Tuesday, May 13, 2014

Liar, Liar Pants on Fire!



The Australian Federal Budget is out and several issues trouble this godless mind.
1.       Broken Promises or Lies?
The first is the question of deceit.  When in Opposition, the Australian government made much of the broken promises of the then Labor Government.  With a righteous and seemingly misogynist hatred of Prime Minister Gillard, they identified with the more awful and aggressive activists who demanded that the lying bitch be sacked.  Regardless of the constitutional ridiculousness of this attitude, it made for an acrimonious episode in Australia political history.
Now, with no surprise in this jaded writer’s mind, the new Abbott government has broken every major promise it made in relation to new taxes and the non interference with the medical payments system, education, health, the public broadcasters and etc.  The gall of this government and its unrepentant attitude is breathtaking. 
What is the godless view on this issue?  Should we care?  All incoming governments break promises and so with this expectation in mind, I am prepared to say that many broken promises are within the expectation of normal and are thus moral save when they are so grievous and so contrary to fundamental understanding about what a new government stands for.  It that occurs then maybe the broken promises tip into the immoral.  The morality of politics is a touchy issue.  This is an arena when morality is explicitly eschewed by political practitioners and commentators since the work of Machiavelli.  In this Budget however, there is something that is so directly opposed to the reasonable view of the electors that this budget tips into the territory of the immoral.    This budget does it for me.  The promises were so cynical and so obviously going to be broken they can be seen as lies. 
The government is now trying to justify itself by creating a second lie with the fabrication of the budget emergency.  We have a low debt in low growth environment.  There is no debt emergency.  To say so is being so reckless with the truth that it feels either dishonest or the delusion of the economically illiterate.  Either way it is of dubious ethical worth.
So I feel this government Budget is immoral and led to the taking of power by a group of people who were prepared to promise anything.  It is saddening. 
2.       Frittering Money on Faith
In a budget of losers, the winners include the faith communities who have $245 million for those dodgy school chaplains.  I tolerated this in the former government because with an atheist unmarried Prime Minister, we godless had to expect in a pluralistic society some gesture to those of faith.  But this government is so nauseatingly godly that this justification does not apply.  This is an immoral waste money and the precious time of kids.  God help us.
3.       Defunding Health and Education
This may shock you.  The Federal government is deserting the funding field in Education and Health and I reckon this may be moral.  The problem in a Federation is that it is impossible to know who to blame with things fail.  If the local hospital is crook or the local school is an enemy of good education, which government do you blame?  Both are involved now in these two systems.  So it is impossible to hold governments accountable.  The system is too byzantine and complicated.  By pissing off, the Federal government will make it easier.  And given the impossibility of changing our Constitution, this radical step needs to be taken.  Of course it will lead to more indirect taxation as that responsibility goes to the States.  That would be a duplicitious way of changing the GST when the government promised this tax would not be changed.  But the constitutional simplicity gained might be worth another broken promise.  So perhaps, bearing in mind the constitutional problems of duplication, blame shifting and cost complexity in the current system, this radical step may have merit. At least Christopher Pyne gets less power.   

WHAT IS YOUR VIEW?
Was the government so reckless with the truth when promises were made that it has been immoral during the electoral and Budget processes?
Is there any excusing those Chaplains and their $245 million?
What do you think of the Constitutional justification for rudely interrupting health and education funding?

122 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Was the government so reckless with the truth when promises were made that it has been immoral during the electoral and Budget processes?"

    Well, you could say that they lied their way into office and are there under false pretences.

    "Is there any excusing those Chaplains and their $245 million?"

    This was hardly surprising given their personal affiliations.

    "What do you think of the Constitutional justification for rudely interrupting health and education funding?"

    If one of the most financially stable counties on the planet has a budget crisis then it is obviously necessary.
    But, I think we can be assured that the Government will be doing their fair share of the "heavy lifting".
    Expect to see an all out Government assault to put an end to the price gouging of the greedy multinational petroleum & pharmaceutical companies.

    LOL LOL LOL

    Queue the sirens, helicopters and groaning fridge.

    ReplyDelete
  3. MalcolmS2:59 AM

    "At least Christopher Pyne gets less power"

    Christopher Pyne was in good form today.

    Didn't sound like a choir boy to me Dick :)

    The speaker was rather agile also!

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/christopher/

    ReplyDelete
  4. For years I have been changing the channel as soon as the repellent Mr Abbott appears on the box. This morning I sat and listened to his interview on Insiders. Lies, bullshit and deflection are Abbott's tools of choice. I'm going back to channel-surfing the moment I hear his "Eerrr, eerrr".

    The delicious thing about this morning's Insiders was the all female panel on the very morning that our misogynistic PM (the man who installed a cabinet of inequality) was also on the show - a delightful juxtaposition.

    ReplyDelete
  5. aGog has had enough5:32 AM

    Why do you pander to MalcomS, Dick?
    He is a randian cunt, he is destroying your blog

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. MalcolmS9:13 AM

      LOL That's what Christopher Pyne said.

      Delete
    2. aGog, Dick doesn't pander to anyone; he's simply allowing for freedom of expression - a quality of any egalitarian society.

      That you don't agree with Malcolm's opinion/s and have resorted to name-calling only serves to demonstrate your lack of emotional and intellectual maturity.

      If you are in favour of censorship, perhaps you could start with self-censorship.

      Delete
  6. Kate:

    Yes, Abbott’s a prick. But then debt is a problem, government regulation is strangling businesses, we have abdicated individual responsibility to the government, and the rule of law is being replaced by the rule of lawyers. These are (some of) the things Abbott seems to want to deal with, and whether or not the man is an arsehole matters less to me than that he succeeds.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Terry, for me, it's more than him being a prick. He's invented a budget and deficit emergency that don't actually exist. He's ensuring that the only people doing the "heavy lifting" are those already doing it tough. He's raping the environment. He's treated assylum seekers as less than human and worse than serial rapists/murders/terrorists. He's abusing our poorer neighbours, Cambodia etc. He's supporting discrimination in our society and making it easier to legally discriminate. He's giving money to bullshit schemes, like the Chaplaincy program, and taking money away from people who really need it.

      The only thing I see him succeeding in is ensuring he and his wealthy mining mates are free to continue to rape the land and financially rape the economy, while sticking the boot into anyone else - especially those who thinks he's a prick.

      Finance experts say that his budget will do nothing beneficial for the ecomony. Environment experts say his direct action plan will do nothing positive for the environment or climate change. Sure, he's stopped the boats (another invented emergency) but at such a collosal cost that it's hardly something to claim as a success.

      What do you see him succeeding in?

      Delete
    2. Kate:

      I’m with you here, there and everywhere. And to answer your question, I don’t see Abbott succeeding at anything other than getting a lifelong pension. It would make no difference to us if we’d elected a warthog in his place. The same goes for the other bloke, who is so dull I can never remember his name.

      It’s probably just wishful thinking that makes me imagine I detect in Abbott a glimmer of understanding that debt, welfare addiction and excessive business regulation need to be tackled regardless of political cost.

      And I was hoping his budget might stimulate creative ideas about how we might prevent those tsunamis crashing into us. But there’s no hope of that, is there? We can't see past our own interests. All we can offer is critcism and argument. Not a creative thought in sight. You'd think the whole country was educated by Jesuit priests.


      Delete
    3. MalcolmS12:18 AM

      TONY ABBOTT [defending his budget on ABC Report]: "If any of you have ever had a mortgage, if any of you have ever had a credit card debt: if you are borrowing to pay the interest on the borrowings, you are stuffed"

      Says it all really!

      Yet, he won't have the ticker to implement it as he has his own cronies and parasitic suck-holes to feed as did Ju-liar and Krudd.

      Delete
    4. RalphH 21/059:13 AM

      “TONY ABBOTT [defending his budget on ABC Report]: "If any of you have ever had a mortgage, if any of you have ever had a credit card debt: if you are borrowing to pay the interest on the borrowings, you are stuffed"

      Says it all really!” (MalcolmS12:18 AM)

      All your quote does, Malcolm, is explain why we have a ‘budget crisis’. (Some people dispute that we have one but I agree that we do). It does not explain the proposed measures to alleviate the crisis i.e their fairness (or humanness) or lack thereof.

      Delete
    5. MalcolmS7:53 PM

      "All your quote does, Malcolm, is explain why we have a ‘budget crisis’. (Some people dispute that we have one but I agree that we do)"

      Thanks for your wholehearted agreement with my "explanation" Ralph. That was my only point!

      "It does not explain the proposed measures to alleviate the crisis i.e their fairness (or humanness) or lack thereof"

      Nor does yours Ralph. Were you making any particular point?

      Delete
    6. Hold on a moment there, that Abbott quote just explains what a moron Abbott is and others like him who compare the country's economy to a household budget. It's a ridiculous comparison and does not explain a single thing - other than Abbott and his band of merry idiots will go to any length to hoodwink Australians into believing there is a budget crisis - which there ain't.

      Delete
    7. MalcolmS11:56 PM

      There is a budget crisis and it did not apply when Krudd came to power. When you borrow to go into debt and then have to borrow to pay the interest because you can't afford to pay it off *that* is a crisis. It's not terminal yet but it's certainly a crisis which needs addressing or it becomes terminal. Any arsehole who claims it should not be paid off now is arguing that their kids and grandkids should pay for the current profligacy. They should not. The "morons" are the entitlement brigade who think the world owes them a living. It doesn't.

      Delete
    8. Kate:

      I’m not an economist, and my opinion is worth no more than yours, but if these facts are correct, that our public debt is 37% of GDP and that if you add private debt and unfunded government liabilities it jumps to over 250% of GDP, and if we have to borrow to pay our $1 billion monthly interest bill, then how can we not have a debt crisis? Doesn’t your gut tell you something’s wrong here?

      And if we are going to talk about fairness, where’s the fairness in passing on the bill for the life our generation has led to our children?

      Delete
    9. RalphH 22/057:24 AM

      “Thanks for your wholehearted agreement with my "explanation" Ralph. That was my only point! ……. Were you making any particular point?” (MalcolmS7:53 PM)

      Yes Malcolm, I was merely pointing out that your statement “Says it all really!” (MalcolmS12:18 AM) was premature because it didn’t address Abbott’s proposed solution (his budget) which is the topic of the thread. You might say I was being pedantic.

      Delete
    10. MalcolmS8:17 AM

      RalphH: "You might say I was being pedantic"

      Yes, you might!

      Delete
    11. Calm down lads, just because I don't believe this invented budget emergency, doesn't mean I don't think some changes are required. Of course the government can't continue to spend in the way it did during the GFC - even Labour (settle Malcolm, I'm not a fan of them either) knew that. But it's because of that spending that Australia still has three AAA credit ratings, our national debt is lower than any comparable country etc.

      Do we need to pay off our debt and not burden future generations? Sure we do.

      Do we need to have a austere budget? Yep, sure thing.

      Do we need to rip off pensioners and low income earners to do it? No we don't.

      Will this budget do anything to help our economic position? No bloody way.

      This budget will create a new and large group of low earning Australians doing it tough, possibly resorting to desperate measures (phone sex work anyone?) just to get by. If you want to be fair to future generations how about installing some fairness right here and now?

      For the record, as a single woman with no dependants earning less than $180,000 who gets zero government handouts, this budget doesn't affect me financially in any way, shape or form (though I will be caught up in the working till I'm 70 bullshit). It does however, make my blood boil when I see the damage it will have on people earning less money than me and the zero damage it will have on people earning more money than me. Where is the equality of "shared pain" and "heavy lifting"?

      Delete
    12. Terry, when it comes to economics, I don't have an opinion that I have formed on my own - your opinion may well worth a whole lot more than mine, but I have no idea of your education/work background. I look to the opinions of financial and economic experts. I haven't seen one yet that agrees with the government's take on the "emergency" and all have commented on how bloody useless and unjust this budget is.

      Delete
    13. Kate:

      It’s true that there are ‘experts’ who don’t think the debt is all that serious. But it’s not true that there aren’t any ‘experts’ who think the opposite. It’s also true that all but one ‘expert’ called the GFC before it happened. Maybe it’s not a good idea to rely too much on the ‘experts’. I prefer to follow my own logic on this one. If my company had a debt twice the size of its turnover, and had to borrow to pay the interest, I wouldn’t be able to sleep.

      As for equality, I lean in your direction. I also want to live in a fair and equal society. But there are many different possible ways of achieving that fairness and equality. And I don’t think having a government play Robin Hood is the best of them.

      Delete
    14. MalcolmS12:04 AM

      Terry: "I also want to live in a fair and equal society"

      What bullshit. We are not a colony of ants sunshine. We are human beings. We are not equal and never will be equal. Do you really want your kids to be "equal" to some 67 year old hag selling telephone sex?

      Equality is a myth and any attempt at achievement would be unjust and immoral - whether applied to equality of opportunity or equality of outcome. Why restrict your theory to just Australia? Why not the entire world? You must be bonkers!

      Delete
    15. MalcolmS12:10 AM

      BTW Terry

      Has it slipped your mind that the last of the great advocates of *equality* was Pol Pot?

      Delete
    16. "Do you really want your kids to be "equal" to some 67 year old hag selling telephone sex?"

      I'd quite like to live in a society where our pensioners are able to make ends meet without needing to take on that sort of work to be able to make ends meet. I certainly don't aspire to my my kids being "equal" to someone who believes that "hag" is an appropriate term to use in this discussion.

      Delete
    17. MalcolmS11:37 PM

      LJS: ".. our pensioners.. "

      *Yours* comrade.

      Delete
    18. Malandhismythicalhead: Equality is a myth ... and an old woman selling phone sex is not my equal.

