At Concerned Christians Canada, we are committed to speaking out
and bringing the truth of God's word to bare on all aspects of
society and life. Speaking into the culture is in fact being the
salt of this world that Christ called us to be.
Click here to see
some ways CCC is being salt in this world
Christ said we are the light of the world. He said that we are
not to hide this light under a bushel but that we are to live as
examples of holiness and Godliness in this dark world. With our
projects, which are focused on serving and blessing, we are
committed to demonstrating the love of Christ without forsaking the
gospel. We regognize that we are to be salt and light, not salt or light.
Click here to see
some ways CCC is being a light in this dark world.
Concerned Christians Canada is encouraging Christians, who are
called by Christ's name to stand for Christ, and when
they have done all to stand, to stand having girded themselves with
the armor of God. We are sounding the trumpet call to all men and
women that love the Lord to be the watchmen over the nation that we
are called to be.
Our nation, although founded by men who believed in the God of
the Bible, has markedly departed not only from holding the Bible up
as THE authority for and above all men, but has substancially
departed from honoring the God of the Bible.
There are many attacks on the Biblical definition of the family.
God has blessed his definition of marriage, other choices bring
curses, not only on the adults but also on the children and on the
society that embraces those choices.
CCC is committed to explaining the benefits for God's design for
marriage. As an organization, we are also committed to
promoting God's model, to individuals, groups and politicians.
In this day and age, youth are hurting. Whether it be that they
have been wounded by sexual, physical, emotional or spiritual
abuse, at home or elsewhere, or broken by "dating" which has left
them abandoned and broken, whether they have had stability and
security robbed from them due to their parents divorcing, or any of
a myriad of other problems, children are more and more hopeless and
need to know that Christ is for them if the turn to Him. Find out
how CCC is reaching out to
youth.
We need your prayer support.
God is our source and our provider, but he uses people like us
to pray for one another, to edify one another and to build each
other up in the faith. He uses people like us working together in
the Spirit of Christ to change lives. Find out how CCC is encouraging the body of
Christ to work together to Pray, Act and Make a
Difference!
Search:
CCC Needs You
Please support Concerned Christians Canada with a donation.
CCC exists through private support alone, we are not governmentally or organizationally funded.
"I am pretty much scarred by religion in its most despicable form; living the aftermath; struggling and yet glad that I went through it because it still made me the person I am today. The relentless indoctrination, the lies ... the guilt ... the isolation from other faiths ... the punishment of independent thinking ... and feeling of complete powerlessness that comes along with it. I think I should stop here, but you get the idea."
– Atheist friend, Michel Mercier
Here's another brief interaction with an online City View reader in Montreal who has been kind enough to share openly with me regarding his experience in organized religion. As is evident from his words above, he was completely turned off by what he encountered in the religious community by way of indoctrination, lies, guilt, isolation and the punishment of independent thinking.
His points, of course, are well taken since I too have participated in far too many religious initiatives wherein leaving one's brains at the door was apparently an unspoken requirement for meaningful participation. From the Christian perspective, what is sad about such realities is that they in no way square with how Jesus lived or with what he taught. Apparently, one of the reasons Jesus was popular with the common people of his day was because he reminded them so little of the dogma, pomp and ceremony they associated with the institutionalized religion of their day. Further, he welcomed the skeptical, the inquisitive, the doubters and the immoral. He also suggested that loving God with one's intellect was one of the greatest obligations mankind has toward God.
It's curious and troubling then how the behemoth now known as Christianity has become so dogma oriented – to the point where, as Michel experienced, his introduction to organized religion required him, first and foremost, to unreservedly embrace dogma.
I'll pick up there next week.
Tim Callaway is the pastor of Faith Community Baptist Church in Airdrie (948-6727). Thanks to David Hayward (www.nakedpastor.com) for use of his work.
