To the shrinking but still faithful believers in Anthropogenic global warming read this:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/6144429/frankly-more-sense-is-spoken-by-his-plants.thtml
I do believe that we ought to become more faithful stewards of the natural world around us, as i believe that we ought to live less wastefully and greedily, but the AGW fanatics want to create a Utopian society at the expense of living in a modern society. Plus the great hypocrisy about many of the most vocal proponents is that they often live the most wasteful and excessive lives whilst preaching to others to reign in excess. Ultimately lies such as the AGW scare cause the most harm to the vulnerable rather than the tiny elite, such is always the result of a totalitarian impulse and the current Environmentalist movement appears to more of a Gaia inspired faith than a genuine attempt to balance living with stewardship.
UPDATE:
Have just read an interesting essay on the Quadrant website written by Alex Stuart about the facts of warming in the atmosphere as opposed to the assumptions garnered from 'modelling'. I offer the concluding paragraph: "Meanwhile, urgent environmental issues threaten millions of people today but, tragically, aren’t given the priority they deserve - because so much focus is misplaced by so many on something so theoretical and long-term as man-made climate catastrophe. We should focus instead on real, urgent, life-threatening issues like preventable disease, lack of fresh water, degradation of the oceans, deforestation and species extinction, while we wait to see what real observational data - not just theory - tells us about the drivers of our changing climate".
Alex Stuart is Chairman of the Australian Environment Foundation
"Since it is so likely that children will meet cruel enemies, let them at least have heard of brave knights and heroic courage.” C. S. Lewis
Monday 29 November 2010
Saturday 27 November 2010
Marxist naivety
I have just read an article which reflects, in my opinion, the twin failings of the materialist ideology. On one hand there is an incredible naivete regarding human nature and on the other the classic Romantic goal of creating a workers Utopia often exhibited by those of the materialist persuasion. The piece is titled ' Marxism holds the key' written by John Sutton,(national secretary of the Construction Forestry Mining Energy Union), and reflects his opinion of who or what caused the global financial meltdown.
The opening paragraph of his essay begins with his origins as a poor but morally upright child: "My dad went blind when I was young, so I worked hard from an early age to assist the family" and is de rigueur for someone whose vocation it is to keep others on the right track: "Now the challenge for people such as me is to keep the federal Labor government honest and hold it to its election commitments to implement policies that will create a fairer society".
In this statement he automatically assumes a position of moral superiority. To give him credit he is upfront about his belief that the only true philosophy is Marxism, however when he adds "imperfect and unfashionable as it is today" he asserts his belief as a 'faith'.
He then outlines his position regarding capitalism as: "Working in a union allows you to see the excesses of capitalism. While many employers want to do the right thing, the cut-throat nature of business in industries such as construction forces many to put on moral blinkers. Some do not hesitate to cheat and steal from working people".
What is immediately obvious is that in his declaration of Marxism being the 'truth' he automatically positions himself as someone who is ideologically predetermined to find fault with the business community (capitalism the term his god/prophet/guru coined). One wonders how this helps the workers whom he supposedly represents, which is a troubling issue with unions who are represented by leaders who are more motivated by ideology than by the need to help their members.
The next point of interest I would highlight in this extract is how he automatically assumes employers would 'not hesitate to cheat and steal' without acknowledging that workers are probably just as predisposed to cheat and steal as their employers.This of course would not occur to someone who views human nature as fashioned solely by social and environmental influences rather than the 'fallen' human nature as described by the bible.
Whilst I acknowledge that there are employers who would steal there are also workers who steal, I am also aware that there are many who view fellow humans as 'beneath' them, either by virtue of birth or some other equally spurious reasoning, however this form of elitism is not reserved only for the 'ruling classes' as multiple evidence in history (and literature: all animals are equal but some are more equal than others) have illustrated. There is an equal elitism from those who view themselves as 'workers' or the 'downtrodden' an elitism which Dorothy Sayers termed;'The snobbery of the banal'.
The crux of the essay lies in trying to argue that capitalism does not work and that corporate greed is the cause of our current financial woes.
