No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. (KJV)
“I have the right to do anything,” you say—but not everything is beneficial. “I have the right to do anything”—but I will not be mastered by anything. (NIV)
Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour: (KJV)
Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. (ESV)
For I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. (ESV)
So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me.
So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. (ESV)
Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? (ESV)
All posts by Richard
What is socialism?
RIP Anthony Neil Wedgewood Benn.
Tony Benn (3 April 1925 – 14 March 2014) was a real socialist. Unlike most of the half warmed-over leftie redistributivists we have here in New Zealand—who, by and large, object (and probably rightly so) to being called socialists.
The Labour party has never been a socialist party, although there have always been socialists in it—a bit like Christians in the Church of England.
Tony Benn was a politician shaped by Christianity.
I have had the advantage of a radical Christian upbringing.
I knew next-to-nothing about Tony Benn until his recent death. Only that, when I was a child growing up in England during the early 1970s, Anthony Wedgewood Benn was a household name.
Here’s my favourite (only very slightly out of context) Tony Benn quote.
It’s not a sin not to pay your income tax.
Random drug test!
Here’s another random drug test.
Name the world’s most famous drug-related death.
Name the world’s most famous speed freak.
Name the world leader who belonged, in his younger days, to a schoolboy cannabis smoking club called the Choom Gang.
It’s a bit easier than the last one.
There may be no objectively right answers to the first two questions.
Please feel free to post your subjectively right answers in the comments.
What does the Bible say about drug dealing?
There’s nothing wrong with responsible drug dealing. It’s an honest trade.
Some of my best friends are drug dealers. 🙂
But what does the Bible say about drug dealing? I thought I’d briefly research the question … but I quickly realised that briefly researching what the Bible says about drug dealing is not a live option!
There’s a school of thought according to which the sins of the people of Sodom and Gomorrah, in penalty for which they and their cities were destroyed, included drug dealing and drug-fuelled debauchery. The same school of thought has it that the so-called sorcery that Paul the Apostle rails against several times in his Epistles is actually drug dealing. Supposedly, ‘sorcery’ is a mistranslation of the Greek word, pharmakeia. That makes sense, because it’s the same Greek word from which we get the English words pharmacy, pharmacist, pharmaceutical, pharmacopeia, etc. And, apparently, the Bible mentions two drug dealers by name. (They’re Simon and Elymas, mentioned in Acts 8 and Acts 13 respectively.)
I’m not going to get into this debate. (I found a lengthy discussion here for those interested.)
Anyway, there’s an alternative to the strictly scholarly approach to studying the Bible on any given issue, and that’s the prayerful approach. He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to me about drug dealing!
This leapt off the page at me the first time I read it. (I’m baffled as to why I haven’t seen this particular verse mentioned in any of the discussion forums I briefly perused.)
Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to stumble! Such things must come, but woe to the person through whom they come! (NIV)
I think what Jesus is teaching here is actually something akin to our modern-day notion of host responsibility. (Notwithstanding that stunt he pulled at the Wedding at Cana.)
Sometimes drugs do cause people to stumble. (Alcohol, literally so.) They’re notorious for it. The plain fact of the matter is that some people can’t handle drugs, that’s why we have reality. And Jesus is here issuing a warning to drug dealers. Be very careful whom you deal drugs to. Best restrict your customer base to responsible adults, whom you trust not to get themselves—and, thereby, you—into trouble.
Why this post, at this time?
Because I’ve just downloaded a consultation document on the Psychoactive Substances Regulations and am about to fill a submission form (on behalf of the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party) as should anyone who wants to have a say on the development of the Psychoactive Substances Regulations as prescribed by the Psychoactive Substances Act.
The Psychoactive Substances Regulatory Authority is seeking
input from interested parties into the development of regulations to support the Psychoactive Substances Act 2013 (the Act) which came into force on 18 July 2013.
The Psychoactive Substances Regulations will provide the operational detail on how the Act will work.
Once in force, regulations will end the interim provisions of the part of the Act to which they apply, bringing the full regime into effect. This paper consults on proposals for regulations relating to licensing, product approval processes, labelling and packaging details, place of sale and advertising, and fees and levies.
It’s an exercise in mitigating evil. Evil because regulations are actually prohibitive—if government defines the one way they will allow something they are really prohibiting all other ways.
The time is now to tell the government what the one way they will allow something should be.
Here are the leading questions to which Peter Dunne, the prohibitionist wolf in sheep’s clothing, is seeking answers.
