blackbird
-
Posts
9,066 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
8
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by blackbird
-
-
4 hours ago, eyeball said:
I think what blackbird is pining for is giving greater consideration and weight to vengeance.
Do you think 4 to 6 years for a drunk driver who kills someone is reasonable? They also often get out after one-third of their sentence.
-
"If an agreement is not reached, there is a growing likelihood that Tehran, which has been signaling its readiness to attack Israel for several weeks, will follow through on its threats. This could lead to a direct confrontation between Israel and Iran, which the United States and its allies have been trying to avoid since the conflict began on October 7."
There is the reason right there. Israel has reportedly already agreed to the cease fire deal, but Hamas has not. Hamas is hoping to bring Iran, Hezbollah, and others into a major war against Israel. That is the only logical reason I can see for Hamas refusing to sign a cease fire deal with Israel.
Gaza ceasefire deal on edge of collapse - Politico (msn.com)
-
1 hour ago, herbie said:
Move to Alabama you could lock her up for 300 years.
Just another example of why that Judge is a Judge and you're not.
You are a bit of an lefty extremist.
"Petronella McNorgan, a 79-year-old retired teacher, was convicted in April of one count of criminal negligence causing death and seven counts of criminal negligence causing bodily harm. "
That's what the judge ruled, not me. Sounds like pretty serious charges. But no jail time at all.
Perhaps it was caused by a mental lapse. In that case, maybe she should not have been found guilty of any of those charges. Perhaps she should be tested by professionals to see if there is some kind of mental issue that caused the accident, that is, caused her to push the gas pedal instead of the brake.
-
My interest is more with the justice system in general. The system in general is a joke. Repeat offenders, some dangerous, are constantly arrested for shoplifting and immediately released. Some businesses are giving up because it has cost them thousands of dollars in lost merchandise and the courts do nothing except let them out to repeat again.
This case involved killing a young child and injuring a number of others. Nobody knows the real reason it happened. But the court or judge found it to be negligence. I don't know. But it still sets a precedent.
I am more concerned about how the justice system treats drunk drivers.
How often do drunk drivers kill people and get off with light sentences? That is common.
The typical sentence in Canada for drunk drivers killing someone is 4 to 6 years. They also can out after serving one-third of their sentence.
"The short sentences imposed in some cases of impaired driving causing death or bodily harm, the generous credit given for pre-conviction imprisonment and the fact that many of these offenders are paroled after serving only one-third of their sentence has generated controversy and angered victims of impaired driving." -MADD
-
11 hours ago, SkyHigh said:
What I'm saying is not at all controversial, mostly because believing in evolution in NO WAY diminishes ones faith
The creation account in Genesis is meant to be taken literally. It is a statement of fact of how God created the universe.
If one doesn't take that literally why should that person take anything else in the Bible literally? The Bible is full of miracles.
-
28 minutes ago, SkyHigh said:
How do you discern when it's supposed to be taken literally and when it's not?
What is your mechanism
The mechanism is the Bible itself. We take it literally unless there is a clear reason such as a phrase that is clearly not meant to be literal such as when one says it's raining cats and dogs.
-
"The 79-year-old London, Ont., woman convicted of driving her car into a troop of girl guides, killing an eight-year-old girl and injuring seven others in 2021, was sentenced Tuesday to two years less a day of house arrest, followed by three years of probation that includes a driving ban."
-
2 minutes ago, SkyHigh said:
I'm not arguing I agree and we don't need the supernatural to explain the natural world ie. science.
Rational (which is the strong majority) religious people understand that and are able to separate the two because they tackle completely different issues. You on the other hand are not a rational person and talk out of both sides of your mouth. You deny the science that contradicts your version of one particular religion while accepting other science that in reality intercepts directly with what you claim is false.
I'll add this just because I think it important. Many atheists and non believers (even putting aside other faiths because I'm speaking to someone who claims to follow Yahweh) still believe in the supernatural, so your argument isn't even specific to religion
Not sure what your point it. One either believe the Bible and takes it literally where it is meant to be taken literally or they don't. Many churches have fallen away from the Bible. That is just the way the world is. It doesn't prove the Bible is false. It just proves many people are deceived like yourself. We get your point. You don't believe in God or the supernatural.
