Thursday, December 18, 2008

NON-THEISM as an alternative.

Atheism is rapidly becoming a religion and Christianity a hotbed of controversy; Islam a dirty word, Buddhism, Hindi and New Age a refuge for old hippies. I would encourage all sensible, open minded, freethinking individuals to consider the rarely used term Non-theist as the description of an alternative to the rather extreme views being put forward lately by bi-polar commentators who seem to be convinced, one way or another, that their view of everything is the only one to hold.
Now, I don't expect anyone to drop what works for them but when speaking out on improvable theories please consider the unscientific nature of ass-u-me-ing GOD does or doesn't exist. Neither of these views have been proven or disproved conclusively no matter how vehemently stated. When you quote words out of an old book, as proof of the validity of what you are stating, it holds no weight if your opponent doesn't value the text as much as you do; that goes for egg-headed Atheists as well as Bible bashing fundamentalists.

Non-Theism is the thinking mans / womens alternative, placing yourself central but isolated from radical views. It is an open and informed stance on issues that are yet to be resolved, striking a home run for the people who don't want to be drawn into arguments that seem to be going nowhere. When someone asks what religion you are, confidently replying Non-Theist should not offend anyone yet allows you the room to manoeuvre as your knowledge on the issues increases or personal experiences enlightens.
Don't get me wrong, I have my own opinions on what God and religion should be (and the origins of the Universe) but I refuse to be dictated to by entities who, by strength of numbers, portray themselves as experts on maters that can only be described as theory. I may or may not choose to accept portions of what they say as truth but I don't have to buy it holas-bolas and I don't have to ram it down anybodies throat. If my children are to be educated in the knowledge of religion or science, I would prefer it if their teachers were educated Non-Theists who were opening their minds to the broad spread of opinion and leaving them to make up their own minds on which particular views they aspire to hold. I don't see any value in insisting that they be educated by creationalists or disciples of Darwin but someone who had a non-biased attitude and good working knowledge of both, would do.
So, we may have been brought to our present place in history by mono-brained, single minded achievers who caved out a place for us to exist and we may have then been enlightened by Bi-polar argumentative types who gave us Democracy as it is now but the time has come for Multi-dimensional thinkers to take the wheel and steer us wisely into the future. Give our children half a chance to rise above the petty squabbling of the last generation and sit back for the ride of a lifetime as a spirit of co-operation and acceptance of others views, catapults us to the stars and beyond.

Tuesday, December 16, 2008


Many will come in my name, claiming I am the Christ and they will deceive many. (Matt 24:5)


Now correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that if Jesus was right about what he was saying here, just before he was crucified, then Paul and his Roman based Christian religion were the most likely ones he was talking about; because nowhere in history do we have a more likely bunch of deceivers.

Just before he said that, in his address to the multitude (Matt 23);&version=31; Jesus gives an accurate description of what the Roman Catholic Church was destined to become, a revamped version of everything he hated about the religious nutcases that surrounded him. He spoke about setting yourself above others and expecting of them what you can’t live up to yourself. He says they will swallow up the property of widows, under the cover of long prayers and traverse the seas to proselytize, creating converts who will be twice as damned as themselves; blind fools. He then accuses their forefathers of murdering the prophets and predicts they are about to make the same mistake.

I think Jesus used Saul of Tarsus (Paul, main contributor to the New Testament) to fulfil his prophesy, the way Saul used Jesus to fulfil his belief; that a Christ had to hang on a cross for the salvation of all those who would join his Human sacrifice cult. In his letter to the Romans, Saul (alias Paul), after giving himself a big rap, launches into an attack against peoples sexual preferences rather than addressing his own evil actions and doesn’t even mention the fact he had been involved in murder and torcher (oh, how history repeats it’s self).

He goes on to condemn every type of human behaviour as worthy of death and hell, from his concept of god, and then makes the statement we shouldn’t judge people; in the texts that have been used to judge more people than any other in history. He goes to great pains to point out that only those who obey the LAW can be worthy, as his gospel proclaims, and then contradicts himself by saying we can only be saved by grace. Not to be content with that great big faux pas, he ends up the third chapter by setting the law on its right footing by saying that it’s neither obedience to the law nor grace that saves, but faith; while he consigns pride to the trash can.

Paul (the self proclaimed expert on everything) then launches into a tirade of apologetics that only a man suffering from a bad case of guilt’s could possibly appreciate. Chapter after chapter of religious gobbledy gook, enough that if anyone today started raving on about in a public place, they would automatically be redeployed to the loony bin. Where is his credentials to make these outrageous statements? Who is his witness that he was commissioned by Jesus? Why does he get to speak as though he was the voice of God on earth? What possesses fundamentalists to admire this mans ravings so much, when they are very reluctant to embrace Jesus’ teaching on excessive wealth, open displays of piety, unnecessary use of the defensive sword and the non-bias view of women in positions of authority?

I don’t have any answers for these questions, I doubt if anybody does but please don’t misunderstand me, I have laboured over it for far to long just as I have pondered Darwinism and now Dawkinism. If Peter and Paul met Darwin and Dawk for the Bi-millennium debate on the ‘Origins of the Species’ or the ‘Did Jesus do miracles?’ follow up, I don’t think I would even bother to show up. But if Jesus and Mary Magdalene invited me around for a piss-up, I’d be there in a flash; just as I would if Einstein and Jung were putting on a soccer match. So, rather than judging people or theories on the probabilities of being right or upright, let’s just see if we can get along first. 

Sunday, December 7, 2008

Applications of ‘The Secret’ on a grand scale.

Please bear with me on this one because I know it's not everyone's cup of tea and that  only a few million poor souls bought into the Ophra Winfrey backed extravaganza but ‘The Secret” really bites if you are one of the unfortunates who don’t ever get to partake of the promised benefits because it couldn’t possibly work for every one, only the privileged few.

If there’s any reality to Rhonda Byrnes’ marketing fiasco don’t you think that somewhere along the line some big and powerful organization would have picked up on it before it was released to the general public. Oh dear, I hear the reply; so ergo, a quick glance around and we seem to be surrounded by monoliths that have mastered the secret, Google, Microsoft, The Pope, The Rothschild's, The Masons, The Mormons, The Dali-Lama? The list seems to be endless, so my enquiry is; how could an individual practitioner of ‘The Secret’ compete with the consolidated will of the organized practitioners, when they seem to be intent on profiteering from the masses? Would not the bigger positive law of attraction override the individuals desires.

The Catholic Church is an interesting case study; over the thousands of years it has practiced the secret to monopolizing money and power, it has a track record of keeping the pew warmers in their place while revelling in their own success. Same thing with theRothschild’s even though their Ashkenazi power base can only be traced back hundreds of years or so. The Masons really had the bit between their teeth by the time they signed the American Declaration of Independence and Cecil Rhodes engineered his own Empirical ambitions. Adolf Hitler seemed to  have a particularly good handle on the application until an even bigger positive thinker came along to put an end his run. McCarthyites pitted their strength of unity against the Stalinists and now it’s Christians against Muslims.

I think you get the gist of what I’m saying, the power of attraction works until a bigger magnet comes along, this is why big companies like Gunns in Tasmania, send trouble makers into the greenies, so their magnet doesn’t get to powerful. The real secret to power and wealth is UNITY and while we have individual power brokers plying their trade, with the intent of their own interests above others, chaos in the ranks will prevail and solo seekers doomed to failure.

We, the manipulated, need to get organized if we want to compete in our future. We the masses have the potential for having the biggest magnet on the playing field. We, the poor and meek pins in the fabric of society, have the ability to inherit the Earth if we could galvanize ourselves into a solid body and WE could ensure that all our collective children could have an equal portion with out having to slave for the privileged minority till eternity.

The concept of a central data bank with equal access no matter of race, creed, colour or socio- economic class is the right of every child of the future and could provide the basis for sustainable, peaceful government by the people for the people, into the immediate future and beyond. Don’t align yourselves with the Party Poopers use ‘the secret’ to get out from under tyrannical rule, forever.

Friday, December 5, 2008

To be a theist or not.

I'd like to comment on the insanity of Richard Dawkins when he calls Christians insane, not because I am a Christian anymore than I am an Atheist but don't you think it is a bit Bi-polar when "supposedly" intelligent thinkers can only perceive one of two perspectives. They carry on like there is no shades of gray, only black and white, only good guys and bad guys, only their way of explaining things or the crazy guys. I don't have any trouble accepting the theists point of view when it comes to an unseen, powerful, creative force anymore than I do accepting scientific theories about Quantum Physics and why can't both be true? The long and boring debate about Evolution V's Creation can be simply understood if you can accept the possibility Evolution was the way God chose to create, end of story.

