Jump to content


Senior Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by blackbird

  1. We do have freedom of religion and freedom of expression. Get off your high horse and quit trying to silence others. You know nothing about what a fake Christian is or a false religion or what it means. You have already proven you don't read or pay attention to the Bible.
  2. You misinterpreted what I said. I said third world immigrants in general have a different ideology. It could be because of their false religious systems or it could be because they are willing to accept Socialism or Communism. They have no Christian belief system to defend themselves with. Socialism and liberalism lead to evil laws and government and the denial of fundamental freedom as in Cuba, N. Korea and other places. People who oppose western Judeo-Christian civilization or morality should not be admitted. It is as simple as that. Jews should be welcome because they support Judeo-Christian beliefs and morality. Howevers liberals did not welcome them in the case of the Komagata Maru. That is an example of liberal's anti-Semitism at that time.
  3. The matter of separation of church and state has a different interpretation depending on who you ask. Those who oppose Christianity or the Bible and who may be atheists or agnostics, will give you one extreme interpretation. Others who believe the U.S. was or is a Judeo-Christian culture will give you a different understanding. My opinion at this point is all the separation of church and state means is the government shall not make any laws establishing a state religion or state denomination as exists in some countries. Freedom of religion for everyone shall be the law or no religion if that is what someone chooses. That exists now. There is no law establishing a religion and no law establishing a state church. Separation of church and state does not mean elected members of government cannot have religious beliefs and it does not mean they cannot pass laws that reflect their religious beliefs. There always have been many laws that are based on Christian religious beliefs. The modern progressives and anti-Christians are saying nobody can bring in a law based on Christian beliefs. That is total nonsense. The separation of church and state does not mean the country cannot have laws based on Christian teachings because that is what morality is all about. An example is the Mormon religion in earlier times believe in polygamy. That was considered immoral by orthodox Christianity and was outlawed. That has nothing to do with separation of church and state. quote Until well into my life-time, the overwhelming majority of Americans believed that the United States was a Christian nation. In believing that, they did not desire the persecution of other religions, nor did they want to see people forced to become Christians, nor did they believe that one Christian denomination should be favored at the expense of others. They rejected the concept of one Christian denomination functioning as an established national Church, as the Churches of England and Scotland still do today in Great Britain. But Americans overwhelmingly believed that Christian ideas and principles should receive favorable treatment and that its understanding of Moral Law should undergird the laws of the United States and the individual states. When other people’s religious practices came into conflict with Moral Law, Moral Law, not the practices of other religions, was always supreme. People were free to believe as they saw fit, but they could not practice their beliefs when those practices ran contrary to morality; they had to live by the Christian based laws of the United States. This can readily be seen through the decisions of the United States Supreme Court. As one example of how this has been worked out, one may note Davis v. Beason cited below, where Mormons were forbidden to practice polygamy, an early tenet of their faith, because it was contrary to Moral Law as understood by historic Christianity. unquote ChristianObserver.org » The United States Constitution and Christianity
  4. You are a typical liberal/ NDP calling those who disagree with you "racist". That is the calling card of liberal-left. Better look up the definition of racist. To be a racist one must be biased against a race. I oppose false religion and evil ideology and do not want more of that brought into this country. That is not racist. Third world people have many problems. But that should not determine Canada's immigration policy. A country has the right to only take in people who will be a benefit to their country and not cause harm. The proof that Socialism and liberalism is harmful would fill many books. Right now the Socialist ideology is causing a crisis in the public health care system. The liberal NDP promise everything but they are unable to deliver by putting sufficient money into it. They do not put enough money into the health care system and yet won't allow people to pay for some private care themselves. That is evil Socialism. A vast number of people in BC need image scanning for cancer but the system does not have enough resources to take care of these people. Many might receive screening too late. Cancer can spread fast. The liberal NDP care nothing about anything except votes in the immigration policy.
