The Verbose Philosopher

Time type B : time in sequence

2012-02-25T17:40:00.001+11:00

Time type A is the smallest moment of time, or at least the four essential characteristics of a moment of time but which can be used in analysing larger discrete "chunks" of time.

Time type B is moments of time in series. An extremely intuitive concept. After all, we live with it. I got up, then I ate breakfast, then I put on my shoes, then I went out to the car, and so on and so forth.

Every person experiences sequenced events. This is "personal experiental time".

You can extend this concept to matter. Every atom and every conglomeration of atoms can be viewed as experiencing sequenced events.

And you can extend this concept to groups of people - "group experiential time".

The relative sequence of events is where things start to get very interesting.

Why do two xyz atoms vibrate at the same frequency? How do you even define the word "frequency" without reference to time? God - who created us and created the physical realm - has set in place such laws as necessary to govern the interplay between our individual personal choices and the actions caused by the laws of physics.

And so there is uniformity between how one person experiences the passage of time, and how another person does, because the same laws govern humans and the material that forms the world around us.

In this context, we count various things - such as the number of times the earth rotates relative to the sun - the which we call "days". Due to the uniformity of the laws God has set in place, people on opposite side of the earth have the same experience of "days" (ignoring variations in daylight vs dark hours, and curious effects deep in the polar regions). And because of this commonality of experience, we can all count together the days and the years, and voila - we now have time as most people think of it, the day which we give a name based on whatever calendar we prefer, and the hour and minute which are tracked by mechnical (and here I include electronic) devices.

So there is nothing special about "time" as in "it's the 21st of February 2008". It only seems confusing because we often start there in our quest to understand "time". In reality, co-experiential time is conceptually several steps along the path. Start with Time Type A, extend to personal experiential time, then group experiential time, and then we can see how the naming and numbering of days and years fits in the picture.

God : in time, or out of time?

2012-02-25T17:24:00.001+11:00

A proper understanding of time helps us dispel many misconceptions about God's relationship to time, and our own.

For starters, God is not someone who's been sitting around "forever" on a timeline that stretches out infinitely before and behind us. If God was sitting on that infinitely-long timeline, He wouldn't be here at all, because neither infinity exists, nor do infinite sequences, and a timeline is a sequence.

You think you passed that one? What about perichoresis? There's a popular theory that the three persons of the Godhead are in a perpetual dance, and have been for an infinite period of time before choosing to create humans to join in the dance. The sentiment isn't far wrong, but the details are. God has not been dancing for an infinite period of time. "Infinity" does not exist. And neither do infinitely-long time periods.

So where did God come from? He didn't. He always existed. Something had to always exist. He just happened to be the one.

"So He's been around forever then? You're contradicting yourself!" Nay - He has not "been around forever" if you define "forever" as "an infinite time period leading up to the present moment". God never "came into existence" - He always was. But in His state of perpetual existence, He had a first moment.

God had a first experience.

But how could God have a first experience without a prior cause?

Revisit Time Type A : God was the cause of His own first experience. Not the cause of His own existence, but the cause of His own first experience.

So is God inside time, or outside? This is a common question, and one I pondered on for many years. Surely God is outside time I would think, for He cannot be inside time, locked to the same constraints which bind the rest of us.

In those days, I viewed time as a big box - like a shoebox, with God placed non-spatially outside the box.

But neither view is correct.

Time is not a box in which God is confined, nor a box in which God is not confined. Time (type B now) is the long sequence of events that has transpired from that first ever moment of time (time type A) - that first event in the universe, when God was the cause of the first moment in history.

View time as a long ribbon, ever extending in one direction, with God at the start of the ribbon and causing its extension.

So what about Heaven? So often I've heard preachers or Christians generally announce triumphantly that there'll be no time in Heaven. Baloney! No sun nor moon, ok, but there will be time. Scripture says there will be no sun nor moon, but it doesn't say there will be no time. In fact, it distinctly says that there will be time in Heaven - just not in those words.

Take, for instance, the marriage supper of the Lamb. Tell me, how do you plan to sup without time? How can you have a before state of food in bowl and an after state of a satisfied eater if there is no time? Time, as measured in earth years and days might long be gone, but time will exist, just measured differently (if measured at all - and I suspect it will be - consider for example that even in the perfect creation God gave stars for "signs and for seasons" - i.e. for tracking the passage of time).

Time type A : time at its very essence

2012-02-25T16:52:00.001+11:00

At its very essence, the smallest unit of "time" is simply a change of state.

I was sitting; now I'm standing. What changed? My position.

I ate breakfast. What changed? The food moved from the bowl into my belly (with some assistance of course!)

Now, even the act of standing or of eating food is itself a process, but before we zoom in too far, let's consider these processes as a whole. What constitutes a change, a "time type A" moment/event?

It's remarkably simple.

Don't let anyone fool you into tuning your brain out because "that's metaphysics" or with some other scary statement.

Time is really easy to understand.

Before : You have a prior state;
After: You have a successive state;
Effect : You have the set of things that changed between the two states;
Cause : You have the actor/power/whatever that caused the change of state;

There is no simpler adequate reduction of the concept of time. Every moment of time involves all four of these things.

Applying the concept is easy : I stood up. Prior state? I was seated. Successive state? I was standing. What changed (effect)? My position. How did it change (cause)? Through my action.

Simple.

Elementary.

So let's dig deeper.

Digital existence

We can break down my act of standing into smaller and smaller time segments.

But if we could do so indefinitely, we would find that the series of events involved in me standing up is infinitely long. But infinity is a fiction, and infinitely long series are not series and thus by definition do not exist.

So the only other possibility is that when we analyse the series of events closely enough, we discover that there is a smallest possible event. A smallest possible movement. We see our actions as fluid, as analog, but the world of physics is digital. At the macro level, we perceive an analog world, but the underpinning physics is digital. (Not necessarily binary, but digital.)

The math involved in keeping a digital world running without failure whilst appearing at all macro levels to be analog, is astounding, and testament to the extraordinary genius of the One who designed physics and the physical realm.

Volitional vs mechanical causes

The first "event" that transpired in the history of everything was a volitional event. Physics weren't around at that time. God chose; God did. He chose; He did make physics - the math, the matter, the energy - the whole kit & kaboodle.

When I fire a gun, and the bullet leaves the muzzle at 800 feet per second, what carries that bullet on to the bullseye?

If you answered "nothing", you'd be correct most of the time, 'coz I rarely hit the bullseye.

But whatever it hits, how does the bullet get there?

Well, an object in motion stays in motion unless acted on by another force. (Hat tip Mr Newton.)

Good and well, but what exactly is motion?

Does the bullet propel itself on through space & time?

And how does this relate to time itself?

Think about it : what carries the bullet on through space?

Momentum?

I have a simple answer : the laws of physics.

Sure, the bullet has "momentum", but "momentum" means nothing absent something that acts based on the momentum. If you took a "freeze frame" 3d photo of the universe, you could analyse that bullet, and make guesses about its speed and direction based on the air patterns around it, but if you could only consult the bullet itself, and absent subtle clues like heat patterns from air friction in the direction of travel, you would have no clue how fast the bullet was flying or if it was even flying at all.

Momentum means nothing. Nothing, that is, unless there is something that pays attention to or "does something with" the momentum.

And there is such a thing : it's called the laws of physics.

Events in time that are caused by a person's choice are volitional events. The "what made it happen?" question is answered "by xyz person".

Events in time that are caused by the laws of physics can be referred to as mechanical events. A person - a volitional agent - might have anticipated and intended the event to occur (much as I intend the bullet to strike that bullseye), but it is the laws of physics and the associated series of mechanical events which effect the visible change.

Cause-effect

When my bullet strikes the bullseye, a dull thud is heard.

What caused the sound?

"The bullet striking the bullseye caused the sound", says one.

Incorrect.

Am I to suppose that a bullet has power to create sound? That, absent time, it could somehow cause a sound to ring out? Obviously the bullet can do nothing - indeed nothing can do anything - without "time" of some sort. So, existing in time, does the bullet have the power by which the thud is caused? We say "yes". But let's return to the simplest complete definition of a moment of time :

We have a prior state : the bullet is in the air.
We have a successive state : the bullet is in the target and a thud is heard.
We have a change - the "effect" : the bullet has moved and a thud has occured.
And we have a cause. What caused the change? Did the bullet cause the change by its own power & momentum? Far from it! Take away the laws of physics, and the bullet halts. The laws of physics do not describe observed phenomena, they cause them. And so it is the laws of physics - acting with regard to the physical properties of the bullet - that "cause" the dull thud to sound.

The laws of physics act with uniform predictably based on quantifiable information regarding the physical state of an object.

When we analyse a series of mechanical events, we often describe the sequence of events as a chain of cause-effect links, with the cause of each successive link being the effect of the preceding link. Our terminology in such cases is adequate, but confusing. The prior state is not the "cause"; the laws of physics are the "cause". And the successive state is not the "effect"; the "effect" is the differences between the prior state and the successive state.

Thinking of time as a mere series of "cause-effect" links is inaccurate, but useful as a gross simplification that is widely known. The reality is that the successive state of one moment in time is linked to the prior state of the next. The link between each moment of time is that of the prior and successive states, not that of the causes and effects in operation.

What is time?

2012-02-25T16:19:00.000+11:00

Time is trivially easy to understand. We just don't understand it because we're told so many confusing (and irrational) things about it.

Is time travel possible? (Yes.) Can we alter the past? (No.) Can we "branch" the universe by going backwards in time and there altering the past? (Probably not.) Is time infinite? (Yes, but the total amount of time that has transpired at any point in time is finite.) And what is time, anyway? Is it just another dimension? (No - it stands very distinct from spatial dimensions.) Can it be resolved into the ulimate Theory Of Everything? (Not as merely another facet of gravitation, light and magnetism.) Will there be time in Heaven? (Yes.) How old is God? (About 6,000 years - although before you stone me, remember that there was nothing to measure the length of His existence by before He created years. Therefore, in terms of anything measurable, He's only existed for about 6,000 years.)

All these questions are easily answered when approaching the topic from the right perspective.

A note on perspective : modern philosophy adulates the purported incomprehensibility of all things. Hey - this article looks pretty incomprehensible upside-down through a stained-glass window, especially if you've never seen Latin letters before. Point being : if from 99 perspectives it looks incomprehensible, and from one it all makes sense, you're earth's biggest fool if you deny the comprehensible perspective on account of the purported incomprehensibility of it all.

Our analysis will start by answering the hardest question of all : what is time? - and the rest will flow from there.

Different types of time

"I have lots of dough." Do I mean money, or something edible? Using one word for two different things is fine, but if the hearer doesn't realise that the one word can have very different meanings, they end up very confused.

So it is with "time". There are at least five different types of "time".

In a nutshell :

Time type "A" : An event - a moment - the smallest unit of time;
Time type "B" : A series of events or moments - a period of time;
B1 : Personal experiential time;
B2 : Group experiential time;
B3 : Physics reference time;

Infinite vs infinity

2012-02-25T15:44:00.000+11:00

Infinite : outside the realm of finite quantity. ("in" = not, "finite".)

In a sense, "exfinite" is a better word, emphasizing that the thing in question is outside the finite realm, and thus immeasurable.

Zero is not "infinite". It exists in the realm of the measurable.

Very little is "infinite". But before we delve further into that, let's address "infinity".

Infinity : a modern fantasy. Perhaps the prevailing superstition of the 20th and 21st centuries.

Infinity does not exist, except in the minds of deluded men and women.

It is not an illusion, for an illusion is something that appears to exist but does not exist. But there is nothing intuitive or seeming real about "infinity". It is a fantasy which we are taught. In childhood we have no notion of it, and when we have it explained, it makes no sense to us. Eventually, through much repetition from many directions, we forget that we actually have no real idea what this "infinity" thing is, and we take for granted that it exists.

When asked, we insist that we do know what infinity is, but when pressed, we cannot answer.

Is it the largest number that exists? (How do numbers exist anyway? That's another fascinating topic for another time.)

There is much more to say about the fuller implications of "infinite" vs "infinity", but suffice for now to mention the distinction.

More from the religion of pieces

2012-02-13T10:37:00.006+11:00

Dozens of new cases of extteme religiously-motivated violence.

Not guesswork - "he was a muslim and he was violent so it was religious violence" - but explicit claims on the part of the assailants that their attacks were religious in nature.

According to idiotic Westerners, it's hateful to say this needs to end, whilst it's clearly not hateful to go around massacring Christians. Muslims, you see, are not violent. Such Westerners extrapolate the Muslims they think they know and presume to impress that perception of Islam on the rest of the world. It's arrogance. It's wrong. And it only facilitates the continued abuse, done by Muslims in the name of Islam.

Wake up and smell the machetes.

Read what's happening even today in first and third world countries alike.

Islam has a violence problem.

Is every Muslim violent? Of course not. Many Muslims? Waaay too many. But the key problem is not that there are lots of Muslims who happen to be violent, but that they are violent because of their Muslim religion. And don't you be so arrogant as to tell them that their understanding of Islam is wrong.

I'm apparently "religiously intolerant" for stating these facts, but if you tell a sincere violent Muslim that his religiously-motivated violence is not real Islam, aren't you the one being religiously intolerant, telling him what he can and can't believe in the name of a religion you don't even subscribe to?

Greens favour gender discrimination - female-only swimming

2012-02-09T23:19:00.008+11:00

Don't expect sense from the Greens.

Pro-homosexuality, pro-gender-bending of every description, and supposedly "pro-equality".

Yet somehow despite all that, they now claim they want long term dedicated government-funded female-only swimming space.

'It's not just for Muslim women, it's for all women. Pregnant women, older women, women who've just had a baby, women who are self-conscious about their size and weight, women with disabilities.'

Yah - what about man women?

I feel like a woman, and remember, you have no right to tell me what gender I am.

Just look at Occupy Everything - one of the rules purportedly posted at the entryway to one of their camps said you must not assume anyone's gender, but wait for it to be disclosed.

So hey, I might look hairy on my chest, and my breasts might be remarkably diminuitive, but I'm a woman, and I'll sue you if you say otherwise.

Hey - they sued Andrew Bolt for questionning the ethnic identification of fractional Aborigines, so I'll sue the gehenna out of you if you question my gender affiliation.

That's what the Greens stand for, right? Sexual freedom, gender freedom, equality, all that bizzo.

So any pool that purports to be for "all women" but excludes "man women" is absolutely hypocricy on the part of the Greens.

Ever heard of bigender? I could even swim in the women's area one minute, then decide I'm male the next.

And so all those Muslim women so glad to shelter in a protected women's-only swimming area, kindly funded by taxpayers courtesy of Green vision, they might get quite a shock when their female bliss is interrupted by a male who the same Greens define as a female based on self-identified gender affiliation.

And the Greens love it. Well, everywhere except this pool perhaps.

There ain't nothin' Green about women's-only swimming areas when your very ideology says anyone of any birth gender can identify with whatever gender they want.

Kinda looks like an attempt to buy Muslim votes.

Y'know, those same Muslim votes swayed by this carrot, might be most hideously repulsed when the hand that feeds them turns a blind eye to the shemales who grace the same pool.

And this :

'The government is happy to explore ways to meet women's-only options, and we're investigating options at the new Gungahlin facility and in other facilities, both public and private,'

That's nice - so gender discrimination is actually ok, just so long as you favour women?

Get this, men, "gender equality" doesn't mean "gender equality", it means "female superiority". Although of course even Obama admits that - saying publicly in one speech that women will surpass men in accomplishments because, hey, they're just better than men.

And now, winning illogic-of-the-hour award :

'Ensuring broad community access is important and we don't want to exclude half the population from a significant new piece of infrastructure.'

Um - exactly which half of the population is being excluded here? The male half, as far as I can tell.

Last I knew, a lot of femmes like strutting their stuff in front of men. If they didn't, why in my short lifetime has the typical swimsuit gone from one piece to two iddy-biddy-tiny pieces? Why are the 8 year old girls at the swimming pool dressed in outfits more scant than a new bride's lingerie of decades past? As best I can tell, a lot of 'em like it the way it is. If they didn't, they'd wear something ... substantial.

So this "half the population" bizzo is absolute nonsense.

Reference : For our eyes only

UPDATE :

Just a few more salient snippets :

'It's not just about them looking at us, it's about us being exposed to men wearing Speedos.'

'Women who feel they cannot be in swimmers in front of men for religious or cultural reasons are among those likely to use the facility but also older women, those who feel self-conscious about their bodies and women recovering from injury or illness such as breast cancer.'

Swap the gender and see how ridiculous claims of "gender equality" are. Can you imagine the government going along with the following?

'We need male-only swimming areas. It's not just about women trying to alure us, it's about us being exposed to women wearing bikinis. Men who feel they cannot view parades of female flesh for religious or cultural reasons are among those likely to use the facility, but also older men, men who feel self-conscious about lacking a six-pack or recovering from hernia surgery, or illness such as cancer of the privy member.'

Somehow, strangely, the Greens would scream "DISCRIMINATION! GENDER FAVOURITISM!", but they go right along with it - nay, champion the cause - if it puts women ahead of men.

They don't believe their own "equality" mantra.

But then again, hey, who's surprised - Greens ideology just doesn't work when rubber meets road.

Australia's supposedly-excellent financial position

2012-02-09T11:54:00.000+11:00

As our Socialist overlordess' treasurer-henchman likes to tell us repeatedly, Australia (supposedly) has survived the GFC with one of the strongest economies in the world - thanks of course to their brilliant fiscal management (y'know, like destroying the roof insulation industry with huge subsidies both suddenly introduced and suddenly removed, leaving long-term players in the industry devastated).

Oh sorry - I got sidetracked.

So yes, this fiscal management, and behold, we're doing so well!

So well in fact that John Giaan (who runs an Australian investment email list), in one of his regular emails just yesterday said the economy's going so strong that he's leaving the sidelines and getting back in the action.

Nice, nice. Nice for him. Bla bla bla.

He mentioned the GFC II / Global Financial Meltdown by name, saying "where is it? I reckon it's not coming at all".

A bit like the guy who said "tsunami? what tsunami?" and hit the beach, just hours before the beach was hit.

Or is he right?

He, and Gillard and her team are the ones in error. (Or of course, in Gillard's case, perhaps merely propogating error without quite so strongly believing it...)

The signs are all around, and getting worse and worse as the months go by.

Lots of others have commented on the situation, and for time's sake, I'm not going to repeat information about the challenges facing our retail sector, or the geographic disparities in our nation at present. Nor will I touch on the very relevant issues of over-inflated house prices due to interest-bearing loans and government intervention.

Instead, I'm going to just focus on the evidence on the ground all around me personally.

For years I've been in business, and hardly ever has a client had a hard time paying.

But over the last 12 months, it's been escalating. And escalating. Clients who appreciate my work, but have been unable to even pull together a mere $1k or $2k when it comes time to pay. When some years ago, they could easily pull together $10k and $20k deposits and milestone payments.

The economy isn't just "tight" - it's strangling. Two businesses close to mine have recently become behind on, or are just about to be behind on, employee payroll - when normally they're going strong.

Another client still owes us from over six months ago - and he's not disputing the invoice or anything, in fact he's even made at least one part-payment towards his debt and keeps reaffirming his intention to pay in full - but he just can't.

This isn't retail. These are companies from diverse industries. Dying. Insolvent or borderline insolvent. And newly so. And oftentimes businesses that have been around for many years or even some decades.

So I add my comment : Australia's economy, despite our national treasurer's boastful comments otherwise, is in tatters. Oh sure, we'll find "a way" through, whatever that means, even if half the businesses across this nation end up closing or some other widespread change affects us all.

But don't let them kid you : we're dead and dying. Not everyone of us. But enough for me to confidently say : it's a mirage - Australia is NOT in good shape economically - it's in a period of catastrophic financial turmoil, and I doubt we'll pass the next two years without extreme and difficult changes.

And based on what I'm seeing at the moment, a lot of that pain will hit long before two years from now.

NKJV 1982 vs 1984/85

2012-01-04T11:25:00.005+11:00

For the odd person in the same boat as us :

A group of us are memorising whole books of the Bible using the NKJV translation.

Unfortunately, we were finding minor variations of wording between our different copies of the Bible. (Two printed copies, one iPhone copy, one Android copy, and BlueLetterBible.org.)

Imagine how difficult it is to get word-perfect recital when different copies of the text are worded slightly differently! The meaning didn't change, but it was impeding our memorisation efforts.

We examined the copyright notices and other info but found no indication of different editions/revisions - yet the wording clearly did differ.

Scouring the web found no info, except one passing comment in one article claiming (without reference) that the NKJV has been tweaked multiple times as a commercial decision to make it more like the NIV. Plausible, but without any further evidence offered and no other websites even mentioning that there are different revisions at all, Thomas Nelson is owed the benefit of any doubt as to motives for the changes.

I searched high and low on the Thomas Nelson website, to no avail.

I rang Thomas Nelson, and they said that my particular query would be best emailed to a particular department.

I emailed, shortly before new year, hoping they would answer quickly (because our memorisation was largely on-hold until this was resolved) but knowing that new year and other factors could cause delays.

So I was pleased this morning to note they have replied, and their reply was very helpful.

I don't know if I should reproduce exactly what they sent me, but the short of it is this :

The NKJV has two editions/versions. The original 1982 version, and a revision made in 1984 and typeset in 1985.
Thomas Nelson claims the 1984 amendments improved the "accuracy, clarity, and consistency" of the translation. Again, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, Thomas Nelson is owed the benefit of any doubt here as to motives.
My childhood Bible, given to me in 1988, was, by the sound of things, probably old shelf stock of the original (i.e. 1982) version.
All confusion could have been avoided if for example the revision had a copyright 1984 notice, but unfortunately both original and revised versions carry a copyright 1982 notice and there are no apparent distinguishing features other than looking at particular verses where wording was altered.
Thomas Nelson said that no list of changes between the original and revised NKJV editions is available. (I'm sure it exists somewhere, but nearly 30 years on, that "somewhere" might be very hard to find.)
Thomas Nelson said that all electronic copies of the NKJV, and all paper copies using the 1985 typesetting (i.e. all but the oldest copies), are all the 1984 revision.

Many thanks to Thomas Nelson for answering my questions and providing clarity on the matter. This means :

We can use iPhone, Android and online versions of the NKJV with confidence that the text across these platforms will be identical now and in the future.
We can compare printed copies to the electronic copies to determine whether the printed copy is the original or the revised/amended text, and for copies that are the original, avoid them for memorisation purposes.

It also explains why the spoken copy of the NKJV I have seemed to have misreadings throughout - the reader was probably using the revised (i.e. 1984) NKJV when I had memorised using the original (i.e. 1982).

How to check your NKJV revision in a single verse

Matthew 2:3a : in the 1984 revision (i.e. all electronic NKJVs, and most printed ones), it says "When Herod the king heard this", whereas in the original 1982 version (i.e. just the oldest printed copies), it says "When Herod the king heard these things".

Again, these are trivial differences with no effect on the meaning - which is perhaps why Thomas Nelson didn't see fit to advertise it as a new revision or update the copyright notice - but it makes a difference when memorising.

(Note also that at least in the Matthew 2:3a exhibit, both "this" and "these things" are italicised, meaning they are implied by the Greek, not directly present in it, so there is no question of variation in literality here.)

So to the rare person out there stumbling on this particular problem, there's the answer, and hopefully I've saved you the hassle of going through this research process yourself.

Thanks again to Thomas Nelson for promptly answering my detailed questions.

Socialists Hate Speech

2012-01-03T09:07:00.002+11:00

Socialists love propoganda, but they hate speech.

Two cases crossed my desk in the last 24 hours, and another is ever present.

Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff dared state in a private meeting that Mohammed, having married a 9 year old girl, "had a thing for little girls."

She was tried without jury and by a lone judge, who found her guilty of "denigration of religious beliefs of a legally recognized religion", and faces 60 days in prison.

Yup - y'know, those overcrowded taxpayer-funded holding centres need another inmate on account of her expressing accurate but "unacceptable" views.

Case #2 - I'm behind the times - but Miss California (Carrie Prejean) was directly asked on a public TV show what she thought of homosexual "marriage".

Taken by surprise by the unexpected question on a highly controversial topic, she answered with great grace and dignity :

we live in a land that you can choose same sex marriage or opposite marriage and, you know what, in my country and in, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there. But that’s how I was raised and that’s how I think that it should be between a man and a woman.

Remember that in Marxist ideology, anything that advances "the cause" is moral; anything that hinders it is "immoral".

Accordingly, Miss California was targetted on public TV and in other media by high-profile media personalities and subjected to venomous hateful insults and accusations.

But remember - she's the one guilty of "hate speech".

Y'know, Perez Hilton calling her a "dumb bitch" and a "cunt" is not hate speech.

News anchor Giuliana Rancic called her "an ignorant disgrace" and said "she makes me sick to my stomach".

All for politely answering a loaded question by saying "you can believe whatever you want, but since you've asked my belief, I happen to believe xyz".

Clearly, to the Socialist clergy, "hate speech" is what they do - they hate speech.

They love propoganda.

But they hate speech.

Toe the "politically correct" line (i.e. the line that they made the politically correct line over decades - not any line that was politically correct say 100 years ago).

Or else you're a hateful bitch. Or bastard, doubtless, as the case may be.

Methinks, Hitlon, thou speakest of thyself.

Case #3 is of course the ever-present sea of pornography all around us.

We should embrace and celebrate it, apparently, because it represents "free speech".

Hmmm.