-
19 minutes ago, Five of swords said:
It is quite possible for the state to provide health care to its citizens. In fact, it is even easier than a state providing a military. If the state does not provide health care, it is because they don't care about their citizens having health care. It is actually quite simple...no need to overthrow it.
You said nothing about the crisis in the Canadian health care system. Guess you're ok with that. Doesn't affect you.
-
The fact is the BC NDP minister of health does nothing to really fix the health care crisis and mess. He is on the news ever few days to say some thing he did here or there or some money spent. But no major changes to fix the system.
He does little adjustments and spends some money on this and that, but these are all relatively speaking very minor changes. They will not fix the massive shortage of doctors and nurses. He is only tinkering with the system. They are afraid to make any major changes. People will continue to suffer and die on long waiting lists, many will not have a doctor, and many will not have proper care because of lack of proper walk-in clinics and doctors and lack of facilities.
-
2 hours ago, SkyHigh said:
Exactly, now your getting in. Almost all biblical scholars regardless of religious beliefs consider Genesis to be metaphorical and not litteral, because science has demonstrated that none of what's written can be backed by any evidence. That also includes Noah, oh and same thing for Exodus since we're on the topic.
I never said that. You twisted it to suit yourself. The Bible is accepted and believed on faith. Science is about the material world. The Bible is about the supernatural. Pointless to argue over that.
-
1 hour ago, SkyHigh said:
Exactly, now your getting in. Almost all biblical scholars regardless of religious beliefs consider Genesis to be metaphorical and not litteral, because science has demonstrated that none of what's written can be backed by any evidence. That also includes Noah, oh and same thing for Exodus since we're on the topic.
When I said some things are to be taken metaphorically, I did not mean Genesis is metaphorical. It is meant to be taken literally.
The Bible is a book about God. God is a spirit. We are talking about the supernatural. Science is about the material universe. I don't disagree with all science. Some things are proven, some are not.
The beginning of Genesis is about how God created the universe in six days. That is literal. One accepts that by faith.
You either believe it or you don't. You obviously don't. Science is about the observable. Obviously nobody was around to observe creation. Nobody was around to observe evolution or the big bang. You accept that on faith I accept the Bible on faith. It is pointless to argue back and forth over it.
You have stated you don't believe the Bible. So why keep repeating the same old over and over?
-
Get rid of all private doctor offices and have walk-in clinics for everyone.
As it is now, it takes five weeks for me to get a doctor appointment to see my family doctor. That is ridiculous.
Shut down all doctor offices and have only large walk-in clinics for all GPs or family doctors with first encounter being a nurse practitioner.
-
3 minutes ago, DUI_Offender said:
Michael.....Michael Hardner.
King of the wild frontier.
Anything constructive to contribute to the topic?
-
One possible solution to the shortage of doctors and closing ERs would be to change the system to having walk-in clinics with several doctors in each clinic plus several nurse-practitioners. Have them open for sixteen hours a day at least. The patient would see a nurse-practitioner and under certain conditions, would be referred to the doctor during the same visit if necessary. Having these clilnics would reduce the demand and pressure on ERs.
Also, have doctors and nurses required to temporarily post to ERs for so many days per year.
Also, require them to travel temporarily to ERs in towns which are short-staffed for several days at a time.
Move away from the independent doctor's office. Doctors should not have to run their own office and employ their own staff. Do it all through health care clinics.
-
1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said:
No.
Why doesn't the government move some doctors and nurses from one location to another when there is no ER doctor available then, even on a temporary basis instead of shutting down the Emergency Rooms? They could put them up in motels and pay for expenses until they find replacement staff. Looks like they don't move anybody. Unions and medical associations won't allow it. Doctors and nurses can refuse to go and their contracts may give them that power.
Patients in need of emergency care who find an ER shut down have to be transported maybe an hour or two to another ER putting their lives at risk. People will die because of this. Doctors and nurses cannot be inconvenienced. They have powerful unions to back them.
In other jobs, if people are required to travel to another location for a couple days, they have to go. There is no choice.
It is obvious who calls the shots in the medical professions and it's not the employer or health care management.
