This silky-smooth stout contains select malt and hops to produce a beer that is rich and complex. It contains Bluff oysters and has a slightly smoky flavour.
Contains Bluff oysters?! A “slightly smoky flavour”?! No wonder, this ungodly beer is a burnt offering to Baal! It’s an abomination! It goes directly against God’s word as clearly spelled out in Leviticus 11:9-12.
These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.
And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.
I have previously warned of the addition of foodstuffs to beer. Beer is water, malt and hops ONLY. Chocolate and coconut were but thin ends of the wedge. And now, alas, it’s come to this.
No doubt, my Dispensationalist co-blogger will tell me that these dietary strictures do not apply in the present Age. I am unmoved.
At tomorrow night’s meeting of the New Inklings, the paper for discussion is Derek Parfit’s classic Personal Identity, first published in The Philosophical Review in 1971.
Parfit uses many examples seemingly inspired by Star Trek and other science fiction, such as the teletransporter, to explore our intuitions about our identity. He is a reductionist, believing that since there is no adequate criterion of personal identity, people do not exist apart from their components. Parfit argues that reality can be fully described impersonally; there need not be a determinate answer to the question “Will I continue to exist?” We could know all the facts about a person’s continued existence and not be able to say whether the person has survived. He concludes that we are mistaken in assuming that personal identity is what matters; what matters is rather Relation R: psychological connectedness (namely, of memory and character) and continuity (overlapping chains of strong connectedness).
On Parfit’s account, individuals are nothing more than brains and bodies, but identity cannot be reduced to either. Parfit concedes that his theories rarely conflict with rival Reductionist theories in everyday life, and that the two are only brought to blows by the introduction of extraordinary examples. However, he defends the use of such examples because they seem to arouse genuine and strong feelings in many of us. Identity is not as determinate as we often suppose it is, but instead such determinacy arises mainly from the way we talk. People exist in the same way that nations or clubs exist.
A key Parfitian question is: given the choice of surviving without psychological continuity and connectedness (Relation R) or dying but preserving R through the future existence of someone else, which would you choose?
Parfit described the loss of the conception of a separate self as liberating:
My life seemed like a glass tunnel, through which I was moving faster every year, and at the end of which there was darkness… [However] When I changed my view, the walls of my glass tunnel disappeared. I now live in the open air. There is still a difference between my life and the lives of other people. But the difference is less. Other people are closer. I am less concerned about the rest of my own life, and more concerned about the lives of others.
Needless to say, I’m with Parfit on this one. His view is both liberating and … dare I say it, Christian.
(Or, at least, conducive to a Christian way of life.) (But with some startling implications for some Christian views of salvation.)
Here’s the Parfitian question again.
Given the choice of
(1) surviving without psychological continuity and connectedness (Relation R), or
(2) dying but preserving R through the future existence of someone else,
which would you choose? (Hint: what matters is Relation R.)
You can spread the flu to people, including your family/whanau and friends, who are at most risk of complications
While general health affects the severity of an infection, the influenza virus is contagious and anyone can become infected.
Influenza is more than just a ‘bad cold’. Although some of the symptoms are the same, influenza is usually much more severe. Symptoms of influenza include a cough, headache, fever or chills, body aches and pains, fatigue and generally feeling miserable
Influenza, commonly called the flu, can be a serious illness that is sometimes fatal.
Even if you do not end up in hospital, influenza can keep you in bed for a week or more, preventing you from doing work, sport or just about anything that requires leaving the house.
The flu spreads from person to person. The influenza virus is transferred in droplets of moisture expelled through breathing, coughing and sneezing. The virus is spread when a person touches any droplets which contain the influenza virus and then touch their mouth, nose or eyes before washing their hands.
Influenza can infect up to 1 in 5 of us every year.
Influenza can affect anyone, no matter how fit, active and healthy they may be. Although people with underlying health conditions are most at risk from influenza associated complications, previously healthy people can still become seriously ill an even die.
Approximately 400 deaths each year in New Zealand are related to influenza infection.
We cannot predict from year to year how severe the influenza season may be. The flu virus can change yearly and new strains can emerge to which people are not immune.
