My university, Carleton University, in Ottawa, is proposing banning student groups that are not in favour of a woman's right to destroy her unborn child. They would not be allowed to form clubs and receive funding.
Ah, the Tolerance crowd in action once again.
I remember during my days at Carleton there was a Communist Club. I always considered communists an esoteric bunch, so outside the mainstream of thought and society. I remember talking with one chap in particular. I was a newly minted Christian. He looked on me as a relic from a bygone age. He talked about what they would do when they assumed power.
I would rather talk about what is going to happen when Christ returns to reign in glorious moral, ethical, and holy power. How awesome that is going to be! And all the politicians and those scratching for power today and supporting every liberal cause from abortion to euthanasia to same-sex marriage, shunted aside by the Holy One ruling in awesome power.
At that time, the Bible says, the saints shall rule. "We shall judge angels!" the apostle Paul says.
Christ must reign until he has put every enemy under his feet.
Oh Lord, I want to be in that number, oh when the saints go marching in.
The key is to be on Christ's side on the great moral issues of our day.
It's not only the right side, it's the winning side.
And that's the way the Ball bounces.
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
I'm dreaming of a lunar Christmas
The liberal west's tendency towards self-parody hit a high point recently -- you might say, in terms of lunatic, this was a full-moon.
According to reports, the City of Chicago has declared that a public festival celebrating Christmas is no place to promote a move about the Christmas story.
City officials are worried ads for the new film "The Nativity Story" might offend non-Christians.
Notice that no one has actually said they would be offended by this, the officials are just worried that it might offend.
It reminds me of when I saw an ad in a Toronto paper for a homosexual festival. The festival was sponsored by the Royal Bank of Canada. One of the prominent persons featured in the ad was a gay porn star; the picture in the ad was suggestive of his occupation. I phoned in to complain that the Royal Bank was sponsoring and promoting pornography, without mentioning the gay angle. They were flabergasted. They simply saw it as supporting and marketing to homosexuals.
I pointed out to the Royal Bank person that we now live in a society where people are no longer free to wish someone a "merry Christmas", because it might offend someone, but it is apparently OK for a major corporation to support pornography in a public newspaper.
We cannot teach Christianity in public schools, because it might offend; however we must teach homosexuality in all its glorious details, regardless of who is offended.
That's how the liberal west's worship of the god of Tolerance works.
This Christmas, I'll be worshipping a Man who began life as a babe in a manger. Those who looked on him saw the face of God.
Wise men still seek Him.
Oh come, let us worship Him.
Christ the Lord.
"Merry Christmas to everyone."
Who ever thought that these would be viewed as seditious words?
And that's the way the Ball bounces.
According to reports, the City of Chicago has declared that a public festival celebrating Christmas is no place to promote a move about the Christmas story.
City officials are worried ads for the new film "The Nativity Story" might offend non-Christians.
Notice that no one has actually said they would be offended by this, the officials are just worried that it might offend.
It reminds me of when I saw an ad in a Toronto paper for a homosexual festival. The festival was sponsored by the Royal Bank of Canada. One of the prominent persons featured in the ad was a gay porn star; the picture in the ad was suggestive of his occupation. I phoned in to complain that the Royal Bank was sponsoring and promoting pornography, without mentioning the gay angle. They were flabergasted. They simply saw it as supporting and marketing to homosexuals.
I pointed out to the Royal Bank person that we now live in a society where people are no longer free to wish someone a "merry Christmas", because it might offend someone, but it is apparently OK for a major corporation to support pornography in a public newspaper.
We cannot teach Christianity in public schools, because it might offend; however we must teach homosexuality in all its glorious details, regardless of who is offended.
That's how the liberal west's worship of the god of Tolerance works.
This Christmas, I'll be worshipping a Man who began life as a babe in a manger. Those who looked on him saw the face of God.
Wise men still seek Him.
Oh come, let us worship Him.
Christ the Lord.
"Merry Christmas to everyone."
Who ever thought that these would be viewed as seditious words?
And that's the way the Ball bounces.
Thursday, November 23, 2006
Quebec a "nation"? What was the Prime Minister thinking?
The Conservative Prime Minister has presented a motion to Canada's Parliament to recognize the province of Quebec as a nation within Canada.
Can you imagine the United States declaring Hawaii or Alaska a "nation" within the U.S., thus reducing all other states to some kind of second-class status?
Unimaginable.
In Canada, however, this has widespread support among all federalist parties, who have been giving away the store for a generation now.
For years, arrivees have descended the escalator at Dorval Airport in Montreal and been confronted with a large illuminated sign that reads "Immigration Quebec". Newcomers must wonder what country they have landed in.
Can you imagine landing in Dallas and seeing a "Texas Immigration" sign?
Didn't think so.
I remember crossing by car into Quebec from the US at a border station where there was not a single sign or flag or symbol that indicated the country you were entering was in fact Canada.
Can you imagine a similarily unadorned US border crossing?
Didn't think so.
In Canada, we refer to our native Indian populations as "first nations".
I guess this makes Quebec a "second nation".
One thing that the first nations and Quebec share in common is that none of them are net contributors to the wealth of Canada -- each one of them, Quebec included, receives sizable subsidies from the rest of us plain-Jane Canadians who comprise the rump of Canada.
Canada should make it a condition of nationhood that a tribe or province or other organizational entity is a net economic contributor to the rest of the country.
The mighty nations of Alberta and Ontario, anyone?
And that's the way the Ball bounces.
Can you imagine the United States declaring Hawaii or Alaska a "nation" within the U.S., thus reducing all other states to some kind of second-class status?
Unimaginable.
In Canada, however, this has widespread support among all federalist parties, who have been giving away the store for a generation now.
For years, arrivees have descended the escalator at Dorval Airport in Montreal and been confronted with a large illuminated sign that reads "Immigration Quebec". Newcomers must wonder what country they have landed in.
Can you imagine landing in Dallas and seeing a "Texas Immigration" sign?
Didn't think so.
I remember crossing by car into Quebec from the US at a border station where there was not a single sign or flag or symbol that indicated the country you were entering was in fact Canada.
Can you imagine a similarily unadorned US border crossing?
Didn't think so.
In Canada, we refer to our native Indian populations as "first nations".
I guess this makes Quebec a "second nation".
