Oh so soothing (but completely false)

There are many soothing, comforting ideas "out there". One of them, found in new age mysticism, is that God is in all of us.

This idea has found its way (surprise!) into Anglicanism.

A recent article, published in The Diocesan Times of Nova Scotia and PEI advocates meditation based on the notion that the Spirit of Christ inhabits every person; all you have to do is "tap in"!

Here is my response to this article:

This article contains the idea that the spirit of Christ dwells in every human being.

This comforting idea may fit the views of Hinduism or new-age enthusiasts, but is completely foreign to Christianity and its salvation imperative. Several passages of Scripture explicitly contradict it. From John's "you must be born again", to Paul's, "if anyone has not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His", the witness of Scripture is uniform and emphatic: man, in his natural state, is not inhabited by God.

The fact that this false universalistic notion finds a home within the Anglican Church today perhaps explains why present-day evangelistic efforts are so anemic. If, in fact, the Spirit of Christ dwells in every human being, there is scarcely the impetus let alone the urgency to preach the gospel "that by all possible means I might save some" as the apostle Paul put it. It is Churches that believe that men and women in their natural state are perishing and need to be saved that engage in healthy and productive evangelistic efforts.

The positive confession highlighted in this article, "I honour the place of love and light, of peace and truth, that is inside you, and inside me", would be right at home with new-age beliefs, but not Christianity. How unlike the confessions of the saints when found in the presence of a holy God: Job ("now I see Him face to face, and repent in dust and ashes"), or Peter ("depart from me, Lord, I am a sinful man!), or Paul ("oh, wretched man that I am!"). And how unlike Jesus' own estimation of what proceeds out of the human heart! As for the human heart inevitably being a place of love and light, Jesus warned, "If then the light within you is darkness, how great is that darkness!"

Christian meditation? By all means, for "my sheep hear my voice" and this is the privilege of every born-again believer in Christ. But first make sure that you have come to Christ by faith, and have received His Spirit. And don't expect his voice to echo the soothing platitudes of new age mysticism, but rather the comforting as well as discomforting admonitions of holy Scripture, for the Spirit you seek is its Author.

A Starter Kit:

I am the way, the truth, and the life

No one comes to the Father but by Me

Except you repent, you shall all likewise perish

You must be born again

He that believes on me shall never die.

Mother Jesus, part 2 (I told you so...)

In a previous post, I noted how the new Presiding Bishop-elect to the Episcopal Church referred to "our Mother Jesus" in her inaugural sermon.

I also said,

"... such language defies traditional Christian formulations. But that is what liberals do. And, if you call them on it, they respond by saying, "of course, I was speaking metaphorically and not concretely". Trouble is, they view all the language of the Bible as symbolic or metaphorical; none of it has actual substance. So they feel free to embellish and improvise."

Here is an excerpt from an article which addresses the controversy that followed her statement.

"I was trying to say that the work of the cross was in some ways like giving birth to a new creation," she said. "All language is metaphorical, [There it is -- ALL LANGUAGE IS METAPHORICAL - so, God is not really Jesus' Father; Jesus is not really God's Son, etc.]

"and if we insist that particular words have only one meaning and the way we understand those words is the only possible interpretation, we have elevated that text to an idol," [In other words, if you simple-mindedly believe what the Bible clearly declares or plainly states, you are an idolator; you are sinning by so doing].

"I'm encouraging people to look beyond their favorite understandings." [In other words, believe sophisticated me, and you'll be OK; believe what the Bible plainly states, and you're doomed.]

Such speech goes beyond mere foolishness; it is evil.

Who could follow such a foolish, misguided woman; or believe that her words carry even a drop of apostolic authority?

Israel's response to the kidnapping of its soldier..

The G&M bloggers are having a field day with Israel's military response to the kidnapping of one of its soldiers on Israeli soil. Here is my response:

Israel wants nothing more than to exist and live in peace.

It has already lost too many of its precious sons and daughters to war.

The surrounding Arab nations want nothing more than Israel's annihilation.

The only thing that Arabs seem to understand is brute force; they view concessions as a sign of weakness. If force is the only language Arab nations understand, then Israel must speak loudly and clearly.

Israel's military response to terrorism on its soil is justified.

Our mother Jesus?

The Episcopal Church in the USA has chosen Nevada Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori as its leader.

The new Presiding Bishop-elect, Ms Shiori, in her homily at the Convention's concluding Eucharist, referred to Jesus as mother. Her exact words were: "Our mother Jesus gives birth to a new creation".

Needless to say, such language defies traditional Christian formulations. But that is what liberals do. And, if you call them on it, they respond by saying, "of course, I was speaking metaphorically and not concretely".

Trouble is, they view all the language of the Bible as symbolic or metaphorical; none of it has actual substance. So they feel free to embellish and improvise.

When God is referred to as Father, their response is, "he is not of course really our Father, that's just language used to convey something about God". But God really was Jesus' Father, and we really have been regenerated by his Spirit, and we really have been incorporated into Christ. So, if God is Christ's Father, he is our Father also -- which is precisely what Jesus said the morning of his resurrection (which they also would deny, or, at least, not take literally).

Words matter. And that is why conservatives fight for the inspiration of the Bible, declaring that its inspiration extends to the actual words used, and not merely to the thoughts expressed.

Jesus is declared to be the Word of God, not the Thought of God or the Mind of God.

He is declared the Son of God, and our Saviour, but not our Mother.

Even so, her theology is bad. It is not Jesus who gives birth to a new creation. It is the Holy Spirit. He is the One who washes and regenerates us.

Still, the holy Spirit is not our mother, either!

If anyone or anything is to be viewed as our mother, it would be the church, the instrument created by God as the vehicle and vessel for salvation, via the preaching of the saving message of Christ and the prescribed sacraments of baptism and holy communion.

I realize that Anglicans value unity above all else. But, for me, I think the sooner that faithful Anglicans break all ties with the unfaithful and apostate leadership, the better for all.

Jesus said, "let the blind lead the blind; follow Me!"

And that's the way the Ball bounces

Apostolic Succession

Apostolic Succession is the doctrine that God has passed early apostolic authority from the original Apostles through the office of bishop in an unbroken chain of continued authority.

Under this view, there are twin authorities in the Church; the Bible, and the office of bishop.

So, when a bishop speaks, the Church should listen.

But what about when a bishop speaks in contradiction to the Bible, which the faithful continue to believe as the revealed word and will of God, while modernists view as an entirely "negotiable" collection of human writings which may or may not be inspired?

Insofar as the overseers of the early Church were men "filled with the Holy Ghost", and insofar as most present day bishops in the Episcopal Church are not, the present leadership of the Episcopal Church are imposters, and, I suspect, many know it in their hearts.

In one sense they are to be pitied. They are, like many of us, weak, relying on their own strength and resources, rather than on Him who is the Source of all life and spiritual authority, and without whom we can do nothing. What an awful thing to be elevated to an office where one is supposed to be filled with the Holy Spirit, and, instead, you are filled with all kinds of liberal nonsenses, with doubt and unbelief.

The fact is, most of these people are bishops -- divinely appointed and equipped overseers -- in name only.

The true office of bishop is functional, and not merely symbolic. In other words, one functions as an overseer of the Church of God -- but in a humble, not an "enthroned" way. This office is occupied today by many in various denominations, many if not most of whom do not actually bear the title "bishop". And who cannot claim the pedigree of apostolic succession.

As for the legitimacy of the doctrine of apostolic succession, the present crop of leaders in the Episcopal Church are all you need to know that this doctrine, which is not found in the Bible, is seriously flawed. The evidence clearly indicates that our God overlooks and overrules this conventional doctine in favour of men who know his heart, know his mind, submit to his righteousness, and obey Him.

Most of whom are found outside of the decrepit and decaying walls of the corrupt Episcopal Church.

Father or Mother?

The Presbyterian Church in the USA has developed a proposal for coming up with substitute language for the traditional "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit". So, here we have a Church that is ashamed of its Father and its Saviour. As for the Holy Spirit, I can only assume they are offended by his name because He is holy.

"Father, Son and Holy Spirit" will now be known as "Mother, Child and Womb" or "Rock, Redeemer, Friend" at some Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) services.

What idiocy. If God cannot even manage to reveal Himself in terms that He chooses, then what kind of God is He and why would we want to serve let alone worship Him?

The fact is, He has revealed Himself to us as Father, not least because He is the Father of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ; Son, because the Son is an exact replica of the Father, not a compementary image, and because Jesus Christ in his incarnation was in fact a male person; and Holy Spirit because holiness describes the essence of perfections.

The apostle John says that if we walk in the light, our fellowship is with the Father and the Son.

God is not ashamed to call me his son; I am not ashamed to call Him Father.

Jesus: A way, or THE way?

The Episcopals are having at it down in the USA. A motion was presented to affirm the Church's belief that Jesus is exclusively the way, the truth and the life.

It got shot down. Too controversial.

This is a Church that finds the exclusive claims of Christ offensive. It finds the Old Testament moral law offensive. It finds God's demand for holiness -- "without which no man shall see the Lord" -- offensive. It finds the idea that Scripture is authoratative, the Word of God written, offensive.

Themselves -- they do not find offensive. They like the positions of power they hold. They like the authority of their office.

God's a bowling ball
Unrighteous leaders are the pins
I hear him rolling down the lane -- I wonder who's gonna win?
Still they stand their ground, they don't hear the sound
But his Word is rolling, rolling, rolling, it's gonna knock 'em down
It's time to repent; get out of the way; get down on your knees and pray; let Jesus have his way
©rkb excerpted from "Prayin' Man"

I predict, at the end of the day, Jesus will be the last man standing.

