It was only a matter of time. Here's the money-quote:
“One reason why we have the fires in California is global warming,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) told reporters Tuesday, stressing the need to pass the Democrats’ comprehensive energy package.
Like we never had droughts or fires before 1970.
I'm waiting for this quote:
“One reason we're having such brutally cold weather is global warming”.
And that's the way the Ball bounces.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
"The Greenest Games Ever"
Someone has said that the Global Warming cult isn't really about climate change, it's about wanting to control other people's lives.
That appears to be true in London.
Organizers of the 2012 games have announced there will be zero capacity for cars at the games, and ticket-holders will be instructed daily on how to get to the various game venues by public transport. "We have a very aggressive programme to make it the greenest Games in modern times". Worse, they say they are doing this, not just to make the games more eco-friendly, to attempt to achieve a permanent shift in people's travel habits. In other words, they want to control our lives. Cars/individualism, bad; busses/collectivism, good.
I have two observations.
Firstly, I'll believe it when I see "important people" such as politicians and celebrities taking the busses and trains or whatever to the Olympic venues. Like Al Gore's opulent Tennessee mansion, the lifestyle changes the demi-gods of global warming demand are always aimed at the hoi polloi. Like the Russian communist leaders with their chauffeur-driven limos and dachas, they always grant themselves an exemption.
Secondly, this:
Earth to the London Olympic organizers: Think of all the C02 being emitted by the airplanes jetting people to London for the Games. Think of all the C02 emitted by ticket-holders taking cabs, busses or the tube to their hotels. Think of the cost of heating/airconditioning the hotels holding these people. Think of all the energy consumed by putting on the Games. All of that -- all of it -- could be eliminated by cancelling the games, or making them a strictly local event.
After all, the Olympics are just a sporting event; it's not like they are a necessity of life.
If you really believe that the planet faces imminent catastrophe due to man-made global warming, put your money where your mouth is -- cancel the games.
Otherwise, pass sensible anti-pollution measures [C02 is not a pollutant] and get on with living life to its fullest.
And that's the way the Ball bounces.
That appears to be true in London.
Organizers of the 2012 games have announced there will be zero capacity for cars at the games, and ticket-holders will be instructed daily on how to get to the various game venues by public transport. "We have a very aggressive programme to make it the greenest Games in modern times". Worse, they say they are doing this, not just to make the games more eco-friendly, to attempt to achieve a permanent shift in people's travel habits. In other words, they want to control our lives. Cars/individualism, bad; busses/collectivism, good.
I have two observations.
Firstly, I'll believe it when I see "important people" such as politicians and celebrities taking the busses and trains or whatever to the Olympic venues. Like Al Gore's opulent Tennessee mansion, the lifestyle changes the demi-gods of global warming demand are always aimed at the hoi polloi. Like the Russian communist leaders with their chauffeur-driven limos and dachas, they always grant themselves an exemption.
Secondly, this:
Earth to the London Olympic organizers: Think of all the C02 being emitted by the airplanes jetting people to London for the Games. Think of all the C02 emitted by ticket-holders taking cabs, busses or the tube to their hotels. Think of the cost of heating/airconditioning the hotels holding these people. Think of all the energy consumed by putting on the Games. All of that -- all of it -- could be eliminated by cancelling the games, or making them a strictly local event.
After all, the Olympics are just a sporting event; it's not like they are a necessity of life.
If you really believe that the planet faces imminent catastrophe due to man-made global warming, put your money where your mouth is -- cancel the games.
Otherwise, pass sensible anti-pollution measures [C02 is not a pollutant] and get on with living life to its fullest.
And that's the way the Ball bounces.
Saturday, October 20, 2007
"He was praying in the fields..."
A month or so ago I received a prayer request from my hosts in Africa, John and Ruth Kerr. It concerned a graduate of Trans-Africa College, where I have the privilege of teaching Apologetics classes each year. This is a story of our sovereign God's working in the life of a Spirit-filled, faith-filled believer in Jesus Christ. I hope you enjoy reading it, and I hope you will pray for the safety and success of Trans-Africa College.
* * *
KERRENT EVENTS
October 20, 2007
Greetings Friends!
A few weeks ago we asked you to pray for our recent graduate, Charles Mulumena, and his release from prison? Here's his story!
What can you say about our Charles Mulumena? He was praying in the fields, hearing the footsteps he thought were heavenly messengers! Unfortunately, when he opened his eyes he was surrounded by the police. It was The Drug Enforcement Unit. And they were taking him downtown!
“Can I at least go back for my Bible?,” he asked.
“No! You are coming now. We need your testimony. You can be released after you testify.” So Charles went along, assuming they’d be coming back later, like the arresting officer said. Much later, Charles was on his way into custody for four months – a morning quiet time with a twist!
They took him to the Police Station and booked him, along with a half dozen drug dealers. It turned out that those footsteps he had heard were a bunch of pushers and thieves running from the police. Poor Charles! He was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Four days passed before the hearing. Charles kept busy sharing his faith with some of the lost souls in the Remand Centre. He was comfortable in the knowledge that the booking officer knew he was innocent. He would be a free man in a few days. Or so he thought!
As it turned out, the booking officer who knew his situation had been called away on the fourth day. Charles was charged along with the drug dealers! His crime? Being in possession of 3.5kgs of marijuana as confirmed by Kitwe’s Drug Enforcement Unit – a “very corrupt unit,” it is said. Charles says when he heard the charge he almost burst out laughing.
But this was the stuff of tears. Our Charles Mulumena, illustrious graduate of Trans-Africa College, youth worker-evangelist par excellence – now hand-cuffed and delivered to the Kamphinsa Penitentiary, one of the largest, and most degraded insititutions in all of Southern Africa! For at least one month, until the next hearing. Awaiting final sentencing.
Suddenly he was surrounded by some of the toughest customers in Zambia.
“You must be a Pastor,” said the ringleader, a miniature Mafioso and a murderer. “You don't look like you could kill anyone -- right boys?" They grinned and nodded their agreement -- a rag-tag bunch of petty thieves and hardened criminals. "No, he is not one of us."
“Yes, I am a pastor,” Charles replied.
“You see? A Pastor. I knew it.” He was a novelty and his gracious manner soon gained him respect and favor. In fact, from the first day at the prison, he was treated like a divine emissary.
But he was far from happy about his plight. His first night was full of tears and lamentations -- asking God the "Why" questions? And "How?" "How could a morning of prayer turn into this? ... Why, God?.... Why have you allowed this to happen to me?" Then, he says, a very supernatural peace came over him. He knew God had sent him there for a purpose.
The chaplain soon had him preaching three times daily in the auditorium. The Holy Spirit began to move. Inmates began to get saved. Arrangements were made to baptize a group of new believers. New converts included a prison guard. Two notorious Satanists, who had killed many people, were among these new Christians. So transformed were these young men, who had been steeped in witchcraft, that they became Charles’ primary supporters and "personal workers." They made sure the chapel was full for services. They brought along inmates with special needs for prayer. Miracles of healing were taking place. Charles found himself ministering to all the great host of unaddressed needs and injustices that fill such tragic dumping wards worldwide.
The month was soon past and the day for his appearing before the judge came. He was transported into town and sat in the courtroom ready to go home. But there was no judge! His Honour was away for a funeral. They would have to reconvene for sentencing -- in another thirty days! Charles was back to Kamphinsa again!
He was one sad young man as he filed out with the prison population again. But as he made his way to the truck, he spotted his “arresting officer” in the hall! And the man recognized him!
“But Pastor!... what are you doing here? You were supposed to have been released the same day!” He promised to follow it up and get Charles freed. But three more months behind bars awaited our Charles – because the judge did not appear as needed.
