blackbird

Just because you "want" to believe in something is absolutely no basis for believing in it. Belief must have some basis. In the case of Christianity, belief is based on God's revelation to man meaning the King James Bible (God's word in English). quote Reincarnation is the ancient belief that after death, a person continues to undergo a series of deaths and rebirths into a new body until ultimately reaching a state of purification from sin. At this stage, the cycle of reincarnation ceases as the human soul obtains oneness with the spiritual "Absolute," and thereby experiences eternal peace. Reincarnation is taught in many pagan religions with origins in India, particularly Hinduism and Buddhism. Christianity and reincarnation are not compatible. While many who believe in reincarnation claim that the Bible teaches it, their arguments hold no biblical foundation. Unquote Is Reincarnation in the Bible? (learnreligions.com)

Most people don't believe in the Bible or Jesus Christ. That is why the Bible says: " 13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat. 14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." Matthew 7:13, 14 KJV I think what you need to determine is whether the Bible is authoritative and to be believed, that is, the King James Bible. Nobody else can do that for you. You will have to investigate and study it yourself.

While there are certain countries that have large numbers of one religion or another, there are scattered Christians in middle eastern countries and various countries around the world. There are also large numbers in China although they are heavily persecuted. So that proves nothing. It does not disprove the truth of the Bible. Also the Bible originated in Israel and spread to other countries from there. That does not disprove the truth of it. There are many different religions the world. The evidence that the Bible and Christianity is true is very strong. But it would take a little effort on your part to learn more about it. Perhaps you are not ready for it. I don't know.

There is really nothing at that link that negates the teaching of hell in the Bible. "DOES THE OLD TESTAMENT TEACH THE CONCEPT OF HELL? I have read several critics of the doctrine of hell insist that the concept of hell cannot be found in the Old Testament. After asserting this, they say that we cannot establish the doctrine of hell when the Old Testament “does not teach this concept.” I would respond first by saying that as Christians, we have more than ample teaching in the New Testament to establish the doctrine of a literal, eternal hell (see Matthew 3:7, Matthew 3:12, Matthew 5:29-30, Matthew 18:9-12, Matthew 13:38-42, Matthew 13:49-50, Matthew 25:46, Mark 9:43-47, Luke 12:5, 2 Thessalonians 1:9, Jude 7, Revelation 14:11, Revelation 20:13-15, and Revelation 21:8). This New Testament teaching is quite consistent, though, with the Old Testament. First, the OT contains many references to God’s wrath. He is often said to be angry at wickedness (see, for example, Deuteronomy 32:22, Psalm 2:12, and Psalm 18:7). Psalm 7:11 is one of many verses that indicate this indignation or anger is directed toward those who perpetrate this wickedness (“the wicked”). The OT prophets repeatedly speak of a time when the Holy One would have His “day” — a day of justice in which He would express His anger toward sin and visit judgment on sinners. They referred to this as “The Day of the Lord.” (Isaiah 2:12; 13:6, 9; Ezekiel 13:5, 30:3; Joel 1:15, 2:1,11,31; 3:14; Amos 5:18,20; Obadiah 1:15; Zephaniah 1:7,14; Zechariah 14:1; Malachi. 4:5)." What Does the Old Testament Say About Hell? - Apologetics Index

If a number of eye witnesses basically give the same account, it doesn't really matter how long ago it happened. But here is an interesting article about a famous lawyer in the 1800s who set out to prove the resurrection of Christ was false. You may find this interesting. FAMOUS LAWYERS PROVE THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST – The Teaching Ministry of Bill Nugent (bnugent.org)

The reason God has a place called hell is because he is a just God. People make their own choice to go there. They can choose to listen to God in the King James Bible and go to heaven if they wish. This website goes into detail about this. Bible Verses About Hell: 21 Eye Opening Scriptures (whatchristianswanttoknow.com)