Unsurprisingly I do not agree with this proposition and would like to suggest that the true causes of these problems lie in the fallen nature of humanity, a condition which occupies innumerable forms and lies behind many worldviews not least the philosophy behind big government (big brother) as well as perhaps that most ubiquitous condition of man which Nietzche referred to as the "Will to power", especially when one considers John Sutton's closing statement: "It has upset me to see union power weakened in this country during the past few decades. But I remain confident that trade unionism is an enduring concept and that many struggles for industrial and social justice lie ahead".
respect to the involvement of big government in helping to create the conditions for our current dilemma I would recommend the following link: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/neo-liberal-greed-did-not-cause-recession/story-e6frg6zo-1225704138278
The opening paragraph of his essay begins with his origins as a poor but morally upright child: "My dad went blind when I was young, so I worked hard from an early age to assist the family" and is de rigueur for someone whose vocation it is to keep others on the right track: "Now the challenge for people such as me is to keep the federal Labor government honest and hold it to its election commitments to implement policies that will create a fairer society".
In this statement he automatically assumes a position of moral superiority. To give him credit he is upfront about his belief that the only true philosophy is Marxism, however when he adds "imperfect and unfashionable as it is today" he asserts his belief as a 'faith'.
He then outlines his position regarding capitalism as: "Working in a union allows you to see the excesses of capitalism. While many employers want to do the right thing, the cut-throat nature of business in industries such as construction forces many to put on moral blinkers. Some do not hesitate to cheat and steal from working people".
What is immediately obvious is that in his declaration of Marxism being the 'truth' he automatically positions himself as someone who is ideologically predetermined to find fault with the business community (capitalism the term his god/prophet/guru coined). One wonders how this helps the workers whom he supposedly represents, which is a troubling issue with unions who are represented by leaders who are more motivated by ideology than by the need to help their members.
The next point of interest I would highlight in this extract is how he automatically assumes employers would 'not hesitate to cheat and steal' without acknowledging that workers are probably just as predisposed to cheat and steal as their employers.This of course would not occur to someone who views human nature as fashioned solely by social and environmental influences rather than the 'fallen' human nature as described by the bible.
Whilst I acknowledge that there are employers who would steal there are also workers who steal, I am also aware that there are many who view fellow humans as 'beneath' them, either by virtue of birth or some other equally spurious reasoning, however this form of elitism is not reserved only for the 'ruling classes' as multiple evidence in history (and literature: all animals are equal but some are more equal than others) have illustrated. There is an equal elitism from those who view themselves as 'workers' or the 'downtrodden' an elitism which Dorothy Sayers termed;'The snobbery of the banal'.
The crux of the essay lies in trying to argue that capitalism does not work and that corporate greed is the cause of our current financial woes.
Unsurprisingly I do not agree with this proposition and would like to suggest that the true causes of these problems lie in the fallen nature of humanity, a condition which occupies innumerable forms and lies behind many worldviews not least the philosophy behind big government (big brother) as well as perhaps that most ubiquitous condition of man which Nietzche referred to as the "Will to power", especially when one considers John Sutton's closing statement: "It has upset me to see union power weakened in this country during the past few decades. But I remain confident that trade unionism is an enduring concept and that many struggles for industrial and social justice lie ahead".
respect to the involvement of big government in helping to create the conditions for our current dilemma I would recommend the following link: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/neo-liberal-greed-did-not-cause-recession/story-e6frg6zo-1225704138278
Inversionism
While the make-believe world is trying to become more 'real' with 3D technology, the real world is becoming more superficial. Huxleys brave new world is upon us. Romanticism is an ideology and should not be confused with Romantic; meaning engaged with your emotional side. Romanticism sees the world through Utopian eyes and more damage has been done as a result of this perspective than any other including religion, which has in fact often operated incognito, as an arm of the romanticists ideology. Romanticism views human beings as essentially good where the history of mankind gives overwhelming evidence that in fact the biblical perspective is undoubtedly the correct version. Romanticism has taken hold of Australian politics and the consequences have been disastrous:
Aboriginal sin?
Aboriginal sin?
