blackbird

Come on, the judge issued an injunction because he agrees with SOGI teaching without informing the parents about the pronouns, not parental rights.

Of course I oppose the scam carbon tax. It does nothing for climate change. A tax cannot control the climate.

We don't live under the same kind of system that existed at the time of Caesar. Government now includes all the people and the people have the right to input on the laws and policies. Jesus never opposed that. Render unto Caesar refers to obeying the existing laws. So we must obey the speed limits and obey the laws. I think that is what Jesus meant by rendering unto Caesar. He did not mean you couldn't speak against or in favour of certain laws. It is just simple logic. In case you haven't noticed, our Caesar is a Parliamentary system with human rights which include freedom of speech and democratic input to government policies and laws. Two thousand years ago, practically all countries were absolute dictatorships. It is perfectly legal and in agreement with what Jesus and the Bible teaches to give input in a democratic system. That is the kind of system we have. Ask any politician or ask the King. If you or I want to complain or advocate about some government policy or law, we have a perfect right to do that. I am sure you know that. In fact, I would further say Jesus would want his follows to oppose laws that are against his Word as for example abortion. Christians should be opposed to abortion and when it seems appropriate, say so. Your claim that Jesus opposed capital punishment is false. He never said anything about it. Read what I said.

One must study the Bible carefully. I gave you a lot of detail in the posting above. I believe dispensationalism is the correct way to interpret the Bible. Without understanding the Bible is divided into dispensations or ages you can end up in confusion. God dealt with mankind in different ways in different ages. But we are obviously still in the dispensation of human government, which means government is responsible for law and order. The directive in Genesis 9:6 was given during the dispensation of human government and we are still under that system. That dispensation overlaps one or more other dispensations. Google dispensations to find out what it is all about. We also live in a democracy which permits Christians to disagree with government policies which they believe are not supported by the Bible. So we are free to oppose abortion for example and support capital punishment for murder which is taught in Genesis 9:6.

That is false. It is not a rejection of the clear teachings of Jesus Christ. Jesus never specifically opposed capital punishment. He did not deny the state's authority to exact capital punishment. The Apostle Paul said in the New Testament in Romans: "1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. {ordained: or, ordered} 2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. 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: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. " Romans 13:1-4 KJV These are God's words. The sword could be understood to be a symbol of capital punishment. The sword is lethal. When Jesus rejected an "eye for an eye", I think he was speaking about individuals taking revenge on others for offences against themselves, not government exercising justice against evil doers. Romans ch13 clearly speaks about the authority of government to exercise justice against evil doers. Genesis 9:6 orders capital punishment for murder. That has never been rescinded. We are still living under human government and government is responsible for law and order. quote After the Flood God stepped back from directly judging the earth until the second coming; thus, a human agency known as civil government was divinely appointed to restrain evil and protect man from his own sinful nature. Noah and his wife and his three sons and their wives began to repopulate the earth. Shem would become the father of the Mediterranean region dwellers and eventually the Jews (the word Semitic comes from the Latin word for “Shem”). Ham’s descendants spread into Africa, and Japheth’s into Eurasia. Noah and his family had practical knowledge of the failure under the dispensation of Conscience, and God made them responsible to protect the sanctity of human life. “Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed, for in the image of God He made man” (Genesis 9:6). In this way, God established the orderly rule of mankind for the good of society. Capital punishment is the most potent function of human government, and it presupposes all forms of legislation, organization, and enforcement. In the New Testament (Romans 13), man is still responsible to use this authority to enforce righteousness. In other words, God’s command in Genesis 9:6 has not been rescinded. unquote What is the dispensation of Human Government? | GotQuestions.org

It has nothing to do with the discussion about capital punishment for murder of police officers.

There is no such thing as an inalienable right to life in all situations. What about police officers doing their duty to protect the public and themselves from someone who is trying to kill someone? What about in wars when a country is trying to defend itself? While nobody likes the thought of having to, obviously there are circumstances when police or soldiers have to do it. Capital punishment for murder of a police officer is no different as long as there is due process and there is absolute certainty of guilt.

So you think a guy who murdered mulitple people or murdered a police officer who was trying to protect your butt, should escape the justice of capital punishment and instead be able to live in relative comfort at taxpayers expense of millions of dollars over 25 years. And at that point start holding parole hearings every few years and put the victims families through the horror show of hearing it all again and having to see the offender. And if he does get parole, he might go out again and kill more people because it has happened before. That's your idea of justice and being civilized. Sad.

The last living WWII-era German Nazis have shockingly few regrets (nypost.com) Yet Trudeau took no action to use the security apparatus of government, RCMP, CSIS, etc. to ensure a former Nazi could not be in the HOC and be cheered as he sat near Zelenskiyy.

I think I already explained that some time ago. You can Google it if you want. The subject here is capital punishment for murder.