-
1 hour ago, herbie said:
What a load of shit.
Everyone has the right to unionize and the right to strike. And CN has issued lockout notice, that is not a strike, not done by a union and not by the NDP or liberals. That is the company's doing.
And I just don't see or hear any one of you ever bawling that the company is threatening our whole economy, do I?So you're just gonna have to wait and see if they do stop work, if they can't quickly reach an agreement and then the govt steps in when it's supposed to, not before.
We know you're a union wacko who thinks it's ok to beat a scab. You said stuff like that already. All you think about is the union but you're not capable of thinking about a major railway shutdown would be disastrous for businesses and Canadians across the country. Farm grains from across the prairies depend on the railway to ship their grains. They cannot just hold the grains somewhere. It would go bad. Many other things would not be able to be shipped causing shortages and drive up the prices for the whole of Canada. It affects billions of dollars worth of goods. It is so stupid to believe a strike like that is ok. It should never be allowed and the government should not wait until a strike happens to try to stop it. It takes days for government to be called to take action to get people back to work if there is a strike. What's the point when an arbitrator can impose a settlement. Canadians are being held hostage by union and left wing wackos.
-
Cost of railway shutdown will be ‘borne by all Canadians,’ Ottawa warns | Watch (msn.com)
NDP and their union comrades could care less about all Canadians.
-
1
-
-
We have a health care system that is run by politicians, that is, elected governments. In the case of B.C. the public health care system is run by the NDP, particularly NDP leader and Minister of Health, Adrian Dix. The Unions are one of the largest donors to the B.C. NDP party. The fact the unions have a large number of members working in the health care system and they donate a lot of money to the party that runs the health care system seems like a conflict of interest to me. The fact the party gets a large part of its support from that segment of society and yet as government, they are supposed to be governing for all residents equally. This situation would tend to make one think the government is somehow beholden to one of their largest supporting groups.
Meanwhile Emergency Rooms are shut down for a day or more at a time in various towns in B.C. and the government seems unable to take action to stop the shutdowns. Is there a union factor there that prevents the government from taking action to keep the ERs staffed and open?
-
Unions are among the NDP's biggest supporters and always have been. If anyone doesn't know that, they must be living in dreamland.
Unions dominate list of NDP’s biggest donors | Vancouver Sun
While it's reasonable to have unions, they should not have the ability to shut down major industries that thousands of businesses and millions of Canadians depend on and that could cost the economy more than a billion dollars a day. It is the responsibility of government to ensure no group is able to harm Canadians in that way. A reasonable approach would be for government to enforce binding arbitration. That is what governments are for. Law and Order should be number one priority.
-
NDP leader Jagmeet Singh says the NDP opposes government intervention in the labour dispute and looming strike of the Canadians railway system.
A shutdown of this type could have devastating effects on Canadian businesses and the economy. This could cost over a billion dollars a day in lost business.
This would be worse than the closure of the seaports when we had the port strike.
The NDP is more interested in backing the unions than the population and businesses of Canada who they were elected to represent. Once a party is elected they are supposed to represent the interests of all Canadians, not just their core supporters, the unions.
-
On 8/16/2024 at 1:03 PM, SkyHigh said:
That is why science is an exponentially better way to truth, than the fictional book(or books) you pretend guide you. Why? Because science can and has changed, it's why we know the earth is spherical and not a flat surface covered by a firmament, like the bible says
quote
In attempts to discredit the reliability of the Bible, many skeptics claim that the Bible depicts a flat earth. Further, there are more than a few Christians who believe the Bible teaches the earth is flat. Even further, there are some people who simply question the scientific consensus and the seemingly overwhelming scientific evidence and/or see some sort of conspiracy to deceive humanity that the earth is spherical when it is, in fact, flat.
Regarding the biblical evidence, references such as Revelation 7:1 are cited, which speaks of “four angels standing at the four corners of the earth.” Some also point to Psalm 75:3, which says God holds “the pillars” of the earth firm. Other passages they claim teach a flat earth are Deuteronomy 13:7; Job 28:24; Psalm 48:10; and Proverbs 30:4; all of which reference the “ends” of the earth. So, are they correct? Does the Bible teach that the earth is flat?