King of kings and Lord of Lords!

Caledonia update

Finally, the Ontario Provincial Police have arrested three persons and plan to arrest seven more -- after an OPP officer was hurt and a U.S. Border Patrol car swarmed in the latest acts of lawless intimidation and violence by native Indian protestors.

Assaults by Indians have been ongoing for some time now, under the watchful eye of the non-intervening OPP. Presumably the Ontario authorities thought it was OK for Indian protestors to assault ordinary Canadian citizens, but not an OPP officer and an American border patrol car.

(U.S. Border Patrol members were visiting the area to observe how provincial police were handling the standoff. Presumably they were there to find out "what not to do".)

What an amazing display of the suspension of the rule of law in Canada -- we are just a few fragile steps away from anarchy and open defiance of the law by more than just the privileged few.

There ought to be one law for all Canadians applied to all equally.

Stop the jihad!

I was reading today about the 72 virgins that Islamic blowhards (and I mean this term literally) are counting on.

Turns out that the number 72 is not in the Koran -- that's a later embellishment. So, the number you get may be less.

Even more disturbing, a Muslim scholar suggests that the Arabic passage in question could just as well be translated white grapes or raisins!

Now, that would be a problem!

It's gotta be hard to keep the motivation level up when the reward is a six-pack of Sunkists.

It was only a matter of time...

A Canadian judge has recently ordered the province of Ontario to show two mothers on a baby's Statement of Live Birth. Not to do so would cause bad feelings on the part of the lesbian partners, and the judge says it violates Charter equality rights.

The case stemmed from the fact that Ontario's Vital Statistics Act sensibly specifies the terms "father" and "mother" when it comes to filling out a Statement of Live Birth.

It's too bad that when Charter judges feel in the mood to identify new rights, they don't think of the natural rights around children, rather than around out-of-control adult sexual self-determination. Farthest thing from their minds.

Children have a natural, God-given right to know the love and nurture of both a mother and a father. This right is rooted in biological fact, the deepest longings of a child's heart, and Scripture: "thou shalt honor thy FATHER and thy MOTHER".

By declaring that having two mothers is "equal" to a child having a natural mother and father, the state is arbitrarily declaring that a child has no intrinsic right whatsoever to a mother and a father. This flies in the face of nature, revelation, and the entire history of mankind. But, hey, when you're on a roll, you might as well keep going.

Canada's on a roll, and its all downhill.

But why stop at two? How long do you think it will be before a case is brought before the courts seeking to declare two moms and a dad the parents of a child?

I'd give it less than two years.

And if two women can be declared the parents of a child, why not a mother and the child's grandmother? Why can't they be declared the parents of a child? Then, the mother could also be the child's sister. What could be more chummy than that?

Who would have ever thought we would be contending for the fact that a child ought to have both a mother and a dad? How far we have fallen, and how quickly.

What we are seeing at work is what the Bible refers to as the reprobate mind. Having rejected the knowledge of God, our minds are given over to darkness. With the light of God gone, the chaos of darkness enters like a flood.

How astonishing (and tragic) all this is.

We are reaping what we have sown, and we shall reap what we are sowing.

Still, the Lord is good, and good to all who call upon Him.

I will call upon the Lord, who is worthy to be praised.

So shall I be saved from mine enemies.

The Lord liveth; blessed be my Rock!

And may the God of my salvation be exalted!

Amen.

Boopchild, if you are reading this, please pray for Canada.

Alleged terrorists arrested in Toronto

The shocking part is -- they're Muslims! (just kidding).

Reaction:


Shouldn't cultures that embrace terrorism be applauded and welcomed in a country as multiculturally diverse, welcoming, and tolerant as Canada?

After all, who are we to impose our values on others?

And, isn't "thou shalt not kill" a distinctly religious notion?

We all know that religious values have no place in the secular laws of secular Canada.

No less than leftist/liberals have told us so.

How do I phrase this diplomatically?

Everybody says something intemperate or ill-advised or stupid at some point in their lives. So we should go easy on someone who does, realizes their mistake, and apologizes.

The latest example of foot-in-mouth disease is a US Democrat. Here's the story:

NEW YORK -- State Comptroller Alan Hevesi publicly apologized Thursday for a "beyond dumb" remark about a fellow Democrat putting "a bullet between the president's eyes."

According to a videotape of his speech, New York State Comptroller Alan Hevesi said: "The man who, how do I phrase this diplomatically, who will put a bullet between the president's eyes if he could get away with it. The toughest senator, the best representative. A great, great member of the Congress of the United States."

If "put a bullet between the President's eyes" represents diplomatic speech, I would hate to be around when Mr. Hevesi was speaking candidly!

Mr Hevesi apologized and referred to his comments as "remarkably stupid" and "incredibly moronic." 'Nuff said. You're forgiven.

The apostle James says the tongue is a world of iniquity, set on fire from hell. And, he added, "who can tame it?" The apostle Paul says our speech needs to be seasoned with grace, which would give us gracious speech. That's my aim. I'm not there yet. But at least I know the way. Jesus said, "I am the way". By the grace of God, I'll get there.

Indonesian Earthquake

A serious earthquake has struck Indonesia, with reports of over 3,000 killed. On the Globe and Mail website, a discussion has started. The first poster, Patricia, noted the reported escalation in the frequency of earthquakes over the past century and gently suggested that this might be a sign pointing to the end of the age. The posters pounced. They denounced her for her deluded Christian thinking, and openly mocked her faith. I thought they were a bit rough on her, so this is the counter-post that I submitted to the site.

* * *

Everybody seems to be ganging up on #1 for her comment. However, it was based on a statement made by Jesus Christ. The One who preached peace and calmed the sea by his word also stated that as end of this age approached there would be "earthquakes in divers places". So, it is pretty hard, when an earthquake occurs, for a follower of Jesus not to be reminded of this saying. Of course, those who choose to mock such statements are perfectly free to do so; the Bible speaks clearly that the last days would be characterized by such persons.

(The Globe and Mail declined to post my submission.)

* * *

Having said that, what should a Christian's view of natural disasters be? When the tsunami and when Katrina hit, people asked, "where was God?". I heard well-meaning Christians state that God was in the hearts and hands of the Christians who rushed to the scene to provide relief, suggesting he was in no way responsible for the event itself.

This is an inadequate apologetic.

To suggest that when a natural disaster strikes God is nowhere to be found suggests that either a) God is indifferent and/or uninvolved in Earth's activities, or b) God is impotent to prevent such disasters. Neither of these assertions give adequate glory to God.

The fact is, God is sovereign, and, whether God directly causes a disaster, or simply permits it to happen and fails to prevent it, God is the sovereign ruler of this planet.

Some people suggest that if God were behind a disaster, it would make him cruel and unrighteous. But this would be wrong. The facts are these: A) mankind, as a race, has turned its back on God, and has rebelled against Him. B) Natural disasters are one of the effects of this corporate rebellion. The apostle Paul makes it clear that nature itself is in bondage because of sin. C) All men and women are sinners before a holy God, deserving of punishment.

The Old Testament does not hesitate to attribute natural disasters to God. In the New Testament, however, a natural-disaster-in-the-making (the storm on the sea of Galilee) was abated by the intervention of the Son of God.

So it is certainly fitting to cry out to God for mercy, for forgiveness, for grace, and for the alleviation of suffering from natural disasters.

The problem is, the notion of judgment is simply out of fashion in today's world. People have rights, not righteousness. They view the Bible as fairy tale, when in fact its message is "the power of God unto salvation to all that believe". They believe that there is no divine accountability, no eternal judgment, that people can sin and cheat and steal and kill in this life and there will be no eternal consequences, no God to make things right. There is no fear of God before their eyes. And, since the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, it means that the world is, collectively, descending into foolishness.

"Lord, have mercy on the people of Indonesia, whom you love in Jesus Christ. May the gospel be preached to them, and may they reach out to you in this time of affliction. May many souls be won to Christ. May signs and wonders accompany the preaching of the gospel. In judgment, remember mercy. Amen."

* * *

And, while mockers may predominate the Globe and Mail post, no doubt it will be the Christians who come through with charitable aid to the people of Indonesia.

Thank God for the gospel. Thank God for grace. And thank God for Christians. Amen!

Caledonia: A branch is extended...

It's being reported today that the natives blockading Caledonia have offered the locals a branch, as a sign of goodwill. (Canadians, for their part, pass the natives eight billion dollars each and every year. Imagine each dollar is a branch. That's a lot of branches.)

The passing of a branch from the Indian protesters to the law-abiding citizens of Caledonia is a nice gesture, but it is like kidnappers passing an olive branch to their captives.

It doesn't undo the lawless behaviour. It doesn't undo the destruction of property. It doesn't undo the economic, psychological, and social damage inflicted upon an innocent community.

An apology and offer of economic reparations would be more appropriate. Even if it were paid with dollars given to them by the taxpayers of Caledonia, and other Canadians.

For less than the price of a cup of coffee...

Gwyn Morgan, former President and CEO of Encana, is a decent man and a great Canadian. He offered to serve his country for one dollar -- less than the price of a cup of coffee. He assembled a team of volunteers, and was ready to go.

For this, he was grilled and vilified by a parliamentary committee stacked with Liberals and NDP partisans, who ruled that he was unfit to serve his country.

His crime: he is not one of "them"; he does not share their inclusive, ultra-tolerant left-wing head-in-the-sand social idealism. Anyone who does not fit their tolerant, inclusive view cannot be tolerated and must be excluded. He simply stated the obvious fact that certain classes of immigrants contribute disproportionately to crime. And for this, he was rejected.

