blackbird

I won't go into trying to defend the churches or their missionaries that ran the residential schools or the Jesuits that brought Romanism to the aboriginals in the past 500 years because I do not support their methods or theology. They were not operating according to the Bible. Where was the respect for the individual's freedom of beliefs and basic freedoms? They were wrong. That is my take. Since I don't agree with their modus operandi and don't support them, all I can say is that is not how real missionaries operate. They did a good job in giving Christianity a bad name. But this has been part of the history of the world as I already explained in earlier posts. The Roman church did the same thing down through history. It is not a perfect world and never has been. Humans are not infallible, neither is the Pope.

1. According to God's written revelation, the KJ Bible. 2 The KJV was translated in the 17th century (1611) from earlier manuscripts. It was not something new produced in the 17th century. In general, the New Testament early translations in the 1500s and ancient Greek manuscripts available at that time are known as the Received Text. The Received Text is believed to be an accurate translation of the original New Testament manuscripts written by the prophets and Apostles who lived at the time of Christ. The original manuscripts no longer exist. The Old Testament is based on the Hebrew Tanakh. The Jews wrote the Old Testament in Hebrew over a long period of time and it was completed over 2,000 years ago. 3. The KJV translation committee was made up of 47 of the worlds best Biblical scholars, many of whom knew ancient languages well. They used the best manuscripts and previous translations available at the time. 4. No, I am not pushing or forcing anything on anyone. I have as much right as you to my opinion and beliefs. I don't go around telling others they have no right to speak. In a democratic society, everyone has a right to their opinions and beliefs. Where did you come from? The King James Bible Defended! (jesus-is-savior.com)

There is an interesting book that is available free to read online: Babylon Mystery Religion... this is a detailed history of how, when and where ancient paganism was mixed with Christianity. Woodrow - Babylon Mystery Religion.pdf (google.com)

The King James Bible describes who God is. "1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, 2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; 3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; " Hebrews ch2 vs 1-3 KJV He was the Jew's God in the Old Testament and revealed himself to Moses who wrote the first five books of the Old Testament. The Jews are the people whom God chose to reveal himself to the world and give mankind his revelation, the Old Testament. God also used the Jews to bring his Son Jesus Christ into the world to become the Savior of mankind. So Jesus was a Jew. He is the same God who revealed himself to the Apostles and disciples in the New Testament as Jesus Christ. I know this will probably not satisfy you. But if you really want to know, you will have to make an effort to study the Bible and find the answer yourself. It is not possible for me to do that for you. Jesus was seen by many after his resurrection, which proves he is who he said he is. We could probably go on forever about this, but we would likely not settle it for you and we would be straying too far from the topic.

Central America / Spaniards are largely (around 90% or more) Catholismo and followers of the Papacy. America and the British empire and some northern parts of Europe embraced the Reformation four or five hundred years ago and rejected Catholismo. It is a strange coincidence that democracy and human rights were embraced in these western nations where Catholismo was rejected to varying degrees. British North America was conquered by Britain in the 18th century and was fortunately largely influenced by that. Canada inherited the Parliamentary democracy from Britain. The French in France saw the light and also embraced democracy. The Vatican had no choice but to continue to work within a democratic British North America and Canada from 1867. The democracy and human rights did not come from the Vatican. They came in spite of them. So I would say freedom, democracy, and human rights came to Britain, north America (Canada and the U.S.) because of the influence of Judeo-Christian principles, but not Romanism, which is more of a totalitarian system and had been for 1,700 years in Europe. When I say Judeo-Christian principle, I refer to the Bible, not Romanism which is totally different. We must always remember there is a huge difference. Judeo-Christian principles include the dignity and human rights of the individual; The papacy has historically been focused on the supremacy of mother church. The proof of that is the 400 years of the Holy Roman Inquistion where heretics were hunted down.