Fortunately, Charles was spared the normal sleeping arrangements, 54 inmates laid out like cord wood in a room the size of a school room. Someone found him a mattress and a private corner. Friends and fellow-students brought him food -- a very welcome relief from prison fare! Most important, Charles' ministry just continued to expand and grow. Special meetings were arranged for the serious offenders in the Penal Section. Many were saved and baptized.
“Over a thousand committed their lives," he said later. “I left at least 88 new Christians, committed to meeting together. God took me there.... He sent me on a mission."
Just before his release, a hand-delivered letter from Charles appeared at our door:
Dearest Dr. and Mrs. Kerr,
It's so amazing to think of you people.... Where would my life have been without you good people at TTC? I have a lot to say about the grace of God that the Apostle Paulsays is suffiecient for him.
Indeed, it is sufficient for me as well. I'm sure you have been told about my whole story that I am facingnow, though not in full maybe.
Now I have come to understand that indeed "all things work together for good to them that love the Lord," as Paul puts it. God brought me to prison for a purpose and that purpose is to accomplish His divine mission in my life.
For sure a lot of people have wondered as to what could be happening with and in me. But then one thing I assure you is that I have learnt a lot here in terms of ministry and God is using me greatly to reach the lost souls. As a matter of fact our chaplain has picked me to be the pastor in charge of other cell pastors and prisoners.
Not only that, but God has also opened ministry opportunities for both me and my church that even after my discharge, I'll be ministering in prison. There are many wonders that I'll be sharing with you in person.
I'm so glad to learn that even the college community is praying for me. Be rest assured that your faithful prayers are working wonders. May the Lord God of the harvest be there for all fo you and blessiongs to all of you people.
I love you and please continue praying for I'll be appearing in court on the 12 of this month.
Goodbye for now.
Your faithful Prisoner of Christ,
Pastor Charles
Now that he's a free man, Charles spends a lot of time walking around town. We met him in front of Shoprite a few days after his release.
"I don’t believe that mission is ended," he said. "I want to continue doing prison ministry!”
And we really want to help make that happen! God has opened this door. We must make sure that this ministry continues -- and also that Charles can be an advocate for the many prisoners who, like him, have ended up in Kamphinsa without knowing why.
Join us in prayer about this! Together we can help build this ministry from the ground up!
Blessings,
John and Ruth [Kerr]
* * *
KERRENT EVENTS
October 20, 2007
Greetings Friends!
A few weeks ago we asked you to pray for our recent graduate, Charles Mulumena, and his release from prison? Here's his story!
What can you say about our Charles Mulumena? He was praying in the fields, hearing the footsteps he thought were heavenly messengers! Unfortunately, when he opened his eyes he was surrounded by the police. It was The Drug Enforcement Unit. And they were taking him downtown!
“Can I at least go back for my Bible?,” he asked.
“No! You are coming now. We need your testimony. You can be released after you testify.” So Charles went along, assuming they’d be coming back later, like the arresting officer said. Much later, Charles was on his way into custody for four months – a morning quiet time with a twist!
They took him to the Police Station and booked him, along with a half dozen drug dealers. It turned out that those footsteps he had heard were a bunch of pushers and thieves running from the police. Poor Charles! He was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Four days passed before the hearing. Charles kept busy sharing his faith with some of the lost souls in the Remand Centre. He was comfortable in the knowledge that the booking officer knew he was innocent. He would be a free man in a few days. Or so he thought!
As it turned out, the booking officer who knew his situation had been called away on the fourth day. Charles was charged along with the drug dealers! His crime? Being in possession of 3.5kgs of marijuana as confirmed by Kitwe’s Drug Enforcement Unit – a “very corrupt unit,” it is said. Charles says when he heard the charge he almost burst out laughing.
But this was the stuff of tears. Our Charles Mulumena, illustrious graduate of Trans-Africa College, youth worker-evangelist par excellence – now hand-cuffed and delivered to the Kamphinsa Penitentiary, one of the largest, and most degraded insititutions in all of Southern Africa! For at least one month, until the next hearing. Awaiting final sentencing.
Suddenly he was surrounded by some of the toughest customers in Zambia.
“You must be a Pastor,” said the ringleader, a miniature Mafioso and a murderer. “You don't look like you could kill anyone -- right boys?" They grinned and nodded their agreement -- a rag-tag bunch of petty thieves and hardened criminals. "No, he is not one of us."
“Yes, I am a pastor,” Charles replied.
“You see? A Pastor. I knew it.” He was a novelty and his gracious manner soon gained him respect and favor. In fact, from the first day at the prison, he was treated like a divine emissary.
But he was far from happy about his plight. His first night was full of tears and lamentations -- asking God the "Why" questions? And "How?" "How could a morning of prayer turn into this? ... Why, God?.... Why have you allowed this to happen to me?" Then, he says, a very supernatural peace came over him. He knew God had sent him there for a purpose.
The chaplain soon had him preaching three times daily in the auditorium. The Holy Spirit began to move. Inmates began to get saved. Arrangements were made to baptize a group of new believers. New converts included a prison guard. Two notorious Satanists, who had killed many people, were among these new Christians. So transformed were these young men, who had been steeped in witchcraft, that they became Charles’ primary supporters and "personal workers." They made sure the chapel was full for services. They brought along inmates with special needs for prayer. Miracles of healing were taking place. Charles found himself ministering to all the great host of unaddressed needs and injustices that fill such tragic dumping wards worldwide.
The month was soon past and the day for his appearing before the judge came. He was transported into town and sat in the courtroom ready to go home. But there was no judge! His Honour was away for a funeral. They would have to reconvene for sentencing -- in another thirty days! Charles was back to Kamphinsa again!
He was one sad young man as he filed out with the prison population again. But as he made his way to the truck, he spotted his “arresting officer” in the hall! And the man recognized him!
“But Pastor!... what are you doing here? You were supposed to have been released the same day!” He promised to follow it up and get Charles freed. But three more months behind bars awaited our Charles – because the judge did not appear as needed.
Fortunately, Charles was spared the normal sleeping arrangements, 54 inmates laid out like cord wood in a room the size of a school room. Someone found him a mattress and a private corner. Friends and fellow-students brought him food -- a very welcome relief from prison fare! Most important, Charles' ministry just continued to expand and grow. Special meetings were arranged for the serious offenders in the Penal Section. Many were saved and baptized.
“Over a thousand committed their lives," he said later. “I left at least 88 new Christians, committed to meeting together. God took me there.... He sent me on a mission."
Just before his release, a hand-delivered letter from Charles appeared at our door:
Dearest Dr. and Mrs. Kerr,
It's so amazing to think of you people.... Where would my life have been without you good people at TTC? I have a lot to say about the grace of God that the Apostle Paulsays is suffiecient for him.
Indeed, it is sufficient for me as well. I'm sure you have been told about my whole story that I am facingnow, though not in full maybe.
Now I have come to understand that indeed "all things work together for good to them that love the Lord," as Paul puts it. God brought me to prison for a purpose and that purpose is to accomplish His divine mission in my life.
For sure a lot of people have wondered as to what could be happening with and in me. But then one thing I assure you is that I have learnt a lot here in terms of ministry and God is using me greatly to reach the lost souls. As a matter of fact our chaplain has picked me to be the pastor in charge of other cell pastors and prisoners.
Not only that, but God has also opened ministry opportunities for both me and my church that even after my discharge, I'll be ministering in prison. There are many wonders that I'll be sharing with you in person.
I'm so glad to learn that even the college community is praying for me. Be rest assured that your faithful prayers are working wonders. May the Lord God of the harvest be there for all fo you and blessiongs to all of you people.
I love you and please continue praying for I'll be appearing in court on the 12 of this month.
Goodbye for now.
Your faithful Prisoner of Christ,
Pastor Charles
Now that he's a free man, Charles spends a lot of time walking around town. We met him in front of Shoprite a few days after his release.