Have you ever wondered if Tattooing is Biblical? With the way that the Christians are taking up this practice, one might begin to think that it is okay for a Christian to get a tattoo, but what does God think? Here's a good article for you to read on the topic:
When the Human Genome Project published its first draft of the human genome in 2003, they already knew certain things in advance. These included:
Coding segments (genes that coded for proteins) were a minor component of the total amount of DNA in each cell. It was embarrassing to find that we have only about as many genes as mice (about 25,000) which constitute only about 3% of the entire genome.
this means that probably the whole genome is used by the cell and there is no such thing as ‘junk DNA’
According to the prevailing theory of evolution, beneficial mutations acted upon by natural selection provide the driving force behind nature’s production of new creatures. Of course, since mechanisms that reproduce genetic information in organisms are remarkably efficient, genetic modification by mutations are extremely rare. What is more, the overwhelming majority of mutations are so detrimental to the welfare of the mutant organism, the mutant dies or becomes a victim of predation before it has the ability to pass on its genes, and thus nature eliminates the mutation from the gene pool. Allegedly, in the rarest of cases, a “good” mutation that confers an advantage on an organism slips into the gene pool. Since this “beneficial” mutation aids the organism’s survival and reproductive ability, more offspring are produced that have the mutation. Supposedly, myriad millions of these types of mutations have accrued, by which single-celled bacteria have evolved, over billions of years, into humans. When asked why we do not see this process taking place before our eyes, we are told that it simply happens too slowly, is too gradual, and cannot be tested or witnessed in a single human generation, or even in hundreds of years.
"Let's Have an Election About Something That Really Matters"
As we proceed through another election, our fourth in seven years, we hear at the doors and on our televisions Canadians asking why we’re going through a federal election yet again.
The intention of the opposition is that Canadians will judge the behavior of the Conservatives in their “Contempt of Parliament.” The reality is shown in the results… Canadians are fed up and many are saying that they are not following the issues.
In the end, it is not the intention that is important, it is the results.
Another example of the intention not producing the hoped for results is that of approximately 3.3 million innocent Canadian lives snuffed out by abortion since 1969. 3.3 million unborn children extracted prematurely from their mother’s womb during any of the three trimesters of pregnancy, or perhaps even others through infanticide, the new-born abandoned to die over a period of several hours.
Today, we are certain that these unborn children are very much alive throughout the various stages of development in their mother’s womb and that abortion is the termination of innocent life. We also know that women who experience abortion have greater risk of mental and physical health complications.
Where are the human rights activists when these murders occur? Why is parliament forbidden to even discuss abortion? Why are grandmothers, like Linda Gibbons, sent to jail for peacefully counseling women to prevent the murder of their child while the abortionists are allowed to continue?
Recent polls now suggest that the majority affirm the truth, that the unborn child is precisely that, a child. Just ask the abortionists who use forceps to tear the child into pieces as they extract him from the womb limb by limb: barbaric murder which inflicts horrific pain on the innocent and defenseless child.
The scripted response is, “The intention of abortion is to allow women the ‘right’ to control their own reproductive organs, not to inflict pain on the child.” That may be the intention but the result is a horrifically painful murder, murder of the weakest and most defenseless in society.
I wonder how Canadian politicians would react if the blood of the 3.3 million murdered children were to wash through our streets. No doubt most would react in horror. I wonder however, would this horror be about the inconvenience of the messy blood or would the horror be about the murdered children from whom the blood flowed. I wonder.
The following article was posted on the Canadian Constitution Federation's (CCFs) website [my reply is posted below]:
Article Link:
Human rights decision harms families
Derek From
Troy Media, February 16, 2011
Many Human Rights Commission decisions produce unintended and harmful consequences. One example is Johnstone v. CBSA, in which the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) made it easier for employees to get their employers over a barrel.
The CHRC – in a decision that will unintentionally make it more difficult for young men and women with families to find good employment – awarded Fiona Johnstone over $35,000 in damages, plus lost wages and benefits because her employer would not bend over backwards to accommodate her request for a specific work schedule after she returned from maternity leave.
Unwilling to compromise
Johnstone has worked for the Canadian Border Service Agency (CBSA) at Pearson International Airport since 1998. The CBSA’s operations at Pearson run 24/7 and employees normally work rotating shifts. Before returning from maternity leave in 2005, Johnstone asked the CBSA to treat her differently by providing her with “static shifts”. She requested three fixed 13-hour shifts per week (totalling 39 hours), corresponding with the only three periods when she could arrange for family members to care for her child.
The CBSA was willing to accommodate Johnstone by providing her with three 10-hour static shifts and a four-hour shift on a fourth day. But Johnstone was unsatisfied with this 34-hour compromise. She wanted to continue to work full-time hours, to preserve her pension entitlements, promotion opportunities, and income. She wanted family members – not day-care providers – to care for her child.
In effect, Johnstone wanted to be insulated from the natural consequences of her own life-choices. And, more significantly, she wanted the Canadian taxpayers, her fellow employees, and men and women of similar circumstance to foot the bill for her life-choices. So, she complained to the CHRC.