Atheists need to read the book "Darwin's Universe: From Nothing, By Nothing, For Nothing...Survival for Nothing". by Yan T. Wee The facts in this book are irrefutable. The modern pseudo science theories are exposed for the fraud they are. Quote A scientist approached God and said, "Listen, we've decided we no longer need you. Nowadays, we can clone people, transplant hearts, and do all kinds of things that were once considered miraculous." God patiently heard him out, and then said, "All right. To see whether or not you still need me, why don't we have a man-making contest?" "Okay, great!" the scientist said. "Now, we're going to do this just like I did back in the old days with Adam," God said. "That's fine," replied the scientist, and bent to scoop up a handful of dirt. "Whoa!" God said, shaking his head in disapproval. "Not so fast, pal. You go get your own dirt!" 'Get your own dirt' - that is basically the crux of the matter. Despite all the latest discoveries in every discipline of science, all the cosmologists, physicists and biologists will inevitably converge at the edge of a vast cosmic chasm they cannot cross - where did the 'first dirt' come from? And to go a step further, where did all the physical laws governing this material universe come from - from gravity to electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force, and the weak nuclear force? Who defines these and the many other laws of nature and calibrates them with such fine precision without which matter and life can never exist. Scientists today are both stunned and stumped by this exquisite fine-tuning of the universe and by what is now commonly known as the 'Anthropic Principle' - the universe appears to be patently contrived to permit intelligent life. No matter how many theories of evolution we posit - from cosmic to biological, and no matter how far we kick the can down the road with regard to the beginning of the universe, we must end up in this curious cul-de-sac and stare in the face this spooky conundrum - what was before all this came into being? It is like putting your hand outside the edge of the universe. This is where science ends - ex nihilo nihil fit (from nothing nothing comes) and the supernatural begins - "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." (Bible) Unquote

Atheists are nobody to talk. The atheist Communists killed about 100 million people in their revolutions in China and Russia in the 20th century and deprived billions of people their basic human rights. The Christian-Judeo culture brought freedom, democracy and human rights to the western world in the last few hundred years.

The U.N. is the most left wing, radical and RACIST organization on earth. The UN is the author of UNDRIP which many countries adopted or support. This document gives special privileges to anybody of aboriginal descent and is designed to make non-aboriginals pay billions to a newly created, special privileged group.

Who cares what interpretation the U.N. uses? Applying it to loss of culture, language, etc. is not the correct definition of genocide. But the U.N. is a radical red power activist organization. If you don 't believe it, read the their declaration on the rights of indigenous people (UNDRIP) and what they recommend be done. UNDRIP would set up a system where there would be different rules for people of aboriginal descent. Basically pay billions of dollars and hand the country to aboriginals. The U.N. lives in an alt reality and knows nothing about Canada and it's history.

This whole residential school thing and all the ills facing FNs is being exploited and milked by liberals, Marxists and Communists and will continue to be milked for all its worth to turn people against democracy and against the colonials and anyone who does not support the radical woke left agenda.

On your criticism of sterilization, you still haven't answered the question about what to do with women who keep having babies which they can't look after themselves. Very evasive answers. Why not just admit you don't know what to do with them except let taxpayers keep supporting as many kids as they keep having.

In this 2015 article 11,000 children in Manitoba were in foster care and approximately 90% of them are aboriginal. You say aboriginal children were stolen and mention the so-called "60s scoop". But maybe you can answer the question why are so many aboriginal children in Manitoba in foster care in the first place? The fact is Canada does not leave uncared for children on the streets. Many countries in the world neglect abandoned or badly cared for children. But Canada does not. Canada might not be doing things as well as they should but Canada makes an effort to at least put neglected children in a home or some facility. The high number of FN kids in foster care is a big concern, but this is a complex problem and it appears difficult to find a solution that will satisfy FNs or anyone else. Why are 11,000 kids in foster care in Manitoba? | CBC News Also you mention coerced sterilization but you have not answered the question yet as to what to do about women who keep having babies when they are unable to care for them. Each child must be rescued by some child welfare service and each one costs taxpayers thousands of dollars a year to care for. What is your solution?