While it is true we were not there, we have credible testimonies of eye witnesses. This is the same as a court of law. A jury does not have to have been present at a crime scene to know a crime was committed. They rely on eye witness testimony. That is the same with the eye witnesses who wrote the Bible. We rely and believe the eye witness testimony of those who saw Jesus during his life and after he was resurrected. This website has a lot of information about hell being a real place. You say it is a scare tactic. No, it is not. If hell is a real place and I believe it is, then why would we not warn other people about it. Many dismiss what the Bible says as fiction or a myth, but they have made that choice themselves in spite of warnings. Bible Verses About Hell: 21 Eye Opening Scriptures (whatchristianswanttoknow.com)

No, there is no legitimate argument against hell if one believes the King James Bible. The modern versions have removed the word hell from the Old Testament because they are corrupt and it is easily proven. The King James Versions which is based on the Received Text has the word hell in the Old Testament in 31 places. Jesus spoke about hell. He was seen by many eye witnesses after he rose from the dead. (which we commemorate today as a matter of fact - Easter Sunday) So the fact Jesus was raised from the dead means what he said is true. He is God and there is a heaven and a hell. People go to hell by their own choice. Is Hell Real? What does the Bible say? » Reasons for Hope* Jesus (reasonsforhopejesus.com)

quote The truth is that hell is necessary because God’s holy and just nature demands that evil be punished. Similarly, the cross was necessary because God’s merciful nature demanded that salvation be offered. Since everyone falls short of God’s standard (Rom 3:23), everyone deserves hell. At the final judgment, one thing will be patently clear: God is fair. More than merely “fair,” God is merciful and just. What is actually “unfair” is the fact that anyone will be in heaven. No one is good enough for heaven. The opportunity to enter God’s holy presence illustrates His mercy and grace. Jonathan Edwards reflected on the uncomfortable truth of hell: “Tis dreadful, ’tis awful . . . but ’tis true.” The Bible states that people loved darkness rather than light (John 3:19), and that Jesus is the only way to get to heaven (John 14:6; Rom 5:12–17). It’s a Choice God does not send people to hell. People choose to abandon God and He allows it. God does not force people to worship Him or to experience the joy of His presence. Heaven and hell are very real places. Those who fail to accept Christ’s payment for their sins will go to hell. It is that simple. Whether a person will be in heaven or hell after death will depend on whether he chooses to accept God’s gift of salvation and follow Jesus. About this most serious of subjects, it is the Christian’s privilege and duty to proclaim what God has clearly revealed: Hope is found in salvation through Christ alone. unquote Is Hell Real? What does the Bible say? » Reasons for Hope* Jesus (reasonsforhopejesus.com) There are many articles and websites that speak about hell.

Better find out soon. Life can end at any moment and where one goes is for eternity, heaven or hell. Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God. Study the King James Bible while there is still time. It is not an invention of men or a legend. Google and watch the free video "The Life of Jesus". He did perform many miracles, raised the dead and himself was raised from the dead according to eye witnesses.

The fact the Bible is true and everything Jesus said is true is born out by the fact the he died and rose from the dead in his body. Darwin's theories can be dismissed for the simple reason that in Darwin's universe everything is "from nothing, by nothing, and for nothing". From the Book with the same title, Darwin's Universe, by Yan T. Wee. The mere fact that the complex universe exists is in itself evidence for the truth of God and his revelation to mankind. The Bible reveals what God's plan is and why we are here. Darwin's universe has no explanation and no ultimate purpose. According to him the universe was some cosmic accident. The Bible also teaches that life (soul and spirit) of man does not end at death. Therefore there will be consciousness after death. Everyone either goes to heaven or hell according to the Bible.

Why would I try to define it in my own words, which would fall short of accuracy, when I have professional definitions on the internet? Quote so·cial·ism [ˈsōSHəˌlizəm] NOUN a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. synonyms: leftism · Fabianism · syndicalism · consumer socialism · utopian socialism · welfarism · communism · Bolshevism · radicalism · militancy · progressivism · [more] policy or practice based on the political and economic theory of socialism. synonyms: leftism · Fabianism · syndicalism · consumer socialism · utopian socialism · welfarism · communism · Bolshevism · radicalism · militancy · [more] (in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of Communism. Unquote You will notice synonyms for Socialism include welfarism, progressivism, radicalism, etc. which we already have in Canada. To many people, Socialism is a utopian society, but they do not know or understand that it is inherently evil for the reasons already stated. Socialism ignores human nature. One thing about Socialism is it punishes the hard-working, the innovators, and producers while rewarding the lazy, and non-producers.

