W W W W  World Wide Web Witness Inc. Home Page   Contents Page for this Volume  What is New


Chapter 7







First let us remind ourselves of the positive profundity to be found in the living God of our creation - who made it all, not the dead 'one' whom man loves to make from time to time, as if god-making were a hobby or a pastime. This is accordingly found in To Know God, the Power of Christ's Resurrection and the Fellowship of His Sufferings Ch. 1

It is in Philippians 3:10 that we read of Paul’s intense desire that  

“I may know Him and the power of His resurrection,
and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death,
if by any means I might attain to the resurrection from the dead.”  

This is Paul’s express desire. It is not, to be sure, that which all would express. Some might say:
I want to know God, the power of His help and the fellowship of His joys. However, the apostle is not interested in self-fulfilment, but divine joy, not in avoidance of sufferings so that the register of selfishness might be better filled, but in encompassing them IN and FOR Christ as the case might require (Colossians 1:24).

It is better so, far better so. Self-pleasure-pain is no worthwhile trinity, but KNOWING YOUR PLACE in your Creator, and being well-acquainted with HIM in whom this places you is good and godly. KNOWING HIS POWER FOR HIS PURPOSES IN YOU and finding FELLOWSHIP in doing what you are bidden, for so exalted an aim: this is the way of the person who trusts in God, and for whom God is God, not convenience utility.

 These three phases of Christian life, KNOWING GOD, knowing the POWER OF HIS RESURRECTION and the FELLOWSHIP of His sufferings, readily form a core of conception, an avenue of exploration and an emphasis for application. We have pursued that in the Chapter just noted; but here, we are, for the time, looking at the realities of the other option, self-will, defiance of deity and dereliction of duty, travesties of grace and pride of face. It is, after all, far more common.


As this world develops in its throes of torment, before judgment, as a body, far from its scope for salvation before that day, and since its hope for mankind in his own wrongful 'right', always lively, comes from a baseless source, as it defies the divine resource and recourse made available in Jesus the Christ, the same yesterday, today and forever, there are preliminary pangs of mortality. Do you not normally seek a doctor or a cure if you are in dire straits, developing difficulties of body, with anguish and ache, now here, now there, not accounted for by your understanding ? How is it so very different with the spirit of man, when his very motivations become like sludge, as if his own offscourings - as in the now heavily criticised Queensland 10-25% aspirations for sewage to become part of drinking water - with some precautions of course, which some scientists nevertheless radically denounce, could become the inspiration of his spirit.

As well sip sewage, as seek deliverance from the results of man. It is not other old designs, cars and carriages that matter, so much as this world which accumulates its genetic, economic, physiological defects and dynamics, amid its spiritually moribund anaesthesia to righteousness. Nor does this whole world matter so much as its Creator of man, who made it not a carcass but a wonder! whom it so often derides with myths of its own making, shadows of contemptible irrationality and obvious powerlessness*1 (cf. Ch. 3 above, The Bible, Not the Declamations or Distillations of Man... Ch. 4, History, Review and Overview Ch. 5, Stepping Out for Christ Ch. 9).

But there is an end: Christ is alpha and omega, the beginning and the end, the word, express, explicit, explicative and definitive word of the living God (Hebrews 1, John 1, 5:19ff., 8:58, I John 1, cf.  The Bright Light and the Uncomprehending Darkness Ch. 10), and when the time comes, as when time began, there is no more time, and heaven and earth shall flee away. It is time to be timely about time, and not so to time your days that you leave untimely, truant from truth. So, says Psalm 90:12:   Number your days that you may apply your heart to wisdom, or bring in a fruitage of or gain a heart of wisdom. The concept seems to suggest one having a harvest in due time, but it does not remove thoughts of croppings.

Outcomes in wisdom are in view.  



But this is either rare or on the other hand, subverted into worldly wisdom, how to be rich, or 'successful' - that is, fulfil desires, or be agreeable and so have some peace and so on, unconcerned about truth, reality and judgment. But this world is judged, and increasingly is wearing convict's clothes ... already.

The world has not brought in a harvest of wisdom, but of hatred, intolerance, sale of truth to achieve the facade of tolerance with vast intolerance to truth, fighting of incompatibilities, both wrong-headed and often evil-minded. It has in its workings, worryings, playings and sayings extensively rejected the light of the Lord Jesus Christ and since there is no other, it is PROVING this by successive removal of all other options, as phase after phase ends in disgrace, the world's environment protesting as it is being forced more and more. Over the whole history of philosophy, political theory and practice, psychology, now increasingly a debased assessment of statistics, as if what is is as near as you can hope to get to what ought to be, if indeed the latter is deemed relevant at all: there comes the trumpet, Enough! but it is never enough.

It is very easy to be critical. Pain makes for many tight hearts and open lips. Pain throbs and sobs, when it is not shrieking. However it is better to warn of cancer than to be dumb while the other must only succumb. Yet this world increases its furore of being critical of God, either directly or by means of His creation, desiring that it be poly-sexual, poly-philosophic, poly-martial, poly-possessive and showing itself in the process as if possessed.

It is hard for many, and there ARE many, caught in its turmoils, not to shout out, or spout out or send out the sensations of rebellion in a world -


where the oppressed suffer from Mugabes with illicit manoeuvres of election results
or their suppression, as from passé propositions used as support
for a maladministration that shocks even sensationalism to the core.


where same-sex marriage is by some confidently predicted if Obama wins the presidency,
and much of the same direction is already in place as the USA for one,
seems to be seeking fraternity with Sodom, in this already coming close
to the condition of much in the EU.


where Putin plays power with energy resources to intimidate neighbours, as if life were
a game, spying, prying, trying, securing ...


where the powerful if not uniformly, then frequently use privilege to get more.


where Iran is seeking to reduce Israel to non-existence while scrambling
for nuclear proficiency, by some estimated as a matter of months away.


where Indians, for example,  according to The Australian, October 28,
in this country, may be found misusing other visiting Indians or
varied temporary immigrants, whose tenure
on temporary business-visa is felt to be unsure,
in horrendous misuse of privilege, in 'co-ethnic exploitation':
and many suffer incredible deprivations
as fear of losing entry or hope is use to subdue natural justice.


where slavery is in some places merely changing its name, but not its reality,
as factory workers labour in sprawling shifts virtually under guard, and are exploited ...

as if man were a captor, not a mentor, a devil and not one equipped with reason, far less with heart.

There is report of a victory in Liberia, where a girl raped and misused at age 12, is now being given tens of thousands of dollars official payout for compensation, a matter thought to be going to bring a measure of liberation through fear and application of law, to many of the devotees to forcible satisfaction of meaningless lust in the past. Think then of what preceded this legal ... innovation!

As to the Middle East, Amnesty International Report 2008 includes this on Iraq:

"Thousands of civilians, including children, were killed or injured amid continuing sectarian and other violence. All sides involved in the fighting committed gross human rights violations, some of which amounted to war crimes and crimes against humanity. Many civilians died as a result of bomb attacks by groups opposed to the Iraqi government and the US-led Multinational Force (MNF), while others were victims of sectarian killings by Shi’a and Sunni armed groups. Hundreds of people were abducted, tortured and murdered, with their bodies left in the street or found by their families at morgues. The increasingly sectarian nature of the violence caused hundreds of thousands of people to flee their homes, swelling the growing numbers of Iraqi refugees in Syria, Jordan and other states to 2 million and increasing the number of those internally displaced within Iraq to more than 2 million. This added to the growing humanitarian crisis."

In line with the Liberian report, there is news found of an increasing practice of moving girls to countries for 'circumcision' operations, when their own country has laws against it. Permission of such mutilation, not superficial but organic, of such virtual  playing of the designer antics, is affront to the Creator, and molestation indeed. Man is not made by man nor is he to be remade by his kind. The Maker makes, and only deformity or enormity is to be processed, to save and not mutilate life; and if something must be lost, it is to save and not to invade life.

Account of this is at this time to be found in CHILDREN http://children.foreignpolicyblogs.com/category/sexual-violencerape/ in its News, October 21, 2008.

This vile violation of biological integrity seems such a slanted grab at physiological male hegemony as distinct from leadership, as to prove revolting beyond measure; but even if this were not the case, the net result is the same. As to Liberia, if this result is sensational, what of the statistical base for which it is a 'triumph' in deliverance!

Enough! Horror abounds, justice is often slight, mavericks impose, ferocities found movements, delusion possesses dynamic, suffering mounts to the skies, a self-proclaimed aspirant for a place as a nation-murderer extends atomic prowess, while those in favoured lands such as Europe, Australia and the USA, are openly dabbling not only in diatribes, doctrines or even directions against God (cf. TMR Ch. 8), the God of truth and justice, grace and pity, the God and Father of Jesus Christ, but driving for deletion of commandments as we have seen in the preceding Chapter. It seems that the love of peace and the peace of love are to be increasingly banned if not banished, while ludicrous laws increase with the objective of making truth a captive to people's feelings*2, which may be ANYTHING, and this as a cultural norm!

Such is the direction of flow. The abyss, it is large and roomy (cf. Matthew 7:15ff.).



This world is a slow learner. It is NOT a cozy companion of nice people, in an orderly framework where one may nudge authority from time to time, and say, I say over there, you know, there is not quite enough reasonable stuff going on over here. Come and fix it would you, there's a good chap!

The citizens of this world, en bloc,  are NOT a good people of good repute before the good God who can ask Him for goodness' sake to do nice things and to be quick about it! This is simply not the case. The world is not a nice recipient for niceness, but a vile, violent arena for idiots to rule (as they often do), people with neither sense of spiritual justice, truth or judgment, acute responsibility or duty, nor reliability, time servers, dream implementers, who bring in some transformational reality, by the book, as was the case with Hitler and has been and will be with more, without really giving it a rational base or basis. Not all remain corrupted, since some find remedy in Jesus Christ*3; but the movement of the race is characterisable beyond toleration, moderation and kindness, by its thrusts of political-financial-psychological power play.

Take the current Obama movement to make America one and as one to move in this or that way! It is NOT ONE. It hardly ever has been like that, except to some extent near the first. Whatever may have been desirable, had such faith in all been found, it was not.

The idea was to serve God freely, and while many were of one kind at the outset, many more sought liberty to be free of enforced unity. They differed. To be sure, they ought not to have differed, but this is world of wheat and tares, just as Christ declared it. Till He comes, there are ALWAYS basic differences, the god of forces*4 and the God of love, the God of strength and power to vanquish and the Father of mercies; and those of the one or the other attest what they are about by what they both say and do, especially when these two are in some measure of formal agreement!

A vision of America as ONE is a failure from the start. It can be achieved either by delusion or force, by attraction of opposites to some mean false to both, or by despatch in some direction by some sort of creeping authority, based on various appeals. There is a place for dreams, and it is not in the cockpit of the airplane that flies prudently. Dreams and visions have a place, if from God (Acts 2:17-18), but they are not for mankind, the word of God being already complete, the Gospel fulfilled, the price paid, the challenge out, the world to listen to the word completed and the offer immutable; and the Lord to judge (cf. Acts 17:30, Jeremiah 23:16-24). Hopes such as these are vulnerable to modes such as those.

Blair seemed to be moving and now is moving in a somewhat similar way, as UN ambassador, seeking reconciliation in the Middle East, which is the Middle Yeast, with resurging errors by three major religions, making a flummery of fashion a thing of cuisine unthinkable, and literally unspeakable!

Rudd, in this land,  may be of much the same mould. His debonair-seeming, freely embracive apology to the aborigines could be made without qualification, in terms of children who had been moved from parents, by implicitly condemning those who did this to deliver the children whom they served from moral rupture or even ruin, or indeed at parental request. Such a divisive apology, by its specious inclusivism,  does not differentiate between those who in co-operation wrought grace and showed mercy, and those who raped or abused. It is basically false and denigratory to many Christians in particular, but not to them alone. You can indeed try to make all things one, outside the Lord, by compressing truth into figments and fictions. Dreams however are not the stuff of justice, when spouting from the mind and mouth of man.

