Anglican Church begins to Embrace the Abomination

I wrote about the abomination some weeks ago in Lux et Veritas: Understanding God's WORD:

some generations after receiving the bronze serpent to protect them and heal them, the Israelites were worshipping the bronze serpent, but Hezekiah broke it (2 Kings 18:4). But as my meditations continued I around those passages I was brought to the "abomination" that God gives many stern warnings which tragically were not heeded by God's chosen people. In the previous chapter 2 Kings 17:17) we see that the Israelites were offering up their children as sacrifices to to one of the gods of the region known as "Molech".

And they burned their sons and their daughters as offerings. Child sacrifice: the ultimate nadir in degrading idolatry; the people were warned but they wouldn't heed God's continued warnings. The practices of the other peoples that bordered their nation seemed more attractive than worshiping the living God.

And that is where we are today! We sacrifice our children to an idolatrous ideology called "modernism", its named: "right to chose." But it is a construct of the age.

Back then, I then wrote that the "Anglican Church of Canada (ACoC) officially condemns abortion," and that was the way it was when I became a Christian 15 years ago. But last week I tried to confirm this before a church meeting, and I was shocked to find that ACoC does not state their position on their website. Several searches using Google revealed references but no statement.

But the references were alarming, very alarming indeed.

Marriage of Homosexuals was the big goal of the liberal-progressives in the Anglican Church of Canada, but there are other targets “opposition to abortion” is firmly in the sights of these “free-thinkers”. This truly is the slippery slope.

First I found an address by Michael Ingham (so called Bishop of New Westminster): Sex and Christianity: Re-thinking the Relationship March 7th, 2007 

"If we ask the question: is the purpose of human sexuality related exclusively to procreation? – and if we answer ‘no’ – then a number of traditional Christian teachings and doctrines come under serious question. If sex is not just for having children, then we must challenge the condemnation by the Church throughout the centuries of such things as masturbation, birth control, abortion, and homosexuality. Because it is on the basis of the doctrine of procreation that these practices have been ruled out. They do not further the goal of pregnancy. The Church has reasoned that they are against the will of God, but if they are not then the Church has no moral ground to insist on their prohibition." 

This is typical of the shallow arguments of Ingham; he is saying that the Church "ruled out" abortion because of what he calls "the doctrine of procreation"

This is a lie. The Church hates abortion because it is a taking of an innocent life; not because it is against a doctrine of procreation. The creation of children is a blessing by God.  

Next reference is of a dubious piece: Human Sexuality Focus Group Facilitator Gathering

Looked at this lie:

"Abortion has not always been frowned upon by the church and church teachings on the subject have varied widely. Not even the Roman Catholic Church has always condemned abortion."

From the very first the early Christians were differentiated from other Romans by their hatred of abortion.

My third reference form the ACoC website is a book review: An Anglican Exploration of Marriage in Church and Society

"That many readers will probably need little convincing at this point is less notable than the fact that the myths cling so fiercely among so many of our fellow Americans." 

The reviewer wants to explode the myths in our society; one being that abortion is a bad thing. Here's the words the reviewer uses about the author (Coontz):

“Coontz already took us a long way down this road with her earlier books, yet in the public arena one continues to hear the same tired and largely pointless wailing over extramarital pregnancies, divorce rates, abortion, and single parenthood, and opposition to innovations such as gay marriage.” 

“the same tired and largely pointless wailing over abortion” 

I don’t call 100,000 deaths in Canada a trivial matter to be pooh-poohed. 

I can hear the stupid tone of these kind of liberals with over-inflated view of their intellects: “Oh these tiresome conservatives with their squeamish sense of morality, who wont keep up with the times.” 

Three examples on the ACoC website of the kind of thinking that does not condemn abortion, but on the contrary they are comfortable with it. 

• Three examples on the ACoC website condoning abortion

• Zero examples of ACoC condemning abortion on their website

• 14 years ago the ACoC website had a clear statement condemning abortion

That is the slippery slope.

ACoC is far worse than I realised; I didn't realise they could sink to such evil.