  5. I don't know what you know about Christianity, but it sounds like you know nothing. I don't exhibit any hate for people. That is your third world anti-Christian bias coming out. Yes, I hate evil political ideologies such as Communism, Socialism, Marxism, and progressivism, liberalism, and what have you. Why should anyone who believes in God and his word, be expected to embrace and like evil? Your logic is faulty. But that is because of your unbelieving background. You still believe all religions and cultures are equally valid and should be recognized as equals. Total nonsense. God rejects all false gods in the Bible and forbids the worship or even the recognition of them. So multiculturalism must be rejected on that basis alone. Christ does not love evil and he does not expect any of his followers to embrace those who love evil. It's quite simple. Christianity is a broad word embraced by anyone today even if they don't believe in the Bible, which is God's revelation to man. Your idea that church and state are separate is nonsense. That claim is a liberal left, Commie invention. First there is no such thing as the State of North America. There is the U.S.A. and there is Canada. The U.S. recognizes the supremacy of God in it's Constitution. God and the Constitution (christianpost.com) Canada's Charter of Rights does the same. There is a serious shortcoming to this though. Canada's Charter does not specifically recognize the Christian God, but recognizes all gods, which means the heathen gods, which are false. The important point is Canada and America were founded by Judeo-Christian civilization and culture. That is a historical fact. Multiculturalism is an attempt to embrace heathen cultures and in doing so, creates problems. One problem is Christianity brought with it the recognition of basic freedoms such as freedom of expression, freedom of religion, etc. These are unknown in the third world. So people coming from the third world have no understanding of the importance of basic freedoms. You can dance around that all you want, but it is still a fact. Socialism is a rejection of those basic freedoms. Socialism is intent on establishing a totalitarian society with no individual rights as it is in China or Russia.
  6. "Canada was built by immigrants. They came here because of our great cultural heritage which allows for freedom of expression, religion, association and peaceful assembly. Radical Islam does not recognize those freedoms and thus poses a clear and present threat to what makes Canada such a great country and the envy of much of the world – our Christian heritage." ‘Radical Islam’ a clear threat to Canada | ARPA Canada What do most of the immigrants from the third world have to offer in defence of freedom of expression, religion, association and peaceful assembly? These fundamental freedoms are unknown in much of the third world. I don't even think the liberals or NDP are big defenders of these freedoms.
  7. quote Sovereignty The second reason for Brexit is the rise of nationalism across the world. There’s a growing distrust of multinational financial, trade, and defense organizations created after World War II. The EU, the IMF , and NATO are good examples of this. Many who oppose the EU believe these institutions no longer serve a purpose. Not only that, these organizations take control away from individual nations. Mistrust and fear of losing control made Brexit a reasonable solution to them. But for the supporters of the EU, such organizations are self-evidently valuable. They may need to be tweaked but not abandoned. The immigration crisis in Europe was a trigger. Some EU leaders argued that aiding the refugees was a moral obligation. But EU opponents saw immigration as a national issue, as it affected the internal life of the country. Steering clear of this issue was an important driver for the “leave” vote. The EU doesn’t understand the power of nationalism. It attempts to retain nationality as a cultural right. On the other hand, it deprives individual nations of the power to make many decisions. This may have worked before 2008, but it has become increasingly difficult to accept. unquote 3 Reasons Brits Voted For Brexit (forbes.com) The elite political class in Canada support multiculturalism and are globalists. Trudeau and his cronies jet off to the U.N. meetings and other globalist meetings regularly. They depend on multiculturalism policy driving immigration and bringing in more liberal left NDP supporters from the third world and keeping them as the ruling class in Canada. That's what politics is all about for them. They could care less about the ordinary citizens who must struggle to make ends meet and in some cases, struggle to try to obtain health care. The elites think they have given us a communal system and put the money into it. If there is not enough health care to go around or not enough housing, they have done their bit. They have lots of money and big pensions coming. That's what matters to them.
