blackbird

"6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. 7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. {the carnal…: Gr. the minding of the flesh} 8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God." Romans 8:6 KJV

In wars nations have a right to defend themselves from aggressors. In the case of police, lawful authorities have a right to defend themselves and the innocent from criminals. The unborn fetus (or baby, whichever you wish) is an innocent human who has a right to live.

Hard to see how some would wish death on unborn babies, but that is the kind of world we live in. Fallen and corrupt just as the Bible says. "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" Jeremiah 17:9 KJV That fallen corrupt nature is why God sent His Son into the world to shed His blood and die on a cross. All those who turn from their wicked ways (repent) and believe on Him as their Savior will be saved.

This 3 minute youtube video says the U.N. has an agenda for a one-world government by 2030. Could this be something that Rome (the Pope) would support? Would a one-world religion be part of the plan? What about Canada? Where would the Liberal government stand on such things?

When Michael says no, then we know we are onto something here.

Many false churches are working toward a one world religion, but such a conglomeration will be a totally false religion. The Bible opposes that sort of thing. Many Bible experts say a one world religion is prophesied to be coming and will be under the rule of the anti-Christ. Perhaps a one-world government will arrive at the same time as a one-world religion of the Anti-Christ. I can see Rome supporting that sort of thing. It is a powerful political-religious system. "5 And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH. 6 And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration." Revelation 17:5, 6 KJV

Most of Canada's Prime Ministers in its history have been Roman Catholic. Even in the past 50 years, every PM except for one or two have been RC. What effect has this had on Canada? Does it explain the obvious ungodliness of Canada's laws as one of the most liberal/progressive countries in the world? Even if technically Rome seems to disagree with much of liberalism, it does nothing about it. The end result is Liberal governments (and Conservative) do what they feel like with impunity, even from their church. Canada is one of the most liberal countries in the world with abortion on demand, same-sex marriage, and now medical assistance in dying. It is far more liberal than almost any other country. I personally cannot see much positive in it and far more negative outcomes. The religion never did follow the Bible other than take the name of Christ and Christianity, but from then on, it invented its own dogmas and rituals that have nothing to do with biblical Christianity or the Bible. The problem seems to be with it, it creates in its followers a belief that they are on the right track and therefore blinds them to the actual Biblical truth. Hence you have people like Trudeau shouting from the mountain tops that women have the "right" to abort their babies and sending taxpayer money around the world to support more abortions. Anything becomes a "right" in there humanist ideology. Pope, in Hungary, warns of rising nationalism in Europe, appeals for accepting migrants (msn.com) Is the Vatican (Papacy) pushing the west more toward Globalism and a one world government? This youtube video shows how Rome is working toward a one-world religion and government. The tool that will make one world government possible... you guessed it.... climate change / global warming. This is the tool that is being used to bring the world together under a one-world government.

Does biology matter?

"Sabrina Maddeaux: In Trudeau's Canada, even green energy projects can't get permits Opinion by Sabrina Maddeaux • 5h ago" "When it comes to climate, the federal Liberals spend too much time thinking up new taxes and too little time actually working toward change. They’re all too happy to reach into Canadians’ pockets in the name of reducing carbon emissions, but strangely hostile to projects that could genuinely transform the way we create and consume energy." Sabrina Maddeaux: In Trudeau's Canada, even green energy projects can't get permits (msn.com) Liberals are obviously strictly ideologically driven and do not listen to reason.

The heads of the RCMP are presenting a coronation gift to King Charles III at this moment on television. It is a beautiful horse. The King appears very appreciative. The RCMP have the title Royal and are very close to the Monarchy. This is very good for Canada. It helps ensure a good relationship between Canada and the Monarchy and stability of the Constitutional Monarchy.

They have had dictators too.. Examples are Franco in Spain, Mussolini in Italy, Hitler in Germany. Europe has had lots of trouble. Canada is a complex country because it is a Confederation of 13 provinces and territories. It requires the present system to keep going. Abolishing the monarchy would likely mean it would break up because a dictator would want to interfere with provincial rights more than the present government. Some provinces already do not trust the federal government. Eliminating the Monarchy could be the tipping point and mean the end of Canada. A worst case is it could also result in civil war or conflicts.

Trudeau is on TV in New York now promoting his evil concept of "rights" to have abortions. He is spending taxpayer money around the world to promote access to abortion. What makes it even more egregious is he is the leader of a country, Canada, and has control of the revenue and spending. It never crosses his mind that unborn babies are humans too and have the right to life. Who on earth elected this guy to fly around to promote the killing of unborn babies?

