Tuesday, November 30, 2004
dont you hate it when you write a whole blog and you try to post it, and it all gets lost!
so anyways, i was talking about peewee herman...
i was in ottawa this past week, at Carleton University and the protesters had a table trying to recruit people to join their noble cause. As i was walking through the hall this one guy put a flyer in my hand and told me to join them. i responded by saying that i liked George W. he responded by saying, " Well he doesn't like you!". I shruged it off and went on with my day.
Later that same day i walked by their booth again, and the same guy tried to recruit me. I responded by saying that i would rather shake Bush's hand than protest him. He responed by saying, "Yah, but he doesnt want to shake your hand!"
this brings me back to peewee herman. see, peewee used to love saying "i know you are but what am i?"
childish responses like what i recieved from that anti-bush dude, and "i know you are but what am i?" belong on peewee's playhouse.
now i am sure that there are many intellegent people involved with the anti-bush stuff, but a word of advice if any are reading... maybe next time pick a different person to recruit for your cause... anti-bush dude and peewee herman arent the best prepresentatives of your cause
im jamie strickland
Posted by jamieunited at 11:22 p.m.
Monday, November 15, 2004
So Scott Peterson was found guilty of 1st degree murder of his wife, and 2nd degree murder of his unborn son.
Did everyone hear that, or am I the only one who caught that? He was found guilty of murder for the unborn child that his wife was carrying! I see this as one of the biggest precedent cases for the abortion issue that there is.
According to Courttv.com, “at that time of death the fetus had a gestational age of 33 weeks and one day, almost seven weeks short of full development.”*
So, let’s ask the question. If on the same day Laci Peterson and unborn child were killed, a woman, with an unborn child with the same gestational age as Laci Peterson’s child, had walked into a clinic and had an abortion that would have been legal. But, when Scott Peterson ends the life of his unborn child, he gets 2nd degree murder. In one case, we say that the unborn child’s life is protectably human, and give the murderer 2nd degree murder, but in the other case, the person who ends the babies life gets paid for a days work.
What is the difference you ask? The mother’s choice. In one case the mother didn’t choose to have her unborn child killed, and in the other case, she did choose to have her unborn child killed.
This is quite odd to me, that this is the difference. With logic like this, it should be perfectly legal for Lois Strickland (my mother), to kill me, and to claim that this was her choice, so it is okay.
So when someone claims to be pro-choice, to me what they are saying is that it should be the mother’s choice whether the baby should live or not live. It doesn’t matter whether the baby is in the mother’s womb or not. This Scott Peterson trial proved that even if the baby is in the mother’s womb, it is still a life that deserves to be protected by the law.
I guess we should all be a little nicer to our mothers now, eh?
Posted by jamieunited at 10:26 p.m.
Friday, November 12, 2004
It seems like everyone around me is talking about absolute truth. I was once taught to call it objective truth... something about the way it comes across. I can see that. But I'm an old dog. I can't learn a new trick, can I? Its like Christmas Conference. Everyone tells me to call it Winter Conference, but I am so used to calling it Christmas Conference... anyways, thats basically a pointless rant.
Objective truth... I believe it. I also apreciate guys like Graydon, of the I agree with Graydon campaign at Guelph. Now theres a guy who makes no bones about what he beleives. Some Christians would rather disguise our beliefs in order not to offend anyone. I'm more along the lines with Graydon... lets lay our cards on the table.
I also had an interesting meeting with the staff guy, and student leader from another supposedly evangelical christian group @ Guelph. If you want to know about it just ask... I was disappointed to say the very least.
Posted by jamieunited at 1:45 a.m.
Tuesday, November 02, 2004
As i am watching the CNN's coverage for the Presidental election, I ran across an good future sermon illistration for absolute truth. A Panel from CNN, including Larry King was interviewing at the same time the Chairman for both the Republican national convention, and the Democratic national convention. As the panel asked them questions, and asked them if they were worried about anything. the republican said, " no, im not worried, we are already doing well in ... blah, blah, blag...looks like we will win again" and then the Democrat resonded by saying, "no, im not worried either, voter turnout is up this year, which is a good sign for us, blah, blah, blah, so it looks like Kerry will be the new president". Larry King responded by saying, "Well, both of you are saying that your candidate will win, and they both cant win, so one of you has to be wrong!"
It just occured to me then that it seems so obvious that if 2 things contradict each other, they both cant be true. yet in our society, if you claim that there are absoulte truths, people will say that is arrogant. I dont get it....
All i have to say is preach on Larry King...
Posted by jamieunited at 10:13 p.m.