If I had to define my concept of our state of being, (rather than relying on Jewish traditions, Paulinian rhetoric, Islamic dogma, Buddhistic detachment, Hindu hocus pocus or any of the various native mumbo jumbo’s) then I chose to sit centrally positioned in the sphere of debate, drawing from all the great thinkers but beholding to none. My beliefs are easier to quantify by stating what they are not, rather than passing off assumptions as something solid. The secret to the power of the big religions is in the grouping of consciousness rather than the reality of their beliefs and therein lies their weakness as well. Minimalists have a strength superior to overblown, all encompassing, egocentric know it alls, no matter how many people they rope into their theories, therefore; what I know about creation and what I can pass onto others, is no better than the size of their ability to comprehend. Just as a computer has access to the internet, we can access the bigger picture if we are not afraid to cross cultural barriers but we cannot exceed our capacity to store truth; although we can always junk the spam.

So truth is what the group consciousness decides it is and while our world will always be made up of individual points of view, the real test of whether we will evolve into a permanent universal force will be whether or not we can establish a group consciousness that all can access and relate to, a central databank of beliefs that we can all believe in. 

Sunday, November 30, 2008


 I am not a prude or a wowser by any gauge but I have got to tell you I find it repulsive the way the children of our “civilization” have been bombarded with uncensored images of war. The warnographers of this world have been given carte blanche to pervert the minds of our most vulnerable, while they diverted our attention away from the foulest of human behaviour and focused it on a campaign against the lesser of two evils pornography. The “god-fearing” leaders of the Judaeo-Christian and Muslim nations have consistently ignored the effect, of their insane lust for war, on the innocent and chosen instead to demonise anything vaguely associated with sexuality outside of the accepted norms. On a scale of one to ten how do you rate the amount collateral damage caused by war verses porn?

 If we rate the billions of people who have had their guts ripped out by war as a ten, then I would suggest by comparison the victims of porn would be less than one percent. Why are we not as outraged at finding our youth splattering heads on the internet as we would be if they were digitally engaged in on line sex. Responsible adults would understand the irony of this and no matter what your particular brand of belief is, collectively pray that the incoming new world order gets it’s priorities in place and doesn't continue on with the insanities of the outgoing warnography criminals.

Monday, November 24, 2008

The Dominatrix has had her day. (the moose still stands)

I have recently had my eyes opened to statistics of current importance; Less than 50% of Americans pay more than 90% of the taxes (conservative estimate). Now I don’t claim to know a lot about the U.S.A’s business but considering I have just had it rammed down my throat for the last two years, I feel qualified to make a few comments or observations (depending on which way you look at it).

 Barak Obama (BO) has risen to the top of the pile, on a groundswell of public opinion, by representing the views of the of the united minorities who felt disadvantaged under George W Bush’s (GWB) reign. He made it his position to associate himself with the descendants of the slaves who were ‘liberated’ by the results of the Civil War and his children bare that distinction. John McCain (JMC), by comparison, failed in his attempt to become ‘fearless leader’ because less than 50% of voters, who previously had more than 90% of the influence, failed to convince the now united majority that BO was really a closet Muslim. 

Now I wouldn’t be surprised if less than 50% of disgruntled, tax paying, voting, gun totting fundamental patriots started to aim their criticisms towards the “fact” that the funding for BO’s social policies (spreading the wealth) is going to be coming out of their taxes. If I had to address their concerns, I would point out that when slavery was in fashion none of the slaves paid any tax at all but they did all the work. 

Don’t be blindsided by the rhetoric of the “right”; the largest tax payers sit on the shoulders of the ones who pay the least. Undermining them will only bring down the whole structure, as apposed to supporting them and strengthening them, which can only be for the benefit of the whole.

We here, down under, tend to follow the leads of our mates in the northern hemisphere, so it is with apprehension that I comment on the approaching new world order or coalition of the willing and pray that we don’t make the mistakes of the past by buying bi-polar policies of good guys and bad guys, tax payers and dole bludgers, Christians and Muslims and more to the point Slaves and Masters.

Saturday, November 22, 2008


The funny thing about beliefs is there’s a lie at the centre of it; now I don’t know about you but I think that's ironic. If a con-man, or to be more politically correct a con-person, wants to successfully sell you a lemon on the pretence it will ripen into an orange, they lie and you believe. If you have been unfortunate enough to purchase a load of lemons and intend to hand them out at half time at the footy on Sunday, then all is not lost if I can convince you of the lie in your belief; you can still turn them into lemonade. If you refuse to admit you have been conned and want to continue on believing the lie, then you are heading for a showdown. 

When those who promote belief systems have a serious challenge aimed at them, they tend to hide behind the skirts of little old ladies saying" How can you shake our belief, when if what you are saying is true, then these little old ladies will be upset because they have lived their entire lives believing the lie”. This is were the ‘f’ an faith comes into it, fundamentally, they say: “Our oranges may look a little yellow and taste bitter but we have faith on the day they’ll be sweet, fu.” So how can you win against that type of dogma, the bigger the falsification, the bigger bad guy you become when you point out the truth. Now I know truth is subjective and one mans oranges are another mans lemons but don’t you think there’s far to many sour-pusses out there pushing yellow oranges onto people in the vain hope that you will have faith in their belief and not upset the apple cart.

 I can foresee the criticism, I’ve used to many fruity metaphors and made a cocktail out of it when I should be sparing because there’s a lot of fruitcakes out there already, but you would have to admit it’s better than a ‘Rusty Salmon’ mornay. Anyway, the next time someone comes to your door handing out believer tracts, try taking the lie out of it and tell them to make beaver tracks or better still, go suck a lemon. 

Sunday, November 16, 2008

Comments on Peter and Paul; Satans or Saints

How much do we really know about the founders of fundamental Christianity and the main contributors to the New Testament? Should we unquestionably accept their claims to be "ordained" as to speak to us through documents of uncertain origin, as the "infallible" word of GOD? Firstly, they use alias's; Peter changed his name from Simon just after Jesus said to him "Get behind me SATAN, you are a ROCK in my path, your thoughts are those of man, not God." (Mathew 16:23) and in (Mathew 26:34) before his LORD noted; when needed the most, PETER, SIMON, SATAN or whatever he wanted to call himself, would deny knowing Him three times in a row. What a sleaze-bag! Paul, on the other hand "real name" Saul, sets himself up in direct opposition to Jesus (the descendant of David) in His quest to become King of the Jews. After Saul and his best mates make sure "the Christ" is nailed to a cross "for your salvation", he then begins a ten year campaign to exterminate every follower of Jesus he could find. This man was a deluded, mass murdering, maniac who was eventually stopped by Jesus' Damascus faction and while he was rotting in jail, decided to write apologetics styled letters which eventually became the main ingredient for the doctrines of the fundamental Christian church of today. Saul, dressed as a ruling class Sadducee, would have stood out like a sore thumb in a rural setting; Peter, on the other hand dressed as a fisherman, an ideal disguise if you were try to infiltrate a peasant based cult of the day. They are almost indistinguishable in that they always seem to be in the same place, at the same time, right up their deaths in Rome as elderly men. Satan could not have done a better job in setting up a CHURCH to dominate and rule this world from. What a perfect place for an Evil Dark Lord to preside from, holding the key's that keep people locked into a subservient, judgemental, bigoted and biased, woman suppressing, gay bashing, misogynistic organization with more wealth and power than Caesar, Napoleon or even Hitler could have ever dreamed of. My opinion ,for what it's worth, is that Jesus, God bless His soul, would have been ap-paul-ed at having his name associated with that style of establishment. If they had of tried to kill Him with a Guillotine or a Gas Chamber, would you walk around with a representation of that around your neck as a sign that you have been saved by it and the actions of a bunch of evil men?

Comments by Ken Brown after I posted on his Blog Site at: in reference to David Wenham’s quote on the relationship between Jesus and Pauls teachings.
November 7, 2008 3:36 PM

Ken Brown said. ..
Wayne,I certainly do not "unquestionbly accept" the claims of the New Testament writers, but there is in fact an aweful lot of good historical evidence that they cherished and passed along the words of Jesus as best they knew them. As for your speculations about the rise of Christianity, I don't know of any concrete support to back them up.The truth is, we wouldn't know anything at all about Jesus if it weren't for Peter, Paul and the other early apostles who remembered him and shared their memories (and hopes) with others. Without a doubt, the church that grew out this has done some horrible things (as people all over the world have done horrible things for all sorts of reasons), but Christianity's admirable emphases on grace, trust in God, self-sacrifical love, and living in imitation of Jesus owe as much to Peter and Paul as to anyone. Why be hatin'? ;)
November 7, 2008 4:00 PM
Wayne said...
Dear Ken,I think you misunderstand me. Firstly; I like your blog and your open invitation to discuss things. I don't hate Paul, I just think he was one sick puppy. We are students of Theology, brothers in arms if you will and the Bible has been my constant companion for forty years, but I gota tell ya, the more I learn the more I question the legitimacy of Orthodoxy in that they have sold a lot of pork pies over the years and lived well on the proceeds.On the question of "without peter and paul we would never have known Jesus' teachings"; I disagree, the early church fathers canonized one version of events and did their best to eradicate all others, maybe we would have got a better version if it wasn't for 'Saint'Peter and his successors.
November 7, 2008 4:55 PM