      Why is the old woman who sells phone sex not your equal, Mal? It can’t be that she’s old because you’re (much) older than her. Surely it’s not that she’s a salesperson? It must be that she sells phone sex. You don’t like phone sex, is that it? Or is it that you don’t like old women selling phone sex? You prefer it from young women, don’t you?

      Equality then, according to your mythical head, is a matter of judgement. People are not your equal because you judge them to be so. You don’t mind that Ayn Rand was an old woman and a sales person because she sold something you like. But if she sold phone sex, that would be a no-no, right?

      What about black skins and white skins? Which of those is ‘better’? And fat people and thin people? Women and men? Are heterosexuals are better than homosexuals?

      Delete
    19. MalcolmS8:32 PM

      Terry: "Why is the old woman who sells phone sex not your equal, Mal?"

      Oh, you're quite wrong sweetpea! We are equal in one crucial respect which you and the *entitlement* mentalities always obfuscate. We both have an inalienable right to our life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness. It's the principle of individual rights which is universal[*equality*] to all. You see, dopey, people have a right to be different[*inequality*] to you and clapped out old hags! In fact I would say it's highly desirable!

      Equality, apart from rights, is a non sequitur in politics and violates rights when practised.

      Delete
    20. MalcolmS8:35 PM

      BTW Terrence the Bog Ignorant

      What makes you think Ayn Rand is opposed to selling sex? Just thought you'd keep the bullshit flowing a little longer did you?

      FYI Kira, the heroine in her novel *We the Living,* sold sex! My daughter is named after her :)

      Delete
    21. RalphH 24/0510:11 PM

      “Equality is a myth and any attempt at achievement would be unjust and immoral - whether applied to equality of opportunity or equality of outcome.” (MalcolmS12:04 AM)

      I’m not sure how you you fit “unjust and immoral” in there Malcolm. I’d just say it’s impossible and wouldn’t achieve anything other than sameness which would be counterproductive because human society is made up from and thrives by means of the individual units contributing something unique to the happiness and well-being of the whole. (Ants and other insect and animal species are more like clones - programmed rather than acting freely from reason).

      The only way to achieve a complex interconnected human society is by means of a hierarchy. As W.S. Gilbert said in ‘The Gondoliers’, “When everyone is somebody (i.e. equal), then no one's anybody.” The problem is that people (especially those at the higher end whose position involves power over those lower down) can attribute their position and power in the hierarchy to themselves (where they are to an over-riding extent the benefits of God, - or Nature depending on one’s allegiance, - provided for all mankind) and claim entitlement well beyond the effort they have put in.

      Joe Hockey (the Libs) have told us that the ‘age of entitlement’ is over but do they include those in the higher echelons who are claiming far more of the pie than is their due simply because they can? The ‘debt tax’ to many is merely a token gesture to appease the masses.

      At the other end of the scale it’s true that welfare can be abused and encourage laziness and lack of effort and there needs to be vigilance, discouragement and if needs be punishment to minimise such attitudes.

      However welfare is an integral part of the redistribution of wealth in society recognising the fact that all are not equal due to age (young and old), sickness and different physical and mental capacities.

      Delete
    22. MalcolmS12:17 AM

      RalphH: ".. welfare is an integral part of the redistribution of wealth in society"

      Only if you're a thug Ralph! Governments don't create wealth. They only get it by force. In fact force with menaces! Have you given up on the pacifism of Christianity? Or the eighth commandment? Or are you just a hypocrite?

      Christian charity did little for the poor. All the welfare states of history collapsed as will the current ones. In some ways we are worse off than Greece. They have Germany to bail them out.

      What is the solution to poverty? Not "redistribution" which simply destroys the productive. Political freedom, production and trade cure poverty.

      The solution to poverty is capitalism.

      Delete
    23. Malmyth:

      I didn’t ask you to regurgitate Rand’s invented principle of human rights. I asked you to tell us why you consider an old woman who sells phone sex to be your inferior. What criteria do you use to make that judgement? I know it’s an uncomfortable question. But you said it, and I’d like to know what you mean by it.

      Delete
    24. MalcolmS12:18 AM

      Terry: "I didn’t ask you to regurgitate Rand’s invented principle of human rights"

      Rand has no "principle of human rights" regurgitated, invented or otherwise. Have you been drinking?

      "I asked you to tell us why you consider an old woman who sells phone sex to be your inferior. What criteria do you use to make that judgement? I know it’s an uncomfortable question. But you said it, and I’d like to know what you mean by it"

      That's a lie! No, I did not say it! I have made no such claim! In fact I went to some trouble to explain in what sense I am equal to *all* people. I didn't claim to be equal to anyone else in any other sense whatsoever. I make all sorts of moral judgments all the time but they are not in terms of "inferior" or "superior" - only good or bad. Furthermore, I am not beholden to engage in mindless word games with the dull and the ignorant such as yourself who couldn't even lie straight in bed.

      Delete
    25. MalcolmS12:19 AM

      BTW Terry

      I asked you: "Do you really want your kids to be "equal" to some 67 year old hag selling telephone sex?" [MalcolmS 12:04 AM] and you appear not to have answered :)

      Was *this* the question you thought to be "uncomfortable"? :)

      What an insult to your kids!

      Delete
    26. RalphH 26/059:09 AM

      “Only if you're a thug Ralph!” (MalcolmS12:17 AM)
      I suggested Malcolm that the reason we need a “redistribution” is because of those who attain wealth through ‘thuggery’. I’m all in favour of those who accumulate it fairly (note that I didn’t say ‘legally’ because the law can be bought or be formulated or framed to favour certain groups and individuals) and recognise their debt to society in general. With the power accompanying wealth also comes responsibility.

      “Governments don't create wealth. They only get it by force. In fact force with menaces!”

      They don't create it directly but they (when properly and honestly run) are instrumental in producing and maintaining a political and economic climate conducive to the production of wealth.

      “Have you given up on the pacifism of Christianity?”

      Christ didn’t teach “pacifism”, he said he “did not come to bring peace (worldly peace) but a sword (i.e. Biblically representative of truth). (Matthew 10:34)


      “Or the eighth commandment? Or are you just a hypocrite?”

      When Christ was asked about the morality of taxation he replied, “Render to Caesar/(the state) the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.” (Mark 12:17) Taxation is not stealing if it is fair. All countries have communal services that are not run for profit and hence need to be funded - like, for example a police force and army to protect the wealthy citizens wealth. The poor need no such protection.

      “Christian charity did little for the poor.”

      Christian charity has done much for the poor throughout the centuries and continues to do so. I suggest removing the blinkers.

      “All the welfare states of history collapsed as will the current ones.”

      I wasn’t talking about “welfare states”, I was talking about ‘welfare’. Any state that neglects the welfare of it’s citizens is a ticking time bomb. I cite the French revolution as an example.

      “What is the solution to poverty?”

      There will never be a complete “solution” to poverty because given free-will some people bring poverty on themselves. Even Christ said, “For you have the poor with you always, ….” (Matthew 26:11) That aside the solution is the curbing of human greed and learning to share (just like we teach the kids).

      “Not "redistribution" which simply destroys the productive.”

      That assumes that the getters and holders of wealth are all and solely “the productive”. That is not necessarily the case - ever heard of economic slavery? - or ‘being born with a silver spoon in one’s mouth’. Poverty is what prevents many people from being “productive”.

      “Political freedom, production and trade cure poverty.”

      Poverty is not a disease (if it were Tony’s and Joe’s big new medical research facility could look for a cure). The three things you mentions can be helpful in alleviating poverty.

      “The solution to poverty is capitalism.”

      If it is not accompanied by a curb on greed and an encouragement of sharing it can actually increase poverty. Look at the extreme pockets of poverty that have existed in the U.S. when it was the wealthiest capitalist nation in the world.

      Delete
    27. Mal:

      If you don’t like the way I phrased my question to you, then let me phrase it the way you phrased it to me: Why would I not want my kids to be ‘equal’ to a 67 years old woman selling phone sex? What is wrong with a 67 years old woman selling phone sex? Is it that she’s old? Is it that she’s selling? Is it that she’s selling phone sex?

      Also, which of these two statements of yours is true: ‘Equality is a myth’ or ‘I went to some trouble to explain in what sense I am equal to all people’?

      Also, did you and Ralph, in the previous blog, ever settle that important question of whether it is the spermatozoid or the egg that the soul creates first?

      Also, does a discussion about the sequence in which souls manufacture spermatozoids and eggs count as ‘engaging in mindless word games with the dull and ignorant’, or does it fit into the category of exhilarating?

      Delete
    28. Ralph: There will never be a complete “solution” to poverty because given free-will some people bring poverty on themselves. Even Christ said, “For you have the poor with you always, ….”

      On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being stupid, this statement rates a 100. And if you can’t see why, then it’s not the statement that rates the 100, it’s you.

      Delete
    29. RalphH 27/057:34 AM

      “On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being stupid, this statement rates a 100. And if you can’t see why, then it’s not the statement that rates the 100, it’s you.” (Terry1:34 AM)

      On the face of it Terry it’s your statement that looks incredibly stupid to me. I never got into higher maths but 100 time stupider than stupid seems something of a stretch. Then your flip of stupidity onto me simply because I haven’t a clue what you’re talking about, is, I think, one for the irrational basket. As a person who enjoys rational explanations maybe you could try to humour me with one.

      Delete
    30. RalphH 27/058:00 AM

      “Also, does a discussion about the sequence in which souls manufacture spermatozoids and eggs count as ‘engaging in mindless word games with the dull and ignorant’, or does it fit into the category of exhilarating?” (Terry1:14 AM)

      Some people have an amazing thing called curiosity Terry. They’re interested in where they’ve come from and where they’re going. If you’re not, that’s OK. It might be interesting to know why you’re not.

      “Also, did you and Ralph, in the previous blog, ever settle that important question of whether it is the spermatozoid or the egg that the soul creates first?”

      My take (to clear up your confusion): the soul that begins a new life starts out as a potential. The sperm and the egg are produced independently by the parents i.e. by the parents souls.

      Delete
    31. MalcolmS9:53 AM

      Terry: ".. which of these two statements of yours is true: ‘Equality is a myth’ or ‘I went to some trouble to explain in what sense I am equal to all people’?"

      Point of order: in this thread alone I have asked you 11 questions which remain unanswered. You have also told some bald-faced lies which you have not addressed. No further questions will be answered until you remedy the matter [although that will not prevent me commenting on any of your posts which amuse me]. Until then why don't you just go and poke yourself in the eye? Preferably with your dildo!

      Last answer: Both those statements are correct in the context in which they were individually presented. That is the only context to be considered. There is no contradiction whatsoever.

      Delete
    32. MalcolmS10:00 AM

      Part 1

      RalphH: "I suggested Malcolm that the reason we need a “redistribution” is because of those who attain wealth through ‘thuggery’. I’m all in favour of those who accumulate it fairly.."

      In a laissez-faire capitalist society you are protected from "thuggery" by the armed forces, police and the law courts. That is all that is required. Taxes pay for such services and are voluntary. How? is an interesting question for which you will have to read a little political philosophy.

      "..and recognise their debt to society in general"

      There is no such thing as *society in general*! It's just another of those mythical creatures you make up in order to caress your fantasies. Only individuals actually exist.

      "With the power accompanying wealth also comes responsibility"

      Responsibility to whom? Those who do *not* create wealth? I don't think so. "Duty" is only obligatory in a collectivist/statist/welfarist society - not in a free society. You should learn the difference between economic and political power some time.

      “Christ didn’t teach “pacifism”, he said he did not come to bring peace.."

      And then contradicted Himself by enjoining His followers to "turn the other cheek."

      “When Christ was asked about the morality of taxation he replied, “Render to Caesar/(the state) the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's”

      Which is easy to say when you live your life as a parasitic beggar and are a pedlar of snake oil.

      "Taxation is not stealing if it is fair"

      Taxation is theft backed by threat of imprisonment.

      Delete
    33. MalcolmS10:03 AM

      Part 2

      “Christian charity has done much for the poor throughout the centuries and continues to do so"

      Utter rubbish. Christianity created widespread poverty in which urban life almost died out in the Christian dark ages. This was due to the fact that Christianity regarded poverty as desirable and a high virtue! The pagans had thought life was for living. Christians thought life was a *veil of tears."

      "I wasn’t talking about “welfare states”, I was talking about ‘welfare’"

      A welfare state is when alleged "welfare" is practised by the state. There is no other. It involves the theft of wealth created by the productive and "redistributed" to the non-productive and political mates.

      “There will never be a complete “solution” to poverty because given free-will some people bring poverty on themselves"

      The solution to poverty is capitalism. So it proved in 19th century America where, between the Napoleonic wars and WW1, the standard of living of the average citizen doubled and, then, doubled again! That was the society which came closer to the ideal than any other society in history. Who gives a stuff about those who "bring poverty on themselves"? I don't! Those others who were incapable of working must live on voluntary charity and no country is more charitable than capitalist countries!

      "..the solution is the curbing of human greed and learning to share (just like we teach the kids)"

      Greed is the production of abundance. It is a virtue, not a vice. I taught my kids to be proud of their production and achievements and to respect the same virtue in others. It hasn't harmed them!

      “..ever heard of economic slavery?"

      Yes, it's called socialism.

      "Look at the extreme pockets of poverty that have existed in the U.S. when it was the wealthiest capitalist nation in the world"

      When it was the wealthiest capitalist nation in the world there was no country with less poverty. The only contrast was the capitalism of the north and the slavery of the feudal, Christian south. The north proved that prosperity was far more amenable under capitalism than slavery. Capitalism did not create slavery. It inherited it and, ultimately with the help of the Civil War, abolished it!

