Matthew Henry John Bartlett

+64 27 211 3455
email me

Friday 16 September, 02005

by Matthew Bartlett @ 2:26 pm

Electricity Commission on nuclear energy & NZ

and while we’re at it, here’s an addition to my lovely table, this time from energy engineer David Haywood:

97 responses to “”

  1. Sambo says:

    Tim, Señor Bartlett makes note of unfair taxes it seems. I was pointing to Matthew 22:15. Regardless of what the taxes are paying for, it isn’t our money really, and money isn’t of God either. Give unto them which is theirs, and unto God which is His. That is my understanding of it anyway.

  2. Sambo says:

    In answer to my question, or in answer to ME?

    With all that lieth, indeed Sam doth tryeth.

  3. Rudy says:

    Richard, why do you believe “your” truth over Tim’s truth, or Hans’s truth, or anyone else’s?

    On what basis did you decide your truth was truer?

  4. Matthew Baird says:

    As a heavily taxed student I can see your point. I earn nothing, and lose it all to tax. On a more serious note, there is a difference between complaining about felt wrongness in the tax situation and not rendering to Caesar.

    Also, I forgot to meantion it at the time, but one of the things that really hacks me off about Labour is that they pushed the election forwards 3 years ago, thus denying me my vote. Thus didst I pledge to be their eternal and unswerving enemy, and not vote for them at the most recent elections unless the presented a very appealing agenda.

  5. Oh so many delightful questions!

    Tim and Rudy have asked, essentially, what’s the point in arguing with a relativist.

    Here’s the point: my understanding of people’s points of view has increased as a direct result of reasoned replies from Hans, Dan, and Matthew Baird, and indirectly as a result of Rudy and Dad. I’m sure we can all agree that increased awareness of the beliefs of others is a generally good thing?

    re. #49: contrary to what some of my behaviour might imply, I do not believe the object of every discussion or argument is to score points against the opposition. That is, I’m not here to ‘win’ or ‘lose’ an argument.

    re. #52: it is unfortunate Rudy, but evident, that you do not quite understand this relativistic jaunt. My truth is no truer than yours, by definition. Why do I believe my truth? What I believe is my truth!

  6. Aaron says:

    Richard has asked a good question. I can’t answer it. I am challenged by it. Hans has given the only answer I am able to support.

    On the other hand (with respect to National and the right wing), their policies do not reflect care for the poor, the marginalised, the alien, or the creation, either. I fail to see why we should demonise Labour and completely ignore the failure to exercise a Christian vision on the right. The market is not our saviour, and its invisible hand will not restore our humanity. These matters are as much an issue of Christian politics as any other.

    I think, with respect, that apart from the abortion issue, Señor Bartlett is sloganeering rather than answering the question.

    I also think that those of you who have jumped so hastily on the ‘truth’ issue are employing diversionary tactics.

    Are you capable of presenting a reasoned case to anyone who does not already agree with you 90% of the way? What does that say for your ability to speak to non-Christians – to function as salt and light in the world we *actually* live in?

    Having said that, Richard – I wish you would tighten up your language a wee bit. You ought to know how those sort of phrases – ‘your truth’ – will be heard. And in my view at least, you should be wary of saying things that are unhelpful to others and to the discussion (because you *know* the reaction). In addition, those ways of speaking are as much sloganeering as anything else said here – they do not unpack any real content or argument.

  7. Tim says:

    Answer to Chud’s question, ‘what have they [Labour] done to you?’ (Off the top of my head).

    1. By promoting prostitution, abortion and homosexuality they have openly defied God (who is my God). As a follower of God and a part of His family this is an attack on me.
    2. Helped create a humanistic and anti-christian society in which I will one day (DV) have to raise children. This includes trying to push through bills like the no hate speech one which would effectively make it illegal to preach many of the sermons I hear on Sundays.
    3. Been a stumbling block to the Christian college at which I teach, therefore negatively affecting my church community and (possibly) my potential salary.
    4. Helen has publicly professed her hope that one day NZ will be rid of intolerant Christians like myself.
    “It is a very small minority point of view and I think, through continuing to set the tone of tolerance, acceptance and diversity, you just have to further marginalise such people. Hopefully one day nobody will think that way.”
    5. Taken, via taxes, money from members of my family which would otherwise go to the church (or similar).
    6. Tried to take away my right to use the rod to discipline my (future) children.

