What's missing in Joe Hilderbrand's view on Israel Folau

Does Joe get it right all the time? Nope, like me he's afflicted with the ability to be well meaning but not actually 100% correct. No one's perfect. Partly that's what Folau was getting at. Christians are not perfect, they're sinners too. The difference is whist Christians aren't perfect they are saved.

No one gets into Heaven on their own actions, the Bible is abundantly clear on that, that's why a Christ came & replaced the 10 commandments. Well not replaced but strengthened what those laws were saying, you can't make it on your own, you need Christ. That's what Israel Folau said & meant in the meme. Read it again, all the way through.

Couple of things for Joe...

Yes in the Dark Ages you could be put to death for possessing even a part of the Scriptures. An action that is not supported by any part of the Scriptures I should point out.

The church is not, nor has it even been a de facto state but the Roman Catholic Church is a sovereign state & always has been. Again not something encouraged by Scriptures at all. If anything, Scriptures warned us about it.

Joe mentioned "...and hearing first hand about a radical preacher who drank copious amounts of wine, consorted with prostitutes and declared no rich man would get into heaven." I'm not sure who he means. If he means Christ, he's actually set out as the new High Priest, the new King & the Messiah and He never ever  "declared no rich man would get into heaven.". It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. Put it this way, its easier for someone to die & be risen or maybe walk on water than a rich man enter the kingdom of God. Point is, as Scripture points out clearly, all things are possible with Christ & God. A rich man can possible enter the Kingdom of God. Money is not a sin, the LOVE of money is. If you love money more than Christ. Just putting that out there Joe. :-)

Contradictory verses? Well no, if you find a contradiction you haven't found the in Context exegesis yet. Scripture is also clear, Scripture proves Scripture. Keep checking, some way to go.

Thousand of unknown authors? No. 66 books by 40 authors and the veracity the further you go back is clear. In fact in Christ & Pre Christ times the scholars and scribes were highly regulated. Every letter and punctuation mark in Hebrew had a numerical value. The scribes wrote under close supervision, each line had to have the exact same numerical value, each line was added up & sections had to arrive at a specific numerical value. If they were out by just one, it was destroyed as it was seen as a travesty against God. It was pretty serious and some of the oldest surviving copies of the Torah don't deviate from modern copies of the Torah. Just saying.

Yes Israel read the Bible and made the comments he did. I'm still waiting for someone to explain, with proper in context Exegesis, why & how, what he said was not in line with Scripture. So far, it lines up very well with Scripture whether you believe in the Scriptures or not.

Yes the media leapt on it. For good reason, it was always going to sell. A clash between the large and influential LBGTI movement of today and the Christian view. And hasn't the media done such a great job at injecting more push in the scrum? It sells, it sells well. Its the old 60 Minutes approach. Polarise 2 sides, sit in the middle and stoke, stoke, stoke them a week later read more polarising letters.

LBGTI movement has been persecuted over the centuries, but that's not why they're raising hell. They're complaining about Folau getting millions to fight a legal battle whilst its impossible to get the same amount for starving or homeless. Its also the case that the LGBTI "movement" (and it is now a political movement) is not pounding the press over gay people being launched off buildings to their deaths. Nor is it, quite noticeably going after any religion except Christianity. Its not pursuing Imams & other Islamic clerics to revise their scriptures to embrace LBGTI. Check the Qaran, Christopher Hitchins tried getting and answer out of Waleed Aly...can someone be a good muslim and gay. Aly went for a watered down dodgeball.

Maybe Madga & others can nail Waleed down in this based on their Scriptures...and other religions too.

Interesting also, if Folau can & should be sacked & it's not unreasonable seeing Qantas is a major sponsor & its CEO is a prominent member of the LBGTI movement...or perceived so. Joyce was employed to be a CEO. Its not his money, its the company's and he works for the company and his fiduciary duty is very clear...he is to work in the best interests of the shareholders & the company. What if the shareholders & the company decide his actions in SSM & the Folau issue are too controversial and anti Christian or just not in the best interests of the company can QATAS sack Alan Joyce? Going by the Folau action of dismissal he can & no one should complain. Madga can have any contract she has cancelled if she strays from what her employers deem is a boundary.
They're not saying that, they're only out to get one guy from one religion that offers a path to salvation. LBGTI people were not singled out, but their movement was keen to take umbrage & single Folau out.