When I heard of his rejection, I dashed off a short letter to the National Post. It was published, along with another one, as the featured Letters of the Day. It simply said:

"The rejection of Gwynn Morgan, Encana CEO, by the Champions of Inclusion and Tolerance™ who grilled him says more about the committee's narrow-minded intolerance than it does about any supposed shortcomings on the part of Mr Morgan."

Mr Morgan offered to serve his country for a dollar -- less than the price of a coffee. This fact escaped at least one contributor to a Globe and Mail list who complained that he was just another Conservative "at the trough". I think she was right. Serving for a dollar is, unlike a Liberal, a Conservative at the trough -- serving. Another, in a fit of delusionary excess than surely only those on the left are capable of, stated that by the Liberal and NDP committee members' vote against Mr Morgan, "Canada has spoken".

Can you believe such delusionary arrogance?

Another poster suggested that PM Harper and the Conservatives remind him of Hitler. And he actually meant it. Left-wingers have really worked themselves into a frothy mental state. If being disconnected from reality constitutes a form of mental illness then being an extreme-leftist thinker surely qualifies.

The letter was published this morning. This evening I received an unexpected phone call from Bill Phillips in Halifax, who asked me if I was the Richard Ball who wrote letters published in the National Post. I said I was. He thanked me for writing them. I appreciated his call.

I've also received calls from Wayne Eyre, an excellent letter-writer from Saskatoon, and another local fellow, who was moving away, who wanted to let me know he appreciated my letters to both the National Post and the local Guardian paper. All appreciated.

Still, it's a sad, shameful day for Canada.

But I admire PM Harper for sticking to his guns and refusing to send another candidate for the committee to consider.

Of Moose and Men...

For years humans have been maligned for extinguishing the wooly mammoth.

All the while, moose stood quietly by.

Now, it turns out, the moose were responsible for the wooly mammoth's demise.

On behalf of the human species, I expect a full apology from the moose community, as well as significant reparations (which they can just pop in the freezer).

Earthism: the new frontier

We've had racism. We've had sexism. We've had ageism. We've had speciesism (at least, I think we have). Are you ready for another "ism"? How about "earthism"? People who focus on Earth to the exclusion of other globes. It appears there's a lot of earthists out there.

Take global warming. You know -- the earth is warming, AND IT'S ALL OUR FAULT. Well, studies indicate that not only is Earth warming, but so is Mars, and so is Jupiter. To care about the earth but not jupiter or mars is discriminatory, biased, narrow-minded, prejudiced, mean-spirited, and bigoted. It's earthist, that's what it is.

Frankly, I don't want to have anything to do with earthism, or earthists, for that matter.

I just hope that all the earthists clanging about global warming and climate change will raise their sights and consider the Big Picture.

Let's end the scourge of narrow-minded earthism.

Global warming now a proven fact...

For those head-in-the sand conservatives who continue to deny the consensus of the liberal political-media complex and the taxpayer-funded scientific community, global warming has now been conclusively demonstrated.

The globe I am talking about is Mars.

Yep. The planet Mars. Warming. Ice-caps melting.

(Source: Astronomy, January 2006 issue, etc. -- via www.SteynOnline.com)

In response, proponents of man-made global warming now argue that this proves that Mars is inhabited by human-like abusers of the environment, probably driving big SUV-type vehicles and burning carbon-based fuels.

(And they probably vote Republican, too.)

"It's the best evidence for extraterrestrial intelligent life yet discovered", a female spokespersonwoman for the Equivocation Foundation reportedly said.

Apparently Prime Minister Stephen Harper has offered to send former Prime Minister Paul Martin along with NDP leader Jack Layton on a fact-finding mission to study a remote region of Mars known as the Keeohtoe Protocol.

A response to Richard Cohen...

Richard Cohen published an article recently in the Washington Post in which he praised darwinian evolution and ridiculed those who believe in Intelligent Design. Here is an expanded version of my response to him. It is a Christian apologetic for the existence of God rooted in philosophy and logic.


Dear Mr. Cohen,

Time and space must have had a beginning, because if time were eternal, there would be an infinite number of moments preceding the present, and the present could not be reached. If you believe in the present, you must believe in a finite universe.

Once you understand that the universe had a beginning, you must face the observed fact that all things which begin to exist have a cause. There is no known exception to this rule.

From this point it is not hard to realize that it is God who caused the material world to burst into existence.

Once you understand that God is behind the origins of the material universe, it is not hard to expect, and indeed find, design in his creation.

What really takes faith is to be presented with evident and obvious design in creation -- the specialized cells which constitute heart, lungs, liver, eyes, all nicely and symmetrically arranged, the fact that fruit such as apples and oranges just happen to fit nicely in a man's hand, that horses just happen to be suitable size for a man to ride, that sheep just happen to provide wool, that flowers just happen to be pretty, that sunsets just happen to be beautiful, etc., and to deny that there is any design behind it.

Consider the incongruity of darwinism. If this world is strictly materialistic, if our brains have simply randomly evolved into their present states, then what faith can an evolutionist have in the integrity or reliability of his thoughts? They must be nothing more than meaningless chemical interactions. And why should non-material things like logic, love, conscience, consciousness, speculative thought, and mathematics exist? To the materialist, they can be nothing more than ultimately meaningless chemical reactions. To the evolutionist, the universe shows every sign of making sense, but doesn't; it's just a happenstance of ultimately meaningless random permutations. The very quest of a darwinist to classify, order, and "make sense" of the universe is contradicted by the darwinist's conclusion that the universe is random and meaningless.

Darwinian (materialistic, non-directed) evolution is a comfortable faith for many; it allows them to escape the Biblical witness that there is a God who has stamped his moral imprint upon our hearts, and to whom we must one day give an account.

As far as man evolving beyond war [a point made in Mr. Cohen's article], if a man evolved to the ultimate moral and ethical pinnacle, you would have Jesus Christ.

He lived two thousand years ago, and there hasn't been a man like him before or since. A "one-off"? A random mutation that unfortunately didn't catch on?

Or, as he himself proclaimed, the son of David, and, indeed, the Father's son?

A Russian teenager adopted by an American pedophile

A Russian teenager was adopted by an American pedophile. She endured years of Internet-distributed sexual torment. She is currently pleading with U.S. legislators for laws to govern cyberspace. But, liberals should ask, what about a pederast's equality rights?

Overriding the wisdom of Canada's Parliament, the judge-amended Charter of Rights asserts the legal equality of all Canadians regardless of sexual orientation. So, it would be illegal for authorities to discriminate against even known pederasts by denying them adoption rights based on their unchosen sexual orientation.

As Liberals all the way up to Prime Minister have gleefully chanted, "you can't cherry-pick rights", "a right is a right is a right", and "you can't just support the minority rights you happen to approve of".

The only question is, would the judges have the guts to equally uphold the right that they themselves created? Or, would they contradict themselves, and make a moral distinction between one sexual orientation and another? Which is exactly what moral conservatives do between heterosexuality and homosexuality. If the judges choose to discriminate, then the only difference would be where the line is drawn -- and surely that would be a matter of moral, and not rights-based, debate.

If one sexual orientation can be viewed as unnatural and disordered, then so can another.

And that's the way the Ball bounces.

Caledonia: the Standoff Continues

At least I think it does -- the MSM haven't been covering it the past couple of days.

Preston Manning said that all Canadians should be viewed as equal before the law. Sheila Copps (I believe it was) denounced this statement as racist. We are now reaping the results of the triumph of such thinking.

Those in authority no longer understand that for a semblance of justice to prevail the law must apply equally to all Canadians. They're supposed to protect the law-abiding and punish law-breakers. Their present actions achieve the opposite.

Canadians are generally full of patience and goodwill (to the tune of eight billion dollars annually). But their storehouse of patience and goodwill (and cash) is finite. The first nations may find that they end up killing the goose that delivered the golden eggs to their doors with such regularity for years and years and years.

PM Harper gets a softwood lumber deal

Not a perfect deal. Not a great deal. But, it looks like a good deal.

Posters on the Globe and Mail site are going nuts criticizing PM Harper.

Here's my response to them:

- - -

"If the Liberals hadn't spent all their time spewing venom towards the US, they might have come up with a better deal than the Tories. As it is, they had their chance, and they accomplished: zero.

The one billion dollars forfeited is not taxpayers' or citizens' money -- it belongs to big forestry corporations, who, along with big energy corporations and other enterprises, expend their energies to create wealth, jobs, and tax income for governments, while producing the goods and services that enrich our Canadian lives.

In other words, the very same kind of companies that many posters to this site would normally be railing against as greedy capitalist profitmongers."

- - -

The long-term prognosis?

I suspect that the US dollar is heading south, which means the Canadian dollar is heading north; this will put increased pressures on Canadian forestry companies to compete in the US. With the rise in the Canadian dollar, the problem has been solving itself.

Some Canadian companies used the unfair, punitive US tariffs as a motivation to improve productivity, so they could become super-productive and compete even with the tariff.

These companies are in a good position to thrive, going forward.

May God bless both Canada and the USA.

The Weaker Sex?

The apostle Peter refers to women as "the weaker sex", at least, I'm pretty sure he does.

It seems that Canadian courts hold this view, at least when it comes to holding Canadian women accountable for murdering someone (especially their newborn child or husband).

If a man kills his child or his spouse, he is a killer, and he does the time. If a woman does the same, that's a different kettle of fish. It seems the courts go out of their way to excuse women who kill.