      Of course, with the demise of capitalism and freedom, slavery has returned to the West in the form of the "welfare" state. Now it is not a black/white issue but the productive who are enslaved to the non-productive swill.

      Delete
    34. Ralph: Some people have an amazing thing called curiosity Terry. They’re interested in where they’ve come from and where they’re going.

      Curious may be what you consider yourself to be. But looking from the outside you appear to be anything but. If you were curious then surely your interest would include hypotheses such the primordial soup, Miller-Urey electric spark, Cairns-Smith’s community clay, deep-sea vents, simple beginnings, chilly start, RNA world and panspermia. Why stop at souls?

      Say what you like, but to me you are a dogmatic simpleton who comes here to argue a fixed point of view and has no interest at all in advancing his understanding of the world.

      Delete
    35. Mal:

      I didn’t think you would attempt an answer. I’ll just accept your slide past as an acknowledgement of what a horrible thing that was to say.

      Delete
    36. MalcolmS7:06 PM

      Terry: "Ralph... you are a dogmatic simpleton"

      LOL That's a bit rich coming from a sceptic who claims that knowledge and certainty are impossible.

      Delete
    37. MalcolmS7:21 PM

      RalphH: "My take (to clear up your confusion): the soul that begins a new life starts out as a potential"

      A potential what?

      "The sperm and the egg are produced independently by the parents i.e. by the parents souls"

      So the parents' souls go into the sperm and ovum? The parents no longer have souls?

      You have cleared up no confusion Ralph. You have only created more. Which is what you can expect when you just make stuff up.

      Delete
    38. Mal: That's a bit rich coming from a sceptic who claims that knowledge and certainty are impossible.

      You’re quite right. I should have said ‘probably a dogmatic simpleton’. For all I know he could be a genius pulling our legs. You probably think the latter, don’t you? After all, you’ve spent nine years having your thinking, if I can use that word loosely, sharpened by him.

      Incidentally, now that you mention your detestation of certainty, I suppose we should add to the list old women, sales people and phone sex.

      Delete
    39. Mal: You have cleared up no confusion Ralph. You have only created more.

      Gee, do you really think so? Give it another nine years and it might become clearer.

      Delete
    40. MalcolmS10:39 PM

      Terry: ".. now that you mention your detestation of certainty.."

      ...and the lies keep coming... :)

      Delete
    41. Mal:

      No, that was not a lie, that was a typo, and you know it. Clearly, the intended word was ‘uncertainty’. You are making up the business about me lying up to spinelessly avoid having to explain that awful remark. You've never been worried about showing yourself off to be a prick. Why worry now?

      Delete
    42. MalcolmS2:55 AM

      Terry: "No, that was not a lie, that was a typo, and you know it"

      I don't believe you! There have been too many without correction or apology. Your credibility is shot. But don't concern yourself. I place no value on your opinion anyway.

      Delete
    43. MalcolmS4:38 AM

      Speaking of lies!

      Here's your girlfriend Terrence.

      http://www.2gb.com/article/gloria-v-chris-smith-over-winkgate#.U4Rx7Y2KBiw

      Better gather the kids around so they'll know who their father reckons they should try to *equal.*

      Delete
    44. RalphH 28/059:13 AM

      “A potential what?” (MalcolmS7:21 PM)

      How about a potential for a human being Malcolm. When the sperm joins with the egg the potential becomes an actual (precursor to anyway) human being.

      “So the parents' souls go into the sperm and ovum? The parents no longer have souls?”

      How on earth did you jump to that weird supposition. The soul of a human being is just that. It can’t jump into the big toe or a red blood cell and abandon the rest of the body. Every part of the body (to the very minutest) depends on/lives from/ exists from the soul. The soul that begins a new life is a new soul of a potentially new being.

      “You have cleared up no confusion Ralph. You have only created more. Which is what you can expect when you just make stuff up.”

      I think you created more confusion for yourself by jumping to a conclusion without really thinking it through.

      Delete
    45. MalcolmS10:37 AM

      RalphH: “"A potential what?” (MalcolmS7:21 PM) How about a potential for a human being Malcolm. When the sperm joins with the egg the potential becomes an actual (precursor to anyway) human being"

      Now hang on one moment Ralph. I was responding to your position that:

      "the soul that begins a new life starts out as a potential. The sperm and the egg are produced independently by the parents i.e. by the parents souls."

      According to your oft-stated theory every existent has a soul[including pebbles]. Therefore you must hold that there is a sperm soul AND an ovum soul. Neither are a *human being* soul!

      So, you have still not given a logical statement as to where/what the soul of the zygote is/comes from. On the previous thread, for some weird reason known only to yourself, you had claimed the *human being* soul comes from the sperm[which only would have a sperm soul] :)

      [As you no doubt realise I am not going to agree with your position on souls but I prefer to know what it is before I comment]

      Delete
    46. Mal:

      Unlike you, I don’t come here to get my opinion valued. I come instead to hear other people’s opinions. At least that’s what I used to come for. But since everyone has left and all that remains are two simpletons doing a dumbed-down version of Cheech and Chong that’s no longer possible. Don’t get me wrong. I love Cheech and Chong. But there’s only so much stupidity a man can take. I’m out of here. Be a good old man and switch off the lights when you eventually go.

      Delete
    47. RalphH 28/056:10 PM

      “Curious may be what you consider yourself to be. But looking from the outside you appear to be anything but. If you were curious then surely your interest would include hypotheses such the primordial soup, Miller-Urey electric spark, Cairns-Smith’s community clay, deep-sea vents, simple beginnings, chilly start, RNA world and panspermia. Why stop at souls?

      Say what you like, but to me you are a dogmatic simpleton who comes here to argue a fixed point of view and has no interest at all in advancing his understanding of the world.“ (Terry3:00 PM)

      Think what you will Terry. Call it “dogmatic simplic(ity)” if you want but IMO there are only two possibilities for creation/(the bringing of things into existence) - that need to be considered - God (the spiritual/eternal) and Nature (the natural/temporal). Nature can be dismissed immediately because it is a contradiction to think that Nature can create/produce itself.

      All the things you have suggested above fall into the category of Nature. They may be instrumental in the creative process but cannot initiate it because their elements themselves need to be created.

      It’s not curiosity to endlessly consider things that can be logically seen to be impossible. All one does is create an endless loop. There is plenty of scope for curiosity in speculating on and discovering the nature of God and the process of creation.

      Delete
    48. Ralph: Nature can be dismissed immediately because it is a contradiction to think that Nature can create/produce itself.

      I’ll leave Mal to argue this with you. He can tell you, as he has done about 50 times before, that you can also dismiss god for the same reason. And then you can make some inane riposte and the two of you can go round and round in circles till the next opportunity you get to repeat the statement.

      Delete
    49. MalcolmS9:23 PM

      Terry: "I don’t come here to get my opinion valued. I come instead to hear other people’s opinions"

      Yes, of course you do sweetpea. "Evaluation" requires objectivity, knowledge and certainty and sceptics can't go there. Their arrested mentalities are forever anchored at the level of the "opinions of others."

      "I’m out of here"

      Can't say I blame you. You had nothing to offer - and the inability to learn. Even the religious are better thinkers and run rings around you. Although your refusal to answer rhetorical questions and the childish lies were amusing. Cheers.

      Delete
    50. MalcolmS9:30 PM

      RalphH: ".. there are only two possibilities for creation/(the bringing of things into existence) - that need to be considered - God (the spiritual/eternal) and Nature (the natural/temporal). Nature can be dismissed immediately because it is a contradiction to think that Nature can create/produce itself"

      No, Ralph, there are no contradictions in nature. It is God that is contradictory and can be dismissed. If *creation* is your standard, then, God fails your test! You can't say how He was created or even if He exists. Your God is redundant.

      However, existence/being/nature is eternal. Existence has always existed. Being always is. Nature is always natural. Their creation is/was not required. Even consciousness/mind/spirit is natural. Your God is the fantasy of witch doctors.

      Delete
    51. RalphH 29/057:59 AM

      “I’ll leave Mal to argue this with you. He can tell you, as he has done about 50 times before, that you can also dismiss god for the same reason. And then you can make some inane riposte and the two of you can go round and round in circles till the next opportunity you get to repeat the statement.” (Terry8:57 PM)

      Terry, I might have a go at Malcolm later but your statement is incorrect. One cannot “dismiss God” for the “same” reason. Despite Malcolm’s protestations Nature (the natural world) can, by means of the physical senses which impact it directly, be seen to be and proven to be temporal.

      One cannot say the same for God. God, who is defined in revelation as “spirit” (John 4:24), can only be ‘seen’ with the mind/the reason/the heart. One can “dismiss God” but there is no reason for doing so. Malcolm continually claims that it is impossible to know anything apart from the physical senses but I dispute that.

      God can be and is defined as being composed of entirely different stuff to the world of nature. Nature/natural things are temporal - they have a beginning and an end and exist in time and space. They are created and die - they come into existence and cease to exist. It is quite logical and no contradiction to ask where Nature came/comes from but God is defined as eternal so it is illogical and a contradiction to ask where God came from.

      Delete
    52. RalphH 29/055:05 PM

      “No, Ralph, there are no contradictions in nature. It is God that is contradictory and can be dismissed. If *creation* is your standard, then, God fails your test! You can't say how He was created or even if He exists. Your God is redundant.” (MalcolmS9:30 PM)

      I didn’t say there are no “contradictions in nature” or imply that nature is contradictory Malcolm. I said, “it is a contradiction to think that Nature can create/produce itself”. I have just explained to Terry (above - RalphH 29/057:59 AM) why God is not created.

      God can be inferred to exist because of the effects we see in Nature which just have to come from ‘somewhere’ but (being finite and temporal) are not capable of self-creation. Where there are effects, there must be causes and an over-riding/all-embracing cause.

      “However, existence/being/nature is eternal. Existence has always existed. Being always is. Nature is always natural. Their creation is/was not required. Even consciousness/mind/spirit is natural. Your God is the fantasy of witch doctors.”

      Existence and being can be eternal but not all existence or being is eternal; nature is definitely natural but is certainly not eternal. Your claim that a totality of temporals equals eternal is, IMO, a complete fantasy (no witch doctors required).

      Delete
    53. RalphH 29/055:39 PM

      Correction: please delete 'no' from the first line of the second paragraph above i.e. *I didn’t say there are no “contradictions in nature” ...* should read *I didn’t say there are “contradictions in nature” ...*. apologies.

      Delete
    54. RalphH 29/058:21 PM

      “[As you no doubt realise I am not going to agree with your position on souls but I prefer to know what it is before I comment]” (MalcolmS10:37 AM)

      So you don’t think it’s possible to ‘teach an old dog (something new)’ Malcolm?

      A soul is not a ‘thing’, it’s the essence of something - making it the core element (Note: it’s not physical even though calling it an element may give that impression). Maybe you could say it’s the ‘is-ness’/that which makes it what it is, of something. Although not spatial, a soul permeates the entire being i.e. is universally present throughout.

      With a complex entity like a human one would not talk about souls of individual parts unless they were being considered in isolation (as one can do when looking at something scientifically). You seem to have gotten an idea of a competition of souls but, IMO, it’s more of a hierarchy i.e. like having a general manager and different levels of managers and sub-managers below.

      You often rail against ‘disembodied souls” (poor Billy the Cat) and I am in complete agreement. There is something of the parent soul embodied in the sperm but when the sperm goes walk-about it does not siphon off the whole parent soul - only a splinter or part thereof which, when it mates up with mother's egg begins forming a whole new human being.

      If you can take that all in you’re probably good for a ‘Smacko’.

      Delete
    55. MalcolmS9:38 PM

      RalphH: "Terry, I might have a go at Malcolm later but your statement is incorrect. One cannot “dismiss God” for the “same” reason. Despite Malcolm’s protestations Nature (the natural world) can, by means of the physical senses which impact it directly, be seen to be and proven to be temporal. One cannot say the same for God"

      Not necessarily Ralph. There are all sorts of states in which matter/energy can exist. Consider the big bang theory[a theory I don't accept as anything other than "theory"]. According to this "theory" all the stuff of the universe was once condensed into a tiny point which went bang! Now, at that point, all the stuff of the universe existed AND there was no space or time! So, at that point, the universe was obviously ETERNAL[out of time] and completely NATURAL. Even in that scenario God would be redundant. What caused the "bang"[if it actually happened]?? The nature/identity of the stuff that went bang!! Nothing changes in this respect simply because the universe expands. The totality is still eternal and natural. You need to differentiate between metaphysical existence/being/nature which the philosophers study and its numerous components in the expanded world which sum to the metaphysical and which the scientists study.

      Delete
    56. I came across this today, thought it was apt for this thread...

      “People who dismiss the unemployed and dependent as ‘parasites’ fail to understand economics and parasitism. A successful parasite is one that is not recognized by its host, one that can make its host work for it without appearing as a burden. Such is the ruling class in a capitalist society.”

      ― Jason Read
      http://usm.maine.edu/phi/jason-read

      Delete
    57. MalcolmS the old dog11:12 PM

      RalphH: "A soul is not a ‘thing’, it’s the essence of something - making it the core element (Note: it’s not physical even though calling it an element may give that impression). Maybe you could say it’s the ‘is-ness’/that which makes it what it is, of something. Although not spatial, a soul permeates the entire being i.e. is universally present throughout"

      This is false. I would have to write a book for complete refutation so a summary will have to suffice.

      1. The only rational meaning of 'soul'[and spirit] is *pertaining to consciousness.* That is not relevant with the sperm/ovum which are entirely physical. The only thing they convey from the 'parents' is physical - genetic material. Sperm/ovum/embryo/foetus is not ensouled and entirely physical. Consciousness/mind/soul/spirit requires a developed brain.