Ken Brown said...
Wayne,No worries, I do indeed enjoy such discussions! But I'd like to see some facts to back up your accusations. For instance, there is certainly evidence that the later imperial church sought to eliminate "unorthodox" accounts of Jesus, but I don't see how you can blame Peter and Paul for that, nor is it at all clear to me that the apocryphal works they destroyed were actually authentic. After all, we've found a significant library of this material at Nag Hammadi, and very little of it has any chance of being original (probably a few parts of the Gospel of Thomas, and perhaps a bit more), buried amidst a whole lot of gnostic thought which surely has even less in common with the teaching of Jesus than orthodoxy. To be sure there is a great deal about Jesus that has been lost to history, but as far as I can see that is despite the church's efforts to preserve his memory, rather than because of them.I do agree with you, however, that the entrenchmant of Orthodoxy (and often an "orthodoxy" that has little connection even with the Bible's own emphases on love for God and compassion for the poor) as the test of salvation has caused a great deal of harm. But I'm certainly not as willing to throw out the church as a whole simply because it (like all human institutions) has often been abused. That's just life; you take the bad with the good or you'll end up with neither.
November 7, 2008 6:59 PM
Wayne said...
The arena of what the church has destroyed over the years is certainly worthy of investigation, although I don't know how anything concrete could ever be ascertained as the saying goes "the evidence has been destroyed" but my comments on Peter and Paul's legitimacy as the rightful heirs to Jesus' legacy, still stands and is backed up by very substantial evidence.In his own words Paul admits to being the number one persecutor of Jesus and his followers. Jesus Himself is quoted as saying "Saul, Saul why do you persecute me", now my question to you is; if "Hitler had of been imprisoned for his crimes against humanity and whilst imprisoned for them, decided to write a third testament because he said he had seen the light, would we be obliged to accept his authority to do so, just on his say so, as was the case with Paul?
November 7, 2008 10:49 PM

Ken Brown said...
You're comparing Paul to Hitler? Really? Did Paul pack up the early Christians and send them off to be slaughtered? Did he raise an army and wage a war against the populations of neighboring countries? He was a persecutor of the earliest followers of Jesus (perhaps even the most active one for a few months or years), but the whole point of his conversion was that he rejected that old persecution, and all of the rest of his life (including all his letters) reflect a very different view. In fact, the whole of Paul's subsequent life is centered on a gospel based on God's grace (offered to all people, Jews and Gentiles, slaves and free, male and female; cf. Gal. 3:28). Compared to this, Paul considers his old way of life "a bunch of crap" (rough translation of Phil 3:8). All of which is to say, the very violence and heresy-hunting you reject, Paul also rejected, as part of the old way of life from which Christ had redeemed him.
November 7, 2008 11:14 PM
Wayne said...
In answer to your questions. Yes Saul did round up followers of Jesus and imprison them before sanctioning their murder as in the recorded case of Steven and yes he did raise and army and invade a neighboring state. What do you think he was doing on the road to Damascus?His campaign of terror lasted ten years and because Jesus didn't believe in the death penalty he was kept as a prisoner of Jesus before he was handed over to the Roman authorities for trial because the Parthians of Damascus had an extradition treaty with them.So I'm sorry this offends you but my point is; just because Paul turned over a new leaf didn't mean he had the authority to write as if he were God.
November 8, 2008 1:01 AM

Ken Brown said...
Wayne, This is preposterous. Paul was present at (not even an active participant in) one murder. Hitler organized the sytematic extermination of 6 million people. Paul organized a brute squad and set off for Damascus (a single neighboring town) but, by all accounts, abandoned the mission before he arrived. Hitler built a massive military-industrial complex, invaded, bombed and deported neighboring civilian populations with the goal of world domination. Paul recognized his error early on and spent the rest of his life declaring the very faith he once sought to destroy. Hitler never repented of his actions and committed suicide when his plans failed. I can't believe you seriously think the two even remotely comparable. Or do you think repentance itself is inherently illegitimate, that only those perfect from birth can be genuine followers of Jesus? I think Jesus himself would have disputed that, seeing as his whole message was summed up as "the kingdom of God is at hand, repent and believe the good news!" (e.g. Mark 1:15). Jesus counted former prostitutes, tax collectors and zealots among his closest followers; I think he would have welcomed a former persecutor like Paul.As for the rest of your "facts," they are anything but. There is no evidence that Paul perseucted the church for 10 years, most think he converted within a few months or years of Jesus' crucifixion. And this notion that he was "kept as a prisoner of Jesus before he was handed over to the Roman authorities for trial because the Parthians of Damascus had an extradition treaty with them" is pure nonsense. Jesus, of course, was already dead, so Paul surely was not his prisoner (!), and in any event, Paul spent most of his life travelling throughout the Roman empire preaching about Jesus. He was eventually arrested and sent to Rome, not in Damascus but in Jerusalem, and not until 25 or more years after he became a Christian. Moreover, his arrest appears to have been based on his disregard for the Jewish law, but it was certainly not based on opposition to Jesus! Where are you getting your information?Paul did indeed "turn over a new leaf," but he did not "write as though he were God." I'll grant that he did have a bit of an ego, and sometimes got carried away (especially in Galatians). He certainly wasn't perfect, but his whole life was built around God's love as shown in Jesus, of which--he recognized better than anyone--an old persecutor like him did not deserve. To compare him to Hitler is the height of absurdity.
November 8, 2008 12:30 PM
Wayne said...
Settle petal,your slip is showing.The basis of our faith is that Jesus was resurrected (not dead), how can you stand up for Paul if you don't even believe his own accounts of his trip to Damascus and the meeting with Jesus. The Parthians had very real treatise with Rome and had done so since the time of Augustus. The war against them was run out of Jerusalem and was waged for Three hundred years eventually ending up in the complete analyzation of their trading capital Palmyra; check your history books.Now, I agree with you that Paul never reached the heights of depravity that Hitler did, I don't think I vaguely suggested he did. I will tone down my comment that he thought he was God and just settle for Apollos but their are a lot of people who treat his writing as if they were the actual words of God.I am sorry that you and your sources think that Paul converted shortly after he and his mates crucified the Christ but I am confident that if you bother to check it out, the evidence is in Paul's actual accounts that he spent many years in the desert and was a prisoner of Jesus before he started his "missionary work" as an old man. So your assertion 'he spent most of his life preaching the word of Jesus' is the "absurdity".I am a big fan of repentance and do believe it was a corner stone of Jesus' teachings but as I search the New Testament, I fail to find the place where Paul actually says he is sorry and continually get the impression he is in denial; focusing mainly on his doctrine of Salvation by believing what he did to Jesus was for a good reason.As any good criminal psychiatrist will tell you, that's a problem when it comes to admitting crimes and a classic symptom of deluded prisoners of which Paul was one at the time of writing his Epistles.Once again I am sorry if all this upsets you, maybe we should get off the subject of Paul. How do feel about the implication that Jesus might have been married to Mary Magdalene?
November 8, 2008 5:17 PM

Ken Brown said...
Heh. This nonsense doesn't upset me; it makes me laugh. By all means, let's talk about Paul, but how about offering some actual sources to back up your outlandish claims. Preferably primary sources, though at this point I'd even accept a reference to a specific secondary source.How about Galatians 1 and 2? Here Paul admits his previous presecution of the church, but that on the road to Damascus (actually, he never says where he was when it happened; this detail is drawn exclusively from Acts), he recieved a revelation from Christ and a call to preach to the Gentiles. This was when he converted, and it was after this that he spent three years in the desert, then visited Jerusalem briefly, then spent fourteen years preaching the Gospel before returning to Jerusalem for another short trip (it is unclear whether this trip was that recorded in Acts 15 or a previous one), but regardless Paul was certainly not persecuting the church (let alone waging war against Damascus!) during this time. At the least, it is certain that he was already doing mission work, planting churches and preaching Christ well before he wrote Galatians, which is dated to the late-40s CE(at the earliest) and the mid-50s CE (at the latest). Even if we accept the late date, that still leaves nearly 10 more years before he was killed in Rome, and yes he did indeed spend that time (if not also much of the previous 17 years), founding churches and writing letters, all the while preaching about the love of God in Christ.
November 8, 2008 6:45 PM
Wayne said...
Orthodoxy hates to be challenged and considers it's position on all topic's as the only one, all other explanations are ridiculed. It patronizingly takes the position of one who knows the truth and has to convert the unwashed. Without a "Primary" or "Secondary" reference, most people instinctively know that Orthodoxy has all it's arguments boxed and categorized with reams of information gathered to support it's case and puts everything else in the "unauthorized" basket. So when dealing with dissenters, the flat earth society has traditionally given a "fair" hearing to the "nonsense" of one who dares to challenge their established views. Only then do they burn them at the stake even if later they take on the new truth.In my case I have given the primary source as the very words Orthodoxy has purported to be the "guardians" of, purposely steering clear of any "unauthorized" sources, but you refuse to deal with those points that are completely verifiable in the New Testament documents, choosing instead to pretend they have no validity because they differ with your interpretation. My choice to converse with you on these maters is not conditional to your acceptance of my interpretation. It is not my job to educate you nor give you specific answers to your questions like you are my inquisitor. If you choose to research what I am saying or not makes no difference to me but If you wanted to, I would recommend that you reread the material like you actually have an open mind towards what I am saying and then make of it as you will.If you ever come to the conclusion that what I've been saying about Paul has some place in the evolution of Jesus' Church of Truth, then you might find some of my secondary sources useful; but some how I doubt it. Never the less here's a beauty, "The Bible is full of texts which take up previous biblical ideas and modify, extend, or call them into question." Ken Brown (What does it mean to trust the bible.)
November 8, 2008 8:54 PM