The latest example is found in this story from the Canadian Press (CP)

- - - -

OTTAWA (CP) - The Supreme Court of Canada has upheld the acquittal of a Quebec woman who shot and killed her abusive, alcoholic husband.

Rita Graveline killed her husband, Michael, in 1999 after a 31-year marriage.

Her lawyers argued that she acted while in a trance-like state brought on by years of abuse and the trial judge also suggested to the jury that she might have been acting in self-defence.

She was acquitted, but the Crown argued that the two defences - self-defence and 'automatism' - are contradictory.

The Quebec Court of Appeal agreed and ordered a new trial.

The Supreme Court has overturned the appeal court, leaving the acquittal to stand.

- - -

If you are in an abusive relationship, you have the right to leave, but not to kill the person. Feminists like to argue that the woman is so beaten down, she doesn't have the where-with-all to leave an abusive relationship. In doing so, they too are making the "woman as the weaker sex" argument.

The Bible sometimes receives unwitting support from the strangest places.

* * *

When we hold women to a lower standard than men, is that not sexism?

And when we hold native Canadians to a lower standard than non-natives, is that not racism?

I remember Preston Manning saying that he believed all Canadians should receive equal treatment under Canadian law. As I recall, Sheila Copps denounced this statement, which I believe is a wonderful ideal, as bigoted and racist. He was denounced for suggesting that all Canadians should receive equal treatment under Canadian law. Imagine!

The Climes, They Are A-Changing...

This disturbing, alarming, scary, Newsweek article, from www.denisdutton.com...

[excerpted]

There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production– with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas – parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia – where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.

To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.”

A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.

To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin points out that the Earth’s average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras – and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average. Others regard the cooling as a reversion to the “little ice age” conditions that brought bitter winters to much of Europe and northern America between 1600 and 1900 – years when the Thames used to freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when iceboats sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City.

“The world’s food-producing system,” warns Dr. James D. McQuigg of NOAA’s Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, “is much more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years ago.” Furthermore, the growth of world population and creation of new national boundaries make it impossible for starving peoples to migrate from their devastated fields, as they did during past famines.

Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.

[end]

Excerpted from

"The Cooling World"

Newsweek, April 28, 1975

Indian unrest in Ontario -- burning tires; defiance against law, etc.

George Orwell said that all are equal, but some are more equal than others.

This certainly seems to apply to Canada's first nations people, who receive something like $8 billion dollars per year in care-and-handling and handouts courtesy of the eternally patient Canadian taxpayer. While these subsidies make it onto the reserves, apparently no taxation flows out -- status Indians living on reserves pay no taxes (at least this is my understanding). Even if they have a good job in town! Plus they get free university tuition, etc. etc. etc.

The American Revolution was kicked off with the slogan, "no taxation without representation". Here, we have something like the opposite situation: representation, and welfare rights, and subsidy entitlements, without taxation or responsibilities to contribute to the greater society.

This can't go on forever.

A lot of it is guilt-based. As in, "when our European ancestors stole the land from the Indians."

Was it theft?

When the first European settlers arrived in the territories that now constitute Canada, there were absolutely no laws prohibiting or restricting immigration to the area.

So our European ancestors broke no laws by settling here. They had just as much right to immigrate to this vast territory as the Indians; to suggest otherwise would be racist.

When they came, they brought European views of law, land ownership, etc. These views prevailed, and the country of Canada is the result.

What to do?

It is time to end the apartheid, make first nations full Canadians equal to everybody else, under the same laws and system of government.

Either abolish the reserves, or, if first nations wish to retain them, make it clear that the arm of the Canadian welfare state stops at the entrance to the reserve.

If first nations people wish to share in the privileges of the socialist state, it's time for them to also accept the responsibilities.

I hope I am not being unkind in saying this. It is not my intent.

I believe it is best for all concerned.

And that's the way the Ball bounces.

An Easter Exchange

Prakash Gomathinayagam wrote on his blog:

1) If non-believers of Jesus Christ, goes to hell. What happens to pre-christ people?

2) If the Omni potent, Supreme God is compasionate, then why can't he put everybody in heaven right away, where there is no place for evil.

3) What is the purpose of creation?
The Bible directly states the purpose of the universe in Eph. 1: To Glorify God. God created the universe to reflect his glory. Man was created for the same, "for the praise of his glory (Eph. 1:12)." If God is truly compassionate, To glorify him, would he allow us to suffer ?

posted by Prakash Gomathinayagam at 8:13 PM on Apr 15 2006

* * *
Here's my response:

1a) Christ is the Lamb of God "slain from before the foundation of the world". Although his slaying took place at a point in history, it is also eternal in the mind of God, and its efficacy works backwards in time as well as forwards.

1b) Prior to Christ, the people of God were kept under the Law, under a system of blood-based sacrifices, that pre-figured Christ.

1c) The gospels state that, during the period between Christ's death and resurrection, he "preached to the souls in prison".

1d) There is no doubt, for example, that Abraham, Moses, Elijah, David, etc. will be counted among the saints in glory. Moses and Elijah appeared with Jesus at the Mount of Transfiguration, and discussed the death which he should accomplish.

1e) Because Christ died for the sins of the whole world, past, present, and future, God's justice has been entirely satisfied, and He may, justly, permit those who have not heard the gospel to enter into heaven; He knows the heart, and judges justly and compassionately. At the same time, He will not tolerate eternal rebellion against His will.

1f) Those who hear, and reject the gospel, go to hell. Those who have not heard will be judged according to their hearts and their actions -- see the book of Romans. We can absolutely depend on God to judge justly.

There are some scriptures that suggest that those who do not believe shall "perish".

At any rate, to lose out on God for eternity, whether it is through merely perishing, or suffering eternal torment in hell for one's conscious rejection of Christ, is terrible to contemplate.

That is why Christians must re-double their effort to preach the gospel to every person on the planet.

And that is why those who have heard the gospel should flee to Christ as one flees from a burning building.

2. Christians affirm three things about God: a) He is all-powerful; b) He is all-good; and c) He is all-wise.

God permits evil to exist, for a season. One reason is that he gave humans free will; Love cannot make robots; mankind fell into sin, and into the devil's dominion. I believe that if God were to destroy evil, he would also end up destroying mankind, which is intertwined with evil -- consider the parable of the wheat and the tares.

God has his reasons for permitting evil. One is that this world is a testing ground, to see who will turn from evil (which is obviously attract, since so many people are spell-bound by it) to God, who will believe in Him, who will trust Him, and who will love and serve Him.

But the Scripture does make clear that the day will come when evil is eliminated and Christ's reign is complete and total.

3. One reason we suffer is simply because of sin. Rebellion has consequences. Being cut off from God, through sin, has consequences, just like a flower being cut off from sunlight has consequences.

Much, but not all, evil in the world today is self-inflicted, i.e., by one human upon another. God has given us free-will, and man has chosen to rebel against God. God cannot be blamed if he, in his forbearance, tolerates some of this.

The Scripture says that God is delaying the second-coming of Christ "because He is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance". Those who are in an unregenerate state at the coming of Christ will perish.

The rewards that will accrue to the faithful will be totally disproportionate to their suffering on this earth.

The apostle Paul says the glory will be so great, the sufferings of this world aren't even worth mentioning.

posted by RkBall at 8:51 PM on Apr 15 2006

An agnostic's Easter affirmation

An agnostic's affirmation of belief:

Jesus Christ never existed; the disciples invented him.

If he did exist, he didn't claim to be God, or even the Son of God, he didn't perform miracles, and he didn't die on the cross; he faked his death.

If he did die on the cross, it wasn't to atone for our sins, but just bad luck or judgment on his part, and he certainly didn't rise physically from the dead; the disciples somehow sensed that he was with them after his death, and from this grew the resurrection legend.

If he did rise from the dead, then he didn't really mean all those bad things he said about sin, judgment, and hell; and heaven is, as affirmed by Hollywood, a place we all deserve and get to go to.

It's Friday, but Sunday's coming!

Good Friday, 2006.

I would like to wish my fellow-Christians a holy Good Friday. I am mindful that there is nothing I can do to be worthy of Christ's sacrifice, no prayer I can pray, no onerous religious duty I can perform, no deprivation I can undergo. Christ said, "it is finished". All that's left for me to do is to accept the gift offered, and be thankful.

And so, I receive it now, by faith. And thank the Lord for dying for me.

And, although I will be attending holy week services, and praying, and singing, and bowing, and genuflecting, I realize that none of my religious activities can add to (nor subtract from!) the finished work of Christ on the Cross. Finished for me.

How misguided the Philipinos are who are crucified on Good Friday out of sympathy or whatever to Christ. How wrong they are to think that this will do them a whit of good. And how sad that the Roman Catholic Church tolerates such behaviour.

Saturday, the Church Expectant.

Good Friday soon gives way to Saturday which is referred to in the church year as Saturday of the Church Expectant (or something like that). An odd day in the Church year. According to the rhythms of the church year, Christ is crucified, but not yet risen.

It's a time of waiting. Of suspension, and, perhaps, suspense. This reminds us of the present era we live in, between Christ's ascension, and His return in glory. It's a time of waiting, watching, hoping, praying, and yet recognizing that the complete fulfillment of our salvation still lies in the future.

Sunday, Glorious Sunday - "this is the Day the Lord has made!".

And then, Saturday gives way to Sunday's glorious light, and the definitive triumph of God, our God, over sin, death, evil, and the devil. It's "game over", and God has won! When Christ died, I died. When Christ rose, I arose!

