blackbird

Excellent point!

I agree with your post generally. I believe you know what is going on. But I think Quebec has a large amount of control of Canada through the PMs and Liberals they elect. This is having a negative effect on Canada. They oppose the energy industry in Alberta, oppose fracking and LNG industry, oppose pipelines, and other things.

Quite true, sadly!

Hey man, I think you're drifting way off base on this one. The Orange Order is a peaceful fraternal organization in Canada. The Mexican cartels have no similarity. They are violent organized crime groups. The Orange Order would be something like the Protestant version of the Knights of Columbus, which I understand is a peaceful fraternal Catholic order of men. I am not referring to what went on in Northern Ireland during their civil war. I don't know all the details of that. We should stick to facts and what can be proven. When you make false claims about the Orange Order, particularly in Canada, without any foundation you hurt your own credibility. I would avoid that if I were you.

Mentally ill people who have given evidence that they are a danger to society, after careful examination of all facts, should be committed to a mental institution. I will leave the details of how that would work to be decided. It doesn't matter what a person's past is or how the system failed them. What matters is society is protected from future harm. Government and the system are not protecting society.

Interesting. But what does that cottage on Laing street have to do with it?

Don't give up on Canada or the Constitutional Monarchy. It is still a very good thing and better than the rest of the world. It is probably the only thing many people from all parties can agree on. Although we have a growing number who seem to want to get rid of it. I don't know what would replace it. It might be a disaster.

You seem to have a lot of knowledge of parts of history, which is good. History is such a broad topic that it is impossible for anyone to know everything about it. I never knew what a Fenian was until I just looked it up. Interesting. History is interesting, but again I can't emphasize enough that the Bible is far more important to know, especially the New Testament.

That's why debating history is a losing proposition. It just goes around in circles with no solution. Who did this or did that doesn't really prove what is right or true. I have tried to use history as an argument at times, but history by itself does not prove who is right or wrong. It is a weak argument. The only thing useful about history is it can be used to show "by their deeds ye shall know them" kind of thing. Then the other side will point to the bad deeds done by your side. Then it become difficult to prove who is right. That's why I prefer to discuss the Bible because that is the where truth comes from. But if you are one who does not believe there is any real basis for truth, then of course it is impossible to come to agreement. That is why the liberals lose the debate because their only claim is man's wisdom, not God's. They don't like it when someone refers to God's wisdom such as his written word because they don't have a leg to stand on. As a believer in God and his written revelation, I can't see the wisdom of using human reasoning. It has no basis and is only the ideas of fallen, corrupt men. They dismiss Bible belief as "religious fanaticism". But secular humanism is fine with liberals.

Do you call the disastrous laws and governing we have a superficiality? Violent offenders, many repeat offenders often caught and released the next day and go on to re-offend. Light sentences for murderers who get out on parole after serving only part of a sentence. No capital punishment for murders of policemen and other innocent people. Government spending millions of dollars around the world on everything under the sun. Open borders that let in tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of illegal migrants. People who were never screened for their backgrounds and possible criminal records. Or unknown backgrounds because it is not possible to know their history. Over reaching government control and regulations contributing to the shortage of housing, inflation, and rising costs of living. Carbon taxes for a fictitious war on climate change. Neglect of the Canadian Forces ships and aircraft requirements. Repeated ethics violations/breaking of ethics laws with no consequences. On and on it goes.

The 37 year old married man was in a Starbuck cafe in Vancouver with his wife and toddler. A young man nearby was vaping near his toddler and he asked him not to vape hear the toddler. The man responded by pulling out a knife and stabbing the 37 year old father in the stomach in front of his wife and toddler. The father died on the floor in front of his wife and toddler. The man was arrested but because of our soft-on-crime justice system, which is run mainly by Romanists, the murderer has been charged with second degree murder although he was carrying a knife with him. One doesn't carry a knife unless one is planning to use it somewhere. The wife said it should be first degree murder. He will likely get a light sentence and then get out on parole after half of his sentence because of the soft system, which is controlled largely by Romanism.

Unfortunately, in history, it has been large groups such as Romanism, that through the powerful clergy, has imposed a brutal kind of totalitarian system. Most people are blind to what is happening in the world. Romanism is not as benign and harmless as you might think. Many of them are also globalists and control the government. They imposed the policies on Canadians which we now have, such as carbon taxes, the fictitious war on climate change, progressivism, and globalism.

Yes, that could be. But that may have been an unfortunate result of the centuries of struggle to break free from the brutal totalitarian rule of Rome. Thousands of Protestants were burned at the stake or put to death by the Romanist Bloody Mary in Britain too. History was brutal. There is no such history where everyone was treated fairly and civility. Romanism ruled with an iron fist for 1,500 years including 400 years of the Holy Roman Inquisition when thousands were tortured, burned at the stake or imprisoned or whipped. Jesus was a poor, humble person, who wore a few rags as clothing. The Popes became rich, wore rich garments and lived in wealth and were carried about as royalty. They ruled the Empire and appointed Kings and rulers. Nothing like Christ. This had no resemblance to the early Christians in the first 300 years who were thrown into the lion's den in Rome. That's just the way it was. But most people don't know what went on. The dark side of history is kept secret or not told. Many think the dark side should not be mentioned if it reflects poorly on one's own side or belief system.