Last I knew, "speech" consisted of propositional communication.

I make a claim. You analyse it, and present flaws and/or counterclaims, ideally with evidence (although with Socialists, "what we believe is right" is sufficient evidence in most cases).

Much like what I'm doing here. Propositional communication.

My proposition is simple : Socialists hate speech. They hate it. They love propoganda - anything that enshrines their cause - but they hate speech.

And pornography is actually yet another example.

Supposedly we who oppose pornography in any significant way are blocking "freedom of speech".

That's as stupid as saying that if I get someone's permission to cut them into cubes with a chainsaw in full public view in Times Square, New York (taking said person from the land of the living to the land of the very dead) that to oppose me is to oppose "free speech".

"What a stupid example" I hear, because, after all, any claim and any story that doesn't toe the politically correct line is by definition "stupid" at best, and "hateful" if by any ridiculous stretch of the imagination one can deem it so.

But no, it is the stupid Socialists who are stupid. And the non-Socialists who fall in line who are even stupider - hence this article - let's awake from our stupour and unstupidify ourselves.

But enough stupid wordplay.

The point is, an act or display that is non-propositional, is not speech.

And so Socialists, championing pornography in the guise of "free speech", prove once again that they hate speech.

Or else I could justify any act of cruelty, violence, or even terrorism, in the name of "free speech".

Speech is propositional.

Socialism is propogandistic.

So they're not exactly best friends.

Sure, Socialism uses speech extensively. Because speech has power.

But try speaking against the Approved Beliefs. Not Halal.

Y'see, speech has power, but you must not use speech against Socialism. By Marxist definition, that would be immoral.

And in the meantime, we'll use "hate speech" laws to shut you up if you dare try.

Speech indeed is powerful.

Which is why little micro-speech sites like this shake the world. Y'know, "the pen is mightier than the sword", and all that jazz.

And which is precisely why those who hate speech, codify their hatred of speech in "hate speech" laws.

But Truth has a habit of remaining true, no matter how many people assert otherwise.

Which means by definition, Truth won't go away, no matter how many hate speech laws we create, and no matter how many Elisabeths and Carries we throw in prison or under the bus.

Your mission - nay, your responsibility, whether or not you choose to accept it, has always been the same : find Truth, live it, love it, and tell it.

If I don't see you in prison (or under the bus), it'll be because you spoke up and God had mercy, or else because you stayed silent and I went there without you.

But the nature of war is this : the battle will always come to you.

Always.

So you either step up and engage where the fighting's hot now.

Or it comes to you, and interferes with your "quiet life" some time from now.

Or if in God's mercy, it never gets that far, shame on those who slumbered whilst the battle raged.

Speak now.

Speak wisely.

Speak boldly.

Speak strategically.

Speak with love, gentleness, kindness, compassion, firmness, precision, bluntness, and even anger, mockery, scorn, ridicule and jest as befits the occasion.

Speak. Your enemies will not be silent.

Speak, 'til the tide is turned, and then some, 'til the tide is far retreated, and then some more, until civilisation is established where once there was sea.

Or speak until you are silenced, and not just with legal threats, confiscation, imprisonment, harrassment, threats, and physical harm, but until your tongue and your pen are silenced.

And then write with your foot.

And speak on and on whilst you have breath.

For speech is powerful. And those who hate speech want to silence it.

Love speech.

And use it.

Communists are hypocrites

2012-01-02T08:48:00.002+11:00

Hypocrites! On the one hand Socialists claim that it is immoral that anyone should get a better start in life on account of their parents - e.g. through advanced private education, advanced private healthcare, or a sizeable inheritance.

(Hence for example their rabid devotion to death duties aka inheritance taxes, and eliminating competition against public schools as our dearly beloved comrade Bob Brown is eager to do.)

And then the uber-Socialists, known as Communists, give Kim Jong-Il's son a better start in life on account of his father.

(He's been appointed Supreme Commander over North Korea in place of his deceased father.)

If Communists weren't hypocrites, any one of the millions of other North Koreans would have had equal chance to "ascend the throne".

But don't expect Communists to be consistent, nor Communist theory to work in practice.

What's good for you, comrade, isn't good for me, 'coz I have to do your thinking for you. Don't ask questions - it all makes sense to us, and we are your mind. Just keep working, and trust that we have your best in mind.

Yeah right.

Watch out for Canadian terrorists

2011-12-11T17:14:00.002+11:00

Seen any Canadian terrorists recently? Better watch out for those Canadians - they can be dangerous.

Probably get it from the bears.

This article is just one of many I want to focus on : Canadian charged in murder of 5 US soldiers in Iraq.

First six words?

"An Iraqi national living in Canada"...

Oh. Ok, so maybe it isn't Canadians generally. I didn't think the ones I'd met seemed that dangerous.

Must be Iraqis then.

But hey - I met some Iraqis too. Not sure they were really a risk.

Oh - the article says more :

"The case offers a glimpse into the murky world of Iraqi resistance fighters who allegedly trolled Arab countries for young, impressionable Muslims willing to give their lives for a promise of Islamic martyrdom."

Ah - I see. Not just any old Iraqis. Muslim ones.

So why does the headline suggest Canadians are a danger? Isn't "Muslim" a more accurate predictor of terrorist tendencies?

Why do so many "newspapers" insist on referring to terrorists as "Asians" or any other designation that disguises the fact that most of them are motivated by their adherence to their understanding of Islam?

What value is a political correctness that dulls us to the dangers around us?

Imagine learning to drive a car by only looking out sideways for dangers. You wouldn't get far. And we try to drive nations like that?

Sure, I know heaps of friendly muslims, as do you.

But let's not pretend that randomness turns hat-toting Canadians into gun-and-bomb-toting terrorists.

In years of yore, they thought that flies and mice arose spontaneously.

We now call that superstition.

Mice and flies arise from specific circumstances.

So too does Islamic terrorism.

Call it what it is, identify how it spreads, and do something about it.

Just stop pretending Canadians or Asians are the problem. Something in Islam is.

Yes, maybe not something in the Islam that Abdul next door practices, but something in the wider range of beliefs called Islam is doing a very good job of encouraging people to blow themselves up to kill non-muslims. Call a spade a spade. These are Muslim terrorists. And they even boast about it, and even tell us that their religious beliefs drive them to these actions.

And don't call it "extremism" either. Forsaking wealth and living every day to quietly serve those dying in pain - that's extremism. That's the kind of extremism Mother Theresa - yep, her again - resorted to. Extremism - even religious extremism - is simply something a long way from the norm, whether good or bad. It's often good. It's often bad. So don't say "Muslim extremists". In fact, from their perspective, you represent extreme evil - hey, that's why they wanna blow you up.

In fact, I could mount a pretty good case that destroying a baby's future life rich with choices, in the name of choice, is atheistic extremism. But you wouldn't want to change your view on that now, would you...

So drop "extremist". Investigate. Enquire. Open mouth to ask. Shut mouth. Listen intently. Don't assume. Ask next question. Whoohoo - now we're getting somewhere.

The Muslims are not all terrorists at heart. Phew! I'm glad about that. Very glad. But the terrorists of greatest risk to us today are Muslims. Let's not pretend otherwise.

UPDATE : Just another of many examples : German man arrested over alleged al-Qaida plot

Righteousness Exalts A Nation - Just Ask Gillard, Clinton and Obama

2011-12-11T16:34:00.001+11:00

Gillard sells the CO2 Tax.

"Australia is setting an example for the rest of the world to follow", we're told.

Subtext?

"In centuries to come, Australia will be admired as the country that got the ball rolling, that made the right choice."

Yes, Gillard believes that righteousness - making the morally tough but right decisions - does indeed exalt a nation.

So too does Hillary Clinton. And Obama.

Their latest trumpet blast is a rally to the new crusade against absolute morals in sexuality. Any absolute moral, that is, other than that it's absolutely right to do anything you want with as many other adults go along with it. And absolutely wrong to suggest otherwise.

But behold, this crusade - like crusades of centuries past - is not to be waged in their own borders, but to be exported to foreign lands.

That never asked for it.

Or wanted it.

Yup - crusades2you, no delivery fee.

Courtesy of the US government and its vast diplomatic resources.

Which might just happen to involve at least an inch or two of coercion against foreign countries.

And is explicitly intended to involve leaders forcing unwanted changes on their citizens.

Why this crusade? Why this impulse to spread their particular sexual ideology from sea to distant sea?

Weren't we just told decades ago that colonial England was very naughty when it supposedly crushed poor innocent native cultures, forcing western values in distant lands?

But isn't this exactly the same?

Identical, in fact.

But hypocrisy knows no bounds.

The goal has never been "protecting the helpless from foreign culture", but rather "forcing Humanistic values on others". See, a lot of the old English values were, well, just too Christian. Not acceptable, sorry. We're happy to colonise foreign minds, with taxpayer funds and coercion as needed, but it better be the religion of Humanism we're promoting, or at least, not Christianity, whatever you do, for gawd's sake.

But I digress.

See, Hillary and Obama believe they are saviours, that the world will see them as virtuous leaders - like Martin Luther King and others before them.

That in decades and centuries to come, the names Clinton and Obama will be uttered softly, and evoke a thrill of hope and confidence.

And not just them, but America. The America they led. The America that shoved homosexuality down the world's throat. Will be remembered as a saviour for the world.

In decades and centuries to come, people will say, "How was it that people survived in the early 21st century? Times were so barbaric! We're so grateful that America stepped up and taught the world how to think and act the right way."

The right way.

See, embracing homosexuality is "the right way".

I've not seen Hillary ever explain once why.

But supposedly it is.

Maybe she's a goddess or something? Maybe we should just take her word on blind faith. At least we can see her, unlike y'know like this Yahweh who's invisible.

But note it well : promoting acceptance of homosexuality is morally right, saith she.

As morally right as embracing religious tolerance. Even more morally right than embracing religious tolerance, because religious tolerance requires tolerating those who disagree with homosexuality, and we can't allow that.

It is the right thing to do.

Repeat that, say, hmmm, 100,000 times.

Here - I'll help you. Let's just get all the mass media parroting it too.

There - that's better.

Oh - and if anyone ever disagrees, see to it they're removed from office, so it looks like no-one of any consequence disagrees.

Yeah - cool. We're well on our way to 100,000.

See? You believe it now. Or if not, just say it a few more hundred thousand times.

Homosexuality is morally good. Not.

But see, Clinton and Obama believe it.

And now Gillard, pretending she cares about marriage, acts like she's simply a victim of her party - the Australian Labour Party - which has elected to make "homosexual marriage" national policy.

Poor Gillard - I'm sure she desperately wanted to defend marriage as the lifelong union of one man and one woman. Y'know, that's probably why she's the first Australian Prime Minister with a live-in boyfriend instead of a spouse. Yeah...

But the key take-home point is this : righteousness exalts a nation, and Gillard, Clinton and Obama all know it.

In their deluded imagination, they honestly believe that future generations will look back and think of Australia and America as great, because of their stance for CO2 taxes / homosexuality respectively.

Their morals are are immoral, but they believe them to be right - i.e. righteous - and they believe that this very righteousness will leave them and their nations exalted in the eyes of history.

Righteousness does indeed exalt a nation. And even atheists instinctively know it.

The question is : what is true righteousness?

The verse continues : "sin is a reproach to any people".

Clinton clearly defines sin : opposing homosexuality.

But her definition is mistaken. Grossly in error.

In her quest to exalt herself and her nation, she strives to earn reproach. She will be remembered. For a while. But not as the saviour she thinks.

More bloodlust from the religion of piece

2011-11-06T06:46:00.002+11:00

Despite Australian naivety, the religion of piece has some systemic issues. Y'know, the "tread our line or we'll tear you to pieces" kind of thing. Very moderate. Very pluralistic. Very humanitarian.

This time, a 17-year old fella is bashed to death in school during school hours, by his muslim school teacher and a few muslim schoolmates. For displaying two crosses he was wearing on his person.

The fact that Abdullah living next door in suburban Sydney denounces violence doesn't mean Abdu's a muslim and these Egyptian dudes are just schizophrenic freaks - any more than it means those Egyptian dudes are muslims and those "moderate" muslims around you are freaks. Newsflash : they're all muslims.

It's just some take their holy book more seriously. Which ones, you ask? Now that's a good question...

Uni students do a 180 on abortion

2011-09-28T16:55:00.000+10:00

There's a new movie out called "180". Worth a watch.

A wide range of uni students are interviewed one-on-one or one-on-two, and go from pro-abortion to pro-life and pro-adoption.

What changed their minds?

Find out : 180movie.com

All we need is love, Google-style (pro-homosexuality)

2011-09-21T09:41:00.000+10:00

So I'm a little behind the times, but I just found out today that Google, my favourite big tech company in the world, is in favour of the destruction of society's most basic instution : marriage.

A little extreme, you'll say.

Here's a one-liner version from their blog :

we should not eliminate anyone's fundamental rights, whatever their sexuality, to marry the person they love

For such a smart company as Google, this statement is jam-packed with dumb assumptions :

Fundamental rights?

If it's all relative, then there's no such thing as a "fundamental" right - or are Google themselves "fundamentalists" of some kind? Watch out for those extremist fundamentalists like Google.

Or if it's not all relative, and there are such things as "fundamental" rights, then its obvious that there might also be a "fundamental" definition to marriage. Y'know, like one that maybe, perhaps, excludes homosexual partnerships.

Should not

And then of course there are strange assertions like "should not". By what law? Who says? A lot of people I know aren't too keen on being told what they should do with their life. "Should not" sounds a lot like moralising. Has Google supplanted Yahweh? I think they'll find they're not quite as ready for the task as they think...

Eliminate

By definition, if there is such a thing as a "fundamental" right, it is fundamental. It is impossible to eliminate. You can transgress (violate) someone's fundamental rights but you can't eliminate them.

For example, I have a right to my laptop, and if the government decides to pass a law banning laptop ownership, then I do not lose my right of ownership - the government is transgressing my rights and hence abusing its power.

You can eliminate non-fundamental rights. A non-fundamental right is granted by human will, and it can be revoked by human will.

But a fundamental right, by definition, is not capable of being eliminated.

Whatever their sexuality

Paedophiles, anyone?

Bestiality?

Like, if Google wants to be consistent, why aren't they campaigning for equality for people who want legal recognition of their sexual relationship with their pet goat?

They're not consistent. So they're either blind, or they're pulling the hood over our eyes, and the issue isn't at all what they claim it to be.

Right ... to marry

I have a right to be identified as a Black American. I feel like a Black American. Ok, so my skin suggests otherwise, but it's bigotry and discrimination to say I'm not a Black American, when clearly I am one. I feel like one.

"Wait a mo", you say, "Black American by definition excludes white boys like you". You have a point.

Marriage also by definition excludes homosexual unions.

The Person

Dude - how bigoted and antiquated you are. You need to seriously catch up with the times. Why settle for one? I quite like my threesomes.

And hey, the PETA folk will tell you that pigs are people. Humano-porcine sexual relationships must also be recognised, unless you're an intolerant fascist prude.

They Love

Awwww - all we need is love. That legitimises everything.

Like sex with my 12 year old neighbour.

Well, seriously, try telling her she shouldn't.

Maybe Mohammed wasn't so bad after all, sexually penetrating his 9 year old wife. So long as it was love.

Pity of course that love changes so fast. On again, off again. But that's what divorce is for.

Hey, might as well just give people temporary marriage licenses they can optionally renew - better than forcing people through the hassle of divorce when love takes its random course in another direction...

But seriously, if "marriage" is so unfundamental that we can redefine it from heterosexual to anysexual, it really is a bit extreme to exclude non-sexual and lifelong friendships. Y'know, Harry and I are housemates, and find each other quite agreeable, and really would rather never go through the hassle of finding another housemate. Don't get me wrong - there's nothing "between us" - you catch my drift - we're definitely just mates, in the best Aussie sense of the word. Good mates. He's a good bloke, and so am I. We just wanna, y'know, have some kind of recognition for our commitment to mateship.

We really care about each other. That's gotta be love, you agree?

So marriage it is then, for Harry & I. And Brigette, when you finally drop your prudish two-party restriction.

What now for homosexuals?

It's clear that there's nothing inherent to marriage itself that homosexuals need in order to "enjoy" their homosexuality. Marriage inherently is between a man and a woman. Homosexuality is inherently not so.

I don't call my love for icecream "marriage", but somehow that doesn't detract from my enjoyment of icecream, and I don't see it as a matter of equality. Homosexuality is no different.

So why all the fuss to pretend that the fundamental definition of marriage is not quite so fundamental when perceived new rights are?

The answer is clear : the agenda is to reshape society into a utopia that sheds all vestiges of Biblical morality. Others have tried and failed but people keep on trying. Strange they're so utopian when they deride all concepts of "heaven" - they are themselves believers, they just think they're the gods who'll make heaven on earth.

Sorry Google - nice sentiment, no substance.

Open letter to Big Brother Steve Jobs

2010-12-15T10:32:00.000+11:00

G'day Steve,

I am disgusted to hear Apple has removed the Manhattan Declaration app from the App Store, on purported grounds of it being "offensive".

When it was initially listed, Apple's own review staff gave it a high ranking as non-offensive material.

And a review of the content of the app shows it is simply presenting ideas in a very non-threatening, inoffensive manner.

Apple supports the political rights of homosexuals, and of the abortion lobby. Why is Apple now censoring the political rights of peace-loving Christians?

Has Apple become anti-Christian?

Am I supposed to urge my friends to stop buying Apple, because it uses its funds to thwart legitimate, peaceful, inoffensive Christian activity?

Or are you going to hold to some bizarre line that presenting ideas someone disagrees with is "offensive" and should not be tolerated? If that's your idea of "offensive", then at least be consistent and remove all pro-abortion apps and pro-homosexuality apps.

I love Apple products, and have bought them in the past, but if Apple cannot explain or promptly rectify its extremely offensive anti-Christian actions, here is at least one customer they will lose for sure.

The Big Apple in the Apple State has become Big Brother.

Is that to be your legacy?

I hope not.

The choice is yours.

I await your reply so I will know what recommendations to make to my friends.

Thanks in advance,

Jonathan Field
Australia

For those unfamiliar with the hullabaloo, read From Iconic To Ironic - Steve Job's transformation into Big Brother.

Jamie McIntyre's 21st Century Academy, and the art of advertising

2010-12-01T19:48:00.000+11:00

Those who've been following my blog for a while will know that I'm not a particularly big fan of B.S. in advertising.

Jamie McIntyre's "21st Century Academy" is the latest example to cross my radar.

In large print, his letter opens "What is the #1 Wealth Creation Strategy?"

Good question. Now, I have in the long distant past spent around $8k-$10k on "wealth creation" seminars he orchestrated. They were interesting. For the right people they might have been worth the money. For most participants is was a waste of money. But one thing for sure : stock market trading, options trading, and property investing were held up as the ultimate wealth creation strategies, with options trading at the top of the pile as a fast and reliable way to make easy money.

So Jamie will still be singing the same tune, right?

Wrong.

"Business is the No. 1 wealth creation strategy and one of the fastest ways to generate serious cash flow."

Wow - ok, that's not what he told me nearly ten years ago when I forked over great gads of thousands of dollars to hear his wisdom. But it gets better :

"Take it from me, over the past 10 years I have personally built over 12 successful companies, 8 of which are million dollar companies in their own right."

Ah, yeah. You mean, the group of companies that ran "wealth education" seminars, at which you told us you were already wealthy and financially independent courtesy of your stock market involvement. You know, the ones you charged each attendee multiple thousands of dollars to attend, so we could learn from you how to live a luxurious lifestyle like yours without needing a real business or a job.

But it gets even better : in a little bio section, we're told that Jamie McIntyre is "Founder of over 12 companies, 8 of which have become million dollar companies in their own right over an array of industries, such as education, trading, accounting, stockbroking, financial services, media and publishing, internet and rural enterprises."

Translation : "education" means "businesses selling Jamie McIntyre's wealth education packages focussed on stock market, options and property investment/trading". His "trading" business mentioned could mean "trading education" (double-dipping on the "education" side of things). "Stockbroking" - I wonder if he recommended his own stockbroking firms to the people who came to his seminars? Great way to earn extra cash on the side. Except that I don't ever remember him disclosing that. And if he did it without disclosing it, that' s a naughty-naughty. (But he didn't necessarily do that - I'm just wondering...) "Financial services" - like maybe "investment advice"?

In short, he's built this beautiful little circle : at the outset, he told people he was an awesome stock market trader and property investor and could teach us his magic. By that means, he made MILLIONS on seminars, whilst many (most?) of his graduates made little from the strategies they learned(*1). Then, having made MILLIONS selling people instructions on how to build the ultimate life through stock market and property investments/trading, he boasts that the best way to make money is in business, and wants us to part with cash for him to spin that spiel to us. His proof that he's great in business? His wealth creation seminars where he told us trading and investments were the way to go!

Now, again, I don't want to be too harsh on the guy, nor too favourable, but I will say that after parting with $15k-$20k on "wealth creation" seminars between him and the lovable Peter Spann, I came firmly to the conclusion myself long ago that in fact business was (for me) the better bet than stock market and property.

I figured that out myself. I didn't need Jamie McIntyre to change his tune and tell me the same thing nearly ten years after taking thousands of my hard-earned dough.

Peter Spann I respect - he never said that options (which he taught) or property (which he also taught) were "the ultimate" way to make money. In fact, one of his seminars I attended was specifically geared to starting profitable businesses. So no gripes there.

But for Jamie McIntyre to turn around nearly ten years later and tell us all - we who provided his millions for him in his "education" business - that actually starting businesses is the best bet, and as proof, he offers the very businesses which raked in our money telling us investments not business was the best bet - that, my friends, is just not right.

But back to picking apart false advertising : there's also a luverly little sheet in here advertising the "21st Century Platinum Club" and a special cruise.

"Imagine being able to take leaps forward in your journey towards a life of abundance... All while cruising the Caribbean!"

Ooooo yeah, baby, I'll take one of them! Sipping margaritas, sunbathing, and effortlessly transforming myself and my business towards abundance. I mean, c'mon, who wouldn't sign up? And it's only a cool $4,995, not even quite $5k. So, who knows, for the right person, might be worth it.

The ad continues :

"In January 2011, 21st Century Members have the opportunity to join Jamie McIntyre for 7 nights cruising the idyllic islands on the world's newest and largest cruise ship, Oasis of the Sea."

Sounds cool.

"With 28 ultra-modern loft suites and 2,700 spacious staterooms, this 16-deck marvel proves that the impossible is possible - 7 distinctly designed neighborhoods including ... Spa & Fitness, Pool & Sports Zone, Entertainment Place, Youth Zone, Central Park Neighborhood and the Boardwalk Neighborhood."

Sorry - you might accuse me of nit-picketing, but I always find it nauseating when someone announces that the "impossible is possible", especially when they announce something so pathetically possible as their proof. I mean, seriously, who could ever possibly have imagined it would be possible to combine a spa, fitness equipment, a pool, some sporting rooms, cinemas, theatres, a graffiti wall, heck, even a small skate park, some central grassed area, and even some nice little boardwalk overlooking decks below - who could possibly have imagined such a thing was possible! The fact that it sounds remarkably similar to most large cruise ships should not trick you into thinking it was possible. It was impossible. After all, Jamie said 'twas so.

Which reminds me of one of the very few really dumb things Peter Spann said during one of his seminars, so many years ago. After getting us all to punch through one-inch-thick wooden boards (kinda cool experience), he intoned dramatically that "if you can punch through that board, you can do anything!". It was a very dramatic moment. I expected people to launch up into the sky, unconstrained by such trivialities as gravity. Maybe whiz around a few times, then shoot up to Neptune, visit Alpha Centauri, come back, turn into an elephant, explode into millions of flowers that gracefully float back down to the ground, then reassemble Terminator style to the original human. Now that would be impressive. But punching a wooden board proves anything's possible? "You know you make me wanna wretch, hurl my foo-ood up and wretch, c'mon now!"

Whether Jamie's magic will work wonders for you or not, I can't say, but I can say that multiple false representations (at least one of which arguably was an outright lie) were made to me by 21st Century Academy, and I can say that other people I know who attended his seminars lost many tens of thousands of dollars trying to diligently apply his "easy to follow" strategies. Fortunately for myself, I only lost the money I spent on the seminars themselves. Would I recommend them to friends? Not in a hurry. But like I said, who knows, maybe you'll be one of the ones to really benefit from it. who knows...

Footnotes :

(*1) Granted, people not making money after attending Jamie's seminars is not necessarily Jamie's fault - anyone can run a seminar and find that no-one applies what they learned. But it was more than that. It was all supposed to be so easy - follow the step-by-step directions, and yet somehow of the seven other people I know who attended 21st Century Academy courses, none seem to have any benefit at all (and some of them certainly have substantial losses) from trying to apply what they learned there. No benefit, of course, except chalking up points to experience. Y'know, lessons of the expensive variety...

When you don't have a leg to stand on...

2010-11-19T09:13:00.001+11:00

Your views are offensive

Western second-world countries like Australia and the USA are rapidly inventing idiocy like never before conceived of in 6,000 years of human history.

The problem? Some politically-active groups repeatedly find that the more research mounts up, the more the facts stand against them.

The solution? Stop arguing logically, and lobby parliament for "anti-offense" laws.

That's right : you offended me, therefore you must not speak.

An official government advisory committee on homosexual issues has told the government that they want a law that prohibits people from any conduct that a 'reasonable person' "would have anticipated that the other person would feel offended, humiliated, intimidated, insulted or ridiculed".

