Several points, complexity not needed just everything laid open in bare sight.
1) WALabor Party had everything on their side at the last state election. It resulted in a change of government, it put them in power. Not just in power but they rode a Tsunami red tidal change. Its said they had a plan to win government but really they didn't need much of a plan, all they needed to do was keep their nose clean and gently punch on. This they did and they were rewarded with a handsome majority in the Lower House largely gained at the expense of the Liberal Party (Lacking proper planning and then back flipping later)
2) Point one above needs some further clarification. They had very little of a plan to win Government and it's beginning to appear they have virtually no plan to run Government. The "Urban Medal" saga got deeper by day & more perculiar with each passing week. After 2o odd days, Barry Urban resigned from the Party and went on as an Independent. After being absent from Parliament for an extended period he came back, gave a quick speech which may actually get him into deeper water. Like Dastyari, it was not managed, leadership was absent all along. Dastyari did whatever so bad he could no longer stay in the Senate, but stays in the Labor Party. Urban so on the nose he had to leave the Labor Party but stayed in Parliament. Neither did anything so bad that the respective Labor Leaders saw fit to sack them. (Lacking Leadership)
3) With such a huge margin in the Lower House, Labor never ever needs all its MPs to even show up. Just on half of them will do. With such a huge electoral margin and with WALabor still thinking as if its in Election Mode, they know they only need to placate and ingratiate themselves with a majority of Perth based voters. Some of their MPs still operate as if they're opposition, especially the Regional Labor MPs. Its now the PerthLabor Party the regional MPs are outside the loop completely (City Centric Completely)4) School of the Air - What a debacle. Education is Labor given...until now. Millions of dollars going into metro schools, less so the bush. School of the Air wasn't just axed, it was done so without the PerthLabor Governments regional MPs being consulted or told. Josie Farrer in Broome didn't know. It gets worse, people using the service weren't told nor consulted either.
Now the decision has been made (in Perth by Perth) they will now allow stakeholders & the community to have the opportunity to speak with the Minister's department. Apparently to maybe "help come up with a name, possible name it School of the Air" (No stakeholder consultation at all, no community consultation at all)
So how are we going so far? We have a completely City Centric PerthLabor Government that makes decisions without consultation with the community & stakeholders. Their leadership is as absent as their plans. It is beginning to look like a pay back war against the regions whilst 2 of the biggest richest foreign owned mining companies remain the quarantined protected species when it comes to paying their fair share. Labor slices up regional & remote WA Education whilst pouring it into the metro area.
I'd expect Sue Ellery will be the first minister to lose her head...expect as in ordinarily.
I've not seen a Labor Government this bizarrely cobbled together. They're all over the place like a mad man's spit. Not to mention cut backs everywhere whilst they spend in the Metro Area like a drunken sailor. No pun intended upon the Premier who's ex Navy.
Notable amongst a thousand comparisons I could make...the Premier's own electorate, Rockingham gets $373,000 for local basketball. That's twice as much as the Regional & Labor held seat of Albany gets over 2 years for the Ice/Meth Recovery. Had Albany been Liberal or Nationals held I'd expect all cheques to be torn up.
Interesting that Labor promised the Motorplex Funding in Albany & the Ring Road Project. Might still be the case, but nothing announced yet.
We'll see. Interesting NatsWA spotted the SW Rescue Chopper had no funding at all. Labor decried that was false. It wasn't. The Labor said its normal budgeting process and would have read the same in the Budget were the Liberals in power. No true there was nothing in forward estimates. It was over. After a massive wave of regional anger, PerthLabor found money that apparently didn't exist before & funded it. Just as well, that chopper has been far too busy with search & rescue and car accident attendances.
PerthLabor Government is city centric & election focused whilst being without any real leadership nor desire to engage with stakeholders in the community. If there's light at the end of the tunnel...its a freight train with Mark McGowan as the train driver. Derailment ahead at some point
Sunday 31 December 2017
2018, The Left, The Progressives, THE Most Likely To...
Left vs Right and a few shades in between. Its been that simple for the casual observer forever but there's always been more complexity, always more devil in the detail.
In the US the progressives had latched onto images of women in a hijab (women choosing to wear the hijab) as an image portraying freedom of speech, religion, expression and even against intolerance & bigotry. It stands in stark contrast to women in Iran on this the first day of 2018 attending protests & taking off their head wear to protest against oppression as they view the hijab to be a symbol of oppression. Why? probably because the "progressives" aren't progressive, they twisted it to oppose everything they think s establishment. White & Christian in the USA.
Some of the US "progressives" fall deathly silent on Iran or claim its a sovereign matter for a foreign country. who knew the morality of women's rights are relative to national borders?
The irony is not lost on people of the right, people who usually take no interest in political matters and really not lost on those who genuinely are "progressives". Its part of the reason there are many progressives around the world who are leaving the left. If I was to have a wishful bet for 2018 I'd hope the Left has a proper ideological reformation and if not perhaps the right could so the real progressives in society have somewhere to actually go.
We're at a cross roads now & we've begun to see a small emerging trend, well I hope its a trend. I hope its a growing trend. I'm not exactly a total fan of Milo Y. but have to say when he first popped onto my own personal radar he'd been a big deal for a very long time in a lot of other places. I didn't know of him until 4 or 5 months prior to his 2017 visit to Australia. Interesting was the contradictions he brought to the front & centre of most people's viewing.
Labelled as an Anti-Semite, a homophobe and a racist. Turns out he didn't possess those facets of bigotry at all. We soon learnt he was gay married to a black man and was of Jewish descent. Turns out the intolerant nature he had was an intolerance for lack of facts or a deliberate depletion of facts when apparently self claiming "progressives" put forward an argument.
He was of course controversial and if you're on the talk circuit you need to be.
Not long after I stumbled upon Ben Shapiro. Ben is an American social commentator, has a show, is a very well educated, well credentialed graduate of Law. Seek him out on YouTube and his many area of controversy is..."facts don't care about feelings, stick with facts".
Neither he nor Milo will be 100% right on 100% of all things 100% of the time.
I am in Ben Shapiro's case having a hard time finding where he's tripped himself up yet.
In fact I haven't yet. Yes, he sticks close to the same areas and the same formula but these are areas which he's researched, grabbed the most centrally relevant facts and drops them as he finds them. They're not massaged, twist or where required omitted.
A full on argument with Ben Shapiro is not an argument with Ben Shaprio.
Its full on argument with facts where he happens to be the delivery guy.
Yes he puts a polished delivery on every nugget he drops but unlike Milo, its not grandiose showmanship to deliver the goods whilst spruiking the deliverer's brand.
Brand Milo is growing.
For 2 different reasons, two very different and at times differing people, Milo & Ben, may turn out to be two of the more influential people in 2018. Yes even though they're not kindred spirits they have commonalities.
They will be regard as being from the right, but because they're fact based genuine "progressives" who really are genuinely progressive will hear the penny drop from these to and leave the left.
Alt-Right, Hard left, Ultra Right, Leftist Progressives...all these shades of the two poles aren't helpful and hopefully we will see more people in Australia and see that the Liberal/Labor Duopoly of today & the last 20 years has been good & bad, but it hasn't been as good as it should be.
Labor Party is a funny outfit. It demonises the Liberals and anyone of the right for being more inclined to like things of an authoritarian nature. Union crushing, destroying anything non white Christian and corporate. Maybe some of that is true. But strangely the Labor party is a mini me of Socialist Russia long gone. In the Labor Party you can argue, but only behind closed doors and even then you better be very sparingly inclined to rock the boat or you'll be replaced. Cross the floor in parliament? Yep you will be expelled from the party & replaced by an approved and anointed devout follower from the coven.
Liberals not so? Well yes, but its less overt. Cross the floor is allowed but you know its career threatening. Not one MP from WA has ever really fought for GST reform in parliament, let alone even mentioned it in the House of Reps or the Senate.
Maybe so in 2018.
But be aware, a growing number of people are sick of political awareness that suppresses facts to protect feelings. Its a threat to both the left and the right.
This growing sentiment has the potential to bring some real reformation to both the left & the right...so it'll have an enormous amount of resistance.
I'm not pro Trump. He's been a buffoon and a clot with alarming regularity. He's created as much fake news & alternative facts as he's complained about. The weirdest thing is, under his watch, the real progressives who have chased facts over feelings have flourished. Its not a credit to him directly nor intentionally. Maybe its coincidental but it could never have happened under Bush, Clinton Obama or here under Turnbull, Abbott, Rudd or Gillard.
Maybe things under all these people just wore things down to where we are now, where people have stopped and looked for facts and they're winning.
Its only day one of the year and if this is a return to a properly real era of progressive thinking, well its day one also. You can expect massive push back from both Left & Right regressives.
Yes here's the oddity, it may not be a fight between Left & Right that is the most important, maybe the most dominant but not the most important.
The real important struggle will most likely be between the Progressives and Regressives.
Where I see personal attacks, comments on corruption without proof, claims of intolerance or being offended I know they're alternatives to facts and tell tale clues we're listening to a regressive.
Feminism, unionism are not dirty words, they good for society. So too is religion, faith & capitalism.
Race relations, feminism, capitalism, religion...all have been hijacked but intellectually bankrupt people and left their causes angered, bitter and hate fuelled in some circles. Good orators have the power to rouse fools to slaughter.
A good statesman however will be a fact based progressive who can lead through good times & dark times. Its been a while since we've seen great statesmen (and I used that term as gender neutral lest anyone be "offended").
The politician who devoutly follows the party dogma is a cult member ministering to the sinners he/she is wishing to convert or rule authority over if they cannot be converted.
Politics in WA & Australia as well as many other countries has Political cults with cult followers.
I'm hoping here on Day 1 of 2018 we may see more true & real Progressives progressive by name, nature & deeds to come to the fore. Real tolerance follows and an intolerance to ideals that are not of our own.
Happy 2018. Lets hope.
In the US the progressives had latched onto images of women in a hijab (women choosing to wear the hijab) as an image portraying freedom of speech, religion, expression and even against intolerance & bigotry. It stands in stark contrast to women in Iran on this the first day of 2018 attending protests & taking off their head wear to protest against oppression as they view the hijab to be a symbol of oppression. Why? probably because the "progressives" aren't progressive, they twisted it to oppose everything they think s establishment. White & Christian in the USA.
Some of the US "progressives" fall deathly silent on Iran or claim its a sovereign matter for a foreign country. who knew the morality of women's rights are relative to national borders?
The irony is not lost on people of the right, people who usually take no interest in political matters and really not lost on those who genuinely are "progressives". Its part of the reason there are many progressives around the world who are leaving the left. If I was to have a wishful bet for 2018 I'd hope the Left has a proper ideological reformation and if not perhaps the right could so the real progressives in society have somewhere to actually go.
We're at a cross roads now & we've begun to see a small emerging trend, well I hope its a trend. I hope its a growing trend. I'm not exactly a total fan of Milo Y. but have to say when he first popped onto my own personal radar he'd been a big deal for a very long time in a lot of other places. I didn't know of him until 4 or 5 months prior to his 2017 visit to Australia. Interesting was the contradictions he brought to the front & centre of most people's viewing.
Labelled as an Anti-Semite, a homophobe and a racist. Turns out he didn't possess those facets of bigotry at all. We soon learnt he was gay married to a black man and was of Jewish descent. Turns out the intolerant nature he had was an intolerance for lack of facts or a deliberate depletion of facts when apparently self claiming "progressives" put forward an argument.
He was of course controversial and if you're on the talk circuit you need to be.
Not long after I stumbled upon Ben Shapiro. Ben is an American social commentator, has a show, is a very well educated, well credentialed graduate of Law. Seek him out on YouTube and his many area of controversy is..."facts don't care about feelings, stick with facts".
Neither he nor Milo will be 100% right on 100% of all things 100% of the time.
I am in Ben Shapiro's case having a hard time finding where he's tripped himself up yet.
In fact I haven't yet. Yes, he sticks close to the same areas and the same formula but these are areas which he's researched, grabbed the most centrally relevant facts and drops them as he finds them. They're not massaged, twist or where required omitted.
A full on argument with Ben Shapiro is not an argument with Ben Shaprio.
Its full on argument with facts where he happens to be the delivery guy.
Yes he puts a polished delivery on every nugget he drops but unlike Milo, its not grandiose showmanship to deliver the goods whilst spruiking the deliverer's brand.
Brand Milo is growing.
For 2 different reasons, two very different and at times differing people, Milo & Ben, may turn out to be two of the more influential people in 2018. Yes even though they're not kindred spirits they have commonalities.
They will be regard as being from the right, but because they're fact based genuine "progressives" who really are genuinely progressive will hear the penny drop from these to and leave the left.
Alt-Right, Hard left, Ultra Right, Leftist Progressives...all these shades of the two poles aren't helpful and hopefully we will see more people in Australia and see that the Liberal/Labor Duopoly of today & the last 20 years has been good & bad, but it hasn't been as good as it should be.
Labor Party is a funny outfit. It demonises the Liberals and anyone of the right for being more inclined to like things of an authoritarian nature. Union crushing, destroying anything non white Christian and corporate. Maybe some of that is true. But strangely the Labor party is a mini me of Socialist Russia long gone. In the Labor Party you can argue, but only behind closed doors and even then you better be very sparingly inclined to rock the boat or you'll be replaced. Cross the floor in parliament? Yep you will be expelled from the party & replaced by an approved and anointed devout follower from the coven.
Liberals not so? Well yes, but its less overt. Cross the floor is allowed but you know its career threatening. Not one MP from WA has ever really fought for GST reform in parliament, let alone even mentioned it in the House of Reps or the Senate.
Maybe so in 2018.
But be aware, a growing number of people are sick of political awareness that suppresses facts to protect feelings. Its a threat to both the left and the right.
This growing sentiment has the potential to bring some real reformation to both the left & the right...so it'll have an enormous amount of resistance.
I'm not pro Trump. He's been a buffoon and a clot with alarming regularity. He's created as much fake news & alternative facts as he's complained about. The weirdest thing is, under his watch, the real progressives who have chased facts over feelings have flourished. Its not a credit to him directly nor intentionally. Maybe its coincidental but it could never have happened under Bush, Clinton Obama or here under Turnbull, Abbott, Rudd or Gillard.
Maybe things under all these people just wore things down to where we are now, where people have stopped and looked for facts and they're winning.
Its only day one of the year and if this is a return to a properly real era of progressive thinking, well its day one also. You can expect massive push back from both Left & Right regressives.
Yes here's the oddity, it may not be a fight between Left & Right that is the most important, maybe the most dominant but not the most important.
The real important struggle will most likely be between the Progressives and Regressives.
Where I see personal attacks, comments on corruption without proof, claims of intolerance or being offended I know they're alternatives to facts and tell tale clues we're listening to a regressive.
Feminism, unionism are not dirty words, they good for society. So too is religion, faith & capitalism.
Race relations, feminism, capitalism, religion...all have been hijacked but intellectually bankrupt people and left their causes angered, bitter and hate fuelled in some circles. Good orators have the power to rouse fools to slaughter.
A good statesman however will be a fact based progressive who can lead through good times & dark times. Its been a while since we've seen great statesmen (and I used that term as gender neutral lest anyone be "offended").
The politician who devoutly follows the party dogma is a cult member ministering to the sinners he/she is wishing to convert or rule authority over if they cannot be converted.
Politics in WA & Australia as well as many other countries has Political cults with cult followers.
I'm hoping here on Day 1 of 2018 we may see more true & real Progressives progressive by name, nature & deeds to come to the fore. Real tolerance follows and an intolerance to ideals that are not of our own.
Happy 2018. Lets hope.
Saturday 16 December 2017
The blurring of the Left & the Right & expelling poverty from society
What's right & what's wrong, what's right & what's left?
Terribly simple on the face of it however there's blurring everywhere, whether that should be or not is another thing but there is blurring...lots of it.
Recently seen one prominent WALabor MP get stuck into rural & regional voters stating "that was the fault of the previous state coalition government, now Labor has more regional MPs in WA than anyone else"
What was lacking on the end of that state, and for good reason, was "now regional people will see some real progress". It was left off with good reason because the fact is WALabor could have filled every rural seat but nothing will change. They are still going to be in the minority.