  8. The question is not whether any particular person is a Christian or not. That is God's business. The correct question is: is a particular church or denomination Biblical or Christian? We have to know the answer to that in order to know which church to support or attend. quote The issue concerning any church and its practices should be “Is this biblical?” If a teaching is Biblical (taken in context), it should be embraced. If it is not, it should be rejected. God is more interested in whether a church is doing His will and obeying His Word than whether it can trace a line of succession back to Jesus’ apostles. Jesus was very concerned about abandoning the Word of God to follow the traditions of men (Mark 7:7). Traditions are not inherently invalid…there are some good and valuable traditions. Again, the issue must be whether a doctrine, practice, or tradition is Biblical. How then does the Roman Catholic Church compare with the teachings of the Word of God? Salvation: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that salvation is by baptismal regeneration and is maintained through the Catholic sacraments unless a willful act of sin is committed that breaks the state of sanctifying grace. The Bible teaches that we are saved by grace which is received through simple faith (Ephesians 2:8-9), and that good works are the result of a change of the heart wrought in salvation (Ephesians 2:10; 2 Corinthians 5:17) and the fruit of that new life in Christ (John 15). Assurance of salvation: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that salvation cannot be guaranteed or assured. 1 John 5:13 states that the letter of 1 John was written for the purpose of assuring believers of the CERTAINTY of their salvation. Good Works: The Roman Catholic Church states that Christians are saved by meritorious works (beginning with baptism) and that salvation is maintained by good works (receiving the sacraments, confession of sin to a priest, etc.) The Bible states that Christians are saved by grace through faith, totally apart from works (Titus 3:5; Ephesians 2:8-9; Galatians 3:10-11; Romans 3:19-24). Baptism: In the New Testament baptism is ALWAYS practiced AFTER saving faith in Christ. Baptism is not the means of salvation; it is faith in the Gospel that saves (1 Corinthians 1:14-18; Romans 10:13-17). The Roman Catholic Church teaches baptismal regeneration of infants, a practice never found in Scripture. The only possible hint of infant baptism in the Bible that the Roman Catholic Church can point to is that the whole household of the Philippian jailer was baptized in Acts 16:33. However, the context nowhere mentions infants. Acts 16:31 declares that salvation is by faith. Paul spoke to all of the household in verse 32, and the whole household believed (verse 34). This passage only supports the baptism of those who have already believed, not of infants. Prayer: The Roman Catholic Church teaches Catholics to not only pray to God, but also to petition Mary and the saints for their prayers. Contrary to this, we are taught in Scripture to only pray to God (Matthew 6:9; Luke 18:1-7). Priesthood: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that there is a distinction between the clergy and the “lay people,” whereas the New Testament teaches the priesthood of all believers (1 Peter 2:9). Sacraments: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that a believer is infused with grace upon reception of the sacraments. Such teaching is nowhere found in Scripture. Confession: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that unless a believer is hindered, the only way to receive the forgiveness of sins is by confessing them to a priest. Contrary to this, Scripture teaches that confession of sins is to be made to God (1 John 1:9). Mary: The Roman Catholic Church teaches, among other things, that Mary is the Queen of Heaven, a perpetual virgin, and the co-redemptress who ascended into heaven. In Scripture, she is portrayed as an obedient, believing servant of God, who became the mother of Jesus. None of the other attributes mentioned by the Roman Catholic Church have any basis in the Bible. The idea of Mary being the co-redemptress and another mediator between God and man is not only extra-biblical (found only outside of Scripture), but is also unbiblical (contrary to Scripture). Acts 4:12 declares that Jesus is the only redeemer. 1 Timothy 2:5 proclaims that Jesus is the only mediator between God and men. Many other examples could be given. These issues alone clearly identify the Catholic Church as being unbiblical. Every Christian denomination has traditions and practices that are not explicitly based on Scripture. That is why Scripture must be the standard of Christian faith and practice. The Word of God is always true and reliable. The same cannot be said of church tradition. Our guideline is to be: “What does Scripture say?” (Romans 4:3; Galatians 4:30; Acts 17:11). 2 Timothy 3:16-17 declares, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” unquote Are Catholic beliefs and practices biblical? | GotQuestions.org
  9. Glad to see Italy elected a conservative leader who rejects the open borders and the woke agenda. There is a bit of hope there. Britain rejected the open border concept with Brexit. Open borders and multiculturalism has already caused a lot of problems in their country.