He is risen! Take that, you foul hosts of hell! And back off; Christ's Church is on the move, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.

I can see them shaking. They're rickety. They're old. They're rusty. They're worn out and tired, just like a sinner tired of his sin. Evil has had its day. God's word conquers and prevails. Grace throws the demonic hordes into confusion. As Martin Luther said, "one single word will fell them". Along with the great evangelist Reinhardt Bonke, the Church's goal is to depopulate hell, and fill heaven with trophies of grace.

All for you, Jesus, all for you.

"He shall look upon the travail of his soul... and be satisfied.

As the black preacher said (concerning those going through trials, and the disciples' despair), "it's Friday, but Sunday's coming!"

Can you have a cartoon, but no cartoonist?

This was my contribution to a blog dealing with belief in God vs. atheism.

- - - - - - - - -

If you are an atheist, there is no reason to believe that reason should exist, and, if it did, why it should make sense, and if it seemed to make sense, why it should be trusted. There would just be a black nothingness. So why bother to reason, write, and post?

As for "evidence", I don't need to meet Charles Shultz to know he existed; Peanuts is ample evidence. Likewise, the created order spilling over with obvious design, beauty, and wonder, yet marred by evil, is more than ample evidence to believe both in a divine Creator and the contaminating, corrupting existence of evil.

Cartoons are two-dimensional characters, and yet their existence compels us to believe in a cartoonist. The creation is about a billion times more complex than a cartoon, and human beings are infinitely more complex and wonderful, and yet we still manage to convince ourselves we just happened out of nothing. Not because the evidence necessarily supports this, but because this is our preference.

Atheism is a faith-based choice, one that you have to work really hard to maintain, when God's fingerprints are everywhere. Creation. Conscience. Consciousness. Reasoning ability. Creative ability. Intrinsic understanding of God. The concept of eternity. The indignity and pain of separation of death. Love. The wondrous development and birth of a child. The words of Jesus Christ. The actions of Jesus Christ. The Spirit of Jesus Christ knocking on the door of the human heart. The empty tomb.

I'm gonna watch 'em in chronological order!

A while ago I bought a two-DVD set called Mystery Classics at Wal-Mart. It contains eight movies -- no doubt public domain . I've just ploughed through the first four, and am about to break open the second one. Here's my "brainwave" of the day. I'm going to watch the next four in chronological order, based on the year issued. That way, I'll a) get the most primitive one over with soonest, and b) be able to watch the progression of movie-making. So, here's what I'll be watching. A) The Kennel Murder Case (1933); B) The Spy in White (1936); C) Eyes in the Night (1942); and D) The Limping Man (1953).

I Spy with my little eye...

I couldn't resist responding to this blogger post. My response follows.

* * * This from "jack rabbit" (not me) * * *

A warning - this is a bit harsh - but designed to make you think.

Hi government spies. I hope you are having a good time. Do you enjoy snooping into other's business? Is it fun? What kind of a simpleton gets off on that sort of thing?

How about snooping on your fellow Americans? Do you find the work interesting? Do you like digging through other people's stuff? Do you like listening to their private conversations? Are you essentially a peeping tom who's justifying their sick fun because your leader told you it is ok? Do you have a mind of your own?

The above is an oversimplification I am sure. Perhaps you are thinking - "This dumb uninformed citizen doesn't know the facts about why it is so important to spy on Americans." This is true, since the important work you folks do is so important you can't tell me what you are doing, why you are doing it, or anything - even though you claim to be doing it for my own good - in fact I, the taxpayer are giving you the money to do it. So if you were spying on me the justification would be that you are spying on my to save me from... what ... myself? May I ask if you even know why you are spying on your fellow citizens?

We are all Americans - we have a constitution. If you swore to uphold the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic, DO IT! If unconstitutional things are happening, or you are participating in them - STOP IT. If you are too much of a coward to blow the whistle, (that is impossible, aren't you all the bravest of the brave?) then QUIT your job. Or have you been comprimised by a high mortgage payment in Glen Burnie or other expensive community?

I know this is harsh, but it needs to be said. Think about it. If those in the know don't come forward so that America can be populated by an informed electorate -we cannot possibly have the information necessary to make the right decisions at the
voting booth.
posted by jack rabbit at 10:20 PM on Apr 03 2006

* * * This was my tongue-in-cheeky response * * *

"Hi government spies. I hope you are having a good time."

Thank you, we are.

"Do you enjoy snooping into other's business?"

Yes.

"Is it fun?"

Yes.

"What kind of a simpleton gets off on that sort of thing?"

The pay is good. We get to eat donuts.

"How about snooping on your fellow Americans?

That's definitely one of the attractions.

"Do you find the work interesting?"

Most definitely.

"Do you like digging through other people's stuff?"

Of course, who wouldn't?!

"Do you like listening to their private conversations?"

Yes.

"Are you essentially a peeping tom who's justifying their sick fun because your leader told you it is ok?"

No, but we've made a note that you have begun talking about a "peeping Tom". We're adding that to your file, and checking your neighborhood.

"Do you have a mind of your own?"

I have to check with my superior, but I'm pretty sure it's going to be an affirmatory.

"Perhaps you are thinking - "This dumb uninformed citizen doesn't know the facts about why it is so important to spy on Americans.""

I was just thinking that! You are amazing!

"This is true, since the important work you folks do is so important you can't tell me what you are doing, why you are doing it, or anything - even though you claim to be doing it for my own good"

I can't tell you what we are doing, but I can tell you this: the important work we are doing is very important. That's why it's so important that we do it. And, it's for your own good.

" - in fact I, the taxpayer are giving you the money to do it."

And we appreciate it.

"So if you were spying on me the justification would be that you are spying on my to save me from... what ... myself?"

Exactly.

May I ask if you even know why you are spying on your fellow citizens?

Yes.

"We are all Americans - we have a constitution."

And I have sworn to uphold it!

"If you swore to uphold the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic, DO IT!"

I'm DOING IT!

"If unconstitutional things are happening, or you are participating in them - STOP IT."

I'm STOPPING THEM RIGHT NOW!

"If you are too much of a coward to blow the whistle, (that is impossible, aren't you all the bravest of the brave?) then QUIT your job."

I would, but I've been compromised by a high mortgage in Glen Burnie.

"Or have you been comprimised by a high mortgage payment in Glen Burnie or other expensive community?"

Man, you are good.

"I know this is harsh, but it needs to be said. Think about it."

I'm thinking about it even as we speak.

"If those in the know don't come forward so that America can be populated by an informed electorate -we cannot possibly have the information necessary to make the right decisions at the voting booth."

Or at the drive-through take-out window!

Did Jesus Exist, etc?

The G&M has a list or blog going on the "Was Judas a Hero?" story. I made a couple of posts, and this is the response I got from someone named J Kay. My response to J Kay follows.

J Kay from Canada writes: Richard Ball:

Outside of Canon there are infact ZERO supporting historical sources for the historicity of Jesus and I'll contend that Tom Harper is at least one current theologian who doubts the historicity of Jesus but since you mentioned it can you cite and sources that support your claim that 'there are few if any historians who deny the historicity of jesus'. Citations please because from what I've read there seems to be quite a significant contingent of biblical scholars who also doubt it. I find Tom Harper's conversion from Anglican Priest and Professor of Theology at University of Toronto to skeptic of Jesus' historicity. Betrand Russell, while dead surely doubted it as did Northrup Frye.

You mentioned Josephus however the Testimonium Flavianum in Antiquities of the Jews is widely dismissed as a later Christian insertion, which is inconsistent with the remainder of Josephus.

Pliny the Younger doesn't mention Jesus/Yeshua at all, merely corresponds with Trajan regarding Christians.

The existence of Christians at the time does not prove the existence of Jesus any more than references to people who the Greek God Zeus proves the existence of a literal Zeus. Suetonis doesn't refer to christ either but chrestus, which is highly unlikely to be a mispelling of Christus seeing as he's refering to Chrestus being expelled from Rome in 54 A.D. which would be interesting given Christ was dead by then.

The argument that Christ must have existed because of how many people believe today is specious. Who founded Hinduism? There are nearly 1 billion adherents to it, does that therefore imply that Brahma, Vishnu or Kali also exist?

Largely Christianty exists as a faith today with the power is has because it was the state supported faith of one of the most power empire to grace the planet. If the Romans believed in and adopted Zoroastriasm, it likely would have had many more adherents today.

Your cite Mark, Matthew, Luke and John and perhaps latter Paul who never met or had any interaction with Jesus. The 4 synoptic gospels however were not written by any of the apostles. They are at best oral tradition ascribed to the apostles by later writers. However they alone do not support the existence of Jesus either and their selection as Canon doesn't make them 'gospel'.

They were selected at the Council of Rome. At the Council of Nicaea the nature of God/Christ/Spirit was also debated by scholars of the time and they voted for the trinity explantion. The problem with assuming the authority of these sources as the only true gospels forsaking all others is that the Bishops had a vest interest in selecting Canon which supported their authority through an Apostlistic Tradition. Hardly encouraging.

Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/scott_oser/hojfaq.html

My response (hopefully done in "Christian love"!):

Re: "J Kay from Canada writes: Outside of Canon there are infact ZERO supporting historical sources for the historicity of Jesus." Even if this were true, it would prove nothing. The canonical sources are more than sufficient. If you want to discredit Christianity, at least aim for accuracy. Here are some errors in your post.