You may achieve one attitude, then, in human terms,  by misrepresenting many and many facts. It is not however in the heart, as many letters of protest against that apology showed. This is merely one  example. The more you intervene with principles of humanism, effectually man-based in terms of various political agendas, the more you run into the moulding influence of political conformism and ethical morass, like treacle covering up differences.

From Bewilderment, Bedazzlement, Bedevilment or the Beauty of Christ's Holiness Ch. 3, we see some review of the fallen world from its created state, to one demanding judgment, as the Bible faithfully records (Acts 17:31, John 16:11, 14:30, Revelation 19-20, Matthew 22:1ff.).

THIS, it is not removed but delayed while many are swept into the Kingdom of God, while good and evil, from God  and from the evil one, make their tours and people see and  reel - or instead realise, repent and seek God where He MAY be found (Isaiah 55).

And that ? it is in the Son He sent as Saviour for this world (I John 4:14, Acts 4:11-12, Luke 2:11, Isaiah 48:16, 43:10-11). Christ does not even pray for IT (John 17:9,20), but for those who will believing, receive Him and so escape.

This, it is not by being overpowered but by surrender into salvation by their God, as a gift (Romans 3:23ff., 6:23, 5:17, Luke 14, John 1:12-14). Escape indeed! Let us then see the review in the Chapter just noted (substantially expanded for this purpose).


So appear the avenues of creation for this or that bird or flower, beaver or eagle, parrot or dog, horse or deer, like brilliant music, with thousands of notes in symmetrical, in aesthetically fascinating, in evocative and almost provocatively brilliant displays of originality on which  bewonderment loves to thrive, while classes of music, of architecture, of brilliant techniques and originalities within these in sheer unmitigated exuberance and force, come, all equipped with meaning, method, the imagination of maestro and the execution of mentality at awesome heights, so far from divorce from feeling and art, as to serve these with an intimacy which is surpassed only by the ultimate individuality within the type, which comprises the vitality of the product. .

Each creation is a pièce de résistance, including the virus, or the mosquito curse, each doing with amazing technical facility, what is its task assigned.

It is like watching a champion swimmer, pianist, organist: each work is a prodigy, each production has a signature: who else could do that! we say. When you reach the summit of summits and the methodological brilliance of METHOD together with the ectypal brilliance of result - in the case of mankind, persons - and the self-production of the bodily unit, able to renew another member of the kind or clan, it is then that , bathed in brilliance, it is time to dry-out the startled wits and glorify God.

You look at the flora, and marvel at its exuberance and then at the micro-floral almost too small to see, and then marvel at its persistent fashioning, each after its kind, and each kind possessing multiple means of variation within kind, till the sheer ebullience of the creativity leaves one, as it should, in adoration of the Maker of such things, sufficient for them, efficient for them, implicit in their construction.

It is He who is explicit in His book, the Bible,  the one written not in symbols for command, like vitality kits for the next generation (just in case we tried to evade the first DNA-type impact, providing for the erection before our eyes of the next generation, step by step for each body, in an organised soldiery of ingenious construction, with not the sound of a hammer or a rivet, or the cry of the carpenter or the surgeon),  but in immediately cognisable units called words.

These two constructions, His word and His massif of manufacture, mankind, they are of ONE KIND, since when the Speaker acts directly, His mind is definitive, not typical, but the one embraces the other, is for it and when read, in it. Thus the messages of 1500 years in the Bible are consistent and imposing, the language, that is its semantic content, of one kind, whilst in the case of the DNA, the instruction symbolism, the language of command, is of one consistent dispensation. Consistency of plan for salvation and of procedure for the biological construction is a twofold partnership, where clarity and charity conspire together  for good. One has one language, proof read in ingenious ways, to keep constant within KIND; the other has one message and many procedures to keep it, though wrought in many ways, of one KIND, from one MIND! (cf. Hosea 12:10).

In His book, the Lord of creation reviews such things in various places (Psalm 104, Job, Romans 5,  8:17ff., Genesis), and with this comes, as in the last text just cited, a sobering note.

What! says someone, of the cruelty of the fox, the wolf ? What, one at once replies, of the cruelty of so many who profess religion and who do not do it! The one is a parody of and rebuke to the other! Who will judge the wolf who seeks his supper, while vengeance and hatred, pride and perfidy lead many of our race to enormities of devastation, past all appetite, but that of and for evil, surging free, unsequestered, unbound, profound.

What sort of heart is in man that so much sheer and blatant hypocrisy comes with WORDS from this spirit of his, wizened words of self-praise and ambition for the spirit of man, as a whole, often that of the humanist, unholy hologram, or in parts in race or in politics or in nationality, as he nudges aside both truth and honesty and seeks to grab, whether as now parts of the Arctic, or as in former times, much of the world! This he has done, even to the point of grabbing slaves in some centuries, and turning whole nations into integral slave camps in others, as appears in danger of happening in Tibet, as it tended to happen in the USSR.

Tended ? you may well ask! You are too soft, you may add. But let one explain. Take Solzhenitsyn who died this week at age 89, was he in an integral slave camp ? Or was he in a kingdom of another kind that nothing could capture ? Did his spirit find itself subdued ? or were his words those of fear of retribution when he publicly admonished Russian Orthodox leaders for their too servile yielding to the anomalous atheism of their predatory government! or when he exposed the Gulag. Someone might reply: That does not reduce the impact of the slavery!

But it does. This is precisely what it limits. It does not limit the INTENTIONS of the slavery, or its endeavours to be systematic; but it does reduce its impact, and it did not reduce Solzhenitsyn to conformity, because not being God, it cannot control its people, as the 1991 developments displayed to the point that this wicked and corrupt, this irrational and unempirical, this self-contradictory modern Nineveh should survive. Nay, Moscow was defiled, defiled many like Babylon of old (cf. Jeremiah 50-51),  decayed at last for a season of repair, relaxed its clutching and spasmodic grip. At last, it proceeded to set free not merely Berlin but many others, though its radioactive spoilage of many waters remained, with its grossly careless distribution of nuclear waste into the Artic Ocean and reported pollution of Lake Baikal.

Yet with all this said, we do but discuss the NATURE of the admitted gross horrors which man does, and has wrought for so long in so many dimensions, whether with scimitar or inquisitorial fire, with the confused principles of communism rationally excommunicated by the very spirit which animates its own obstinacy and harrowing tours of persecution. THAT has no necessity*3A, except that of irrationality.

How valuable was the tail told in The Australian magazine, August 2-3, 2008, of a lady who was in danger of being killed by a masked terrorist, and not only she, but her daughter also, when the latter by biting, created such a disturbance that the man of horror lost his mask, was recognised as one to whom immense pity had been shown by the very family he was now persecuting, and so overcome, broke down with savage regret for his follies! The spirit of man is not subject to necessity except in LIMITATION (for he is not god); but when it comes to being scheduled by this or that thought, as in Freudianism, Marxism, biological determinism, in common stopping all men from reaching the truth, then 'the truth' having reached the philosopher who says there is none, shows that if right, he must be wrong! The model precludes its operational power, being its own death-warrant.

Such tiresome tirades as make such models are the very stuff of the irrational into which man is uniformly led whenever he tries to abscond with his created equipment from the God who made him*4.

Man is so fallen, so fastidiously fallen in philosophies, so grossly in politics, so habitually in psychic maladies, so conspicuously in frauds and lies, so persistently in injustice, so horrendously in hypocrisies which creep like radioactive emanations, into the lives of those who profess very different things, that the provision of a cursed creation for his delectation is something of the nature of a parallelism. Man bit 'nature' (that is, abused the conditions of his trial in such an elevated state, as in Genesis 1-3), and nature, by the hand of God, bit back! Indeed, amidst amazing mercy by which man is permitted to continue FOR A TIME, at all, there are sometimes drafts of justice and judgment (cf. Ezekiel 21:5, 10-11, Isaiah 37:10), a prelude to its perfection at the bar, when history is done and the shades of night fall on the days of might, and puny man is faced with his Maker.

BEHOLD THE MAN! cried Pilate as he presented the illicitly whipped Christ to the populace. Here was the idea, here is the one you refuse to take in pardon, and on whose crucifixion you are now so vociferously insisting! They took Him and ignoring the point, that this expressed in physical format the screeching horrors of horrid hearts, proceeded in blindness to crucify the ONLY HOPE of this saddened, often maddened, grievous, self-esteeming human race.

BEHOLD THE CREATION! then one can cry, in parallel to this of Pilate as the crucifixion loomed, by his own permission. Look at it, at yourselves who are part of it, and weep; for there can be no washing of hands, only of hearts (as in Titus 3:5-7).

Look, it might be asseverated to our race,  at what you have done to it, and yet do. Look at the greenhouse effect (some even now trying to say, It is not man's fault! in the old gag of shrugging off responsibility)! Look at the vast hole that comes and goes and expands and comes again in the ozone layer. Consider the resultant skin cancer, as man erodes what is in effect the protective gaseous armour designed for the amour, the well-being of the earth!

What YOU, mankind,  have done to it (including to its races, its peoples), is illustrated and made visible in your environment! Such is a mere beginning of what might be said; and man is in no position to bargain or scheme or seek to lead others out of it by their own prowess for which, of course, as leaders, they would be well paid, as in the Commissar country, where the pigs get more milk because, as George Orwell pointed out, they have to feed their brains.

Take Peking, in this:  what was NEEDED to clear air up to a reasonable degree for the Olympics - and let this lead you to consider all those lungs, and what they suffered, before the Olympics; and may yet suffer again. Let us recognise that this is merely one illustration, though an extreme one! What GOD has done to man's earthly habitat, in order to EXHIBIT to him his folly,  to mock evils, to illustrate the nature of his misused power, to remind him of his sins and to make cartoons of them, and to limit him while he nose-dives with the pathetic exaltation on his lips,  of 'man, man, man!' - exulting as he cries and falls: this is likewise a tableau! (Romans 8:17ff.,  5:12ff.).

This earth, says Paul, is subjected to vanity, that is, to what is not good and strong and fine and true, but rather vacuous of goodness, deprived in godliness through vice and misplaced valour, cursed or without virtue.  Why ? It has been for the suffering man imposed on himself in the beginning, and yet imposes on the race in continuity, in rebellion with relish, in scoffing with sardonism, in godlessness with thrust.  His hearth is made in some ways, to resemble his heart; while in others, the beauty and grace of spirit and painting, of building and character, appear like the setting sun, full of colour even for departing day.

Alas,  the disease exhibits elements of its cause, as with lung cancer. The consequence is not unrelated to its cause; the scoffing receives its echo, and the vicious departure from God finds for itself the vices that lash, just as they came with the viciousness which lusted.

When therefore God subjected 'nature' to this curse, man's vault to this containment of calamity, He did not spare anything. In parables of animals, in pointedness in history, in games of futile philosophy, in wars of endless emptiness and vast suffering, man continues his dalliance with the devil. The more his sin teems, the more results team with it, to rebuke it.

The folly man imposes is correlative in general terms to the suffering God discloses;  and so they move in parallel. Plagues of locusts are merely one exhibit, the mosquito another, of the curse which is to remind man that he is not living in the world of a failed God but of a failed man, and that God who does not fail to supervise the earth till its end (which comes - Matthew 24:25, Isaiah 51:6, II Peter 3), will remind this race again and again, in system, in principle, in event, of his hollow course and vanity of perception and action, while time lasts!

It is however, this creation, "subjected in hope" (Romans 8:20), and why ?

It is "because the creation itself also will be delivered
from the bondage of corruption
into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
For we know that the whole creation groans and labours
as with pangs together until now.