Unfortunately that is the claim that one side often uses to silence others who don't agree with them on everything. For instance, the PM of all people said evangelical Christians are the worst kind of Canadians. He may have said that before he became PM, I don't know. I think he also referred to people who disagree with him as "flat earthers". When you are Prime Minister who says things like that and causes major divisions, you have sown the seeds for major division and animosity. If our leaders are doing that, what hope is there?

First I admit I am coming from a Protestant perspective. What is your background or perspective? Were you baptized in a certain denomination or come from a family with a certain belief system? The Orange Order is not a violent organization. It is a fraternal organization of like-minded Protestants. If you are not aware of the violent history of Romanism, just look at the history of the actions of the Irish Republican Army in north Ireland with the bombings and killings in the past. The IRA fought against the Protestant British part of Northern Ireland with the aim of making northern Ireland a part of the Romanist Republic of Ireland. A large number of people in Northern Ireland are Protestant and wish to remain as part of the United Kingdom. Ireland did not support Britain in World War I. "In 1916, Irish republicans took the opportunity of the ongoing war to proclaim an independent Irish Republic and launch an armed rebellion against British rule in Dublin, which Germany attempted to help. In addition, Britain's intention to impose conscription in Ireland in 1918 provoked widespread resistance and as a result remained unimplemented. After the end of the Great War, Irish republicans won the Irish general election of 1918 and declared Irish independence. This led to the Irish War of Independence (1919–1922), fought between the Irish Republican Army (IRA) and British forces. Ex-servicemen fought for both sides. During the War of Independence, the British government partitioned Ireland. This phase of conflict ended with the Anglo-Irish Treaty which split Sinn Féin and the IRA, leading to the Irish Civil War (1922–1923) between pro-treaty and anti-treaty forces. The pro-treaty forces were victorious, with most of the island becoming the Irish Free State." Ireland and World War I - Wikipedia

"An important and multifunctional institution in Canada, the Orange Order provided significant mutual aid. Financial support was provided to members during times of illness or unemployment, and, upon a member’s death, the Order often alleviated the financial burden on widows and orphans by covering funeral costs and defraying burial fees. Lodges were sites of social activity, providing members with the chance to catch up on gossip, share a meal and build networks, all of which were especially important in rural areas that had little in the way of established institutions. Through such activities, the Orange Order and its lodges helped to cultivate a sense of community for settlers and farmers as well as for urban dwellers. Fraternal association was reinforced through the rituals, ceremonies, initiations, passwords and famous Orange sashes worn in council sessions and parades." Orange Order in Canada | The Canadian Encyclopedia It appears the Orange Order is simply a fraternal organization of people with similar religious and political views. They do not engage in election campaigns as a party or raise money for such a purpose. But they hold beliefs just as the Liberals and NDP hold their own beliefs. Possibly similar to the Knights of Columbus in the Catholic Church and other fraternal organizations. I feel in a free and democratic society they have the right to their own beliefs, freedom of religion, and freedom of association just as the liberals and NDP do. It is not a crime to be Protestant in Canada. That is just part of freedom of religion. If they disagree with liberalism, progressivism, Romanism, that is their right. That is not a form of extremism. It is belief in the traditional family structure and society. What is extremism is the forcing of woke ideology and progressivism by liberals and left on society through laws and government control and on our educational institutions. I would think the Orange Order is more in line with civilized, traditional values than liberalism in today's world.

According to this Wikipedia item, whether it is declining is actually quite complicated and depends on the country and various factors. Surprisingly in a Communist country like China, the article says Christianity is increasing but they don't have accurate statistics. Of course that's not the western world. " However, these forecasts lack reliable data on religious conversion in China, but according to media reports and expert assessments, it is possible that the rapid growth of Christianity in China may maintain, or even increase, the current numerical advantage of Christianity as the largest religion in the world.[11" So while it may be declining in many advanced first world countries, the article seems to be saying it may be in increasing in Africa, and in the southern hemisphere. There is also the question of which denominations are declining. Some of the very large denominations, that are unbiblical, may be declining as more people in advanced countries decide they are non-religious, but some smaller more biblical denominations may actually be growing. There also may be many people who don't belong to a denomination or attend a church for various reasons, that may be Bible believers, who would not be counted in surveys. Covid and other viruses is still a risk of meeting in large groups like churches for older and immuno- compromised people. The statistics may not be very accurate. Decline of Christianity in the Western world - Wikipedia

I doubt Trudeau will do much about the Chinese interference because it mostly benefits the Liberal party. Why would he want to stop the election interference if it helps the Liberals? Besides the Liberals do not have enough support to form a majority government and need all the help they can get. Additionally, it would be very difficult to stop the China supporters from voting Liberal. How is that even possible? Sadly Canada has been led into a relationship with China the past fifty years and has brought in millions of immigrants from China. This is the reality and China has a huge influence in Canada. China has organizations in Canada that promote strong ties with China. How is anyone going to convince the ones who strongly support the Motherland to vote other than Liberal? People, who may not even be necessarily Communist supporters still love their Mother country and Liberals have had ties with China for more than a century through missionaries and then former PM Trudeau establishing diplomatic relations with China under Chairman Mao in 1970. That is the reality.