  10. " 14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? 15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? 16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, 18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty. " 2 Corinthians 6:14-18 KJV Frankly it has nothing to do with race or skin colour but everything to do with beliefs.
  11. No country follows the Bible to any great extent. The world is a fallen place ever since the fall of man back in the garden of Eden. Consequently everyone is born with a corrupt, wicked heart the Bible says and need to be born again. The love of Christ is an individual thing between individuals. But even the Bible commands Christians to be separate from evil and the unclean thing. See 2 Corinthians chap. 6. Immigration policy has to be based on what is good for a country and every country has that right and in fact practices what they think is best for their country. Frankly I don't care what the Conservative Party believes. I am an individual with my own beliefs. If you don't believe an individual has the right to his own beliefs, what are you doing here? "Legislation in the 1960s and 1970s laid the groundwork for the immigration regime Canada has today, which embraces multiculturalism. In 1967, Ottawa introduced a points-based system for evaluating applicants, after which Canada saw a jump in immigration from Africa, Asia, the Caribbean, and Latin America. A 1971 policy first articulated the government’s support for cultural diversity, and legislation in 1976 explicitly codified Canada’s commitment to refugees, mandated federal and provincial officials develop immigration targets together, and cast immigration as a tool for meeting the country’s cultural, economic, and social objectives." What Is Canada’s Immigration Policy? | Council on Foreign Relations (cfr.org) So even Canada has a way of choosing immigrants, even if it is the wrong policy and the opposite of what I believe. You say the third world has a right to come into Canada shows you do not understand that. In spite of what liberals and left think, Canada does not belong to the rest of the world. Every country has a sovereign right to determine who it lets in for their best interests. Global Communists such as the U.N. don't accept that and want Canada to accept the rest of the world's immigrants. If you descended from the third world and are not a Christian, then of course you would oppose what I say. That is logical. The best solution is for you to study the Bible, particularly the New Testament. The world in general is a corrupt, fallen place and the only solution is an individual solution, i.e. to believe the Bible and be born again. Apart from that there is no salvation. Different racial and cultural backgrounds do not unite people except in evil Socialist systems which is Communist in the sense of being anti-God and communal. China is a good example where the state, meaning Communist Party is above everything else. Individuals rights are sacrificed for the Communist system or communal system ( in reality the Communist Party and it's leaders). I don't care much for what the Conservative Party believes. That is politics. Politics is not my guide for life. If you don't believe an individual has the right to his own beliefs, what are you doing here?
  12. America has huge problems. The problems are because much of America does not follow God of the Bible. But as I said everything is not black or white. America is still one of the best countries in the world and is far superior to the third world. Some Catholics who oppose abortion and the liberal left agenda are preferable to the third world immigrants. If they oppose Socialism, oppose abortion, and respect the sanctity of life and individual rights then they are preferable to those liberals and NDP who do not. Much of the Liberal government and many other progressive politicians are opposed to God and many belong to the Catholic religion yet support abortion, etc. That shows it is not black and white even in that religion. Unless you have been born again and accept the Bible and Jesus as your Savior you will continue to say BS to everything I say. So that is your fundamental problem. I am not saying we should restrict immigration of Catholics except from central and south America. They have a history of violence, Communist revolutions, and are a mess. My preference is to restrict immigration from the third world in general, rather than on the basis of religion. Immigration should be from Europe, and other western countries like Australia and NZ which share the same western values as Canada and America.
