This is an “Excerpt from Creation Conversations.”
Aboriginals
All posts tagged Aboriginals
The Labor Australian Federal Government is promoting a referendum for the establishment of what it calls “The Voice”. This Voice if passed would be put into the constitution and is based on what is called the Uluru Statement. This document may be downloaded at https://antar.org.au/resources/uluru-statement-of-the-heart/.
Personally, I am against recognizing this Voice and especially having such enshrined in the Australian Constitution. My reasons for opposing this are as follows.
The first paragraph of the Uluru Statements says; “Our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander tribes were the first sovereign Nations of the Australian continent and its adjacent islands, and possessed it under our own laws and customs. This our ancestors did, according to the reckoning of our culture, from the Creation, according to the common law from ‘time immemorial’, and according to science more than 60,000 years ago.”
Now, if one accepts the theory of evolution this would probably be acceptable. However, for those who believe the Bible to be the Word of the Creator then it is not acceptable. Dr. Diane Eager says;
“The estimate that the earth is somewhere around six thousand years old comes from a combination of Biblical and secular history, but depends mostly on reading the early chapters of Genesis as real history. First of all you need to accept that six days means six real days as we know them now, and that means there is no vast period of millions of years before the appearance of man on the earth on Day 6, as Genesis records. If this is true, then the age of the earth corresponds with human history plus 5 days.
The Biblical text records that mankind’s history began with the creation of Adam and Eve and proceeded through the generations to Abraham as recorded in the genealogies (lines of descent) shown in Genesis 5 and Genesis 11. In both of these genealogies the length of each lifespan is given, along with the number of years each generation overlapped the succeeding generation. When you add these figures up, you do get a figure of just over 2,000 years from the Creation to the birth of Abraham.
You need to take into account the fact that only whole years are given, and therefore each generation time will be plus or minus one year, and so for 10 generations you could be up to 20 years out, and that is the best the data is able to tell us. However, because of the long lifespans there are only 20 generations involved so this error will not skew the numbers greatly, and since the error is plus or minus one, any such errors will probably balance one another out.
From Abraham to Jesus there are also genealogies listed, but they no longer provide precise lifespans for many of the named people, or lifespan overlaps. Therefore, for this period we need to cross reference Biblical historical characters and events with secular history. There have been numerous attempts at this, but most come up with estimates of not much more than 2,000 years.
Now add to this the time from Jesus to the present, which is well documented as just over 2,000 years to this year of AD 2012, and, like most people who have tried it, you too will get an answer of around 6,000 years for creation to the present.” https://askjohnmackay.com/earths-age-where-does-the-age-for-the-earth-of-around-6000-years-come-from/
In the same article Daniel Durston writes;
“Over the centuries there have been numerous calculations by those who choose to use God’s Word as the starting point for their world view. In his thorough work, Dr Floyd Jones in Chronology of the Old Testament mentions over 30 chronologists and their attempt to find a biblical age of the earth. (Jones, Chronology, p66) From these 30 or so results, the youngest age for the earth was 5848 years and the oldest was 7513 years. The difference sometimes depending on whether they used the Septuagint or the Masoretic text.
Amongst these well known chronologists was Archbishop James Ussher, an often mocked but nonetheless brilliant 17th century theologian, ancient historian and Hebrew scholar with an expertise on Semitic languages. Ussher dated the Earth at around 6,000 years old by first establishing when King Nebuchadnezzar lived, then working his way backwards through the genealogies Ussher came up with the creation date of 4004 BC.
Independently, Johannes Kepler (1571–1630), who formulated the laws of planetary motion, calculated a creation date of 3992 BC. Similarly one of the most famous scientists of all time, Sir Isaac Newton (1643–1727) who is lesser known for his deep interest and respect for the Bible, came up with a ‘chronology of antiquity’. Newton wrote much about biblical history and vigorously defended a creation date of about 4,000 BC. He also often attributed his scientific findings to his biblical worldview.”
Biblically the aboriginals have not been here in Australia 60,000 years! Well, someone will say religion has NOTHING to do with this issue. Well, that is not really true. The Uluru Statement says in its second paragraph that: “This sovereignty is a spiritual notion: the ancestral tie between the land, or ‘mother nature’, and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples who were born therefrom, remain attached thereto, and must one day return thither to be united with our ancestors. This link is the basis of the ownership of the soil, or better, of sovereignty. It has never been ceded or extinguished, and co-exists with the sovereignty of the Crown.”
