no absolute truth!!

as we are advertising for ravi zacharias coming to the university of waterloo, one particular event stands out...

in order to show how silly it is for people to say, "you have your truth, i have my truth", one of our students stood outside the Student Center, on a freezing cold day wearing only shorts and a billboard over his chest. the billboard said something to the effect of, "there is no absolute truth. you think it is -10 today, i think it is +20".

he was pretty cold afterward, and said some of his extremities were still numb, but in the end he decided that no matter how hard he tried to beleive it was +20 outside, in reality, it didnt change the fact that it was -10.

Noah's ark not by natural causes?!?!?!

Hey guys,

so i was flipping through the channels the other night when i came across this documentary about noah's ark. it was interesting...

their whole point, whoever made it, was to prove that to believe that noah's ark actually occurred is silly. the basis of their argument? based on research, it is impossible that this event could have occured by natural causes. {insert sarcasm here} excellent job sherlock, i never would have guessed that the gathering of animals from all around the world couldn't have happened without any sort of SUPERnatural intervention.

it was actually quite funny though... they actually tried to show how hard it would have been to gather these animals, by having actors portraying noah and his family struggling to get those pesky camels on the ark. you should have seen them pulling on those harnesses! it looked like they were about to pass out from exhaustion. plenty of brow wiping action was going on.

the more and more i go through life, the more and more i realize that people are funny...

Jesus Among Other Gods

Does everyone know that Ravi Zacharias is coming to Mac/Waterloo/Guelph later in January??

Anyways, to prepare for his visit, I began to read one of his books called, "Jesus Among Other Gods". The book sets out to compare Jesus to other leading religious figures (Mohammed, Buddha, and Krishna), and to show how Jesus stands out as special among them.

The first chapter was a bit about his (ravi's) early life, and setting the context for the rest of his book.

The second chapter was really good, and for the first time in a while i felt like i learned something new and cool. It talked about how Jesus has no begining, as well as the fact that Jesus doesnt have a specific home on earth. The other figures all had beginings and hometowns. (Jesus as a human had a birth and hometown, but existed in eternity past with God the Father, and God the Holy Spirit).

Anyways, the cool new fact that i learned was concerning one of the problems that Muslims have with Christianity, which is the fact that Jesus is God's son. Most Muslims i have talked with, both here in Canada, and in Tanzania, say that God could not have a son, since that would have to mean that God had sexual relations with a women.

In the book, Ravi says that this is an interesting problem, since the Qur'an itself states that Jesus was born by a virgin birth (Surah 19:19-21). The Qur'an claims that this happened when Mary was confronted by the Angel Gabriel, and he "breathed in the sleeve of Mary's shirt, amd thus she conceived" (this is not a quote directly from the text of the Qur'an, but a note at the bottom of the page to help explain what these verses meant).

So all this to say, i find it interesting that Muslims would say that Jesus couldnt be the son of God, because that would mean God had to have had sex with a women, when in the Qur'an it clearly states that Jesus was born of virgin birth, only not of the Holy Spirit (as the Bible says), but by the angel Gabriel.

There was also some other interesting stuff that i learned from this chapter, pertaining to certain Islamic beliefs, but i found that one the most interesting.

so far i really recommend this book, and i am really excited for Ravi coming to our campuses!! for more info in his time at Mac/Waterloo/Guelph go to www.thewaytruthlife.com

Pee wee herman and anti bush dude

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

We better be nice to our mothers!!!

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?

* http://www.courttv.com/trials/peterson/092204_ctv.html