Johnstone’s complaint to the CHRC was successful. She was awarded compensation for “lost” wages and benefits, including overtime and pension contributions, for work she did not do and for wages and benefits she did not earn. She was also given a total of $15,000 for pain and suffering because she was embarrassed that her complaint was construed as a human-rights case. She was awarded a further $20,000 in special damages for the “wilful and reckless conduct” of the CBSA because it sought a compromise position instead of acquiescing to her request for special treatment. In short, she experienced a financial windfall because she refused to find childcare outside of her family.
However, as the old adage goes, there is no such thing as a free lunch. Since the CBSA is a government agency, any costs awarded against it will ultimately be paid by Canadian taxpayers. In addition, Johnstone’s fellow employees will shoulder some of the burden. Since Johnstone was unwilling to work undesirable hours, her fellow employees had to pick up the slack and work those hours in her place. Granting Johnstone a greater degree of flexibility and choice means that other CBSA employees suffered a corresponding lesser degree of flexibility and choice.
Why hire employees with families?
Even though the CHRC carefully stated that its decision applied equally to male and female care-givers, it is doubtful that all men and women will be affected in the same way. Men and women with families will bear more of Johnstone’s burden than men and women who do not. Such employees might temporarily leave the workforce to become care-givers or make costly demands, such as “static shifts”. And as a direct and unintended result of this CHRC decision, employers cannot be certain that they will receive the same return on costs devoted to training and staffing employees with families and those without. It will be easier to simply look past the job applications of qualified applicants with families. After all, when faced with viable competing alternatives, why not hire an employee that comes with less risk?
Ultimately, it is difficult to see who the real winner is in this CHRC decision. The Canadian taxpayer and the CBSA lose. Johnstone’s fellow CBSA employees lose. And many qualified men and women lose.
Perhaps the real winners are those employers looking for an excuse to avoid hiring employees who have families. Unfortunately, this CHRC decision unintentionally provides ample justification for the alienation of the very demographic of which Johnstone is a member.
Derek James From is a Student-at-Law with the Canadian Constitution Foundation
This is my response:
Derek,
Do you have any children of your own? I wonder if you understand what it is to truly care for your own children. Your article titled, "Human rights decision harms families", while making some good points about measuring consequences of our actions and being careful of what we ask for since what we ask for may have deep implications beyond what we are seeking, falls short of properly representing the interests of the family. Worse yet, your article maligns the character of a woman who is not satisfied with leaving the children she dearly loves in the incapable hands of strangers. She is also not satisfied with the messaging that the government run agency is sending when it says that raising children will mean that you will lose all that you have worked for; to preserve her pension entitlements, promotion opportunities, and income. Raising children is not a selfish act. It is a society serving act. It is extremely hard work, with far reaching consequences if done wrong. In our society, there is a norm, perpetuated by the government, education system and society at large that leaving your children in the hand of strangers to raise, is a good and healthy thing, and that personally investing in the future of children and the nation is somehow selfish and wrong.
Derek, our society has really lost sight of the concept of family values. That this woman wants family members to look after her children rather than strangers, shows a great level of personal responsibility and shows that she wants her children to grow up with out emotional detachment and abandonment issues. It shows that she, while trying to meet the financial demands of raising a family, does not want to compromise her dearly held child rearing standards and ideals. This, Derek, is a good thing that more people should learn from. As a father of six myself, I have seen the fruit that has come from parents around us who are, yes loving parents, but who have decided to have strangers raise their children. I have watched our children grow, as they have been raised exclusively by us, and I have seen the difference between the two. I see the emotional and mental stresses that the children who have been put into institutionalized day cares have gone through and have noted that they are sick more, that they are more stressed out and that they are less confident.
Now Derek, I know that many may disagree with me, and that's unfortunate. Statistics have demonstrated the negative effects of absent parents on children. People may, for selfish reasons, be willing to compromise the mental, emotional and spiritual well being of their children, but I don't think that that is the kind of messaging an article that purports to advocate for families should propagate. Maligning a woman who wants to have her own children raised by loving family members who have a vested interest in ensuring that those children are raised in a loving and compassionate way, with the families values and standards intact, is wrong.