Here's a range of possible facts, first one is definite, the WALabor Government is in fact a truer coalition government than the previous Labor/National Government. For one thing, the NatsWA were minority partners and they weren't in coalition, they were in "partnership". With the traditional coalition arrangement, all members of the government despite their party had to fall into line behind the prevailing view of the government. A Nationals minister would be kicked out of cabinet if they crossed the floor. As we saw with the City of Perth Bill NatsWA saw that was going to cause harmful shire amalgamations in the bush they crossed the floor, it was lost. No doubt there was fall out but there's current Libs now see it was a bad bill for the bush. NatsWA refused to support the sale of the Fremantle Port. It will turn out to be a massive financial windfall in decades to come that ths asset was retained. Western Power, well the Nats put restrictions on this sale, most of which would have meant the sale was unlikely.
Now if a Labor Government were in place & was pushing the same government agendas or perhaps other Bills or initiatives that would be damaging to the bush, what happens in a WALabor government camp? Simple. In theory.
They vote behind closed doors and that's the way EVERY Labor MP will vote on the floor of parliament. No crossing the floor allowed. They have borrowed from the catholic church and dissent results in payback in the form of being ex-communicated from the party.
Right now School of the Air in WA is on the chopping block, so too are residential colleges in rural & regional areas. Is there a good result at the end of it that the 15 regional Labor MPs can point to?
No. They just say its regrettable and its the Liberal/National Party's fault. No austerity in Perth with $373,000 going into Basketball in the Premier's electorate (which by the way is more than the Albany Ice Rehab programme in Albany gets OVER 2 YEARS!!!).
A $125,000,000 marina in Labor held Joondalup to service the playground needs of the City's rich & tasteless.
Second fact, the current WALabor Government is actually more of a Coalition Government than the Lib/Nats. Its made up of several factions. There's the "left", there's the "progressives" and then there's the small group who claim to be factionless.
Which ever group rules the day on a particular issue, those of a differing view cannot speak out against the decided stance, they cannot partake in "back bench grumblings" and they certainly cannot cross the floor.
Payback is swift if that happens. EXPULSION FROM THE PARTY and the party labels them a treacherous disgrace of a rat.
Irrespective of the methods, all do as the majority says and dictates, there will be no dissent. They can claim to have fought hard behind closed doors, but there is absolutely no way of knowing and no one within will take efforts to prove it. Its topic avoidance if it is raised.
Tactic 1 to 365...blame the previous government or the current opposition.
Here there is no blurring. Its their way & no other option. Who they are is another murky question but its not regional Labor MPs way & its not regional resident's way either.
Blurring of the left does happen when they pursue the Gold Tax (when they said in opposition they wouldn't) they pursue it twice whilst the massively wealthy foreign owned Rio Tinto & BHP still only 25c a tonne on the special mining rental fee. A fee that's been never been changed since 1963. It was agreed to waive it the first 15 years and later it was forward paid to get infrastructure they were going to use up & running. It can be changed without too much trouble.
Not very left, looks like (and I'll borrow this from the leftist handbook to further underline the irony) "book licking the big end of town bedfellows".
What's this fluid approach do to other issues like poverty that apparently are supposed to be big on Labor's radar? Well nothing its ignored as single pensioners get a 30% increase in their power bill soon ( https://thewest.com.au/politics/state-politics/power-prices-pensioners-hit-hard-by-mcgowan-government-increases-secret-documents-show-ng-b88643505z )
How's that "left thing" going?
Aboriginal poverty line? All cactus with no plan just a steady diet & "look over there" distraction tactics identity politics and previous government is to blame not us tricks.
What could we do to reduce poverty? Push & encourage 3 things and you don't force people you educate them. You show them there is a very simple way to get out of poverty. Just follow 3 very simple rules and your chances are elevated hugely.
1) Finish high school and actually try to do very well (if you can get more education after that that helps all the better, but at the very least get yourself properly through High School
2) Get a job & stay employed. What ever it is really isn't the biggest deal just get employed and stay employed. All honest work is noble, you need to chase & attain noble. Only qualified to do labouring jobs but you want an office job? Well no one is 100% assured of working physically in a labouring job til they're 70. At some point you need to get more part time training to get up the ladder to where you need or want to be. No point sitting on the dole because your garage band can't get a record deal. Go to work.
3) Get married BEFORE you have kids. Its not shaming single mothers or single fathers but the best family unit is two married parents in a stable household. Its very unfortunate then if someone ends up a single parent, but raising kids out of wedlock on your own is incredibly hard and whilst there are success stories, nowhere near as many as strong married households...especially ones that consider Finishing high school and getting a job is an imperative.
"Typical right wing rant from white middle class privilege town" will no doubt be the reply in fact I've heard it. There blurring is odd in that yes US Conservative commentators like Ben Shapiro do quote this & therefore it does trigger some leftists into a hate frenzy.
Odd part is, it comes from a study by the Brookings Institute in the USA which is a very left leaning think tank.
You saw that yeah? Left leaning...not conservative. Brookings institute is left leaning yet its seen that the study produces the facts that prove these conservative values are actually better for people and society by reducing poverty, increasing confidence, self worth and productivity across the board.
How much?
75% of people who do those 3 things will end up in the middle class & only 2% of the people who do those 3 things will end up in staying in poverty.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6rYasjPY2U
That's the 3 simple steps that in the vast number of cases.
Edward DeBono coined the phrase "Arrogance Arguing" where a person in a debate will either hide or withhold facts that damage their own argument. Its one of the reasons why I'm not a fan of debating ala "school debate" style. The position is predetermined and then you seek out that which benefits your chance of winning the argument rather than what's best for the majority.
We have a massive tear in the moral fabric of our Australian society. Correcting these problems would far easily be achieved if nearly all of the population adhered to the 3 rules.
"But its not that simple"
No it isn't, its extremely difficult, however that is the best pathway for the majority of society and being difficult should not be a barrier.
It is the thing though. Political parties are school debaters, which is why we've seen so many lawyers in state & federal parliament. They're great performers in debates. If policies were music, these debaters would sell millions of records for their party. But its this convenient dropping of facts & blurring the left/right lines that is the problem. If you're going to blur the lines it should not be to beat the other side, it should be to gain the best outcome for the society.
No seeing eagerness in the WALabor camp here.
Terribly simple on the face of it however there's blurring everywhere, whether that should be or not is another thing but there is blurring...lots of it.
Recently seen one prominent WALabor MP get stuck into rural & regional voters stating "that was the fault of the previous state coalition government, now Labor has more regional MPs in WA than anyone else"
What was lacking on the end of that state, and for good reason, was "now regional people will see some real progress". It was left off with good reason because the fact is WALabor could have filled every rural seat but nothing will change. They are still going to be in the minority.
Here's a range of possible facts, first one is definite, the WALabor Government is in fact a truer coalition government than the previous Labor/National Government. For one thing, the NatsWA were minority partners and they weren't in coalition, they were in "partnership". With the traditional coalition arrangement, all members of the government despite their party had to fall into line behind the prevailing view of the government. A Nationals minister would be kicked out of cabinet if they crossed the floor. As we saw with the City of Perth Bill NatsWA saw that was going to cause harmful shire amalgamations in the bush they crossed the floor, it was lost. No doubt there was fall out but there's current Libs now see it was a bad bill for the bush. NatsWA refused to support the sale of the Fremantle Port. It will turn out to be a massive financial windfall in decades to come that ths asset was retained. Western Power, well the Nats put restrictions on this sale, most of which would have meant the sale was unlikely.
Now if a Labor Government were in place & was pushing the same government agendas or perhaps other Bills or initiatives that would be damaging to the bush, what happens in a WALabor government camp? Simple. In theory.
They vote behind closed doors and that's the way EVERY Labor MP will vote on the floor of parliament. No crossing the floor allowed. They have borrowed from the catholic church and dissent results in payback in the form of being ex-communicated from the party.
Right now School of the Air in WA is on the chopping block, so too are residential colleges in rural & regional areas. Is there a good result at the end of it that the 15 regional Labor MPs can point to?
No. They just say its regrettable and its the Liberal/National Party's fault. No austerity in Perth with $373,000 going into Basketball in the Premier's electorate (which by the way is more than the Albany Ice Rehab programme in Albany gets OVER 2 YEARS!!!).
A $125,000,000 marina in Labor held Joondalup to service the playground needs of the City's rich & tasteless.
Second fact, the current WALabor Government is actually more of a Coalition Government than the Lib/Nats. Its made up of several factions. There's the "left", there's the "progressives" and then there's the small group who claim to be factionless.
Which ever group rules the day on a particular issue, those of a differing view cannot speak out against the decided stance, they cannot partake in "back bench grumblings" and they certainly cannot cross the floor.
Payback is swift if that happens. EXPULSION FROM THE PARTY and the party labels them a treacherous disgrace of a rat.
Irrespective of the methods, all do as the majority says and dictates, there will be no dissent. They can claim to have fought hard behind closed doors, but there is absolutely no way of knowing and no one within will take efforts to prove it. Its topic avoidance if it is raised.
Tactic 1 to 365...blame the previous government or the current opposition.
Here there is no blurring. Its their way & no other option. Who they are is another murky question but its not regional Labor MPs way & its not regional resident's way either.
Blurring of the left does happen when they pursue the Gold Tax (when they said in opposition they wouldn't) they pursue it twice whilst the massively wealthy foreign owned Rio Tinto & BHP still only 25c a tonne on the special mining rental fee. A fee that's been never been changed since 1963. It was agreed to waive it the first 15 years and later it was forward paid to get infrastructure they were going to use up & running. It can be changed without too much trouble.
Not very left, looks like (and I'll borrow this from the leftist handbook to further underline the irony) "book licking the big end of town bedfellows".
What's this fluid approach do to other issues like poverty that apparently are supposed to be big on Labor's radar? Well nothing its ignored as single pensioners get a 30% increase in their power bill soon ( https://thewest.com.au/politics/state-politics/power-prices-pensioners-hit-hard-by-mcgowan-government-increases-secret-documents-show-ng-b88643505z )
How's that "left thing" going?
Aboriginal poverty line? All cactus with no plan just a steady diet & "look over there" distraction tactics identity politics and previous government is to blame not us tricks.
What could we do to reduce poverty? Push & encourage 3 things and you don't force people you educate them. You show them there is a very simple way to get out of poverty. Just follow 3 very simple rules and your chances are elevated hugely.
1) Finish high school and actually try to do very well (if you can get more education after that that helps all the better, but at the very least get yourself properly through High School
2) Get a job & stay employed. What ever it is really isn't the biggest deal just get employed and stay employed. All honest work is noble, you need to chase & attain noble. Only qualified to do labouring jobs but you want an office job? Well no one is 100% assured of working physically in a labouring job til they're 70. At some point you need to get more part time training to get up the ladder to where you need or want to be. No point sitting on the dole because your garage band can't get a record deal. Go to work.
3) Get married BEFORE you have kids. Its not shaming single mothers or single fathers but the best family unit is two married parents in a stable household. Its very unfortunate then if someone ends up a single parent, but raising kids out of wedlock on your own is incredibly hard and whilst there are success stories, nowhere near as many as strong married households...especially ones that consider Finishing high school and getting a job is an imperative.
"Typical right wing rant from white middle class privilege town" will no doubt be the reply in fact I've heard it. There blurring is odd in that yes US Conservative commentators like Ben Shapiro do quote this & therefore it does trigger some leftists into a hate frenzy.
Odd part is, it comes from a study by the Brookings Institute in the USA which is a very left leaning think tank.
You saw that yeah? Left leaning...not conservative. Brookings institute is left leaning yet its seen that the study produces the facts that prove these conservative values are actually better for people and society by reducing poverty, increasing confidence, self worth and productivity across the board.
How much?
75% of people who do those 3 things will end up in the middle class & only 2% of the people who do those 3 things will end up in staying in poverty.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6rYasjPY2U
That's the 3 simple steps that in the vast number of cases.
Edward DeBono coined the phrase "Arrogance Arguing" where a person in a debate will either hide or withhold facts that damage their own argument. Its one of the reasons why I'm not a fan of debating ala "school debate" style. The position is predetermined and then you seek out that which benefits your chance of winning the argument rather than what's best for the majority.
We have a massive tear in the moral fabric of our Australian society. Correcting these problems would far easily be achieved if nearly all of the population adhered to the 3 rules.
"But its not that simple"
No it isn't, its extremely difficult, however that is the best pathway for the majority of society and being difficult should not be a barrier.
It is the thing though. Political parties are school debaters, which is why we've seen so many lawyers in state & federal parliament. They're great performers in debates. If policies were music, these debaters would sell millions of records for their party. But its this convenient dropping of facts & blurring the left/right lines that is the problem. If you're going to blur the lines it should not be to beat the other side, it should be to gain the best outcome for the society.
No seeing eagerness in the WALabor camp here.
Monday 27 November 2017
Good Debt, Bad Debt
Here's some "Bleeding Obvious Hidden In Plain View"
1) Is too much bad for you? Yes that's what too much means.
2) There's good time for borrowing, a bad time for borrowing but there is never ever ever a bad time for paying debt off.
That's the bleeding obvious that's over looked, forgotten or obscured when the market is artificially distorted...such is the case now.
Interest rates have been going down and then frozen for a very long time. Here's an explanatory chart and although you'll see there has been a few spikes since 1989, it has as a trend line been declining since 1989. So what's normal? Well its always going to vary, there is no set normal. There's many influences on the economy and interest rates is only one of them, but the effects of interest rates on the average Australian is probably one of the most prominent.
1989's 17% was not what should be normal but it was what it was and if you had a mortgage then, or a loan as a business some of you were paying 25%. It had to go to that mad extreme but it wasn't sustainable, something had to give. Many did go broke.
If you think the current interest rates are the "new norm" you are very much mistaken and possibly in financial peril as interest rates rise. And they will rise.Whilst we can & have intervened and stall the changes, these artificial stall points are temporary and the longer we stall the changes the worse the transition will be.
At present many people are already suffering mortgage stress and default.
If we get 4 interest rate rises in a row then many economists will claim its the economy growing and in some respects that's right & wrong. They will remain very positive through those first four rises (when they do come) even though its going to wipe some borrowers out, push some close to default & possible bankruptcy.
If your loan cannot survive a 3% rise in interest rates then your loan is probably unsustainable even though you're not in default now. If interest rates rise soon, they will probably only rise .25% in a month. Now when they last dropped banks were very reluctant to pass on savings to lenders. Now when they rise, you can expect them to be passed on in full, probably plus some. They'll be passed on not just swiftly, more likely immediately.
Right now there has never ever been a better time to pay off debt.
Be mindful, interest rates do influence the housing market prices and as interest rates do rise, the housing sales/prices will stall then fall reducing people's equity in their home or investment property and making their loan more unsustainable.
People will either personally know, or know of others that were offered more cheap lending as property prices grew in recent years. As property prices grew banks realised that people's equity grew so more debt could be sold to them...or in other words, more product sold to consumers.
It was fine over the short term but over the long term unsustainable & artificial. It may well curve back sometime soon. Sooner than we think and not doubt harder than we think.
And here we sit, peril is on its way and like every other bubble we've seen before many will be caught unawares. Totally unaware and afterwards many economists caught unaware will say they read the signs before but no one listened.
We've seen busts before and its often come a year or two after the first smart people send up the warning flares. The really smart money will be paying off and/or converting some of it into cash.
So if you have big debt will it survive interest rises?
If it can't survive a rise of 3% now then its definitely time to get your equity up as fast as you possibly can so the bigger rises will be survivable.
It is the problem that people complain that young people's literacy and numeracy is not what it should be, but doing sums is just one part. We rarely see financial literacy taught in schools.
If we're to future proof the nation going forward we have to have greater financial literacy so those least likely to afford losses can avoid them.
The next financial wave is coming. Spot & pick your 5 favourite economists you see on social media or in the media, find their comments on the economy's state of health...and screen shot it.
It'll make a heck of a travelling picture over an extended period leading up to the upcoming "correction"
Interest rates have been manipulated by the reserve bank for good reasons, but holding them down has had the negative side effect that the housing market has been largely distorted into higher unsustainable prices.
In Sydney the stories are rife that investors dominant the housing market and people who want to actually just buy & live in their own home cannot compete.
Nothing stays the same, except the same old changes & the timing of the changes and the severity.