"Not only that, but we also who have the firstfruits of the Spirit,
even we ourselves groan within ourselves,
eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body.
For we were saved in this hope, but hope that is seen is not hope,
for why does on still hope for what he sees?
But if we hope for what we do not see,
we eagerly wait for it with perseverance."

 It is not without hope, that many will relent and repent, and millions no doubt have already done so after the long, little span of human history over perhaps less than 10,000 years*5. It is rather, as with Job (as in Job 19) with the faith which sees through hope the certainty of the will of God complete, the judgment over, the beauty of holiness hallowed and the love of truth and truth of love made manifest for all who found it spoiled or soiled or besmirched or misjudged, the very air purged and the peace profound (Revelation 21-22).

Judgment is the case for mankind, not nudges to be nice, for nice people in a nice world who have a desire for niceties. It is not a time to seek to criticise God. If pain oppresses the mind as it well may, consider this, that voluntary disease BRINGS pain, and it is useless to try to invent a fairy-tale reality in which it does not. If some escape in body for a time, they run risk of later cancers and psychic tics, spiritual wounds and intolerable let-downs as they pass the summit of strength and feed on stubble, which to add to it, can be sharp too.

If the pain of others concerns the spirit, then consider this, that the whole race is in a tantrum, not always visible in outrageous behaviour, but often in inward follies; and though many are simply ignorant of the Gospel, God is not ignorant of them and has all things in hand for eternity (Ephesians 1:4, Romans 8:29ff., John 15:21ff.); but this is the lot of our race.

If you have freedom then a man MUST be free to injure another, either with impunity for a time, or with discipline, and this brings pain to those not in that RESPECT guilty. It is just this result of liberty which should drive many to the Lord; for THEN pain becomes meaningful, and one's life and way is directed to a divinely selected purpose and whatever happens, out of love, brings help to many and truth to the light.

If ease is the desire, forget it; life is not a matter of ease.

If happiness is the criterion, forget it, happiness is not a natural outcome, but a divine resultant, when you know and walk and work with your Creator-Redeemer who has gone to virtually infinite trouble to make His way, will and offer of salvation clear! (cf. Barbs.... 17).

WHAT are these wants and desires ? Do you want water and living in some jungle, expect it to come running in runnels to your wish! You go where it is. You do not 'blame' the forest for not planning and designing a free path to your door do you ? It is a world of liberty and trial, test and opportunity. If you do not like it, then


you are either to repent of your OWN sin and seek the Lord
whom you may long have ignored in actuality
(thus you could ignore a car in the garage and walk,
but if you began to ignore the fact that it was there,
it would be delusion and much worse,
but in each case, you walk for your own wilfulness),


or you may rebel.

Think! If liberty is to be, so is pain, and if opportunity is to be, then grabbers will be (The Child, the Youth and the Eternal Truth Ch. 13), and if evil is an option, then evil will be done. The alternative to remedy amid repentance and capitulation to truth in God and the godly living which befits our construction ? It is no life with love and meaning, but an abyss where beauty has non-existence,  where life is sent to see its proud image in dark reflections of guilt unpurged and pride uncovered.

But the simple, glorious alternative is life that is not only pardoned, but eternal (John 11:25-26).



If you want life, here it is, in Christ, where immune to judgment, you are not immune to discipline but are not left orphan; but have your Captain in your heart and find His written word in His book, which comprises it for mankind,  and follow Him with relish for your Creator-Redeemer.

What then ? If you do not WANT life to be, then you and God differ. He resolved that it WOULD be.

Why are you, IF in such a case as this, against it ? Because of the pain ? That is the result of sin, and is racially environmental, a necessity in life among many so enabled in liberty, to love and finding truth, love this too, in the midst of the holiness of God.

 If thus you WANT a life for your own part, delivered from both spiritual sedation and spiritual opportunism, going back to where it came from, THEN there is a path already to your door, and a work already done for you, and you have merely to telephone, as it were, to call on the Lord and in repentance face the realities and find your place within them, as a friend of the Almighty (John 15, James 2:23).

There is really no ground for rebellion, except in being wiser than God (a fallacious proposition since ALL the very being, mind, power, spiritual, moral, is from Him who not merely has what it takes to make it, but apportions it from His own creative premises); which is a groundless ground, or better, an irrational proposition.

But you may say, I DO NOT WANT a world like this one, where pain and lying and injustice have such power (cf. John 14:30). God however does want it, though it is only for a testing, challenging, revealing, appealing time; and in His Book, the Book of the Lord (Isaiah 34), He has told us why and for what. If thus you say, then: HE wants life and YOU want it snuffed. Very well, you do not love life and how then CAN you expect to find it lovely, since the love in which it was formed is something you defile by belligerence!

Alas for man, he struts and pouts and shouts and severs heads in the name of God, or power or passion, and dares to act as if he himself were God. It is an option, a created one; but not a divinely recommended one, since it is merely living a lie - that is, using a lie as a basis for belief, as a means for execution and a summary for thought.

It is, in another sense, the lie of the land: the moral lie, this time, not the slant of the slope or the flatness of the plain.

A man the other day laughed in my face when warned of his need to escape, when he was happily engaging with a church with the Alpha course*5, which alas does not preach all the Gospel, or terminate the word of God where the Bible does so, emphatically (cf. Ch. 6 above), a course of teaching which thus is allowing scope for such additions as may be added, whether by spiritual effusions, or by popes. In what way are additions found from popes allowable in this case ? The Course being abundantly both endorsed and used by Romanism,  and lacking the completion of the Gospel in total assurance of salvation and free grace from first to last for salvation without works*6,  which the word of God provides, it is defective, ready for misuse and a feeder-unit for error.

Its maker finds no fault with Rome's teaching we read, and seeks all to cease criticisms instead of finding unity. What unity ? Unity with the word of man, by spiritual addition or papal, to mix with that of God and find something liable to being led anywhere ?  With papal or spiritual pronouncements, then, the thing so founded is thus  is open to great changes in the very features which God has made unchangeable (Galatians 1:6-9, cf. Ephesians 2:19-22), unduplicable (Jeremiah 23) and utterly determinative (as in Isaiah 8:20).

This is merely an illustration of inadequacy. The FEAR of God may be far less than the love of Him, but when it is this or rebellion or indolence or insipidity, it is far the better. The fear of the Lord is not the end of wisdom, but it IS THE BEGINNING OF IT! (Psalm 111:10). The fear of the Lord moreover is CLEAN (Psalm 19:9), enduring for ever*7. It does not laugh at human licence or smile at artful extensions. It stops when God stops speaking and starts when He starts; but it does it in love, with understanding; for where love is, and the heart is open, the ear is clear.

Fearfulness in awe and majesty, in splendour and superb purity, this is what God has; and to revere Him in holy wonder and to dare nothing against Him in one's heart, this is the beginning of wisdom. Telling Him that He should have made the life we are both now using, it is not only to insult Him, to deny the scope that love requires in liberty, if it is ever to flower, but to hate what you have instead of using it freely as He made it for you. What pain is that to all! It is moreover totally unnecessary. Telling Him His words, instead of finding them verifiably and with unique validity attested in the Bible, this is merely one way of following imagination which, alas, is as far from following the Almighty as the moon is from the sun.

As this world continues in its holocaust of morality, we rejoice then that the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ is drawing near (Ch. 4 above as marked, SMR Ch. 8, Answers to Questions Ch. 5). He has not left the place to rumble for ever; in the end, "heaven and earth will pass away", but as Christ declared, "My words will not pass away." Add ? Consider the thing-constraint in Revelation, the Gospel grip in Galatians. Subtract ? Consider Deuteronomy 4, 12, Revelation 22. Why not ACCEPT the speech of God for your heart, as He has shown it to be, and His work for your life, and cut off from what surges in like a blitzkrieg, into the peace of His words in the Bible, to add to it or remove ? Why tarry with untruth when truth has been shown so that even a child could find it, and often does!

The prophets spoke with authority (Jeremiah 23), their words compared with all others from man, like wheat amidst chaff, and His words hit like a hammer on rock. It is not now different. The changeless Christ having finished His work, appeals to one and to all: COME! There is no need of a new sacrifice (Hebrews 9), nor even permission for one. There is no place for a new Christ (false christs are two-a-penny in the eyes of Christ - Matthew 24:24), for the One who came, did so on time, in time, and finished His work of eternal redemption (Hebrews 9:12). There is no extension to eternity, nor increment to full payment (Matthew 20:28).

There is, in strict parallel,  no need for a fresh word for man from God, nor even authority for any (Revelation 22, Matthew 517ff., Proverbs 30:6 cf. SMR Appendix   C and   D). God has finished both doing and speaking concerning salvation: NOW, He applies it.  As to man, he also may apply. THAT now, it is the sort of application which is cordial, communication which is constructive, the antidote to devastation and the security of eternity.

There is no need for a different world to have been, instead of this one. When we rest from our labours, who know Him, it is enough; and when He creates a new heaven and a new earth, it is a wonder. Stay with your Maker and serve for your Saviour: be with the artist of your soul, the One who formed your spirit within you, and forged for faith, the gift of grace, immortality for mortality and construction for even in place of everlasting destruction.

It does not work by force, but by love; and as to love, it requires freedom; and as to that, it enables evil, but as to that, Christ has overcome it in the form of a man, paid for its accomplishments in the place of the Cross, ruined its avarice in the feature of His resurrection, and stands immune to criticism of reason or truth, the Prince of peace. Making peace with the Prince of peace is the occupation beyond all, like feeling thirsty and finding ... a lake.






On man's wonder as a creation, see:

Ch. 3 above, The Bible, Not the Declamations or Distillations of Man... Ch. 4, History, Review and Overview Ch. 5, Stepping Out for Christ Ch. 9).

On man's myth-making, see Secular Myths and Sacred Truth, with SMR pp. 378ff, History, Review and Overview Ch. 5, Beauty for Ashes Ch. 3.



Something which nearly occurred in South Australia (missing, in effect,  by one vote in the upper house!), gives a paradigm for justifiable concern in like matters which tend to arise in country after country, where Caesar lusts against Christ, in his ministrations, and where utter reality becomes, as it may do now, a threat that some seek to debar by law! That below is close to what was sent to members of the relevant Council in 2001.











Dear Parliamentarians,


You may wonder that a Church should express its concern in this manner. However, information concerning this Bill has not long been with us, and since time is not now extensive before this Bill comes for consideration, it seems best to ensure that NO member of either body should be unaware of our concern, lest we ourselves prove deficient in such a time. What you do is your own concern; that you be given opportunity to study these considerations, is ours.


It is our concern that while the ostensible purpose of the Bill seems, in conjunction with the earlier Commonwealth Acts (see detail in enclosure), to be to prevent mental and emotional molestation, pre-eminently, of those who are younger, manipulation, exploitation being a category overall, and while this is an object which in principle we can heartily endorse, yet there is a grave problem in the Bill’s formulation.


Thus,  its wording is such that it may serve not only a very different purpose, but actually make available authority to police and courts which, taken as it stands, would empower and enable repressive if not persecutory action against religious bodies, to name but one category, which would amount to intimidation, expropriation of just liberty and a reversion in history to times not always pleasant to recall. While we for our part trust in the deliverance of God, for His own purposes, and in His own way, it would seem irresponsible not to bring warning of the extraordinary dangers to this country, to your attention.


Again, we bring focus to the danger posed to Christianity, as this is our due concern, but it also has applications to other religions, and to other topics on the Internet. In view of our only recent awareness of this legislation in this State, we have not as yet alerted other churches, and so write in this way.


We would appreciate it,  therefore, if you would address the enclosed pages, which relate in detail from the text of the various relevant Acts, and the Bill, the grounds of our concern. These cannot be dispelled by assumptions of great restraint and consideration, from those who hereafter would administer the Act, should it be passed in its present form, or one like it. What is written in any Act,  will tend increasingly be what is understood, even if current thoughts might prevent that immediately.


