blackbird

Age 35 is still young enough to be able to retire at 65 in my opinion if one has a complete plan and follows it: 1. You have a job that pays enough or has a pension plan that will provide the pension. 2. If you don't have such a job, make a plan to get the skills or education that will enable you to get such a job. 3. Make a plan on how you could do it. It would require finding out if that kind of well-paying job would be available once you obtained the training or education for it. Is the job permanent or going to last? Also one needs to consider the location where he would have to work. Real estate in the big cities is very expensive. That should be considered in the plan. The bottom line is it requires some investigation and planning ahead. 4. If you can live in a place other than a big city it might help because of the high cost of real estate in the big cities. Going further north sometimes might be an option to find lower cost real estate. The availability of jobs in the location or area you plan to live must be considered as well. Minimum wage jobs will not do it. It requires some kind of skill and training for a better-paying job. These are just the thoughts from someone who doesn't have to do it any more.

God created us in his image. He said "thou shalt not kill". Therefore allowing people to die by willful neglect is wrong. A health care system that allows thousands of people to die simply because of mismanagement is wrong or puts ideology ahead of care by not allowing people who have the money to pay for care to get care. When the government blocks people from paying or having a private insurer pay for them and sets up a universal system that only allows people to be on a long public system waiting list, something is wrong with the system. The former Soviet union suffered huge shortages of things because it was run by bureaucrats and was extremely inefficient. The government also sometimes makes claims that the waiting lists are getting shorter, but since we don't have all the facts, how do we know? We are just supposed to believe everything they say. The Socialist system never was an equal system for all. There is no one single waiting list for all. There are actually countless waiting lists, depending on the location one is in, the type of treatment or diagnosis, and depending on which doctor. Each specialist has his own list in some places. Also the lists are not available to the public so nobody knows how they are used. So there is no one list for everyone which means the public system is not an equal system at all. Public systems seem to only work well when they are operating at top efficiency and enough money is put into them. There are many reasons why it is not an equal system now. Public systems are also hamstrung by bureaucracy, red tape, mismanagement, union contracts, and so on. So the argument that allowing some people to pay for care themselves or through a private insurance plan would be bad sounds kind of bogus. The system is full of inequalities already. Allowing some people to pay at least part themselves, might actually shorten the waiting lists in the public system and benefit everyone.

And they all supported the false Papal system except Luther who became a priest in it for a period of time, but then rejected it. Luther was known to be very anti-Semitic by the way, although he was a good Reformation leader. None of them were without error. Anti-Semitism was common in Europe throughout the centuries culminating in the Holocaust. “For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.” (Romans 11:25 KJV)

That has absolutely nothing to do with what the Apostle Paul said in the verses I quoted to you and nothing to do with the Old Testament promises God made to Israel.

That is what I just said. The Roman religion of Babylon, Romanism, taught it all along, which was a major cause of anti-Semitism in the Holy Roman Empire for 1,700 years.

quote Actually, the answer to the question “What about the Jews” is clearly laid out in Scripture. Romans 11:1 I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. Romans 11:25-26 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: Not only do these verses blow away replacement theology, they also blow away amillennialism. We cannot be in the kingdom right now because the fullness of the gentiles has to come in, and God’s attention will then go back to the Jews. This wont happen if we’re awaiting the final consummation after the kingdom. But what about a literal Jew? Is a Jewish person really a Jew according to the New Testament? 1 Corinthians 10:32 Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God: Jew, Gentile, and church of God. Three different entities and yes a Jewish person really is a Jewish person. Replacement theology is an anti semitic doctrine at heart. There is absolutely no reason to teach God is done with the Jews. To further back destroy replacement theology, lets dig into the Book of Revelation. unquote Replacement theology refuted from Scripture | The Old Paths (wordpress.com)

Replacement theology was started approximately 1,700 years ago by the Papal anti-Christ church which was founded on the ancient Religion of Babylon. Without any basis, they claimed the Church replaced Israel. This helped to fuel the 2,000 years of anti-Semitism. The Reformers unfortunately carried it out of the Anti-Christ's system. But the whole Bible has countless verses that refute Replacement Theology if you take the time to look. This video message goes into it and explains it.

