Monday, December 31, 2007

More Blessed To Give... Canada Helps!

For various reasons, we leave some of our charitable giving to the last possible moment of the year. I know, I know, there's probably a scripture somewhere that says, "thou shalt not procrastinate". I've been meaning to look it up, but I never seem to find the time.

Ten years ago, all last-minute giving involved the tedious process of writing cheques, addressing envelopes, filling out forms, and trudging off to the mailbox.

About five years ago, charities started making it easier for us -- you could now make a phone call and donate over the phone, using a credit card. That helped. But you still had to figure out how to call each one, and give each one the information they needed.

Well, I went to make a donation to the Gideons today, and found out that they accept donations via an organization called Canada Helps. I checked it out. It's a really easy site that takes your donation information and stores it for re-use. But it gets even better.

Having successfully given my modest stipend to the fine people at the Gideons, I realized that this is a general site, and discovered to my delight that all my favourite charities, or so it seems, are on it!

What a great step forward! You can do all your annual charitable giving at one site. It will even store "Favorites" and things like that that make it easier next time you go back.

You can also set up for monthly giving. I'm not really into new year's resolutions, but this is one resolution I think I might actually keep -- move some of these over to a monthly giving plan.

How come I'm just discovering this now?! I'll bet those of you reading this site already knew about it. How come you didn't tell me?!

Canada Helps may be accessed at

And that's the way the Ball bounces.

Wednesday, December 26, 2007

Redemptive Suffering

In an article that appears in today's National Post, Barbara Kay discusses the topic of redemptive suffering. She is unequivocally opposed to the Christian view of God: "A God who deems suffering redemptive is unacceptable."


In her article, she quotes a Catholic who embraced the holocaust as a way of participating in the suffering of Christ. I share her concern over this particular Catholic emphasis.

It is a peculiarly Catholic belief that human suffering, whether it be sickness or worse, is somehow redemptive. Usually and mostly it is not. The clearest example to the Christian always must be Christ -- who "went about doing good, and healing those who were sick and oppressed of the devil". Not once did Christ say, "it's God's will for you to be sick, he's teaching you a lesson, it's redemptive"! He healed all who came to Him.

However Catholics and Protestants are united in agreeing that Christ's suffering was redemptive because it was a divinely-instituted and voluntarily offered suffering on someone else's -- humanity's -- behalf.

Just like you as a parent might be willing to pay a penalty, a fine, imprisonment, or worse, on behalf of a wayward child whom you nonetheless loved. Both justice and mercy would be served, justice because the penalty would be paid, mercy because the child is spared punishment. And, it would certainly be redemptive to the child freed from the penalty!

But there are two caveats.

Firstly, the child would be free to reject the offer, which might be the case if he was stubbornly estranged from their parent.

Secondly, what if the child accepted the offer, but didn't turn from his wayward ways? The substitution would be monstrous -- it would simply free the child to continue in his wayward, destructive ways -- suffering the punishment would have been more appropriate.

God deals with both of these situations in the gospel.

God provides the way in Christ, leaves the sinner free to reject it, and predicates acceptance of it on a condition -- repentance.

Repent and believe the gospel -- the kingdom of God is at hand.

Tuesday, December 25, 2007

The Archbishop of Canterbury is owed an apology!

I'm listening to the Archbishop of Canterbury's radio interview in which he was quoted as saying he believed the wise men who visited the baby Jesus were legendary. What he actually said is quite different from what the media reported he said. The media reports either reflect extreme bias or, just as likely, ignorance.

Here are the salient points:

1. He believes in the virgin birth, but would not make belief in the virgin birth a test of faith to become a Christian. (I agree with this to the extent that when I became a Christian this was not something that I either believed or disbelieved. Of course, as part of my growth as a believer I came to believe in the virgin birth.)

2. He believes in the wise men/kings, but not that there were necessarily three of them, one of them a black man from Africa. It was of these legendary accretions he said "works well as legend".

3. He's not sure about the star standing still over the house where Jesus was (as reported by Matthew).

4. Not a fan of right-wing US Christian fundamentalism.

I listened to the entire interview, and he acquitted himself quite well.

To the extent that he was misquoted, and subsequently abused for it in the blogosphere (including this site) we owe him an apology.

So sorry.

If you have the time and inclination, you can listen to the entire interview at

h/t to frappeur, who brought this to my attention.

Christmas Sermon 2007: God's Love Is Like The Snow

God's love is like the snow coming down on Christmas day.

Have you ever awoken to a blanket of fresh-fallen snow, and, (apart from having to shovel the drive-way and clear off the car) been transported by the wonder at it all? I remember the first time our cairn terrier, Robbie Burns, then a puppy and now an old dog, saw snow coming down. He was startled and filled with wonder by it.

God's love is like the snow.

On the first Christmas day, the Lord came to a particular place at a particular point in time. So, perhaps you think that the snow of God's love is a sprinkling that fell on Bethlehem. You would be wrong.

Although Christ came to a particular place at a particular time, the love of God that was wrapped up in the child in the manger was bigger than the universe. The snow of God's love didn't just fall on Bethlehem. It fell on the world -- a thick, snowy-white blanket blanketed the earth. It fell not just in the cold climes, but in the warm climes as well; it fell where snow had never fallen before. Imagine snow in Fiji, snow in the Caribbean, snow in Bali, even!

God's love is like the snow. And it fell mightily on us on Christmas day.

A blanket of snow consists of millions upon millions of individual snowflakes, all unique, we are told.

And, while it is true that God loves the world in a general sense, it is also true that he loves each one of us in a particular, individualized way. God's love is like the individual snowflakes that fall. There is a unique, individualized snowflake of God's love for each one of us. It's a love that knows all about us -- our strengths and weaknesses, our hopes, our dreams, our talents, our struggles and our shortcomings.

God has an individualized love especially for you. And this love was first displayed when Christ came on Christmas day.

God kissed the world with a blanket of snow on Christmas Day.

Merry Christmas to all.

Monday, December 24, 2007

God Kissed The World On Christmas Day

Dear friends,

I've posted a new Christmas song -- God Kissed The World On Christmas Day -- on YouTube. This is a first for me. I debuted the song two weeks ago in Georgetown, PEI, and then sang it again at the Basilica in Charlottetown. Then, since it's a Christmas song, we got the idea of doing a quick demo version of it and posting it up to YouTube so I could share it with my friends this Christmas season.

You can access it from my Christian music website -- (which is now up-and-running!). The website also includes a lyric/chord sheet for the song.

I'll be sending out emails to my friends inviting them to watch, listen, and (hopefully) enjoy it.

If you like it, pass it on to your friends -- wouldn't it be wonderful if we could get it passed around the world on Christmas day.

I'm going to start with my friends in Singapore, where it is already Christmas day.

God kissed the world on Christmas Day.

Please let me know what you think.

Saturday, December 22, 2007

Will You Be Going to Church This Christmas?

From a Globe and Mail online poll:

"Will you be going to a church, synagogue, temple, mosque or other religious facility this holiday season?"

1712 votes

3200 votes

3 out of 3 Canadians need God.

1 out of 3 will seek Him this Christmas.

What will YOU do?

The Virgin Birth: Yes!

The National Post is running a series entitled "Beyond Belief". This week's topic: the virgin birth.

Is it beyond belief? Not to me. Here's my logic.

Is belief in God beyond belief? No, God provides a reasonable and rational explanation for the existence of the universe and the persistent moral sense within human beings.

Is belief that God created the universe beyond belief? No, it is not only a very reasonable belief, it is a highly probable belief, based on philosophy and reason alone.

If we believe that God exists and that He created the universe is it beyond belief to believe that he might be interested in the welfare of his creation, and that he might have taken steps to ensure its welfare, including providing us with a reliable source of information about Himself? No, it is not. And that brings us to faith in the Bible as the revelation of God, and the possibility that God has taken steps to save us.

So, based on the all the above, is it unreasonable to believe in a virgin birth?

No. Creation is a colossal miracle; the virgin birth is a lesser miracle, and certainly not beyond belief. But is it probable or likely? If you understand the message of the Bible, the answer is a resounding "Yes!".

Does the virgin birth fit the message of the Bible, including the twin messages of man's sin and God's desire to restore us to fellowship with Him? The answer is a resounding "Yes!". Only man ought to make an offering to God for man's sin; only God could make an offering worthy of Himself. Think about it. The virgin birth answers this conundrum.

Jesus was truly the son of the Most High. And through Him we can be more than just forgiven sons of Adam, we can become God's actual sons and daughters, via adoption. It all fits. Packer refers to the gospel as "adoption through propitiation".

I believe it, and it makes me joyful to do so.

Rejoice with me in the virgin birth and the love of God that came to us in Christ.

Is It OK To Steal?

If the item in question is digital -- music, movies, etc., the answer from the blogosphere is a resounding "yes"!.

If there's any doubt, people point out that Canadians pay a tax on blank media because Canadians routinely flout copyright laws.

Here's my response:

Let's say that thieves are stealing furniture. In response, the government puts an extra tax on furniture that is supposed to go to those who have been stolen from. But the money really only goes to the major players. Now, someone steals your furniture. Because you are a little guy, you receive no compensation. How do you feel? Does the furniture tax make all things OK for you?

The principle of copyright law is that the author of a creative work owns the rights to the work, period. If you are not willing to pay for it on whatever terms it is offered, move on.

Love your neighbour. Do not steal.

And that's the way the Ball bounces.

Thursday, December 20, 2007

Islam vs. Christianity -- sandpaper vs. velvet

Moderate Muslims complain that they shouldn't be tarred with the same brush as radical, violent Muslims.

The problem with moderate Islam is that it provides the petri dish in which the more virulent and violent strains of Islam are cultivated. Moderate Islam seems to lack the grit or resolve to successfully resist or quash its radical brethren.