Trudeau knows he has the NDP backing to keep him in power for another 2-3 years and he probably realizes his time is up because he is fairly unpopular. So he may be planning to step down sometime between now and 2025. Therefore if he is planning to leave politics, he may not care that much about what kind of mess he leaves behind. I think he has already decided he's bailing out in a year or two which will give the Liberals enough time to find a new leader. Roughly ten years is usually the maximum any PM can maintain support anyway and 2025 will be ten years. Also, I doubt he will do much about the Chinese interference because it mostly benefits the Liberal party. Why would he want to stop the election interference if it helps the Liberals? Besides the Liberals do not have enough support to form a majority government and need all the help they can get.

No, I definitely don't hate Catholics. Actually I love them. I am trying to help you see that system is a false system. There are some that would probably rather go to heaven. Salvation is through Christ alone, not through a Pope or a church, not by good works. see John 14:6 and Ephesians ch2, 8, 9 Dr. Henry M. Woods says: "If Christ had meant that Peter was to be the foundation, the natural form of statement would have been, "Thou are Peter, and on thee I will build my church"; but he does not say this, because Peter was not to be the rock on which the church was built. Note also that in the expression 'on this rock' our Lord purposely uses a different Greek word, Petra, from that used for Peter, Petros. He did this to show that, not Peter, but the great truth which had just been revealed to him, viz, that our Lord was the foundation. Built on the Christ, the everlasting Saviour, the gates of hell would never prevail against the Church. But built on the well-meaning but sinful Peter, the gates of hell would surely prevail; for a little later our Lord had to severely rebuke Peter, calling him 'Satan'" (Our Priceless Heritage, p. 40) - the book "Roman Catholicism" by Lorraine Boettner " 6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." John 14:6 KJV

Christ said this to Peter: "18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; " Matthew 16:18 KJV This is the verse that the Roman church claims gives them the authority to have Popes and the priesthood. But you have to consider that this verse was not referring to Peter as the "rock". Christ was referring to the confession that Peter had just made. Christ asked Peter "But whom say ye that I am?" Matthew 16:15 Peter responded "16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. " Matthew 16:16 So in Matthew 16:18 when Christ said "thou are Peter and upon this rock I will build my church" He was referring to Peter's confession that he had just made (in verse 16). The confession is the rock that the church would be built on, not on Peter. The book of Acts and the Epistles show that the other apostles did not consider Peter as the head of the church or a pope. In fact Peter was publicly rebuked by the Apostle Paul. If Peter was really the Pope, no other apostle would have rebuked him. See Galatians 2:11-14 KJV

You can say that until you are blue in face, but I know I don't hate Catholics. I have known lots of them. I was one once myself until I learned what the Bible teaches. It is the false teachings that are contrary to the Bible that is the problem. The poor people have been made slaves to a false system. If you want to discuss how that is, fine. That would be rational. But you are losing credibility by your constant insults and it does nothing to defend the system.

quote The whole structure of the Roman Church is built on the assumption that in Matthew 16:13-19 Christ appointed Peter the first pope and so established the papacy. Disprove the primacy of Peter, and the foundation of the papacy is destroyed. Destroy the papacy, and the whole Roman hierarchy topples with it. Their system of priesthood depends absolutely upon their clam that Peter was the first pope at Rome, and that they are his successors. We propose to show that, (1) Matthew 16:13-19 does not teach that Christ appointed Peter a pope; (2) that there is no proof that Peter ever was in Rome; and (3) that the New Testament records, particularly Peter's own writing, show that he never claimed authority over the other apostles or over the church, and that that authority was never accorded to him." - From the book Roman Catholicism by Lorraine Boettner. ThB 1928, ThM 1929. (Master of Theology) Stay tuned.

He is meddling. He has no authority to make pronouncements on internal matters in Canada. Rome has a terrible history in the world for well over a thousand years. Why should anyone pay attention to him? The Papacy is a usurpation of the authority of God. Popes claimed to be Christ or God on earth.

No, I have no hate for the catholic people. I have had Catholic friends in the past. I think they have been deceived by the system for 1,700 years. I just believe the Bible shows the Roman system is false. There is no authorization for a papacy in the Bible. Peter was never a Pope. There was no such thing until about 500 A.D. Almost all the doctrines of Rome were invented over the past 1,700 years and are not taught in the New Testament. You need to study the New Testament. Peter was not the rock that the Church was to be built on. The rock was Peter's confession. It was different Greek word that the Greek word for Peter. Peter is Petros. So the word Petra refers to Peter's confession of Christ. It is not saying Peter is the Pope. The claim that Peter is the rock is a misinterpretation of Matthew 16:18. The New Testament shows itself that all the other apostles never recognized Peter as a Pope. Your wish to throw insults at me does not defend the truth about Rome and what the Bible actually teaches. I will go with what God's word says. Thanks.