Hey - I think anyone whose case is so weak they need to lobby for "don't ever say anything I disagree with or else it'll offend me" laws, is either an idiot, or, to be fair, they actually know exactly what they're doing and think you're an idiot 'coz they're counting on you supporting such a ridiculous law and not complaining too much against any government that brings it in.

So, I'm offended that the homosexual lobbyists think I'm so stupid that anyone would agree with their proposed legislative changes.

And any reasonable person could have anticipated that kind of offence.

Therefore the homosexual lobby has already broken the law they proposed!!!

Idiots.

Except once again that they're not actually idiots - they know exactly what they're doing - and they're counting on you and I, the voting public, to be idiots to get their bill passed.

Of course, the fact that the Labour party is eager to bow to them brings their own collective mental capacity or else deeper agendas straight into the spotlight. But a spotlight that most will unthinkingly ignore. Yup - that's right - it seems we are a great cloud of useful idiots these lobbyists/politicians are relying on to push society further from rationality and deeper into deep irrationality.

So anyway, let's play a game : who'll get to be fined/imprisoned first once the new laws come in?

Homosexuals are nice, loving people and all that - except of course some of the very angry and violent ones evidenced in places like San Fran - and except of course that so many of them (proportionally relative to the rest of the population) wrestle deeply with mental health issues (the which at least one study has clearly shown persist regardless of the degree of societal acceptance of their chosen lifestyle) - but, hey, they're still humans, made in the image of God (an image they choose to mar), and so they still have some of God's characteristics indelibly imprinted in them - e.g. a certain degree of lovingness and niceness - so hey, it's no surprise that I quite enjoy the company of my homosexual friends (nice, friendly, loving people) - but the idea that what offends me or them must not be spoken is ridiculous beyond words.

The world's most ridiculous law

Not only is it ridiculous, but it is completely unimplementable. They'll still be enough Christians left at the passing of said stupid legislative changes that there'll be people offended by the disgusting actions of homo-peddlers in the Sydney "mardi gras". What, shall they be permitted to accuse the soddies for their evident and predictably offensive actions in public during the parade?

"Of course not - they chose to be at the parade!" some angry soddie will cry. Yes, but equally, you soddies could choose not to visit the churches from whose pulpits you might otherwise hear speech that is so hideously and unreasonably "offensive" as to suggest that you shouldn't choose the sexual practices you do.

Yet the same pro-soddie lobbyists aren't into consistency - no, why be logically consistent, when inconsistency and hypocrisy further your aims?

The Advisory group is asking the Labor movement not to give ANY exceptions for RELIGIOUS discussion of homosexuality!

They even go so far as :

They actually mention "calculated sermons" as a specific example of homophobic harassment!

So let's get this straight : I sit down to write a sermon. Now, because I happened to prepare the sermon before I step into the pulpit, this makes it a "calculated sermon". Wow - deep logic, guys. That will make about 100% of sermons in Australia calculated. What - you think e.g. politicians routinely stand up at pre-planned public meetings but have no idea what they intend to say in advance? But you find it so offensive that pastors actually think about what they're going to say in advance? Idiots you are. Oh wait - except that really you're subversive, and think we're all idiots and will go along with you without much of a whimper. Worse yet - you might be proven right. Maybe Australia is full of idiots. Useful ones, of course.

So, well, you tell me : have the laws of logic changed somewhere in the recent history of the universe? Have things like "the law of identity" and "the law of non-contradiction" been supplanted by "the law of non-offense"?

Or if it is all relative - if homosexuality is "right" today because the community supposedly accepts it, then wouldn't it be true to say that homosexuality really was actually wrong back in the 1950s? And if so, at what point did it suddenly magically change? And all those people who campaigned for homosexuality to be "accepted", at a time when it was not, wouldn't it mean that they were actually doing the "wrong" thing if indeed at the time the widespread community was opposed to homosexuality?

See, attempts to defend homosexuality on grounds of it being acceptable to the majority - i.e. on relativistic grounds - simply result in contradictions.

And attempts to defend homosexuality on absolute ground - "homosexuality is and always has been right, because it is simply right" - beg the obvious question "yeah, but who says?".

"Nature" is about the only answer they can give. "Nature" supposedly makes homosexuality right. But then, all these claims that homos are "born" that way have crumbled, living on in the zealous minds of ideologically-driven academics and in the ignorant minds of the populance whose thinking in this regard is informed only by propaganda that deliberately leaves out the strong evidence against the "my genes made me do it" theories.

Australia, 2022

So anyway, where do we get to? We get to a police state, dominated by whoever is both loudest and angriest. Oh - that would be the soddies. But that's what they want, so I suppose they'll be happy. Well, except of course for their statistically much higher rates of depression. But I'm just repeating myself...

In short? Vote no to stupidity. Vote no to political groups that entertain stupidity. If the words "truth" or "reality" or "honest enquiry" mean anything to you, then a legislatively-enforced new rule of logic "thou shalt not offend" is as offensive and obnoxious as anything that can be mentioned. It utterly stinks. It reduces society to a perpetual clash of angry claims and counter-claims, rewarding those who are easily offended and have no control over their own emotions. It punishes anyone who questions the status quo. And it abolishes any concept of legal certainty because in fact anything you do will be able to be proven to be offensive to someone somewhere.

I eat meat - oh, fine me, 'coz I offended (and could easily have predicted I would offend) our moral-crusaders opposed to the eating of meat.

I breath - oh, sorry, my carbon dioxide is contributing to your much-hated "climate change" (just threw that one in for fun :o) ).

I have any children at all - oh sorry, I could easily have seen that the growing tide of human-haters who expressly refer to human babies as "human trash" would have been offended.

In fact, the only way to avoid being able to clearly anticipate that your actions will offend someone is to hide yourself in a cloistered hole, protected from the opinions of groups you are not part of. Oh wait - that's exactly what the media wants to do - provide you that endless stream of "sanctioned" entertainment in which you may protect yourself, and from which you may form your every opinion of societal acceptability. The media, I add, which is dominated by pro-soddie agends.

And now?

Feel free to leave comments, but don't say anything I might disagree with, 'coz it'll deeply offend me and you'll be in court before the ALP even has enough time to create this free pass for soddies!!!

Or read this interesting report by Cameron Spink : Harassing the Truth.

Australian constitution article 116 is also interesting : "The Commonwealth shall not make any law prohibiting the free exercise of any religion". So if I happen to say I believe the Bible is scientifically and historically accurate, and that it portrays homosexuality as unnatural and unhealthful, and that I believe that modern scientific research clearly shows that homosexuals have far higher rates of physical and psychological health issues, and if I happen to say all this in a public seminar, someone will still claim offense. But if it is my sincerely held religious conviction, and I sincerely hold it to be confirmed also by scientific research, and I sincerely hold that part of my religious observance is to discuss topics of interest and relevance rather than just hide in a hole, then why are we entertaining a law by which parliament can prohibit the free exercise of my religion?

As I said on FaceBook regarding the religious protections in the constitution : "You'd think that would settle it. But the Greens and their bedfellows so loathe Christianity that they care not for such trifling restrictions. They've found the perfect way around it : assert a fictitious "right to non-offence" as a human right that supercedes even the constitution itself! Voila! Now we can silence those pesky Christians by requiring that they exercise their intolerable religion, _only so far as we gracious Greens deem their practice 'inoffensive'_. Clearly, giving a Christian school the right to choose Christian teachers is _terribly_ offensive - golly, what _would_ they think of next? - and so the purported "human right" to not be offended trumps the constitutional rights of the citizenry."

Also good is Common misconceptions about homosexuality - especially point six "Gays are born that way?".

Or this excerpt re genetics and homosexuality (from here):

Some assert that a gene triggers homosexuality. This view has several problems. First, the gene has not been identified, so this view is not science, but mere speculation. Secondly, statistical studies give strong evidence that homosexuality is not caused by genetics, but is influenced by environment. For example, research has shown that adoptive brothers are more likely to both be homosexuals than the biological brothers, who share half their genes. In the journal Science it is reported that:

“this ... suggests that there is no genetic component, but rather an environmental component shared in families" (Science, Vol. 262, page 2063, December 24, 1993).”

And as regards the claim that the statistically abysmal mental health statistics for soddies are simply due to discrimination from society, consider :

No evidence that homosexuality has ANY link to suicide rates - "A panel convened by such groups as the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the American Psychological Association, and the American Association of Suicidology made this finding: “There is no population-based evidence that sexual orientation and suicidality are linked in some direct or indirect manner”."

and :

Homosexual suicide rates do not drop even when homosexual marriage is legal and deemed "normal" - "Studies done in the Netherlands and New Zealand, for example, where there is generally high tolerance of sexual ‘diversity,’ found the same high rates of psychological difficulties as those done elsewhere."

or read this interesting article "Just what is behind [homosexual] suicides?"

Frank Turek points out :

Lesbian activist Chai Feldbaum, who is a recess appointment by President Obama to the EEOC, recently said regarding the inevitable conflict between homosexuality and religious liberty, “I’m having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win.” So much for tolerance. The people who say they’re fighting for tolerance are the most intolerant, totalitarian people in politics.

The final word? Sanity in the situation is evident, and evidently disregarded. Help your pollie see sense, or a soddie will rule you, and your children will never get to use the classical rules of logic.

Words, in three ideologies

2010-11-17T13:42:00.000+11:00

Christianity

In the Christian Bible, words are portrayed as tools for distinction, analysis, communication and precision.

Despite the widespread acceptance of "white lies" amongst Christians, lies are repeatedly and without exception condemned as evil and inherently unacceptable in the canon of Scripture.

In contrast :

Socialism

To the Socialist, words are tools of social re-engineering, constantly redefined in a battle against the purported evils of history and the status quo.

Distinctions are deliberately and repeatedly blurred and new ones invented in a process designed to accomplish only one thing : introduce confusion and a loss of coherence of understanding amongst opponents and the population as a whole, until they are ready to accept the doctrines of Socialism without question.

Islam

To the Muslim, words are tools of imposing Allah's will on every human, and tools for deceiving infidels to gain advantage for Allah's supposedly holy cause.

Distinction, analysis, communication and precision are all lost when outright lies are told and celebrated in the name of taqiyaa and advancing Allah's cause.

Closing remarks

For those serious in their pursuit of Truth, an ideology that treats words with reverence and demands a standard of accuracy and truth in all its communications, is to be preferred over all others. For without clarity in word, how can there be any clarity in thought? And without clarity of thought, investigation and the pursuit of Truth is meaningless.

Moral high-ground for Bob Brown the Atheist

2010-11-16T15:06:00.000+11:00

Moral high-ground is of course a very funny thing for an atheist to claim, and yet some do. The Greens, an Australian political party, were founded by avowed atheists, and yet in all their advertising, they claim to be standing up for what's "right".

"Right", by whose measure? It's like bulldozing a pile of dirt into a mound then climbing atop it and claiming you're king. If you invent the mound to favour you, it's easy to claim the "high ground".

But all this talk of "right" is just bovine excrement, as it were. My mound - my moral high-ground - is butchering people just for the sadistic fun of it. My actions are "right" by that standard, and I am the king of that castle.

So long Greens. Intellectually duplicitous. Moral crusaders for their own defined cause, against the obvious principle of nature : atoms have no moral value, and neither do collections of atoms, such as humans, if atheism's materialistic underpinnings are correct.

Of course, if there is a "god", as I maintain is evident, then the Greens are not merely duplicitous (aka hypocrites), but right royally stuffed. But hey - that's their choice, and who am I to deny them their right to choose?

If only they would hold the same in reverse - but they don't.

They are vehemently anti-choice, suggesting that babies be given no choice over whether they live or die, Christian business leaders be given no choice but to register with the government (presumably for "permission" to continue the pernicious pursuit of earning money whilst - horrors - holding different beliefs to the Greens) *1, suggesting that I be given no choice when it comes to questioning the unquestionable virtues of homosexual lifestyles, and the list goes on.

Greens would equal hypocrites, if it weren't for the not-so-subtle socialist undertones that permeate the party. They are, after all, only hypocrites insofar as their actions decry their public platitudes. But their public platitudes are not reflective of their core ideology. As their actions reveal, they are hell-bent on deceiving the public whilst they busily work on promoting their agenda of deep government control over pretty much everything that happens outside the four walls of your house, and much of what happens within.

So, Greens = hypocrites? No, just outright liars with a deadly agenda. So long, Greens, once more...

Footnotes :

*1 Yes, you read that right - Bob Brown issued a press release calling for all businesses owned by members of a particular religious minority to be forced to register. Kinda like forcing Greens supporters to wear a green triangle armband. Reminds me of a German who once forced a religious minority there to wear armbands with stars... And ANYONE takes this Bob Brown nuthead seriously? I'm not a fan of the particular religious group in question, but c'mon, surely requiring them to register - do you not know that that is exactly how the war against Jews started in Nazi Germany - they were merely required to register. It is completely unacceptable to anyone with any sense of decency that this kind of call can be made, when as very ably demonstrated by Senator Abetz in the following linked Hansard record, there are other APPROPRIATE courses available to be followed : Hansard - look for Senator Abetz's comments

Please disengage your brains : The Greens want your vote

2010-11-16T10:17:00.000+11:00

I've been surprised and delightfully amused by some nauseatingly MINDLESS ads by the Greens in the leadup to the Victorian state elections.

Utilising the Google ad platform, the Greens so far have brought me two stellar pieces of education :

"Standing up for what's right, not just what's easy. Vote The Greens"

Tell me, how do you know, oh omniscient Greens, what is "right"? Oh, that's right - you were founded by an "ethicist", Peter Singer, who says it's "right" to kill babies after they're born alive and well, and says that humans have no more rights than any other lifeforms (see my satirical article The Truly Green Party).

His entire religio-philosophical system is based on a materialistic assumption that there is no god, but then he makes himself a god by telling the rest of us how to behave.

Tell me, what is "right" about him imposing his sanctimonious and entirely arbitrary views on the rest of the nation?

But the Greens don't want you to think - they just want you to "feel" good 'coz you voted for what's "right" - after all, the Greens told you so, and they would know.

And then, today's doozy :

"The Victorian Greens - My values haven't changed, my vote has. Vote VIC Greens this election."

Um... my values haven't changed? Let's get this straight : you're either insulting the intelligence of the electorate by telling them that they used to vote against their values (neither Labour nor Liberal is pro-infanticide, both of those parties have many committed Christians who cherish the sanctity of human life, and generally members of those parties hold that the individual human is worth more than say a bacterium), OR ELSE you're insulting the intelligence of the electorate by telling them you're really a pretty moderate party, relying on their ignorance of your deeper political agenda to win their vote.

I think the latter - you think the voters are ignorant, and you're happy to exploit that.

A charming thought really, but I don't see any other possibility - "My values haven't changed, my vote has" is an insult to the voting public whichever way you look at it.

So thanks Greens for these tid-bits. Strangely absent from your ads is any detailed appeal to reason. You're soliciting knee-jerk unthinking "feel good" votes. Yup - that's what I like to see. Not. Needless to say, you won't be getting my vote - I actually think about issues. Oh wait - that removes me from your target market. Sorry about that.

It's happening very slowly, but mainstream media and public persons are finally beginning to discuss the bloody red so-called "Green" agendas. Two recent examples :
Read the fine print on the Greens' tin - former Treasurer Peter Costello
Kevin Andrews MP takes a look at the Greens' ideology

The Truly Green Party

2010-11-14T17:02:00.011+11:00

PRESS RELEASE

New political party : The Truly Green Party

A party that stands for ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE.

No more rhetoric - just real action on real issues.

Nature and nature's products
Blenders
Climate Change

I'm pleased to announce the formation of new political party that gives a real alternative for Australian voters.

The Truly Green party.

A no-nonsense platform that faces the hard issues of justice in our time : legal recognition and protection of the inherent rights of nature and nature's products.

(Note : we haven't quite yet actually completed our registration process with the Australian Electoral Commission, but that's just a simple administrative procedure. The legal requirement for registration is a minimum of 50 registered members, and we have full confidence that once the Australian public has heard our campaign platform, we will amply meet that minimum requirement with ten thousand more beside.)

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE - POLICY THE FIRST - PROTECTION OF NATURE

Legal rights can no longer be recognised as belonging to humans only. In the words of the infamous Australian Peter Singer, this is speciesism.

We must, as humans, do what is best for the greatest number of living organisms sharing with us this fragile eco-system called Earth.

Accordingly, it must be noted that bacteria outnumber humans by many millions to one, and each individual bacterium shares equal rights with our speciesistic race.

Therefore, the only proper solution that promotes the greatest benefit for the greatest number of living organisms is to kill all humans, allowing their carcasses to provide the fertile breeding grounds for tens of trillions more bacteria. By this means, the greatest possible number of living organisms will receive the greatest benefit.

Whilst various means are at our disposal to accomplish this aim, we are strictly anti-nuclear. Other weapons of mass destruction are viable considerations.

The uninformed and speciesistic bigots will decry our humane stand for justice as "extremist", but they are the true extremists, promoting beligerence of our species against those which greatly outnumber us.

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE - POLICY THE SECOND - PROTECTION OF NATURE'S PRODUCTS

Within the great scheme of Evolution arose the human mind. Despite it's startling complexity and delusion of self-direction, it's operations are purely deterministic, operating as a magnificent electromechanical machine.

Accordingly, not only the Evolution of the brain, but its operation, is entirely a product of Nature.

And tens of thousands of scientists unanimously agree that the blender is a product of the human brain. Without that ill-named characteristic of the human mind - "inventiveness" (really just a name for such incredibly complex mechanistic processes that we cannot yet fully comprehend) - without this inventiveness characteristic of the human mind, there would be no such thing as a kitchen blender, and since the mind and its operations are but a product of nature, so too is the blender.

And as a product of nature, the blender has inalienable rights.

The Truly Green Party is the only Australian political party which affords Nature's rights with due respect.

Once the Australian public has recognised the justice of our platform and entrusted us with governance of this nation, we will immediately enact laws to protect kitchen blenders from discrimination, harrassment, and abuse. Anyone found overloading their blender will be subject to fines, and those with such reprehensible disregard for nature as to torture their blenders to the point of emitting their blue smoke - that is, the very heart and essence of the blender's soul - will be imprisoned on terms comparable to such violence against fellow humans. That is, of course, until the successful implementation of policy the first.

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE - POLICY THE THIRD - REVERSION OF CLIMATE CHANGE

Climate change - don't just stop it, reverse it!

The Truly Green Party takes climate change seriously.

A panel of tens of thousands of international scientists(*1) unanimously agree that Earth's atmosphere was very different only a few tens of hundreds of million years ago, with sulfuric acid, carbon dioxide, and a great many other gasses filling the air.

Evidencing the unacceptable bigotry of our present political parties, such natural gasses are commonly referred to as "noxious", due only to purported ill effects on the human species. The Truly Green Party will promote educational policies which help correct this bigotted speciesistic view of nature. Private schools will be defunded to prevent the further spread of disinformation, as only our public schools are fit for the propogation of knowledge. Rumours of falling academic standards over recent years and decades is entirely false, or if it is true, it is certain evidence that we must take greater state control of education to ensure no-one ends up believing anything with which the Australian Government disagrees.

We have also determined, through extensive scientific research, that the atmosphere and surface of the earth were once much hotter than at present.

In the interests of preserving Nature and thereby protecting its inalienable rights, we propose the following steps to take place via timed bombs and other mechanisms after the death of the last human (vis policy the first) :

Simultaneous worldwide lighting of all known carbon sources - oilfields, coalfields, etc - to release gasses into the atmosphere which will restore it to its former glorious state.
Simultaneous worldwide detonation of all mined uranium (having been pre-enriched and prepared for this use). We are anti-nuclear, but in fact detonating all uranium thusly will help prevent it being misused in the hands of whatever other species might evolve in ten trillion years from now and attempt to use it against future as-yet-unimaginable creatures which will then inhabit the earth. But more importantly, the heat released from these simultaneous nuclear detonations will help return the temperature of the atmosphere to its rightful former levels.

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE - don't vote for rhetoric, vote for action. Vote #1 the Truly Greens.

(*1) Actually, just some random dude on the internet, but we don't have any policies against outright lies or misrepresentation of facts, as neither does our nearest namesake political party, except insofar as they don't think they'll get away with it.......

Cultural superiority - if your culture ain't superior, why do you subscribe?

2010-11-11T12:52:00.000+11:00

Racial superiority vs cultural superiority : there's a vast difference.

Culture can be changed.

Race cannot.

When it comes to cultural superiority, I do happen to hold that a culture which lets widows live is superior to one which burns its widows alive on their husbands' funeral pyres.

I do hold that a culture which celebrates and protects the unborn is superior to one which kills them at a whim.

I do hold that a culture which enjoys the occasional drink is superior to one which celebrates inebriation.

I hold this and much the more.

Your culture cannot be equal to all other cultures, unless you think stupidity is equal to wisdom, ignorance is equal to enquiry, violence is equal to forgiveness, and indolence is equal to diligence.

And if your culture is not equal to all others, then it must be superior and/or inferior to some.

And thus is born the quest for perfection of culture, and a rejection of the blind faith of our age that all cultures are to be equally revered.

My Choice Is No Crime

2010-10-12T15:03:00.002+11:00

My Choice Is Not A Crime

I'm pro-choice, you see.

Choices are good.

Y'know - to pick your nose, or wipe your arse with your bare hands.

Even to rub that stuff in someone else's face.

Choices, right? We celebrate 'em, we love 'em.

And according to Aussie pro-death group GitStuffed (not their real name), "My Choice Is No Crime".

That's right.

I chose to burgle your house last night. Oh - thanks for the lingerie - and the jewelery was swisher than I expected - you've got class!

But wait - the moment my choice becomes an action, you think I can be held accountable?

Bullshit!

After all, My Choice Is Not A Crime.

Oh? Sorry - repeat that? Oh - a choice is not a crime if it doesn't affect someone else.

So that would make abortion a crime then, wouldn't it.

I mean - that cute little baby snuggled inside your womb feels pain independently of you - no bodily organs can do that.

And heck - he/she probably has a different blood type to you. Tell me, what bodily organ does THAT!

So without a doubt, little cutesie in your womb is a beautiful baby, distinct from you.

And you just told me that My Choice Is A Crime, if it hurts another.

So what are we arguing about? Sounds like it's case-closed.

A day in the life of the Australian Sex Party : genitals, yes; brains, MIA

2010-10-11T12:37:00.006+11:00

It was a beautiful Spring day. The sun shone bright and full. A cool breeze gently caressed our faces.

We thronged the streets of Melbourne - thousands of us, gathered in a peaceful joyful celebration of life.

Passers by wondered at the long procession, and with us being such a peaceful sea of happy faces, we received many kind greetings from those we ambled by.

We had almost finished our walk before I heard the first nay-sayer. I was suprised we got that far with only one, or at least only one I heard. "Go home!' was his intellectually-stimulating shout.

But as we progressed further along those last few hundred metres, I began to hear a rhythmic sound that felt strangely angry. Very angry.

It was confusing and hard to decipher at first. There was music playing - I vaguely recognised the song. But out of sync with the music, there was some other chant. I could not hear the words, but I could immediately feel : whatever it was, it felt wrong. On the inside.

It wasn't a chant of love, of gratitude or thanks. Whatever it was, it was angry.

Was it some of us, having walked so peacefully, now angrily yelling a pro-life message?

I would have been surprised. It seemed so out-of-character with the group and with the lovely spirit of the walk so far!

What then?

Aha! I see now.

Enter stage left: the Australian Sex Party, riding on a pink stallion!

Waving placards advertising themselves as the "Australian Sex Party", a small but angry mob (30 people?) were coordinating their efforts by chanting in unison.

Did I mention they were angry?

Very angry.

And so they graced us as we peacefully gathered at our final meeting place.

We were there, representing those who died without a voice, without a choice.

Those whose lives and every chance of future hopes and choices was snatched from them, by cruel adults in a cruel world, emboldened by cruel legislation.

They were there to, well... it wasn't really that clear what they were there to do.

At one point during our proceedings, they chanted together :

"Not the Church,

"Not the State,

"WOMEN will decide their fate!"

Uh, really?

MORE than half of abortion victims are women.

So let's get this straight : that's a lot of women not getting to decide their fate.

In fact, the Australian Sex Party is anti-choice. If they believed in choice, they'd let the babies be born, and adopted by loving parents, and then let each baby grow up and decide for himself/herself whether they want to commit suicide or continue living.

Don't make that choice for them!

As soon as you choose for someone else that they will die, you are anti-choice.

In contrast, I am stridently _pro_-choice. Let the baby live, and make its own choices as it learns and grows.

On and on they chanted. "Not the Church, not the State. WOMEN will decide their fate!"

Such a ridiculous self-contradiction.

The only thing it seemed anything like was a monstrous four year old, furious at the world when things don't go their way.

What do you do when you're a spoiled brat and you want something to change? You throw a temper tantrum.

Yep - that's the ASP.

But evidently sensing that I detected a lack of intellectual integrity in that chant, they did eventually switch.

"No way, back to the backyard!
"No way, back to the backyard!
"No way, back to the backyard!"

On and on and on for minutes or maybe even tens of minutes.

If you want a political party that is able to coordinate the mindless yelling of short self-contradicatory slogans, the Australian Sex Party has definitely proven their prowess. I'd vote for them anyday. Highly intellectually stimulating.

But hang on a second - oh, yeah, I see.

It actually took me a minute or two before I could even understand their garbled chant - the "no way back to the backyard" one. Yeah, I was at a distance from them at that point.