Unlike Christianity, which stresses inward conversion and a voluntary response to the gospel, the message of Islam is much closer to an outward submission/political kind of dominance.

This is seen in the record of the conversion experience of Mohammed (whom I recall said he felt like a whipped dog), vs. the conversion of the apostle Peter or the apostle Paul.

And, of course, it is seen in the record of Islamic states.

Islam and Christianity simply have different characters.

Canada may live to one day regret its rejection of moderate and moderating Christianity.

It may discover it has rejected velvet for sandpaper.

Tuesday, December 18, 2007

A Rare Opportunity...

We are featured on a front page story about gift-giving through World Vision at today's Guardian.

Better look now -- tomorrow it will be gone!

Sunday, December 16, 2007

The Archbishop of Canterbury brings out the Big Guns

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Atkinson, I mean, Williams, has indicated he will not be inviting the conservative Americans recently ordained as bishops and priests by African prelates to his big Lambeth Conference shindig next year.

As a result, the Anglican church in Nigeria has threatened to boycott the Conference.

In response, Archbishop Williams brought out the Big Guns: “The refusal to meet can be a refusal of the cross — and so of the resurrection.”

Ouch! Not going along with the liberal Archbishop's program can be a denial of the cross and the resurrection! Now that's heavy. At least it would be, if it wasn't complete bunkum.

To equate staying away from a Conference of a Christian communion led by an Archbishop who has reportedly conducted private communions for practicing homosexual clergy with denial of the Cross and the Resurrection amounts to a tuffer so colossal I'm surprised the Archbishop's tongue didn't fall out of his head when he uttered it.

And yet, that is how I find it often is with liberal Christian leaders. They use Christian words and phrases, but they are a veneer; the sentiments they express are false, and the words they use are either emptied of their meaning or given a new meaning that is incompatible with historic faith.

The Anglican Communion is like a train. Each province is a box-car. Canterbury is the engine. I say it's time for the faithful to unhitch themselves from the present engine and the box cars filled with rot and go their own way.

As Jesus said, concerning the Pharisees, "Let the blind lead the blind -- they'll both end up in the ditch". The Anglican Church is headed for the ditch (or worse).

Jesus didn't say "follow the Archbishop"; he didn't say, "follow the bishops"; he didn't say, "follow the cultural trends; he didn't say, "follow the crowd; he said, "follow me".

It's time for the big disconnect. It's time for the faithful to bail.

Only then will the liberals perhaps come to their senses and see what harm they have wrought.

And that's the way the Ball bounces.

Friday, December 14, 2007

"S&M builds character"

Sado-masochism builds character. A headline from the the CBC. Sounds about right. OK, it was in the context of a movie review. But, still, there it is.

I think I'm still allowed to speak out against sado-masochism, although who knows? New sexual identities and sexual identity rights are being created daily here in Canada -- witness this from Mark Steyn:

"The Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission's decision to impose a 'lifetime' ban on a local Catholic's freedom to publicly criticise homosexuality was upheld this week in its entirety by Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench." (However, in the interest of balance and fairness, there is no such ban that prevents a homosexual from criticizing Catholics.)

At any rate, to the existing set of approved sexualities, we can now, according to the CBC, add character-building sado-masochism.

Undoubtedly coming to a school near you.

Wednesday, December 12, 2007

Islam Goes Postal

A Canadian father, in the name of Islam, has killed his daughter for not being Muslim enough.

The spin? The Globe and Mail, in its front page coverage, had two headlines. The first blamed the death on "Religious Extremism". This fits their goal of characterizing all religions, including Christianity, as suspect if not socially noxious. The second reassured us that Moderate Muslims condemn the killing. Why didn't they blame the death on what it was, not religious extremism in general, but specifically, Muslim extremism? Because our society is in denial about this. It doesn't fit the received script.

It needs to be clearly stated: Islam is a different faith than Christianity. It is regressive. It is false. They are mutually incompatible. Christians who think we should honor Islam because it is monotheistic or because it claims Abrahamic roots are deluded. You cannot commend Islam without denying the Christian faith.

Canada had the best religion going: Christianity. Elites from the 60s on down, perhaps in rebelling against their own Christian heritage, have done everything they can to downplay our Christian origins and culture -- including the multicultural promotion of the equivalence of other faiths.

Leftist elites will continue to support and promote Islam because they view it as an ally in their goal of erasing Canada's Christian heritage.

We are at war. It is not a war fought with bullets. It is a spiritual battle, fought in heavenly places. Our nation's founders etched the following verse of Scripture over the heads of all Parliamentarians: "He shall have dominion from sea to sea". Our nation is in open rebellion against our forefathers' founding vision of Canada.

I am declaring this truth today; I am placing this spiritual stake in the ground: Christ shall have dominion over Canada, from sea to sea.

And that's the way the Ball bounces.

Wednesday, December 05, 2007

Here's a Danish to have with your morning coffee

Bjoern Lomborg is the Danish author of "The Sceptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World".

He once headed Denmark's Environmental Assessment Institute.

He was on Time Magazine's list of the world's most influential people in 2004, but unlikely to make the list in the future -- he's on the wrong side of the Anthropic Global Warming issue.

His latest book, "Cool It," attacks the Kyoto Protocol.

"One could also get a lot more for one's money by investing in the fight against AIDS, malaria and famine," he said, insisting that "for every person saved from malaria by hitting the brakes on global warming you could save 36,000 through third world health policies."

I'm with him on that. There are far more urgent priorities the West could attend to -- like people suffering and dying now. But then, it would be about "them" and not "us".

The West loves the whole AGW thing because it's all about "us".

He also says that, if successful, the whole attack on C02 would only shave off two years of C02 growth this century, meaning that it would take until 2102 instead of 2100 to reach a predefined level of C02.

Hardly worth the bother.

Tuesday, December 04, 2007

Getting Serious About Saving The Planet

The environmentalists are always telling us that we must make changes to our lifestyles in order to save the planet, are they not?

Usually, what they have in mind is changing their light bulbs and punishing corporations that provide the goods and services we all love to consume and which make life on this planet great. I really don't see many environmentalists making major changes (except for the woman who sacrificed her unborn baby to save Mother Earth -- I expect she would have aborted anyway).

Heather Mills and other environmentalists have pointed out that if you were really serious about saving the planet you would stop eating meat -- all the herds of cattle raised to fill our appetite for meat create a lot of methane gas which is bad for the planet. A lot of environmentalists are still eating meat.

Over at Mark Steyn, another very sensible argument has emerged. If you really care about the planet and are married, you'll stay together, if not for the sake of the kids, for the sake of Mother Earth. That's right. Divorce is an eco-unfriendly act. Double the housing. Shuttling the kids back and forth. Double the rooms for kids.

Environmentalists view the environment as a moral crusade. Are they willing to restrict their "freedom" and behave in a moral manner with regards to divorce?

Don't hold your breath.

And that's the way the Ball bounces.

Monday, December 03, 2007

Thank God for Big Oil

Thank God for Big Oil. They fuel our economy and our way of life. They provide a reliable source of reasonably priced fuel year in and year out with rare disruption.

Some of the best and brightest minds in our society work for Big Oil.

Exploration -- Production -- Refining -- Distribution -- Retailing -- it's a wonderfully managed operation; humankind at its finest.

The government, for its part, just mindlessly slaps on 50% in taxes -- without initiative, intelligence, or risk.

Friday, November 30, 2007

Startling Weather News From The CBC

According to the CBC, it's going to be cold this winter. They've dug deeper and located the cause:

"Colder air this year is expected to drive down temperatures."

It is this kind of in-depth analysis that makes the CBC worth its billion-dollar funding, year after year after year.

I'm going to go out on a limb and make my own prediction, and you can have it for free:

"After the cold winter, warmer air will drive up temperatures and by July we will be experiencing summer-like conditions".

You can quote me on it.

Nehemiah's Wall

Nehemiah was a great leader of Israel. Like many of the Old Testament leaders, he was not, to my knowledge, a priest or ordained minister. He was a guy who cared about his country, his countrymen, his religion, and his God. And he asked the king's permission to go home and help rebuild it. Which he did. As I recall, the brave Jews held a sword in one hand and a trowel in another (or something like that).

The Jewish faith had a geographic centre -- Jerusalem. I was reading Daniel last night, and noted how he would face Jerusalem each day and pray to God. How he must have longed for home; how he must have sensed the alienation of living in an alien land!

Christians have no geographical centre. We don't look to Jerusalem, or Rome, or Tulsa, or Toronto. We look to Jesus. And the home we long for is heaven, because we are its citizens and Jesus is its King, and our King, whom we long for.

The wall of the Anglican Church in Canada has broken down. Wolves dressed in sheep's clothing have entered the flock and taken over its governance. And the people have been largely complacent and compliant. The battering ram started in the 50's, and accelerated in the 60's, and it was aimed at Scripture. As soon as a church loses its grasp on the supernatural origins of Scripture, and the unique power it possesses, it is on its way out.

The question is, does God have Nehemiahs in the wings, waiting for the call to Rebuild the Walls. Let us pray to God that the answer is "yes!".

Meanwhile, over in Israel, archeologists believe they have uncovered Nehemiah's wall, yet another indicator of the essential trustworthiness of the historical accounts contained within the pages of Scripture.

* * *

Israeli Says Elusive Biblical Wall Found

Nov 30 12:11 AM US/Eastern
Associated Press Writer

JERUSALEM (AP) - A wall mentioned in the Bible's Book of Nehemiah and long sought by archaeologists apparently has been found, an Israeli archaeologist says.

A team of archaeologists discovered the wall in Jerusalem's ancient City of David during a rescue attempt on a tower that was in danger of collapse....

The findings suggest that the structure was actually part of the same city wall the Bible says Nehemiah rebuilt....

"We were amazed," she [Mazar] said, noting that the discovery was made at a time when many scholars argued that the wall did not exist.

* * *

Indeed. I wouldn't bet against the Bible.