Gurth Whitaker

Calgary, Alberta

Understanding God's WORD

It's over two weeks since I posted my staggering experiences: Set nothing before ME that is not MINE! on Lux et Veritas.

The background to that night is my Church is holding a meeting to vote on whether we will discuss leaving the Anglican Church of Canada (ACoC) and joining the Anglican Church in North America (ANiC)

The core message seems clear: God's grave warning of humanity's tendency to gravitate towards idolatry.

I was somewhat cautious in my wording, not because I had any doubts that God had clearly and loudly spoken to me,  but I did not want to jump in and claim things that were not part of God's message. Two people from our congregation had experiences which seemed to concur with this Word (I will return to this theme in a future post). Agnostics and atheists believe in coincidences but Christians know that where God is concerned there are no coincidences.

I was cautious because I was reminded of the passage in Joshua 5, where a man appears to Joshua:

"take off your sandals from your feet, for the place where you are standing is holy." And Joshua did so. 

Joshua then went to him and said to him, "Are you for us, or for our adversaries?"  And the man said:

"No; but I am the commander of the army of the LORD. Now I have come."

And Joshua fell on his face to the earth and worshiped and said to him, "What does my lord say to his servant?" 

I understand this man to be Jesus because He did not stop Joshua from worshiping Him – if it had been an angel from God he would have said no don’t worship me, and He also says it is Holy ground. Joshua 5:13-15 (ESV)

Joshua was clearly told: there is only one purpose and that is God's purpose. I think it is wise to be circumspect. Joshua could not presume to ask: "Are you for us, or against us" - God is sovereign.

As I wrote; some generations after receiving the bronze serpent to protect them and heal them, the Israelites were worshipping the bronze serpent, but Hezekiah broke it (2 Kings 18:4). But as my meditations continued I around those passages I was brought to the "abomination" that God gives many stern warnings which tragically were not heeded by God's chosen people. In the previous chapter 2 Kings 17:17) we see that the Israelites were offering up their children as sacrifices to to one of the gods of the region known as "Molech".

And they burned their sons and their daughters as offerings 

Child sacrifice: the ultimate nadir in degrading idolatry; the people were warned but they wouldn't heed God's continued warnings. The practices of the other peoples that bordered their nation seemed more attractive than worshiping the living God.

And that is where we are today! We sacrifice our children to an idolatrous ideology called "modernism", its named: "right to chose." But it is a construct of the age.

Here's why my heart is heavy this morning as I said in my earlier post about Suzanne Collins, how she is deceived by the priests of this age.

But the heartache is magnified when I hear people tell me that our civilization has progressed so much; and we have come to the point when we kill 100,000 innocents lives in Canada every year and a million in the USA.

We have not progressed so much in several thousand years, We are still making idols - usually ideologies rather than little sculptures - but idols none-the-less; and we are still sacrificing our children to those ideologies.

The Anglican Church of Canada (ACoC) officially condemns abortion but in reality the apostate church does not speak out against it because they love the ideologies of this age. I intend to show clear evidence to support that in future  posts.
A Heart Heavy from the Evil of this World

Gurth Whitaker
Calgary, Alberta

The Devils Dictionary of "Climate Science"

I found this post from February which was still in draft form and not posted.

I lifted it from the comments section of a blog posted by a Mr. David Lancaster, PA,

DEVIL'S DICTIONARY of "Climate Science"

PEER REVIEW: The act of banding together a group of like-minded academics with a funding conflict of interest, for the purpose of squeezing out any research voices that threaten the multi-million dollar government grant gravy train.

SETTLED SCIENCE: Betrayal of the scientific method for politics or money or both.

DENIER: Anyone who suspects the truth.

CLIMATE CHANGE: What has been happening for billions of years, but should now be flogged to produce "panic for profit".

NOBEL PEACE PRIZE: Leftist Nutcase Prize, unrelated to "Peace" in any meaningful way.

DATA, EVIDENCE: Unnecessary details. If anyone asks for this, see "DENIER" above.

CLIMATE SCIENTIST: A person skilled in spouting obscure, scientific-sounding jargon that has the effect of deflecting requests for "DATA" by "DENIERS." Also skilled at affecting an aura of "Smartest Person in the Room" to buffalo gullible legislators and journalists.