But right, I get it now : they're saying that the legislative reform of two years past meant late-term abortions could move out of the backyard into the hospitals. You know - those places where the Hippocratic oath is held in reverence and lives are preserved by all possible means.

And they're saying that there is absolutely no way they will accept a re-criminalisation of abortion which would send abortions "back to the backyard".

Right... so now that I understand what they're saying, shall I bother tearing it to shreds?

No?

Ok, let's not bother. It is too pitifully stupid. It really is an insult to the intelligence of every person gathered there on the ASP platform.

I would love to have gone up and talked peacefully and quietly to one of them, and invited them to my house for a coffee. Clearly, when dripping with such extreme anger and seeming hatred towards "us" - "us", the much larger group who had peacefully gathered, and who were the only reason they too were present (i.e. to protest against our presence) - clearly, some of these poor folk had some pretty screwy ideas about "us" and the universe, to hate us so much. I thought a constructive conversation over a coffee - well, obviously we wouldn't leave united in opinion, but they might "discover the other" and feel the love and realise we're not quite as bad as they think...

But alas, perhaps a dozen police officers were standing twixt us and they (or perhaps a good thing? they were so angry - and without a cause - who knows, they would probably have thought themselves to be doing a good thing to physically assault us), and so I decided against visiting them on this occasion.

Back to the... BACKYARD! HILARIOUS!

But wait - writing a blog has proven one thing to me, and that is :

Most people don't think. Whatever is extremely obvious will still be missed by most people.

Need proof? (chuckle) I have loads of comments left by people on this blog, who made idiots of themselves by completely missing both the point and the obvious.

So - please forgive me and bear with me, those for whom this is obvious - please bear with me whilst I momentarily deconstruct the piercing insights of the Australian Sex Party, embodied in their insightful slogan, "No way, back to the backyard!".

For starters : where does crime belong? Does it not belong in the backyard, or elsewhere out of public eye? So, if abortion is a crime, should it not return exactly to that very place?

But abortion is not a crime, you say. Oh? By what standard?

By the standard of Victorian legislation?

Tell me : was abortion a crime 100 years ago?

What about late-term abortion - which was the subject of today's peaceful procession.

Was late-term abortion a crime three years ago?

Yes?

Did you advocate it nonetheless? i.e. was it morally right for a woman to have a late-term abortion, even though it was illegal?

See, the ASPers believe that abortion - at any age - is morally noble. A far better choice than - shock of shocks, horror of horrors - letting an unwanted child be adopted by loving would-be-parents.

So, to them, as far as they're concerned, abortion has always been legal, from a moral perspective. It's the morally right choice to let a woman choose to deny her baby choice.

And legislation is just a pesky thing standing in the way of what is morally right.

Thus sayeth the Australian Sex Party, and they must be right, 'coz no-one would be that angry if they didn't have an irrefutable lucid case to back up their stance... or not.

But hang on a second - the Australian Sex Party claims to be opposed to religion in politics.

But the very claim that a woman has a right to abort her baby - a right that transcends any legislation - is a religious claim.

Either law is determined entirely by humans - majority rule or whatever - or else law has some "transcendental" qualities.

ASP claims on the one hand they don't want religion in politics, and then on the other hand appeals to some nebulous undefined religious-sounding transcendental "right" of a woman to deny another woman the chance to be born and live.

Go figure.

So they're contradictory, once again.

So maybe they'll quickly back-pedal and say that no, abortion isn't "right" for any absolute reasons, but only because it is the will of the people.

Is it the will of the people?

There are plenty of stats that indicate otherwise. Like the flood of pro-life submissions - vastly outweighing the pro-death ones - sent to the Victorian Legislative Council when it proposed "legalising" late-term abortions a few years ago.

But let's grant for a microsecond that "the majority" want abortion to be legal, and let's suppose for a moment that there are no absolutes and the will of the majority makes things "right".

Even if so, what if the will of the people changes?

Clearly, a hundred years ago the "will of the people" was for abortion to be illegal.

In fact, homosexuality and marital infidelity too.

I don't suppose the Australian Sex Party would want that.

But to reject that, they either have to appeal to some indefensible notion of absolute women's rights - in which case they're taking a religious position themselves, the which they explicitly denounce - or they have to appeal to the will of the majority, in which case they have to concede that those laws were good and noble in their time.

And if so, then they also have to concede that if the will of the people is shown to be pro-life, or becomes pro-life in the future, then abortions should indeed go "back to the backyard".

And - yeah, sorry, I apologised in advance about labouring the point, but some people need everything to be shown step-by-step, so bear with me ...

The Australian Sex Party is engaged in lobbying designed to alter the "will of the people". If they think the will of the majority is the only rightful rule, and they think it's fine for them to try to alter the will of the people, then why are they so vehemently and spitefully opposed to us also seeking to alter the "will of the people" through careful research and education about the MANY bad outcomes inherently associated with abortion?

The only possible answer : they're hypocrites. Whatever promotes their cause is good; whatever opposes it is bad. There is no other morality to the ASP. They have a religious commitment to unfettered sex and unfettered murder.

They are a religion.

Their holy book is the ASP manifesto.

Their creed is mindless adherence to the belief that anything goes in sex or baby-killing, just because.

Or if they try to pin their credibility on Atheism and Humanism, they fall into the same trap once again : Atheism is an absolute belief in the absolute non-existence of any God, a belief that is simply unable to be substantiated via the scientific method. Atheism is thus inherently religious in nature, and in fact this is how Humanism has obtained income tax concessions - it is a registered religion.

So whichever way you slice the cake, the Australian Sex Party is full of religious zealots.

"Get religion out of politics" they say, but what they mean is "we will tolerate no religion except our own!".

Their religion, they tell us, must set all the rules, and all other religions must be banished. Hello? That seems fair... lol.

The most striking thing about this lovely day out with the Australian Sex Party was their absolute, total lack of rationality.

Slogans, yes. Anger, yes. Religious fervour and commitment, yes.

We have stats, we have research, we have interviews, we have personal stories, and we have a cogent worldview in which our position makes sense.

But them? All zeal. All unbridled anger. But no substance. Not a single intelligent comment from them, all day. Not that I was privy to.

Self-contradiction - yeah, loads of that. Truckloads.

But sense? Look elsewhere! :o)

But, I haven't finished : "back to the backyard". Bear with me whilst I deconstruct it just a little longer...

Already back in the backyard!

The ASP are hypocrites still further. "No way [will we let abortion go] back to the backyard!"

They yelled it over and over and over again.

But actually, they're already doing that.

The RU486 abortion pill is taken at home. A "backyard abortion" if you will.

And a new phenomenon in the USA, starting here in Australia too, is the abortion-via-internet. Skype or whatever to a trained professional who will guide you through the process of killing that pesky little baby inside.

In fact, it was not the legalisation of abortions and hence access to medical facilities that starting "saving women's lives" through "safe abortions", but the availability of antibiotics.

And do I need to point out the bleeding obvious once again, that when one in two patients die, an abortion can hardly ever be called "safe", and when a woman kills her female baby, it can hardly be called supporting women's choices when that woman-to-be never got a chance.

But I digress.

All I really mean to say is that abortion is already back in the backyard.

So much for "no way, back to the backyard!". Intellectual stimulation to the max, these ASPers. Maybe they really do only think with their genitals?

But hey, I'm sure they're all lovely people, deeeeep down, beneath thick layers of anger and other nasties. Somewhere in there. Surely.

I really would like to meet some of them, one-on-one in person in casual conversation around a coffee.

If they manage to climb out of their self-imposed prison of hate, they might just discover an interesting world of different opinions that aren't quite as wacky - nor quite as screwy - as they clearly believe.

And hey - we can always part friends, even if our ideologies never align. I don't mind having friends who are self-confessed murderers. Murder is wrong, but that doesn't change the fact that murderers are precious people who I can love and genuinely care about.

I'm not so sure it goes in the reverse - believing in moral absolutes different to their own is such a hideous crime, I doubt many of them could displace their own prejudices long enough to really get to know me. But hey - their loss.

And so, it was an interesting day, and made all the more interesting by the Australian Sex Party.

Until today, I thought they were weird but I knew little about them.

But thanks to their efforts, I am now much better informed : they are self-contradictory all the way, intellectually destitute and driven by blind anger. Maybe even rage. Kudos, ASP. Kudos.

The better way to argue

In contrast to the total lack of anything intelligent heard from the ASP today, I will end with this :

"Trees aren't the only things worth saving."

That is an intelligent banner - one of many in today's procession.

It leaves open the question : what else is worth saving? Are babies worth saving? It doesn't directly answer the question. It invites intelligent discussion.

ASP, if you want to be taken seriously, you need to grow up beyond your four-year-old temper tantrums and invite discussion around intelligent questions, instead of making your list of hostile demands.

Thanks for a fun day, and hey - if you can bear to put your prejudice aside, let's have a coffee.

Oh - and mindless rants in the comments doesn't exactly constitute a coffee. Thought I'd better throw that one in... :o)

Concluding remarks

If late-term abortion was actually a crime here in the state of Victoria, just three years ago, then re-criminalisation could occur just as soon. If morality is determined by the will of the people, what's wrong with re-criminalising the murder of unprotected babies, if that is the will of the people? And if you can't answer that question, ASPer, you really are as intellectually bankrupt as today made you seem. That's alright - failing to think is not a crime, but your life will be better if you think well instead of not at all. I promise. :o)

But the reality, ASPer, is that you believe abortion is right, not because it is the will of the people, but because it is morally right in some transcendant absolute sense of the word. But you're too much of a coward to attempt to argue it, because you realise that as soon as you start trying to argue for moral absolutes, you're in a losing battle against some pretty strong arguments in favour of theistic morality.

And hence today's demonstration : why engage the intellect if you know you'll lose? And why abandon an indefensible position? Best thing to do is yell and shout angrily and hope people ignore the problems in your beliefs!

Go home - such piercing brilliance

P.S. I would be remiss not to mention : clearly once again detecting that I saw through the intellectual paucity of their second major slogan, the ASPers turned to a final, and most thought-provoking slogan, the which they spent the final ten minutes or so chanting, angrily, repeatedly, loudly : "Go home!". Such piercing insight, as I said before, truly should be enshrined in print, published and distributed throughout the four corners of our land. Such depths of perception caused great lights to awaken within our minds, as we understood life like never before. Ah, no. I mock. But they really did chant that, and really for that long. Based on their intellectual, ummm, lightweightness shall we say, demonstrated today, I can see them boasting "we drove away that crowd of pro-lifers! We told them to go home, and they did!" Uh, yeah. Stand there telling someone to go home for an hour until they finished what they came to do and go home anyway, and hey, if you need that kind of thing to boost your ego and make you think you're having some kind of effect, uh, I have some psychologists I could recommend. So, it'll be very amusing if they do try to make that claim : "Australian Sex Party dismisses pro-life rally" or something equally absurd. Like I said, the intellectual integrity of a four-year-old throwing a temper tantrum. That's about all I saw from them today. Plus anger, to the max and a strong dose of hatred. Nice work, bro, nice...

Abortion : good bu$ine$$, bad ethics

2010-10-10T01:58:00.000+11:00

Adiel Hope was murdered by unusual means.

Drowned in a bucket of formaldehyde.

It would sound amusing - wtf - what was a bucket of formaldeyhde doing lying around anyway?

Except that it's true, and Adiel ain't the only one.

She was born alive. Most babies are.

But someone wanted her dead.

Her caretaker took her - immediately after her live birth - and dropped her in the bucket.

Yep. Breathing, squirming and all.

Kinda like you might drown a rat if you didn't care about cruelty to animals.

Except even crueller, 'coz the formaldehyde hurts like heck.

Especially when you breath it.

The trainee nurse was traumatised.

You bet!

I reckon the baby was too.

But according to the Australian Sex Party, and the Victorian government, this is a good thing - or at least much better than the unthinkably horrible outcome of letting the baby live.

I guess they haven't met Melissa Ohden.

Nor would they want to!

Someone who survived an abortion attempt on her own life, grew up with adopted parents and lived a rich and fulfilling life despite a poor medical prognosis and never meeting her blood parents - it proves that every life is worth giving a chance, even if only in the hands of adopted parents.

Life - imagine the potential.

Melissa has gone on to make truckloads of inspiring choices with her life.

Choices that would have been snuffed out of existence had the abortion "succeeded".

Abortion is anti-choice.

But Melissa is pro-choice, in the truest sense of the word.

Giving babies a chance is pro-choice to the max : the mother can still live life they way she wants - just give the baby out for adoption - there are loads of desperate would-be-adoptive-parents denied the chance to ever have a baby to call their own. And of course the baby will face more choices than the mother has remaining in her own life, assuming average lifespans, 'coz the mother has already used up some of her years and opportunities to choose.

Pro-life is pro-choice. Pro-abortion is anti-choice.

It doesn't matter which way you cut the cake - abortion is good bu$ine$$, but bad ethics.

When the government pays, the price goes through the roof

2010-08-19T15:37:00.000+10:00

What the Australian Government has recently proven is what thinking people have known for decades :

Any time the government starts paying for something, the costs explode.

Obstetrician fees.

Ceiling insulation.

School buildings.

Computers in schools.

National Broadband Network - if we give 'em the chance.

Just say no.

Disclaimer : I am only discussing payments where the government foots the entire direct bill or almost the entire direct bill.

Discrimination against celery is disallowed

2010-07-13T17:27:00.002+10:00

I visited a huge wholesale produce market today. Fascinating place. The biggest in our state.

It's full of forklifts and people busily whizzing here and there.

A wonder to behold.

But dangerous too - so they get you to watch a safety induction video before they let you take to the floor alone.

The video was good, but a few things surprised me.

Under absolutely no circumstances will discrimination be tolerated in the market.

That's what they told me.

Which perplexes me : I thought I would get to choose between different grades of produce.

You know - if I want apples, maybe I chould choose Granny Smith over Fuji, or maybe choose organic over conventional, or maybe look at one set of apples and decide they're not quite as fresh as another.

But apparently, that's not allowed.

You see, identifying differences between two pieces of fruit is discrimination.

We say a wine connoiseur has "discriminating tastes".

And a vegan might too, as regards his fruit & vege.

But nope - not allowed here.

In fact, technically, distinguishing between apples and pears and deciding that you actually want apples, not pears, is another form of discrimination.

Poor pears - feel so dejected.

And one more step of logic if I may - isn't discriminating against my $5 bill when the price is $10 also a form of discrimination?

So it's quite a wonder it's a market at all - you'd think that anyone could come and take anything for any price, what with the absolute rule against all forms of discrimination within the market, but anyway...

I suppose someone will think they're smart and tell me "but what they MEAN, you numbskull [a kindly reference to yours truly] is that discrimination on the basis of gender, belief, or sexual inclination - THAT'S the kind of discrimination that's not allowed. Thickhead!"

Oh, ok. Thanks for filling me in - I didn't realise I was a thickhead until you told me.

So let me get this straight then : if I have a sexual orientation for exhibitiionist fruitiality (sex in public with items of fruit), no-one there will interfere, right? I mean, they're all loving, friendly, non-discriminatory blokes. It's not like I'm forcing my sexual orientation on them - they don't have to participate if they don't want.

Of course there is the issue that I'm into fruitiality, not vegieality, so that's discrimination against vegies - oh, but wait - that's right, discriminating between fruit & vege is ok. Got it.

What's that you said? Sorry? What? Did I hear you right? Hang on a moment, folks, someone's telling me I should probably not try practicing my exhibitionist fruitiality at the market. Why not?

Hang on folks - I'll be right back.

Ok, sorry - I'm being told that practicing my fruitiality in front of non fruitialitists would be discriminating against their sexual preferences. I don't quite understand why, but that's what they tell me, so I'd better play it safe.

So, this "belief" and "gender" bizzo - let me get this straight : if a seller sells something to a woman, he's not allowed to carry the box back to the woman's car, when he doesn't do that for men, 'coz that would be discriminating on the basis gender, right?

So let me get this straight : no discriminating between men and women.

So why do they have separate toilets?

I mean that's a farce if ever I heard one - "no discrimination between the genders" and then they go and force us to use different toilet blocks. Hey, I'm a clean pisser - why should I be forced to use the filthy bloke's block when the femme's is so pristine? Seriously... whoever makes these rules is a loser.

And then that "belief" bizzo. What if I believe this whole load of discrimination against some forms (but not others) of discrimination is a whole load of hogwash?

Y'know, what if I went there and practiced my exhibitionary fruit thingy or used the female loo? I betcha they'd be angry! Hypocrites! Beliefs are sacred, or so they claim, and yet they discriminate against mine.

I dunno... what's the world coming too...

Beers, bars, nuns and suicide bombers

2010-07-13T16:47:00.000+10:00

This piece of fiction was inspired by the muslim riots in France several years ago - you know, the ones done in response to the "Danish cartoons". It just took a little while to go from thoughts to fingers... :o)

A nun and a Muslim suicide bomber walked into a bar.

They both ask for water.

A man turns to the nun, sees the cross hanging around her neck, and sneers.

"You Christians are imbeciles! Everyone knows God doesn't exist. You preach a false hope in some fictitious paradise. You're all delusional. And worse - you're an angry, violent mob! Do you know how many wars have been started in the name of your God? You're just a bunch of violent thugs!"

The nun is so surprised and taken aback, she almost laughs.

"Well, my fine sir. I'm sorry to hear that's your impression of us. I'm not quite sure where you get that idea from.

"Yes, I am a Christian, but I go around helping people who are frail or ill.

"You are of course entitled to your opinion on the matter, and I'm glad you took the time to express your thoughts, but I think it would be worth your time investigating more closely.

"We are, or we do try to be, a very loving lot."

Another man wanders over, curious at the sight of the unusual visitors in the bar. He didn't hear the first conversation, but he sees the muslim headdress on the suicide bomber, and he sneers.

"You Muslims are imbeciles!" he says. "Everyone knows there is no God. You preach a false hope in some fictitious paradise. You're all delusional. And worse - you're an angry, violent mob! Do you know how many wars have been started in the name of your God? You're just a bunch of violent thugs!"

The suicide bomber is enraged. His face hardens. His lips turn sinister, and a red flush sweeps his face as rage and adrenalin sweep his body.

"Me, angry?!!!" he yells.

"How DARE you call my religion angry and violent!" he says, stepping back from the bar.

He picks up a glass, and throws it against a wall where it smashes. "I can't BELIEVE you would say such a ridiculous thing!"

He glares menancingly at the patrons, before sending beer and bottles flying as he tips over a table, and storms out the front door.

A few minutes later, loud smashes and bangs are heard on the streets. A few patrons peek out through the windows. The suicide bomber has called on his mates, and together with crowbards and hammers, they are smashing windows, tipping vehicles, and even setting some vehicles on fire.

The marauding mob is occasionally heard to yell things like "We are a religion of PEACE!" and "Stop the discrimination! We have a right to practice our religion in line with our beliefs!"

Eventually the mob passes a bystander, who asks the suicide bomber, "What's happening?"

"It's the fool in the pub" replies the suicide bomber. "He called us Muslims hateful and angry. But we are PEACEFUL."

"But you look pretty violent and angry right now?" suggests the bystander with sincere curiosity.

"We're not angry, and we're not violent. It's that fool in the pub who made us angry right now, but we're not actually angry or violent people in reality" said the suicide bomber.

"Ok, but I was in a pub a little while ago - maybe the same one - and as I was walking out, I heard someone ridiculing a nun. She could have turned angry and nasty, but she responded very kindly to the man. I don't know what happened after that, 'coz I was leaving, but is it possible that the fools in the pub simply showed what was already on the inside?"

So here's the rub : next time you see a violent angry mob of Muslims, claiming to be justified by criticism in the media, ask yourself for that particular mob "would a nun or a priest have responded in the same way?" And if not, then is it possible that the brimming anger and violence was already latent in the mob, just looking for an excuse to spill out? Just some thoughts...

Jesus, Peter, and the "Don't judge me!" brigade

2010-07-12T12:06:00.003+10:00

Like Pavlov's dogs, Christians have been well trained by their Humanist overlords.

Simply whisper the word "discrimination", or sigh the word "judgementalism", and Christians the western world around will instantly stop their mouths.

But do these terms make sense? Are they well applied? Consider this imaginary Scripture fragment and compare it to how Humanists around you are getting Christians to dance to their tune by the power of the conditioned response to these words...

Matthew 16:13-23, Really Inspired Version

v 13 Jesus asked His disciples, "Whom do men say I am?"

v 14 and they answered "Some say you are John the Baptist; some say Elijah; and others say Jeremiah or one of the prophets."

v 15 Then he asked them "But whom do you say I am?"

v 16 and Simon Peter answered and said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God!"

v 17 At that moment, an indignant voice rang out. "YOU'RE JUDGING ME!!!" screamed Mary-Anne, a woman who stood nearby.

v 18 Peter, bewildered, asketh her, "What meanest thou by this manner of words?"

v 19 Mary-Anne answering said unto him, "You're JUDGING me! How DARE you say Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, when I don't believe a word of it!

v 20 [she continued] "You're telling me that what I believe is WRONG, ALL WRONG! YOU JUDGEMENTAL PERSON! I CAN HARDLY BELIEVE YOU CALL YOURSELF A FOLLOWER OF JESUS!!!"

v 21 And having said these words, Mary-Anne turned on her heel and departed thence.

v 22 Peter, bewlidered, turneth to Jesus and asketh, "My Lord, is there error in me?"

v 23 Jesus smiled softly, and spake "Nay Peter, but there are some who cannot stand to hear the sound of a voice with which they disagree. Their hearts are stubborn, and incline not to learning."

Whatever happened to journalism?

2010-07-06T09:31:00.000+10:00

Bill Muehlenberg has a very interesting article on homosexual marriage and the role of the media.

Make WHAT Count 2010?

2010-06-21T23:40:00.001+10:00

Make It Count 2010 was on tonight - the two competitors for Australia's top job addressed a Christian audience and responded to questions from our foremost Christian leaders. What did I learn? I express my concerns to the man who organised the event...

Dear Brigadier Wallace,

My wife and I were surprised, nay shocked, nay horrified, that there was no mention at "Make It Count 2010" of the greatest social injustice of our time : the summary execution of hundreds of thousands of Australian citizens without due process of law.

In a world where would-be adoptive parents are plentiful, and often resort to international adoptions or give up due to high costs, why is it that we can find no other option for Australia's unwanted children?

Worse yet, how can a hall full of representatives of the Christian faith, clamour about climate and education and supposed "social injustices" evidenced towards some thousands here and some tens of thousands there, without thought of the greater corpus of innocents who have suffered the severest injustice of all?

If the church cares for social justice - as your nominated representatives seem to claim - then why is it silent on the greatest issue of social justice today?

Is it too divisive for Christians to agree on?

Then what exactly is "Christian" about the Christians we heard tonight if they can't make a call on such an obvious violation of human rights?

Is it a settled issue - a battle we've already lost?

But then slavery was a settled issue.

And silent acceptance of this supposedly settled issue makes mockery of our claims to care about the myriad lesser social evils.

Is it too controversial to ask Rudd's and Abbott's views on this in public?

Well hey, the deaths are happening, and if you really don't want to embarass them or cause a ruckuss, you can always ensure the question is worded as amiably as possible, so they can feel perfectly guiltless giving their "we all hate abortion but it's better than the alternatives" pat answer. At least then their cards will be very visibly on the table, and Christians will be reminded that this is an issue - the worst issue of social injustice today.

Who cares whether they open parliament with the Lord's Prayer, before proceeding to legalise more massacres?

Who cares if they sponsor Christian and Moslem and Atheist chaplains and counsellors in schools, if half the children who would have been in those schools were deprived of life and liberty and forced into a choiceless termination of existence with the blessing of the same government that sponsors the chaplains.

Who cares if they let boat people in, or keep them out, if hundreds of thousands of Australian citizens have died on our very land by preventable causes : abortive surgery and abortifacients.

Who cares what we do to help the Aboriginals help themselves, if we won't even give the unborn a chance to help themselves.

The needless slaughter of the innocents dwarfs all other social concerns by sheer number of victims.

Yet your "Christians" didn't seem to care.

"Make It Count 2010" was informative, but the most surprising learning was not about Abbott or Rudd : it was about the state of the Church. If these are our leaders, then help us God.

False hypevertising - Apple does it again

2010-06-08T16:08:00.001+10:00

"iPhone 4. This changes everything. Again."

Thus saith the latest Apple advert email.

It arrived in my usual email program.

That hasn't changed.

It used the standard HTML email format.

That hasn't changed.

It appeared on my 22" LCD monitor.

That hasn't changed, either.

They want me to buy it in Aussie dollars.

I don't think we've changed currency recently, so I don't think that changed either.

In fact, the iPhone 3.1 SDK still works. That ain't changed.

And whilst there are a bunch of new APIs in the iPhone 4 SDK, it's backwards compatible. So not everything's changed - a bunch of things by definition have stayed the same (or else they wouldn't be backwards-compatible now, would they, eh?).

The phone still supports old 2G and GPRS standards. Have those changed?

The brand name is identical to previous versions - Apple.

I could go on all day - for months or years in fact.

In reality, "a lot" has changed, but nothing compared to everything.

So why do they say "This changes everything"?

If it hasn't changed everything, but they claim it has, then what value is their claim?

Hype.

I guess Apple is good at that.

And hey, I personally think it's a pretty good product.

