Friday, 28 December 2007

The Sabbath Day

Someone wrote to me concerning the Sabbath day so I'm going to talk about it here. The Christian Heritage Party of Canada supports the so called Lord's Day Act which would support most businesses to close on Sunday, but does make allowances for those who keep a different day such as the 7th day Sabbath commonly held on Saturday:

A weekly twenty-four hour period of business closure should apply to all non-essential services and businesses across Canada. In respect of our Christian heritage, the day of closure should be Sunday. However, reasonable allowance should be made for those who, because of religious convictions, observe a different day of rest (See also 3.1.1),3.1.2, & 6.2.2).

I'm a Seventh Day Adventist so I am very glad that the party recognizes other days people keep holy. Sunday blue laws of the past didn't recognize this and gave Jews, Adventists, and others a hard time. For example, a 7th day Sabbath keeper would have to open for business for 5 days a week while his Sunday keeping competitor would be allowed to be open for 6 days a week. Fortunately, the CHP doesn't support this inconsistency.

Now, the following is NOT a CHP matter but what the Bible says on the Sabbath issue:

There is NO scriptural basis for Sunday observance. I studied the issue extensively before I became an Adventist so I know this. To make a long story short, the Sabbath is one of the unchangeable 10 commandment laws and the church continued to observe it in New Testament times. If you are a Christian who believes that the 10 commandments are still binding on Christians, then you have to observe the 7th day Sabbath. You can't substitute another day for the 7th day Sabbath and expect to still be keeping the 4th commandment. I would go as far as to say that the 4th commandment is the most broken commandment of all of Christiandom because too many people use their own human reasoning to justify observing a different day. If God wanted it changed, He would not have included it as one of the 10 commandments.

Tuesday, 25 December 2007

FLASHBACK: Queen's First Televised Christmas Broadcast Warned about Guarding Morality and Religion

LONDON, December 24, 2007 ( – Fifty years ago this Christmas, the young Queen Elizabeth II broadcast her Christmas message to the nation asking Britons to defend traditional morality in the face of a rapidly changing world. Christmas day 1957 was the first time the Sovereign’s message was broadcast on television. The message has been posted to the online video website YouTube as part of the “official YouTube Channel for the British Monarchy” approved by the Royal Family.

In her 1957 Christmas message, the recently crowned Queen said her address to the nation on television “is just another example of the speed at which things are changing all around us.” She said, “Because of these changes I’m not surprised that many people feel lost and unable to decide what to hold on to and what to discard, how to take advantage of the new life without losing the best of the old.”

She spoke gently of the feelings of many at the time, as Britain continued to rebuild after WWII, that profound changes had come not only in technology but in the meaning and purpose of life. She urged her subjects to retain their “ageless ideals and moral and religious values which were even then under threat from those she called “the cynics”.

“But it’s not the new inventions which are the difficulty. The trouble is caused by unthinking people who carelessly throw away ageless ideals as if they were old and outworn machinery,” the Queen said.

“They would have religion thrown aside,” she warned, “morality in personal and public life made meaningless, honesty counted as foolishness, and self-interest set up in place of self-restraint.”

The Queen said that with Britain at a “critical moment in our history, we will certainly lose the trust and respect of the world, if we just abandon those fundamental principles, which guided the men and women who built the greatness of this country and commonwealth.”

She said that in these circumstances, the British people “need a special kind of courage.”

“Not the kind needed in battle, but the kind which makes us stand up for everything that we know is right, everything which is true and honest. We need the kind of courage that can withstand the subtle corruption of the cynics. So that we can show the world that we’re not afraid of the future.”

Citing the growth of the British Commonwealth, the Queen said that these nations admire Britain “largely because we’ve always tried to do our best to be honest and kindly and because we have tried to stand up for what we believe to be right.”

The young Queen concluded, “ I believe in our qualities and in our strengths. I believe that together we can set an example to the world which will encourage upright people everywhere.”

The page was set up on YouTube with the encouragement of the Royal Family, to display film footage of the activities of “the Family Firm”, some of which date to the days of King Edward VII and Queen Alexandra.

Films include footage of the late Queen Mother’s wedding in 1923 and state occasions with all the pomp and circumstance for which the English are famous such as the opening of Parliament. They include also more personal video documentaries of the day to day life of the members of the Royal Family.

Watch the YouTube video:

See other videos on the Royal Channel &nb...;


Religion and morality is something that the "Mighty Markie's" and the "bloviators" of this world have forgotten, in addition to a lot of other people. Like the Queen says, we need to hold on to them and practise them.

Sunday, 23 December 2007

Breaking the mirror

Are you a problem solver or a mirror breaker? Many people are either one or the other.
For example, if you look in the mirror and see a speck of dust on your face, do you get rid it by breaking the mirror? Of course not, because even if you can't see it after the mirror is broken, the speck of dust is still there. Therefore, you have to remove the speck of dust from your face in order to deal with that problem. If your parents nag you to clean up your room, how do you solve the problem? Do you tell your parents to shut up, or do you clean your room? The correct answer is to clean your room. If you have any bad habit, do you solve the problem by telling your wife or husband to stop nagging you, or do you do something about the bad habit that is the source of the nagging? The correct answer is to deal with the bad habit.