"I don’t believe that mission is ended," he said. "I want to continue doing prison ministry!”
And we really want to help make that happen! God has opened this door. We must make sure that this ministry continues -- and also that Charles can be an advocate for the many prisoners who, like him, have ended up in Kamphinsa without knowing why.
Join us in prayer about this! Together we can help build this ministry from the ground up!
Blessings,
John and Ruth [Kerr]
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Male and Female Created He Them (?)
According to the book of Genesis, God created man in his image as the crowning act of creation. "Let us make man in our image... male and female created he them".
Apparently not.
WorldNetDaily is reporting today that Arnold Schwarzenegger has passed into law an education bill that would effectively ban the words "Mom" "Dad" and "Husband" "Wife" from school text books and curriculums. I've seen this coming and reported on it. But I didn't see this next one coming.
He has also banned teaching that persons are born as either male or female. That is considered discriminatory because it doesn't acknowledge people who are born "in between".
Who would have thought that stating that persons are either male or female would be considered such a dangerous idea that it must be banned from a child's education?
At the same time, in order to promote sexual choice and freedom, boys will be able to use girls' restrooms and locker rooms, and vice-versa. I'm not entirely unfamiliar with this concept. Having done a lot of professional seminars in San Francisco, I knew that there was a movement to allow a person to be whatever sex they decided to be.
What a sad day for kids.
It appears that segments of our society are in full-blown ideological rebellion against the revelation of God's word. The Bible teaches that a society can become so corrupt, and its corruption so ingrained in the fabric of the society, that God has no choice but to destroy it. I'm not saying we're there, but I am saying we are inching towards it.
There are two concepts that cover this controversy, and a third that provides the antedote:
a) Creation. We were created in innocency by a good and all-powerful Creator.
b) Disorder. Through rebellion against God, we fell from our original state, and our sinful, fallen state is now passed from one generation to the next through DNA. All of the sexual confusion and perversion that is out there is due to our fallen condition. It is not liberating to "go with it". It is enslaving.
c) Redemption. We have forgiveness in Jesus Christ. More than that, we have sanctification -- deliverance, cleansing, healing, restoration. More than that, we have the promise of glorification and release from these sinful, mortal bodies in the resurrection at the last Day.
Of course, the secular mind that begins with darwinian evolution as its starting point has no place to believe either a) or b), so has little inclination to believe c).
Pity.
Secularists may think that we can do a fine job of coping without reference to God in our society, but I gotta tell ya, so far I'm not impressed.
All of life and all of reality should be worked out by working backwards and forwards from the Resurrection. The Resurrection occurred. Therefore Jesus is divine. Therefore Scriptures are indeed reliable and the word of God. Therefore, we were created, fallen, and have been redeemed in Jesus Christ, etc.
We need Jesus now more than ever.
And that's the way the Ball bounces.
Apparently not.
WorldNetDaily is reporting today that Arnold Schwarzenegger has passed into law an education bill that would effectively ban the words "Mom" "Dad" and "Husband" "Wife" from school text books and curriculums. I've seen this coming and reported on it. But I didn't see this next one coming.
He has also banned teaching that persons are born as either male or female. That is considered discriminatory because it doesn't acknowledge people who are born "in between".
Who would have thought that stating that persons are either male or female would be considered such a dangerous idea that it must be banned from a child's education?
At the same time, in order to promote sexual choice and freedom, boys will be able to use girls' restrooms and locker rooms, and vice-versa. I'm not entirely unfamiliar with this concept. Having done a lot of professional seminars in San Francisco, I knew that there was a movement to allow a person to be whatever sex they decided to be.
What a sad day for kids.
It appears that segments of our society are in full-blown ideological rebellion against the revelation of God's word. The Bible teaches that a society can become so corrupt, and its corruption so ingrained in the fabric of the society, that God has no choice but to destroy it. I'm not saying we're there, but I am saying we are inching towards it.
There are two concepts that cover this controversy, and a third that provides the antedote:
a) Creation. We were created in innocency by a good and all-powerful Creator.
b) Disorder. Through rebellion against God, we fell from our original state, and our sinful, fallen state is now passed from one generation to the next through DNA. All of the sexual confusion and perversion that is out there is due to our fallen condition. It is not liberating to "go with it". It is enslaving.
c) Redemption. We have forgiveness in Jesus Christ. More than that, we have sanctification -- deliverance, cleansing, healing, restoration. More than that, we have the promise of glorification and release from these sinful, mortal bodies in the resurrection at the last Day.
Of course, the secular mind that begins with darwinian evolution as its starting point has no place to believe either a) or b), so has little inclination to believe c).
Pity.
Secularists may think that we can do a fine job of coping without reference to God in our society, but I gotta tell ya, so far I'm not impressed.
All of life and all of reality should be worked out by working backwards and forwards from the Resurrection. The Resurrection occurred. Therefore Jesus is divine. Therefore Scriptures are indeed reliable and the word of God. Therefore, we were created, fallen, and have been redeemed in Jesus Christ, etc.
We need Jesus now more than ever.
And that's the way the Ball bounces.
I Never Thought I'd Live To See The Day...
A dead Tim Hortons store. An emasculated building with all the Tim Hortons signage removed and shadowy phantom imprints where the signage used to be. A Tim Hortons gone belly-up. Never thought I'd live to see such a sight. Never seen one before. Expect I'll never see one again.
Surely they must be renovating, or, more likely yet, they've moved to another spot close by, bigger and better, I thought.
Nope. Gone. Ghosted.
I get the inside dope from the manager down the street at the Wendy's. Rumour has it it was because:
a) the rents in the mall are very high, and/or
b) there was no room at this Tim's for a drive-through.
Ah, yes. That would explain it.
We're passing through Edmundston, New Brunswick, not some tony Toronto or Vancouver downtown Tim's, and ya gotta have a drive-through. It all makes sense now.
Of course, there's another Tim's, the manager of Wendy's assures us, just down the road, and you turn left.
This is something you can pretty much count on in Canada. There's always another Tim's.
Just down the road.
And that's the way the Timbit bounces.
Surely they must be renovating, or, more likely yet, they've moved to another spot close by, bigger and better, I thought.
Nope. Gone. Ghosted.
I get the inside dope from the manager down the street at the Wendy's. Rumour has it it was because:
a) the rents in the mall are very high, and/or
b) there was no room at this Tim's for a drive-through.
Ah, yes. That would explain it.
We're passing through Edmundston, New Brunswick, not some tony Toronto or Vancouver downtown Tim's, and ya gotta have a drive-through. It all makes sense now.
Of course, there's another Tim's, the manager of Wendy's assures us, just down the road, and you turn left.
This is something you can pretty much count on in Canada. There's always another Tim's.
Just down the road.
And that's the way the Timbit bounces.
Sunday, October 14, 2007
2008: The Nobel Appease Prize
Al Gore has won the Nobel Peace Prize.
I'm not sure what a slick, highly-exaggerated Powerpoint presentation on Anthropogenic Global Warming has to do with world peace, but that doesn't matter because the Nobel Committee does. According to the Committee, global warming will result in famines, droughts, civil unrest, and war.
Yikes! If you're not in the global warming camp, you are for war and the destruction of civilization as we know it. Come to think of it, Al Gore said something to that effect.
I'm not a big fan of the Nobel Peace Prize, ever since that cuddly teddy-bear of a terrorist Yassar Arafat got the honour.
I think what the West needs instead is an Appease Prize, an annual award going to the individual/organization that has done the most to placate and/or appease Muslim fundamentalists and/or other multicultural groups demanding their way of life at the expense of ours.
As for awards, awards are nice, but the award I covet is a simple "well done, thou good and faithful servant". I count myself acutely undeserving of this, but continue to pray that I might receive grace to be counted among God's elect.
