Anyone out there had any sufferings cross their path lately? Perhaps it’s something transitory like recently losing a job. Perhaps it’s something long term like caring for someone with a disability. Maybe it’s the anxious wait to meet the right person or the heartache of dealing with marriage problems. Then of course there are the sufferings that most of us will never have to encounter such as starvation or a lack of clean drinking water. Suffering is a strange thing, it surrounds us and all of us will meet it in some shape at various points through our lives, yet most people have no idea about how to respond to it.

I recall once being down about something and a friend said to me in all sincerity “just remember that there is always someone worse off than you”. I am sure many of you have given or received similar advice. And at face value the logic is true, I am not living on a dollar-a-day in a third world country; I have a car and a house and people who love me. Surely I would be better to consider the trials of others before getting all worked up about my own sufferings?

Of all the faith systems in the world, Christianity has the most profound understanding of suffering, after all its founder was put to death and the instrument of his death – the cross – has become the enduring Christian sign. The call of Christ to “take up your cross” is a part of common speech. But what does it mean to take up our cross and how does that play into the daily sufferings we face?  

Perhaps if we do not understanding suffering the best we believe we can offer is a consolation which compares sufferings. The crux of the matter though is that while God does not directly will for anyone to suffer, he does allow such sufferings and he allows them in ways that can be beneficial for us, if we embrace them in the correct spirit. Our crosses are actually specifically shaped for us, they take into account our strengths and our weaknesses and what we need (often this is very different from what we think we need). Perhaps the family with no food in Africa is objectively in a more desperate situation than I am but my particular cross is not one of starvation. It really does not matter what someone else is suffering with because what is real to me is my particular suffering in this moment, even if it is objectively less than another. I do not need someone to tell me that my cross is not the biggest cross, the fact is, it is my cross.

If we believe Christ’s command to take up our cross then it would seem we actually have a duty to embrace the particular sufferings that fall our way. I am certainly not saying that we have to desire suffering and pain, but perhaps we need to look more deeply into our particular cross to see what good is within. If we live with an attitude that refuses to accept suffering then we might actually be closing ourselves off to an important gift that has been offered to us alone. Every event we encounter is in a broad sense, sacramental, that is, it is an external sign containing within it God’s action for us.

We might consider what would have happened if Christ decided not to embrace his cross. The cross of Christ is the source of salvation, it points to a love that we will spend our lives aspiring towards. Our own crosses are our paths to salvation when taken up and united with the cross of Christ. You may know the phrase “offer it up”, it’s often something told to children who are complaining but it has a deep and lasting value that we should probably all seek to embrace in our own lives. To offer something up, from drinking cold coffee to the way we deal with tragic news, gives us an outlook that quite simply, the world cannot give.

It is not that one walks into the hospital room of a friend diagnosed with cancer and simply says “offer it up” and walks out. If though in our lives we have come to understand that our crosses can be the tools that God gives to help us towards salvation, we will be in a far better place to truly be with the one who is suffering. Instead of trying to distract the sufferer from their pain and pretend it is not as bad as it could be we can help them to see the cross before them with new eyes.

www.foolishwisdom.com

By Bernard Toutounji

It seems that everywhere I look there are people who are going out of their way to annoy me! People who insist on driving at 70km even though the limit is 90km. People who have personal phone conversations on the train. People who chew with their mouths open. The list could take up this entire column! 

There are situations, however, that are beyond ‘annoying’, situations that can affect us in serious ways.

I was recently speaking to some friends who run a franchise business and the franchise director is really making life very difficult for them, to an extent that it is affecting their ability to run their business. The director tells lies, is obnoxious and rude. More than just affecting business, though, when we encounter people like this it can adversely affect our happiness.

We begin to boil on the inside, it consumes us at work and at home, we begin to hate the person and are led into personal sadness and depression.
These sorts of situations will play out for all of us in different ways through our lives but how can we respond?

It seems to me that there really are only two answers: we can burn with hate for the person or we can burn with love for the person. Love?! What?!
The person who is causing us harm and grief in whatever way, is most often acting out of their own pain. They might be having family problems; perhaps they are insecure or lonely. Mother Teresa often spoke of loneliness as the greatest poverty especially in the modern Western world, and even a person who appears to have it all (family, career, assets etc) can be deeply lonely.  Whatever it is, there is probably a pain in their heart.