One thing that the first nations and Quebec share in common is that none of them are net contributors to the wealth of Canada -- each one of them, Quebec included, receives sizable subsidies from the rest of us plain-Jane Canadians who comprise the rump of Canada.
Canada should make it a condition of nationhood that a tribe or province or other organizational entity is a net economic contributor to the rest of the country.
The mighty nations of Alberta and Ontario, anyone?
And that's the way the Ball bounces.
Friday, November 17, 2006
Tell us something we don't already know
This will come as no surprise to Boopchile and frappeur:
It's in, and it's official: conservatives are more generous than liberals; those on the right are more generous than those on the left.
The book, "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism" (Basic Books, $26), is due for release Nov. 24.
Here are some of the main points:
* Religious conservatives donate far more money than secular liberals to all sorts of charitable activities, irrespective of income.
* Conservatives who practice religion, live in traditional nuclear families and reject the notion that the government should engage in income redistribution are the most generous Americans, by any measure.
* Liberals give less than conservatives in every way imaginable, including volunteer hours and donated blood.
Don't you just love the phrases: "irrespective of income", "by any measure", "in every way imaginable"!
The article, referenced in the Drudge Report, is written by a researcher with a liberal background who was surprised by the results. To read it go to:
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/204/story_20419_1.html
It's in, and it's official: conservatives are more generous than liberals; those on the right are more generous than those on the left.
The book, "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism" (Basic Books, $26), is due for release Nov. 24.
Here are some of the main points:
* Religious conservatives donate far more money than secular liberals to all sorts of charitable activities, irrespective of income.
* Conservatives who practice religion, live in traditional nuclear families and reject the notion that the government should engage in income redistribution are the most generous Americans, by any measure.
* Liberals give less than conservatives in every way imaginable, including volunteer hours and donated blood.
Don't you just love the phrases: "irrespective of income", "by any measure", "in every way imaginable"!
The article, referenced in the Drudge Report, is written by a researcher with a liberal background who was surprised by the results. To read it go to:
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/204/story_20419_1.html
The Big Bang is in the news again
The Big Bang is helpful to creationists because it demonstrates that the universe has a beginning (as recorded in the opening lines of the Bible). However, the Big Bang cannot explain the singularity which supposedly pre-existed the Big Bang, nor what caused the Big Bang to occur and upset the presumably eternal state of the pre-existing singularity.
If you suddenly heard a loud bang outside your home, you would assume it was caused. If someone said, "nothing caused it; it just happened", you would not believe them. And yet serious scientists suggest that nothing caused the Big Bang.
Anything that begins to exist has a cause; the universe began to exist; therefore, the universe is caused.
With our miraculous eyes we can see evidence of exquisite design and process this evidence with our remarkable minds.
It takes darkened minds to ignore this evidence and postulate an uncreated, arbitrary, and ultimately meaningless, universe. The Bible also speaks about this: "The fool has said in his heart, 'there is no God'".
There is a moral dimension to life that non-belief in God allows us to skirt around in this life-time. However, when we stand before the uncreated One who stands outside of time and space, our efforts at avoidance will have come to an end.
And that's the way the Ball bounces.
If you suddenly heard a loud bang outside your home, you would assume it was caused. If someone said, "nothing caused it; it just happened", you would not believe them. And yet serious scientists suggest that nothing caused the Big Bang.
Anything that begins to exist has a cause; the universe began to exist; therefore, the universe is caused.
With our miraculous eyes we can see evidence of exquisite design and process this evidence with our remarkable minds.
It takes darkened minds to ignore this evidence and postulate an uncreated, arbitrary, and ultimately meaningless, universe. The Bible also speaks about this: "The fool has said in his heart, 'there is no God'".
There is a moral dimension to life that non-belief in God allows us to skirt around in this life-time. However, when we stand before the uncreated One who stands outside of time and space, our efforts at avoidance will have come to an end.
And that's the way the Ball bounces.
Thursday, November 16, 2006
France snubs Canada snubs China snubs Canada
Yesterday France suggested a tariff on Canadian goods because we are not walking lock-step with them and other socialist countries on climate change. The Canadian left sided with France.
Also yesterday, China supposedly rebuffed Canada's PM for making human rights an issue. The Canadian left sided with China.
Think about it --
The same people that oppose Canada standing up to China for fundamental human rights violations cheer France when it threatens Canada because of mere policy differences in climate change.
Perhaps this is as good an insight into the warped mind of the left as we are going to get.
And that's the way the Ball bounces.
Also yesterday, China supposedly rebuffed Canada's PM for making human rights an issue. The Canadian left sided with China.
Think about it --
The same people that oppose Canada standing up to China for fundamental human rights violations cheer France when it threatens Canada because of mere policy differences in climate change.
Perhaps this is as good an insight into the warped mind of the left as we are going to get.
And that's the way the Ball bounces.
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
Climate Change: France throws its weight around
France has proposed that those countries that don't fall in line with the socialist-led climate-change agenda be punished with tariffs.
Because things are getting scary: "Scientists attribute at least some of the past century's 0.6-degree-Celsius rise in global temperatures...."
"At least some"?
What does that mean? The earth has always been warming and cooling.
Global warming, er, "climate change", is based on pseudo-science designed to advance the anti-west, anti-capitalist, socialist-environmentalist agenda. It's all about seizing power, not taking care of the planet. Count on it: it will require ever-more government intervention and control over people's lives.
France's latest pronouncement on the subject shows the intolerance and bigotry of this pseudo-scientific socialist movement.
I would suggest instead that countries simply boycott countries found to be in collusion with murderous dictators like Saddam Hussein. That would take care of France.
And that's the way the Ball bounces.
Because things are getting scary: "Scientists attribute at least some of the past century's 0.6-degree-Celsius rise in global temperatures...."
"At least some"?
What does that mean? The earth has always been warming and cooling.
Global warming, er, "climate change", is based on pseudo-science designed to advance the anti-west, anti-capitalist, socialist-environmentalist agenda. It's all about seizing power, not taking care of the planet. Count on it: it will require ever-more government intervention and control over people's lives.
France's latest pronouncement on the subject shows the intolerance and bigotry of this pseudo-scientific socialist movement.
I would suggest instead that countries simply boycott countries found to be in collusion with murderous dictators like Saddam Hussein. That would take care of France.
And that's the way the Ball bounces.