Derek, you obviously are overlooking the value and importance of family based child rearing. It is clear that you do not see the commitment to such child rearing and the desire for children to be raised healthy and whole as important, or perhaps you don't see the connection. It is the child rearing process and methods employed that will either produce delinquents or positive and healthy contributing citizens. It seems clear that you are directly opposed to this mother's decision to employ the higher standard of having her children raised by family members, and feel that this mother has slighted society by making the uncompromising decision she has. On the contrary, society should make allowances for the rearing children by their own family members since it is to benefit all of society, not to mention the well being of the next generation, who will be our future leaders. If this was a private agency who was wronging it's employee the company would need to cover costs of doing so. Government agencies should be no different. The commission clearly ruled in favour of protecting the rights of women who are committed to having their children raised by family members, which is a good thing. Your article, mischaracterizes the ruling and the value of family based child rearing.
Derek, I do hope that you will carefully re-read your article and that you will consider the message you have sent to Canadians about family based child rearing. I also hope that in the process of doing so, you will think long and hard about the children of our nation who are often not considered when it comes to financial matters, except in the liabilities or debts column of the ledger. They are generally looked at as financial decision rather than as what is best for them apart from financial decisions. Children are not liabilities, unless raised improperly, they are people, and due to this fact their spiritual, emotional and physical well being needs to be kept first and foremost in the minds of those who aspire to raise them responsibly and those who have made a point to speak on behalf of the family.
I hope that this letter has given you food for thought and I do, truly, hope that it will help you to see things a little differently.
With all sincerity and concern for the state of the family in Canada and the views of Canadians on the issue, I thank you for your time and kind consideration of my letter to you.
God bless,
Jim Blake National Chairman Concerned Christians Canada www.concernedchristians.ca
Praying, Acting, Making a Difference!
Human rights decision harms families
Derek From
Troy Media, February 16, 2011
Many Human Rights Commission decisions produce unintended and harmful consequences. One example is Johnstone v. CBSA, in which the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) made it easier for employees to get their employers over a barrel.
The CHRC – in a decision that will unintentionally make it more difficult for young men and women with families to find good employment – awarded Fiona Johnstone over $35,000 in damages, plus lost wages and benefits because her employer would not bend over backwards to accommodate her request for a specific work schedule after she returned from maternity leave.
Unwilling to compromise
Johnstone has worked for the Canadian Border Service Agency (CBSA) at Pearson International Airport since 1998. The CBSA’s operations at Pearson run 24/7 and employees normally work rotating shifts. Before returning from maternity leave in 2005, Johnstone asked the CBSA to treat her differently by providing her with “static shifts”. She requested three fixed 13-hour shifts per week (totalling 39 hours), corresponding with the only three periods when she could arrange for family members to care for her child.
The CBSA was willing to accommodate Johnstone by providing her with three 10-hour static shifts and a four-hour shift on a fourth day. But Johnstone was unsatisfied with this 34-hour compromise. She wanted to continue to work full-time hours, to preserve her pension entitlements, promotion opportunities, and income. She wanted family members – not day-care providers – to care for her child.
In effect, Johnstone wanted to be insulated from the natural consequences of her own life-choices. And, more significantly, she wanted the Canadian taxpayers, her fellow employees, and men and women of similar circumstance to foot the bill for her life-choices. So, she complained to the CHRC.
Johnstone’s complaint to the CHRC was successful. She was awarded compensation for “lost” wages and benefits, including overtime and pension contributions, for work she did not do and for wages and benefits she did not earn. She was also given a total of $15,000 for pain and suffering because she was embarrassed that her complaint was construed as a human-rights case. She was awarded a further $20,000 in special damages for the “wilful and reckless conduct” of the CBSA because it sought a compromise position instead of acquiescing to her request for special treatment. In short, she experienced a financial windfall because she refused to find childcare outside of her family.
However, as the old adage goes, there is no such thing as a free lunch. Since the CBSA is a government agency, any costs awarded against it will ultimately be paid by Canadian taxpayers. In addition, Johnstone’s fellow employees will shoulder some of the burden. Since Johnstone was unwilling to work undesirable hours, her fellow employees had to pick up the slack and work those hours in her place. Granting Johnstone a greater degree of flexibility and choice means that other CBSA employees suffered a corresponding lesser degree of flexibility and choice.
Why hire employees with families?