Our encounter then with the person who is causing us so much grief should before anything else be seen as an opportunity to show love.

One of my all time favourite movie scenes is in the film Karol which tells the story of the life of Karol Wojtyla prior to him being elected as Pope John Paul II. Karol lived as a Bishop in Poland, which suffered at the hands of the Nazis and, once they had moved out, the communists moved in. Both movements were ones of hate. Seeing the Church as their largest threat, the communist leaders planted spies all around Bishop Wojtyla. One particular spy was sent as a student into Wojtyla’s university lectures.

The spy also bugged the confessional to find anything he could which would accuse Wojtyla of encouraging a violent uprise against the regime. Day in and day out, this spy listened to the pain in the hearts of those who came to Confession and he heard the love of Christ that was offered to them by Wojtyla.

In a very moving scene, the man, who could no longer live with himself, approaches Wojtyla to confess to being a spy. “Even though I hated you, your words slipped inside of me like water through a crack. You speak of love. Such a sick word”. And with that he broke down in the forgiving arms of the future Pope.
The point is that we all know the typical response to those who cause us pain. It is to cause them pain back. But there is another way and, amazingly, there is no weapon against it.

Love will break down any barrier because every hardened heart, every cruel boss, every offensive individual we meet desires love.
But it’s not enough just to smile at the person when we see them and avoid them like the plague the rest of the time. We need to love them, actively.
In the autobiography of St Therese of Liseux, she tells the story of a particular nun who irritated her to no end and made her life miserable.
Therese reaches a point where she writes “I reminded myself that sentiments of charity were not enough; they must find expression, and I set myself to treat her as if I loved her best of all.”

Therese loved this fellow nun, not just in words but with actions. She looked past what displeased her to see the person with all their pain, and their hurt but also their gifts and talents.

Whoever is causing you trouble is not going to be any worse than the communist spy but, even if they are, the key is to love them, love them actively, love them like you would love the most important person in your life.
You will turn your difficult situation around but most important you will genuinely help someone and become a better person yourself.

By Bernard Toutounji

Why is it that everyone does what everyone else does? Yes, we all carry iPhones and drink Coca Cola but what I find most intriguing is why everyone stops at two children? Why is Mum, Dad, Johnny and Jenny considered the perfect sized family in advertising and in reality?

It is no great revelation to note that the current total fertility rate in Australia is around 1.9 children per woman compared to the 3.4 children that was the case only fifty years ago.

We are not even replacing ourselves anymore.

The most obvious reason for this significant drop would have to be the introduction of the contraceptive pill in 1960.

The main function of ‘the pill’ is to disturb a woman’s normal cycle of fertility by confusing her body into thinking it is pregnant thus suppressing ovulation. (If ovulation does occur the pill’s second line of defence is to make the mother’s womb inhospitable to the newly created embryo and the little guy is eventually flushed out, most often without anyone knowing).

However, the pill’s less obvious but more subtle effect has really been to fundamentally change the way that husbands and wives look at themselves, their sexuality and their families.

The pill subliminally causes us to separate love-making from child-making and when that happens human beings can begin to see love as less to do with the other and more to do with the self.

One doesn’t have to look far to see an advertisement that will make it clear who the most important person in the world is (if you are not sure, it is you).
We are told that the less inconvenience we live with the better our lives will be but is that really true?

I am actually writing this on an airplane to London to go to a conference.
And can I say that this trip has caused me a fair bit on ‘inconvenience’, I had to rearrange my schedule while I am away, I had to pack a bag (I hate packing) and I had to get up at 5am this morning to get to the airport at 6.30am so I could sit around for three hours waiting to fly out.

However, I would have been labelled a fool if I declined the trip so I did not have to pack a bag. Why? Because the greater good of travelling to a new place and encountering new people is an obvious good.

So I can’t help but wonder why we view children differently? Are not the difficulties of raising children outweighed by a new life?

Every child in the world is a source of joy and the greatest gift we can receive.
Children are the visible sign of the love of a couple, so why stop the sign of our love at only a couple of children?

There is a two year old on this plane who has been wandering up and down approaching strangers and saying “I’m Dante, what’s your name” and everyone he encounters smiles and interacts with the little boy.

