Sunday, 30 July 2017

YOU CAN BE MY BODYGUARD

Apropos of nothing - except for lightening the mood of the last two Posts here is that outstanding video of Paul Simon and Chevy Chase doing Simon's song:




Enjoy. I always do.

TROUBLE IN PARADISE

It's a lovely day here today. I went for a long walk and climbed up to the very top of Mount Aubrey and sat for a while looking out over the bay and Whangarei Heads area.


It is idyllic but as I sat for a while in the warm sunshine I thought about the houses and cottages below and wondered what violence, unhappiness and despair some of them hid. For some people living in idyllic surroundings isn't an idyll. New Zealand has many dark secrets.

Down below me I could see our road that runs along the bay.

Our road on the bottom left

8 years ago a 14 y.o. girl hung herself in the garden of the house she lived in at the end of this road.

4 years ago a man sat on a bench beside the beach in the early hours of the morning and blew his head off with a shotgun.

Across the bay I could see Solomon's Point and the Tiger Mountain area.


Here, a few days ago a nutter shot dead two people and wounded another before dying himself in a house fire.

Nice surroundings don't necessarily equate with peace of mind it seems.

New Zealand ranks fairly low in murder statistics - 1.3 per 100,000 people p.a. vs 5 per 100,000 p.a for USA but ranks pretty high in suicides - 12.4 per 100,000 p.a vs 13.1 per 100,000 p.a. for USA being about in the middle of OECD figures.

It's sad that some people are not in a frame of mind to enjoy what is around them.





.

Saturday, 29 July 2017

THE WILD WEST, SORRY ... NORTH

Whangarei is becoming like Nuova Lazio with insane bastards going about shooting people.


During this week this bastard shot dead two women and badly injured a man.


Apparently he was a disgruntled property renter who was being moved on and took umbrage.
He was also a previous violent offender, a depressive and an illegal firearms owner.

The two women - property managers, and a tradesman were legally going about their business and were shot because of it.
A couple of years ago I applied for a job with a property management company in the Whangarei area. I didn't get the job much to the Old Girl's relief as she asked me if I really wanted to deal with people in remote areas who weren't paying their rent and who might turn violent. She was prescient in this.

In addition to the awful tragedy of this event there is going to be a lot of fallout relating to it:

  • Why did this joker have firearms (and possibly hand grenades)?
  • Why wasn't he licensed?
  • What did the NZ Police know about this?
  • What did the NZ Police do about it?
  • What is wrong with the gun laws in this country?
  • How the hell can someone buy guns on line without proper vetting?
  • Why didn't the neighbours report earlier strange behaviour?
  • Why didn't friends and family step up earlier and do something?


The last two questions are difficult. How many of us step up in these situations? Often no action is taken because no-one really expects the worst.

The other questions though need to be asked and proper answers demanded.

The firearms regulations changed in the 1980s. Before the change individual firearms had to be registered and the NZ Police were charged with keeping an up-to-date register of every gun in the country and that could be traced back to an individual. In the 1980s a lot of changes happened in this country - financial, social, economic and political that led to a deregulated economy following on from a tightly controlled economy. There were some good outcomes but just as many bad outcomes. Firearm regulation is among the bad outcomes. Deregulation and freeing up of import controls by abolishing the import licensing system suddenly brought previously unattainable goods to the general public - cars, electronics, electrical goods etc. Suddenly the wealth of the country made from primary produce exports was being dissipated by purchases of all sort of imported shit. Now some of this 'imported shit' was good and needed but a hell of a lot of it was pure waste. Discount stores opened up like The Warehouse and Briscoes-like chain stores pedalling all sorts of cheaply made and very short consumer-life products from televisions to gumboots.

Caught up in this was firearms.
The new regulations gave away the requirement for every firearm to be licensed and brought in an individual persons license requirement. This meant that as an individual you could get a firearms license but could then go on and accumulate as many guns as you wanted.


Added to this was a freeing up of the type of firearm that could be purchased so instead of the single shot .303-type gun with a 5 or 10 round magazine, you could buy some sort of semi-automatic ex military gun to blast Bambi to Kingdom Come with.



Gee, aren't I clever
Then, as part of the general import licensing deregulation 'gun warehouses' started up stocking all sorts of nasty firearms and associated materiel.

A 'perfect storm' as a result.

