blackbird

The Bible is a book which originated from God and gives an account of many supernatural events. Some things are written in an obvious way to be metaphorical. Others things are actual accounts of supernatural events. There are many people who interpret things in the Bible that are not meant to be taken metaphorically. "I never like the question, “Do you take the Bible literally?” It comes up with some frequency, and it deserves a response. But I think it’s an ambiguous—and, therefore, confusing—question, making it awkward to answer. Clearly, even those of us with a high view of Scripture don’t take everything literally. Jesus is the “door,” but He’s not made of wood. We are the “branches,” but we’re not sprouting leaves. On the other hand, we do take seriously accounts others find fanciful and far-fetched: a man made from mud (Adam), loaves and fishes miraculously multiplied, vivified corpses rising from graves, etc. A short “yes” or “no” response to the “Do you take the Bible literally?” question, then, would not be helpful. Neither answer gives the full picture. In fact, I think it’s the wrong question since frequently something else is driving the query." Taking the Bible “Literally” | Bible.org

Yes. Genesis ch.1 describes how God created everything is six days. This is meant to be taken literally. There is nothing there to indicate otherwise. "31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. " Genesis 1:31 KJV The creation event was a supernatural event. The Theory of Evolution is just that, a theory written by someone who rejected the Biblical account and came up with a theory which many have debunked and rejected as false.

According to the Bible, we are all fallen sinners and need to be born again. This is not "religion"; it is just Biblical truth. Religion will not save you. Only Jesus saves because he paid the price for our sins on the cross when he shed his blood for an atonement. We are saved only if we accept that atonement as our own, i.e. accept Jesus as our personal Savior. Until then one is separated from God for eternity because of his fallen corrupt nature. Nobody can earn heaven or salvation. It is a gift from God.

I have news for you. The verses I gave you show you cannot love, respect, have compassion, or become a good citizen as far as God's standards are concerned. You are born with a fallen corrupt nature and have basically a corrupt heart. Nothing you do will meet God's approval or standards unless you are born again and translated into the kingdom of his dear Son. This is a spiritual birth and is accomplished by God the Holy Spirit. That is the naked truth my friend. Only Jesus Christ can save you. You cannot save yourself no matter how hard you try. I pointed the verses out that show that but so far you refuse to listen. I would humbly suggest you read the gospel of John carefully and take heed while you still have time. Also the epistles especially the Epistle to the Romans. "salvation cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God". What the Bible says about Corruption of the Human Heart (bibletools.org) "6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away. 7 And there is none that calleth upon thy name, that stirreth up himself to take hold of thee: for thou hast hid thy face from us, and hast consumed us, because of our iniquities. " Isaiah 64:6, 7 KJB

"5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; 6 Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; " Titus 3:5 KJV You are clearly claiming one can work his way to heaven. This is completely contrary to this verse here I just quoted and the other verses I quoted a few hours ago. This verse in Titus is talking about the new birth and states clearly it is "not by works of righteousness". You either accept God's ordained way of salvation or your own false way of trying to work your way to heaven, which God clearly rejects. May the peace of God be with you in your decision.

So how do you reconcile these verses with the verses and comments I gave you 2 hours ago about salvation by faith and not by works. You claimed the verses you quoted in Matthew prove your claim that they are mandatory to obey to be a sheep and not a goat. I showed you how that could not be the correct interpretation because of what it says in the gospel of John and the Epistles of Ephesians and Romans that salvation is entirely by faith in Christ. So you have a sharp contradiction. Either salvation (eternal life) is by following the chapters in Matthew we talked about or salvation is by faith in Christ as stated in the Scriptures I gave you. How do you explain it? It is incumbent upon you to answer the discrepancy in your interpretation. I explained this in depth 2 hours ago.

"31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: 32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: 33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. 34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: 35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: 36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me." Matthew 25:31-46 KJV So according to your interpretation, one must be judged as a sheep and not a goat. And to achieve that, he must have done everything stated in verses 35, 36 as stated in the verses above. This you must admit makes salvation dependent on your having followed these verses, or in other words, your good works. How do you reconcile that interpretation with what Jesus said in the gospel of John? "16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." John 3:16 KJV or " 36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. " John 3:36 KJV " 8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast." Ephesians ch2:8,9 KJV Clearly, Jesus said salvation is by faith, not by works. Paul's epistle to the Romans makes this crystal clear. "16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. 17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith." Romans 1:16, 17 KJV "22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: 23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; " Romans 3:22, 23 KJV Again the Apostle Paul says clearly salvation is by faith. He also points out we have all sinned and come short of the glory of God. Therefore how do you reconcile your claims about Matthew ch25 that one must keep those commands to be a sheep and not a goat? If Paul says in Romans we have all sinned and even as sinners, we are saved by faith, that kind of contradicts your interpretation of Matthew ch5, 6, and 7 and ch.25 where you claim one must keep those commands in order to be saved. Both interpretations can't be correct. You are either saved by works according to your interpretation or by faith as Jesus said in the gospel of John and Paul said in Ephesians and the epistle to the Romans. Nobody can get into heaven by their own efforts or works. Paul makes this clear when he says we are all sinners. That is why Christ died and shed his blood. He shed his blood as an atonement for lost sinners. That is the only basis of receiving forgiveness from God and we receive salvation when we believe he died for us personally. One cannot work his way to heaven. "1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:" Romans 5:1 KJV

