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
Saturday, 28 October 2017
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:
Comments (Atom)