"On March 1, 2022, the Federal Minister of Official Languages presented Bill C-13, An Act to amend the Official Languages Act, to enact the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act and to make related amendments to other Acts (Bill C-13). Bill C-13 proposes in particular the adoption of a new law which would provide a framework for the use of French in federally regulated private businesses in Québec and other regions with a strong francophone presence1 (the applicable regions), namely the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act (the proposed Act). The provisions of the proposed Act will come into force on a day to be fixed by order of the Governor in Council with respect to employers under federal jurisdiction located in Québec, then two years later for employers under federal jurisdiction located in regions with a strong francophone presence. Moreover, the obligations provided for by the proposed Act will apply only to businesses that employ a number of employees equal to or greater than the threshold that will subsequently be provided for by regulation." "Employees of an employer under federal jurisdiction occupying a position in a workplace located in the applicable regions or whose position is attached to such a workplace will have the following rights: The right to perform their work and be supervised in French2 ; The right to receive all communications and documentation from the employer under federal jurisdiction, including offers of employment or promotion, notices of termination, collective agreements and grievances, in French; The right to use regularly and widely used work instruments and computer systems in French." This proposed legislation could require countless people in places in English Canada to be bilingual in order to hold jobs which fall under Federal jurisdiction. The bill gives preferential treatment to those who speak French and makes merit of secondary value or meaningless. John Ivison: Canada on path to 'open hostility' between anglophones and francophones, former judge argues (msn.com) Dentons - A look at Bill C-13: What federal jurisdiction employers need to know

The present system also means we have guaranteed allies, the UK, Australia, N.Z., in case of an attack against Canada because the Monarch is the Commander in Chief of these nations including Canada. Without that we would be much weaker in the world. We don't have a strong armed forces by ourselves but together we are much stronger. That was proven in WW1 and WW2.

Exactly! The Romanist Jesuits have been working on a plan to bring us all back under the absolute authority of Rome for centuries.

That would not go over very well in Canada and could contribute to it's break-up. There is no "eminent" citizen who would have the support of all parties. The present GG does not seem very popular. She was appointed by Trudeau. Anyone Trudeau appoints would be rejected by the other parties. She would not have the confidence of Canadians. It works to a degree now because the GG is only there for five years and is a representative of the Monarch. Nobody wants an appointed GG in Canada to replace the Monarch. Such a person would only be a puppet of the PM.

We already have that. Having the Constitutional Monarchy, which the Armed Forces, RCMP and many people hold allegiance to, prevents a would-be dictator Prime Minister from seizing absolute control and abolishing the democratic system and Parliament. That is one of the purposes of the Monarchy. Without the Monarchy, what is to prevent a bad PM from setting himself up as a totalitarian dictator? We see civil wars in other countries because of people trying to take over by force. Sudan is an example right now.

That's the American system. They swear allegiance to the flag and sing the national anthem to the flag. I prefer our system where we have a Constitutional Monarchy. If people want to live in a Republic, they can always move to the U.S. I can't see having a politician as the head of state.

It was reported on the news that around half of violent repeat offenders in B.C., that prosecutors ask to be not released, are in fact released on bail. This is appalling. The responsibility for this rests almost entirely with the Federal government, that is, the Liberal government. All police chiefs in Canada are shocked as are most reasonable citizens. Yet this is what is going on.

That is false to begin with. The King James Bible New Testament is based on the Textus Receptus. Essentially that is the earliest collection of New Testament Greek manuscripts that were available at the time it was produced in 1611. The Old Testament is based on the Hebrew Bible that the Jews preserved down through the centuries. The idea that there were many translations, interpretations, lost/omitted books is just not a fact. There are hundreds of articles defending and explaining the origins of the King James Bible if you take the time to look. The King James Bible Defended! (jesus-is-savior.com) " Is the King James Bible Inspired Or Preserved? By David J. Stewart | March 2009 | Updated September 2016 "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." —1st Peter 1:23 Both! The precious King James Bible is BOTH inspired and preserved. There are some teachers today who say that the King James Bible is not preserved. There are others who say that the King James Bible is not inspired. And some teachers deny both preservation and inspiration. Without a doubt this is a delicate and sensitive issue in churches today, because the Bible is the greatest number one threat to Satan. Yet, if we're wrong on the Bible as born-again Christians, then we're wrong on everything else. There is a raging battle today over the King James Bible." Is the King James Bible Inspired Or Preserved? (jesus-is-savior.com) Of course there are. Just as the Bible predicted would happen. I don't expect to be popular among a group of people who don't believe the Bible and what it teaches. No surprise there. My reward will be in heaven, not in this world. That has always been the case for Christians who stood for the truth. I never said I was unaccepting of others. I don't accept the false VIEWS of some others. Big difference. How do you propose to resolve it when people have opposite views? I have been willing to listen and explained things rationally, often simply stating what the Bible says or posting an article that explains it, which you don't seem to read or pay attention to. You don't accept it. Your problem is with the Bible or with it's author.