Thursday, November 29, 2007

The Anglican Church of Canada: "Behold, I Make All Things New"

The long-predicted split in the Anglican Church of Canada is finally taking place.

For decades the Anglican Church refused to discipline church leaders who were veering from conservative, orthodox views. The church has tolerated watery liberalism and even openly heretic views such as those of "obey me or else" heretic Michael Ingham.

This tolerance has resulted in liberals taking over the historic church and hi-jacking it. They are now about to put the jack-boots to conservative congregations by threatening to take over their properties if they refuse to submit to their "apostolic leadership". Apostolic my patootie. These guys wouldn't know apostolic if they tripped over it, and, if they had the chance, they would give the apostles the boot (which they have effectively done already) for being intolerant, homophobic, exclusionary witnesses to a God who demands that salvation occur on His own terms. They like the love bit, but not the holiness and judgment components of the gospel.

At a recent convention, liberals used the Scripture "Behold, I Am Making All Things New!" as their motto for advancing the homosexual agenda. This verse was ripped out of its context in Scripture and used to support an agenda of sexual liberation that is condemned by Scripture. Their only connection with apostolic ministry is that the apostle Peter talked about such corrupt leaders -- and condemned them.

If the apostate leaders of the church can declare that God is doing something new, then why not the conservative faithful? Can we not equally declare that this split is "of God", and that it is glorious in our eyes?

I have met the current Anglican Primate, Fred Hiltz. In a meeting he said, "isn't it a shame we are spending all this time and energy talking about sexuality when we should be ministering to the poor". What a deceitful dodge! I told him, in the meeting, that sexuality had become a preoccupying issue precisely because bishops such as himself were pushing it -- and that the church was right in resisting their efforts. I went on to tell him that the idea that a holy God would create some men for sex with other men was blasphemy. This didn't seem to bother him one whit. The idea that he might be a blasphemer was just one more view in the vast anglican mosaic of ideas. Just one more idea, no more valid than any other idea.

And Scripture? Just one more idea, I guess. No more valid than any other idea.

Fred Hiltz had an historic church in his hands for less than a year. And, under his watch, it is unravelling.

Yes, Fred, because "God is doing a new thing!". Listen as He says, "Behold, I Am Making All Things New!".

God will have the last word. And the final judgment. And then we will see who was serving God, and who was serving their own corrupt passions.

And that's the way the Ball bounces.

Islam Needs A Christian Reformation

Over at the National Post this morning they are editorializing that Islam needs to undergo its own reformation, similar to that enjoyed by the Christian church in the 16th century.

I have two words in response to this: ni-eev.

Here's the letter I wrote in response:

The Christian reformation of the 16th century marked a return to the grace-based roots of original Christian faith. As such, it was indeed a reformation. You state that Islam needs a similar reformation, but in Islam there is nothing remotely similar to reform to. Islam was a subjugating, violent faith from the get-go. It will always be incompatible with Christianity, and Christian leaders and secularists who think otherwise are deluded.

* * *

Islam needs a reformation all right, it needs to re-group and acknowledge that Jesus was more than just a prophet second only to Mohammed, re-form, and acknowledge that Christ died for the sins of Muslims and rose gloriously, and re-emerge -- as Christianity.

And that's the way the Christian Ball bounces.

Wednesday, November 28, 2007

I'm gonna go out on a limb...

More than 1/4 of U.S. birds face extinction.

I'm gonna go out on a limb...

I'm betting it's not due to acid rain or the ozone layer -- both so-yesterday's environmental crisis-du-jour.

I'm betting it's due to global warming.

I'll keep you informed...

Tuesday, November 27, 2007

The National Post Veers Left

Am I the only one that has noticed a shift in the National Post to the left? I was going to say an editorial shift, but left wing/right wing views are no longer limited to editorials, they slant the very substance of the news we get.

The National Post seems to be heading down the same path as the CBC.

Some examples of the National Post's drift to the left: they've uncritically picked up the latest socialist story of unbridled child poverty in Canada, they're publishing stories critical of Canada's failure to protest the pending death of a convicted Canadian murderer in the U.S., they have sanitized the latest story about rioting in France, and, of course, they long ago abandoned any notion that marriage defined as between a man and a woman makes good social, moral, and biological sense.

The National Post's drift to the left may not be all deliberate. There's a good chance that at least some of it may be caused by the uncritical publishing of wire news stories. In which case the National Post will cease to be a distinguished newspaper and will drift down to the level of being a propagator of news wire services -- all of which can be obtained free of charge by other means.

I'm getting less committed to the National Post as the days go by.

French Rioting -- Not Violence, An Expression of Rage

The riots have returned to France -- and you probably haven't even heard about it. The Western press has pretty much chosen to keep this news story on the back-burner. In summers past it was Muslim immigrant youth who were rioting. But the CBC used to just say they were "French youth"; the CBC has to protect us all from ourselves, our vile racist assumptions, and our utter inability to process factual information in a rational manner.

The National Post seems to be following the same path as the CBC. In an article picked up from Reuters they make no direct mention of the ethnic background of the rioters. But surely this is relevant information, is it not? Can you imagine riots in America, with the press giving no mention to the fact that it was blacks who were rioting?

The only clue to the rioters' identity is the following statement, "But Omar Sehhouli, brother of one of the victims, accused police of ramming the motorbike, then failing to help the injured teens." Mr. Sehhouli went on to add that the rioting “was not violence but an expression of rage.”

The rioting, in which six policemen were injured, was not violence. Well, that's a relief.

The article goes on to try to dampen any ideas that these are Muslims rioting by reminding us of the 2005 riots: "The violence revived memories of the 2005 riots in the country’s poor, often ethnically diverse, housing projects...".

"Ethnically diverse" means it was both black as well as Arab muslims who were rioting, perhaps along with some other rabble-rousers.

The most blatant ideological spin comes at the end of the article: the riots are blamed on the French themselves:

"Police and politicians warn the suburbs remain a 'tinderbox' two years after the 2005 riots, which exposed France’s failure to integrate its large black and Arab population, the children and grandchildren of immigrants from its African colonies."

There you have it -- it's all due to France's failure to integrate a large population -- one that has absolutely no intention of integrating. As usual, you can file this story under "It's All Our Fault".

All this from the once-great National Post.

The National Post is slowly becoming one of the forces for Western social disintegration.


Sunday, November 25, 2007

Bali: It's About Time

The world's environmental elite are flying into Bali -- for most of them, half way around the world -- to save the planet. And no, they're not flapping their arms to get there, they're using honking big gas-guzzling jet airplanes. Someone's going to have to reduce their carbon footprint to compensate for the size 16 footprint left by Bali. Maybe Bally, India will be asked to reduce its carbon footprint to zero. Sounds like a good offset.

But what, you may ask, is Richard Bali-Ball doing to reduce his carbon footprint?

Just this.

I was so alarmed by the drowning polar bear photos in Time magazine that I am letting my long-term subscription lapse. That's right. I am giving up my Time magazine to save the planet -- the magazine that consumes energy to make the paper and then more energy to be trucked across the Eastern seaboard until it finally lands in my mailbox in PEI.

There'll soon be no more Time Magazine with Richard Ball of PEI's name on it. No sir-ee.

It's just a little something I can do.

I know Time magazine will be proud of me and glad to know its crusade to get people to cut back is paying off.

Curiously, however, rather than applauding my non-renewal, they keep inundating me with subscription offers, adding ever-greater enticements to renew (I think the last offer included a condo in Florida if I would renew for three years.)

So they're expanding their footprint while I'm reducing mine.

Maybe that's what the green crowd really means by carbon offsetting.

And that's the way the ever-so-slightly smaller Ball of C02 bounces -- to Bali and back.

Saturday, November 24, 2007

Mock on!

Why is it that Christianity is routinely mocked and ridiculed while the West's approach to other faiths is to "respect" them and leave them alone?

Is there something about Christianity that sticks in people's craws the way other faiths don't? Is there something about the person of Jesus Christ that makes unbelievers more uncomfortable than when considering Moses or Mohammed? Is there a reason that it is the name of Jesus that is tossed around as a vile curse, and not Mohammed or Buddha?

Why is it that other faiths and ideologies are seemingly off-limits to criticism, but the same courtesy is not afforded Christianity?

We draw a circle around Muslim ideology and say, "off-limits to debate and criticism"; we draw a circle around homosexual ideology and say, "off-limits to debate and criticism"; we draw a circle around Christian ideology and say, "fair to mock and ridicule".

Perhaps it's because, of all faiths, Christianity is a proselytizing faith, a witnessing faith. It doesn't just leave other people alone the way Buddhism does, the way Judaism does, the way Hinduism and Sikhism does. Rather, it says "this belief is not just right for us, it is right for all peoples". (Islam attempts the same thing, but it is a dry and lifeless and unappealing witness that only prevails by force -- it lacks the free-will, appealing, convicting power of the Christian message.)

Perhaps it's because, of all faiths, Christianity is true.

Perhaps it alone bears witness to the true God who created us in his image and holds us accountable for our actions and calls us to be saved by the provision he has made.

I suspect that's the message that sticks in the unbeliever's craw and drives him to protest and ridicule.

And that's the way the Saturday morning Ball bounces.

Friday, November 23, 2007

A Car So Hot It's Cool

Time Magazine new products of the year issue.

They got a new car -- it runs on, wait for this, air! That's right, compressed air. This has gotta be the solution to dwindling fossil fuel supplies. The cars are totally non-polluting. The only output is -- colder air.

Colder air.

Think about that. A gazzilion space-age cars wandering all over the highways and by-ways of the world spewing out colder air. Cold-er air. It's gonna get awfully cold!

Soon we're gonna to have to think of some way to warm up the globe.

Any ideas, Al?

Polygamy: The Local Option

According to a recent article in a Halifax paper, the Rev. Sue Moxley, Anglican bishop of Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, loves the idea of same-sex blessings; can't wait to get on with them. She has participated in Gay Pride parades in the past, and plans to do so in the future.