Actually there was a book written describing the Vatican's holocaust in former Yugoslavia. That was a real holocaust or genocide, not the phony one claimed by the Pope now. Did the Vatican or a Pope ever apologize for that? The book is available to read online and won't cost a cent. The Vatican’s Holocaust (Yugoslavia) – The Millennium Report

The Pope's declaration that residential schools was a genocide just proves that truth with the Vatican and Catholic church is a rare commodity. This is a total perversion of the word genocide. There is a purpose in the Pope's use of this word. It has more to do with the RCC's long term goals of increasing power. The RCC has been known by many as an unbiblical and false church throughout the centuries. This is just another proof. The Papacy is not a biblical entity but is a political entity masquerading under Christianity. There are many books that explain how the Vatican is an unbiblical entity. The website Chick Publications has some simplified literature explaining that. Many other books have been written exposing it, even books and literature written by former priests and bishops. Alberto Rivero, former Jesuit priest, revealed a lot about it. It has it's own nation state, diplomats, and huge government bureaucracy with various departments. It is also one of the richest entities in the world, holding real estate throughout the world and billions in wealth. The book The Vatican Billions goes into that. It has been accumulated over the centuries on the backs of it's followers.

No, that does not meet the definition of the word genocide. There was no mass or deliberate killing of aboriginals in Canada. There were some cases of sexual, physical and mental abuse, but this does not fit the definition of genocide at all. There were back in history high death rates of FNs from smallpox in some places. I do not know what period in history that occurred and do not know the details.. That may have happened before the period of residential schools. I think that happened in a number of countries. There was also a lot of ignorance in previous centuries about how diseases were spread. There were also some deaths in the 20th century from polio and TB and possibly other diseases. But I would not assume all these deaths were deliberately inflicted on FNs. Also, I do not accept that all the bad things that happened in history, 50, 100, or 150 years ago are to be blamed on the people living today. We had nothing to do with it. Many bad things happened in history. The whole world was settled by people migrating from one place to another. Being an immigrant or a descendent of an immigrant is not a crime. No ethnic group such as FNs has sole ownership or rights to live on a continent such as north America simply because their ancestors were here first. Your third point is another false allegation. There is no evidence or proof that the government or churches were deliberately trying to bring about the physical destruction of FNs. There were at the mid 20th century some cases of forced sterilization of native women. This was one of those things that has been condemned by authorities since then. Churches had nothing to do with it. It was a measure done by some child welfare departments of government because they thought the women were not capable of raising children. But, as far as I know, forced sterilization has been stopped; however I am not an expert on it. There may be some cases where forced sterilization could be justified in a court of law, but that would likely be extremely rare. What should be done with someone who is a drug addict who is incapable of looking after a child and has already produced a number of children that the state has had to take into foster care to protect them? On your fourth point about transferring children from FNs communities to non native groups, you must be referring to foster homes for children requiring care. In the 1950s to 1980s, child welfare departments of governments did apprehend children they deemed were in danger and placed them in non-native foster care. But this was not done to bring about the destruction of FNs culture or ethnic groups. The authorities at the time really thought they were protecting children from harm. But more recent political thinking is that they should not have removed them from FNs communities and government is trying to change the system. It has been difficult to change because of the problem of finding suitable places to place homeless FN children in foster homes within the native communities. That is why there are still a large number of FN children in non-native foster care. It is not an easy system to change.

I told you what I believe. The use of the word genocide for residential school FNs makes absolutely no sense at all. There was no massacre or mass murder. They may have been denied their culture, language, and customs, but that does not mean the same thing as genocide. There are fibs, propaganda, and lies. The use of the word genocide in this case is used for fibs, propaganda and lies. You cannot equate loss of culture with genocide.

I mis-worded that or did not make it clear it appears. I'm saying there was no holocaust of aboriginals, no genocide in residential schools. The holocaust did occur under Hitler in WW2 and it was a real genocide of the Jews. Will try to correct my wording on that.

I don't disagree with your description about what was done with many of them, but that still does not justify the use of the word genocide which clearly means a massacre or mass killings. The word genocide is being used incorrectly in this case and is therefore a lie. You cannot use the word cultural with genocide and pretend it has a different meaning than what the word genocide actually means. The words cultural and genocide simply do not go together because the word genocide has a specific meaning. Many people misunderstand the term cultural genocide and have actually believed there was some kind of mass murder of aboriginal children. They point to the reports of unmarked graves as proof of genocide. That is dishonest.