1. Tom Harpur is a theologian, not an historian.

2. "Pliny the Younger doesn't mention Jesus/Yeshua at all". Pliny the Younger: "I discovered nothing more than an innocuous superstition. They don't really do all that much. They meet before daybreak. They sing hymns antiphonally and they worship Christ as if he were a god". Disingenuous to differentiate between Jesus and the Christ.

3. "The argument that Christ must have existed because of how many people believe today is specious". I never made this argument. An argument can be made, however, that the existence of Christ, and the emergence of the Christian church, is rooted in history, and not myth or religious fantasy.

4. "The 4 synoptic gospels... were not written by any of the apostles." There are not four synoptic gospels. For you to say the gospels were not written by any of the apostles is a statement of pure faith, or perhaps better, wishful thinking. There is ample evidence that the gospel attributed to Matthew was in fact written by Matthew, that the gospel attributed to John was in fact written by John, that the gospel attributed to Mark was written by Mark, an associate of Peter, and that the gospel attributed to Luke was written by an historian named Luke who diligently investigated the facts before writing.

5. "The problem with assuming the authority of these sources as the only true gospels forsaking all others is that the Bishops had a vest interest in selecting Canon..." The bishops did not select; they recognized the books that had been viewed as authoritative from the beginning. You can impugn their motives if it makes you feel better, but it won't change the facts.

Thank God for Big Oil!

Oil has hit $68 a barrel. People are upset at high prices, and oil company profits.

I used to work for an oil company -- Imperial Oil, an ExxonMobil-owned company. It was one of the most wonderful times of my life. The people who worked there were the most intelligent, ethical people I have ever worked with. The company excelled at attracting the best and the brightest (I managed to slip in, somehow). Unlike governments, they used what might be called "extreme intelligence" to ensure the supply of oil, to process it efficiently, and bring it to market.

The point is this: oil companies work extremely hard and intelligently, take enormous risks, and do a whole series of things "right" in order to make gas conveniently and reliably available to the Canadian public. For this, they make a profit of a few cents a litre. The government, on the other hand, does next to nothing beyond setting some regulatory things in place, assumes no risk, yet skims off a huge percentage of the price we pay at the pump. I would rather my money went to the oil companies, who have earned it, than the government, which has not.

And that's the way the Ball bounces.

TJI (this just in): PM Harper says that the US is Canada's best friend

If the US is our best friend -- and if not the US, then who? -- Canadians aren't a very friendly bunch. There's no country on earth we like to dislike more than the US.

We smugly rest in our sense of moral superiority, which we only have the luxury of having in the first place because we have a powerful neighbour to the south that would defend us if attacked.

We let the US do the heavy-lifting; we let it make both the right moves and the wrong ones, and are content to sit back and throw our self-righteous made-in-Canada darts in Uncle Sam's face.

It's easy to sit back and criticize.

But, without the US countering Islamic terrorism and other threats, the world would be a far more unstable and dangerous place. Who would protect us? Ourselves? That would mean having a fighting military, something that is now considered "uncanadian". England? Got its own problems. France? Can you really trust a country whose money "expires"? (I once got stuck with some obsolete francs that even a French bank would not exchange.) Or one that was on Saddam Hussein's side up to the outbreak of the Iraqi war?

I say, thank God for the USA.

Coke. Pepsi. McDonalds. Burger King. Baja Fresh. Blues. Rhythm and Blues. Gospel. Jazz. Billy Graham. Larry King. ABC. NBC. CBS. FOX. CNN. CNBC. Levis. Bill Gaither. Elvis. The Beach Boys. Yosemite. Yellowstone. San Francisco. LA. New York. Phoenix. Nashville. Tahoe. Las Vegas. Lambert's Throw'd Rolls. Route 66. Bar Harbor. Wendy's. Hollywood. Bill Murray. Chicago. Chicago Deep-Dish Pizza. Lawry's - the Prime Rib. Dallas. Chili. Tex-Mex. Louisiana. Cajan. Chevron. Marriott. Holiday Inn. The Twilight Zone. Monk. Columbo. The Honeymooners. Jackie Gleason. It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World. Cheers. Seinfeld. Hot dogs. Hamburgers. Ice Cream Cones. Chuck Berry. What about Bob? Bob Dylan. Fender. Steinbeck.

This just in: scientific study on prayer fizzles

Power of prayer overrated? - MALCOLM RITTER - Associated Press
New York — Does praying for a sick person's recovery do any good?

In the largest scientific test of its kind, heart surgery patients showed no benefit when strangers prayed for their recovery.

And patients who knew they were being prayed for had a slightly higher rate of complications. Doctors could only guess why.

* * *

God, the Majesty on high, does not perform "on demand", nor permit himself to be subjected to laboratory testing by his subjects.

He has nothing to prove.

He has said everything He wants to say in His Word, and the self-sacrificial offering of Jesus on the cross tells us all we need to know about a) our sin and sinfulness and b) God's love freely offered.
For those who may be upset or angered by such rhetoric, let me assure you, you are under no constraint or compulsion to accept God's freely offered gift. You have the right to refuse. But, to as many as receive Him, to them he gives the right to become the sons and daughters of God, along with a promise of eternal life.

It's up to you.

* * *

What a wonderful God we have!

He gives us our freedom, even when he knows it will hurt us -- and him. He suffers the agony of the Cross to restore the fellowship which we threw away. Yet still, he does not compel us to love Him, or even believe in Him.

And when we do come to Him, still He is non-coercive; wooing us, persuing us, bringing us to the place where we truly trust him and freely offer ourselves to him. And, even then, unlike Islam, it is not a master-slave relationship; it's more like a friendship, a partnership, where we get to taste perhaps just a little bit of the mutuality that ever flows among the members of the trinity -- the unity of mind, purpose, thought, feelings, and determined actions.

What a wonderful, wonderful, wonderful, wonderful God.

(I would like to get to know him better.)

The Da Vinci Code - Truth Matters

Of course the Da Vinci Code is as false as a three dollar bill.

But the bigger point is that objective truth no longer matters, at least in the area of "personal beliefs" such as philosophy and religion.

Some people choose to believe the Da Vinci code just like others choose Buddhism or New Age channeling. We choose our beliefs today much like we choose our clothes. Our beliefs are often little more than fashion statements. It matters little whether something is actually true, what matters is that someone chooses to believe it. Multi-culturalism has contributed to this; also the western cult of the individual and its embrace of moral cultural relativism.

Fortunately, this irrational commitment to individual truth and multicultural relativism does not extend to hard-core matters such as airline safety. The EU recently put over 100 airlines on a blacklist for falling short of EU safety standards, which are based on the laws of physics. Most were from African nations. How intolerant! How non-inclusive and Eurocentric!

But, in the realm of "personal beliefs", anything goes. It matters little whether Jesus actually married Mary Magdelene, had kids, and settled down to a domesticated life of growing turnips in France. What matters is that some people choose to believe this; we're all entitled to our beliefs; and it is, quite frankly, a bit rude to suggest that someone's beliefs might be bonkers.

Consider popular views of homosexuality. Most people probably choose their attitude towards homosexuality based on how it makes them feel about themselves -- "with-it", tolerant, and kind (as opposed to judgmental, mean-spirited, and out-of-date). The objective biological, medical, psychological and sociological facts get lost in the shuffle, and are considered rude or "mean-spirited" to contemplate or mention.

Still, for Christians at least, truth matters.

Reading Eusebius, the first Church historian, we get a great sense of how important truth was to early Christians. We believe the gospel, not simply because it is "our faith", but because it rings true. We worship Christ, not simply because He is "our guy", but because He is the truth. And we honour and welcome the Holy Spirit as the Spirit of truth.

Does it matter whether Christ actually rose from the dead? Yes it does. This is not just something we believe because it makes us feel good, or because "the Church teaches it", or because it "helps us make it through the night"; we believe it because the evidence of Scripture, the history of the early Church (not least of which is the apostles' willingness to die rather than renounce their proclamation of the resurrection), as well as the internal witness of the Holy Spirit to our hearts and minds, all bear witness to the truth of this the most central of all facts of human history.

The resurrection is not true because, as some would say, the Church teaches it; no, rather, the Church teaches it because it is true.

Unlike most subjective "truths", real truth is often neither comfortable nor comforting. Scripture makes the apostle Peter out to be a coward, the apostle Paul out to be a persecutor of the righteous, Moses out to be a murderer, and David out to be both an adulterer and a murderer. Ouch!

And it doesn't stop there. Christian truth makes us all look bad. We might even rather wish that something else were true. It condemns us as sinners; it dismisses our natures as irrevocably corrupt; our hearts as evil; it humbles us with its claim (unique among philosophies and religions) that it is impossible for us to rise to an acceptable level of righteousness based on our own efforts. Why would anyone choose such truths? Because they're the truth, perhaps? Because they sound like something other than man's invention, something from the mind of God?

In similar manner, the more comforting (to the Christian at least) claims about Christ -- his unique birth, righteous life, saving death, vindicating resurrection, triumphant ascension, effectual present-day intercession, and imminent return -- are held to be true, and preached as truth, because we are persuaded that they are objectively real and factually true.

And this, by the way, makes all other religions, philosophies, and worldviews "untrue". In the final chapter of the book of Revelation a scene is painted of the Holy City coming down from heaven. Outside the gates, condemned forever to exclusion for the Holy City, are those "who loved and practiced a lie".

This may seem unkind (and today kindness trumps truth), it may seem narrow, it may even seem to smack of "intolerance"; but, it is true.

And truth matters.

This just in from the lunatic CBC...

This from Tony Burman, Editor in Chief of CBC News:

"I find these outbursts of media hostility toward the Christian Peacemakers somewhat perplexing....

