blackbird

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?

There is one central reason why a two-state solution would be completely wrong. The security of Israel is paramount for its continued existence. "At the same time, Israelis see a weakened Palestinian Authority and high support for Hamas’s wanton slaughter of innocent civilians. A November poll found that three-quarters of Palestinians were in favour of the Oct. 7 massacre. Hamas itself is supported by nearly 60 per cent of Gazans and 88 per cent of West Bank Palestinians. Other terror groups, such as Islamic Jihad, have poll numbers that would make Kim Jong Un blush." Jesse Kline: Netanyahu’s right — this is not the time for a two-state solution (msn.com) The proof of why it would not work can be seen by the 2005 agreement of Israel to withdraw from the Gaza. That allowed Hamas to come in and take over control. Since the majority of people in Gaza and the West Bank Palestinians support a terrorist organization, they have proven they are unwilling and incapable of living in peace with Israel. That should put to rest the whole idea of a two-state solution. The question is why people like Biden and Trudeau simply do not get it. I don't see any future for Palestinians within Israel since their brains are programmed to hate Israel. The U.N. which seems to claim to have all the solutions should find a home for them in neighbouring Islamic states where they would be at home with like-minded people. They are obviously never going to fit or be at home within Israel, except for a minority of Palestinians who have learned to reject hate and be peaceful with the Israelis. They could stay.

One place???? After I gave you lots of verses showing it is by grace through faith alone. Forgive me. I just had to refute your blatant false claim. Read the Epistle to the Galatians. If is full of rebuke to those who make your claim. From what Paul says you are under a curse or anathema for adding works to faith for salvation.

OK that's your choice. You refuse all attempts to help you understand the Scriptures. You mind is closed. It can only be opened by God's grace if he chooses to do that someday. I will pray for you. But that is the end of trying to discuss the Bible with you because you ended it. "18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. " Romans 9:18

You appear to be rejecting Galatians, parts of Romans, and part of Ephesians and other part of the Bible which clearly teach salvation is by grace through faith, apart from works. Are you going to continue to cling to the false teachings of men or accept the teaching of God's written word? You are treading on dangerous ground. Here are verses warning about rejecting God's word, which is the Holy Bible. quote 1 Thessalonians 4:8 Verse Concepts So, he who rejects this is not rejecting man but the God who gives His Holy Spirit to you. 1 Samuel 15:23 Verse Concepts “For rebellion is as the sin of divination, And insubordination is as iniquity and idolatry. Because you have rejected the word of the Lord, He has also rejected you from being king.” Psalm 106:24 Verse Concepts Then they despised the pleasant land; They did not believe in His word, Psalm 50:17 Verse Concepts “For you hate discipline, And you cast My words behind you. Isaiah 5:24 Verse Concepts Therefore, as a tongue of fire consumes stubble And dry grass collapses into the flame, So their root will become like rot and their blossom blow away as dust; For they have rejected the law of the Lord of hosts And despised the word of the Holy One of Israel. Isaiah 30:12 Verse Concepts Therefore thus says the Holy One of Israel, “Since you have rejected this word And have put your trust in oppression and guile, and have relied on them, Jeremiah 6:10 Verse Concepts To whom shall I speak and give warning That they may hear? Behold, their ears are closed And they cannot listen. Behold, the word of the Lord has become a reproach to them; They have no delight in it. Jeremiah 8:9 Verse Concepts “The wise men are put to shame, They are dismayed and caught; Behold, they have rejected the word of the Lord, And what kind of wisdom do they have? Jeremiah 20:8 Verse Concepts For each time I speak, I cry aloud; I proclaim violence and destruction, Because for me the word of the Lord has resulted In reproach and derision all day long. Jeremiah 36:23 Verse Concepts When Jehudi had read three or four columns, the king cut it with a scribe’s knife and threw it into the fire that was in the brazier, until all the scroll was consumed in the fire that was in the brazier. Zechariah 7:12 Verse Concepts They made their hearts like flint so that they could not hear the law and the words which the Lord of hosts had sent by His Spirit through the former prophets; therefore great wrath came from the Lord of hosts. Jeremiah 8:8-10 “How can you say, ‘We are wise, And the law of the Lord is with us’? But behold, the lying pen of the scribes Has made it into a lie. “The wise men are put to shame, They are dismayed and caught; Behold, they have rejected the word of the Lord, And what kind of wisdom do they have? “Therefore I will give their wives to others, Their fields to new owners; Because from the least even to the greatest Everyone is greedy for gain; From the prophet even to the priest Everyone practices deceit. Mark 7:13 Verse Concepts thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.” Source: https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/Rejecting-God~s-Word 13 Bible verses about Rejecting God's Word (knowing-jesus.com) What it boils down to is this. You either cling to the false teachings of Rome or reject them and accept that they are wrong and the God's written revelation, the Bible, is correct on this important fundamental doctrine.