Monday, November 13, 2006
The Anglican Church advocates letting newborns die
The Church of England has come out in favour of allowing doctors to let seriously or severely ill newborn babies die.
Here's where I stand on this. First, babies should be fed and cared for; they should not just be "allowed to die" and starved to death. They should be cared for and comforted. However, I think there may be cases where going to extraordinary means to maintain life though artificial devices, such as being strapped to a machine, may not be warranted. [I am open to hear other views on this position; I may be wrong.] In some cases, just as at the end of life, it may be best to "let nature run its course".
From what I have read, the Church of England is advocating a more radical approach one that would not just withhold extraordinary medical interventions but which would, in effect, abandon a child and let him or her starve to death. This position would, in time, no doubt lead to active euthanasia of infants.
Here's my view on this;
We were all -- every human being -- disabled and malformed through sin. We may not see ourselves this way; but God does. Jeremiah said that the heart of man was "desperately wicked". Jesus spoke of a wicked and sinful generation.
God could just "let us die". He was just when he destroyed the world of old by a flood, and merciful when he spared eight souls. If God were to let us all die, he would be just to do so.
Those who favour euthanasia of the disabled should, logically, accept that it would be just as right for they themselves to be killed by God, since, in His sight, we are all disabled; we all fall well short of his original plan and intent for humankind. I suspect that most of them do not hold to this view, and would attribute wrong-doing if not wickedness to God if He were to execute destructive judgement upon us.
INSTEAD!
Instead, he paid an incalculable cost -- the death of His own Son -- to redeem us. We are of infinite worth because of Christ's saving love. This is the heart of of why Christians value all human lives. First, because we are created by God. Secondly, because we are created in His image as the highest expression of His nature and glory on this earth, and thirdly, because of the infinite worth of the blood of Christ which was shed to redeem us.
Secular liberals who tout human rights and dignity conveniently forget where the basis for rights and essential dignity come from -- they come from the Christian view of man created in God's image.
When people rebel against God, and reject the light of the gospel, God gives them over to a reprobate mind; people think that they can adopt select ungodly, "liberal" positions, and then stop. They can't. The Anglican Church is showing every sign of being given over, by God, to a reprobate mind.
Which means, left to their own devices apart from the sovereign grace of God, their views will become more and more heretical and ungodly.
Understood in this light, it can be said that the latest position by the Church of England is shocking, and sad, but understandable.
And that's the way the Ball bounces.
Here's where I stand on this. First, babies should be fed and cared for; they should not just be "allowed to die" and starved to death. They should be cared for and comforted. However, I think there may be cases where going to extraordinary means to maintain life though artificial devices, such as being strapped to a machine, may not be warranted. [I am open to hear other views on this position; I may be wrong.] In some cases, just as at the end of life, it may be best to "let nature run its course".
From what I have read, the Church of England is advocating a more radical approach one that would not just withhold extraordinary medical interventions but which would, in effect, abandon a child and let him or her starve to death. This position would, in time, no doubt lead to active euthanasia of infants.
Here's my view on this;
We were all -- every human being -- disabled and malformed through sin. We may not see ourselves this way; but God does. Jeremiah said that the heart of man was "desperately wicked". Jesus spoke of a wicked and sinful generation.
God could just "let us die". He was just when he destroyed the world of old by a flood, and merciful when he spared eight souls. If God were to let us all die, he would be just to do so.
Those who favour euthanasia of the disabled should, logically, accept that it would be just as right for they themselves to be killed by God, since, in His sight, we are all disabled; we all fall well short of his original plan and intent for humankind. I suspect that most of them do not hold to this view, and would attribute wrong-doing if not wickedness to God if He were to execute destructive judgement upon us.
INSTEAD!
Instead, he paid an incalculable cost -- the death of His own Son -- to redeem us. We are of infinite worth because of Christ's saving love. This is the heart of of why Christians value all human lives. First, because we are created by God. Secondly, because we are created in His image as the highest expression of His nature and glory on this earth, and thirdly, because of the infinite worth of the blood of Christ which was shed to redeem us.
Secular liberals who tout human rights and dignity conveniently forget where the basis for rights and essential dignity come from -- they come from the Christian view of man created in God's image.
When people rebel against God, and reject the light of the gospel, God gives them over to a reprobate mind; people think that they can adopt select ungodly, "liberal" positions, and then stop. They can't. The Anglican Church is showing every sign of being given over, by God, to a reprobate mind.
Which means, left to their own devices apart from the sovereign grace of God, their views will become more and more heretical and ungodly.
Understood in this light, it can be said that the latest position by the Church of England is shocking, and sad, but understandable.
And that's the way the Ball bounces.
Friday, November 10, 2006
The mighty nation of PEI
The "nation" of Quebec is in the news -- again.
As a member of the mighty nation of Prince Edward Island (population One Hundred and Forty THOUSAND), I must insist that Quebec is not the real nation-province; PEI is.
We are the only province whose land mass is entirely separate from the rest of Canada (ROC). That means that we, and we alone, are the true separatists!
Yes, and we're proud!!! (but, like the pretender province of Quebec, not too proud to accept hand-outs from the ROC).
We'll agree to remain in Canada, but only if the ROC panders to us.
Let the pandering begin!
As a member of the mighty nation of Prince Edward Island (population One Hundred and Forty THOUSAND), I must insist that Quebec is not the real nation-province; PEI is.
We are the only province whose land mass is entirely separate from the rest of Canada (ROC). That means that we, and we alone, are the true separatists!
Yes, and we're proud!!! (but, like the pretender province of Quebec, not too proud to accept hand-outs from the ROC).
We'll agree to remain in Canada, but only if the ROC panders to us.
Let the pandering begin!
The Episcopal Church's Dreamer-God
The Presiding Bishop-Elect of the Episcopal Church has been enthroned. She is now the Presiding Bishop, carrying on the work of Peter and the apostles. Or so she thinks.
Her latest sermon talks about God's "dream" of shalom that the Episcopals are now busy bringing to fruition. Here's a quote: "the episkopeis of the saints, their ministry, cleans the fields of that which cannot survive in God's dream of shalom, it burns away whatever limits that dream or cannot contribute to it."
During this latest sermon she carefully avoids male pronouns in reference to God.
I'm not really up on God's "dreams", but I'm sure His dreams include being referred to as He revealed Himself, i.e., as "Father", "He" "Him" and "His". Jesus did, and, guess what?, God was not offended! Well-pleased, in fact.