But if I had to choose between a world of hype and imprecision - where you never know exactly what someone means - or a world of joy and clarity - where precision yields certainty and safety - I'd choose the latter.

"Game changing" is a high-hype phrase, but definitely accurate for the iPhone 4.

"Revolutionise your life" - for many people, the iPhone 4 will revolutionise their life. That's another high-hype phrase they could have used that would also fit in the realm of accurate communications.

But they choose to use words so grossly inaccurate that they are practically meaningless : "This changes everything".

Wow.

I'm still on earth, earth still exists, and if I'm not much mistaken, this is still my blog.

A lot ain't changed.

If you want to communicate with me, Apple, I enjoy hype, but only accurate hype.

Of course, the ad wasn't targetting people like me.

But it raises questions.

What kind of society have we become if we can't say what we mean anymore?

The Blasphemous Apple

2010-04-26T13:57:00.000+10:00

I was surprised on the Apple website the other day to see the iPad described as "the greatest gift ever".

Wow! I don't think Jesus knew that He was second-rate as gifts go.

Technically, this means that Apple computer publicly blasphemed, exalting itself as greater than God.

So can we attribute this God-complex to Steve Jobs himself?

Nah - probably not. Probably more to an over-zealous and under-careful marketing staffer.

I notice it's disappeared already. Maybe someone else in the company had the sense to have it pulled? Dunno.

Humour is one thing, but the statement was not intended to be humorous. It truly was a denigration of the gift of Christ, albeit probably unintentionally so.

"Big deal" you say. Well, I'm not so sure.

"Pride cometh before a fall", and exalting oneself above one's station, to proclaim oneself to be greater than the Unchanging One - that certainly falls within the definition of pride - so if it represents a wider attitude within Apple, then yes, perhaps it foretells a pending fall....... Of course, "pending" could be years away yet. And if it was just a blunder at a lower level, not reflective of wider Apple attitudes, then any "fall" would relate to the individual at fault, not to the company as a whole...

In any case, it is the first time I recall seeing such a notable and generally respected company overtly blaspheme. The times, they are a changin'.

Channel Nine News Rants Against Facts

2010-02-24T17:03:00.003+11:00

I don't know if Channel Nine News ever thought it could be taken seriously for objective journalism, but if it did, it has made a total mockery of the concept just now.

In headline news entitled "Book of hate : Beauty queen cites Bible for gay death", they allege that "Another US beauty queen has caused controversy with an anti-gay rant - this time citing Bible passages that call for death to homosexuals".

"Rant", "death", "controversy" - it all sounds so exciting.

But look at the facts?

The article cites the controversial statement :

"In Leviticus it says, 'if man lies with mankind as he would lie with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination — they shall surely be put to death and their blood shall be upon them'," she was quoted as saying.

"If (God) says that having sex with someone of the same gender is going to bring death upon you, that's a pretty stern warning ... and he knows more than we do about life."

Um, that's a rant?

Quoting a Bible verse and politely suggesting it might have validity, is a rant?

In fact, the article goes on to say the beauty queen in question has many homosexual friends, and hey, doesn't actually harbour hatred towards them! Well, how about that!

So let's get this straight : quoting a Bible verse and politely suggesting it might still be valid is "ranting", whilst wording headlines to imply a peace-loving person is malicious, angry and hateful, is legitimate?

Two idiotic assumptions underpin the article :

Idiotic assumption 1) It is impossible to believe that a crime should ever be punishable by death, without personally hating everyone who commits the crime.

Ah - no.

Take "Dead Man Walking".

It's possible to forgive, and love criminals, and yet still recognise that the best thing for society as a whole is for people to know that certain crimes are punished by death.

Or let's take their assumption a little bit further : why stop at the arbitrary point they do? Why not assume it's impossible to believe that a crime should be punishable at all, without personally hating everyone who commits the crime?

Crikey, c'mon! Are we supposed to believe that no punishment should ever occur for any crime? Don't we recognise that sometimes punishing a crime is the most loving thing to do, whether for the criminal, or at least for society as a whole?

And if they agree that punishment in general can be meted without hate, then why arbitrarily say the death penalty cannot be meted without hate?

I mean, some people get a "life sentence" - life in jail. That's gotta be pretty bad. Is that really any much better than just getting it over with and letting the criminal cease living?

But if you're gonna say life sentences are likewise evil, well, how is a life sentence of 40 years that much different to say a 35 year prison term?

And if we axe 35 year prison terms, what about 32 year prison terms?

And if 32, what about 30?

And if 30, what about 25?

And ultimately, you realise it's just a matter of degree.

You can't make a conclusive argument that punishment of some kind is permissible, but the death penalty is not - it's just a matter of degree. Where you draw the line will differ from where the next guy draws the line. So who's right?

In other words, Channel Nine News heaps ridicule on a woman who suggests that the death penalty might still apply, but the only absolutely-logically-consistent alternative is to suggest that no punishment should ever occur.

Oh sure, you can mount a somewhat logical argument in favour of drawing the punishment line here or there, but when you see the next guy with a somewhat logical argument draw the same line in a different place, you gotta realise your own case ain't so watertight after all.

But who cares about watertight logic and facts when you can accuse a Bible-believer of hatred? C'mon! Gotta use every chance we can to bash these people who actually believe that the Bible might have some use in the 21st century!

Idiotic assumption 2) Homosexuality is beyond question.

Ah, no.

What kind of race are we if anything becomes "beyond question"?

Surely to retain our self-ascribed title of "homo sapien" (sapien = wise), we must recognise the importance of continuing to allow everything to be questioned.

What's wrong with her raising the possibility that there might be inherent problems with the homosexual lifestyle?

Ask an ex-homosexual like Sy Rogers. It ain't all rosy.

And if there are inherent problems, who's to say they aren't severe problems?

So severe, perhaps, that whilst the individual homosexuals should be loved, their homosexual actions should be curtailed, perhaps even with severe force?

What's wrong with raising the question?

What's wrong with believing it yourself, as obviously this beauty queen is inclined to do?

What if she happens to have seen some of the studies that show the darker side of homosexuality, and concludes that the modern adulation of the practice is insane?

Or is there a deeper issue?

Maybe Channel Nine News believes that no-one should force their moral standards onto anyone else.

But hang on a moment - isn't Channel Nine News berating this beauty queen for believing that homosexuality is bad, and so bad that the death penalty should be considered?

Isn't Channel Nine News forcing its moral standard of not questionning anyone's moral standards?

I mean, if you really believe that the most moral thing to do is not express your moral views to anyone else, lest you be "forcing your morals on them", then at least be consistent enough to live by your own morals and not try to tell me to not talk about my morals!

Channel Nine News, wake up, you idiot. Either don't express your moral views by telling others what to do, or else do allow others to express their moral views.

In short, Channel Nine News is a propaganda machine, not an objective news service, if this is the kind of stuff it publishes.

-

Q&A :

Q : Where is "Book of hate" in the headline?

A : On the ninemsn.com.au homepage, the link to the article was called "book of hate". UPDATE : And now another link on the ninemsn.com.au homepage is called "Hateful beauty : Starlet quotes Bible for gay death". They're obsessed, against the facts, with calling the woman "hateful". That's ranting, if you ask me!

UPDATE : Ironically, one of the news articles sharing the headlines was entitled "Mum who gassed kids jailed for life". Would you know it, Channel Nine seems to think life sentence in prison is ok for some crimes, but death penalty is not for others. So basically, Channel Nine is trying to force ITS morality on US. So why the self-righteous chest-beating when it finds other people also expressing their views on morality?

(update continued) : And note that the beauty queen was ASKED for her opinion on homosexuality - she didn't publish it uninvited as Channel Nine is doing all the time. So in reality, Channel Nine "News" is the one that is constantly ranting and forcing its morality on others, whilst this nice little girl from the US was just politely answering some questions. Shame, Nine News, shame. From now on you can be called the Channel Nine Propaganda Service.

Saturday Morning Mentoring With Geoffrey Botkin (for men)

2010-01-03T03:51:00.001+11:00

Verbose philosopher's rating : Highly recommended!

Cost : US$49

More info : http://www.westernconservatory.com/smm

Hey men, I just finished participating in the first of a nine-part webinar led by Geoffrey Botkin.

Today's topic : "How to defend the faith: Love your wife".

I went in, unsure what to expect, and came out feeling inspired. :o)

In short, if you're a man, and you aspire to be a leader in the Church or in your home, and you can spare the US$49, I highly recommend this series.

(If US$49 is too much for you, there are books and blog posts I can point you to which are very valuable, but if the nine hours time commitment is a bigger deal than the US$49, then I'd suggest, join the webinar! :o) )

Wanted : Kingdom-oriented USA host families

2010-01-01T21:53:00.010+11:00

This page has been archived.

Discipling Katie

2010-01-01T21:51:00.017+11:00

This page has been archived.

He lives!

2010-01-01T17:14:00.004+11:00

He lives!

After nine months of silence, a voice is heard - the Verbose Philosopher is still alive!

Since we last spoke, much has happened!

A major house move.

But most notably...

He lives!

... the birth of my first child - my son, Eljireh. ("Eljireh" means "God will provide".)

He was born in our lounge room - a very healthy and happy homebirth.

Unfortunately, the combination of my wife's severe neck & shoulder problems (and hypoglycaemia and etc), plus a baby that was so super energetic that it literally did not sleep more than a few hours per day for the first three days or so, plus colic and wind problems that kept the baby screaming long hours every day for the first two months or so (problems that continued in a milder form for the third and fourth months of his life too), plus the usual pressures of running my own software development business - well, it all added up, along with the other odds & ends with which life is filled, to mean my disappearance for a time.

But for now, I'm back. At least, momentarily.

Christmas came and went - our first Christmas with a baby outside the womb. Christmas day was fun - the grandparents heaped presents on little Eljireh.

And we remembered the birth of Jesus Christ.

Now, it would normally be Easter Sunday we would issue forth the cry, "He lives!". But it seems fitting here, too, in memory of the first Christmas, to send the cry once more.

He lives!

Not only did He live as a human, born in a manger some 2,000 years ago, but He lives. That's what God's own name means - Yahweh - "I am" or "I will be" or, in colloquial speak, "I live".

And so, with these three "He lives" in mind - the Verbose Philosopher lives, the Verbose Philosopher's little boy lives, and Jesus Christ lives - I close with a simple anecdote from the precious moments immediately upon Eljireh's birth :

As we held him there - this precious bundle, already so strong he could hold up his own head without support - we started singing that classic old Christian song :

"Because He lives, I can face tomorrow
"Because He lives, all fear is gone
"Because I know He holds the future
"And life is worth the living just because He lives.

"How sweet to hold a newborn baby
"And feel the love and joy he brings
"But greater still, the calm assurance
"This child can face uncertain days because He lives"

Dodo Internet and the Mafia - the hidden link

2009-03-20T20:15:00.000+11:00

It's 7:47pm, and the phone rings during dinner.

I leap from the table, and run to the office. "Hello can I help you?" is my standard line when answering the phone.

Silence.

Then a very brief flash of music. Aha - it's obviously a telemarketer.

A voice with not-too-thick an accent greets me. "Hello, I am calling from Dodo."

Hmmm - I have worked for Dodo Internet in the past, so maybe it's not a telemarketer after all.

"I am ringing about our services and how we can save you money. First, I have to inform you that this call is being recorded for quality purposes."

Ah - ok, so it IS a telemarketer.

He continues right on with his script :

"Let's start with your mobile phone."

Time for some fun... I love playing with telemarketers. So let's try something new :

"What if I'm a member of the Mafia and I don't want my voice to be recorded?" I enquire.

"I'm sorry?" he asks.

I repeat myself, slightly slower. "What if I'm a member of the Mafia and I don't want my voice to be recorded?"

"Sir, you don't have to be a member to take advantage of our specials" he replies.

It's a lost cause. No point making fun if his English is so bad he doesn't get the jokes. So I hang up.

But it's official : I have it directly from a Dodo Internet representative that you don't need to be a member of the Mafia to join Dodo! What a relief! My Mafia membership was due to expire soon... :o)

Women's Rights & Safe Abortion

2009-03-06T10:41:00.009+11:00

(Continued from Women's Rights & Equal Responsibility)

Norway and Sweden partnered with the International Planned Parenthood Federation to host a panel on “Promoting Sexual and Reproductive Empowerment.” Both governments expressed the need to prioritize “sexual and reproductive rights.” In his brief address, Norwegian State Secretary Hakon Gulbrandsen proclaimed that “sexual rights are a cornerstone to gender equality” and that “safe abortion is a crucial component of sexual and reproductive rights.” (emphasis mine)

Hang on a second! This is wildly contradictory.

For starters - there is no such thing as a "safe" abortion.

Almost always at least one person dies. For every abortion. That's not very safe.

Oftentimes the survivor suffers extreme depression, and occasionally they commit suicide.

And occasionally two people die as a direct result of the "procedure".

This statistics are pretty alarming.

Over 50% of patients directly involved in an abortion are dead within a week.

Sometimes it's an infection that kills the mother - pretty rare these days.

Sometimes it's a living human baby that survives the abortion, comes out into the life-giving air, only to be abandoned on a shelf, like a piece of junk or a disinteresting book, until their pitiful cries are weakened by thirst and they finally succumb to the cruel harsh reality of a compassionless industry.

Most of the time, it's just the intended, pre-meditated, calculated, and very painful --- dismembering or other cruel torture and killing of a very healthy and often very viable member of the human race.

If you killed your animal this way, without anaesthetic or other painkiller, the RSPCA would charge you - you be jailed or fined for "cruelty to animals".

But so long as its a human, its ok. At least, as long as the human has no voice and can't defend itself.

Or at least, as long as we can by some way or other get away with it... (and "legal protection" provides such a way)

---

But look at their idiotic contradictions!

"Sexual and reproductive rights", for all!

Where are the sexual and reproductive rights of the girl they killed?

That baby, supposedly, has the same sexual and reproductive rights as anyone else. After all - that's the point of a "right" - it's universal - everyone gets it.

But mercilessly slaughtered, that "right" has been stolen from the girl.

Oh - and let me talk about "sexual rights". They insist that I have the right to choose when, where, with whom, and even if I will have sex, but only so long as I am engaging in sex with someone else who is equally willing.

In other words - they claim that the will of the individual is supreme, that a person's choice or desire or intention to have sex with another is of cosmic importance, and if the other is willing, no-one should stop them.

But if this sexual right is so fundamental, so powerful, so intrinsic to humanity and life itself, then why are we denying our babies the chance to utilise this right?

If we deny them the chance to grow and mature physically, we deny them the right to exercise their "sexual and reproductive rights".

So much for abortion promoting rights. It destroys them.

---

And look at this :

At a youth caucus meeting, organizers refused to incorporate pro-abstinence suggestions from a group of over 20 pro-life youths. One pro-life student told the Friday Fax, “I don’t know which youth they represent, but they don’t speak for me or any of my friends that are here.”

So much for "representing us". Apparently your voice is only important if you agree with their predetermined agenda... nice.

---

What to do?

* Pray specifically. That God changes hearts. That people have compassion for ALL humans - including the unborn. That the idiocy that is the pro-death movement will be shown to be compassionless, contradictory, and based on bad science and bad philosophy. That UN officials will choose life or be replaced promptly. That US judges and lawmakers and law enforcers will see the importance of valuing life at EVERY age. That the US population would be unblinded and outraged at the holocaust within.

* Continue to speak. They can ignore. But the more of us speak and the more often, the harder and harder it will be. They will try every threat and trick in the book to silence us, but if no-one else speaks for the innocents they slaughter (who cannot speak for themselves, except by writhing in pain during "procedures", and crying themselves to terminal sleep when they "survive the procedure") - if no-one else speaks for them, they will never be spoken for. Oh - and they will not be the last innocents to be mass-slaughtered...

Women's Rights & equal responsibility

2009-03-06T10:25:00.004+11:00

Let's get a few things straight.

This week at the United Nations (UN), thousands of activists, government officials and UN officials gathered in New York for the annual Commission on the Status of Women (CSW). While the theme for the conference is “The equal sharing of responsibilities between women and men, including caregiving in the context of HIV/AIDS,” several countries and non-government organizations (NGOs) have used the annual meeting as a soapbox to promote radical ideas on homosexual rights, abortion and sex education. (emphasis mine)

Whoa a minute. Biblically speaking, the man is 100% responsible for every aspect of family life. Biblically speaking, the man is responsible for providing food, clothing, and everything else that he, his wife, and his children, need. He is also responsible for overseeing their education, including the selection of appropriate tutors and training courses. Even yes the cleaning is the man's responsibility, if you comprehend Scripture correctly.

The role of the wife? Be the husband's helper.

There is not an "equal sharing of responsibilities between men and women" - and nature teaches us that there cannot ever be - and Scripture teaches us that there is not to be.

Nature teaches us - it is IMPOSSIBLE for a man to carry the unborn child, or give it birth, or truly breast-feed it. But according to the UN CSW, aren't we supposed to share this responsibility equally - because all responsibility is to be shared equally? It's impossible! Ah - in other words, right from the word go, the theory fails. But they'll still cling to it with everything they have.

The Bible teaches us - all responsibilities in the home are the man's responsibility - the woman is but a helper. There is no Biblically-legislated "his tasks" vs "her tasks" - he is responsible for them all, and she helps him discharge his duty. But again, nature shows us that women tend to find it easier to focus on the nurturing-oriented roles.

If one man happens to have no children, and happens to run a cattle ranch with 3,000 head of cattle, he is responsible for every aspect of the home. His wife's help may come in the form of flying their little helicopter to check the fencelines every week. i.e. the natural disposition towards the more nurturing-oriented tasks is not a prohibition against a woman helping her husband in any manner she is capable of.

But the buck still does stop - even for meals and cleaning - with the husband.

Continue reading - Women's Rights & Safe Abortion...

Deflation is upon us

2009-01-23T11:15:00.005+11:00

Inflation limits your buying options.

Deflation increases them.

Inflation makes the dollar in your hand worth less relative to the goods & services you may wish to consume.

Deflation makes it worth more.

What most people forget is that neither inflation nor deflation ever work uniformly across an economy. Different sectors of an economy - and even individual businesses (and thus individual products and services) all respond to the same inflationary/deflationary forces in a staggered manner, with prices in one sector increasing/decreasing before other sectors are affected.

Various governments have verbally committed themselves to "fighting deflation" (why? - but that's another story...).

The point of my present article is simply to show that deflation has already set in, and quite strongly so.

Oh - perhaps the "feds" will successfully "fight deflation", and bring inflation back online. But it'll take a while. And in the meantime, deflation is here, and some places in a big way.

Example : Flights from Melbourne, Australia to Auckland, New Zealand - cost around $550 return just 12 months ago (purchased in advance, low season). Today, all taxes, fees and surcharges inclusive, you can buy the same flight for $254. The cheapest I ever saw such flights was around $450 - and that was ten years ago. So $254 return is practically unheard of.

But that is only representative of an incredible collapse in flight prices across the board. A year ago one would not have imagined such cheap flights - cheaper than I have ever previously seen.

Every airline is participating.

This means that the purchasing power of the Australia dollar has increased relative to the services offered in one sector of the Australian market. And not a small increase either - up to 100% increase.

This is powerful deflation.

Retailers are seeing fewer customers.

Their response?

Run more sales, give bigger discounts.

The effect?

The same dollar can now buy more.

Or stated more technically : "The purchasing power of the dollar has increased."

In a word : deflation.

House prices are lowering. Oh - in Australia, they've been hit (so far) very mildly - but decline they have. Maybe only around 5% across the board. But what is this? Fewer Australian dollars are required to purchase an Australian house.

i.e. the purchasing power of the Australian dollar has increased.

i.e. deflation.

Note that deflation hits different sectors of the economy at different rates. Flights : 50% deflation. Houses : 5%. And individual suburbs will vary - some have (reportedly) even increased in value.

In other words : deflation is inherently non-uniform. It works its way across the economy in fits and starts.

But it definitely is here.

And in a big way.

And it'll take a mighty big "stimulus" from governments to stop it. (But again, why not let it run its course, instead of "fighting it"? - but that's a story for another day...)

And if the governments do succeed in creating such an immense stimulus in the short term that a massive tide of deflation is reversed... then we will overshoot heavily into inflationary territory. Or so I speculate...

At any rate, it's kinda fun to watch... :o)

Economics

2008-08-11T13:07:00.001+10:00

Modern economic theory is the voice of fools trying to create absolute certainty in a world where uncertainty is inherent and inescapable.

The Marxists try to create absolute certainty of income to every worthy citizen.

They fail.

More recently, the Greenspans pronounce they have perfected economic theory, and that we will never experience a major recession again.

It sounds ominously like the makers of the Titanic, who purportedly quipped that even God Himself couldn't sink it.

God didn't bother. It only took an iceberg.

Even as Greenspan utters his senseless rhetoric, a great gaping hole has been ripped in the side of the ship of the U.S. Economy.

So much for certainty.

Some things are inherently uncertain.

Minimise the uncertainty, sure. But you're an idiot if you think you can eliminate it.

Life is uncertain. Always has been. Always will be.

Those who thrive will be those who learn how to live with inherent uncertainty.

My own wife was desperately impatient to find out if she's pregnant or not.

Waiting until five days before the first missed period to use the pregnancy test was just too painfully long.

Others, for thousands of years, amazingly managed to wait for days after the missed period, and even then not be totally sure.

And amazingly, the human race survived.

What's wrong with not knowing for a while?

What's wrong with finding out a little down the track?

Science can tell us more things sooner, but we're less patient than ever, even for the things that we can find out quicker than ever before!

The real problem is that patience requires trust. Trust that things will work out OK.

The more you trust, the less a bit of wild uncertainty will bother you.

But what's to trust?

For Greenspan and Marx, not much. Human incisiveness. That's about all.

If I can't trust that somehow, things will work out OK, then I have to force things to work out OK. Without trust, fear compels us to convince ourselves that we've worked God out of the picture, and that our clever policies or special programmes will guarantee the end result.

At such times, God doesn't need to lift a finger. Nature itself comes and devastates our plans. Or God rewards us with the fruit of our own ideas. We got what our programmes guaranteed us. Only it wasn't what we thought.

Amidst the wash of competing ideas, there is one idea that holds true. It doesn't guarantee fiscal success to every applicator. But it does guarantee general success, societal success, success over time to the vast majority of average adherents. And even for what few don't "succeed", it does provide a place. And not a place of exploitation. A system where all can prosper, and if any don't, they still are cared for.

The idea is embodied in the Biblical principles of economics. Ideas as old as the world itself, but as relevant as the sun.

Give. Create. Produce. Invest.

Avoid debt like the plague.

Treat others in all transactions as you would want them to treat you.

There is enough to go around. And Biblical principles would go a long way to ensuring all are fed.

In fact, they'd guarantee it. If only we all followed them. But of course we won't.

God's idea of certainty is "do it My way, and I'll see to it that your needs are met as I see fit".

But we don't like that.

"If it doesn't involve a fixed salary, a certain quality of goods on my table, and a night at the theater at least twice a month, I'm not interested."

We want our T.V.

But more than that, we want to see the mechanisms by which our livelihood will be preserved indefinitely into the future.

If we can't see it, we don't trust that God can figure it out.

So we resort back to our halls of folly, fiddling with numbers, debating ideas, creating "perfect" systems that fail catastrophically, time and again.

Uncertainty is inherent. God promises to provide - if we follow His ways - and that provision does not necessarily mean we'll get exactly what we want, and it especially means we will not always be able to see where tomorrow's food will come from!

So we have a choice :

- do it God's way? Inherent uncertainty but the certainty of overall progress and God's provision at least for our most elementary needs - not necessarily enough to keep us in the manner to which we've become accustomed! But an environment in which goodwill, companionship and universal charity prevail.

- or follow yet another scheme, supposedly destined to give us certainty at the level of comfort we set for ourselves, without reliance on an external God. Nice idea. Never works in practice. Death and misery are the common results.

So what are these "God's ways" of economics that supposedly lead us to a higher plane if applied universally and consistently?

I thought you'd never ask.

They're principles that I apply in my business and family life. And so do thousands of others.

They don't work overnight miracles. But they do work lifetime cures, and intergenerational and societal transformation.

It involves looking at how God designed things, and - shock-of-shocks - actually fitting in to the overall design, instead of fighting against it!

* God never designed man to be in debt. Avoid it. (In stark contrast, every modern monetary system is predicated on debt.)

* God never designed man to be lazy. Get up and invent something. Or help someone else. There is unlimited potential wealth if we would all just rally to a good cause - whether the menial cause of growing vegies for ourselves and our neighbours, or the mammoth cause of fighting the exploitation of women. If you don't know where to start, just start somewhere! Take initiative, and support others in their initiatives.

* Consume moderately.

* Produce more than you consume, and give and sell and save the balance. Savings are not selfish - they increase your ability to help others around you - whether by direct gifts at times when their own resources are insufficient, or by investment in production infrastructure which results in greater production output which results in more to give.

* Respect the land. Grow some of your own vegies. Plant some fruit trees. Support natural and organic farming methods. God designed us to live off well-balanced land. Treat land in the way God designed!

* Give. You never have too little to share.

* Follow God's principles of morality. Murder and other crimes bring natural and supernatural retribution. You might not believe it, but history shows it. Innocent blood defiles land. Kill innocents -> nation ruined. Cambodia. Russia - with all of Stalin's purges. Nazi Germany and Germany's current economic misery. Oh - don't get me wrong. There are myriad factors involved. But morality is certainly one of them. And God's morality was designed for optimal human health and happiness.

