WorkSpace

My aim is to discover what the Bible reveals about God and His plans for us, both on this planet and beyond, without being restricted by traditional church creeds or doctrinal positions.

As a result I have dozens of notes scattered all over my home study space on a variety of (mainly Biblical) topics. When I have re-discovered them, and collated them, and think they might be suitable for others to see, they will be posted here.

Readers are cordially invited to discuss and/or debate the thoughts and opinions in these posts with me.

Please use the "Post a Comment" link for your discussion or debate, and offer appropriate Biblical support for any different points of views that you advocate.

Although I am now in my 80's, I consider my beliefs open to refinement and possible change, especially on "end times" issues, as I continue to grow and learn.
So don't be surprised if you challenge a point of view and receive a response from me like, "I agree with you. I've changed my mind since I wrote that note - and I'll tell you why."  

Blessings, Barry

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

My published BLOG can be viewed at https://barrysgracespace.blogspot.com,
and other published writings at https://www.ibtechservices.com.au.

 

 

Loving My Neighbour

Jesus told a parable, we usually call the story of the Good Samaritan, in which he encouraged us to see all people as our neighbours regardless of their social standing or religious alignment.

Recently during the night - whether asleep and dreaming or half-awake and day-dreaming I don't really know - I was interviewed about my attitude towards someone different to me.

Q. As a Christian, how do you handle your relations with a homosexual?
    What would you say on meeting a homosexual man?
A. I would greet him as any other new acquaintance.
    If his homosexuality became evident in our conversation, I would say something like:
    God loves you and accepts you just as you are - as do I.
    I don't think your lifestyle is what God originally intended for his creation, but that's also true of all of us for one reason or another.

Q. Does your church accept him?
A. I don't think it's a generalised church question.
    Churches are of two types:
    Exclusive - who accept only people like themselves, which is not attractive to "outsiders".
    Inclusive - who accept everyone, which may give the impression that bad behaviours are acceptable to observers who don't differentiate between the acceptance of people and acceptance of their behaviour.
    So it depends on which sort of local church you belong to.

Q. Would you befriend him?
A. Of course.
    We are fellow-travellers on the same journey to God.
    We are both people for whom Jesus died.
    We are both people for whom God no longer counts sins.

Q. How can you be sure of that?
A. The Bible tells me that Jesus provided redemption for us all.
    Check 1 John 2 : 2, Romans 3 : 23, 24 and 2 Corinthians 5 : 19.

Q. Would friendship risk condoning his lifestyle?
A. Maybe to some observers, but not to me.
    I have befriended many people whose lifestyle or behaviours I don't condone, and I am so grateful that others have done the same for me.

Q. Which text in the Bible best describes your position?
A. Jesus said I am to love my neighbour as myself. (Mark 12 : 31)

Blessings, Barry
---------------------------------------------------------------
Published BLOG at https://barrysgracespace.blogspot.com
Other published Writings at https://www.ibtechservices.com.au

Reconciliation Requires Acknowledgement, Apology and Forgiveness

This is my third post on the upcoming VOICE referendum.
The first (Reconciliation Requires Equality) addresses the unjust principle of giving Australians different rights in a liberal democracy based on the race of their ancestors.
The second (Reconciliation Requires Beneficial Results) briefly discusses two major undesirable consequences of passing the referendum to put the VOICE into our Constitution, together with doubt of its ability to produce its promoted benefits.

This post will discuss the current situation and how that could be improved without resorting to changing our Constitution.
Although there is nothing we can do about changing the past, we can certainly do something about the past.

Non-ATSI people can acknowledge the errors of the past, regret them and apologise for them, and show the sincerity of that apology in practical ways.

A formal apology was offered to ATSI people by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd in 2008 for "the laws and policies of successive Parliaments and governments that have inflicted profound grief, suffering and loss on these our fellow Australians".

Some of the ways that show the sincerity of that apology are:
a. We have a National Sorry Day, officially the National Day of Healing, on May 26 each year as part of the continuing efforts towards reconciliation between ATSI and non-ATSI Australians.
b. We have a Federal Indigenous Affairs Department.
c. We have an Indigenous Affairs Minister.
d. We have 11 Members of Parliament who are Indigenous.
e. We have hundreds of Indigenous groups lobbying and advising our various governments.  
f. State and Territory governments administer services just for Indigenous people.
g. We have a television channel (NITV) just for Indigenous people.
h. The ABC and SBS always have Indigenous panel members on every talk and current affairs program that broadcasts about Indigenous issues.
i. More than $30 billion dollars of taxpayer money is spent every year on Indigenous affairs.

And although there are some ATSI people still living in shocking conditions, there are many others who live very comfortable lives and enjoy professional careers and fulfilling work, education and social opportunities in our cities and regional towns.