May God's freshly outpoured mercy and grace be upon all who read this.
Blessings on you in Jesus' name!
And that's the way the Ball bounces.
I'm not sure what a slick, highly-exaggerated Powerpoint presentation on Anthropogenic Global Warming has to do with world peace, but that doesn't matter because the Nobel Committee does. According to the Committee, global warming will result in famines, droughts, civil unrest, and war.
Yikes! If you're not in the global warming camp, you are for war and the destruction of civilization as we know it. Come to think of it, Al Gore said something to that effect.
I'm not a big fan of the Nobel Peace Prize, ever since that cuddly teddy-bear of a terrorist Yassar Arafat got the honour.
I think what the West needs instead is an Appease Prize, an annual award going to the individual/organization that has done the most to placate and/or appease Muslim fundamentalists and/or other multicultural groups demanding their way of life at the expense of ours.
As for awards, awards are nice, but the award I covet is a simple "well done, thou good and faithful servant". I count myself acutely undeserving of this, but continue to pray that I might receive grace to be counted among God's elect.
May God's freshly outpoured mercy and grace be upon all who read this.
Blessings on you in Jesus' name!
And that's the way the Ball bounces.
Saturday, October 13, 2007
Helicopters Making A Racket
Just sitting in the living room when I heard a tremendous racket outside. Went to investigate. From our back deck I saw two large, grey, military-style helicopters hovering over the Lieutenant-Governor's mansion across the way from us.
No doubt has to do with Prince Edward's official visit to the province. He is worshipping tomorrow at St. Peter's Cathedral in Charlottetown. They are doing a Morning Prayer service for him, rather than the usual Eucharist service.
Earlier this week, we went out to our back deck and witnessed the International Space Station pass overhead at around 7:30pm one evening. It took about two minutes to traverse the sky.
Man may scratch the sky, but it is God who reigns high above us all.
No doubt has to do with Prince Edward's official visit to the province. He is worshipping tomorrow at St. Peter's Cathedral in Charlottetown. They are doing a Morning Prayer service for him, rather than the usual Eucharist service.
Earlier this week, we went out to our back deck and witnessed the International Space Station pass overhead at around 7:30pm one evening. It took about two minutes to traverse the sky.
Man may scratch the sky, but it is God who reigns high above us all.
Sunday, October 07, 2007
Christian Fruitcakes
Posted over at SDA by: SDC at October 7, 2007 7:39
"No one is against Allah, except those who burn in hell."
vs.
"I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
There's no real difference between these two unsubstantiated sentiments; just because the Muslims are deluded doesn't mean that Christians aren't EQUALLY deluded. At least most of the CHRISTIAN religous fruitcakes aren't willing to kill people to shove their particular religion down their throats.
My response:
SDC: Thanks for quoting Christ. If I had to choose between listening to him or you, it would be no contest. As for substantiation of claims, the miracles Christ did, the voice from heaven saying "This is my Son", and the little matter of Christ's resurrection from the dead are all evidences that substantiate his claim to be in unique communion with the Father. The fact that the leaders of the early church chose death rather than renounce their eye-witness testimony of Christ's resurrection is further substantiation. As is the pouring out of the Holy Spirit -- an experiential dimension that continues to this day and to which millions have attested.
Now, what are your credentials as a purveyor of truth?
"No one is against Allah, except those who burn in hell."
vs.
"I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
There's no real difference between these two unsubstantiated sentiments; just because the Muslims are deluded doesn't mean that Christians aren't EQUALLY deluded. At least most of the CHRISTIAN religous fruitcakes aren't willing to kill people to shove their particular religion down their throats.
My response:
SDC: Thanks for quoting Christ. If I had to choose between listening to him or you, it would be no contest. As for substantiation of claims, the miracles Christ did, the voice from heaven saying "This is my Son", and the little matter of Christ's resurrection from the dead are all evidences that substantiate his claim to be in unique communion with the Father. The fact that the leaders of the early church chose death rather than renounce their eye-witness testimony of Christ's resurrection is further substantiation. As is the pouring out of the Holy Spirit -- an experiential dimension that continues to this day and to which millions have attested.
Now, what are your credentials as a purveyor of truth?
Monday, October 01, 2007
Separation of Church and State?
Someone asks, "Correct me but... Canada's initial players did have the express intention to be secular, because of fear of the 'Roman' French. Yes?"
My response --
I doubt if the the word "secular" was even part of their vocabulary.
* Parliament began until very recently with prayer in Jesus' name.
* The Parliament Buildings have Bible verses carved in stone, where it's difficult for secularists to get their hands on them, testifying to the reign of the Messiah.
* Canada's motto "from sea to sea" is an allusion to the coming Messiah's reign.
* Marriage, in keeping with judeo-christian beliefs, was rooted in human biology and the presumptive rights of children, to be born, and raised in a two-parent family consisting of one mother and one father.
* Supreme Court judges to this day invoke God's aid in fulfilling their mandate.
The doctrine of separation of church and state simply means that the Church, as an organization, should not run the state, and, importantly, vica-versa. It does not mean that a state cannot be suffused with values that derive from the religious values and beliefs of its citizens.
If, however, Canada wants to have strict separation of Church and state, then for starters we can
-- abolish all laws against stealing
-- abolish all laws that require persons to make truthful statements (such as tax forms)
-- abolish all laws against murder
-- abolish all laws that contribute to the idea that we are our "brother's keeper" and that we ought to take care of one another
-- abolish all notions that humans have intrinsic worth and dignity -- a particular contribution of judeo-christian thought based on being created in the image of God.
And that's the way the Ball bounces.
PS -- I'm in Essex Junction, Vermont tonight, and I discovered that there's an Uno's Pizzeria in Burlington, VT. I'm a happy guy!
My response --
I doubt if the the word "secular" was even part of their vocabulary.
* Parliament began until very recently with prayer in Jesus' name.
* The Parliament Buildings have Bible verses carved in stone, where it's difficult for secularists to get their hands on them, testifying to the reign of the Messiah.
* Canada's motto "from sea to sea" is an allusion to the coming Messiah's reign.
* Marriage, in keeping with judeo-christian beliefs, was rooted in human biology and the presumptive rights of children, to be born, and raised in a two-parent family consisting of one mother and one father.
* Supreme Court judges to this day invoke God's aid in fulfilling their mandate.
The doctrine of separation of church and state simply means that the Church, as an organization, should not run the state, and, importantly, vica-versa. It does not mean that a state cannot be suffused with values that derive from the religious values and beliefs of its citizens.
If, however, Canada wants to have strict separation of Church and state, then for starters we can
-- abolish all laws against stealing
-- abolish all laws that require persons to make truthful statements (such as tax forms)
-- abolish all laws against murder
-- abolish all laws that contribute to the idea that we are our "brother's keeper" and that we ought to take care of one another
-- abolish all notions that humans have intrinsic worth and dignity -- a particular contribution of judeo-christian thought based on being created in the image of God.
And that's the way the Ball bounces.
PS -- I'm in Essex Junction, Vermont tonight, and I discovered that there's an Uno's Pizzeria in Burlington, VT. I'm a happy guy!
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Religions and Glorious Diversity
The province of Ontario was founded with two schools system. It's incorporated into the constitution; it's part of the very fabric of the province.
The two original school systems were both Christian -- one was Protestant, the other Catholic. Since the Protestants were the majority, the Catholic system was viewed as a minority system, and the Protestant one was viewed as the dominant or "public" school system.
The "public" school system may not have been officially and legally incorporated as a Protestant Christian system, but there was no doubt it was Protestant in fact if not in name -- it reflected the culture of its day.
I can remember, as a boy, beginning each day with the Lord's Prayer. It meant absolutely nothing to me. I was not a Christian. My parents were nominally Christian, but faith was neither mentioned nor taught in our home. So students like me just went through the motions and recited it.