Ken Brown said...
Wayne,I'm not trying to be patronizing, but you can't expect these outlandish theories to be taken seriously if you are unwilling to offer proof. I'm a historian; I want to see evidence. I have little patience for bald assertion, whether in defense of orthodoxy or heresy, but especially when it comes to unconventional theories. Yet when I ask you for evidence, you claim that it's my job to find it. That makes it kinda hard to have a meaningful conversation.
November 9, 2008 9:34 AM
Ken Brown said...
Wayne,We agree that the Bible should not be accepted unquestioningly. Don't you agree that speculative historical reconstructions deserve equal scrutiny?
November 9, 2008 9:45 AM
Wayne said...
What is this outlandish theory you speak of? All I have tried to say here is that Peter and Paul (Alias Simon and Saul) were of dubious character and totally unqualified to be advisers to the modern world. I have backed this up with Quotes and reference points from the most reliable sources but you seem to be incapable of dealing with it, choosing instead to manipulate the conversation away from the subject at hand and create dispersions about my legitimacy to make such assertions.You are the one who makes it difficult to have a serious conversation. You have discredited yourself by demonstrating your basic misunderstandings of the tenets of Jesus' Resurrection and go back on yourself via a mish mash of misunderstandings of the road to Damascus incident.I really don't think you know anything about the Parthians and their long struggle with the Greek speaking Romans from Jerusalem (of which Paul was one) but that is were you could come up to speed if we were to bother. There is plenty of information on the Internet easily accessible for your convenience. www
November 9, 2008 12:15 PM

Ken Brown said...
"What is this outlandish theory you speak of?" How about these:"After Saul and his best mates make sure "the Christ" is nailed to a cross "for your salvation", he then begins a ten year campaign to exterminate every follower of Jesus he could find. This man was a deluded, mass murdering, maniac who was eventually stopped by Jesus' Damascus faction and while he was rotting in jail, decided to write apologetics styled letters which eventually became the main ingredient for the doctrines of the fundamental Christian church of today."I'm curious: If Paul didn't convert until he was an old man "rotting in jail," how did he manage to found Christian churches in Galatia, Corinth, Philadelphia, Thessolonica, and throughout Asia Minor? Or is he "deluded" on this point?"if Hitler had of been imprisoned for his crimes against humanity and whilst imprisoned for them, decided to write a third testament because he said he had seen the light, would we be obliged to accept his authority to do so, just on his say so, as was the case with Paul?"Comparing Paul to Hitler is about as outlandish as it gets. Where is your evidence that Paul was a "mass-murdering, maniac"?"His campaign of terror lasted ten years and because Jesus didn't believe in the death penalty he was kept as a prisoner of Jesus before he was handed over to the Roman authorities for trial because the Parthians of Damascus had an extradition treaty with them."This sounds like you're saying that after his resurrection, Jesus didn't return to the Father but stuck around for 10+ years, imprisoned Paul (after the "Damascus faction" arrested him? Is this your interpretation of the Damascus Road incident?) then extradited him to Rome (forgive me but my math doesn't add up: Jesus died in the 30s CE; Paul died in the 60s. If Paul persecuted Christians for 10 years, what about the other 20?). Perhaps this is not what you mean (I sure hope it's not!), but I find it ironic that you are accusing me of "basic misunderstandings of the tenets of Jesus' Resurrection." Which tenets would those be?"I am sorry that you and your sources think that Paul converted shortly after he and his mates crucified the Christ but I am confident that if you bother to check it out, the evidence is in Paul's actual accounts that he spent many years in the desert and was a prisoner of Jesus before he started his "missionary work" as an old man."Where is your evidence that Paul was complicit in the crucifixion of Jesus? And how do you explain Galatians 1-2, where Paul claims his call to minister to the Gentiles in the name of Christ came fully 17 years prior to the writing of the letter (only 3 of which were spent "in the desert")? And when do you think Galatians was written, anyway? More to the point, even if you are right that Paul persecuted the church for 10 years (which you have given no reason to accept), that still leaves at least 20 more years until Paul's death; what was he doing during that time, if not missionary work? Which of Paul's accounts do you have in mind, anyway?Frankly, you've made a whole lot of assertions, but provided zero evidence. You claim you have backed up your claims with "Quotes and reference points from the most reliable sources" but other than referencing Matt 16:23 and 26:34 in the first comment, I cannot find among your comments a single quote or reference to any source, reliable or otherwise. Perhaps you can point some out to me.Yet when I ask you for evidence or challenge your assertions, you claim I am the one "manipulating the conversation away from the subject at hand." I fail to see how I have done so, considering "the subject at hand" is how much Paul knew about Jesus and his teachings. To be honest, I don't see where you have even addressed "the issue at hand."You claim Paul's own letters support your claim that he spent most of his life exterminating Christians (and waging war against the Parthians?), but you have not provided a single reference to support this contention (whether to Paul's letters, another primary source, modern scholarly literature, or even a website). Instead you accuse me of patronizing, changing the subject, ignorance, and misunderstanding. And you say I'm the one making it difficult to hold a meaningful conversation?
November 9, 2008 9:42 PM
Wayne said...
Well done Ken,Now that I have you attention and you have actually stated what your concerns are, we can go through them step by step, if your up for it.First on the agenda "Saul and his mates"; I know what I think of them but I am unsure of who you think that they were. The Sadducees, you must agree, were the ones who Jesus was continually referring to as a brood of Vipers (or do I have to back that up with a quote, pending your condemnation as an outrageous theory),were the main sect in control of the Temple at Jerusalem who formed the Sanhedrin, of which Saul was a member (as above), to stone people to death (as above).They were the ones who insisted that Jesus be crucified(as above) and even though Pontius Pilot washed his hands of their deluded, murderous, mania (and again I am sorry if this offends you but I am sure most decent people would agree with me) Complied with their request for fear of the ramifications of denying them.Now before I go any further do you have a problem with my "theory" so far.Wayne
November 10, 2008 6:27 AM