I didn't get one of these personal licenses or upgrade my trusty old Parker Hale .303 to a Kalashnikov. I sold my gun in 1981 (to a licensed sports store). Yes I did shoot Bambi's mum some years earlier and am forever sorry for having done so.

"You bastard!"

Today we are experiencing the very negative fall-out from these changes:

  • The requirement for individual firearms to be licensed being abolished means that The Police and the Government have no idea of how many guns are in circulation or who owns them.
  • The growth of firearm retailers has brought in many more firearms and, with deregulation as to type, has brought in many automatic-type firearms that are basically military in design and intended usage and not for 'legitimate hunting'
  • The growth of on-line trading is making it much easier for 'unsociable' people to buy and sell goods.
  • More firearms in circulation means more firearms are being stolen, sold illegally or traded in a cavalier manner.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


OK. To visit some of the earlier questions.

Why did this joker have firearms (and possibly hand grenades)? and,
Why wasn't he licensed?

Man these are big ones. This may be the catalyst for a major review of current regulations leading to some kind of referendum on gun ownership in this country.

One, if he was unlicensed how did he get firearms?
Two, as he was unlicensed why did people sell him firearms?
OK, that sounds silly but think about it. As a convicted and imprisoned violent criminal (he very seriously injured a police officer with a knife 30 years ago) he couldn't or shouldn't have been able to get a firearms license. But this didn't sop him getting firearms. The system isn't working. Q.E.D.

What did the NZ Police know about this?

We've been told via the media that The Police had him down 'as a known person' whatever that means.
But, more importantly today we learnt that last month the Police visited this joker because of some illegal structure on the property he was renting. The police person(s) who visited and spoke with him decided that the illegal structure was more of a property management problem rather than a police enforcement issue. OK, I'm cool with that - if the illegal structure was a deck or a hen house but the Police were told that the structure was some sort of  shooting target. WTF! Did Officer Plod think to ask to see the joker's firearms license? If so and it wasn't forthcoming did said officer ask what guns this c**t had? What the hell is going on here?

What did the NZ Police do about it?

See above. apparently nothing but hey, I'm just getting my news from legitimate news sources.


What is wrong with the gun laws in this country?

They are loose and belong in another generation (or two).
After WW2 when soldiers came back to re-establish themselves in the community and with government assistance to establish farming throughout New Zealand to capitalise on a newly created export market for meat and dairy produce there were two reasons why the 'average rural' household had a firearm: One was for controlling vermin - .22 for rabbits and .303 for deer, pigs and goats that were an environmental problem; and two for food. We didn't have intensive meat production that was sold through supermarkets the way we have today and many people supplemented weekly protein consumption with the wild rabbit, deer, goat or pig that most rural and many city people had access to.
In 2017 we don't need to supplement our protein (or at least our meat) consumption with wild shooting. To their shame supermarkets are forever having discounts and specials on meat. I cringe when I see 'bargains' on meat wondering why we kill so many animals and then have to special off the carcasses because too much has been killed.
Basically we do not have to have New Zealanders going about the hills, forests and mountains massacring wildlife. It isn't essential for food so it can only be for 'sport'.
Because of this I wonder why then that New Zealanders need to have guns. If we don't need to shoot for food to survive what are we going to do with these guns?

How the hell can someone buy guns on line without proper vetting?

This bewilders me. This joker, without a legal firearms license has been able to buy guns and other armaments. How? Should I be worried? Yes I bloody well should. This c**t was living only a couple of kilometres from me so I feel that I have a personal interest in this. Who sold him the guns and ammunition? I hope that this can be tracked down and the providers be charged with manslaughter.

Now you or bleeding-heart liberals might wonder why I don't have any sympathy for this joker, the c**t as I call him. I accept that he has had psychological problems, may or may not have been on medication etc but, he stabbed a policeman and nearly ended his life along with his career and bought firearms with the intent to use them against people. Sure he might have had some black depression moments but he bought guns and ammo, practised shooting them and then proceeded to use them against three people, two of whom are now dead. He himself is now dead. Boo-hoo. Why didn't he just shoot himself in the head before he shot the other people?
We all know or have known people who have had problems but we have to say that individual responsibility is paramount and we must be responsible for our actions.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Going forward.

