I think it would be theoretically possible to build a better constitution. My concern is that I don’t trust the new authors to get it right. This is why Howard was right to determine the alternative first and have the referendum second… instead of the ALP approach of having a referendum first and then working out the details later.

This is similar to my concerns about a bill of rights — theoretically good; but difficult to get right properly in practice.

By definition, God is all that is infinite, and represented as the perfect relationship between the three infinite members of the Godhead, as per 1 John 5:7, “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” Romans 1:20 declares “For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.”

In geometry we can see how that there can be the existence of three everythings without contradiction providing that these three everythings are presented as three infinite everythings which in the optimum relationship make one three dimensional everthing, where Biblically the three linear everythings are described as Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending the first and the last, just like three infinite axis perpendicular to one another constitute one three dimensional infinite cube.

We can even see how that when represented metaphorically as three infintite axes x, y, and z (horizontal lenght, vertical height and perceptual depth, all intersecting at point zero, how that only by emptying Himself (to y=0) could Jesus the Son of God become Christ the Son of Man Who for value y=0 can represent the fullness of the Godhead as Emanuel, God with us, Matthew 1:23.

If gravity were to be finite, then there would be cumulative effect from larger masses such that the larger the mass the faster that it would fall, but only if gravity were infinite so as to pull every infinitely indivisible particle of matter, which by definition would be, in space and time but not of space and time, and to pull each particle exactly the same, then we know that there would be no cumulative effect such that larger masses would fall at the same rate as smaller masses, on the surface of this earth in a vacuum, that is, such that, when Galileo Galilei reputedly dropped a ball of larger mass at the same time as one of smaller mass, and it turned out that they were both seen and heard to hit the ground at the same time, this proved that gravity was infinite and being infinite it was also uncreate and God only being uncreate we know from this that gravity is of God, perhaps the hand of God, but certainly infinit and only ‘of’ God.

Regards

John Bayne

Nobody was ever left standing at any of his meetings and if you were to give a fair hearing or reading of his little booklet Prophecy Speaks, I am certain, as a finite being can be, that you will no more be able to gainsay any point that he makes since they are all self evident, and presented with an eloquence and consistency that astonishes me.

for the record in addition to this procreation booklet, it is also self evident why such desperate atheists as Aristotle and Renee Descartes were against the possibility of there being infinity of numbers and why Aristotle was set on insisting that a larger mass would fall faster than a smaller mass, for the reason that ininfitiy of any kind whatsoever that can be proven to exist, proves equally the existence of the world of the infintie, which, by definition, although in space and time, must also not be of it, for the reaon that, inifinity by definition implies by logical necessity, that it be uncreate, and as such cannot be said to be ‘of’ anything, ‘of’ implying a beginning, which, by definition, anything infinite cannot have, neither an ending.

So infinity of numbers as Romanian intuitive mathematician, proved the existence of in the mid 1940s (to the best of my knowledge that is) establishes the reality of the world of the infinite, which by definition, can only have that which is infinite pertaining to that world, where the rules of classification implied here are identical to those covering the distinction between the organic world and the inorganic world where but for the divinely appointed food chain, there would be no connection between the two, makeing the sustaining of the three organic kingdoms; vegetable, animal and human impossible without food being able to be converted and recycled from the mineral kingdom into the vegetable kingdom from where both herbivores and carnivores can sustain sustenance. It is a common fallacy that inorganic minerals can be metabolised directly into the animal and human kingdoms without going via the vegetable kingdoms, whereas it is true, for example that we can both drink, breathe and eat inorganic substances, even to sustain life, it is a phusical fact that neither animals nor humans can metabolize inorganic substances.

If you would like me to send you this little booklet by email as an attachment send me your email address or go to http://www.bethelnz.co.nz and there is a part of that web site that can send Prophecy Speaks to your email address also.

Regards

John bayne

By the way, atheism is a belief and not an opinion therefore it is of the will and not the thoughts so that true athiests may be convinced of the existence of God as both Satan and Caiaphas, atheists both, were but continued to oppose their Creator. So what kind of undesirable person would detest the idea of an infinitely loving and powerful Creator that has not only utilized all of His resources in planning the very best for us as a free will option, but who can give as a superior quality of life, in this present world let alone the next, as eternal life implies superior quantity.

regards

John Bayne

*The argument used by those against the 1701 Act of Settlements prohibition against Catholics being allowed in positions of power, let alone assuming the throne of England or being married to a monarch, is the charge of “discrimination” which is no more valid than the charge of discrimination being laid against proponents and practitioners of behaviour and tastes that are declared worthy of death in the Scripture, such as homosexuality, incest, pedophilia and bestiality to name but a few. Furthermore, this neurolinguistic technique has already been successfullyb employed in countries such as New Zealand, still under the British crown, in causing that country to legalize homosexuality, abortion and prostitution. My letter is not so much to force a point but rather to expose the icked deception being practised on the average person who is far too naive in this area of education to realize the true import of minority groups promoting the legalization of behaviour that is most strongly condemned in the Bible, under the guise of “discrimination”.

