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.
Friday, November 30, 2007
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
By REGAN E. DOHERTY
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.
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
By REGAN E. DOHERTY
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
Pity.
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.
Pity.
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.
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.
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?
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!
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.
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
http://www.varietyclub61.ab.ca/KP-Gophers.htm
* * *
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.
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
http://www.varietyclub61.ab.ca/KP-Gophers.htm
* * *
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.
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.
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.”
"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.
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1685199,00.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.
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1685199,00.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)