blackbird

Here is a more in-depth article on the subject. First we agree that a certain amount of government services and taxes are required to provide basic services which I mentioned. But Canada and the U.S. are what is called quasi-Socialist. They are not full Socialist countries, but they are Socialist in certain respects and to varying degrees. "Socialism is more than impossible or inefficient. Socialism is immoral because it is government-sanctioned theft." This article explains what we have and what is wrong with Socialism. The Bible Prohibits Socialism — Knowing Scripture "All Forms of Socialism Are Theft Central to the moral argument against socialism and quasi-socialism is the 8th commandment: You shall not steal (Exodus 20:15; Deuteronomy 5:19). This command teaches the concept of private property and forbids the taking of property from an innocent person. God added to this condemnation of socialism by prohibiting envy in the 10th commandment: You shall not covet (Exodus 20:17; Deuteronomy 5:21). God is a capitalist, which we know because God endorses private property. This is inferred from the 8th commandment. The prohibition of theft assumes that people own things. Of course, everything in this world belongs to God. Yet He has delegated control and responsibility of things to individuals. We call this private property rights. Everyone understands this concept. No one likes others stealing their belongings, and they therefore do things to prevent theft, such as lock their door at night. It is also the case that every civilized society prohibits theft. People have property rights, and the government should protect such rights. Yet this all breaks down for many people when the government gets involved. It is wrong for Bob to take a quarter of your income. But if Bob and his friends lobby the government, politicians pass legislation, and the government gives one quarter of your money to Bob, then all is right. This is exactly how the typical Western welfare state works. The government enacts a variety of taxes (sales tax, income tax, FICA, tariffs, etc.) and then redistributes the money to a variety of classes (the poor, students, elderly, disabled, politically well-connected, etc.). But this is not called “theft” because, well, the government says so. This situation exposes one of the chief flaws of democracy, a system where two wolves and a lamb vote on what to eat for dinner. Thus, modern societies have made an exception to the 8th commandment—“You shall not steal, except by majority vote.” One person cannot take your stuff, but if enough people vote to take your stuff, then it is “legal.” And if it is legal, then it is morally acceptable. Christians are enabling this problem by limiting the 8th commandment to individuals instead of societies. However, the 8th commandment provides no such limitation. Groups are made up of individuals, and stealing is still stealing when done by a group." This is one reason why the Bible is so important and everyone should understand and respect it as God's word. Without the Bible, anyone can justify anything just as Hitler, Stalin, and Chairman Mao did and just as many politicians are doing today in the world. But the underlying fact is the Bible is not just another book, it's contents prove it came from God and therefore should be given the highest respect.

Of course. Give to Caesar what is Caesar's. We know the state must provide certain essential things for society. We need roads, infrastructure, police, ambulances, hospitals, water systems, sewers, etc. But do you believe there is no limit to how much of a person's hard-earned money and property a state can take from an individual to spread it around? When does it become stealing? Is Communism stealing do you think? Therefore is Communism or Socialism evil? Are you OK with the state taking everything an individual has and redistributing it to those who did not earn it?

I accept the PM is a servant of God but that does not mean he is doing the will of God. He holds the position of PM. But what exactly the word servant means in that context, I think it would have to be analyzed and broken down a bit. I do not believe it means we are to blindly follow everything he believes or says. What do you believe about it? I told you what Romans ch13 and Genesis 9:6 says. Genesis 9:6 supports capital punishment and Romans 13 says authorities use the sword. Remember Jesus Christ is the word and the word is God. See John 1:1 "1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." "14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. " John 1:14 KJV So the word is God in verse 1 and in verse 14 the word was made flesh (which is Jesus Christ) and dwelt among us. Since God inspired men to write the whole Bible, that means the Bible is also written by Jesus Christ, who is both the Son of God and God. That means that God (the trinity) are in agreement and God inspired men to write the Old Testament as well as the New Testament.