She supports the "local option" idea. A parish can bless homosexual unions if they want to, but doesn't have to. She goes on to say that it's like polygamy, which apparently, is a local option in some parts of the Anglicansphere.

Who knew?!

From her remarks I assume that Bishop Sue is OK with polygamy, and would be a gung-ho participant at any upcoming Polygamist-Pride event.

I can see this going in a couple of directions.

First, I think polygamy would be a very good idea for Prince Edward Island, and I'm glad to see that bishop Sue is open-minded and not elitist or exclusionary. Not mandatory polygamy, mind you, but polygamy as a local option, perhaps out in King's County. It's great to know that if we go this route, we have a least one bishop ready to roll out the blessings.

Second, this. Bishop Sue is definitely OK with same-sex blessings. She's apparently OK with polygamy. I wonder if she's ever thought of the possibility of combining the two? Would gay polygamy be wrong? Presumably not. There's not even a gender-equality issue to worry about.

All God's children got a place in the choir!

On with the show!

Sterilization, Vasectomies and Abortion: The New Moral Good

You can file this one under: the death of Western culture and Al Gore's children (via Drudge.)

Environmental activist Toni Vernelli has had herself sterilized so that she cannot pollute the earth with children.

Even better, she had a baby on the way that she quickly disposed of.

"I didn't like having a termination, but it would have been immoral to give birth to a child that I felt strongly would only be a burden to the world."

Ah yes. Immoral to give birth. "Go into all the world and multiply." A burden to the world. "For God so loved the world..."

Abortion good/having babies bad.

Meanwhile, Mark Hudson has had a vasectomy, because, "It would be morally wrong for me to add to climate change and the destruction of Earth."

Is there any doubt that "the god of this world" has blinded the hearts and minds of the western world, and that, in rejecting the knowledge of the true God, revealed in Jesus Christ, the west has been given over to deception?

May God help us all.

Thursday, November 22, 2007

5 Years in Jail for Quoting the Bible?

(h/t SDA)

A woman has been threatened with up to five years' imprisonment for quoting the Bible.

At first I assumed this must be in a Muslim country like Saudi Arabia.

But, no, it's here in Canada, and it's all in the name of gloriously promoting human rights.

The Scripture in question, predictably, has to do with Old Testament injunctions against homosexuality found in the book of Leviticus.

The typical response on the internet to quoting OT injunctions against homosexuality is to throw in some of the other regulations found in Leviticus, e.g., involving slavery, penalties for working on the Sabbath, etc. The intent is to make the Old Testament, and those who quote it, look ridiculous.

Here's my response:

[1st post]

The Old Testament legal code was designed to teach the people of Israel the principle of clean vs. unclean, and to provide a picture of the stringent holiness that would have to be present for a holy God to dwell in the midst of human society.

The Old Testament was fulfilled and supplanted by the New Testament. At great personal cost to God.

It is the understanding of Christians that the moral dimensions of the Old Testament law, for example concerning adultery, homosexuality, theft, murder, etc. are still in effect, but the purely ceremonial aspects are no longer in force.

But, of course, those who prefer to ridicule the Bible and those who follow it aren't interested in such distinctions.

[2nd post]

The New Testament also contains strong prohibitions against homosexuality. Presumably Jessica Beaumont is free to quote those.

In which case there will have to be another human rights tribunal (and another edict banning the use of Scripture).

At which point the tribunal will begin to look like a person playing the carnival game whack the gopher.

To try your hand at being a human rights tribunalist, go to

* * *

A very good case could be made that the entire Bible -- from cover to cover -- bears witness to the message that God created humankind in his image as male and female, male for female, female for male, and that homosexual attraction and behaviour is therefore incompatible with the Bible.

In which case it could be argued that the entire Bible should be banned.

[3rd post]

Of course, what we're really all waiting for is when the human rights tribunal gets around to prohibiting verses from the Koran.

That should be fun to watch.

Wednesday, November 21, 2007

"Is your employer holding a seasonal celebration?"

This question, posted on the Globe and Mail's website, tells you all you need to know about the self-immolation of Canadian culture.

Because the term "Christmas Party" just might offend someone.

Death Do Us Part

One of the cultural dividing lines between the U.S. and Canada (and, indeed, the western world) is the use of the death penalty. Canada abolished it some 30 years ago; we've been feeling morally superior ever since.

Recently the Canadian P.M. said he would not appeal a death-sentence conviction of a Canadian who murdered on U.S. soil. (The lesson is, if you are going to murder someone, do it on Canadian soil.)

This failure to appeal has brought out some religious language from Europe -- a welcome relief from the uber-secularism of the God-is-dead state. Seems they have some faint echos of religious memory after all.

The "Council of Europe" (no less!) has likened the Harper government to a great biblical figure -- Pontius Pilate -- whom the National Post helpfully describes for its readers as "the Roman governor who 'washed his hands' of the decision to crucify Jesus Christ because a mob demanded Christ’s execution."

In the intemperate language that typifies the left, Mr. Davies of the Council of Europe went on to accuse Canada of effectively “subcontracting” the death penalty to the U.S. If this is true, it means that Canada is also "subcontracting" murder, since the murder occurred on American soil.

He went on to articulate a common argument against the death penalty, “But to execute him is degrading. It’s reducing authorities to the same level as people who kill people. Killing people is wrong. And the European view is we won’t get down in the gutter with the people who commit murders."

The equivalence argument is an interesting one. It fails to differentiate the proper role of government vs. the lawless acts of individual citizens. If a citizen confiscates your money, it's theft. If the government does it, it's taxation. If a citizen holds you against your will, it's kidnapping; if the government does it, it's incarceration.

Substitute incarceration for capital punishment and re-roll the tape:

“But to incarcerate him is degrading. It’s reducing authorities to the same level as people who kidnap people. Kidnapping people is wrong. And the European view is we won’t get down in the gutter with the people who commit kidnapping."

The other part of his argument that is problematic is the absolute moral assertion "Killing people is wrong". Of course, Christians agree with this, in the sense of committing murder, but on what moral grounds does an atheistic society say it is wrong to kill people? After all, our status is no more elevated, ultimately, than that of a cow or a pig -- we just came out a little better on the amoral evolutionary scale. Is it wrong to kill an animal? No? Then what essential difference does it make to kill a human "animal"? Is it morally "wrong" for a bear or a shark to kill a human? No? Then why would it be wrong for one human to kill another?

A moral code, unless it's admitted to be purely pragmatic and therefore a purely fictitious human construct (or, even worse, an invention of "mindless" evolution) -- makes no sense without God.

And yet this moral sense, along with this sense that man is somehow special, somehow unique, are both deeply ingrained in human beings -- you might even say it's imprinted within us. Even among those who claim that God does not exist or is irrelevant to the conduct of human affairs.

Atheists owe God a lot.

And that's the way the Ball bounces.

Monday, November 19, 2007

QOTD (Quote of the Day): C. S. Lewis

The following is attributed to C. S. Lewis:

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

Sunday, November 18, 2007

Good News: Our Final Warning!

Time Magazine gets the prize for the most alarmist article on global warming yet. The language makes me wonder if we live on the same planet.,8599,1685199,00.html

A Last Warning on Global Warming Saturday, Nov. 17, 2007 By BRYAN WALSH

I'm glad I wasn't sipping coffee when I read the opening sentence --

"The language of science, like that of the United Nations, is by nature cautious and measured."

Really? Since when?

"The report, a synthesis for politicians culled from three other IPCC panels... read like what it is: a final warning to humanity."

Well, I'm glad to hear it's our final warning.

But notice this: the report is not based on any new evidence. It is culled from three other panels. So why is this report, developed for politicians, being issued now? Read on.

"The panel reported that the world would have to reverse the rapid growth of greenhouse gases by 2015...". "That puts the pressure on the world's leaders.... They'll have their last, best chance next month, when energy ministers from around the world travel to Bali, Indonesia, for the annual meeting of the U.N.'s Framework on Climate Convention."

There's your answer. The report serves a political purpose. To put pressure on politicians; to soften resistance to the global warming ideological agenda.

"If they fail, then the IPCC has already written our future. We'll find out in Bali."

Instead of the IPCC's apocalyptic vision of our future, you might want to read the Apocalypse, the book of Revelation. Humanity has more to worry about than C02 emissions.

It's our final warning (and promise).

And that's the way the Bali Ball bounces.

Saturday, November 17, 2007

Instant Noodles -- Faster

"VALENCIA, Spain (AP) - The Earth is hurtling toward a warmer climate at a quickening pace, a Nobel-winning U.N. scientific panel said in a landmark report released Saturday, warning of inevitable human suffering and the threat of extinction for some species." -- Arthur Max.

Is this sober science?

"The Earth is hurtling toward a warmer climate". The verb to hurtle means "to rush violently; move with great speed". Does anyone really believe that climate change is happening at a rushing, great speed? Isn't it more like a slow-moving turtle, less than 1 degree C. in a century, with projections of maybe a couple more in the next?

But, apparently, even violent rushing is not enough. The hurtling's happening at a quickening pace. By the time I finish this report, the ice should be all gone from the Arctic and those living in warmer climates will have burned up due to the temperature inferno unleashed upon us. I can feel the flames licking at my feet.

It reminds me of a sign I saw in Singapore recently, "Instant Noodles - Faster". Because for Singaporeans, instant just isn't fast enough.

The second part of the sentence is a warning about inevitable human suffering. Everyone's against human suffering. Problem is, there are millions of human beings who are suffering today -- and the global warming alarmists seem to have little to say about it.

Let's try to remain cool in the few remaining days we have left.

And that's the way the Ball bounces.

Thursday, November 15, 2007

"It's abortion and it's good!"