Of course, God didn't have really smart people like the present Episcopal leadership back then to help him out. Had He, He no doubt would have avoided all the problems associated with representing himself as Father and Jesus as Son.
However, with the Episcopal Church's help, God is evolving. Faced with "new information", "new knowledge", as they say, He's already completely changed his mind on the whole in-the-beginning-I-created-them-male-and-female thing. Now, He understands that same-sex attractions and sexual acts were all part of HIs original intention all along.
He's becoming a God even the devil could like.
Her latest sermon talks about God's "dream" of shalom that the Episcopals are now busy bringing to fruition. Here's a quote: "the episkopeis of the saints, their ministry, cleans the fields of that which cannot survive in God's dream of shalom, it burns away whatever limits that dream or cannot contribute to it."
During this latest sermon she carefully avoids male pronouns in reference to God.
I'm not really up on God's "dreams", but I'm sure His dreams include being referred to as He revealed Himself, i.e., as "Father", "He" "Him" and "His". Jesus did, and, guess what?, God was not offended! Well-pleased, in fact.
Of course, God didn't have really smart people like the present Episcopal leadership back then to help him out. Had He, He no doubt would have avoided all the problems associated with representing himself as Father and Jesus as Son.
However, with the Episcopal Church's help, God is evolving. Faced with "new information", "new knowledge", as they say, He's already completely changed his mind on the whole in-the-beginning-I-created-them-male-and-female thing. Now, He understands that same-sex attractions and sexual acts were all part of HIs original intention all along.
He's becoming a God even the devil could like.
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
United Church Bobble-heads
The United Church of Canada (UCC) has come up with a ten million dollar solution to declining enrollments caused by its abandonment of the gospel: an advertising campaign.
One ad features an automobile bobble-head Jesus.
Another ad has a wedding cake with two men on top, with the tag-line "Does anyone object?". Apart from God, who makes it clear that he created us "male and female" (and not "heterosexual and homosexual"), apparently not.
The UCC 's purpose is not to convert anyone, however, just bring in Christians who are floating around in society, presumably unattached to any church. Or maybe their idea is to merely siphon off the converts made through other churches' hard-fought, hard-won, efforts.
Where does this leave Jesus, who commanded His followers to "go into all the world and make disciples of all nations"?
Outside the UCC. The Jesus of Scripture is far too narrow, far too exclusive, far too fundamentalist for the UCC.
Instead, it's "come as you are", and "stay as you are -- no conversion required!".
When you consider the UCC alternative, fundamentalism is looking better all the time.
One ad features an automobile bobble-head Jesus.
Another ad has a wedding cake with two men on top, with the tag-line "Does anyone object?". Apart from God, who makes it clear that he created us "male and female" (and not "heterosexual and homosexual"), apparently not.
The UCC 's purpose is not to convert anyone, however, just bring in Christians who are floating around in society, presumably unattached to any church. Or maybe their idea is to merely siphon off the converts made through other churches' hard-fought, hard-won, efforts.
Where does this leave Jesus, who commanded His followers to "go into all the world and make disciples of all nations"?
Outside the UCC. The Jesus of Scripture is far too narrow, far too exclusive, far too fundamentalist for the UCC.
Instead, it's "come as you are", and "stay as you are -- no conversion required!".
When you consider the UCC alternative, fundamentalism is looking better all the time.
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
Abortion and the Book of Revelation
Image by Getty Images via @daylifeThe juxtaposition of an article on the book of Revelation with one on abortion was probably coincidental. But one of the central tenets of Revelation, that the devil continues to deceive mankind, is surely found in the sulphurous statement quoted in the abortion article, which says, "for most women, abortion is safer than carrying a pregnancy and having a baby".
As the abortion article indicates, many women suffer terrible psychological effects after abortions. They increase their risk of breast cancer. They kill their unborn child [at least half of whom are female] and jeopardize their soul.
People would do well to pay more, not less, attention to the book of Revelation, and its message of a heroic battle between good and evil, truth and deception, destruction and redemption. In John's companion work, the gospel of John, Jesus says concerning the devil, "The thief comes not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly."
Saturday, November 04, 2006
More on "Jesus is not the only way to God"
The presiding bishop-elect of the Episcopal Church in the USA continues to get a lot of flak for going on record stating that Jesus is not the only way to God. Here's my latest take on the matter.
This woman is not fit to teach Sunday School, let alone lead a denomination.
The fact that Jesus is the way, and the only way to the Father (not "God", because Jesus Himself is divine), is Christianity 101. Since Jesus is, Himself, divine, this woman is postulating that there are other ways to Jesus besides Jesus, and that religions which flatly contradict the words and teachings of Jesus can also lead to... Jesus.
The fact is, liberals find the plain sense of Scripture repugnant. I guess they think that Jesus the Word is at odds with the written Word of God. And that the Spirit of God who inspired the Scriptures is now inspiring them along different lines.
And these are people who claim to value reason over "mindless fundamentalism"?
At least when you think along fundamentalist lines there is a coherence to your beliefs, and an alignment with what Scripture actually teaches.
Liberals are hopeless. They disconnected themselves from Scripture in the 60s, and are now hopelessly adrift. They are heading for shipwreck.
If you are in a church lead by a liberal, it's time to abandon ship. Nowhere did Jesus command us to submit to false and ungodly leadership. Follow Him.
And that's the way the Ball bounces.
This woman is not fit to teach Sunday School, let alone lead a denomination.
The fact that Jesus is the way, and the only way to the Father (not "God", because Jesus Himself is divine), is Christianity 101. Since Jesus is, Himself, divine, this woman is postulating that there are other ways to Jesus besides Jesus, and that religions which flatly contradict the words and teachings of Jesus can also lead to... Jesus.
The fact is, liberals find the plain sense of Scripture repugnant. I guess they think that Jesus the Word is at odds with the written Word of God. And that the Spirit of God who inspired the Scriptures is now inspiring them along different lines.
And these are people who claim to value reason over "mindless fundamentalism"?
At least when you think along fundamentalist lines there is a coherence to your beliefs, and an alignment with what Scripture actually teaches.
Liberals are hopeless. They disconnected themselves from Scripture in the 60s, and are now hopelessly adrift. They are heading for shipwreck.