It looks like the 35 million I quoted was far short of the actual amount. "Pope Francis’s tour came with a minimum $55 million price tag for Ottawa" " A family member of residential school survivors says the minimum $55-million price tag for the Pope’s visit to Canada last year feels like another slap in the face for Indigenous people. “Think of all the money that could have gone to survivors, all of the money that could have gone to healing, all of the money that was rightfully supposed to be given to folks who survived genocide,” Michelle Robinson, who is Sahtu Dene, said from Calgary. Documents obtained by The Canadian Press under freedom of information laws show the federal government spent a minimum of $55,972,683 for the leader of the Roman Catholic Church to visit Canada over six days last July. Pope Francis apologized for the Catholic Church’s role in residential schools during stops in Alberta, Quebec and Nunavut. Indigenous Services Canada earmarked about $30 million. Those funds were to be used for travel, local programs and healing initiatives. Considering the Catholic Church Vatican is the riches institution in the world worth billions, why are the taxpayers forced to pay for a visit by their religious leader? Some claim it was a "diplomatic visit" and we pay for diplomatic visits by heads of state. But the Vatican is not a genuine state in the normal definition. It is primarily a religious entity that is heavily involved in politics. They should pay for their own visits. Broadcast Crown-Indigenous Relations spent $5.1 million, the majority for a $3.9-million contract to broadcast the papal tour’s stops, as well as translation services into Indigenous languages and French. RCMP said, as of Feb. 24, 2023, it had spent more than $18 million, which included overtime pay, travel expenditures and accommodation costs. Global Affairs Canada spent about $2 million on travel, meetings and accommodations, plus an additional $35,728 on communication and media relations. Public Safety Canada redacted all costs from documents obtained through access-to-information requests. “I think all costs should be public knowledge,” Lori Campbell, the associate vice-president of Indigenous engagement at the University of Regina, said in an email. Campbell said it’s difficult to put a dollar amount on the harm residential school caused those who attended and the intergenerational effect felt now. Indigenous children An estimated 150,000 Indigenous children were forced to attend residential schools over a century, and the Catholic Church ran about 60 per cent of the institutions. David Chartrand, Manitoba Metis Federation president, said in a statement that the apology was necessary to address historic wrongs. “There is always a cost associated with hosting any foreign head of state, including Pope Francis, and it’s generally considered as part of the cost of maintaining diplomatic relations,” Chartrand said. “Regardless, the logistical costs for the apology will never outweigh the price paid by our survivors and their families.” Heather Bear, vice chief of the Federation of Sovereign Indigenous Nations in Saskatchewan, agreed that the apology was important for many people, but it cannot come at the expense of funding for Indigenous people. “We paid enough. We paid enough with our lives,” Bear said. Pope apologize Survivors had asked for the Pope to apologize for decades leading up to the visit, including during a trip to the Vatican by Indigenous leaders in 2009 and last April. The call became heightened after thousands of possible unmarked graves were located at the sites of numerous former residential schools. The visit was intended to be a result of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s calls to action, Campbell said. The commission investigated the legacy of residential schools. “Although it was important to some that the Pope follow through on the call to action, I don’t know any Indigenous individual personally, old or young, who feels that this was money well spent,” Campbell said. Some survivors and Indigenous people have said the Pope’s apology on Canadian soil was important to their healing and the process of reconciliation. Others said it fell short. Francis begged for forgiveness for abuses committed by some members of the Catholic Church as well as for cultural destruction and forced assimilation, but only said residential schools amounted to genocide when asked about it by reporters on his flight back to Rome." Pope's apology tour cost at least $55 million (aptnnews.ca) "Public Safety Canada redacted all costs from documents obtained through access-to-information requests." Why is Public Safety Canada keeping these costs secret? Don't taxpayers have a right to know where their money is going? The Vatican is the richest institution on earth. They should be paying for their own trips, not Canadian taxpayers. I know the reason we are paying is because Quebec is 95% Catholic and the rest of the country is a significant percent Catholic, and the government has a significant percentage of Catholics. Media also is in the same fold and nobody questions it. That's the real reason.