This is especially true of those who seem most active in the promotion of the Yes vote in the upcoming referendum on the VOICE and whose attitude towards non-ATSI peoples for providing these opportunities seems unappreciative.

So if the acknowledgement and apology is there and the evidence of its sincerity is there, what is missing?
The obvious thing missing is an appropriate response from ATSI people.

Thank you for your acknowledgement, regret and apology. We accept it and forgive you.
And thank you for the benefits so many of us have received and the efforts you are making to listen to us and help us achieve our best.

But I don't see any suggestion of such a response associated with the VOICE. Indeed, quite the opposite.

Normally people only need to say sorry once. But non-ATSI Australians are expected to say “Sorry” every year – on National Sorry Day -- demonstrating the “Sorry” is never accepted, let alone the offering of forgiveness, resulting in victim status, retribution and other demands continuing endlessly into the future.

I believe there can never be reconciliation between ATSI and non-ATSI people without acknowledgement and sincere apology for errors of the past, its acceptance and the offering of sincere forgiveness.

Jesus taught us to love God, love our neighbour as ourselves, and to forgive even our enemies, so no matter what relationship currently exists between ATSI and non-ATSI people, Jesus surely has that situation well-covered with this teaching and advice.

Here is a link to a thought-provoking article for everyone, especially Christians.
https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/religion/2023/06/five-reasons-christians-should-reject-the-voice/.
Some of the comments below the article are worth a read too.

I believe reconciliation and consequential "Closing the Gap" progress is now in the hands of our ATSI peoples - to stop the grievance war, offer forgiveness and move on together with their fellow Australians without requiring separate, additional privileges.

Blessings, Barry
---------------------------------------------------------------
Published BLOG at https://barrysgracespace.blogspot.com
Other published Writings at https://www.ibtechservices.com.au

Reconciliation Requires Beneficial Results

Previous Prime Minister Tony Abbott has been quoted as saying, “I think this Voice is a very, very bad idea, I think it’s wrong in principle, I think it’s potentially quite dangerous in practice.”

In my previous post (Reconciliation Requires Equality), I have addressed the unjust principle of giving Australians different rights in a liberal democracy based on the race of their ancestors.
As well, there are several undesirable consequences of passing the VOICE referendum, although I'll mention only two of them briefly in this post, together with the doubt that the VOICE will achieve its promoted benefits.
 
First, the VOICE is intended to reach into every area of Commonwealth Government policy. It will require a huge, top-heavy and expensive bureaucracy that will slow down and make more cumbersome the running of good government.

Previous Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has been quoted as saying,  “Our democracy is built on the foundation of all Australian citizens having equal civic rights – all being able to vote for, stand for and serve in either of the two chambers of our national parliament.
"A constitutionally enshrined additional representative assembly which only Indigenous Australians could vote for or serve in is inconsistent with this fundamental principle.
"It would inevitably become seen as a third chamber of parliament."
(Mr Turnbull has since changed his mind and will now vote for the VOICE.)

Second, because the VOICE is to be inserted into the Constitution as its own chapter (thereby standing on equal terms with The Parliament, The Executive and The Judiciary), the un-elected High Court will have the final say whenever the VOICE contests any decisions made by those equal others.

In addition to those undesirable outcomes, it is doubtful if the promoted benefits by Yes advocates are likely to eventuate.
The Prime Minister is consistently suggesting that passing the VOICE shows courtesy and respect to our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (ATSI) fellow-citizens, and will do much to repair past injustices and improve living conditions for the sizeable proportion of aborigines who live in shocking conditions.

My view is that we can do nothing about the past, and we especially can't repair a race-based past with a race-based future.

Equally, the establishment of the VOICE is unlikely to do anything for the living conditions of poorer, disadvantaged  aborigines, especially those in remote areas, although it is quite likely to benefit the ATSI elite who will comprise its membership and those employed in its bureaucracy.

My own preference would be to give recognition to ATSI people in the Constitution with a suitable preamble like "Australia is one indivisible federal commonwealth under the crown with an Indigenous heritage, a British foundation and an Immigrant character”, and continue to have parliament-appointed groups, including ATSI groups, to offer it advice as it has done for many years. (Indeed there are hundreds of these bodies currently in existence.)

This would achieve the courteous recognition of (and advice from) indigenous people without destroying our democratic principles with an influential race-based VOICE and without propelling the High Court into active law-making opportunities.

Although there are many practical issues to be faced if the VOICE referendum is passed, my decision to oppose it can be laid squarely at the feet of the principle it trashes, which completely undermines our democratic system of government and God's love for every one of his children, regardless of their ancestry or the colour of their skin.

Blessings, Barry

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

Published BLOG at https://barrysgracespace.blogspot.com
Other published Writings at https://www.ibtechservices.com.au