Ken Brown said...
Wayne,That's a good start, but yes, I would prefer if you gave exact sources; generalizations are too easily manipulated and difficult to nail down. Thus:The Sadducees, you must agree, were the ones who Jesus was continually referring to as a brood of Vipers (or do I have to back that up with a quote, pending your condemnation as an outrageous theory), were the main sect in control of the Temple at Jerusalem who formed the Sanhedrin...I don't know about "continually" (there are only four references to "brood of vipers" in the gospels, two of which are quoting John the Baptist: Matt 3:7 and Luke 3:7), but certainly Jesus was at odds with the Temple authorities, including the Sadducees, and sharply criticized them. No argument there. Here however:...of which Saul was a member (as above), to stone people to death (as above). They were the ones who insisted that Jesus be crucified(as above) and even though Pontius Pilot washed his hands of their deluded, murderous, mania (and again I am sorry if this offends you but I am sure most decent people would agree with me) Complied with their request for fear of the ramifications of denying them.You're gonna have to back this one up. First, the purpose of the Sanhedrin was not to stone people to death. That may have sometimes happened (as in the case of Stephen), but it was not their purpose in existing, nor was it even within their legal right to do it. Most stonings seem to have been conducted by angry mobs, not officially sanctioned by the Sanhedrin (indeed, this is even true of the stoning of Stephen; and it is certainly true of the several times Jesus was almost stoned). Second, where is your evidence that Saul/Paul was even a member? He was not a Sadducee but a Pharisee (Phil 3, Acts 23), and that was a large group, only a small portion of which were members of the Sanhedrin. Paul appears at the Sanhedrin twice according to Acts: in ch. 7 at the death of Stephen, where (I have already admitted) he was present, though it is unclear in what capacity. This is the only murder to which he can be specifically tied, so if you've got evidence that he was also complicit in Jesus' death, you're gonna have to be explicit about it (and give references). As far as I know, there is no conclusive evidence that he was a member of the Sanhedrin itself, but even if he was I fail to see how that would prove him a "mass-murderer," nor how his (surely you agree: former!) membership would disqualify him as a follower of Jesus. After all, we know of at least one man who was explicitly identified as a member of the Sanherdin (Nicodemus; John 3:1) who, if John is to be believed, was welcomed by Jesus and later became a disciple. The question, of course, was not what he had done, but whether he would turn and follow Jesus. And of course, according to Acts, it is shortly after the death of Stephen that Paul had his Damascus Road experience and rejected his previous life (Acts 9; or do you dispute this?). Thus, the only other time Paul appears in the context of the Sanhedrin is in Acts 22-23, where he is certainly not a member but a prisoner. While there, he specifically declares himself a Pharisee over against the Sadducees, who are accusing him of defiling the Temple (much as they previously accused Jesus). And of course, between Acts 9 and 22, Paul has had a complete transformation from persecutor to missionary. He has travelled throughout the eastern half of the Roman empire planting Christian churches (and suffering his own persecution for it), and preaching the very same self-sacrifice as Jesus taught. In fact, the only reason he is back in Jerusalem at all is to bring an offering collected from his Gentile churches "for the poor of Jerusalem" (Romans 15:25-27). It is this Paul who we meet in all his letters, not some "mass-murdering maniac."Therefore, yes, I find the notion that Paul was a "mass-murderer," culpable for the actions of the Sanhedrin, outlandish. He wasn't even living in Jerusalem for the last 20-30 years of his life, let alone participating in the actions of its ruling council.
November 10, 2008 11:07 AM
Wayne said...
Dear Ken,A simple "no" would have sufficed but I appreciate all the assistance you have provided and the Quotes are really handy. So back to the task at hand.Now that we have agreed on the fact that the Sadducees and the Sanhedrin in particular, were not a very nice bunch of men, we can move on all the way to the next controversial outrageous theory of mine that "Saul (Paul) was a member".Sadly, I can't find out weather he actually paid his Union Dues that year, as they had a little problem with the records department when Rome Leveled the place, but then again all we really have to do is ascertain that he was known to be hanging around with the more radical types who were prone to stoning people at a moments notice.Luckily, we have some excellent evidence in the N.T(Acts CH:7)when after Steven eloquently tried to explain to them some basic truths at an oficial "fair" hearing he was "stoned to death" because I think burning at the stake was out of fashon that year.As you so wisely point out, Paul was just doing an impersonation of a coat rack at the time and as you point out it was just one tiny little murder.So how am I doing? Can we move on to the next point yet or would you like an hours dissertation of the distinction between a Pharisee and a Sadducee (personally I don't see much difference seeing they were rarely not mentioned in the same breath)? Wayne
November 10, 2008 3:28 PM

Ken Brown said...
Wayne,You are welcome to move on to the next point, but I do not consider such details unnecessay. After all, look how they have changed the picture. Compare your last two comments with the first one you left on this thread: You go from calling Paul a "deluded, mass-murdering, maniac" and true forebear to all that has ever gone wrong in the Church, to admitting that we have no direct evidence of his involvement in any but one murder, and even there his precise involvement is uncertain (he was present and approving, but there is no evidence he actually committed the deed). Perhaps it's just me, but there seems a pretty significant difference between the two positions. The first, I maintain, is outlandish and unprovable, the second is not. Can we agree?In any even, please note that my point is not, and never has been, to absolve Paul of guilt. As 1 Timothy 1:12-15 (likely pseudepigraphal) rightly puts it, he was "a blasphemer, a persecutor and a violent man" but the emphasis there is (rightly) on the past tense: that is what he was before Christ, but everything changed when he experienced Christ's "grace" for himself. I am certainly not suggesting that Paul's involvement in Stephen's death (or persecution more generally) should be ignored or dismissed as irrelevant. I am merely challenging your earlier comments that violence and murder characterized his life as a whole, rendering even his later apostolic ministry suspect. Please, reread your first comment on this post and tell me it isn't over the top.
November 10, 2008 9:27 PM
Wayne said...
Thank You Ken for allowing me to move on to my next point."Saul (Paul) a deluded, mass murdering maniac".I can see where you need to have every little point clarified and please excuse my broad vision, when I should have realised tunnel vision was what was required. Properly expressed, with all that we know now, it should have read; Saul (Paul) who was known to hang around with deluded mass murdering maniacs, was a Blaspheming, Persecuting, Violent man and an author of outrage by his own admission in 1 Tim 1:13.This was before he raised a "Brute Squad" and headed off for Damascus as stated in Acts 9:1-3 "Saul, with every breath he drew, still threatened the disciples of the Lord with MASSACRE; he went to the High Priest (Head Sadducee)for letters of commendation to the synagogues at Damascus, so that he could arrest them all, every man and woman belonging to The Way, and drag them back to Jerusalem."Where, according to his profile on wikipedia, he centered his life for the rest of the 30's before he started his missionary work in the 40's.Is that better, Wayne
November 11, 2008 1:27 AM
Ken Brown said...
Wayne,That, at least, is not "outlandish," though I would still have some serious objections to it (for starters, you left Acts 9:3 out of your quote, which is a pretty significant omission!).Unfortunately, at this point I am going to have to beg off the conversation. In the next week I need to finish a term paper (on, as a matter of fact, Paul's knowledge of and attitude towards Jesus' life and teaching) and get ready for a conference, and I have a great deal too much to do for both. Perhaps we can take this up again in a couple weeks?God bless,Ken
November 11, 2008 5:11 PM
Post a Comment
Links to this post

Thursday, November 6, 2008


Today we begin a new era in world affairs as Barak Obama takes over the reins and people everywhere, who have not been happy with the way George Bush has been running things, look forward to seeing improvements. Will this be the outcome, or will we all be disappointed? Analysing what we are looking for in new management, might not be as difficult as the actual implementation of it; so let’s give it ago.

Firstly, as stated in his election campaign, CHANGE is the ability to move from one state to another. We’ve been in a polarized conundrum for far to long; Republicans hating Democrats, Rich Bankers profiteering from Sub- Prime borrowers, Muslims bombing Christians, Blacks resenting Whites, Good guys against Bad guys, men over women. I have faith we are moving to a more multi-dimensional place where, regardless of your particular handle or field of dreams, you can get a better deal.

Secondly, as eluded to by his anti- war (in Iraq) rhetoric, PEACE comes with a cessation of hostilities. We do not need to solve the world’s problems to arrive at this much prayed for destination, just stop killing one another. We don’t seem to have a problem banning drugs in our communities because they kill people and ruin lives but we seem unable or unwilling to put bullets in the same category. Let’s all keep pushing for a relaxation of hardline policies in the hope it eases tensions and saves lives.

Last but not least on my list, is a MORAL CODE, that doesn’t place the emphasis on critisizing people for their sexual preferences or views on medical procedures, nor looks to Gordon Gecko as a saviour but begins, to value kindness to one another when dealing with people’s rights of opinion or dignity regardless of financial status. Mending fences is an honourable profession as long as it’s done to promote good will between neighbours and not to segregate and sanction. Paternalistic attitudes can be antagonistic when served up by big brother with no humility.

Set your course to travel the road to a better future by adjusting your moral compass to the headings of, compassion, understanding and forgiveness. Have faith that change will come, hope that peace will prevail and that charity will once again become fashionable.

Saturday, November 1, 2008


Here we are poised on the brink of, yet another, New World Order with its particular problems, solutions and policy slants. While we can be ecstatic about getting rid of the ones who got us into our present dilemmas, it is understandable that people are nervous about the incoming regime. For Australian's the Bush-Blair-Howodd years came with a certain narcotic effect, pleasantly numbing one's sensibilities to the inevitable cost of empowering money hungry, unecological war mongers and now we are not sure whether an Obama-Rudd coalition of the willing, are going to be able to pull us out of the mire.
Maybe the change we should be looking for is not a new order to the old system but a new system of order? One that is more applicable to the constant changes of modern life in the Twenty first century; not an out dated, dictator producing, paper shuffling bureaucracy that seem to produce an ongoing supply of stumble bums who eloquently brainwash us into what a good job they are doing.
Never before in the history of this planet have the peoples of the world had the opportunities that we have today to initiate and endorse a system that is run for the people, by the people; yet we continue to prop up a style of government that tends to favour the ones that run it. An educational based Internet voting system could provide us with the tools we need to participate in the decision making process that determines how we operate as a society. Any attempt to deride that possibility is an attack on the concept of real democracy; although people I come across continually allude to the 'fact' that the masses aren't intelligent enough to really participate.
This conundrum stands before us like a monolithic obscurity, towering in its potential yet ignored because of its implications. More than any other human trait, bravery stands head and shoulders above all others in shaping that which we all admire in the achievements of our species and maybe, yet again, the quality needed to take the quantum leap forward towards a future we can all contribute to.
There is no valid reason why, with the technology at hand, mankind cannot seize the moment, take the reins and proceed towards a form of self government that could leave anything we have ever had before sadly lacking by comparison. If we actually took this step it would not be without its pitfalls and difficulties, in application ,but as with all things worthwhile its overall value could be directly proportional to this factor and in itself. should not be a reason for inaction.
Now I don't pretend to have a consummate formula to solve the worlds problems but that doesn't negate the premise that just because the whole, perfected program doesn't exist at the moment we shouldn't pursue the ideal. Only when a committed, sustained, combined effort has been attempted would a feasible alternative emerge and with the enormous potential on tap, it would be a shame if our young talent wasn't give the encouragement to at least attempt a prototype.
My plea, in attempting to rattle the cage of our existing system, is that you don't dismiss a possible improvement in Democracy by the use of Cyber techniques just because the ones who are perfectly happy with the flawed version we are stuck with now, don't want change. Expand your horizons, broaden your mind, allow the room for improvement to permeate your tendency to leave well enough alone. If we all settled for near enough is good enough then you'd still be driving a model T and the landlords would have wedding night rights to your matrimonial bed.