David, Lancaster, PA, 15/2/2010 17:00

The despicable tactic of the left: Playing the Race Card

I am disgusted with the cries of racism leveled against critics of Obama; I just read the same vile opinions from Tarek Fatah on his Facebook page. Here's what he wrote:

Tarek Fatah: ... the attacks on Obama from the Republican Right are little more than hatred based on their contempt for his race. Racism is not chemistry or physics that I need to prove via a scientific experiment. People of colour know when racism ...is at play; immigrants and their children know when they are the target and we are also aware when denial sets in. When I see the faces of Republicans sitting in the Senate and the House scowling in sullen silence, there is hate and contempt written on their faces. For these men, a black president MUST fail, no matter what, and my fear is they will succeed.

Apparently Mr. Fatah has the ability to see into people's hearts and know their motives. Their hatred for Obama's disastrous policies, which are dividing the country, is not their real motive - according to Mr. Fatah, their real; motive is hatred because of the colour of Obama's skin.

What drivel comes from the workings of the left-wing mind. According to Mr. Fatah "people of colour know." They don't have to prove it or show it or offer any evidence to level one of the worst labels you can throw at someone; he just  "knows" because he is a person of colour. Well Mr. Fatah that IS racist.

Mr. Fatah I was very pleased when a man of African ancestry was voted to be President, but I hate his policies and his utter ineptitude. Am I racist?  The facts don't count I suppose, I am a person of colour too - white with a tanned face.

It was Democrats in the South who opposed integration and were the founders and members of the KKK, not Republicans who were for integration. But facts don't count to a leftist-liberal.

Here's Anita MonCrief, an African American lady, who blew the whistle on the corruption within ACORN, and who has launched a website EmergingCorruption.com.

Emerging Corruption is a political news website that provides to the public information and investigations into ACORN and other center-left enterprises. The news website will investigate and expose historically corrupt special interest organizations and will feature information and investigations into organizational tactics, programs, campaigns, staff & initiatives including fund raising and finances.  

I am Filing FEC Charges Against the Obama Administration

Some Obama supporters have leveled the very nasty phrase at African Americans who criticise Obama: they've been called "Uncle Toms" - what can I say about this type of racist left-wing tactic? Vile! Despicable! Contemptible!

How will Mr. Fatah respond to an African American lady who criticise Obama and the corrupt organization ACORN, which actively campaigned to put him in power while funded with Federal money to assist in elections?

Gurth Whitaker, Calgary AB

Duceppe - Blatant Discrimination in the House

Gilles Duceppe, the leader of the Bloc Quebecois, slanders three completely innocent practicing Roman Catholics in the Canadian House of Parliament;  he names them as being complicit in some sort of conspiracy in what Barbara Kay calls a "political drive-by shooting."

That's a good phrase for it; a "political drive-by shooting." Here's his statement during question period on May 27, 2010: 

“Mr. Speaker, Ottawa’s bishop stated yesterday that a sizeable pro-life caucus is working behind the scenes within the government. The Prime Minister, who controls everything, must know about this caucus.”

Barbara Kay reports in her piece: Gilles Duceppe owes an apology to Catholics

With McCarthyite melodrama, M. Duceppe then intoned the names and positions in the Conservative Party of three practicing Catholics, as if that were proof of the ominous “caucus.”

Duceppe has probably been reading Dan Brown, because these three poeple's crime (beyond being Christians) is that they are members of a society called "Opus Dei." How sinister! Kay goes on to say:

These Catholics are all members of Opus Dei, a prelature of the Catholic Church, a group I am very familiar with, and amongst whom I count some of my closest friends. Opus Dei means in Latin “God’s Work.” Members of “the Work” believe that holiness is something to be strived for in one’s daily life: in one’s job, however important or however humble, in one’s friendships, one’s family life and civic obligations.

Opus Dei does good works all over the planet (I have seen documentaries on their projects in the hellholes of the world, bringing aid, comfort and social assistance to the poorest and most forgotten, without fanfare or publicity-seeking or missionary profit), punching far above their demographic weight. Few in number – about 85,000 world-wide and only a few thousand in all of Canada – they are immersed in public life in the most positive and benign ways. And of the more than 100,000 members of the Conservative Party, why yes, there are probably two or three members of Opus Dei.