We need to bring DeSantis up here from Florida and bring some sense into our governments. Critical Race Theory is being introduced under the cloak of culture studies. Christianity in the form of Bible reading and any kind prayers was banned from many schools in Canada decades ago under the umbrella of so-called "multiculturalism". A few years ago a native was allowed to hold a smudging ceremony in a school class in B.C. A Christian student's mother complained that her daughter was being forced to be part of an anti-Christian religious practice. This eventually went to court and the government argued and the judge ruled that the smudging ceremony was not a religious practice. This is of course completely false. Smudging ceremonies are all about trying to cleanse the room of evil spirits which is by its nature religious. The teacher in allowing this smudging ceremony was forcing the class to participate in a heathen religious ceremony. This goes against the ten commandments in the Bible. "3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me. 4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: 5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;" Exodus 20:3 KJV

The governments in power in Canada are to blame for this whole fiasco because they brought these radicals into Canada in the first place and have done nothing to stop them from using Canada as a base for their activism and extremism. Canada has built an international reputation for harbouring extremists and terrorists and has done nothing about it. This from an article June 10, 2010: quote A four-year inquiry into the 1985 bombing of an Air India flight is due to be published. The inquiry was ordered after the acquittal of two suspects and allegations of a bungled investigation by the Canadian police and intelligence services. unquote "After charges against Parmar were dropped in 1985, the next embarrassment for the investigation came with the news that the Canadian secret services (CSIS) had destroyed tapes of telephone calls made by Sikhs suspected of involvement in the Air India case. The judge in the 2005 trial described this as "unacceptable negligence" but it was regarded as far more serious than that by members of parliament calling for an inquiry." Unravelling Canada's 1985 Air India investigation - BBC News Can we really blame India for holding the view that Canada harbours terrorists and is completely untrustworthy when they look at the situation that has existed in Canada for decades including the botched handling of the Air India bombing? This is not the only issue that reveals Canada's negligence in the world of extremism and terrorism. We have been watching how Canada mis handled al Qaeda terrorists for years. There is the ten million dollar payout to someone who went over to fight for al Qaeda in Afghanistan as a teen ager and killed an American serviceman. Then there is the issue of the wives of ISIS fighters who are released in Canada. We must not forget how Canada has allowed China to creep into our institutions and society and establish serious foreign interference that may be beyond the point of even stopping it. Then there is the fact Canada will not put Iran's Revolutionary Guard on it's terrorist list. The U.S. did it. The EU might. Why Canada won't put Iran's revolutionary guard on its terrorist list | CBC News

Have you ever heard the phrase "contributing factors"? There are lots of contributing factors. But the solution is not aiding and abetting it. There has to be treatment and rehab or it will never end.

Nobody is supposed to mention personal responsibility these days. That would be condemned as stigma. But the truth is nobody can be treated unless they are willing to be. But heavy blame is put on society as the culprit. Many say housing shortage, high cost of living, inflation, homelessness, etc. are all to blame. We will likely always have these societal problems. If people are waiting for those problems to go away, the OD crisis will never end. There are also a lot of people who ODed who were living in normal homes and lives. It is not just on the streets this happens. Very common in homes too. So what is the solution besides waiting for a utopian society to be created?

According to this article: The last living WWII-era German Nazis have shockingly few regrets (nypost.com) This is shocking because it was one of the worst crimes against humanity in history. It mentions a documentary that was produced on this called "Final Account". It does not appear to be available for free on the internet. It is on Google Play for $4.99 plus tax (possibly U.S. dlrs)

Trudeau claims his government's drug policies are saving lives. But the statistics tell a different story. quote “What the science tells us is that the best ways to support people struggling with addictions, first of all, safe consumption sites. There was one when we came into office in 2015, now there are dozens and dozens and dozens across the country, and they are saving lives significantly,” Trudeau said. Here’s the thing, Trudeau has increased the number of places for people to consume hard drugs but hasn’t funded or mandated addiction services to help people kick their habit. The result isn’t that lives are being saved by his policies but instead people are dying. Trudeau said that the expansion of safe consumption sites since his government took office has saved lives, however, in 2015, British Columbia recorded 529 “drug toxicity deaths” but in 2022 there were 2,272 or an increase of more than 300% in one province over seven years. In Ontario, the number of opioid-related deaths went from 728 in 2015 to 2,907 in 2021. The number of emergency room visits from opioids alone went from 3,628 in 2015 to 17,023 in 2021. The more permissive attitude is not saving lives by any standard. At the end of January, British Columbia was granted permission to decriminalize what the federal government deemed personal use amounts of certain hard drugs. Anyone found with 2.5 grams or less of heroin, morphine, and fentanyl, crack, cocaine, meth or ecstasy won’t face charges. Advocates for making Canada’s drug laws more lenient regularly point to places like Portugal which legalized virtually all drugs more than 20 years ago. What they don’t tell you is that you can still be busted for possession but sent for treatment rather than being sent to jail. In Canada, we seem to want to adopt the policy that says make drugs legal, make them easier to get but we don’t want to offer treatment for addictions. This has been my problem with the legalization and safe consumption argument for years. The governments pushing easier access to drugs for addicts don’t make easier access for addiction treatment part of the package. unquote Trudeau claims his drug policy saves lives but overdose deaths rise | Ottawa Sun If safe consumption sites and legalization of a certain amount is the answer, why have the number of people dying of overdoses been going up?