All I can tell you in a post is I believe the Bible is the truth. It gives a good account of God's dealings with mankind. It also gives an account of the resurrection of Christ. I believe it. It is not possible for me to just give you a sentence or two on here that would convince you. It is up to you to study it and find out for yourself. Everyone is entitled to believe what they want. I believe the Bible. Apparently that is a crime with some people. I see that as very bigoted while they think what they believe is not bigoted. Christianity is an exclusive religion so it is understandable that those who don't believe the Bible think it is intolerant. That's just the way truth and error collide. It is obvious some people will not accept the truth which is in the Bible. Some people just believe whatever they wish and think anything else is false. You will have to sort that out yourself by study. Nobody can do that for you. I believe heaven and hell are real places and I believe that Jesus Christ is real. There is also such a being as Satan who deceives people. Many are deceived as far as I can tell.

Why don't you ask Jesus (God) and read his answer in the Bible. Did you read the article I quoted? "Our pluralistic society scarcely knows a greater offense than that of Christian exclusivism. To insist that Jesus is the only way of salvation and that faith in him is required for that salvation is viewed as intolerant. From their standpoint, the exclusivity assumes the existence of absolute truth, that it may be ascertained, and that it delegitimizes all competing religious claims. The objections against the doctrine of the exclusivity of Christ, then, in many ways mirror the postmodern critique of the older modernist project as arrogant and imperialistic, illegitimately seeking to force an individual’s truth universally on all others." The article answers that question. Inclusivism v. Exclusivism: Is Jesus the Only Way? - The Gospel Coalition If you want to understand the subject better, read the article. If you don't and prefer to keep your mind closed, don't read it. Nobody is forcing you to read it. But there is such a thing as absolute truth.

The response to that is stated well in this article which I quote part of to Exflyer above. Inclusivism v. Exclusivism: Is Jesus the Only Way? - The Gospel Coalition