* Whatever you want people to do to you, treat them the same way.

And there are many more, or at least, the preceding could be broken down into many sub-points.

If we live as God intended, we can embrace life's inherent uncertainty with the certainty that in the end, everything will work out OK. Fight that, and your "certain" castles will sink in the sand.

Faith On Film Festival

2008-07-26T00:03:00.003+10:00

So me an' my newly wed got ourselves over to the Faith On Film festival to watch The Disposable Ones and Trade.

Trade. Watch it.

Or don't.

The Disposable Ones. Don't watch it.

But Trade...

... watch it.

Or don't.

See, it's rated R18+. And it does contain some short snippets of nudity. And it does portray ("without showing anything") an act of rape.

So in fact, it's not all rosy.

But then again, neither are the facts on which the movie is based.

50,000 to 100,000 young women are kidnapped and smuggled into the USA every year, as sex slaves.

Never to see their family again.

Never to have a family of their own.

Never to work the jobs they want, or visit the places they want.

Never to choose whom they'll have sex with, or when.

Never to see the light of day, except when their captors want.

50,000 to 100,000 of them.

Every year.

"Trade" is not for everyone.

But it may be for you.

Watch it.

Or don't.

http://www.movieschangepeople.com/

Why betrothal?

2008-02-09T18:03:00.000+11:00

Short answer : Because this is the relationship between Christ and His bride, and because human marriages are explicitly intended by God to reflect Christ's marriage.

Christ has made an irrevocable commitment to His bride, and His bride is irrevocably promised to Him in marriage. The wedding feast has not yet taken place. The marriage is not yet consummated. Christ waits patiently and eagerly for the day He comes to claim His bride.

Right now, Christ is in Heaven, preparing a place for His bride.

He can return at any time.

He will return.

This is the explicit Scriptural teaching of the relationship between Christ and His bride (the Church). It also exactly fits the Scriptural clues as to the definition of betrothal.

Caveat : Does this mean that any Christian who chooses engagement instead of betrothal is sinning? No. But does it mean that Christians who wish to honour the Lord in this way can do so by way of an irrevocable engagement, also known as a betrothal? Yes.

So what is betrothal?

2007-12-14T13:15:00.000+11:00

Today is the day of the grand celebration of the betrothal of Jonathan Field & Katie Gunn!

Understandably, more and more people are asking me "So what exactly is betrothal?"

My previous attempt to help the serious students answer the question for themselves, failed miserably. One eager student (you know who you are - and I love you all the same :o) ) obviously jumped on Google and looked up other people's definitions of betrothal - which is fascinating stuff - but which completely missed the point that the Bible itself sufficiently defines betrothal.

There is no need to learn about Jewish culture in bygone millenia.

There is no need to worry about cups of wine or grape juice.

There is no need to resort to Google, nor to an encyclopedia - although of course you can find out interesting ancillary information on the topic that way.

But my biggest concern is that if you turn to the ancillary information, you might miss the heart of it - the essential ingredients defined clearly in the Bible, and which are all you need to know.

Katie & I are betrothed. I didn't follow any of the old Jewish customs. There was no cup of wine. Go ahead and do it that way if you want, but understand that Scriptural Betrothal is far simpler than it can seem if you start considering the myriad cultural elements. Much like a wedding. A wedding before God really is a simple thing. The white dress, the bridal party, the flowers - all are fabulous things - and I recommend you have them - but they really don't matter. The essential ingredients of a marriage are few and simple. Likewise with betrothal. And Katie & I had a very simple betrothal.

So what are the essential defining characteristics of betrothal?

Well - time is very short.

So forgive me for making an ultra uber summary.

You really were supposed to look up those verses I gave in the last blog post and ask intelligent questions and figure it out for yourself.

e.g. why on earth does Gabriel when speaking to Joseph, refer to Mary as Joseph's wife, before they were married?

But, back to the rushed summary. Oh - and I expect you to be shocked and horrified by this summary. If you'd gone to the Scriptures and figured it out yourself, you could have directed your shock and horror some other direction. But since I don't have time to graciously reveal the extensive topic to you, and since I want to answer the question, I'm left with having to risk reprisals. Se la vive.

Essential characteristic #1 : Betrothal is AS BINDING AS MARRIAGE. Joseph would have required a divorce to break up with Mary, even though they weren't yet married!

Essential characteristic #2 : Betrothal is AS PROTECTED AS MARRIAGE. Note in the Deuteronomy passage that if a betrothed woman has sex with some other guy, that is deemed adultery, punishable by death.

Essential characteristic #3 : Betrothal is a committed relationship where a guy & a girl are definitely going to marry (DV) but have not yet actually married. Traditionally the fella uses this time to prepare financially to begin their new life living together. And that is a wise (but non-essential) tradition.

Essential characteristic #4 : Betrothal becomes marriage at the point that the relationship is consumated. (Re-read the Deuteronomy passage, and note what is conspicuously absent.)

In short then, we can define betrothal as "an unconsummated marriage" or as "an engagement that is as binding as marriage itself". (The latter is slightly technically inaccurate, but doesn't use the big long word "consummated" that might trip some people up.)

So the first question some of you young impatient hormone-pumping lacking-self-control-which-is-a-fruit-of-the-Spirit people are going to ask me is "if betrothal becomes marriage at the point you have sex, then why don't you just rush out and have sex? After all, you're saying it's morally legit for you to do so." Aha. You got the morally legit point correctly. But you obviously have no comprehension of times and seasons. Read Ecclesiastes. There is a time and a season for everything. And betrothal is a time and a season of enjoying getting to know each other even better, before there is a full physical union.

So Katie & I, in timeless betrothal style, are waiting whilst I "prepare a house", and our marriage will be joyously consummated in due time. We are waiting and will wait for our official wedding day.

So boys and girls, there endeth Betrothal 101. We hope you enjoyed the lesson. :o)

P.S. The verses once again : Matthew 1:18-20 and Deuteronomy 22:22-29.

P.P.S. Note that engagement and betrothal are mutually exclusive. By definition, an engagement can be broken without notice, without warning, and without penalty. In contrast, by definition, a betrothal is as binding as marriage. Thus, whilst Katie & I loosely refer to ourselves at times as "engaged", we are actually technically not engaged, but betrothed, and only betrothed.

P.P.P.S. Consequently, if an engaged couple decide "Oh well - we're engaged - we can have sex any time we want anyway", they actually Scripturally fall not under the liberties of a betrothed couple, but under the penalties of two single people who engage in sexual intercourse outside of wedlock. I cannot state it strongly enough - do not use anything I have said here as an excuse for your impatience or lack of self-control before marriage! You are sinning if you, as an engaged couple, engage in sexual intercourse before the wedding. And let me state it one more time - as a betrothed couple, the moral equation is different, but wisdom still demands respect for timing. God has designed that there is a process - a sequence - that a couple will generally have a period of permanent commitment yet unconsummated. This is a good and glorious thing. Learn to enjoy God's timing, instead of spoiling the picture the Master Artist has designed.

What is betrothal?

2007-11-27T20:19:00.000+11:00

Read Matthew 1:18-20 and Deuteronomy 22:22-29. See anything strange? And anything missing? The diligent student, meditating on these passages, will understand what Biblical betrothal is. I would explain it to you - and likely yet will - but it's a question being asked of me very often these days, now that I am a betrothed man, and I do not have the time to spoon-feed you the answer right now. So if you really care to know, I've given you all the help you need. Read those two passages at least seven times each, and ask the obvious questions, and let the obvious (albeit counter-cultural) answers reshape your thinking.

In Christ,

Jonathan Field

Principles for us to found our marriage on

2007-10-30T22:36:00.000+11:00

More general :

1) The ultimate model of marriage is Jesus Christ and His bride, the Church.

2) The Bible is the ultimate guidebook to marriage and all human affairs. It gives general guidelines applicable in all circumstances, and within those guidelines, God's Spirit helps us use our God-given brain to determine the best course of action for the specific situations we face. Thus, for example, the Bible is not a sex manual, but it provides many principles for interpersonal relationships that guide our thinking and help us make decisions in that and every other aspect of marriage and life.

3) Marriage is designed to be good and fulfilling, spiritually, mentally, emotionally, physically, and sexually. The intended perfection is no longer fully attainable in this disrupted world, but is largely attainable. Striving for maximal attainance of God's design for marriage is worthwhile as it advertises God's love and beauty and it minimises disruption within the marriage relationship.

4) The many pleasures of married life - as with pleasures generally - are best enjoyed in a purposeful and focussed pursuit of God's pleasure. Human pleasure, when made the end-goal of human endeavour, tends to evaporate. Thus, a human's experience of pleasure is highest when encountered during a higher pursuit. Personal pleasure as one's principal goal is a recipe for frustration and dissatisfaction.

5) Growth and learning are of greater value than comfort.

6) God designed marriage to be the ideal environment in which to create eternal souls. We joyfully embrace His design, gladly accepting from His hand the children He will give. This does not mean that we will never use contraceptive measures, but it does mean that we will not use modern culture as a benchmark for making decisions about family size.

7) We embrace God's design for authority and responsibility within marriage. We recognise that God's design of a "help meet" does not create "his jobs vs her jobs" but rather "his jobs and his helper". His helper is particularly well suited to certain jobs, and in general ("as nature teaches") this represents a good and natural division of labour. But we reject the notion that it is always inherently sinful for a woman to undertake certain tasks within the family or for the maintenance of the home, and likewise with the man.

---

More specific :

1) We are not afraid of human disapproval.

2) We actively and continuously solicit the input of older and wiser couples, older and wiser individuals, and wise men and women whose teaching and training is captured in books, videos, or other media.

3) We experiment and try new things and new ways of doing things, and are not afraid of having other humans label us or our efforts as failures.

We expect that not everything we try will "be successful", but we would rather try ten things and find one of great value and the other nine as total failures, than to try nothing at all.

This applies to every aspect of human endeavour, except only where Scriptural guidelines or other evidence make it clear that experimentation is unwise or inappropriate.

4) That said, we undertake risks with advice, and seek to learn from others' experience rather than repeating their mistakes.

We recognise - particularly where life or health are concerned - that many risks are not worth taking.

5) We are lovers of hospitality. Our home is a ministry centre. It is an appropriately-protected haven of rest. But it is also a place into which we frequently invite others to experience the love and fellowship of Christ.

6) We seek a brilliant marriage. We do not naively think we are the first to do so, nor that we will be the first to succeed. Many brilliant marriages have preceded ours - although relatively speaking they are a small fraction of marriages. We seek to identify and learn from other couples with a brilliant marriage.

7) We honour both sets of parents who have gone before us as imperfect humans to whom God has given much grace, and through whom we have learned much of great value.

We forgive them for their many failings and do not use the bad examples they have set before us as an excuse to disdain God's design for marriage, parenting or family life.

We thank them for their responsiveness to God's dealings, and are glad for the many ways and many times they have modelled Christlike love and Christian discipleship.

---

Now the only question left is : who is the other in "us"? Applications, anyone? :o)

On a more serious note than the preceding line, I am interested in your ideas on other principles worth including. I intend this to be the basis of a "founding document" which I and my Mrs (whenever she shows up) can refer to for the rest of our lives.

(P.S. My time is in extremely high demand at present - and has been for a few months now. Consequently - and I wish it were otherwise - some of my blog posts have to be thrown together extremely hurriedly. This is true of at least the last four or so posts. I trust that you still derive great value from them, despite me not having had opportunity to polish them to perfection. Thankyou! :o) )

What Is Reality?

2007-10-01T10:34:00.000+10:00

A friend of mine recently asked "What is reality?" I whipped-up the following comments, then thought you might find them interesting too...

According to Buddhism, reality is that nothing is real, except for the ultimate oneness in which there is no consciousness and no distinction.

According to Islam, reality is that which Allah decrees. All that is or ever will be is exactly what Allah has always wanted. Even the infidels are infidels because Allah wanted infidels and so he created them. And thus Allah also wanted their perpetual torture in hell, and created both hell and infidels expressly for that purpose. Thus, reality is an illusion, in which we naively think we are actors in the play, when we are in fact the audience and our bodies run a pre-determined course over which we have no control.

According to Atheism, reality is anything we can consistently measure in a laboratory. But this creates huge problems for them in the realm of philosophy, for logic itself cannot be tested in the lab. And who is to say these same scientists aren't unwittingly in a virtual Matrix-esque world and thus all they are convinced is reality is but a fiction?

According to Marxism, reality is The Dialectic. Oppression, struggle and violence are reality. Life is cruel and cruel is ultimately good.

According to some hyper-zealous Pentecostals (whom I can criticise because I am a Pentecostal), reality is the "spiritual realm", and this physical world is a mere illusion.

According to Jesus, reality is that which exists. This includes that which we measure in the lab, and includes powers that exist outside the dimensions with which we are most familiar, and includes logic and love, joy and suffering, and everything else. Thus, when we are feeling pain, we cannot console ourself in the "knowledge" that life, including pain, is just a bothersome illusion that will disappear soon enough. We must rather acknowledge the reality of the pain and ask the next question : why this reality and what to do about it.

(As a side note, materialistic assumptions about "reality" are really quite hilarious. There is absolutely no way for a materialist to prove that there are not other random universes "out there" which operate on completely different laws and paradigms and have no connection and no capacity to connect to our own universe. Thus, the materialist's dogmatism that "matter and energy are all that is" is meaningless stupidity. Even if - as they clearly hope - there is no God, there can still be vastly more in existence than materialists acknowledge. And so materialism is a matter of chanting a nursery rhyme to yourself over and over until you're sure you believe it, instead of actually being a philosophically or scientifically defensible view. The moment a materialist can prove that this universe is the only universe that can possibly ever exist or have existed, and that there is absolutely no way that paradigms and powers unknown to our universe and impossible in our universe could exist in other universes, then materialism will be valid. But of course, such proof of the non-existence of other universes and other laws and powers in those universes, or even of a super-universe of which our own is just a tiny part, such proof is impossible to create, and thus dogmatic materialists (including most Atheists) are squeezing their eyes tightly shut and reciting a mantra instead of believing anything intelligent.)

Centrefold Lounge

2007-09-07T14:46:00.000+10:00

I get a lot of cold-calls on my telephone. Sometimes three or four in a single day. But never one like this before.

2:15pm Phone rings. I answer. "Hello, can I help you?"

A young woman on the other end says "Hello, I'm calling from Centrefold Lounge and we have a free membership for Relative Systems. Can I confirm, is this Relative Systems?"

"Yes it is" I say, but she'd kinda mumbled her company name and all I really heard was "lounge", so I asked "What did you say your company name is again?"

"Centrefold Lounge", she said, clearly this time.

"Centrefold Lounge. So why would you be giving a free membership to my company? I mean, I have no idea what benefit it would be. Sell me on it." I say. My brain is stuck on the word "lounge". I'm thinking maybe it's like a cafe where business owners can meet and talk business. But something in the back of my brain is ticking over and saying something's not quite right here. So even as I ask her what the lounge is about and why I'd care about this free membership, I'm firing up Google and typing in "Centrefold Lounge".

First match is the company in question. Click. Oh. I'm slow, but I get there. "Centrefold". I should have guessed. Staring at me from the website is a woman in immodest attire, to put it gently.

This has only taken a few seconds, and the girl on the other end hasn't begun to answer my question yet. And so I jump in.

"Ah, I've found the website." <slight pause as I thought about how to say this to her> "You're obviously a woman. I'm surprised you're supporting something that encourages men to treat women like sex objects." There was no hardness in my voice. I spoke it as a simple matter of fact. I didn't tell her she was doing the wrong thing, or that the company would go to hell, or that they're all sluts, or anything like that. I simply made that one statement, sincerely hoping to engage her conscience instead of triggering a hate reaction on her part.

It's amazing the power of a few words.

In a broken, crackling voice, she managed to reply "It's just a job." But it was hard for her to say it. I had touched a nerve. Clearly she recognised it was not a business worthy of her support.

"I understand that. But maybe you should think about getting a job supporting something worth supporting." Again, it was not said with any antagonism. I spoke a sincere and direct word to her heart, encouraging her to believe that she can and should make a difference by where she chooses to work. She hurriedly mumbled a few words and hung up.

---

1) Meet people where they're at, but help them see where they could be. Are you painting a vision of hope for the sightless around you, or are you confirming what everyone else around them is telling them, that they may as well just run with the crowd? If I'd responded angrily to this woman or simply hung up, I would never have planted that seed in her mind that she can make a difference. How can you be less of a reactionary and more of a proactive seed-planter in your daily life?

2) Is your job "just a job", or are you recognising that your tiny bit of power can be exercised to make a difference? If we all do our tiny bit, the world will be a better place.

3) Guys, when you're invited to lust, how deep is your passion for purity? Join The Fight. Breakaway from the crowd. Find freedom in Christ. For more information on ways to say yes to purity and no to lust, drop me a line, or to suggest good resources I can recommend to others, add a comment or drop me a line. This world will forever invite you to sin. If your gameplan relies solely on avoiding temptation, you will fail. Learn how to face temptation and win. Others have done it. So can you.

Young Man, Arise!

2007-08-29T13:09:00.000+10:00

(Note : to help you with the rhythm, the first letter of the main beat syllables is emphasized.)

Must we wait 'til we're twenty-eight to do a thing of worth?
Is youth a time of hapless wont, frivolity and mirth?
Was nothing great ordained for us, awaiting us from birth?
Come choose with me a man to be and stem the fatal dearth.

Rise up and take your place as men. Stand tall and strong and proud.
Embrace the life God made for you - stand out above the crowd.
Instead of fear and aimlessness, don't let yourself be cowed.
Where you have found the Truth and Life, proclaim it out aloud.

A waiting world now needs your voice. Now's not the time to hide.
Equip yourself. Begin to stand, and stem the rising tide.
Learn from those who've gone before, then take the saddle. Ride!
And live your life in sacrifice like He who came and died.

There is a future far away but soon it will be here.
Are you merely marking time or helping it draw near?
The world we know will quickly fade, and all we hold as dear.
Are you merely passeng'ring ....... or will you help us now to steer?

Society expects of you ten years of pointless fun.
I don't know why they think that this appeals to anyone!
We're made for better things than this. Gird up your loins and run!
And join with me, come eagerly pursue the Risen Son.

Christ is the only pilot who can guide us through the night.
Our society is black and dark - we need His brilliant light.
He's calling now, inviting you to walk by faith not sight.
So come around and take the ground and be the Lord's delight.

There cannot be an answer where the Truth cannot be found,
So society now needs you to declare the solid Ground.
There is a Rock, and all that's built thereon is safe and sound.
So lift the Truth of Jesus high and let it be renowned.

The Adult Manifesto

2007-08-29T12:55:00.000+10:00

Society is confused. On the one hand, it worships youth as the apex of life. On the other, it disdains it, saying nothing of lasting worth is done by those therein.

A rising tide of teenagers reject this fallacy. Here, for the sake of all who sense a call to greatness beyond the mediocrity society expects, I have penned The Adult Manifesto. This is not a document for those recognised by society as adults. This is a document for those molley-coddled by society, disparagingly labelled "teenagers", deemed incompetent, insignificant, and merely passing time.

The Adult Manifesto

1) The first and foremost aspect of adulthood is that our word means something. We take responsibility to make our yes mean yes and our no mean no. We recognise that western society has promoted many wimps and liars to adulthood, and so we will not naively take all others at their word. But our word carries weight, for we mean what we say and we say what we mean, and we stick to our commitments when the going gets tough.

2) We reject the notion that random Evolutionary forces demand of us a decade of uncertainty, indecisiveness and frivolity. We have powerful, purposeful and significant things to accomplish for our world and our communities, whether those recognised as adults will aid us or not.

3) We recognise our self-worth before God and do not need the approval of others young or old. We are glad for approval when it comes from others we respect, but we do not rely on their approval or the approval of any humans for our sense of self worth.

4) We derive pleasure and deep satisfaction from knowing that our contribution to society is meaningful and significant. Our life is worth more than pointless binge drinking each weekend.

5) We recognise our minds as creative and powerful. Mindless entertainment may be amusing from time to time, but does not define us or our way of life.

6) We believe that adulthood is not a function of sexual maturity nor the mere passage of time, but is a calling before God. We actively embrace that calling with delight. Borrowing from traditional cultures which have gone before, we recognise that a male may attain adulthood as young as thirteen years of age.

7) We recognise that responsibility is a powerful gift. There can be no power to benefit others without a corresponding power to harm. We are glad to have our skills developed and our capacities stretched and increased as we exercise increasing responsibility for the benefit of those around us.

8) We reject the notion that new is inherently better than old. We actively solicit the input of our seniors and those who have gone before, not because their perspective is necessarily right, but because we can learn much from their experience and avoid their mistakes. We are doomed to repeat past follies if we do not learn anything from those who have gone before.

9) We recognise the concept of authority as having a legitimate place in the organisation of societies. We do not recognise all purported authorities, but we do recognise that there are legitimate authorities, necessary for the good of society, and we willingly submit ourselves to their jurisdiction. We are not revolutionaries seeking to overthrow society, but rather strategic visionaries seeking to repair it's gaping holes.

Amazing Grace, the movie

2007-07-27T14:58:00.000+10:00

Last night I had the privilege - and I say privilege - of watching "Amazing Grace" on it's opening night in Australia cinemas.

This reviewer said it best :

It's very rare to find a historic movie long on accuracy and short on titillation, yet still beautiful to watch. We always do research after seeing such a movie, and this one stands out for its accuracy. One reviewer described it as dull, but in a way that makes it all the more appealing, as the work done by people like Wilberforce is, in real life, not dramatically enhanced by orchestration or noble recognition. It makes his effort through long years of perseverance an example of what it's really like to campaign for justice in a fallen world.

I was especially impressed that the director did not overplay Wilberforce's romantic relationship with his wife. They actually did marry two weeks after meeting, and I've no doubt that their relationship gave him a great deal of encouragement to continue with what had to be an extremely discouraging campaign.

I expected to cry at this movie, but the director did not stoop to portraying horrify re-enactments of slaves being tortured and killed. We got the message in the same way the British people got it - through the testimony of people who had seen or experienced it. Imagine trying to convince the world of atrocities without CNN!

- fayrho223 on Yahoo Movies

And whilst it was a great movie and I shall almost certainly watch it again, I also find myself agreeing with at least one of the nay-sayers :

I do not recommend this movie. Yes, it was a wonderfully done historical movie, and William Wilberforce's story is an excellent one to study and to be an inspiration to us of living our convictions. And that is the very reason I cannot recommend this movie. I felt like we were morally violated, especially our boys. There were extended periods in which the audience was staring into an extremely low-cut busty female from above; basically, you saw most of her breasts for several fairly lengthy periods as she and Wilberforce conversed.

This was not a situation like a mall where Christians can look away from immodest images. It was a movie where you are a captive audience and you are there for the sole purpose of staring at the screen for entertainment. I walked out of the movie, but there were many Christians at that showing who chose to do the very thing that Wilberforce so passionately believed was wrong -- staying and accepting whatever the culture tolerates, whether or not it is biblical.

I realize that some Christians would say that this is tame compared to all the other stuff that's out there. But, we don't hold 'other stuff' as our standard of comparison because all that does is constantly lower the bar of morality. For that same reason, we don't accept sexual content in the name of 'historical or cultural accuracy.' Watching historically accurate sexual images doesn't suddenly make it 'pure .... of good repute ... worthy of praise.' (Phil. 4:8)

- Barb on ChristianAnswers.net

To state it bluntly, the lead actress was very sexy. The problem is, she's not my wife, so why should I need to be exposed to her sexiness? And whilst I won't say "don't watch this movie" on that basis alone, I must urge caution, and I am reconsidering whether I will buy a copy for my own library. (Before watching it, I had assumed I definitely would.)

And be warned : some complain about the swearing in the movie. Rightly or wrongly, I didn't have an issue with it. That's another topic. But if you have zero tolerance for swearing, that's another reason to consider giving the movie the flick.

Overall? I loved the movie and was inspired to see how "ordinary people" can make extraordinary changes for the better. But I must recommend it with a modicum of caution.

(And yes, my full report on Hillsong is a-comin', just it's takin' a while. Thanks for your patience. :o) )

Hillsong 2007, Tuesday arvo

2007-07-03T23:05:00.000+10:00

Hillsong 2007, Tuesday arvo

What an awesome conference this has been so far! And it's only just begun!

I came uncertain and marginally skeptical, but so far I've been blown away.

Gary Skinner was the opening speaker on Monday night, with a stirring presentation on effective community outreach, as demonstrated in the Waitoto community in Uganda. The key to community transformation is simply to start somewhere and let it grow.

John Bevere spoke this morning, with the best and clearest challenge to humility I've heard in years. The Spirit of God was powerfully in the room, convicting people to change their ways and live in humility, and intimacy with Christ through humility.

Brian Houston gave the second morning talk, and I was amazed as he shared his heart to see a new generation of Christian leaders raised up across this nation. His talk was practical and also filled with simple principles we can take home and apply around us as those of us in the new generation seek to learn from the wisdom of those who have gone before, and those who have gone before help to release us into the fullness of what God has prepared for us.

In the Community Transformation elective, Gary Skinner spoke again, and once again, all I can say is WOW!!! This man has a deep understanding of community transformation through the power of Christ. He listed seven primary spheres of influence. The first four we hear all the time - family, church/religion, government, business/work, and to these he added education, arts/entertainment and the media (newspaper etc). It was AWESOME, as was his initial session last night. If you get a chance to hear him, I HIGHLY RECOMMEND IT.