The fundamental problem you have is in thinking chapters 5, 6, and 7 refer to Christians or the Church. If you examine those chapters you will see Jesus is referring to the future Kingdom of Heaven. The Kingdom of Heaven has not arrived yet. It is a future kingdom which Christ will establish on earth. Therefore what Jesus is describing is the way people will act in the Kingdom of Heaven. But they obviously could not do it on human power because according to the Bible everyone has a fallen, evil heart. It would take a supernatural power from God to achieve. If you read those chapters carefully you will have to admit nobody keeps those commands. So there has to be a better explanation for what those chapters mean. Those are the way it will be in the future Kingdom of Heaven. If you say those requirements apply to everyone today, you will find that nobody can achieve those standards. They will fail. So again, how will you get into heaven if you set those requirements as the determining factor as to to who is the wheat and who is the tares today? Read those chapters and tell me. Chapter 5 vs 3 says: "3 Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." KJV Very clearly it says the kingdom of heaven. So where is this kingdom of heaven being referred to in numerous verses? Do you know what the Kingdom of Heaven is? So if a person keeps one of those commands such as has compassion for some others at certain times, but fails at other times, what happens to him? Where does he go? According to the way you have put it, a person must have been compassionate at all times and never failed to do this. Same with other commands in these chapters. What happens if someone has not kept all these commands 100% of the time?

Since you claim the Sermon on the Mount is a rule of life for the church (foundational is the way you put it), do you actually believe you or anyone is able to successfully keep the commands in the Sermon on the mount (Matthew 5, 6, and 7)? And if not, how can you or anyone else be saved?

So tell me if social media forums are private space that nobody has any rights except the owner to control, how does government (Trudeau) have the right to censor what goes on it? Does government have more rights to determine what one says than private citizens? In other words, do you somehow believe government has the right to censor private citizens comments?

As I said, the terms of use often are just general statements, but are being abused by CBC and MSN News when they ban comments right and left that have nothing really to do with the terms of use.

The CBC and MSN have guidelines but constantly delete or ban comments that have nothing to do with their guidelines. They just ban comments if they don't like the view point. This is a violation of the Charter of Rights. If it clearly said in the Guidelines you can't say such and such, ok then they could delete it because that was part of the agreement. But since the guidelines are usually very general and clearly do not specify what you can or cannot say, they are often over bearing in deleting or blocking comments. Now if you are a liberal or lefty, you will probably agree with them banning comments you disagree with. That is how the lefty mind works. Such forums are a waste of time.

I agree with you about going into a church or private group settings or private associations. I disagree when it is a public forum open to anyone to join and where political debate is ostensibly welcomed. Then the Charter of Rights applies.

There is a big difference. The difference is we have no choice with people who are born here and government does have a choice about who they allow to immigrate. We are a country with a border and an immigration system. We are not a country with no borders and open to the world to walk in. Not sure where you got that idea, but it is incorrect.

You have no idea who the people who are fleeing. They could be terrorists or criminals. Some of the people who were let into Canada proved to be criminals and terrorists, which proves you are incorrect.

I am not sure what you are saying there. I said private platforms which are open to the public such as these forums must respect the Charter of Rights. If you want to start your own forum and you open it to the public to participate on, you still have to follow the Charter of Rights. Basically that is all I'm saying. But if you have a private organization such as a religious group and you restrict it to people who agree to a certain statement of beliefs, then you could control what is said in your group. But that is different than a forum that is open to the public and invites political debate and discussion from anyone who joins. MSN News and CBC continually violate the Charter of Rights in my opinion.

The point is if there was no such thing as freedom of speech on privately owned forums, then the Charter would not say we have freedom of speech. Or the Charter would have an exception to say privately owned forums do not have freedom of speech. But the Charter is a broad statement that gives everyone freedom of speech within certain prescribed limits. It is the law of the land.

I never said in a business or in your home, etc. You are projecting again. We are talking about public forums where opinions are welcomed and expressed. There are restrictions against such things as advocating violence or illegality. There is no freedom of speech for such things.