We do have a vermin problem in this country that endangers natural habitat and wildlife. We do have agencies that deal with this however and we don't necessarily need the Barry Crump types going about shooting them all up. And if we do need the Barry Crump types then they can be licensed or employed by the government agencies. We don't need weekend cowboys going out blasting everything they see. These 'weekend cowboy' gun owners have guns, multiple guns that they keep at home (hopefully in authorised gun lockers) but that are at risk from home invasion, burglary or the owner going off his rocker.

If said cowboys have a primal urge to shoot something up (a target or an animal) they should belong to a government controlled gun club. Said gun club can hold the firearms for them in a safe lock-up and hire them out as required for set and limited mounts of time. Ideally the gun ownership, warehousing and control should be with the Police.

We are a small country and the total quantum of guns is manageable in terms of the cost of a gun amnesty (like Australia enacted some years ago).



If we don't get rid of the guns now and bring in  common-sense firearm legislation then we will be in for a hiding later on.




What do you think?

Monday, 24 July 2017

I'VE BEEN FLAT OUT

Not working though. My apologies to Robert for my being lazy and selfish.

I've been in Auckland for a few days watching some films - two Film Festival ones plus Dunkirk.
We saw the Gaylene Preston documentary My Year With Helen about Helen Clark's role at the United Nations and her run for Secretary General last year. This is a 'must watch' as it gives a great insight into the 'Glass Ceiling' at the UN.

We saw this film on Sunday and as I was leaving the apartment building I fell flat on my face on the footpath outside.



We have newspapers delivered daily in a big stack that is tied up with plastic ties. Someone who had brought them in that morning had left one of the ties on the mat outside the door. This is a circular piece of plastic tie that looks like and acted like a lasso.


As I stepped into the loop my front foot connected with the tie at the same time that my back heel was trapped by it. The effect was like being in a trap or indeed a lasso and my feet were whipped out from behind me. My forward momentum kept the top part of my body going.....going flat down on to the ground. I hit my left knee and elbow hard and put out my right hand to protect my head and face. Result? Two broken fingers. Bummer!

I was carrying one of Lynn's crutches as she had gone to work by taxi on Sunday morning and left it behind. I was hurrying to meet her at the picture theatre with it. Some young people nearby (we live by Auckland University and AUT) were concerned especially seeing the crutch fly out of my hand and came to help. As it turned out I needed the crutch to walk down to Queen Street as my knee was painful. Neither knee or elbow were damaged beyond grazing so it's only the fingers injured.

It makes you think how easy it is to have an accident and how they come out of the blue. In Dunkirk which we saw on Saturday a young guy was seriously injured when he was suddenly knocked down a few steps on a boat and hit his head on a metal pump. If there had been something solid in front of me as I fell I would have gone headfirst into it without having a chance to avoid it.


Thursday, 20 July 2017

ARTFUL CODGERS

I read an interesting article recently about the growth of the crime rate in Japan.
The interesting thing was that the growth is the greatest among elderly people over 65 - retirees in fact.

Senior citizens are committing crimes at increasing rates way outstripping other age groups.
This is significant as Japan is a country not known for a lot of criminal activity with social stigmas and mores repressing most.

An expert suggested that boredom may be the cause with retirees feeling neglected and isolated and wanting to do something so they turn to petty crime like shoplifting and pickpocketing..


Another school of thought is that Japan has inadequate security and welfare provisions so that older people are seeking being locked up to receive free food and housing.


Maybe our government needs to look at this and prevent it happening in New Zealand.

Wednesday, 19 July 2017

THE PLAN

I started my new regime today (only three weeks late).
This is to try and do at least the simple walk each day regardless of what other activity I've done or am going to do that day (work, gardening, tennis or golf).

The short walk is about two and a half kilometres around our bay along a bush walk and the road up the back. This is obviously a doddle with only a bit of climbing but affords great views out over the harbour.

From the rest seat on the Reotahi track


A medium walk is the one I did this morning and means adding on to the walk around our bay, a longer walk around the back of Mount Aubrey, around Little Munro Bay and back over the hill back to McLeod Bay. I'm not sure how long this is but must be at least 5 kilometres.

I intend to intersperse these walks with some 'up and overs' of Mounts Manaia and Aubrey at different times. Maniaia is the highest and might be a weekly or fortnightly endeavour. Aubrey isn't as high but is still a good walk especially up on the Southern side. I'll try and do this once or twice a week. Both afford outstanding views.