Power is not always amenable to such considerations, and the more so, as governments change, and to use the type of terminology found in the legislation, as society’s acceptable morals and culture change likewise. Such changes become increasingly what are invoked as regulative principles in interpreting the legislation, which is expressly made sensitive to such things, in advance.


It is the principle which matters; and this principle of liberty, so much affirmed since World War II,  while it needs defence against abuse, as has long been foreseen with many protective laws, also needs its integrity, so that such protection does not annul the reality.   If freedom of expression for teaching, due presentation of moral and religious matters, exhortation to amendment of life and the application of relevant principles become seducible into very different categories because of the cultural norms, there is liable to follow a degradation in the land, which may cost it far dearer than either of the two world wars.


Great countries have often fallen for this. It is our hope that this will not be the next. In essence, it is necessary in the Bill due for debate in Parliament next week,  to STATE what is meant, nothing less, nothing more, and to AUTHORISE what is necessary, nothing less, nothing more, and that both these aspects ally themselves to reality, maturity and liberty, while reserving the power of the law, its interference and sanctions, not for divergences from any contemporary norm, but for indisputable crime.


A suggested amendment, to limit the authority and protect the peace, is presented on p. 20 below. Please study this, for while it does not remove all the perils of the Bill, it does somewhat reduce them, and others may of course wish to protect further aspects of civil life, so that  purity with peace, and sound endeavours with a good understanding, with words of correct limitation might adorn the land.


We do of course appreciate that this Bill is not from all Parties, and that some of you have had no part in its formulation, and that some in every Party, and Independents, may also oppose it on various grounds. All however have every part in voting for its passing with or without qualification, or annulment, or for the requirement it be re-written. There is no need to reply; ours is the responsibility to bring this to your attention; after that, it is moved to yourselves, each one.


Rest assured that if we did not conceive this Bill a major work of peril for this State, we would not be likely to be moved to any such step as this; but responsibility to our Lord, whose work it may adversely affect, and concern for the State make it on this occasion, unavoidable. The enclosure is adapted from a chapter of a work of the undersigned, and this is done in view of the impending legislation, as scheduled for attention next week,  and its nature.


In the service of Jesus Christ,


Rev. Dr. Robert E. Donaldson

Th.D., M.A., B.D., B.A., Dip. Ed.


Minister, for

The Australian Presbyterian Bible Church Inc.


Is liberty taking wings, to fly away ?
Or is she to be SENT flying in S.A. ?



It is with horror and something not far from amazement that one finds Victoria greatly outdone by South Australia, not in an Act that merely invades liberty, but in a Bill that is to be discussed in days, this March, which makes Victoria's failure seem almost a gifted success, by comparison. (Cf. Galloping Events,Ch.7,.)


To give God the glory, however, one is delivered from being too amazed, because JUST SUCH THINGS as this have been forecast, and the forecasts of the Bible have often been considered, years ago, on this Web site (e.g.  Mystery of Iniquity, in The Other News).


The Bill is intended, it appears, to implement with what, in Australia is apparently necessary in such a case,  that is, the provision of authority at the State level, before the Commonwealth legislation on communication can take full effect.

Provisions of the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act of the Commonwealth, 1995 ('the principal Act'), as developed or amended later, are now to be implemented and individualised by each State, it appears. (See earlier, Joyful Jottings 14, esp. pp. 101ff. and *1   .) By it was set up the Classification Board which defines, tags and applies. The Commonwealth Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online Services) Bill  held further restrictions.

The latter developed the insistence on protection of minors by using an 'R' as a rating to require their protection. This, in principle, to many would very naturally seem in the right direction. However, this matter has taken on a sinister and in terms of presentation at least, sometimes a surreptitious air. The matter  of minors has become a major restriction, vastly beyond the question of pornography, obscenity and allies, in terms of which explanation for the severity of the Act may at times be given. Such references cover merely a small part of the scope of the legislative action!

To aggravate this situation, there is now to be found the presentation of the idea (with force) of making material on the Web which gained such a tag, this 'R', this not suitable for minors, to be subject to multiple disciplinary action under Commonwealth law, since minors (under 18 folk) could conceivably look at it. In South Australia, added escalation is proposed.

Such teeth for juvenility! The Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online Services) Bill now before South Australians, and soon D.V., to be debated, has further developed restrictions and specified penalties.

In fact, in January 2000, The Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online Services) Act, the Bill of 1999 became law. Flags might well have been half-mast. The shameless seeming character of this intrusion into academic and other presentation on the Web, so (relatively) soon after the two World Wars appears as an insult to many who fought in them. That it should be characterised as good, when it appears so evil in its debasement of human life at this internet level, is not unique. Many regimes have done no less. For Australia, however, it is a fall as from a cliff, to jagged rocks beneath. This great land would so be reduced by so small a conception that the trade mark, Australia Minor would be all too likely. Is this to be it ?

This Act of 2000, made provision that material not suitable for those under 18 should be restricted, and not allowed online without a filter of approved and complex kind, to distance people who might otherwise freely have access. It also provided for notice to be given for the take-down of material deemed restricted, and not filtered. This appears to have been the first of the acutely intimidatory, juvenile-constraint movements taken and able to act against highly moral and proper material, removing the reality of free speech and presuming to limit to youth level, in acutely compressed terms, ALL freely available on the net.

Let us however look more particularly at what however is required to attain the 'R' or restricted rating relative to minors. What is to be found in this category ?  Evil things, of course, horrendous or ghoulish, inroads of evil corruption ... In the turmoils of the various references and referrals in this Commonwealth material, one finds reasonably well-written phrasings of undoubted evils, needing supervision, such as this:

"matters of sex, drug misuse or addiction, crime, cruelty, violence or revolting or abhorrent phenomena in such a way that they offend against the standards of morality, decency and propriety".

That of course gets a stern rating, but there it is, looking at legitimate matters of concern.

While some, to be sure,  might be concerned at possible misuse of such matters for censorship, at least the drift is quite clear, and the problem being faced quite concrete. It is precisely this which would lend some credibility to the effort of the law makers in this respect, were it not for such nearly incredible accessions and additions as are apparently without any shame, inserted into it, for the simple category of 'R', restricted!

That phrasing quoted above, incidentally, is to be found in Draft Enforcement Provisions, as it appears on the Net, "suitable for inclusion in the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Enforcement Act 1995 (NSW). " It proceeds to note: "If this Part is inserted into that Act, many words and phrases used in this Part will have the same meaning as in the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Acts 1995 of the Commonwealth." Our point here is simply this, they have, and are already VERY aware of, some reasonably good wording in a preliminary sense, to cover what in principle are legitimate concerns, to which some censorship might be addressed.



Is This a Reckless Rocket,

Apparently Aimed Also at those at Peace,
Poised to Charge them as it Lands to Explode in their Midst,
of being 'Reckless' ?

 Or is it a Perfected Case of Adding Insult to Injury:
And of What it Stands Guilty, Uttering Condemnation ?


However, the matter has skyrocketed until it has become a space rocket, with an enormous space left from the earth, in an aerial survey proposed now by the Government, so that the Brave New World thought police are becoming much less surreal by comparison. Quickly can it descend to this earth! The sky is burdened with it, as with the Russian rocket, shortly expected to land in many pieces, in our sector of the world.

Now the official mood has manifested itself, enlarging on the weaknesses in the Commonwealth Acts,  and beyond notable in the Draft Enforcement Provisions as mentioned above. 'R' does not at all mean MERELY notoriously or abominably corruptive from sources of ill-intent, or something in that direction. It means simply what is deemed NOT SUITABLE for minors.

The fascinating and all but incredible feature is this, that this high moral ground, very commendable in principle, which was being taken, and is still mouthed in reference to what appears this liberty death-yard Bill, has become a highly immoral ground. It is now the Bill which is immoral, in this that it brings in of its own accord, things not justly comparable to "abhorrent phenomena in such a way that they offend against the standards of morality, decency and propriety."

What then is it doing ? 

It is presuming to open the way to harassment  and limiting liberty of expression to an extent hard even to imagine in the wonder days of achievement, when World War II was just finishing, and thought and ideological tyranny was being given its due, when the value of liberty was still strong in the popular mind! and international formulation sought better things.

That is itself abhorrent, almost to the limit possible!

In the same draft, we find, as indeed likewise in the South Australian Bill shortly to be discussed in Parliament, with a view to making it law in this State, that a person may be found guilty of "recklessness" in not foreseeing the condemnation which could come to his/her material on the Internet. Instead of noticeable reason prevailing in enlightened discussion about the proper status of material on the Web, there is the implicit charge that you should have foreseen the criteria at some given point in cultural history, assessed it aptly, and that if you did not, instead of being given opportunity to defend against what may well be slander or blindness or both, for authorities are not per se angelic or enlightened, and are capable of cultural occlusion, you are already due for condemnation, since you dared to put it up, when doubt is assessed to have been the least possible emotion you should have felt.

True it is 'only' $10,000 for failed insight that you are to be charged, at the most: but this penalty for non-conformity to juvenility, and assessments thereof, seems so near to the work of dictators in the recent past, that if it be not thrown out at this stage, perhaps the land will deserve the next. Almost certainly, just as this 'advance' on the Commonwealth law is being presented in S.A., later advances will likewise come. There is a time to cease dreaming, as if words were merely political counters, and to awake.

Let us face it simply. If a content-provider did not correctly estimate the moral feelings of the Body which censors, this is reckless, or may be deemed so. If a prophetic gift is not required to make such an estimate of the rapidly changing, downwards directly mores of society, it is not far from it! Fail and you face fine. But in what are you to fail, if you are to be fined ? In this: that you speak on the internet in a way which would "not be suitable for a minor". THAT is the explicit criterion for exclusion, and whatever its modes and manners, this is the phrase, this is the objective as stated! FURTHER, the material is "unsuitable…" if it is such that it "would, if classified, be classified R…" (Part 7A, underlining added). So does classification reach retrospectively.

You might, as is explicit, be presenting religious issues, but if it is found by the Moral Body that you are out of the depth or scope of the minor who might listen in, or of what the Board considers fitting for that minor, though you may not invite: then of THIS mis-estimate you may freely be found guilty.

You dared to act as an adult in this sphere, a MORAL adult, it may be, but still, in this forbidden manner ... adult! Thus it appears you may become a criminal, to the great aid of the intimidation.  Doubtless, this is progress; but the point is, it is in the wrong direction.

Anyone can lacerate liberty with comparative ease; to preserve it, however,  and yet punish crime, it is this which requires apt government. It requires it indeed, relative to youth in its own integrity also.



What in practice does this mean ? This, that by the time we come to the new South Australian Bill, things have come far beyond the original emphasis of the 1995 Law, and in some ways, that of 2000, both noted above. Thus, as we  see, it is now the case that the 'R' or restricted rating is to apply to material not suitable for minors, under 18, and if you should dare 'recklessly' to fail to perceive what the Moral Censoring Body conceives to be unfit for the minors, then yours may be the demeaning rather than endearing fate of becoming a criminal, as well as subject to a fine up to $10,000 for

a) not being sufficiently like a minor in your presentation on the Web and
b) not foreseeing that someone else, or some group,
who are officially meant to sense the mood, the values, the feeling of society,
may, in a majority only, find.

Further, the areas under censorial review are now defined by the Commonwealth body as those not only that might not fit the cap of minors, but SPECIFICALLY issues which would render them "adult" and so those inclusive of "marital problems, emotional trauma... death and serious illness, racism, religious issues." To be sure what is DEFINED in the GLOSSARY provided thoughtfully by the Office of Film and Literature Classification, as ADULT THEMES, may not be compatible with the REQUIREMENTS of being SUITABLE FOR MINORS! It may be useful to quote in full from their glossary on the area of the FORBIDDEN, the VERBOTEN verbiage for Australians living in South Australia, if the Bill is to fly into Act, and become law.