Now, there are two points to be made concerning this paragraph. One is the word “spiritual” and the other is the word “co-exists”. The word “spiritual” and the statement concerning being united with their ancestors one day indicates there is religious aspect involved here. Many secularists would tell Christians that religion has no place in politics and yet this Government is promoting this statement and pushing to have it put into the Australian Constitution. This present government is basically promoting paganism!
As to the aboriginal people’s “sovereignty” and their co-existing “with the sovereignty of the Crown” seems to indicate two nations rather than one nation! This view of two nation was accepted when the Aboriginal flag was given equal status with the Australian flag. Then they speak of “truth telling”. There is no historical truth to the fact that the aboriginal people ever had a flag or flags for each tribe before the 20th century https://www.pmc.gov.au/publications/australian-flags-booklet/part-3-other-official-flags-australia/flags-australias. Accepting another flag to fly alongside the national flag was the beginning of two nations on one land. This only promotes division!
The rest of the Uluru Statements says:
“How could it be otherwise? That peoples possessed a land for sixty millennia and this sacred link disappears from world history in merely the last two hundred years?
With substantive constitutional change and structural reform, we believe this ancient sovereignty can shine through as a fuller expression of Australia’s nationhood.
Proportionally, we are the most incarcerated people on the planet. We are not an innately criminal people. Our children are aliened from their families at unprecedented rates. This cannot be because we have no love for them. And our youth languish in detention in obscene numbers. They should be our hope for the future.
These dimensions of our crisis tell plainly the structural nature of our problem. This is the torment of our powerlessness.
We seek constitutional reforms to empower our people and take a rightful place in our own country. When we have power over our destiny our children will flourish. They will walk in two worlds and their culture will be a gift to their country.
We call for the establishment of a First Nations Voice enshrined in the Constitution.
Makarrata is the culmination of our agenda: the coming together after a struggle. It captures our aspirations for a fair and truthful relationship with the people of Australia and a better future for our children based on justice and self-determination.
We seek a Makarrata Commission to supervise a process of agreement-making between governments and First Nations and truth-telling about our history.
In 1967 we were counted, in 2017 we seek to be heard. We leave base camp and start our trek across this vast country. We invite you to walk with us in a movement of the Australian people for a better future.”
More about the Makarrata Commission may be found at https://www.absolutely-australia.com.au/indigenous-australia/what-is-the-makarrata-commission/.
This issue will NOT be settled even if the referendum is passed. Why do I say that? Because “…the Makarrata Commission remains committed to the pursuit of meaningful dialogue with Aboriginal communities Australia-wide. It appears that in addition to making significant progress towards healing within Aboriginal communities, it is also creating pathways towards true reconciliation on a national scale. The scope of Makarrata’s work is broad – investigating injustices suffered while finding practical solutions to remedy them – but its purpose is single-minded: to bring peace and healing to all Australians.” https://www.absolutely-australia.com.au/indigenous-australia/what-is-the-makarrata-commission/
This PURSUIT, PATHWAYS and INVESTIGATIONS OF INJUSTICES will NEVER, NEVER cease if The Voice referendum is passed this year or any other year for this push for division will sadly never cease.
Sadly, the answer is NOT more division caused by this VOICE but a recognition that God hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth; Acts 17:26.
‘Does the Aboriginal Industry not already have a “voice” to government? What exactly is the referendum’s agenda? Who is organising the “NO” campaign? Dave Pellowe explores these big questions with special guest Dr Gary Johns.’
The following is an email from https://www.advanceaustralia.org.au/?
‘Anthony Albanese keeps telling us the Voice is a “modest” proposal.
“It’s just an advisory body,” he says, over and over.
Well, he must be praying Australians don’t get to hear this.
It’s from Marcia Langton, co-chair of the government’s “Indigenous Voice Co-Design Senior Advisory Group” – this is the mob who actually invented the Voice.
She was on ABC radio this week, trying to explain how it would work when “advising” parliament and executive government.
Keep in mind Langton wrote the mind-numbing, 272-page “co-design” report that Albanese says has all the detail you need on the Voice.
“Why would we restrict the Voice to representations that can’t be challenged in court?” she said.
Langton was asked if she thought it was a problem that if a democratic government made a decision without listening to the Voice, it “could be challenged in the High Court and potentially stopped from being implemented until the Voice had been heard”.
Her response?
“That’s a possibility. And why wouldn’t we want that to be the case,” she said.
If the Voice is “completely gutted”, she said, “then the government can ignore all of the Voice’s decisions with impunity”.
The activists pushing the Voice insist that it won’t confer any special rights.
But can you take the government to the High Court of Australia if it doesn’t listen to what you want?