Now is the time to consolidate and position yourself financially in a better place for the impending thud.
There has never been a better time to pay off debt.
The banks won't like it, but your job is to best position yourself, not subsidise banks.
1) Is too much bad for you? Yes that's what too much means.
2) There's good time for borrowing, a bad time for borrowing but there is never ever ever a bad time for paying debt off.
That's the bleeding obvious that's over looked, forgotten or obscured when the market is artificially distorted...such is the case now.
Interest rates have been going down and then frozen for a very long time. Here's an explanatory chart and although you'll see there has been a few spikes since 1989, it has as a trend line been declining since 1989. So what's normal? Well its always going to vary, there is no set normal. There's many influences on the economy and interest rates is only one of them, but the effects of interest rates on the average Australian is probably one of the most prominent.
1989's 17% was not what should be normal but it was what it was and if you had a mortgage then, or a loan as a business some of you were paying 25%. It had to go to that mad extreme but it wasn't sustainable, something had to give. Many did go broke.
If you think the current interest rates are the "new norm" you are very much mistaken and possibly in financial peril as interest rates rise. And they will rise.Whilst we can & have intervened and stall the changes, these artificial stall points are temporary and the longer we stall the changes the worse the transition will be.
At present many people are already suffering mortgage stress and default.
If we get 4 interest rate rises in a row then many economists will claim its the economy growing and in some respects that's right & wrong. They will remain very positive through those first four rises (when they do come) even though its going to wipe some borrowers out, push some close to default & possible bankruptcy.
If your loan cannot survive a 3% rise in interest rates then your loan is probably unsustainable even though you're not in default now. If interest rates rise soon, they will probably only rise .25% in a month. Now when they last dropped banks were very reluctant to pass on savings to lenders. Now when they rise, you can expect them to be passed on in full, probably plus some. They'll be passed on not just swiftly, more likely immediately.
Right now there has never ever been a better time to pay off debt.
Be mindful, interest rates do influence the housing market prices and as interest rates do rise, the housing sales/prices will stall then fall reducing people's equity in their home or investment property and making their loan more unsustainable.
People will either personally know, or know of others that were offered more cheap lending as property prices grew in recent years. As property prices grew banks realised that people's equity grew so more debt could be sold to them...or in other words, more product sold to consumers.
It was fine over the short term but over the long term unsustainable & artificial. It may well curve back sometime soon. Sooner than we think and not doubt harder than we think.
And here we sit, peril is on its way and like every other bubble we've seen before many will be caught unawares. Totally unaware and afterwards many economists caught unaware will say they read the signs before but no one listened.
We've seen busts before and its often come a year or two after the first smart people send up the warning flares. The really smart money will be paying off and/or converting some of it into cash.
So if you have big debt will it survive interest rises?
If it can't survive a rise of 3% now then its definitely time to get your equity up as fast as you possibly can so the bigger rises will be survivable.
It is the problem that people complain that young people's literacy and numeracy is not what it should be, but doing sums is just one part. We rarely see financial literacy taught in schools.
If we're to future proof the nation going forward we have to have greater financial literacy so those least likely to afford losses can avoid them.
The next financial wave is coming. Spot & pick your 5 favourite economists you see on social media or in the media, find their comments on the economy's state of health...and screen shot it.
It'll make a heck of a travelling picture over an extended period leading up to the upcoming "correction"
Interest rates have been manipulated by the reserve bank for good reasons, but holding them down has had the negative side effect that the housing market has been largely distorted into higher unsustainable prices.
In Sydney the stories are rife that investors dominant the housing market and people who want to actually just buy & live in their own home cannot compete.
Nothing stays the same, except the same old changes & the timing of the changes and the severity.
Now is the time to consolidate and position yourself financially in a better place for the impending thud.
There has never been a better time to pay off debt.
The banks won't like it, but your job is to best position yourself, not subsidise banks.
Friday 24 November 2017
I got called out on Exegesis view...
So a view was expressed on the Twitter-Spitter and I was called out. My view is pretty simple. You're either Christian or you're not & enjoy the privilege of free will and free choice. Thing is changing God's Word so "Christianity" lines up with you and your lifestyle or preferred temporal view isn't very genuine. Its fake and its not Christian.
Its super simple, Scripture interprets Scripture and using out of context false exegesis don't make it so. So a fellow named Stephen called me out said
"Fine. So instead of making general comments, criticise the analysis with alternate facts. You can't, of course, so you won't"
Well it being twitter bit hard to go deeper but seeing he called me out here it is. Below is just some of Stephen's blog titled "Why is the Church Anti-Gay - Well This Is What I Think"
Half right & wrong already. Wrong= The Church is not Anti-Gay, if it follow Scripture properly we're all sinners...all. The Word of God explicitly warns against getting involved with homosexual acts. Bit of a difference. The church is anti drugs, murder, adultery, drunkenness, theft...but its not against those people who have done those sins and have turned away from them (as Scripture instructs).
Sin & Sinner are two different things. As for the half right bit... Right= "Well This Is What I Think"
Yes its what he thinks, not what Scripture actually says.
There's the big mistake. A Christian is supposed to be Berean like, checking the Scriptures daily to see if it is so, Stephen is more concerned with what he thinks. He has used Scripture but sparingly, selectively and even then used out of context exegesis to get the Scripture twisted enough to get it say what he has otherwise decided he wants it too. But anyway in brackets is the entire blog of Stephen's ( https://wellthisiswhatithink.com/2017/04/26/why-is-the-church-anti-gay-if-the-bible-isnt/amp/ )
I'll leave his blog "article" below in black & answer in Red. To be honest be pro Gay or anti gay or Christian or atheist its really up to the individual. You just shouldn't twist a belief system so it fits your own personal needs. That's false church territory and Stephen maybe should do a Bible Study on 7 Letters to 7 Churches. Here Stephen starts...
Many ordinary Christians are deeply conflicted by their desire to embrace homosexual brethren in the fellowship of the church, when some of their leaders are telling them that these people are sinners.
They are sinners. We all are. Bible is very clear it is an abomination. Its a sin and if you continue to practice any sin then you're not really a Christian. Christians are ALL sinners, all. Their real difference is they are Saved. To be saved they have done what they're supposed to do to be saved. Accept Christ as Lord & Saviour, that He died on the cross for our sins, repent of sins and turn away from your sins. That's it in a very small nutshell.
If you're still keen to keep sinning then its not repentant and you're not saved. There are saved sinners and lost sinners. Christian aim is to not be the latter.
Numbers of people feel very discomfited by the current debate.
Pastors are to preach the Good News not change things to make it more comfortable.
So what is the “Biblical” teaching on gays?
Opponents of homosexuality almost always treat scripture as being “literally true” in a historical sense. Certainly, that is the case currently.
And straight away Stephen falls foul of his own thinking. He mentioned he has a Theology Degree. Not sure from where but its not helping. When people ask "Do you read the Bible literally?" my answer is simple "I literally read it seriously"
Some parts are meant to be read literally some aren't. There is over 200 literary devices being used in the Scriptures. Stories, allegories, history, types, shadows, fore shadows...
Read the literal bits literally...read it all properly
It follows, therefore, that any rebuttal of their claims should also adhere to this assumption, if it is to convince them that they are wrong.
God's Word is right and its us that is likely to be wrong. Use Scripture properly and find God's meaning not a pre-decided position. Its not about who of us is right or wrong, its about whether or not we're reading and using God's Word properly
I personally believe the early stories in the Bible are no more “literally” true than ancient Norse myths.
Our personal view isn't using Scripture to prove Scripture. Norse gods are non relevant and non related. If you're supposedly a Christian scholar and you're using false gods to prove the Judaeo-Christian God is what you'd prefer Him to be there's a big problem ahead.
But I am prepared to put that aside for one moment, and consider this issue under the rules that the “literalists” would apply, because many argue that the oft-trotted-out “Biblical” case against homosexuality simply doesn’t appear to “stack up”.
This is going to go from bad to worse I think...
Genesis 19: 1-28
The ancient story of Sodom and Gomorrah has been used throughout the centuries as a condemnation of homosexuality, to the point where anal sex is referred to as “Sodomy”.
And that’s the problem. It’s become a cliché. We assume it’s true, because it’s been around so long.
Check the New Testament 2Peter 2:6 & others. The apostles mention it as was a real event that happen to real cities. According to Scripture it happened.
The verses in this story most commonly referred to as proof that the Sodomites were homosexual are verses 4 and 5: “Before they could lie down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, surrounded the house,from boy to old man, all the people in one mob. And they kept calling out to Lot and saying to him: ‘Where are the men who came in to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have intercourse with them.”
Examining this scripture, the first thing we see is that all the people, in one mob, demanded that Lot bring out the visitors to them. If we are to believe that the account of Sodom & Gomorrah is a condemnation of homosexuality, then we must also accept the conclusion that the entire city consisted of homosexuals.
What Scripture was clear about was the entire population was depraved, from boy to man they wanted sex with the 2 strangers. Other verses show God's view on homosexual acts. Its not difficult.
Now if Stephen or anyone else wants a short cut go here to get some Bible Study done, read up and go to a Bible Study group instead of making things up https://www.gotquestions.org/New-Testament-homosexuality.html
But if we look in the previous chapter, Genesis 18: 16-33, we see an account of Abraham negotiating with God to spare the people of Sodom, with the final outcome of God promising “I shall not bring it to ruin on account of the ten” (verse 33).
God promised Abraham that Sodom would not be destroyed if only ten “righteous men” could be found I the city.
If we are to accept the previous logic, this would mean that the “righteous men” referred to were, per se, heterosexuals.
No depraved, homosexuality would have been just one of the depraved acts God was against. Were they all homosexual? We don't know, we know they were ALL depraved except Lot & his family. We know all from boy to man gathered at the house to have sex with the 2 strangers. Notice, "BOY" to man...there's children then. All Sodom are not strict homosexuals they are breeding as well...but they are all depraved.
Now it is a matter of Biblical “fact” that God (or rather, his angels) didn’t find anyone at all worth saving. But at this point, we then need to ask ourselves: what would be the odds of less than ten people in the entire region of Sodom & Gomorrah being heterosexual?
The obvious answer is “impossible”, of course.
Well they found Lot & his family...but no not 10 men. Impossible? Ok you know what is and isn't possible with all people from 1000s of years ago and God from all time. Big big call...and false.
If for no other reason than to ask, “where did all the population come from?” They were all gay immigrants, presumably, begat by parents left behind in other places that were heteroesexual? We think not.
Seriously? Depraved committing depraved acts in defiance of God...doesn't exclude breeding.
So if homosexuality was not being referred to in this passage, then what was? Looking at the scriptures in Hebrew, we find an interesting usage of a couple of different words.
When the mob cries out “Where are the men who came in to you tonight?”, the Hebrew word that is customarily translated men is actually ‘enowsh which, literally translated, means “mortal” or “human”.
No it doesn't it means "male human being"
This indicates that the mob knew that Lot had visitors, but were unsure of what sex they were.
We can divine this because the Hebrew word for “man” (utilized in this same passage in Genesis 19:8) is entirely different. And one really has to ask: why would homosexuals want to have sex with two strangers if they were unsure of what sex they were?
They knew, just possibly didn't know they were angels. The city was depraved, utterly & totally...that's why it was totally destroyed. You know that right?
Trying hard to disbelieve what the text clearly spells out.
The passage translated as “Bring them out so that we may have intercourse with them” needs further examination as well.
Other Bible translations read “so that we may know them”. The Hebrew word that is commonly translated as “have intercourse”, or “know” is yada.
But this word, yada, appears in the Hebrew Scriptures a total of 943 times. And in all but ten of these usages, the word is used in the context of getting acquainted with someone.
Had the writer intended for his reading audience to believe that the mob wanted to have sexual intercourse with the strangers, he could simply have used the Hebrew word shakab, which vividly denotes sexual activity.
Many people argue, therefore, that the correct translation should be rendered something to the effect of: “Where are the people who came in to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may get acquainted with them.”
So then, if the story of Sodom & Gomorrah was not a condemnation of homosexuality, what was it trying to convey?
It was convicted of vile depravity...that's why it was destroyed, they showed their depravity by wanting to have sex with the 2 strangers...from boy to man from the city.
The denial here is strong...but facts of Scripture is very clear.
Two verses in Exekiel sum up the story this way: “Look! This is what proved to be the error of Sodom your sister: Pride, sufficiency of bread and the carefreeness of keeping undisturbed were what happened to belong to her and her dependent towns, and the hand of the afflicted one and the poor one she did not strengthen. And they continued to be haughty and to carry on a detestable thing before me, and I finally removed them, just as I saw [fit]”. (Ezekiel 16: 49, 50.)
It is commonly assumed, because we’re referring to Sodom, that the “detestable thing” referred to in this passage is homosexuality.
But in fact, the Hebrew word utilized here is tow’ebah, which translated literally means “to commit idol worship”.
No it doesn't - It means detestable things abominations, ( https://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/hebrew/nas/towebah.html )
This is half the problem the view is set before the explanation is deliberately created. In regards to idol worship, remove God and anything that takes up the vacuum is an idol. Idol worship doesn't just mean a carved statue or an obelisk. Its anything that separates you from God or replaces God.
Its beginning to get very sad at this point...
This can be seen in the original Genesis passage, chapter 19, verse 8: “Please, here I have two daughters who have never had intercourse with a man. Please let me bring them out to you. Then do to them as is good in your eyes.”
One has to ask: If Lot’s house was surrounded by homosexuals, which presumably he’d know as everyone in the entire region was gay apart from him and his family, why would he offer the mob women?
They weren't gay they were utterly & completely depraved. Sex is clearly and specifically designed for within the confines of marriage. That's a man and a woman. Anything else is adultery. Having a mistress, a prostitute, a rent boy, a lover of any sort is adultery. 2 men couldn't marry back then so homosexuality is adultery. DeFacto relationships were adultery.
The New Testament is very clear on this and homosexual acts.
Note also that these women were virgins. And that the Sodomites were pagans.
Virgin sacrifices to idols were a common practice in this era. Therefore, it can easily be concluded that Lot was offering his daughters as a virgin sacrifice to appease the mob in an effort to protect the visitors.
Easily concluded if you ignore the Scriptures completely and decided a personal assumption is valid explanation. Sorry duded out again
In the Greek scriptures, the story of Sodom is summed up this way: “and by reducing the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them, setting a pattern for ungodly persons of things to come”.
This corroborates Ezekiel’s summation, once again showing that these were “ungodly persons”; in other words, idolaters, they were not worshippers of the true God.
If we have difficulty with the logic of 100% of any population being gay, can we rather believe in 100% of a population being adherents of a particular pagan cult? Yes, we certainly can. If for no other reason that there was no tolerance of those who didn’t share pagan beliefs in many early societies. Not to agree was to invite exclusion or execution. You were in, or you were out. The Jews themselves exercise this attitude continually throughout the Old Testament.
Utter rubbish twisted like a wet rag. Lot & his family were not depraved like the rest of the city, that's why they were saved. This is a massive and detailed conclusion based on no data or evidence at all.
Dangerous lack of exegesis & personally concocted.
So the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, therefore, is almost certainly intended as a condemnation of idol worshippers, and of a greedy and inhospitable society that sought to treat visitors in a threatening manner – which was also a sin, to the early Jews, by the way.
Many people argue, therefore, that it is perfectly reasonable to propose that this key text on the judgement of this region had nothing, absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality!
Some people argue the earth is flat but that's a load of rubbish too.
In all these cases verses are selected in isolation and twisted with false premise to provide a false version of what was being said...to suit someone who isn't God but is wanting to modify Him to suit their own view lifestyle.
They could just be honest & say I'm Christian and the Bible is very clear about wanting sinners, all sinners (including homosexuals) to turn from their sin and find salvation through Christ or...
Or perhaps be honest and say they're not Christians, they don't believe in god, they reject the bible and think anyone can do whatever they want to do as long as no one gets hurt or no law is broken.
Changing the Bible to Vers. 2.0 to suit your own pre-suppositional view is appalling.
All the while there's a dozen verses that have been side stepped completely...
1Corinthians 6:9-10.
9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous2 will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: xneither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.Have to confess, there's more to the twisted Scripture filled "article" and I've only brought half of it across. Poor Hebrew transliteration, twisted interpretation with no sola scriptura exegesis...its not going to get any better.
