All posts by Richard
One trick pony?
New National Party MP Mike Sabin gave his maiden speech yesterday. Here are some excerpts.
With that in mind my policing career was soon focused in the area of drug enforcement, primarily because I felt the best way to make a difference was to focus on the cause of the problems and one quickly comes to the conclusion in that vocation that drug and alcohol abuse is the cause more often than not.
My career in the police shadowed the introduction of Pure Methamphetamine (or P) into NZ, an area I developed and expertise in, but while working on squads running undercover and electronic surveillance operations I literally saw NZ explode from virtually no P problem to the worst in the world within 5 years.
Our well-developed drug culture saw us primed for the only hard drug in the world that can be made on your kitchen bench from readily available retail chemicals.
Those 5 years have changed NZ forever and led me to the conclusion that the fight needed to go back to the top of the cliff. Quite simply Mr Speaker I knew we wouldn’t win the war trying to heal the wounded.
This desire to find a better way gave rise to MethCon Group, a drug education and policy company I founded and operated from 2006. The mission was simple; empower employers, students and community with education while looking for policy solutions to help provide government with better tools.
I sprang to public prominence over this time, a deliberate effort to give the issue a voice and sense of urgency.
It was a long, difficult and often lonely journey Mr Speaker, one that many told me was futile, one that many told me was someone else’s problem to fix. Nevertheless I stuck to the task for no other reason than my belief that something needed to be done. …
Mr Speaker, while there are some who would say I am a one-trick-pony, here to further the anti-drug cause, far from it, my journey into politics has come about as an evolution of many professional experiences leading me to the conclusion that if one wants to support their community and nation to reach its real potential there is a need to be around the tables where the decisions that most affect our communities are being made.
The reality is Mr Speaker, my efforts with the P issue demonstrate more my on-going willingness to try to make a difference than my focus on that particular issue alone. … I just wanted to try and find solutions, while many others were finding ways to tolerate the problem.
Mike Sabin is a prohibitionist.
I’d now like to share a little about what I believe in.
I am proud to be a representative of the National Party because its founding values resonate with who I am as an individual, central to this – personal responsibility, reward for hard work and enterprise, limited government and equality of opportunity and citizenship. …
Personal responsibility, the very source from which self-respect springs is intrinsically related to the individual’s willingness to accept responsibility over one’s own life. To do so is to give value, purpose and freedom to the soul. To refuse it leaves a hole from which the spirit of the individual will slowly but surely drain.
Yet years of socialist ideology, welfarism which has evolved to provide perverse incentives to opt out and the insidious encroachment of government on the minds and lives of citizens has seen the notion of personal responsibility pilloried like it were the ramblings of capitalist zealots.
Personal responsibility is a good thing. But it has a flip-side. The flip-side to personal responsibility is individual freedom and it, too, is a good thing.
So in conclusion Mr Speaker who am I?
A proud family man with a blended family of 6, richer in spirit for the good AND bad experiences in my personal life – poorer (financially) for the fact that I have managed to amass so many children in the process!
I am passionate about Northland and NZ and the pursuit of potential therein.
What do I believe in?
That personal responsibility is just that – the responsibility of the person – not the government
That carrots work better than sticks, but both are necessary.
That the first question we should be asking of New Zealanders is what is your dream? And then aim to create a social and economic climate to help make those dreams possible.
And why am I here Mr Speaker?
For the implementation … quite simply I want to help turn visions into reality.
Sabin believes in personal responsibility, but when it comes to individual freedom he’s going to hit us with sticks.
Enjoy the carrots of office, Mike.
George Orwell was here
Matthew 5:43-48
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” (NIV)
Threshold
Slayer’s guide to anger management.
Te Karakia O Te Atua
E to matou Matua i te rangi
Kia tapu tou Ingoa.
Kia tae mai tou rangatiratanga.
Kia meatia tau e pai ai
ki runga ki te whenua,
kia rite ano ki to te rangi.
Homai ki a matou aianei
he taro ma matou mo tenei ra.
Murua o matou hara,
Me matou hoki e muru nei
i o te hunga e hara ana ki a matou
Aua hoki matou e kawea kia whakawaia;
Engari whakaorangia matou i te kino:
Nou hoki te rangatiratanga, te kaha,
me te kororia,
Ake ake ake. Amine.
Hellish doctrines
This is the second in a 13-part series wherein I give you Hell, a little booklet by the inimitable Dr. Jeff Obadiah Simmonds.
I was visiting a local Pentecostal church, and an elder was preaching. The subject was hell.
“I was talking to my next door neighbour over the fence,” he said. “His father had recently died after a long battle with cancer. ‘At least he’s at peace,’ the neighbour said. ‘No,’ I replied, ‘If he didn’t have Jesus as his personal Lord and Saviour he’s in hell, and the pain he suffered here is nothing compared to what he’s going through now.'”
This guy had never read How to Win Friends and Influence People!
Many Christians feel uncomfortable about the idea of hell, and wonder how this eternity of punishment can be reconciled with the belief that God is a God of love. Perhaps most Christians avoid thinking and talking about hell, because it does not sit well with us. We prefer to talk about the more marketable aspects of our faith: love, grace and salvation.
The traditional view of hell seems, to many modern Christians, a little barbaric. Those who do not want to portray God as quite so vindictive often eliminate the idea of active punishment inflicted by God through fire and retain only the idea of exclusion from God’s presence. This makes the punishment of hell something which God is not actively involved in.