Folau did not ask for gays to be stoned or thrown off buildings. He promoted that we're all sinners and only Christ can save us.

If you disagree with that, ignore it and walk on. Let the man play football and say what he wants as long as its not inciting hate. He aimed squarely at sinners which is all of us, including him. Scripture is clear, Christ is the only one who's getting into Heaven and isn't a sinner. All those who walk into Heaven are sinners, everyone born of man & woman are sinners. Some are going to Heaven, some are going to Hell by the Scriptures and by Scriptures YOU GET TO CHOOSE WHICH PLACE YOU GO. Yes Scripture is pretty clear on Free Will.

Now the argument then comes, 'but times have changed and we're more progressive and we all have to change' well that can only be predicated on you not believing in Scripture...your choice, free will. But if you believe in the Scriptures and believe times have changed and we have to as well...well get your thoughts together and explain to God why He has to now apologise to Sodom & Gomorrah.

Use some in context exegesis of Scripture to prop that up.

As for the Roman Catholic Church it diverges in Scripture often, it changed the 10 Commandments, it ignores the requirements for the office of pastor completely, it offers forgiveness when Scripture is very clear that no person on earth has that Authority & the "Holy Father" name given to the pope is clearly said to be used by no one at all, its God's name & title. That's the tip of the iceberg, the RCC is very non or anti Scripture so for my money its not a Christian church.

Just a few things Joe. Reckon you're close but more closely everyone's missing what this means for contract law. We can outlaw a person expressing political or religious views in their own time. In fact a company can decide what's objectionable and call for someone to be sacked.

Not good Joe. Meanwhile in Iran...

W.A.'s Voluntary Assisted Dying...partially unwrapped

Everyone has a view of whether it should pass into legislation or not & some are already commenting on the legislation...and yet there is none. None at all, its not passed & its not even a draft bill.

In fact the McCusker led Expert Panel Report has only been submitted this week, just a few short days ago. So do I support the legislation? No, because there is none and we only have suggestions & views of what the draft bill will contain. Why would I support anything that has absolutely no details at all?

We do know that Victoria's up & running legal model has 6 months attached, the patient must be expected to pass away within 6 months. Whereas the WA model it will be pushed out to 12 months.

In Victoria 2 doctors are required to carry out an assessment & sign off on it before Euthanasia can commence. In WA it may end up being one doctor & one Nurse Practitioner due to the possible scarcity of doctors in rural & regional areas. Its a fair point, however in some areas it may be a bit of a wait for one doctor. I would have expected that this will be a procedure that won't be happening very often & where it does it's likely to be where greater medical attention & patient care is. It's in the palliative care stage and would hope there's more than one doctor within a 100km.

In Victoria, the patient must be a Victoria resident of at least 12 months. In WA there's a curious departure from that with McCusker report suggesting 6 months due to the large amount of FIFO people. I would imagine if you're a FIFO worker & you're considering euthanasia then you probably haven't been working for 6-12 months anyway. I guess there'll be exceptions but I don't think your primary workplace should be regarded as your primary place of residence. If the family home is in Adelaide & & you FIFO to the Pilbara...well its one for the legislators to ponder over.

Its likely also that it may not be allowable for a person with dementia or Alzheimer's. I guess that will be sorted out but knowing when a person was capable of making a rational decision is one thing, how long that decision has statute is another. You make the decision at 52 & 12 years later you're declining in health badly, does the decision still stand?
Personally not too phased, with the composition of the Lower & Upper House in WA I expect the legislation to receive full vigour.

Where I am a little worried is how the differing views might get presented.
I think there's a chance some who are more anti Christian than non Christian might see the chance to fire pot shots, possible too some people of faith will cite chapter & verse of the Bible/Quran/whatever holy scriptures and be either cop flak or hit a dead end.

Here's the thing. People of faith may well have a view that's formed from or by their faith. That's as valid as any other differing view. If people of faith though  want to make any sort of progress they cannot make a faith based argument. Reason is that's called "arguing from authority" and if other people do not recognise nor adhere to that authority they won't be swayed by it and some may actually be further compelled to oppose it.

So a religious person can be motivated by their faith, but they should argue with a secular argument otherwise its just brick walls.

