buckthesystem

It seems that this "education" thing (or rather I should say "indoctrination") is a world-wide phenomenon. This is the brilliant idea that some moron has came out with (well, not actually not "came out with" on their own, but aped a crazy idea out of Europe) that spends an incredible amount of money and does absolutely nothing for the betterment of children: http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3609438a11,00.html I just love the part where it says "...but it is about every child and making sure they are doing better". Now if there ever was an incentive to homeschool, this is it. Seems that our state schools are so busy teaching the kids to put condoms on clothespegs that they do not teach them how to read or write properly and add simple figures.

I came across an article in a magazine today suggesting that the European Union is a "revived soviet union". It gave as the reasons the "obliteration of the original states" and reminded us that the old Soviet Union had "collapsed in a shambles", and suggested that that is what will soon happen to the EU. The article also drew parallels between the EU and the revived Roman Empire that had been profesied in the Bible. It pointed out that all that is now needed is the creation of a permanent executive branch of government and everybody's adoption of the new "euro" monetary unit. I said before that I thought that the creation of the EU was an evil and it is my contention that the anti-Christ will arise out of the "new" Europe. There are so many "coincidences" here. I am amazed that people just can't/won't see it.

I understand your anguish, but really you mustn't fall into the trap of thinking that all your parents arguments are about you. They are probably not. Your parents obviously have their own issues, and it seems to make no difference whether or not you are around, for them to air them. The only thing you can do is to pray that God will give both your parents the wisdom to work out what ever it is that is troubling them. To think that they had you just so they would have someone to torture is pretty unreasonable really. They are hurting, they do not need your blame as well. I do have sympathy for you feeling this way though.

Well, actually, I'm glad to see Bush taking this stand too.

I think we can get carried away with "keeping to the rules" and not even consider the honesty or integrity of those who make the rules. The only loyalty we owe is to God, not to the corrupt system of man. We were all given the power to use logic and to reason, not just to blindly trust in those whose status has been elevated above our own - in man's eyes, not Gods. We don't run into the nearest police station at the end of the day and sanctimoneously say "I have been driving at 10km above the 'speed limit', give me a 'ticket' so that I will not be a liar", do we? If we did, we'd be depriving our children of the money that we would pay in "infringement fees".

PS to what I just said: Nobody would suggest that David and Jonathan were "gay". They were just good mates. We all need a best friend (who fmay, or may not, be our husband/wife, bf, gf etc.) and so we should be able to display friendship for them in public without someone "reading something into it that is not there". Are we going to "frown on it" if two soldiers of the same sex share a "pup tent" together, or two women greet each other in the street and hug? Perhaps the "inclusive indoctrination" that is forced on society is wrecking all this. There can be no such thing any more as simple "mateship" without people pointing to them and saying "this is an example of the tolerance we must have".

This is just my theory. So I hope that no one will take offence. I am most certainly not proffering that homosexuality is something that should be "accepted" and we just "have to get used to", but I'm thinking that this may not really have anything to do with homosexuality and just be a reaction to the saturation of ideas (people are different - just accept it and be tolerant) that is forced down our young peoples' throats today. It is just possible that you are over-reacting to this and these girls are not lesbians at all, but just really good friends. Young girls, especially school girls, tend to "over-do" things with each other. Particularly if one of the girls has just broken up with a boyfriend she may have attached herself to another girl and thought "well at least she will be a loyal friend and will not hurt me". Watching my own daughter with her girlfriends (I mean "girlfriend" in a purely platonic sense - you know "she is a girl and she is my friend) when she was younger, she would go "all out" with another girl and "live in her pocket" for a while. I remember when my daughter was about 14 an old man whose housework I used to do said to me "I'd watch those girls if I were you, that seems like lesbian behaviour". I explained to him "but holding hands is just what girls do". It is a stage that they go through as part of growing up. My daughter would have a boyfriend and then break up with him and "swear off guys" (for about a whole week) and transfer her affections to another girl. Before she was old enough to be interested in boys she explained to me that she thought "boys were so disgusting that girls must be just the bees knees" (no offence to any bloke who might be reading this, I'm not being offensive - really). I've heard some say things like "young people like to 'dabble' in same sex relationships", but I don't think that (90% of the time anyway) there is any sex involved, just a lot of confusion. I always wondered why it is socially acceptable for girls and women to have friends (same sex one that is) stay at their house and share the same bed and yet if boys or men do that everybody is talking. My daughter (who is 22 now) recently shared a motel room with two other women and two men. The room had two single beds and one "king sized" bed. The women stayed in the "king sized bed" and the men had a single bed each. Yet the other two women had husbands and children (as did one of the men, but a wife and children of course) and the other man has been my daughter's boyfriend for two years, and nobody raised an eyebrow. They said that they couldn't afford separate rooms for everybody. Sure "tolerance" is forced down our throats daily - particularly in the "education system". So much so - I think anyway - that we begin to see things that just are not there. I could be totally wrong in the case you mentioned though. It is just a thought.