I suspect most Canadians have little patience for this. Most of us not only felt genuine relief and happiness about the rescue but, more profoundly, saw in these "peacemakers" something that was quite admirable, courageous — and classically Canadian.

A desire to get involved. To help out. To make a difference even if it involves real personal risk. That's what Canadians do, in very real terms."

* * *

"Most of us"? on what basis does he assume his personal views represent most Canadians?

"That's what Canadians do"? Who says? Don't we also go to war and shed our blood in the name of freedom, democracy, and western ideals? Don't we have a history of warmaking that is even more "very real" than the vapid, vacuous, insipid, and self-deluded "peacemaking" of this self-deluded group?

So far, I haven't heard of a single tangible thing this group has done in Iraq. Have they fed anybody? Clothed anybody? Provided medical services to anybody? If so, why haven't we heard about it? They think they're doing the world a favour just by "being there"? Are their egos that big, and their self-aggrandizement so pronounced that they feel that just "being there" is going to make peace?

If they had gone to Iraq during Saddam Hussein's regime, that would have been heroic. I would have honoured such a group.

But coming in, under cover of the relative safety that the coalition forces have brought, and then denouncing them as "occupiers", is a bit rich.

If they really despise the British and American presence as much as they say they do, why didn't they reject their rescue by the "occupiers", and demand to be returned to their captors? That would have been principled. That would have been heroic.

As it is, I'll save my praise for the American and British and other troops who are putting their lives on the line daily to try to bring a better life to Iraqis.

They're actually doing something.

Which is more than can be said for the Peacemakers.

This just in: Case against jailed Afghan Christian dismissed

Case against jailed Afghan Christian dismissed - DANIEL COONEY - Associated Press

Kabul — A court on Sunday dismissed the case against an Afghan man facing possible execution for converting from Islam to Christianity, officials said, paving the way for his release.

The move eased pressure from the West but raised the dilemma of protecting Abdul Rahman after his release as Islamic clerics have called for him to be killed.

_ _ _

This is a clash of cultures.

If the spotlight of world opinion had not been on this man, there's a good chance he would have been beheaded. Christians around the world face persecution, including loss of churches, homes, and their lives, for their beliefs. Usually when this occurs, it is at the hands of Muslims. And, usually, it goes unreported and unnoticed by the world.

On the home front (Canada), it demonstrates the inherent foolishness of multiculturalism, the idea that all cultures are essentially the same and differ only at the edges.

Multiculturalism, as a policy of Canada, was used by mainly Liberal governments to displace Christianity as the dominant cultural idea of this country. Flexible Christianity has been replaced with a rigid secularism that asserts that religious views and values have no place in public life and that any opposing views or values will not be publicly tolerated.

And, of course the fruits of all of this. The slaughter of the innocents via abortion. Easy divorce -- and the tragic effects on children and young people. The glorification of single-parenting -- and the diminished family life our children are raised in. The indignity of same-sex marriage -- and the prospect of a hapless child being raised by two moms but no dad. And now, the latest -- efforts to elevate prostitution into just another job.

In Germany, a woman can lose her Employment Insurance benefits if she fails to show up for a job interview at a prostitution agency. I kid you not. Now that prostitution is just another job, and no longer has any moral overtones, this is the position of the German government. Canada has not gone this far, yet.

Christians are sandwiched between two extremes. On the one side, radical Muslims, who want Christians killed, and on the other, radical secularists, who just want Christianity extinguished.

Fortunately, we can lift our eyes to the skies and see Jesus, seated, crowned with glory and honour, telling us it's all going to come out all right in the end. And that we should continue to be faithful to Him, and the vision he gave of a new heaven and a new earth, coming down from God.

This just in: Russia Had Sources in U.S. Command

By ROBERT BURNS - The Associated Press - WASHINGTON —

The Russian government had sources inside the American military command as the U.S. mounted the invasion of Iraq, and the Russians passed information to Saddam Hussein on troop movements and plans, according to Iraqi documents released as part of a Pentagon report.

The Russians relayed information to Saddam during the opening days of the 2003 war, including a crucial moment before the assault on Baghdad, according to the documents in the report Friday.

* * *

We know that France and Russia were in the pocket of Saddam Hussein -- corrupted by their lust for Iraqi oil. The US was right not to subjugate its security interests to a corrupt and compromised UN Security Council. (Indeed, it appears that the whole UN was in Saddam's oily pocket.)

Meanwhile, the left continues to this day to claim that the US went to war over oil.

In fact it was unctious leftist countries that were propping up a brutal dictator because it suited their interests. In doing so they undermined the UN's attempts to make Saddam Hussein come clean on his weapons programs, gave Saddam Hussein the idea that he could outwit and outlast the Anglo-Saxon West, and made the US-led invasion virtually inevitable.

Once again, those on the left are in the wrong.

Christian "Peace-Makers" Freed - Contemptible Behaviour on Display

From the Globe and Mail:

At a news conference in Toronto, Christian Peacemakers Teams spokesman Doug Pritchard said...

"We believe that the illegal occupation of Iraq by multi-national forces is the root cause of the insecurity of this kidnapping and so much pain and suffering in Iraq today," he said.

He also credited the outpouring of support from around the world — particularly from Muslim groups — for the safe recovery of the three surviving hostages and renewed the group's call for an end to the U.S.-led military action in Iraq.

* * *

And not a word of thanks, a tip of the hat, or a nod of the head in the direction of their British/American rescuers. Such breathless ingratitude!

There is nothing peaceful about these self-styled peace-makers. They are partisans. They are Michael Moore without the camera. They excuse their kidnappers; can they not likewise find sympathetic excuses for the "occupiers'" actions -- 9/11, anyone?

If the "occupation" of Iraq is illegal, then so is the rescue by the British and American "occupiers". The peace-makers should denounce their rescue and demand to be returned to their Muslim captors.

Alternatively, they could volunteer to take the place of the Iraqi Christian who faces death for converting from Islam. No doubt they would consider it an honour to be be peacefully beheaded in the name of Islam.

Freezer-burn: do you belief in an after-ice?

Sunday, March 19, 2006
Weird World: two founders of cryonics unfreeze and have to be cremated

Two founders of the cryonics movement - whose members are frozen after death - have been cremated after a freezer mishap. The bodies of Raymond Martinot and his wife Monique were stored in a freezer in the hope modern science could one day revive them. But, 22 years after his mother's body was put into cold storage, their son discovered the freezer unit had broken down, reports the Guardian. Rémy Martinot said he had no choice but to cremate his parents' bodies after the technical fault had seen their temperatures rise above the constant level required of -65C. "I don't feel any more bereaved today than I did when my parents died, I had already done my grieving," he said. "But I feel bitter that I could not respect my father's last wishes. Maybe the future would have shown that my father was right and that he was a pioneer."

Raymond Martinot spent decades preparing for his demise in the belief that if he was frozen, scientists would be able to bring him back to life by 2050. But his wife, Monique Leroy, died first, in 1984, and was the first to enter the freezer unit in their Loire Valley chateau. In 2002 Dr Martinot died of a stroke, aged 84, and his son followed his orders to inject him with the same anti-coagulants and store him alongside.

***

I hope Raymond at least had a healthy belief in the after-ice. He could have saved himself a lot of effort if he had just gone with Hebrews: "For, it is appointed unto men once to die, and then the judgment".

Judgment -- not a popular idea these days.

And who's going to be the Judge of mankind? Jesus Christ.

How intolerant is that?! Shouldn't it at least be some kind of inter-faith committee?

Ah well, we can paint whatever pictures of God we want, but, push comes to shove, God gets to call the shots.

And, that's only fitting, given the job-description that accompanies being God.

Wealth Creation, Preservation, and Transmission

Do Christians have a duty to create and accumulate wealth, for themselves, their children, their church and the needy of their community and the world?

I believe it was John Wesley who said, "Earn all you can, save all you can, give all you can".

I believe that God likes growth. He likes increase. He likes prosperity. (But he hates covetousness, greed, stinginess.) He likes us to be good stewards of everything he has given to us.

And remember, "give -- and it shall be given to you".

Here's an excerpt from an article, sent to me by an associate. The entire article can be found at:

http://www.quebecoislibre.org/06/060305-4.htm

Leges Sine Moribus Vanae

Our Creator has endowed us with the capacity to distinguish right from wrong. He has also bequeathed to us the responsibility to choose among competing alternatives. Each individual must therefore decide whether he will be led towards virtue or succumb to vice. To be truly free is constantly to strive towards and, more often than not, choose virtue. As Lord Acton put it (Selected Writings of Lord Acton: Essays in Religion, Politics and Morality, Liberty Fund, 1988), "liberty is not the power of doing what we like, but the right of being able to do what we ought … Liberty is the prevention of control by others. This requires self-control and, therefore, religious and spiritual influences … [In Western countries] liberty has not subsisted outside of Christianity."

Like people in all other walks of life, therefore, investors and businesspeople can, as they deploy the material resources at their disposal, choose to act rightly. Seen in this light, the gift of commerce and capitalism is that it encourages people to choose upright behaviour. Buying and selling in the market and accumulating and divesting capital facilitate various virtues. The first and foremost is honesty; and others include independence, diligence, intelligence, prudence, trust and co-operation. But the choice is ours: whilst commerce and capitalism encourage virtue, they hardly guarantee it. Indeed, action in the market offers many vices and temptations to sin. Yet given man's ability to reason and exercise judgement, it ultimately allows him, if only he will choose this path, to practice virtue, shun wrongdoing and therefore glorify God.

