Stockwell Day Destocks Humanity

http://news.sympatico.msn.ctv.ca/TopStories/ContentPosting.aspx?feedname=CTV-TOPSTORIES_V2&newsitemid=CTVNews%2f20071101%2fdeath_penalty_071101&showbyline=True

Stockwell Day has decided, without consultation, that Canada will no longer intercede on behalf of its citizens sentenced to death in other democratic countries. It seems he doesn't want to waste government money on getting another person into a Canadian prison. I guess he doesn't want to waste government time on voting in Parliament on whether or not Canada should continue its 45 year policy of not supporting capital punishment.

"Mr. Harper and Mr. Day are trying to accomplish indirectly that which they have no authority to do directly." - Dan McTeague, Liberal MP. Damn right.

Damn Right. I like you Mr Harper. Don't be an ass.

(Excuse my language. Vulgarity is the flavour of language, which adds perfect expression at times when it actually merits use. If the word "ass" offends your Evangelicalism, I apologize.)

I should also add that the condemned man, guilty of murder 25 years ago, proved his penitence by requesting the death sentence. However, he changed his mind and tried to get it lowered to a life sentence. For Christ's sake, have mercy.

My Day at Cambridge (WOO!!!)

The largest library for Biblical Studies is in the Vatican.
The second largest is in Jerusalem.
The third largest is Tyndale House, Cambridge.

Tyndale House is closed off to anyone but PhD students in Biblical Studies, so I had to adopt the clever guise "Research Assistant" to the ineffable Rev. Cpt. [future Dr.] Isaac An.

It was full of world class scholars. It's been home to such Biblical Scholars as Rowan Williams and I. H. Marshall, among MANY others. It's the old gentleman's club that's always seemed as fantastical as Narnia.

As a person whose being was located within the sacred Tyndale House, it was assumed by many'a'being that I was a fellow world class Biblical Scholar. This assumption failed when I was frequently asked "What are you studying?". "Well," I would timidly reply, "I'm actually a lowly humble B.A. student. An 'interested intruder', if you will." "Right." End of that conversation.

During the times I successfully avoided that dreaded question (and only conversation starter for socially inept scholars) I managed to pull off a pretty good "yes yes, I know what I'm doing, and I know what I'm talking about" impression. It's simple. Whenever you recognize the name of a scholar, pipe in with an "Oh yes, that fellow! Jolly good thesis on the redaction critical method applied to slowly evolving apocryphal New Testament literature!" Ok, maybe I didn't actually pull that one off on the spot.

After six hours of pseudo-hyper-intellectualism and peaceful research (the extent of which was major overkill for a B.A. essay), we indulged in a little bit of tourism. It's really easy to look like a tourist when traveling with both an American and a Korean. Cambridge is an amazingly beautiful city, with ancient University buildings everywhere. Particularly stunning is the King's College Chapel, planned by Henry VI (not Edward III, as I was sure it was). I also got some pictures taken in front of St. John's College, my Grandad's old College.

This definitely gives me added incentive to put in the necessary work; to one day, use Tyndale House without having to be an absolute poser to get in.

Is God Infinitely Good, or is Good Finitely god?

While reading Jonathan Hill’s History of Christian Thought, I came across the following quote from Origen, followed by Hill’s explanation:

We must maintain that even the power of God is finite, and we must not, under pretext of praising him, lose sight of his limitations. For if the divine power were infinite, of necessity it could not even understand itself, since the infinite is by its nature incomprehensible.On First Principles, II 9 i

Today, we are so use to thinking of God as infinite that we forget that this is not explicitly stated in the Bible. To the ancient mind, to be infinite would actually be an imperfection, because it was thought that to be infinite would involve being indefinite, vague, incomprehensible – all marks if an imperfect being. So Origen’s claim here is intended to support the divine perfection. It would not be until Gregory of Nyssa, 150 years later, that the notion of God’s infinity would be introduced into Christian thought.

I feel that as a big fan of both Plato and Origen, and as one who refuses to dismiss any thought without deep contemplation (my obvious Achilles’ heel), I must give this ancient and long forgotten idea a chance. Allow me to attempt to simply explain why this idea makes sense to me, though I am by no means a definite follower.

I have come to realize that love is the highest form. It is the greatest state one can be in. Thus, “God is love” (1 John 4:16). However, such an expression, from certain point of view, is boxing in God. One could argue that it is only describing God, not putting him in a box. Well, allow me to take it one step further: God must be love, because love is the highest form. If God is not love, he is not the highest form, and is not God.