Adult ? Why yes: "Issues dealing with aspects of adult life that are potentially harmful to minors, or disturbing. Adult themes may include verbal references to and depictions associated with issues such as suicide, crime  corruption, marital problems, emotional trauma, drug and alcohol, dependency, death and serious illness, racism, religious issues" (emphasis added). OUT, oh spot! (with apologies to Lady Macbeth).

Useless to try to defend this monolith of moral majesty erecting itself, by saying that the MORAL ARBITERS AUTHORISED to condemn, MIGHT not condemn. Certainly they might not, but are not materials by law (if this Bill pass) to be conformable to minors, if they are to be allowed to major on the internet!

First, if it is not for minors, but rather what adults discuss, then that is at once moving into the statutory realm readily to be dubbed the non-permissible, subject to discrimination and popular condemnation by a socially interpretative Board; and secondly, the array of materials spelt out as adult,  above is so large, that it seems this potentate of patronage,

  the censor,


becomes a type of socialised god,


whose failure in reasonable instruction


(by definition, as 'he' merely reflects the conventions, cultural modes and so on, and 
   statistical morals are a contradiction in terms, since numbers are not in themselves
   either an attestation of truth or of logic),


induces more respect by imposing criminality and fines.


The moral matter is misconstrued (cf. below).

In the Glossary of the Office of Film and Literature Classification, in a work statedly approved by the Commonwealth, State and Territory Censorship Ministers, we DO find, to be precise, that "adult themes", while they are "issues dealing with aspects of adult life that are potentially harmful to minors, or disturbing", "MAY include verbal references to ... religious issues" (emphasis added). This does not formally BIND the Board of Classification to make ANY religious issue depiction to receive the tag "adult theme", since if they MAY include such references, they MAY NOT. Nevertheless, the issue is a loaded one, left securely in the hand of the Classification Board. Its rendering of mores could land degradingly on the turf of any church, or church oriented body, or indeed religious entity, merely to take one example.

To be sure, we find relative to "adult themes" in the classification which lies just below the severity of the 'R' rating, that of "mature accompanied",  that "the treatment of themes with a high degree of intensity should be discreet". Of "discreet", the official Glossary tells us this, that it means "with little or no detail and generally brief". Thus a low level of intensity in treating matters of prominent adult need and challenge, may be perhaps permitted, if the two are FELT to be compatible; but if the thing is intense, as one would hope from the more effective academic or researcher, reformer or leader of thought, then brevity and little detail is the permitted pabulum, once the matter is deemed an "adult theme". The phrase as defined does NOT involve any moral wrong or evil, but quite to  the contrary, is found in categories which per se can be noble and strengthening.

But what of such brief and low level approach to issues such as religious ones ? In academic terms, this sort of coverage of major issues is quite close to flat contradiction. It readily becomes unsophisticated, unlearned and crass.

So then might society, per Government, with whatever intention but with catastrophically clear impetus to result, monstrously adorn itself with power …  But does it ? We will shortly see what it does, for it is only days away, this hideous infirmity: and why hideous ? and why infirm ? It is because it would so reduce the nature of manhood and womanhood on the Web. If you reason that this is 'only' in S.A., yet there is thought that in this legislation S.A. might lead and provide a prototype for the nation. What is this leadership to be ? To provide ? Here is an opportunity for something really worthy.

You may argue that it is not exactly into worms that the citizens, web-wise would be turned; but it is certainly not into children, for as the Bible puts it, "in understanding be MEN!" It can lead to a hideous defilement of excellence in the very areas desperately required, like a captain watching a whirlpool in childish abandon, and not playing the man.




WHO is being unscrupulous ?

Is the real purpose of this Bill, then, to protect the young from the unscrupulous, or to be unscrupulous in dominating those who seek the welfare of all ? Is it to use police power to protect from abuse, or with it, to abuse the liberty for which this land has so long stood, in practice ?   Such power is certainly invoked in the South Australian Bill, with apparent provision for criminal proceedings, seemingly with little notice for removal of the indicted material.

Is the objective to ruin the internet as a medium for the advance of learning, and its dissemination of intellectual enterprise, or to prevent gross and outrageous elements from serenading or corrupting the young, in a way that  has NOT been done with literature in the schools, despite many protests, and is NOT done in libraries ?

Is the objective, web-wise, to make South Australians literally, in much,  a police State, subject to the thought tyranny of some 17 supra-religious pundits, elevated to rule, or secular primates ? or is it to allow freedom of expression, except and until abusive and corruptive influences are shown to be present, and not to cast in the cast-iron of fines and criminality, the ruling mores of a given time, like little children playing games, giving no thought to what they mean, or why ?

If, further, the purpose is speedy removal of things obviously in this evil category, what is to be done about the premature and pre-emptive embarrassing removal, if it is later SHOWN to be unwarranted ? Even the charge is no small thing in society, and any disruption of a web site can be of vast importance, long before there is any question of finding guilty or fining. The loss of time and the disturbance alone could be a critical feature. Is all of this, if found to be in error,   to be without repayment, apology, and free restoration in order to induce responsibility, on the part of false accusers ? for such have been prominent since the days of Daniel, and for reasons not always far different, envy and calumny for position, competitive advantage, revenge, obsessive desire and so on.






Moreover, is the object, in part, to make of South Australians, relative to the Web, ninnies living in fear and cut off from the moral magnitudes that require the fullest discussion and  penetrating understanding in the greatest depths, lest some 17 people fine them, because they deem  society at that moment, to be thinking differently, and on the whole, not to be bent that way (by a majority of the 17 or so pundits) ? or the Review Board happen, on the same basis for judgment, to agree!

Such a scenario is certainly in this respect, just as totalitarian as Communism, which also likes people to follow its ideas, as it has them, and puts on penalties if they don't!

Further, is the objective of the Bill, CAB 2000, to preclude,  or at least to supervise, and certainly  ludicrously to limit discussion of vitally important and wholly searching "religious issues" - to use the term which is explicitly subject to constraint in this Bill, lest they should not be "brief", or have a modicum (which is more than little) of detail ? or is it to use sanctions if they seem indiscreet in the eyes of 17 or so people, for failing to be presented in some limited and very superficial way, lest being in the 'adult' category, and hence 'not suitable for minors' without these restrictions, they become assessable as 'R', or restricted, and hence subjectible to condign punishments ?

If convicts in the 19th century were indeed sent to Australia for trivial crimes, out of all proportion often, to the exile and status of convict, what of this, where there is not necessarily any crime but rather faithfulness to one's calling, and no fault but insistence on the moral, spiritual and rational criteria of the word of God, for example! If a small fault led then to a large penalty, stirring our sensibilities and compassion, in the 1800s, what of this, where a large virtue  on the Internet, can at a breath, become a crime, by the churning tide of cultural preference, and may be fined!

·       Is this to be the glory of South Australia: to become a provider of danger, for work to be dubbed with an 'R' rating for being adult (as adults ought to be), for treating searching topics with maturity and depth, as befits much discourse, and hence to be excludable and subject to penal financial servitude (as totalitarian States normally do) ?  

·       Is this to be the wonder of the State, that it gratuitously provides an impediment of potentially disastrous proportions, at the level of intelligent and benevolent - if searching and deep -  discussion on the Internet!

Disastrous ? Well, not entirely JUST because of the stigma which appears to be provided, 'criminal', or the fine taken, to $10,000; but rather, to take one illustration only,  because the work itself - which may and could be, carefully and sedulously prepared from the word of God, and at the command of Christ - can in this way be taken down, removed, hidden away, brought to a ruin like that narrowly escaped by Adelaide this Summer, from locusts. In this case, it would however be the State which acts the locust, not the locust which attacks the State.

It would then be liable to become a State of Decline, as  well of Immaturity:
academic integrity in major components being dismissed on the internet, universities themselves under the rod.


Just what might legislators imagine they are called to be, if this should - after examination and review - be passed. Is it to serve by dictation, prescribe by intimidation, make freedom of thought, however benevolent, a crime because adult, if expressed with vigour, depth and detail,  as often called for, in this vital and potentially serviceable medium of the 21st century ?

·       Or might S.A. become the State of Backwardness?  

·       and how does all this fit with the proposed positioning of South Australia
as a kingly contributor to the Electronic Age,
as was evidently the case in the governmental earlier paper,  "INFORMATION ECONOMY ..."!

It is a king not provided with the implements of majesty, but rather set in his grave, by some ... error. Could it not far rather be dubbed, INTERNET ORPHAN ? or RESTRICTED ACCESS ECONOMY ?

But then would not the Information Economy paper itself need considerable re-writing!

Yet it may be said, THIS is certainly not the intention of the Bill, nor is there any limitation on freedom of speech intended, for did not the Commonwealth Minister, Senator Alston, himself declare that this was so! and is not the endeavour to implement that Commonwealth Act ?

How could South Australia be apparently so blatantly acting, as if to excise freedom of speech so deeply from the internet, when the Commonwealth Minister who took prominent part in the initiative, assured his hearers at the time of the Commonwealth action, that freedom of speech was NOT in question.

In the context, he did not mean, since he was protesting the sagacity of the legislation, that freedom of speech was obviously going to be dismissed, but rather that it would be sustained: and this ? ... it is sustaining! As well might a lion sustain when it assails you!

The legislation as it stands, would alas seem to sustain no small part of what it governs not with food, but with iron, making childhood the mentor, and ground of censorship!

If, then,  this is NOT the intention, then there would appear an inefficiency or overkill in the Bill as currently worded, which may conceivably be unique in our history. It would not, in any case, adorn it. In fact, however, in a large society, many influences may be at work, religiously repressive, culturally oppressive, socialistically invasive, or even communistically occlusive, anti-God and so on. Thus might be explained much in the Bill, for the strange distance between its apparent aims and obvious means. This however is charitably NOT to be imagined unless we should be compelled, and the ensuing session of the S.A. Parliament should reveal much. Perhaps the trouble is not least a desire for easy administration of the legislation afterwards; but as so often, ease is not wisely purchased at such a price.

Whatever, however, may be the inefficiency or other error lying at the base of the relevant legislation in this country, it is raising a potentially dictatorial head which the wise - unlike the case in so many other countries, so often - will cut off before it rears!  Many may make USE of what it is not clear and adequately defined, for their own purposes. Hence, whatever the reason for the formulation in this legislation, it should be altered till it is not vulnerable at all. This may make it harder to administer; but then many things make matters harder to administer, in family, church or society, when the objective is good, and precious things have to be preserved, untradable standards.

·       It is not necessary to endeavour to determine the purpose of all of the government, as though one could read hearts; it is enough for our present purposes to consider, with the welfare of all at stake, what would be the RESULTS of its proposed action. Nor has the government taken this action yet; and it is in hope it will abandon these evils, that it is necessary to speak, in good time. It IS necessary to conceive these results in terms of stated purpose, however, in order to show the cleavage between just purpose and proposed action, lest much damage to many result, and this to the State as one whole.

But as things stand in this apparently preposterous Bill, what is the case ?

Is this land then Web-wise,  to become a State for children, a child-State (and put that on the licence plates), or would it submit to become a State of Immaturity, as far as adults are concerned, an undisciplined State, which, unable to watch over its children, now is or soon may be, legally prepared for attacks on its adults, even in their moral and ideologically benevolent activities ? Should this Bill in present form  pass, then free at least  so to repress at the will, desire or caprice of its people, whose mood and ideas are to be interpreted by the Board from time to time, the State can act in response to the 'ruling' social ideas or desire, as discerned by  a very few! It can then degrade, fleece and fulminate at pleasure, not only justly at manipulative and corruptive criminals, but at those who at sacrifice seek to build in morality, lead in truth and instil justice!