But, there it was. A stake in the ground. A symbolic representation, in spoken words, of Ontario's founding culture. Ontario was a Christian culture. And Christianity was the dominant ideology that would provide moral light to Ontario's citizens.
I remember a Protestant minister once visited one of our grade-school classes. He made a deep impression on me. I was still not a Christian.
I remember that, in grade nine, we had to study one of the books of the Bible. It was part of the curriculum requirements. We were still reciting the Lord's Prayer. I was thinking about girls, basketball, and the Beatles, and was still not a Christian
The Lord's Prayer was removed from Ontario schools in the name of multiculturalism and plurality. Secularists have since seized upon the removal of such Christian trappings to proclaim that Ontario is a secular province, and Canada a secular country (as if this were always so).
But it wasn't always so.
Today, a debate is raging in Ontario over whether the government should extend funding to all religious schools, and not just the remaining legal stump, the Catholic school system.
Toleranct, multicultural, diverse Ontarions are showing an aversion to doing this that amounts to an intolerance of religion bordering on bigotry.
Don't get me wrong.
I'm not necessarily against a single, unified school system used to propagate the beliefs and values of a unified, unitary culture. But this is not what Ontario is about. Like other provinces, and Canada as a whole, it has embraced the multicultural ideology that embraces all kinds of cultures, beliefs and values.
If that were true, the province would presumably embrace multiple school systems, just as it claims to embrace multiple cultures. What is more characteristic of a culture than its educational philosophy and practices?
Yet, letter-writers argue that in order to promote glorious diversity Ontario must have a single, state-controlled school system. They suggest that religious instruction breeds intolerance; they suggest in effect that religious persons who spend their own hard-earned cash to educate their children according to their religious faith are anti-social, and bad for society. So much for embracing diversity; scratch a diversity-lover beneath the surface and you have someone insisting on conformance by everybody else to his or her beliefs and values.
The problem with demanding that persons of faith fund a secular school system and send their kids to it (unless they can afford to "pay twice") is that secular public schools are neither faith- nor morality-neutral. They have a distinct world-view, and it is one that is antithetical to the worldview of Christians who believe in a loving God who should be embraced in all aspects daily life, including (no, especially,) the education of one's children. (For example, in the name of Tolerance, Canadian school children cannot be told that there is a kind God who loves them, but must be told that homosexuality is a perfectly splendid practice -- so much for moral or religious neutrality.)
Another point has to do with public funding. Letter-writers are against "public funds" being used to finance religious instruction (but they don't seem to have a problem with "public funds" being used to promote functional atheism).
Here is my response to the secularists who oppose the use of "public funds" for religious education:
"There is really no such thing as public funds. All there is is pooled money that has been taken from private individual sources. As much as you may dislike it, persons of faith are just as much members of the public as anyone else. Yet you confiscate their funds and use it to fund the school system of your choice. Those same funds should be available to them, either by voucher or allocation, to educate their children as they see fit.
By all means be in favour of a single public school system -- that is a legitimate position to have. But drop the claim of being in favour of multiculturalism and diversity too."
And that's the way the Ball bounces.
The two original school systems were both Christian -- one was Protestant, the other Catholic. Since the Protestants were the majority, the Catholic system was viewed as a minority system, and the Protestant one was viewed as the dominant or "public" school system.
The "public" school system may not have been officially and legally incorporated as a Protestant Christian system, but there was no doubt it was Protestant in fact if not in name -- it reflected the culture of its day.
I can remember, as a boy, beginning each day with the Lord's Prayer. It meant absolutely nothing to me. I was not a Christian. My parents were nominally Christian, but faith was neither mentioned nor taught in our home. So students like me just went through the motions and recited it.
But, there it was. A stake in the ground. A symbolic representation, in spoken words, of Ontario's founding culture. Ontario was a Christian culture. And Christianity was the dominant ideology that would provide moral light to Ontario's citizens.
I remember a Protestant minister once visited one of our grade-school classes. He made a deep impression on me. I was still not a Christian.
I remember that, in grade nine, we had to study one of the books of the Bible. It was part of the curriculum requirements. We were still reciting the Lord's Prayer. I was thinking about girls, basketball, and the Beatles, and was still not a Christian
The Lord's Prayer was removed from Ontario schools in the name of multiculturalism and plurality. Secularists have since seized upon the removal of such Christian trappings to proclaim that Ontario is a secular province, and Canada a secular country (as if this were always so).
But it wasn't always so.
Today, a debate is raging in Ontario over whether the government should extend funding to all religious schools, and not just the remaining legal stump, the Catholic school system.
Toleranct, multicultural, diverse Ontarions are showing an aversion to doing this that amounts to an intolerance of religion bordering on bigotry.
Don't get me wrong.
I'm not necessarily against a single, unified school system used to propagate the beliefs and values of a unified, unitary culture. But this is not what Ontario is about. Like other provinces, and Canada as a whole, it has embraced the multicultural ideology that embraces all kinds of cultures, beliefs and values.
If that were true, the province would presumably embrace multiple school systems, just as it claims to embrace multiple cultures. What is more characteristic of a culture than its educational philosophy and practices?
Yet, letter-writers argue that in order to promote glorious diversity Ontario must have a single, state-controlled school system. They suggest that religious instruction breeds intolerance; they suggest in effect that religious persons who spend their own hard-earned cash to educate their children according to their religious faith are anti-social, and bad for society. So much for embracing diversity; scratch a diversity-lover beneath the surface and you have someone insisting on conformance by everybody else to his or her beliefs and values.
The problem with demanding that persons of faith fund a secular school system and send their kids to it (unless they can afford to "pay twice") is that secular public schools are neither faith- nor morality-neutral. They have a distinct world-view, and it is one that is antithetical to the worldview of Christians who believe in a loving God who should be embraced in all aspects daily life, including (no, especially,) the education of one's children. (For example, in the name of Tolerance, Canadian school children cannot be told that there is a kind God who loves them, but must be told that homosexuality is a perfectly splendid practice -- so much for moral or religious neutrality.)
Another point has to do with public funding. Letter-writers are against "public funds" being used to finance religious instruction (but they don't seem to have a problem with "public funds" being used to promote functional atheism).
Here is my response to the secularists who oppose the use of "public funds" for religious education:
"There is really no such thing as public funds. All there is is pooled money that has been taken from private individual sources. As much as you may dislike it, persons of faith are just as much members of the public as anyone else. Yet you confiscate their funds and use it to fund the school system of your choice. Those same funds should be available to them, either by voucher or allocation, to educate their children as they see fit.
By all means be in favour of a single public school system -- that is a legitimate position to have. But drop the claim of being in favour of multiculturalism and diversity too."
And that's the way the Ball bounces.
Friday, September 28, 2007
After all, chimpanzees are only human
Animal rights activists in Austria, who just happen to be human beings, are lobbying the Austrian courts to declare a certain chimpanzee to be a person.
As far as I know, no chimpanzees have lobbied either human or chimpanzee courts to be recognized as persons.
Aren't the human animal rights activists being a bit presumptuous to deign to claim to know what the chimpanzees want? Doesn't it suggest a presumption of superiority on the part of the humans?
And wouldn't that make them specieists?
Please, in the name of equality and equity, and plain-old down-home common sense, let the chimpanzees speak for themselves.
And let's put a stop to specieism.
As far as I know, no chimpanzees have lobbied either human or chimpanzee courts to be recognized as persons.
Aren't the human animal rights activists being a bit presumptuous to deign to claim to know what the chimpanzees want? Doesn't it suggest a presumption of superiority on the part of the humans?
And wouldn't that make them specieists?
Please, in the name of equality and equity, and plain-old down-home common sense, let the chimpanzees speak for themselves.