I don't think there's anything wrong with you. We must each handle life in our own way. I feel pretty much the same as you. I find going to church to be a "chore" most often too. Mainly because I am the only one in my family who wants to go to church and ridiculed for it (just from my kids, my husband will never do this) before I go and when I come home I get "how was church?" - as if I am supposed to say something profound. Just about the only interesting part about church I find is the pastor's speech (if he even makes one, sometimes there is too much going on). A lot of the people go for the social aspect, but I don't think I fit in with their idea of what "socialising" is all about (mainly because I have very little money and absolutely no spare time and so cannot go on "camps, and things"). I will go out on a limb here and say I don't like the music (it was mostly "written last week" and consists of the same 3 or 4 lines repeated over and over). If I lived somewhere else I'd go to a "black revival" church as that is the sort of music that I like - instead I can go home and listen to my cds of it providing that nobody else is around as they complain bitterly. My dream is to find a church where I feel I belong. I like to hear the pastor talking as he usually has sensible things to say, but it has occurred to me that I may as well get someone to make a video recording of him and play it at home or watch "Shine TV". Am I being too fussy, and totally insensitive?

I'm still waiting for the remake of "Gilligan's Island" where they actually get off the island. Or what really would be interesting are remakes of all the old classic war movies, but this time in a politically correct theme. Maybe Nazism could triumph. And "Ozzie and Harriet" could have gay neighbours and friends and embrace the "new age". How about a remake of "Nobby's car" or "The Jungle book"? Seriously though, there's nothing new, just different faces, a smattering of nudity, swearing and politically correct speak. Imagine a remake of "I love Lucy". Even better than the remake(s) of the "Poseidon Adventure". The twist to the third "poseidon adventure" is probably that the boat doesn't actually sink but Arnold Scwarchenegger comes in to save the day.

"Modern day values...." What a load of politically correct, socially engineered, "newspeak". We all have to be careful that we don't take this "modern thinking" onboard. I have another reason to be wary of Ford though. I might be being really unfair and it might be very widespread and not just limited to the Ford company, but not having had much to do with new cars, I don't know. This might also be widespread in America, or in Europe, I don't know that either. Recently I went with a friend to look at a new Ford truck that she was going to buy. While she was cooing over the truck, I had a look at the car handbook that came with the sale. It was just pretty basic stuff and the usual "how to" (use features) until I got to the part about the "event data recorder". It stated that "in any situation" your driving habits (brake pressure, speed, whether/not there was seat belt use etc.) would be recorded by the onboard computer and made available to the company "for research purposes" and also "to law enforcement officers". I may be being really behind the times, but I was horrified at this and thought "what? A vehicle that narks on you?". I will quote you what the actual car manual said, as I managed to get hold of it online: "Event data recorder". The computer in your vehicle is capable of recording detailed data, potentially including, but not limited to, information such as: The use of restraint systems by the driver and passengers. Or, information about the performance of various systems and modules in the vehicle, and information relating to engine, throttle, steering, brake or other system status potentially including information about how the driver operates the vehicle including, but not limited to, vehicle speed. The information may be stored during regular operation or in a crash or near crash event. This stored information may be read out and used by; Ford motor company, service and repair facilities, law enforcement or government agencies". When I pointed that out to my friend, she decided to buy another vehicle that didn't have that feature, instead. Although the original truck would really have suited her needs. I have since read that "most vehicles that have come out since 2000 have "event data recorders". Maybe they are just one more thing to be wary of in the modern world. I'm just not quite ready to embrace this thinking and I think we should all resist it. "Safety" has been proffered as the excuse for this, but I think we can get too carried away with the word "safety" which has become a buzzword for everything. And "talking of politically correct speak", has anyone noticed that the word "accident" is never used anymore when talking about motor vehicles. This word has been replaced by "crash" which sounds all that much more emotive and convinces us that there is always someone to blame.

I don't think anybody was advocating "breaking the law" at all. If you are referring to pastors preaching things that would be considered "hate speech" when the law comes into being, this must be understood to be what it is. There is a constitutional right to "free speech" and the church has always enjoyed that right, therefore it would be breaking that law to accuse pastors of "not toeing the government line". I think that all Christians have a responsibility to expose evil wherever we see it. And so if that includes "breaking the law" (this would be the law of man, not the law of God) then so be it. No church should take a "tax emempt status". If it does, it means that it is beholden to government and is "under pressure" to toe the politically correct line.

