Hell, Libertarianz, Matthew, National Party, Slavery, Socialism

Low skilled workers: Go to Hell!

7 Comments

Libertarianz Party leader Dr. Richard McGrath has visited here before … and, judging by the title of yesterday’s press release, I think he must have been reading my series of posts on Hell.

National Party Throws Low Skilled Workers into the Furnace

Monday, 2 April 2012
Press Release: Libertarianz Party
National Party Throws Low Skilled Workers into the Furnace

Libertarianz leader Richard McGrath described the government’s decision to raise the minimum wage as short-sighted command-and-control interference in the economy, and predicted it will cost jobs.

“Raising the minimum wage to $13.50 an hour means anyone whose productivity falls below that level is now even more likely to be laid off,” he said.

“Clearly, Kate Wilkinson would rather have unemployed 16 and 17 year olds sitting at home on their Playstations earning $3.82 an hour on the dole, than earning $10 an hour in training or $13 an hour in a job.”

“This speaks volumes about the priorities and the economic literacy of this government. Like the Labour one before them, they believe it acceptable to consign unskilled kids to the scrap heap by pricing them off the job market, as long as it looks good.”

“If Kate Wilkinson thinks repeated upward adjustments of the minimum wage are just and viable, why doesn’t she lift it to $100 an hour?”

“The Libertarianz Party is the only political party in this country that would help low skilled school leavers and others into work by abolishing the minimum wage, thus allowing a fluctuating jobs market to determine the price of labour.”

“This would create a more transparent relationship between the skill level required for different occupations, the relative overall value of these jobs, and the supply of people willing and able to be employed in them.”

“Without the minimum wage distorting the job market, it is likely that anyone truly willing to work would be able to find a job commensurate with their talents and abilities.”

“Minimum wage laws cause false signals to be generated about the worth of various occupations, which is cruel and misleading for low skilled people who wish to work. My party is saddened to see National going down the Muldoonist road yet again.”

Libertarianz: More Freedom, Less Government
www.libertarianz.org.nz

Dr Richard McGrath
Libertarianz Leader
Phone: 027 322 2907
Email: richard.mcgrath@libertarianz.org.nz

Throwing low skilled workers into the “fiery furnace” like weeds (Matthew 13:42) is exactly what National’s decision to increase the minimum wage amounts to. In effect, National is telling low skilled workers: Go to Hell!

I prefer the new-fangled “trash” to the old-fashioned “fire” metaphor. Of course, it is the National Party and their wealth-destroying poverty-trap-perpetuating minimum wage laws that should be consigned to the waste-basket of history, not the State-forsaken low skilled workers.

Thanks, Richard, for one hell of a press release!

Hell

Hell in the Teachings of Jesus (Part 2)

Leave a comment


This is the tenth in a 13-part series wherein I give you Hell, a little booklet by the inimitable Dr. Jeff Obadiah Simmonds.

Another text used to prove the existence of hell as a place of suffering is where Jesus referred to a place of misery where there would be “weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Mt 25.30). Jesus was contrasting those who are in “the Kingdom of God” with those who are excluded from the Kingdom and mourn their unfortunate situation. We tend to project the Kingdom of God into the after-life—”the Kingdom of God” means “heaven,” and therefore those who are weeping and gnashing are therefore also in the after-life, but deprived of entry into heaven, and are therefore in hell.

I would see things somewhat differently. The Kingdom of God exists where-ever God’s rule is manifested. Obviously God’s rule is manifested in heaven, but the purpose of Christ’s coming was to bring this rule—the Kingdom—to earth. The Kingdom of God is therefore not something we enter when we die, but when we submit to God’s dominion by becoming the disciples of Jesus. Those who are outside this dominion are deprived of life and meaning and will suffer. The picture which Jesus presents in His parables are not necessarily of judgement in the after-life.

Jesus taught the coming of this Kingdom—an invasion of God’s rule into this world—in which the rich and powerful would be deprived of wealth and power. In that day, says Jesus, they “will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Mt 8.12) while those who are currently marginalised will sit down to feast in God’s great banquet. But this is not a picture of what will happen when we die, but when this world is transformed by the Gospel and the Kingdom.

As such, the image of weeping and gnashing does not provide evidence of eternal torment of the wicked in hell.

