Imagine a world run by multinationals such as Google, Amazon, Starbucks,

It's not far off.  Here I am using Google's blogger; a great service. I might have the odd Starbucks (although not for a while yet) and I have used Amazon in the past.

Google in my view does provide a great service for no cost other than the need for a PC and internet connection.

So I am to a certain degree dependent on such an organisation.

And that is what is happening to more and more of us to a greater extent : becoming more and more dependent on these massive international organisations.

But these organisations, have a tiny actual social stake in our country's governance. They seek to minimise the tax they pay to the UK. 

The staff paying their PAYE or full self assessment tax that work in the UK have a stake.

And these organisations contribute to our 'GDP', and they bring employment.

But that doesn't mean they have a stake in the future of the country or its governance arrangements.

So we are effectively becoming more and indebted to organisations which have a little stake as possible in the countries we live in.

If the government is so set on believing that such organisations are vital for our GDP, the government will be added to the list of organisations indebted to them.  So we will end up being run by these companies.

I pray God breaks through this.  I pray He shows us an alternative; and knowing God it is likely to be an alternative which looks utterly ludicrous, but which work.  God always works in paradoxical ways. No better example than the most powerful thing that He has ever done is to allow Himself to be crucified on the cross to save humanity.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandconsumer/9678916/Amazons-tax-avoidance-will-drive-UK-companies-out-of-business.html

Religion and democracy

My thoughts on the relationship between religion and a democratic state

1. a democracy is when the country is ruled by the people.

A simple democracy is when a law is passed through a majority of those people.

In the UK such people may not necessarily represent the Nation. Each MP may represents their own constituents, but as a collective the House may not. If in each constituency 60% of the people were not religious, and so each MP would overall represent the views of non religious people. And so 100% of the House would represent non religious people. But the country has 40% religious people.

Likewise the other way round, is if 40% of each constituency was not religious, the House of Commons would be 100% religious.

So UK's democracy means that its government may not represent its people religiously. The same could be said for all sorts of areas such as welfare, war, education.

So Laws will be implemented which do not represent the public's wishes.

So liberty will be compromised. Religious freedom will be compromised.

So why is democracy so cherished?

Is it because Man is so fallen that it is the only option left? If we had good rulers, such as a good King or Queen, we would not see them as tyrants.

When an institution is created, over time it becomes corrupted. Man is so fallen.

So it is Kings and Queens, and now it is the House of Commons. But what about the House of Lords? It seems that this House has not suffered. But then neither has our present Queen. It is those in power that get corrupted.

And why is that so? Because if after time they swap their sovereignty from God to themselves, they forget to love thy neighbour, they forget they are serving.

So in an increasing world where God is no longer sovereign why do people then want to persecute those that do hold God sovereign? Because such a God holds certain views contrary to them. No, it must be more than that.

It is because when I hold onto the view 'abortion is wrong' it is different to holding onto the view 'God says abortion is wrong' . The first is a personally private view, just an opinion. The second is saying 'There is a creator who knows how Man should behave, including you who opposes me, and that it is wrong for Man to allow abortions. '

This is abhorrent to a person whose sovereignty is himself.

So we learn that the best way to 'get along' is to get rid of God. If we are each sovereign to ourselves, what we each do and think and say are personal to ourselves, and their circle of influence goes no further. If sufficient people believe it then it may come into law, and as a believer in democracy I have to accept it.

But what if my conscience tells me, that there is a God who knows what is right for humanity? This God is not just MY God, He is everyone's God? I must be killed.

Hence why Christ was killed. Hence why we will have trouble in a fallen world. But this is just the same for all religions, not just Christianity.

Hence Democracy can only thrive if God becomes a totally private matter, like a mobile phone that you carry around with you. Not like a great big billboard announcing how the world should operate.

So as Christians who know we live in a fallen world, what are we to do? Never let your God become the size of your mobile phone.

If Democracy leads to the persecution and murder and marginalising of the religious, then we know that democracy is evil. But Newspeak and Doublespeak will say otherwise. It will say the religious are a threat to our society.

Christ was utterly true in what He said.

A fallen world ruled by those whose sovereignty is within themselves can only lead to destruction of those that profess a loving God who believes in forgiveness and self sacrifice rather than revenge.