If you are in a church lead by a liberal, it's time to abandon ship. Nowhere did Jesus command us to submit to false and ungodly leadership. Follow Him.
And that's the way the Ball bounces.
Friday, November 03, 2006
Healthcare and the Federal Government
If the federal government does have a role in a provincial matter such as healthcare, it is surely this: to ensure the complete transferability of services between one province and another; a PEI health card should be accepted in Ontario or Quebec without problems such as partial or even non-reimbursement of services.
Instead of advancing this clear federal role, the federal government has chosen rather to meddle in provincial matters such as private vs. public delivery of services. In doing so, it has demonstrated more interest in advancing an ideological agenda than in meeting the actual healthcare needs of its citizens.
For what it's worth, I have just returned from receiving an ultrasound test at an Ontario clinic, easily and conveniently booked a week ago. I've been waiting since August to receive the lottery-like letter from the PEI health authorities regarding the booking of the same test.
Thank God for the existence of privately run clinics that provide needed healthcare services.
Have I paid loads and loads of dollars into the PEI tax treasury in the last decade? Yes. Will I be compensated by the PEI government for the cost of these tests? I have no idea. They tend to look unfavourably at such extra-provincial forays. Sometimes they'll pay for half the cost or less.
One thing I do know: there is a sizeable bureaucracy that exists to determine whether this expense will be covered or not. Their salaries will definitely be covered -- by my tax dollars.
And that's the way the Ball bounces.
Instead of advancing this clear federal role, the federal government has chosen rather to meddle in provincial matters such as private vs. public delivery of services. In doing so, it has demonstrated more interest in advancing an ideological agenda than in meeting the actual healthcare needs of its citizens.
For what it's worth, I have just returned from receiving an ultrasound test at an Ontario clinic, easily and conveniently booked a week ago. I've been waiting since August to receive the lottery-like letter from the PEI health authorities regarding the booking of the same test.
Thank God for the existence of privately run clinics that provide needed healthcare services.
Have I paid loads and loads of dollars into the PEI tax treasury in the last decade? Yes. Will I be compensated by the PEI government for the cost of these tests? I have no idea. They tend to look unfavourably at such extra-provincial forays. Sometimes they'll pay for half the cost or less.
One thing I do know: there is a sizeable bureaucracy that exists to determine whether this expense will be covered or not. Their salaries will definitely be covered -- by my tax dollars.
And that's the way the Ball bounces.
Thursday, October 26, 2006
Women, veils, and slabs of meat
An Australian Cleric is in trouble for saying that women who fail to cover their faces are like slabs of open meat on a table, just inviting attack.
Fortunately for the Christian church in Australia, this intemperate remark was made not by some batty Anglican bishop, but by a cleric of the Muslim persuasion.
I know, I know -- you're shocked.
The fact is, this comment says more about the self-identity of Muslim males, as potential sexual predators stopped only by the complete covering of women's bodies, than it does about Australian women.
It also contrasts the difference between Islam, which emphasizes outward appearance and self-effort, vs. Christianity, which offers inward regeneration and empowerment through faith in Christ. Anyone who suggests that Islam and Christianity are compatible or even comparable faiths doesn't understand the profound differences between the two.
During the reign of Golda Meir a parliamentarian suggested a ban on women being out on the streets during the evening, as a means of cutting down on sexual attacks that were taking place. As Golda perhaps dryly but no doubt correctly observed, since it was the men doing the offending, it was they, and not the women, who should be banned from the streets.
Having said all this, women should dress modestly, but there's a difference between dressing like a you-know-what and being draped from head to toe.
Meanwhile, if a ban on Muslim males on Australian streets, or, perhaps, eye-blinkers, is what it takes to keep the women safe, so be it.
And that's the way the Ball bounces.
Fortunately for the Christian church in Australia, this intemperate remark was made not by some batty Anglican bishop, but by a cleric of the Muslim persuasion.
I know, I know -- you're shocked.
The fact is, this comment says more about the self-identity of Muslim males, as potential sexual predators stopped only by the complete covering of women's bodies, than it does about Australian women.
It also contrasts the difference between Islam, which emphasizes outward appearance and self-effort, vs. Christianity, which offers inward regeneration and empowerment through faith in Christ. Anyone who suggests that Islam and Christianity are compatible or even comparable faiths doesn't understand the profound differences between the two.
During the reign of Golda Meir a parliamentarian suggested a ban on women being out on the streets during the evening, as a means of cutting down on sexual attacks that were taking place. As Golda perhaps dryly but no doubt correctly observed, since it was the men doing the offending, it was they, and not the women, who should be banned from the streets.
Having said all this, women should dress modestly, but there's a difference between dressing like a you-know-what and being draped from head to toe.
Meanwhile, if a ban on Muslim males on Australian streets, or, perhaps, eye-blinkers, is what it takes to keep the women safe, so be it.
And that's the way the Ball bounces.
Sunday, October 22, 2006
I'm married to my dog
The Bishop-elect of the American Episcopal church is at it again. In a recent speech she used the fact that Scripture uses marriage as a metaphor for the relationship between God and His people as a launching point for the redefining of marriage.
Listen to her logic:
"Most often marriage is a metaphor for the relationship between God and the human soul."
[Actually not true. In Scripture it represents the unique, exclusive relationship that God has towards his covenant people (as opposed to people outside his covenant), and the exclusive faithfulness they are expected to have towards Him.]
"And if each one of us is made in the image of God, then it is also an image for all human relationships, not just those that fit our understanding of marriage."
[Not true. We may be made in the image of God, but we are not God. She makes a leap that is unsupported in Scripture or logic. Notice the effect: marriage is now no longer a concrete "fact" used to describe the intimate union of a man and a woman, but a word used to represent "all human relationships". Liberals resort to this kind of logical sleight-of-hand because the plain meaning of Scripture is repugnant to them. Unfortunately, for the ignorant and gullible, such twisting of words and meaning passes for great spiritual insight.]
"What about the relationship between parent and child, among friends, or the relationship between human beings and the rest of creation?"
[According to her view, parents can be "married" to their children, and I can be married to the cow I had for dinner, or, more likely, my dog, Robbie.]