View from top of Mount Manaia


View from top of Mount Aubrey


I've got several options for longer walks of 10 kilometres or more as there are lots of great walking tracks in the area and of course the long Ocean Beach walk.

Well that's the plan anyway, or at least the first part of it..

I need to do this so that I don't put on too much extra weight - after all I'm not a double bass player.




-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I read yesterday of the recent research into eating habits and the best times to have meals. Apparently frequent small snacking is no longer advised as some nutritionists have previously recommended. The latest thought is that breakfast should be the main meal of the day and, failing that, a midday meal being the main meal. Evening meals should be avoided and, if required an early evening snack is the way to go.



In the past (working) this wouldn't have been practical but I'm in a position now to be able to cook a midday meal instead of an evening one so I might give it a go. Evenings, early evenings could involve a sandwich, small salad or cereal. This will be a challenge for wine matching but will most likely mean I'll drink less wine which won't be a bad thing.



That's the second part of the plan. 

Tuesday, 18 July 2017

FAREWELL TO FRED

I learned this week that Fr. Fred Bliss has died.



I liked Fr. Bliss - Fred. He was one of the good guys at St. Patricks College.




Fred sort of took me under his wing in the fourth form and made me a Sacristan. I think he wanted to save my soul or something. It didn't work out. See here:


Fred caught me in my only ever (honest) attempt at cheating in an exam.



The exam was Christian Doctrine in the 6th Form.
I was crap at Christian Doctrine. It just didn't make sense to me. Latin and mathematics made more sense. At the end of  Standard 6 at Marist Brothers, everyone from the three or four Marist Brothers schools around Wellington who were going on to St Patricks College, had to sit a series of exams - English, Social Studies, Mathematics (or Arithmetic) and Christian Doctrine. I failed Christian Doctrine but still had accumulated enough marks from the other three test papers to get fourth highest from all the schools. They made us sit in the order of where you came in the tests for the first year in the 'P' form. Weird.

Every year from then on I kept crapping out in Christian Doctrine. In the 6th form it was expected that we would all get University Entrance accredited at the end of the year provided that the term exams were to a high enough standard. For some reason I must have thought that I needed a high standard for Christian Doctrine as well as the other subjects - brain fade I guess. I wrote some 'truths' on my hand - a couple of those ridiculous, incomprehensible and, for me, ungraspable bits of nonsense and during the exam Fred spotted me. He came over, silently so as to not interrupt the other good little catholics and tut-tutted, shaking his head. I apologised and went on to fail the exam.


Good old Fred. Rest In Peace - you will be missed.

Monday, 17 July 2017

"DON'T GI'US A JOB, GI'US DIGNITY"

I've just got back home after a weekend in Auckland. The Old Girl couldn't come up north so I went to Auckland this weekend.

We went to Mezze for tea (not dinner because after-all it was only 6pm) on Saturday night and a pub burger (not bad) after seeing the film The Journey on Sunday night. Worth watching, I recommend it.

I came home by bus today.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Apropos of nothing, or, at least nothing related to the weekend activity above, I thought today, on my bus journey about unemployment or, more correctly, underemployment.

We aren't (as society) doing enough on this topic.
Modernisation in all it's forms (intensive agriculture, mechanisation, the digital revolution and, more recently robotics) has destroyed the old 'work for a living' ethos. Since WW2 the 'dole family' has become an institution around the world (and more recently since the 1980s in New Zealand) with generations of people growing up on the 'Giro'.


Crime, dysfunction, alienation and hopelessness has been the result yet decades worth of politicians, governments and leaders have basically stuck their heads in the sand refusing to tackle the obvious issues. When solutions have been found they have been generally in the area of law enforcement, onerous social services regulations and platitudinous welfare benefit systems (or vote-catchers) that don't fix anything, don't create a framework for improvement and, in fact, dissipate all of the available funding.



What's needed is a re-think of the situation.

Unemployment and underemployment is here. It's been here for a long time and is a reality. It isn't going to go away. It will in fact get worse.
There are so many jobs that have been taken away by industrialisation, mechanisation, digitalisation, computerisation and robotics already but we haven't even scratched the surface. In 2017 we are talking about driverless cars, trucks, buses, planes as a reality. It will only be a few years before this is the norm. We already purchase groceries from self-scanners at supermarkets. Why the hell do we need a supercilious or pompous sales clerk in a clothing store or any sort of boutique to cater to our needs? Why, when we can access the internet for most daily requirements do we need lawyers, doctors, real estate agents, insurance agents, car salesmen, bankers ..... you get the message.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Luddites too knew what was coming.