But Christians are fair game it seems; Christian opposition to abortion is somehow seen as  undemocratic to the minds of totalitarian liberals; it is painted as a conspiracy. When it comes to any discussion about abortion, then not only do the gloves come off, but the knives and baseball bats come out.

And where is the press in this?


Quebec's liberal media seems on-board:

Look at the reaction to Cardinal Marc Ouellet’s call for public debate on the morality of abortion. Note: he did not call for legislative change. He called abortion a “moral crime.” In response the francophone media went ballistic. Would Patrick Lagacé of La Presse have dared to curse any non-Catholic religious leaders? It is unthinkable that any Canadian pundit would say of an imam, as Lagacé did of Cardinal Ouellet: 

“We must all die. We are all going to die. Cardinal Ouellet is going to die one day. I hope he will die of a long and painful sickness…Yes, the paragraph I have just written is vicious. But [Cardinal] Marc Ouellet is an extremist. And in this debate, all blows are permitted against religious extremists…the Cardinal is a fundamentalist. This is a known fact. From there on, whoever agrees to share a political podium with him should be treated like an accomplice to the fanaticism of Kazem Ouellet… “ 

It's clear that Christians are fair-game in the liberal-leftist ideology of Canada. I hold to the Canadian Charter of Freedoms and Rights; a Christian has the same right to express their views on abortion or other moral issues, as does a member of the liberal-left. But what we see is that liberal-leftist ideologies claim they know what is best for public, and therefore they have the moral right to take away the voice of Christians, and to attack them as conspirators. Seems like the media may even support them; that is until it is one of their own.

Gurth Whitaker
Calgary, Alberta

Alberta's royalties and tax policies discourage investment

According to  U of C's head of School of Public Policy...

Jack Mintz ... told a Calgary audience that Alberta ranks last among provinces such as B.C., Saskatchewan and the Maritimes -- and lower than states such as Texas -- after factoring in combined royalty and tax payments to government

BC & Saskatchewan have a more attractive royalties and tax policies than Alberta.

... as reported today in the Calgary Herald - "Alberta tax, royalty regime ranks last..."

Alberta's Premier Ed Stelmach

It was proven that governments receive higher revenues when taxes are cut. This may be contrary to intuition, but Presidents Regan, Clinton, and Bush all used this principle and cutting taxes resulted in increased revenues not a decrease. Clinton followed the advice of the conservative economist Arthur Laffer, with very positive results for the US economy.

When governments cuts taxes, businesses grow and consequently hire more people, who in turn buy more good and services and pay more income tax. Increased purchases of goods and services further boosts the economy and creates a multiplier effect.

Liberal and leftist ideology favours government spending, but it tends to have little or no multiplier effect, for the simple reason that governments do not create wealth - they only appropriate it on the peoples' behalf. First for every dollar taken in taxes for use in a government program, a hefty percentage is taken to administer that money by the government itself, or by a government agency. (Take a $ in tax money and put 45 cents into the economy after government waste and expense).

Second, government is inherently inefficient compared to the free market.With lib-left policies we see an increase in government employees, which then typically vote for lib-left parties with policies which increase government spending and therefore taxes to support that spending.

I believe we could apply the same principle to Alberta's royalties and tax policies.

Reducing profits and revenues, discourages investment in drilling, or new projects, this results in decreased royalties. Gas companies such as EnCana prefer to invest in shale plays in the US or BC than in Alberta. Why? They can make a better return on investment in BC or Pennsylvania than they can in Alberta.

The new royalty regime is hurting, especially with respect to conventional oil and gas investments," Mintz told reporters. "I think we have been worse off in the sense that it's not entirely clear the government is going to collect as much new revenue as they hoped because of the investment impacts. I think we need a better fiscal framework to attract investments for Alberta when you have a very competitive global environment for oil and gas investments."

There is still a lot of unemployment in Alberta and a budget deficit, perhaps we should look at the Conservative Government as being responsible; they have not cleaned house and I am considering Wild Rose next election.