No bloody way!
But here we have the activist who designed the Voice to Parliament saying that if your democratically elected government makes a decision without “listening to the Voice”, they will wind up in court.
Maybe that’s why Albo said last year that it would be a “very brave government” that ignored the Voice?
Nope, there’s nothing “modest” about this massive overhaul of your Constitution.
The truth is that the dangerous and divisive Voice will exert a political – and legal – power unlike anything before seen in our nation.
They want you to think the Voice is just a feel-good “request”, a “modest” change to our nation’s founding document.
But that’s a lie.
This is way bigger than they are letting on.’
‘Recently, I sat down to interview an Aboriginal Elder from South Australia for the ExCandidates podcast, of which I am a host. Her name is Kerry White, a former nurse and diabetes educator from the Narungga people. The aim of the interview was to determine her views regarding the Indigenous Voice to Parliament.
It was a fascinating interview because it completely deconstructed many fundamental aspects of the current ‘narrative’ surrounding the Aboriginal people.
I say ‘Aboriginal’ because even during the pre-interview phone call I had with Kerry, I made the mistake of using the term ‘Indigenous’.
With no hint of hesitation, Kerry quickly corrected my error and informed me that Aboriginal people prefer to be called Aborigines.
I asked her to expand on this during the interview.
Kerry explained that Indigenous were ‘…anyone native to Australia. Including flora and fauna. If you’re born in Australia, you’re Indigenous.’
‘The other term that they use for us is First Nations,’ Kerry went on to say. ‘First Nations – that’s Canadian. We are not Canadian. We are Aboriginal. We are from Australia and the Torres Strait.’
Why did we move away from the term Aborigines in the first place? Was it a fear of political correctness? Obviously, we were not listening to Elders such as Kerry White. Instead, we have chosen to listen to Woke activists, university lecturers, and inner city elites.
Kerry then went on to explain the divide between Aboriginal ‘mobs’ in rural/remote areas, compared to mobs in city areas.
‘When it comes to Aboriginal people, we have two separate lots,’ she began, educating us again. ‘We have a lot of Aboriginal mobs. Not tribes, not clans. Mobs. That’s an Aboriginal term. [The mobs] are divided into two. And that is rural and remote, and that is separate from the city-ites.’
Could this explain the clear difference in message between Senators Jacinta Nampijinpa Price and Lidia Thorpe, who grew up in Alice Springs and Melbourne respectively?
How will an Indigenous Voice to Parliament adequately represent the concerns of this divide?
Kerry went on to teach us another Aboriginal term – ‘tick-a-boxers’. These represented the people who claimed to be Aboriginal when it is clear they are not. Recent census data points to this.
Since the 1971 census, the number of people identifying as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander has risen from 116,000 to over 800,000 – a 590 per cent increase. Even from 2016 to 2021, the national population increased by 8 per cent, but the Indigenous population increased by 23 per cent.
‘There should be some form of identification. Proof that these people claiming to be Aboriginal are actually Aboriginal,’ Kerry began, before recalling how almost twenty years ago, the government scrapped the need for someone to obtain proof that they were Aboriginal.
‘So, if you want to be Aboriginal, all you had to do is tick the box.’
Kerry pointed out that the word Indigenous is included in the official wording of the proposal – the ‘Indigenous Voice to Parliament’. Therefore, one wonders, would simply ‘ticking a box’ to indicate you were Indigenous suffice to be recognised by the new body? What can of worms would that unleash?
It must be frustrating for an Elder like Kerry. How many times have true Aboriginal Elders been asked to comment or contribute to the debate on The Voice? According to Kerry, it is yet to happen for anyone in her community.
For Kerry, her feelings on the Voice to Parliament are clear.
‘It’s a no from me. I say no to The Voice. I don’t want it,’ she replied pointedly.
‘We, the Aboriginal people from rural and remote Australia do not want it.
‘A bit over two hundred years ago, they rounded Aboriginal people up and locked them on missions. So Aboriginal people were segregated from White society. Then we come forward to now – “The Voice” – and they’re segregating us again. They’re taking us back two hundred years.
‘You’re dividing the country again, it’s back to segregation. And frankly, it’s racist towards our White brothers and sisters that live in this land with us.’
Furthermore, Kerry makes the argument that Aborigines are already over-represented in Parliament, thus nullifying the need for a new body such as the Voice.
‘We have eleven Aboriginal members in Parliament, in the Upper and Lower house.’ Kerry begins. ‘That equates to 4.9 per cent representation, Aboriginal representation in Parliament. For 3.2 per cent of the population. With that, we actually have over-representation in Parliament. So why would we need a Voice? Unless they’re saying that our Parliamentary members are not doing their job.’