Even though the CHRC carefully stated that its decision applied equally to male and female care-givers, it is doubtful that all men and women will be affected in the same way. Men and women with families will bear more of Johnstone’s burden than men and women who do not. Such employees might temporarily leave the workforce to become care-givers or make costly demands, such as “static shifts”. And as a direct and unintended result of this CHRC decision, employers cannot be certain that they will receive the same return on costs devoted to training and staffing employees with families and those without. It will be easier to simply look past the job applications of qualified applicants with families. After all, when faced with viable competing alternatives, why not hire an employee that comes with less risk?
Ultimately, it is difficult to see who the real winner is in this CHRC decision. The Canadian taxpayer and the CBSA lose. Johnstone’s fellow CBSA employees lose. And many qualified men and women lose.
Perhaps the real winners are those employers looking for an excuse to avoid hiring employees who have families. Unfortunately, this CHRC decision unintentionally provides ample justification for the alienation of the very demographic of which Johnstone is a member.
Derek James From is a Student-at-Law with the Canadian Constitution Foundation.
Matthew 23:1 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, 2 saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 Therefore whatever they tell you to observe,[a]that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do. 4 For they bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers. 5 But all their works they do to be seen by men. They make their phylacteries broad and enlarge the borders of their garments. 6 They love the best places at feasts, the best seats in the synagogues, 7 greetings in the marketplaces, and to be called by men, ‘Rabbi, Rabbi.’ 8 But you, do not be called ‘Rabbi’; for One is your Teacher, the Christ,[b] and you are all brethren. 9 Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. 10 And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ. 11 But he who is greatest among you shall be your servant. 12 And whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.
I came across a thread on facebook regarding the topic of infatuation (what the youth called love). Here is the full thread. I have abreviated the names so that individuals may remain anonymous. This post is to reveal where young people's hearts are at (even within the church) on the topic of love.
A. M. -
The Freshman Girl, Oh So Shy, Sits And Watches, The Sophmore Guy.
The Sophmore Guy, With His Head In A Whirl,
Sits And Watches The Junior Girl. The Junior Girl, In Her Red Sedan,
Colossians 3:5-8 - Therefore put to death your members which are on the earth: fornication, uncleanness, passion, evil desire, and covetousness (which is idolatry), (6) on account of which things' sake the wrath of God is coming on the sons of disobedience, (7) among whom you also once walked, when you lived in these. (8) But now also put off all these things: anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, shameful speech out of your mouth.
Matthew 7:12-27 - Therefore all things, whatever you desire that men should do to you, do even so to them; for this is the Law and the Prophets. (13) Go in through the narrow gate, for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and many there are who go in through it. (14) Because narrow is the gate and constricted is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it. (15) Beware of false prophets who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. (16) You shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thorns, or figs from thistles? (17) Even so every good tree brings forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree brings forth evil fruit. (18) A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruits, nor can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. (19) Every tree that does not bring forth good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. (20) Therefore by their fruits you shall know them. (21) Not everyone who says to Me, Lord! Lord! shall enter the kingdom of Heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in Heaven. (22) Many will say to Me in that day, Lord! Lord! Did we not prophesy in Your name, and through Your name throw out demons, and through Your name do many wonderful works? (23) And then I will say to them I never knew you! Depart from Me, those working lawlessness! (24) Therefore whoever hears these sayings of Mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on a rock. (25) And the rain came down, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house. And it did not fall, for it was founded on a rock. (26) And everyone who hears these sayings of Mine and does not do them shall be compared to a foolish man who built his house on the sand. (27) And the rain came down, and the floods came, and the wind blew and beat on that house. And it fell, and great was its fall.
According to the prevailing theory of evolution, beneficial mutations acted upon by natural selection provide the driving force behind nature’s production of new creatures. Of course, since mechanisms that reproduce genetic information in organisms are remarkably efficient, genetic modification by mutations are extremely rare. What is more, the overwhelming majority of mutations are so detrimental to the welfare of the mutant organism, the mutant dies or becomes a victim of predation before it has the ability to pass on its genes, and thus nature eliminates the mutation from the gene pool. Allegedly, in the rarest of cases, a “good” mutation that confers an advantage on an organism slips into the gene pool. Since this “beneficial” mutation aids the organism’s survival and reproductive ability, more offspring are produced that have the mutation. Supposedly, myriad millions of these types of mutations have accrued, by which single-celled bacteria have evolved, over billions of years, into humans. When asked why we do not see this process taking place before our eyes, we are told that it simply happens too slowly, is too gradual, and cannot be tested or witnessed in a single human generation, or even in hundreds of years.