In what might become a regular feature here at CC HQ, we're going to go back through last week's entire output of the Blogging Tories and select the most absurd, the most ridiculous, the most jaw-droppingly asinine post for the inaugural "A Blogging Tory said WHAT!?!?" award.
Actually, in all honesty, we're going to do no such thing because we already know who's getting the award, and we just wanted to make it sound like there was, you know, work involved. So while there were numerous worthy candidates, really, there is just no earthly way anyone could possibly top this gem from self-proclaimed "Canadian. Christian. Conservative." BT Mark Peters:
The problem is that natural science has set itself up as the only pathway to true knowledge. But natural science certainly does not have the corner on knowledge or truth. In fact, one of the greatest criticisms of naturalism and materialism is that they discount very real supernatural events, even though the supernatural phenomena are tangible and observable.
I have personally witnessed supernatural healing, for example: a man in our church had one leg six inches shorter than the other from birth. He walked with a platform shoe. One night, after praying for him in a church service, a believer laid him on the floor and literally, in real time, pulled his leg out until it was the same length as the other. Six inches of flesh, bone, sinew, fiber, blood and vessel, etc. in less than a second. No pain, no surgical incision. Nothing. The man walked to his truck in his socks with both feet level on the ground and had to buy a whole new set of shoes.
Natural science cannot explain this. It defies natural laws. This is why they call it supernatural. But it did happen, it was tangible, observable and explainable, if you allow the supernatural. Certainly the person who was healed knows the new part of his leg is real; he walks on it every day. Same goes for the lady whose blindness in one eye instantaneously receded after prayer during the same service.
I'm sure some of you might be disappointed in Mark's victory here because you were cheering for local favourite Matthew at "The Politic" but, really, no one else even had a chance. I'm sure you can see that now.
TOTALLY GRATUITOUS AFTERSNARK: It wasn't eligible for this week's award but I don't imagine I'm going to hear any whining if I suggest that last week's award would most likely also have to gone to Mr. Peters for his thoughtful and nuanced proposal about why it was terribly, terribly important to send Christian missionaries to Afghanistan for what he called "large-scale proselytizing."
In fact, I'm sure there won't be much complaining if I simply name this award "The Mark Peters Award for Saying Something Really, Really Stupid." Somehow, it just seems right, doesn't it?