Does Kerry reflect the thoughts and feelings of all Aboriginal people? Should her statements and explanations concerning Aboriginal people be taken as gospel? Of course not. But that is the point. Can a ‘Voice’ to Parliament represent all the varying ‘voices’ of Aboriginal Australia?
More importantly, is the debate on the Voice taking the focus off the true needs of Aboriginal people? As a nurse, Kerry is well-versed in the issues facing Aboriginal people, especially in remote communities.
‘With Aboriginal people, it’s mostly linked to diabetes. We have a high rate of diabetes amongst Aboriginal people.’ Kerry explains.
‘Heart problems. That began to rise about fifteen years ago. They don’t have access to medical care out there. They don’t have health centres and doctors and all that. They don’t have it. They’ve got to travel sometimes 3-4 hours to get to a doctor, or medical treatment if something should happen out there.’
Kerry White joins Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, along with Senator Pauline Hanson of One Nation, in speaking out against the Voice to Parliament. Their message also stresses the need to unify the Nation, not to divide it along the lines of race. You would think that a study of history would compel anyone to agree.
We already have Parliaments at local, state, and federal levels that attempt to address all the ‘voices’ of society.
According to Kerry White, Senator Price, and surely many other Aboriginal people, this is the way it should remain.
For me, the lesson was that it is always best to go straight to the source, and avoid the mainstream ‘narrative’.’https://spectator.com.au/2022/12/what-i-learnt-from-an-aboriginal-elder/
The Leftist Looneies in the New South Wales Australia Art Gallery are now requiring the acknowledgement that the land belongs to some aboriginal tribal clan before entering their website. This cannot end well!
This “stupidity” was reported here the other day but this is a video of the Western Australian Premier and the Aboriginal translator at work. Unbelievable!
Believe it or not ‘Australians were treated to a new level of dystopian absurdity this morning when Western Australian Premier Mark McGowan released an ad campaign for Covid vaccination.
In it, McGowan has his Covid vaccination message translated from English into … English by the Aboriginal woman beside him.
This is the most racist government initiative I’ve ever seen.@MarkMcGowanMP had an indigenous elder translate his message from English to “Aboriginal-English.”
The bloke is sick. pic.twitter.com/VuP7cwPlPe— Avi Yemini (@OzraeliAvi) January 11, 2022
Whether intentional or careless, the Western Australian government’s footage suggests that Aboriginal people can only understand English if it’s broken up and repeated via an Aboriginal person, thus infantilising an entire community.
Social media has received the patronising campaign with a mixture of shock, awe (from the horror), and bemusement that public money could be misused in a blatantly racist and insulting manner.
“This is an important message to keep Aboriginal safe,” says McGowan.
“This is a message, a proper important one, to keep everybody safe one,” mimics the woman beside him.
“You can die from the Corona, or get really sick,” adds McGowan, coming across like a commercial from an episode of Black Mirror.
“You’re gonna get it. Pass away from this Corona. Or you’re gonna get really sick one.”
“It’s time to get the Corona needle to keep people and country strong.”
The video goes on like this for some time.
It comes as Western Australia launches its ServiceWA app for citizens to verify their Covid vaccination status before checking into retail, hospitality, and entertainment venues.
“It allows West Australians to show proof of vaccination, check-in with SafeWA at businesses and venues and access their G2G passes for interstate travel, all in one convenient place,” said Health Minister Amber-Jade Sanderson.
“[With] the ServiceWA app, you won’t need to show identification with your Covid-19 digital certificate to enter businesses and venues like you would with a certificate stored in your digital wallet or hard copy. This is because you use a digital identity to set up the ServiceWA app. Your digital identity helps you prove who you are online, meaning the app is safe, secure and not accessible by anyone else.”
Such comments will not do anything for the growing concern about the federal government’s Trusted Digital Identity legislation that is due for consideration early this year, with many observers worried it will formalise the establishment of digital medical verification in the commercial world.’https://www.rebelnews.com/wa_premier_deploys_indigenous_aide_to_translate_english_into_english?utm_campaign=rb_01_12_2022&utm_medium=email&utm_source=therebel
Local councils in New South Wales, Australia recently held their local elections. One would not think there would be anything devilish in that? Well, there is and I have highlighted what I believe is devilish in red below.
‘With counting underway following the NSW Local Government Elections, …is making preparations for the first meeting of the new council.
