Skip to main content

Victorian bushfires

Some of my international friends have asked me about the Victorian bushfires. Here's some news.
* * * * *
On Saturday 7 Feb, a series of bushfires began burning all over the state of Victoria. They were incredibly savage for two reasons: a heat-wave had hit the area the previous week, making the whole area tinder dry; and a change moved through with wind gusts reaching hurricane force levels up to 120km/h. The fires were so fierce, scientists estimate they expelled up to 80,000 kilowatts per meter of heat on that Saturday alone. This equals about 500 of the atomic bombs which landed on Hiroshima.
The official death toll so far is 181. But it’s expected to reach 300, as investigators get to properly search places that are off-limits at the moment because it’s still too dangerous to go in. In Marysville, eight are confirmed dead, but it’s expected to reach 100—one fifth of the town’s population. At least 35 people died in the Kinglake fire.
At least one of the fires may have been deliberately lit. Police have a man in custody, accused of starting the Churchill fire, in south Gippsland, which wiped out almost 36,000ha and killed up to 21 people.
The Red Cross has instituted a national appeal to help bushfire victims. It has hit $100 million so far. Support has come from as far afield as Dutch music maestro Andre Rieu; the Queen and Prince Charles; cricket star Shane Warne; and golfing celebrity Greg Norman. The Indonesian government has offered a donation of $US1 million ($A1.52 million), and Papua New Guinea $A2 million.
Sadly, there have also been reports of looting and false collection of donations.
For up-to-date info, see the Melbourne Herald Sun.
* * * * *
As for me - I'm safe in Sydney, about 800km from the action. But thanks for your concern :)
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The different distractions of secularity and spirituality

There has been a lot of discussion about the recent 'vibe shift' away from radical atheism back towards an openness to the supernatural. I don't think this new spirituality is necessarily an openness to the unique claims of Christ. It will more probably replace one set of commonly-accepted misunderstandings about Jesus with another.  Under radical atheism, people dismissed the Biblical claims about Jesus' resurrection because they 'knew' that it was impossible. Jesus hadn't really died. He just passed out (after being beaten and whipped and crucified) and then woke up in the tomb (and rolled away the stone himself and overcame several guards). Or the disciples hallucinated that they saw him (even though Jewish beliefs of the time didn't expect one person to rise possessing eternal life himself; they expected a general resurrection at the end of time - see John 11:24 ). Or something else.  The so-called 'explanations' of Jesus' non-resurrectio...
Post a Comment
Read more

A better understanding of nonbelief

The Nones Project is an ongoing study into the belief systems of people who call themselves non-religious. A few weeks ago one of the project leaders,  Ryan Burge  of Washington University,  posted some really interesting preliminary results  on his Substack.  1. We've probably heard of people who are spiritual but not religious (SBNRs). SBNRs were "the largest group of nones" in the sample. They believe in the supernatural realm but not necessarily in "a God." They are "deeply skeptical of religion but highly interested in spirituality," therefore individualistic and anti-institutional.  2. But this study differentiated SBNRs from people they called Nones In Name Only, NiNos. They different to SBNRs by being religious about their spiritual. They believe not just in the supernatural but in "God." And they tend to engage in traditional communal religious practices while SBNRs practice individualised eclectic bespoke spiritual practices. The s...
Post a Comment
Read more

Wax and Wright on the definition of "mission"

Trevin Wax has written a clear, simple, and charitable introduction to a debate about the nature and boundaries of the kinds of Christian activities that validly should be called "mission." In brief:  Should we use a broad definition, where "mission" encompasses all the various purposes which God calls Christians and the church in general to perform, e.g. being ethical at work; general acts of care and charity; standing against systematic oppression and working towards justice instead? If so, "evangelism" is only one part of the church's mission - a central, necessary, and irreplaceable part, but only one part nonetheless. The latter kinds of activities don't save anyone for eternity, but they do genuine good in this world which please God. And that kind of good makes a real difference in many parts of the world which have not benefited from the kind of Christian moral transformation which the West benefited from - the kind of moral transformation...
Post a Comment
Read more