      2. Your claim that "soul permeates the entire being" MEANS that it's spatial.

      3. Your concept of "essence" is hopelessly confused - a real dog's breakfast [to continue canine theme]. There is a sense in which you can refer to the *essence* of man as his rational faculty which simply means that reason is his most *important* [or defining] attribute. However most important does NOT mean *more real.* The rational faculty is more important than a toe, finger or nose but all are just as real. The concept of essence is a synonym for 'definition' - it is a concept of epistemology - not metaphysics.

      "With a complex entity like a human one would not talk about souls of individual parts unless they were being considered in isolation (as one can do when looking at something scientifically)"

      Soul, in that context, is nonsense. Can you give an example of a scientist doing that? :)

      "There is something of the parent soul embodied in the sperm"

      Also nonsense. A sperm is entirely physical and gets only half its parent's genes [also physical].

      "If you can take that all in you’re probably good for a ‘Smacko’"

      I'll pass that up thanks but TobyS says 'woof.'

      Delete
    58. MalcolmS11:41 PM

      Kate[quoting Read]: "Such is the ruling class in a capitalist society”"

      There is no such thing as "the ruling class" in a capitalist society. There are only individuals with the same rights and where all are equal before the law.

      "Ruling class" is a myth from the Marxist canon. As are 'race,' 'gender,' 'sexuality,' 'tribe' etc from the modern canon.

      You judge an individual on the basis of their character - not on the basis of an unchosen accident of birth or collective to which they inadvertently belong.

      Delete
    59. "There is no such thing as "the ruling class" in a capitalist society."

      Oh boy Malcolm, and you think Ralph is delusional! And Ralph calls me literal! You two boys are more alike than you know and frequently present a fascinating yet tedious juxtaposition of frustrating and nasty against funny and nonsensical.

      Jesus Malcolm, you really don't believe that Gina, Clive, young Packer, Murdoch (senior and junior) et al aren't the ruling class of Australia? Well, bugger me - you really have knocked me down with a feather - you've also kinda argued against yourself and your earlier thoughts about equality...

      If there is no ruling class then WTF do you mean by the "collective to which they inadvertently belong"? What collective if not a ruling class?

      Two glasses of wine downed and my swearing does not indicate anger - just great amusement and incredulity. Back to glass number 3 methinks... Have a good night fellas....

      Actually, while I'm pondering blogging while on the plonk I have to ask. Ralph do you drink before posting this wackadoodle tripe? "Although not spatial, a soul permeates the entire being i.e. is universally present throughout." I was at work when I snorted my tea over that farcical nonsense - no drinking for several days prior to tonight...

      Delete
    60. MalcolmS6:03 AM

      Kate: "Jesus Malcolm, you really don't believe that Gina, Clive, young Packer, Murdoch (senior and junior) et al aren't the ruling class of Australia?"

      Where did I claim that? What makes you think this is a capitalist country? There has not been anything close to a capitalist country anywhere in the world in the last century. FYI Abbott and the conservatives are no less socialist/collectivist/statist than Krudd and Ju-liar.

      That's all I have to say on the matter until you sober up and wash out your stinking potty mouth!

      Delete
    61. RalphH 29/056:31 AM

      “Actually, while I'm pondering blogging while on the plonk I have to ask. Ralph do you drink before posting this wackadoodle tripe? "Although not spatial, a soul permeates the entire being i.e. is universally present throughout." I was at work when I snorted my tea over that farcical nonsense - no drinking for several days prior to tonight…” (Kate2:24 AM)

      “wackadoodle” - that’s a new one Kate so I looked it up -

      “An eccentric, ditsy, arcane, funny, person. Is generally a goodnatured and sympathetic person. Not to be confused with a "wackjob," who can be nasty,or violent.”
      http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=wackadoodle

      I like the “goodnatured and sympathetic person” bit. Looks like an inadvertent compliment to me - must have been those 3 glasses of vino I suspect.

      When you can get a concept of how something can be IN space yet not OF space you’ll be on your way to understanding how God exists. More wine won’t help, you just have to use your intelligence. That’s what I do believe it or not.

      Delete
    62. RalphH 30/058:51 PM

      “Not necessarily Ralph. There are all sorts of states in which matter/energy can exist. Consider the big bang theory[a theory I don't accept as anything other than "theory"]. According to this "theory" all the stuff of the universe was once condensed into a tiny point which went bang! Now, at that point, all the stuff of the universe existed AND there was no space or time! So, at that point, the universe was obviously ETERNAL[out of time] and completely NATURAL. Even in that scenario God would be redundant. What caused the "bang"[if it actually happened]?? The nature/identity of the stuff that went bang!! Nothing changes in this respect simply because the universe expands. The totality is still eternal and natural.” (MalcolmS9:38 PM)

      Let’s see Malcolm, you don’t accept the Big Bang theory but argue in terms of it anyway. That’s hardly a good start.

      Assuming the universe were “condensed into a tiny point”, it would still be a ‘natural’ point, not an eternal one. A “point” is a point in space regardless of how infinitely small it may be. If the universe is from an eternal source it may give the impression of being eternal even though, of itself, it is not.

      Whether God is redundant or not depends entirely on your definition of God. With some of the definitions you’ve come up with no wonder you think (Him) redundant. IMO, as soon as one mentions ‘eternal’ they are talking about God because God not only is eternal, (He) is ‘The Eternal Itself’.

      “You need to differentiate between metaphysical existence/being/nature which the philosophers study and its numerous components in the expanded world which sum to the metaphysical and which the scientists study.”

      So you do make a distinction between different levels/types of existence? Where do you get the idea that ‘physical things’ (I assume that’s what you mean by “its numerous components in the expanded world”) “sum to the metaphysical”?
      ———————-

      Delete
    63. MalcolmS10:00 PM

      RalphH: "Let’s see Malcolm, you don’t accept the Big Bang theory but argue in terms of it anyway. That’s hardly a good start"

      It's an excellent start because it gives an example of a hypothetical world which is hugely different from the world in which we live. In fact our living in such a context would be impossible. Yet it is an existence which is eternal[out of time], thisworldly and totally natural. No spooks required. The only thing I currently categorically reject about 'big bang' is an ex nihilo creation but the rest still requires proof.

      "Assuming the universe were “condensed into a tiny point”, it would still be a ‘natural’ point, not an eternal one"

      On the contrary. It would be eternal because it exists *out of time* as it does in its expanded state. You are correct that it would be natural.

      "A “point” is a point in space regardless of how infinitely small it may be"

      If the "point" is all there is, then, it is not *in space.* The point is aspatial. Outside the point there is nothing!

      "If the universe is from an eternal source it may give the impression of being eternal even though, of itself, it is not"

      Your "if" does not arise. I am not interested in your "belief" or "IMO"s.

      "Whether God is redundant or not depends entirely on your definition of God"

      That's totally false. It depends on whether He exists! First you must demonstrate that He does exist! Only then can you define Him.

      "With some of the definitions you’ve come up with no wonder you think (Him) redundant"

      On the contrary. I take *your* definition/s and demonstrate that it/they involves a contradiction.

      "IMO, as soon as one mentions ‘eternal’ they are talking about God because God not only is eternal, (He) is ‘The Eternal Itself’"

      Eternal simply means *out of time* and is a natural concept.

      “So you do make a distinction between different levels/types of existence?"

      I certainly distinguish between different "types of existence," such as shoes, ships, sealing-wax, cabbages and kings but they are not different "levels" of things! Anything which exists exists and is fully real.

      "Where do you get the idea that ‘physical things’ (I assume that’s what you mean by “its numerous components in the expanded world”) “sum to the metaphysical”?"

      Physical things plus other things which pertain to consciousness are what scientists study. The generalisations and principles which pertain to *everything* are what the metaphysician studies.

      Delete
    64. RalphH 31/056:14 PM

      “It's an excellent start because it gives an example of a hypothetical world which is hugely different from the world in which we live. In fact our living in such a context would be impossible. Yet it is an existence which is eternal[out of time], thisworldly and totally natural. No spooks required. The only thing I currently categorically reject about 'big bang' is an ex nihilo creation but the rest still requires proof.” (MalcolmS10:00 PM)

      I also reject “ex-nihilo creation” and have reservations about the ‘big bang’ being a ‘bang’. I find your definition of eternal as being “out of time” doesn’t ring true for me. I see it as simply a play on wordsthat explains nothing.

      I view eternal as the big picture and time as a sub-set within the eternal. It seems to me that you try to conflate the set (self/independently existing/eternal) with the sub-set (dependant existence/time and space limited). Why?

      Time and space (the natural world) is not eternal even if reduced to an infinitely small point. There is a contiguous leap between ‘infinite and eternal’ and ‘finite and time-limited’ just as there is between cause and effect.

      “On the contrary. It (the condensed universe) would be eternal because it exists *out of time* as it does in its expanded state. You are correct that it would be natural.”

      No entity is eternal “because it exists”. There are many things (everything of the natural/physical world for example) that exist that are not eternal.

      “If the "point" is all there is, then, it is not *in space.* The point is aspatial. Outside the point there is nothing!”

      I disagree. As long as it is a point, it has physical dimension regardless of how infinitesimally small that may be. Assuming there is no physical dimension we are talking about a different realm or dimension not the natural one. There is no such ‘thing’ as “nothing”.

      “*”Whether God is redundant or not depends entirely on your definition of God” (RH)

      That's totally false. It depends on whether He exists! First you must demonstrate that He does exist! Only then can you define Him.”

      That’s putting the cart before the horse - it’s like voting for a republic before we’ve defined what we want a republic to be. We know that something exists that causes the reality we are conscious of so we need to define it in terms of what would cause the effects we are aware of.

      “On the contrary. I take *your* definition/s and demonstrate that it/they involves a contradiction.”

      If that’s what you think you’re doing, you’ve failed miserably. The only contradiction I’ve seen is yours - conflating natural and eternal when it obviously doesn’t work.

      “I certainly distinguish between different "types of existence," such as shoes, ships, sealing-wax, cabbages and kings but they are not different "levels" of things! Anything which exists exists and is fully real.”

      These are not “different “types of existence”, they’ll all examples of physical existence. Yes, they are all real for as long as they exist but they only have a temporal existence so are not as real as something that has eternal existence (which obviously is a different type of existence).

      Delete
    65. MalcolmS10:18 PM

      Part 1

      RalphH: "I also reject “ex-nihilo creation” and have reservations about the ‘big bang’ being a ‘bang’"

      It's a figure of speech. There can be no 'bang' where there are no ears!

      "I find your definition of eternal as being “out of time” doesn’t ring true for me"

      Obviously. That's because your definition is false.

      "I see it as simply a play on words that explains nothing"

      That's because you have a false view of 'time.'[see below] My position on the eternal is what we observe metaphysically. It has nothing to do with the creative, primitive, fantasy of religion.

      "I view eternal as the big picture and time as a sub-set within the eternal"

      So do I! But then you take leave of your senses and start making things up!

      "Time and space (the natural world) is not eternal even if reduced to an infinitely small point"

      No, time and space do not *equate* to the natural world although time and space are entirely natural. Time and space are *relationships* between entities which exist within the natural world.

      Furthermore, There is no such thing as an "infinitely small point" existing in reality. Such a point would be zero and zero is the nonexistent. Same with the "infinitely large"! Remember that mathematics is the human method of measuring reality and consists of many abstractions of which 'point' is only one. An abstraction is as *real* as a physical entity but exists as a *mental* entity. You continually, falsely equate metaphysics[reality] with epistemology[method of knowing reality].

      Delete
    66. MalcolmS10:26 PM

      Part 2

      RalphH: “There are many things (everything of the natural/physical world for example) that exist that are not eternal"

      My claim is that the totality [including God if you can prove Him] is eternal.

      “I disagree. As long as it is a point, it has physical dimension regardless of how infinitesimally small that may be. Assuming there is no physical dimension we are talking about a different realm or dimension not the natural one. There is no such ‘thing’ as “nothing”"

      LOL Such confusion! There is no such thing as an "infinitely small point" existing in reality[see above]. For the purposes of 'big bang' that "point" could just as well have been the size of a spherical football field! Who knows? - it's only theory without evidence.

      “"*”Whether God is redundant or not depends entirely on your definition of God” (RH)... It depends on whether He exists! First you must demonstrate that He does exist! Only then can you define Him.” [MS] That’s putting the cart before the horse [RH]"

      False! Before you can define man you must be able to determine his defining attribute as distinct from his nondefining attributes. Same with 'cat,' 'dog,' etc. Your knowledge of epistemology is appalling.

      ".. it’s like voting for a republic before we’ve defined what we want a republic to be"

      We can already define a republic because we have observed numerous examples throughout history!

      “The only contradiction I’ve seen is yours - conflating natural and eternal when it obviously doesn’t work"

      There is no contradiction between the natural and the eternal. That's just how reality is. Your problem arises when you invent spooks and otherworlds.

      “These are not “different “types of existence”, they’ll all examples of physical existence. Yes, they are all real for as long as they exist but they only have a temporal existence so are not as real as something that has eternal existence (which obviously is a different type of existence)"

      Shoes, ships, sealing-wax, cabbages and kings are just as real as the things which replace them when they are gone. As are all other things. The totality of all these things is just as real as the entities which make up the totality. The totality of all these things cannot become nothing. Nothing did not become the totality. The totality is eternal[out of time]. The individual entities are temporal[within time]. The totality is just as real as are the particulars which make it up.

      Delete
    67. "What makes you think this is a capitalist country?"

      Dear Professor Pedant, the University of Lower Buttcrack must be thrilled to have you on staff in their faculty of Nit-picking and Inability to See the Big Picture.

      Delete
    68. "When you can get a concept of how something can be IN space yet not OF space you’ll be on your way to understanding how God exists."

