Harper’s Conservatives lead Liberals 42.3 to 28.4 in latest election poll

From the Vancouver Province.

Excerpt:

Stephen Harper’s Conservatives have soared into majority government territory in B.C. with more than double the support of the Liberals, a new poll says.

As the federal election campaign enters week two, The Nanos poll, conducted for The Globe and Mail and CTV, indicates 49.7 per cent support for the Conservatives here and 23.4 per cent for the Liberals, with the NDP garnering 20.6 per cent support.

The daily tracking poll has Stephen Harper’s Conservatives winning over 40-per cent support across Canada — seen as the key level of support for forming a majority government — with a commanding 14-point lead over Michael Ignatieff’s Liberals.

Harper’s party is only trailing in Quebec to the Bloc, with Canada-wide support of 42.3 per cent, compared to 28.4 per cent for the Liberals, 16.4 per cent for Jack Layton’s NDP and 3.8 per cent for the Greens.

And from the London Free Press – policies!

Excerpt:

“We stand with farmers and hunters and we will scrap the long-gun registry,” said Harper, adding that a Tory majority would prevent the opposition from blocking those efforts again.

He also tried to counter the image of rural residents as out of step with the rest of the country.

“I have not found in rural Canada a general opposition to gun control,” said Harper. “There’s not a general opposition to the idea that a gun owner should get a licence. We’ve had a handgun registry for years.”

He sees wide acceptance of those measures as well as restrictions on powerful weapons.

“What people don’t accept is going out and registering millions and millions and millions of long guns when we already have all this other information.”

My previous post on Harper’s plan to ban political contributions from unions and big corporations, as well as federal subsidies for political parties.

My previous post on Harper’s initiative to win over social conservatives as much as he can given the circumstances.

J.P. Moreland on confirming the Bible with scientific evidence

From J.P. Moreland’s web site. (H/T Thinking Matters NZ)

Excerpt:

The Bible is the greatest source of wisdom for life in all of humanity.  If followed, its teaching regularly and without rival leads to human flourishing.  It is important to keep this in mind, because, since the beginning of the twentieth century in the United States, current after current of alleged thought has told us to jettison scriptural teaching in favor of some recent, more updated findings.  This has especially been true in the sexual revolution, which tells us that traditional biblical morality is stifling and repressive.  However, if the Bible is true, one would predict that. In fact, following its teachings would lead to flourishing, and disobeying its teachings would have a deleterious effect on people.

I just finished reading Joe McIlhaney, MD,  and Freda Bush’s, MD, book, Hooked: New Science on How Casual Sex is Affecting our Children (Northfield Publishing, 2008).  So far as I know, neither author is a believer, and if he or she is, neither’s religious views form a part of his/her arguments.  The thesis of the book is that, given current brain research, is it now beyond reasonable doubt that sexual promiscuity (basically, any intense sexual activity, including, but not limited to, intercourse) has a negative impact on one’s brain chemistry, one’s health, one’s ability to enjoy sex, and one’s ability to connect emotionally and relationally with someone.  They argue that only in the context of traditional marriage can sexual relations be life-giving.

I have the book, and bought explicitly for the reason of being able to confirm and defend my views, which I get from the Bible, with scientific evidence, which I get from scientists. I find that people who don’t believe the Bible are more impressed with the Bible when I start by arguing with the scientific evidence. That’s how you start a conversation that ends with the Bible.

Does God scare people into loving him with the threat of Hell?

This is from The Sparx401 again.

Excerpt:

It’s probably one of the more prominent questions seekers and skeptics alike will ask: What kind of choice is that?! Love me or burn in Hell? This particular question is what we’ll be delving into today. In fact, I’ll be writing a slew of posts on questions pertaining to Hell and Salvation and such.

First, a “sketch”:

Tim bows on one knee and says to Karen, “I love you more than anyone could imagine! You’re so incredibly beautiful! And actually, Karen, I was wondering if you’d be my wife and marry me.”

Taken aback by this, but obviously touched by his feelings, Karen thoughtfully responds, “That’s so sweet of you Tim! Still, I’m going to have to think about it…”

“Oh sure, go right on ahead. I don’t want to force you, else that wouldn’t be a genuine choice,” replies Tim.

“However,” he exclaims, “If you don’t choose to marry me, I’ll send you down into my basement where my crazy cousin Micah will torture you forever”.

“What? That’s totally unfair! What kind of choice is that? Why would you send me down there for?” stammers Karen with shock.

“I’m not sending you down there Karen, you are sending yourself there if you choose not to marry me. It’s still your free choice, after all”.

Such a story is how a good number of skeptics view God’s “provision” of choice vis-à-vis Hell and Salvation. Yet, how accurate is this portrayal given the relevant biblical data and Christian doctrine? My contention? Very inaccurate.

Click here to find out how to respond to this objection.