To maintain the most effective protection against influenza, annual immunisation is required.
protection lessens over time
each year influenza can be caused by different strains of influenza viruses that are not represented in the previous year’s vaccine
It takes around two weeks to develop immunity once vaccinated. Ideally, immunisation should be carried out before the main influenza activity in May to September. People can be immunised at any time during the influenza season, but the vaccine is only free for those in the high-risk groups until the end of July.
Seasonal influenza vaccinations are recognised as being the single most effective way of reducing the impact of seasonal influenza – especially for those most at risk of complications.
Stop the spread of the flu
If you are unwell, stay at home until you are better.
Follow basic hygiene practices:
Wash your hands regularly for at least 20 seconds and dry them for 20 seconds – or use an alcohol-based hand rub
Cover your mouth and nose with a tissue when you cough or sneeze – then put the tissue in a lined bin
Cough or sneeze in to your elbow if a tissue is not readily available
Avoid touching your eyes, nose and mouth
Don’t share drinks
Avoid crowded places
Don’t let the flu knock you. Get immunised. Protect yourself. Protect your family. Protect your community.
Immunisation may be FREE for you. Ask your doctor or nurse today.
This season’s ‘flu’ could be worse because of the new influenza virus commonly known as Swine Flu.
What a fine drop this is!!!!
6% too! 😀
Take note Richard G of the statement below!
esp… “Beer of Choice”…. “a supprising effective accompaniment for Dark chocolate, coffee,…”
Elemental is our most awarded beer, it has won gold medals in Australia and New Zealand and for a time it was rated New Zealand’s top beer, no mean feat for a porter of moderate alcohol and a balanced finish.
Originally the beer of choice for workers in London’s produce markets, the beer was a mixture of the previous nights slops that the “porters” would drink when they clocked off at dawn. Porter is also Andy’s all time favourite beer style. Brewed in the modern ‘robust’ style, Elemental Porter is a rich, full bodied brew with plenty of dry, dark chocolate and roasty malt flavours which gradually give way to a cleansing hop-driven finish.
Not intuitively thought of as as a food beer it is a surprisingly effective accompaniment for:
•Dark chocolate
•Coffee or berry-based desserts
•Blue cheese
•Barbecued meats
And although historically it was a sunrise beer, we think nowadays it is probably more suited to an be served after dinner with desserts and cheese, although if you want to drink it at day break, we’re not going to stop you.
Cheers!
Andy and Brian
^^^^quote is from here: http://www.renaissancebrewing.co.nz/content/elemental-porter-ale-craft-beer.html
Grunge Miester Tim Wikiriwhi Queenstown Motorcamp. New Years Day 1999.
That’s a Montieths Black… Porter Ale! …. actually may be a Black Mac. 🙂
My Fav beer for 20 odd years has been Waikato Draught, yet that was notoriously hard to get on the Mainland, and so on that ‘mission’ I was buyin up Montieths Black (you can get it by the Jug down there!) and also swillin Black Macs.
That bottle looks more like a Mac one than a Montieths.
And for the record both Black Montieths and Black Macs are bloody good ales!
Despite being bought out by Big Brewers…
I present that quote from Renaissance Brewing as evidence against previous remarks by my fellow blogger… re My endorsement of both Porter Ale and in particular Boundary Road Chocolate Porter Ale.
Labour’s charity spokeswoman, coat-of-many-colours Louisa Wall, and a member of the Australian Charity Law Association (ACLA), Dr. Michael Gousmett, are complaining that the current law is creating “inequality in our tax system”.
Today’s regulations give tax relief to private schools, fee-charging hospitals, Ngai Tahu’s 38 limited liability companies (including Shotover Jet and Whale Watch Kaikoura) and food giant Sanitarium with no public benefit test holding them to account.
Notwithstanding that Kiwi kids are Weetbix kids, why on earth does a breakfast cereal manufacturer have charitable status? And Ngai Tahu’s tourist attractions? I’m gobsmacked. The other day, I asked a member of the iwi, “How’s Ngai Tahu?”. He replied, “Rich!” No wonder.
As for private schools and private hospitals, it seems that the government concedes charitable status (i.e., tax relief) to private institutions that are still performing those charitable roles that the government, with its state schools and public health system, has long-since tried to usurp.