Therefore a popular Christian idea these days is that “hell” is simply the absence of God. Thus hell is not a place where God actively inflicts punishment on people, but rather a place where “God is not”. Those who do not choose to follow God will find themselves in a place of eternal separation from Him. This will be a place of torment only in the sense that people will be forever afflicted by the knowledge of what they have missed out on.
While this idea is appealing, it is not really a Biblical idea. God is omnipresent (present everywhere). There is no corner of the Universe where God is not. That means that He is present in hell also.
David says:
Where can I go from Your Spirit?
Where can I flee from Your Presence?
If I go up to the heavens, You are there;
if I make my bed in Sheol, You are there.
(Psalm 139.7-8)If God is present in Sheol, then hell cannot be absence from God or eternal separation from Him.
Another common response to the problem of hell is simply to ignore it, in the hope that it will go away. While preaching “hell-fire and brimstone” used to be popular, most preachers avoid the subject. There is a recognition that the age old doctrine of hell is problematic—it is difficult to reconcile our belief in a loving God with that of a place of eternal torture.
Still another solution to this problem has been to reject the idea of hell altogether. Numerous heretical Christian groups and sects have rejected the orthodox view of hell. The Jehovah’s Witnesses, Christian Scientists, Mormons, Herbert W. Armstrong’s World Wide Church of God (which recently returned to Christian orthodoxy) reject the doctrine of hell.
But the Bible does affirm that God will punish the wicked in the afterlife—a simple rejection of hell is not satisfactory. Some Christians have responded to this problem of hell by rejecting the traditional understanding of what hell is, and propose alternative interpretations—especially the idea of annihilationism.
There is a growing trend among Evangelicals to turn away from the traditional view of hell as an eternal torment. A number of Evangelical writers have advocated annihilationism—Clark Pinnock, John Wenham, Philip Hughes, Stephen Travis and others (see the bibliography at the end of this little booklet). Most significantly, Anglican John RW Stott, from All Soul’s Church London and a leading Evangelical, has declared himself to be an annihilationist in his book Evangelical Essentials : A Liberal-Evangelical Dialogue.
A recent Commission of the Church of England has suggested that “it might be better to think of hell as a state of annihilation,” and that the traditional view of hell as eternal torment has “portrayed God wrongly in a sadistic manner” (quoted in Burge 29).
Clark Pinnock notes that the annihilationist position “does seem to be gaining ground among Evangelicals. The fact that no less of a person than J. R. W. Stott has endorsed it now will certainly encourage this trend to continue” (Pinnock [1990] 249).
Stott says:
I find the concept [of everlasting torment in hell] intolerable and do not understand how people can live with it without either cauterising their feelings or cracking under the strain. (Stott, 314-15)
However, unlike liberals, who deny the doctrine of hell (along with miracles, the deity of Christ, the resurrection and many other key doctrines) because it seems incomprehensible to them, evangelical annihilationists believe that their position is faithful to the teachings of Scripture. The question is not whether we like the doctrine of eternal torment, but whether this is what the Bible actually teaches. Evangelical annihilationists would say that it is not. Stott says the question is “not what does my heart tell me, but what does God’s word say?” (Stott, 314-315).
There is no doubt that belief in the eternal torment of the wicked has been taught by the Church throughout its history. At the same time, our allegiance is not to the traditions of the Church, but to the teachings of the Bible. The fact, then, that Christians for nearly two thousand years have believed in the eternal torment of the unsaved is of no consequence—it is only the teachings of God’s Word which carries any weight in terms of what we should or should not believe.
If, as Evangelical Annihilationists believe, the traditional view of hell is not Biblical, where did this doctrine come from?
Some old guy playing the guitar
Five monkeys having butt sex with a fish-squirrel
Never seriously doubted the modern evolutionary synthesis? You should try it sometime.
[Hat tip: Reed]
You can’t eat your birthday cake and have it, too
It’s Ayn Rand’s birthday today. Happy Birthday, Miss Rand!
As everyone knows, Ayn Rand is responsible for a philosophical system called Objectivism.
At a sales conference at Random House, preceding the publication of Atlas Shrugged, one of the book salesmen asked me whether I could present the essence of my philosophy while standing on one foot. I did as follows:
- Metaphysics: Objective Reality
- Epistemology: Reason
- Ethics: Self-interest
- Politics: Capitalism
If you want this translated into simple language, it would read: 1. “Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed” or “Wishing won’t make it so.” 2. “You can’t eat your cake and have it, too.” 3. “Man is an end in himself.” 4. “Give me liberty or give me death.”
I’m 100% with Ayn Rand when it comes to politics (capitalism). I used to think I was 100% with Ayn Rand when it comes to metaphysics and epistemology, too. Until I read some of Rand’s metaphysics and epistemology. Don’t be fooled by Rand’s casual use of terms like ‘objective reality’ and ‘reason’. Rand’s ideas about objective reality and reason are completely at odds with objective reality and reason! And, when it comes to ethics, Rand’s philosophy is pernicious and wrong.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. Objectivism is bat-shit crazy. (Politics excepted.) See, for example, reasons given here and here.
Oh, and this is hardly news, but Objectivism is also anti-Christian. Read more here and here.