      Ralph to accept that twaddle I would have to keelhaul my intelligence and throw overboard my ability for rational thinking.

      "I like the “goodnatured and sympathetic person” bit. Looks like an inadvertent compliment to me" This sums up perfectly everything you believe in. Focus on the bits that are appealling to your ego and ignore anything that's not to appealling - just as you do with massive chunks of the bible and your hocus pocus religion.

      Delete
    69. MalcolmS7:34 PM

      Kate: "Inability to See the Big Picture"

      As it happens the "big picture" is that we live in a "mixed economy" and there has been nothing resembling a capitalist country in over a century. The people you slime, although of a degree of competence you'll never emulate, are not "capitalists." All must rely on government favours/laws to function. We have a mild form of fascism - not capitalism - a form of government you endorse by voting for them. The difference between Howard/Abbott and Krudd/Juliar is miniscule although the former may have been better bookkeepers.

      Delete
    70. MalcolmS7:37 PM

      Kate: "Ralph to accept that twaddle I would have to keelhaul my intelligence and throw overboard my ability for rational thinking"

      LOL So far so good.

      Delete
    71. Malcolm

      The people I slime? Too funny coming from the master slimer.

      The people I slime may well be more competent than me - I'm sure that there are billions of people on the planet who fall into that category - so what? I have no desire to emulate their competance in self-serving hypocrisy and being a drain on society.

      Big picture, the quote, whether or not we are a capitalist society, is rather apt. Those I mentioned are parasites, but I should have included politicians in the list.

      "...a form of government you endorse by voting for them." I knew it was crowded in the polling both, but I never realised you were in there with me and had full knowledge of how I vote. With omniscience such as yours, it's amazing that you don't believe in a god - with you in the title role.

      "LOL So far so good." The master slimer returns to his only and amply demostrated forte.

      Delete
    72. MalcolmS10:10 PM

      Kate: "Those I mentioned are parasites"

      Actually those you continue to slime are far more productive than most. However we would be far better off if *every* citizen were free of government interference to pursue their own lives and not just the state chosen few. That's how it was when some countries were free.. er.. capitalist.

      Delete
    73. "Actually those you continue to slime are far more productive than most." Again, so what? On what basis are you measuring their productivity? Please enlighten us as to the evidence you have access to that proves the productivity of anyone. Even if they are super-productive, does that mean they are above criticism?

      Delete
    74. MalcolmS11:00 PM

      Kate: "On what basis are you measuring their productivity? Please enlighten us as to the evidence you have access to that proves the productivity of anyone"

      The actions of the people who have produced and run the world's largest, most profitable and most productive newspapers and mining companies speak for themselves. The "basis" is the billions their customers elect to pay for their product. Where is your evidence that they are parasites?

      "Even if they are super-productive, does that mean they are above criticism?"

      Criticism for what? For raising the living standards of all who choose to deal with them?

      Delete
    75. RalphH 02/052:00 AM

      “Ralph to accept that twaddle I would have to keelhaul my intelligence and throw overboard my ability for rational thinking.” (Kate3:17 PM)

      Well I’ve done it and still have intelligence and rational thinking. Here’s a simple one to start with. Love - it exists in space but is not in or dependant on space. I’m sure you can think of some others.

      "I like the “goodnatured and sympathetic person” bit. Looks like an inadvertent compliment to me" This sums up perfectly everything you believe in. Focus on the bits that are appealling to your ego and ignore anything that's not to appealling - just as you do with massive chunks of the bible and your hocus pocus religion."

      I don’t pick and choose or “ignore” anything in the Bible Kate. If one believes that it is the ‘Word of God’ then every bit of it is infinite wisdom - not necessarily on the surface but as far as it’s spirit (or real meaning) is concerned.

      Because I’ve grown up with it, been trained how to understand it and have seen the logic and sense of it, I don’t focus on the external, literal stories (which can be quite gross if their purpose is not understood) but on the inner, spiritual meaning that they portray to anyone who understands the correspondence between the body (natural things) and the mind (spiritual things).

      For example, the evil nations that are wiped out in the OT represent evil thoughts and feelings in the mind that need to be eradicated if a person is going to become a channel for goodness and usefulness and hence become happy and content.

      Delete
    76. MalcolmS7:24 AM

      ".. the evil nations that are wiped out in the OT represent evil thoughts and feelings in the mind that need to be eradicated if a person is going to become a channel for goodness and usefulness and hence become happy and content"

      There is no such thing as "evil thoughts and feelings." How are you going to know the difference between what is good or evil if you don't think about such things? Thinking what it would mean to murder/rob someone is the very means you use to determine that it's evil and that you should not do it! You really do say some ridiculous things sometimes Ralph! That's the sort of nonsense you end up with when you substitute [alleged] "revelation" for rational thought.

      Delete
    77. RalphH 03/068:31 AM

      “RalphH: *“There are many things (everything of the natural/physical world for example) that exist that are not eternal”*

      My claim is that the totality [including God if you can prove Him] is eternal.” (MalcolmS10:26 PM) Part 2


      So (your story) - the total of non-eternal/temporal things is eternal? As my mum used to say before she passed on three years ago, “tell it to the marines” or “pull the other one/leg”.

      Also, you consistently insist on God being a thing amongst things whereas the general understanding of God is as the creator of things and therefore on a higher or prior level. Asking for ‘proof of God as ‘a thing among things’ is ridiculous when the essential nature of God (if [He] exists) is as an entity above all other entities.

      In your Part 1 above (MalcolmS10:18 PM) you agreed with my set/sub-set analogy but here you are melding the two together as if there is no distinction. That’s what I call a “contradiction”.

      “There is no contradiction between the natural and the eternal. That's just how reality is. Your problem arises when you invent spooks and otherworlds.”

      There is no contradiction in the fact that both natural (sub-set) and eternal (set) things exist but there is contradiction in claiming them to be side by side attributes of the same universe. The eternal is within (or above) the natural/temporal as the cause is within/prior to the effect. I do not “invent” anything. Like it or not, reality is hierarchical with the physical/natural being at the lower/outer extremity of the chain.

      “*“These are not “different “types of existence”, they’ll all examples of physical existence. Yes, they are all real for as long as they exist but they only have a temporal existence so are not as real as something that has eternal existence (which obviously is a different type of existence)”* (RH)

      Shoes, ships, sealing-wax, cabbages and kings are just as real as the things which replace them when they are gone. As are all other things. The totality of all these things is just as real as the entities which make up the totality. The totality of all these things cannot become nothing. Nothing did not become the totality. The totality is eternal[out of time]. The individual entities are temporal[within time]. The totality is just as real as are the particulars which make it up.”

      This is possibly the most confusing paragraph you’ve ever written Malcolm and it doesn’t even address the concept that I put forward. What on earth has ‘the “totality” of things’ got do with anything? Natural things (e.g your above list) are only “real” for as long as they exist and they don’t hang around for long before being recycled in some way. Eternal things, on the other hand (e.g. the things in a human that make up the character - the loves and intentions for good or ill), continue existing ad infinitum - BECAUSE THAT’S WHAT ETERNAL MEANS.

      Delete
    78. Malcolm, most of those I slimed inherited their wealth and their companies (I don't have a problem with that), all they have done is grown existing businesses. I think many people born into those circumstances could achieve exactly the same thing (not me, I have no head for business or political strategy, but I have friends who do and they could have done exactly those things had they had the same accident of birth). You can't give them credit for producing anything other than their own work - you appear to be giving them credit for what their employees produce.

      Most of those I slimed don't pay personal income tax or the medicare levy. That makes them parasites. Young Packer, in the year he declared a personal income tax of $0 managed to pay for an $8M wedding. During the one period of my life when I had no income I couldn't pay $8 to go to the movies on Tight-arse Tuesday.

      Those I slime have great political power and use it entirely for their own business and personal gain. That makes them parasites.

      "For raising the living standards of all who choose to deal with them?" Blimey, it never occured to me you would be so worshipful of the rich and powerful. Mining has delivered very little in the way of raised living standards for Australians other than a very few, and predominantly Gina. Exactly what living standards have the Packers and the Murdochs elevated? I would argue that Packer's casino interest also make him a prime parasite candidate and have actively lowered the living standards for many Australians.

      Delete
    79. "Well I’ve done it and still have intelligence and rational thinking." A highly debatable claim.

      "Here’s a simple one to start with." Here's a simple rule for you to follow - keep your patronising shit to yourself.

      Delete
    80. RalphH 04/068:03 AM

      “There is no such thing as "evil thoughts and feelings." How are you going to know the difference between what is good or evil if you don't think about such things? Thinking what it would mean to murder/rob someone is the very means you use to determine that it's evil and that you should not do it! You really do say some ridiculous things sometimes Ralph! That's the sort of nonsense you end up with when you substitute [alleged] "revelation" for rational thought.” (MalcolmS7:24 AM)

      Malcolm, I’m afraid you’re full of contradiction. First you say that, “There is no such thing as "evil thoughts and feelings.” and then proceed to explain how you determine which are good and which evil. Yes, you can determine which “thoughts and feelings" are evil but you need to access a higher level of thought to be able to do so.

      Bingo! There you have the two levels of mind I’ve spoken of - the natural and the spiritual. The spiritual can judge the quality of the natural but only if there is an objective standard higher than the subjective thought and feeling of the (lower) natural mind. That objective standard is revelation in some form - not just anything claimed to be revelation but revelation that can be rationally seen to be true.

      IOW, the love of truth has to triumph over the subjective whims and foibles (selfish wishes) of the natural level of the mind by taking it’s cue from the objective being and source of truth i.e. what many would call God.

      Delete
    81. MalcolmS9:36 AM

      RalphH: "Malcolm, I’m afraid you’re full of contradiction. First you say that, “There is no such thing as "evil thoughts and feelings.” and then proceed to explain how you determine which are good and which evil"

      I said that there is no such thing as evil thoughts and feelings and then added that that is how you know that murder/theft is evil! In other words "thoughts" are good, the *act* of murder/theft is evil and you can know by the correct use of your own mind!

      "Bingo! There you have the two levels of mind I’ve spoken of - the natural and the spiritual. The spiritual can judge the quality of the natural but only if there is an objective standard higher than the subjective thought and feeling of the (lower) natural mind"

      FYI Ralph, the mind is *both* natural and spiritual[non-physical]. There is only one reality and one "level" and it is available to anyone prepared to observe. Existence, being and nature are one and the same. There is no contradiction. Stop making stuff up!

      "Yes, you can determine which “thoughts and feelings" are evil but you need to access a higher level of thought to be able to do so"

      So, in other words, Ralph only knows that murder/theft is evil because it said so on the tablets of stone Moses allegedly brought down from Sinai and not as a result of Ralph's independent thought!

      Ralph, you would have to be one of the biggest imbeciles to have walked this Earth! Or its biggest liar!

      Delete
    82. MalcolmS9:39 AM

      BTW Ralph

      I presume, from the deafening silence following my post[11:12 PM], that you no longer hold that sperm/ovum are ensouled/conscious and accept that they are physical. Were you just making stuff up? Do you realise that's what it means to lie?

      Delete
    83. RalphH 04/065:21 PM

      “BTW Ralph

      I presume, from the deafening silence following my post[11:12 PM], that you no longer hold that sperm/ovum are ensouled/conscious and accept that they are physical. Were you just making stuff up? Do you realise that's what it means to lie?” (MalcolmS9:39 AM)

      Then you “presume” quite wrongly Malcolm. I don’t spend all day blogging so have to be selective in the time I allocate. Also we’re both so stubborn that there does have to come a time when one has to let the other have the ‘last word’ temporarily even though we still continue to disagree.

      Just for future reference, I don’t “mak(e) stuff up” and I don’t lie. You remind me of Andrew R when you use that line and I’m sure you wouldn’t want that comparison. The main difference between us is that I am positive toward God and religion and you are negative. All that flap-doodle about ‘proof’ is just a smoke screen when one is dealing with something that transcends ‘physical’ consciousness.

      Delete
    84. MalcolmS9:05 PM

      RalphH: "Just for future reference, I don’t “mak(e) stuff up” and I don’t lie. You remind me of Andrew R when you use that line and I’m sure you wouldn’t want that comparison"

      You make stuff up and lie - there is no difference! Your every contradiction is evidence of an untruth even if not a lie. However, continual statement of contradiction when refuted is a lie! You provide no evidence for sperm/ovum being other than physical whilst substituting "belief" for evidence. That's a lie Ralph.

      Furthermore, I am more than happy to have "that comparison" to AndrewR when he asserted that you make stuff up as it's a refreshing statement of truth.

      Delete
    85. MalcolmS9:08 PM

      RalphH: "The main difference between us is that I am positive toward God and religion and you are negative"

      The main difference between us is that I start with the sensory facts[the evidence] from which my principles/abstractions are induced whereas you start with an "I wish" and rationalise to "I believe." *Castles in the air* are no substitute for proper epistemology.

      Delete
    86. MalcolmS11:27 PM

      Kate: "Malcolm, most of those I slimed inherited their wealth and their companies (I don't have a problem with that), all they have done is grown existing businesses"

      Yes, and it's still a magnificent achievement. If memory serves me correctly Gina inherited 40 million from Lang and is now worth 80 billion and is the world's richest woman so much of that achievement is hers. You are the first to scream "sexism" yet when confronted by a high achieving woman you squeal with envious outrage.

      "I think many people born into those circumstances could achieve exactly the same thing (not me, I have no head for business or political strategy, but I have friends who do and they could have done exactly those things had they had the same accident of birth)"

      So what? In capitalist nineteenth century US there was a common expression: "from shirt sleeves to shirt sleeves in three generations" which described the nature of inherited wealth. Unless the heir was up to the competence of the creator the fortune was soon lost.