" Inclusivism v. Exclusivism: Is Jesus the Only Way? AN ESSAY BYFred Zaspel DEFINITION The “inclusivist vs. exclusivist” debate centers on two questions: (1) Is Jesus the only way of salvation? (2) Is faith in Christ required? SUMMARY This essay will argue that Jesus Christ is the only way of salvation before God and that faith in him is required. We will examine this from the nature of Christianity itself and the need for gospel proclamation. We will then survey the teaching of Jesus and of his apostles as they spoke directly to the question. Next, we will examine related questions, and we will conclude with a brief consideration of some common objections to this teaching. Introduction Our pluralistic society scarcely knows a greater offense than that of Christian exclusivism. To insist that Jesus is the only way of salvation and that faith in him is required for that salvation is viewed as intolerant. From their standpoint, the exclusivity assumes the existence of absolute truth, that it may be ascertained, and that it delegitimizes all competing religious claims. The objections against the doctrine of the exclusivity of Christ, then, in many ways mirror the postmodern critique of the older modernist project as arrogant and imperialistic, illegitimately seeking to force an individual’s truth universally on all others. And yet since its beginning, the church has taken this exclusivist stance. In their own pluralistic world, the earliest Christians insisted that Jesus was the only Savior and that apart from faith in him all is lost. It was an unpopular teaching both then and now. Where did Christians get this doctrine? And why? What is the rationale that makes such exclusivism necessary? Is Jesus the only Savior? Is conscious faith in him required? Christianity’s Rationale We begin in broad perspective—the rationale of Christianity itself, its purpose and meaning. In Romans 1, the apostle Paul famously affirms that every person possesses some knowledge of God—a knowledge of God that entails both an awareness of him (sensus deitatis) and a sense of obligation to him (semen religionis) (Rom 1:18–21). Moreover, as a result of this knowledge of God, there is a corresponding recognition of guilt (1:30). This recognition of guilt is unavoidably obvious, and in response to it—given that all are sinners—it must be actively suppressed (1:18). Yet religion remains universal, and by implication, the apostle provides an explanation for it: all the various religions are attempts to recognize the obvious (God and our obligation to him) and yet reckon with it in manageable ways. Religion exists in its various forms as an attempt to worship God while at the same time “suppressing” the unpleasant entailments—specifically, our guilt and his demands on us. By contrast, Christianity embraces it all—even the recognition of guilt—and it claims to provide the answer to that guilt—not suppressing it but acknowledging it fully. And it is here we find the rationale for the Christian faith and its reason for being. Christianity proclaims that God has made a way for sinners to be rescued from their sin and restored to fellowship with him through the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ. Sinners though we are, we may come to God in frank acknowledgement of our sin and through Jesus Christ have full answer to it. Christ the redeemer stood in the place of sinners and provided for them in his saving death and resurrection all that God requires. In his sacrificial death he rendered satisfaction to God, and God gave public approval of his accomplished work in raising him from the dead. Closely related to this is the (majority) Christian claim that the cross of Christ was necessary—not in the sense that God was obliged to save but in the sense that the sacrifice of Christ was the only possible means of saving (e.g., John 3:14–17; Heb 2:17). The problem of human guilt and the demands of divine righteousness must be answered (Rom 3:21–31; cf. Heb 9:13–26). Justice must be satisfied, and God must be propitiated if sinners are to go free. God can justify the sinner only on just grounds, and only in Christ can these just grounds be established. This is the reason for Christianity—its very meaning. Christianity is a redemptive religion that proclaims a salvation from God accomplished by his Son, our Lord Jesus Christ (cf. Matt 1:21). On the very face of it, then, Christianity insists on the uniqueness of Christ as the only savior of sinners. Only by Christ This teaching of the uniqueness of Christ traces back to the explicit claims of Jesus himself. In Matthew 11:25–27, he insists that as the divine Son he has exclusive saving prerogative: “no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.” In John 14:6, he both asserts that he is the only way to God and specifically excludes any other means. In John 17:1–2, in his high priestly prayer, he again claims exclusive saving authority, an authority achieved in his saving work. In Luke 24:46–47 (in context), he explains that it is on the ground of his saving death and resurrection that salvation has been accomplished and may now be proclaimed. In Matthew 28:18–20, he asserts that by his death and resurrection all saving authority is now his. It must be emphasized that to say that Jesus is the only way of salvation is just to affirm what Jesus himself said. Jesus’s apostles followed our Lord in this same teaching. In Acts 4:12, the apostle Peter specifically excludes any other way of salvation but Jesus Christ. In Romans 3:21–26, the apostle Paul argues that God can save only on righteous grounds, and he reasons that only in Christ could this divine requirement be met. Very simply, his reasoning is, “Everyone has sinned; everyone is guilty before God; therefore, everyone needs Jesus because he is the only remedy God has provided.” In Romans 5:17–19, Paul argues that what was lost in the first Adam was regained in Christ, the last Adam. “Through one man . . . by one act . . . by one man’s obedience”—the exclusivism remains. In 1 Timothy 2:5, Paul reasons that only one person is qualified to represent both God and man—“the man Christ Jesus.” In Revelation 5:9, the apostle John records the song of the redeemed unanimously triumphing in the ransoming blood of Christ. The entire thrust of the song is “Jesus only”—he alone, by his blood, has brought us to God. From the beginning, Christians have insisted that Jesus is the only way of salvation, and in doing so we have but followed the lead of our Lord and his apostles. Christianity insists on the uniqueness of Christ as the only savior of sinners. He alone is qualified to save, and he is the only redeemer God has sent. Only by Faith Some have argued, then, that although salvation is only by Christ, some may be saved who have never heard of him and, therefore, have never believed. But once again, Christians have historically affirmed that apart from faith in Christ salvation is impossible. And once again this reflects the teaching of our Lord himself and his apostles. In John 3:16–18, Jesus (and/or John) affirms both that Jesus is the divine Son whom God sent to save and that any who do not believe in him are already under condemnation. In Acts 17:16–34, the apostle Paul on Mars Hill addresses “very religious” people and insists that apart from repentance they will not survive the final judgment. Note that although these people were religious, and although they were sincere in their religious commitments, even acknowledging the true God, Paul judges their religion to be wrong—they must repent of it and believe in Christ in order to be saved. In Romans 2–3, Paul observes that whatever special status the Jews may have enjoyed, they have sinned and therefore need the forgiveness of sins that is found only through faith in Christ. Just as with the pagans on Mars Hill Jews also, though sincere in their religion, will be lost apart from faith in Christ. In Romans 3:9–10, Paul reasons that (1) everyone is unrighteous before God, (2) the only remedy is the righteousness of Christ, and (3) this righteousness is received only by faith. Christians have always insisted that Jesus is the only way. This conviction certainly was not one adopted from their surrounding (pluralistic) culture; it was a conviction rooted in the uniqueness of Christ as taught them by Christ and his apostles." For the whole article: Inclusivism v. Exclusivism: Is Jesus the Only Way? - The Gospel Coalition