blackbird

I would caution posters to beware of prolific antisemites and Israel haters who inhabit this forum. I have witnessed them before. They have a very different view of the world and are constantly smearing our western Judeo-Christian culture and favouring the Islamic culture and Islamic world. Whether they are actually Islamic agitators disguised as westerners is hard to say. Anything is possible in this day and age as the internet is accessible to anyone. The Ottoman Empire was an Islamic empire for the spread of Islam and control of as much of the world as possible. Western Judeo-Christian civilization has had to fight and defend against the expansion of the Ottoman (Islamic) Empire for 600 years in eastern Europe. There have been endless wars in various areas between western Judeo-Christian forces and the Islamic world in the form of the Ottoman Empire. The struggle for control of Israel has been part of that for a good part of the last thousand years or more. Remnants of the Ottoman Empire still exist throughout the middle east in the form of many Islamic countries with many terrorists and jihadists. It has also spread well into northern Africa and made it's way south to quite an extent. Much of the world is antisemitic. This is proven by the long list of anti-Israel votes by the U.N. The reality is western Judeo-Christian civilization's only ally in the middle east is Israel. The CBC is an enigma and impossible to figure out. They give voice to Islamists, first nation red power activists, LGBTQ progressives, and Socialists regularly. They had a Muslim woman in a hijab as a host on their one hour daily political program for some time until she suddenly was off the program without explanation. The CBC is about as far from our historic Judeo-Christian culture as it can get. It is basically an opponent of Biblical Christianity. It is certainly not a supporter of our historic Judeo-Christian civilization. Neither is the liberal-NDP alliance for that matter. Canada is actually a weaker ally of the five eyes in defending western interests and civilization. It seems many Canadians are naive to the influence of Communist China and the growing influence of Islam in the west. Joel Kotkin: Jews are being abandoned by the left (msn.com)

This article shows the bias of the BBC and CBC. quote ‘Definitely a value judgment’ Re: CBC tells journalists to not call Hamas ‘terrorists’ in leaked memo — Oct. 11 Why do the CBC and the BBC pander to terrorists? Is it because of the “soft bigotry of low expectations,” that ingrained belief by the progressive left that one must not judge others too harshly, especially when they are not as intelligent, sophisticated and worldly wise as you? Or is it because they sympathize with their cause and believe that one person’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter, and thus there can be no such thing as a terrorist, because it is all so very subjective? Take for example the 9/11 attacks on the U.S. Could those acts not also have been deemed the actions of freedom fighters wronged by the evils of imperialist, colonial powers? Or, lastly, perhaps they are just acts of evil by racists or antisemites or bigots or barbarians? Yet, with all these choices, the Beeb and the CBC choose the one least condemnatory of the perpetrators. Does that not tell us something? It is definitely a value judgment and one about which justice-seeking Brits and Canucks should be asking ourselves … why? unquote Letters: 'Why do the CBC and the BBC pander to terrorists?' (msn.com) Is this really the kind of public broadcaster Canadians want? Can they be trusted with anything they broadcast or report? If they are this heavily biased, how can they be trusted with anything they broadcast? Yet it is the taxpayers that pay billions of dollars for this public broadcasting service. How is this educating (or brainwashing) Canadians, including the young people? It will be setting the future course for Canadians in the world. This is no small thing.

No, I never said that. I do not believe in terrorism or violence against Israeli people. Nothing justifies it. How many Palestinians believe Israel has a right to exist? What percentage? You can't force them to live in peace if they are not willing to do so. The problem is many follow the religion of peace so there will be no peace.

NO, I at least have a basis for my moral views, that is the Bible, which is God's word. You on the other hand, have no basis for morality. You have no foundation. You think your own mind is the judge and because that creates a vacuum in your mind, you suck in Marxist ideology, Socialist ideology or whatever seems reasonable in your own thinking. So your idea of right and wrong is totally different and contrary to historic right and wrong based on Judeo-Christian culture and religious beliefs/Bible. This is easily proven by your comments.

Nothing needs to be written down. There is no court that has legitimate authority to go after former empires and nations to force them to pay compensation. That is an Orwellian or Marxist idea. There are some exceptions. We do have a somewhat Socialist/woke progressive Supreme Court in Canada that does sometimes make bizarre rulings. We have Socialist governments in Canada that do view the world sometimes through a Marxist lens. There are many people who have created their own manmade religion of Marxist slant and think the state can play God.