Numbers 23:19 says that “God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind.” Does this mean that God can not lie? Hebrews 6:18 says that “God did this so that, by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie…”. I know that second verse is somewhat absconded from context, yet it seems to say there is a situation in which it is “impossible” for God to lie. I would suggest that God cannot lie, because if God lied he would be imperfect and no longer be God. Does that make him finitely truthful?

Thirdly, if God is omniscient, he must know that good is the best state to be. Therefore, if he was anything but good, he would not be the best state and not be God. He must be good to be God, and cannot not be good. I rather like this idea, because it makes it easy to understand why God is good. It makes much more sense than trying to philosophize that God could be bad if he wanted to, and could change the definition of bad if he wanted to in order to make him able to be bad, which would mean he is still good. Tell me that is not more confusing and nonsensical than God simply being finitely good?

Now, here is the most basic flaw with this theory. It requires me to put moral law (the existence of right and wrong) above God. I must say that God has to be good, and this is his limitation. If that is the case, what created moral law? Did moral law create God? I think it’s possible that God created moral law, and in doing so bound himself to it. Or perhaps he is bound to it by choice, which would be the optimum argument for God’s infinity and existence with moral law.

I feel at this point that I must bring up an annoying quote from The Simpsons. There is an episode in which Homer Simpson, while somewhat high, asks Ned a reworded classic theological question: “Could God microwave a burrito so hot that he cannot eat it?” This seems like utter nonsense, of the lowest philosophical and theological value. But perhaps the answer is simply “yes”. Thus he is all powerful, and as such has the power to create a law he is unable to break.

My favourite book of Plato’s is one called “Euthyphro”, in which he records Socrates wrestling with the idea of whether good is good because it comes from God, or God is good because good is good. The book ends without a conclusion. For the moment, so does mine.

If God is in a box, he is in a box much larger than our plain of thought, which means he is infinite compared to us. That makes this question mostly irrelevant, though my proposition that God must be good, and must be love, is perhaps a useful frame for viewing much Biblical Theology. The earliest Christian theologians believed God to be finite, which suggests that the Biblical authors immediately preceding them also wrote out of an understanding of God as finitely all powerful. Even if we judge this idea false, we should try to understand it in order to understand ancient Biblical views, and other ancient theological ideas.

Vote NO on the Referendum

In a feeble attempt to balance the extreme bias that will present itself later on, I shall begin with an attempt at an unbiased explanation of what our referendum is all about. For a much better explanation, see http://www.yourbigdecision.ca/en_ca/mmp1.aspx .

If you're unaware, our current electoral system is one called "First-Past-The-Post", in which we all elect MPPs to represent our constituency (riding) in the Ontario Legislative Assembly. The candidate with the most votes in a constituency represents that constituency, and the party with the most representatives elected forms the government. The main problem with this system can be aptly demonstrated by the 1990 Ontario Election, in which the NDP only received 37.6% of the popular vote, yet formed a staggering majority with 74 of 130 seats, 38 more than the second place party. The problem is that if a party receives 51% of the vote in 100% of the constituencies, they receive 100% of parliament.

The proposed new electoral system, titled "Mixed Member Proportional", would solve that problem. Under the new system, we would be voting twice; once for a representative for one's constituency, and once for a party. there would be only 90 MPPs elected to represent constituencies (which means larger ridings), and an additional 39 members drawn from lists made by the parties, who are put in parliament in order to balance the difference between the ratio of MPPs elected to parliament from each party, and the ratio the actual vote percentage demands. Don't quite follow yet? In the case of the 1990 election, the NDP would not be given any "list MPPs", while the other parties would be, in order to ensure that exactly 37.6% (or as close as can be managed without having 6/10 of a person) of Parliament is NDP.After giving this idea a lot of thought, I have decided that I do not believe this change to be the best idea.

My explanation begins, as do many of my explanations, in Rome.In 509 BCE (or possibly 510), Roman nobles got a bit ticked off with the monarchy and threw the king out of the city. In fact, they were so ticked off with the monarchy, that they vowed never again to let a single person hold power in Rome. To do this, they divided up the king's power (imperium) among two consuls, and eight praetors. They were all elected annually, and the two consuls would take turns possessing supreme imperium. About a hundred years later, the general public got equally ticked off with the aristocratic government, and demanded to be able to elect tribunes, who would be given the ability to veto any government decision. The tribunes could also veto each other. The praetors could all veto each other, and the consuls could all veto each other.

