blackbird

I don't see how you come to that conclusion. Certainly the thousands (or millions) of Canadians that believe Poilievre is a good alternative to the Liberals think he can do a better job. You must not have much understanding of politics. Conservatives are quite different in their beliefs about how the country should be governed.

"The gospel of salvation brings a way to discover peace and purpose in life. It proclaims that through Jesus Christ, humanity can be saved from sin and receive eternal life with God. It’s a free gift; not earned by works or merit, but received by grace through faith. This message brings hope, forgiveness, and new life to those who embrace it." What is the gospel of salvation? › Jesus Salvation That is how men are redeemed and delivered from eternal damnation. I believe the Bible 100% and it is not hypocrisy to spread the good news of salvation in Jesus Christ. I am sorry you find it offensive. It is meant for your good.

Carbon tax is the biggest scam in history after the man-made climate change scam. Orchestrated by the globalist, elites, of the U.N. to gain more control and power over everyone.

I doubt it. The Liberals have been a total disaster for the country. The immigration, foreign student issues have contributed to the disastrous housing crisis. The ministers responsible for immigration the past eight years have mis-managed immigration, temporary foreign workers and foreign students to the detriment of Canadians who need housing. Poilievre offers the only hope to work toward getting out of the housing crisis and mess created by Liberals. Poilievre has some plans to deal with the issue. The Liberals created the mess. John Ivison: Warnings about too many international students were clear. The Liberals ignored them (msn.com)

No, you haven't shown sola fide is non-biblical. If you have I must have missed it. Claiming the RC dogmas came from some other source than the Bible is very convenient.

So tell us then if Catholic doctrines came from the Church fathers, why are so many Catholic dogmas unbiblical? I listed them before.. How about explaining a few of the RC dogmas. Worship of Mary, veneration of saints, re-enactment of Christ's crucifixion (Mass) when Hebrews says it was completed once and for all. Purgatory which is not in the Bible. Confessing to priests instead of going to God through Christ. Absolution, penances. Salvation by the sacraments instead of simply believing in Christ as Lord and Savior and the Bible teaches.

With the disaster that unfolded in airports and clearing arriving passengers during the pandemic, it sounds like he government panicked and just threw away tens of millions of dollars to some individuals or small companies that saw an opportunity to really scam the taxpayers.

That is absurd. In 43 years of hearing sermons and reading biblical matters, I never heard anybody refer to Ignatius as a source of truth. The point is he was probably a famous early Christian with a lot of knowledge, but he was not an author or Holy Scripture. We have the completed Bible and your claim that its my own destruction if I don't know about Ignatius is ludicrous and unheard of. We have the complete Bible and many, many scholars who have much knowledge about it as well. I suspect you are clinging to him because his ideas matched what Rome has taught you.

I don't know anything about Ignatius. He is not an apostle. If I refer to many great theologians, will you accept them or just Ignatius?

Well, there is not much more to say at this point. I don't think I am being "self-important". I simply told you some facts or warned you about what the Bible says. If I see someone walking blindly toward the edge of a cliff, does it not make sense to warn them? Or would you just let them walk over the edge? Telling someone about something that has eternal consequences is not being "self important" the way I see it. What someone does with the information is his choice. The Bible says many are called but few are chosen.

I am not saying any books are authoritative over the Bible. After having seen many examples of corruption in modern versions by comparison with the KJV and read much information on the topic and examined the KJV myself, I find it to be absolutely God's inspired word. Every one has to be convinced in his own mind. I don't accept something just because a book or someone says so. Truth as written in Scripture is taught by the Holy Spirit.

No. I know it refers to things that were already taught by the apostles because that would agree with Scripture in Revelation 22 where it says nothing can be added or taken away from Scripture. If you say anything can be added to the Bible by certain people after the 66 books were completed, then the Bible never was completed which is contrary to Scripture.

You obviously don't know what the Bible teaches. It doesn't make one iota of difference what you have achieved or how your life has gone on. It sounds like it has been good. That is fine. But it is what the Bible says that matters for eternity. There is the natural world and there is a spiritual world. There is a God to whom we are accountable. Everyone will face a judgment day. The Bible says we are all sinners and unless a person repents and believes in Jesus Christ he will be facing a lost eternity. You need to study the New Testament. The gospel of John is clear.