However, some of these “weeping and gnashing of teeth” texts do seem to refer to the Judgement. But here the image of burning fire is used. In the parable of the weeds, for example, Jesus speaks of the wheat being brought into God’s barn, while the weeds are “tied in bundles to be burned” (Mt 13.30). Again, while judgement by fire may be read as an eternal torture in hell, it may more reasonably be read as a metaphor of judgement and destruction—weeds are not subjected to eternal burning, but are thrown into a fire so that they may be consumed and be no more. However, Jesus explains this parable and says that those who cause sin will be weeded out of His kingdom and the angels will “will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Mt 13.41-42). The question is whether the weeping and gnashing constitutes conclusive evidence that those thrown into the fire will be consciously tortured for all eternity.

Will the wicked weep and gnash their teeth while they are being consumed by fire—a short-lived pain which ends in their destruction, or shall we assume that Jesus is speaking an eternity of torture? The Scripture is ambiguous in that the case can be argued either way. I would suggest, however, that the image of fire as destruction tips the scales in favour of an annihilationist interpretation.

A similar parable occurs in Mt 13.47-50. The judgement is compared to the separation of fish caught in a net. The unrighteous, who are “thrown into the fiery furnace where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth” are compared to unkosher fish which are “thrown away”. The point that inedible fish are destroyed, like the weeds, and not subjected to enduring torment again may point in the direction of destruction, and not torment, of the unsaved.

Annihilationists say that the annihilation of the wicked is eternal—this sentence will never be reversed. As such, this extinction of being is eternal punishment.

Ayn Rand, Evolutionism, Intelligent Design, Laws of Nature, Monism vs Dualism, Philosophy, Philosophy of Mind

What are you?

82 Comments

In a footnote to his paper God and Objectivism: A Critique of Objectivist Philosophy of Religion published in JARS, Stephen Parrish says

I find it difficult to ascertain exactly what Objectivists believe about the mind and the body. They reject substance dualism, yet also reject any sort of reductionism. It seems to me that their view of the mind-body relation is a sort of nonreductive physicalism. In this view, what really exists is matter—specifically, the brain, and the mind supervenes on, or is realized by the brain. This means that the mind does not exist apart from the brain, but cannot be reduced to it, by which it is meant that it cannot be totally explained in terms of the physical makeup of the brain. Writes William Thomas (n.d.a) on the mind-body relation:

What we call the mind is the set of capacities to be aware, to perceive the world, to think about it, to feel, to value, to make choices. How do these capacities arise? In many respects, the answer to that question must come from science, not philosophy. But everything we know indicates that they are the product of biological evolution and that they depend on our physical sense organs and brain, as well as on the many other support structures that the body provides.

Even the above, is not all that clear and could be interpreted in terms of either property dualism or nonreductive physicalism. I think that the latter fits in better with the overall picture of reality that Objectivists espouse. Actually, the mind-body problem is another area in which Objectivists need to work. …

Get to work, Objectivists!

Tell me, do you accept or reject substrate independence? Substrate independence is the claim that

conscious minds could in principle be implemented not only on carbon-based biological neurons (such as those inside your head) but also on some other computational substrate such as silicon-based processors.

In other words

what allows you to have conscious experiences is not the fact that your brain is made of squishy, biological matter but rather that it implements a certain computational architecture.

Do you accept or reject this claim?

[Cross-posted to The Third Watch.]

Death, Keep it Metal!, Mark II, Voluntary Euthanasia

More Orr

2 Comments

In my post on Monday last week I featured Mark Hubbard’s letter to the editor of The Press re Ken Orr of Right to Life re voluntary euthanasia. This was Ken Orr’s reply.

In reply to Mark Hubbard, we don’t own our lives – they are a gift from God. We are the custodians of that gift. The foundation stone of a civilised society is the social contract that we have that requires us to respect and protect the lives of every member of the community from conception to natural death. Our laws should uphold that social contract. The taking of a life is a grave injustice. There is no human right recognised by any United Nations Convention that would permit doctors to kill their patients or assist their suicide. Parliament would be in dereliction of its duty to society by violating this social contract and legislating to allow for euthanasia. Advocates of euthanasia are asking the rest of society to accept the collective guilt for taking of life. Euthanasia would result, as in Holland, in many others being deprived of their lives without their consent.

Let’s take a closer look.

we don’t own our lives – they are a gift from God. We are the custodians of that gift.