Is liberty a thing that so many slaved to obtain, that it should be so detached, like the bottom half of a receipt, and sent on! What has become of wisdom, that such intolerance should so be authorised, and that quite explicitly, in the name of the values and so on, of society, as if some being criminals, all must become children! Is it not enough to punish crime, without making it crime to think differently from your society, as Christ for example did, and was rather more than fined!  




If this is to be so, this bids fair to become, in one basic aspect in this crucial field, an anti-Christian State. In what aspect ?  in this,

that it is refusing liberty for Christian adults to proceed to communicate on the Web -

in great depth and detail,

without fear of, or provision for,  the provocation of persecution -

the prodigious wonders of the grace and power of God over evil and for good in Christ:

because  in some point some Board may feel that this is not suitable for minors -

to present what the Bible declares!  

The Bible is VERY deep, not at all BRIEF, exposes much great wickedness and suffering to overcome it, touching to the heart, and its word divides, in fact, as it says, between soul and spirit (Hebrews 4:12).  


·       It is of course not harmful to youth or anyone else, but beneficent, benevolent, and instructive, as the word of God (as demonstrated in Chs. 1-3,10 and verified continually on this site). However, all that is needed is rejection of the Bible as such, in terms of social mores, which is the alleged determinant for the judgments - and these CERTAINLY in their endless variability are not the word of God, but of man - and behold, man as judge in militant secular humanism, judges man who serves God. That would be reckless indeed, but it is far from uncommon in societies, and some such leaven as this appears to have been conspicuously at work in S.A. education already, as attested in That Magnificent Rock (TMR - Ch. 8).

·       In fact, the Bible describes itself as "living and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing..." and as in all therapy, it points out the disease in ways so far from soporific or humanistic, or relativistic that it both announces the truth and condemns from the mouth of God, all other sources, than Jesus Christ and the law and the prophets of old. Jesus Christ can and DID cause enormous division, and SAID so (Matthew 10:34-35), and His words were not muted in public by concerns that they might prove rather too much for any youths who heard!  

·       Nor is it merely that there is POSSIBLE interference. Let us take the Christian case. Those who so present things, with intensity,  without being brief and what is called discreet, and do so  on the landmark magnitudes which Christ unveils, are ALREADY being told they may be subject to the charge of "RECKLESSNESS" for NOT realising as they might, that this is NOT brief, or NOT discreet, or NOT treating things in a way suitable, in the opinions of a few people, FOR MINORS. Imagine now a great medical specialist being told that all his books must be suitable for minors!  

·       While we, with many, are satisfied there is nothing the world needs so much as Christ, this is to cut Him off from one of the main media in the AMPLITUDE OF THE BIBLICAL DEPTH on many issues, and hence crimps, cramps and attacks, assault or even insults His servants by telling them IN ADVANCE they are criminal if caught out, in NOT presenting things ONLY fit for minors, AS deemed fit for minors,  ON THE WEB, as the Board may deem the case to be, from time to time!

What a pity for the city of churches, and what hypocrisy could lurk there, if the Bill passed. For then it would have a name for religion, when in fact, Caesar on the internet, would be ruling with violence over the thrust of thematic and practical freedom of Christ's ministers, elders and teachers in particular, rendering them liable to be put  in financial chains or perhaps called criminals! Are they not - to mention but one religion, as an example - Biblically called to present through all the world the word of God, the gospel of salvation ? Are they in particular, with such a known commission, to be chained on the internet, made to keep things to the level of immaturity, 'suitable for minors', on pain of sudden and virtually unpredictable insurgence of 'criminality'! if so, what is this State becoming ?

Further: is there ANY religion which more emphatically, dramatically and practically DEMANDS that its WORD (NOT its power over people by authoritarian strictures) be presented throughout the world, and not the gospel only, but ALL that He has commanded (Matthew 28:;18-20), which is statedly penetrating between soul and spirit! In fact, Christ in Matthew 24 indicates that He will not RETURN as king in this world, until this presentation is made over the whole world. Such State limits in such a vast medium are therefore an enormous discrimination against THIS particular religion, which specialises so that in this none surpasses it, in dissemination, communication, unabbreviated and penetrating,  and this global.

Further ramifications of this appear in Joyful Jottings 12, and 14. The minatory prescription in such areas ? suitable for minors! The interface at this point is not so important as the direction, on pain of recklessness if social standards in vogue are not "read".

That, such a limitation, is or would be, a hostile act! If it is not so in intention, it is so in result. In this sense, it would be hostile not to Christ alone, but  to those who perform His word no less, and this eminently if not pre-eminently; and the gospel and biblical commission in particular, given at the proper adult level for millions, would be curbed by oppression, met by discrimination. With such limitations, many it might well not reach in its Biblical depth as prescribed, with the whole word of God, because of this punitive prescription, this artificial limitation of adults to the minds of children. This explosive provision, the electronic medium, would be under threat to be tossed into the water of the well.

It is, once again, not necessary to try to plumb the intent of the legislation, or the parameters which have guided its particular type of construction; only to seek to measure its direction for results.

But as to the latter, it would not be unfitting to ask this: Are then newspapers on line, to omit all strong address and depth also, as if - in the result, whatever the purpose - real examination of what is occurring cannot be made, lest it surpass the mind of youth, as it is deemed to be, and criminality ensue, for them likewise ? Is this to be a nation, electronically, of kids or criminals, then, as the definitions move from time to time, as prescribed ? Do you preserve youth by mocking it, by making men and women act like it, as if some sort of social leucotomy were in view ? rather than having them to be examples of tenacity of purpose and depth of comprehension!

What moreover of politics ? this surely is an adult theme! and the glossary definition merely lists EXAMPLES of adult themes, and does not propose to exhaust them in its list! Is politics to be subjected, as indicated in the glossary definition of adult themes, to such limitations, so that those in power are freer from this aspect of exposure, lest it surpass junior minds in scope, in the OPINION of a few people! Does this make for political stability and restraint ? Does history suggest that!

Moreover, what are teachers to do, who scale their material to different ages and levels of attainment ? Is education to become a subdued farce because a Bill cannot or will not differentiate between the removal of corruption and corruptive influences that cannot be doubted, such as enticement to immature obscenities or drug dependency, on the one hand, and the removal of liberty, on the other; and because it will not in this, have adults to be adult, but rather degrades all to what in its time, is fine, to youth, because it will not or cannot control what it should where it should!

Already as TMR Ch. Ch. 8,  show so plainly, there is in South Australia a seemingly impervious insistence on teaching in an absolute and monopolistic fashion, according to unsustainable preference in a biological area, something which has enormous implications for behaviour and social bearing. The problem, of which this is part, now appears planned for solution by sacrificing adult maturity in much, whereas it is better reduced by providing childhood training in truth.  It is better to treat children as children than adults as children, and in secular education to present creation and its theoretical competitors, unsustainable though they are demonstrated to be (see The Shadow of a Mighty Rock, That Magnificent Rock, A Spiritual Potpourri for example), so that youth may consider, rather than to indoctrinate in the ill-considered propaganda which so readily substitutes strife for Creator, and imagination for evidence, and rational exclusion of much, at the teaching level.

But what of this current solution on the Internet, to the problem thus exacerbated by bad educational technique, as Russian prize-winning Dr Dmitri Kouznetsov so well attested of it, when he lectured to Adelaide University students ? It is sensitively treated facts, not pre-prepared dogmas which they do not warrant or sustain, which are appropriate scientifically, when the creation of this universe’s energy and life is concerned; and in fact, in terms of scientific method, the degradation of things to self-invention is not warranted by observable processes or logical rigour. As we show in TMR Ch. Ch. 8, it is excluded! But in S.A.'s State High School situation, the thing is not even left rationally open! If to exclude the only viable logical option is not commendable, far worse is it to exclude competition of ideas. This, as a basis for thought, in the interests of what is thus in practice, a monopoly, is simply not in accord with scientific method.

The point here, however, concerns simply what has for so long been without stated rational ground, rejected by the S.A. Government: Secular education should enable students to ponder the issues, not exclude the use of teachers from so much as the rational presentation at all of the things which are with reason adduced for this or that approach. We do not need in the secular realm of education,  forced intellectual labour camps, in which pre-slanted results are substituted for reasoned ones, with an apparent effrontery fully contrary to student needs, by command of the political powers that be.

It is this violation of scientific method, as well as of godly values in the implications (see demonstration of the breach, TMR Ch. Ch. 8), which is a contributory factor in the constitution of the youth problem faced; the full force of which is currently being faced in the Bill under discussion. The Classification Bill method of addressing an answer to such things,  at the adult level,  is as incorrect as the educative approach which tends so to augment it. Here is found, alas, a double negative which assuredly in this case makes no positive!

What then ? Thus incurring their own aggravation of the youth problem, is the Government now to use disastrous escalation into the adult sphere, perilously ill-defined and what appears outrageously unqualified powers being granted to a control board OVER ADULTS, because of the misdirected young ?

It is entirely comparable with removing, in the transport sphere this time, all cars lest some youth should find one, and being of immoral mind and evil purpose, steal it! Shall we then ban transport, unless suitable for minors, who might steal a car if they saw one, before their time.

What then is to be said in Biblical terms ? Woe to any folly which maximising man, minimises God, and thus deals with what is not there, for the only God is Almighty (SMR)!





It used to be said, Children should be seen and not heard. Now has the pendulum swung so far, that it seems electronically that it is adults who must be seen and not heard, lest children should overhear them, because without discipline they eavesdrop!

Now if these are NOT, and one hopes indeed, EMPHATICALLY NOT in any sense the objectives of this Bill, then as presented, it is seriously amiss, because it permits them; and it thus needs amendment.  Should such a type of amendment, of limitation and qualification,  as is here proposed - and this is merely one - be rejected, if this should occur, then the Government of this State (for however long it may remain in government - and in this case, in view of national trends, it might not be very long) becomes morally guilty of needless intrusion in the varied and well-intentioned affairs of its members.

It then is guilty of making provision for a reversion, in some ways,  to medieval times, and turns back the clock of history while the people sleep. But they will not sleep for long, with such an Act, if this Bill as written should become one, as this!

VAIN it is, to say that the 17 or some such number of  people to be put in the place of judgment, the censorship board, would never dream of persecuting established religions for presentation at the adult level and manner, on the internet; or that the Appeals bodies, should the religionists be accused or dubbed as criminals for presenting what is their religion or its grounds or applications, would never uphold such a judgment. By then, much damage is done. It can be of prodigious proportions, in terms of reputation alone, and cessation can be nearly calamitous. Who pays ? Where is the provision for that! And ... where is the purse for it!

Or is justice to be disregarded, evil wrought on those disapproved by the fiat of the Board, at the will of Commonwealth and State elevation of man to moral-maker in place of God, and a variable maker at that, without recompence even if guilt is later found misplaced ? If however, guilt is falsely attributed by these merely social morals, though they are in this Act seemingly seen as simply social statistics, then the evil is doubly dealt, being without social recompence, or financial, and the work impeded, however good it may be!

Nor is this all. In history, incredible seeming views, mental constructions, ideologies (cf) can readily take possession of whole peoples, and if these last two wars have not successfully taught that to this State, then much of their suffering would appear in vain. This country alone, which came very close to the imposition of force in its ways, from outside its shores, is it now to do it voluntarily, in a self-inflicted wound, to its own members! Will it call evil good and good evil, as it substitutes its statistical preferences for morality, and uses force where it is useful, not simply where corruption is demonstrable!

To set up a Police State, at this level,  in this area and in this respect, would alas, be a profound error: and if this is not the intention, then the abundant provision to act at once with criminal charges, and the Board’s power with impunity to harass the upright with whose presentations they may not agree, in applying the social mores of the day, makes a distinction in the realm of ideology and ideas, as well as religion, all but impossible to maintain.