Make up your mind, be a Christian and read, use Scripture properly with proper in context exegesis or go do your own thing away from the Word without twisting it to suit your own idol filled motivations. Stephen may be a top bloke, who knows but he's not just got the wrong end of the stick, the stick is a snake and he's using it to lecture other people about sticks.
I understand he works for an advertising agency.
Somehow I think the claimed theology degree was either lost, non existent or wasted.
Now if Stephen wants to return volley I guess we can deconstruct the rest of the blog.
At that point it'll be the same, God's Word compared to "his" view of what "he" thinks God meant.
If homosexuality is not a sin against God, as Stephen suggests then he needs to do a blog on why it is that God owes Sodom & Gomorrah an apology.
Now if you're gay and you have decided to stay gay, in a gay lifestyle with your gay partner that is entirely up to you. Its not my place to call you a good or bad person because of your choice. But if you alter God's Word to suit your own lifestyle then yes you are pretty bad. The Bible is also pretty clear about false churches and there are many out there. Far too many. Most of them will fail as churches and we should just call them civic clubs.
If a religion cannot properly live by its own teachings then it should be stripped of its "church" status.
Its super simple, Scripture interprets Scripture and using out of context false exegesis don't make it so. So a fellow named Stephen called me out said
"Fine. So instead of making general comments, criticise the analysis with alternate facts. You can't, of course, so you won't"
Well it being twitter bit hard to go deeper but seeing he called me out here it is. Below is just some of Stephen's blog titled "Why is the Church Anti-Gay - Well This Is What I Think"
Half right & wrong already. Wrong= The Church is not Anti-Gay, if it follow Scripture properly we're all sinners...all. The Word of God explicitly warns against getting involved with homosexual acts. Bit of a difference. The church is anti drugs, murder, adultery, drunkenness, theft...but its not against those people who have done those sins and have turned away from them (as Scripture instructs).
Sin & Sinner are two different things. As for the half right bit... Right= "Well This Is What I Think"
Yes its what he thinks, not what Scripture actually says.
There's the big mistake. A Christian is supposed to be Berean like, checking the Scriptures daily to see if it is so, Stephen is more concerned with what he thinks. He has used Scripture but sparingly, selectively and even then used out of context exegesis to get the Scripture twisted enough to get it say what he has otherwise decided he wants it too. But anyway in brackets is the entire blog of Stephen's ( https://wellthisiswhatithink.com/2017/04/26/why-is-the-church-anti-gay-if-the-bible-isnt/amp/ )
I'll leave his blog "article" below in black & answer in Red. To be honest be pro Gay or anti gay or Christian or atheist its really up to the individual. You just shouldn't twist a belief system so it fits your own personal needs. That's false church territory and Stephen maybe should do a Bible Study on 7 Letters to 7 Churches. Here Stephen starts...
Many ordinary Christians are deeply conflicted by their desire to embrace homosexual brethren in the fellowship of the church, when some of their leaders are telling them that these people are sinners.
They are sinners. We all are. Bible is very clear it is an abomination. Its a sin and if you continue to practice any sin then you're not really a Christian. Christians are ALL sinners, all. Their real difference is they are Saved. To be saved they have done what they're supposed to do to be saved. Accept Christ as Lord & Saviour, that He died on the cross for our sins, repent of sins and turn away from your sins. That's it in a very small nutshell.
If you're still keen to keep sinning then its not repentant and you're not saved. There are saved sinners and lost sinners. Christian aim is to not be the latter.
Numbers of people feel very discomfited by the current debate.
Pastors are to preach the Good News not change things to make it more comfortable.
So what is the “Biblical” teaching on gays?
Opponents of homosexuality almost always treat scripture as being “literally true” in a historical sense. Certainly, that is the case currently.
And straight away Stephen falls foul of his own thinking. He mentioned he has a Theology Degree. Not sure from where but its not helping. When people ask "Do you read the Bible literally?" my answer is simple "I literally read it seriously"
Some parts are meant to be read literally some aren't. There is over 200 literary devices being used in the Scriptures. Stories, allegories, history, types, shadows, fore shadows...
Read the literal bits literally...read it all properly
It follows, therefore, that any rebuttal of their claims should also adhere to this assumption, if it is to convince them that they are wrong.
God's Word is right and its us that is likely to be wrong. Use Scripture properly and find God's meaning not a pre-decided position. Its not about who of us is right or wrong, its about whether or not we're reading and using God's Word properly
I personally believe the early stories in the Bible are no more “literally” true than ancient Norse myths.
Our personal view isn't using Scripture to prove Scripture. Norse gods are non relevant and non related. If you're supposedly a Christian scholar and you're using false gods to prove the Judaeo-Christian God is what you'd prefer Him to be there's a big problem ahead.
But I am prepared to put that aside for one moment, and consider this issue under the rules that the “literalists” would apply, because many argue that the oft-trotted-out “Biblical” case against homosexuality simply doesn’t appear to “stack up”.
This is going to go from bad to worse I think...
Genesis 19: 1-28
The ancient story of Sodom and Gomorrah has been used throughout the centuries as a condemnation of homosexuality, to the point where anal sex is referred to as “Sodomy”.
And that’s the problem. It’s become a cliché. We assume it’s true, because it’s been around so long.
Check the New Testament 2Peter 2:6 & others. The apostles mention it as was a real event that happen to real cities. According to Scripture it happened.
The verses in this story most commonly referred to as proof that the Sodomites were homosexual are verses 4 and 5: “Before they could lie down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, surrounded the house,from boy to old man, all the people in one mob. And they kept calling out to Lot and saying to him: ‘Where are the men who came in to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have intercourse with them.”
Examining this scripture, the first thing we see is that all the people, in one mob, demanded that Lot bring out the visitors to them. If we are to believe that the account of Sodom & Gomorrah is a condemnation of homosexuality, then we must also accept the conclusion that the entire city consisted of homosexuals.
What Scripture was clear about was the entire population was depraved, from boy to man they wanted sex with the 2 strangers. Other verses show God's view on homosexual acts. Its not difficult.
Now if Stephen or anyone else wants a short cut go here to get some Bible Study done, read up and go to a Bible Study group instead of making things up https://www.gotquestions.org/New-Testament-homosexuality.html
But if we look in the previous chapter, Genesis 18: 16-33, we see an account of Abraham negotiating with God to spare the people of Sodom, with the final outcome of God promising “I shall not bring it to ruin on account of the ten” (verse 33).
God promised Abraham that Sodom would not be destroyed if only ten “righteous men” could be found I the city.
If we are to accept the previous logic, this would mean that the “righteous men” referred to were, per se, heterosexuals.
No depraved, homosexuality would have been just one of the depraved acts God was against. Were they all homosexual? We don't know, we know they were ALL depraved except Lot & his family. We know all from boy to man gathered at the house to have sex with the 2 strangers. Notice, "BOY" to man...there's children then. All Sodom are not strict homosexuals they are breeding as well...but they are all depraved.
Now it is a matter of Biblical “fact” that God (or rather, his angels) didn’t find anyone at all worth saving. But at this point, we then need to ask ourselves: what would be the odds of less than ten people in the entire region of Sodom & Gomorrah being heterosexual?
The obvious answer is “impossible”, of course.
Well they found Lot & his family...but no not 10 men. Impossible? Ok you know what is and isn't possible with all people from 1000s of years ago and God from all time. Big big call...and false.
If for no other reason than to ask, “where did all the population come from?” They were all gay immigrants, presumably, begat by parents left behind in other places that were heteroesexual? We think not.
Seriously? Depraved committing depraved acts in defiance of God...doesn't exclude breeding.
So if homosexuality was not being referred to in this passage, then what was? Looking at the scriptures in Hebrew, we find an interesting usage of a couple of different words.
When the mob cries out “Where are the men who came in to you tonight?”, the Hebrew word that is customarily translated men is actually ‘enowsh which, literally translated, means “mortal” or “human”.
No it doesn't it means "male human being"
This indicates that the mob knew that Lot had visitors, but were unsure of what sex they were.
We can divine this because the Hebrew word for “man” (utilized in this same passage in Genesis 19:8) is entirely different. And one really has to ask: why would homosexuals want to have sex with two strangers if they were unsure of what sex they were?
They knew, just possibly didn't know they were angels. The city was depraved, utterly & totally...that's why it was totally destroyed. You know that right?
Trying hard to disbelieve what the text clearly spells out.
The passage translated as “Bring them out so that we may have intercourse with them” needs further examination as well.
Other Bible translations read “so that we may know them”. The Hebrew word that is commonly translated as “have intercourse”, or “know” is yada.
But this word, yada, appears in the Hebrew Scriptures a total of 943 times. And in all but ten of these usages, the word is used in the context of getting acquainted with someone.
Had the writer intended for his reading audience to believe that the mob wanted to have sexual intercourse with the strangers, he could simply have used the Hebrew word shakab, which vividly denotes sexual activity.
Many people argue, therefore, that the correct translation should be rendered something to the effect of: “Where are the people who came in to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may get acquainted with them.”
So then, if the story of Sodom & Gomorrah was not a condemnation of homosexuality, what was it trying to convey?
It was convicted of vile depravity...that's why it was destroyed, they showed their depravity by wanting to have sex with the 2 strangers...from boy to man from the city.
The denial here is strong...but facts of Scripture is very clear.
Two verses in Exekiel sum up the story this way: “Look! This is what proved to be the error of Sodom your sister: Pride, sufficiency of bread and the carefreeness of keeping undisturbed were what happened to belong to her and her dependent towns, and the hand of the afflicted one and the poor one she did not strengthen. And they continued to be haughty and to carry on a detestable thing before me, and I finally removed them, just as I saw [fit]”. (Ezekiel 16: 49, 50.)
It is commonly assumed, because we’re referring to Sodom, that the “detestable thing” referred to in this passage is homosexuality.
But in fact, the Hebrew word utilized here is tow’ebah, which translated literally means “to commit idol worship”.
No it doesn't - It means detestable things abominations, ( https://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/hebrew/nas/towebah.html )
This is half the problem the view is set before the explanation is deliberately created. In regards to idol worship, remove God and anything that takes up the vacuum is an idol. Idol worship doesn't just mean a carved statue or an obelisk. Its anything that separates you from God or replaces God.
Its beginning to get very sad at this point...
This can be seen in the original Genesis passage, chapter 19, verse 8: “Please, here I have two daughters who have never had intercourse with a man. Please let me bring them out to you. Then do to them as is good in your eyes.”
One has to ask: If Lot’s house was surrounded by homosexuals, which presumably he’d know as everyone in the entire region was gay apart from him and his family, why would he offer the mob women?
They weren't gay they were utterly & completely depraved. Sex is clearly and specifically designed for within the confines of marriage. That's a man and a woman. Anything else is adultery. Having a mistress, a prostitute, a rent boy, a lover of any sort is adultery. 2 men couldn't marry back then so homosexuality is adultery. DeFacto relationships were adultery.
The New Testament is very clear on this and homosexual acts.
Note also that these women were virgins. And that the Sodomites were pagans.
Virgin sacrifices to idols were a common practice in this era. Therefore, it can easily be concluded that Lot was offering his daughters as a virgin sacrifice to appease the mob in an effort to protect the visitors.
Easily concluded if you ignore the Scriptures completely and decided a personal assumption is valid explanation. Sorry duded out again
In the Greek scriptures, the story of Sodom is summed up this way: “and by reducing the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them, setting a pattern for ungodly persons of things to come”.
This corroborates Ezekiel’s summation, once again showing that these were “ungodly persons”; in other words, idolaters, they were not worshippers of the true God.
If we have difficulty with the logic of 100% of any population being gay, can we rather believe in 100% of a population being adherents of a particular pagan cult? Yes, we certainly can. If for no other reason that there was no tolerance of those who didn’t share pagan beliefs in many early societies. Not to agree was to invite exclusion or execution. You were in, or you were out. The Jews themselves exercise this attitude continually throughout the Old Testament.
Utter rubbish twisted like a wet rag. Lot & his family were not depraved like the rest of the city, that's why they were saved. This is a massive and detailed conclusion based on no data or evidence at all.
Dangerous lack of exegesis & personally concocted.
So the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, therefore, is almost certainly intended as a condemnation of idol worshippers, and of a greedy and inhospitable society that sought to treat visitors in a threatening manner – which was also a sin, to the early Jews, by the way.
Many people argue, therefore, that it is perfectly reasonable to propose that this key text on the judgement of this region had nothing, absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality!
Some people argue the earth is flat but that's a load of rubbish too.
In all these cases verses are selected in isolation and twisted with false premise to provide a false version of what was being said...to suit someone who isn't God but is wanting to modify Him to suit their own view lifestyle.
They could just be honest & say I'm Christian and the Bible is very clear about wanting sinners, all sinners (including homosexuals) to turn from their sin and find salvation through Christ or...
Or perhaps be honest and say they're not Christians, they don't believe in god, they reject the bible and think anyone can do whatever they want to do as long as no one gets hurt or no law is broken.
Changing the Bible to Vers. 2.0 to suit your own pre-suppositional view is appalling.
All the while there's a dozen verses that have been side stepped completely...
1Corinthians 6:9-10.
9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous2 will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: xneither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.Have to confess, there's more to the twisted Scripture filled "article" and I've only brought half of it across. Poor Hebrew transliteration, twisted interpretation with no sola scriptura exegesis...its not going to get any better.
Make up your mind, be a Christian and read, use Scripture properly with proper in context exegesis or go do your own thing away from the Word without twisting it to suit your own idol filled motivations. Stephen may be a top bloke, who knows but he's not just got the wrong end of the stick, the stick is a snake and he's using it to lecture other people about sticks.
I understand he works for an advertising agency.
Somehow I think the claimed theology degree was either lost, non existent or wasted.
Now if Stephen wants to return volley I guess we can deconstruct the rest of the blog.
At that point it'll be the same, God's Word compared to "his" view of what "he" thinks God meant.
If homosexuality is not a sin against God, as Stephen suggests then he needs to do a blog on why it is that God owes Sodom & Gomorrah an apology.
Now if you're gay and you have decided to stay gay, in a gay lifestyle with your gay partner that is entirely up to you. Its not my place to call you a good or bad person because of your choice. But if you alter God's Word to suit your own lifestyle then yes you are pretty bad. The Bible is also pretty clear about false churches and there are many out there. Far too many. Most of them will fail as churches and we should just call them civic clubs.
If a religion cannot properly live by its own teachings then it should be stripped of its "church" status.
Wednesday 22 November 2017
The Current Breach of Acts by Senior Bureaucrats
Yep its kinda looking like its happened and if it is as it appears, then we have a very serious legislative breach that undermines our legal & legislative framework. Now this is not Zimbabwe but side stepping the law in the smallest possible manner is just as serious and the worst may be yet to come.
How & what's happened in WA?
Well Australia Post, our official national post entity, has somehow been dropped as an "Official Carrier" by the WAPolice for freighting firearms around Western Australia. Information how this has happened or why is pretty scant to say the least. We're told that the upper ranks of WAPol beaurcracy have claimed that "by post" as set out in Section 30A of the Firearms Act means couriers, not just Australia Post...which they dropped anyway.
That's still very debatable as most people are going to argue quite easily that "by post" is not couriers with the "EXCLUSION OF AUSTRALIA POST"...not in any way, any shape nor form.
Now whilst you're digesting this be aware no other state in Australia has determined Aust Post is not to be an Official Carrier...none. If you have a firearm sent from the eastern states you can post it to WA but you cannot post within WA.
How's that work because a firearm posted in Sydney, Canberra, Brisbane, Melbourne or even anywhere else in other states of territories is 100% legal. A dealer in other states breaks no law in their state nor in WA if they use Australia Post to post to WA.
It is the strangest of situations as WAPol is of a differing view.
However with over 20 LAWFUL gun dealers and even more private gun smiths in REGIONAL WA the financial impost is massive. They cannot get stock delivered as usual by Aust Post and have to use a set group of Approved Couriers. None of which transport to all of WA. Some are without any possible avenue of delivery.
Some of these rural businesses are going to the wall as we speak. If they're within 4 hours of Perth they'll be driving directly to the Perth delivery depot/s, picking up stock and driving directly home. If they're 6 hours from Perth they probably aren't going to risk it with a 13+ hour round trip.