Once results have been finalised by the NSW Electoral Commission, successful candidates will be notified to take an oath or affirmation ahead of an Extraordinary Meeting to conduct a Mayoral Election.
The oath / affirmation is a requirement of every councillor before the first meeting of a newly elected council, and must occur before a Mayoral Election can take place, along with other legislated requirements.”
“The results must first be declared by the NSW Electoral Commission,” said Mr Wood. “The Governance team is planning for two scenarios in regard to holding the first council meeting, which will be to elect a Mayor and to consider creating the Deputy Mayor role and subsequent vote.
“According to the Local Government Act, this needs to be done within three weeks of the election result being declared.”
The two scenarios are:
- If successful candidates are declared on or before 22 December 2021, the first council meeting will be held at 3pm on 23 December 2021, subject to the new councillor’s availability.
- If successful candidates are declared from the 23rd to 24th December 2021, the first meeting of council will take place on 11 January 2022.
A Smoking Ceremony and Welcome to Country followed with a morning tea to welcome family and friends will also take place on January 11.
A robust and comprehensive On Boarding and Induction program has been planned for the new councillors, involving in-house and externally facilitated sessions to be held throughout January and February.
“The plans we are working towards for the first meeting of council will assist with a seamless transition into public office for the newly elected body, and we look forward to continuing to serve the community going into this next term of council,” said Mr ….”
So, what is a “smoking ceremony” and “Welcome to Country”? These two ceremonies are tied to what is known as “The Dreaming”. Only a blind Freddy wouldn’t realize we are living in a post Christian world in that the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ was once preached to people as the ONLY way to get to Heaven. However, that’s not the way it is now in the post Christian era. Now, those in authority want the old religions of the supposed indigenous peoples to be revived and honored. For example, in the Australian aboriginal ‘The Dreaming tells of the journey and the actions of Ancestral Beings who created the natural world. Ancestral Beings are supernatural and creator beings who travelled across the unshaped world in both human and non-human form, shaping the landscape, creating people and laying down laws of social and religious behaviour. The Dreaming is infinite and links the past to the present and determines the future. If life on earth is to continue, these rules, almost lost to the world, need to be followed. Dreaming is an English word commonly used by Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people alike to describe Aboriginal cosmology and the genesis of the world. The Dreaming encompasses the ancestral narratives about the supernatural and ancestral beings, and their epic deeds of creation. Each narrative is known as a ‘Dreaming’. The entire Australian continent is covered in an intricate web of Dreamings or ancestral tracks.
Ceremonies provide a link between the people and The Dreaming and ensure that vital components of this law and The Dreaming stay intact. They provide a time where all people in a language group work together for the survival of The Dreaming.
When discussing specific ceremonies to be performed in the modern era it is important to have a local Aboriginal person present due to the sensitive and sacred nature of some ceremony. There reasons for ceremonies in Aboriginal society, all hold a strong ties with The Dreaming.’https://aboriginalincursions.com.au/special-aboriginal-ceremonial-events/smoking-ceremony
The Creation account according to the Bible is thrown out to make room for the pseudo “science of evolution” and yet this aboriginal DREAMING is also taught in Australian schools. Yes, anything but the Bible!
So, what about the “smoking ceremony”?
From the same web page we read that ‘A smoking ceremony is an ancient aboriginal custom in Australia that involves burning various native plants to produce smoke, which has cleansing properties and the ability to ward off bad spirits from the people and the land and make pathway for a brighter future.
Certain traditional smoking ceremonies are also believed to be used for positive therapeutic outcomes dependant on what plants are available from region to region.
When you see a smoking ceremony happening, it is a gift from the aboriginal people to all people in Australia so make sure you go to the smoke and wave it over you and cleanse the past for a better future.’ Yep, that’s exactly what a professing Christian would want to be involved in! This is Devil worship just as those forbidden in the Scriptures. However, our elected officials have made Devil worship a part of our culture.
The welcome to country is ‘…a speech delivered by an aboriginal elder of the land and is a sign of respect to acknowledge the traditional owners of the land past. present and future.’ That in itself seems innocent but think about what it is really saying. In the future will there be an aboriginal land tax levied on non-aboriginal land holders in the future?
Let it be known that these two ceremonies are wrong for any government to promote! Personally, I avoid being at any of these ceremonies. Why? They are anti-God, anti-Bible and Devilish. They will only lead the worshipper to Hell.
Let it be known that no one can be forced to truly believe anything they do not wish to believe but the truth of John 14:6 is still very relevant to each person’s final destination after death. The Lord Jesus said ‘I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me‘ and the truth of that will be known immediately after one dies.
whatyareckon 