Merely operating as a hospital or school meets the criteria of charitability as it relieves pressure on the public system, even if the charity is charging fees largely unaffordable to most people.
Wall said charitable trusts that benefit only the wealthy were “creating divisions between the haves and the have-nots”.
“Those who least need charity are benefiting the most. It is helping those who can afford to pay to go to private hospitals and private schools, not those who actually need the help.
“We as a country are giving these organisations up to $600m worth of tax relief under the assumption that $600m should be reinvested back into the community, and if that is not happening we desperately need to change the law.”
Note the standard socialist newspeak. Thieving is now “reinvesting back into the community,” and not thieving is now “giving tax relief.” And the thieves are now “out of pocket.” Poor government! If only there were 54 weeks in the year, then they could just keep borrowing at their current rate of $300 million per week and they wouldn’t be “out of pocket.” Meanwhile, the charities sector is “swallowing” $600 million of its own money every year! Into the giant, gaping maw of charity! The horror!
The Government is $600 million out of pocket each year as the charities sector swallows $400m through income tax exemption and $200m in tax credit refunds, yet Cabinet decided against reviewing charity law last year through “fiscal cost” fears.
Recent calls to urgently review the sector were once again quashed by Community and Voluntary Sector Minister Jo Goodhew yesterday.
Charitable purpose relates to the relief of poverty, the advancement of education or religion or any other matter beneficial to the community, she said.
The Charities Registration Board determines whether or not an organisation fits within the Charities Act 2005 and the DIA Charities Services monitors charities to ensure they operate for exclusively charitable purposes.
“Irrespective of what a charity looks like, as long as they are operating within the law, that is what we should be assuring ourselves on,” she said.
The Government decided against reviewing the law relating to charities last year through fears more organisations may have expected to be eligible for charitable status which could have “increased fiscal costs”, an Inland Revenue spokeswoman said.
So, the truth outs. It’s the government being uncharitable, not the charities. Allowing people to give their own money directly to those in need is an “increased fiscal cost” to the government? Well, no. It’s actually an “increased fiscal cost” to those doing the giving. That’s how charity works.
Inland Revenue was aware of “the public concerns relating to charities” and would be monitoring them to ensure they were operating exclusively for charitable purposes, she said.
I drafted this letter to Peter Dunne while sitting on the train this afternoon.
Dear Peter,
Re: Psychoactive Substances bill
I understand that your main motivation for promoting this legislation is safety.
I am concerned that the safety testing process for potentially approved psychoactive substances will be unnecessarily long-winded, prohibitively expensive, cruel (if tested on animals) and either too stringent or too lax to be effective. It will not be practically possible to establish likely adverse long-term effects of new psychoactive substances.
Drug users did not ask for this legislation.
Why not legalise substances such as cannabis, methylphenidate, BZP and MDMA?
All these substances have been trialled on humans and have good safety profiles.
Methylphenidate is routinely prescribed to children. Why not legalise it for adult recreational use?
Cannabis has been used safely for millennia. No one has ever died from a cannabis overdose.
If cannabis were already legal, demand for synthetic cannabinoids would be negligible and the proposed legislation would be unnecessary.
There are two kinds of Christians in this world. Those who post tributes to Jeff Hanneman, Slayer’s recently deceased guitarist, on Facebook. And those who post comments like this on said tribute posts.
A sad wasted life. Hell awaits.
I took umbrage at this, and messaged the author. He explained
It was a sad life. I wish he would have turned to Christ, but it didn’t appear that he did.
Fair comment. I, too, am sad that Jeff did not repent before he took his final breath. But a sad, wasted life? And hell awaits? On a tribute thread?
Yes, folks, this is the post on which you get to speculate (in the comments) on Jeff Hanneman’s afterlife destination!
Here’s what I believe.
Hell, or “Hades” in the original Hebrew, is the grave. And that is where Jeff Hanneman will soon be. (After his funeral, but I’ll get to that.) In God’s eyes, we are all sinners, and the wages of sin is death, so (other things being equal) we’re all going to die. It’s a simple enough argument, and even atheists agree with its conclusion. But here is Christ’s promise to mortal man.