But let us emphasise the sequence in the situation.

To limit conversation or presentation on the Net, to the level of minors under threat of duress, is an additional error of immense magnitude. To fail specifically to exclude the deep and conscientious religious discussion bent on good for people, from such an unfortunate if indirect tyranny of minors, and of police, and of politicians, is such an abasement of manhood and womanhood, as to induce the deepest concern for any people subject to it. Such treatment of ideas and ideals as these, bids fair to mark out this State for due recompense for violation of needed religious liberty, maturity and stimulus in this crucial area, for one. This, the religious, let us be clear, is simply one area; but it is nevertheless a vital example of the openness for misapplication of force which the Act enshrines, whatever the intention.

To correct the corrupters is a limited and just objective for an Act; yet to remove the correct with them, on the basis of arbitrary definition, based in current philosophic and social notions, as interpreted ... this is the abyss faced by the Bill.

·       That any Party should so try to protect the young by abusing the mature, while taking over some of the prerogatives of God Himself, to do so, comes close to the testimony that "truth is fallen in the street" and "righteousness stands far off" (Isaiah 59:14). It has happened before.  

·       The question is this:  

·       Does this State want so to provide for it to happen again, at this time ? If so, the way may be open for it to do so, and so bring evil on all, while ostensibly the aim is to give protection to some. The way is likewise open to it to RESIST and REJECT all such things, not merely with noble words of good intention, but with a carefully crafted law which EXCLUDES such matters.

While one was not born in this State, and had served in several countries in the pastoral domain, before coming here, one has yet enough affection for it, to desire a far better future for it than this portends! and to delight in any action to prevent such a situation, as may in timely fashion, arrive. 




In the Commonwealth legislation, there have been formulations of what is abhorrent, morally outrageous: and these, if they are the real target, the real purpose of arraignment and arrest of communication, in terms of the Bill, could conceivably be used just as they stand. On the other hand, unqualified censorship power (over matters such as of adult discussion of "religious issues", to use the phrase in the Bill,  on the Web), this becomes merely partial dictatorship. It brings with it an avenue to enmities, a beginning module for religious and other persecution, under whatever fine-sounding name it might choose to go, leading to very possible desire for revenge on what has facilitated the pomposities of power: this legislating without rational ground, over ideas.

Is this nation to be so stricken and so fallen, and this State to lead in the injurious stampede so that instead of giving challenge to the young, it abases itself in this electronic sphere: in outrageous disjunction from that of the printed word,  still far freer and justly so, than this ? But abases itself to what ?  It is to the child's level of mind, so that adults instead of providing examples of mature thought to which the young may aspire, are to made liable to become, at a word, the abused butts of Governmentally led, police assault. If the legislators' intention is benevolent, are they alone in that ? It is the provisions which count, and the use to which they lie open, like sun-bakers in front of a steam-roller.

And is the censorship body indeed to be enabled to call it "reckless" that material HAS BEEN PLACED on the internet, because it is at some subsequent time deemed to have shown an unacceptable level of knowledge of what the Board might think, as it approaches the changing social mores problem, and seeks to determine what ought to be, and what, therefore, is so wrong as to be ‘reckless’ ?

Is then what is DEEMED unsuitable and felt to be clearly so by the Board, to become the basis of accusation of those whom also it fines, for breach of integrity, because they so lapsed in obeisance to the current stream of social thought!

Though the intention may be plausible, the result thus all the more moves vigorously towards dictatorship of thought, on the Internet, punishment of divergence, and appears in principle, wholly indistinguishable from militant secular humanism, by legislation, and punitive legislation at that. 

If the exclusion of below
, or some equal ruling is not made in amendment, the Bill is PROVIDING for just such a thing, even if this be far from its purpose,  in its use of censorial power, based on grounds inflated in kind and wholly inadequate in definition, qualification and kind.

And that ! It could readily become in itself an abuse of the Police themselves by the Government, that they should be asked to stoop to such things. As in Germany, there is always a beginning of such things, and as in Tiananmen, for a time at least, there may be almost an end through various kinds of duress, of that stimulus of liberty which may correct a nation, as so often, from going perilously astray.

If the State is to do this, or the nation to follow in such a method, it will suffer, and that justly, for abusing its gifts, insulting God by forcing its own moral standards on all, varying them precisely and explicitly indeed, as it sees fit:  and this, instead of
what ?

Instead, simply of restraining with wisdom evil where its corrosive force indubitably aims at corruption, while  promoting good with liberty. Good government is a difficult art (see Questions and Answers ), but there are principles, the sacrifice of which brings typical corruption.  

The procedure to be installed, if S.A. is unfortunate enough to inherit this heavily intrusive and ill-adapted mechanism of control, and assault on freedom of expression, on the one hand, and the principles behind it, on the other: what are they like ? They are like a lion and a lioness. Alone they are terrible. Together they can produce many cubs, which growing, defile further those who were lax enough to suffer the parentage! History bulges with such progenies, labours under their examples, and laments for the litanies their litters produce.

Finally, it should be clearly stated that it is not the intention of this body, which now is constrained to write to S.A. legislators, to assume motivation or to assess capacity of any legislator; for the concern is to seek to avoid results which should not be intended, may not be intended, and to alert to a supreme danger of their eventuation: and this, both in the interests of South Australians in general, and of the Biblical faith in particular. History is not dumb; we must be alert with enormous care, at this point.







The Bill ? "Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2000". We shall refer to this as CAB 2000, Classification Amendment Bill 2000.  




The officially authorised Office of Film and Literature Classification declares this in its Guidelines: "When making its classification decisions, the Board is required to reflect contemporary community standards…", and of course, as to the intended audience or viewers, if "minor" is a necessity to be met, that intrudes officiously. What is 'likely to be objectionable to a reasonable adult'  is the phrasing reportedly used by Attorney General  Darryl Williams in 1997, in a Murdoch University speech. Under these circumstances, this tends to become the criterion of liberty, as sure as the winds, as secure as the waves, as ill-defined as the clouds, nugatory, nebulous, nubilous extravaganzas of unholy humbug, waving phrases, not praises, and making the very waves the ruler.  


Did reasonable men make Hitler ruler ? sustain him as he advanced ?  


Did reasonable men seek to exterminate the Jews
to the extent of some 50% of the world population, and continue it for years ?


Did reasonable men twist the thumbs, crush the bones and extort 'confessions'
from countless impoverished and persecuted victims,
in religious persecution in Europe, and continue such things for centuries ?


Did reasonable men put millions of kulaks into Siberian torture
and deprivations unspeakable, over years of horror,
because they had the eminent crime, a matter judged to be so,
by those who doubtless deemed themselves, reasonable people -  of having farms ? …



Did reasonable men make thousands of slaves, and make them work,
after kidnapping them, in conditions often both miserly and inhuman,
or deem them 'something else' than human ?

At their time, were they not of this persuasion ? Is superiority to become a criterion of judgment, then, for this nation ? We are too good, perhaps, to be so duped ? Delusion frequently precedes destruction, and elevation, depression.



It is very important to realise the terms and conditions in which the Commonwealth Act was presented. In May 27, it is reported, Senator Richard Alston's media release gave this orientation:

·        'It's time for some facts to be injected into the debate about the Government's internet content bill which passed the Senate on Wednesday.


·       'This bill isn't designed to "censor the net" or to "restrict freedom of speech" or to "force websites offshore" or even to "kill the net" - as some critics and some elements of the media have claimed...'

Let then the Commonwealth deliver on this. The wording far transcends the alleged design, as has been exhibited here, and the South Australian provisions amplify the disjunction between stated purpose and actual verbal result. Unfortunately, whether or not this amplification may be mere inefficiency, or else efforts to make easy the task of dealing with what is NOT free speech but irrational scurrility or manipulation, the result is the same. The law, if you will,  lets sodium pentathol or potassium cyanide, indifferently, be injected into the populace' veins. Depending on the person with the syringe to know the choice, however, is not enough. If you are directing people by law, you MUST say what you mean. Benevolent laws need beneficent procedures and prudent words.

This assurance from the Commonwealth Minister does give some background to the law, for it is either to be observed in restraint in practice (but what of future governments which in time may approve all too well the actual wording and powers given through the Act!), or to be contrasted for insincerity or even confusion, in the outcome.

After all, does the judge in his due time, not tend to look at the words in the
Act ? Is that not why it is written ? ...







An amendment to cover something of the need in the field of religion, to mention this alone, would be perhaps like this. It could scarcely be less!

It is not any purpose of this Bill

·       to retract, delete, disturb

·       or compromise

·       the open and due declaration and presentation

·       of the teaching and the application of religious faiths,

·       having due respect for the individual;

·       nor is it at all intended by this means, to persecute those who hold them.

·       Accordingly no action based on such a premiss is to be taken on the authority of this Bill, and this State by no means permits it.

{Means to ensure this happens in S.A. could then be formulated.}



The Australian, p. 33, in the IT section, Tuesday, February 20, 2001, speaks of "Draconian net censorship push", and details some aspects of this South Australian case. This includes the words of academician, Peter Chen, "who has written a thesis on internet censorship in Australia", who suggests moving offshore with non-minor content, a thought which taken in any normal situation, would appear ludicrous... while Michael Baker, of Electronic Frontiers Australia, is cited as being of the view that placing material placed by South Australians would be susceptible to the punitive measures of the law, "no matter where the material was hosted".

Perhaps there is an area between these two comments, at the legal level; but that such matters would even be conceivable is its own lament on the hideous defalcation of liberty, that seems to be  threatening in this State. "Harsh internet laws that give police power to prosecute anyone posting content deemed unsuitable for minors are likely to be passed" says the article, of this harassed State. One should have thought it for some tiny State in its worst seasons of depredation of liberty, not Australia, not a country which had made for itself a name as a bastion of liberty.

It is to this impending Bill for Law making, that one now looks for apt and adequate limits.


This, it is a matter of interest to report, is precisely what the Jews did who, having been warned for centuries, but with great directness by Jeremiah in the 6th. century B.C., even pled with, exhorted, given many gracious offers (as in Jeremiah 17), were in the end left with their destroyed city. It was this which their ignoring of truth in God had for so long threatened, not in mere terror, but in just desert.

What however did those pitifully left with so much lost (just as S.A., for its part,  has lost, not its city but some 3 billion dollars, a huge amount for so small a population, in real estate and such deals, made by an earlier government, apparently not least outside its own State):  what did it do ?

They actually ASKED JEREMIAH what they should do. He told them from the Lord: DO NOT go to Egypt. They had to take their medicine where they were, and await divine mercy.

In reply, they spoke - just as does this our own contemporary (threatened) moral mandate for government to determine speech:

·       "But we will certainly do whatever has gone out of our own mouth..." (Jeremiah 44:17).

Contemptuously they dismissed the prophet's direction, continued to promote provocative taunts against their God and declared that they would proceed, not in abasement at their former follies which had brought such great devastation, suffering and loss, but in superiority and height of spirit, following their own mouth as if God had forgotten His.

He has not, and never does so (cf. Matthew 4:4, . 1-3,10).

So now is Australia electronically to be made subject to "whatever has gone out of our own mouth", and presume to dictate to its citizens the style and content of those things - without limit as opinion may from time to time move and change in society - which they are to speak: as if the sins of some were to become the chains of all, and speech were to be inhibited not by evil or crime, but by moral censure based on the law of the political mouth, which determines all its subjects may say.

Is this not like medicine which, to cure a gumboil, cuts out the tongue.

It is one thing to commit crime deliberately; it is another to be prevented from doing good. To make all like children in mind, is so contrary to the word of God, "In understanding be men!" that it makes one tremble to consider. Is this the answer ? not only forget Biblical criteria and standards in political practice, but MAKE YOUR OWN, and ENFORCE them, over the head of Biblical and for that matter, all other religious criteria, because they are YOUR OWN. If ever there was living by your own thoughts, this is it!