That is exactly what genuine Christians believe because it is what the Bible teaches. You still don't seem to understand the central doctrine of justification by faith. You cannot claim justification by works. There is no such thing.

No, I disagree with that. You are rejecting what the Bible says in numerous places if you are saying grace through faith alone does not save. You are contradicting Romans ch3, 4, and 5, Galatians, and Ephesians 2:8,9. Salvation by grace through faith alone is exactly what Paul is preaching in Galatians, Romans, and Ephesians. He says if you add anything to that, you are under an anathema or curse. So from what you say, everyone must work their way to heaven. Absolutely contrary to what the Bible teaches.

I agree with your first sentence with the proviso. A person must be saved first and that is strictly by grace through faith. Works follow and are evidence one is saved. I am still not sure if you understood what I said. You claim I post volumes of silliness, but what I posted was backed up by the Holy Scripture. How can that be silliness? Did you look at Galatians. Paul the Apostle makes it very clear salvation is strictly by grace through faith. I already posted the verses. We know that works follow but if you claim works are part of the equation, you are denying what Paul said. Do you even understand what justification means? Paul makes it clear one cannot become righteous before God (be justified) by good works. "16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. 17 But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid. 18 For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor. 19 For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God. 20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. 21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain. " Galatians 2:16-21 Catholicism teaches something entirely different that what Paul taught in Galatians and Romans. quote What exactly does the Roman Catholic Church teach is the way of salvation? A popular post-Vatican II catechism provides the following summary of the Church’s teaching. Question What is necessary to be saved? Answer You have to be brought into spiritual contact with that saving death of Jesus by faith and Baptism and loyal membership in His Church, by love of God and neighbor proved by obedience to His commandments, by the other Sacraments especially Holy Communion, by prayer and good works and by final perseverance, that is, preserving God’s friendship and grace until death.* unquote a Catholic must accomplish a list of ten requirements: believing being baptized being a loyal member of the Church loving God loving his neighbor keeping the Ten Commandments receiving the sacraments, especially Holy Communion praying doing good works dying in a state of grace Biblical salvation teaches something entirely different. Are you prepared to acknowledge that? The Catholic Way of Salvation (reachingcatholics.org)

Although there are some divisions among them, I would guess he is still popular. I think they look up to them as a kind of idol. He holds tremendous power in their minds.

Risk assessment may apply when you are putting up a stop sign on a corner or holding a child's hand to cross an intersection. That is not the same things as a government leader declaring war on the man-made climate change, when the whole claim is unproven. Doing things that don't cost everyone a huge pile of money and harm everyone's standard of living is not the same at all. It is completely different when it is going to cost you and me a chunk of our income in carbon taxes, higher prices for everything, and take billions of dollars of our taxes to fight a war on climate change.

Are you referring to climate change by nature because I think most people would agree with natural climate change? I don't believe in man-made climate change. The climate change alarmists are claiming man is the cause of climate change. I don't believe that because it is unproven. The debate should really be around man-made climate change which is a fraud. That is why they are imposing carbon taxes and trying to kill the fossil fuel industry and all the other measures including pouring billions of dollars of taxpayer money into subsidizing EV battery plants and billions into transitioning to so-called green energy which has not proven to be reliable.

No, I try to understand any scripture in the light of other scriptures. The Bible says compare scripture with scripture. When you do that, there should no contradiction. If you have trouble understanding a verse, there are resources that help find the answer. If there is a contradiction, then one is not interpreting it correctly. There are a huge number of verses that say salvation is by grace through faith. Therefore if one verse seems to contradict such a huge number of verses, you are likely not interpreting that one verse correctly. Grace is God's unmerited favour. Faith is believing God. So grace is the free unmerited gift that God gives those who believe in his Son Jesus Christ and what he did for us on the cross. Faith is the conduit through which we receive the grace from God. Adding works to faith as a part of salvation is a denial of God's free gift of grace. Galatians and Ephesians reject adding works. It says to allow works would enable a sinner to boast that he earned his salvation. God wants no part of that. "8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast. " Ephesians 2:8 If you want to be saved, you must accept God's way of salvation, not man's.

The is an illusive and pointless exercise. Mankind has to do what he has to do to survive now, not 250 years in the future. I am sure if mankind is still here in 100, 150 or 250 years, he will have discovered ways of providing energy to survive. It could well be nuclear power. We can see how that would provide the power. So it is silly to say we should stop using fossil fuels as our main energy source so there will enough centuries from now. That is not how the world ever has worked. We have 8 billion people on the planet and need to provide what they need now to survive. Reducing fossil fuels would cause tremendous hardship, poverty, and difficulty in surviving. It is not practical. Also, saying we need to preserve fossil fuels for people 250 years from now is a phony excuse to cut the use of fossil fuels just because you think it is causing climate change because it isn't.