- Is the list of proposed information requirements for licence applications comprehensive enough? If not, what else should be required, and why?
- Should retail licence applications be accompanied by evidence of compliance with a local approved products policy if one is in effect in the applicant’s area?
- Should retail licence applications be accompanied by evidence of compliance with a generic local approved products policy if no policy is in effect in the applicant’s area?
- Are the factors the Authority should take into account when determining whether a licence applicant is a fit and proper person or whether a body corporate is of good repute in section 16(2) enough? The section 16(2) factors are:
- whether the applicant has been convicted of a relevant offence
- whether there has been a serious or repeated failure by the applicant to comply with any requirement of the Act
- whether there are other grounds for considering that the applicant is likely to fail to comply with any requirement of the Act
- any other matter that the Authority considers relevant.
If you think these factors are not enough, please give examples of additional factors the Authority should consider.
- Should the regulations require applicants to provide details of their involvement in other regulatory regimes, such as alcohol licensing processes?
- What records should the regulations require licence holders to keep?
- How long should licence holders be required to keep records for?
- Do you think there are factors or issues that the Authority should consider when setting discretionary conditions? If so, please provide details.
- Should the regulations prescribe other matters the Authority must take into account when deciding on an application? If yes, what should these matters be?
- Do you agree a product approval application should include information on proposed manufacturing methods and how they will comply with the Psychoactive Substances Code of Manufacturing Practice?
- Do you think any further particulars, information, documents or other material should be prescribed in the regulations? If yes, what should these be?
- Do you agree with the proposal that the regulations require applications to contain information and data on the toxicity, pharmacology and related clinical effects of the psychoactive substance they are seeking approval for?
- Do you agree with the proposal that the regulations require product approval applications to contain information and data on:
- the psychoactive potential and related behavioural effects of the substance
- the addictive potential
- the proposed directions for use
- previous use, including use in clinical trials and in the wider population?
- Are the proposed requirements and restrictions on labelling sufficient? If not, please make specific suggestions for further requirements and restrictions.
- Are the proposed requirements relating to health warnings sufficient? If not, please make specific suggestions for further requirements (for example, advice on what to do in the case of an overdose).
- Are the proposed packaging requirements and restrictions sufficient? If not, please make specific suggestions for further requirements.
- Do you agree with the proposal to restrict a packet to one dose? Please give reasons for your answer.
- Do you agree with the proposal that a dose, in whatever form the product takes, is split wherever possible?
- Do you think there should be restrictions on the form products can take? If so, what forms do you think should and shouldn’t be allowed?
- Do you think there should be restrictions or requirements on the storage of psychoactive substances? If so, what should the restrictions or requirements be?
- Do you think restrictions or requirements should be set for the storage of approved products? If so, what should they be?
- Do you think restrictions or requirements should be set regarding the display of approved products? If so, what should they be?
- Do you think restrictions or requirements should be set regarding the disposal of approved products? If so, what should they be?
- Do you think there should be signage requirements in the regulations? If so, please give specific suggestions.
- Do you think the regulations should specify further places where approved products may not be sold? If so, please provide specific suggestions.
- Do you think the regulations should prescribe restrictions or requirements for advertisements of approved products? If so, please provide specific suggestions.
- Do you think the regulations should prescribe restrictions or requirements on internet sales of approved products? If so, please provide specific suggestions.
- Do you think the regulations should prescribe restrictions or requirements on the advertising of approved products? If so, please provide specific suggestions.
- Do you agree with the proposed fees for the different licences? If not, please provide specific suggestions.
- Do you support a fixed fee or an hourly charge for processing applications for product approvals?
- Should fees be set for other specific functions? If yes, please state what they should be set for.
- Do you agree with the proposed list of items and process for setting levies? If not, please provide specific suggestions.
- What have you been being smoking?
Submitters should be aware that the Psychoactive Substances Regulations adopted under the PSA will apply to cannabis if cannabis is removed from the schedules to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.
Removing cannabis from the MODA is the most probable path to legalising cannabis at this juncture. (But hell of a messy. The PSA approves products, not substances and certainly not plants. It would have to be rewritten to accommodate cannabis.)
All other drugs not classified as either foods or medicines would also be subject to these regulations if the MODA is simply repealed. (Why the hell not? It’s well past time that the maximum penalty for committing a consenting act between adults—which is what drug dealing is—was downgraded from life imprisonment to something a little less draconian.)