Suicide. Yeah, this is a question that has plagued me for a little bit of time now. In 2004 my baby brother committed suicide (he was actually 42 and no "baby" but he was the youngest and the only male, so he was, and will always be, our baby brother). He drove to a fairly isolated spot and sat in his car and poisoned himself with alcohol. The coroner later said Garth had the highest blood/alcohol content he'd seen. There can be no doubt that it was suicide as Garth left a note for my older sister telling her what he was going to do, apologising for it, and telling her how to handle his "affairs". Garth was a heavily committed Christian, had been for twenty years or so. My older sister is also Christian and didn't want to believe it was suicide but she had to really, especially after she got the note. The timing was really awful too, as right then my sisters, my husband and myself were all out of work and we had very little money to pay for a burial. Also, my brother and my older sister lived in Auckland - at the other end of the country to the rest of us, so we had to travel up there. Fortunately my husband had a reliable vehicle, so at least there was some transport, but my sisters had no car or anything. Between us we managed to scrape together enough money for a cremation, my sister badly wanted a burial, but we couldn't afford it, so what else could we do? Garth was very heavily into Christianity and was far more knowledgeable about it than the rest of us. This was literally a few weeks after I had decided to be a Christian, and so at least I "inherited" Garth's bible and collection of Christian music. Garth had suffered from depression for a number of years, and had talked about it with his girlfriend of eight years (strange in itself to have a girlfriend for eight years, I always wondered why they just didn't "get married and have done with it", now I guess depression is why) , but had not sought help of any kind for it as he didn't want to admit to any weakness. His girlfriend said that many times she had begged him to let her get him some help but he wouldn't let her. I have a lot of sympathy for her. What could she have done? This was all two years ago now and I am still trying to rationalise it in my own mind and convince myself that it was all "meant to be". Shortly after the funeral I was reading about a NZ evangelist Barry Smith who died himself not long ago. I read about an evangelical meeting he held just after his own daughter had committed suicide and he said "I am sure God will welcome my daughter with or without an invitation". I found that sentence very encouraging and comforting. When we went to Auckland just after Garth died, my husband went around "interviewing" people that Garth had known in an effort to sort out "why Garth did it". I went with him and listened to everything but at the same time I knew exactly why. I have also suffered from depression for a number of years, but I couldn't find the words to say that to my husband. My husband is not a Christian either. Being a Christian (well I have found, anyway) does not make you immune to depression and it doesn't make life any more tolerable at the worst times. I have been down "as low as that" on occasions and I've realised that if you are suicidal you just want "out", you don't think of the effect it is going to have on other people, those who are left. I'm sure that if we considered what other people would have to go through on our suicide we'd never do anything like that. A few times I've been going along a steep road on a mountainside and thought "why don't I just speed up a lot a go right off the edge" and then I've thought "but what if I don't die, but just "total" the car and end up a 'vegetable'?". A couple of weeks ago I was coming home from work at about half past midnight (I work the night shift) and I came to the railway crossing (a lot of rural crossings here don't have barrier arms, just lights), I couldn't hear the train as I had the radio quite loud and I didn't take any notice of the lights as at that time there are a lot of trucks and tractors in that area with different coloured lights. I realised that there was a train there in the "nick of time" and came to a screeching halt. But then I spent the rest of the journey home thinking about how easy it would be to "just have kept going". But then, of course, it wouldn't have been very nice for the train driver and it would have deprived my husband of half his income. You have to think of these things. I rationalised my Brother Garth's suicide by telling myself that maybe it WAS "his time" after all. He planned everything meticulously and it all "fell into place". The fact that "nothing went wrong" for him, possibly, might have meant that "his time was up in 2004 and that was the way God had chosen for him to die". Could this have any logic to it, or is this totally going beyond reason? What does anyone else think?

The IRS (or the IRD or whatever the equivalent is in other countries, they're all the same) is an evil organisation. A government department full of parasitic bureaucrats that exists only to steal money and employ otherwise unemployeable people. It is sticking its evil fingers into everything, and the church is its latest victim. The Bible tells us that we should not steal (or I guess, "demand money with menaces"). Demanding money with menaces is exactly what the IRS exists to do. Therefore, the church should have nothing whatsoever to do with the IRS. Period, end of story.

I guess America only seems to be wicked because of its vast population and land mass (although watching the "Jerry Springer show" you'd certainly get a different impression, but then I suppose that his "guests" are just the "cream of the crop" of America's weirdos). Here in NZ we have a prime minister who is self confessed atheist and a lesbian (a popular journalist "outed" her a while ago and her only comment was - words to the effect of - "well what is wrong with being gay"?) NZ also has three (I think) "openly gay" MPs and boasts the first "transexual MP". Does that make NZ an officially degenerate country? You have to go by the "law of the land" of a country. A lot of European countries consider themselves to be "enlightened" and I have heard European people say of America "they have the most prudish laws ever and some of them are back in the 19th century). I read a speech of Tony Blair's recently and he said that he was "committed to gay rights". I made the comment, to my friend from UK who sent me the speech, that I thought it was odd that Tony Blair didn't care at all for basic human rights yet he will go out of his way to support "alternative lifestyles". My friend got all miffed about this comment and is now sulking. She seems to be a victim of her government's "progressive thinking".