And then, what then ?

What then, defile adulthood, not its sins, but its very nature, as well ?



Of course, the most hostile of acts cannot remove the delicious fact that in making themselves thus impervious to the absolute standards of Almighty God, they become the proponents of their own selves, society, of man as the measure, and in that they conform to the predictions perfectly of II Timothy 3:7 for the "last days", always about turning, never knowing, dynamically dissociated from the absolute requirements of God, making absolute the puny requirements of man, by the only thing left, force.

The "man of sin", that ultimate criterion of evil, is predicted in fact to be "showing himself that he is God", which though ludicrous, is implicit in the dictation in morals and religion, to man.

It has to start, and it is well under way

·       in philosophy, organic evolution - a theory to which this State has given monolithic status in the education of the young (cf. That Magnificent Rock Ch. 8),  for whom it now would seem interested in giving this new dominance -  

·       in such things as some new Age style humanistic revellings in thought worlds of inter-communion,  

·       as in the situational ethics of one's own propounding and  

·       the existentialism of spiritistic certainties,  

·       which fade somehow, in the translation into practice.

What then ? We speak from the Biblical perspective, which we follow. If the ship of humanity is to founder on such rocks, and if the signals for Christ's "near" return as we have been seeing in the last few volumes, are so incisive, is it at all surprising that the waters are growing very shallow, and the steering brings astonishment to those still on board! It is now doubly essential, though it has always been necessary for people to remain air-borne, sitting in heavenly places, not trusting in this variable ship of State, in which man tries, as he has ever tried for several millenia past, but with sharply increasing daring, to direct the ways of his race, abusing the name and power of God, as also his own place, alike.

Who would not warn and exhort in such a case, when not only is the welfare of so many in one dimension in such peril, and are the divine results so grievous, except mercy intervene: but this can serve as an example for others, both in this very domain, the electronic, and in other fields, once the thought is established here!




See for example:

The Meaning of Liberty and the Message of Remedy.




See for example

Manifesto of Deity Ch.     3, from which the following is taken.  

The 'god of forces' (Daniel 11:37-38, SMR pp. 707ff., Of the Earth ... Ch. 13) however does not help. Man is capable of far better things than self-inflicted robotism (Little Things Ch. 5, It Bubbles ... Ch. 9, Life, What is it ? Christ Incomparable, Lord Indomitable Ch. 2).




 Hapless Hitches and Holy Healings Ch.   3,

Bewilderment, Bedazzlement,
Bedevilment or the Beauty of Christ's Holiness
Ch.   7.




Romans 3:23-27, 10:1ff., Ephesians 2:1-12, Galatians 3, 5, and see SMR pp. 520 - 532,
The Impregnable Tower Ch. 3.


The fear of the Lord has many facets. Firstly, it involves what is demonstrable, as in SMR, Light Dwells with the Lord's Christr, Who Answers Riddles and where He is, Darkness Departs.
Secondly, as shown in TMR, the value of 'religion' depends on the structure, nature and verifiability of that religion. You can no more generalise on this topic, than on 'research'. Each one has its own criteria, challenges and defensibility; and this one has its own indefeasibility. If it were not so, perhaps someone could have shown it in the last 12 years; nor is this site lonely, for such works, though not so long, have been wrought marvellously for millenia.

Thirdly, thus the ever changing scene of 'science' is no paragon, and each type of presentation, literary, religious, scientific, statistical, or whatever else, has to pass the rigour of test and challenge, like an army on parade, like one running the gauntlet. There is no point let alone reason, in ignoring the result. What outlasts is in itself valuable, if no flaw can be fathered upon it.

When you therefore approach this topic, a whole host of contemporary prejudice, not able to demonstrate itself and floundering before reason, but popular, can intone and never atone for its incompetence; and yet it could suggest itself as per se a criterion for selection, being what is commonly approved or felt to be reasonable.

This underlines the extreme danger of the almost  routine muzzling of truth by various means - and the Guidelines, even if well-intended become one available means of doing this - which has marred history and now in retrospect seems so ludicrous, from whatever idolatrous body or self-acclaimed arrogance it may have proceeded.

But let us consider what appears the present case.

The guidelines deemed current emphasise the need in various contexts,  of moderation, as one of the criteria of assessment when the age is say beneath 18. However, as the paper, Convergent Communications, of the Research Group (CCRG) in the Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering at the University of Adelaide pointed out, in November 2002, a time when these issues were strong in impact, there is danger in R ratings, rejected ones, when  these are "assigned for  reasons other than covering potentially inherently offensive material such as pornography."

Significant difficulties, they point out, may thus be raised for "legitimate" content providers whose material deals with a broad range of issues. Indeed, Filtering "is a very difficult task" for "It is not simply a matter of raw computation but often requires value judgments and in practice is aimed as much at banner advertising as offensive conduct."

Obviously, if someone seeks to terrify the immature with gross, prodigious, outrageous, clearly emotionally unbalanced materials, without logical basis or constructive aim, this is a presumption, intrusion and danger. But when a religion which claims to be true, and can be defended, and has been for  generations, by some of the most acute scientists this world has ever known, such as Newton*8, and many hundreds of expert Ph.Ds in various disciplines concur, then it is not really very attractive to find that questions of assessment might depend on such numerical, quantifiable areas as frequency, emphasis, amount of detail, tone, prolongation and the like.

When a doctor tells a patient that he has melanoma, and that the fourth skin layer in depth is involved, cites statistics in a disciplined manner, mentions options, considers graphically the desirability and vulnerability of each and seeks to involve the party for his own good, and not allow a listless response which could cloud the life of the patient before long, through non-cooperation; THEN clearly a quiet little, unemphatic, unprolonged, undetailed talk might suit some. It is at least conceivable, if unlikely to be very useful.

With others, however, it might be almost an insult. A father with a son  could be a taciturn, tight-faced, moral midget, sufficiently uninvolved to show no empathy, make no research, present no features with the vigour of love and the prolongation of significance for the life: but would he be thanked later ?

It is right of course to consider the purpose, and this the Guidelines do; but it is necessary to realise to the uttermost extent that if the purpose concerns life and death (some doctors might differ) but on grounds open to reason and strongly supported by it, then to pre-empt the love and knowledge of those who present the case by deciding that it should be treated as merely relatively important, with a very quiet approach, this is nothing less than to play God.

We must all answer for our answers to tests and trials, opportunities and what we do with our neighbour. What happens to their lives when we had opportunity to act for their good, this is one of the criteria - when we did not do it! The same applies as to intensity, penetration, prolongation within reason. This is literally the case: that is, prolongation PAST all reason, to seek mere control by propaganda or impact at a purely emotional level can be intrusive, as in the current propagandisation of organic evolution amidst the mutually self-destructive theories within it,  desperately being propounded to deliver it from obvious doom, a point rarely acted on; but prolongation to the point of awakening to reason and reality, righteousness and suites of happenings in the world, the psyche, the life, the value of it, this is another matter.

We do not act concerning a child's choice of jam, this one or that, with much depth since it does not really matter very much, and no great thing is about to be lost if we fail to help. When however it is a question of the entire warp of life, when things started are sometimes never done, and things small can become tyrants of life, then much is expected, and to keep to guidelines that are universal is simply not applicable.

To act as if a matter is NOT the most significant when it is, moreover, is dishonest, and those who try to control this aspect  are becoming highly intrusive themselves, being without demonstrable knowledge as basis, and by law able to make value judgments based on mere inclination or the filter of one's own mind, in considering what is good. Further again, if a matter should actually be a general consensus, say of 70% of the population, or some great amount, as with the initial popularity of dear Adolf, and many other politicians, who may PENETRATE through their own methods, face to face in meetings, then this is by no means historically a ground for imagining that anything different should for that reason, be dimenuendo.

If nevertheless, which is one of the dangers of the Broadcasting Services Act, popularity becomes propriety, then of course any inane movement in a nation - and history is cluttered with them before the various falls - may be given preferred accreditation, and the means of correction are opposed without realisation. The rationalisations with disadorn history, including the history of science, the assumptions and presumptions, are warnings of the 'obvious' which is often mere social ascendency of some ideational conundrum for a time, because it appeals.

Truth is vital, not variable probability and its seductive presuppositions: it is truth and not mere popularity, whether with this class or that of people, which matters. Acceptance in itself, even if at some time broad,  is no criterion of truth; and untruth IS a negative criterion of life. If you distort or abort reality in your MIND and message or methods or conduct, evil MUST come. The only question is how much and how soon: reality in collision with concept exacts, of necessity, its payment.

These methods therefore are rough and inadequate, and a more carefully thought out method is necessary, which does not even begin to react to mere arithmetic contrivances, how much of this and how often that, and how detailed or how emphatic, but considers the motive and method with the significance and the knowledge all together, so that by no means will the mere prejudices of the times (so hard to find in one's own little nation, so easy to see in yesterday's exhibit!) become the filter of truth instead of its release.

Scholarship and research, logic and rationality, liberty and exclusion of government by majority in the realm of what stands before all - lest truth lose an election, as at the crucifixion, albeit it was intended from millenia before - these cannot be made wisely subject to popularity and current flows of thought. Critical facility and insistence is necessary for any people given freedom; and one of the first to fall in dictatorial direction or even, as could occur in this field in this country very readily, with realism is liberty. Then control of the land is frequently lost as nations dizzy with wilfulness, institutionalised, find their self-assurance unreal. Such selves are not the controllers of the universe, as their incantations to the contrary all too soon find out. 

Guidelines for Classification are but a step away from judging all things about man by himself, and this hypnotic state has its own mesmeric myopia for judge, sometimes sooner and directly, at others later and with subtlety. It is better to be humble and to face facts, verifications, validations and considerations, rather than elect what may be even stated and how it may be stated, by popularity, however reasonable it may consider itself. The Maginot line, from a military point of view, was OBVIOUSLY a marvellous French defence, and the patriotic spirit should see that ... and so on. In fact, popular though it was, it did not think deeply enough; and the ditches of underground tunnels and the commodious provisions, were mere mockery of self-delusion, for the Germans found a way around it.

Truth will vindicate itself, and nothing will stop it. Making man pay for the reception of such results however by suppressive folly of 'taking down' well-reasoned presentations and scholarly work, which focusses on the significance of things in ways which MIRROR the depth and thrust of a field for life, is mere submission to folly. Voltaire was ever so right on one thing: truth is not found by counting noses.



As indicated in Refuting Evolution 2, by Dr Jonathan Sarfati (p. 26), it has been through Christian creationists (the Bible teaches creation so that the conjunction is normal, natural and necessary as in TMR, Scientific Method, and A Spiritual Potpourri, Trappings, Deity and Design  ...), that matters of vital importance in major fields of science have been brought to prominence. Notable people in this category include Newton (DISCOVERING the spectrum of light, as well as co-inventing calculus and formulating the laws of motion and gravity), James Clerk Maxwell, who discovered the laws of magnetism leading on to the prediction of electromagnetic radiation), Joseph Lister who  pioneered antiseptics surgery, Raymond Damadian who pioneered magnetic resonance imaging, a crucial tool in brain research.

The prominence of such as Robert Boyle (chjemistry and gas dynamics), Robert Hooke (physics and geometry), Charles Linnaeus (biological classification), Michael Faraday (the field of electricity and magnetism, with many applications), Charles Babbage (computing), William Herschel (astronomy), Cuvier (comparative anatomy), Lord Kelvin (thermodynamics pioneer, formulating first and second laws, scale of absolute temperatures - named after him, prodigious contributions), William Ramsay (archeology), Fleming (electronics), von Braun (rocketry) is great. In many cases, their work is associated with basic investigation,  or establishment of natural laws or vast application of the same, and their names are so well-known as almost to be part of the language.