I already fielded this one. Your custodianship of your life means that voluntary euthanasia is acceptable under some circumstances, viz., those circumstances under which it is desirable.

You don’t own your life. God does. Your life is God’s property and He’s entrusted it to you. You are His servant. … God gave me – not you, not anyone else, and most certainly not the state – custodianship of my life. So it is up to me what I do with it.

And here’s what Ken Orr has to say on his website.

Euthanasia is allowing doctors to kill their patients or to assist in their suicide. This is not a religious issue, as some might suggest

So why mention that our lives are a gift from God in the first place?

The foundation stone of a civilised society is the social contract that we have that requires us to respect and protect the lives of every member of the community from conception to natural death. Our laws should uphold that social contract.

Assume, for the sake of argument, that the foundation stone of a civilised society is the social contract, and assume that this social contract is worth more than the paper it isn’t written on. What’s in the contract? Not a requirement to respect and protect the lives of every member of the community, but a requirement to respect and protect the right to life of every member of the community. There’s a world of difference between a right to a thing, and the thing itself.

Advocates of euthanasia are asking the rest of society to accept the collective guilt for taking of life.

I can’t see how Orr came to this conclusion. Collective guilt? What about individual freedom and personal responsibility?!

On his Right To Life website Ken Orr quotes from a press release on euthanasia from the Inter Church Bioethics Council.

Ethically, there is a significant difference between actively/assisting in killing another person and withdrawing (or with-holding) treatment so that the person dies as a result of their illness.

In both situations the intent of the action is critical. In forms of euthanasia, the intent is to relieve suffering by killing. By contrast, when treatment is futile and is stopped or withheld, palliative care given by skilled professionals who address the pain and suffering caused by terminal illness, provides the best means to respond compassionately to terminal illness and suffering. The intention here is to address the many needs of the suffering person and their family, and to enable a dignified pain-free death. Another ethical consideration is that health care professionals are trained and trusted to promote health and well being and provide appropriate treatment for the living and dying. They are trusted not to cause death.

and also says

At the outset, we should define what is euthanasia. Euthanasia is allowing doctors to kill their patients or to assist in their suicide. … Euthanasia is not the withholding or withdrawing of treatment from a patient who is in a terminal condition when that treatment would be futile or burdensome. It is also not euthanasia for a doctor to administer medication for the purpose of pain relief to a patient when it may also have the effect of shortening the patient’s life; this constitutes good palliative care. The objective is to relieve pain and suffering, not shorten the life of the patient.

Dying and in pain and wishing you were gone? Ask your doctor “to enable a dignified pain-free death.” Insist on “good palliative care”!

Euthanasia by stealth.

Bogus Science, Evolutionism

Planet of the Apes…whateva. 1Tim6vs20

12 Comments

Barely a week goes by that I don’t encounter some absolute drivel that exposes the absolutely un-scientific/Superstitious nature of the theory of Evolution.
Such is the scale of the delusion that I have decided to make an ongoing series of Blog posts dedicated to expose one by one the endless claims made by Evolutionists… in their vain attempts to explain the mechanisms by which they believe this ‘Blind Watchmaker’ operates.
By doing so I hope to propagate Faith in the literal Genesis record…esp its Principle of genetics… ‘Kind after its Kind’ as being 100% Scientifically reliable.
The Bible is not anti-reason, or Anti-science, but Anti-Folly and St Paul warns Christians to beware “Science falsely so called”. Why? Because Science poses itself to be an abiter of truth, and a means whereby we are supposed to be able to test the claims of various beliefs… and so via poor reasoning and a zeal to discredit the scriptures Pseudo-science has from the very beginning made claims that the Bible is at variance with scientific reality.
Thus it is essential that the Christian is not deceived by Bogus/ falce science into thinking the scriptures are unreliable, and full of Human invented myth… but are indeed trustworthy… Divine Truth.

Tonight I want to mention a typical example of the sort of tripe that gets swallowed by the average atheist in regards to their Blind Superstitious belief that evolution is true… I was listening to the Radio at work and a DJ was telling a story about how some Vegetarians had lobbied against a Meat eaters ad because they said it was demeaning to vegetarians. With the intension of slagging these Vegos the DJ proceeded to say that “Scientists” say that it was when ‘Apes’ moved away from their pure diet of vegitation towards *eating meat*, that this is what transformed them from Tree Dwelling simpletons into Human super beings that dominated the whole planet!

