blackbird

Do you think just making it easy for people who do not normally vote or know anything about politics will favour the Liberals and NDP who promise the world and don't believe in restraint spending?

" 47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. 48 I am that bread of life. 49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. 50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. " John 6:47-51 This begins by saying he that believeth on me hath everlasting life. That emphasizes belief or faith. Then he uses a metaphor saying I am that bread of life. So by believing in him, you are receiving that bread of life. Verse 50 says the same thing, using figurative language. If you eat of this bread, that is, believe in Jesus, you shall live forever. Now verse 51, Jesus says the bread that he will give is his flesh, which he will give for the life of the world. How does he give his flesh for the life of the world? The answer is on the cross. He shed his blood and died for the sins of the world. That is how he gave his flesh.

You are correct. I thought I read it somewhere, but I made a mistake.

You are correct. I thought I read somewhere they were going to change that, but I must have misunderstood. I can't remember. But I think I made a mistake. I don't think they can change the system to allow non-Canadians to vote.

I can't recall where I heard it. The fact is the only reason the Liberals and NDP are changing the voting system is to try to benefit themselves. There is no other reason.

These changes are being done by the Liberals. I never said they were doing it for another party. I said they were doing to benefit themselves.

He said that simply because they could not understand the whole concept of a close spiritual relationship with Jesus Christ. He was talking about a spiritual union or relationship. He used the terms eating and drinking as metaphorical or figurative terms to show a spiritual relationship. But they could not understand it.

The Bible refutes your interpretation which claims you are eating the literal body and blood of Christ. You need to open your mind to the Bible and Holy Spirit instead of believing it just because Mother church says so. " Transubstantiation refuted by John 6:63 “The whole Christ is truly present, body, blood, soul, and divinity, under the appearances of bread and wine—the glorified Christ who rose from the dead after dying for our sins. This is what the Church means when she speaks of the “Real Presence” of Christ in the Eucharist.” [1] If a person wants to believe in transubstantiation, they have no choice but to IGNORE John 6:63… “It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” Why Transubstantiation Is Not True And Not Necessary - Coming In The Clouds It says clearly in Scripture it is the "spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing" John 6:63 Jesus was clearly talking about a spiritual eating and drinking, not physically or literally. lf you are worshiping a piece of bread or the host, that is a form of idolatry because Jesus is not physically in the bread. It would also be a form of cannibalism if you ate him literally.

You just proved you are a Socialist or Marxist supporter because that is exactly the way the NDP, Greens lean. You are completely opposed to Libs, Conservatives and the west. Obviously some kind of operative trying to push anti-West nonsense. You are the definition of "foreign interference" on social media. That's the thing about western democracy. We are so open-minded that we give anyone in the world access to our society. Foreign operatives take advantage of us and actually do try to influence us through social media and every other method of communication. More authoritarian countries would just shut down any foreign operatives and not give them a platform of any kind. Canada is weak in that area and actually helps them have a platform and influence in Canada.

What is that supposed to mean? Of course I read people's postings which have a different view. I do the same as you and everyone else. If I disagree, I say so but I try to give an explanation. That often includes quoting an article which gives the reasons why I disagree and what the correct belief is on a topic? Why are you opposed to giving people knowledge? I don't understand your logic. You accuse me of wanting to give them "information". Really? Why are you opposed to "information" or knowledge. Isn't knowledge what makes better people and a better world? Why would you oppose other people having more knowledge?

Sadly that is the case. You are not really interested in learning anything at all. I posted an article earlier on the history of where the Catholic church came from which gave a fair amount of detail. Unfortunately, you would likely not read it and therefore would remain in ignorance. However, I posted it anyway to answer the misinformation that was posted about the Catholic church coming from Jesus Christ. I doubt you will find any poster on here who has that kind of information at the top of his head. When there are comments about things that require more depth than a one line reply, then it makes sense to quote from an authoritative source. Since I know how to get that kind of information, why not post it.