"One of the great insights of the monastic tradition is the vow of stability. The monk promises to stay with these brothers (or sisters) until death comes, for the very reason that Jesus is pointing to in saying, “what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
[Complete and utter rubbish. Jesus' quote of Scripture represents the correct and valid use of Scripture, in which the institution of marriage by God is affirmed; hers represents the wild leap of a liberal desperate to escape Scriptures' plain meaning and majestic force. Jesus confirmed and validated marriage; she empties it of meaning. Coincidentally (or perhaps not), this is a point that critics of same-sex marriage have been making: that the real goal of radical homosexualists is to destroy the institution of marriage.]
Marriage, the fundamental institution of human society that predates nation-states and governments, is under attack; from both those in and outside of the Church. It is at times like this that one wonders if the conditions are not being put in place for the glorious return of Christ (physical, literal, actual), who will destroy his enemies and establish his kingdom -- concepts that liberals find, like the rest of Scripture, preposterous and repugnant.
Jesus said, "heaven and earth shall pass away; my words shall never pass away". I believe Him. We can put more trust in the words of Jesus than the very ground beneath our feet or the sky above our heads.
The battle rages, but, at the end of the day, the words of Jesus, in their plain and normal sense, will prevail.
And then where will liberals be?
Listen to her logic:
"Most often marriage is a metaphor for the relationship between God and the human soul."
[Actually not true. In Scripture it represents the unique, exclusive relationship that God has towards his covenant people (as opposed to people outside his covenant), and the exclusive faithfulness they are expected to have towards Him.]
"And if each one of us is made in the image of God, then it is also an image for all human relationships, not just those that fit our understanding of marriage."
[Not true. We may be made in the image of God, but we are not God. She makes a leap that is unsupported in Scripture or logic. Notice the effect: marriage is now no longer a concrete "fact" used to describe the intimate union of a man and a woman, but a word used to represent "all human relationships". Liberals resort to this kind of logical sleight-of-hand because the plain meaning of Scripture is repugnant to them. Unfortunately, for the ignorant and gullible, such twisting of words and meaning passes for great spiritual insight.]
"What about the relationship between parent and child, among friends, or the relationship between human beings and the rest of creation?"
[According to her view, parents can be "married" to their children, and I can be married to the cow I had for dinner, or, more likely, my dog, Robbie.]
"One of the great insights of the monastic tradition is the vow of stability. The monk promises to stay with these brothers (or sisters) until death comes, for the very reason that Jesus is pointing to in saying, “what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
[Complete and utter rubbish. Jesus' quote of Scripture represents the correct and valid use of Scripture, in which the institution of marriage by God is affirmed; hers represents the wild leap of a liberal desperate to escape Scriptures' plain meaning and majestic force. Jesus confirmed and validated marriage; she empties it of meaning. Coincidentally (or perhaps not), this is a point that critics of same-sex marriage have been making: that the real goal of radical homosexualists is to destroy the institution of marriage.]
Marriage, the fundamental institution of human society that predates nation-states and governments, is under attack; from both those in and outside of the Church. It is at times like this that one wonders if the conditions are not being put in place for the glorious return of Christ (physical, literal, actual), who will destroy his enemies and establish his kingdom -- concepts that liberals find, like the rest of Scripture, preposterous and repugnant.
Jesus said, "heaven and earth shall pass away; my words shall never pass away". I believe Him. We can put more trust in the words of Jesus than the very ground beneath our feet or the sky above our heads.
The battle rages, but, at the end of the day, the words of Jesus, in their plain and normal sense, will prevail.
And then where will liberals be?
Saturday, October 21, 2006
The terrorists win!
I'm back in Canada. At YVR (Vancouver), waiting for my connecting flight to YYZ (Toronto).
The check-in process was not as efficient as one would hope -- some security lines were clogged, while others were empty, because there was a bottleneck when you entered the area, and it wasn't clear that there was more than one security line open. I hate to say this, but this is typical for Vancouver.
The security line I went through had a senior guy manning the X-ray machine. He asked to check my bag. I thought he had detected the pocket knife that I had inadvertently left in the bag -- one of those Swiss Army deals, a gift, inscribed with my name, with all kinds of dangerous pull-outs, knives, corkscrews, etc. I wasn't looking forward to giving it up.
But that's not what he was after. Apparently Canadian air terminals are still on a no-liquids diet. He confiscated my unopened souvenir Coke can from Korea, and also.... my Meswak toothpaste with 70 proven ancient herbal remedies!
Bin Laden wins!
But the last laugh is on him. I've got an extra tube in the checked luggage!
And that's the way the jet-lagged Ball bounces.
The check-in process was not as efficient as one would hope -- some security lines were clogged, while others were empty, because there was a bottleneck when you entered the area, and it wasn't clear that there was more than one security line open. I hate to say this, but this is typical for Vancouver.
The security line I went through had a senior guy manning the X-ray machine. He asked to check my bag. I thought he had detected the pocket knife that I had inadvertently left in the bag -- one of those Swiss Army deals, a gift, inscribed with my name, with all kinds of dangerous pull-outs, knives, corkscrews, etc. I wasn't looking forward to giving it up.
But that's not what he was after. Apparently Canadian air terminals are still on a no-liquids diet. He confiscated my unopened souvenir Coke can from Korea, and also.... my Meswak toothpaste with 70 proven ancient herbal remedies!
Bin Laden wins!
But the last laugh is on him. I've got an extra tube in the checked luggage!
And that's the way the jet-lagged Ball bounces.
Sunday, October 15, 2006
Imagine!
Imagine!
Imagine something that's a rare combination of ancient wisdom and modern science. Imagine something containing a natural herbal ingredient recommended in renowned ancient scriptures, and providing SEVENTY (70!) different health benefits for the ENTIRE BODY!
Imagine something that is scientifically proven to help strengthen gums, prevent tooth decay, eliminate bad breath, and ensure strong teeth ALL AT ONCE!
Now imagine that this costs less than four dollars!
There's only one such item, and I AM HOLDING IT IN MY HAND!
I have, in my hand, a tube of toothpaste with the pure extract of Meswak plant. I bought it down in Little India, here in Singapore for $4 SIN ($3 CAD).
And, let me tell you this toothpaste really works. I haven't used it yet, but, I already feel better! Ancient herbal properties at work!
* * *
OK, I've tried it now. It even tastes pretty good!
I'm already feeling better-looking, and I'm pretty sure that the tightness in my scalp is the sudden surge of growing hair!
I see myself opening an import-export business, and importing this wonderful product to Canada and the USA.