  13. I said even bringing the third world in (Multiculturalism) is bringing the downfall of Canada or helping to change it into a Socialist disaster. Liberalism, progressivism are working to destroy our western Judeo-Christian civilization. That is why voting for them is proving to be a disaster for Canada. No, latin America is not a source of Christians. Mexico in fact is listed as one of the countries that heavily persecutes Christians. Mexico is a country half taken over by murderers and criminals. We know many things went on in Europe that were unbiblical and anti-Christian. Catholicism is not a Christian religion. I never said it was. But Christian principles existed in Europe which do not exist in the middle east, Asia, Africa, latin America to any extent. Everything is not black and white. There are some relatively small numbers of Christians in those heathen parts of world but they are heavily persecuted by the majority. In spite of the wars in Europe, democracy and human rights exist in Europe and the west far more than the third world. The UK and west abolished slavery two hundred years ago. There are no human rights or respect for the individual in much of the third world, including Russia and China. Canada is heading toward becoming a more heathen nation and is one to a large extent now. That means less civility, less respect for the traditional family structure, more crime, more Socialism, continued failing health care system, increased taxation, more government authoritarianism, and more rebellion against parents and authority. Generally a more corrupt society is what we are seeing. 2
  14. By calling names you just give more credibility to what I said. You have nothing else to offer. Read my further comments. Not all, but many third world immigrants do not believe in the fundamental beliefs and principles of freedom of the individual, sanctity of private property and sanctity of life. They come from heathen lands that do not believe in Christianity or the Bible. In fact much of Asia, middle east, and Africa persecute Christians. Yet we bring them in here by the millions. Consequently, they vote liberal and left NDP or for Socialism which is an evil ideology. The liberal left has a war against Christianity and declare it as extreme right. This is why the left, liberals prefer third world immigration. It supports their liberal left ideology. If you want less freedom and more Socialism and nanny state government, more government control of everything, and more taxation, continue to support that system.
  15. I would add to that danger atheist, or agnostic progressivism or liberalism. They try to equate historical Judeo-Christian beliefs with extreme right wing fanaticism, when in fact if you look at reality, the fanatics today are the progressives and liberals. We are moving toward an Orwell's 1984 world where old people or people with health conditions or certain beliefs could be simply euthanized. The final solution. Biden is starting to talk in a very aggressive way and categorize half of America as the enemy.
  16. Radical/fundamentalists exist all over the world. Canada has been a supplier of extremists who have travelled overseas for al Qaeda and ISIS as have other countries. The evidence is there.
  17. That sounds quite wacked out. quote List of Killings in the Name of Islam: Last 30 Days This is part of the list of killings in the name of Islam maintained by TheReligionofPeace.com. Most of these incidents are terror attacks. A handful are honor killings or Sharia executions. During this time period, there were 27 Islamic attacks in 15 countries, in which 187 people were killed and 144 injured. unquote List of Islamic Terror Attacks (thereligionofpeace.com) While there have been attacks against Muslims in Canada periodically and must be condemned, they are overall rare compared with the number of terrorist attacks around the world in the name of Islam.