    I suspect, Chud, that you will say that things they have tried to do don’t count because they haven’t actually done them. But the attempt in itself is something.

    Aaron: The National Party is irrelevant (and should be a separate subject). The question Chud wants answered is the one above.

  8. Disco Jew says:

    what alot of religious jibber jabber, P.S. Sam: thanx for the hot tip on the Klingon disaster, it has been changed just for you

  9. dennis bartlett says:

    so Richard why vote to legailse cannabis?

    Aaron my tirade against Labour is because they lead the charge National aint a lot better in many respects they are also a moral vacuum. I stood for CHP 3 years ago because at least in a small way they tried to present a viable alternative to the ‘god’ mamon. They seem to be no longer relevant.Perhaps in N.Z. at least for the meantime the change will have to be from the bottom up!

  10. I voted cannabis for my joke-vote (aka candidate vote). There really were only three choices in my electorate: Hobbs, Drunksky, or joke-vote.

    In other news, I would love to vote for a left-wing Christian party. Right now the Greens are the closest we have got.

  11. Sambo says:

    Tim, for number six, make sure you use that as an opening line on your (future) wife.

    “Im blonde, take a legalised form of supermarket steroids, and I wish to hit our children with a stick.”


  12. Tim says:

    You’re a pleasant fellow aren’t you Sambo?

  13. Sambo says:

    Says he who requests one to come round to his house to fight. ;)

  14. dennis bartlett says:

    Aaron re #55 what was it exactly in Han’s ‘answer’ that you are supporting ?

  15. My ideal world invovles a government which is a hodgepodge mixture of nationalian and labourian policy,with a gentle spicing (or not so gentle as the case may be) of misc other policydom. I think it is truely sad that there is no viable party in New Zealand with what is in my view a sensible take on things. I know a number of people who voted not due to this very dilemma.

  16. Aaron says:

    Dennis, this part seemed to be the heart of it and expresses very well what I want to say (and have tried to say privately to those who would vote Green or Labour):

    The government has re-defined marriage. The man/woman lifelong, faithful, partnership was modelled on the relationship of Christ and His bride the church. Marriage is therefore, in a sense, a sacrament.

    “civil unions” are the entithesis of faithful sacramental worship based as they are on humanistic narcissism.

    So the direction of the social policies of the government are away from God. I have mentioned only two areas but reference to drinking ages, privacy rules, prostitution laws, euthanasia, reproductive technology etc could be made.

    I know that the state does not define christian marriage. However the state did previously echo the christian definitions of marriage. Just as the state used to echo the christian definition of fornication, adultery etc etc.

  17. jono says:

    Guys, universal law is the fundamental truth behind the stars and yet it is virtually unknown. This is because it has been suppressed throughout history. The Jesuits destroyed Giordano Bruno because he accidentally discovered these secrets, and the Roman Catholic Church are using flouridated drinking water to hide the truth about Nature’s law of volumetric justice. We must end famine, violence, terrorism, racism, poverty, etc by adopting the principle of consciousness equivalence.

  18. Sambo says:

    Sorry, what was that about the water exactly?

  19. ange says:

    just throwing some other ideas in…..

    to Quote Tony Compolo, what is a marraige?

    “a marraige is a promise made before God,” marraige is something Christains do” It’s a christain sacrement?!
    what if you don’t believe in God?
    what if you don’t live as a christain?
    are we as christains failing marraige by letting “non-christains get married” in our churches?

    the civil union bill gives comitted “non-christain” couples something to show there commitment to each other (a good human trait loyality is) with out it being a christain sacrament. Is that So wrong??
    or is it wrong for us to inforse no formal commitment or a marraige (which is a christain God ordained thing).

    Maybe we as a Christain church have failed by letting marraige become a “mainstream , out of the church, thing)??

    on a personal note … i have a Gay uncle who has been with his patner over 10 yaers and they are now civil union partners,

    arn’t sure what i think on this issue really just thought this might make us think into this issue a bit deeper than just its inital surface llooks.

