou van wat aangaan in hulle lewens, om gedagtes te deel of sommer net watookal. So vanaand maak ek ‘n begin.merk-is-nie-so-erg-nie

🙂

Ons kyk maar of dit êrens heen gaan. Vir nou eers: terug na Termo en die wonderlike wêreld van ingenieurswese. (Ek kom agter dis deesdae glad nie vir my meer soveel pret om die somme te doen nie…)