Greg Stringham, who is the vice-president of markets and fiscal policy for the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers' said 

Mintz's numbers underscore the need for the province to reconsider its fiscal policies.

BC and Saskatchewan are attracting investment and Alberta is missing out...

Stringham said favourable fiscal policies could help spur costly unconventional oil and gas development in Alberta, which has seemingly bypassed the province as oil companies flocked to the Horn River gas shales in B.C. and the Bakken oil play in Saskatchewan.

See also here from December 29, 2009: Alberta’s energy industry urges new royalty review.

This is not a new issue - but how long will the Premier take to actually do something?

Gurth Whitaker
Calgary, AB

The Devil's Dictionary of "Climate Science"

Sometimes, reader’s comments on a story posted on-line are superb.

One such a comment I saw on the UK Daily Mail’s online posting of the story which I partially reviewed earlier today (Climategate Prof admits Vital Data has gone missing).

Here’s the gem from a gentleman from Lancaster, Pennsylvania...

Devil's Dictionary

Peer Review: The act of banding together a group of like-minded academics with a funding conflict of interest, for the purpose of squeezing out any research voices that threaten the multi-million dollar government grant gravy train.

Settled Science: Betrayal of the scientific method for politics or money or both.

Denier: Anyone who suspects the truth.

Climate Change: What has been happening for billions of years, but should now be flogged to produce 'panic for profit.'

Nobel Peace Prize: Leftist Nutcase Prize, unrelated to "Peace" in any meaningful way.

Data, Evidence: Unnecessary details. If anyone asks for this, see "Denier," above.

Climate Scientist: A person skilled in spouting obscure, scientific-sounding jargon that has the effect of deflecting requests for "Data" by "Deniers." Also skilled at affecting an aura of "Smartest Person in the Room" to buffalo gullible legislators and journalists.

Posted by David, Lancaster, PA, 15 February, 2010

Climategate Prof admits Vital Data has gone missing

While in N. America there's been scant reporting on the MMGW (Man-Made Global Warming) scandal, which is ostentatiously called AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming); over in the UK the press is having a field-day, and it's not just the conservative papers like the Telegraph and Daily Mail, but also the lib-left Guardian and Times.

It's across the political spectrum, yesterday it was the Daily Mail who had a big story with their coverage of the BBC interview with Professor Phil Jones, director of the University of East Anglia (UEA) Climate Research Unit (CRU) Hadley, which was at the centre of the Climategate affair surrounding the leaked emails documenting cover-ups and dirty tricks.

Look at the Mail's stunning headline:

Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995

Data for vital 'hockey stick graph' has gone missing

Gone missing, indeed!

Professor Jones admitted the lack of organisation in the system had contributed to his reluctance to share data with critics, which he regretted.

The data is crucial to the famous ‘hockey stick graph’ used by climate change advocates to support the theory.

Let's focus on the science (or lack of it) surrounding the 'hockey-stick graph.' Professor Jones statements are fascinating because when considered carefully they reveal further deep cracks in the rotten foundation of global-warming theories.

Background to the infamous hockey-stick graph.

The poor science surrounding the so-called 'hockey-stick graph' was discussed on Lux et Veritas in Climategate - It Had to Happen. The graph was constructed to show that the earth's temperatures have been relatively stable for about a thousand years and then show a very rapid upward trend coinciding with the growth of the industrial revolution from about the mid 1800s. This graph is supposed to show that global temperatures are rising with recently rising levels of carbon-dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere. The graph is bogus.

In fact it was well accepted that temperatures in the northern hemisphere were not flat at shown in the hockey-stick graph. First there was a very pronounced warm period known as the Medieval Warm Period (MWP), followed by the Little Ice Age (LIA).

Graph from the the IPCC’s 1990 report 

Note; the graph was omitted from subsequent reports clearly showing the MWP and LIA in the northern hemisphere 

The UN body the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) published a graph in their 1990 report clearly showing the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and the Little Ice Age (LIA) for the Northern Hemisphere.