      "You can't give them credit for producing anything other than their own work - you appear to be giving them credit for what their employees produce"

      Then why didn't those employees leave, set up their own mining enterprises and put Lang/Gina out of business? If you think wealth is produced by manual labour then you are seriously deluded. Nobody paid higher wages than Lang/Gina.

      "Most of those I slimed don't pay personal income tax or the medicare levy. That makes them parasites"

      You are seriously deluded. Payment of income tax is always optional for the rich [and politicians of both sides]. Lang/Gina certainly paid company/mining tax and royalties. The people who pay income tax are the middle class. The "parasites" are the non-productive swill who receive free medical care, education, dole, housing and dogsbody handouts of any description.

      "During the one period of my life when I had no income I couldn't pay $8 to go to the movies on Tight-arse Tuesday"

      So what? Your incompetence is not a claim on the lives of others.

      "Those I slime have great political power and use it entirely for their own business and personal gain. That makes them parasites"

      They have economic power, which they have earned, and not political power. You should learn the difference some time. There is no political power in a capitalist/free society - only in a mixed economy where they can bribe politicians. In a capitalist/free society there is separation of state and economics and politicians have no hold on them.

      "Blimey, it never occured to me you would be so worshipful of the rich and powerful"

      I admire the competent and the able. The non-productive swill bore me. I admire the rich if it is a product of their own effort. The "powerful" [Ju-liar, Krudd, Howard, Abbott] bore my tits off.

      "Mining has delivered very little in the way of raised living standards for Australians other than a very few, and predominantly Gina"

      Absolute rubbish! It has been one of our larger earners for over a century. Get your facts right. Without it we would be Greece or worse.

      Delete
    87. Malcom, I'm sorry you're so angry with me and the world; it was not my intention to get you so riled up. Though it is a shame you are so incompetent when it comes to having a reasonable discussion; you are incapable of refraining from personal slurs and wild and nasty assumptions - it fascinating that you have never made a nice assumption about any one commenting here; they are always nasty. What a sad, lonely headspace to live in.

      Your sad little attempts to insult me reveal much about your level of anger and how devoid you are of empathy. However, as much as I have found your comments interesting over the years, I have also found them disturbing in their level of anger and unnecessary derision and with an almost total absence of humour.

      You win; I'm checking out too. I'll leave you and Ralph to bicker alone and together - in what is possibly the best demonstration of incompetence I've ever seen - all these years on and neither of you has found any middle ground or ever acknowledged anything other than ferocious certainty.

      Sorry Dick, it just isn't any fun anymore.

      Delete
    88. RalphH 06/065:59 PM

      “I admire the competent and the able. The non-productive swill bore me. I admire the rich if it is a product of their own effort.” (MalcolmS11:27 PM)

      Malcolm, I find your ideologically driven capitalist ‘economics’ completely inhumane and disgusting. It’s main attributes seem to be ‘might (where the might is the power that goes with wealth) is right’ and survival of the fittest (the fittest being those with business acumen and a lust for wealth). You’d probably make a good Scrooge (prior to his awakening to what a stupid jerk he’d been most of his life.)

      You don’t seem to have a clue as to the true purpose of life which is to love and be of service to other people. IOW, it’s about choosing to be a slave to good rather than a slave to selfishness (the Randian philosophy as far as I can see). I like the fact that you reason things through - at times you hit on some important truths - but some of your initial assumptions are so distorted that the reasoning process only causes further distortion.

      You say you recognise that all people are not equal yet treat them as equals as to their ability to control their economic wellbeing. You don’t seem to get that many ‘producers’ are not perfect. They can be driven by greed, and produce rubbish that merely appeals to the lowest and most destructive in human nature.

      They can practice economic slavery and monopolise various aspects of the market. Many are far greater parasites on society than “the non-productive swill" on meagre state welfare. ‘Competence and ability’ are not entirely a matter of choice - remember ‘all people are not created equal’.

      The ‘real’ distinction in society is not between the ‘have’s’ and the ‘have not’s’ or the ‘producers’ or the ‘non-producers’ (someone who produces a smile may be doing far more for the human race than someone who produces millions of dollars worth of weapons or pornographic movies) but peoples’ attitude towards their fellowman/women.

      Are they there to take or to give? Are they there to bolster their own materialistic well-being and security only or do they care about other’s, particularly, those who may not be as smart or physically or socially perfect as they see themselves as being?

      Delete
    89. MalcolmS7:19 PM

      Kate: "I'm checking out too"

      What? Without being able to answer even one of my points? LOL Let's face it, Kate, you have no answers.

      "Empathy"? Like yours for productive giants such as Gina?

      Delete
    90. MalcolmS8:07 PM

      RalphH: "You don’t seem to have a clue as to the true purpose of life which is to love and be of service to other people"

      Wow! The comedians are really up and running today. How your Christian humility deserts you when your ideas prove inadequate! Spare me the lecture on love Ralph. You have never grasped that before you can say "I love you" you must first learn to say the *I.* Or that to love is to value.

      Would you care to demonstrate why "service to other people" is the "true purpose of life"? I mean 'prove' and not arbitrarily assert.

      When you have done so I suggest you explain why you have been a worthier servant to that principle than has Gina Rinehart.

      Or, on second thoughts, go and explain it to your spook.

      Delete
    91. RalphH 06/066:59 AM

      “Wow! The comedians are really up and running today. How your Christian humility deserts you when your ideas prove inadequate! Spare me the lecture on love Ralph. You have never grasped that before you can say "I love you" you must first learn to say the *I.* Or that to love is to value.” (MalcolmS8:07 PM)

      Maybe you could explain what you mean by “Christian humility” and my “ideas prov(ing) inadequate” rather than just “arbitrarily assert(ing)”, Malcolm.

      Loving others is not about *saying* (words are cheap) but showing by actions and attitude that one loves and is concerned for others.

      It is important to recognise what the *I* is so that one can see oneself as a brother/sister/fellow traveller/channel for good rather than a self-important ego lauding it over others.

      So, is love (in your eyes) the seeing of value/good/worth in someone else or the seeing of their value to self?

      “Would you care to demonstrate why "service to other people" is the "true purpose of life"? I mean 'prove' and not arbitrarily assert.”

      Common-sense; when everyone is looking after everyone else's’ back then everyone is being looked out for/after - result - no problems. When everyone (or even some) are only looking out for themselves - result - big to massive problems. Welcome to the world through most of history.

      “When you have done so I suggest you explain why you have been a worthier servant to that principle than has Gina Rinehart.”

      I’ve not suggested that I am worthier than anyone (that’s the way you think Malcolm with your ‘non-productive swill’ etc.). Gina Rinehart may be a better and worthier person than I am. It’s not my business to judge her but I’m sure she doesn’t ‘earn’ the loads of cash that keep rolling in for her. There would be many who work much harder than she does - many for a pittance and many even as volunteers.

      I’m not suggesting that she should give it up but “To whomever much is given, of him/her will much be required; and to whom much was entrusted, of him/her more will be asked.” (Luke 12:35-48, World English Bible)

      ‘Or, on second thoughts, go and explain it to your spook.”

      I don’t have a “spook” Malcolm and I certainly wouldn’t talk to yours.

      Delete
    92. MalcolmS8:50 AM

      RalphH: "Gina Rinehart may be a better and worthier person than I am. It’s not my business to judge her but I’m sure she doesn’t ‘earn’ the loads of cash that keep rolling in for her"

      You just judged her Ralph and, as usual, abysmally.

      Yes, she earns every cent. The only money she receives is for her product which she sells only to those who choose to buy it. If she hasn't earned it who in the hell has?

      Delete
    93. RalphH 08/069:00 AM

      “You just judged her Ralph and, as usual, abysmally.” (MalcolmS8:50 AM)

      I didn’t judge (Gina Rinehart) as a person, Malcolm, I made a value judgement on some/part of her behaviour. Behaviour is distinct from being. It can be changed at any time through learning and determination.

      A person takes a lifetime to choose their true/final quality (good or evil) which only becomes irrevocably ‘fixed’ when the physical body dies and they leave the physical world behind.

      “Yes, she earns every cent. The only money she receives is for her product which she sells only to those who choose to buy it. If she hasn't earned it who in the hell has?”

      I think that’s a very selective use of the term “earn”. Not long ago we were told that GR earns/increases her wealth by over $1m every 30 minutes. (see https://www.facebook.com/abc/posts/228617370583428 ) To get is not necessarily to “earn”. To earn means to work for. I don’t believe anyone could earn a $1000 EVERY 30 minutes let alone a million.

      What makes it “her product”? It’s only “her product” if she produces it or to the extent that she obtains it through her effort. Ownership is not set in stone. More than one person can claim ownership of the same thing.

      Ownership of the earth and the earth’s resources are bequeathed by arbitrary man/(human)-made laws often made by individuals or groups in their own best interests and to the exclusion of others. These become monopolies that can be used for controlling the production of wealth and funnelling the majority of it to the so-called owners.

      We do need some sort of hierarchical system of land control or tenure. However, morally it needs to be one that recognises that the land is not actually owned by anyone because they did not produce it. It is a free gift, collectively to all the citizens of a country, either of Nature or, if one believes in God, of God (it’s creator/producer).

      If some claim or are granted exclusive tenure, proper restitution needs to be made to those who are excluded, not a one off bag of beads or a blanket or axe as were originally given to native peoples but an ongoing share of anything that is produced on or because of exclusive ‘right’ to use that land.

      Delete
    94. MalcolmS4:00 AM

      RalphH: "I didn’t judge (Gina Rinehart) as a person, Malcolm, I made a value judgement on some/part of her behaviour. Behaviour is distinct from being"

      Another spook! You cannot disembody "behaviour" from "a person" you dopey mystic. It is a person's volitional behaviour which you "judge." NOT their "being" which is metaphysically given and non-volitional!

      ".. the physical body dies and they leave the physical world behind"

      The physical body never leaves the physical world. It simply changes its form. Consciousness can never be disembodied from brain. [Allowing for the myths and "beliefs" of the historical religious brainless of course]

      “I think that’s a very selective use of the term “earn”. Not long ago we were told that GR earns/increases her wealth by over $1m every 30 minutes.... I don’t believe anyone could earn a $1000 EVERY 30 minutes let alone a million"

      If Gina increases her wealth by "over $1m every 30 minutes" whilst working in her own business then she earns over $1m every 30 minutes. That is precisely what she earns/produces! Once again your "belief" collapses.

      "More than one person can claim ownership of the same thing"

      Yes, as in a partnership, association or shareholders and then in accordance with their contractual arrangements.

      "Ownership of the earth and the earth’s resources are bequeathed by arbitrary man/(human)-made laws often made by individuals or groups in their own best interests and to the exclusion of others"

      There is nothing "arbitrary" about property rights. Human beings have the inalienable right to their life, liberty, property and the happiness gained by these and property rights are their actual implementation. An individual's right to property is what distinguishes civilisation from the tribal where "property" is collective.

      "We do need some sort of hierarchical system of land control or tenure. However, morally it needs to be one that recognises that the land is not actually owned by anyone because they did not produce it. It is a free gift, collectively to all the citizens of a country, either of Nature or, if one believes in God, of God (it’s creator/producer)"

      Oh, you mean like Christian medieval serfdom and the Divine Right of Kings you primitive savage??

      "If some claim or are granted exclusive tenure, proper restitution needs to be made to those who are excluded, not a one off bag of beads or a blanket or axe as were originally given to native peoples but an ongoing share of anything that is produced on or because of exclusive ‘right’ to use that land"

      That's very generous of you Ralph! Why don't you advertise your address so that Sydney's homeless can move in?

      BTW Ralph, Gina employs aborigines who are highly trained to use complicated equipment and who "earn" six figure salaries! I'm betting that's far more than you have ever "earned" :) They, of course, are far less primitive and more productive than an indolent incompetent such as yourself.

      Delete
    95. RalphH 11/0612:28 AM

      “Another spook! You cannot disembody "behaviour" from "a person" you dopey mystic. It is a person's volitional behaviour which you "judge." NOT their "being" which is metaphysically given and non-volitional!” (MalcolmS4:00 AM)

      Disembody?? What on earth are you on about? If you have a child who indulges in some bad/anti-social behaviour (say bullying a sibling) do you immediately stereotype that child (as a bully) from that day forward? Children can be taught and guided to change bad behaviour.

      Adults (who have acquired their own rationality) can learn, reflect and compel themselves to change their destructive unwanted behaviours. The behaviour is not the person, the person is the will and intention behind the behaviour which can only become engrained/habitual through constant choice.

      *".. the physical body dies and they leave the physical world behind"* (RH)

      The physical body never leaves the physical world.”

      Agreed.

      “It simply changes its form.”

      The physical components are recycled into other forms.

      “Consciousness can never be disembodied from brain. [Allowing for the myths and "beliefs" of the historical religious brainless of course]”

      Consciousness is not physical. It is embodied in the spiritual which is temporally embodied in the physical. Loss of the physical brain, at the ‘death’ of the physical body, is not the end of consciousness only the end of consciousness of the physical.

      “If Gina increases her wealth by "over $1m every 30 minutes" whilst working in her own business then she earns over $1m every 30 minutes. That is precisely what she earns/produces! Once again your "belief" collapses.”

      My “belief” does not “collapse’ because you ‘believe’ something different. You have ignored the fact that I have used ‘earn’ as a result of effort. There is nothing sacrosanct about owning one’s own business. There is no ‘divine right’ of business owners to make windfall profits especially from national resources that are the legacy of the entire community.