This is why it surprises me that so many couples choose to have two or three children and stop there.
Have we all become so subservient to contraception, as if it is our master? Why are there not more people who think outside the contraceptive square?

And I don’t only mean those Catholics who heed the Church’s vision for life and love and reject contraception for what it is. I also mean average married couples who might say to each other “hey we love children, let’s have lots!”
We really need to get out of our heads that two children are normal. It is only ‘normal’ in a post-industrialised world and in the scheme of things, across time and culture, that is fairly insignificant.

One friend made the point to me recently that perhaps our obsession with two children is partly thanks to the motorcar; after all, to go from a Commodore to a Tarago can be a big deal.

Perhaps the concept has merit, but even so, where are the people who don’t care about the mould, who just love life and want to surround themselves by it?
Pope John Paul II once said that the greatest gift that parents can give their children is the gift of brothers and sisters.

Children are good for each other, good for parents, good for marriages and good for society. So if you are reading this and feel like breaking out of the 1.9 children mould, may this be a small encouragement.

http://www.therecord.com.au/site/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2711&Itemid=30

By Bernard Toutounji

Last month, the Federal Government unveiled draft legislation to introduce plain packaging laws for cigarettes.

Health minister Nicola Roxon was unequivocal in her determination to put the final nail in the coffin of the tobacco industry.

Showing off the new compulsory olive green packaging with the vivid images of clogged arteries, cancerous gums and gangrene-infected feet, the minister declared, “We are going to ensure that in Australia there are no remaining avenues for tobacco companies to market and promote their products, particularly to young people. Gone are the days when people can pretend that cigarettes are glamorous.”

I have never smoked, have never had any desire to smoke and nothing frustrates me more than walking down the street and breathing in the secondhand smoke of the person puffing away in front of me, but this latest legislation push does cause me to wonder about the haphazard approach that federal policy takes to the health of its citizens.

What is most frustrating is the hypocritical approach given to other public health issues, in this instance the deceptive and fallacious ‘safe sex’ campaign that is sold to young people via various well designed and sexy governmental websites and videos. 

The current, official, safe sex, Federal Government website tagline is “STIs are spreading fast, always use a condom”. This is accompanied by a young, naked, attractive couple embracing one another. The message is all about condoms stopping everything from HIV to Chlamydia to Gonorrhoea. The site contains interactive games and activities to get across the condom message.

It even ran a national competition to design a ‘condom tin’ to make carrying condoms “as normal as carrying your mobile phone”. The problem is that the condom is not dealing with the issue, it is just skirting around it. And the issue which no government in the 21st century would be game enough to speak out about is sexual promiscuity.

In 2005, the government banned terms such as ‘light’, ‘mild’ and ‘extra mild’ on tobacco packaging as it gave the false impression that some cigarettes were less harmful than others.

Yet here we are in 2011, still telling young people that it is fine to toy with diseases such a HIV and Syphilis so long as they use a thin rubber sheath.
There was a major TV ad campaign run last year in which the entertaining and simplistic message was “Anyone can get Herpes” (anyone who is having promiscuous sex, that is).

Before that there was the highly visible campaign promoting the cervical cancer vaccine ‘Gardasil’ which was given out free by the Australian Government to any females aged 12 to 26.

The aspect that was not highly discussed in the popular media was that cervical cancer comes about as a result of the human papilloma virus which is a sexually transmitted disease. So, instead of speaking to 12 year olds about the value of who they are and what sex is, we injected them with a vaccine.

In these campaigns, we see something very different to what goes on in the war against tobacco.

The government is closing down all avenues left for the promotion and sale of tobacco products, yet in the ‘fight’ against deadly sexually transmitted infections the best they can say is, wear a condom and get an injection. What they are not saying is that a sexually promiscuous lifestyle is fraught with the risk of disease and heartache.

What is needed in the ‘safe sex’ campaign is an injection of truth. The safe sex message is all about information; it needs to be about formation.

What young person wants to put themselves at such a high risk of disease?

Women who use the pill for four years or longer prior to their first full term pregnancy have a 52 per cent higher risk of cancer than those not on the pill.
That sort of risk is seemingly acceptable, yet last year Toyota recalled 26,000 cars because 0.3 per cent of them experienced a slow brake fluid leak.

What about the fact that girls who are sexually active are more than three times likely to be depressed as girls who are abstinent prior to marriage? Teenage boys who are sexually active are more than twice as likely to struggle with depression and are more than eight times likely to attempt suicide.