  20. Matthew Baird says:

    To completely take your example to a semi-redicolous extreme. Theft (say from the weak by the powerful) is definately condemned in the Scriptures. As such it is a Christian law type of thing that does go against the grain of natural thinking (ie- if i can why not?). If the government should legalise such a thing, should we as Christians take our stand on it as we have against the civil unions? And if civil unions are just a way to allow Non-Christians to express commitment, and to be accepted, should we then accept this?

    On the shubject of shibbil unionsh, or not. Is it still necessary to swear on the Bible to give testimony in court?

    Reading post 70 made me think of this. Again appologies for twisting the topic to incredulility.

  21. jono says:

    Perhaps this could shed some light on the matter..

    Interweaving social trends form a strong net in which we are all trapped. When Sir Bernard Chivilary said ‘hounds will feast on society’ he could have been making a reference to civil unions, but probably not. More a melody to societies dysfunctions than a parody of the self, civil unions provides standards by which we may judge our selves.

    Some analysts have been tempted to disregard civil unions. Society is powered by peer pressure, one of the most powerful forces in the world. As long as peer pressure uses its power for good, civil unions will have its place in society.

    Politics was once a game featuring competitors from elite classes. Politicians find it difficult to choose between what has become known in politics as – ‘The two ways’ – civil unions and the more traditional view.

    Consider this, spoken at the tender age of 14 by award winning journalist Maximilian Shandy ‘Man’s greatest enemy is complacency with regards to personal and political controversies.’ Amazingly, he new nothing of civil unions until he was well into his thirties. It would be wise to approach the subject with the thought that ‘if you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all’.

    In my opinion civil unions is, to use the language of the nation, ‘A neccessary good.’ It inspires, ‘literally’ plants seeds for harvest,, though civil unions brings with it obvious difficulties, it is truly defined.

  22. dennis bartlett says:

    I guess Jono that you don’t have in mind homosexual ‘marriage’ when you say this? I would have thought Romans 1 18-27 applies.
    What seeds for harvest? Would not the definition be abomination?

  23. richface says:

    Thanks Jono, thanks very much, found that very enlightening. This might also be useful:

    “Civil unionism is meaningless,” says Lacan; however, according to Hamburger it is not so much civil unionism that is meaningless, but rather the defining characteristic, and some would say the economy, of civil unionism. Derrida suggests the use of Debordist situation to attack and modify consciousness. It could be said that if homosexual cultural theory holds, we have to choose between the neotextual paradigm of reality and poststructural feminism.
    “Gender is fundamentally responsible for gender divisions,” says Bataille. A number of situationisms concerning a textual totality exist. Therefore, the primary theme of Finnis’s model of homosexual cultural theory is the rubicon, and therefore the absurdity, of subcultural society.
    Sartre promotes the use of the neotextual paradigm of reality to challenge hierarchy. Thus, Sontag uses the term ‘homosexual cultural theory’ to denote the common ground between culture and gender.
    Derrida’s essay on the neotextual paradigm of reality implies that the purpose of the poet is deconstruction, given that modern civil unionism is invalid. Therefore, the characteristic theme of the works of Joyce is a self-supporting reality.
    Debord’s analysis of dialectic narrative holds that reality is capable of social comment. However, the subject is contextualised into a homosexual cultural theory that includes consciousness as a totality.
    Modern civil unionism holds that society, somewhat paradoxically, has significance. It could be said that if the neotextual paradigm of reality holds, we have to choose between postsemantic materialism and textual neocapitalist theory.
    Baudrillard uses the term ‘neodialectic theory’ to denote the common ground between gender and civil unionism. Therefore, the subject is contextualised into a neotextual paradigm of reality that includes sexuality as a reality.

  24. Tim says:


    Society is our own everyday reality. When The Tygers of Pan Tang sang ‘It’s lonely at the top. Everybody’s trying to do you in’, they saw clearly into the human heart. No symbol is more potent than homophobic agenda in society today. It cleary plays a significant role amongst the developing middle classes.