I would say there are different levels of insults. Most fall into a lower level category. His insults were a different level entirely. That is why Parliament, and any organization have rules on how people can speak to the other people. That is why we have Human Rights Codes. It cannot be reasonable to unfairly trash other people. There has to be a certain level of decorum or respect. It cannot be a free-for-all. As someone who holds certain beliefs, I found them more offensive. He is a clever man but uses his ability to attack people that believe in God. Nobody should have to spend their time reading that. He says I should simply shut up and not mention the Bible or anything religious. I strongly disagree because for a Bible believer that is his reason for being. The powers in the world can be divided between two. One is the Devil or Satan and the other is God. God has infinite power and we don't always understand his ways and purposes. The Devil's power is very limited. But the people in the world generally follow him. So naturally the Devil wants to silence Bible believers. That is what it is all about. I also oppose excessive government control or authoritarianism. But there has to be some level of control of society which we call law and order or we have anarchy. I don't oppose law and order. The reason we have businesses in Canada in some places being constantly being robbed, employees assaulted, and windows broken, and property damaged is because criminals are arrested and immediately released by the courts. This system was created by the liberal-left that blames society, poverty, etc. for the existence of crime and they don't hold criminals responsible.

Finally figured out how to put him on ignore. Done.

No, I don't believe they are true. The name calling and insults are just vile rubbish. But you seem to support it all and think that kind of language is acceptable on here. Tell me how you manage to reason that is acceptable if you are in God's good grace?

No, I would not say I am mad. Someone with certain beliefs is expected to be constantly insulted and called names by one or two individuals. I hope you have some sympathy for them. They are incapable of rational discussion. They have certain things they are triggered by, especially when I make a quote or comment from the Bible, and will throw insults and derogatory names out as a normal conversation. I don't think they could be married. If they are, their wives must be real silent doormats to be able to stick it out. The reason I felt this should be mentioned is I came across it in the B.C. Human Rights Code and realized that according to that they really have no right to come on a forum and insult people that way. They have taken over the forum and nobody with my views can comment without expecting to be trashed. The forum should be more civilized.

They don't believe what I said from the Bible anyway, so why would that be a big thing? Only if someone is unsure and the idea of hell scares them, right? You are contradicting yourself. Does it scare you? Mentioning hell is not against the BC Human Rights Code. It is just a part of religious beliefs and therefore a legitimate part of conversation. If I said you shouldn't have sex outside marriage, would you say that is personal and therefore not allowed as well? Give us a list of the subjects that you think are forbidden to speak about. We will check the BC Human Rights Code and see if they are forbidden.

You are correct. You may be much wiser than I am on that. I will have to consider that.

False. An examination of a number of posts will prove I do not insult everyone all the time. Your claim is a lie. I do not "damn them with Bible quotes". I often quote the Bible to prove them wrong or what I am saying is true. You don't accept it because of your anti-Bible/anti-Christian ideology, that's all. I am not harassing anyone. But I am sure you disagree with me and use the argument of harassment, which is false. The BC Human Rights Code speaks about one of the grounds of discrimination is religion. Therefore your argument that you can insult and call names because of my Bible quotes is proof you are breaking the Code. You are breaking the Code by trying to deny my right to quote the Bible and my interpretation of it. That is what they do Islamic and Communist countries.

I can understand why you would want someone you disagree with to just go away and disappear. Your name if fairly new on here and some of us have been on here for a long time. But I have as much right to speak as you without endless insults and name-calling form a particular individual. Freedom of speech is not unlimited. When you go beyond debate about a certain subject and concentrate on insulting and name-calling, it is perfectly proper to point that out and explain why it is wrong. We should try a little harder to treat other people with some respect.

I know it is a national forum. I don't insult people very often, and nowhere near with the fierceness and repetition of this individual. He has proven his insults are partly driven by his animosity toward my religious beliefs and therefore it is a violation of the BC Human Rights Code. You yourself have sometimes referred by my religious beliefs as a reason for your opposition to me and my comments. So you too also broke the BC Human Rights Code. The reason I posted under the Federal Politics is because that is where 95% of the discussions and insults take place. Therefore it is the best place to draw attention to it. But I can understand why you would want it not to be seen.