If you want a tube, let me know and I'll pick you up one. That's right, using this product has made me completely altruistic!
And that's the way the Ball bounces!
Imagine something that's a rare combination of ancient wisdom and modern science. Imagine something containing a natural herbal ingredient recommended in renowned ancient scriptures, and providing SEVENTY (70!) different health benefits for the ENTIRE BODY!
Imagine something that is scientifically proven to help strengthen gums, prevent tooth decay, eliminate bad breath, and ensure strong teeth ALL AT ONCE!
Now imagine that this costs less than four dollars!
There's only one such item, and I AM HOLDING IT IN MY HAND!
I have, in my hand, a tube of toothpaste with the pure extract of Meswak plant. I bought it down in Little India, here in Singapore for $4 SIN ($3 CAD).
And, let me tell you this toothpaste really works. I haven't used it yet, but, I already feel better! Ancient herbal properties at work!
* * *
OK, I've tried it now. It even tastes pretty good!
I'm already feeling better-looking, and I'm pretty sure that the tightness in my scalp is the sudden surge of growing hair!
I see myself opening an import-export business, and importing this wonderful product to Canada and the USA.
If you want a tube, let me know and I'll pick you up one. That's right, using this product has made me completely altruistic!
And that's the way the Ball bounces!
Saturday, October 14, 2006
Genesis and the National Academy of Sciences
I attended a lecture Friday night in Singapore by a young-earth creationist from Australia.
Anyone listening to his talk would realize that darwinian evolution and the Big Bang both have serious problems, not the least of which is that they -- especially darwinian evolution -- are incompatible with what the Bible teaches about creation, the entrance of sin due to disobedience, and the subsequent effects of death and the fall.
I googled creation and evolution and came to the National Academy of Sciences website. Clearly, they view themselves as battling against anyone who dares suppose that God might have had anything to do with this present universe.
Here's what they say about origins (in a book brazenly titled Genesis):
"Life on Earth arose nearly 4 billion years ago, bursting forth from air, water, and rock. Though the process obeyed all the rules of chemistry and physics, the details of that original event pose as deep a mystery as any facing science. How did non-living chemicals become alive? While the question is (deceivingly) simple, the answers are unquestionably complex. Genesis tells the tale of transforming scientific advances in our quest for life's origins. Written with grace, beauty, and authority, it goes directly to the heart of who we are and why we are here. Published by Joseph Henry Press, an imprint of the National Academies Press. The views expressed in this book are solely those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Academies. [read FREE online]"
My question to them would be this: since you do not know, and cannot know, how life "burst forth", how can you possibly state that it "obeyed all the rules of chemistry and physics?
They can't. But they do. because to admit otherwise would be to admit to the possiblity of God. As it is, they are "in charge". The way they state it, they almost make it sound that the universe is subject to THEM, obeying the "rules" -- their rules -- of chemistry and physics.
In general it is true that Christian societies have promoted science as a legitimate enterprise of seeking to understand God's world through objective experiments. True science has thrived in Christian cultures.
But what passes for scientific objectivity today is really the philosophy of materialism -- that the material world is all there is -- dressed up in scientific garb.
And that's a shame.
Anyone listening to his talk would realize that darwinian evolution and the Big Bang both have serious problems, not the least of which is that they -- especially darwinian evolution -- are incompatible with what the Bible teaches about creation, the entrance of sin due to disobedience, and the subsequent effects of death and the fall.
I googled creation and evolution and came to the National Academy of Sciences website. Clearly, they view themselves as battling against anyone who dares suppose that God might have had anything to do with this present universe.
Here's what they say about origins (in a book brazenly titled Genesis):
"Life on Earth arose nearly 4 billion years ago, bursting forth from air, water, and rock. Though the process obeyed all the rules of chemistry and physics, the details of that original event pose as deep a mystery as any facing science. How did non-living chemicals become alive? While the question is (deceivingly) simple, the answers are unquestionably complex. Genesis tells the tale of transforming scientific advances in our quest for life's origins. Written with grace, beauty, and authority, it goes directly to the heart of who we are and why we are here. Published by Joseph Henry Press, an imprint of the National Academies Press. The views expressed in this book are solely those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Academies. [read FREE online]"
My question to them would be this: since you do not know, and cannot know, how life "burst forth", how can you possibly state that it "obeyed all the rules of chemistry and physics?
They can't. But they do. because to admit otherwise would be to admit to the possiblity of God. As it is, they are "in charge". The way they state it, they almost make it sound that the universe is subject to THEM, obeying the "rules" -- their rules -- of chemistry and physics.
In general it is true that Christian societies have promoted science as a legitimate enterprise of seeking to understand God's world through objective experiments. True science has thrived in Christian cultures.
But what passes for scientific objectivity today is really the philosophy of materialism -- that the material world is all there is -- dressed up in scientific garb.
And that's a shame.
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
Ball at the Great Wall
I was down at the Business Centre at the Holiday Inn Beijing Central Plaza promptly at 8am. to book my Great Wall tour, only to find out that it had to be booked the day before.
Rats!
(Are Christians allowed to say this?)
I was told that a private tour could be arranged with Gray Line for the sum of 980 Chinese Yuan. At first I declined, reasoning that this was twice as much as a coach tour. Then I relented. For about $130 Canadian I would have a car, a driver, and a personal guide who speaks English for an eight hour period.
Deal, or No Deal? Deal, Howie! (frappeur -- this is an allusion to a current American game show hosted by Howie Mandel.)
I could tell that the young woman in the Business Centre was very uneasy about this. I could tell that, for her, 980 Yuan was a princely sum, and far too much to spend on oneself for a day, or even for a week or a month. I could tell that, for her, it was unimaginably expensive. But, I reasoned that all-in-all this was not a bad deal, and, with my back hurting, a driver and a custom trip could not be a bad thing.
And it wasn't.
It was a great day.
We drove through Beijing. Took about an hour to get outside the city. Lots of signs of getting ready for the 2008 Beijing Olympics. They are going to install something like 150 new, additional subway stops between now and then. Can you believe it?
First stop -- the Ming Tombs. Very impressive. Lots of Feng Shui talk from the driver. In Chinese thought, the wind is bad, water is good. So you build your tombs in an area surrounded by mountains, to block the wind, but where there is water.