People who support homosexuality tend to be mirror breakers instead of problem solvers. They erroneously think that if they wipe out all opposition to their lifestyle, that everything will be okay. The reason why they are in error is because Christians (and others with similar views) are not the source of their problems. They are merely pointing out the problem. In other words, getting rid of opposition to homosexuality is not going to solve their problems. The problems will still be there long after they are gone.

Homosexuals like to accuse Christians of hate. But in reality, Christians lovingly tell homosexuals that their lifestyle is going to ruin their health, shorten their lifespan, and most importantly, keep them out of Heaven. Does that mean that Christians want them to suffer? Of course not. That's why Christians lovingly warn them; not because they want to see them suffer, but because they want them to repent, turn from their lifestyle, avoid the penalties, and enjoy the good things God has in store for all of His children.

Here is quote from a link that illustrates this:

Do homosexuals have more mental health problems as well?

Yes. Various research studies have found that homosexuals have higher rates of:

· Alcohol abuse

· Drug abuse

· Nicotine dependence

· Depression

· Suicide

Isn't it possible that these problems result from society's "discrimination" against homosexuals?

This is the argument usually put forward by pro-homosexual activists. However, there is a simple way to test this hypothesis. If "discrimination" were the cause of homosexuals' mental health problems, then one would expect those problems to be much less common in cities or countries, like San Francisco or the Netherlands, where homosexuality has achieved the highest levels of acceptance.

In fact, the opposite is the case. In places where homosexuality is widely accepted, the physical and mental health problems of homosexuals are greater, not less. This suggests that the real problem lies in the homosexual lifestyle itself, not in society's response to it. In fact, it suggests that increasing the level of social support for homosexual behavior (by, for instance, allowing same-sex couple to "marry") would only increase these problems, not reduce them.


So to all you homosexuals out there, are you going to do things that will contribute to solving the problem or are you going to continue to break the mirror by blaming other people for your problems and trying to get rid of them?

Here is a link to a former gay and a former lesbian who have decided that they are not going to break any more mirrors.


They have decided to repent and change their lifestyle with God's help. The Christian way is not to hate homosexuals, but to hate the sin, but love the sinner. The homosexual lifestyle will ruin your health, shorten your lifespan, and prevent you from entering Heaven. But I don't want that to happen to you and neither does God. Please get help while there is still time for you.

God bless.

Monday, 17 December 2007

STDs two and a half times More prevalent in lesbians than Normal Women

By Hilary White

December 17, 2007 ( - Bacterial vaginosis (BV) is a sexually transmitted disease that a new study has found has a higher than normal prevalence among practicing lesbians. The peer review journal Sexually Transmitted Infections, is carrying a small study comparing the instances of BV among lesbians with that among heterosexual women. The result was that of 189 heterosexuals and 171 lesbians recruited, 25.7 per cent of lesbians compared with 14.4 per cent of heterosexuals carried the disease.

The study concluded that "Women who identified as lesbians have a 2.5-fold increased likelihood of BV compared with heterosexual women."

BV, although previously considered a "nuisance infection", may cause serious complications if left untreated. These can include increased susceptibility to HIV, and may present other complications for pregnant women. It has also been associated with an increase in the development of Pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) following surgical abortion or hysterectomy.

Public health professionals admit that the problem with tracking the prevalence of sexually transmitted diseases among lesbians is the lack of research. What studies have been undertaken, however, show that most women in such relationships have had sexual relations with at least one man in the past and can transmit possible infections on to other women, sometimes years later. Commonly, such infections can include Chlamydia and Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) the infection that has been linked to cervical cancer.

Among the lesbian subculture, it is widely believed that STDs are a problem only for "straight" women and homosexual men. But studies are slowly coming to light that show otherwise.

In Montreal, a study of the lesbian subculture found that nearly 90 per cent had been diagnosed with Chlamydia, and 50 per cent with bacterial vaginosis. The April 2000 edition of the Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology reports of two lesbians diagnosed with pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) which is usually caused by untreated Chlamydia or gonorrhea.


Jemdude's Comments:

Looks like the idea that lesbians don't have much to worry about when it comes to diseases is false.

Thursday, 13 December 2007

Same-sex assult on freedom of speech

Someone took Ron Gray and the Christian Heritage Party to the Canadian Human Rights board for comments and articles against homosexuality. Freedom of speech is beginning to disappear in Canada.

You can read more about it in the following article:


You can watch the 1 hour interview from the program Insight:


Wednesday, 12 December 2007

Why Honey Is Vegan

Honey hurts more than just bees. It hurts egg-laying hens, crammed in battery cages so small they can’t spread their wings. It hurts mother pigs, languishing for months in steel crates so narrow they can’t turn around. And the billions of aquatic animals who, pulled from filthy aquaculture farms, suffocate to death. All because honey hurts our movement.