Those who are sexually active prior to marriage have a significantly increased risk of divorce.  For a man who marries as a virgin, his chance of divorce is 63 per cent lower than a non-virgin. For girls, it is 76 per cent lower when they marry as virgins.

Sadly, general Western society has fallen into the pit of relativism so we are impotent (excuse the pun) to stand up and actually say that promiscuous sex is not glamorous, that it is better to wait until marriage to be sexually active because there is a far higher chance of happiness on every level and a genuinely decreased risk of a diseased body and diseased emotions. After all, there is no condom for the heart.

http://www.therecord.com.au/site/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2517&Itemid=30

By Bernard Toutounji

I recently went away to a monastery for a time of silent retreat. As there were a few other people staying at the same time, there were brief conversations shared during meals.

On one of the evenings we were having dinner, Darren, who had just arrived for a “getaway”, was proceeding to tell us a little about himself. Darren was a young man in his mid-30s, the sort of guy you would not want to get on the wrong side of, well built with tattoos down both arms but a genuinely kind man. He was sharing how he was fascinated by different religions and loved to learn about what different faiths believe.

One of my fellow retreatants asked Darren what religion he was, to which he replied that he was a “Buddhist Jew”. Now, of course, there is no official religion of Jewish Buddhists and I would be willing to wager that Darren was officially neither a Jew nor a Buddhist. It was far more likely that his name was scribed into the baptismal register of the local Protestant denomination as a child but that he was not actively raised in any faith. I am certainly not out to condemn this chap, though. He is no doubt responding to the movements of God in his life and as, St Edith Stein beautifully said, “All who seek truth seek God, whether this is clear to them or not”. I will be looking forward to being reunited with Darren at the ‘eschatological banquet’ (to quote a scripture professor I know).

The whole matter raised in my mind, though, the growing trend of buffet-style religion. It is the notion that one is able to wander down the shopping aisle of faith and select those elements one feels most comfortable with at that particular moment in time. Now granted, Buddhism would probably not have such a problem with this concept but Buddhism is more of a philosophy than a religion. The world’s major religions though, Judaism, Islam and Christianity, certainly do have an issue with the ‘pick and choose’ mentality because they do not consider religion is simply about whichever path one prefers to use in climbing the mountain of eternity.

Speaking from a Christian perspective, Jesus is not called ‘Jesus Christ’ because His surname was ‘Christ’ but because Christ means Messiah and that is what Jesus claimed to be. The Gospels cite Jesus referring to Himself as “the way, the truth and the life”. You would have noticed that Jesus used the definitive article, the. Not merely a nice guy, or a social liberator, Jesus claimed to be the true God. That statement made by Jesus leads us to two possible conclusions, (1) He is wrong; which means He is a liar and quite possibly a madman and we should have no part of Him or Christianity, or, (2) He is exactly who He says He is; the Son of God who was born of a virgin, who preached about eternity, established a Church on the rock of Peter, died on a cross, rose again and ascended into heaven. We must choose between one option or the other, liar or God; it is impossible for there to be a middle ground.

It is from this standpoint that Christianity, and specifically Catholicism, states that she possesses the fullness of truth. There is, of course, no shortage of people out there who will say that it is sheer arrogance for anyone to state that they offer the fullness of truth, but think about it; if Jesus is really who He said He was and if the Gospels really contain the story of His life, what else is Christianity going to say, indeed what else can she say?

There will continue to be many good people like Darren who begin the journey (or live the entire journey) taking a little from column A and a little from column B, seeing Jesus as a good man but not being able to take the next step in proclaiming with the Apostle Thomas, “my Lord and my God”. Thankfully, we know that God leads all people to Himself and will always bless a heart that is responding to truth, beauty and goodness in the best way it can. Living our own faith with surety and making genuine friendships with those around us is another way to share the great joy of faith.

Far from arrogance, Christianity calls us to the greatest mystery and reality that we will ever know. Each of us is completely free to choose what we will believe but at some point a genuine choice must be made. Happiness cannot be found in the shopping aisles of faith. Eventually we must take it all or leave it all.   

http://www.therecord.com.au/site/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2457&Itemid=30

By Bernard Toutounji

Last week I reached the conclusion that in order to save a life of regular chiropractic visits, I could no longer carry around my large, heavy laptop, so I bought a new netbook (a mini laptop).