But how is it that the senior bureaucrats in the WA Police can get this so wrong. I'd argue that Aust Post is actually enshrined in the Act whilst WA Police's position is it isn't enshrined in the Act.
This is pretty serious on several fronts. Obvious is we have some rural businesses that are suffering unnecessary financial hardship and even in some cases a complete inability to have any stock delivered. Those that can use the listed couriers are paying far more than Aust Post do...if they can deliver to them that is.
If that's not enough there's another thing...having trade restricted by having the enshrined carrier dropped whilst the Act actually specifies them.
Stop and digest that.
We have some senior bureaucrats who have decided to created baseless reasoning to side step and contravene the Act to the detriment of rural business.
There's something very serious happening here. Bureaucrats are now able to ignore or deliberately contravene the Act. How you going digesting that...if its a precedent.
The minister has no choice whatsoever. Michelle Roberts MLA MUST reinstate Aust Post as a firearms carrier as it was prior to the legislative over reach by the Bureaucrats and identify who made this very serious breach, this Legislative Over Reach.
When? Pretty much immediately.
Acts of Parliament are detailed and set & no officer of the law can contravene them.
The WANationals are onto this as are the other Upper House cross benches but the Labor/Liberal Duopoly are out to lunch entirely.
Direct from the WALabor Twitter page states...
"
Well they appear to be doing little in the way of delivering. They're allowing free contravention of Acts of Parliament to the detriment of rural businesses.
This is not Government. This is very dangerous.
Thursday 2 November 2017
How's your Constitution?
Organisations generally have similar problems.
Everyone in a Organisation will agree at some point they need a Committee to Review the Constitution. If its bigger than the average club then I firmly believe what they REALLY need is a lot more than just a Constitutional Review Committee. What's more often needed is a full time Governance Committee that when needed, takes submissions from any part of the Organisation and reports directly to what is the Board of Management, the Company Directors.
This means we'd have a mechanism that deals with compliance issue if & when they happen can mitigate & reduce risk and legal exposure to both the Organisation & indiviuduals and officers of the whole organisation.
A constitution or Articles of Association are living documents which need to be in a state of constant or regular review. A constitution is a reflection of what an organsation is and how it does what its supposed to.
Corporate Governance distilled down is nothing more than the systems & processes you have in place to ensure your organisation or company does what it's supposed to do, in the required manner its supposed to do it.
Remember its still possible, even with the new Incorporations Act (in WA) to have a Act compliant & Department approved Constitution and still have serious breaches of Corporate Governance.
In previous times the Incoporations Acts of all states were really only the legislative framework to allow a Not For Profit legal entity to exist. Where there were gaps in the respective state based Acts, the over arching Act was the federal Corporations Act. Its also here that rights roles & repsonsibilities of Company Directors (Management Committee members) were set out and applied to anyone in charge of a For Profit or Not For Profit legal entity. This is still the case but the new WA Act now covers more than it ever did before.
Still we need to know having a good constitution is only part of the remedy for most State Based Not-For-Profit organisations. The Corporate Governance levels need to be addressed and maintained continually. This cannot be done with JUST a constitution review once every 8 or 10 years. Organisations need a governance committee that sees to the maintenance of their Constitution in an ongoing basis and not wait until 6 or 10 years of out of date matters need a massive & critical re-write. A Governance Committee must also over see our operations to make recommendations to reduce our individual and/or combined risks & legal exposure.
Good news is if your group's constitution isn't compliant with the new current Act fear not. You have until July 1st 2019 to get complaint with the Department.
But what will you do to ensure good Corporate Governance in a governance model that suits your organisation?
Also note, having a complaint constitution doesn't mean your management committee is immune from breaching their fiduciary duty or failing in its rights, roles & responsibilities. An ongoing reporting committee of vigilance is essential.
If you have the numbers (and most certainly if you have a number of committees and working groups) get proper charters for each so everyone knows their knitting, safe from legal angst. Remember the Not-For-Profit that's complaint can be sued for what it has, but people in positions of management or decision making can still be personally liable. Get covered, get compliant and get on with the more important things like the aims of your association.
https://www.commerce.wa.gov.au/consumer-protection/associations-new-law
Everyone in a Organisation will agree at some point they need a Committee to Review the Constitution. If its bigger than the average club then I firmly believe what they REALLY need is a lot more than just a Constitutional Review Committee. What's more often needed is a full time Governance Committee that when needed, takes submissions from any part of the Organisation and reports directly to what is the Board of Management, the Company Directors.
This means we'd have a mechanism that deals with compliance issue if & when they happen can mitigate & reduce risk and legal exposure to both the Organisation & indiviuduals and officers of the whole organisation.
A constitution or Articles of Association are living documents which need to be in a state of constant or regular review. A constitution is a reflection of what an organsation is and how it does what its supposed to.
Corporate Governance distilled down is nothing more than the systems & processes you have in place to ensure your organisation or company does what it's supposed to do, in the required manner its supposed to do it.
Remember its still possible, even with the new Incorporations Act (in WA) to have a Act compliant & Department approved Constitution and still have serious breaches of Corporate Governance.
In previous times the Incoporations Acts of all states were really only the legislative framework to allow a Not For Profit legal entity to exist. Where there were gaps in the respective state based Acts, the over arching Act was the federal Corporations Act. Its also here that rights roles & repsonsibilities of Company Directors (Management Committee members) were set out and applied to anyone in charge of a For Profit or Not For Profit legal entity. This is still the case but the new WA Act now covers more than it ever did before.
Still we need to know having a good constitution is only part of the remedy for most State Based Not-For-Profit organisations. The Corporate Governance levels need to be addressed and maintained continually. This cannot be done with JUST a constitution review once every 8 or 10 years. Organisations need a governance committee that sees to the maintenance of their Constitution in an ongoing basis and not wait until 6 or 10 years of out of date matters need a massive & critical re-write. A Governance Committee must also over see our operations to make recommendations to reduce our individual and/or combined risks & legal exposure.
Good news is if your group's constitution isn't compliant with the new current Act fear not. You have until July 1st 2019 to get complaint with the Department.
But what will you do to ensure good Corporate Governance in a governance model that suits your organisation?
Also note, having a complaint constitution doesn't mean your management committee is immune from breaching their fiduciary duty or failing in its rights, roles & responsibilities. An ongoing reporting committee of vigilance is essential.
If you have the numbers (and most certainly if you have a number of committees and working groups) get proper charters for each so everyone knows their knitting, safe from legal angst. Remember the Not-For-Profit that's complaint can be sued for what it has, but people in positions of management or decision making can still be personally liable. Get covered, get compliant and get on with the more important things like the aims of your association.
https://www.commerce.wa.gov.au/consumer-protection/associations-new-law
Saturday 28 October 2017
Unofficial PerthLabor Party Deception Counter
Most sadly, updated regularly. Far too regularly.
PerthLabor Party Attack on the Bush #1 - SW Rescue Chopper funding cut
PerthLabor Party Attack on the Bush #2 - Geraldton Hospital funding cut
PerthLabor Party Attack on the Bush #3 - Laverton Hospital funding cut
PerthLabor Party Attack on the Bush #4 - Moora Residential funding cut
PerthLabor Party Attack on the Bush #5 - Volunteer Fire Brigade Fuel Card halved...but still might be abolished
PerthLabor Party Attack on the Bush #6 - Rockingham Basketball gets $373,000 in one hit. Albany Ice/meth gets less over 2 years
PerthLabor Party Attack on the Bush #7 - Pre-election promise to halt all Live Export & transition to domestic slaughtered chilled. (Thankfully they reneged...so far)
PerthLabor Party Attack on the Bush #8 - Cost shift normal portfolio to R4R. Cost shifting that's gouges the bush
PerthLabor Party Attack on the Bush #9 - Gold Tax...thwarted but not so long ago opposed by Labor. Backflip or revealed liars?
PerthLabor Party Attack on the Bush #10 - Cancels Country Town Sewerage projects, announces multi million $ Marina Playground for Joondalup
PerthLabor Party Attack on the Bush #11 - Axes Boarding Away From Home allowance. Labor Regional MPs all complicit
PerthLabor Party Attack on the Bush #12 - "No GM UNDER A WA LABOR GOVRNMENT - More lying to get some watermelons to vote Labor instead of Greens. Upside is they reneged on this too. It should be allowed if its proven to be safe & sustainable
PerthLabor Party Attack on the Bush #13 - Single Pensioners to get a 30% increase in their Power Bill. This will happen in Perth also but its still added to the list
PerthLabor Party Attack on the Bush #14 - Seniors Fuel Card will get slashed or cut
PerthLabor Party Attack on the Bush #1 - SW Rescue Chopper funding cut
PerthLabor Party Attack on the Bush #2 - Geraldton Hospital funding cut
PerthLabor Party Attack on the Bush #3 - Laverton Hospital funding cut
PerthLabor Party Attack on the Bush #4 - Moora Residential funding cut
PerthLabor Party Attack on the Bush #5 - Volunteer Fire Brigade Fuel Card halved...but still might be abolished
PerthLabor Party Attack on the Bush #6 - Rockingham Basketball gets $373,000 in one hit. Albany Ice/meth gets less over 2 years
PerthLabor Party Attack on the Bush #7 - Pre-election promise to halt all Live Export & transition to domestic slaughtered chilled. (Thankfully they reneged...so far)
PerthLabor Party Attack on the Bush #8 - Cost shift normal portfolio to R4R. Cost shifting that's gouges the bush
PerthLabor Party Attack on the Bush #9 - Gold Tax...thwarted but not so long ago opposed by Labor. Backflip or revealed liars?
PerthLabor Party Attack on the Bush #10 - Cancels Country Town Sewerage projects, announces multi million $ Marina Playground for Joondalup
PerthLabor Party Attack on the Bush #11 - Axes Boarding Away From Home allowance. Labor Regional MPs all complicit
PerthLabor Party Attack on the Bush #12 - "No GM UNDER A WA LABOR GOVRNMENT - More lying to get some watermelons to vote Labor instead of Greens. Upside is they reneged on this too. It should be allowed if its proven to be safe & sustainable
PerthLabor Party Attack on the Bush #13 - Single Pensioners to get a 30% increase in their Power Bill. This will happen in Perth also but its still added to the list
PerthLabor Party Attack on the Bush #14 - Seniors Fuel Card will get slashed or cut
Morals for the Athiest
So where do athiests & humanists get their morals from? Or rather, we seem as a species to hate a vacuum, when we remove God what do we replace Him with? What is the believer to understand from the non believer?
Well lets start off in a place that most people won't disagree. Whatever your belief or disbelief is, it comes under one of only 2 over arching worldview categories. Just 2. In my thinking, right or wrong, its 2 and only two.
1) We were created by a transcendant God-Creator
2) We weren't and therefore we a result of mutations, accidents, improvements but which/whatever all a result of nature unsteered by anything other than laws of nature and fate...good & bad.
So with that firmly in mind, where do some non believers in God think morals come from.
I hit Google, it gave plenty of results, this was just first on the list, this webpage.
http://kidswithoutgod.com/teens/ask/where-do-atheists-get-their-morality/
It gives a long page of explantion from a god non believer, Dr Darrel Ray. Here's Darrel's descriptor...
"Dr. Darrel Ray is an atheist, humanist, and psychologist. He is the author of The God Virus, and specializes in issues relating to religious deconversion. "
I might return to this descriptor towards the end, upfront might just look at his answer to the question he got from...well we don't know who sent it in. It's
Where do we get our morality? From the constant development of our culture. From the evolution of laws and guidelines that help us create a peaceful and prosperous society. We are who create our morality and we pass it down to our children and grandchildren. That is why Muslim people can live prosperously in the US along side Baptists, Mormons, Hindus and Atheists. We have a morality that supersedes all religions and is beholden to none.The last sentence is pretty telling very interesting. Atheist's "morality supersedes all religions and is beholden to none"That's a judgement call. Beholden to none very possibly but "supersedes"?
Says who?
Possibly whoever has the greater numbers is all but there's no indication why the evolved morals of atheists supersedes all others. One group of animals get together and decide something, what exactly makes it binding upon any other animal that disagrees or a group of animals that disagree. Animals, because that's what the atheist can have us believe, we're all just members of the animal kingdom.
Put another way one tribe says it's teachings, beliefs and morals are greater than others...why?
Early explorers probably thought their morals were greater than those belonging to remote island tribes. Remote island tribes probably thought their morals were greater and superseded the white man's. How'd things evolve there? Well...gun & sword helped evolution along pretty fast but in some cases the difference of moral opinion evolved differently for a time with the white explorer having a different moral stance that seem to be superseded whilst they sat in the cannibal's pot cooking.
It seems the atheist moral evolution is predicated upon the "Might is Right" notion.
Ironic since that's what he was very much against when he wrongly took Scripture out of context in most of his view.
It seems very much a case that force of the majority or the most well armed dictates which way the "evolution" of morals goes in the humanist world. Might is Right.
What makes their morals binding?
Application of law (might) against anyone not compliant...which still means there's no escape route. To the group who do not believe in God or morals come from God, morals are all rather subjective and where they may differ, its the democratic numbers or the might or the sword that decides.
It is a fact that where ever there is man, we find jurisdiction. Someone has jurisdiction. So in a western country where Same Sex Marriage is legal versus a country where its banned and homosexuality results in execution, who's evolved morals supersede whose? Well it gets odder here. Most will argue that the non religious are greater...whilst believing God doesn't exist religion must be an evolved social construct guiding morals. So who's is greater?
Here it diverges into 2 splits...
1) The West is superior because it's non religious and the Muslim countries are twisted
2) They're different but both right for the nations respectively because morals are relative especially under cultural and regional differences
Either way under the model Dr Ray is proposing, either side could invade the other, conquer the other, install their own morals (whether we personally agree or not) and that's evolution.
It is amazing how often the secular utopian model of morality formation is very much identical to the Marxist totalitarian military state.
Is there a rise in Alt Right? Yes to some degree.
Is there a rise in Alt Left? Yes to some degree.
I think there's more Marxist dogma gathering pace and many people are either unaware or wrongly reject it. It's like anti Authoritarian dogma...it can sometimes get to the point where the Antis actually over throw the authority of a government and then what?
Animal Farm. The pigs rise to the top after killing the farmer and then become the farmers of all the other animals. Marxism. Or in the current mess Neo-Marxist.
Its not all Che Guevara, bad facial hair and AK-47s.
Sometimes its a just an aggressive "evolution" on moral pillars.
Religion is seen as a corner stone of authority if not moral authority. Those that oppose it and vigorously push to deconstruct it so everyone is free to do whatever they want...that's part of Neo-Marxism.
Hippies of the 60s & 70s...Neo Marxists.
Counter Culture Activists...Neo Marxists.
Anti God Activists...Neo Marxists
And who are some of the Neo Marxist enablers? Well among them strange as it may seem are churches that don't keep to their Scriptures and try to evolve their morals.
Dr Ray's descriptor? I said I'd return to that. He states he specialises in "specializes in issues relating to religious deconversion."I think he does. He's not non Christian, he's trying to evolve morals and the world into a version he's chosen for himself. Thankfully he's not a violent man or he'd be using might to convert. Instead he's read the Old Testament completely out of context.
Not entirely sure if he's deliberately, knowingly done that but proves not all evolution is moral.
Perhaps morals don't evolve.
Me I'm just asking someone to confirm...is it a clear case of Might is Right?
Given different turn of events we, the entire planet might have all been cannibals or Hindu or Genghis Khan subjects forever or in a world wide communist state?
I asked this once and was told "No oppress people long enough they'll rebel and take control"
Back to Animal Farm and "Might is Right" again...only the winners decide what's binding.
No wonder so many Neo-Marxists are so darn angry.
Well lets start off in a place that most people won't disagree. Whatever your belief or disbelief is, it comes under one of only 2 over arching worldview categories. Just 2. In my thinking, right or wrong, its 2 and only two.
1) We were created by a transcendant God-Creator
2) We weren't and therefore we a result of mutations, accidents, improvements but which/whatever all a result of nature unsteered by anything other than laws of nature and fate...good & bad.
So with that firmly in mind, where do some non believers in God think morals come from.