And the other elective I attended - a panel of folk involved in reaching out to the world around them - was stimulating and inspiring too.

Bring earplugs. :-)

OK, here we go - it's 4:30pm and the second night's sessions are starting now. I'll catch you 'round!

(P.S. In case I never get around to blogging it, you might like to ask me a) why I decided to go to this controversial conference; and b) my position specifically regarding Hillsong music.)

Congratulations Australian Skeptics

2007-03-11T14:55:00.000+11:00

Congratulations Australian Skeptics! You make Skeptics look like bone-heads.

If I was a Skeptic, I'd be very angry right now with Drs Paul Willis, Alex Ritchie and Ken Smith and their feeble mishandling of a debate with Answers In Genesis (now Creation Ministries International).

I used to think that Skeptics were basically men like me - men who loved reason, men who listened patiently and carefully to opposing views, even if ultimately disagreeing, and men who liked to focus on the issues instead of playing dodgeball. But if these three doctors were the best the Australian Skeptics could muster, my respect for the lot of them is substantially damaged.

The debate : "Did the universe and life evolve, or was it specially created in 6 days?" was held in three rounds and was published in full by the Sydney Morning Herald. To keep the articles relatively short for a newspaper audience, a limit of 1,500 words was placed per side per round. Read the debate for yourself : Round 1, Round 2, Round 3. UPDATE : These links have been pulled off the web! See details and alternate link at the end of this article...

But before you read it, let me warn you...

If you read just the Skeptics' arguments, you'd be convinced the Creationists were grossly misguided and didn't have a fact to stand on.

If you just read the Creationists' arguments, you'd be convinced the Creationists were raising some serious issues and you'd assume the Skeptics must be doing the same.

But when you read the two together, you see, as plain as the daylight sun, that the Skeptics are constantly ignoring the real issues and forever grossly misrepresenting their opponent's views.

If I was trying to be nice, and not hurt their feelings, I might chide them for intellectual dishonesty. At best, perhaps if they really were in a mad rush and had such terrible contempt for the Creationists that they just glanced at the Creationists' arguments instead of reading them properly, they might honestly have thought they did a good job.

But the evidence doesn't support such lenience. Indeed, when the Skeptics repeatedly and consistently misrepresent their opponent's arguments, one doubts their open-mindedness. And when they flatly ignore large portions of their opponent's arguments, pretending the arguments don't even exist, it becomes clear that these Skeptics aren't interested in addressing the issues - they're only interested in saving face. All they care about is making sure that a casual reader glancing inattentively through the debate (and let's face it - many readers will only give it that much attention) will be strongly impressed with the apparent strength of the Skeptics' position. It's all bluff and bravado. "If we sound confident and keep saying the Creationists don't have a leg to stand on, we'll minimise the damage that would be caused if people checked out the Creationists' claims for themselves." Wow! And these are the best the Australian Skeptics can muster.

I really don't want to dwell on Skeptic stupidity, but some concrete examples for those who won't bother reading the debate for themselves (in no particular order) :

i) The Skeptics claim that the Creationists don't offer any evidence for a young earth. In fact, the Creationists cite a range of evidence, including hard scientific evidence such as the presence of Carbon 14 inside coal and inside diamonds. Carbon 14 inside diamonds is just one of many things that by itself spells a death-knell to Evolution. The Skeptics ingenious response? Continue to insist that the Creationists haven't offered any evidence! Crikey! Are the Skeptics actually even reading their opponent's arguments, or just skimming for keywords so that inattentive readers won't notice the Skeptics constantly dodging the issues?

ii) The Creationists make a clear and valid point that it is not a debate of "Creationism versus Science", but rather "Creationism versus Materialism, with both appealing to science" (my paraphrase). Some Skeptic, who left his brain at grade school, responds with the preposterous claim that the Creationists are attempting to remove science from the debate. The Creationists never said such a thing, and their references to hard science reveal that just the opposite is the case. There is no way that you can jump to the conclusion the Skeptic did, based on anything in the debate thus far. The only reasonable interpretation? The Skeptics were deliberately and maliciously misrepresenting (in fact, ridiculing) their opponents in an attempt to avoid the real issues.

iii) The Creationists point to the woeful lack of "missing links" (that even Charles Darwin himself expected were Evolution true). "Not a problem!" exclaim the Skeptics, "look at horse and whale Evolution! The evidence is incontrovertible!" Of course, in what is beginning to appear to be a stark contrast to the Skeptics, I am open-minded, and am very eager to know of real "missing links" if they exist. And so of course I clicked through immediately to the link the Skeptics provided to a page on horse evolution. What struck me very quickly is that the majority of these supposed "missing links" were all, in fact, horses. Variations of horses! A horse getting bigger or smaller or stronger or leaner or whatever - what's the big deal? This is variation within existing genetic potential! It's a pity the site didn't have pictures. There was just a mountain of text with "just-so" statements of incontrovertible fact that this evolved into that evolved into the next thing and so on. Nice theory. But all this unequivocable certitude is sounding a lot more like a religious faith than anything else. And then of course when I read further into the third phase of the debate, the Creationists did a nice job of pointing out the paucity of the "whale evolution is incontrovertible" side of things that the Skeptics said in a just-so fashion earlier in the debate. [UPDATE : See for example The non-evolution of the horse]

iv) The Skeptics claimed a few times that "Creationism is not testable and is not falsifiable, and thus is not scientific" (paraphrase), despite the Creationists mounting a superb demonstration of the stupidity of that claim. In fact, the Skeptics repeated this "point" in their closing arguments in phase 3, without bothering to respond to the Creationists' valid criticism of the point! Just one more thing which leads me to believe the Skeptics either a) weren't even reading the Creationists' arguments; or much more likely b) were deliberately and maliciously intent on misrepresenting their opponents. (If you think I'm being too harsh, take half an hour and carefully read the three pages of debate for yourself!)

I could go on.

My issue is not that the Skeptics disagree with Creationism. My issue is not that they think they have evidence to support their beliefs. My issue is not that they are haughty and arrogant (although the ones in this debate most certainly are!). My issue isn't even that they derisively dismiss almost everything the Creationists have to say, without seeming to pause long enough to even understand what they're dismissing. All of the proceeding could be done as an honest mistake - albeit an ugly mistake.

Until today (when I read this debate) I had thought many times of going along to a Skeptics meeting and hearing what they have to say. Doing them the justice of treating them like rational men who may have something of value to contribute.

But illusions of fairness and impartial open-mindedness have been stripped away. The Australian Skeptics have proven themselves willing to say anything they want, even directly in the face of the evidence, grossly misrepresenting their opponents and ignoring serious claims, as if bravado was the only measure of truth.

Congratulations, Australian Skeptics. You have lost my respect.

---

UPDATE Sun 10-Jun-2007 : Ladies and gentlemen, the game continues! The Sydney Morning Herald website has removed it's copy of the debate! One wonders if they did so under pressure from Skeptics, who are intent on ensuring only their side of the story is told. For example, Google for "did the universe and life evolve, or was it". Include the quote marks. Then click the "show all results" link. What do you notice? A HUGE number of matches on Skeptic websites. Go to the websites and what do you find? The Skeptics have published copies of their side of the debate, instead of publishing the debate in full. They're terrified of looking like morons if both sides of the debate were presented side-by-side.

I have been criticised for the strong language I have used to describe the actions of the Skeptics in regards to this debate. But an unbiased reading of both sides of the debate show the Skeptics to be consistently and deliberately misrepresenting almost everything they can. They're interested in tactics, not truth.

But enough pondering Skeptic censorship and their hatred of well-reasoned free speech that disagrees with their position. At least CMI, in contrast to the Skeptics, has been kind enough to present both sides of the debate, and they've made it available in PDF here.

Good Slavery, Bad Slavery

2007-03-11T14:43:00.001+11:00

There's a lot of talk about slavery going on right now, and many Christians are campaigning (and many Christians have very successfully campaigned in the past) against slavery.

But in our zeal for righteousness, let's not be completely Biblically illiterate. Yes, pretty much everything we know as modern slavery is a sinful practice condemned in the Bible (and punishable by death to the slave traders).

But did you know that there was a Biblically-prescribed form of slavery, very different to anything we've seen in recent centuries, that resulted in dignified labour and a faithful slave's inevitable rise in social status? Wow! Imagine a welfare program that permanently improved the social status of it's recipients! I suppose we shall have to find some word other than "slavery" for it. In practice, it was a fixed-term employment contract, at the end of which, the 'slave' would be given a share in the profits he brought to his 'master'! Wow! Almost sounds like some of the sophisticated employee-reward-schemes used in the corporate world! :o) What's more, it offered guaranteed employment.

I could go on and on about the God-given scheme of "slavehood" and it's benefits and peculiarities, but for now, I just want to remind you that it exists. With the superb movie "Wilberforce" hitting our screens this year (I for one am waiting excitedly for it to hit Australian shores!), and for those of us with a commitment to thinking Biblically not just pseudo-Christianly on every topic, let's not fall into the trap of denouncing all forms of slavery as inherently evil.

However, since most of us don't have a clue what the Biblical version of "slavery" looks like, let me mention a few stark contrasts from the sinful slave trade that pervaded England and the USA :

Under God's law, kidnapping was a capital offence. Let me spell it out : kidnap someone, you die. Biblical slavery was an honourable institution to help the destitute get back on their feet financially. The guaranteed income was so attractive that many voluntarily spent time as a slave, without financial necessity forcing them to do so. In contrast, the English and U.S. slave trades were fueled by mass kidnappings.

Furthermore, detaining a kidnappee was a capital offence. You couldn't be holding someone against their will and claim "well I wasn't the one who actually kidnapped them, therefore I don't deserve as harsh a penalty". No, under Biblical law, the kidnapper, and anyone found participating in the kidnapping by detaining the kidnappee, are all guilty of a capital crime. England and the U.S.A. could not simply turn a blind eye to the source of these slaves and say "Well, we don't actually do the kidnapping so it's irrelevant where these slaves came from".

But if a person voluntarily sells themselves into slavery, and assuming the slave-owner is fulfiling his God-given duties of care towards his slaves, nothing inherently sinful has been done. So whilst the modern slave-trades are thoroughly evil, let's not naively fall into the trap of labeling everything that looks like slavery a sin.

Recommended links :

o Anti-slavery activist William Wilberforce: Christian hero by Jonathan Sarfati.

o Zach Hunter: Fighting Modern Day Slavery - Awesome! Zach is 15 years old, and is fighting the remnants of slavery that are alive and well today.

Where Are All The Men?

2007-03-11T14:01:00.000+11:00

Every now & then I write an article which, years later, still brings a smile to my face. This is one of them... (First published on 100thousandyouth.com, Friday 8th April 2005, 5:25pm EST)

UPDATE Thu 31-May-2007 : Lightly edited to be more suitable for non-Australian readers.

Where are all the men? Yes, where are all the men? That’s what I began asking myself, oh, I suppose ten years ago.

Where are all the men? No, I don’t just mean “any male who's turned eighteen”. A true man would be a “father”, not just a “dad”, and the makings of a man can be seen – equally well the absence of the makings of a man – in any male long before they were ‘of age’.

What is manhood? Are we chasing a pipe-dream, like the long-promised but ill-defined “revivals” that were to have swept our nation a hundred times by now? I wonder where are all the men, but what am I even looking for? Who can tell me?

I once met a young lass born on the same day as myself – same day, and same year. With such a precious piece of history in common we spent a good deal of time getting to know each the other. Not timid was I, and having thought much on the topic, when asked by this maiden who was I and what did I do, I replied that I was, simply, a man. I further informed her that it was my opinion that I had been a man since my thirteenth birthday, and that our society encourages men to put off manhood for a good many years beyond the time they ought to have claimed it for themselves. She was clearly amused. But did that matter? I was not a man because she bestowed manhood upon me. It was mine to keep.

I hear it all around now – “We need real men!” they say, and little (and not so little) groups of males spring up here and there to, well, be men, I suppose, or at least, so they intend.

But does anybody really know what they’re looking for? And have they realised that it, “it”, the realisation of manhood, may come at the cost of many long-cherished and comfortable ways of living? “Aha! That’s the answer! Comfort! Bah comfort! The essence of the masculine spirit is wild adventure! Get muddy! Go bush! Be uncomfortable! Let us glory in pain and sweat and scars, for therein our manhood is found!”

Or are we just noisy boys throwing sand to the wind and thinking overly grandly of our estate? We enjoy our time outside, but is that all there is? Manhood is outdoor-ism?

Who can tell us? Where are all the men? What is a man? Who can tell us?

Only He who invented manhood can tell us with total certainty what it’s all about.

Sure, many are convinced they've found the answer, but most are guessing, and any success they seem to have comes from the fact that manhood is so poorly understood that almost any change to the modern western idea is an improvement!!!

At the end of the day, God makes us a man or a woman. The first man epitomises God’s plan for manhood – work, creativity, communication, companionship and replication.

The only way you can stand there and say “I am a man” with full confidence and due humility, at all times and in all circumstances, is to realise that it is God who has made you a man, not your parents in giving you an 18th birthday party, not society nor legislation.

“If God says I am, then I am.” This must become the fullest confidence of a man’s life, or else he will always wonder, “Am I man enough?”.

What is a man? Work – he has responsibilities and he bears them. He’s not found making excuses. And when the work needs to be done he’s not lounging around. Words like disciplined, focused, and diligent come to mind, although each of these is a study in itself (and we hasten to add that only in a fuller study would it be apparent that we are not advocating here a man who is always driven and can never rest!).

He has responsibilities. Where did he get them? Some by birth. Some by choice. But regardless, he lets the full penalty of failure fall on himself, and of course works to ensure that failure of responsibility does not occur. Without the acceptance of responsibility, a male will forever remain a boy, hiding behind a finger of blame or hidden by overly protective parents or friends. In either case, he misses the opportunity to grow. By attempting to remove the possibility of failure, he also removes the possibility of success, and necessarily lives a most unfulfilling existence.

Creativity. Not all men will be singers, dancers, sculptors, painters, or poets, but latent in most men and present in all is a God-given capacity to invent, to conceive of things never hitherto seen. This does not define manhood but is a reality of manhood. Those who accept before God that they are a man ought equally to realise God has given me a capacity to create. Adam in the garden chose – invented – names for many dozens or hundreds of animals. “Made in the image of God” – this means we can choose (hence responsibility) and that we can create.

Communication. Man was not made to be alone. He was not even made to be alone with his wife, well, not forever at least. Man had daily fellowship with God, but even from the first it was intended that he and his wife have children, and more men and women would fill the globe.

Man was designed to communicate with other men – and not just the transaction of business. Communication is not a mere tool for getting one’s way or winning an argument. Communication is designed to fill the soul with relief and comfort and happiness, for all parties involved! A whole book could be filled further on this topic (and many books have been) but suffice to say, one who recognises himself as a man before God should seek to communicate with God, with his wife, but also with other men, even if for no other reason that God has so designed him.

Companionship. And here I speak of that most intimate – or so it should be – companionship of a man with his wife. Again, not a mark of all men. Many men choose to live their days without this, and are equally blessed with those who claim the pleasures of companionship for themselves. Equally blessed, I say, but not identically blessed. One has one blessing, the other has a different blessing, but both, I say, are equally blessed.

This is not merely a blessing of sexual pleasure – those unfortunate souls who have entered marriage thinking it little more than a sex-fest have been quickly disappointed – but a blessing of knowing and being known, in the context of which a sexual relationship is invigorating and fulfilling. Of course this one major topic of marriage is so vast as to have dozens of sub topics, each of which has filled a multitude of books, so I touch no further on it here.

Replication. Without a doubt, the most satisfying thing a man can do is impart something of lasting value to another in a younger generation. He may physically father a child. He may invest his hours and energies in training future men and women. From the beginning man was designed to reproduce physically, and along with that, to reproduce philosophically in the training of children.

I have seen dozens of aged men in my time, and I cannot think of a case where wealth or fame is their motivating force, but I can think of dozens of men who now seek opportunities to pour their knowledge and experience into the younger generations, and find therein greater pleasure than any other thing they have done in their days.

In Lebanon I stayed with a most remarkable man of God, whom I will now simply call Suheil. He epitomised everything a man should be. He is in his late fifties, or maybe even early sixties now. One day he said to me, “Jonathan, how could the apostle Paul say ‘Imitate me in the same way that I imitate Christ’? Why do so many of us live afraid that others might imitate us? As for me, I want to live a life where I can say, ‘Imitate me, even as I imitate Christ’. I don’t believe I’m there yet, but I believe I’m getting close.”

Wow! That was exciting for me, to find a man willing to step up to the plate, to take responsibility for his own life and commit to following God’s ways so closely! To be honest, I thought he was already a pretty good role-model, but he obviously felt his own weaknesses much more than I had been aware.

Notwithstanding, could you invite others to imitate you, or would you be embarrassed?

Every man should be seeking to find God’s answers, God’s ways of doing things, to learn wisdom, to have a life so worth the living that they can happily say “Imitate me” and “Taste and see that the Lord is good”. Let your life show that devotion to God is possible. And let it show that such devotion is desirable. And you may well be surprised at the ways and opportunities you get to help impart that wisdom and depth of experience to others.

So where are all the men? I began asking many years ago, and frankly, back then, I doubted there were many. I knew I was one. And I knew a few others. But masses of folk walk past, engaged solely in the pursuit of their own pleasures, not taking responsibility for anything much. I’d visit churches and feel that the youth there hadn’t even thought about what it is to be a man of God – they were just having a good time and that was the main thing.

But every now and then God would delight me by introducing one man here, another man there. Often country folk would strike me with their sense of personal responsibility, their openness in communication, their resourcefulness (a form of creativity) and their proactivity (another evidence of a well developed sense of personal responsibility). Young Will was one such fellow. And then I began meeting them in the city too.

The brothers Luke and Andrew strike me as examples to this day. And I began to meet more and mounting volumes more of older folk who epitomise the vital qualities of manhood, and are well into that “giving back” portion of their life where they delight to invest in the up and coming generations. Ken Walker, Peter Daniels, and the list really does go on.

And I began to see that God has many men. Perhaps I wasn’t mature enough in myself to identify them in my younger years. Perhaps things have changed over ten years and there are many more men. Or perhaps I just know a lot more people now than I did then! :o)

But when I ask myself today, “Where are all the men?” my mind jumps from example to example, here and there, young and old, throughout the state and around the globe, and I say to myself, “They’re all around!”.

Postscript: So why don’t we see them more?

If there are a lot of men out there – albeit a small minority, yet still large in absolute numbers – then why don’t we see them more involved in the community, in social action, in Christian journalism, etc? But we do! Not that men can relax now – far from it because many more men are needed! As I myself become more heavily involved in these groups, I am pleased to report that any time I set my hand to a task to further God’s kingdom, I find myself squarely shoulder to shoulder with at least two other equally dedicated men of God, often from widely different backgrounds. Working with me, and me with them!

If you want the pleasure of meeting some awesome men of God, throw yourself into Christian service! No, not necessarily full-time! No, no, I didn’t say become a ‘pastor’! I volunteer one day a week, using my skills to further the work of Wycliffe Bible Translators. I teach Christian Religious Education in public schools. I run a business and get to have significant conversations with clients and employees of clients. Many significant spiritual conversations have come about as a result.

You and I are different parts of the Body – don’t expect that we’ll do the same things or put the same amount of time into it – but do start serving – take the first opportunity that arises and commit to it for a while – and you’ll be surprised as you serve what doors will open. Where are all the men? Why don’t you be one yourself – you’ll soon discover more! :o)

The Verbose Philosopher Recants

2007-02-26T21:57:00.000+11:00

These last four weeks have been intense ones for me. They began much like any other month of my life. And then I discovered Steorn. The more I examined Steorn's claims, the more I was convinced they were onto (from an experimental approach) exactly the same principles of energy creation I had "discovered" from a purely mathematical/theoretical approach.

Steorn is releasing their findings in the next month or two (so I gather). It forced a rapid re-evaluation of where I stood on the matter. I was previously convinced that there were extreme dangers with this technology (danger to the world and humanity in general, not to the inventor specifically). Accordingly, I kept it "under wraps", or more accurately, buried.

But with Steorn's imminent release of their "discovery", I had to make some decisions. 1) Was Steorn onto anything at all? 2) Was it anything like what I had discovered? Were the risks with their "discovery" the same as with mine?

And so I threw myself into action, hit the road, and shared my ideas and quandry with three trusted friends in different parts of the state.

At first, I began to question my analysis of the risk factors. Perhaps, despite the risks, the cost of not publishing this technology was greater than the risks. (I speak again of costs and risks to the world, to humanity.) With that in mind, I began to plan an article detailing the principles of energy creation, and planning ways to get the word out as fast as possible.

But things took an unexpected turn. A very unexpected turn.

I had "known" these principles for years, plenty long enough to work through an extensive set of impliciations and have them entrenched deeply in my thinking.

But after seven hours with a trusted friend, analysing this thing from various angles, serious doubts were raised in my mind.

It has taken a few more weeks, and much, much time (running calculations, researching some related topics, thinking through implications once again).

And finally today I decided that there is no doubt left in my mind. Whatever principles of free energy I thought I had found, are non-existent.

I can say that in one sentence and of course the whole world is already divided into those who already believed "free energy" a farce and those who are passionately convinced it's possible.

But I was not only totally convinced it was possible, but totally convinced I knew how. And I was totally wrong.

Selah

It's easy for you to sit there and read my story. But on my end, it's radically altering my life. In four short weeks, a lot has changed. Many long-held beliefs have been thrown out the window, and with them, some extensive sets of implications and ramifications have been discarded.

But I shan't bore you with my troubles.

Let's turn back for a moment to Steorn, the company that triggered this storm in my own little world.

If you'd asked me four weeks ago, I would have said I thought it plausible they were onto something. Some days later, I was doubting they were onto the same thing as me. But by about two-and-a-half weeks ago, I had read enough snippets here and there in Steorn interviews and other documentation that I was 99% convinced that Steorn was onto exactly the same thing as me. I was onto something that worked with gravitation and magnetism, and by piecing clues together, I became convinced that Steorn had, by experimental means, stumbled across an application of these "free energy" principles, but only by way of magnetism, and was ignorant of the potential to use gravity instead of magnetism. Just over two weeks ago, I began my road trip. By Sunday night, 15 days ago (AEST), the Great Doubt had begun. And by today, I am now totally convinced that if Steorn is onto anything at all, it has nothing to do with what I had envisaged.

In fact, I now have a profound and deep respect for the so-called Law of the Conservation of Energy. I never had this profound respect before - who would, if you believed in "free energy"? :) But now I see it in it's beauty. It's mathematical symmetry is a wonder to behold! :) And now I stand by it.

Which leaves me in a state of great skepticism. I am inclined to believe that Steorn has discovered nothing at all. Measurement error, perhaps. Perhaps an error interpreting the measurements. Perhaps the first great hoax of the 21st century! :)

If they're onto something, I tell you, they deserve to be well rewarded. But I'm no longer a believer. I recant.

From A Friend In Seminary : Meaning/Purpose Questionnaire

2007-01-28T22:20:00.000+11:00

A friend of mine studying archeology at seminary wrote a short questionnaire to help with one of her assignments. I found the questions particularly interesting, and enjoyed answering them, and you might enjoy them too. Her questions are in bold; my answers in italics...

Hi E.

I liked your questions. I don't know how useful you'll find my answers. I'm afraid they may appear terribly "trite" and "Christianese", as if I'd answered how I'm supposed to answer, but not as I truly feel.

But rest assured, my friend, that these answers are as true as the blue sky. If it makes me a freak, that I believe what I'm supposed to and know why I believe it, then a freak I'll glady be. :o)

Q : Where do you find your meaning?
A : Pleasure is pointless, pain is pointless, happiness is pointless, sadness is pointless, being good to others is pointless, being mean to others is pointless, LIFE is pointless, DEATH is pointless, except that The Unchanging One finds pleasure in us, and except that our souls are eternal and the effects of our actions now will echo in our ears forever.

Q : What do you find fulfillment in, purpose in, a reason for living in?
A : Bringing a smile to God's heart. And teaching others to do the same.

Q : What gets you up in the morning and keeps you going throughout the day?
A : The knowledge that what I'm doing is significant, not because it will merely transcend my lifetime, but because it will have good effects that last for eternity.

In contrast, Humanists can gain some mild level of satisfaction in knowing that some good they do to another will transcend their lifetime, but Humanism is ultimately a religion of despair, for no matter how advanced Humanity becomes, it will ultimately die in the inescapable Big Collapse that, by the laws of physics, must eventually follow a Big Bang. That kind of 'legacy', which transcends one's lifetime but ultimately comes to nothing, is pointless.

What keeps me going is the knowledge that the good I do won't be eventually obliterated in an inescapable cosmic smash-up, but will actually endure without cessation. I am not writing in chalk on a chalkboard that will be wiped clean in a few billion years; I am etching in stone that will last forever. And I have learned from the Supreme Artist how to etch well.

Q : What gives you hope?
A : Eternal perpetuity of our souls and of the consequences of our works is a depressing thought if our souls are miserable and our works reprehensible.

HOPE comes not from understanding eternity, but from knowing that The Unchanging One has adopted my soul and cradles it in His love, and so orchestrates my circumstances as to help me grow and cause me good.