There have been hundreds of large empires throughout history, and likely thousands of countries that come and go. So tell me how you decided Israel is not a legitimate state and that Palestinians should have their own country. Since they never had their own country and there is no such country, where would it be? Why should Israel agree to anything that would threaten its own security or existence? Canada was once part of the British Empire. It was British North America. Like every other empire in the world, it was conquered and colonized. The British Empire existed around the world and the sun never set on some part of it. Do you think the British asked permission to establish their empire? Do you think the British should now pay compensation to all the former parts of the colonial empire they once had? Why should Canadians be expected to pay compensation for living on land the natives now claim as their traditional territory which can extend for thousands of square kilometers according to some native groups or hereditary chiefs? I think you see the connection in your thinking to the middle east. You think because some Palestinians are descendants of previous people who lived on the land, that somehow that now makes it their land and Israel should just surrender to these demands and get out. You seem to automatically believe if there is a perceived underdog, the stronger country or people should be blamed and made to pay for their wrong. That is very simplistic thinking and is not how the world works. It is a Marxist idea. You want to somehow share everything in the world equally with everyone. You must be thoroughly brainwashed with Marxism. I would think you view the world through the same lens in your own backyard and area. This is true Marxist ideology and is a key part of NDP Socialist thinking or ideology. It is a false god. God created all men equal but he did not create every man equal in possessions, property or money. So what does being created equal mean then? I think it means we are created in God's image and have the right to life. Life is sacred. That is why abortion is wrong, MAID is wrong, and murder is wrong. Everyone's life is sacred and their right to life should be respected fully. That includes the unborn. So abortion is killing a human and is therefore wrong. Everyone is born into a different circumstances. There is no equality in wealth, property, influence, intelligence, etc.. There is no guarantee that everyone will receive the same share of material things in this world. God has a major commandment: " thou shalt not steal" God also forbade coveting other people's property or wealth. Marxism is the stealing of other people's property or wealth or whatever they have to spread around. That is why it is evil. However, God said thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. So charity is important. God taught man to give to those in need. This means individual charity. We are to help those in need. It does not mean government-controlled Marxism or Socialism, i.e. wealth redistribution. Charity is an individual thing and must be done freely and willingly by individuals.

quote What does “Many are called but few are chosen” in Matthew 22:14 mean? This statement is the conclusion to the Parable of the Wedding Feast. Jesus spoke this parable to show what the kingdom of heaven will be like when the end of the age comes. In the parable, the king sends his servants out to gather the wedding guests to the wedding feast. But those invited refused to come, some because they were too busy with their own worldly pursuits and some because they were positively hostile toward the king. So the king commands his servants to go out and invite anyone they find, and many come and fill the wedding hall. But the king sees one man without wedding clothes, and he sends him away. Jesus concludes by saying that many are called/invited to the kingdom, but only those who have been “chosen” and have received Christ will come. Those who try to come without the covering of the blood of Christ for their sins are inadequately clothed and will be sent into “outer darkness,” (v. 13) i.e., hell. Many people hear the call of God coming through His revelation of Himself through creation, the conscience, and the preaching of the Word. But only the “few” will respond because they are the ones who are truly hearing. Jesus said many times, “He who has ears to hear, let him hear” (Matthew 11:15; Mark 4:9; Luke 8:8, 14:35). The point is that everyone has ears, but only a few are listening and responding. Not everyone who hears the gospel receives it but only the “few” who have ears to hear. The “many” hear, but there is no interest or there is outright antagonism toward God. Many are called or invited into the kingdom, but none are able to come on their own. God must draw the hearts of those who come; otherwise they will not (John 6:44). unquote What does “Many are called but few are chosen” in Matthew 22:14 mean? | GotQuestions.org

" Many other founders of modern science also saw their scientific research as bringing glory to God. Newton said: “This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent Being. … This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called ‘Lord God’ Παντοκράτωρ [Pantokratōr cf. 2 Corinthians 6:18] or ‘Universal Ruler’. … The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, absolutely perfect … ”.3 “Opposite to godliness is atheism in profession and idolatry in practice. Atheism is so senseless and odious to mankind that it never had many professors”.4 " Science biblical presuppositions (creation.com) Idolatry can be anything in life you put in place of God. "The Sin of Idolatry Idolatry is the worship of anything other than God, whether it is a physical object, a person, a pleasure, or a concept. " The irony is atheists claim they don't believe in God, but they have created another god or gods in their own mind. They mistakenly think if they don't call these other things a god or gods, they are not practicing idolatry.