The truth is, the Bible does not comment on the shape of Planet Earth. It does not say that the earth is flat, and it does not say that it is spherical. Let’s take a closer look at some of the commonly cited passages that supposedly depict a flat earth:
Revelation 7:1 says, “I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding back the four winds of the earth.” In writing this, the apostle John was using idiomatic language—the “four corners of the earth” refer to “every distant location.” We use the same idiom today; for example, when we speak of Olympic athletes coming from the four corners of the earth to compete in the games, we mean they are coming from all over the world.
The book of Revelation is full of non-literal descriptions and symbolic language. To press Revelation 7:1 into a hyper-literal interpretation makes no sense. John simply says that, at one point during the tribulation, God will cause all wind to stop blowing. The “four corners” encompass the cardinal directions—north, south, east, and west. All wind will cease at God’s command.
Psalm 75:3 quotes God saying, “When the earth and all its people quake, it is I who hold its pillars firm.” Other passages also refer to the earth’s “pillars,” such as 1 Samuel 2:8, but in no case should the language be taken literally. The book of Psalms and Hannah’s song in 1 Samuel 2 are poetry. The writers liken the founding of the earth to the constructing of a house, and their descriptions are comparative (i.e., metaphorical), not literal. The point is not that the earth is flat but that the earth belongs to God; it is His construction, and He guarantees its stability. God’s “pillars” will not move, and His “roof” will not cave in. Even when the moral order of the world seems to have crumbled and people are overcome with fear, God will not fully withdraw His sustaining power.
What about the Bible’s references to the “ends of the earth” in Deuteronomy 13:7; Job 28:24; Psalm 48:10; Proverbs 30:4; and other passages? Does a reference to the “ends” of the earth teach that the earth has an edge and is therefore flat? We’ll take Deuteronomy 13:7 as representative of all the passages: here, Moses warns the people of " 7 Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth;" KJV
A couple things can be said about the phrase the ends of the earth to show that it does not refer to a flat earth. First, that phrase, like the four corners of the earth, is idiomatic. We don’t expect people to take us literally when we speak of going “back to the drawing board”; neither should we force a literal interpretation on “the ends of the earth.” When biblical writers speak of the “ends of the earth” (28 times in the KJV), they are simply referring to “the farthest reaches of the inhabited world.”
Second, the phrase the ends of the earth at times refers to people, not to land. For example, Psalm 67:7 says, “May God bless us still, so that all the ends of the earth will fear him.” In this verse, the ends of the earth references the people who inhabit remote and distant places (see also Psalm 98:3 and Isaiah 45:22). Obviously, in this context the phrase is metaphorical and cannot be used to depict the earth as having a physical edge. The same phrase, used elsewhere, should also be considered figurative.
The Bible does not teach that the earth is flat. The references to the “earth” in the Bible are often not references to planetary earth but to a portion of dry land bound by water. For example, Genesis 1:10 says, "10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good." KJV . “Earth” is mentioned as distinct from “Seas” and cannot refer to Earth as a planet; the same Hebrew word for “Earth” is used in Deuteronomy 13:7 and the other passages listed above.
While the Bible does not teach that the earth is flat, neither does the Bible explicitly teach that the earth is spherical. Some passages do allow for a spherical earth, such as Job 26:7 and Isaiah 40:22. And Job 26:10 makes reference to God’s drawing. "10 He hath compassed the waters with bounds, until the day and night come to an end." KJV, a description suggesting two hemispheres. In any event, the Bible is far from affirming a naïve or unscientific understanding of the earth and the solar system. There is simply no basis for the charge that the Bible teaches a flat earth. Biblical passages that could be interpreted to present a flat earth are better understood symbolically. unquoteDoes the Bible teach that the earth is flat? | GotQuestions.org
There are some things in the Bible that are meant to be taken metaphorically, not literally. The Bible does not attempt to define the shape of the earth. It is not meant to be a science book. That means your claim that the Bible states the earth is flat is a nonsensical false statement. The reason you so loosely make statements like that is because you know nothing about the Bible and are simply grasping for straws to try to discredit it. Again it is not claiming to be a science book. It is a book about the supernatural which is something that cannot be analyzed from a science point of view. One either believes in the supernatural or they don't. There is a material universe and a supernatural realm apart from the material universe which God created.