I took the chance to explain that, in Christianity, both the wind and the water are considered good, and that they are both used as symbols of the Holy Spirit. I spoke of Jesus being resurrected and returned to heaven, from whence he poured out the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost, and how the Spirit came like a "rushing, mighty wind". Also how the ruach or wind or Spirit of God moved upon the waters during creation. Also how Jesus said that for those who believe on him, out of their bellies would flow rivers of living water.
He also talked about the chi -- the Chinese idea of a life-force. I explained that Jesus brought a new kind of chi, that he said that the words he spoke were Spirit and Life, or chi.
The guide explained that he thought that religion was good. Nobody believe in communism anymore -- not even the communists! And the university students who have been taught not to believe in religion, and who no longer believe in communism, basically believe in nothing. A lot of them commit suicide, he said.
The last Beijing guide I had, about 10 years ago, was much more into the soft communist propaganda, and religion wasn't even on the radar of Chinese thought. In fact I believe I recall her saying that nobody believed in God anymore, and seemed rather astonished when I assured her that I and many others still do!
Second stop -- the Jade Factory. Somehow, I got the impression that they wanted me to buy some jade!
Third stop -- lunch! Lunch in the cavernous Friendship Store, run by the government. I did buy one small item. A nice aspect of this was there were no taxes. No provincial tax. No federal tax. I guess there is an advantage to the government running something, after all -- when it's taking in all the money, and setting the price, there's no need to slap taxes on top!
For lunch I had, wait for this... chinese food! A spicy chicken dish, along with soup and rice and veggies.
Fourth stop -- the Great Wall of China. What a magnificent sight! So very impressive. And, of course, what we were seeing was just one small bit of it -- it stretches for thousands of miles. I was especially interested in seeing the watchtowers, as I am working on a song right now about standing on a watchtower. Actually seeing watchtowers helped make the biblical metaphor of a watchtower that much more real.
Bible trivia time: which OT prophet talks about standing on his watchtower?
After the Wall, we headed back into Beijing, with a side-trip to "old Beijing", where they have low-lying housing and narrow streets. This part of town was originally inhabited by Mongolians. Turns out our driver lives there.
Then, back to the Beijing Holiday Inn Central Plaza. "Central Plaza" sounds so central, and, well, plaza-like. Yet it appears to be neither -- mainly a lovely new hotel at a great price in the midst of a drab complex of apartment buildings that stretch as far as the eye can see -- in all directions. I ask my guide why it is called Central Plaza. To the best of his knowledge, it is because 900 years ago, this area was in fact the centre of Beijing.
Nine hundred years ago.
And that's the way the Ball bounces.
Rats!
(Are Christians allowed to say this?)
I was told that a private tour could be arranged with Gray Line for the sum of 980 Chinese Yuan. At first I declined, reasoning that this was twice as much as a coach tour. Then I relented. For about $130 Canadian I would have a car, a driver, and a personal guide who speaks English for an eight hour period.
Deal, or No Deal? Deal, Howie! (frappeur -- this is an allusion to a current American game show hosted by Howie Mandel.)
I could tell that the young woman in the Business Centre was very uneasy about this. I could tell that, for her, 980 Yuan was a princely sum, and far too much to spend on oneself for a day, or even for a week or a month. I could tell that, for her, it was unimaginably expensive. But, I reasoned that all-in-all this was not a bad deal, and, with my back hurting, a driver and a custom trip could not be a bad thing.
And it wasn't.
It was a great day.
We drove through Beijing. Took about an hour to get outside the city. Lots of signs of getting ready for the 2008 Beijing Olympics. They are going to install something like 150 new, additional subway stops between now and then. Can you believe it?
First stop -- the Ming Tombs. Very impressive. Lots of Feng Shui talk from the driver. In Chinese thought, the wind is bad, water is good. So you build your tombs in an area surrounded by mountains, to block the wind, but where there is water.
I took the chance to explain that, in Christianity, both the wind and the water are considered good, and that they are both used as symbols of the Holy Spirit. I spoke of Jesus being resurrected and returned to heaven, from whence he poured out the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost, and how the Spirit came like a "rushing, mighty wind". Also how the ruach or wind or Spirit of God moved upon the waters during creation. Also how Jesus said that for those who believe on him, out of their bellies would flow rivers of living water.
He also talked about the chi -- the Chinese idea of a life-force. I explained that Jesus brought a new kind of chi, that he said that the words he spoke were Spirit and Life, or chi.
The guide explained that he thought that religion was good. Nobody believe in communism anymore -- not even the communists! And the university students who have been taught not to believe in religion, and who no longer believe in communism, basically believe in nothing. A lot of them commit suicide, he said.
The last Beijing guide I had, about 10 years ago, was much more into the soft communist propaganda, and religion wasn't even on the radar of Chinese thought. In fact I believe I recall her saying that nobody believed in God anymore, and seemed rather astonished when I assured her that I and many others still do!
Second stop -- the Jade Factory. Somehow, I got the impression that they wanted me to buy some jade!
Third stop -- lunch! Lunch in the cavernous Friendship Store, run by the government. I did buy one small item. A nice aspect of this was there were no taxes. No provincial tax. No federal tax. I guess there is an advantage to the government running something, after all -- when it's taking in all the money, and setting the price, there's no need to slap taxes on top!
For lunch I had, wait for this... chinese food! A spicy chicken dish, along with soup and rice and veggies.
Fourth stop -- the Great Wall of China. What a magnificent sight! So very impressive. And, of course, what we were seeing was just one small bit of it -- it stretches for thousands of miles. I was especially interested in seeing the watchtowers, as I am working on a song right now about standing on a watchtower. Actually seeing watchtowers helped make the biblical metaphor of a watchtower that much more real.
Bible trivia time: which OT prophet talks about standing on his watchtower?
After the Wall, we headed back into Beijing, with a side-trip to "old Beijing", where they have low-lying housing and narrow streets. This part of town was originally inhabited by Mongolians. Turns out our driver lives there.
Then, back to the Beijing Holiday Inn Central Plaza. "Central Plaza" sounds so central, and, well, plaza-like. Yet it appears to be neither -- mainly a lovely new hotel at a great price in the midst of a drab complex of apartment buildings that stretch as far as the eye can see -- in all directions. I ask my guide why it is called Central Plaza. To the best of his knowledge, it is because 900 years ago, this area was in fact the centre of Beijing.
Nine hundred years ago.
And that's the way the Ball bounces.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)