Basically the federal government can do whatever it wishes and the Charter can not stop them. It took two years to get a ruling on the Emergencies Act use in February 2022. The truth is the Supreme Court using the Charter can only be used to get a ruling long after the fact. It cannot change what was done unconstitutionally two years ago. Sure a person who has the money could take something to a lower court, but the government can simply appeal it and they have unlimited money to oppose the ordinary people. Hence it is not worth the paper it is written on. People thought the Charter was going to be the greatest thing since sliced bread.

The big danger of having one party like the Liberals in power so long is they become arrogant and dictatorial. We saw that with Bills C10 and C11 where they have given the CRTC such powers that would enable them to actually control social media and internet content. Another problem with our system is it allows one party to stack the supreme court and other courts. This is why we now have medical assistance in dying and also why it is now being expanded to included people with mental problems, which could allow almost anyone to choose MAID. The ironic thing is a man by the name of Law has recently been charged or will be for mailing out suicide medications to people. He may be charged with first degree murder. That is ironic since MAID is doing almost exactly the same thing. It is allowing people to received assistance in committing suicide but it is not considered illegal or as murder. What is the difference? This guy may be able to claim as a defence that the Canadian government has already in effect legalized suicide with MAID and is expanding it to people who claim mental issues.

Really? I thought you come here to stir the pot. Am I wrong?

Maybe. If it is relevant to the discussion, I might. My posts were not very long and I also added a lot of my own information to one of the posts. Takes maybe a couple of minutes to read. Don't forget, we are here also to learn something, not just throw short sound bites back and forth.

You were mistaken and it's not propaganda. It is information in reply to a comment. Propaganda only in your devilish thinking. You have a history of being a s__t disturber on here.

I suspect this guy on here is an agent for some foreign power, possibly Russia, China, Iran, or some middle east Islamist country.

The purpose of the Bible is not to give a history of mankind. Unger's Bible handbook says what the purpose of the Bible is: quote The Bible was given to bear witness to one God, Creator, and Sustainer of the universe, through Christ, Redeemer of sinful man. It presents one continuous story -- that of human redemption. This story is a progressive unfolding of the central truth of the Bible that God in His eternal counsels was to become incarnate in Jesus Christ for the redemption of fallen man. The unfolding of this central truth of redemption is set forth through history, prophecy, type and symbol. This revelation of human redemption through Christ orients man in the larger framework of God's plans for him in the ages of time, as well as the divine purpose for him in eternity. unquote Perhaps if you were to study the Bible and then compare it to other religions or their so-called holy books, you would find they are as different as night and day. But if you have not studied and just dismiss it out of hand, you are setting yourself on a dangerous course because the Bible tells us the what our problem is, and how it can be rectified. It tells us how we can be redeemed by God's grace through faith in Jesus Christ. The Bible details who he is and what he did for mankind and why. Without this knowledge we could be lost for eternity. One might say this is more than life or death. Life or death refers to the short span of time we live in this world and then our body dies. But there is a spiritual world out there and an eternity and we were created with a body, soul, and spirit. What happens after death is really what matters. How we prepare for that is what we are talking about.