In hindsight they were correct - smash all the new technology (if an alternative to work management can't be found). Banish the inventors who  would after-all cause misery, poverty and social alienation to all those who embrace it (fobbed off by TV and religion).

See here:

WORKING CLASS HERO

What's been missing is a recognition that all those people who've progressively been 'thrown on the scrap heap' aren't useless. They aren't misfits, drongoes, underachievers and failures - it's just happened. OK?  We've already wasted centuries on mishandling this situation (and I've wasted at least a minute trying to keep the readers' reader's attention). Our government and every government by reining in corporates and industries, needs to embrace the problem. Sure, the old adage said work gave dignity. But, if there is no work, what then? We need to 'get over ourselves' and admit (at last) that there is a big change in the way we are currently living. If we want people to behave in a dignified way (assuming that's being being crime-less, ethical, moral - not necessarily religious and helping each other) then there has to be one hell of a big change of view and policy. We need to make people feel valuable, that they are an integral part of society and can contribute - not to feel that they are wasters, bludgers and losers.

Hey! This is just an observation. I'm not a politician. I'm just an old guy trying to do my best but, I might write a series f posts on the subject knowing that maybe two people will read them.

Thursday, 13 July 2017

RALLYING AROUND

"OK, I know it's a badminton racquet
but it's a pretty cool outfit".

I've got more time to play tennis since the beginning of July and play each Tuesday and Thursday morning at the local tennis courts.

Generally about 10 or 12 oldies turn up for three hours. It's low key, friendly and a lot of fun. Someone always turns up with thermoses of coffee for a half-time break and some chatting, gossiping and rivalry takes place.

There are two courts and after each game everyone moves around one place. This makes it quite fair on the poorer players (I'm currently in that bracket) but you get a lot of time to practice all sorts of shots.




I've bought a couple of tennis racquets at the Op Shop - $4 each for what I consider to be pretty good. items.


One of them is a 'John McEnroe' Dunlop which gives me an excuse ( if I were to choose it) to throw it on the ground if I do a bad shot.
Good friend and Neighbour Rod actually does this and swears when he craps out (he say's it's only for a laugh).
Every one there thinks he's a bit of a character. Funnily enough he looks like an older version of John McEnroe.
"That was fucking well in. Are you blind?"

We don't play at a very energetic pace and the better players go easy on the weaker ones. Fun's the name of the game. Every little bit helps though in maintaining some degree of fitness.

Tuesday, 11 July 2017

BILL STICKERS IS INNOCENT!

I've been trawling through the Ministry of Social Development and Inland Revenue websites today, trying to change my tax-code. I have been operating under the IR3 code for self-employment and used this when I set up the New Zealand Superannuation a couple of months ago. I wasn't sure if I'd still be earning or not so put IR3 on the MSD application.

It looks like I won't be earning now so will need to go back to a basic code 'S' or 'M' (not S&M) which means that the take home amount each fortnight will be more than under the IR3 code.

Not this

Now I generally find the IR website pretty good (the MSD less so) but to make this change (and deregister myself from GST) on-line is proving to be problematic. I'll have to go into town tomorrow and (hopefully) do it face to face at each of the departments' offices as the language used on these websites is subject to more than one interpretation. I feel sorry for non-tech savvy people trying to navigate through an increasingly digital world.




Monday, 10 July 2017

THE WEIGHT.......

.....LIFTED.









I've had one week already of not working - and, more importantly, of not wanting to work. No-one has been telephoning, texting or e-mailing me and wanting things done. I haven't felt guilty for 'slacking - off' and haven't felt the need to keep the lap-top turned on just in case a message comes through.

It's been like a weight has been lifted from me. I don't know how long this will last but boy it feels good. 

Today Richard is having his first day (although it is school holidays) of not working. I hope that he too feels liberated.