You are desperate now. You have nothing meaningful to say. Case dismissed.

There is no evidence or proof at all that man is the cause of global warming. You cannot arrest someone simply based on a hunch without any evidence. Also, arresting someone is not comparable to the global warming issue at all. You are grasping for straws. Nobody can be convicted or found guilty without reasonable proof or evidence. The defence will say there is no proof and no reasonable evidence; therefore he is not guilty. A jury must have reasonable evidence. To even lay charges, there has to be reasonable grounds that the person may be found guilty. There is none in the climate change scam.

In the court of reason, logic, human rights, and humanity. To assume man is guilty without proof is a gross violation of basic human rights. It is dictatorial and totalitarianism.

We are talking about something that is beyond man's capability to know or prove. The issue is as simple as that. Anybody who thinks they can speculate and make a claim that man is the cause is going far beyond reason or logic. It is completely out of the realm of human ability. Men are often full of pride and think they have the ability and knowledge which they simply don't have. That is the problem here. People simply do not know what they are talking about. People often use fancy words, technical, or science jargon to give the impression they know what they are talking about. But if you dissect it and strip it down, you will find they have nothing to offer. Politicians are often the same. They are professionals at deception and obfuscation.

I am not a scientist but I do not believe at all that man-made climate change has been proven. It is impossible to duplicate the earth's atmosphere to create global warming in a lab. The heating of the earth's atmosphere is extremely complex system with the various gases plus water vapour and some gases constantly recycling with the ocean, with forests, plant life, animals, etc. Plus you have the sun's radiation heating the atmosphere and the radiation varies constantly depending on sun spots, radiation from space, heat emissions, gases released from volcanoes and heat released from the centre of the earth. I am sure any scientist who is being honest and knows anything about it would tell you the same thing, that it is impossible to prove man is the cause of climate change. Such an experiment would be built on assumptions, which are impossible to replicate in a lab. A lab can never be the same as the earth's atmosphere. I believe it is beyond man's capabilities to prove. Conclusion: Nobody can make the claim man is causing abnormal global warming or any measurable global warming. It is pure speculation. End of story. A man is innocent until proven guilty.

You admit it is impossible to prove. Yet, you are ok with governments and media making the unproven claim that man is causing global warming and climate change and resulting in heavy taxation of millions of people, harming our energy industry, shutting down fossil fuel use which is a vital, essential resource for man to live on earth. You are ok with heavy regulations put on industries, tens of billions of dollars of taxpayer money spent by government to fight this unproven man-made climate change. You are talking about people in authority who claim the unproven is true and therefore they are playing God. They do not know a thing about it and nobody can claim it is true. Therefore they are completely out of line and doing great harm to mankind all based on an unproven claim.

That sounds insane for one simple reason. It is impossible to duplicate the earth's atmosphere to create global warming in a lab. The heating of the earth's atmosphere is extremely complex system with the various gases plus water vapour and some or all gases constantly recycling with the ocean, with forests, plant life, etc. Plus you have the sun's radiation heating the atmosphere and the radiation varies constantly depending on sun spots, radiation from space, heat emissions from volcanoes and from the centre of the earth. Any scientist who knows anything about it would tell you the same thing, that is impossible to prove the exact causes of global warming. Such an experiment would be built on assumptions, which are unknown and impossible to replicate in a lab. A lab can never be the same as the earth's atmosphere. Conclusion: Nobody can make the claim man is causing global warming. It is pure speculation. End of story.