I gave the figure 95% because I am just going by memory. It could be higher. But that represents a vast number of manuscripts or parts of manuscripts used down through the ages. I have studied on book on this topic and read many articles over the past 40 years. I believe the KJV is very accurate. To say the word traditions is used in Thessalonians doesn't change anything. What matters is what a verse is referring to.

The word ordinances can be understood to mean much the same as traditions. I think it means teachings, instructions, or commands which were given to them already. I don't see a significant difference between traditions and ordinances.

The KJV is the only version in existence in English that used the Received Text and it agrees with around 95% of existing Greek manuscripts or parts of manuscripts. Modern Bible versions are based on a few corrupt manuscripts and are corrupted and cannot be trusted.

The KJV (1611) was translated from the Received Text. It was produced by 47 of the world's best scholars. "Textus Receptus (Latin: "received text") refers to the succession of printed editions of the Greek New Testament from Erasmus's Novum Instrumentum omne (1516) to the 1633 Elzevir edition." The KJV (1611) are supported by over 5,000 manuscripts or parts of Greek manuscripts. Nobody has any original manuscripts today, only copies of copies. The KJV Old Testament is based on the Hebrew Scriptures which were carefully preserved down through the centuries. If you compare that particular verse in the KJV with other versions, you will likely find they are very similar.

Another false accusation. The word in the King James Authorized Version (1611) is ordinances. A comment on the page says it could mean ordinances or traditions. Same thing. Why are you bent on making false accusations? It doesn't help you cause. Deal with the subject, that is, what is the verse referring to.

Simple. CBC and the internet news sites.

No, there will be no "great loss". That is fear-mongering by the media who loves to get government grants. Radio and television will not disappear. If there is a need it will always be filled.

We have had national networks with the CBC radio and television for years. CTV was simply a duplication. We already pay for the CBC. Why waste billions more to duplicate the CBC which is what we have with the CTV. However, I would rather see the CBC go and let private enterprise provide television. The way it is we are spending billions for the CBC and private corporations like CTV are trying to compete against the taxpayer funded CBC, which is impossible.

Fiction and you must know it. Whining by the liberal-left. Duplication is a waste of money.

Not much difference between CTV and CBC; so if a few stations disappear it's no great loss. Private enterprise has to do what is economical and profitable, not what pleases Trudeau and the Liberals. Government meddling and intervention in private enterprise is one reason why the Canadian economy is such a mess. Trudeau should keep his mouth closed for a change. He is not a Bell or CTV shareholder. He is a wealthy elite politician who can't help but pontificate about the bad corporations, sort of like Singh and the NDP.

Siavash Safavi: Canada's clueless immigration policy will not end well (msn.com) "When dealing with refugees from countries in which the dominant culture or state ideology differs from our own, we should invest the necessary time and resources to vet each individual properly, to ensure that those who hold extremist views are not admitted. But when the government imports tens of thousands of people from these countries each year, a few things happen. The newcomers, many of whom usually do not speak the language well, will feel the need to stick together in close-knit communities, forming a parallel society with a completely different culture to the country they live in. The culture of the old country is promoted and protected in these communities, usually by self-appointed authoritarian leaders through social pressure, or sometimes by force, leaving the people vulnerable to all kinds of corruption."

" A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be very liberal, and among other liberal ideals, was very much in favor of higher taxes to support more government programs, in other words redistribution of wealth. She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch conservative, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his. One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the need for more government programs. The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father. He responded by asking how she was doing in school. Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend, and didn't really have many college friends because she spent all her time studying. Her father listened and then asked, "How is your friend Audrey doing?" She replied, "Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she never studies and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on campus; college for her is a blast. She's always invited to all the parties and lots of times she doesn't even show up for classes because she's too hung over." Her father asked his daughter, "Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA." The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired back, "That's a crazy idea, how would that be fair! I've worked really hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!" The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, "Welcome to the conservative side of the fence." If you ever wondered what side of the fence you sit on, this is a great test! If a conservative doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one. If a liberal doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed. If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat. If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone. If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation. A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.. If a conservative doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels. Liberals demand that those they don't like be shut down. If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church. A liberal non-believer wants any mention of God and Jesus silenced. If a conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it.. A liberal demands that the rest of us pay for his. If a conservative reads this, he'll post it. A liberal will delete it because he's "offended." - Facebook