Having said that, I know it won't happen but people probably shouldn't cite their own experience. I know of a person who was at death's door but Euthanasia wasn't available. I won't be presenting his experience, his wishes at the time or explaining the immense pain & discomfort he was going through in his last 6-8 weeks stuck in hospital. Its only the technical aspects, or rather all the aspects de-personalised that is most valid.

Yes, his experience was confronting to say the very least but I cannot & won't use it to either support or oppose VAD. I can see many will take the opportunity to vent personal experience.

The Aust Medical Assoc. has apparently stated that VAD is not a medical matter therefore they are opposing it, citing it is contrary to all their professional values. Not sure if it was the AMA but I respect their view and we also have to respect the view of the doctors who will wish to not be involved in any VAD. I don't know if there'll be an opt in or opt out doctor's register but no one should be forced to assist in the death of anyone else.

How do I think it will pan out? Well at the risk of sounding like Doris Day with a "whatever will be will be" well...exactly that really. I think the proposed legislation will get run through the proverbial wringers and that is exactly what should happen with such a topic of such huge gravity.
Will there be a filibuster? Probably, don't care to be honest. All parties have done that so no one's got high moral ground to complain about that political tactic. I notice no one's pushing desperately for that to be abolished in legislation.

Its a bit like SSM, the sooner the government is not involved in it the better. Leave it to people's free choice & free will. From a Christian perspective, even if it were a sin that would deny someone of resurrection, its free will & that is a conservative value.

I think it will eventually pass but not before much pontificating and moralising from both sides.
Labor is dead set keen on bringing it in, but they mostly have an issue of straying into religious territory they cannot occupy. I expect they will claim it's immoral to oppose it, that the opposition (or those opposing it at least) are cold & immoral.
Here's the thing, making a moral claim you have to cite a moral code. If you're a humanist, an atheist, agnostic that gets pretty hard because you're taking on a moral judgement when you're either a moral relativist (what you think is moral must be...otherwise known as a personal opinion) or you've adopted society norms about which none are actually formed as its not legal yet. Which also leaves the uncomfortable possibility that a devout Labor follower could employ an intellectually corrupt tactic by claiming its "immoral" due to society law & it fails as a bill.

Again, it has to be de-personalised and secular, fully fact, evidence & data based.
It will be difficult and it will be politically charged.
This will likely be a left vs right barrage even if there's a quite a few from the non left supporting it.
Labor will champion this & will try to earn electoral mileage at every minor turn.

Exactly what the debate does not need.

 Watch this Space

How To Succeed In Fixing Gender Inequality

How To Succeed In Fixing Gender Inequality - Is It Possible?

Short answer is probably, longer answer is probably but is that really what you want and the smart answer starts with a question of "what equality are you specifically talking about?"

Answer the question within the smart answer and you have a far better chance of getting where society needs to go, but it might not be where you think or expect.

Equality in job participation overall?
"In 2017–18, almost two-thirds of women (64%) and three quarters of men (75%) aged 20–74 years old were employed, this is referred to as the employment to population ratio"

So how do we fix this, that is go to 50:50? Do we sack 11% of the men or refuse more males in the workforce and only employ women until women's 64% comes up to men's level?

C'mon now, there's a pair of options to bring equality of outcome we're supposed to aspire to if we're to achieve more fair representation. Seems very totalitarian leaning though...

Here's another unlevel playing field...

"In 2017–18, three in every four 'clerical and administrative workers' are women (75%) and nine out of ten 'machine operators' are men (91%), which has remained largely unchanged over the last decade."
How do we even those statistics up, because if you look at the entire gender wage gap, dominance in some higher paid industries of one gender & dominance of lower paid workers in some industries can skew the overall Average earnings of Women vs Men.
There is the thing though. We have pay equality in Australia. You cannot pay a person more or less based on their gender. A female shearer earns no more than a male shearer. The rate is the same.

If someone is paid more or less due to their gender, that's illegal in this country.

Lets consider some of the other pay rates skewing the Men vs Women Earning Pay Gap.

"The industries with the highest proportion of women are 'health care and social assistance' (79%) and 'education and training' (72%), while men dominated the 'construction' (88%) and 'mining' (84%) industries (See Table 1.3). The graphic below demonstrates the gender composition across all industries"
Men are more likely to work outside, in or with machinery or in work shops or in the harder climates. Men are more likely to work more dangerous jobs, they're more likely to be killed or injured in the workplace than women. They're more likely to travel either FIFO or relocate than women. Men are more likely to work full time, women are more likely to work part time

These are just some figures that cannot be weighted out or factored in when calculating the Gender Pay Gap which is total Female Earnings vs the total Male Earners (most often of full time workers).