Samantha Singson of The Interim attended a National Organization of Women (NOW) meeting recently. The featured speaker was Eleanor Bader. Lamenting the fact that the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) doesn't use the "A-word" any more, she said that the remedy is to talk up "the good that abortion is".

The... good... that... abortion... is.

Savor that one for a moment.

She went on to emphasize that "abortion is a moral good and a social good".

Gaining momentum, she enthusiastically concluded with a pep-rally slogan, "It's abortion and it's good!".

Man is hopelessly moral. And he seems to have a deep-seated need to justify his actions, to cast them in a favorable moral light. Even the Mafia have a highly-developed moral code.

The problem is, as fallen creatures, our moral code is invariably distorted and twisted because of sin.

Moses gave us the Mosaic Law. Then Jesus came along and relaxed some aspects of it (ritual compliance) while intensifying other aspects -- especially those parts dealing with human sexuality and the treatment of others.

If Jesus can view unjustified anger against another person as tantamount to murder, imagine what he would make of an abortion -- the destruction of utterly innocent human life.

Those on the left claim that capital punishment diminishes us all. I disagree.

Abortion diminishes us.

And that's the way the Ball bounces.

Tuesday, November 13, 2007

Man vs. Nature

The assumption behind AGW is that nature apart from man is in a perfect equilibrium, but that man disturbs that balance. So, even though scientists admit there is no "ideal" or "perfect" temperature or climate, they nonetheless pitch in and agree that any tampering with the natural cycle of things by man is bad.

This assumes or implies two things: first, that nature is designed, so that there is a natural balance that "ought" to be, and second, that man is not an integral part of the natural cycle of things, but, rather, an interloping damage-doer.

This belief is philosophy, not science (and scientists should at least have the decency to point this out). This position actually supports the Christian view that man stands above the rest of creation, but is damaged and flawed in his actions.

But wait a minute. If man is nothing more than an uncreated "thing" that evolution spat out, then blame evolution, or blame nature, not man. But the assumption behind all of this is that man is somehow a free-willed moral being who can control his actions for good or ill.

Sound familiar? Once again we find non-believers, darwinists, and atheists unwittingly supporting the Christian worldview.

I am utterly convinced that the Christian worldview has the broadest explanatory power, greatest internal cohesion (consistency), and best correspondence to reality of all belief systems "out there". As I have explained in other posts, atheism is ultimately illogical and unworkable in practice -- because while many love the freedom from moral accountability it affords, few are willing to live with the logical consequences of materialism -- that we are unintended, undesigned, and without intrinsic worth or destiny.

Even its critics and deniers support the Christian worldview.

And that's the way the Ball bounces.

Monday, November 12, 2007

Thank God for medications!

I was in Singapore recently and needed some medicine. I picked up some Panadol, which contained something called paracetamol. Turns out paracetamol is acetaminophen (e.g., Tylenol); outside of North America, it's called paracetamol.

Who knew?!

The Panadol was manufactured in Ireland. Packed in Australia. And then shipped to Singapore, with writing in English and Chinese.

We live in a global village, at least as far as manufacturing and trade goes, and those provinces, states, and nations that prosper will be those that think globally.

Thank God for medicines, part of his common grace that he has provided for us to discover and use for our benefit.

Next time you ease your weary joints with a bit of meds, remember how good and loving our Creator is.

"All I have needed, thy hand has provided..."

And that's the way the Ball bounces.

Sunday, November 04, 2007

Atheism's Appeal

If darwinian evolution is true, there is no ultimate purpose to existence. There is no right and wrong -- so we can each do as we please without having to worry about any ultimate consequences. There is no final accountability, and no ultimate justice. The universe is, ultimately, one vast, unfeeling, uncaring material wasteland where life was never intended, just happened to pop into existence, and then just happened to evolve into incredibly complex organisms that bear the (false) evidence of progression and design.

Darwinians can hold their newborn baby in their arms and say, "you are unintended and uncreated, your life is without ultimate value or purpose, and you have no more ultimate value than a slug. I love you, but that is because of a trick of unfeeling evolutionary forces that produce this illusionary emotion from purely chemical reactions within my brain. Welcome to the planet!".

For the life of me, I can't understand the enthusiasm that humans have for darwinian evolution -- you would think that it's apparent truth would sadden people rather than make them gleeful, especially when you consider how it cheapens human life and makes it inconsequential -- unlike Christianity, which testifies that humans are the apex of God's creation, made in His image, and can be restored to fellowship with Him through Jesus Christ.

You would think that rational beings would at least say, concerning Christianity, "gee, wouldn't it be great if it were true. I would really like it to be true, but, it just can't be".

Instead, darwinians and atheists regularly gloat and mock Christians who bear witness to a loving and all-powerful Creator, from whom we are estranged by sin, but restored through Jesus Christ.

Maybe it's because they like sin and prefer it to the pursuit of righteousness which follows belief in God.

Which just happens to be the Bible's witness concerning mankind.

Sounds like atheists and darwians are by their actions bearing witness to the truth of the Bible.

Now that's an interesting proposition.

And that's the way the Ball bounces.

Tuesday, October 23, 2007

California fires blamed on global warming

It was only a matter of time. Here's the money-quote:

“One reason why we have the fires in California is global warming,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) told reporters Tuesday, stressing the need to pass the Democrats’ comprehensive energy package.

Like we never had droughts or fires before 1970.

I'm waiting for this quote:

“One reason we're having such brutally cold weather is global warming”.

And that's the way the Ball bounces.

"The Greenest Games Ever"

Someone has said that the Global Warming cult isn't really about climate change, it's about wanting to control other people's lives.

That appears to be true in London.

Organizers of the 2012 games have announced there will be zero capacity for cars at the games, and ticket-holders will be instructed daily on how to get to the various game venues by public transport. "We have a very aggressive programme to make it the greenest Games in modern times". Worse, they say they are doing this, not just to make the games more eco-friendly, to attempt to achieve a permanent shift in people's travel habits. In other words, they want to control our lives. Cars/individualism, bad; busses/collectivism, good.

I have two observations.

Firstly, I'll believe it when I see "important people" such as politicians and celebrities taking the busses and trains or whatever to the Olympic venues. Like Al Gore's opulent Tennessee mansion, the lifestyle changes the demi-gods of global warming demand are always aimed at the hoi polloi. Like the Russian communist leaders with their chauffeur-driven limos and dachas, they always grant themselves an exemption.

Secondly, this:

Earth to the London Olympic organizers: Think of all the C02 being emitted by the airplanes jetting people to London for the Games. Think of all the C02 emitted by ticket-holders taking cabs, busses or the tube to their hotels. Think of the cost of heating/airconditioning the hotels holding these people. Think of all the energy consumed by putting on the Games. All of that -- all of it -- could be eliminated by cancelling the games, or making them a strictly local event.

After all, the Olympics are just a sporting event; it's not like they are a necessity of life.

If you really believe that the planet faces imminent catastrophe due to man-made global warming, put your money where your mouth is -- cancel the games.

Otherwise, pass sensible anti-pollution measures [C02 is not a pollutant] and get on with living life to its fullest.

And that's the way the Ball bounces.

Saturday, October 20, 2007

"He was praying in the fields..."

A month or so ago I received a prayer request from my hosts in Africa, John and Ruth Kerr. It concerned a graduate of Trans-Africa College, where I have the privilege of teaching Apologetics classes each year. This is a story of our sovereign God's working in the life of a Spirit-filled, faith-filled believer in Jesus Christ. I hope you enjoy reading it, and I hope you will pray for the safety and success of Trans-Africa College.

* * *


October 20, 2007

Greetings Friends!

A few weeks ago we asked you to pray for our recent graduate, Charles Mulumena, and his release from prison? Here's his story!

What can you say about our Charles Mulumena? He was praying in the fields, hearing the footsteps he thought were heavenly messengers! Unfortunately, when he opened his eyes he was surrounded by the police. It was The Drug Enforcement Unit. And they were taking him downtown!
“Can I at least go back for my Bible?,” he asked.
“No! You are coming now. We need your testimony. You can be released after you testify.” So Charles went along, assuming they’d be coming back later, like the arresting officer said. Much later, Charles was on his way into custody for four months – a morning quiet time with a twist!

They took him to the Police Station and booked him, along with a half dozen drug dealers. It turned out that those footsteps he had heard were a bunch of pushers and thieves running from the police. Poor Charles! He was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Four days passed before the hearing. Charles kept busy sharing his faith with some of the lost souls in the Remand Centre. He was comfortable in the knowledge that the booking officer knew he was innocent. He would be a free man in a few days. Or so he thought!

As it turned out, the booking officer who knew his situation had been called away on the fourth day. Charles was charged along with the drug dealers! His crime? Being in possession of 3.5kgs of marijuana as confirmed by Kitwe’s Drug Enforcement Unit – a “very corrupt unit,” it is said. Charles says when he heard the charge he almost burst out laughing.

But this was the stuff of tears. Our Charles Mulumena, illustrious graduate of Trans-Africa College, youth worker-evangelist par excellence – now hand-cuffed and delivered to the Kamphinsa Penitentiary, one of the largest, and most degraded insititutions in all of Southern Africa! For at least one month, until the next hearing. Awaiting final sentencing.

Suddenly he was surrounded by some of the toughest customers in Zambia.
“You must be a Pastor,” said the ringleader, a miniature Mafioso and a murderer. “You don't look like you could kill anyone -- right boys?" They grinned and nodded their agreement -- a rag-tag bunch of petty thieves and hardened criminals. "No, he is not one of us."
“Yes, I am a pastor,” Charles replied.
“You see? A Pastor. I knew it.” He was a novelty and his gracious manner soon gained him respect and favor. In fact, from the first day at the prison, he was treated like a divine emissary.

But he was far from happy about his plight. His first night was full of tears and lamentations -- asking God the "Why" questions? And "How?" "How could a morning of prayer turn into this? ... Why, God?.... Why have you allowed this to happen to me?" Then, he says, a very supernatural peace came over him. He knew God had sent him there for a purpose.

