Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 10/19/2021 in all areas

  1. your plan restricts the freedom of speech for privately owned establishments while pretending to be pro-free speech freedom of speech does not include forcing people to provide you a platform for your speech if their speech can be infringed on, then that sets a legal precedent to infringe on your speech taking away the free speech of those creating private platforms doesn't make your free speech rights any safer quite the opposite
    2 points
  2. If the European migrant crisis demonstrated anything it was that the great majority were NOT fleeing persecution and terrorism but simply pursuing a better, richer life.
    1 point
  3. Maybe you don’t when it comes to private entities and never have? If you’re using my platform, agreed to the terms of use, then why should I have to let you say whatever you want?
    1 point
  4. Yes. Any comment board which is open to the public should be required to respect freedom of speech. What other kind of comment boards are there? There are no government comment boards. They are all privately run. The idea that freedom of speech does not apply to privately owned or run websites is a lie. If you don't have freedom of speech on privately owned websites that are open to the public to comment on, you don't have freedom of speech.
    1 point
  5. Let's Go Brandon' song skyrockets to #1 spot on iTunes hip hop chart.
    1 point
  6. I gave up on CBC comment sections long ago when I noticed they disable relatively benign comments frequently. They are an ignorant, radical left, anti-Christian, and liberal-controlled mouthpiece. They do not respect freedom of speech at all and think they are some kind of guardians of morality when they do not respect even the most basic human rights.
    1 point
  7. The prominent NDP MP, Charlie Angus, apparently wants government to force social media to censor all comments deemed to be "extreme". Wow! So who will be the judge of what comments are extreme? NDP, Liberals, and the woke left of course. A prime example is on the CTV news right at this very moment. Premier Ford is being sharply criticized and the woke left are demanding he immediately apologize for the comment. Ford said immigrants who want to come to Canada "to get on the dole" should go somewhere else. This is an example of what would be deemed as extreme. Anybody making any similar comment would be shut down and censored if the NDP (and liberals) have their way. This kind of comment might be deemed to be unacceptable to many of the left woke and liberals in our society and many of these people seemed to have lost sight of what it means to have a free and democratic society. The Marxist ideology seems to have crept into western society and people no longer understand freedom of speech is not just for people one agrees with; it is for everyone. If they want to continue to live in a free society, they must accept comments that they disagree with and not try outlaw them or censor them in the media or internet. We must respect everyone's right to freedom of speech. That should be fundamental like breathing the air.
    1 point
  8. is wearing a mask for a little bit longer really that big a deal lol?
    1 point
  9. Of course Jesus wasn't speaking to the church, he was speaking to the people, not an institution. He lived his life to show us how we should live ours, and left us his word to tell us how to live a life pleasing to God. You think that you can lump people into groups, and then persecute them all. God sees each one of us as his child. Be careful who you judge, you might be condemning a child that God has called his own. Why don't you try to be a good neighbour to all.
    1 point
  10. Trump sues to keep his role in Jan. 6 insurrection attempt secret.
    1 point
  11. There's that GTA thinking again. Who are you to doubt something a stranger said on the internet, that he was told by somebody ? Such big city arrogance ...
    1 point
  12. But he didn't lose a leg, so again, just like the flu. Is that your standard now? You can just add "but he lost a leg" to every sentence? Did you lose a leg writing that post? Read her story. There was no leg lost.
    1 point
  13. Don't be so god damn melodramatic, you are neither a victim or a hero, you are just acting like a spoiled brat that can't get their own way.
    1 point
  14. Mistreating and abusing staff for enforcing a government imposed political directive is wrong. Abusing and taking away people’s freedom to make their own decision on what medical interventions they inject is wrong. Government using low income workers to enforce their new authoritarian policies is wrong. Firing people or making it impossible to earn a living for not conforming to new government controls is wrong. There is so much going on that is wrong these days, it’s hard to know where to start. While we’re fighting amongst each other, government has shifted the work, blame, and responsibility from their own shoulders onto everyone else.