I was telling my housemate that the netbook came with a simple version of Microsoft Word and Excel and that I would probably need to buy the full version in the future.

His immediate suggestion was that I could get a copy of a friend’s full version to save me buying one. It did make me think … would that be ok? Could I just ask a tech savvy friend to upgrade my computer at no cost? 

To say that media piracy is a large industry would be an understatement. Five years ago, media piracy was estimated to be worth over $50 billion per year and that was when most of it was through CDs and DVDs. With the growth of online file sharing, all that is needed now is an internet connection. With the ease that a person can now obtain free copies of the latest software or movie it does not seem like media piracy is coming to an end anytime soon. I have heard it said, though, that media piracy is a victimless crime and some go even further to claim that such corporations deserve to lose sales because they are greedy and charge the public too much for their products.

But … even if movie tickets do cost too much and even if Windows does advertise a new upgrade every 12 months, does that justify piracy? At its most basic, piracy is taking something that does not belong to us. The average citizen would not go into a department store and take a shirt or a microwave without paying for it, yet piracy is the very same act of taking something that one does not own. 
Most people who have heard of the Ten Commandments know that in there somewhere is something about not stealing. In fact, you probably didn’t need the Ten Commandments to tell you that stealing was not a good thing. Thanks to our fallen natures, though, most of us still manage in varying ways to convince ourselves that in certain instances it will be ok to break (or maybe just bend) certain laws. But is this really a way to live, by the letter of the law? 

In His Sermon on the Mount, Christ set a radical challenge when he said, “Be perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matt 5:48). This means that those who genuinely want to call themselves followers of Christ are called to live a radically new moral vision, one that begins in the heart and spills over into the way they live and act in the world. 

So, while the Ten Commandments were given to a people who needed the law because they desired to break the law, Christ calls for a change of heart so that the first question is not ‘how far can I go before I break the law’ but, rather, ‘how much can I show love in all that I do’? Christ calls His disciples to not begrudgingly follow copyright laws to avoid getting caught, but, rather, open their hearts to love their brothers and sisters who have created these goods for the world to enjoy and so use them justly and in fairness to all. Genuine faith cannot be about rolling up to Mass on Sunday, singing loudly from the hymn sheet, but going home afterwards to listen to music we illegally downloaded the night before on a computer powered by software that we never purchased.  If a Christian really looks to Christ and looks to live justly, then piracy becomes something that stops them being an example of holiness. 

It may be tougher (and it will be more expensive) to buy what we need instead of taking it but we must grow in our desire to do what is right in all things and to set an example to our own family and friends. Sometimes, we have very good motives; we may want to help out a friend by lending them a program to copy that they cannot afford, but we cannot do an evil even if a good may come from it. 

Admittedly, it is a big step to throw out those copied movies and clear our computer of pirated software but this is part of the radical nature of belief. Best that we get to the gates of eternity having never upgraded to Windows 7 than have St Peter accuse us of theft.

http://www.therecord.com.au/site/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2413&Itemid=30

By Bernard Toutounji

My good friend (let’s call him Tom) got married recently and in preparation for this joyous occasion the customary buck’s party was organised. 

We were informed that this particular event was to be held in two parts: The day events would include a round of golf, lunch and a game of bowling; the night event would include a selection of more ‘adult’ activities.

While golf and bowling are rather tame activities in and of themselves, they did involve Tom being dressed in a blonde wig, a frilly pink dress and being obliged to carry around a life size, blow up doll all day.

To add to the excitement, during the travel to the various destinations, the hired mini van had been well equipped with a number of sexualised games and activities for both the groom-to-be and his fellow travellers. 

I was later told that night activities (which I missed) involved dinner via Nyotaimori (the practice of serving sushi on the body of a naked woman), much drinking and a visit to a city strip club.

Bucks’ parties are traditionally an opportunity for a man to spend time with his close male friends and engage in activities that might not be possible once married.
It is a sort of ‘rite of passage’ from adolescence to adulthood but perhaps it is worth considering what we are including in this rite?  

I am not sure how an event involving strippers and sex games can be considered as preparation for anything more than a life of unfaithfulness (and the evening my friends had was rather tame compared with other bucks’ nights). 