"Here are some evidences that the Bible is inspired (God-breathed), as declared in 2 Timothy 3:16: 1) Fulfilled prophecy. God spoke to men telling them of things He would bring about in the future. Some of them have already occurred. Others have not. For example, the Old Testament contains more than 300 prophecies concerning Jesus Christ’s first coming. There is no doubt that these are prophecies from God because of manuscripts dated from before the birth of Christ. These were not written after the fact but beforehand. 2) The unity of Scripture. The Bible was written by approximately 40 human authors over a period of approximately 1,600 years. These men were quite diverse. Moses, was a political leader; Joshua, a military leader; David, a shepherd; Solomon, a king; Amos, a herdsman and fruit picker; Daniel, a prime minister; Matthew, a tax collector; Luke, a medical doctor; Paul, a rabbi; and Peter, a fisherman; among others. The Bible was also written under a variety of circumstances. It was written on 3 different continents, Europe, Asia, and Africa. Yet, the great themes of Scripture are maintained in all the writings. The Bible does not contradict itself. There is no way, apart from God the Holy Spirit supervising the writing of the Bible, that this could have been accomplished. Contrast this with the Islamic Qur’an. It was compiled by one individual, Zaid bin Thabit, under the guidance of Mohammed’s father-in-law, Abu-Bekr. Then, in A.D. 650, a group of Arab scholars produced a unified version and destroyed all variant copies to preserve the unity of the Qur’an. The Bible was unified from the time of its writing. The Qur’an had unity forced upon it by human editors. 3) The Bible presents its heroes truthfully with all of their faults and weaknesses. It does not glorify men as other religions do their heroes. Reading the Bible, one realizes that the people it describes have problems and do wrong just as we do. What made the heroes of the Bible great was that they trusted in God. One example is David, who is described as “a man after God’s own heart” (1 Samuel 13:14). Yet, David committed adultery (2 Samuel 11:1-5) and murder (2 Samuel 11:14-26). This information could have easily been omitted from Scripture, but the God of truth included it. 4) Archaeological findings support the history recorded in Scripture. Though many unbelievers throughout history have tried to find archaeological evidence to disprove what is recorded in the Bible, they have failed. It is easy to say that Scripture is untrue. Proving it to be untrue is another matter. In fact, it has not been done. In the past, every time the Bible contradicted a current “scientific” theory, the Bible was proven later to be true and the scientific theory wrong. A good example is Isaiah 40:22. All the while that science declared the earth to be flat, the Bible stated that God “sits on the circle [sphere] of the earth.” The Bible’s claims of being from God should not be understood as circular reasoning. The testimony of reliable witnesses—particularly Jesus, but also Moses, Joshua, David, Daniel, and Nehemiah in the Old Testament, and John and Paul in the New Testament—affirms the authority and verbal inspiration of the Holy Scriptures. Consider the following passages: Exodus 14:1; 20:1; Leviticus 4:1; Numbers 4:1;Deuteronomy 4:2; 32:48; Isaiah 1:10, 24; Jeremiah 1:11; Jeremiah 11:1–3; Ezekiel 1:3; 1 Corinthians 14:37; 1 Thessalonians 2:13; 2 Peter 1:16–21; 1 John 4:6. Also of interest are the writings of Titus Flavius Josephus, a Jewish historian who wrote during the first century A.D. Josephus records some events which coincide with Scripture. Considering the evidence given, we wholeheartedly accept the Bible as being from God (2 Timothy 3:16)." Is there proof for the inspiration of the Bible? | GotQuestions.org