What am I getting at? The Roman government succeeded in not allowing any one person to possess too much power, but went too far with the vetoing, and left a system where no one had any power. After five hundred years, the system collapsed. Extreme constitutional reform was needed (for reasons I won't go into here), but every time a do-gooder tried to bring in the very necessary reforms, they were vetoed. The government needed to change, but because the system presented things from happening, change was impossible democratically. But the change needed to happen. Three men tried to change it democratically: two were assassinated, one simply failed. Then along came Sulla. He stormed his troops into Rome, and politically ripped the constitution to shreds, forcing the necessary changes. However, Rome reacted violently and spit out the dictator, remembering the taste of monarchy. Then came Caesar. Then came Augustus. And thus it was proved that a government with power was needed. Augustus seized the power out of the void Caesar left, and Rome finally knew its reform, and saw peace in the areas that had seen all this unrest. The Roman Republic fell to dictatorship because its government was unable to act.

This brings up a philosophical question. As most philosophical questions can be, we can show this question on a line. On one side of the line we have governments with the ability to act, but unfortunately act very undemocratically. On the other side, we have governments which cannot make decisions or act, but the few things that are done are agreed upon by all. So, what is more valuable? Democracy, or action?

My point is probably showing through already, but let me show you why I believe this new system will be so destructive toward the action of a government. If you recall my explanation of the proposed new electoral system, you will remember that it means the amount of MPPs representing each party in parliament will be exactly proportionate to the number of votes each party received. The problem is that we will likely never again have a majority government. I looked back myself, and the last time in an Ontario election a single party received more than 50% of the vote, was 1934. If we had been using the proposed system, we would not have had a majority government since 1937, the year end of the 1934 term. And by the way, the only reason the Liberal party received 51% of the vote that year was because it was actually a temporary coalition of three liberal parties!

So why not form more coalitions? This is the biggest plus of the proposed new systerm. It will force parties to work together. But there are certain issues that parties will never agree upon. All legislature currently in place over controversial issues will never change, because the parties will never agree on a change. Many aspects of our law will remain unchanged until Kingdom come. The government will be unable to act, because it cannot act without nearly everyone agreeing with each other, which rarely happens. It is the exact reason the Roman democracy ended. This does not mean our democracy will collapse, because our system would not be quite as paralyzed as the Roman one, but it would cause a lot of serious problems.

There are other reasons not to vote yes in the coming referendum. For one, it will mean constituencies will be enlarged. Chatham-Essex-Kent will presumably grow to include Windsor as well. That is not better representation at all. That means farmers and city-slickers will be voting for the same MPP, and their sharp disagreement will hardly be made up for by the existence of "List MPPs". This new system will severely damage local representation, though it seems that it would strengthen it.In talking to my Uncle, who has lived around the James Bay area for a while, his concern was the under-representation of the North. Northern constituencies are already huge, and would become much bigger. Meanwhile, they are Ontario's largest source of revenue. How is that fair? That's about as fair as the fact that Ontario decides Canada's election result, while our money comes from Alberta.

Third, if we want to have more fair representation in government, there are much better ways of doing it. How about a referendum once in a while? I know that sounds hypocritical given the current discussion, but the only reason this went to referendum is because it's illegal to change the constitution without one. We never usually have referendums. Switzerland usually has two a year. The U.S. usually has referendums with every election. We only have referendums when we absolutely have to, and when someone wants to split. We can't have a more fair democracy without having a more direct democracy. This new proposal is a common example of the Canadian laziness to self-govern. Democracy is a wonderful thing, but we cannot improve democracy without improving the rule of the people, which means referendums.

So, the pros:
-Government make-up will better represent the popular vote
-Small parties get representation (Green party will be bequeathed a seat)
-Parties must agree on legislation to pass
-We get to vote twice, so we can vote for a nice person and a nice party

And the cons:
-No more majority governments
-Governing process slowed and in some ways paralyzed
-Larger constituencies means poorer representation
-Better ways of improving democracy available

For me, the cons outweigh the pros. But, it's up to you to decide. And please do.

It's been a very interesting few days.

On Saturday I went to a conference with Reinhard Bonnke (German Evangelist) and Benny Hinn (something or other). The Reinhard Bonnke part was pretty good. He fairly pretty level-headed for a big-shot evangelist. Next came some worship with the band from a big church in Bradford. Their music was more of a deistic romance than Hillsong's. Most of the songs didn't mention Jesus, one didn't even mention God and could very easily just be a love song. And they tried to sell their CD in between two of the songs. That was edifying *caugh*.

And then came Benny Hinn. I entered with a mind completely open to him not being what I've seen him made out to be. But alas he proved me wrong. As he burst onto stage, all of the lights were thrown up and "How Great Thou Art" was played obnoxiously loud on a keyboard set to "we wish this was an organ in a cathedral". Though it was the most emotionally manipulative worship I've ever experienced, it was still more edifying than the worship before it.