Hindsight is always 2020
Join the dots
– Calvin Coolidge
‘Love’ for PM spurs $105,000 donation, Stuff, 17 July 2010:
A top Auckland restaurateur has given $105,000 to the National Party, saying although he was too Right-wing for any political party, his “love” for the prime minister prompted him to do it.
[…]
Asked the reason for his largesse, restaurant owner Tony Astle said Mr Key was a customer he had known for several years.
“Well, I just love the prime minister. I’ve never really been a person to give money to parties, but I decided this time I would. We need them back again, we don’t need those other pretenders.”
Campaign donations favour the right, Stuff, 3 November 2011:
Antoine’s Restaurant in Parnell, owned by outspoken John Key supporter Tony Astle, was the other National donor, giving the party $60,000.
It follows another $105,000 donation last June from the Parnell restaurant, where Mr Key and wife Bronagh are regular diners.
New Year Honours: Tony Astle ONZM, New Zealand Herald, 31 December 2012:
“It came out of the blue, really – I wasn’t expecting it at all,” said restaurateur Tony Astle of his award.
The 62-year-old owns the renowned Antoine’s restaurant in Parnell, Auckland, which he opened with his wife, Beth, in 1973.
“I’m very excited about it, because, well, you don’t expect these sorts of things when you’re a chef,” Mr Astle said.
Well spotted, Idiot/Savant.
Out of the blue? Sorry, but this reeks of putrefaction.
The Honours Unit administers the New Zealand Royal Honours System.
The Honours Unit is a small team within the Cabinet Office, which is part of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.
To my mind, there’s nothing inherently wrong with donating money to political parties, and there’s also nothing inherently wrong with accepting a Royal Honour (although my friend Gary, who put me on to this, would beg to differ!) for genuine culinary achievements and services to restaurateuring.
But had I been in Astle’s shoes? I’d not have accepted. At the very least, the timing is waaay inappropriate! Why couldn’t Astle have waited until Labour’s next term in government to accept his award?! One must not only behave honourably, one must be seen to behave honourably. (Perhaps the alternative version of the meme above is better. “There are some things that money can’t buy … like manners, morals and intelligence.”)
I won’t be dining at Antoine’s any time soon.
Here it comes … a New Dark Age
Here it comes … a New Dark Age.
Crime books worse than actual crime under proposed law
The maximum penalty for possessing a book about growing marijuana will be higher than actually growing marijuana, the Law Society has told MPs considering a hard-hitting new bill.
A Parliamentary Committee is hearing submissions on a law change which would increase the penalties for possessing, importing, exporting or making objectionable publications.
It was targeted at child pornography on the internet but submitters told the select committee this morning that it would capture a broad range of images or publications.
Law Society law reform committee member Graeme Edgeler said that a book which instructs someone on how to grow marijuana was encouraging a crime and would be considered objectionable.
They’re burning witches
Up on punishment hill
Dying proof in the power of authority
To exact it’s will
Someone on Facebook comments, “They really don’t understand the ramifications of the internet.”
Or do they? You only have to search for “how to grow cannabis” on Google to see the power of authority to exact its will.
Hey, Google! Censorship is evil. You censor your instant search results. Don’t be evil!
Stomp vs. squat
For extreme metal fans only.
Suicide Silence are playing Auckland tonight.
Here’s one reason I’m not there.
I don’t think the new vocalist Hernan Hermida is as good a vocalist as Mitch Lucker. But, even if he were, that’s not the point. The point is, he’s not Mitch Lucker.
Did the Doors get a new vocalist when Jim Morrison died? No, they did not. They quit. (After trying to carry on for a little while as a threesome, releasing two “Doors” albums into oblivion.) Some band members are essential to the identity of a band, not mere session musicians.
Mitch Lucker was such an essential. Too bad he had to get drunk, argue with his wife, then jump on his motorcyle only to wrap himself around a utility pole, leaving his wife a widow and his 5-year-old daughter fatherless. 😥
What is rationality? (Part 2)
What is rationality? The truth is, it’s something that most of us don’t actually have.
But we sure like to kid ourselves.
Here’s a quote I saw on Facebook from someone called Deidra Mae Ryan.
I’ve been thinking a lot lately that a lot of homosexuals and their supporters consistently state that God made them this way and that it isn’t a biblical or church issue its a human rights issue.