The Pope said the residential school system was a genocide. The word genocide is defined as follows: quote gen·o·cide [ˈjenəˌsīd] NOUN the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group: "a campaign of genocide" · [more] synonyms: racial killing · massacre · wholesale slaughter · mass slaughter · wholesale killing · indiscriminate killing · mass murder · mass homicide · mass destruction · annihilation · extermination · elimination · liquidation · eradication · decimation · [more] unquote He is obviously using the word for political purposes but in doing so is spreading a harmful lie to the world. There was no massacre, racial killing, or slaughter. Many native children were badly abused, sexually, physically and mentally. Many died from diseases. But they were not deliberately slaughtered or massacred as the word genocide clearly means. This shameful terminology is being used by the leader of the world's largest nominal church. Many simply throw the word out and say genocide took place in residential schools. This is completely false and a lie. This will simply give more ammunition to the extremists and radicals to demand more and falsely accuse Canada of crimes against humanity, similar to war crimes or the holocaust, which never occurred.

The U.N. IPCC is actually more of a political body than a purely scientific one and they are the ones that make the doomsday decrees that have scared half the world to death on climate change and global warming. The UN IPCC has their own agenda and it is not a scientific agenda. It is all part of the U.N. agenda of social development goals or SDG. That is a Marxist goal of wealth redistribution. One way of doing that is to manipulate the world into believing that developed countries must give a significant part of their wealth to poorer countries to help mitigate the effects of climate change. The first step to doing this is making the world believe that man is responsible for climate change. Ironically, the left wing political parties, like the Liberals, NDP and Greens, have completely bought into the idea of man-made climate change. They just happen to be the ones who also believe in wealth redistribution to solve the world's problems.

The only saving of the planet I see worthwhile is getting rid of all the climate change alarmist politicians at the ballot box. Our standard of living will continue to fall because of the carbon taxes and anti-energy industry regulations.

Government should not be trying to lead in moral issues. They have proven over and over they have no morals. The blind leading the blind.

Your problem is you don't really look at how much CO2 Canada or the world puts into the atmosphere and how much the total CO2 is in the atmosphere. If you had paid attention or looked at the real figures, you would realize the claim of man-made climate change by CO2 is highly questionable. There is about 400 PPM of CO2 in the atmosphere. Man contributes about 3%. Of that 3%, Canada contributes about 1.5% of human CO2 emissions. What is 1.5% of 3%? It is so miniscule. It equates to 0.18 PPM. The total CO2 in the atmosphere is very small. It is just a trace gas. So where is the proof that man-made CO2 is having any impact on climate change? There is no evidence. But you still persist in your claim that it is causing rising temperatures. That is pure fiction.

It is sad, really sad that so many Canadians can't see this and keep voting for him or his party or the NDP which is helping to keep Trudeau going. The one thing he is good at is writing cheques for his hobby horses, but not so much able or willing to govern for the great majority of Canadians who are struggling.

I get the feeling he is more interested in photo ops and glad handing with children than dealing with the crisis facing many Canadians in the airports, passport offices, health care, high inflation, housing crisis, rental crisis, etc. Quote Why is Justin Trudeau appearing at random? I think the answer is quite obvious. Trudeau prefers his comfort zone of glad-handing and photo ops to dealing with the growing inability of the federal government to deliver on its basic accountabilities. The immense grief inflicted on Canadians is growing by the day. Everywhere you look, Canada is a mess, from borders to airports to passports to inflation. “You’ll forgive me if I don’t think about monetary policy,” he said. Mr. Prime Minister, Canadians don’t forgive you, as we are all paying the price of your lack of interest (pun intended). Unquote The first article is about the issue of private health care versus public and the following article is about Trudeau's photo-ops and glad handing interests versus dealing with the critical issues effecting Canadians. Letters to the editor: Why a reader arranged for private surgery in the U.S., and the PM's pop-ups (msn.com)