That is what Romans 13 says. Should we respect him as PM? Yes. That is how our democratic system works. We must respect him as the PM. That does not mean we must agree with everything he says or does. He is the leader and Romans ch13 says we are subject to the authorities. You are a kind of trickster always looking for a way to trip someone, wouldn't you say. It appears you do not believe or accept the Bible, but use parts of it when you find it convenient.

quote A Story of Compassion and Resilience. A man saw a snake being burned to death and decided to take it out of the fire. When he did, the snake bit him causing excruciating pain. The man dropped the snake, and the reptile fell right back into the fire. So, the man looked around and found a metal pole and used it to take the snake out of the fire, saving its life. Someone who was watching approached the man and said: “That snake bit you. Why are you still trying to save it?” The man replied: “The nature of the snake is to bite, but that's not going to change my nature, which is to help.” Do not change your nature simply because someone harms you. Do not lose your good heart, but learn to take precautions. unquote "Snakes (or serpents) get plenty of attention in the Bible, which mentions them over 80 times. Snakes show up in Pharaoh’s court (Exodus 7:12), in the wilderness (Numbers 21:7), on the island of Malta (Acts 28:3), and, of course, in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 3:1). They are almost always pictured as loathsome creatures, associated with poison and craftiness. As amoral creatures, snakes are not “evil” in themselves—but they are a handy metaphor for evil in many passages." What does the Bible say about snakes? Are snakes evil? | GotQuestions.org One can choose to be an evil snake or follow Christ. That is individual choice.

I understand how you can't control yourself and have to resort to insults. If that's all you've got you have nothing worth reading or paying attention to. Good night.

I never said I condoned a system where bad guys go free or an innocent person is punished or executed. That's not what I would condone. Let's be clear, I am not talking about a justice system which makes errors. I am talking about the ideal system that it is up to government to create where justice is applied correctly in all cases. If the current system is faulty, that should be fixed.

— Leviticus 20:13 Are you in favour of killing gay people? No. That particular law was a part of the laws that only applied to Israel at that particular time in history. They do not apply today. Same with other laws at that time that only applied to Israel such as not working on the Sabbath and not eating certain foods. Those don't apply today. The statement about capital punishment in Genesis 9:6 was not directed to Israel because Israel did not even exist at that time. Also Romans ch13 which talks about the sword for evil doers would seem to apply today because that is part of the New Testament era which began 2,000 years ago.

Wrong. The primary purpose of the criminal justice system should not be "to correct bad behavior". That is a part of liberal ideology. That is why the justice system is a total mess and why dangerous offenders are released onto the streets immediately after they are arrested now. No. The primary purpose of the justice system has to be justice which means punishment and for murder that has to include capital punishment. If someone who commits a lesser crime can be rehabilitated along the way as well as receive just punishment, that is fine. As long as it doesn't eliminate justice and become strictly a rehabilitation issue. That is not justice.

I disagree. I believe the laws and justice system should be designed in such a way to ensure nobody is wrongfully convicted. It's as simple as that. I do not believe murderers should get away with their crime. What is a human life worth? Guess it depends on who's life one is talking about. I happen to think life is priceless. Nobody should get away with murder and get x number of years and then get out. That is not justice.

As a Canadian citizen, I have as much right to live here as you or anyone else. I also have as much right as you to my views about how the country should be governed and how my hard-earned tax money is used.

You can call it vengeance if you like. That sounds like you don't believe someone should pay for their serious crime of taking someone else's life. But it is justice. When God said in his word (Genesis 9:6) that a murderer should in effect be executed, I would ask you why does it say that? What is punishment? Do you believe in punishment for evil, including murder? Or should nobody be punished for murder because somebody might call it vengeance? What is the difference between punishment, justice, and vengeance? If someone killed one of your parents or siblings or wife, how would you feel about that if they were able to carry on their life without punishment. What is just punishment? What is a life worth? These are questions that come to mind.

It may deter some types of murder but I don't know of any statistics that say one way or another. I happen to believe statistics should not be the deciding factor. I simply believe it should be a part of a just criminal justice system. It's as simple as that. If it was well known what the punishment is, there may be some cases where a person would think twice before committing murder. The point is justice must be satisfied. Allowing a murderer to live at enormous taxpayer's expense makes no sense from the cost point of view. Then there is the added risk that the murderer will re-offend in prison or when he gets out. This is another thing that should be considered. The safety of society comes first. So whether it is a deterrent or not should be irrelevant. The important thing is it is justice and justice must be the goal or purpose of government and the justice system.

They don't need to send a bill. It's all part of your various taxes.

That's the problem in a nutshell. You don't think about it and don't care. Taking taxpayer's money and spreading it around, at some point, could be considered as stealing. "Thou shalt not steal" is what God's word says. Socialists and Communists don't think about it. To them wealth or property redistribution is the way the universe should be.

