|
|
| |
 - Endorsed - Indifferent - Contested
|
| |
| The Nashville Statement
|
| |
|
|
| |
Name:Daniel
Home: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
About Me: I used to believe that evolution was reasonable, that homosexuality was genetic, and that people became Christians because they couldn't deal with the 'reality' that this life was all there was. I used to believe, that if there was a heaven - I could get there by being good - and I used to think I was more or less a good person. I was wrong on all counts. One day I finally had my eyes opened and I saw that I was not going to go to heaven, but that I was certainly going to suffer the wrath of God for all my sin. I saw myself as a treasonous rebel at heart - I hated God for creating me just to send me to Hell - and I was wretched beyond my own comprehension. Into this spiritual vacuum Jesus Christ came and he opened my understanding - delivering me from God's wrath into God's grace. I was "saved" as an adult, and now my life is hid in Christ. I am by no means sinless, but by God's grace I am a repenting believer - a born again Christian.
My complete profile...
|
| |
Daniel's posts are almost always pastoral and God centered. I appreciate and am challenged by them frequently. He has a great sense of humor as well.
- Marc Heinrich
His posts are either funny or challenging. He is very friendly and nice.
- Rose Cole
[He has] good posts, both the serious like this one, and the humorous like yesterday. [He is] the reason that I have restrained myself from making Canadian jokes in my posts.
- C-Train
This post contains nothing that is of any use to me. What were you thinking? Anyway, it's probably the best I've read all day.
- David Kjos
Daniel, nicely done and much more original than Frank the Turk.
- Jonathan Moorhead
There are some people who are smart, deep, or funny. There are not very many people that are all 3. Daniel is one of those people. His opinion, insight and humor have kept me coming back to his blog since I first visited earlier this year.
- Carla Rolfe
|
| |
|
email
|
|
| Stop, Or I Shall Say Stop Again! |
I live in Canada.
When I was young I was a product of mainstream social engineering, i.e., a product of the public school system. Yes, yes, they taught me how to do maths and stuff, but mostly they taught me that the opinions of my peers were more important than my own, and that rocking the boat, or having a unpopular opinion was not merely bad - but marked you as anti-social, or worse, (and more commonly) a small-minded, bigot.
Even when I was in school they had sex education - where we were taught that masturbation is natural, good, and proper, if private, and that homosexuality was just another life choice, and that the only people who didn't think so were sexually repressed bigots who couldn't get their heads out of the sand. To be sure, this social programming was part of our education - we were being trained, sometimes subtly, but more often less so, that the greatest objective of life was to pursue the most permissive life possible, and subsequently, that anything which stilted or denied any sort of permissiveness was suffocating, small minded, and lacking sorely in the greatest virtue every exalted: tolerance.
Tolerance was a necessary component if we wanted to live the most permissive lives possible. The only rules, seemed to be, that you ought not to tolerate (or at least, you shouldn't have to tolerate) something that physically injured you. Thus the rule that was fed to us was do as much as you can as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else.
This was reinforced by the peer system. The teacher's job was not only to teach us how to solve algebraic problems, but also to foster a social order that bred out individualism and objective truth. If a student held an opinion that offended another student - the first student's opinion was bad, and as it was the unspoken job of the teacher to facilitate peer driven uniformity in all things, to identify and ridicule anything that smelled of "intolerance" - and to eradicate it by fostering a negative group mentality against it - we were well on our way to being good liberal automatons.
But fortunately I heard the gospel and believed as a young man, and all the social programming in the world could not long obfuscate the truths of scripture. Shortly after I came to know Christ as my Savior, and believe (all) the words of scripture, I found myself unable to continue in my liberal leanings. Suddenly I was unable to pursue mass-permissiveness under the joint, noble guises of tolerance and equality, but found myself more and more convinced that giving the flesh more and more freedom would not benefit society, but destroy it.
So it is that I am somewhat dismayed by the recent political connivings in Canada - I speak of course of Bill S-209.
Presently, in section 43 of the Canadian Criminal Code, provision is made for using physical force to correct wayward behavior in children (i.e. spanking). The text itself reads:Every schoolteacher, parent or person standing in the place of a parent is justified in using force by way of correction toward a pupil or child, as the case may be, who is under his care, if the force does not exceed what is reasonable under the circumstances.
This section makes it plain that parents are justified in physically correcting their children when it is appropriate to do so. This section does not give the parent the right to exceed what is considered reasonable (that is, the parent or guardian is not allowed to abuse the child), but -is- entitled to correct the child according to the way children have been corrected every since time began.
The Bill, (S-209) would revoke this provision, and basically [1] expand "criminal" liability to parents and guardians who would attempt to correct deviant behavior with (formerly) reasonable persuasions; it would likewise, and subsequently [2] grant an unprecedented level of immunity to children and teenagers who themselves are not yet so discerning as to conduct themselves in a way that is always safe for themselves or for others (younger children) around them; and also it would [3] in no way alter the number of instances of genuine child abuse; as there are laws in place for such things already, instead it would (by expanding the definition of abuse) criminalize what has historically (not to mention biblically) been a productive and effective deterrent to aberrant behavior, before that behavior can take root and do more damage to the individual and to society as a whole.
I say, I hang my head in shame for this country, for whom permissiveness is the new state religion, and whose judgment is surely coming. May God grant this nation repentance, that it might escape the judgments that such madness will bring upon it.Labels: Canadiana, parenting |
posted by Daniel @
12:49 PM
 
|
|
| 6 Comments: |
-
Very disconcerting. We must really start to pray for our nation.
-
That is --exactly-- right.
-
Daniel,
I was listening to an American talk show today and he mentioned a case in Quebec of a girl who was grounded by her father (appropriately so) who took him to court and last week the judge ruled that his grounding of her was inappropriate and she overruled the father.
I have heard nothing in our Canadian news, but found this in the Globe and Mail. I think it goes along with your blog today.
Did you hear about this? I didn’t until I listened to an American Christian talk show today.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080619.wcurfew19/BNStory/lifeFamily/home#
I hope we don't see the courts taking over the raising of our children, but I am afraid it is happening.
Eunice
-
Daniel, presumably the sponsors of this bill believe that they are improving society and increasing the greater good?
No amount of legislation will fix the world. The problem with this world is, and always will be sin. The sin in us.
-
Daniel, well said. As to God's judgment, I fear that what you are describing is the judgment. The offense is the judgment. And as we (as a nation) have lusted after meat, God is obliging by stuffing us with meat until we're sick.
Isaiah 3:12
-
I suggest that Section 43 actually paved the way for Bill S-209. Therein, the government has the audacity to grant permission to parents to discipline their children, and makes itself the arbiter of what discipline "is reasonable under the circumstances."
I'm hearing the sound of frogs in hot water who are just noticing -- perhaps too late -- that the temperature is rising.
And the US, I'm afraid, is heading down the same path.
|
| |
| << Home |
| |
|
|
|
|
Very disconcerting. We must really start to pray for our nation.