I keep coming back to the fact that if God had intended homosexuality to be natural then he would’ve made it possible for us to procreate without the need of the opposite sex AND then why did God only create 1 woman and 1 man in the beginning. Then there is the fact that God destroyed 2 major cities in part due to homosexuality, Sodom and Gomorrah. If God had intended for homosexuality to be part of our natural being then why destroy those cities?
Personally I believe people get so steeped in their sin that they have blinders on and refuse to see the truth. I see it over and over, not just with sexual sins. They don’t want to see and admit that they are wrong. What’s more, is that it’s our human nature to justify all our wrong choices, even if that means we make up our own truth…case in point – Homosexuals and their supporters coming up with every excuse in the book to justify the choice of homosexuality.
We all do it with our own individual sins.
Please note that this is not a judgement on homosexuals and homosexuality. I’m also not convinced that Ryan’s logic is sound. I post this for her conclusion, “I believe people get so steeped in their sin that they have blinders on and refuse to see the truth …” This is so very true.
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye. (KJV)
It’s also very true that people get so steeped in their own particular worldview and its presuppositions that they have blinders on and refuse to see the truth.
For a long time, I accepted the tenets of atheistic materialism. They seemed obviously true. And I rejected the tenets of Christianity. They seemed obviously false. And I had plenty of arguments with which to ably defend my worldview. But then I thought about what I was doing. Doing exactly that. Using rational argument to defend a worldview I already had. As opposed to putting all my presuppositions aside and taking all the arguments, both for and against theism, together and on their own merits, to see where they would lead (if, in fact, they lead anywhere).
[People] don’t want to see and admit that they are wrong. What’s more, is that it’s our human nature to justify all our wrong choices, even if that means we make up our own truth.
Man is not the rational animal. He’s the rationalising animal.
I acknowledge that I am generalising from my own intellectual habits to those of others, but I think that it’s legit to do so. I figure that other people have corrupt minds like mine.
I suggest that for the most part we all believe our own bullshit. Unashamedly.
I strive for intellectual honesty. I’ve recently reviewed many of the arguments for and against God’s existence, and tried to leave my ideological baggage at the door. I used to find the Design Argument unsatisfying inconclusive. Now I find it disconcertingly suggestive! I used to have serious doubts about God’s existence. Now I have serious doubts about his non-existence!
My Humean scepticism has stood me in good stead. I realise that man can truly know nothing based on reasoning from his limited sense data alone, unless he posits the existence of a guarantor, e.g., God. This was Descartes’ way out of radical scepticism. God’s existence is taken to be axiomatic. Yes, it’s a bootstrapping method of escape. But so are all the others, e.g., positing a uniform and self-sufficient Nature, which is one of the methodological axioms of science and a metaphysical axiom of scientism.
From the perspective of an atheistic materialistic worldview, the tenets of the atheistic materialistic worldview make sense. But from the perspective of a Christian worldview, the tenets of the Christian worldview make even more sense. But not, perhaps, until one has adopted that very perspective.
How’s that for a rationalisation of my religious conversion? 😉
See also What is rationality (Part 1)
Disasters waiting to happen #2
Say what you mean, and mean what you say. It’s good advice!
But there’s a problem, one which I addressed in a footnote to the post linked to above. We use words to say what we mean and mean what we say. The problem is that any given word can have more than one meaning or “sense”.
Consider the following three quotations about rights.
From the founder of Utilitarianism, Jeremy Bentham.
That which has no existence cannot be destroyed — that which cannot be destroyed cannot require anything to preserve it from destruction. Natural rights is simple nonsense: natural and imprescriptible rights, rhetorical nonsense — nonsense upon stilts.
From blogger Mark Hubbard (channelling the inimitable Ayn Rand).
my thinking on children is they have no rights per se – don’t take that out of context – as they don’t have the experience or formed minds to exercise judgement.
From Thomas Jefferson, author of the American Declaration of Independence.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
The question is, are these three great thinkers actually (for the most part) disagreeing with each other? Or are they (for the most part) talking past each other? I think they’re talking past each other, because they’re not talking about the same thing.
There is a fix. We can talk about Benthamite rights, Randian rights and Jeffersonian rights, and avoid talking about rights sans qualification. But what a chore to have to do that!
Wouldn’t it be nice if words had univocal meanings? But they don’t. Ambiguity in language is a modern-day Tower of Babel.
I don’t know when ambiguity of meaning crept in to our language(s). But when it did, it was a disaster waiting to happen.