I sent an Email to him once and he actually sent me a reply. Very few wealthy, powerful people would answer an Email from an ordinary guy.

Black had two of the charges overturned and he was sentenced for a charge of mail fraud for which he received a three and a half year sentence. He did his time and paid for his offence. He later received a Presidential pardon. The fact is he is one of the most successful and brilliant men in the world. He built one of the largest newspaper chains in the world, Hollinder International, that owned countless newspapers. He wrote books including a History of the U.S.A. which I read. He received the Order of Canada in 1990 for his achievements. He also was made a British Lord although the Canadian Liberal government under Jean Chretien would not accept it. But that was likely because Black was a conservative and wrote conservative articles in his newspaper. The Liberals resented it and were trying to get even. That's how politics works. Black's intellectual abilities far exceed anything you ever dreamed of and his achievements far beyond anything you ever heard of. I understand your sadness because Black has no use for the evil left, liberalism and Socialism. You condemn Black for his fraud conviction, but you blatantly support evil liberalism so you are nobody to judge Black for anything. What liberal politicians have been doing for years is far worse than what Black did. What about the Sponsorship Scandal under Jean Chretien? Scammed taxpayers out of millions of dollars. When are they going to repay taxpayers?

This is an interesting article by Conrad Black on the over-reach of government. Governments seem to believe they have the right to intrude on everyone's personal lives and business. Conrad Black: Government has no business in the bank accounts of the nation (msn.com) These are Marxist-oriented politicians who have no respect for individual rights and freedoms.

Quote Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions “The oceans contain 37,400 billion tons (GT) of suspended carbon, land biomass has 2000-3000 GT. The atpmosphere contains 720 billion tons of CO2 and humans contribute only 6 GT additional load on this ba lance. The oceans, land and atpmosphere exchange CO2 continuously so the additional load by humans is incredibly small. A small shift in the balance between oceans and air would cause a CO2 much more severe rise than anything we could produce.” (Jeff Id) Unquote How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions? (skepticalscience.com) quote Out of the entire atmospheric makeup, only one to two percent is made up of greenhouse gases with the majority being nitrogen (about 78 percent) and oxygen (about 21 percent). Of that two percent, “planet-killing” carbon dioxide comprises only 3.62 percent while water vapor encompasses 95 percent. And of the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, humans cause only 3.4 percent of annual CO2 emissions. What does this all boil down to? As shown by the accompanying graph, not very much. Indeed, anthropogenic effects are real but carbon is such a small portion of the natural cycle, and let’s not forget both the sun and carbon are needed for natural cycles that are good for the earth such as photosynthesis—the process by which plants turn sunlight, water and carbon dioxide into carbohydrates. (For more, check out this Global Warming Primer published by the National Center for Policy Analysis.) Perhaps the most alarming part is the price tag associated with attempting to reduce such a small part of the atmosphere and something we really cannot control. Our analysis shows the cumulative GDP losses for 2010 to 2029 approach $7 trillion. Single-year losses exceed $600 billion in 2029, more than $5,000 per house¬hold. Job losses are expected to exceed 800,000 in some years, and exceed at least 500,000 from 2015 through 2026. It is important to note that these are net job losses, after any jobs created by compliance with the regulations–so-called green jobs–are taken into account. In total, the “climate revenue” (read: energy tax) could approach two trillion over eight years. Keep in mind, this is all for negligible environmental benefits. The science behind global warming is anything but conclusive. Many leading climatologists conclude that climate models aren’t incredibly accurate and even have different opinions (for instance whether it is the sun or oceanic changes) as to what the dominant causes are of global warming and cooling. Nevertheless, it’s easy to pretend the science on global warming is conclusive when environmentalist extremists suppress dissenting opinions. Economist Walter Williams provides a few examples and draws an interesting parallel: There’s a much more important issue that poses an even greater danger to mankind. Unquote Man’s Contribution to Global Warming (dailysignal.com) You should try Google and learn a few basic facts before spouting nonsense. Man's contribution is negligible. You could easily have learned that long ago. Ignorance is bliss.