When reduced to only two variables one can see easily the most fundamental cause of division and justified “discrimination”, if you will, and that is the “no quarter given no quarter expected nor asked for” controversy between those who choose to be ruled by inclination (to walk in the flesh) and those who choose to be ruled by principle ( to walk in the spirit) where the Scripture describes this controversy in the book of Galatians the following way, “Stand fast therefore in the liverty wherewith Christ hath made you free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. Galatians 5:1, “For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another. For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. But if ye bite and consume one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another. This I say then, Wakl in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusteth against the the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would. But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law. Now the works of teh flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, withchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.”

It is self evident that of the entire physical universe, all physical matter is accounted to belong to one of four kingoms made up of two worlds, where the kingdom of the lowest order, the mineral kingdom, as reperesented by the Periodic Table, is the lowest kingdom and is synonymous with the inorganic world, and where the other three kingdoms are, in ascending levels of order; the vegetable kingdom, the animal kingdom and the human kingdom.

From this we can derive four levels of ascending order within each kingdom in terms of the other kingdoms giving rise to 16 levels of existence in ascending order, wherein the top four constitute the human kingdom so that mineral humans could describe accurately, human beings with the heart of an adult and the mind of a child, vegetable humans, human beings with the heart of an adult and the mind of an adult, animal humans, human beings with the heart of a child and the mind of a child, and human humans, as human beings who have the mind of an mature human being and who have retained the guileless heart of a child. The first two are childish and the last two childlike.

It is obvious that the only acceptable level of existence here is those who have the guileless heart of a child, by looking after their heart in the pristine condition that it was in at birth, and yet they have developed the mind from an undeveloped state at birth to a highly organized and functional state as would describe someone heeding Christ’s admonition to “Be ye therefore wise as serpents and harmless as doves.”

So a true atheist is one who, regardless of their opinon as to the reality of the existence of God, are fully committed to living by inclination, or walking in the flesh, as in “If it feels good, do it,” as opposed to “being fully committed to living by principle (keeping the Ten Commandments) and walking in the Spirit, as in “Not by might, nor by power by by thy spirit saith the Lord.”

So an atheist is a foolish person as in the man who built his house upon the sand, as the Word of God clearly states, in Psalm 53:1, “The fool saith in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquitey: there is none that doeth good. God looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, that did seek God. Every one of them is gone back: they are altogether br\ecome filthy; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. Have the workers of iniquity ho knowledge? Who eat up my people as they eat bread: they have not called upon God.”

So it is such undesirable human beings who have strayed off the path of fulfilment of their potential, who are opposed to the existence of an infinite benevolent God Who has used all of His might to devise the very best possible future for all the human beings who will ever live upon this earth and who eliminate themselves from both the right to this opportunity for a life as qualitatively superior as eternal life implies quantity of life, by being both unreasonable and an offense to what is commonly known as a sense of decency. As is implied in the common realization of all civilized human beings that cannabilism is totally unnacceptable, considering that an atheistic government would be hard pressed to find fundamental condemnation of this practice were a subject to insist that they had the right to offer large sums of money to fellow human beings who were willing to donate their body parts that did not cause loss of their life for him to eat, on the grounds that if there was no God, and we were entirely descended from the animal kingdom, there is nothing to condemn cannibalism as a crime.

**The concept of individual conscience as being the Voice of God, (1 John 5:7, where the Father is the Will of God, the Word of God the Son of God, and the Voice of God, the Holy Spirit, where the concept of each member of the Godhead as an infinite Alpha and Omega, can be likened to three infinite axis where the latter imply an infinite cube when perpendicular to one another , so that just as a three dimensional cube is the expression of the ideal relationship between three infinite (linear) axis, so also the term God, is the espression of the ideal relationship between three infinite Alpha and Omegas, courtesy of Romans 1:20, which states that there is no excuse for not knowing even the Eternal Godhead because it is written in creation.

*** The term I used, “divinely appointed right” refers to the fifth commandment, “Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon th eland which the Lord thy God giveth thee.”