I drove The Old Girl down to Auckland on Saturday and stayed the weekend. She started work again today and I drove back. We had a great weekend - out for a glass of champagne at The Langham and then dinner at a local Italian restaurant on Saturday night. A laze around and a good film at the Academy picture theatre down the road on Sunday afternoon. A quiet night in Sunday night. Excellent. A big plus for me was that at the apartment we have a TV (rarely used) but can get Prime TV free so I was able to watch the All Blacks-Lions game (telecast only delayed by an hour). That was a great game and I'm really happy with the result. A draw and a drawn series makes it worthwhile for both sides certainly the thousands of British supporters who came all the way for the tour. This event is hugely beneficial to New Zealand businesses so long may it stay in place. I've heard some stupid rumours about it being the last one - I certainly hope that's not true.

We've had an apartment in Auckland for about 6 years now and it's good spending a few days there from time to time. The new apartment is certainly better than the other one we had (bigger and higher up at the top of the building). For some reason though, this time it really felt like being on holiday in another city or country. The city sounds were exciting. Once again I put it down to the 'weight' lifted. I didn't realise how work was affecting me but even though I was only working part time for the last three years I was always thinking about work and its problems.




Friday, 7 July 2017

ROBERT'S BACK - ALMOST

Robert hasn't reinstated his blog yet but he is commenting as Geremy, his misspelled alter ego.

Once again I can't be bothered to actually write something on the topic of the unholy alliance the holy trinity and certainly if I did the Post wouldn't be nearly as long as his comment on the previous (borrowed) Post, so here is another borrowed treatise:


"The Most Ridiculous Dogma of ALL- the 'Trinity'



CHURCHianity has embedded this absurd dogma so deeply into the minds of the masses, that it is extremely difficult to uproot it: it took almost 3 years for the Holy Spirit to dislodge it from MY hard head, when a Catholic!

Let's just start with the basics!

"God" ia a word referring to the Supreme Being.
(NOT Supreme Beings)
One CAN'T be Supreme if he has equals, or one GREATER than he.
Jesus said his Father WAS greater than he.- John 14:28
He referred to Him (not THEM) "as the ONLY TRue God".
He told Mary he was going to "My God"!
He SUBJECTS himself to this One, THE Supreme Being.- 1 Cor 15:28
He SAYS he has a God! 

He is the MEDIATOR/HIGH PRIEST BETWEEN God and Mankind.
He has been GIVEN all power & authority BY the Only True God!

Gabriel told Mary what the Holy Spirit (not to be confused with a
'Holy GHOST' of church coinage)- the POWER of the MOst High, which
God himself called "IT" (Num 11, as well as other Bible writers), so when
Christ refers to IT as "he" or "that one", he is thinking not of the power
itself- BUUUUUT the ONE who was SENDING it!

There IS no Nameless, Faceless Ghost-God.
There IS no Human Son-God>
(Most believe Jesus took his human body to heaven, and is in it NOW!)"




Now this is just a copy and paste of what this joker has said. I wouldn't use all those capitals myself - it's a bit shouty.

I haven't made comment on the above (except that agree that it is self evident) as I'm sure Jeremy, Geramy, Geremy, Robert will put a long comment on.



Thursday, 6 July 2017

THE HOLY TRINITY*

* Or, Holy Crap this is all stuff and nonsense.





Richard (of RBB) asked why I don't do a Post on The Holy Trinity. I thought about it and even had a quick look at what the nutters have to say about it - both the god-botherers and the atheists - but it all got a bit tiresome so I merely copied what a couple of true believers (in the sense of people who believe the truth - aka Atheists) have said.

Enjoy:

Undeniably Atheist

"These two criticisms are extremely intertwined; I’ll try to differentiate them though. The first relates primarily to the absurdity of it. What is the trinity? How can one god be three persons/people? Does Yahweh have multiple personality disorder? These questions raise interesting concerns, which are never answered by theologians, the only answers we ever receive are statements of overwhelming inanity like “God is mysterious” or incredibly weak analogies. Most of the analogies that are used by Christians actually better demonstrate other non-Trinitarian doctrines that were deemed heretical.
Does Christianity even require the trinity? In my opinion, no it doesn’t. I am not a biblical scholar, but it seems that deriving the doctrine of the trinity from the Biblical texts requires some mental and theological gymnastics. Besides the polytheistic/Henotheistic/Monolatrist vibes one gets from many Old Testament passages, the rest is extremely monotheistic, and there are no hints that Yahweh is actually three entities. The doctrine of the trinity isn’t even implicitly taught in the New Testament, but rather seems to be a poorly constructed doctrine based on a few scattered verses mentioning the spirit of God, various passages from John and Paul’s writings that allude to the supposed divinity of Jesus, and some of the polytheistic references from the Old Testament. The only time they are all mentioned at once as far as I know is in the prescription of the Rite of Baptism, which I suspect may even be a later interpolation.
As many will be aware, some early sects of the Christian cult were not even Trinitarian, and the primary reason that most denominations today are, is because this was the position of the various Catholic councils that deemed other views heretical. Some examples of other views are the Modal view of God, where the Father, Son and Holy Spirit were just different ‘modes’ of God, or expressions. In this view, the deity was still very much singular. Other views included ones where Jesus was either not human, or not divine such as Arianism (Do not confuse this with Aryanism).
What does the trinity even bring to the religion? Nothing. What doctrines are illuminated by God being split into three personalities? Why would an infinite deity require being composed of 3 parts? It is questions like these remaining almost entirely unanswered that makes me more certain that the religion is of purely human origin. Doctrines were invented whimsically to try to explain ideas, but instead they only serve to confuse. Apparently the god of the Bible is the author of the confusion, because the god of the bible is mankind.

In 325, the Council of Nicaea adopted the Nicene Creed which described Christ as “God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father”. The creed used the term homoousios (of one substance) to define the relationship between the Father and the Son. After more than fifty years of debate, homoousios was recognised as the hallmark of orthodoxy, and was further developed into the formula of “three persons, one being”.

Forgive me for stating the obvious, but the Christian doctrine of the trinity is utterly ridiculous. Not only do I find the idea to be unfeasible and nonsensical, but as far as I can tell, it isn’t even necessary for the Christian religion to exist."




THE HOLY TRINITY AS INCOHERENT #1


"The Holy Trinity has had a problematic history, partly evidenced by point of fact that theologians still don’t agree on how it works, and partly  seen from its ex post facto evolution, shoehorned into the scant evidence of the biblical texts. From Ignatius of Antioch onwards we see development of the idea in early church thinking, until it is codified at the Council of Nicaea in the 4th century CE. There will be more talk later on what was creedally set out.
Existence Properties
In simple terms, we have three aspects (in a simple philosophical/general sense) to the Godhead, such that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are in some way all God. Let us look at very fundamental understandings of existence properties.  Logically, Jesus is God as well as God the Father being God. Where A = God the Father, B = Jesus and C = the Holy Spirit:
1.    A = B
2.    A = C
3.    A = D
4.    But B ≠ A
5.    B ≠ C
6.    C ≠ D
and so on.
What this means is that if the Godhead has, say, 10 properties that identify it has having the label Godhead (something like this must be the case – it must have identifiable properties or the term ‘Godhead’ is meaningless and has no reference) the we have some issues. If Jesus = the Godhead, then Jesus must have all of these properties. But then Jesus is exactly synonymous with the Godhead. But since Jesus is seen as in some way identifiably different to the Godhead, hence the two semantic terms, this cannot logically be the case. And vice versa. So to say Jesus is fully God is meaningless unless to say that Jesus is a perfect synonym of the Godhead. Which then must apply to all the others. The Holy Spirit to be fully God must fully have these properties too, but then they are all synonymous and not able to be differentiated.
Now, these aspects can’t be fully God if they lack some Godlike/Godhead properties. But what if they had more? Perhaps Jesus had 11 properties, 10 of which belonged to the Godhead. But then the Godhead cannot be part or a subset of the Jesus properties, less than Jesus in some discernible way. Or perhaps Jesus = the Godhead + human body. This is intuitively problematic, such that Jesus becomes a different ‘entity’/aspect with more than the properties of the Godhead. (I shall return to this later.)
Furthermore, The HS and Father must have different properties to Jesus in order to be differentiated as aspects/parts/persons/essences/whatever in order to be identified as such. It cannot be that the HS has exactly the same, no more no less, properties as Jesus because otherwise that would be Jesus (as mentioned before)! In order to say, “That is Jesus and that, over there, is the HS” such that they are identifiable as each person, they must have differentiated properties. But that means, if these properties are properties of being God, that neither can be fully God. The HS cannot have a godlike property that Jesus does not have, otherwise Jesus cannot be fully God. This seems to be the crux. Before I continue, let us look at some heresies.
Sabellianism/Modalism
 Modalism suggests, as hinted in the previous paragraphs, that the Trinity has three aspects or manifestations of one person. Thus the Father could present himself as the Son, and in turn the Son could be manifested as the Spirit. However, this is seen as heresy (Sabellianism). But my points stand regardless of this position. Let me list a few other manifestations that the Trinity supposedly isn’t.
Adoptionism
Adoptionism was the belief that Jesus was an ordinary man, born of Joseph and Mary, who became the Christ and Son of God at his baptism.
Arianism
wiki – The Arian concept of Christ is that the Son of God did not always exist, but was created by—and is therefore distinct from—God the Father. This belief is grounded in the Gospel of John (14:28)[3] passage: “You heard me say, ‘I am going away and I am coming back to you.’ If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.”
Swedenborgianism
The best way of understanding this is that each part makes up a third, mathematically speaking, and they all add up to one. No, not so, apparently.
Polytheism
No, they’re not three gods, either. Not separately so.
So where does this leave us? Well, here is one particular definition:
The Divine Name is numerically one, and yet in this One Name there are three persons distinguished: The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19-20).
The church receives her benediction from peculiar blessing for each of these Three (2 Corinthians 13:14).
Their different personalities are recognised (1 Corinthians 12:4-6). Christ refers to Himself with the pronoun “I,” and at the same time to the Father as “He,” and to the Spirit (who proceeds from the Father, and thus distinct from Him), again as “He,” rather than “it,” clearly meaning a person, not an influence or mere power. And yet these Three possess the one indivisible divine essence, and are constituted distinct persons by certain incommunicable properties, not common in one with the other two.
As wiki states:
The Christian doctrine of the Trinity (Lat., trinitas from the Lat. triad, “three”[1]) defines God as three consubstantial persons,[2]expressions, or hypostases:[3] the Father, the Son (Jesus), and the Holy Spirit; “one God in three persons”. The three persons are distinct, yet are one “substance, essence or nature”.[4] In this context, a “nature” is what one is, while a “person” is who one is.[5][6][7]
According to this central mystery of most Christian faiths,[8] there is only one God in three persons: while distinct from one another in their relations of origin (as the Fourth Lateran Council declared, “it is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds”) and in their relations with one another, they are stated to be one in all else, co-equal, co-eternal and consubstantial, and “each is God, whole and entire”.[9] Accordingly, the whole work of creation and grace is seen as a single operation common to all three divine persons, in which each shows forth what is proper to him in the Trinity, so that all things are “from the Father”, “through the Son” and “in the Holy Spirit”.[10]