    1 point
  15. Matthew 7:25 KJB has been taken out of context repeatedly and commonly by many churches and people. I am of the view that dispensational theology or interpretation is correct. You would have to do some study to understand it. There are a number of ways to interpret the Bible which are in strong contradiction to each other. As for this verse, it is part of what is often called the Sermon on the Mount. According to dispensational theology, Jesus was not speaking to the Church. The church was not in existence until it was created by God as described in the book of Acts. So the gospel of Matthew was written before the Church had begun. In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus was speaking about the future Kingdom Age and how life would be in that future Kingdom. The church is a New Testament creation. Reformed churches do not believe in dispensational interpretation. Many denominations do not believe or understand and commonly misinterpret the Sermon on the Mount. If you simply read it without understanding what it is referring to, you could easily believe it applies to the church today. The fact that what it teaches is impossible to achieve by anyone alive or in the church today should raise alarm bells and raise concerns about your interpretation. You have to read the epistles to understand the directions for the church. If you believe the Sermon on Mount must be obeyed successfully to be saved, you are seriously mistaken. It is an impossibility. Many Baptists do believe in the dispensations. That is why Reformed churches reject much of prophecy in the Bible or about a third of the Bible. They cannot understand the book of Revelation. In fact they believe the church existed through the Old Testament times and replaced Israel. You will hear them say the church is the new Israel. This ignores the prophecies in the Bible and ignores the account the creation of the church in the book of Acts. In the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew Jesus was speaking about what it would be like in the future kingdom, not the church age. We are now still living in the church age, the age of grace. The dispensations make more sense and divides Biblical understanding into seven ages of dispensations. Many churches fail to understand this and lump the Bible into one long age and this leads to misinterpretations of the Bible in many instances. The dispensations or different ages make it possible to understand many parts of the Bible which otherwise would make no sense. It has been common for people who have no understanding of dispensational theology to pull isolated verses out of the Bible like you did and try to apply them to everyone today. That is not rightly dividing the word. Here is one dispensational view, although there are even some different dispensational views: quote THE DISPENSATIONAL APPROACH Dispensationalism is a product of a Bible and prophetic conference movement in the nineteenth century which divided history into a number of time periods, or dispensations, in which God dealt with humanity on a different basis in each period. The classic exposition of this interpretation is the Scofield Reference Bible. In it Scofield states that the Sermon on the Mount contains the law of the kingdom but not the duty of the church. The Sermon on the Mount has a twofold application: (1) Literally to the kingdom. In this sense it gives the divine constitution for the righteous government of the earth. Whenever the kingdom of heaven is established on earth it will be according to that constitution. . . . In this sense the Sermon on the Mount is pure law. . . . For these reasons the Sermon on the Mount in its primary application gives neither the privilege nor the duty of the Church. These are found in the Epistles. 5 Secondly, he states that the Sermon on the Mount lacks the teaching on grace. The Lord’s Prayer asks the individual to pray for imperfect forgiveness because the forgiveness is based on the individual’s readiness to forgive. However, in the period of grace, full forgiveness is granted to the individual because it is based on Christ’s forgiveness which he has freely granted. Under the law of the kingdom, for example, no one may hope for forgiveness who has not first forgiven (Matt. 6:12, 14, 15). Under grace the Christian is exhorted to forgive because he is already forgiven (Eph. 4:30-32). . . . Under law forgiveness is conditioned {21} upon a like spirit in us; under grace we are forgiven for Christ’s sake, and exhorted to forgive because we have been forgiven. " Direction: Approaches to the Interpretation and Application of the Sermon on the Mount (directionjournal.org) This is crucial to understand. The believer in Christ is already forgiven. If you incorrectly understand Matthew and the Sermon on the Mount, you may think you must obey or be successful in following those commands in order to be saved, which is not correct. They are impossible standards to achieve. They are referring to the future Millenial Kingdom. Secondly, it is a long stretch to say Matthew 7:25 applies to immigration laws and therefore a country must welcome anyone in the world. That verse does not apply at all to immigration. Every country has borders and controls who gets in. It is a matter of defending one's country from people who would do it harm. People with alien cultures and religions do not fit in western countries and a country has a perfect right to protect itself from harm. The principle of self defense is not over-ridden by that verse. I have already pointed out the verse about having no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness. There is much darkness in the world and we as a nation, do not have to bring it into our country. Liberals in Europe brought millions of migrants in from the middle east and Africa and are now paying the price with periodic terrorist attacks and no go zones in their cities.
    1 point
  16. Lee Valley Tools is having a supply problem, Not looking good all the way round for the winter and purchasing goods.ca.news.yahoo.com/lee-valley-warns-customers-delays-133836557.htmlCanadian retailer Lee Valley Tools has a bleak warning for anyone looking to get their hands on high-end garden shears, brass escutcheons or crokinole boards any time soon: good luck.
    1 point
  17. Except you are talking in a bubble. There is no "case" here, and there is no authority that will reverse this or do anything about it. Someone had a comment removed. It's actually a very minor event in the lives of everyone on earth including those directly involved. You see Cougar, sometimes in this world people just don't get what they want. I know it makes you want to pout, but you can thank me for helping you understand things a little better.
    1 point
×
×
  • Create New...