Fifty years ago, the Australian Left strongly favored literacy, health, and the assimilation of indigenes. It was a broadly sensible goal. But Left progressivism is incompatible with the romantic idealization of hunting and gathering: the one wants to go forward, the other wants to go back. As anthropological romanticism triumphed in the sphere of social policy, the Left embraced “Aboriginality” over literacy and vocational skills, assimilation was denounced as supremely evil, and Australia’s northern indigenes began their slide into the oblivion of fixed dependency—illiterate, vocationally disabled, desperately in need of help. But to intervene, let alone to remove children, is today howled down as cultural genocide.
That has been the baleful long-term consequence of the myth of the Stolen Generations. By exposing the whole matter, by refusing to euphemize unavoidably ugly issues, by examining a mass of historical data nobody troubled to look closely at before, by revealing the shoddiness of his adversaries’ research, and by realistically reducing the fanciful figures they proposed, Keith Windschuttle has placed the nation in his debt.
Source: The New Criterion
Is there any reason to believe that in the future, results will not prove as disastrous given the fact that at least 15 percent of the population has been lobotomised by the Green propaganda machine?
UPDATE
Good news: It appears that the Australian people have woken up to what the Greens really want, which is to destroy western civilisation and reshape it into their own image. Unfortunately other power hungry ideologies with little of the understanding, compassion and freedoms spawned by the Judeo/Christian foundations of western society would have soon stomped all over the tree huggers, but it would have probably been too late by then if they had had the chance to establish a beachhead. Hopefully the Victorian elections have created the opportunity to turn back some of the more pernicious influences the Green loons have introduced into Parliament.
UPDATE
Good news: It appears that the Australian people have woken up to what the Greens really want, which is to destroy western civilisation and reshape it into their own image. Unfortunately other power hungry ideologies with little of the understanding, compassion and freedoms spawned by the Judeo/Christian foundations of western society would have soon stomped all over the tree huggers, but it would have probably been too late by then if they had had the chance to establish a beachhead. Hopefully the Victorian elections have created the opportunity to turn back some of the more pernicious influences the Green loons have introduced into Parliament.
Friday 26 November 2010
Look see
For those who still believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming but are open to reading a divergent view or are having a few doubts given the almost daily unveilings of bad science, shonky politics and blatant hypocrisy on the part of prominent global warmists; then please read http://joannenova.com.au/.
If any one reading this blog is a friend of mine please say hi in the comment box.
If any one reading this blog is a friend of mine please say hi in the comment box.
Ripping apart the fabric of history
One of the more pernicious developments of the post modern deconstruction of truth is how those in power subvert and fabricate historical 'facts', initially to position and then reinforce their ideologies. A major power centre has been established at the core of the Australian educational establishment, i.e. the schools and universities, and in the latter case particularly within the humanities where Gramsci's 'disciples' have ended their 'long march' and established an 'intellectual consensus'. Since the early 70's these disciples have been deconstructing truth in order to re-construct an alternative view of Australian history, fabricating facts to suit their ultimate agenda and they do it under the auspices of academic consensus, much like the ( thankfully rapidly dissolving) 'consensus' around anthropogenic global warming.
A few courageous individuals have stood against these egregious fabrications and they have done it by arguing from documented facts and scientific methodology as opposed to the ad hominem attacks made by a large percentage of those who claim the perceived moral authority of 'consensus'. These doughty few have established a beachhead of resistance to the lies and by using the www. have made the facts widely available. I have been following the serialisation of Windshuttle's book on the fabrication of Australia's history on Quadrant and have just read John Izzard's review of the official rebuttal to this book.
Washout: On the Academic Response to the Fabrication of Aboriginal History (revised edition), by John Dawson; Macleay Press, 2010, 416 pages, $39.95.
It is well worth the read but concludes with a rather sobering thought:
"As Dawson points out, “What Attwood implies is that Reynolds should have stated proudly that his narratives were fabricated, which would have left revisionists [like Keith Windschuttle] nothing to expose.” Welcome to the academic world of Australian history! With the twenty essays of Whitewash to consider, and the new seven Epilogues to digest, the reader of the new edition of John Dawson’s Washout can only gasp at the utter nonsense and deception that high school and university students are being subjected to. Their courses should have warning labels attached. Those indulging in this sort of Orwellian mindset are winning the race, particularly in our education establishments, the media and in politics. We desperately need more Windschuttles and Dawsons." John Izzard, who lives in Tasmania, is a frequent contributor to Quadrant
As a teacher and one who has a vested interest in truth I believe that we owe it to both our current and future generations to contribute in any small way we can to an open and honest evaluation of the veracity of truth claims and to provide alternative perspectives where and when they are needed.