The idea of quality time with one’s friends makes sense, but if an activity such as attending a strip club would be completely out of bounds after marriage, how on earth could it be justifiable before marriage? 

What does it say about a person’s view of the value of sexuality and the dignity of the human person to watch a paid stranger provocatively remove their clothes?
How can a man stand on top of a bar with a stripper one weekend and stand before the altar of God the next weekend making vows to love with a love that is faithful and true?

Perhaps to a degree, one can excuse (maybe) someone who has had no formation in the sacred character and nature of marriage, someone who knows nothing of the meaning of sexuality as a gift to be shared with one’s spouse and not with everyone that comes along … but … to those who are practising their faith and call themselves Christian, the excuse is severely weakened.

One does not stumble into a strip club without some idea of what is going on and one cannot claim to be watching a woman take her clothes off as merely something to do while enjoying a round of beers with the guys.

My friend Tom is a faith-filled man, a good man. He actually called me prior to the buck’s party to pre-warn me about what might transpire. 

Unfortunately, though, warning those who may be offended is not enough; we must lead by example.  Each of us needs to decide what type of man we are going to be.

Do we stand by and let things happen, or do we take a stand and make things happen?

There are moments in every life in which a man can rise up and say “I choose to walk another way, to walk in the way of what is right”.

For a man who is getting married, the statement to his best man might translate to, “I’m looking forward to the buck’s night you are organising but we won’t be mocking sex or using women as objects”. 

There can be no confusion about where we stand on such an issue, it is non-negotiable.

The buck’s night preparation provides a valuable opportunity to show our friends that the dignity of the human person is something we prize above all else.

What more honourable gift can a man give as sign of his undivided love?

A man should not avoid a strip club because he thinks his fiancé may not like it; he should avoid a strip club because it is a place that declares ‘sex and love have no value’ and a real man knows that is a lie.

http://www.therecord.com.au/site/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2339&Itemid=30

By Bernard Toutounji

As I write this I am sitting on a train and the girl next to me is listening to her iPod.

She is flicking through her playlist to find a song that she likes, however it seems that just because she starts a song does not mean she will finish it. Some songs get ten seconds of play time, some get a minute, but it seems she is not satisfied with the level of enjoyment she is receiving from her playlist (which I assume is made up of songs she herself selected).

This inability to be satisfied is not limited to this young lady, nor is it limited to iPods. This is an age which has a general inability to commit, but perhaps more to the point; this is an age that must be continually entertained.

Commercial radio believes that any piece of music needs to be three minutes or less for fear that we will not ‘commit’ to the song; one day cricket is becoming increasingly popular at the expense of test matches which require several days of investment; the TV remote control reminds us that there might always be something better on the next channel. The problem is that when the highest value in one’s life is immediate gratification, we lose the ability to persevere. After all, why spend the afternoon cooking over a hot stove when we can simply reheat a frozen meal in the microwave? Life, however, is not a microwave, nor is it an iPod or a remote control. Life will not always entertain. There will be times that are joyous and there will be times that are difficult. Life will not always give, so that we can simply lie back and receive.

If we have an inability to look at the bigger picture of life and understand the overall good, then every inconvenience, every suffering, every second listening to a song we do not like, become moments to be avoided at all costs.
Now, of course, this is not to say we must delight in everything we do, but we do need to have an awareness of when we are becoming too quick to ‘change songs’. Life is full of ups and downs, they cannot be avoided.

What happens, for example, when two people who are always used to ‘changing the channel’ get married? What will happen when the inevitable trials of life come upon them? Will they have the ability to see the greater good and sacrifice immediate self-gratification for the greater good of the other person or the relationship as a whole?

Once we have become serial ‘channel changers’ we find that nothing satisfies. There may always be something better; there may always be more fun to be had elsewhere.

Real and lasting joy, however, can only come through perseverance and commitment to the task and duties before us.

Would Sir Edmund Hillary have reached the top of Mt Everest and been able to appreciate its views if he was seeking immediate pleasure every step of the way?
So go on … think about getting yourself in training. Go for a long walk in the mountains; bake a cake from scratch; listen to an entire symphony. Experience the fullness of the beauty in the world around us. And most importantly; stop flicking though the songs on your iPod!

http://www.therecord.com.au/site/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2315&Itemid=30