Women are more likely to own or be buying their home compared to men, men are less likely to own their home outright. There's age & other factors like widow/widower status that is included and skew the male vs female comparison ratio.
Not sure how we address this inequality...but then men are more likely to be killed or injured in active combat, more likely to commit suicide & more likely to go to jail.

Generally I note its more often the call that we need more women in Parliament and on the board of Blue Chip listed companies. I often ponder how it is that we aim for 50:50 ratio in these very high paid, very high profile, white collar jobs (some might say elite jobs) yet no one is pushing for 50:50 interstate truck drivers, 50:50 bricklayers, 50:50 plumbers, shearers, late night taxi drivers, airport baggage handlers.
I'm told that no it's about "representation"...how many society group differences to we cater for?
Just gender & forget other group differences like race, culture, age, religious choice...

In agriculture well over 2/3rds of the employed workforce are men. Do we reduce the numbers of men or refuse males entering that industry until more women get involved & the figure hits 50:50?

Do we reduce the numbers of women in Heath Care, Childcare or Education & Training?

All these angle to reduce or increase numbers is "equality of outcome" (leftist) not "equality of opportunity" (conservative). Engineering the result is leftist and utterly unfair. Letting the market decide with the same rate of pay per hour work for the same level of productivity is already enshrined in law.

Pregnancy - Ahh the curve ball that's answered by saying men can take time off too in some jurisdictions & that its unfair to penalise a woman for taking time off to have a baby. Here's the thing, anyone who takes a sabbatical (irrespective of their gender) is harming their career, it is a set back. That's life, not long ago few women were even allowed to have the Equal Opportunity (freedom to choose their own job).

Its unfair on the employer if extended time off work is taken by staff for whatever reason. Apparently lengthy time off work can be taken with no ill effect on the career whilst those continuing to work get no benefit at all. Those women who don't or can't have children...what happens there? To be fair do they get a sabbatical that's equivalent to the average women's time off work for child birth & rearing?

No what we need to do is identify very closely what the EQUALIT & INEQUALITY actually is...

If women want more equality, if they want the gender gap removed they have to work longer hours than they currently do, they'll need to occupy higher paying jobs that are more often outside. More often far more dangerous. Require FIFO or to relocate and generally lead to less time with the family.

Women need to be very careful what they wish for. Most of the higher paying jobs are longer hours, more dangerous and dominated by men. There's equal opportunity for them already. No one's stopping them going to jobs with higher risks, higher responsibilities to the safety of others.

What is it you want to equal up & fix?
Do we identify every other demographic and decide the percentages of certain races in certain industries is wrong and they should show a particular representative percentage in every field?

There's a huge disparity in the number of young males in one particular field. AFL Players.
There's no over 40s, no over 50s, no over 60s...that's not fair. There's no women playing AFL, why is that? Equal Outcomes says every club's playing group must be 50:50 men/women. The fact is we have Equal Opportunity and its very unlikely we'll get enough women the high standard in high enough numbers to make 50:50. We'd see a loss in playing standard. That'd mean a loss in income & returns for all involved.

Well why can't women in the AFLW be paid the same as men in the AFL?
Business fundamentals. Can the AFLW fill the MCG on its own separate Grand Final day?
Do you think the AFLW will generate 100,000+ spectators on their own grand final day?

Some things in life are fair & some unfair, some things are unequal but fair.
In nations where the Engineering of Equal Outcomes has been the greatest its actually led to wider equality disparity which is completely the opposite of all the predictions. Search some Jordan Petersen videos to learn more.

In the meantime, know what the inequality is that you think is unfair before you even think of engineering a solution. I'll just sit here and wait.

Graph above from... https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by%20Subject/4125.0~Sep%202018~Main%20Features~Economic%20Security~4

Graph above from...
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-05-21/the-most-gendered-top-jobs-in-australia/9775544

Labor Policy - It's Time

Yes Labor its time to step away from your Policy Platform of opposing and banning Live Export.

NOW.

The Transit Mortality Rate has been on a falling trendline for over 7 years, that's even including the unacceptable Awassi disaster.