The chaplain soon had him preaching three times daily in the auditorium. The Holy Spirit began to move. Inmates began to get saved. Arrangements were made to baptize a group of new believers. New converts included a prison guard. Two notorious Satanists, who had killed many people, were among these new Christians. So transformed were these young men, who had been steeped in witchcraft, that they became Charles’ primary supporters and "personal workers." They made sure the chapel was full for services. They brought along inmates with special needs for prayer. Miracles of healing were taking place. Charles found himself ministering to all the great host of unaddressed needs and injustices that fill such tragic dumping wards worldwide.

The month was soon past and the day for his appearing before the judge came. He was transported into town and sat in the courtroom ready to go home. But there was no judge! His Honour was away for a funeral. They would have to reconvene for sentencing -- in another thirty days! Charles was back to Kamphinsa again!

He was one sad young man as he filed out with the prison population again. But as he made his way to the truck, he spotted his “arresting officer” in the hall! And the man recognized him!
“But Pastor!... what are you doing here? You were supposed to have been released the same day!” He promised to follow it up and get Charles freed. But three more months behind bars awaited our Charles – because the judge did not appear as needed.

Fortunately, Charles was spared the normal sleeping arrangements, 54 inmates laid out like cord wood in a room the size of a school room. Someone found him a mattress and a private corner. Friends and fellow-students brought him food -- a very welcome relief from prison fare! Most important, Charles' ministry just continued to expand and grow. Special meetings were arranged for the serious offenders in the Penal Section. Many were saved and baptized.
“Over a thousand committed their lives," he said later. “I left at least 88 new Christians, committed to meeting together. God took me there.... He sent me on a mission."

Just before his release, a hand-delivered letter from Charles appeared at our door:

Dearest Dr. and Mrs. Kerr,
It's so amazing to think of you people.... Where would my life have been without you good people at TTC? I have a lot to say about the grace of God that the Apostle Paulsays is suffiecient for him.
Indeed, it is sufficient for me as well. I'm sure you have been told about my whole story that I am facingnow, though not in full maybe.
Now I have come to understand that indeed "all things work together for good to them that love the Lord," as Paul puts it. God brought me to prison for a purpose and that purpose is to accomplish His divine mission in my life.
For sure a lot of people have wondered as to what could be happening with and in me. But then one thing I assure you is that I have learnt a lot here in terms of ministry and God is using me greatly to reach the lost souls. As a matter of fact our chaplain has picked me to be the pastor in charge of other cell pastors and prisoners.
Not only that, but God has also opened ministry opportunities for both me and my church that even after my discharge, I'll be ministering in prison. There are many wonders that I'll be sharing with you in person.
I'm so glad to learn that even the college community is praying for me. Be rest assured that your faithful prayers are working wonders. May the Lord God of the harvest be there for all fo you and blessiongs to all of you people.
I love you and please continue praying for I'll be appearing in court on the 12 of this month.
Goodbye for now.
Your faithful Prisoner of Christ,
Pastor Charles

Now that he's a free man, Charles spends a lot of time walking around town. We met him in front of Shoprite a few days after his release.
"I don’t believe that mission is ended," he said. "I want to continue doing prison ministry!”

And we really want to help make that happen! God has opened this door. We must make sure that this ministry continues -- and also that Charles can be an advocate for the many prisoners who, like him, have ended up in Kamphinsa without knowing why.

Join us in prayer about this! Together we can help build this ministry from the ground up!


John and Ruth [Kerr]

Tuesday, October 16, 2007

Male and Female Created He Them (?)

According to the book of Genesis, God created man in his image as the crowning act of creation. "Let us make man in our image... male and female created he them".

Apparently not.

WorldNetDaily is reporting today that Arnold Schwarzenegger has passed into law an education bill that would effectively ban the words "Mom" "Dad" and "Husband" "Wife" from school text books and curriculums. I've seen this coming and reported on it. But I didn't see this next one coming.

He has also banned teaching that persons are born as either male or female. That is considered discriminatory because it doesn't acknowledge people who are born "in between".

Who would have thought that stating that persons are either male or female would be considered such a dangerous idea that it must be banned from a child's education?

At the same time, in order to promote sexual choice and freedom, boys will be able to use girls' restrooms and locker rooms, and vice-versa. I'm not entirely unfamiliar with this concept. Having done a lot of professional seminars in San Francisco, I knew that there was a movement to allow a person to be whatever sex they decided to be.

What a sad day for kids.

It appears that segments of our society are in full-blown ideological rebellion against the revelation of God's word. The Bible teaches that a society can become so corrupt, and its corruption so ingrained in the fabric of the society, that God has no choice but to destroy it. I'm not saying we're there, but I am saying we are inching towards it.

There are two concepts that cover this controversy, and a third that provides the antedote:

a) Creation. We were created in innocency by a good and all-powerful Creator.

b) Disorder. Through rebellion against God, we fell from our original state, and our sinful, fallen state is now passed from one generation to the next through DNA. All of the sexual confusion and perversion that is out there is due to our fallen condition. It is not liberating to "go with it". It is enslaving.

c) Redemption. We have forgiveness in Jesus Christ. More than that, we have sanctification -- deliverance, cleansing, healing, restoration. More than that, we have the promise of glorification and release from these sinful, mortal bodies in the resurrection at the last Day.

Of course, the secular mind that begins with darwinian evolution as its starting point has no place to believe either a) or b), so has little inclination to believe c).


Secularists may think that we can do a fine job of coping without reference to God in our society, but I gotta tell ya, so far I'm not impressed.

All of life and all of reality should be worked out by working backwards and forwards from the Resurrection. The Resurrection occurred. Therefore Jesus is divine. Therefore Scriptures are indeed reliable and the word of God. Therefore, we were created, fallen, and have been redeemed in Jesus Christ, etc.

We need Jesus now more than ever.

And that's the way the Ball bounces.

I Never Thought I'd Live To See The Day...

A dead Tim Hortons store. An emasculated building with all the Tim Hortons signage removed and shadowy phantom imprints where the signage used to be. A Tim Hortons gone belly-up. Never thought I'd live to see such a sight. Never seen one before. Expect I'll never see one again.

Surely they must be renovating, or, more likely yet, they've moved to another spot close by, bigger and better, I thought.

Nope. Gone. Ghosted.

I get the inside dope from the manager down the street at the Wendy's. Rumour has it it was because:
a) the rents in the mall are very high, and/or
b) there was no room at this Tim's for a drive-through.

Ah, yes. That would explain it.

We're passing through Edmundston, New Brunswick, not some tony Toronto or Vancouver downtown Tim's, and ya gotta have a drive-through. It all makes sense now.

Of course, there's another Tim's, the manager of Wendy's assures us, just down the road, and you turn left.

This is something you can pretty much count on in Canada. There's always another Tim's.

Just down the road.

And that's the way the Timbit bounces.

Sunday, October 14, 2007

2008: The Nobel Appease Prize

Al Gore has won the Nobel Peace Prize.

I'm not sure what a slick, highly-exaggerated Powerpoint presentation on Anthropogenic Global Warming has to do with world peace, but that doesn't matter because the Nobel Committee does. According to the Committee, global warming will result in famines, droughts, civil unrest, and war.

Yikes! If you're not in the global warming camp, you are for war and the destruction of civilization as we know it. Come to think of it, Al Gore said something to that effect.

I'm not a big fan of the Nobel Peace Prize, ever since that cuddly teddy-bear of a terrorist Yassar Arafat got the honour.

I think what the West needs instead is an Appease Prize, an annual award going to the individual/organization that has done the most to placate and/or appease Muslim fundamentalists and/or other multicultural groups demanding their way of life at the expense of ours.

As for awards, awards are nice, but the award I covet is a simple "well done, thou good and faithful servant". I count myself acutely undeserving of this, but continue to pray that I might receive grace to be counted among God's elect.

May God's freshly outpoured mercy and grace be upon all who read this.

Blessings on you in Jesus' name!

And that's the way the Ball bounces.

Saturday, October 13, 2007

Helicopters Making A Racket

Just sitting in the living room when I heard a tremendous racket outside. Went to investigate. From our back deck I saw two large, grey, military-style helicopters hovering over the Lieutenant-Governor's mansion across the way from us.

No doubt has to do with Prince Edward's official visit to the province. He is worshipping tomorrow at St. Peter's Cathedral in Charlottetown. They are doing a Morning Prayer service for him, rather than the usual Eucharist service.

Earlier this week, we went out to our back deck and witnessed the International Space Station pass overhead at around 7:30pm one evening. It took about two minutes to traverse the sky.

Man may scratch the sky, but it is God who reigns high above us all.

Sunday, October 07, 2007

Christian Fruitcakes

Posted over at SDA by: SDC at October 7, 2007 7:39

"No one is against Allah, except those who burn in hell."
"I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

There's no real difference between these two unsubstantiated sentiments; just because the Muslims are deluded doesn't mean that Christians aren't EQUALLY deluded. At least most of the CHRISTIAN religous fruitcakes aren't willing to kill people to shove their particular religion down their throats.

My response:

SDC: Thanks for quoting Christ. If I had to choose between listening to him or you, it would be no contest. As for substantiation of claims, the miracles Christ did, the voice from heaven saying "This is my Son", and the little matter of Christ's resurrection from the dead are all evidences that substantiate his claim to be in unique communion with the Father. The fact that the leaders of the early church chose death rather than renounce their eye-witness testimony of Christ's resurrection is further substantiation. As is the pouring out of the Holy Spirit -- an experiential dimension that continues to this day and to which millions have attested.

Now, what are your credentials as a purveyor of truth?

Monday, October 01, 2007

Separation of Church and State?

Someone asks, "Correct me but... Canada's initial players did have the express intention to be secular, because of fear of the 'Roman' French. Yes?"