A few courageous individuals have stood against these egregious fabrications and they have done it by arguing from documented facts and scientific methodology as opposed to the ad hominem attacks made by a large percentage of those who claim the perceived moral authority of 'consensus'. These doughty few have established a beachhead of resistance to the lies and by using the www. have made the facts widely available. I have been following the serialisation of Windshuttle's book on the fabrication of Australia's history on Quadrant and have just read John Izzard's review of the official rebuttal to this book.
Washout: On the Academic Response to the Fabrication of Aboriginal History (revised edition), by John Dawson; Macleay Press, 2010, 416 pages, $39.95.
It is well worth the read but concludes with a rather sobering thought:
"As Dawson points out, “What Attwood implies is that Reynolds should have stated proudly that his narratives were fabricated, which would have left revisionists [like Keith Windschuttle] nothing to expose.” Welcome to the academic world of Australian history! With the twenty essays of Whitewash to consider, and the new seven Epilogues to digest, the reader of the new edition of John Dawson’s Washout can only gasp at the utter nonsense and deception that high school and university students are being subjected to. Their courses should have warning labels attached. Those indulging in this sort of Orwellian mindset are winning the race, particularly in our education establishments, the media and in politics. We desperately need more Windschuttles and Dawsons." John Izzard, who lives in Tasmania, is a frequent contributor to Quadrant
As a teacher and one who has a vested interest in truth I believe that we owe it to both our current and future generations to contribute in any small way we can to an open and honest evaluation of the veracity of truth claims and to provide alternative perspectives where and when they are needed.
Wednesday 24 November 2010
Having just watched an interview with a visiting representative of the World Drug Alliance on channel 24 I am once more convinced George Soros' ultimate goal is the weakening of Western society from within. Almost every current attack on the Judeo/Christian foundations of our society turns out to be funded directly or indirectly by Soros.
The WDA mans appeal for the legalisation of drugs was almost entirely an argument from authority, i.e. heavily sprinkled with 'expert' opinions (I think it was C S Lewis who said something to the effect that given the pitiful state of University academia, if sufficient funding is on the table one could find an 'expert opinion' that fits almost any prejudice on any subject on earth). The fellow was replete with 'studies' that showed the benefits of decriminalising drugs, unfortunately (for him) there are just as many if not more 'studies' to prove the opposite. The argument that we cannot win the war on drugs could be applied to criminal activity in general, so should we decriminalise crime completely? He spoke about 'regulating' drugs, isn't that a code word for greater bureaucracy, more government lackey's handing out more taxpayer money to more people making immature or selfish decisions? His contention that regulation will enable greater control of the inevitable negative consequences of drugs firstly implies the fact that drugs do cause harm and secondly that we should as a society become 'our brothers keeper'. I can understand that worldview as a Christian but where does he gather his 'compassion from'? Isn't the Darwinian mode one of allowing the weak to die off so that the strong can grow stronger?
This fellow is subtly promoting the idea that drug-taking should be regulated as a sort of a sport, with children taught how to do it without hurting themselves, the central core of the ‘harm reduction’ approach which is a Trojan horse for drug legalisation — and which, dismayingly, has made huge inroads into the thinking of the intellectual establishment throughout the Western world. Soros' man is now here in Australia to 'bring us into line' with the rest of the 'developed world', here he uses the tactic of shame on Australians that we have not 'caught up' with developments in the more 'advanced' Nations, a sure fire appeal to Australia's well documented cultural cringe if ever I heard.
We seem to have forgotten that the law is about consequences not compassion.
Compassion can be implemented (if needs be) during sentencing and dependent on mitigating circumstances, but the law itself should always be unemotional and inviolate.
It is precisely because the western world has become almost completely lobotomised by Hollywood's superficial 'feel good for a moment' soap opera emotionalism (its first overt demonstration being Princess Diana's death) and the spread of techno-emotions induced through YouTube and the net that we can embrace such inane suggestions from the intellectual elite.