Q : What makes you grin like an idiot?
A : When my attempts at subtlety are foiled. The Great One dealt me a scant measure of subtlety, the which I rarely employ, and when I do, it's usually to disastrous consequence! :o)

I could give numerous humorous examples, but it's irrelevant to the questionnaire and my time, like my subtlety, is scant. :o)

And yes, I can see how this question applies to "meaning & purpose" for some folk, but I don't think it does for me.

Q : Where do you find your meaning and purpose?
A : "Meaning" I've already answered. "Purpose" - perhaps my three life goals are relevant. In order of importance, most important first, my three life goals, with me from the cradle to my grave, are as follows :

1) To delight God.
2) To obtain wisdom.
3) To lay up treasure in Heaven.

So, what answers would you have given? I'm curious to know - drop a line or leave a comment! :o)

Energy Is Free, Perpetual Motion Is Fallacious, Steorn Should Not Release Their Findings

2007-01-28T22:05:00.000+11:00

UPDATE Mon 26-Feb-2007 : The Verbose Philosopher Recants. The following article no longer reflects the Verbose Philosopher's views.

"For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction." The diligent student identifies two consequences of this law :

1) There is an unalterable universal centre of mass;
2) Energy can be created at will;

The first of these two conclusions is tenuous, based on the assumption that matter and energy cannot be cross-converted.

The second of these conclusions is laughable, defying the law of the conservation of energy.

However, the second of these conclusions is easily demonstrated. Indeed, energy can be created at will.

The implications are staggering, but not as staggering as you might first expect.

Theoretically, if the universe evolved from a big bang (which it clearly did not), then it will end in a huge smash-up. This is an inevitable consequence of gravity's infinite reach and unrelenting pull. If we can create energy at will, surely humans could create a spacecraft to propel themselves in opposition to the force of gravity, and thus escape the doom. But free energy cannot create propulsion without reaction mass. "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction." You can create all the energy you want, but you can't use that energy to go somewhere without flinging fuel, exhaust, parts of the spacecraft, or other expendibles out the back of your craft. Sooner or later, these fleeing humanoids will run out of reaction mass and join the giant squish soup that the universe will become.

So free energy does not mean unlimited propulsion, nor escape from ultimate doom.

That said, free energy does change a lot of things.

I first came upon the principles of free energy in my teenage years - roughly ten years ago. I am the only person I know of in the entire world claiming to understand the principles behind it. However, I am not the only person in the world claiming to be able to demonstrate it with ease.

Every now and then I check up on the web to see if anyone else has discovered the obvious - the inescapable conclusion of Newton's law of momentum - the ability to create energy at will.

Of course, there are ten kadzillion "PMM (Perpetual Motion Machine) Enthusiasts". Some of them are tantalizingly close, yet frustratingly far, from the obvious. It's kind of amusing to see their designs, and their almost religious dedication to perpetual motion. Some of them mighty close, but they're missing some mighty obvious principles that are sitting just under their nose.

For starters, let me make it abundantly clear : "free energy" is NOT "perpetual motion". PMM enthusiasts often confuse the creation of energy and the creation of movement. "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction." Machines designed to levitate and fly around, unaffected by environment, atmosphere, or gravitation, are an impossibility. And that is relatively simple to demonstrate with maths.

But energy - the ability to create abundant truck-loads of energy, at-will - that's simple, and again, very easy to demonstrate with maths.

So what is it that PMM enthusiasts are missing? I could tell you. Let's say #1 it is obvious; and #2 it is a fairly direct consequence of the particular Newtonian law I keep harping on about in this article. The diligent student can discover the rest, as have I.

But perhaps the principles have already been discovered. Only in the last hour or so I stumbled across Steorn, a company in Ireland which claims to have accidently found an arrangement of magnets by which they can produce unlimited power.

Check it out yourself : http://www.steorn.net/en/technology.aspx?p=5.

Curiously, they stumbled across it by accident, and only a few years ago, whereas I 'discovered' it in the search for it, and about ten years ago.

I am presuming here that they are as good as their claim. And I won't be surprised if they are.

What's interesting is that they stumbled across it, and have no explanation for it. Well, until this day, I thought I was the only person who both knew how to do it and understood the physics of it. Perhaps I am no longer the only one who knows how to do it, but it does sound like I'm still the only one who understands the physics of it.

It all ties in very neatly to cosmology, one of my myriad favourite topics, and it was partly to outlay a proper framework for understanding the free energy phenonemon that I commenced writing my series of articles on Biblical Cosmology.

Yes friends, energy is there for the taking. It can be done with magnets. It can be done without magnets. It can be done with any attractive or repulsive force, including gravity, magnetism, pressurised liquids, and probably even springs and other elastic materials. It can possibly even be done with centrifugal force.

The key is so simple that I would only have to say a few words, and those frustrated students so diligently seeking the elusive would, with a little further thought, see it for themselves.

So why will I not utter the magic words?

Simple. I think it 90% likely that Steorn have, as they claim, stumbled across a practical way of easily creating energy out-of-nothing. Now, I understand the cosmological implications, the theological implications, and the likely sociological implications of this. Let me say, free energy is not the ultimate panacea it may initially appear. I've been sitting on the secret myself for these many years, for the simple reason that a rapid proliferation of free energy generators is not actually in humankind's best interests. In the event that Steorn proves mistaken, it will be better that the secret remains just that - a secret.

"What great dangers lie in so great a power?", you ask, incredulous and indignant. I chuckle to myself and think "Poor fools - they don't even understand the physics of it and yet they assume it's 'clean, green, and beneficial'".

However, the skeptic will not be sated be the mere claim of good reasons for the non-proliferation of this technology. And so I will give a partial reason here. A full discussion of the several problems requires disclosure of the operating principles, something I am not willing to engage in here and now. So please excuse me for only giving details of one part of one of my significant concerns, as follows :

Energy is easily created and introduced to the globe. What then? It is employed for propulsion, manufacturing, or by some other means, ultimately resulting in a net increase in the heat on the surface of the earth.

Consider it : if every house had a free-energy-generator out-the-back, and ran all the lights all day, and left all appliances and computers running at all times, and stopped worrying about energy ratings for refrigerators, washing machines, fans, etc, and if industry went bananas with unlimited supplies of power, guess what? We would rapidly (and somewhat irreversibly) increase the surface temperature of the earth.

So much more can be said on this topic, but I refrain. If Steorn prove to actually have discovered the technology, and a practical model becomes widely known, then with some dissappointment I will be more willing to ellucidate the world with the underpinning physics, and a fuller discussion of the dangers of this technology.

But if - as I hope, but doubt, will be the case - Steorn is yet another of the also-rans, convinced of success but sincerely mistaken, I will happily return to my Hobbit-hovel and mind my own business.

Related links :

Steorn website

A video interview with Steorn

UPDATE Mon 29-Jan-2007 : I've run through some maths, calculating the amount of thermal energy received on an ongoing basis from the sun, and concluded that, even with a 100-fold increase in global power consumption, and replacing all existing electrical power generation plants with 'free energy' devices, we would be adding energy to the earth at a rate WELL UNDER 0.1% of that added by the sun. In short : I no longer hold that the Steorn device risks overheating the earth. I continue to have other reservations with the technology - I still continue to think it best for humankind if Steorn prove mistaken - but unfortunately I must leave that as an unsupported opinion in the public eye.

Middle School Girls Gone Wild

2007-01-03T13:35:00.000+11:00

I just read this very interesting editorial on the New York Times entitled "Middle School Girls Gone Wild".

What American schools are doing, and American parents allowing and encouraging, is truly disgusting. It's easy for me as an Aussie to say "We're much better than the Americans". Right? Wrong!

I do part-time volunteer teaching at one of the state primary schools near my home in Melbourne, Australia. I and all the other volunteer teachers were invited to come to the annual school concert towards the end of last year.

Now, this happens to be the very primary school which I attended as a kid. (Until I started homeschooling, that is.) I remember fondly the many school concerts in which I took part as a child, and the various costumes I wore and parts I played.

One year I was a farmer, complete with overalls and a big cardboard raincloud which I held up with a stick. The cloud even had a yellow lightening bolt descending from it! :o) Ah - those were the days.

Another year I was a mad scientist, and we still have photos of the dusty grey hair effect we rather successfully pulled-off with copious doses of Johnson & Johnson Baby Powder. (Talcum powder.) :o)

Only fifteen to twenty years have passed, and here I am, looking forward to nostalgic reminders of years gone by as I watched this performance in my childhood school.

And what do I see?

Lots of veeery skimpy femmes.

I'm talking about my grade 3, 4 and 5 students, many in bikinis and other sexually-alluring attire. And ah - parading it, too. Not "cute" sexy, as in "my parents put this on me and I'm getting lots of attention so I think it's fun", but "I know this clothing is sexy and I'll act sexy too whilst I wear it".

Oh, there were plenty of girls who were well-attired, and a few who, despite scant clothing, were oblivious to sexual overtones. But if say 10% to 20% of the girls were sexy & lovin' it - at that tender age - struttin' their stuff in public, proudly to a packed auditorium of many hundreds of parents and siblings... It doesn't bode well for where things are heading in society.

In other words : things aren't as bad in Australia as they are in America - yet. But we're well on the way.

I have written before and at length regarding a proper Christian response to the fabric-reductionism prevelant in society, and curiously, the one common thread (pardon the pun) across all replies I've had so far, is that there is no common thread.

The nearest thing to a helpful suggestion was one young lass suggesting I read Jeff Pollard's "Christian Modesty and the Public Undressing Of America". Well, I happened upon this book at a Vision Forum book table in Virginia USA in July 2006, and now possess a copy, and will read it eventually, I suppose, but have been discouraged by a review of it which said that Jeff only addresses the issues in broad and ill-defined brush strokes.

In dealing with these issues, vague statements and generalisations are not enough, and if you don't understand what I'm talking about, read my "Free Porn With Your Metcard" article on 100thousandyouth. (For our non-Melbourne readers, "trams" are the prevalent mode of public transport here, and "Metcards" are the tickets you buy to ride the trams.)

Yes, our society is highly sexualised, and yes, it is a problem. Step 1) Wake up. Step 2) Rediscover Biblical ideals. Step 3) Live them. Step 4) Help those around you do the same.

And somewhere along the line, for the sake of our children, step 5) Formalise Scriptural principles in legislation, so the wishes of the minority who profit financially from fuelling lust, cannot be freely imposed on those who wish a lifestyle of longer-term satisfaction.

Digg, and atheistic scholasticism (or lack thereof)

2006-12-30T14:37:00.000+11:00

Digg.com has been around for donkeys years, but I never understood it. I had cause to use it for my first time ever just today. I read a good article by a prominent Australian Christian layperson, Bill Muehlenberg, who is not afraid to confidently and competently address popular fallacies of what Christianity is all about.

Bill Muehlenberg wrote a Letter To The Editor of one of our top three newspapers here in Australia, and commented on the ineptitude demonstrated by leading atheists in their attempts to denigrate Christianity. Well, I decided I would "digg" his article (www.digg.com), only to discover it had already been dugg! The previous digger was an atheist who entitled his diggment "As an Atheist [I] have never been so offended".

What was it he found so offensive in Muehlenberg's Letter To The Editor? Was it something in the actual content of Bill's letter? The digger was kind enough to tell us. "An attack on Dawkins and Athiests. Final paragraph is a kicker, claims we [atheists] can not love, be truthful and moral, or see beauty" Well, had Mr Muehlenberg made such an outrageous claim, I would have joined the protestation.

But of course Bill has a brain and uses it well, and wouldn't make such groundless assertions. No, in fact, Bill's points were several and good. It was in fact the Atheistic digger and his misdirected criticism of Bill's letter who revealed the very scholastic slovenliness of which Bill spoke in his letter!

Here's a link to the original News.com.au post (Bill Muehlenberg's Letter To The Editor) : http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,20983690-5007146,00.html

Here's a link to the digg.com page where this atheist made inadvertant mockery of the atheists whose intellectual rigour he would assume he bears : http://digg.com/offbeat_news/As_an_Athiest_have_never_been_so_offended

And, since I'm new to Digg, and uncertain whether they ever delete comments (I'm sure a few folk would be keen to delete my comments if there's any easy way to do so! :) ), I reproduce below the text of my tuppence-worth, the two comments I added to the article :

Comment the first...

I remember reading "Farewell To God - My Reasons For Rejecting The Christian Faith" by Charles Templeton, and being appalled by how emotionally-laden and factually-scarce his reasoning was. It is my experience (and that of many I know) that atheists frequently exhibit stupendous ignorance of Christianity in their attempts to defame it.

As a Christian, I am extremely critical of various stupid things that are done and believed from time to time by those who also bear this name, but mindless defamation of Christianity itself is of no value.

As Bill Muehlenberg himself states, Biblical Christianity is cogent and reasonable. Yes - it extrapolates beyond what reason alone can conclusively state, but where the Bible can be tested by reason (as opposed to where witless and ignorant criticisms of supposed-but-non-existant Biblical claims can be tested by reason), the Bible holds it's own, and always has. I am a student of archeology, and archeology is just one of many fields of scientific enquiry which repeatedly confirms the accuracy of the content of the Bible.

So, I have no problem with atheists believing there is no God, and I have no problem with Christians believing there is one. But I stand with Bill Muehlenberg, concerned, no, shocked and appalled, at some of the emotionalism and straw-man-shooting that goes under the name of 'logic' in an attempt to disparage Christianity.

Comment the second...

Not wishing to be inflammatory, but Spootzta who originally "dug" this article, typifies the kind of intellectual sloppiness that quickly earns atheists and atheism a bad name. Spootzta states "Final paragraph is a kicker, claims we can not love, be truthful and moral, or see beauty". So let's have a look at this final paragraph :

"But for billions, non-material things such as truth, beauty, justice, love and even God are very meaningful realities, which the narrow world of atheism will never fully enjoy nor understand."

The question is not who will *experience* these realities. Love, truth, beauty, morality, etc are part of human existence, and of *course* both atheist and non-atheist alike will experience these realities. Bill Muehlenberg chose his words carefully when he said only that atheists will miss out on the *full* enjoyment and full understanding of these concepts.

Spootzta's claim that Bill claims that atheists cannot see beauty, experience love, etc, is intellectual slovenliness.

To the deist or theist, these concepts (love, truth, beauty, etc) have an a-temporal nature forged in the magnificent person of God himself. But to any atheist with whom I've had communication, these concepts are transient and in perpetual flux. If the atheistic worldview is correct, deists and theists well over-rate these concepts and draw too much enjoyment and pleasure from them. If the deistic/theistic view is correct, atheism denigrates some of the most compelling facets of these concepts. In either case and irrespective of whether atheism is correct or not, the deist's/theist's experience of these concepts is significantly beyond that of the atheist. Bill Muehlenberg's final paragraph is almost a tautology - the claims therein are almost true by definition.

A Brief Introduction To Biblical Cosmology

2006-12-09T14:56:00.000+11:00

Cosmology : (study of) the framework of existence; the fundamentals of this universe, and of life itself.

The ancient Greeks believed the world composed of fire, earth, air and water.

Modern secular cosmology puts space, time, matter and energy as the framework of existence.

In recent years, scientists have begun to acknowledge that 'information' itself is as fundamental as space, time, matter and energy.

But despite recent advances, modern secular cosmology is incomplete and inaccurate, missing the most fundamental thing of all.

Instead of starting with the latest faddish 'scientific view', lets examine cosmology from a Biblical perspective.

In this article I will simply outline the scope of Biblical cosmology, with a few notes on the significance of certain distinctions.

An Introductory Outline Of Biblical Cosmology

Sequence
-> Space
-> Time
Matter/Energy
Information
Gravity
Personhood
-> Self-awareness
-> Creativity
-> Desire
-> Intention

Sequence

Time & space are manifestations of sequence. A proper understanding of sequence leads to a proper understanding of time, space, and of numbers. You may not believe it now, but sequence, and it's application in time, space and number theory, has astounding implications and immense practical impact on our daily lives.

In popular cosmology, space is thought of as three dimensions, and time is thought of as a fourth dimension, similar in composition to space and perhaps one day able to be overcome and travelled through freely.

In contrast, Biblical cosmology reveals that the similarities between time and space are very few. It allows for time travel within tight constraints, rather than willy-nilly ad-hoc time-travel on-demand. I plan to explore this fascinating topic with you in a future article.

Matter/Energy

Are matter and energy merely different forms of the same thing? While a fascinating subject in it's own right, it is the one aspect of cosmology most thoroughly studied elsewhere. I intend to focus here on more significant aspects of cosmology, as well as a few aspects of cosmology that are rarely considered.

Information

There are two aspects of Biblical cosmology I don't intend to study in detail here. The first is matter/energy. The second is information.

Many books have been written on 'information theory'. Most of those perpetuate the fallacy that information is merely the ordering of coding elements (e.g. the sequence of letters in a book or bases in a DNA chain). Information is far more than that. I do not intend to write any further on information theory for a long time yet, but you can contact me directly if you have questions.

Personhood

And here is where Christians fail most miserably to think Biblically when it comes to cosmology.

What came first? Matter? Energy? Time? Space?

Modern Secular Humanists seem to think that matter, energy, time and space all magically sprang out of nowhere at about the same time, for no particular reason.

Christians familiar with Genesis 1 might be tempted to answer that "in the beginning" implies that God created time (and possibly space) 'before' He created matter and energy.

But even time did not 'come first'. Before time, "I Am", says He who is. God exists, outside of time, outside of space, not as an energy blob, nor composed of matter. God is. And God is a person. Personhood thus precedes time, space, matter and energy as the most fundamental aspect of cosmology.

What then is a person, as opposed to an automaton or a robot? A person is aware of his own existence. A person has creativity. A person can desire things, and a person can make decisions. I have written much on these topics before (although not on this blog), and I hope to explore some of the cosmological implications in future articles, but for now, let me just make this one note : the making of decisions - i.e. the creation of the intention to do something - is quite a separate matter from the ability to carry through with the decisions!!!!!!! And this has later implications.

Let me stress that without personhood there would be no cosmos. If God did not desire and intend to create this universe, there would be no cosmos.

Also, the Bible asserts that Man was made 'in the image of God'. The fact of human personhood has a significant impact on the cosmos as humans employ creativity, desire, and intention, often to dismal ends. Personhood has shaped the universe, and the very nature of existence. And I hope to explore this in much greater depth in later articles.

Gravity

Gravity is one of the most fascinating of natural forces. I have a lot of theories about gravity. I'm not going to load you with them now, nor even in this series of articles.

Modern scientists in search of a "theory of everything", are trying to reconcile gravity's strange properties with the strange properties of light, magnetism, and all other natural forces, to identify a single underlying component which will prove to be in common across all of these forces.

It is a sideline issue here, and one I do not intend to explore further on this blog, but it is my belief that gravity is a fundamentally unique force.

Interestingly, gravity is more important to the cosmos than light and magnetism. Without light, and without magnetism, we could survive, although the universe would be a very different place. (For example, all heat transfer would be via convection, which would mean on the one hand that earth receives no thermal energy from the sun, but on the other hand that earth would not lose heat by radiating it out beyond the atmosphere.) Whilst an absence of light and magnetism would leave a world and a universe that is still somewhat recognisable (you could still have stars, planets, orbits, continents, water bodies, tides, plants (although not based on photosynthesis), etc), an absence of gravity would make anything vaguely resembling this universe a complete impossibility. Things would fly through space in dead-straight lines, not in orbits. There would be no reason for gasses and dirt and rocks to clump together, and so instead of having planets, you would have random dust and rocks. Plants could hardly exist under such conditions, let alone thrive. The best you could hope for in terms of 'life forms' is microbes.

And so whilst very few people get excited about gravity (I'm one of the weird ones who do :o) ), it is almost as important to the cosmos as space and time itself, and even vastly more important than light. And that's why I list it here as a fundamental of cosmology. Of course, feel free to disagree with me on this point, as gravity's inclusion here is not something I draw directly from the pages of Scripture, whilst personhood on the other hand is.

Wrapping It Up

And so now that I've introduced you briefly to all the major players, let's revisit the outline of Biblical cosmology, this time listing the elements in order of significance, most significant first. (When I showed it to you earlier, I listed the elements you were more likely to be familiar with first - the order in which secular cosmologists rank the importance of each item.)

An Outline Of Biblical Cosmology - Putting First Things First

Personhood
-> Self-awareness
-> Creativity
-> Desire
-> Intention
Information
Sequence
-> Time
-> Space
Matter/Energy
Gravity

I hope in future articles to delve deep into the fascinating mysteries of personhood and sequence. The depth of Biblical cosmology is astounding, the implications far-reaching, and the conclusions are consistent with what we see in the world around us.

In short, gaining a Biblical cosmology will improve our understanding of the world around us and from time to time prove of great practical benefit.

Join me in the exploration! :o)

Defending God's Sovereignty

2006-12-03T13:27:00.000+11:00

Subtitle : Defending God's sovereignty against a prevalent misconception thereof

"If [such-and-such can happen] then God is not actively sovereign over all human actions." - name withheld

Time and again I've come across well-meaning Christians who use Scripture to prove that God is "sovereign" and then use the dictionary definition of the word "sovereign" to prove some other point. The author of the above quote, for example, believes that God's sovereignty is challenged if it is possible that something not to God's utmost delight occurs. He (and many others I've encountered) are convinced that if God is truly "sovereign", then it is impossible that anything other than His greatest delight could come to pass.

If He wants something to happen, it will happen, and thus, whatever has happened, God wanted it to happen.

But in actual fact rather than exalting God, this view demeans God, and strips Him off His ultimate power.

God is not much of a god if all He can create is a mechanism of a universe that operates flawlessly. Agreed - that is a mighty feat, and well beyond any human's capacity, but there are many heathen 'gods' who are attributed with this kind of power. The God of the Bible is more glorious. He creates a universe, and the very timespace continuum in which the universe hangs, but He goes one step further and does that which NO-ONE and NOTHING else can do. He creates choice.

He first gives choice to Adam. He then gives choice to Eve. Is choice a farce? Does God create a world in which Adam must inevitably sin? No - Adam's sin was wholly his own. Did it take God by surprise? No - God from His eternal perspective sees the course of human history all at once, and 'God' in any temporal perspective knows every possible outcome in every situation. Adam's sin does not take God by surprise, but Adam could have chosen not to sin.

God is not a one-act artist who lacks the creativity to envisage more than one outcome for His creation. Had Adam and Eve chosen differently - and God gave them the power to do so - the course of earth history would have been unrecognisably different. Would that have taken God by surprise? No - He still from His eternal perspective would have known their choices "in advance", and besides, He knows everything including every possible choice a human heart can make, whether an innocent or fallen heart. God would not have been taken by surprise if Adam had not sinned. God is not capable of being taken by surprise, but He is capable of putting real power to make real choices into the hands of sinless humanity.

Sinless humanity employed their real choice, to devestating consequence.

Was God's sovereignty threatened, abrogated, or in any way denied by man's voluntary disobedience? No! Man's sin was entirely his own, authored in no way by the Father of Light. Yet God's sovereignty was preserved, as both the lawful lawgiver and the capable judge. He is sovereign, as having the authority to set the rules. He is sovereign, having the power to reward those who obey and punish those who disobey. He is sovereign, having no flaw in His own righteousness by which any could charge Him with hypocrisy or partiality in judgement. Because His power is absolute, none can disobey and escape His judgement. But at least for Adam & Eve (and I believe also for the adversary of our souls), at least the first choice to sin was entirely of their own selves, not an inevitable outcome of God's handiwork in their lives.

To charge God with Adam & Eve's sin - to say that it was somehow the best and most glorious outcome He could envisage - is to say that He is sufficiently impotent as to be unable to create true choice, and further, that He is responsible then for all that has proceeded from Man's first sin (all manner of wickedness, including rape and murder and child sacrifice).

God is not the author of confusion. God is not the author of a humanity that was inevitably bound to create confusion. If God made a world that would inevitably go wrong, humans that would inevitably sin, then He authored the sin itself. You can't say "Sure I pulled the trigger, but I didn't kill him - the bullet did!". Responsibility is not only for direct actions, but the inevitable outcomes of those actions. Tie a man to a rock at low tide and blame the moon he drowns? Not so! You are guilty. And so is God, if Adam's sin was inevitable.

And so we return to the assertion that sparked this comment; the assertion held by so many who would be jealous for God's honour by defending His sovereignty, but who err by dreaming their own definition of God's sovereignty, instead of holding strictly to what Scripture says on the matter. God is sovereign. He is and has at all times been King over all of creation. He demonstrates His glory by not only having the right and power to rule, but by doing something none other can do, which is creating real choice. Real choice was given to Man; Man misused it; the course of human history was affected by man's choice (in that the course at that pre-Fall point was not inevitably pre-set by God); and in all of this, God remains sovereign. His sovereignty is insulted by we who break His rightful laws, but it is not His sovereignty that determined that Man would fall. It is His sovereignty that allowed and empowered Him to let a creature make a choice with eternal ramifications for himself and billions to come. Were He not sovereign, He could not have allowed any other to have power to choose, or else the course of history might have escaped His grasp, if but for a moment. Because He is sovereign; because His laws are just and rightful, and because He has the power to punish disobedience, and to force into instant submission any and all of His creatures and thwart the plans of men and angels; it is because of His total power and absolute mastery over creation and all His creatures that He can afford to give unfallen Man true choice. Were God not truly sovereign, it would be too great a risk. God demonstrates the greatness of His glory and His incomparable power by unafraid, unflinchingly, unperturbed by the possible outcomes, knowing that in any case His rightful rule will never be withstood one moment longer than He tolerates; God demonstrates His power and glory by creating undetermined choice and giving it to one of His creation.