-
To have children or not have children boils down to one's relationship with God. If there is no relationship, then the person or couple is on their own and likely to decide on purely selfish reasons. Abortion is common and is used as a form of birth control. This deprives a baby of it's life and is wrong. God recognizes the pre-born as persons and human life belongs to God. So abortion is an extreme violation of the Biblical principle of the sanctity of human life.
As for birth control:
quote
Modern birth control methods were unknown in Bible times, and the Bible is, therefore, silent on the matter. The Bible does have quite a lot to say about children, however. The Bible presents children as a gift from God (Genesis 4:1; Genesis 33:5), a heritage from the Lord (Psalm 127:3-5), a blessing from God (Luke 1:42), and a crown to the aged (Proverbs 17:6). God sometimes blesses barren women with children (Psalm 113:9; Genesis 21:1-3; 25:21-22; 30:1-2; 1 Samuel 1:6-8; Luke 1:7, 24-25). God forms children in the womb (Psalm 139:13-16). God knows children before their birth (Jeremiah 1:5; Galatians 1:15).
The closest that Scripture comes to condemning birth control is Genesis chapter 38, the account of Judah’s sons Er and Onan. Er married a woman named Tamar, but he was wicked and the Lord put him to death, leaving Tamar with no husband or children. Tamar was given in marriage to Er’s brother, Onan, in accordance with the law of levirate marriage in Deuteronomy 25:5-6. Onan did not want to split his inheritance with any child that he might produce on his brother’s behalf, so he practiced the oldest form of birth control, withdrawal. Genesis 38:10 says, “What he did was wicked in the LORD’s sight; so He put him to death also.” Onan’s motivation was selfish; he used Tamar for his own pleasure, but refused to perform his legal duty of creating an heir for his deceased brother. This passage is often used as evidence that God does not approve of birth control. However, it was not the act of contraception that caused the Lord to put Onan to death; it was Onan’s selfish motives behind the action. Therefore, we can find no biblical admonition against the use of birth control in and of itself.
Contraception, by definition, is merely the opposite of conception. It is not the use of contraception that is wrong or right. As we learned from Onan, it is the motivation behind the contraception that determines if it is right or wrong. Married couples use contraception for a variety of reasons. Some feel called to put off childbearing until they are in a better position to care for children. Some, such as missionary couples, may feel their service to God overrides the desire for children at a particular point in time. Some may be convinced that God has a different plan for them. Ultimately, a couple’s motives for delaying childbearing, using contraception, or even having numerous children, are between them and God. unquoteIf the couple do not know God, through the Savior, then they are living on their own and what they do will be determined by purely secular humanist reasons not what is best between them and God.
-
12 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:
Protestants are at the front line of that suicide mission.
Perhaps you meant "non-Catholics". Protestants are supposed to be Christians within the Protestant denominations. I think most, if they are really genuine, would oppose abortion, and the woke agenda. There are a couple denominations which are somewhat liberal but they are divided on same-sex marriage and possibly abortion. But evangelicals are opposed to the liberal ideology and are more Bible-oriented. But there are exceptions in every Protestant denomination. Protestants generally agree on basic beliefs. However, as you mentioned these days there is a falling away by many churches.
Protestantism is not a top down controlled belief system. They are made of independent denominations and independent churches. That is why there is more variation in beliefs about some things. Many Protestant churches also have more control over their finances than the RCC. They hold annual general meetings where a statement of income and expenditures is given to everyone. They can question spending and speak to issues. I understand in the RCC nobody is given the financial information and the people are not permitted to be involved in that.
Canadian justice system is a farce
in Federal Politics in Canada
Posted · Edited by blackbird
Evading the question. You don't fool anyone. You obviously don't want to say so you can claim to be non judgmental of anything. You think that makes you look holier than thou.
According to you, nobody can have an opinion about whether the justice system is working correctly or not. You express your opinion on everything on here and judge me. So while you say you don't judge the justice system but you judge me? Isn't that hypocrisy at it's worse?