I hit Google, it gave plenty of results, this was just first on the list, this webpage.
http://kidswithoutgod.com/teens/ask/where-do-atheists-get-their-morality/
It gives a long page of explantion from a god non believer, Dr Darrel Ray. Here's Darrel's descriptor...
"Dr. Darrel Ray is an atheist, humanist, and psychologist. He is the author of The God Virus, and specializes in issues relating to religious deconversion. "
I might return to this descriptor towards the end, upfront might just look at his answer to the question he got from...well we don't know who sent it in. It's
Dear Darrel,
"On the kids half of this website, Darwin the dog tells us to “Be nice to people, just because it’s the right thing to do!” but I was raised to believe that morality was given to us by God. Where do atheists get their morality if not from God’s teachings?"
Now the last sentence is the important bit and its something most people who believe in God or don't should ask themselves because its a valid question that should get more effort and time. I think you have to give Dr ray two thumbs up for addressing the question.
However, the majority of his reply uses poor misleading understanding of the Bible to try and make an atheist point. He should at least make his points in such a way that a person who has never heard of the Bible can understand...using atheist perspective. Or put a bit more fairly, he should have his argument based without Bible referencing so a person who has never ever read the Bible can lock onto HIS logic, not his unfortunate view of Scripture which is terribly flawed and slanted.
Perhaps I can go through his Bible twisting point at a time...at some point but just fast forward past that and head to the final paragraph where he finally delivers his view without Scriptural twisting.
However, the majority of his reply uses poor misleading understanding of the Bible to try and make an atheist point. He should at least make his points in such a way that a person who has never heard of the Bible can understand...using atheist perspective. Or put a bit more fairly, he should have his argument based without Bible referencing so a person who has never ever read the Bible can lock onto HIS logic, not his unfortunate view of Scripture which is terribly flawed and slanted.
Perhaps I can go through his Bible twisting point at a time...at some point but just fast forward past that and head to the final paragraph where he finally delivers his view without Scriptural twisting.
Where do we get our morality? From the constant development of our culture. From the evolution of laws and guidelines that help us create a peaceful and prosperous society. We are who create our morality and we pass it down to our children and grandchildren. That is why Muslim people can live prosperously in the US along side Baptists, Mormons, Hindus and Atheists. We have a morality that supersedes all religions and is beholden to none.The last sentence is pretty telling very interesting. Atheist's "morality supersedes all religions and is beholden to none"That's a judgement call. Beholden to none very possibly but "supersedes"?
Says who?
Possibly whoever has the greater numbers is all but there's no indication why the evolved morals of atheists supersedes all others. One group of animals get together and decide something, what exactly makes it binding upon any other animal that disagrees or a group of animals that disagree. Animals, because that's what the atheist can have us believe, we're all just members of the animal kingdom.
Put another way one tribe says it's teachings, beliefs and morals are greater than others...why?
Early explorers probably thought their morals were greater than those belonging to remote island tribes. Remote island tribes probably thought their morals were greater and superseded the white man's. How'd things evolve there? Well...gun & sword helped evolution along pretty fast but in some cases the difference of moral opinion evolved differently for a time with the white explorer having a different moral stance that seem to be superseded whilst they sat in the cannibal's pot cooking.
It seems the atheist moral evolution is predicated upon the "Might is Right" notion.
Ironic since that's what he was very much against when he wrongly took Scripture out of context in most of his view.
It seems very much a case that force of the majority or the most well armed dictates which way the "evolution" of morals goes in the humanist world. Might is Right.
What makes their morals binding?
Application of law (might) against anyone not compliant...which still means there's no escape route. To the group who do not believe in God or morals come from God, morals are all rather subjective and where they may differ, its the democratic numbers or the might or the sword that decides.
It is a fact that where ever there is man, we find jurisdiction. Someone has jurisdiction. So in a western country where Same Sex Marriage is legal versus a country where its banned and homosexuality results in execution, who's evolved morals supersede whose? Well it gets odder here. Most will argue that the non religious are greater...whilst believing God doesn't exist religion must be an evolved social construct guiding morals. So who's is greater?
Here it diverges into 2 splits...
1) The West is superior because it's non religious and the Muslim countries are twisted
2) They're different but both right for the nations respectively because morals are relative especially under cultural and regional differences
Either way under the model Dr Ray is proposing, either side could invade the other, conquer the other, install their own morals (whether we personally agree or not) and that's evolution.
It is amazing how often the secular utopian model of morality formation is very much identical to the Marxist totalitarian military state.
Is there a rise in Alt Right? Yes to some degree.
Is there a rise in Alt Left? Yes to some degree.
I think there's more Marxist dogma gathering pace and many people are either unaware or wrongly reject it. It's like anti Authoritarian dogma...it can sometimes get to the point where the Antis actually over throw the authority of a government and then what?
Animal Farm. The pigs rise to the top after killing the farmer and then become the farmers of all the other animals. Marxism. Or in the current mess Neo-Marxist.
Its not all Che Guevara, bad facial hair and AK-47s.
Sometimes its a just an aggressive "evolution" on moral pillars.
Religion is seen as a corner stone of authority if not moral authority. Those that oppose it and vigorously push to deconstruct it so everyone is free to do whatever they want...that's part of Neo-Marxism.
Hippies of the 60s & 70s...Neo Marxists.
Counter Culture Activists...Neo Marxists.
Anti God Activists...Neo Marxists
And who are some of the Neo Marxist enablers? Well among them strange as it may seem are churches that don't keep to their Scriptures and try to evolve their morals.
Dr Ray's descriptor? I said I'd return to that. He states he specialises in "specializes in issues relating to religious deconversion."I think he does. He's not non Christian, he's trying to evolve morals and the world into a version he's chosen for himself. Thankfully he's not a violent man or he'd be using might to convert. Instead he's read the Old Testament completely out of context.
Not entirely sure if he's deliberately, knowingly done that but proves not all evolution is moral.
Perhaps morals don't evolve.
Me I'm just asking someone to confirm...is it a clear case of Might is Right?
Given different turn of events we, the entire planet might have all been cannibals or Hindu or Genghis Khan subjects forever or in a world wide communist state?
I asked this once and was told "No oppress people long enough they'll rebel and take control"
Back to Animal Farm and "Might is Right" again...only the winners decide what's binding.
No wonder so many Neo-Marxists are so darn angry.
Monday 16 October 2017
Overdue Statewide Feral Action Plan
Here's an ABC Article just on the feral pig numbers. Short version devastating plague proportions.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-23/feral-pig-population-expanding-in-wa-south-west/8280930
Speak with farmers who adjoin State Forest who are being driven mad by feral damage & so far trying to find one who's lauding the good neighbour policy as effective and helpful. In fact several have been warned if they shoot any feral over the fence they risk prosecution. Meanwhile try getting the fence fixed..."neighbour"
Its reached a critical level and better plan needs to be formed.
First up, there are some shooter groups who want in. Some of them want access to crown land to hunt for ferals but this might seem like a good idea, it generally isn't unless its a very integrated and well managed part of a wider plan. The real trouble with recreational hunters is that whilst they can be effectively and ethical some of them may be looking at making the hunt sustainable and not so keen on eradicating a feral species like pigs.
There are some shooter advocates that even go so far as to say baiting is unethical and cruel that only the clean shot from an experienced hunter is the ethical solution. Here's the thing, a live bait properly set is on guard duty 24/7, makes no noise, attracts the feral to it and in the case of some baits doesn't affect native species.
If anything the shooter is probably only an effective option in farmers paddocks and with 500m of a farmer's fence in the state forest.
There is the additional problem of people "seeding" forests with pigs because they come from a neighbouring country where pig dogging is very popular. Fines for seeding state forests need to be pushed to a ridiculously high level. How high? Anything less than $250,000 and 2 years in jail probably isn't going to deter them. Similar amounts for illegal hunting.
But lets call illegal hunting what it really is, its not hunting. Its poaching. Find a farmer who borders a state forest and the stories are long, not tall. Apart from lack of help from the department on feral control, the damage from poachers is a bit astounding. To the point where cut fences is not uncommon with one farmer then having to try to get this stock out of the state forest before they graze on poison flora. One we heard of wasn't as lucky as you'd hope.
With some department staff saying off the record the pig number numbers in the Walpole forest is immense its really time for action as the damage to pea swamps is devastating and we're genuinely looking at an environmental disaster.
Change here is expected to be slow. The wild dog problem further out is only just getting some attention and time will tell if it ends up being significant and helpful.
Problem is clear feral numbers are huge, farmers are curtailed and restricted by the department, who have tiny resources incapable of scratching the surface. On top of that farmers and the department have to deal with poachers.
Its an additional but connected issue but people caught trespassing on private property or state forests with firearms and/or traps on board without proper explanation need severe penalties. Poaching should be a serious offence because it apart from trespassing there's often criminal damage, endangering the landowners, their stock and livelihood but also in some cases the loss of certification through biohazard incursions. If you're a poacher you probably won't trespass if there's a minimum $100,000-250,000 fine and the risk of asset seizure and immediate loss of firearms licence.
It will have to happen and it should...but will it.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-23/feral-pig-population-expanding-in-wa-south-west/8280930
Speak with farmers who adjoin State Forest who are being driven mad by feral damage & so far trying to find one who's lauding the good neighbour policy as effective and helpful. In fact several have been warned if they shoot any feral over the fence they risk prosecution. Meanwhile try getting the fence fixed..."neighbour"
Its reached a critical level and better plan needs to be formed.
First up, there are some shooter groups who want in. Some of them want access to crown land to hunt for ferals but this might seem like a good idea, it generally isn't unless its a very integrated and well managed part of a wider plan. The real trouble with recreational hunters is that whilst they can be effectively and ethical some of them may be looking at making the hunt sustainable and not so keen on eradicating a feral species like pigs.
There are some shooter advocates that even go so far as to say baiting is unethical and cruel that only the clean shot from an experienced hunter is the ethical solution. Here's the thing, a live bait properly set is on guard duty 24/7, makes no noise, attracts the feral to it and in the case of some baits doesn't affect native species.
If anything the shooter is probably only an effective option in farmers paddocks and with 500m of a farmer's fence in the state forest.
There is the additional problem of people "seeding" forests with pigs because they come from a neighbouring country where pig dogging is very popular. Fines for seeding state forests need to be pushed to a ridiculously high level. How high? Anything less than $250,000 and 2 years in jail probably isn't going to deter them. Similar amounts for illegal hunting.
But lets call illegal hunting what it really is, its not hunting. Its poaching. Find a farmer who borders a state forest and the stories are long, not tall. Apart from lack of help from the department on feral control, the damage from poachers is a bit astounding. To the point where cut fences is not uncommon with one farmer then having to try to get this stock out of the state forest before they graze on poison flora. One we heard of wasn't as lucky as you'd hope.
With some department staff saying off the record the pig number numbers in the Walpole forest is immense its really time for action as the damage to pea swamps is devastating and we're genuinely looking at an environmental disaster.
Change here is expected to be slow. The wild dog problem further out is only just getting some attention and time will tell if it ends up being significant and helpful.
Problem is clear feral numbers are huge, farmers are curtailed and restricted by the department, who have tiny resources incapable of scratching the surface. On top of that farmers and the department have to deal with poachers.
Its an additional but connected issue but people caught trespassing on private property or state forests with firearms and/or traps on board without proper explanation need severe penalties. Poaching should be a serious offence because it apart from trespassing there's often criminal damage, endangering the landowners, their stock and livelihood but also in some cases the loss of certification through biohazard incursions. If you're a poacher you probably won't trespass if there's a minimum $100,000-250,000 fine and the risk of asset seizure and immediate loss of firearms licence.
It will have to happen and it should...but will it.
Sunday 8 October 2017
WA Police Living Behind The 8 Ball
So how are Police in WA going with their industrial claim, fair to piddling at a guess. They were promised a 1.5% pay rise, a 38 hour week and more staff to relieve some of the pressure.
What have they got out of those promised things?
They got a much smaller offer of an extra $1000 per year, no change to the hours and yet to learn if they get the extra staff they were promised.
There was the industrial action where the Union advised the police to go to Tier 3 which was don't respond to any call that wasn't likely to result in physical harm to the public. This action was halted less than 3 hours in due to the Commissioner's intervention by citing the relevant section of legislation that showed it was not allowed. As it happened the industrial action appears to not lasted long enough to have affected anyone, nor even come into affect.
Should if have come to that? No it definitely shouldn't have. Its an action their union would have deliberated over heavily and its possible many staff may have chosen to ignore it had it gone on longer anyway. Should the union have gone that path? Most say no & perhaps they shouldn't have but again the Government should never have reneged or broken the agreement that everyone thought was in place and thought would be honoured.
Now its back to a circling pattern to see the next outcome.
Added to that now the Police Union wants officers to have access to AR-15s in the case of a siege or terrorism attack due to the length of delay deploying Tactical Response type officers. Its a pretty valid point and actually its darn easy to fix.
How?
Fit a gunsafe into the boot of patrol cars to house a patrol rifle (such as AR-15) ammunition and magazines. A rifle then only has to be signed out, signed back in at the shift change...easy. Bit of extra training at a regular intervals. Done.
But what is an AR-15? It's an Assault Rifle yeah?
Well no, there really is no such thing as an "assault rifle" in fact the "AR" stands for "Armalite Rifle"
An AR-15 fires a 556 or .223 (nearly identical) bullet. Its actually a very common hunting calibre.
They'll most likely use a hunting bullet, not a military bullet. What's the main difference?
The projectile. In military they generally use a completely solid one piece projectile or "Full Metal Jacket" so that its more likely to wound than to kill. The military thinking is that in a battle if you kill one member of the enemy you only take one person out of the battle. If you badly wound one, you can take 2, 3 or even 4 people out of the fight.
Police scenario is probably a lot different. If they shoot its probably to stop the bad person & not other people. A FMJ projectile has the very high likelihood of passing through the target and possibly through one or two other people depending how close the shot is and how many people are around. Police are more likely to use a hunting round as more energy hits the target with a hunting round because the projectile expands on impact. No it doesn't explode, it expands and less likely to come out the other side.
AR-15s are in fact an older military design, a fair few companies make them now and they're relatively reliable and generally fairly accurate. They're a semi automatic with a detachable magazine.
Now semi automatic is not a machine gun, all it means is you pull the trigger it goes bang once & once only, it reloads the next round in the chamber and waits til you pull the trigger again.
Its actually not a scare thing at all. I think Police in country areas have a "patrol rifle" and its a AR-15 of some sort. I gather it has an Eotech tech holographic sight which are pretty good but they're battery operated. This means (I hope) they're also fitted with flip up iron sights if the battery goes dead.
It doesn't send out a red dot onto the target like the movies, it is a red dot projected only onto a miniscule glass screen atop the rifle. No battery means you don't know where sight zero is. Also they're designed for fast target acquisition at fairly close distances. If they're still fitted with Eotech sights I just hope they're also fitted with a flip over magnifier otherwise their 200-300 metre rifle is only good for 30-80 metres with that sight.
I hope they get a good armourer to sort out the rifle scope disaster.
I hope to the Armourer puts it out there that while the Police should have flashlights for their work they should also have a flashlight fitted to their Glock pistols. If its night or inside a dark house and they need to have their pistol drawn ready then they really need both hands on the pistol or one hand on the pistol and the other turning a door knob or whatever, not having a gun in one hand and torch in the other & fumbling.
If their pistols don't have flashlights we are letting them down terribly. VERY BADLY, they're a risk.
We really need to rally behind all our first responders including fire brigades, ambos & police. With the Labor Party of no help & the Liberal Party no where to be seen I have to commend the NationalsWA for attending the Police rally some time back and addressing the crowd. They haven't harped on it to gain votes, just plugged away behind the scenes trying to get a fair outcome.
Win or fail time will tell but least its not the WA Police all on their own.
But wait there's more. WA Police should have full & proper Worker's Compensation.
That's right they currently don't.
They should have the full FAMILY medical, dental & ancillaries health insurance premium paid for them by us. They should never have to worry about their health nor their family's health either and it should extend to any required psychological health professionals that might be required also.
And on top of that, they should have their Paraplegic Benefit Fund family membership premium paid for them too.
And did you know Police who are renting copped a big rent fee rise too? Yeah its like they're enemies of the state when really getting into the police force & the teaching profession should be the highest paid careers with the best benefits. High rewards & being very hard to get in means we're more likely to have the best professionals in protection & future proofing there is.