Replacement theology is unbiblical. This explains the issue quite clearly. It is a result of not taking the Bible literally and and misinterpreting countless verses in the Old Testament and New Testament. There is no justification for saying verses that clearly referred to Israel in the Old Testament meant the Church which began at the crucifixion. Prior to that there was no Church. "Replacement theology (also known as supersessionism) essentially teaches that the church has replaced Israel in God’s plan. Adherents of replacement theology believe the Jews are no longer God’s chosen people, and God does not have specific future plans for the nation of Israel. Among the different views of the relationship between the church and Israel are the church has replaced Israel (replacement theology), the church is an expansion of Israel (covenant theology), or the church is completely different and distinct from Israel (dispensationalism/premillennialism). Replacement theology teaches that the church is the replacement for Israel and that the many promises made to Israel in the Bible are fulfilled in the Christian church, not in Israel. The prophecies in Scripture concerning the blessing and restoration of Israel to the Promised Land are spiritualized or allegorized into promises of God’s blessing for the church. Major problems exist with this view, such as the continuing existence of the Jewish people throughout the centuries and especially with the revival of the modern state of Israel. If Israel has been condemned by God and there is no future for the Jewish nation, how do we explain the supernatural survival of the Jewish people over the past 2,000 years despite the many attempts to destroy them? How do we explain why and how Israel reappeared as a nation in the 20th century after not existing for 1,900 years? The view that Israel and the church are different is clearly taught in the New Testament. Biblically speaking, the church is distinct from Israel, and the terms church and Israel are never to be confused or used interchangeably. We are taught from Scripture that the church is an entirely new creation that came into being on the day of Pentecost and will continue until it is taken to heaven at the rapture (Ephesians 1:9–11; 1 Thessalonians 4:13–17). The church has no relationship to the curses and blessings for Israel. The covenants, promises, and warnings of the Mosaic Covenant were valid only for Israel. Israel has been temporarily set aside in God’s program during these past 2,000 years of dispersion (see Romans 11). Contrary to replacement theology, dispensationalism teaches that, after the rapture (1 Thessalonians 4:13–18), God will restore Israel as the primary focus of His plan. The first event at this time is the tribulation (Revelation chapters 6–19). The world will be judged for rejecting Christ, while Israel is prepared through the trials of the great tribulation for the second coming of the Messiah. Then, when Christ does return to the earth at the end of the tribulation, Israel will be ready to receive Him. The remnant of Israel who survive the tribulation will be saved, and the Lord will establish His kingdom on this earth with Jerusalem as its capital. With Christ reigning as King, Israel will be the leading nation, and representatives from all nations will come to Jerusalem to honor and worship the King—Jesus Christ. The church will return with Christ and will reign with Him for a literal thousand years (Revelation 20:1–5). Both the Old Testament and the New Testament support a premillennial/dispensational understanding of God’s plan for Israel. The strongest support for premillennialism is found in the clear teaching of Revelation 20:1–7, where it says six times that Christ’s kingdom will last 1,000 years. After the tribulation the Lord will return and establish His kingdom with the nation of Israel, Christ will reign over the whole earth, and Israel will be the leader of the nations. The church will reign with Him for a literal thousand years. The church has not replaced Israel in God’s plan. While God may be focusing His attention primarily on the church in this dispensation of grace, God has not forgotten Israel and will one day restore Israel to His intended role as the nation He has chosen (Romans 11)." What is replacement theology / supersessionism? | GotQuestions.org

This seems like a denial of universal human rights and the right to life. What kind of a state would allow tens of thousands of people to die on waiting lists and say they have no right to purchase private care if they have the money? This is all part of the growing authoritarianism and reduction in individual rights in Canada. It is lowering the value of human life and lessening respect for individual rights. How can anyone trust the leaders of the government who run the health care system if that is their attitude?

Palestinians who want to live in peace in Israel have the best chance of becoming citizens, but when people are committed to violence and opposing Israel, there is not much anyone can do with them. They are a continual threat. "7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. 8 And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; " Genesis 17:7 KJV

The radical or extremist Palestinians don't acknowledge Israel has a right to exist which is why they discourage any from applying to citizenship. That makes sense. In order to have a chance for citizenship, one must be first of all willing to accept Israel's right to exist as a state, agree to follow all the laws, and live in peace. Unfortunately many are not willing. The ones who were able to get jobs and demonstrate they are willing to be good citizens have something to prove they are willing to be a useful part of Israel. There is no such thing as "occupied territories". The term is a misnomer and creates confusion. The whole area actually belongs to Israel. "7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. 8 And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; "" Genesis 17:7 KJV The land was given to Abraham and his descendants, the twelve tribes of Israel in perpetuity. You have to decide which side you are on. Either believe what God said or oppose it.