Oh for a reflective public, may I once more promote the case for teaching logic and argumentation in Christian schools.
For a good perspective see:http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/mirandadevine/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/column_drug_use_not_a_victimless_crime/
The WDA mans appeal for the legalisation of drugs was almost entirely an argument from authority, i.e. heavily sprinkled with 'expert' opinions (I think it was C S Lewis who said something to the effect that given the pitiful state of University academia, if sufficient funding is on the table one could find an 'expert opinion' that fits almost any prejudice on any subject on earth). The fellow was replete with 'studies' that showed the benefits of decriminalising drugs, unfortunately (for him) there are just as many if not more 'studies' to prove the opposite. The argument that we cannot win the war on drugs could be applied to criminal activity in general, so should we decriminalise crime completely? He spoke about 'regulating' drugs, isn't that a code word for greater bureaucracy, more government lackey's handing out more taxpayer money to more people making immature or selfish decisions? His contention that regulation will enable greater control of the inevitable negative consequences of drugs firstly implies the fact that drugs do cause harm and secondly that we should as a society become 'our brothers keeper'. I can understand that worldview as a Christian but where does he gather his 'compassion from'? Isn't the Darwinian mode one of allowing the weak to die off so that the strong can grow stronger?
This fellow is subtly promoting the idea that drug-taking should be regulated as a sort of a sport, with children taught how to do it without hurting themselves, the central core of the ‘harm reduction’ approach which is a Trojan horse for drug legalisation — and which, dismayingly, has made huge inroads into the thinking of the intellectual establishment throughout the Western world. Soros' man is now here in Australia to 'bring us into line' with the rest of the 'developed world', here he uses the tactic of shame on Australians that we have not 'caught up' with developments in the more 'advanced' Nations, a sure fire appeal to Australia's well documented cultural cringe if ever I heard.
We seem to have forgotten that the law is about consequences not compassion.
Compassion can be implemented (if needs be) during sentencing and dependent on mitigating circumstances, but the law itself should always be unemotional and inviolate.
It is precisely because the western world has become almost completely lobotomised by Hollywood's superficial 'feel good for a moment' soap opera emotionalism (its first overt demonstration being Princess Diana's death) and the spread of techno-emotions induced through YouTube and the net that we can embrace such inane suggestions from the intellectual elite.
Oh for a reflective public, may I once more promote the case for teaching logic and argumentation in Christian schools.
For a good perspective see:http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/mirandadevine/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/column_drug_use_not_a_victimless_crime/
Monday 22 November 2010
The meek shall inherit the wind
Doesn't it strike you as hypocritical that the so called 'progressive' folk in Western society call for the abolishment of the death penalty on vile and murderous thugs on the grounds of 'human rights' and compassion then turn around and demand the 'right' to kill the most defenceless in our society, the newborn (or not yet born) and those with incurable diseases or disabilities.
Truly the progressive agenda is summed up by Green 'Guru' McPherson when he declared that human beings are a "virus on the earth".
The Greens and their ideological ilk are dedicated to eradicating this virus (excluding themselves of course) and use the gullibility of (amongst others) the ideological followers of the UN's 'human rights' agenda to spread the philosophical foundations of this agenda through campaigns such as the anthropogenic global warming scam, the extreme homosexual lobby, euthanasia, abortion on demand (which recently won the 'right' to full term abortions), and legalising drugs.
They advocate open borders and the abdication of nationhood to global 'one world government' yet curse global business development.
They applaud multiculturalism, tribalism and the creation of division along sexual, generational and gender lines and deplore the traditional family, a unit which has been the bedrock of civilisation for millenia.
I do not understand how a Christian can support the Green agenda (a number of whom have openly said so to me) and welcome those who do, to debate the reasons why. perhaps I have missed something essential and if so I implore those with wisdom to correct my error.
Truly the progressive agenda is summed up by Green 'Guru' McPherson when he declared that human beings are a "virus on the earth".
The Greens and their ideological ilk are dedicated to eradicating this virus (excluding themselves of course) and use the gullibility of (amongst others) the ideological followers of the UN's 'human rights' agenda to spread the philosophical foundations of this agenda through campaigns such as the anthropogenic global warming scam, the extreme homosexual lobby, euthanasia, abortion on demand (which recently won the 'right' to full term abortions), and legalising drugs.