      “There is nothing "arbitrary" about property rights. Human beings have the inalienable right to their life, liberty, property and the happiness gained by these and property rights are their actual implementation. An individual's right to property is what distinguishes civilisation from the tribal where "property" is collective.”

      On the contrary, the first claim of ownership of property is completely arbitrary - either by being the first one there or strongest (be they king/leader or individual). Civilisation is not indicative of property rights (they are merely trappings). Civility is the opposite of barbarity/savagery. It has much more to do with the inner life/the character than the external trappings.

      Delete
    96. RalphH 11/0612:40 AM

      Continuation - (MalcolmS4:00 AM)

      ‘Oh, you mean like Christian medieval serfdom and the Divine Right of Kings you primitive savage??”

      I’m not holding medieval serfdom up as an ideal. That was merely based on societal interpretations and developments of the times. We’ve come a long way from there to a large extent by better interpreting Christ’s message to the world.

      “That's very generous of you Ralph! Why don't you advertise your address so that Sydney's homeless can move in?”

      “You’ve got the wrong end of the stick again Malcolm. I’m not in a position to do that. I doubt you are either despite claiming to have worked hard and saved wisely for your retirement. But maybe Gina (with all that unearned excess) might be able to help out a bit. And there are plenty of other fat cats who could contribute without more than a slight blimp on the radar of their wealth.

      “BTW Ralph, Gina employs aborigines who are highly trained to use complicated equipment and who "earn" six figure salaries! I'm betting that's far more than you have ever "earned" :) They, of course, are far less primitive and more productive than an indolent incompetent such as yourself.”

      With you, it’s all about linking ‘production’ with material wealth and anyone who doesn’t tread your treadmill is “indolent” and “incompetent”. In the state of Bhutan they don’t talk about GNP(ruduct) they talk about GNH(appiness). www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Zqdqa4YNvI Many (in Western societies in particular) have their eyes so set on materialism that they miss the big picture - that it’s really about producing good - the common good (and hence happiness) for all in a sharing relationship.

      Where one acknowledges that all people are not equal (physically and mentally), excessive competitiveness combined with an egotistical sense of claiming ownership for one’s ‘gifts’ (i.e.being arrogant and self-righteous) destroys the harmony and fairness of society. It’s far more fair that everyone should share - not equally (because effort and enterprise needs to be rewarded) but, in a ‘civilised’ society, there is no real excuse for anyone being in want or below the ‘poverty line’.

      Many unemployed (in a technical, political/economic sense)/welfare recipients are not “indolent” and “incompetent”. Some ‘producers’ are because their wealth (and the power that accompanies it) has made it possible for them lord it over others, abrogate their rights and trap them in economic slavery. I suggest you stop stereotyping others based on external appearances.

      Delete
    97. MalcolmS10:06 AM

      RalphH: "Disembody?? What on earth are you on about?"

      You are the one who said: "behaviour is distinct from being." I was simply saying that "behaviour" is an attribute of "being" and you cannot have one distinct from the other. Your claim that: "I didn’t judge (Gina Rinehart) as a person" is bizarre on the face of it since the only part of a person you can judge is her "behaviour" and not her "person" even though they are of the same entity/being.

      "Consciousness is not physical. It is embodied in the spiritual which is temporally embodied in the physical"

      Consciousness is not "embodied in the spiritual." Consciousness *is* the spiritual! They are synonyms!

      "Loss of the physical brain, at the ‘death’ of the physical body, is not the end of consciousness only the end of consciousness of the physical"

      Stop talking garbage. A living brain *enables* consciousness. You cannot disembody consciousness from brain. When brain dies there is no consciousness. Period. Just as surely as 'green' goes out of existence when the grass dies. There is no point in asking "what happens to the hole when you eat the donut?" It is just as irrelevant a question!

      “You have ignored the fact that I have used ‘earn’ as a result of effort"

      You have ignored the fact that I have used 'earn' as a synonym for 'produce'! Furthermore, *production* is the application of reason to the problem of survival!! Reason is an attribute of the individual and not the collective. There is no such thing as a collective consciousness or collective brain. What you ignore is the fact that *production is spiritual* - production is the product of the mind!!

      "There is nothing sacrosanct about owning one’s own business"

      There is if you own one :)

      "There is no ‘divine right’ of business owners to make windfall profits especially from national resources that are the legacy of the entire community"

      There is no such thing as "divine rights" or "national resources." Or collective property except where the individuals in the "collective" have contractually consented to associate! Period! A "business owner" has the right to own property since his/its nature necessitates it. You cannot run a successful business where the "community" can do with it whatever it arbitrarily decides! He also has the right to the product of his thought/actions/profit. Or his bankruptcy if he fails!

      “.. the first claim of ownership of property is completely arbitrary"

      It most certainly is not arbitrary. Claim of ownership is based on the settling on a specific area to be used for a specific utilitarian purpose such as a home, a farm, a mine, a business, etc. Without property rights none of these would be possible. Read some political philosophy sometime.

      "Civilisation is not indicative of property rights"

      Correct! Property rights are indicative of civilisation :) Civilisation is the progress towards the private and away from the tribal.

      "We’ve come a long way from there[medieval serfdom] to a large extent by better interpreting Christ’s message to the world"

      What utter rubbish. "Render unto Caesar..." is an open invitation to dictatorship. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"[Marx] is a direct quote from the "Acts of the Apostles."

      Delete
    98. MalcolmS10:17 AM

      RalphH: “.. maybe Gina (with all that unearned excess) might be able to help out a bit[Ralph refusing to help the homeless]"

      There is no such thing as "unearned excess." There are only profits and they are all hers and her shareholders. She certainly "helps out a bit" by providing numerous high paying jobs which, without her business, would not exist. She also raises the standard of living of everyone who deals with her and buys her product.

      “In the state of Bhutan they don’t talk about GNP(ruduct) they talk about GNH(appiness).... Many (in Western societies in particular) have their eyes so set on materialism that they miss the big picture - that it’s really about producing good - the common good (and hence happiness) for all in a sharing relationship"

      LOL I didn't realise you were a hedonist Ralph :) I looked up Bhutan in Wiki and here is a quote: "In his speech, the King said that television was a critical step to the modernisation of Bhutan as well as a major contributor to the country's Gross National Happiness" Sounds a bit "materialist" for you Ralph :)

      Here's another:

      "In the 1990s, Bhutan expelled or forced to leave nearly one-fifth of its population in the name of preserving its Tibetan Mahayana Buddhist culture and identity, claiming that those expelled were illegal residents. The decision was motivated by the concern that the fast growing Nepali minority would take over the country, recalling similar events that caused the collapse of the nearby kingdom of Sikkim in 1975. The Lhotshampas, the dissidents, were allegedly subjected to harassment and arrests. An alleged harassment campaign escalating in the early 1990s ensued, and afterwards Bhutanese security forces began expelling people after making them renounce claims to their homes and homeland. Due to the violence, Bhutanese of Nepali origin, mainly Hindu, fled. According to the UNHCR, more than 107,000 Bhutanese refugees living in seven camps in eastern Nepal have been documented as of 2008. After many years in refugee camps, many inhabitants are now moving to host nations such as Canada, Norway, the United Kingdom, Australia, and the United States as refugees. The United States has admitted 60,773 refugees from fiscal years 2008 through 2012. The government does not permit citizenship for Bhutanese refugees, so most of them have become stateless refugees. Excessive bureaucratic obstacles have been used to hinder their relatives from getting ID cards and voting rights. Bhutan considers the political parties of these refugees illegal and terrorist in nature. Human rights groups claimed the government interfered with individual rights by requiring all citizens, including ethnic minority members, to wear the traditional dress of the ethnic majority in public places. The government strictly enforced the law in Buddhist religious buildings, government offices, schools, official functions, and public ceremonies"

      Doesn't sound like too much happiness or benevolence going on there Ralph. Do you ever do any thinking or research before you write your crap?

      Delete
    99. RalphH 14/065:38 PM

      A

      “…… the only part of a person you can judge is (the) "behaviour" ….” (MalcolmS10:06 AM)

      Agreed.

      “…. and not (the) "person" …”

      Agreed.

      “….. even though they are of the same entity/being.”

      The behaviour is not an “entity/being”, only the person is.

      The simple point Malcolm is, “If you judge someone according to their behaviour past and/or present, where do you (and they) stand when they cease that behaviour (say it was bad/antisocial, even criminal/against the civil law), reform and start with the opposite behaviour (good/social/law-abiding)?

      “Consciousness is not "embodied in the spiritual." Consciousness *is* the spiritual! They are synonyms!”

      So says Malcolm, and maybe Ayn Rand, but does anyone else?

      “*”Loss of the physical brain, at the ‘death’ of the physical body, is not the end of consciousness only the end of consciousness of the physical”* (RH)

      Stop talking garbage. A living brain *enables* consciousness. You cannot disembody consciousness from brain. When brain dies there is no consciousness. Period.”

      Consciousness is centred in the brain because that’s the physical organ through which it operates but it is not produced by the brain. After the “brain dies” there is no longer consciousness/awareness of the physical world but that does not exclude consciousness of the non-physical world. If there is such consciousness it could not be experienced in the physical because that’s dead.

      Your mistake (I think) is that you believe there is no reality without the physical. The physical is the basis but spiritual things also have reality in their own right, indeed the physical (world) arises/comes forth from the spiritual just as speech comes forth from thought and good deeds come forth from a kind heart.

      “You have ignored the fact that I have used 'earn' as a synonym for ‘produce’!"

      Well that’s a pity because it isn’t. Earn refers only to the value added as a result of one’s effort. Iron ore (for example) is a natural product/a resource supplied by Nature/God. Effort is required to dig it up, transport it, market it and manage all these systems. Everyone involved earns some part of the final value but by far, the greatest part is owned by the community at large.

      “Furthermore, *production* is the application of reason to the problem of survival!!”

      Two million bucks an hour would buy a lot of “survival”.

      “Reason is an attribute of the individual and not the collective. There is no such thing as a collective consciousness or collective brain.”

      I think I’d rule out a “collective brain”. Although everybody’s consciousness is individual and unique (i.e. subjective), there can be a sharing because all consciousness has an objective focus.

      “What you ignore is the fact that *production is spiritual* - production is the product of the mind!!”

      Does that mean that all “production”/things produced are the product of ‘some’ mind? What about the things of Nature?

      Delete
    100. RalphH 14/065:39 PM

      B

      “*”We’ve come a long way from there[medieval serfdom] to a large extent by better interpreting Christ’s message to the world”* (RH)

      “What utter rubbish. "Render unto Caesar..." is an open invitation to dictatorship.” (MalcolmS10:06 AM)

      Now there’s an interesting claim. Please explain!

      The quote is:- “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.” (Mark 12:17) Even though the Romans were oppressors the message is not to act as they do/did (i.e. be ruthless and unforgiving) but to follow God’s humane laws. They may be slaves/occupied people as to their bodies but do not have to become slaves to evil in their response.

      "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"[Marx] is a direct quote from the "Acts of the Apostles.”

      It’s not a “direct quote” but Acts 11:27-30 comes close and just what’s wrong with that? The story is about an early Christian community’s response to a famine in another country. It humanely recognises the dire straits of those afflicted by famine (i.e. beyond their control) and also that different people have different capacities to contribute (i.e. people are not created equal but have different abilities and strengths).

      Delete
    101. MalcolmS8:53 AM

      Part 1

      RalphH: "“.. even though they are of the same entity/being”[MS] The behaviour is not an “entity/being”, only the person is"

      I did not claim behaviour was an “entity/being.” I said it was "*of* the same entity/being.” Don't misrepresent me Ralph.

      "The simple point Malcolm is, "If you judge someone according to their behaviour past and/or present, where do you (and they) stand when they cease that behaviour (say it was bad/antisocial, even criminal/against the civil law), reform and start with the opposite behaviour (good/social/law-abiding)?"

      Is this really a problem for you? It's blindingly obvious! You judge him for his wrong doing, act accordingly, and, when/if he makes appropriate restitution/reform/apology, judge him again! This is not rocket science Ralph!

      "“Consciousness is not "embodied in the spiritual." Consciousness *is* the spiritual! They are synonyms!”[MS] So says Malcolm, and maybe Ayn Rand, but does anyone else?"

      Yes, numerous philosophers from the pagans to the present.

      "Consciousness is centred in the brain because that’s the physical organ through which it operates but it is not produced by the brain"

      That was not my claim. Consciousness[awareness] *results* from an interaction between the physical world and the brain. NB I claim it comes from an *interaction* of the two and is not just "produced by the brain."

      "After the “brain dies” there is no longer consciousness/awareness of the physical world but that does not exclude consciousness of the non-physical world"

      Yes, it excludes it. You just made that up/lied. You have not one shred of evidence.

      "Your mistake (I think) is that you believe there is no reality without the physical"

      There isn't! Consciousness is always embodied and enabled by the physical.

      "The physical is the basis but spiritual things also have reality in their own right"

      Spiritual things certainly exist but only as an embodiment.

      "..indeed the physical (world) arises/comes forth from the spiritual just as speech comes forth from thought and good deeds come forth from a kind heart"

      Oh, spare me the crap! Matter/energy is eternal. It has always existed and always will. It simply changes its form. It is consciousness which goes out of, and comes into, existence. Consciousness is not possible except in complex organisms which take eons to evolve. All consciousness goes out of existence with the death of the organism. Speech "comes forth" from the mouth [hopefully] following thought. Good deeds "come forth" from a rational knowledge of ethics/morality. There is no such thing as a kind heart.

      Delete
    102. MalcolmS8:54 AM

      Part 2

      RalphH: “Earn refers only to the value added as a result of one’s effort"

      That's my point.