You have the right according to the Charter of Rights to say whatever you want with certain rare exceptions. The following is from the government website which describes the Charter of Rights. "Fundamental freedoms Everyone in Canada is free to practise any religion or no religion at all. We are also free to express religious beliefs through prayer or by wearing religious clothing for example. However, the Charter also ensures that others also have the right to express their religious beliefs in public. We’re free to think our own thoughts, speak our minds, listen to views of others and express our opinions in creative ways. We’re also free to meet with anyone we wish and participate in peaceful demonstrations. This includes the right to protest against a government action or institution. However, these freedoms are not unlimited. There may be limits on how you express your religious beliefs if your way of doing so would infringe on the rights of others or undermine complex public programs and policies. For example, you may have religious reasons to object having your photo taken for your driver’s license, but this requirement may be linked to a need to stop others from unlawfully using your identity. In addition, the Charter does not protect expression such as hate speech that involves threats of violence or that takes the form of violence." The rights and freedoms the Charter protects (justice.gc.ca) The one caution is that this quote is an interpretation or opinion of the Charter and therefore subject to final interpretation by the courts. The courts have the final say. As for example I noticed this opinion says we have the right to wear religious clothing; however, this is not an absolute right as demonstrated in bill 21 in Quebec. Their law deprives people from wearing religious symbols when in certain public sector jobs.

No. Freedom of speech is not just something between government and private citizens. Freedom of speech should exist in society between people on forums or in media. If it doesn't, then you don't really have freedom of speech.

Verses about love of neighbour are referring to people immediately around you who you know or deal with, not evil people, like terrorists and criminals on the other side of the world or another continent. You live in an imaginary world. In the real world we must defend our country and keep bad people out. We see how bad many people are in many parts of the third world. Examples are Haiti, where murderous gangs kidnapped a dozen missionaries and five children. Yet hundreds of thousands of illegal migrants from Haiti have been crossing the border into the U.S. from Mexico and into Canada a couple years ago. These people from Haiti are supported by many liberals in Quebec because Haitians speak French regardless of their background. Countries in central and northern Africa are full of terrorists in various terrorist organizations. They kidnapped and murdered countless people. Nigeria is another example where crime is rampant and kidnapping is commonplace. Many south and central American countries also are full of gangs, criminals, and people who believe in Communism or Socialism. We don't need to let people in from places full of crime and terrorism. Canada let people in from Somalia who did in fact commit terrorist acts in Canada. Once these kind of people get in it is very difficult to remove them because of our lenient justice system run by liberals. The biggest threats from the third world are people who have been involved in or believe in crime, Communism, false religion, and Socialism. Every applicant should be carefully screened to see what they believe. Not everyone is bad but many are from certain places. Premier Ford just said immigrants who want to come here to "get on the dole" should go somewhere else. He is being heavily criticized by those who believe in open borders and bring the world in. They are the people who are wrecking Canada. "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 KJB

Yes. Any comment board which is open to the public should be required to respect freedom of speech. What other kind of comment boards are there? There are no government comment boards. They are all privately run. The idea that freedom of speech does not apply to privately owned or run websites is a lie. If you don't have freedom of speech on privately owned websites that are open to the public to comment on, you don't have freedom of speech.

I gave up on CBC comment sections long ago when I noticed they disable relatively benign comments frequently. They are an ignorant, radical left, anti-Christian, and liberal-controlled mouthpiece. They do not respect freedom of speech at all and think they are some kind of guardians of morality when they do not respect even the most basic human rights.

The prominent NDP MP, Charlie Angus, apparently wants government to force social media to censor all comments deemed to be "extreme". Wow! So who will be the judge of what comments are extreme? NDP, Liberals, and the woke left of course. A prime example is on the CTV news right at this very moment. Premier Ford is being sharply criticized and the woke left are demanding he immediately apologize for the comment. Ford said immigrants who want to come to Canada "to get on the dole" should go somewhere else. This is an example of what would be deemed as extreme. Anybody making any similar comment would be shut down and censored if the NDP (and liberals) have their way. This kind of comment might be deemed to be unacceptable to many of the left woke and liberals in our society and many of these people seemed to have lost sight of what it means to have a free and democratic society. The Marxist ideology seems to have crept into western society and people no longer understand freedom of speech is not just for people one agrees with; it is for everyone. If they want to continue to live in a free society, they must accept comments that they disagree with and not try outlaw them or censor them in the media or internet. We must respect everyone's right to freedom of speech. That should be fundamental like breathing the air.

I explained why the Sermon on the Mount was not directed to the Church but was speaking about the future Kingdom. You refuse to accept that. But apart from that, the verse has nothing to do with immigration policies and multiculturalism unless you happen to believe everyone in the world has a right to immigrate to Canada. This highlights another problem. Bringing people into Canada who have no love for our historic culture and European founding people and who want to use their voice to bring far more of the third world into Canada. They think they have a right to take over Canada and make it another third world slum of pagan religions and cultures. I don't see anything in the Bible that says we must do that. You are abusing the Bible and trying to use it to justify the takeover of Canada by the third world.