Everything the government does is paid for by the hard-working taxpayers. Why do you hate the taxpayers and favour those who do little or nothing for themselves? Why do you favour socialists who care little for those who produce everything and give to those who do nothing? That kind of government lives off the hard work of the people and make sure they are well taken care of with generous salaries and pensions at everyone else's expense.

Another person in Richmond shot today. Witnesses heard awful moaning from a man lying in the street and saw someone running away. The RCMP arrived but it was too late. The man died. This is daily in some greater Vancouver municipality. The government is doing nothing significant to put a stop to this endless shootings and murder. Murderers know they may not be caught and even if they are caught, they will just get a sentence of a limited number of years and will be released.

That's all fine, but hopefully the government didn't have to hand over 100 billion dollars of taxpayer money. As long as it is not being funded by taxpayers. Many people are struggling to make ends meet and many cannot afford to buy a home and don't see much hope on the horizon. I don't oppose negotiating treaties as long as it doesn't put a burden on the taxpayers of the province. We shouldn't be expected to pay for all this FN business startups and payrolls. That is the NDP buying votes at the expense of everyone else.

No, my points are completely valid. Our system of justice historically evolved from Judeo-Christianity and many of our laws are based on that. Your feeling of closeness to ExFlyer is obviously because you are liberal who bows and bends the knee to liberal ideology. It means you constantly pander and think Canadians are guilty of everything that happened in past generations and think we should pay and pay for it forever. Well, if you want to pay, go ahead and pay them yourself. But stay away from everyone else' hard-earned money and property.

Now you clarified your stance. You believe murderers should not be punished with capital punishment. No surprise since you don't accept the Bible teaching on it. How is it anti-Christian since the Bible says it clearly in Genesis 9:6 "6 Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man." Seems pretty clear. God ordained it for murderers at that time. Where in the Bible does it say it no longer applies? Even in the New Testament in Romans ch13 it says "3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: 4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain:" Romans 13:3, 4 KJV Obviously if Genesis states capital punishment for murder and the New Testament says "rulers beareth not the sword in vain", it is pretty clear that God authorizes it. The sword could obviously mean capital punishment. So your argument is with what the Bible says, which men were inspired by God to write. Since what the Bible teaches is the basis or foundation of Christianity, your claim that it is anti-Christian to advocate capital punishment for murder has no credibility. In fact, the opposite is true. It is standing up for justice. Your idea is just the common liberal or NDP babble against God's revelation and justice. That's just the same old soft-on-crime attitude that gave us a failed justice system in Canada. That is why we have so many police officers being murdered and the courts constantly releasing dangerous offenders on bail within hours after they are arrested and the parole board releasing dangerous offenders as well. Good example is the guy who murdered twelve people in the Cree nation last year. He was released by the parole board.

Don't tell me you're going to get on your anti-Christian high horse again. At least I advocate for capital punishment to protect law enforcement, which is far better than nothing.

What would your solution be? Since there is no way the government will bring it back for all murderers at this time, what would be better than at least doing something to protect the police officers? Maybe one step at a time. Not sure how advocating for that is not very Christian. I don't see anyone else advocating for it on here. You missed the point I guess.

I just gave you a couple of basics. I am sure there are massive amounts of evidence from past cases and negotiations to show this particular claim is bogus. A 100 billion for what? How about if they start supporting themselves and demonstrate they are productive citizens for a change.

The problem is there are too many bleeding heart liberals who oppose capital punishment. So it must start somewhere and at least protect the police and prison guards. It is a matter of baby steps to get there and bring some law and order back.

The evidence is there. Everyone has to decide themselves what to believe. 1. The evidence of history proves all countries were settled by people migrating to them from other places. That is the story of how mankind settled the earth. Sometimes one group settled first in one country or region and then a different group moved in and became the dominant people. Nobody had anything to prove they had perpetual ownership. That is an invention by some who are trying to make claims for compensation. 2. God's written revelation makes it clear man was to subdue and occupy the whole earth. The only people that were given perpetual ownership of a land were the Jews in the case of Israel because of the fact God chose them for a special purpose in history. Jesus Christ, the Savior of mankind, was a Jew. Nobody else was given the same kind of ownership of land. "1 And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth." Genesis 9:1 KJV Noah and his sons are the ancestors of everyone alive on earth now. So the whole earth was given to mankind. Aboriginals have no special or perpetual claim on the vast lands they are scattered on. So yes, it can be shown in court that their claim is bogus.