So the type of person that sees no point to the monarchy is the same type of person that sees no point to keeping the Ten Commandments which summed up is to firstly, according to the first four of the Ten Commandments, commands that we “Love the Lord our God, with all our hearts, souls, minds and strength, and to love our neighbour as ourselves. We have the best recorded examples of compliance to these commandments in the oracles of the Word of God, so that anyone against living in this way would more likely than not, be as dangerously wicked and antisocial and these selfless self sacrificing saints were righteous unto death, (100% of the 11 faithful apostles and the one who replaced Judas Isariot, whom the Lord never chose, faced death to the death except John who was fried in oil for 24 hours without any harm). Jim Jones who preyed on his followers sexually and had all of those not willing to commit suicide drink poison to die with him, is a good example of someone the opposite to the oracles of the Word of God.

So we can see how that no sooner was homosexuality decriminalized in New Zealand and they amost immediately instituted unscriptural legistaltion to force it on others, such as in the case of the doctor successfully sued in court for refusing to rent out a dwelling to a homosexual, when Biblically they should be stoned in the Old Testament and since Jesus paid the price for all sins including those worthy of death, imprisoned in the New Testament, so that they cannot commit crimes. This is the same principle by which a serial rapist forfeits his freedom to go to prison instead.

So if can be seen the justification in the 1701 Act of Settlement reserving the right to protect its freedom loving subjects from powers bent of robbing them of this, such powers in particular as the Catholic Church and the religion of Islam. Also God has not changed, according to Hebrews 13:8, “Jesus Chrsit, the same yesterday, today and tomorrow,” where He tells Joshua severely in Joshua 7:10-12 that if he does not destroy those covenant breakers from amongh Israel, that He will no longer be with them, so that crimes such as adultery, although no longer divinelly commissioned to destroy them, by virtue of the fact that Christ has literally paid the price for every human being that ever will live upon this earth, it is obvious that churches who refuse to disfellowship members in open sin, where according to 1 John 3:4, “Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth the law: for sin is the transgression of the law,” and 1 John 2:4, “He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments is a liar and the truth is not in him.”

So since James 2:10 declares that he who breaks one commandment breaks them all, in the following words, “For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is fuilty of all.”

So when Romans 7:1-3 declares, “Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth? For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from tghe law of her husband. So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adutleress, though she be married to another man,” can be applied to Mrs Wallace Simpson in the following words, “For Mrs Simpson, which hath an husband, is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth, but if her husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress” but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.”

These verses combined with the knowledge that it would be impossible for anyone marrying Mrs Simpson to be free of the charge of adultery if the remariage while her husband still lived accused Mrs Simpson of adultery. So would the constitution of England allow a person clearly condemned of adultery, clearly a sin worthy of death, even if Christ has paid the penalty for all sins, to reign as monarch knowing this. When the Bible declares that it is an abomination for the servant to rule the master, how much more abominable for the criminal worthy of death to rule the righteous. Ephraim, under the leadership of the divinely appointed Jeroboam, declared, “What portion have we in David? neither have we inheritance in the son of Jesse: to your tents, O Israel: now see to thine own house, David,” 1 Kings 12:16, in answer to King Rehoboam’s declaration to the delegation of the ten tribes, “My father made your yoke heavy, and i will add to your yoke: my father also chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpions.”

The Catholic Church cannot change its policies concerning allowing individual conscience any more than Beelzebub could be responsible for Christ’s benevolent miracle healing and sin forgiving mission, because as Christ put it,
A house divided against itself cannot stand.” Supressing liberty of conscience and enslaving free men is such a fundamental policy of the Catholic Church that it would lose its identity before it could trully repent of such anti social behaviour, not that it cannot pretent and fool the majority of a population of freedom loving people that it was not like that, but had changed with the times and now had the most benevolent and Godly intentions towards all men, especially Bible based Protestantism and its adherents.

Taking note of how the Catholics in high places in the American government have succeeded in drafting such antiScriptural anti hate laws and put them into the legislation, all with the intent to supress the liberty of individual conscience rather than to be remotely concerned with discrimination against law abiding citizens, and of how this was made very easy to impliment by taking advantage of the average persons lack of education in the area of jurisprudence, much like the judge in an Auckland court, who trying to justify the large number of incidences where a judge had allowed a person arrested on suspicion to be released before adequate time to find out if he was the suspected serial rapist, whereupon that person had reoffended, attempted to justify this by misapplying the rule rightly applied to situations of final sentancing for the serious offence of first degree murder, by applying the giving of the benefit of the doubt to the defendant, when it is patently obvious that any decent citizen would rather spend a week or two in jail while knowing their own innocence for sure, until properly cleared, rather than have a rule in place that would allow a true serial rapist to rape and possibly kill as a result of letting him go, when he was actually in custody and would have been discovered to be the serial rapist they were looking for had the already overworked understaffed policing department had reasonable or adequate time to make the necessary unquiries that would have led to the proper charges being laid and ensuring that no further incidents were possible from that particular offender in custody.