Thursday, October 30, 2008

Victims of Alleged Sedition (VAS)

by the Department of Evidence For Evicting Rouge Elements Not Submitting. (DEFERENS)
Inter-departmental memo;
RE: Balls
The Victims of Alleged Sedition, Support Group, are planning a Charity Fundraiser to raise money for those who were unfairly, financially destroyed by our department. Now while we are officially denying any wrong doing in these maters, and in many instances the so called victims are unaware of our involvement in their present hardships, it is not wise to attend any balls they may arrange because these 'lefties' can get quite 'testy'.
Our stance on the issue is; just because we didn't manage to get any real evidence on them to get a conviction, doesn't mean they weren't guilty. So while some of you may be feeling sorry for the tragic effect we had on their lives, don't forget which side of the fence you stand on because even though current trends are favouring their views, it doesn't mean that some time in the future we will be empowered to do it all again and you wouldn't want to find yourself in their position.
In times like this we should remind ourselves of the time honoured saying 'charity begins at home' and rather that give some of your hard earned booty back to the ones you screwed it out of, think of your loved ones. We have hard times before us, budgets will be cut, jobs will be sacrificed and in a few instances jail time to be served, so why feel sorry for those who are looking forward to better times?
Your time and money would be better spent propping up your local church because if things go really bad you can always go to them and claim sanctuary. After all they worked with us when we had the upper hand and you can point that out to them if they refuse to help you.
Therefore, if you are approached by the Victims of Alleged Sedition (VAS) and they want to hold you or the department (DEFERENS) responsible for compensation or they are asking awkward questions on how they could refinance themselves, you are authorized to give the official response, BALLS.

Saturday, October 25, 2008

Judicial Audio Visual Ammendments (JAVA) Bill;1998

Ms LEE RHIANNON [8.28 p.m.]: The Greens do not support the Evidence (Audio and Audio Visual Links) Amendment Bill. We recently supported a bill that regulated how child detainees can give evidence via audio and audiovisual links but this bill goes a step too far in dictating evidence procedures to the courts. The Evidence (Audio and Audio Visual Links) Act 1998 has already trampled on the common law and the traditional practices of the court. The common law says that accused people have a right to appear in court to face charges against them, but that was changed by the 1998 Act. Because of that Act, there is now no automatic right to appear in court in preliminary proceedings. In fact, in those cases there is a presumption in favour of using an audiovisual link.With substantial criminal matters the presumption is still in favour of physical appearance, that is, accused people have the right to appear in court. But the bill makes further changes. The new rules would allow the court to use audiovisual links for an accused person if that person's physical attendance might threaten the security of the courtroom. This provision might sound reasonable to many members, but it is unnecessary. The courts are capable of making a decision whether an accused would threaten security, and there is no need for a law to spell that out. The courts are capable of assessing security threats and taking steps to deal with them, including the use of audiovisual links, and they have the authority and power to do so.The bill is not just unnecessary it also creates new problems. Under proposed subsection 5BB (5) (d), one of the factors that might cause the judge to order the use of an audiovisual link is the accused's behaviour in custody. But the accused's behaviour in custody may be no guide to how they will behave in court. And it is not clear who will decide whether that behaviour might recur in court, or might threaten the court. Who will give a judge or a court the evidence about the accused's behaviour in detention and what it means for the courtroom's security? Will it be the Department of Corrective Services? If so, what will the procedures be for this? The Greens are concerned that the bill gives to the Department of Corrective Services considerable power over the rights of accused people to appear in court.The Hon. John Hatzistergos: It is a great thing.Ms LEE RHIANNON: The interjection of the Minister shows that he is one more Minister for Corrective Services who has gone the Woodham way. We urge the Government to remove this provision from the bill. The courts are the best arbiter of when and how audiovisual links should be used, and the matter should remain in their hands. It should not be in legislation, in regulations that we have not seen yet, or in the hands of the Department of Corrective Services.
Evidence (Audio and Audio Visual Links) Amendment Bill - 18/11/2003 - 2R - NSW Parliament
The Judicial Audio Visual Amendments (JAVA) Bill is where the chisel of George Bush's intrusive, controversial and potentially illegal Patriots act, meets the coalface of the average Australian's rights. As we are all aware, the November Elections in America will decide between, the more of the same policies of John McCain and the time for change approach of Barrack Obama. If the later manages to pull off the coupe of the century, then the Republican's won't be able to continue stacking the Supreme Court Judiciary and we are likely to see a repeal of the Acts that were ratified under the Bush Regime's. This could lead to Criminal Charges being laid against High Officials in the habit of ignoring peoples Human Rights in their pursuit of "Terrorists" and in Australia we could see a similar flow on effect.
Now it may seem strange to those of us who like to give people the benefit of the doubt but if for whatever reason you found yourself being survailed through the medium we have all come to know and love over the Bush and Howodd years, then wouldn't it be ironic if the tables were turned and the one's that have been ignoring other people's rights suddenly became subject to the same Amendment Bill they used against anyone they deemed to be 'unpatriotic'.
The term 'un-Australian is a subjective one, subject to the currant will of the people; if paranoid behaviour suddenly becomes un -Australian then under the current laws, as they stand now, anyone displaying those tenancies could be removed from the flock, placed under surveillance and tried in Kangaroo Courts without them ever knowing they were under suspicion. If I had of been a rampant Bushite, operating at a Govern-mental level over the last ten years then I would be trying my damndest to have the Judicial Audio Visual Amendment (JAVA) Bill, amended as the Greens have suggested or book my ticket to somewhere else in the world where my unusual skills might be more appreciated.

Thursday, October 23, 2008


In Dan Brown's best seller 'The Da Vinci Code', the reclusive author makes a meal out of the 'fact' that Mary Magdalene was the wife of Jesus. My interest in this subject doesn't focus on wether Dan is a great writer or wether Jesus and Mary were married, that is speculative, but in why it upsets the fundamentalists so much. If they say they love the man they call their Lord, why wouldn't it fill their hearts with joy to indulge the concept that it might be true? If one of your dear friends died childless and someone came along with 'proof' of a possible, previously unknown, love affair, marriage or offspring, what sort of friend would you be if you were appalled by that chapter of his life and refused to entertain the idea? So with that in mind, I ask your indulgence to look at what we know and what we should think about, if we are to have a valid opinion on a subject that seems to occupy the thoughts of billions of peoples.
The fundamentalist say the New Testament is the infallible word of God, they quote it regularly and are prepared to ram it down the throats of any unsuspecting heathen they come across. So, no matter what you think of it personally, let's scrutinize it for any references on what it has to say in regards to whether or not we have been sold a pile of horse poo or not. The first thing that occurs to me is that Jesus, as an eligible aged man, doesn't seem to have a problem associating with women, he even seems to to relate to them as human beings worthy of respect and consideration. He doesn't rebuke them for touching the hem of his garment nor condemn them for, so called, illicit behaviour, his travelling companions seemed to have wives and the Rabbis of the day, of which he was one, were expected to be married family men.
When he agrees to attend the wedding at Canna, the place where is said to have turned water into wine, he seems to hold the honoured position of the man in charge of the wine. This is a responsibility usually reserved for the groom and it was then he began to refer to Himself as the Bridegroom. After that he holidays with Mary at the home of a friend on the Sea of Galilee and rebukes the host for not wanting her in their party. She wipes his feet with her hair, anoints his head with oil, runs out to greet him when they were both staying at Martha's place and is predominant at the crucifixion, possibly with child. These are all activities one would normally attribute to a wife, so with absolutely no references in the New Testament to indicate he wasn't married, what possible reason could the fundamentalists have for not wanting us to believe he was?
Could it possibly be that they have an ulterior motive? Would they actually choose lies over truth to promote some secret agenda or is it that they are so deluded by their prejudices against women, that with no evidence what so ever, they could pass judgement on a widow and orphan's claims for legitimacy. Sadly, I must say, after looking at all the evidence and considering their historical record of bad behaviour, that the fundamentalists really don't have a case when it comes to challenging Dan Brown.