Actually, it is fairly easy to show that is not correct. Almost all religions of the world are false, but there is one truth that the Bible reveals to mankind. First, I would ask do you believe in God? You never said what you believe except that one six word line. The fact that the universe exists means there to have been a cause. Every effect has a cause. That is basic logic. So it reasonable to believe an infinitely complex universe required an infinitely intelligent designer-Creator. That is a basic point deduced from logic. So we can observe what God created. All life is the work of a Creator-designer we call God. This boils down to two rational reasons why we believe in God: 1. The fact we can observe the creation and life that exists. 2. The Bible says itself it is God's revelation to mankind. A study of the Bible will demonstrate why we believe that. If you have not studied it, you are not really in a position to dismiss it. Then there are some questions about things that only the Bible can answer. Like why are we here. There must be some reason. Why would man which has intelligence and the power to reason even exist if there were no real reason for it? Again the Bible delves into the answers to that. The atheists argue that there is no God, but they have no answer for why mankind exists. They would have to conclude we are all just some accident of the cosmos. Kind of an accidental chemical reaction. To them life has no meaning. We are here accidentally, we live for no purpose, and we all just go into oblivion. The atheist therefore has absolutely nothing to offer in the way of an explanation for our existence. That is a very dark, demoralizing, negative view of life and everything. But there are reasons why God created mankind and there are purposes for every person on earth. We are not just an accident of nature. This is where the Bible comes in. That was a preliminary comment on the existence of God. Then we come to the question about whether the Bible came from God. To understand that requires some effort in the way of study. One must spend some time studying the Holy Scriptures (Bible) to find out exactly what the evidence to know whether it comes from God. The nature of the Bible and what it says gives strong evidence that it did in fact come from God. "When Jesus walked the earth about 2000 years ago, He was faced with a very similar question when the people who heard Him teach wondered if His teaching was truly from God. Jesus answered them by giving this simple, yet profound answer, “...My teaching is not Mine, but His who sent Me. If anyone is willing to do His will, he will know of the teaching, whether it is of God or whether I speak from Myself.” (John 7:16-17) We can apply this same principle to knowing that the Bible is truly from God. All those who desire to obey God will know by the very words of the Bible that it is indeed from God himself. This is an astonishing argument, since most people would claim that simply hearing Jesus’ teaching could never be enough. They would have to see miracles before they could believe Him to be from God. Jesus even challenged his hearers to believe because of the miracles He had performed (John 14:11). Yet, did everyone believe in Jesus when they saw these undeniable miracles? No, even when faced with miraculous proof, many remained in their unbelief. The reason for this is found in Jesus’ original answer—­only those who truly want to do God’s will shall know the truthfulness of Christ’s message (John 7:17). The Bible itself is sufficient proof for all who desire to know if it is from God. This can be clearly seen in a story that Jesus told about a rich man and Lazarus, found in Luke 16:19-31. As Jesus concludes the parable, He explains that if they will not believe the message of the Word of God based on its inherent authority, neither will they believe that message if an undeniable miracle was performed. The Bible itself is all the proof that is needed; it is self-authenticating. There is no need for additional proofs or miracles to establish the authority of God’s Word. It stands on its own." How Can We Know That the Bible is from God? (tms.edu)

Of course you would say that because you don't bother trying to actually find out what the Holy Scriptures say. The article I quoted is fairly long because there is a lot of false dogma to speak to. At least I post something that anyone who wants to know the truth can understand. It is far better than a one-liner that says nothing. As the article I quoted says, your beliefs are based on what the Catholic Church calls "tradition". In other words the inventions of men.

I assume the report that said it would cost as much as the car cost was referring to a used EV. It couldn't possibly cost nearly as much as a new EV, could it? Better find out and make sure before buying an EV.