My response --

I doubt if the the word "secular" was even part of their vocabulary.

* Parliament began until very recently with prayer in Jesus' name.

* The Parliament Buildings have Bible verses carved in stone, where it's difficult for secularists to get their hands on them, testifying to the reign of the Messiah.

* Canada's motto "from sea to sea" is an allusion to the coming Messiah's reign.

* Marriage, in keeping with judeo-christian beliefs, was rooted in human biology and the presumptive rights of children, to be born, and raised in a two-parent family consisting of one mother and one father.

* Supreme Court judges to this day invoke God's aid in fulfilling their mandate.

The doctrine of separation of church and state simply means that the Church, as an organization, should not run the state, and, importantly, vica-versa. It does not mean that a state cannot be suffused with values that derive from the religious values and beliefs of its citizens.

If, however, Canada wants to have strict separation of Church and state, then for starters we can

-- abolish all laws against stealing

-- abolish all laws that require persons to make truthful statements (such as tax forms)

-- abolish all laws against murder

-- abolish all laws that contribute to the idea that we are our "brother's keeper" and that we ought to take care of one another

-- abolish all notions that humans have intrinsic worth and dignity -- a particular contribution of judeo-christian thought based on being created in the image of God.

And that's the way the Ball bounces.

PS -- I'm in Essex Junction, Vermont tonight, and I discovered that there's an Uno's Pizzeria in Burlington, VT. I'm a happy guy!

Saturday, September 29, 2007

Religions and Glorious Diversity

The province of Ontario was founded with two schools system. It's incorporated into the constitution; it's part of the very fabric of the province.

The two original school systems were both Christian -- one was Protestant, the other Catholic. Since the Protestants were the majority, the Catholic system was viewed as a minority system, and the Protestant one was viewed as the dominant or "public" school system.

The "public" school system may not have been officially and legally incorporated as a Protestant Christian system, but there was no doubt it was Protestant in fact if not in name -- it reflected the culture of its day.

I can remember, as a boy, beginning each day with the Lord's Prayer. It meant absolutely nothing to me. I was not a Christian. My parents were nominally Christian, but faith was neither mentioned nor taught in our home. So students like me just went through the motions and recited it.

But, there it was. A stake in the ground. A symbolic representation, in spoken words, of Ontario's founding culture. Ontario was a Christian culture. And Christianity was the dominant ideology that would provide moral light to Ontario's citizens.

I remember a Protestant minister once visited one of our grade-school classes. He made a deep impression on me. I was still not a Christian.

I remember that, in grade nine, we had to study one of the books of the Bible. It was part of the curriculum requirements. We were still reciting the Lord's Prayer. I was thinking about girls, basketball, and the Beatles, and was still not a Christian

The Lord's Prayer was removed from Ontario schools in the name of multiculturalism and plurality. Secularists have since seized upon the removal of such Christian trappings to proclaim that Ontario is a secular province, and Canada a secular country (as if this were always so).

But it wasn't always so.

Today, a debate is raging in Ontario over whether the government should extend funding to all religious schools, and not just the remaining legal stump, the Catholic school system.

Toleranct, multicultural, diverse Ontarions are showing an aversion to doing this that amounts to an intolerance of religion bordering on bigotry.

Don't get me wrong.

I'm not necessarily against a single, unified school system used to propagate the beliefs and values of a unified, unitary culture. But this is not what Ontario is about. Like other provinces, and Canada as a whole, it has embraced the multicultural ideology that embraces all kinds of cultures, beliefs and values.

If that were true, the province would presumably embrace multiple school systems, just as it claims to embrace multiple cultures. What is more characteristic of a culture than its educational philosophy and practices?

Yet, letter-writers argue that in order to promote glorious diversity Ontario must have a single, state-controlled school system. They suggest that religious instruction breeds intolerance; they suggest in effect that religious persons who spend their own hard-earned cash to educate their children according to their religious faith are anti-social, and bad for society. So much for embracing diversity; scratch a diversity-lover beneath the surface and you have someone insisting on conformance by everybody else to his or her beliefs and values.

The problem with demanding that persons of faith fund a secular school system and send their kids to it (unless they can afford to "pay twice") is that secular public schools are neither faith- nor morality-neutral. They have a distinct world-view, and it is one that is antithetical to the worldview of Christians who believe in a loving God who should be embraced in all aspects daily life, including (no, especially,) the education of one's children. (For example, in the name of Tolerance, Canadian school children cannot be told that there is a kind God who loves them, but must be told that homosexuality is a perfectly splendid practice -- so much for moral or religious neutrality.)

Another point has to do with public funding. Letter-writers are against "public funds" being used to finance religious instruction (but they don't seem to have a problem with "public funds" being used to promote functional atheism).

Here is my response to the secularists who oppose the use of "public funds" for religious education:

"There is really no such thing as public funds. All there is is pooled money that has been taken from private individual sources. As much as you may dislike it, persons of faith are just as much members of the public as anyone else. Yet you confiscate their funds and use it to fund the school system of your choice. Those same funds should be available to them, either by voucher or allocation, to educate their children as they see fit.

By all means be in favour of a single public school system -- that is a legitimate position to have. But drop the claim of being in favour of multiculturalism and diversity too."

And that's the way the Ball bounces.

Friday, September 28, 2007

After all, chimpanzees are only human

Animal rights activists in Austria, who just happen to be human beings, are lobbying the Austrian courts to declare a certain chimpanzee to be a person.

As far as I know, no chimpanzees have lobbied either human or chimpanzee courts to be recognized as persons.

Aren't the human animal rights activists being a bit presumptuous to deign to claim to know what the chimpanzees want? Doesn't it suggest a presumption of superiority on the part of the humans?

And wouldn't that make them specieists?

Please, in the name of equality and equity, and plain-old down-home common sense, let the chimpanzees speak for themselves.

And let's put a stop to specieism.

Tuesday, September 25, 2007

Cool Sails in the Sunset

A certain Prof. Salter has a novel idea for combatting global warming. He has proposed that 50 remote-controlled yachts spanning the globe and spewing a fine mist of salt water into the air could do the trick. The salt would get carried up into the clouds, which would increase the reflectivity of the clouds, causing more sunlight to be bounced back to the sun, thus cooling the earth and offsetting global warming.

This could be done quite cheaply -- at a tiny fraction of the cost of environmentalists' invasive and disruptive plans, so cheaply in fact that if people gave to Prof. Salter's plan rather than to Al Gore's profitable speeches, it would just about cover the cost (I'm exaggerating, but you get the idea.)

But, as the National Post article puts it, there's a problem with his proposal.

"They promise to save the planet for a pittance, and without making humans pay a dear price for their profligate ways. Fifty ships a year, built at a cost of some $400-million to $500-million, would remove the increased warming now attributed to all the fossil fuel burning. They would also provide the time required for an orderly transition to economies based on renewable fuels -- the passion of Prof. Salter's professional life."

It sounds like a great idea, so naturally environmentalists dislike it. They don't even want to consider it. They don't want to spend a dime testing his theory.

You have to ask yourself, "why?".

I don't know what answer you come up with, but here's mine:

Solving the global warming "crisis" easily would be a disaster for them. They love being in crisis mode. They want there to be a crisis. They have turned it not into a merely practical problem but into a great moral crusade of good-vs.-evil; us-vs.-them; they want to blame the west for its prosperous ways, and they want to intrude as much as they can into other people's lives. They love railing against conservative governments that drag their feet on this issue -- althought they happily left the Canadian Liberals alone when they talked the talk but utterly failed to walk the walk. This fact alone tells you that many environmentalists are frankly politically motivated and want to impose socialist goals and values on societies and dsicredit and undermine conservative regimes.

It may also be a matter of displaced conscience. Bill Gothard has a theory, and I tend to agree with him, that when a person suppresses his God-given conscience, his conscience pops up in some other area -- man is hopelessly moral, and needs to feel that he is living by a moral code. So, a person who supports the destruction of a human life in a mother's womb may take up the cause of saving whales, or not eating meat, and make that her righteous cause.

Perhaps it's no coincidence that Al Gore was once a pro-life man. He swallowed his pro-life views and became a rabid, and I mean rabid, supporter of abortion rights. Perhaps his zeal for environmental causes, and "saving the planet" is a consequence of a seared conscience in a matter of first importance to God -- human life, a substitutionary morality where instead of revering human life, he reveres the environment instead. And man, instead of being evil for aborting human children, is evil for using incandescent lightbulbs.

Food for thought.

And that's the way the Ball bounces.

Friday, September 14, 2007

O. J. Simpson's at it again

What a circus the O. J. Simpson trial was.

I tried to attend the trial. I had the perfect plan. I made a side trip to Los Angeles on my way back to San Francisco from Washington, D.C., stayed at a downtown hotel so I would be close to courthouse, and took a taxi instead of my rent-a-car so I wouldn't waste time looking for the courthouse or a place to park.

That's when my best-laid plan fell apart.

I hopped in the taxi and said with considerable satisfaction, "take me to the O. J. Simpson trial."

The East European taxi driver didn't understand. "Simpson Avenue?" he said, consulting a book of L.A. street names.

"No, no -- the trial, the O J. Simpson trial.

Turns out he had never heard of O. J. Simpson, and had no idea that the city he was driving in was transfixed by the trial of the century.

"The courthouse", I said, to which he replied with a glimmer of recognition:

"Ah, the courthouse". Followed by, "Which one -- there are three courthouses."

I was panicking at this point. I think I told him the wrong courthouse. At any rate, at some point I asked him to just let me out of the taxi, and he did.

Eventually I found the courthouse. But I arrived too late for the daily draw for public seats.

So I watched the circus from outside.

It was a circus. Those fuzzy microphone covers on long poles. Reporters. On-lookers. Security.

"Here's Johnny!", someone shouted, and sure enough, up pulled Johnny Cochrane. He got out of the car he was riding in, went to the trunk, got his suit jacket and put it on. He looked very self-confident and pleased with himself.