The word Palestine refers to a region or area. If you want to refer to a people such as non-Israeli people living in the area, you have to state explicitly which people you mean. I assume you mean Palestinians living in Gaza and the West Bank. The problem is many of those people are heavily under the influence of the extremists/terrorists and so it becomes very difficult to find anyone who speaks for them as a whole or anyone who has the authority over all of them. Right now in the Gaza strip, Hamas have been the rulers.

Never said anything about Trump and don't follow him or care what he says particularly.

That's not true. I attended a week of evening slide presentations 20 years ago by Professor Philip Stott on the subject. He presented scientific evidence in the slide presentation that refuted a lot of so-called science and claims about evolution, geological age of the earth etc. I can't go into on here because I don't have it at my fingertips, but the information is out there if you wish to look at it. Two places to look are the creation.com website and the Scripture and Science website. Home - creation.com Philip Stott: General Science: Table of Contents | Reformation International College

quote According to Genesis 6:15, the Ark measured 300 x 50 x 30 cubits, which is about 460 x 75 x 44 feet, with a volume of about 1.52 million cubic feet. Researchers have shown that this is the equivalent volume of 522 standard railroad stock cars (US), each of which can hold 240 sheep. By the way, only 11% of all land animals are larger than a sheep. Without getting into all the math, the 16,000-plus animals would have occupied much less than half the space in the Ark (even allowing them some moving-around space). Conclusion The Bible is reliable in all areas, including its account of the Ark (and the worldwide catastrophic Flood). A Christian doesn’t have to have a blind faith to believe that there really was an Ark. What the Bible says about the Ark can even be measured and tested today. For answers to other objections about the Biblical account of Noah’s Flood and the Ark (e.g., Where did all the water come from?, How did Noah collect and then care for the animals?, etc.), see the books featured below. The Creation Answers Book—Chapters 12 and 13, in particular, cover these particular ‘problems’ related to Noah’s Flood, and Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study covers these and more in detail. For more information on dinosaurs, read chapter 19 of the The Creation Answers Book on Dinosaurs. unquote Were dinosaurs on Noah's Ark (creation.com)

"In 1995, Mary Schweitzer discovered red blood cells in a dinosaur bone, and, in 2005, more blood cells (above) in other bones plus soft tissue that was flexile and stretchy. Carbon dating gives just a few thousand years for dinosaur fossils. This is sensational evidence dinosaurs are not millions of years old." dinosaurs-did-they-die-out.pdf (creation.com) If man was created 6,000 years ago and dinosaurs lived a few thousand years ago, not million of years ago, then it is reasonable to believe that some men did walk on earth when dinosaurs were alive several thousand years ago. The red blood cells found in a dinosaur bone and the carbon dating of a few thousand years is strong evidence.

You continue to ignore the fact that it is the extremist, terrorist elements that control what goes on in the middle east. You still haven't explained how anybody can "negotiate peace" with terrorists who are bent on wiping you off the map. How you think the terrorist organizations are suddenly going to disappear because somebody signs a peace deal on a piece of paper? How do you think they can be trusted?

The timeline for the beginning of man, i.e. Adam and Eve, appears to be estimated to be about 4,000 B.C. or 6,000 years ago. The Fall of man is estimated in the Thompson Chain Reference (KIng James) Bible to have happened about 4004 B.C. This is according to the a highly respected theologian, Ussher. It says it is only a working number, not to be taken as absolutely correct. Since Genesis says God created the universe in six days and that man was created during this six days. Therefore, it is correct to say the earth and universe was created about 6,000 years ago. The way I see it is, when God created everything in six days, that means the earth was created with a certain age at the moment it was created. The trees, birds, animals, etc. were created full grown at that moment. This was a supernatural event. Nothing unreasonable or irrational about believing that. So the earth would possibly be 6,000 years old.