I think we also should (using the hashtag) #ProtectThoseWhoProtectUs
Its not hard, its quite easy, its fair and its basic decency.
What have they got out of those promised things?
They got a much smaller offer of an extra $1000 per year, no change to the hours and yet to learn if they get the extra staff they were promised.
There was the industrial action where the Union advised the police to go to Tier 3 which was don't respond to any call that wasn't likely to result in physical harm to the public. This action was halted less than 3 hours in due to the Commissioner's intervention by citing the relevant section of legislation that showed it was not allowed. As it happened the industrial action appears to not lasted long enough to have affected anyone, nor even come into affect.
Should if have come to that? No it definitely shouldn't have. Its an action their union would have deliberated over heavily and its possible many staff may have chosen to ignore it had it gone on longer anyway. Should the union have gone that path? Most say no & perhaps they shouldn't have but again the Government should never have reneged or broken the agreement that everyone thought was in place and thought would be honoured.
Now its back to a circling pattern to see the next outcome.
Added to that now the Police Union wants officers to have access to AR-15s in the case of a siege or terrorism attack due to the length of delay deploying Tactical Response type officers. Its a pretty valid point and actually its darn easy to fix.
How?
Fit a gunsafe into the boot of patrol cars to house a patrol rifle (such as AR-15) ammunition and magazines. A rifle then only has to be signed out, signed back in at the shift change...easy. Bit of extra training at a regular intervals. Done.
But what is an AR-15? It's an Assault Rifle yeah?
Well no, there really is no such thing as an "assault rifle" in fact the "AR" stands for "Armalite Rifle"
An AR-15 fires a 556 or .223 (nearly identical) bullet. Its actually a very common hunting calibre.
They'll most likely use a hunting bullet, not a military bullet. What's the main difference?
The projectile. In military they generally use a completely solid one piece projectile or "Full Metal Jacket" so that its more likely to wound than to kill. The military thinking is that in a battle if you kill one member of the enemy you only take one person out of the battle. If you badly wound one, you can take 2, 3 or even 4 people out of the fight.
Police scenario is probably a lot different. If they shoot its probably to stop the bad person & not other people. A FMJ projectile has the very high likelihood of passing through the target and possibly through one or two other people depending how close the shot is and how many people are around. Police are more likely to use a hunting round as more energy hits the target with a hunting round because the projectile expands on impact. No it doesn't explode, it expands and less likely to come out the other side.
AR-15s are in fact an older military design, a fair few companies make them now and they're relatively reliable and generally fairly accurate. They're a semi automatic with a detachable magazine.
Now semi automatic is not a machine gun, all it means is you pull the trigger it goes bang once & once only, it reloads the next round in the chamber and waits til you pull the trigger again.
Its actually not a scare thing at all. I think Police in country areas have a "patrol rifle" and its a AR-15 of some sort. I gather it has an Eotech tech holographic sight which are pretty good but they're battery operated. This means (I hope) they're also fitted with flip up iron sights if the battery goes dead.
It doesn't send out a red dot onto the target like the movies, it is a red dot projected only onto a miniscule glass screen atop the rifle. No battery means you don't know where sight zero is. Also they're designed for fast target acquisition at fairly close distances. If they're still fitted with Eotech sights I just hope they're also fitted with a flip over magnifier otherwise their 200-300 metre rifle is only good for 30-80 metres with that sight.
I hope they get a good armourer to sort out the rifle scope disaster.
I hope to the Armourer puts it out there that while the Police should have flashlights for their work they should also have a flashlight fitted to their Glock pistols. If its night or inside a dark house and they need to have their pistol drawn ready then they really need both hands on the pistol or one hand on the pistol and the other turning a door knob or whatever, not having a gun in one hand and torch in the other & fumbling.
If their pistols don't have flashlights we are letting them down terribly. VERY BADLY, they're a risk.
We really need to rally behind all our first responders including fire brigades, ambos & police. With the Labor Party of no help & the Liberal Party no where to be seen I have to commend the NationalsWA for attending the Police rally some time back and addressing the crowd. They haven't harped on it to gain votes, just plugged away behind the scenes trying to get a fair outcome.
Win or fail time will tell but least its not the WA Police all on their own.
But wait there's more. WA Police should have full & proper Worker's Compensation.
That's right they currently don't.
They should have the full FAMILY medical, dental & ancillaries health insurance premium paid for them by us. They should never have to worry about their health nor their family's health either and it should extend to any required psychological health professionals that might be required also.
And on top of that, they should have their Paraplegic Benefit Fund family membership premium paid for them too.
And did you know Police who are renting copped a big rent fee rise too? Yeah its like they're enemies of the state when really getting into the police force & the teaching profession should be the highest paid careers with the best benefits. High rewards & being very hard to get in means we're more likely to have the best professionals in protection & future proofing there is.
I think we also should (using the hashtag) #ProtectThoseWhoProtectUs
Its not hard, its quite easy, its fair and its basic decency.
Wednesday 4 October 2017
Australia's Financial Elephant in the Room Risk
SO the Reserve Bank doesn't raise Interest Rates. What's that mean?
Well been a while since the last Interest Rate Movement. In fact this has the official line from the RBA for some time. The October 2017 Reserve Bank of Australia's announcement on Interest Rates, well the first sentence anyway, reads...
At its meeting today, the Board decided to leave the cash rate unchanged at 1.50 per cent.
And that's been the exact same first sentence since September 2016.
Prior to that "At its meeting today, the Board decided to lower the cash rate by 25 basis points to 1.50 per cent, effective 3 August 2016. "
In short it means we're by no means under any threat of our economy over heating. While there'll no doubt be economists with differing views, some with motivational speaker type zeal about possible opportunities there's still an elephant in the room.
At present the nation's Household Debt is equal to Gross Domestic Product.
There's probably a few economists who'll have differing views on what that means, some might even think that its a thing but not a big bad thing and we should all just smile & soldier on.
That'll most likely happen anyway, but it does have ramifications and potential risks if a sizable threat comes our way.
Not pointing at North Korea but if there's another type of GFC we are in serious peril as an economy. Its bad enough that most of our engine fuel comes off shore through Asian waterways...one serious conflict in the region and some experts think we may have approximately 49 days fuel, for anything powered by petroleum. The military potentially less.
That's a worry because of the impact it might have on mortgage stress or mortgage default.
With such low levels of equity in householders assets they're at a big risk and it really is time Australia took its future into its own hands and took financial training on as a matter of National Security like food, water, energy & fuel. Well like Food, Water, Energy & Fuel should be.
Its not all easy to learn, but the fundamentals aren't hugely complicated & they generally don't change because, well, the fundamentals don't change...that's why they're "fundamental"
For example...
There is a good time to use debt.
There is a bad time to use debt.
There is no such thing as a bad time to pay debt off.
Some people turned to valuers to give them a high valuation for the home so without paying off any extra their debt on paper their equity had increased...which meant they then went and borrowed a little more which in many cases went into discretionary spending. I still don't understand how that even works.
The house didn't move to a better area, it gained no physical change...all on paper and if the economy turns much further south, the valuations will plummet whilst their increased debt doesn't lessen.
Meanwhile the smart folk don't spend money they haven't got, on things they don't need, to impress people they don't even like. Far too others many do.
We've lost the idea that hard work can and is enjoyable.
That money is earned with hard effort & is lost with very little effort at all.
That going without things actually causes later gains.
That compounding interest is your friend and the earlier you save the less you'll have to borrow.
As a Nation we need to pressure our legislators to future proof the country by pushing financial literacy. Schools often teach mathematics, but rarely teaching sound principles of financial planning.
The worst case scenarios highlighted on the TV several years ago were scary. We saw two girls aged between 18 & 23 with the massive credit cards debts. One girl was employed but neither had any assets & were still living with their parents. Spending over $20,000 a year on clothes and make up annually threw me for a big 6.
It seemed when money got low, they both did the same thing. No not austerity. Not sell off things and go without but apply for another credit card.
A wise teacher once pointed out that if kids don't get things right by 9 years of age they very likely have them right by the time they're 19. It doesn't matter how accurate the numbers are in that instance but the fundamental is there. We need to teach our youth how to manage money, how to make it work hard for us once we've worked hard for it. And also teach "He that makes money his slave also makes it his master"
Our moral fabric in society is torn and legislators might do well to at least start conversations on what problems this causes and what solutions are before us. Chances are they may very well have to go back in time to discover the better formulas for success and sustained success at that.
We've become the masters of short cuts to everything and we as a species seem to be very impatient. Amassing great wealth appears to really be amassing great debt with a bit of short term joy getting their before the debt collectors kick the door in.
In a dangerous times the tear in our society's moral fabric has developed into a set & accepted part of our culture.
Everyone wants their rights but wants them completely disconnected from responsibility. Apply that criteria to any issue and it'll fit.
Human rights are not absolute. Freedom of speech is not absolute. Even discrimination is not absolute. They are have boundaries, boundaries people conveniently erase if it doesn't suit their aims and goals.
We have an unravelling before us. Denial won't correct it dismissing it won't make it alright.
We have to pay the ferryman.
The greatest kings of all history were not absolute rulers. They had immense constraints & limitations. We're in an era now where some people want excess on tap and they want it now.
It might be possible if you squint and ignore the perils and the cost...but its not sustainable.
It will implode. We're in the midst of a huge explosion of implosions.
Well been a while since the last Interest Rate Movement. In fact this has the official line from the RBA for some time. The October 2017 Reserve Bank of Australia's announcement on Interest Rates, well the first sentence anyway, reads...
At its meeting today, the Board decided to leave the cash rate unchanged at 1.50 per cent.
And that's been the exact same first sentence since September 2016.
Prior to that "At its meeting today, the Board decided to lower the cash rate by 25 basis points to 1.50 per cent, effective 3 August 2016. "
In short it means we're by no means under any threat of our economy over heating. While there'll no doubt be economists with differing views, some with motivational speaker type zeal about possible opportunities there's still an elephant in the room.
At present the nation's Household Debt is equal to Gross Domestic Product.
There's probably a few economists who'll have differing views on what that means, some might even think that its a thing but not a big bad thing and we should all just smile & soldier on.
That'll most likely happen anyway, but it does have ramifications and potential risks if a sizable threat comes our way.
Not pointing at North Korea but if there's another type of GFC we are in serious peril as an economy. Its bad enough that most of our engine fuel comes off shore through Asian waterways...one serious conflict in the region and some experts think we may have approximately 49 days fuel, for anything powered by petroleum. The military potentially less.
That's a worry because of the impact it might have on mortgage stress or mortgage default.
With such low levels of equity in householders assets they're at a big risk and it really is time Australia took its future into its own hands and took financial training on as a matter of National Security like food, water, energy & fuel. Well like Food, Water, Energy & Fuel should be.
Its not all easy to learn, but the fundamentals aren't hugely complicated & they generally don't change because, well, the fundamentals don't change...that's why they're "fundamental"
For example...
There is a good time to use debt.
There is a bad time to use debt.
There is no such thing as a bad time to pay debt off.
Some people turned to valuers to give them a high valuation for the home so without paying off any extra their debt on paper their equity had increased...which meant they then went and borrowed a little more which in many cases went into discretionary spending. I still don't understand how that even works.
The house didn't move to a better area, it gained no physical change...all on paper and if the economy turns much further south, the valuations will plummet whilst their increased debt doesn't lessen.
Meanwhile the smart folk don't spend money they haven't got, on things they don't need, to impress people they don't even like. Far too others many do.
We've lost the idea that hard work can and is enjoyable.
That money is earned with hard effort & is lost with very little effort at all.
That going without things actually causes later gains.
That compounding interest is your friend and the earlier you save the less you'll have to borrow.
As a Nation we need to pressure our legislators to future proof the country by pushing financial literacy. Schools often teach mathematics, but rarely teaching sound principles of financial planning.
The worst case scenarios highlighted on the TV several years ago were scary. We saw two girls aged between 18 & 23 with the massive credit cards debts. One girl was employed but neither had any assets & were still living with their parents. Spending over $20,000 a year on clothes and make up annually threw me for a big 6.
It seemed when money got low, they both did the same thing. No not austerity. Not sell off things and go without but apply for another credit card.
A wise teacher once pointed out that if kids don't get things right by 9 years of age they very likely have them right by the time they're 19. It doesn't matter how accurate the numbers are in that instance but the fundamental is there. We need to teach our youth how to manage money, how to make it work hard for us once we've worked hard for it. And also teach "He that makes money his slave also makes it his master"
Our moral fabric in society is torn and legislators might do well to at least start conversations on what problems this causes and what solutions are before us. Chances are they may very well have to go back in time to discover the better formulas for success and sustained success at that.
We've become the masters of short cuts to everything and we as a species seem to be very impatient. Amassing great wealth appears to really be amassing great debt with a bit of short term joy getting their before the debt collectors kick the door in.
In a dangerous times the tear in our society's moral fabric has developed into a set & accepted part of our culture.
Everyone wants their rights but wants them completely disconnected from responsibility. Apply that criteria to any issue and it'll fit.
Human rights are not absolute. Freedom of speech is not absolute. Even discrimination is not absolute. They are have boundaries, boundaries people conveniently erase if it doesn't suit their aims and goals.
We have an unravelling before us. Denial won't correct it dismissing it won't make it alright.
We have to pay the ferryman.
The greatest kings of all history were not absolute rulers. They had immense constraints & limitations. We're in an era now where some people want excess on tap and they want it now.
It might be possible if you squint and ignore the perils and the cost...but its not sustainable.
It will implode. We're in the midst of a huge explosion of implosions.
Monday 2 October 2017
Mass Shootings with Guns
There are still people fighting for their lives and the world is already fighting for answers but solutions will most likely elude legislators again.
There's some underlying focus points that again will be lost in the rush and is often the case, we need only look back at history to take some lessons.
1996 in Australia will forever be marked in the history books as the dark year when the most shocking massacre in recent times took place at Port Arthur. What happened afterwards as a legislative reaction was well intended but it missed some of the mark. Highly likely we will see a similar reaction reoccur that again doesn't prevent another tragedy in years to come.
It is the case that gun crime decreased after John Howard's measures were brought in. Its also the case they were a continuation of the same downward trend that had been occurring for the years prior to Port Arthur.
Here's the thing. Port Arthur was this. A gunman with no gun licence, no car licence went on a killing spree taking 35 lives and caused physical & mental injuries to others.
His mental health professional at the prison, a professor no less, says the gunman was a deranged psychopath with lower intelligence and has difficulty discerning reality from fantasy.
A deranged psychopath with illegal firearms kills 35 people and $500 Million went into a gun buyback and not one extra cent went into serious mental health.
Whether someone is a political fighter, a religious fighter or anything else, there's usually some mental health issues present. It is not normal to pick up a firearm and take someone's life. It takes a delusion or the influence of a delusional influence. Rarely is it as self defence to a severe threat to life. There are tens of thousands of legal firearm owners in each of the states, fit & proper persons, no mental health issues and they have largely no involvement with crime.
In the USA 80% of all gun crime is drug related.
Much of that is gang related.
Nearly all of it is in the most densely populated cities, of which the USA has many more than most countries.
Much of that is driven by poverty.
The massacres however are generally acts of terror by people with serious mental issues.
They have had political & religious/political based acts of terror in the USA...but lets face it radicalised people must have some forms of mental instability or been susceptible to influence by radical elements.
Targeting criminals with guns is a top priority but ensuring those who have mental health history cannot get firearms is an area for more focus.
Banning guns is not the answer. We ban Ice, Heroin, Meth and we still have problems.
We need to acknowledge that drugs is not just a health problem, its society's mental health issue.
We need to acknowledge there are many people who should never own guns, just as there are a few people who should probably never touch alcohol but we can't ban all people from guns nor ban all alcohol completely either.
There is no sure fire perfect system of answers to prevent gun crime. In Australia the percentage of gun crime using stolen or legal firearms doesn't even hit double digits. There are many home made firearms, some fairly sophisticated fully automatic firearms but the majority are smuggled in.
Tightening the rules around the tools criminals & psychopaths use is a good idea, but it's not addressing the root cause.
The root cause of the Las Vegas gunman and his motives are yet to fully unfold. We don't even know if he had legal or illegal firearms.