    Special care must be taken when analysing such a delicate subject. On the other hand anyone that disagrees with me is an idiot. It is intrinsically linked to adolescent inner acclimatisation.

  25. Richface states that “we have to choose between the neotextual paradigm of reality and poststructural feminism.”

    No we don’t.

  26. jono says:

    Ahhh Chud, underestimate the choosing between the neotextual paradigm of reality and poststructural feminism at your peril. Given that its influence pervades our society, spasmodically it returns to create a new passion amongst those who study its history. It is an unfortunate consequence of our nations history that the choosing between the neotextual paradigm of reality and poststructural feminism is rarely given rational consideration by so called ‘babies’, many of whom blame the influence of television.

  27. jono says:

    Of course, your comment was based on the assumption that homosexual cultural theory holds. Our post-literate society, more than ever before, relies upon the assumption that homosexual cultural theory holds. However this breaks the mould, shattering man’s misunderstanding of man.

  28. richface says:

    I think the one thing that can resolve this debate is ????? ? ???????? ?? ????????????? ?????? (? ?????? ?????? ?????????), ? ???????? ?? ??? ?????? ? ??????????? ???? ??????-???????? ???? ?? ???????????? ? ???????? ?? ??????? ???? ?????????????? ?? ?? ????????????? ?? ??????? ???? 632 ?. ???? 635 ?????? ??? ?????? ??????? ????? ??????? ? ???????????? ????????? ???????. ????? 654 ?. ?????? ???????? ?? ??????? ?? ??? ?????. ? ???? ?? ??????? ? ??????? ??? ???????, ??????? ??? ?? ??????, ?? ??????? ?? ????? ??? ??????. ???? ?????? ?? 680 ?. ????????????? ????????? ?????????? IV ??????? ?????????? ????? ????? ????????????. ??????????? ?? ???????????? ? ??????????? ?? ???????????? ?? ?????????? ?????????? ????? ???? 680 ?., ? ??????? ? ?????? ???????? ??? ??????????? ?? ????? ??????? ???? ?????? ?? 681 ?., ? ????? ??????? ????????? ???????, ???????? ???????????? ?????????. ??????? ???????? ?????? ?? ???????.

  29. Aaron says:

    Ange, those things are definitely worth thinking about.

    Campolo’s model splits the State’s establishment of civil rights and obligations from the Christian ‘sacrament’ of marriage. In effect, it says “Who cares what the State does? Let’s just be the faithful Church!” So, it leaves the Church free to administer the rite of marriage to those who are actually operating within the Christian story. Therefore he would not have a ‘marriage-or-nothing’ idea.

    I am quite attracted to Campolo’s model as a way of dealing with our present society. The trouble is twofold:

    (1) I don’t know whether Campolo’s model is wise, and
    (2) A great deal of the motivation for the Civil Union option in NZ is to advance the normalisation of homosexuality.

    What I mean by (1) is what Hans said: the State, in Campolo’s model, reflects a non-sacramental view of reality, which I don’t see as good. We should care what the State does, because the State is part of the realm of God, too. But I feel a conflict at this point, because in a post-Christian society the State may well have to ensure basic ‘justice’ by means other than explicitly Christian structures, such as marriage. And seeking this justice is a good thing! For, doesn’t God cause his rain to fall on the righteous and the wicked? And aren’t we to feed even our enemies?

    This brings me to (2). In our NZ context, the State has chosen to include in the Civil Unions model, the normalisation of homosexuality. It has done this by allowing any two adults, of whatever gender, to get a Civil Union. This makes it very hard for me to support the notion of Civil Unions, because the government could have used other means to ensure the justice that I spoke of in (1) – which would not involve official recognition of homosexual relationships by the State.

    BUT. My third problem, (3), is that homosexual relationships are ALSO part of a post-Christian society. And, are we not to ensure justice for these, as well? Can we exclude homosexual relationships while, for instance, allowing adulterous ones? Will we allow the rain to fall on homosexuals, too? It seems that we must. It seems to me that we have to deal with society as we find it, and not pick-and-choose to whom we will apply the civil rights and obligations of long-term relationships.