They advocate open borders and the abdication of nationhood to global 'one world government' yet curse global business development.
They applaud multiculturalism, tribalism and the creation of division along sexual, generational and gender lines and deplore the traditional family, a unit which has been the bedrock of civilisation for millenia.
I do not understand how a Christian can support the Green agenda (a number of whom have openly said so to me) and welcome those who do, to debate the reasons why. perhaps I have missed something essential and if so I implore those with wisdom to correct my error.
Sunday 14 November 2010
Lies, damn lies
There seems to be an informal competition on the blogosphere as to who can expose the most lies told by the Gillard Government. Whilst the results are both amusing as well as frightening they should not be surprising given that both the Rudd and Gillard Governments only guiding principle has always appeared to be: 'The will to power'.
When power is your goal, principals are by definition flexible, malleable and open to interpretation.
What truly frustrates me is that the hardcore labor voter seems unable to sacrifice a lifetime of tradition to see that labor is no longer the Party it once was and that its original and admirable intentions are no longer strong enough to compete with its current Nietzschian pragmatism. Equally disturbing is the weak response from the opposition to some of the huge moral failings evident within current and pending legislation, it appears that the same pragmatism infects both sides of Parliament.
Oh for a will to leadership even if its immediate end appears to be failure, for often in defeat are sown the seeds of abundant success.
When power is your goal, principals are by definition flexible, malleable and open to interpretation.
What truly frustrates me is that the hardcore labor voter seems unable to sacrifice a lifetime of tradition to see that labor is no longer the Party it once was and that its original and admirable intentions are no longer strong enough to compete with its current Nietzschian pragmatism. Equally disturbing is the weak response from the opposition to some of the huge moral failings evident within current and pending legislation, it appears that the same pragmatism infects both sides of Parliament.
Oh for a will to leadership even if its immediate end appears to be failure, for often in defeat are sown the seeds of abundant success.
Friday 12 November 2010
Tattoo or not tattoo
I have had quite a few debates recently about the fairly recent phenomena amongst young 'fashionistas' to gaffitti'ing their bodies with permanent disfigurements. I do not apologise for disliking both the (apparent) intentions as well as the results of such a practice (although I will confess to finding one on a colleagues instep rather sexy) but I realise that it is a 'live and let live' world, that we are not to judge a book by its cover, and that we are to love all equally as important to the Lord, all positions which I adhere to. However where I do take exception is when some would seek to offer biblical justification for their practice and even go so far as to claim that Jesus himself wore a tattoo and although I fully expect that some will disagree with my argument I would like to offer a letter that I wrote to the elders of my church as my official position on the subject and thereafter absolve myself of the need to debate this issue furthermore.
[1] Actually I think graffiti is a blot on any ‘landscape’.
[2] And of course some of the dietary requirements were a protection to His people.
[3] To write, with reference to the form of the letters, to write with reference to the contents of the writing, to fill with writing. (Strong’s concordance)
[4] Impression, inscription, mark; in the flesh. (Strong’s concordance)
[5] A stamp, an imprinted mark, thing carved. ( Strong’s)
A QUERY?
As one who consistently falls short of my potential in Jesus I have by and large adopted a back seat re; my contribution within the church, and for this I apologise. Being sure of my position in Christ, i.e. forgiveness and acceptance I accept intellectually but too often struggle with it in reality, and again I apologise (to the Lord). Having said this, my intentions now are to speak out whenever I feel burdened to do so, thus I run the risk of becoming not only a pain-in-the-butt, but worse still, a ‘Pharisee’. If this occurs I once again apologise and wholeheartedly commit myself to being corrected and if necessary disciplined.
The more I research the more I fear that the current redefinition of ‘tolerance’ has muddied our theological waters, particularly given the aforementioned notion of absolute acceptance, which while it is how we are to view God’s Grace regarding us, what too frequently occurs is that in order to ‘be accepting’ we run the risk of ‘fudging’ scriptural verity. For example I think few would argue with the principle that God cannot contradict himself. If such a thing appears to be the case, I believe the correct assumption should automatically be that our interpretation of scripture is at fault.