Tuesday, October 21, 2008


Now I am not trying to evangelise anybody to any particular brand of fundamentalism nor convince anyone about the historical existence of the man whose name has be bandied about more than all others put together, but I would like to analyse what we have been told and what we have been kept in the dark about.
Firstly let's look at the contextual history of the period he is said to have been born in. The Greeks had set the stage with Alexander’s great rampage through long standing Eastern cultures, murdering, raping and generally pillaging their way through ancient cities, rearranging their lives, languages and capital naming programs. They then went on to acquire the rights to claim they created the architecture, political ideas and philosophies of the then known world.
The big one, that went on to affect our story, was the translation of the Hebrew Sacred Texts into the Septuagint, a Greek language version of the Old Testament. This work was mainly done by Maccabean Hebrew scholars working in Egypt’s Alexandria library system under the eyes of the ruling class Ptolemy’s. No other single act could possibly have done more to set the stage for the resurgence of the concept that a messiah was to be born at Bethlehem and be crucified for the salvation of the believers of that ideal.
Needless to say, many Greek speaking peoples converted to Judaism in the hope that they would be partakers of the promised New Zion. So by the time Julius Caesar had almost finished his rampage around the Mediterranean and was favouring joining with the Ptolemy’s to rule the world, Jerusalem became the focus of attention. Up until then the rundown backwater mountain rebel base had been overlooked. With Cleopatra’s connections into the Parthian controlled Aramaic speaking Palestine, the then modern cities of Caesarea and Jerusalem sprung into existence and with her new general Mark Antony by her side and Herod’s Sadducees living well under their protection, they began their campaign for world domination. But as history records, the plan began to unravel with their defeat at Actium.
The Octavian led Romans then moved in to occupy Jerusalem and to settle down what was left of the defeated remains of J.C’s, Cleo’s, Mark Antony’s and Herod the now Great’s shattered followers. Amazingly enough they all claimed to be Jewish. (oh, how history repeats itself). Soon Mary was pregnant and couldn’t name the father and Cleopatra’s mystery cult of Virgin’s didn’t have a benefactor. So our famous donkey led trio, high tail it out of the area and lay low in Egypt while our hero grows into the well educated candidate for King of the Jews.
While Jesus was studying all the teachings of the Mystery Cults as well as the Talmud and the Septuagint: Octavian, now Caesar Augustus, and Herod the Great die. This opened the flood gate for all the illegitimate children of the ex-rules to begin arguing over who was going to be the next Great leader. Herod Archelaus was the first to be installed but didn’t last long and young Tiberius inherited Rome, so by the time Jesus began his run for the job Archelaus was dead and Tiberius, in exile. Herod Antipas and his mate Caligula were running the show and what a mess they were making of it. Saul, the leader of the Sadducees (later Paul author of the New Testament), had thrown his hat into the ring with a direct challenge to Jesus and his Esseanes faction.
This all tells a vastly different story to the one we have been fed down the years and it’s enough for me to ignore the politics of it all and look directly at the teachings of Jesus as an enlightened man of his time. We have in the Q documents an independent, reliable source of what those teachings were because they are backed up with actual fragments of notes that were taken while he was speaking to the masses on the Mount and in the Plains. So independently of Churches, factions and “learned scholars” we can assess him and what he taught for ourselves. If you don’t have a copy of these, any accepted translation of the sermon on the mount is a good guide.(Mathew: 5-8)
Up front I think it is safe to say he was anti-Fascist, anti-establishment, peace loving advocate for the poor and the down and out. His solid body of work indicates he was an intelligent, articulate, moral campaigner for the rights of women and children to live in a world that isn’t dominated by Fundamentalists who would hold the letter of the law over their heads like a sword to slay anyone who disagrees with their interpretation. His no nonsense style convinces me he was a man who was prepared to put his money where his mouth was and that he didn’t suffer hypocrites. I gather his style of government would have been an Ecumenical one incorporating all factions concerned and would include women and gays. He was a man of the people, ready to stick it to the powers that be, in an attempt to attain rights for the underprivileged and marginalized in the mix.
Unfortunately, He was betrayed by all those who went on to become players in the debacle that followed his crucifixion and would have no more agreed to what was done in his name than He would have condoned or endorsed the church authorities of His day. In an attempt to not turn this into a sermon or a long boring story, the point of it is to encourage those who would like to study the mans work without the associated stigma of being a religious nutcase and to call those who have misinterpreted the mans work, into a formula for oppressing those who don’t buy it, to rethink what it is they are preaching.
So rather than dismiss Jesus as a future irrelevance or go on to continue using His name in vain, please consider this a plea for common sense and think well of the man who put his life on the line, when he could of just cashed in like the rest. Don’t ride off His teachings anymore than you would Buddha's or Gandhi’s or John Lennon’s and when you are really peeved at the way Christian’s go about their business don’t blame Him , just think of Jesus, a no nonsense guy.

Sunday, October 19, 2008


How much do we really know about the founders of fundamental Christianity and the main contributors to the New Testament? Should we unquestionably accept their claims to be "ordained" as to speak to us through documents of uncertain origin, as the "infallible" word of GOD?
Firstly, they use alias's; Peter changed his name from Simon just after Jesus said to him "Get behind me SATAN, you are a ROCK in my path, your thoughts are those of man, not God." (Mathew 16:23) and in (Mathew 26:34) before his LORD noted; when needed the most, PETER, SIMON, SATAN or whatever he wanted to call himself, would deny knowing Him three times in a row. What a sleaze-bag! Paul, on the other hand "real name" Saul, sets himself up in direct opposition to Jesus (the descendant of David) in His quest to become King of the Jews. After Saul and his best mates make sure "the Christ" is nailed to a cross "for your salvation", he then begins a ten year campaign to exterminate every follower of Jesus he could find. This man was a deluded, mass murdering, maniac who was eventually stopped by Jesus' Damascus faction and while he was rotting in jail, decided to write apologetics styled letters which eventually became the main ingredient for the doctrines of the fundamental Christian church of today.
Saul, dressed as a ruling class Sadducee, would have stood out like a sore thumb in a rural setting; Peter, on the other hand dressed as a fisherman, an ideal disguise if you were try to infiltrate a peasant based cult of the day. They are almost indistinguishable in that they always seem to be in the same place, at the same time, right up their deaths in Rome as elderly men.
Satan could not have done a better job in setting up a CHURCH to dominate and rule this world from. What a perfect place for an Evil Dark Lord to preside from, holding the key's that keep people locked into a subservient, judgemental, bigoted and biased, woman suppressing, gay bashing, misogynistic organization with more wealth and power than Caesar, Napoleon or even Hitler could have ever dreamed of.
My opinion ,for what it's worth, is that Jesus, God bless His soul, would have been ap-paul-ed at having his name associated with that style of establishment. If they had of tried to kill Him with a Guillotine or a Gas Chamber, would you walk around with a representation of that around your neck as a sign that you have been saved by it and the actions of a bunch of evil men?

Thursday, October 16, 2008


Way back in the past we used to have a very sensible saying that kept the peace within family units and the wider community. When ever a child was chasing a sibling around with murder on their mind, because of some "wrong" that had been done to them, a wise parental figure would take him or her aside and explain; 'just because Johnny had been naughty it didn't make it O.K to do whatever you want in retaliation'.
Now I think we could do with a resurgence of that type of thinking because it seems to me "responsible" adults have forgotten the basics of the premise. Just because a few of your army buddies get shot up whilst invading a foreign country doesn't mean you have the right to blow away a whole village of women and children; as happened in Vietnam in the 70's. Just because some bunch of crazies drive a plane into a building, doesn't mean you have the right to round up everyone with a tea towel on their head and torture them. Just because somebody kills someone doesn't mean you have the right to kill them. THAT is the way of Anarchy, and inevitably leads to a free for all or all out war.
It's bad enough that peaceful people have to put up with "terrorists" but then we have to put up with the maniacs who want to "retaliate" when the sensible approach would be to investigate before we run off half cocked and commit atrocities in the name of demon-ocracy. On the home front, it's not bad enough that we have to put up with "Serial Maniac's" but we have to put up with the hoards of CSI "Experts" who want to solve the problem by "Psychically Divining" the villain. Before you know it we will have a whole generation of "Freelance Dexters" running our "Justice System" and "Judge Judys" packing heat.
If you are of the mind set who thinks that would be a good idea, then I suggest you take a serious look at yourself and if you happen to get together with others who think the same then for goodness sake remind them of the good old saying that our sensible forbears used to quote 'two wrongs don't make a right