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
Christians live in the hope that one day Jesus will return to fulfill His promise. Then shall be the Resurrection of the Dead and the Final Judgement. After which there is rest for the wicked, who succumb to the Second Death (Satan Laughs As You Eternally Rot) while the redeemed enjoy eternal life.
It’s a simple, stark choice. Do you go to the grave, or do you submit your life to Christ? Doing God’s will is all that’s asked of you. It sure beats pursuing your own pitiful plans!
But the reality is that that’s what Jeff Hanneman did. And he succeeded, by earthly standards. He drank lots of Heineken. Lots. And he screwed lots of hot metal chicks. Lots. As rock stars do. And then he settled down and married his lovely wife, Kathy. (So, this is all speculation, but I bet I’m not wrong.) And, in the meantime, he wrote the best songs for, and played lead guitar for, the greatest heavy metal band of all time. I am in awe. This is not a good Christian life by any reckoning, but a sad, wasted life? I don’t think so.
I am grateful to Jeff Hanneman for his life. He has brought me, and countless other metallers, hour upon hour of listening pleasure. And he’s saved people’s lives. Slayer’s music has given many disaffected, disturbed, depressed young people, on the verge of topping themselves, the strength to carry on. (Again, this is all mostly speculation, but I bet I’m not wrong.)
Thank God for Jeff Hanneman.
That’s my comment on my friend’s Facebook thread, and it leaves the comment at the top of this post for dead. Which brings me to my final point. The commenter’s Christian brothers and sisters will, I hope, at least understand where the commenter was coming from. But non-Christians (as I was, until recently) will not. I took exception to the comment because it was a steady diet of such dismissive, derogatory, judgemental comments from Christians that helped sustain my more than three decades of atheism in adult life.
We are Christ’s representatives on earth, and we should act like we know it. It’s one reason I founded this blog. To reach out to other Slayer fans!
Jeff Hanneman’s afterlife destination is ultimately up to his Maker. May God have mercy on his soul.
The Gun Blog Black list is a blog about Gun blogs.
For 2nd Amendment Patriots and Libertarians.
You can find it here: http://gunblogblacklist.blogspot.co.nz/
Slayer’s Jeff Hanneman died early this morning of liver failure.
He will be remembered as guitarist and song writer for the greatest heavy metal band of all time.
He was 49. He is survived by his wife Kathy, his sister Kathy and his brothers Michael and Larry. And, of course, his fellow band members and a legion of fans.
Hanneman had been off the road since he contracted necrotizing fasciitis—thought to be from a spider bite—in early 2011. It’s not known what role the disease played in Hanneman’s liver failure.
The same thing ought to apply to all those who want to continue the war on drugs, have public health and education, ban guns, impose hate speech laws, , keep prostitution illegal, lock out Mexicans, etc, etc. The only True Americans are the Libertarians… The policies of Dems and Reps are all as bad and as un American as the Sharia Law.
They can make no claim to upholding the Constitution.
They are Hypocrites.
And of course many of the Islamic migrants living in Western democracies migrated to escape the tyranny of Sharia Law… from Afghanistan… from Egypt, etc.
They appreciate freedom, and are productive, tollerant and civilised members of our societies, peacefully practicing their own faith on equal terms with everyone else.
They do not wish to establish Sharia Law.
And it is bigotry to think that all Muslims are religious fanatics who desire to impose their faith on others by force, or to kill Christians…etc.
What is truely sickening are all the so-called Libertarians who wont vote Libertarian!
How sickning it is to watch them waste their votes by voting ‘Republican’… and then hear the excuse that the Libertarians have no hope of getting elected!
What is worse is that the actually elect * Right wing Socialist Republicans!*
(Facepalm)
I admit that Ron Paul was an exceptional Republican, yet what the Republican party did to stop him becomming their candidate for Presedent ought to be evidence enough that the Republican party is hell bent on maintaining the Status quo… it has no agenda of Libertarian reform.
In no way ought Libertarians to be suckered into supporting Rand Paul.
He should have quit the Party after what they did to his old man, yet he has chosen to stick around simply out of personal ambition rather than principle.