THE CRUX OF THE MATTER.
My perceived contradiction at the moment is the notion that Jesus in Revelation 19 was ‘tattooed’. Unfortunately I have heard such a claim uttered a number of times from the pulpit and have been told of it being propagated by some of the leaders at youth.
Whilst I realise that this is not a major issue in life, and though I am personally un-attracted to tattoos nevertheless, some of my best friends have them, to quote a cliché. For those who continue to succumb to this current fashion ( the latest version being branding [Reuters last week]) or have for other reasons indulged in personal ‘graffiti’[1] I hold no animus in my heart. For example how can we view with anything other than compassion those who were tattooed in the concentration camps or others who were/are branded as slaves or have been cut/marked/tagged by tribal or gang affiliation. Our position must be one of acceptance without proviso, no question about it. However, and herein lies the rub, this is a vastly different perspective from not only accepting it but clandestinely or consciously promoting it, even in jest or through ignorance.
WHY?
Leviticus 19:28 quite clearly indicates God forbidding His people from acquiring tattoos. The problem is that there were quite a few other taboos as well, many of which are disregarded by today’s society, which raises the question of what to do about tattoos. Research indicates that God expected an elevated lifestyle from his chosen people. He wanted them to ‘rise above’ the standards of the pagan world surrounding them because he knew how those influences could weaken[2] and distract His people from worship and obedience to Him. Paul however shows that Jesus died to save us from the ‘cleansing laws’, that no matter what we did or didn’t do we are forgiven and accepted (thank God)! Therefore it logically follows that to acquire a tattoo is not a sin or to be ‘unclean’ in any way, and the only real question that remains is to debates ones motives, preferably in concert with the standards outlined in James 3. Is it to attract attention? Will the tattoo be a source of contention for my loved ones? Will getting a tattoo cause me to disobey my parents? Will my tattoo cause someone who is weak in the faith to stumble? Etc, etc, it all becomes a matter of personal conscience.
However, to assert that Jesus himself was tattooed is to take liberty with the truth (heresy). Would it not be advisable to examine the actual interpretation of the words used before ascribing meaning within popular culture, particularly when making claims about the actions of God Himself? Would Jesus break His own law?
The Greek word for ‘written’ in Revelations 19:12b and verse 16 is: grapho[3] and is about script, it could have been written on his skin with a texta or blood for all we know, however what we do know is that it most certainly does not translate as a tattoo: kethobeth[4] , besides, regarding the garment on which ‘King Of Kings...’ (vs 16) was also written, was that ‘tattooed’ as well? To muddy these waters is to perpetuate the impression that the problem with the Evangelical mind is that it should not be unduly examined.
In conclusion however, and with reference to brandings in the apocryphal writings... what I do see in Revelations 13 is that all people will receive a mark: charagma[5] on their right hands or foreheads, a branding (concentration camps prophetic?) to identify them as ‘property of the beast’.
Question: Will we at that time preach against body branding, or will we leave it up to the individual conscience?
Musing: Could this current obsession with branding merely be blurring the lines for such a time as that?
This is an issue which is beginning to cause me and some others a problem, and I humbly appeal that the concerns be addressed.
Yours faithfully
[1] Actually I think graffiti is a blot on any ‘landscape’.
[2] And of course some of the dietary requirements were a protection to His people.
[3] To write, with reference to the form of the letters, to write with reference to the contents of the writing, to fill with writing. (Strong’s concordance)
[4] Impression, inscription, mark; in the flesh. (Strong’s concordance)
[5] A stamp, an imprinted mark, thing carved. ( Strong’s)
Multiculturalism = multidivision
Thank goodness for commentators like Andrew Bolt who daily face the wrath of the 'enlightened' (indoctrinated) chattering classes for speaking truth into the market place. In his postings today re: the denigration of Australian culture (and as a recent [12 years] immigrant I can assure you there is a culture) that makes it difficult for people to celebrate being Australian, I couldn't agree more. We as a family are proud to call ourselves Aussies, we could hardly wait the two years to get our citizenship. We agreed as a family even before we arrived, to celebrate and encourage all things Aussie including the various sporting teams which we therefore support even above those from the country we were born into and spent (in my case 40+ years) much of our lives. It is a little like a good marriage i suppose, (another institution demonised and under attack by the 'elite') when a wife takes on her husbands name she takes on his allegiances as well, much like the biblical Ruth who when her husband died refused to leave her mother in law (Ruth 1:16 "where you go I go, and where you stay i will stay. Your people will be my people, your God my God").