Radio Eye - 11October2008 - Beyond the Shock Machine

Radio Eye - 11October2008 - Beyond the Shock Machine

Sunday, October 12, 2008


Don't you just love it when those who take it upon themselves to lord it over the rest of us, for no other reason than just because they can, insist on having their way irregardless of weather or not what they say makes any sense at all. It must of happened to you at sometime or another, take for instance a "teacher" making the class study John Howodd's version of Australian History. It doesn't matter how ridiculous it is, you are "encouraged" to take it seriously.
I'm sure that's how it was back in Nicaea 325 AD , when the ground work was laid for the mess we have today in the Fund-a-mental Christian Church. What a joke! Talk about arguing over how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. Who in their right mind could possibly think they could definitively decide on weather or not God was a "Father" before he had Jesus "His Son", the moment they "Big Banged" into existence, simultaneously or not?
Those men did not have the suitable education, qualifications, moral authority or neural capacity to set standards for today's society, irregardless of what the Pope or anyone else says. They were just under orders from the presiding dictator of the time to come up with a politically correct concoction to put an end to any of the then current regime's enemies. Constantine I was, by his own admission, not a religious man but he saw the "necessity" to have a body of men who could lord it over anyone who dared to challenge their ridiculous speculations.
Jesus himself, God bless his soul, would have been appalled by the concept that men He probably would have had no more respect for than the Pharisees and Sadducees of His time, could have had so much say in how His teaching would be presented to the masses. Yet we are coerced into "believing" they spoke as if He had of personally ordained them; what a crock! It's about time decent people everywhere put their foot down, not against sensible spiritual teachings but the incessant raving's of the presiding hierarchy that would have us believing "crap" rather than following sensible teachings.

Friday, October 10, 2008

D-coding social programming.

The things we’re not told about, in everyday life, could fill an encyclopedia and probably should although the obvious ones dangle before us like camouflaged dirigibles in a clouded sky. They are there to be seen by the ones who’ve had them pointed out, but to all others totally invisible. Take for instance surveillance cameras; if you happen to be one of the privileged few who know of the location of the said item, then there is no way you would do anything wrong in front of it no mater what your personal habits were, but if you have never had it pointed out then you could become the one caught picking your nose in front of it.
Now don’t get me wrong, I’m all for catching bad guys and putting them out of the way for rehabilitation but don’t you think we have gone totally overboard when it comes to targeting the ones who aren’t in on the secret, and have forgotten about the fact that seasoned criminals would have intimate knowledge of where the cameras were or at least aware of the possibility of their presence. This can lead to the unacceptable situation of unsavoury types masquerading as good guys and end up being in charge of the very cameras surveilling you!
In the interest of common sense and crime prevention, it is my opinion, adequately notifying people about the existence of methods in place to monitor their behaviour is infinitely better than the sneaky approach. If you are concerned about crime in your area, then it is my experience an open approach is the way to go and never trust an organization who wants to protect you via the use of a secret society; not even if they say they are going to keep you informed, because the chances are they will not.
Even though current trends have been towards the largest build up of unscrupulous methods for Law enforcement the world has ever known, there are still those advocating more of the same and until good people, everywhere or anywhere, voice an alternative view on the subject then I am afraid all we will ever get is a polarized society; as was in Europe in the 30’s & 40’s. It is not impossible that you could live to regret over empowering the secret service system, even if you are the best behaved of citizens.
On a lighter note; don’t you just love those Men In Black types driving around in their big, black Hummers with the tinted windows; don’t they make you feel sooo secure? If I had of presented myself on any Australian street, looking like that when I was a budding young Rev Head, they would have locked me up and thrown away the key. Now, for some reason, we equate them with the responsible ones who lock people up and throw away the key. Life’s funny isn’t it?

Wednesday, October 8, 2008

LATE NIGHT LIVE with Phillip Adams

Behind the Exclusive Brethren
listen now download audio

Check this out!

The Religion Report - 3September2008 - Elite Fundamentism - The Fellowship's gospel of Capitalist Power
Search the ABC
ABC Home Radio Television News Your Local ABC More Subjects… Shop
Religion Report
on ABC Radio National
Search Religion Report
Home Past Programs Have Your Say Subscribe About Us Contact Us
3 September 2008
Elite Fundamentism - The Fellowship's gospel of Capitalist Power
Listen Now - 03092008

Three Quirks Daily

To the Head Priest,
Oxford branch of the Great Church of Reason.
In regards to your supplications to the Omnipresent God of Luck, Pure Chance.
You say there is no proof of intelligent design and natural selection is the alternative.
Natural Selection is proof of intelligent design because if there is something in the simplest of natures cells that allows it to select one way over another (choice) then that becomes the intelligence behind the design.
When you surmise 'there is no God' you ass-u-me that God is not in the Micro, to small for you to observe. The same basic mistake is made by assuming we big banged into existence out of nothing at some particular point in time.
If you were able to create at at a macro or micro level and observed one of your creatures confidently espousing, with much eloquence, there was no creator; how hard would you laugh?
P.S. If you think ridiculing old religious characters is proof of anything or just good fun, where do you stand on ridiculing old scientific has been's?


I'm not sure if the rest of the world is aware of the problems we face here on the east coast of Australia but I can assure you the war on feral pests has been waged here for longer than I care to remember. At least three times a year large groups of people mobilise to wipe out one or the other of the afore mentioned, non-indigenous nasties of dubious place of origin. Armies of club affiliated vigilantes patrol transport routes, parks and public spaces leaving no stone unturned in their quest to seek out the defeat and humiliation of the creatures they despise. Our national media organizations closely monitor the situation and many of their ranks have risen to the prominent positions they hold by participating in the activity themselves. Heads of government would not last long in their chosen careers if they failed to support one or another of the groups and drunken celebrations usually follow the peaks of activity.
The police forces, paramedics and most other public service organizations tend to turn a blind eye to the violence that quite often erupts right before their eyes, usually leaving it to a group of private citizens to run a makeshift judiciary to preside over the preceding's that frequently take place after some particularly nasty event. More often than not the perpetrators of some of the more serious offences get off with a short suspension from being allowed to participate in planed upcoming events and/or if they are under contract, an amount of their fee withheld. What I have described here is by no means over exaggerated, it goes on year after year as regular as clockwork and shows no sign of changing. You maybe under the misunderstanding that it is just men who participate in this public display of over blown enthusiasm, for what some might call a sport, but hordes of women and children also regularly attend and it is not unheard of for a grandmother to stand at the appropriate moment and hurl abuse at some official that ruled against to the mob.
Now while I'm not particularly fond of cockroaches or cane toads, I can see both sides of the story and from where I stand the whole thing has got way out of hand. What started as a pleasant past past time has deteriorated into a free for all, where the participation of obsessed adults has overridden any sensible approach to the problem. Surely in this day and age when the world is looking towards us as a model for planetary activities that would set standards in developing countries, we could better use our free time and vast resources to devote ourselves to the more important issues that face us and the rest of humanity.

CELIACS DIS-EASE: An intolerance to wheat.

I have had a feeling in my gut like I swallowed something rotten; It's not the type of complaint you would say necessitates an immediate purging, just the sense that some thing's been brewing down there for far to long and that it really should be fixed. It's a bit like the problem with the Australian Wheat Board, you know they gave Saddam Hussein all that money when the rest of the word was trying to bring him to heel by imposing crippling sanctions on his economy and that we spent heaps of money having a Royal Commission but despite all the good efforts towards a remedy, there's still the smell of off fish in the air.
Anyhow it turns out heaps of people have this condition known as Celiacs, it's an intolerance to wheat. You might have noticed the many products appearing on our supermarket shelves with the labelling 'Gluten free', that's the solution to the problem. All you have to do is monitor what goes into your belly and the problem goes away. Strangely enough that how they caught the A.W.B, they just monitored what was going in to Iraq and before you could say 'Johnnie's the rat' the situation started to improve.
Once you have been made aware of this, the ongoing problem requires a constant adherence to seeking out replacements for old habits because of the glutinous nature of anything associated with the offending substance can spark off another vile attack. You must of experienced something like it yourself? In Queensland we had a problem with peanuts, it just took one little crumb in a bakers dozen to infect the whole process, so you really had to watch what was going into your pumpkin scones. Now I find myself buying strange things like Pasta made out of corn, rice crackers without flavouring and when someone asks 'would you like some dressing on your salad?' I reply 'Is it gluten free?'
We really should have the same attitude towards the running of our countries affairs, when somebody asks 'would you like to buy some cars from us?' We should reply 'Are they carbon free?' And if someone wants to shove another single desk down our throat, we should collectively say 'Not if it's as gluttonous as the last one!' Good health doesn't come without a price, my grocery bill has gone up but my meals are staying down and last but not least; everybody loves a clown but you wouldn't want Crusty running your country. Stay vigilant but don't become a vigilante.