> Private Property

The private ownership of labour, land and capital is fundamentally good because it provides many opportunities to glorify God. The Bible's prohibition of theft would make no sense if God did not intend that we exercise dominion over ourselves, the earth and the fruits of mixing our labour with land. The individual's ownership and maintenance of property is his way of exercising stewardship over a tiny portion of the universe. Clearly, individuals own nothing in any absolute sense; instead, as stewards, their task is to preserve and fructify what ultimately belongs to God. What does stewardship entail? One aspect is the husbandry of resources, i.e., the provision for one's children and grandchildren. To husband resources is to deploy them as efficiently and effectively as possible. Good stewards act prudently because they always bear the future in mind. Implicit in good stewardship, then, is the preservation and growth of resources that have been entrusted to you.

Another aspect of stewardship is the devout enjoyment of God's bounty, that is, the use of property as thanksgiving. Good stewardship thus balances consumption today and consumption tomorrow; equally clearly, God rewards those with low time preferences. Finally, good stewardship is charitable. Stewards willingly and gladly give some of what they own (which is not the same as shareholders' funds!) to the poor and unfortunate. Because God provides and preserves, and is merciful and compassionate, He rejoices when we imitate these virtues.

To own property and act as a responsible steward of it imitates God's sovereignty over the universe. Faithful imitation of God, in turn, glorifies God. Accordingly, to restrict and deny the opportunity and responsibility of ownership, as politicians, academics and clergy of all stripes unthinkingly do these days, is to deny individuals the opportunity to exercise stewardship – and thus to imitate and honour God's sovereignty. Seen in this light, critics and opponents of private property mock God.

> Buying and Selling in the Market

Buying and selling in the market are fundamentally good because they too provide the opportunity to glorify God. Buying and selling – that is, undertaking exchange beyond barter – are necessary conditions of anything beyond subsistence. If autarky reigned – that is, an individual or family could buy and sell nothing, and had to subsist exclusively from the food, shelter and clothing it produced – then material standards of living would be woefully and needlessly low. Conversely, becoming a specialised producer of a particular good or service, trading one's output in exchange for money and then exchanging that money for the output of other specialised producers – in short, introducing and following to its logical conclusion the principle of the division of labour – will over time raise material standards of living. To live a materially richer life, in turn, fulfils God's purpose that we enjoy with thanksgiving the resources we have inherited.

Commercial transactions, then, are not a necessary evil. Nor are they morally neutral. Quite the contrary, they are inherently good because they are means towards an unequivocally good end – the benefit of other people. Through our innate capacity to reason, God has given us a mechanism, the market, whereby we can advantage one another. Buying and selling thus provide a concrete means to love one's neighbour – whom one might never have met because he resides on the other side of the world – as one loves oneself.

This point is fundamental. Precisely because they are so often impersonal, and precisely because buyers and sellers are usually honest, business activity among consenting adults exerts a significant civilising influence upon buyers and sellers. People who might not normally trust one another (because they live on different continents, speak different languages, practice different faiths, etc., and therefore might never come into direct contact with one another) learn, from their repeated and usually satisfactory experiences in the market, that it makes sense – because it is usually beneficial – to trust others. "Commerce," Montesquieu famously said, "is a cure for the most destructive prejudices; for it is almost a general rule, that wherever we find agreeable manners, there commerce flourishes; and that wherever there is commerce, there we meet with agreeable manners." Hence the insight of Britain's foremost pamphleteer of free trade, Richard Cobden: "I see in the [principle of voluntary exchange] that which shall act on the moral world as the principle of gravitation in the universe, drawing men together, thrusting aside this antagonism of race, creed, and language, and uniting us in the bonds of eternal peace."

Oh, great. Blogspam

I didn't know it even existed, but today I got my first piece of blog spam.

The following was posted as a comment to my last post:

Askinstoo said...

Very nice! I found a place where you can
make some nice extra cash secret shopping. Just go to the site below
and put in your zip to see what's available in your area.
I made over $900 last month having fun!

click here to make extra money

* * *

I checked -- Askinoo has had 11,679 profile views since October 2005, which means that a lot of people have been hit by this guy with a spam post.

I like to think of myself as centred in grace, but I really believe that spammers belong in jail.

Am I being too harsh?

This just in: dinosaurs of a feather don't always flock together

This just in from the AP [excerpted]:

New fossil complicates picture of feather evolution
MATT CRENSON Associated Press

New York — A 150-million-year-old fossil from southern Germany has paleontologists ruffled over how feathers arose in the line of dinosaurs that eventually produced birds.

The fossil's exceptionally well-preserved bone structure clearly puts it among feathered kin on the dinosaur family tree. Because its closest relatives are feathered, paleontologists would expect Juravenator to follow suit.

A small patch of skin on Juravenator's tail, however, shows no sign of feathers....

“It has a typical scaly dinosaurian skin,” Mr. Chiappe said....

.... most experts do not see it as a challenge to the widely accepted view that modern birds are descended from dinosaurs.

& & &

The bottom line of the matter is this: materialistic scientists WANT to believe in non-directed evolution, and they interpret the evidence according to their beliefs.

Christians, who believe that we are the products of design (and it certainly looks that way!) interpret the same evidence differently.

A good book on the subject of Origins is Lee Strobel's The Case for a Creator. He covers darwinian evolution vs. design, the Big Bang, the universality of moral sense, consciousness, etc. A good read.

One of the philosophical constructs I recall contained in his book goes as follows:

a) Anything that begins to exist has a cause;

b) The universe began to exist,

c) Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Once we understand that there is a cause outside of the universe that caused the universe to come into existence, the "threat" of darwinian evolution is greatly diminished. Because, regardless of how we got to this point, there still stands a powerful force behind the universe (who must be a person because surely he cannot be something less than his creation) that deserves respect, and to whom we are presumably accountable.

It is precisely these conclusions that materialistic evolutionists desperately want to avoid, and will go to almost any intellectual lengths to do so. To cede to them would not only make these scientists morally accountable, it would de-throne them from the god-like role they currently enjoy -- defining reality for the rest of us lesser mortals and having complete sufficiency and control over explanations of life and origins. As soon as a non-materialistic factor is added to the equation, they cease to be masters of their domain.

So, you might say that the scientists have a vested personal interest in maintaining a belief in materialistic darwinian evolution. And that amounts to bias.

Increasingly, as the scientific evidence for a moment of creation mounts, the arguments of some materialists are becoming increasingly far-fetched -- reflecting an ABC - Anything But a Creator - desperation.

Another argument that bolsters the scientific evidence for creation comes from philosophy. It goes like this:

a) If the past is infinite, this means there are an infinite number of moments preceding the present

b) If there are infinite moments preceding the present moment, we can never arrive at the present moment

c) Because the present moment exists, the past cannot be infinite

d) Therefore the past is finite and time had a beginning

I find this pretty convincing.

The Christian faith in a powerful Creator possessing personal attributes such as personality, consciousness, and moral sense is not unreasonable. In fact, I would say just the opposite.

And that's the way the ball bounces.

Tsunami vs. Afghanistan: Image vs. moral purpose

Andrew Coyne has written the following concerning PM Harper's trip to Afghanistan:

"Implicit in Mr. Harper’s address is a very different sort of nationalism: a nationalism of moral purpose. Canada exists to do good, for its own people and for the world. It is defined by its beliefs and measured by its acts, not by the virtues of its people, real or imagined. Indeed, it makes no claim to uniqueness in this regard, but rather upholds principles that are timeless and universal. But it aspires to be the best exemplar of these: in Mr. Harper’s words, to 'be a leader.'"

* * *

When our rapid-response team was (belatedly) send out to help the tsunami victims by the former Liberal government, we were told that the purpose of the rapid-response team was "to enhance Canada's image to the world".

I thought at the time, "who cares what the rest of the world thinks of us?. We should be sending the team out not because of what the world may think, but because IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO".

Image vs. moral purpose. A clear juxtaposition of liberal vs. conservative values.

The first sign of Spring!

It's an annual Canadian rite -- the first sure sign of spring, where the cold of winter begins to give way to the hope of spring with its promise of a landscape awash with the warmth of the sun.

No, it's not the sighting of the first bewildered robin hopping around in the PEI slush.

And it's not the first crocus pushing its way through the red earth to say "hello!" to a waiting world. It's Tim Hortons' Roll up the Rim Contest.

If it's Roll up the Rim, spring can only be a short hop-skip-and-a-jump away.

Yeah!

Back where I belong

Prior to leaving for Africa I wrote, "I've heard that the College I'll be teaching at has installed high-speed satellite Internet, but I'll have to see it to believe it. So, I might be landline-locked for the next month; we'll see."

Turns out, this was optimistic. During the two-weeks I was at the college, the Internet was only up one day. "Up and running" would not describe it. "Up and badly limping", perhaps.

Not only that, my prediction that I might be landline-locked also proved hopelessly optimistic. The telephone line at the Kerrs' house where I was staying was down for two or three weeks.

We ended up doing most of our interneting in-town, at a Cyber Caffe.

I'm not even going to bother hiking the internet phone all the way to Africa next time. I'll wait until Africa catches up.

For a depiction of my exploits in Africa, please refer to my goodnewsforzambia blog.

It's good to be back.

A personal note...

I'm in England, heading for Zambia. I may not be posting much to this blog for a month or so. You might want to check out one of my other blogs

http://goodnewsforzambia.blogspot.com

on a weekly basis for my African exploits.

I've heard that the College I'll be teaching at has installed high-speed satellite Internet, but I'll have to see it to believe it. So, I might be landline-locked for the next month; we'll see.