Recent shipment to Israel had 60 animal deaths & the whole world has lost its mind despite the facts. 60 animals out of 20,000. That's 0.3% and the reportable level is many times above that.
It's a mere slice of a fraction of the number of lambs that get taken each night by foxes/dogs.
Its a mere fraction of all the unnecessary deaths in the lucrative Pet Industry in Australia

Qatar has already stated it will buy live from Somalia, Sudan & South America if they're prevented from buying live from Australia. Those countries don't have any regulated Animal Welfare structure like the world leading ESCAS that Australia has. South America is an extra 5 weeks at sea. If that's not bad enough, Qatar said if prevented from buying our live they will not buy our chilled meat.
They already do buy chilled but its a very small amount & its a premium market item.
Gets worse, they said they will not buy grain from us. That's a huge triple whammy economic hit to WA's export economy. HUGE.

Why does Live Export even exist?
If you listen to cult extremists its because producers are cruel and love blood money.
Utter rubbish.

Live export exists because the overseas feedlots operate at a fraction of the cost. In the case of Indonesia, at around 1/5th of the cost of an Australian feedlot. Their slaughter/processing costs even lower. So they cannot get overseas protein onto their plate anywhere near the low cost Livex does.

Here's the irony though, its actually what holds the Australian farm gate price for livestock up so high. If Aust slaughter/processed meat is so great it would be out performing Live Export on the price point. It doesn't it can't. The overseas buyers don't want to buy a product that in some cases will be 8 times more expensive just landed to their port. It is cruel to deny them reasonably priced protein and the amount of jobs their import trade produces. Latte soaked art gallery dwellers will cause those countries to stay 3rd world with less jobs & pay higher prices for meat.

Added to all that, there is not the ability to kill & process an additional 3 million animals in Australia and sell them into overseas markets to maintain the current market place price. It is not possible even in a magical unicorn world.

Now if the socialists want to push for the ban, they can stick to their perverted socialist dogma & under write the current prices for the next 20 years with subsidies to maintain the farmgate price so jobs aren't lost. THIS is where the Socialists get all free market all of a sudden...Socialist to ban the trade, then switch to Free Marketeers to let the industry sink without a care as the local, regional & state economy takes a massive hit.

THIS is why there is the famous saying "If Socialist understood economics there'd be no Socialists"

Mean while 250,000 animals are killed each year in this country. Ask the RSPCA. They're all pets. That doesn't include all the one that died through, injury, disease or neglect and got buried in the back yard & never went to a Vet.

Animals die. Its a part of life. A ship that had 60 head out of 20,000 die is unfortunate but it's life and its well below the acceptable limit & the Transit Mortality Rate is STILL FALLING.

Trying to ban a trade based on the Awassi disaster is appalling intellectual corruption. You do not ban a trade based on statistical outliers. If we apply this ludicrous non logic then we must ban all tea-totallers from driving cars to try & reduce the amount of drink driving accidents.

It is absurd and now the Federal Election is gone and settled NOW is the time for Federal & WA Labor to wise up and dump banning Live Export from its out of date, out of step Policy Platform. It doesn't and can never work for the benefit of anyone in this country or the customer country, their workers and customers. It will deliver a huge gift to our supply competitors, puts all animals without Animal Welfare protection & will devastate the struggling Australian regions.

Meanwhile, last night feral cats killed an estimate 2 million animals by the research statistics...no outrage.

Meanwhile wild dogs and foxes took or injured more livestock and native fauna last night...no outrage.

If Live export is banned, nearly all livestock production in the pastoral regions, the biggest amount of the nation stops. That means all conservation, bushfire & landcare work will stop. There'll be no producers financially able to carry it out & land will either be neglected or go into care taker mode.

Labor has designed a huge economic, ecological & financial disaster by wanting to Ban Live export and have tried to hide it with weasel words by calling it a "transition".
It is a transition to utter disaster and widespread business bankruptcy for producers, country town businesses and the flow on is immense.
Socialists want to be socialists and ban the trade, but not be socialists and subsidise & pay for it...
Hypocrisy and intellectually corrupt.

Drop the Policy Labor - Its Time. Fully Support Live Export or your in favour of disaster.

GO AHEAD LABOR DROP THE POLICY PLATFORM. SUPPORT OUR ECONOMY THAT DELIVERS GOOD PROPER ECONOMIC STABILITY, GROWTH & GOOD ANIMAL WELFARE PROTECTION

                                   FACTS NOT FEELINGS.