Tuesday, April 12, 2005

Social Regress

Still in blog holding pattern here, but there are a couple things out there that caught my eye recently.

First, this poll conducted by The Toronto Star: I don't often care much for aligning with official party politics - I'm not a God person, so I'm not conservative, and I dislike unions, so I'm not an NDPer. I think the Liberals must pay for their corruption, and while I love the Green party and have voted for them in the past, I really don't think that they are ready to govern.

But the latest poll is pretty scary. It looks and sounds as if we'll have an election coming soon here in Canada. If that's the case, Stephen Harper looks to be a lock for next PM of our country. Like I said, I don't care much for aligning with parties, but I can feel pretty strongly about aligning against them - and I fear what might happen if Harper comes to power.
Remember, this guy is just an (old) Alliance (which used to be Reform) party guy. He's far more conservative in his social values than the man who sold the real Conservatives (McKay) down the river.

Look at what Bush has done in the US with social progress, er, regress. Individual States have the right to legislate against same-sex unions, 13 States are trying to remove Evolution from their school curriculums, and the state and the church are once again ruling as one.

Anything that moves Canada closer to that social model is simply a bad thing. A very bad thing.

In other thoughts, this week marks the 25th anniversary of the start of Terry Fox's historic and simply amazing run across much of Canada. Each day older I get, the more his accomplishments amaze me: the man ran a marathon every day on one leg, and in the end he ran more than 5,500 kilometres. And I can barely get off my arse on the weekends to run around the block.

For facts on Terry, go here.


Blogger Vic3 said...

Hi, Andrew. Thanks for thinking of me. ;-) Yeah, I do mean that because it's kind of a compliment, and because I enjoy the debate.

The easter bunny blog was amusing, but unhappily, not a very good analogy because there is no reliable documentation for the existence of the Easter Bunny. The story was pretty good until it said, "Oh, and I should mention--there is not actually any giant rabbit."

If you review the documentation and apply scholarly standards to its evaluation, it is convincing beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Bible more than surpasses the three tests of authenticity and reliability that scholars apply to all ancient writings (bibliographical, internal evidence, and external evidence).

There are 5,300 known Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. There are over 10,000 Latin Vulgate, at least 9,300 other early versions, and more than 24,000 copies of portions of the New Testament. No other document of antiquity begins to approach such numbers. Homer's Iliad, for instance, survived with only 643 manuscripts--the first complete version of the Iliad is dated in the 13th century.

The earliest copy of the New Testament dates to 125 A.D., approximately 25 years after the final book of the New Testament was actually written. No other ancient manuscript comes close to such a short time span. The time gap between original writing and earliest existing manuscript for the Iliad is 500 years, for the writings of Sophocles it is 1400 years, for the writings of Aristotle--1,400 years, for Plato--1,200 years, for Caesar himself--1,000 years. I could go on, but suffice it to say that serious scholars do not question whether we have the original words of the writers of the New Testament. This means that we are reading the eye-witness accounts of the apostles--those who saw Christ perform miracles and who heard his teachings.

Scholars acknowledge that there are 400 words, or about 40 lines, in the New Testament that may be different from the apostles' original letters. Among these about 87% are trivial mechanical matters such as spellings or differences in style. Among the remaining 50 words, none alter any article of faith and all matters addressed by these 50 words are abundantly supported by many other undoubted passages.

To summarize, a huge body of scientific evidence, archaeology continues to verify the accuracy of the Bible--no archaeological find has ever contradicted the Bible.

The other problem I had with the bunny story was this statement: "...if you are frank about your doubts, you will be criticized, disapproved of, ostracized, perhaps even oppressed for your views..."

It is Christians that are being criticized, ostracized, and oppressed. On May 1, 2004, in a Senate Judiciary Committee session, Senator Charles Schumer of New York said that J. Leon Holmes was disqualified as a candidate for a federal judge appointment because of his "deeply held conservative religious views."

Hm. Interesting. I wonder...when will we start putting Christians in concentration camps?

Make no mistake: we are fighting back.

7:18 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home