Group think : how politicians get into groupthink

About 4 years ago, the UK had a massive MPs expenses scandal whereby MPs promised to come clean and change the expenses system.

My how memories are short.

The incumbent House of Commons want to undo the changes they implemented! http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/9678200/Bercow-and-his-bullies-bring-shame-on-our-Parliament.html

This to me demonstrates groupthink among the ruling elite.  It is so poisonous.

I can see why Psalm 1 warns us to not sit with a house full of mockers : our own thinking would be poisoned by them.

If I met and got to know the House of Commons people, I'm sure I'd probably come out thinking "actually they aren't such a bad set of people, it is OK to get rid of the changes they implemented years ago".

We live in world so inured to sin, I am so inured to it.  I live in it. I am constantly sinning.

Pornography, sexualisation of women, abortion, divorce, gossip, 'robust discussions', gay marriage, adultery, bad language on television, massive salaries, paying £3 for a coffee, legally avoiding tax, targetting vulnerable groups of people, protecting our interests to the detriment of developing countries, selling arms to other countries; all of this is just 'normal' (not I think so)

On TV you see Prime Minister's question time and I think : these people really went to Eton?!!! It must be one of the worst schools ever invented!  These are not people who want to serve the country, these are people that have had personal ambitions of getting into Parliament to tell others how they should live their lives; and once they reach Parliament they just behave as though the Headteacher was no longer there to discipline them! Groupthink is so deeply inbedded in their culture.

I pray to our Father, the God who created Adam and Eve, whose Son is Christ, that He breaks through this group think and makes the members of those groups to stand back, reflect and see themselves for how they are seen in the eyes of God.

How there are still proponents of Socrates

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/features/mind-games-why-everything-you-thought-you-knew-about-yourself-is-wrong-8231362.html

Reality and properties

If I have an object in front of me.

I then close my eyes.

I no longer see the object.  But the object is still there.

I then close my ears.

I no longer hear the object.  But the object is still there.

I then lose my taste buds.

I no longer taste the object. But the object is still there.

I then lose my ability to touch.

I no longer can feel the object.  But the object is still there.

If the object is a closed door, I can not get past the door.

There is something there, even when I have no senses.

So I live in a world with stuff around me.

Now that stuff is relative to me.

If I become the tiniest particle in the world, I can get past the door, getting in between its atoms.  But I will not be able to get past some of those protons or neutrons (or what ever the smallest particles are).

So there is stuff in the universe.

However we do not know what this stuff actually is.

We can only know the stuff's properties.  And such properties are not physical but descriptive.

For example, when we see a red objective; the objective has no red particle : no it is that when white light shines on the object, it appears to absorb all the other visible light waves and reflect the frequency of light wave that is red.  That is its property.  The property is descriptive, not physical.

So for the purposes of material physics, the world is full of stuff.

But something is is incredible. 

This stuff is not dead.  It has energy.  It interacts.

Light actually moves.  Light bounces off objects.  All around us this stuff is interacting all the time.  This stuff is 'alive' and interacts with itself. Even a stone is alive in such a context.

So (a) stuff is there and (b) it interacts.

But there is another matter to consider. 

To say stuff is there is at a point in time, say t(0). 

However to say they stuff interacts is to say that the stuff moves from t(0) to t(1) to t(infinity).

So (c) the stuff interacting is the process of stuff moving from t(n) to t(n+) where + is after n. So it appears that time is there.

From the little I know of physics, time is related to speed. The faster the object, time slows down.  Light waves are timeless.  They move incredibly fast.  Objects are slower and are bound by time, but time is not eternal, as all objectives do move.  Our earth is moving. 

(An aside : what if there is an objective that does not move at all ? Would time be timeless too, like light?)

So (c) is based on (a) and (b) : time is a property of the stuff being there and interacting.

What is remarkable is that we humans have this ability to sense this stuff.

So not only do we know stuff is there but we (d) 'sense' it. But to be more precise we sense such stuff in a way which means we can interact with the stuff. For example if I am hungry, I can use my senses to see food and eat it.

So we humans can interact with this stuff. That is remarkable!

But such senses are not 'stuff' senses.  I do not sense a bananas by having 'stuff' senses.  No, my senses take advantage of the stuff AND the interactions.  I can see a tomato from the interaction between light and the tomato.  I don't need to personally interact with the tomato with the stuff in me.