  18. The Rebel? Are you serious. You love to make stuff up. "Two attacks in one week with two killed have brought Canada to the fore as a North American breeding ground for terrorist sympathizers. The normally peaceful country has seen between 130 and 145 of its citizens leave and join extremist groups abroad in the past few years, according to Canadian intelligence services, but they may not be the biggest threat. Canada's national security could be in danger from Canadians who have never traveled to overseas jihadist training camps, but are independently committing acts of violence against other Canadians under the banner of the Islamic State group. “Canada is not immune,” said Mubin Shaikh, a former Taliban recruiter who operated from his hometown of Toronto before changing sides to work for the government as a national security operative. “We need to get away from the idea that even though we're the nicest people you’ll ever meet, people will still attack us.” Canadians returning from the front lines of jihad are likely to have received weapons and bomb-making training, but while fighters returning to Canada may be well-prepared, they might not be able to operate as covertly as ISIS supporters within the country, said Bob Milton, a retired commander of the London Metropolitan Police Service in the UK. The Canadian government labeled Wednesday’s shooting at Ottawa’s parliament and a hit-and-run attack in Quebec as “terrorist attacks.” Both Ottawa shooter Michael Zehaf-Bibeau and Quebec attacker Martin Rouleau-Couture were born in Canada, were recent converts to Islam and were reportedly being monitored by law enforcement after attempting to travel to Syria. Although they never left Canada to fight with terrorist groups, their social media profiles were filled with ISIS propaganda. It’s still unknown if a member of ISIS instructed them to carry out their attacks or if the terrorist group simply served as inspiration for "lone wolf" actions. “It’s linked to ISIS. It follows a direction that was given,” said Shaikh. “It fits the pattern of other countries involved in anti-ISIS operations.” ISIS In Canada: The Biggest Terror Threat To Canada Could Come From Within Its Borders (ibtimes.com)
  19. On this day, Sep 25, 2014: Moore, OK, USA A woman at an Oklahoma food plant is beheaded by a devout co-worker: 1 Killed
  20. The reason for that is because they are still in a relatively small minority. Check out the countries which have a large percentage Muslim population and look at the history of violence. Even in America; recall 9-11?
  21. Immigration policies changed in the 1960s and 1970s with the introduction of official multiculturalism and it's consequences which is the focus of this thread. "Legislation in the 1960s and 1970s laid the groundwork for the immigration regime Canada has today, which embraces multiculturalism. In 1967, Ottawa introduced a points-based system for evaluating applicants, after which Canada saw a jump in immigration from Africa, Asia, the Caribbean, and Latin America. A 1971 policy first articulated the government’s support for cultural diversity, and legislation in 1976 explicitly codified Canada’s commitment to refugees, mandated federal and provincial officials develop immigration targets together, and cast immigration as a tool for meeting the country’s cultural, economic, and social objectives." What Is Canada’s Immigration Policy? | Council on Foreign Relations (cfr.org) With this policy, in one sense, it could be validly argued that Canada is not really a sovereign nation, but it belongs to the world, particularly the third world or U.N world and now accepts the third world immigrants in large numbers.
  22. Another question arising out of Socialized or public health care is how can the government claim we are a free and democratic nation while at the same time denying an individual the right to pay for health care from a private provider or pay for insurance to receive private health care services? Should not these kind of things be an individual's right to choose and not by government decree? Another related issue in B.C. is car insurance. Why must everyone buy the crown corporation car insurance and not have freedom to choose a private insurance company? This seems more like totalitarianism than a free society. Where are the so-called Charter of Rights? It appears the Charter of Rights only apply if it fits in with liberal - Socialist ideology. We often see that in the Supreme Court rulings. At least in America the Supreme Court recognized the right of the unborn to life. In Canada we have seen no such ruling and are not likely to. The liberal left progressives appoint and control the Supreme Court.
  23. Yep, it's all about protecting the liberal base who have been brainwashed into believing anyone who pays for private care is somehow a threat to the Socialist-nanny state failing health care system. Faulty and deadly logic.
  24. Liberal-NDP heathen ideology also supports and encourages in fact women to get abortions. This is costing Canada about 80,000 to 100,000 lives a year. The liberal-NDP ideology of feminism also means women are encouraged to seek careers and go out to work ($10 a day childcare the latest social program) to further destroy the family structure and reduce Canadians from having families. This means far fewer children being born in Canada especially from Caucasian women. The aboriginal birth rate is even ahead of non aboriginals now. Smaller families means more immigration is required to maintain the number of people entering the work force. Liberals-NDP naturally turn to the third world for immigrants because they are the ones most likely to vote left wing liberals or NDP. They don't want immigrants from western nations because they are less likely to vote liberal and are more likely to be conservative (and maybe white supremacists). Immigration is the only way to fill the labour shortage as more and more Canadians are aging and retiring. The social programs and old age pensions, CPP, etc. must be paid for somehow.
  • Create New...