That sounds like pantheism. pantheism - a doctrine which identifies God with the universe, or regards the universe as a manifestation of God. That may be part of some religious systems or beliefs, such as as some aboriginal belief systems. But it is not the Biblical teaching of God. The Bible teaches God is transcendent, i.e. separate from the material universe. The Bible teaches God is a spirit but yet omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. God is also eternal; He had no beginning and has not end. He always existed. What is interesting is that God is referred to as He and He created man in His image. Exactly what that means does require some study. The God of the Bible is entirely different than all the other gods of the world's religions. The God of the Bible is really worth studying. The Bible reveals that He loves man and sent His Son, Jesus Christ to earth to take on a human body, live on earth, and to provide a way for man to be redeemed or receive eternal life. The Bible teaches that the shedding of blood was the only form of atonement that God accepts for sin. But not just any blood. It had to be the blood of His unique Son. So Jesus died on a cross and shed His blood for the sins of mankind. That is how much he cares about mankind. However, this atonement only applies to those who believe and accept Him as their personal Savior and Lord. That makes sense.

Before judging something or someone, you need to do a little research and hear their point of view. If you don't then you are acting like a "flat earther". How Did We Get Here? A written debate between Kenneth R. Miller and Philip E. Johnson How Did We Get Here? / Kenneth Miller | Evolution | Scripture & Science | Reformation International College Professor Stott debated and lectured in many parts of the world, even in Russia. "When the Iron Curtain collapsed and the Soviet Union disbanded, involvement in helping children suffering the consequences of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster led to opportunities to lecture on Creation to state institutions including universities and colleges throughout Russia. These lectures became so popular that up to six different venues had to be fitted into one day. Associations with formerly “underground” churches allowed many of these opportunities to become openings for evangelisation. At present Philip Stott holds a research fellowship at the Central University of Technology in Bloemfontein." Philip Stott (williamcareybi.com) I'm sure the many people who heard Professor Stott would laugh at you for calling them "flat earthers'.

Listen, I actually met Professor Philip Stott myself about 20 years ago and attended his week of slide presentation on creation versus evolution and the long age claims. His slide presentation was remarkable and definitely casts doubt on evolution and long age from a scientific point of view. Different aspects of it each night. He is a scientist-mathematician from South Africa. He was an atheist until 1976 when he was converted to Jesus Christ. It totally changed his world view. "He has been awarded doctorates by Reformation International Theological Seminary and by the Central University of Technology, Bloemfontein. He has practiced as a consulting engineer with several South African consulting firms. After many years as a staunch atheist, Philip Stott was converted to Christ in 1976." Philip Stott (williamcareybi.com)

I will have to try to find that article. I don't think I actually studied it. Forgive me if I posted something incorrect. I am just trying to give you the information that the earth is actually very young. The Bible doesn't give dates, but it could be ten or fifteen thousand years old. Just guessing. I am not trying to put an actual date on the earth, but just pointing out the long earth age is rejected by many, including some scientists. The fossils could have been formed in a much younger earth than many believe.

I would not even want to try to defend the Roman Catholic church. They don't accept the Bible as their final authority. They go by what their councils and church leaders have said mainly. Wouldn't surprise me if the Pope believes in evolution.

And what it accomplish. You have radical Islamists and terrorist in the mix. You must live in a world of fiction. As for your last line, why bother being on a forum if you are incapable of being civil?

Nobody said he supports burning of witches. What did they call that kind of argument. Pure invention. You are free to think he is wrong. Millions agree with him. I am not trying to defend how they choose Speakers. That is their system as slow as it is.

That is not what the above article says. It says the portraits or depictions were found in 1496 and about 800 years ago. It is not saying the depictions mean the animals lived at that time. They could simply be depictions of animals much further back in history. Nobody says the animals lived at the time the depictions were found.

Believing what the Bible says is actually far closer to our historic Judeo-Christian culture than the recent woke/progressivism phenomena with same-sex marriage, abortion on demand, medical assistance in dying, sexual orientation, and gender identity ideology. All those things are an abomination in the true Judeo-Christian culture. We need to put the brakes on this woke stuff. If the new Speaker, Mike Johnson, believes the Bible and rejects the woke agenda, that is something to celebrate. He said God ordained him to be Speaker of the House. I think he is correct.

The fact that Jesus Christ was raised from the dead and was seen by many eye witnesses lends enormous credibility to the truth of the Bible and the account of creation. Read the New Testament and check on the eye witnesses who saw Jesus Christ after his resurrection.