But there is something else here.  There is (e) variety.  There are red tomatoes, yellow bananas, green peas, etc. There are not tomatoe stuff and banana stuff and pea stuff which we digest.

And this (e) variety brings about (f) uniqueness. This uniqueness is brought about by the different interactions.  I do not know whether it is brought about by having different stuff.

Then we human beings have this ability to (g) attach meaning to our interactions with this stuff.

So combining (f) uniqueness and (g) meaning we attribute (h) properties to this stuff.

So we conclude that the world around us is (i) (1) made of stuff with (2) properties.

Now the wonderful thing about (i) (2) allows us to use the stuff for multitudes of reasons.

So the world is not just about a load of mechanisms going on all around us.  That would mean that the world around is just (i) (1).  No; we as human beings have attributed properties to these objects, for our own ends and from our senses.

So everything on earth is not just stuff : it is something with a property. 

From this I am saying that every physical object is also mental in nature. 

The stuff is physical and the property is mental.

But such properties are dependent on we human beings discovering such properties.  AND they are dependent on us attributing the property to the object. If the sense of taste did not exist we could not attribute such a property.

So if all objects have properties which we use for our purposes, then perhaps to say that our minds or brains are just a series of 'nerve ending, or things or stuff moving around' is discarding that fact that such objects have properties with meaning.  That objects have mental and physical attributes.

But it is our ability to attach meaning  that I find remarkable. 

Is this ability to have meaning separate to these mental and physical attributes, or is the ability to have meaning drawn from having mental and physical attributes.

A thought experiment about mental health

Imagine someone with a knife cuts someone, say Jon, and Jon bleeds. Jon goes to hospital and is treated for his cuts. 

Jon regularly goes to hospital with cuts.

In fact there are many people like Jon who go to hospital with bleeding cuts.

The health service thinks "there are many people coming to us with bleeding cuts. We need to help them stop being cut and help them heal quicker.  We need to find better drugs and healing their cuts. When people are cut, there is blood coming out of their skin."

The health service never sees the person that cut all the victims.  The health services 'customer' is the victim.

After a while the health service would be better at dealing with people with bleeding cuts, they're cuts would be fewer, theoretically, the cuts would heal quicker.

"Health service reduces number of people with bleeding cuts. Health service has noted that when people are cut, blood is coming of their skin" Would be in the headlines.

Then a recession would come, causing more people to cut people. More divorces would come, causing more people to cut people. 

The health service would need more money to deal with an increase in "bleedingness".

This idea is proposterous isn't it?

But this is exactly what happens with certain aspects of mental health!

For many with mental health problems : they are the victims of other people's harm.  But they tell the victims that their mental health is because they have a chemical imbalance in the brain.  Just like blood comes out of your skin when you are cut, so do your chemicals in your brain alter when you are hurt emotionally by someone.

In a world where competition, the economy, being a worthy member of society, winning the vote of people is prized over relationships, love, truth, peace; mental health is a natural consequence. Mental health is not a natural condition, just as bleeding skin is not a natural condition.

Without God and with evolution then power is the driving force

Without God and with evolution, then there is no intrinsic meaning to life.  Things just happened and hey presto billions of years later I'm here! You're here! Just through a process of creation and breathing oxygen, drinking fluid, eating food, and surviving through other means such as being able to learn a skill which gets you money which makes you buy what you need to survive.  Being in poverty is a fact, your genes are just not able to survive.

The more ability I have to survive, the more I survive. And generally that comes with power.  The weaker we are the less we have to survive. 

Life has nothing to do with truth or love or dignity.  It is about power to survive. It is also about power to have more power. 

Already in power? What do I need to do to stay in power? What do I need to do to gain more power?

But if there is no intrinsic meaning to life then why do believe murder is wrong?  It can only be that murder has been powerfully thought to be wrong. And that wrongness has been powerfully created. 

If there are a set of humans where murder is acceptable, then such has acceptability has been powerfully created, and hence allowable.  Colatoral damage is a form of murder that has been accepted, through powerful forces. Abortion too.  If sufficient people with sufficient power want to murder, they will.

However if God does exist, then everything has different values.  Saving a human being from death has higher value than murdering them. And if God exists, we have the ultimate perfect judge for the ills of the world. It also means that ultimately the power we see before us is not the driving force.  No, God is the driving force.