To me, this is just word salad (as Andy Schueler would no doubt say). Try as I might, I can’t get this to make any sense. Because it doesn’t. They want to get out of the logical paradoxes and problems other theories imply, and so they produce something which doesn’t quite make sense and which relies on mystery! Yup, the mystery card. A bit like how some people around here have claimed contra-causal free will works! You can’t sidestep logic with a mystery card.
Anyhow, one God-essence is tapped into by three persons, without there being any clarity as to what a person might be. But if Jesus can tap into the essence of God, then he must have that exact same essence as shared between all the Trinity, and the whole. But for Jesus to be identified as a different person (hypostasis) but have the same nature as the others means that Jesus has properties that the others do not have and vice versa. So whatever is claimed of Jesus, he cannot be fully God. There is equivocation here on what nature means. These different properties which each person of the Trinity must have in order to identified as different to the others must, therefore, not be properties of being God, must not be essential properties of being God, must not be the essence or nature of God.
And here is the problem, the contradiction. The Christian needs, obviously, the properties of all three persons to be godly, and yet they must be individual to each one. Again, Jesus cannot be fully God because he, in his person, has some essence of God that he shares with the others, and yet not all essential properties. Unless the other properties are not essential. But then they are contingent, and we have non-necessary elements of all persons of the Trinity. But surely all persons are necessary (in the beginning was the Logos). This is a problem which, to me, seems insurmountable.
The only way out is that each person taps into an essence but that that essence is not the totality of God. And then we get back to one of the heresies.
So I understand why theologians have to resort to mystery. I get it. They have no choice. It is logically incoherent. But they can’t admit that because, like free will, you take that away, and they ain’t got nothin’. And that doesn’t even take into account the nonsense of the Atonement."



NEW POST - THE RELIGIOUS CURMUDGEON

Robert has freaked out The Religious Curmudgeon. HERE