And let's put a stop to specieism.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Cool Sails in the Sunset
A certain Prof. Salter has a novel idea for combatting global warming. He has proposed that 50 remote-controlled yachts spanning the globe and spewing a fine mist of salt water into the air could do the trick. The salt would get carried up into the clouds, which would increase the reflectivity of the clouds, causing more sunlight to be bounced back to the sun, thus cooling the earth and offsetting global warming.
This could be done quite cheaply -- at a tiny fraction of the cost of environmentalists' invasive and disruptive plans, so cheaply in fact that if people gave to Prof. Salter's plan rather than to Al Gore's profitable speeches, it would just about cover the cost (I'm exaggerating, but you get the idea.)
But, as the National Post article puts it, there's a problem with his proposal.
"They promise to save the planet for a pittance, and without making humans pay a dear price for their profligate ways. Fifty ships a year, built at a cost of some $400-million to $500-million, would remove the increased warming now attributed to all the fossil fuel burning. They would also provide the time required for an orderly transition to economies based on renewable fuels -- the passion of Prof. Salter's professional life."
It sounds like a great idea, so naturally environmentalists dislike it. They don't even want to consider it. They don't want to spend a dime testing his theory.
You have to ask yourself, "why?".
I don't know what answer you come up with, but here's mine:
Solving the global warming "crisis" easily would be a disaster for them. They love being in crisis mode. They want there to be a crisis. They have turned it not into a merely practical problem but into a great moral crusade of good-vs.-evil; us-vs.-them; they want to blame the west for its prosperous ways, and they want to intrude as much as they can into other people's lives. They love railing against conservative governments that drag their feet on this issue -- althought they happily left the Canadian Liberals alone when they talked the talk but utterly failed to walk the walk. This fact alone tells you that many environmentalists are frankly politically motivated and want to impose socialist goals and values on societies and dsicredit and undermine conservative regimes.
It may also be a matter of displaced conscience. Bill Gothard has a theory, and I tend to agree with him, that when a person suppresses his God-given conscience, his conscience pops up in some other area -- man is hopelessly moral, and needs to feel that he is living by a moral code. So, a person who supports the destruction of a human life in a mother's womb may take up the cause of saving whales, or not eating meat, and make that her righteous cause.
Perhaps it's no coincidence that Al Gore was once a pro-life man. He swallowed his pro-life views and became a rabid, and I mean rabid, supporter of abortion rights. Perhaps his zeal for environmental causes, and "saving the planet" is a consequence of a seared conscience in a matter of first importance to God -- human life, a substitutionary morality where instead of revering human life, he reveres the environment instead. And man, instead of being evil for aborting human children, is evil for using incandescent lightbulbs.
Food for thought.
And that's the way the Ball bounces.
This could be done quite cheaply -- at a tiny fraction of the cost of environmentalists' invasive and disruptive plans, so cheaply in fact that if people gave to Prof. Salter's plan rather than to Al Gore's profitable speeches, it would just about cover the cost (I'm exaggerating, but you get the idea.)
But, as the National Post article puts it, there's a problem with his proposal.
"They promise to save the planet for a pittance, and without making humans pay a dear price for their profligate ways. Fifty ships a year, built at a cost of some $400-million to $500-million, would remove the increased warming now attributed to all the fossil fuel burning. They would also provide the time required for an orderly transition to economies based on renewable fuels -- the passion of Prof. Salter's professional life."
It sounds like a great idea, so naturally environmentalists dislike it. They don't even want to consider it. They don't want to spend a dime testing his theory.
You have to ask yourself, "why?".
I don't know what answer you come up with, but here's mine:
Solving the global warming "crisis" easily would be a disaster for them. They love being in crisis mode. They want there to be a crisis. They have turned it not into a merely practical problem but into a great moral crusade of good-vs.-evil; us-vs.-them; they want to blame the west for its prosperous ways, and they want to intrude as much as they can into other people's lives. They love railing against conservative governments that drag their feet on this issue -- althought they happily left the Canadian Liberals alone when they talked the talk but utterly failed to walk the walk. This fact alone tells you that many environmentalists are frankly politically motivated and want to impose socialist goals and values on societies and dsicredit and undermine conservative regimes.
It may also be a matter of displaced conscience. Bill Gothard has a theory, and I tend to agree with him, that when a person suppresses his God-given conscience, his conscience pops up in some other area -- man is hopelessly moral, and needs to feel that he is living by a moral code. So, a person who supports the destruction of a human life in a mother's womb may take up the cause of saving whales, or not eating meat, and make that her righteous cause.
Perhaps it's no coincidence that Al Gore was once a pro-life man. He swallowed his pro-life views and became a rabid, and I mean rabid, supporter of abortion rights. Perhaps his zeal for environmental causes, and "saving the planet" is a consequence of a seared conscience in a matter of first importance to God -- human life, a substitutionary morality where instead of revering human life, he reveres the environment instead. And man, instead of being evil for aborting human children, is evil for using incandescent lightbulbs.
Food for thought.
And that's the way the Ball bounces.
Friday, September 14, 2007
O. J. Simpson's at it again
What a circus the O. J. Simpson trial was.
I tried to attend the trial. I had the perfect plan. I made a side trip to Los Angeles on my way back to San Francisco from Washington, D.C., stayed at a downtown hotel so I would be close to courthouse, and took a taxi instead of my rent-a-car so I wouldn't waste time looking for the courthouse or a place to park.
That's when my best-laid plan fell apart.
I hopped in the taxi and said with considerable satisfaction, "take me to the O. J. Simpson trial."
The East European taxi driver didn't understand. "Simpson Avenue?" he said, consulting a book of L.A. street names.
"No, no -- the trial, the O J. Simpson trial.
Turns out he had never heard of O. J. Simpson, and had no idea that the city he was driving in was transfixed by the trial of the century.
"The courthouse", I said, to which he replied with a glimmer of recognition:
"Ah, the courthouse". Followed by, "Which one -- there are three courthouses."
I was panicking at this point. I think I told him the wrong courthouse. At any rate, at some point I asked him to just let me out of the taxi, and he did.
Eventually I found the courthouse. But I arrived too late for the daily draw for public seats.
So I watched the circus from outside.
It was a circus. Those fuzzy microphone covers on long poles. Reporters. On-lookers. Security.
"Here's Johnny!", someone shouted, and sure enough, up pulled Johnny Cochrane. He got out of the car he was riding in, went to the trunk, got his suit jacket and put it on. He looked very self-confident and pleased with himself.
A few minutes later Robert Shapiro arrived. He just got out of the car, suit jacket already on. He looked a bit frumpy compared with Johnny and didn't seem to be enjoying himself as much.
It was around the time of the "glove doesn't fit" debacle, to be followed shortly by the "you must acquit".
* * *
The same O. J. Simpson is in the news again today.
On Friday Las Vegas investigators questioned O.J. Simpson about a break-in at a casino hotel room involving sports memorabilia.
The good news, if you can call it that, is he has a book coming out called "If I Did It".
He can just add a supplementary chapter to cover the break-in.
And that's the way the Ball bounces.
I tried to attend the trial. I had the perfect plan. I made a side trip to Los Angeles on my way back to San Francisco from Washington, D.C., stayed at a downtown hotel so I would be close to courthouse, and took a taxi instead of my rent-a-car so I wouldn't waste time looking for the courthouse or a place to park.
That's when my best-laid plan fell apart.
I hopped in the taxi and said with considerable satisfaction, "take me to the O. J. Simpson trial."
The East European taxi driver didn't understand. "Simpson Avenue?" he said, consulting a book of L.A. street names.
"No, no -- the trial, the O J. Simpson trial.
Turns out he had never heard of O. J. Simpson, and had no idea that the city he was driving in was transfixed by the trial of the century.