False. That land belongs to Israel and has for thousands of years. Here is the history of Jerusalem. After various parties conquered Jerusalem, the Jews took it back and established the State of Israel again in 1948. quote History of Jerusalem:History of Jerusalem: Table of Contents Chalcolithic Period (4500-3200 BCE) 3500 BCE - First Settlement of Jerusalem Early Bronze Age (3200-2220 BCE) 2500 BCE - First Houses Built in Area Middle Bronze Age (2220-1550 BCE) 1800 BCE - Construction of First City Wall Late Bronze Age (1550-1200 BCE) 1400 BCE - First Mention of Jerusalem in Cuneiform Amarna Letters Iron Age I (1200-1000 BCE) 1200 BCE - Jerusalem is conquered by Canaanites (Jebusites) Iron Age II (1000-529 BCE) 1000 BCE - King David Conquers Jerusalem; Declares City Capital of Jewish Kingdom 960 BCE - David's Son, King Solomon, Builds First Jewish Temple 721 BCE - Assyrians Conquer Samaria; Refugees Flee to Jerusalem and City Expands onto Western Hill 701 BCE - Assyrian Ruler Sennacherib Lays Seige to Jerusalem 586 BCE - Babylonian Forces Destroy Jerusalem and Demolish First Temple Persian Period (539-322 BCE) 539 BCE - Persian Ruler Cyrus the Great Conquers Babylonian Empire, Including Jerusalem 516 BCE - Cyrus Permits Jews in Babylonian Exile to Return to Jerusalem; Second Temple Built 445-425 BCE - Nehemiah the Prophet Rebuilds the Walls of Jerusalem; City Confined to Eastern Hill Hellenistic Period (332-141 BCE) 332 BCE - Greek Leader Alexander the Great Conquers Judea and Jerusalem 332-141 BCE - Ptolemaic and Seleucid Rule in Jerusalem Hasmonean Period (141-37 BCE) 141 BCE - Hasmonean Dynasty Begins; Jerusalem Again Expands Limits to Western Hill 63 BCE - Roman General Pompey captures Jerusalem Herodian Period (37 BCE - 70 CE) 37 BCE - King Herod Restructures Second Temple, Adds Retaining Walls 30 CE - Jesus Crucified by Romans in Jerusalem Roman Period (70 - 324 CE) 70 CE - Roman Forces Destroy Jerusalem and Demolish Second Temple 135 CE - Jerusalem Rebuilt as a Roman City Byzantine Period (324-638 CE) 335 CE - Church of the Holy Sepulchre Built 614 CE - Persians Capture Jerusalem 629 CE - Byzantine Christians Recapture Jerusalem from Persians First Muslim Period (638-1099 CE) 638 CE - Caliph Omar Enters Jerusalem 661-750 CE - Jerusalem Ruled Under Umayyad Dynasty 691 CE - Dome of the Rock Built on Site of Destroyed Jewish Temples 750-974 CE - Jerusalem Ruled Under Abassid Dynasty Crusader Period (1099-1187 CE) 1099 CE - First Crusaders Capture Jerusalem Ayyubid Period (1187-1259 CE) 1187 CE - Saladin Captures Jerusalem from Crusaders 1229-1244 CE - Crusaders Briefly Recapture Jerusalem Two Times Mamluk Period (1250-1516) 1250 - Muslim Caliph Dismantles Walls of Jerusalem; Population Rapidly Declines Ottoman Period (1516-1917) 1517 - Ottoman Empire Captures Jerusalem 1538-1541 - Suleiman the Magnificent Rebuilds the Walls of Jerusalem British Mandate (1917-1948) 1917 - British Capture Jerusalem in World War I Divided City (1948-1967) 1948 - State of Israel Established; Jerusalem Divided By Armistice Lines Between Israel & Jordan Reunification (1967-Present) 1967 - Israel Captures Jerusalem's Old City and Eastern Half; Reunites City unquote Anti-Semitism - Definition, Meaning & Reasons For (history.com)

Ridiculous. Israel does not invade and conquer other countries as it suits them. They are defending themselves against aggressors such as Hamas and Hezbollah.

That is not correct for a number of reasons, but I will mention just one or two. In America, evangelical church, including many Baptists church interpret the Bible in a way that recognizes Israel has a special place in Bible prophecy and believe God has a special plan in the future for Israel. They are strong supporters of Israel's right to exist. Some other churches such as Anglican, Lutheran, and Catholic churches do not particularly believe in Bible prophecy and so do not believe Israel has a special place in the world or future. The Reformed Church also believes that the Church replaced Israel. It is called Replacement Theology. So they are of course not strong supporters of Israel. Most churches today may not be anti-Semitic. But that was not the case centuries ago. The evangelical and Baptist churches today often strongly support Israel. There are television programs by Christians which are geared to giving support to Israel as well by Bible believing Christians.

There is a lot of misinformation in that post. The RC Church is still very powerful in the world. There are over one billion Catholics. The Vatican has ambassadors in countries all over the world and leaders of nations go to the Vatican to hold meetings with the Pope. They have huge influence in the world. In Canada, the PM and many cabinet ministers and MPs are Catholic. Claiming Rome is not the centre of power is not credible. "Francisco Franco, Head of Spain, allegedly said on 3 May 1945:* "Adolf Hitler son of the Catholic Church died while defending Christianity. It is therefore understandable that words cannot be found to lament over his death, when so many were found to exalt his life. Over his mortal remains stands his victorious figure. with the palm of the martyr, God gives Hitler the laurels of Victory." religion - Did Franco consider Hitler a "son of the Catholic Church" who "died while defending Christianity"? - History Stack Exchange Germany was not anti-Catholic during Hitler's time. There is no evidence of that. But that has little to do with the subject. The Catholic church has a 1700 year history of anti-Semitism and they were under the authority of Rome, a very powerful institution in the world down through history. Nobody can deny that.

It's you climate alarmists that are putting taxes on us, putting heavy-handed regulations on industry and planning to eliminate fossil fuels. Don't you think the onus is on those who are doing these things to the people to prove what they are doing is legitimate? Prove man is causing climate change.