I reckon that the EU is a far more likely candidate for the "revived Roman empire", or the new world order, than the US or anywhere else. It seems to fit all the criteria (I hope I haven't missed something out, it will be helpful for someone to point it out if I have). The EU is concentrating on controlling all of Europe. It is clear that just as the NZ government indicates that we have to do everything that the UN dictates, most of Europe has to do everything - no matter how daft - that the EU dictates. For an absolutely pointless exercise a good example is: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/02/20/ti...o_vehicle_data/ or the id card/NIR scheme that is being foisted on UK. I have read absolutely no good "reason" for its imposition, except that "it is an EU directive" (even though other countries in Europe haven't buttressed their id card schemes to a database such as the NIR). As for the "Antichrist", I guess he has yet to emerge. Could Tony Blair be a candidate though? I am a bit baffled about the rule that says that the antichrist must be celebate though. Where does this come from?

Yeah, go for it. Obviously you have each met the "right one", so everything should be ok. No matter how old you are you know in your heart whether or not you want to be with each other for the rest of your lives. If you wait, you risk something happening (either of you might travel, or go to university, or join the army, or something and meet somebody else and only get confused). And you have a good Christian guy to marry, what could be better. There is nothing to stop you getting tertiary education or studying in general or enhancing your career, just because you are married. I married 30 years ago, when I was 20 and my husband was 26 - actually a month from being 27 - and we both have no regrets. The kids didn't come along for seven years, plenty of time for us to save money for a house, work, study, what ever. "Seize the day" (I was going to write "carpe diem" but I'm not sure how to spell it).

I am kind of new to Christianity, I have called myself a Christian for a couple of years since I started going to church, but having said that, I haven't really delved much into it - I use "lack of time" as my excuse (a pretty bad one I know). Why I made the decision in the first place was perhaps not for the best reasons in the world. I just came to that decision after being inspired by a couple of people to read a lot of books, but as the two people who originally brought it to my attention are now dead I am in a bit of a quandry. After about three years of solid reading I came to the conclusion that "it is all true". The book that "tipped the scales" in the end was "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel. So there was no "dramatic conversion" and I am still waiting to see something concrete - I hope I would recognise it. Am I being too simplistic? Anyway, my immediate question is interpretation of the Bible. I have figured out what most of it says after the really stupid reactions I had from some of the passages (like the one where Jesus says "follow me" and the man says "let me just bury my father first" - or words to that effect. I thought originally that the man's father was lying dead in the house and the son was in the middle of arranging a funeral and I thought "but surely...."). I digress again, the thing now is that I am trying to reconcile Romans 13 with my beliefs about the world. It seems that people use Romans 13 to "justify" any horrible action including mass murder and genocide by governments. This has got to be wrong. I have known for quite a while that there is nothing in the Bible that has ever been proved to be wrong and no archeological discovery made ever that disproves what the Bible says. Therefore, any error that does seem to exist must be of man's making, i.e. interpretation. I have had a problem with what Romans 13 seems to say. If we are to take that literally, it seems to go against the experiences of peoples throughout the ages, and goes against long-held beliefs of mine. The part where it says "the authorities that exist are appointed by God, and those who resist will bring judgement on themselves. For rulers are not a terror to good works but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority. Do what is good and you will have praise from the same," really "challenges" me. This would be fine if I could convince myself that this was referring to Church authorities alone and not government employees in general, politicians, bureaucrats, traffic cops or local council employees, but I think if that were the case it would be clearer. I would really appreciate some help here. Any views? I asked someone else this question and he came up with "'Rulers' means ministers ordained by God, not worldly rulers. Likewise the power means God and God's law, not that of any worldly ruler. Worldly rulers praise evil as much as good". And it goes on, but that is basically the gist. I am concerned about the fact that so many people seem to use their belief in Romans 13 to also justify not being interested in politics at all, and not even caring about what is basically wrong with society and accepting "any old garbage" and "legislation" (same thing really) that governments come out with. I think that this is why you do not get Christian movements being lobby groups against things like (say) the imposition of the id card/NIR legislation in UK, and all the other nasty things that governments impose on us. NZ certainly has its share of "anti-people" (or government greed policies) as well. It would be good to find out how others actually do interpret Romans 13 and what their attitude towards it really is.