Sorry but you have a history of insane comments. If they are not willing to abide by the laws and live in peace with the Israeli's, then surrounding countries should offer them a place and help them get established. If you have a better solution, what is it? The land belongs to Israel. The Bible says it does. Do you have any sane comments as to how the conflict could be ended?

I am not aware of Israel wanting a Palestinian state. Palestinians are Arabs and Israel is surrounded by Arab states. Israel is a very small geographical area. The idea of carving it up is nonsense. Why don't these countries surrounding Israel like Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt which have large areas offer to take these Palestinians in and help them get established? They are all Muslims. Israel is not Islamic. Instead they want to get rid of Israel.

He paid for his wrong doings with a 30 year sentence. However, this does not prove America should not be an ally of Israel. This was a mistake by Israeli intelligence back in the 1980s, almost 40 years ago. Reasonable people would be willing to forgive them for this one.

The problem is Palestinians in general don't accept Israel's right to exist. The two-state idea would never work. How can Israel deal with people who don't accept it's right to exist? It is the Palestinians that don't allow their people to apply for Israel citizenship. Without citizenship, of course they are not going to have the same rights as citizens. Citizenship requires some loyalty to a country and a willingness to be lawful and supportive of a country.

I will take a look at your links. I just want to say if people are trying to attack Israel in general or oppose their right to exist with these articles and videos, I don't accept it. There can be legitimate issues with certain individuals but Israel has the right to exist and defend itself.

I will watch it today. No. But Romanism seems to believe that. Also Reformed churches believe that and possibly some other denominations. But dispensational churches, some Baptists, evangelicals, and possibly others don't believe that. I believe the Bible does not support Replacement Theology.

As I already explained, I never even thought about adding the word "public" in the title or not adding it. No need to be so picky. In any case, the ban probably has more to do with Muslims wanting prayer rooms in schools. Perhaps Quebec feels they are under attack by Muslims with all the controversy over Bill 21, etc. While I am all for freedom of religion, I think there is a limit to how far society has to go to accommodate Islam. This is not an Islamic state.

I don't think it has anything to do with when the Messiah will come. But the Bible says God will bless those who bless Israel and curse those who curse Israel. The Bible also says God gave them that land for perpetuity. So, that applies regardless of all the politics going on there. Will check it out later. Can't at the moment. Israel is the only democracy in the middle east. They are a natural ally of the west. It would be crazy for America to turn it's back on Israel. Israel has been an extremely important country for some reason, possibly because God chose Israel to bring the Bible and Jesus Christ into the world. It would be unwise to oppose Israel. I think according to Bible prophecy those nations that oppose Israel will be destroyed.

Actually, I'm sorry for saying it was a lie. A bit too harsh. But I think you probably really think I was trying to mislead. Really, I never even thought of saying in the title it was public schools. When I create a title, I try to make them short because I believe short titles attract more interest than long sentences for titles. I just thought of something else. At least one prayer room for Muslims was created in Ottawa. The claimed reason is because Muslims pray five times a day and they like to lay a carpet out and kneel on the carpet. That can't be permitted to do that just anywhere in the hallways or wherever. So they designated a certain room for Muslims to pray in. That might be what was happening in Quebec schools. Muslims might be demanding prayer rooms in Quebec. I don't think Christians are into praying on carpets five times a day like Muslims. So that might be the issue in Quebec now that I think of it. A prayer room just for Muslims would be discrimination though. If there is going to be prayer rooms, they should be available for anyone, maybe at certain times for different religions. I don't know if anyone would even use such a room though.

There is at least one school in Ottawa, Ontario that designates a prayer room for Muslim students and several in the U.S. for Muslims.

Of course and people have their own interests such as sports, extra curricular activities. That is the student's choice what they do outside the regular classes.

No, a person can go to a private Protestant school which is far better. Catholic schools teach Romanism, not the Bible. People can also pray without a prayer room which is what the Education minister said and maybe some will. But he is pushing his own secular humanist ideology on the public school system. Secular humanist pretend that they are not pushing religion, but secular humanism is a kind of religion in and of itself. It is the religion of anti-religion which is a feature of Communism ideology.

The Minister or government are probably a bunch of atheistic secular humanists. When they use the word secularism as something they believe they need to impose, then it becomes government imposing their own ideology on students.

That's fine. It's all about free choice. This is talking about something outside the regular classes and outside the school curriculum. Students decide whether they want to use the room themselves on their own time. This sounds like government over reach, or authoritarianism/Communism.