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
Monday, June 26, 2006
Sunday, June 25, 2006
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.
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.
Tuesday, June 20, 2006
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.
"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!
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!
Saturday, June 10, 2006
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.
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.
Thursday, June 08, 2006
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.
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.
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.
Sunday, June 04, 2006
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.
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.
Thursday, June 01, 2006
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.
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.
Saturday, May 27, 2006
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!
* * *
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!
Tuesday, May 23, 2006
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.
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.
Thursday, May 18, 2006
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.
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.
Thursday, May 11, 2006
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).
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).
Sunday, May 07, 2006
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.
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.
Friday, May 05, 2006
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.
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.
Thursday, May 04, 2006
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?
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.
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.
Friday, April 28, 2006
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.
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.
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.
Thursday, April 27, 2006
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!
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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)