It’s happened to me over and over. Someone will ask me why I’m vegan—it could be a new friend, co-worker, distant family, or a complete stranger. I know I then have but a tiny window of opportunity to indelibly convey their first impression of veganism. I’m either going to open that window for that person, breezing in fresh ideas and sunlight, or slam it shut as the blinds fall. So I talk to them of mercy. Of the cats and dogs with whom they’ve shared their lives. Of birds with a half piece of paper’s worth of space in which to live and die. Of animals sometimes literally suffering to death. I used to eat meat too, I tell them. Lots of meat. And I never knew either.

Slowly but surely the horror dawns on them. You start to see them struggling internally. How can they pet their dog with one hand and stab a piece of pig with the other? They love animals, but they eat animals. Then, just when their conscience seems to be winning out, they learn that we don’t eat honey. And you can see the conflict drain away with an almost visible sigh. They finally think they understand what this whole “vegan” thing is all about. You’re not vegan because you’re trying to be kind or compassionate—you’re just crazy! They smile. They point. You almost had me going for a second, they chuckle. Whew, that was a close one. They almost had to seriously think about the issues. They may have just been considering boycotting eggs, arguably the most concentrated form of animal cruelty, and then the thought hits them that you’re standing up for insect rights. Maybe they imagine us putting out little thimble-sized bowls of food for the cockroaches every night.

I’m afraid that our public avoidance of honey is hurting us as a movement. A certain number of bees are undeniably killed by honey production, but far more insects are killed, for example, in sugar production. And if we really cared about bugs we would never again eat anything either at home or in a restaurant that wasn’t strictly organically grown—after all, killing bugs is what pesticides do best. And organic production uses pesticides too (albeit “natural”). Researchers measure up to approximately 10,000 bugs per square foot of soil—that’s over 400 million per acre, 250 trillion per square mile. Even “veganically” grown produce involves the deaths of countless bugs in lost habitat, tilling, harvesting and transportation. We probably kill more bugs driving to the grocery store to get some honey-sweetened product than are killed in the product’s production.

Our position on honey therefore just doesn’t make any sense, and I think the general population knows this on an intuitive level. Veganism for them, then, becomes more about some quasi-religious personal purity, rather than about stopping animal abuse. No wonder veganism can seem nonsensical to the average person. We have this kind of magical thinking; we feel good about ourselves as if we’re actually helping the animals obsessing about where some trace ingredient comes from, when in fact it may have the opposite effect. We may be hurting animals by making veganism seem more like petty dogmatic self-flagellation.

In my eyes, if we choose to avoid honey, fine. Let’s just not make a huge production of it and force everybody to do the same if they want to join the club.


Jemdude's comments:

I've recently become a vegan in accordance to this definition for health reasons. I abstain from meat, dairy and eggs, but still eat honey. Honey doesn't have the health concerns that meat, dairy and eggs do so I'm not worried about.

This 11+ minute audio file also explains my view on this issue:

This is a new area for me, so please keep this in mind if you choose to comment on the article and my calling myself "vegan".

Monday, 10 December 2007

Latimer should stay behind bars

Your letter writers claim there was a "miscarriage of justice" for Robert Latimer? I don't think so -- Robert Latimer gassed his daughter to death.

The words seem stark on the page, but they are true. He murdered her. Consider this: your daughter has a congenital syndrome that, among other things, leads to a painful joint dislocation. You can take advantage of Canada's vaunted public health system and have the doctors perform the recommended orthopedic repair, with additional pain-relieving medication and rehabilitation. Or you can drag her out to the backyard shed and gas her to death.

Years later, he still shows no remorse. I think the penalty, and denied parole, are appropriate.

Anyone who now laments the jail sentence for "this simple farmer," this "salt of the earth" man can only be motivated by one thing: a complete disrespect for people with disabilities, indeed a belief that they are somehow not worthy of being fellow members of our human community. No amount of "care" or "compassion" talk can sugar-coat this ugly truth below the surface of such a notion.

If Robert Latimer truly believed he was doing the right thing in killing his innocent daughter, then he should be man enough to pay the price. His daughter already has.

Paul Ranalli, Toronto.


Jemdude's Comments:

This is a very popular case in Canada and especially among the disability community. Years ago, Robert Latimer killed his daughter Tracy Latimer just because she had a disability. Lots of people at the time wrote in and sympathized with Latimer. The disability community as a whole is outraged because it shows that a lot of people don't think highly of people with disabilities.

The problem is, we don't know if Tracy Latimer wanted to be killed. If this kind of ruling was left to stand, a person can kill anyone with a disability and then make up a story saying that "they wanted me to end their pain" when in reality, they just want to make an excuse to murder someone.

In Canada, we already have the legal right to take our own life. Don't support someone else to have the right to make that decision for you.