Now I used to be an evolutionist myself and once upon a time I would have had no problem accepting that claim as being valid. I would not have questioned it at any point… it would have appeared quite believable to me… esp because it eminated from Men in white Overcoats with heaps of University degrees!
To me that was the sane thing to believe… because a Scientist made the claim. It was the most Modern concept, and that to reject it in favour of archaic religion was the Hallmark of a Ludite.

What is miraculous is that somehow God was able to break though this strong delusion I was under and show me just how empty such claims are.

Let me here and now state *There is No science* behind this claim that changing diet from strict vegetation to an omnivorous diet has the power to genetically modify apes into human beings over the process of time. That is 100% conjecture! That claim is as vacuous, and as devoid of valid science as claiming Life originated here on earth via debris or alien visitation from space!
That is how wild it is. That is how whimsical it is!
This example is a typical scenario from which the whole theory of evolution is built!
Evolution is not Valid science. There is no Law of Evolution. It is a superstition dressed up in scientific jargon designed to deceive Humanity into dis-believing the truthfulness and reliability of Bible.
Its as simple as that.

Important Note: We live in an age of Pseudo-science. It is the new religion. Everything from Food to Children are Marketed to us via claims of the most up-to date scientific endorsement. Science has proven Meat, Coffee, eggs are Bad for you. Science has proven Meat, Coffee, Eggs are good for you! BLAR BLAR BLAR! Every Tosser whom gains a research grant discovers they were right! (No matter how ridiculous) Most People cannot distinguish what is legitimate from what is shameful and erroneous conjecture! Heed St Paul and “Beware science Falsely so called!”
(1Tim6vs20) Tim Wikiriwhi

Socialism, Venting Spleen

Vampire Socialist Elites.

4 Comments

One of the Biggest lies that Socialists have propagated is that that Socialism is all about fairness and equality. This would be the number 1 argument they use to fool the herds of ignorant peasant workers into supporting their cause.
They argue that Capitalism is about Fat Cats living large on the sweat and toil of the working class and that If only they (The benevolent socialists) can seize power they will end this Extortion and usher in an era of Justice and plenty.
They must mean Plenty… for themselves!
You would think that after nearly a century of Socialism of all shapes and colours and their devastatng trail of mass murders, tyranny, poverty, Bankruptcies, etc that even the most ‘intellectually challenged’ of sheeple would have figured out by now that socialism is Bogus, and that all Socialist politicians are either Brain dead Idiots themselves, or scheming forked tongued Blood sucking self aggrandising Power trippers… yet Somehow the penny never seems to drop.

What is the verdict of History regarding the promises of Socialism to remove Greed and wealth inequalities?
What in reality has been the fruit of it?
It has been said by those whom were there that the Oppression of the Autocratic Czar of Russia was far less in magnitude that that which was inflicted upon the subjects of the Communist USSR, by the Communists whom claimed their revolution was for the sake of the Working Class.
More recent examples would be King Jong ill, of North Korea and Comrade Mugabe of Zimbabwe.
Both these Socialists claim/claimed to be Champions of the Working class, yet in reality murdered them like flies, and Raped them… all the while themselves living in extreme luxury, and having fleeced their own Nations were/are reported to be among the most Mega rich people on Earth. Today Millions of North Koreans and Zimbabweans wallow in dire Poverty.
Lord Actons Dictum “Power tends to corrupt, and Absolute power corrupts absolutely” seems to apply with greater weight to Socialist dictators than any other.

Yet these Major League Arseholes are not what motivated this post.
I am more concerned with the Bullshit that is currently happening in Western Social democratic States, like ours which prove that Nanny state Socialism does not create a society of Benevolent self sacrifice and service to the public weal either, but does the very opposite… it creates an upper class of Greedy Elites whom grow Fat via feeding from the Public trough!

Reading the NZ Herald over the last few Days ought to be enough for anyone to grasp the reality that Socialism is a Big Fat Lie!
Monday March 26 a front page article appeared called:

‘Public CEOs hit Paydirt’… read on…

“Public organisations have paid about $90 million to their chief executives in a year – with some receiving rises of more than 20 per cent, and one getting a 55 per cent increase.