If you ask a Catholic, he will tell you it started with Jesus Christ. But this has been greatly disputed by non-Catholics. This article explains the Protestant belief on it. quote The Roman Catholic Church contends that its origin is the death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ in approximately AD 30. The Catholic Church proclaims itself to be the church that Jesus Christ died for, the church that was established and built by the apostles. Is that the true origin of the Catholic Church? On the contrary. Even a cursory reading of the New Testament will reveal that the Catholic Church does not have its origin in the teachings of Jesus or His apostles. In the New Testament, there is no mention of the papacy, worship/adoration of Mary (or the immaculate conception of Mary, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the assumption of Mary, or Mary as co-redemptrix and mediatrix), petitioning saints in heaven for their prayers, apostolic succession, the ordinances of the church functioning as sacraments, infant baptism, confession of sin to a priest, purgatory, indulgences, or the equal authority of church tradition and Scripture. So, if the origin of the Catholic Church is not in the teachings of Jesus and His apostles, as recorded in the New Testament, what is the true origin of the Catholic Church? For the first 280 years of Christian history, Christianity was banned by the Roman Empire, and Christians were terribly persecuted. This changed after the “conversion” of the Roman Emperor Constantine. Constantine provided religious toleration with the Edict of Milan in AD 313, effectively lifting the ban on Christianity. Later, in AD 325, Constantine called the Council of Nicea in an attempt to unify Christianity. Constantine envisioned Christianity as a religion that could unite the Roman Empire, which at that time was beginning to fragment and divide. While this may have seemed to be a positive development for the Christian church, the results were anything but positive. Just as Constantine refused to fully embrace the Christian faith but continued many of his pagan beliefs and practices, so the Christian church that Constantine and his successors promoted progressively became a mixture of true Christianity and Roman paganism. Following are a few examples: Most Roman Catholic beliefs and practices regarding Mary are completely absent from the Bible. Where did those beliefs come from? The Roman Catholic view of Mary has far more in common with the Isis mother-goddess religion of Egypt than it does with anything taught in the New Testament. Interestingly, the first hints of Catholic Mariology occur in the writings of Origen, who lived in Alexandria, Egypt, which happened to be the focal point of Isis worship. The Lord’s Supper being a consumption of the literal body and blood of Jesus is not taught in the Bible. The idea that bread and wine are miraculously transformed into the literal body and blood of Jesus (transubstantiation) is not biblical. However, several ancient pagan religions, including Mithraism, which was very popular in the Roman Empire, had some form of “theophagy” (the eating of one’s god) as a ritualistic practice. Roman Catholicism has “saints” one can pray to in order to gain a particular blessing. For example, Saint Gianna Beretta Molla is the patron saint of fertility. Francis of Assisi is the patron saint of animals. There are multiple patron saints of healing and comfort. Nowhere is even a hint of this taught in Scripture. Just as the Roman pantheon of gods had a god of love, a god of peace, a god of war, a god of strength, a god of wisdom, etc., so the Catholic Church has a saint who is “in charge” over each of these and many other categories. Many Roman cities had a god specific to the city, and the Catholic Church provided “patron saints” for cities as well. The idea that the Roman bishop is the vicar of Christ, the supreme leader of the Christian Church, is utterly foreign to the Word of God. The supremacy of the Roman bishop (the papacy) was created with the support of the Roman emperors. While most other bishops (and Christians) resisted the idea of the Roman bishop being supreme, the Roman bishop eventually rose to supremacy, again, due to the power and influence of the Roman emperors. After the western half of the Roman Empire collapsed, the popes took on the title that had previously belonged to the Roman emperors—Pontifex Maximus. Many more examples could be given. These four should suffice in demonstrating the origin of the Catholic Church. Of course, the Roman Catholic Church denies the pagan origin of its beliefs and practices. The Catholic Church disguises its pagan beliefs under layers of complicated theology and church tradition. Recognizing that many of its beliefs and practices are utterly foreign to Scripture, the Catholic Church is forced to deny the authority and sufficiency of Scripture. The origin of the Catholic Church is the tragic compromise of Christianity with the pagan religions that surrounded it. Instead of proclaiming the gospel and converting the pagans, the Catholic Church “Christianized” the pagan religions and “paganized” Christianity. By blurring the differences and erasing the distinctions, the Catholic Church made itself attractive to the idolatrous people of the Roman Empire. One result was the Catholic Church becoming the supreme religion in the Roman world for centuries. However, another result was the most dominant form of Christianity apostatizing from the true gospel of Jesus Christ and the true proclamation of God’s Word. Second Timothy 4:3–4 declares, “For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.” What is the origin of the Roman Catholic Church? | GotQuestions.org

We have also seen reports of people with EVs having to get the batteries replaced and told it would cost as much or more than the price of the car. This sounds insane. They better come up with something better than that. Glad you're still here and didn't let the nutjob chase you away. One option is to put him on the ignore list.

The fact the court ruling came out a couple years after the fact, proves once again the uselessness of the Charter of Rights and the justice system. What good is a Charter of Rights if they cannot protect citizens at the time?