"The courthouse", I said, to which he replied with a glimmer of recognition:
"Ah, the courthouse". Followed by, "Which one -- there are three courthouses."
I was panicking at this point. I think I told him the wrong courthouse. At any rate, at some point I asked him to just let me out of the taxi, and he did.
Eventually I found the courthouse. But I arrived too late for the daily draw for public seats.
So I watched the circus from outside.
It was a circus. Those fuzzy microphone covers on long poles. Reporters. On-lookers. Security.
"Here's Johnny!", someone shouted, and sure enough, up pulled Johnny Cochrane. He got out of the car he was riding in, went to the trunk, got his suit jacket and put it on. He looked very self-confident and pleased with himself.
A few minutes later Robert Shapiro arrived. He just got out of the car, suit jacket already on. He looked a bit frumpy compared with Johnny and didn't seem to be enjoying himself as much.
It was around the time of the "glove doesn't fit" debacle, to be followed shortly by the "you must acquit".
* * *
The same O. J. Simpson is in the news again today.
On Friday Las Vegas investigators questioned O.J. Simpson about a break-in at a casino hotel room involving sports memorabilia.
The good news, if you can call it that, is he has a book coming out called "If I Did It".
He can just add a supplementary chapter to cover the break-in.
And that's the way the Ball bounces.
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Old Glory
According to this article (h/t Drudge) --
http://www.nbc17.com/midatlantic/ncn/news.apx.-content-articles-NCN-2007-09-11-0027.html
Students at a local school cannot wear clothing depicting the US flag. Apparently students were showing up wearing the flags of other countries, and we can't have that, so, in order not to discriminate -- we can't have that -- the wearing of all flags was banned, including old glory itself.
A young woman had wanted to wear the flag to commemorate 9/11.
These kind of rulings come from the same kind of people (those on the left) who uphold a dissenter's right to burn the flag.
So, the state of the union is that (in at least one school) you can't wear the flag as a sign of patriotism or respect, but (as a general principle) you have an ACLU-given right to burn it.
Makes me glad I'm on the right.
What I would like to know is, exactly what would be wrong with a policy saying the only flag you are permitted to wear is that of the USA? Sure it's discriminatory, but so what? Making an exception for the flag of your home country seems reasonable to me.
And not all discrimination is bad.
Life properly lived consists of making informed discriminations.
And that's the way the Ball bounces.
http://www.nbc17.com/midatlantic/ncn/news.apx.-content-articles-NCN-2007-09-11-0027.html
Students at a local school cannot wear clothing depicting the US flag. Apparently students were showing up wearing the flags of other countries, and we can't have that, so, in order not to discriminate -- we can't have that -- the wearing of all flags was banned, including old glory itself.
A young woman had wanted to wear the flag to commemorate 9/11.
These kind of rulings come from the same kind of people (those on the left) who uphold a dissenter's right to burn the flag.
So, the state of the union is that (in at least one school) you can't wear the flag as a sign of patriotism or respect, but (as a general principle) you have an ACLU-given right to burn it.
Makes me glad I'm on the right.
What I would like to know is, exactly what would be wrong with a policy saying the only flag you are permitted to wear is that of the USA? Sure it's discriminatory, but so what? Making an exception for the flag of your home country seems reasonable to me.
And not all discrimination is bad.
Life properly lived consists of making informed discriminations.
And that's the way the Ball bounces.
Saturday, September 08, 2007
Creationism: Let the evidence fall where it may
Ontario is in a flap over the idea of extending government funding to non-Catholic schools. The concern? Christian schools plan on teaching that the world was created, and not the unexplainable results of random, meaningless processes that came from... where?
Imagine the idea of Christians teaching that the world is created! The uber-Tolerance crowd can't tolerate the idea!
To which I say this:
Christians might agree to not teaching the theory of intelligent design in schools if teachers would stop teaching the non-scientific belief of materialism in science classes.
Materialism posits that the material universe is all that exists. All science is currently built around this non-scientific, unproveable philosophical assumption.
Materialism is a philosophical belief, not science.
Let the evidence point where it may. The evidence of apparent design in the universe, the evidence of an unextinguishable moral stamp on the human heart, and the persistent belief that humans have value, purpose and destiny (as seen in the secular belief in "human rights"), all point to both design and a Creator.
Without a Creator, a belief in human rights is absurd, and the moral stamp within the human heart nothing more than a cruel joke of mindless, uncaring evolution.
Imagine the idea of Christians teaching that the world is created! The uber-Tolerance crowd can't tolerate the idea!
To which I say this:
Christians might agree to not teaching the theory of intelligent design in schools if teachers would stop teaching the non-scientific belief of materialism in science classes.
Materialism posits that the material universe is all that exists. All science is currently built around this non-scientific, unproveable philosophical assumption.
Materialism is a philosophical belief, not science.
Let the evidence point where it may. The evidence of apparent design in the universe, the evidence of an unextinguishable moral stamp on the human heart, and the persistent belief that humans have value, purpose and destiny (as seen in the secular belief in "human rights"), all point to both design and a Creator.
Without a Creator, a belief in human rights is absurd, and the moral stamp within the human heart nothing more than a cruel joke of mindless, uncaring evolution.
Thursday, September 06, 2007
Get Real
According to the CBC, the United States, China, India, Australia, South Korea, and Japan are not part of the real world.
A CBC-picked commentator criticized Stephen Harper for flirting with joining the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate (AP6).
She said the AP6 would distract from the "real work" of climate change being done -- Kyoto, and the UN.
The Kyoto accord specifically exempted two of the world's top polluters -- China and India.
The AP6 includes them.
It consists of Australia, China, India, Japan, Republic of Korea and the United States.
Go to
http://www.globalbydesign.com/resources/articles/world_population_map.html (h/t sda)
And you will see a very creative map of the world that shows boxes representing populations.
Now take a look at some of the "big boxes" --China, India, and the United States.
Apparently not sufficient to be considered the real world.
According to the CBC.
And that's the way the Ball bounces.
A CBC-picked commentator criticized Stephen Harper for flirting with joining the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate (AP6).
She said the AP6 would distract from the "real work" of climate change being done -- Kyoto, and the UN.
The Kyoto accord specifically exempted two of the world's top polluters -- China and India.
The AP6 includes them.
It consists of Australia, China, India, Japan, Republic of Korea and the United States.
Go to
http://www.globalbydesign.com/resources/articles/world_population_map.html (h/t sda)
And you will see a very creative map of the world that shows boxes representing populations.
Now take a look at some of the "big boxes" --China, India, and the United States.
Apparently not sufficient to be considered the real world.
According to the CBC.
And that's the way the Ball bounces.
Wednesday, September 05, 2007
How Do You Solve A Problem Like Maria's?
Maria von Trapp was the real-life heroine behind the movie The Sound of Music. The "real story" is that of a deeply committed Christian woman and her family. She has written books, including one entitled "Let Me Tell You About My Saviour".
What a great title for a book!
After the von Trapp family escaped Austria, they settled in America. They soon found their way to Stowe, Vermont.
During a recent drive from Toronto to PEI, we decided to take a side-trip to Stowe, where the von Trapp family homestead is located. It has now been made into a luxurious lodge complex. It's a beautiful mountain setting and we were thrilled to be there.
We were, however, surprised and disappointed to see that the "menu" of daily activities at the resort included a heavy dose of new age spirituality, including morning meditation (all about "calming and centering" oneself) and yoga.
Of course, I have no idea what the Trapp family's actual religious beliefs and spiritual values are, but I know that eastern meditation and yoga (despite what some Christians seem to think) are incompatible with Christianity and dangerous.
Perhaps the modern-day Trapps felt obligated to continue to offer a spiritual theme, but it is sad to see the turning involved. It is so easy to turn from Christ to spiritual... traps.