Up until this point, I was okay with Benny Hinn. He was a little old school and self glorifying, but it was alright. Then came the moment when he dissolved all respect I might have had for him. A lady in the third row got up, presumedly to go to the toilet; or perhaps she just got a text message saying "your son is dying". We'll never know. Benny Hinn pointed at her and said "Nobody gets up while I'm ministering!" He proceeded to cross his arms and say that he wasn't going to continue "ministering" until she was completely out of the building, which caused 2000 people to stare at this poor woman as she slowly made her way throw the crowd with Benny Hinn telling her to "hurry up" so he could get back to "ministering". Basically, he publically humiliated her, potentially doing her immense emotional damage, because she interrupted his "ministry".

Aside from that, I had some minor theological complaints. Mainly the fact that the second half of his sermon didn't use the Bible at all because it was anti-Biblical. He perfectly reworded stoic philosophy, and tried to say that "the presence of God cancels out all emotion" because "emotion is of the flesh". Use your own discenment on that one.

Next he did his Benny Hinn thing, involving the spiritual knocking-over of many. It is my opinion that this was the Spirit of God working through him. I won't try to justify that here. However, I will leave you with a HILARIOUS movie someone made.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lvU-DislkI

When I said I'd "leave you", that was a bit of a lie. There is much more in the last few days to tell. Normally I wouldn't post the following bit of information on the internet, but it's pretty much public now anyway.

Last night one of the students here got really drunk, physically assaulted a couple students, and violently destroyed some school property (a window and a light, apparently with a fire extinguisher). The school called the police and they arrested her. They let her go at 3am because everyone refused to press charges, and now she's living on the streets of Mattersey. Lots of people want to take her into their homes, but no one really can because she's still drinking. Today she came to the church while I was there praying and we talked for about half an hour. She's determined to get over this and come back to school next year, which we're all really hoping happens. There's a lot more I could say on the issue, but I don't really need to. Most of the school is pretty shaken up at the moment. This kind of thing doesn't usually happen at nice little angel-filled Bible Colleges.

The thing that made my day today was when I was in a prayer group with the man she punched yesterday, and he was leading the prayer. He's about 50, and apparently she spat on him a few times before swinging at him. He said that she's about the age of his daughter, and if his daughter ever did that to him, he's still die for her. So he led the prayer for her. Most of us were crying when we prayed for her, and for the college. It's all really sudden and (for most of us who didn't know this had been developing) unexpected. At any rate, I'm praying for her and really hoping she's back next year. I'm also praying she'll go get help. We'll see.

There's a lot of other stuff going on my life right now as well. I'm coming home on June 18th for a wedding. I've learned that someone else graduated from here two years ago and made it onto the same Cambridge program I'm hoping to get into. I start exams next week. And... other stuff.

This blog is ended.

I now have a phone number.

0113 815 0314

I think this is the way to call it from Canada:

011 44 113 815 0314

I probably won't answer it most of the time, but you can leave a message and I'll call you back. In fact, if you're from Canada it's almost guaranteed that it's cheaper for me to call you than for you to call me. So leave yourphone number and I'll get back to you.

In 1793 the French Revolutionaries, amidst their nation-wide ransacking and destruction of religious buildings, symbolized their newfound paradigm with the worship of a young lady, dressed as the goddess of reason. This paradigm worshipping reason was to be the dominant mode of thought sprouting from and encapsulating the Enlightenment and the entire Modern Era. Christianity would not submit to this worship of a pagan goddess, would it?

Exodus 20:4-5a - “You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them…”

Every Christian knows this commandment. The common Christian definition for “idol” is “anything that you place before God”.

Romans 1:21-23, 25 - “For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen.”

To oversimplify history, since then those who worship reason have sought to prove and disprove religion. As a result, those who worship Jehovah have sought to prove their faith. The love and sacrifice at the heart of the Kingdom of God were traded in for the comfort and ease of reason. The search for truth was traded in for the search for certainty. The task of disproving Reason required the worship of reason.

The search for certainty comes at the expense of truth. The search for truth comes at the expense of certainty.

Ridley Hall, Cambridge

Course offered: MPhil

Entry requirements: Students must have studied theology for at least two years, having taken a degree in the subject and attained atleast a 2:1.

Length of study: full time, 9 months.

Who validates it?
The MPHil is validated by the University of Cambridge. MPhil students become members of a university college alonside membership at Ridley.

* * * * *

BC comrades, you have a few months to persuade me otherwise. It's looking like I might want to be staying in England.