Public bosses received an average $340,000 each in the last financial year – up $14,000 (4.3 per cent) on the previous year. The median income in New Zealand from wages and salaries during the same period increased $1600 (4 per cent) to $41,600.

But some chief executives received rises far in excess of these percentages, according to a Herald survey of about 300 Crown entities, councils, state-owned enterprises and other organisations in the public sector.

The best-paid chief executives were from state-owned energy companies.

Mighty River Power, Solid Energy, Meridian Energy and Genesis Power all paid their CEOs more than $1 million. Big rises took their deals to more than $5.5 million combined.

Mighty River increased its chief executive’s pay by 34 per cent, or $450,000, to $1.8 million. Most of the increase resulted from the company meeting performance targets.

Read rest of article here: Public CEOs enjoy big pay hikes.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10794629

Another article appeared in the NZ herald the day before that is in the same vein:
Maori TV Chiefs on Arctic expedition.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10794830

Socialism is all about Wealth and power. Not the wellbeing of Maori, nor for Public good.
That they attempt to justify this Gluttony by sighting ‘Market rates’ is a confession that they (the socialists) expect the same self-interest gains as Capitalists… thus exposing the lie that socialist/ nationalisation of industries is about saving ‘the little people from Greed.
If anything Socialists display an even more insipid greed than that which is found in the shameless Business school elite and the Top heavy Fat Bonus system of private sector corporate executives because of the Socialists blatant lies and hypocrisy and because they employ political oppression to create and maintain themselves in a higher echelon.
Socialism is no cure for Greed, but a very malicious form of it. It does not close the Gap between rich and poor but institutionalises it!
Will you Numbskulls please do me a favour? *STOP VOTING FOR IT!*
Tim Wikiriwhi. Libertarian Christian.

Freedom, Hatebreed, Keep it Metal!

Live for This

1 Comment

Let’s go!

Live for this, Live, Live
Live for this
Live for this, Live, Live
If you don’t live for something you’ll die for nothing

Through the best and the worst
The struggle, the sacrifice
For the true who’ve remained and the new blood
Motivation, undying allegiance
Striving through the hardship and affliction

Every drop of blood
Every bitter tear
Every bead of sweat
I live for this

Live for this, Live, Live
Live for this
Live for this, Live, Live
If you don’t live for something you’ll die for nothing

What we have are not possessions we own
It’s not weighed by greed or personal gain
This is real, a desire for freedom
A place apart from a world in abandon

Every drop of blood
Every bitter tear
Every bead of sweat
I live for this

Live for this, Live, Live
Live for this, Live, Live
Live for this, Live, Live
If you don’t live for something you’ll die for nothing

Live for this, Live, Live
Live for this
Live for this, Live, Live

I live for this

Ayn Rand, Humour, Love

Love and laughter

6 Comments

Jesus said

Love your neighbour as yourself.

The commandment has a corollary.

Love yourself as your neighbour.

‘Love your neighbour as yourself’ is a utilitarian moral principle. To love someone is to value their happiness. To love your neighbour is to value, as Bentham put it, ‘the greatest happiness of the greatest number’. To love your neighbour as yourself is to heed Bentham’s dictum, ‘each to count for one, and none for more than one’.”

This gives the lie to claims that Christian morality is a species of altruism. It’s obviously not.

Now consider

Laugh at your neighbour as yourself.

and its corollary

Laugh at yourself as your neighbour.

Would Jesus approve this message? I think he would. He was not past poking fun at his own disciples on occasion. Of course, I think Jesus was more a “laugh with you” than a “laugh at you” kind of a guy. But Jesus can’t laugh with you if you don’t get the joke. So practise laughing at yourself. In the words of Dame Edna Everage

Never be afraid to laugh at yourself. After all, you could be missing out on the joke of the century.

Compare and contrast Dame Edna’s advice with the advice of another famous dame.

Humor is the denial of metaphysical importance to that which you laugh at. … If what you are laughing at is the evil in the world (provided that you take it seriously, but occasionally you permit yourself to laugh at it), that’s fine. [To] laugh at that which is good, at heroes, at values, and above all at yourself [is] monstrous . . . . The worst evil that you can do, psychologically, is to laugh at yourself. That means spitting in your own face.

No sense of humour. How about a sense of life instead?

Give me Liberty, or give me Death!