Instead we have the cultural elites preaching a postmodern form of racism, that of tribalism. Rather than encouraging multi-ethnicity within one culture which is healthy and vibrant and creates a colourful, creative mix of ideas, textures and colours, they preach multi-culturalism, encouraging separation of cultures, difference, division, suspicion and ultimately conflict.
The hypocrisy of the issue reminds me of the left wing 'peaceniks' who use violence to make their point and the environmentalists who live in massive houses and fly constantly around the globe telling the rest of us to reign in our 'carbon footprints'...one wonders if anyone is at home in many of these heads, and if so who is ultimately pulling the strings?
Instead we have the cultural elites preaching a postmodern form of racism, that of tribalism. Rather than encouraging multi-ethnicity within one culture which is healthy and vibrant and creates a colourful, creative mix of ideas, textures and colours, they preach multi-culturalism, encouraging separation of cultures, difference, division, suspicion and ultimately conflict.
The hypocrisy of the issue reminds me of the left wing 'peaceniks' who use violence to make their point and the environmentalists who live in massive houses and fly constantly around the globe telling the rest of us to reign in our 'carbon footprints'...one wonders if anyone is at home in many of these heads, and if so who is ultimately pulling the strings?
Thursday 11 November 2010
Green madness
I have just finished reading Ken Andrews outline of the Green Party's manifesto and it provides for some chilling reading. To deny the Marxist ideology underpinning their aims is to ignore the elephant in the room.
What irks me the most is how many Christian friends of mine appeared to favour the green party during the last election. I can only believe that they have not read their manifesto or if they have then my friends theology differs from the Nicene creed (all the creeds) about as much as does Peter Singer's.
What irks me the most is how many Christian friends of mine appeared to favour the green party during the last election. I can only believe that they have not read their manifesto or if they have then my friends theology differs from the Nicene creed (all the creeds) about as much as does Peter Singer's.
Good sense
I have just read an essay: "No, No, No" by James Allen on Quadrant Online. It was one of the first Law Professor commentaries that gave me some hope for the future of the judiciary in Australia. Give this man the top legal job in the country please Mr Abbott when you win the upcoming election.
Something to say
I have been encouraged by many friends to start a blog so that i might have a venue to express my thoughts on the world we live in...now that i have one i find myself at a loss for words. Nevertheless i shall persevere because i do believe it is the impersonal nature of the medium that interferes with a free flow of ideas, and it is this impersonality that i shall endeavour to overcome in the days ahead.
Day one:
Having endured my read through of various blogs and reports on the net i am once again amazed (and alarmed) at the almost monolithic left-wing consensus in the educational, artistic and main stream media camps. It appears that Gramsci's 'long march through the institutions' has indeed been successful and pretty much any dissenting view to those of the embedded 'experts' is treated with mockery, disdain and dismissal. In fact it appears that across many fronts i.e. Global warming, Evolution, Environmentalism; dissension is viewed as heresy not merely a differing of opinion and those who dare to articulate opposite opinions do not have their arguments analysed and systematically opposed, but are treated to ad hominem attacks of a most vicious kind. Perhaps i am even opening myself up to such an attack, if so I look forward to the conflict.
Day one:
Having endured my read through of various blogs and reports on the net i am once again amazed (and alarmed) at the almost monolithic left-wing consensus in the educational, artistic and main stream media camps. It appears that Gramsci's 'long march through the institutions' has indeed been successful and pretty much any dissenting view to those of the embedded 'experts' is treated with mockery, disdain and dismissal. In fact it appears that across many fronts i.e. Global warming, Evolution, Environmentalism; dissension is viewed as heresy not merely a differing of opinion and those who dare to articulate opposite opinions do not have their arguments analysed and systematically opposed, but are treated to ad hominem attacks of a most vicious kind. Perhaps i am even opening myself up to such an attack, if so I look forward to the conflict.
Monday 8 November 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)