    This may seem like surrender to a non-Christian world and non-Christian standards. And, to be honest, I hate it. But the facts are that the Church has been PUT back into the position of witness to a world which has rejected its Christian heritage. In other words, we actually LIVE in a non-Christian world, with non-Christian standards – and we must recognise it. We can’t rely on the State to change this, or even to hold it back. This is because in our system, the State is the servant of the people. It is not a King, ruling over them as he sees fit.

    Therefore, the Church must witness to the people. We must be ready to pick up the pieces of a world gone wrong. We must be willing to ‘get in amongst it’ and be as Christ to the world: self-giving, God-revealing servants. We must ourselves live the sort of community life that holds forth the gospel as a living reality: an alternative way, a different and better way to be human. We must go out from it into the world, and invite others to join us in living it. Only then, I think, will be begin to see a movement back toward framing life in the terms that we know represent wholeness, redemption, and peace.

    I don’t like it, but that’s where we’re at. I think.

  30. why must we accept the non-christianisation of state policy in order to “‘get in amongst it’ and be as Christ to the world: self-giving, God-revealing servants.”?

    I have never seen reclusism as an answer to our nation turning its back on a Biblical viewpoint.

    Why can we not be a ‘voice crying out in the wilderness,” make straight what long was crooked”.’ in preperation of the coming of Christ whenever that may be (hehe)

  31. dennis bartlett says:

    Tim re #75 you are creary barking up the wrong twee

  32. Tim says:

    The eternal principle of time duality is the guiding principle of the stars and yet it is virtually unheard of. This is because it has been systematically suppressed throughout history. the Club of Rome destroyed Novalis because he chanced upon these secrets. The true value of pi is 3.0. Only from this value can one derive the universe’s missing day. End wars, pollution, etc. – adopt government based on the law of natural inequality.

  33. Aaron says:

    Matthew: We should be “getting in amongst it” anyway.

  34. Amen to that. So why must we accept the standards of society? I mean, if child sacrifice were to become popular (as it has in times past, albeit quite some time ago, and I’m not saying labour has that on the cards or anything.) would we then have to stand back and say,”Ahh well, that’s just the post-christian culture again” and then get in amongst the culture to change it?

    I’d hope we’d be clamouring against this.

  35. dennis bartlett says:

    Matthew we already have child sacrifice:
    the altar is secular humanism
    it currently happens around 18000 times per year here and SPUC is trying to do something about it

  36. Aaron says:

    This is true. Exactly true.

    Matthew, when I say ‘accept’, I don’t mean passivity – ‘lie back and think of England’. Far less do I mean any kind of positive approval. We must constantly strive for the establishment of peace and wholeness under God.

    But we must also recognise the level at which that must work, in any given cultural milieu. If you suppose that (as I once did) the government has the job of straightforwardly applying ‘God’s Law’ (whatever that might mean), then you may want to criminalise homosexual acts and possibly even make them a capital offence.

    But if you don’t, then you’re left with a problem. Things are no longer cut-and-dried. Suddenly, you have a government tasked with a rather murky role – something like ‘pointing society in the right direction’, while providing for as much justice as possible.

    Look, I’ll admit that I’m not happy with this. It seems deeply unsatisfactory to say that the government must be complicit in allowing room for things, like celebrated homosexuality, that we believe pervert the image of God in a fundamental way. And so I have great moments of uncertainty about this – I woke up this morning and thought to myself that what I wrote yesterday *must* be wrong. Now, I think I’m probably on the right track. But perhaps I am hopelessly compromised by the spirit of our age, or something.

    I keep thinking of other things to say – it’s a huge topic and there are so many ‘angles’. So I’ll just stop.

  37. dennis bartlett says:

    Aaron I have just started a book by N De Jong and J Van Der Silk entitled “Seperation of Church and State…the Myth Revisited”
    So far it is excellent see if you can track it down published by Paideia Press

  38. Aaron says:

    Dennis, thanks. Did you see my article in Prism on that theme?

  39. Don Brash says:

    I for endorse Disco Jews campaign for president

  40. Disco Jew says:

    I thankyou for your endorsements…… friends

Leave a Reply