As for the matriarch, Maria, I can only imagine what she might think.
"Father, we pray in Jesus' name for the offspring of Christian families who have turned away from the faith. We pray that you would restore those over whom and for whom prayers to You were made by parents, grandparents, and ancestors. Turn them (and us) back to you, O God. Restore our hearts. Renew our faith and direct it towards the only God and Saviour Jesus Christ. TJC, Amen."
May God turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the children to the fathers -- and mothers.
And that's the way the Ball bounces.
What a great title for a book!
After the von Trapp family escaped Austria, they settled in America. They soon found their way to Stowe, Vermont.
During a recent drive from Toronto to PEI, we decided to take a side-trip to Stowe, where the von Trapp family homestead is located. It has now been made into a luxurious lodge complex. It's a beautiful mountain setting and we were thrilled to be there.
We were, however, surprised and disappointed to see that the "menu" of daily activities at the resort included a heavy dose of new age spirituality, including morning meditation (all about "calming and centering" oneself) and yoga.
Of course, I have no idea what the Trapp family's actual religious beliefs and spiritual values are, but I know that eastern meditation and yoga (despite what some Christians seem to think) are incompatible with Christianity and dangerous.
Perhaps the modern-day Trapps felt obligated to continue to offer a spiritual theme, but it is sad to see the turning involved. It is so easy to turn from Christ to spiritual... traps.
As for the matriarch, Maria, I can only imagine what she might think.
"Father, we pray in Jesus' name for the offspring of Christian families who have turned away from the faith. We pray that you would restore those over whom and for whom prayers to You were made by parents, grandparents, and ancestors. Turn them (and us) back to you, O God. Restore our hearts. Renew our faith and direct it towards the only God and Saviour Jesus Christ. TJC, Amen."
May God turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the children to the fathers -- and mothers.
And that's the way the Ball bounces.
Monday, September 03, 2007
Which costs more, coal or wind energy?
Which costs more, coal or wind energy?
Take the following power sources: wind, solar, nuclear, coal, hydroelectric.
See if you can rank them by cost -- from cheapest to most expensive.
While you are working it out, consider these points:
* Wind-power is unreliable, and its cost distorted by present government subsidies [those on the left argue that ALL power sources are subsidized by governments].
* Coal is a C02 emitter (just like you and me), so it's "bad".
* Nuclear power has low-to-zero C02 emissions. Logically, a person ought to be entitled to carbon credits by investing in nuclear technologies, but, since nuclear power is out of favour with environmentalists, I doubt that it works that way.
* In Canada, hydroelectric power was so dominant historically that we still refer to electricity as "hydro" and the electric bill as the "hydro bill".
OK, here's my ranking, based on an article by David Frum on energy costs in the National Post.
1. Coal. Carbon-emitting coal is the cheapest energy source. Coal plants are currently being built like crazy in China, and the Kyoto agreement so loved by Liberals exempts China from Kyoto. If that's not political, rather than scientific, I don't know what is.
2. Hydroelectric Power. A great energy source.
3. Nuclear. Carbon-friendly, but there's the cost of mining the uranium, the issue of disposing of nuclear waste, and the security threat associated with terrorism.
4. Wind-power. Clean, but unreliable.
5. Solar. Clean, but expensive.
Notes:
a. I had to guess on the order between nuclear and wind-power. Mr. Frum simply says that nuclear costs more than coal and hydro, and wind-power costs twice as much as coal. Environmentalists argue that when the security costs of nuclear are thrown in, wind-power becomes cheaper.
b. David Frum didn't mention solar power, but I scanned articles on the subject, and solar was presented as a more-expensive source of energy.
* * *
Remember: "this is my Father's world". We are here as stewards. But also consider this: it is God who put the coal and oil and natural gas in the ground -- did he not do so for our use and benefit?
And that's the way the Ball bounces.
Take the following power sources: wind, solar, nuclear, coal, hydroelectric.
See if you can rank them by cost -- from cheapest to most expensive.
While you are working it out, consider these points:
* Wind-power is unreliable, and its cost distorted by present government subsidies [those on the left argue that ALL power sources are subsidized by governments].
* Coal is a C02 emitter (just like you and me), so it's "bad".
* Nuclear power has low-to-zero C02 emissions. Logically, a person ought to be entitled to carbon credits by investing in nuclear technologies, but, since nuclear power is out of favour with environmentalists, I doubt that it works that way.
* In Canada, hydroelectric power was so dominant historically that we still refer to electricity as "hydro" and the electric bill as the "hydro bill".
OK, here's my ranking, based on an article by David Frum on energy costs in the National Post.
1. Coal. Carbon-emitting coal is the cheapest energy source. Coal plants are currently being built like crazy in China, and the Kyoto agreement so loved by Liberals exempts China from Kyoto. If that's not political, rather than scientific, I don't know what is.
2. Hydroelectric Power. A great energy source.
3. Nuclear. Carbon-friendly, but there's the cost of mining the uranium, the issue of disposing of nuclear waste, and the security threat associated with terrorism.
4. Wind-power. Clean, but unreliable.
5. Solar. Clean, but expensive.
Notes:
a. I had to guess on the order between nuclear and wind-power. Mr. Frum simply says that nuclear costs more than coal and hydro, and wind-power costs twice as much as coal. Environmentalists argue that when the security costs of nuclear are thrown in, wind-power becomes cheaper.
b. David Frum didn't mention solar power, but I scanned articles on the subject, and solar was presented as a more-expensive source of energy.
* * *
Remember: "this is my Father's world". We are here as stewards. But also consider this: it is God who put the coal and oil and natural gas in the ground -- did he not do so for our use and benefit?
And that's the way the Ball bounces.
Thursday, August 23, 2007
The Past and Future of Climate by Australia's David Archibald
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/Conf2007/Archibald2007.pdf
"The Past and Future of Climate" by Australia's David Archibald predicts global cooling, and is at least as convincing as Al Gore's.
Here's the summary:
1. The Sun drives climate change and it will be colder next decade by 2.0 degrees centigrade.
2. The anthropogenic carbon dioxide effect is real, minuscule, and too small to be measured.
3. Higher atmospheric carbon dioxide levels will boost agricultural production.
4. Increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is wholly beneficial.
Presumably, Mr. Archibald will not be receiving much in the way of government funding for future studies.
If you have the time, check out the whole article -- it's very readable, takes about 15 minutes, and can be found at:
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/Conf2007/Archibald2007.pdf
"The Past and Future of Climate" by Australia's David Archibald predicts global cooling, and is at least as convincing as Al Gore's.
Here's the summary:
1. The Sun drives climate change and it will be colder next decade by 2.0 degrees centigrade.
2. The anthropogenic carbon dioxide effect is real, minuscule, and too small to be measured.
3. Higher atmospheric carbon dioxide levels will boost agricultural production.
4. Increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is wholly beneficial.
Presumably, Mr. Archibald will not be receiving much in the way of government funding for future studies.
If you have the time, check out the whole article -- it's very readable, takes about 15 minutes, and can be found at:
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/Conf2007/Archibald2007.pdf
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
NYC Sets Record For Warmest Day: High Of 95 Degrees Ties Warmest August High Set In 1911 -- Global Warming Blamed
What you just read is what the headline would have been if it had been hot in NYC.
Instead, it was cold.
So the actual CBS headline was:
Arctic August: NYC Sets Record For Coldest Day
High Of 59 Degrees Ties Chilliest August High Set In 1911
Remember kids, when it's hot, it's global warming; when it's not, it's climate change.
Instead, it was cold.
So the actual CBS headline was:
Arctic August: NYC Sets Record For Coldest Day
High Of 59 Degrees Ties Chilliest August High Set In 1911
Remember kids, when it's hot, it's global warming; when it's not, it's climate change.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)