A few minutes later Robert Shapiro arrived. He just got out of the car, suit jacket already on. He looked a bit frumpy compared with Johnny and didn't seem to be enjoying himself as much.

It was around the time of the "glove doesn't fit" debacle, to be followed shortly by the "you must acquit".

* * *

The same O. J. Simpson is in the news again today.

On Friday Las Vegas investigators questioned O.J. Simpson about a break-in at a casino hotel room involving sports memorabilia.

The good news, if you can call it that, is he has a book coming out called "If I Did It".

He can just add a supplementary chapter to cover the break-in.

And that's the way the Ball bounces.

Thursday, September 13, 2007

Old Glory

According to this article (h/t Drudge) --

Students at a local school cannot wear clothing depicting the US flag. Apparently students were showing up wearing the flags of other countries, and we can't have that, so, in order not to discriminate -- we can't have that -- the wearing of all flags was banned, including old glory itself.

A young woman had wanted to wear the flag to commemorate 9/11.

These kind of rulings come from the same kind of people (those on the left) who uphold a dissenter's right to burn the flag.

So, the state of the union is that (in at least one school) you can't wear the flag as a sign of patriotism or respect, but (as a general principle) you have an ACLU-given right to burn it.

Makes me glad I'm on the right.

What I would like to know is, exactly what would be wrong with a policy saying the only flag you are permitted to wear is that of the USA? Sure it's discriminatory, but so what? Making an exception for the flag of your home country seems reasonable to me.

And not all discrimination is bad.

Life properly lived consists of making informed discriminations.

And that's the way the Ball bounces.

Saturday, September 08, 2007

Creationism: Let the evidence fall where it may

Ontario is in a flap over the idea of extending government funding to non-Catholic schools. The concern? Christian schools plan on teaching that the world was created, and not the unexplainable results of random, meaningless processes that came from... where?

Imagine the idea of Christians teaching that the world is created! The uber-Tolerance crowd can't tolerate the idea!

To which I say this:

Christians might agree to not teaching the theory of intelligent design in schools if teachers would stop teaching the non-scientific belief of materialism in science classes.

Materialism posits that the material universe is all that exists. All science is currently built around this non-scientific, unproveable philosophical assumption.

Materialism is a philosophical belief, not science.

Let the evidence point where it may. The evidence of apparent design in the universe, the evidence of an unextinguishable moral stamp on the human heart, and the persistent belief that humans have value, purpose and destiny (as seen in the secular belief in "human rights"), all point to both design and a Creator.

Without a Creator, a belief in human rights is absurd, and the moral stamp within the human heart nothing more than a cruel joke of mindless, uncaring evolution.

Thursday, September 06, 2007

Get Real

According to the CBC, the United States, China, India, Australia, South Korea, and Japan are not part of the real world.

A CBC-picked commentator criticized Stephen Harper for flirting with joining the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate (AP6).

She said the AP6 would distract from the "real work" of climate change being done -- Kyoto, and the UN.

The Kyoto accord specifically exempted two of the world's top polluters -- China and India.

The AP6 includes them.

It consists of Australia, China, India, Japan, Republic of Korea and the United States.

Go to (h/t sda)

And you will see a very creative map of the world that shows boxes representing populations.

Now take a look at some of the "big boxes" --China, India, and the United States.

Apparently not sufficient to be considered the real world.

According to the CBC.

And that's the way the Ball bounces.

Wednesday, September 05, 2007

How Do You Solve A Problem Like Maria's?

Maria von Trapp was the real-life heroine behind the movie The Sound of Music. The "real story" is that of a deeply committed Christian woman and her family. She has written books, including one entitled "Let Me Tell You About My Saviour".

What a great title for a book!

After the von Trapp family escaped Austria, they settled in America. They soon found their way to Stowe, Vermont.

During a recent drive from Toronto to PEI, we decided to take a side-trip to Stowe, where the von Trapp family homestead is located. It has now been made into a luxurious lodge complex. It's a beautiful mountain setting and we were thrilled to be there.

We were, however, surprised and disappointed to see that the "menu" of daily activities at the resort included a heavy dose of new age spirituality, including morning meditation (all about "calming and centering" oneself) and yoga.

Of course, I have no idea what the Trapp family's actual religious beliefs and spiritual values are, but I know that eastern meditation and yoga (despite what some Christians seem to think) are incompatible with Christianity and dangerous.

Perhaps the modern-day Trapps felt obligated to continue to offer a spiritual theme, but it is sad to see the turning involved. It is so easy to turn from Christ to spiritual... traps.

As for the matriarch, Maria, I can only imagine what she might think.

"Father, we pray in Jesus' name for the offspring of Christian families who have turned away from the faith. We pray that you would restore those over whom and for whom prayers to You were made by parents, grandparents, and ancestors. Turn them (and us) back to you, O God. Restore our hearts. Renew our faith and direct it towards the only God and Saviour Jesus Christ. TJC, Amen."

May God turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the children to the fathers -- and mothers.

And that's the way the Ball bounces.

Monday, September 03, 2007

Which costs more, coal or wind energy?

Which costs more, coal or wind energy?

Take the following power sources: wind, solar, nuclear, coal, hydroelectric.

See if you can rank them by cost -- from cheapest to most expensive.

While you are working it out, consider these points:

* Wind-power is unreliable, and its cost distorted by present government subsidies [those on the left argue that ALL power sources are subsidized by governments].

* Coal is a C02 emitter (just like you and me), so it's "bad".

* Nuclear power has low-to-zero C02 emissions. Logically, a person ought to be entitled to carbon credits by investing in nuclear technologies, but, since nuclear power is out of favour with environmentalists, I doubt that it works that way.

* In Canada, hydroelectric power was so dominant historically that we still refer to electricity as "hydro" and the electric bill as the "hydro bill".

OK, here's my ranking, based on an article by David Frum on energy costs in the National Post.

1. Coal. Carbon-emitting coal is the cheapest energy source. Coal plants are currently being built like crazy in China, and the Kyoto agreement so loved by Liberals exempts China from Kyoto. If that's not political, rather than scientific, I don't know what is.

2. Hydroelectric Power. A great energy source.

3. Nuclear. Carbon-friendly, but there's the cost of mining the uranium, the issue of disposing of nuclear waste, and the security threat associated with terrorism.

4. Wind-power. Clean, but unreliable.

5. Solar. Clean, but expensive.


a. I had to guess on the order between nuclear and wind-power. Mr. Frum simply says that nuclear costs more than coal and hydro, and wind-power costs twice as much as coal. Environmentalists argue that when the security costs of nuclear are thrown in, wind-power becomes cheaper.

b. David Frum didn't mention solar power, but I scanned articles on the subject, and solar was presented as a more-expensive source of energy.

* * *

Remember: "this is my Father's world". We are here as stewards. But also consider this: it is God who put the coal and oil and natural gas in the ground -- did he not do so for our use and benefit?

And that's the way the Ball bounces.

Thursday, August 23, 2007

The Past and Future of Climate by Australia's David Archibald

"The Past and Future of Climate" by Australia's David Archibald predicts global cooling, and is at least as convincing as Al Gore's.

Here's the summary:

1. The Sun drives climate change and it will be colder next decade by 2.0 degrees centigrade.

2. The anthropogenic carbon dioxide effect is real, minuscule, and too small to be measured.

3. Higher atmospheric carbon dioxide levels will boost agricultural production.

4. Increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is wholly beneficial.

Presumably, Mr. Archibald will not be receiving much in the way of government funding for future studies.

If you have the time, check out the whole article -- it's very readable, takes about 15 minutes, and can be found at:

Tuesday, August 21, 2007

NYC Sets Record For Warmest Day: High Of 95 Degrees Ties Warmest August High Set In 1911 -- Global Warming Blamed

What you just read is what the headline would have been if it had been hot in NYC.

Instead, it was cold.

So the actual CBS headline was:

Arctic August: NYC Sets Record For Coldest Day
High Of 59 Degrees Ties Chilliest August High Set In 1911

Remember kids, when it's hot, it's global warming; when it's not, it's climate change.

Saturday, August 18, 2007

"11 of the past 12 years were [STILL] the warmest ever recorded." UPDATE

"11 of the past 12 years were the warmest ever recorded."

Julian Lee at Planetair informed me that this statistic is from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Fourth Assessment report (February 2007).

He directed me to the following link:

The reference to the warmest years is found on page 4, under the heading "DIRECT OBSERVATIONS OF RECENT CLIMATE CHANGE". It relates to surface temperatures, not those specific to the US, so there is no need for sites like Planetair to retract the statistic.

My only quibble with the statement at this point is that it does include the relevant qualifier, "since 1850".

Friday, August 17, 2007

Climate Sceptics: Destroyers of Creation

The rhetoric just won't go away. It won't even die down.

Here's Climate Progress citing James Hansen, "the nation’s top climate scientist":

"if we, in effect, destroy Creation, passing on to our children, grandchildren, and the unborn a situation out of their control, the contrarians who work to deny and confuse will not be the principal culprits...."


Now we are being called "destroyers of Creation" -- and most of those who embrace the climate change religion are darwinists who don't even believe in a Creator! What possible difference can it make if we destroy what was never intended or designed in the first place?

* "Passing on to our unborn"? The leading crusaders for climate change hysteria are not just darwinists, they are also the ones most likely to shout about a "woman's right to choose" [Hello, Al Gore!]. Surely those who insist the unborn have no right to exist cannot now say that the unborn can nevertheless make demands on the living.

* "Contrarians who work to deny and confuse". This is the criticism we get for pointing out that NASA's data was WRONG.

It is not denial to point out that data is wrong and misleading.

And that's the way the Ball bounces.

"... nothing intellectually compelling or challenging.. bald assertions coupled to superstition... woefully pathetic"