Now look again at the hockey-stick graph which was boldly displayed multiple times in full colour in the IPCC's Third Assessment Report published in 2001, and we see that this is alsofor the Northern Hemisphere.

 The hockey stick graph [3] as shown in the 2001 IPCC report. 

The colored lines are the reconstructed temperatures, and the gray shaded region represents estimated error bars.

Note the error bars on the hockey-stick graph shown in light-grey; these bars can be thought of as a measure of the uncertainty of the data. The magnitude of these error bars for the entire MWP and at least half of the LIA, are greater than the total increase in temperature from about 1869 to the present day. From the error bars displayed graph itself, how much confidence can we have in it to show global warming, never mind prove it?

the UK Mail states continues...

Skeptics believe there is strong evidence that the world was warmer between about 800 and 1300 AD than now because of evidence of high temperatures in northern countries.

But climate change advocates have dismissed this as false or only applying to the northern part of the world.

Professor Jones departed from this consensus when he said: ‘There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia.

Fatal flaws in MMGW theories

In this debate, and remember this is a debate, because the science is most certainly not settled, we have to keep it clearly in focus that it is the responsibility of the proponents of a new theory to prove their case. Man-made global-warming (MMGW) is a new theory and must be proven. In contrast the skeptics do not have to prove anything; they only have to show the flaws and errors in the MMGW science.

This is a key part of the argument: it's not necessary to disprove MMGW, only to show the flaws in the science. In this case Professor Jones statements show the lack of coherence of the MMGW theories:

‘For it to be global in extent, the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions. (my emphasis)

and then...

‘Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today, then obviously the late 20th Century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm than today, then the current warmth would be unprecedented.’

Definition of Paleoclimatologyfrom Wikipedia:

Paleoclimatology (also Palaeoclimatology) is the study of climate change taken on the scale of the entire history of Earth. It uses records from ice sheets, tree rings, sediment, corals, shells and rocks to determine the past state of the climate system on Earth.

Note Wiki (which is severely biased in favour of MMGW) refers to it as the "study of climate change" however it is supposed to be about estimating temperatures through palaeoclimatic data. We need the data to show that climate change is actually occurring. We know already that the world's climate is always changing.

To convert palaeoclimatic data into a temperature series requires the data to be calibrated, or simply converted to a temperature scale (such as Celsius). This process is not easy because it is the temperatures themselves that we are seeking, and therefore the process depends on underlying assumptions and therefore can be speculative. Conflicting papers on the conclusions exist in the literature.

Summarise what we know

Let's summarise a few things we know about the history of this debate between proponents of MMGW (Man-Made Global Warming), in the light of Professor Jones recent statements:

1. MMGW scientists (Mann, CRU professors and others) used the hockey-stick graph to try and show that global warming occured only when CO2 concentrations from the industrial period started to rapidly increase  
2. The MWP and LIA are not shown on the hockey-stick graph as presented by the IPCC, which is for the Northern Hemisphere
3. A Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and a Little Ice Age did occur in the Northern Hemisphere
4. Climate skeptics cannot use doubts about the hockey-stick graph against global-warming proponents because the hockey-stick graph is only valid for the Northern Hemisphere and not for the whole globe
5. Very few palaeoclimatic records for the tropical regions and the Southern hemisphere exist
6. The MWP and LIA may have occurred over the whole globe but is is hard to prove or disprove (because of the lack of data)

These six points show the contradictory nature of the global-warming argument.

MMGW advocates say the hockey-stick shows global-warming, then they say the skeptics can't use flaws in the hockey stick against MMGW because it only applies to the northern hemisphere, then they claim that science shows that MMGW is a scientific fact, then they say the data doesn't exist for the whole globe.

Conclusions we can apply to the MMGW debate:

1. The hockey-stick as shown by the IPCC numerous times cannot be used by proponents of global-warming theories to support their arguments because the hockey-stick graph only applies to the northern hemisphere and does not apply to the whole globe.
2. The lack of palaeoclimatic records for the tropical regions and the Southern hemisphere casts doubts on the viability global-warming theories. If the data does not exist for the whole globe then proponents of global-warming theories cannot assert that the science is proven.

Gurth Whitaker
Calgary, AB