It'd be pretty foolish to rule out mental illness of some sort.
As society seems to continue along in our moral decay (whether its worsening or not) we need to address the core source of the problem, not just the tools used.
Poverty drives a lot of crime. Criminals don't always use lawfully approved firearms.
Culture is driving a lot of social cues and some of them are very wrong. Hollywood is awash with films where a normal person becomes a real hero by somehow miraculously arming themselves and killing every baddie in the film. Something went wrong, pick up weapons and "kill 'em all"
Action films do influence some people, especially the mentally susceptible & vulnerable.
If you don't think impressionism works then you have to think the entire world of advertising doesn't work one bit.
Our moral framework has lessened. Our society's moral compass is more like to stick or be adjusted to exactly where the individual wants it. There is some moral decay and descent. Somewhere in there is where the real problem has its origins and where we need to apply attention & solutions.
Just banning guns is just banning the legal tools that are rarely ever used illegally for evil.
Here's the thing, there are an estimated 300 Million guns in the US. That's a staggering amount of fire power.
With that in mind watch this video for some stats - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IULSD8VwXEs
There's some underlying focus points that again will be lost in the rush and is often the case, we need only look back at history to take some lessons.
1996 in Australia will forever be marked in the history books as the dark year when the most shocking massacre in recent times took place at Port Arthur. What happened afterwards as a legislative reaction was well intended but it missed some of the mark. Highly likely we will see a similar reaction reoccur that again doesn't prevent another tragedy in years to come.
It is the case that gun crime decreased after John Howard's measures were brought in. Its also the case they were a continuation of the same downward trend that had been occurring for the years prior to Port Arthur.
Here's the thing. Port Arthur was this. A gunman with no gun licence, no car licence went on a killing spree taking 35 lives and caused physical & mental injuries to others.
His mental health professional at the prison, a professor no less, says the gunman was a deranged psychopath with lower intelligence and has difficulty discerning reality from fantasy.
A deranged psychopath with illegal firearms kills 35 people and $500 Million went into a gun buyback and not one extra cent went into serious mental health.
Whether someone is a political fighter, a religious fighter or anything else, there's usually some mental health issues present. It is not normal to pick up a firearm and take someone's life. It takes a delusion or the influence of a delusional influence. Rarely is it as self defence to a severe threat to life. There are tens of thousands of legal firearm owners in each of the states, fit & proper persons, no mental health issues and they have largely no involvement with crime.
In the USA 80% of all gun crime is drug related.
Much of that is gang related.
Nearly all of it is in the most densely populated cities, of which the USA has many more than most countries.
Much of that is driven by poverty.
The massacres however are generally acts of terror by people with serious mental issues.
They have had political & religious/political based acts of terror in the USA...but lets face it radicalised people must have some forms of mental instability or been susceptible to influence by radical elements.
Targeting criminals with guns is a top priority but ensuring those who have mental health history cannot get firearms is an area for more focus.
Banning guns is not the answer. We ban Ice, Heroin, Meth and we still have problems.
We need to acknowledge that drugs is not just a health problem, its society's mental health issue.
We need to acknowledge there are many people who should never own guns, just as there are a few people who should probably never touch alcohol but we can't ban all people from guns nor ban all alcohol completely either.
There is no sure fire perfect system of answers to prevent gun crime. In Australia the percentage of gun crime using stolen or legal firearms doesn't even hit double digits. There are many home made firearms, some fairly sophisticated fully automatic firearms but the majority are smuggled in.
Tightening the rules around the tools criminals & psychopaths use is a good idea, but it's not addressing the root cause.
The root cause of the Las Vegas gunman and his motives are yet to fully unfold. We don't even know if he had legal or illegal firearms.
It'd be pretty foolish to rule out mental illness of some sort.
As society seems to continue along in our moral decay (whether its worsening or not) we need to address the core source of the problem, not just the tools used.
Poverty drives a lot of crime. Criminals don't always use lawfully approved firearms.
Culture is driving a lot of social cues and some of them are very wrong. Hollywood is awash with films where a normal person becomes a real hero by somehow miraculously arming themselves and killing every baddie in the film. Something went wrong, pick up weapons and "kill 'em all"
Action films do influence some people, especially the mentally susceptible & vulnerable.
If you don't think impressionism works then you have to think the entire world of advertising doesn't work one bit.
Our moral framework has lessened. Our society's moral compass is more like to stick or be adjusted to exactly where the individual wants it. There is some moral decay and descent. Somewhere in there is where the real problem has its origins and where we need to apply attention & solutions.
Just banning guns is just banning the legal tools that are rarely ever used illegally for evil.
Here's the thing, there are an estimated 300 Million guns in the US. That's a staggering amount of fire power.
With that in mind watch this video for some stats - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IULSD8VwXEs
Saturday 30 September 2017
It Can Get Strange When Atheists & Christians Argue
You could fill the Grand Canyon a 1000 times over with all the A4 Pages you could write about some of the absurdity that pops up when Atheists & Christians argue. Part of the problem is there's quite a few on both sides who maybe don't understand Scripture as well as they should before they start arguing for it or against it.
Really it should be easy. There's a reference document, go there and read then quote but the trouble is reading & quoting without proper study & understanding will trip both sides up very quickly.
I notice in the recent SSM argument it gets similarly messy and the thing both sides need to employ when using Scripture is "proper in context exegesis", or in other words, saying what it says in the way that it means what its supposed to mean. Fact is, anyone can twist Scripture to mean something outside its intent. Need examples just go look at the famous and incredibly rich TV Evangelists. Sorry but there's nothing that says a person is to become a pastor in order to amass an obscene amount of personal wealth from the congregation.
Here's a snippet from a Twitter stoush which was over Fr Rod Bower's comment that "Dutton is a Sodomite"
So its Twitter, there's a handful of characters available to rail against one another, hard to get much meat out of a stoush on Twitter at the best of times but there's 2 faults here. Yes the drawing has what appears to be 2 male lions entering an ark, lost point the pair of deer in front are the same gender too if you know your deer...but no that's not it. Point one, its not from the Bible, the 40 authors who wrote the 66 books did not have an illustrator. It is what it is, its a sloppy and lazy cheap shot. It happens, it is what it is...irrelevant to the debate but that's life.
The big point the tweeter made was about people wearing clothes made of 2 different fibres. Now that's been put up to show the absurdity of Christians today who want SSM disallowed & still oppose homosexual relations yet they don't wear clothes of one fibre. Its to highlight that Christians are hypocrites and therefore you can dismiss everything from them.
Now there's a couple of answers here..."Father" Rod Bowers presumably wears clothes of 2 fibres so with that logic he's a hypocrite to the atheist protesting and therefore we should dismiss everything he says too stands to reason. But that doesn't happen because the atheist in this case is employing an intellectually bankrupt technique that Edward De Bono referred to as "arrogance arguing" where you never ever make a point that your opposition hasn't seen which could diminish your own argument. Its one of the many barriers to finding the best result for fairness...its also why I'm not a total fan of debating in school.
Thing is the 2 fibres thing is a part of Mosaic Law.
The temple was destroyed in 70AD so Mosiac Law cannot be practiced anymore, indeed Christ said he came to fulfil the law so Mosaic Law is gone. Add to that, it only ever applied to the Hebrews of Pre 70AD. In the days prior there were plenty of Gentiles or non Jews worshipping the same God as the Jews, yes even in the Temple of Jerusalem but only certain things applied to them and they actually had restrictions and could not go past the "Court of the Gentiles". In any case Mosaic Law did not apply to them. Add to that no one in that time who could keep the Mosaic Law was sin free...otherwise they would not have to have a blood sacrifice in the temple would they? Indeed the purpose of Mosaic Law was to show the Law couldn't save you, only a blood sacrifice could and it was a foreshadow of the real blood sacrifice of a "kinsman redeemer" to come (also foreshadowed in the Book of Ruth) who we know today as Jesus.
So with Christ's coming and crucifixion the Law & indeed the sacrifices practiced at the temple were fulfilled & done. So too Mosaic Law was fulfilled and can't really be followed by Jews today if they read & realised.
Then there's another lost point, Rod Bowers calls himself "Father" and the Scriptures are pretty clear on that...you never call anyone in regards to faith "Father" except God the Father. That and a number of other (non Mosaic Law) passages point out the qualifications for the office of pastor.
Rod fails.
So there are some athiests who don't believe in the Christian God, who use Scripture they don't believe in, entirely the wrong way to argue again, against the God they don't believe in as a form of support for a "pastor" who isn't technically qualified to be in the job...that is the job he doesn't do properly.
Rod Bowers job is (among other things) is to go out into the world and make disciples of people. That's what Scripture says. He's supposed to be Berean like using the Scripture properly as it is intended...he doesn't. He's supposed to help people see & understand and get them to choose to repent and turn away from their sins and accept Christ as saviour...as Scripture very very clearly instructs.
He doesn't. What he does is reduce the number of sins, draw close to Islam which is a completely different God that opposes Christian Scripture completely all to allow more people to come into his doors. He's singing from a hymn sheet that scratches itching ears but has no depth nor truth.
As a result he becomes the faux "Christian" priest that's acceptable to atheists and he deliberately twists or omits Scripture to allow sinners of different stripes to continue their sins that are clearly labelled as sins in the Bible.
Its not long and his supporters pull this often repeated beauty. Its meant as an outflanking argument for Christians who follow Christ's Word.
Here's the thing, both sides could do a proper in context exegesis of Scripture and find the Words of the Gospel are God breathed. It says that in no uncertain terms. Therefore what John, Peter, Mark, Luke, Paul are saying is actually the Word of God. And who does the Bible say the Word is? Christ.
So when Paul goes on about the practice of homosexuality being sin etc its not his opinion. Its the Word of Christ. Its what Christ said...and its pretty clear.
And the reply to that will be silence or mockery.
You don't have to believe in the Word of the Bible and most people won't believe it but if you're going to use it, you should use it properly. Its not easy though and it takes some effort of perhaps some guidance but Scripture says you're to be Berean like, listen to what the pastor says then "search the Scriptures daily to see if it is so"
So in other words...go to the Reference Document and use proper in context exegesis...maybe you're twisting it falsely. If you don't read & digest it properly as it's meant to be then you've made up your own mind to go pre-suppositional. You've attained a stance without research.
To do that you need to be very determined in your stance despite no research & realise the atheist relies on their faith.
It's at this point you have to admit it takes lots more faith to be an atheist.
Really it should be easy. There's a reference document, go there and read then quote but the trouble is reading & quoting without proper study & understanding will trip both sides up very quickly.
I notice in the recent SSM argument it gets similarly messy and the thing both sides need to employ when using Scripture is "proper in context exegesis", or in other words, saying what it says in the way that it means what its supposed to mean. Fact is, anyone can twist Scripture to mean something outside its intent. Need examples just go look at the famous and incredibly rich TV Evangelists. Sorry but there's nothing that says a person is to become a pastor in order to amass an obscene amount of personal wealth from the congregation.
Here's a snippet from a Twitter stoush which was over Fr Rod Bower's comment that "Dutton is a Sodomite"
So its Twitter, there's a handful of characters available to rail against one another, hard to get much meat out of a stoush on Twitter at the best of times but there's 2 faults here. Yes the drawing has what appears to be 2 male lions entering an ark, lost point the pair of deer in front are the same gender too if you know your deer...but no that's not it. Point one, its not from the Bible, the 40 authors who wrote the 66 books did not have an illustrator. It is what it is, its a sloppy and lazy cheap shot. It happens, it is what it is...irrelevant to the debate but that's life.
The big point the tweeter made was about people wearing clothes made of 2 different fibres. Now that's been put up to show the absurdity of Christians today who want SSM disallowed & still oppose homosexual relations yet they don't wear clothes of one fibre. Its to highlight that Christians are hypocrites and therefore you can dismiss everything from them.
Now there's a couple of answers here..."Father" Rod Bowers presumably wears clothes of 2 fibres so with that logic he's a hypocrite to the atheist protesting and therefore we should dismiss everything he says too stands to reason. But that doesn't happen because the atheist in this case is employing an intellectually bankrupt technique that Edward De Bono referred to as "arrogance arguing" where you never ever make a point that your opposition hasn't seen which could diminish your own argument. Its one of the many barriers to finding the best result for fairness...its also why I'm not a total fan of debating in school.
Thing is the 2 fibres thing is a part of Mosaic Law.
The temple was destroyed in 70AD so Mosiac Law cannot be practiced anymore, indeed Christ said he came to fulfil the law so Mosaic Law is gone. Add to that, it only ever applied to the Hebrews of Pre 70AD. In the days prior there were plenty of Gentiles or non Jews worshipping the same God as the Jews, yes even in the Temple of Jerusalem but only certain things applied to them and they actually had restrictions and could not go past the "Court of the Gentiles". In any case Mosaic Law did not apply to them. Add to that no one in that time who could keep the Mosaic Law was sin free...otherwise they would not have to have a blood sacrifice in the temple would they? Indeed the purpose of Mosaic Law was to show the Law couldn't save you, only a blood sacrifice could and it was a foreshadow of the real blood sacrifice of a "kinsman redeemer" to come (also foreshadowed in the Book of Ruth) who we know today as Jesus.
So with Christ's coming and crucifixion the Law & indeed the sacrifices practiced at the temple were fulfilled & done. So too Mosaic Law was fulfilled and can't really be followed by Jews today if they read & realised.
Then there's another lost point, Rod Bowers calls himself "Father" and the Scriptures are pretty clear on that...you never call anyone in regards to faith "Father" except God the Father. That and a number of other (non Mosaic Law) passages point out the qualifications for the office of pastor.
Rod fails.
So there are some athiests who don't believe in the Christian God, who use Scripture they don't believe in, entirely the wrong way to argue again, against the God they don't believe in as a form of support for a "pastor" who isn't technically qualified to be in the job...that is the job he doesn't do properly.
Rod Bowers job is (among other things) is to go out into the world and make disciples of people. That's what Scripture says. He's supposed to be Berean like using the Scripture properly as it is intended...he doesn't. He's supposed to help people see & understand and get them to choose to repent and turn away from their sins and accept Christ as saviour...as Scripture very very clearly instructs.
He doesn't. What he does is reduce the number of sins, draw close to Islam which is a completely different God that opposes Christian Scripture completely all to allow more people to come into his doors. He's singing from a hymn sheet that scratches itching ears but has no depth nor truth.
As a result he becomes the faux "Christian" priest that's acceptable to atheists and he deliberately twists or omits Scripture to allow sinners of different stripes to continue their sins that are clearly labelled as sins in the Bible.
Its not long and his supporters pull this often repeated beauty. Its meant as an outflanking argument for Christians who follow Christ's Word.
Here's the angle employed. The idea is get the Christian to quote exactly where Christ Himself said something against homosexuality. They are keen to cite Christ's Word on Love forgiveness, Love Thy Neighbour etc...
The idea is to show Christ is all about Love and Never Ever was against homosexuality.
Here's where it crumbles and it centres on the Atheist again wrongly using the Scripture they don't believe in to try & outfox the God they don't follow & gazump the believer they don't like so as to make anything they want to do acceptable. Its as odd as a $3 note and it implodes quickly or rather would if BOTH sides of the debate knew & understood the Bible properly. They often don't so its a stand off.
Here's the thing, both sides could do a proper in context exegesis of Scripture and find the Words of the Gospel are God breathed. It says that in no uncertain terms. Therefore what John, Peter, Mark, Luke, Paul are saying is actually the Word of God. And who does the Bible say the Word is? Christ.
So when Paul goes on about the practice of homosexuality being sin etc its not his opinion. Its the Word of Christ. Its what Christ said...and its pretty clear.
And the reply to that will be silence or mockery.
You don't have to believe in the Word of the Bible and most people won't believe it but if you're going to use it, you should use it properly. Its not easy though and it takes some effort of perhaps some guidance but Scripture says you're to be Berean like, listen to what the pastor says then "search the Scriptures daily to see if it is so"
So in other words...go to the Reference Document and use proper in context exegesis...maybe you're twisting it falsely. If you don't read & digest it properly as it's meant to be then you've made up your own mind to go pre-suppositional. You've attained a stance without research.
To do that you need to be very determined in your stance despite no research & realise the atheist relies on their faith.
It's at this point you have to admit it takes lots more faith to be an atheist.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)