Keeping also in mind, the fact, demonstrated by the Morganic flavour of these anti hate laws that are incrasing the error that they owe their existence to, namely that the genuine rules against discrimination be extended to criminals, who are either committing high treason as the Catholics do, against the people, such as Bloody Mary did, between the sovreignty of her brother and her sister Queen Elizabeth I, such that a repeat of her persecution of Protestants could be repeated in England under the guise of tolerance of those who are bent on persecution of those who would attemtp to naively give them the kind of equality that would allow them to do this.

Typical of proponents of overturning the anti Catholic Act of Settlement of 1701, I believe that they are taking advantage of the average man in the street’s lack of knowledge so for this reason I will quote the very most sacred oath that our current monarch made at her coronation in 1952.

“I, Elizabeth, do solemnly and sincerely, in the presence of God, profess, testify, and declare that I do believe that in the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper there is not any transubstantiation of the elements of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, at or after the consecration thereof, byh any person whatsoever; and that teh invocation or adoration of the Virgin Mary or any other Saint, and the sacrifice of th emass, as they are now used in the Chruch of Rome, are superstitious, and idolatrous. And I do solemnly delare, that I do make this declaration, and every part thereof, in the plain and ordinary sense of the words read unto me, as they are commonly understood by English Protestants, without any evasion, equivocation or mental reservation, and without any dispensation already granted me for this purpose by the Pope or any other authority or person whatsoever, or without any hope of any such dispensaton form any person or authority whatsoever, or without thinking that I am or can be acquitted before God or man, or absolved of this declaration or any part thereof, although the Pope, or any other person or persons or power whatsoever, shall dispense with or annul the same, or declare that it was null and void from the beginning.”

My final questin which is an open question like all of the others to everyone who Providentailly reads this letter: “If our present sovereign is ever seen to cleary and unequivocally break this oath, does she forfeit all of the benefits from the transaction that required this oath as part of the price of sovereignty? and after considering what I have said in this letter, does it seem more likely or less likely that the first in line of succession has truly disqualified himself from his right of succession by marrying a divorced woman, especially if there is evidence of her having a procatholic influence, such that this person first in line to the throne could not make the above oath without perjuring himself, and just like Charles 1, was genuinely convicted of high treason, against the people of the realm, are procatholics and those bent on overthrowing the Act of Settlement of 1701, either directly or by modifying it to achieve the same result, that of depriving the people of the realm, in time, of their liberty of conscience to serve the living God rtahte than man, when in conflict?”

Regards

John Bayne

PROPOSED REFERENDUM QUESTION:

To approve the changes to the Constitution proposed in the Constitution Amendment (National Language, Holiday and Flag) Constitutional Amendment Bill, to declare English to be the national language, 26 January in each year to be Australia Day and a certain flag to be the Australian National Flag.

Constitution Amendment (National Language, Holiday and Flag) Constitutional Amendment Bill, 2009

An Act to amend the Constitution to declare English to be the national language, 26 January in each year to be Australia Day and a certain flag to be the Australian National Flag.

1. The short title of this Act is the National Language, Holiday and Flag Act, 2009

2. The Constitution is amended by the insertion of section 127, 127A and 127B as set out below:

Section 127 – Status of English Language

English is the national language of Australia.

Section 127A – National Holiday

26 January in each year shall be Australia Day, being the anniversary of the arrival of the First Fleet in 1788.

Section 127B – Australian National Flag

A blue flag with the Union Jack occupying the upper hoist, a large white Commonwealth Star in the centre of the lower hoist and 5 white stars representing the Southern Cross constellation in the fly half.

There is no intelligent conservative body of thought or political philosophy. People who try to define conservative end up talking themselves in circles. You could say it means whatever the self-described conservative party does (in which case, it basically means populist, centrist or nationalist) or you could say it means the natural trait of most humans to prefer no or little change. But you can’t tie the word to any rational or consistent set of political ideas.

Perhaps the term “free-market conservative” has more philosophical substance… but that is purely because of the descriptive “free-market” part. And such people make up a small minority of the broader “conservative” group.