      "Iron ore (for example) is a natural product/a resource supplied by Nature/God. Effort is required to dig it up, transport it, market it and manage all these systems"

      The "effort," at each stage involves conscious/rational and physical effort. Which, at each stage, is 'production' and the 'earned.' For which the employed 'earn' payment for their 'production.'

      "Everyone involved earns some part of the final value but by far, the greatest part is owned by the community at large"

      Rubbish. There is no such thing as the "community at large." Only individuals exist and the majority don't have anything to do with the iron ore industry. However, if incompetents such as yourself want part of the action, then, get yourself a job, "earn" some money and buy shares in an iron ore company you looting parasite :)

      "“Furthermore, *production* is the application of reason to the problem of survival!!” Two million bucks an hour would buy a lot of “survival”"

      It's survival plus a massive increase in living standards.

      “I think I’d rule out a “collective brain”"

      Well done Einstein.

      "Although everybody’s consciousness is individual and unique (i.e. subjective), there can be a sharing because all consciousness has an objective focus"

      Consciousness is *objective* if you know the correct methodology. What it must "focus" on is reality. Do you know what that is?

      "“What you ignore is the fact that *production is spiritual* - production is the product of the mind!!” Does that mean that all “production”/things produced are the product of ‘some’ mind?"

      Not just some mind - a specific, individual, human mind!

      "What about the things of Nature?"

      Conscious beings are "of nature." All entities act in accordance with their nature but most do not require consciousness/mind!

      Delete
    103. RalphH 19/067:55 AM

      “Oh, spare me the crap! Matter/energy is eternal. It has always existed and always will. It simply changes its form.” (MalcolmS8:53 AM)

      How then do you explain entropy?

      “It is consciousness which goes out of, and comes into, existence. Consciousness is not possible except in complex organisms which take eons to evolve. All consciousness goes out of existence with the death of the organism.”

      That’s more a guess than a fact, isn’t it? There is no way to scientifically test that theory so it’s impossible to discredit it. However, rationally it makes no sense for mind-consciousness to “(go) out of existence”.

      The mental world/(the world of the mind) is very different from the physical world and answers to different laws. The body exists, not because of the stuff it is made of but because of the organisation that holds it together in that form (the natural/physical body). Similarly the spiritual stuff of the mind holds together in an organised form (the spiritual body). This higher level organisation is not affected by the destructive forces of the natural/physical world.

      “Speech "comes forth" from the mouth [hopefully] following thought. Good deeds "come forth" from a rational knowledge of ethics/morality.”

      Yes, and thought is spiritual even though we may be thinking of natural/physical things.
      Good deeds can only come from good-will. If there is no good-will, reason will confirm the ill-will of the heart because the reason serves the will. If an ill-will does produce good it will be hypocritical good - done for show (selfish reasons) and not for use.

      “There is no such thing as a kind heart.”

      Well, I wouldn’t really expect someone who praises selfishness to understand what “a kind heart” is. The “heart” spiritually speaking is the ‘will’. A “kind heart” is an outward looking willingness that looks to the welfare of others and only to it’s own welfare for the sake of being of use to others. “Thank God for people with kind hearts” I say. What a sorry place this world would be without them.

      Delete
    104. MalcolmS7:21 AM

      RalphH: ""Matter/energy is eternal. It has always existed and always will. It simply changes its form.” (MalcolmS8:53 AM) How then do you explain entropy?[RH]"

      Why should I explain entropy? If by entropy you mean a *measure of the disorder or randomness in a closed system* then it does not apply to existence. Everything that exists is entirely lawful, causal and determined by its identity, ie, there is no metaphysical randomness whatsoever.

      “"It is consciousness which goes out of, and comes into, existence. Consciousness is not possible except in complex organisms which take eons to evolve. All consciousness goes out of existence with the death of the organism”[MS] That’s more a guess than a fact, isn’t it? There is no way to scientifically test that theory so it’s impossible to discredit it"[RH]

      On the contrary. Life has been around for millions of years and we already know that living organisms are mortal. We also know that consciousness is enabled by brain. That does not include dead brains. Get over it. When you eat the donut, Ralph, the hole goes out of existence! That's it. No point in asking where the hole went!

      "..rationally it makes no sense for mind-consciousness to “(go) out of existence”

      It makes perfect sense. It would make no sense if it became disembodied.

      "The mental world/(the world of the mind) is very different from the physical world and answers to different laws"

      No, both are of the same world. Thisworld.

      "The body exists, not because of the stuff it is made of but because of the organisation that holds it together in that form (the natural/physical body). Similarly the spiritual stuff of the mind holds together in an organised form (the spiritual body). This higher level organisation is not affected by the destructive forces of the natural/physical world"

      Are you serious? Man is an integration of body and mind. He exists in no other form. There is no such thing as disembodied mind. They are both of the same "level."

      “..thought is spiritual even though we may be thinking of natural/physical things"

      Well done Einstein! It's only taken a decade :)

      "Good deeds can only come from good-will"

      The moral is that which furthers your life. The immoral is that which detracts from or destroys your life. You require morality in order to live your *own* life. You can't live someone else's life. In that sense morality is selfish.

      "..reason serves the will"

      No, reason *is* the will. Thinking is volitional.

      “A “kind heart” is an outward looking willingness that looks to the welfare of others and only to it’s own welfare for the sake of being of use to others"

      Then riddle me this one! If, as you claim, we exist to serve others what do those "others" exist for? Who is to be the beneficiary of all this "serving" and sacrificing? And wouldn't that make the beneficiary selfish? :)

      Delete
    105. RalphH 23/068:46 AM

      “*”The mental world/(the world of the mind) is very different from the physical world and answers to different laws”* (RH)

      No, both are of the same world. Thisworld.” (MalcolmS7:21 AM)

      So, Malcolm, can you explain to me the length, breadth, height and weight of a thought, a love or a memory? Despite your strident claims, the Laws of Nature (as above) do not apply to mental/spiritual things which are just as real, in fact one could say more real, because they cannot be impacted or destroyed by physical forces e.g. people can be tortured mercilessly and still not recant their faith/belief/confidence/trust in God, religion, country, the truth etc.

      “*”The body exists, not because of the stuff it is made of but because of the organisation that holds it together in that form (the natural/physical body). Similarly the spiritual stuff of the mind holds together in an organised form (the spiritual body). This higher level organisation is not affected by the destructive forces of the natural/physical world”* (RH)

      Are you serious? Man is an integration of body and mind. He exists in no other form. There is no such thing as disembodied mind. They are both of the same “level.” “

      I haven’t suggested any “disembodi(ment)”. The spiritual body (real because lasting/indestructible) is always present and integrated with the soul which is the crux of the person themselves.

      You highly overrate physical stuff. The physical body is only a temporary arrangement to enable existence and interaction with the physical world which is the world of change and choice. Choice is necessary to build character, the organised nature of which is the spiritual body - the everlasting one.

      “The moral is that which furthers your life. The immoral is that which detracts from or destroys your life. You require morality in order to live your *own* life. You can't live someone else's life. In that sense morality is selfish.”

      Being aware, thoughtful of and considerate of others is “what furthers your life”. If you’re not you’re an island with no friends and succeed only in creating conflict and alienation.

      “…. reason *is* the will. Thinking is volitional.”

      Big mistake conflating the two. To be volitional will must precede reason. Reason is instigated and acts at the behest of the will/the love/ the desire.

      “….. riddle me this one! If, as you claim, we exist to serve others what do those "others" exist for? Who is to be the beneficiary of all this "serving" and sacrificing? And wouldn't that make the beneficiary selfish? :)” (MalcolmS7:21 AM)

      Malcolm, everyone, from the highest (politically and socially) to the lowest, from the most intelligent to the intellectually challenged, exist to serve others. Even Christ, who claimed to be God, “the greatest and highest of the high) said he was as “ the One who serves”. To be serving is to be giving (as a primary motivation) - radiating forth - like the sun. The opposite is to be getting (as a primary motivation) - sucking in - like a black hole/an inverted sun.

      When everyone is concerned with giving (good things for the welfare of others) everyone is also getting but the getting is a by-product. If people are meant to give and to serve (others), they obviously also need to get or be the recipients of gifts and service. Getting is not selfish provided that it is not an end in itself. i.e not the purpose behind action.

      Giving creates a circle of life where everyone can trust and be at peace with their neighbours. The only “sacrifice” one has to make is the egotistical idea that one is better and more important than others and has some sort of entitlement to be worshiped and served.

      Delete
    106. MalcolmS8:11 AM

      Part 1

      RalphH: "So, Malcolm, can you explain to me the length, breadth, height and weight of a thought, a love or a memory?"

      So, Ralph, can you explain to me the length, breadth, height and weight of the photosynthesis taking place in the leaf of a plant? No, didn't think so! The point is that all science requires its own commensurate measurement/language and that includes the science of botany and the science of epistemology which deals with ideas, thought, memory, etc. We have discussed this many times and it really is time for you to raise yourself above your juvenile, childish mindset.

      "Despite your strident claims, the Laws of Nature (as above) do not apply to mental/spiritual things which are just as real, in fact one could say more real, because they cannot be impacted or destroyed by physical forces"

      The laws of nature most certainly apply to mental/spiritual things since mental/spiritual things are entirely natural. There is no such thing as *outside nature.* There is no existent which is more real than another existent. If it exists, then, it exists. There is no such thing as "levels" of reality. If it's real, then, it's real!

      "The spiritual body (real because lasting/indestructible) is always present and integrated with the soul which is the crux of the person themselves"

      The "spirit" is enabled by brain. It does not exist prior to/after/independent of living brain. You have yet to make sensible any distinction between spirit and "spiritual body." In fact you just made it up to facilitate your fantasy.

      "The physical body is only a temporary arrangement..."

      It most certainly is... as are all its attributes including "spirit." The physical stuff which makes up the body in life still exists in death but in a different form. The spirit no more exists in death than does the hole of an eaten donut.

      Delete
    107. MalcolmS8:20 AM

      Part 2

      RalphH: “Being aware, thoughtful of and considerate of others is “what furthers your life”. If you’re not you’re an island with no friends and succeed only in creating conflict and alienation"

      Before you can articulate a proper relationship to "others" you must first know how to *live.* This is enabled by ethics/morality which you would require even if you lived in a state of nature or alone on a desert island. Only then can you articulate how to properly relate to others in a social setting [politics].

      "“…. reason *is* the will. Thinking is volitional[MS]” To be volitional will must precede reason. Reason is instigated and acts at the behest of the will[RH]"

      You cannot separate will and reason. They are different perspectives of the same thing. Unwilled reason is a contradiction and does not exist. Willing aspects of consciousness other than reason is a contradiction and does not exist. Reason is man's only volitional faculty.

      “When everyone is concerned with giving (good things for the welfare of others) everyone is also getting but the getting is a by-product. If people are meant to give and to serve (others), they obviously also need to get or be the recipients of gifts and service"

      "Giving"? "Getting"? "Serve"? "Gifts"? Observe what you have omitted! None of those exist in a vacuum Ralph. What you have omitted is that all *values* must be PRODUCED. Values have to be earned! Production is a high pro-life virtue. Non-productive cult of Jesus swill armed with begging bowls is not virtue Ralph. In fact Jesus did not even earn the bread he broke or the wine he drank. He dealt not in virtue but in pain, suffering and guilt. His followers reward was a "veil of tears" in life followed by death.

      "Getting is not selfish provided that it is not an end in itself. i.e not the purpose behind action"

      Production is the product of your own mind. It is not an end in itself - it is the means of living on earth. Production is decidedly selfish [in one's own interest]. Virtue is NOT its own reward - virtue is the means to the production of life affirming values.

      "Giving creates a circle of life where everyone can trust and be at peace with their neighbours. The only “sacrifice” one has to make is the egotistical idea that one is better and more important than others and has some sort of entitlement to be worshiped and served"

      The non-productive have forfeited their means of living. All they can expect is death as an inescapable law of nature. The advocates of self-sacrifice are nothing more than the leper's bell of approaching looters.

      Delete
  7. MalcolmS6:36 AM

    Here is how "Our ABC" rewards a protester who assaulted/"jostled" Julie Bishop on a university campus - with a TV interview in which she gets to promote her cause.

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-17/student-protester-denies-assaulting-julie-bishop/5459830

    Here is how a Danish TV reporter rewards a protester organising shout-downs of politicians she doesn’t like - with a TV interview in which she gets what she promotes.

    http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/greatest_dane

    The Great Danes - laughed my tits off.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I’m an independent filmmaker making my first full length doco. It’s called “I Dream of Gina”. The documentary seeks to use the quest for Gina as an entry point for exploring the mythology surrounding mining’s value to Australia and the impact of big money on our democracy, media, environment, workers and Indigenous Australia.


    We are seeing more and more of Gina's vision realised by the coalition government - Gina matters more now than ever...

    We are currently running a crowdfunding campaign to get the project off the ground. Check it out here - http://pozi.be/idog

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. MalcolmS8:01 PM

      Mining’s value to Australia is no "myth."

      Delete
    2. Mining’s value to Australia is no "myth."

      She didnt say that bubblehead.

      I see your reading comprehension is up to it's usual standard

      Heres one you might be able to understand

      http://bitly.com/1r5s9lo

      yawwwnypooos roflmao

      Delete
    3. MalcolmS1:08 AM

      magicsausagetosser: ""Mining’s value to Australia is no "myth."" She didnt[sic] say that bubblehead[sic]"

      No, dopey, she didn't!

      That's what I said :)

      Delete
    4. Dont dig yourself a bigger hole now tossrag.
      Im all done now ... Just soak it up

      lol

      Delete
    5. MalcolmS9:54 AM

      magicsausagetosser: "Im[sic] all done now"

      You've been done for eons dopey! :)

      Delete

Followers