Not really. There is no way to determine if man is causing global warming because man only contributes 3% of the total greenhouse (CO2) in the atmosphere. The other 97% of CO2 is natural. Therefore it has been impossible to prove man is the cause. Man is blamed simply because it is in human nature to blame mankind for everything and now including the weather and climate. Besides it is a good excuse for the U.N. to extort more money from developed nations to give to the rest of the world.

The 2022 budget proves once again that Socialist systems get an F for failure. Socialist systems want everything but they fund nothing adequately. An example is the public health care system. The provincial and federal governments do not provide adequate funding for the health care system because to provide proper care for everyone would require a vast amount of funding. So we have 900,000 people in B.C. who do not have their own doctor. The system provides a degree of health care for everyone, but it is inadequate for many who need health care. The majority think it is adequate but that is only because most of them are in the younger age bracket and do not yet require health care. Many people who require health care start to learn the deficiencies of the system. It is the same with the public insurance system in B.C. B.C. pays the highest auto insurance rates in north America. They have been over-charging us for years and the last year or so have been giving rebates because they have been caught with their hands in the till to often. But that's Socialism. Inefficient, wasteful and expensive. But it keeps a lot of bureaucrats employed to run it who have all the job security, benefits, and pensions that many other people do not have.

I think we agree on that. I look at police, roads, fire protection as basic public services, not Socialism. Just one of the serious problems arising out of our Socialist public health care system in B.C. is that it was reported today that 900,000 people in B.C. do not have their own family doctor. The Socialist NDP solution is to build clinics where mass health care can be provided. This would provide second class care, not the kind of care people would get with their own family doctor who knows their health conditions and problems and is dedicated to his patients. Socialist politicians don't worry about things like that. They just want to mass produce inferior services because there would never be enough money to provide first class services in the Socialist system. A large part of the money has to go to the huge bureaucracy to run it. B.C. is facing contract demands in a few months for 300,000 public servants whose contracts are up for renewal and they want 5% to cover inflation. This will cost billions more. The money is just not there. This on top of everything else like millions for the RCMP for retroactive pay, and massive housing shortages, etc.

I'm sure the Communist parties in Russia and China all reach agreement to do all the evil things they do too. Compromise among a gang of thieves doesn't make it right. Right and wrong is not determined by a so-called "compromise" between crooked politicians, Communists, thieves or anyone else. You have no right to other people's property simply because you think they have more than you or you need something that you think they don't need. However Socialists think they are not bound by any kind of moral laws. They think they can do whatever they wish. They think, after all, it's for the "common good". Rob Peter to pay Paul. It's all ok with them. That's the same reasoning we have abortion on demand which is the killing of the innocent and medical assistance in dying, which again is killing of people based on some kind belief that what a Supreme Court says must be morally correct. It is simply moral bankruptcy.

Your problem is you have no moral compass. Socialism is simple stealing. I would suggest you consider going out and buying a King James Bible and reading it or read it online. Nobody has the right to confiscate someone else's property and redistribute the wealth. That's called Communism, Marxism, or Socialism depending on a variety of related factors.

I said quite a while ago we are wasting our time trying to talk to these birds. They are totally blind to reality. Like talking to a brick wall.

The only churches who ran the residential schools were the Roman Catholic church (about 60%), the Anglican, the United, and the Presbyterian to a lesser extent. The rest of churches, such as Baptists, Community churches, Evangelical churches, etc. and the cults had nothing to do with residential schools. The Roman church is not a "Christian" church. It was formed from Nimrod's Babylonian religion back in the early centuries. Read this article and watch the video: The Babylonian Roman Catholic Church – Hear the trumpets If you seek the truth with all your heart in the King James Bible, you will know the truth and the truth shall set you free.

Frank Stronach, founder of one of Canada’s largest global companies, says the country is “fairly close” to a public debt crisis and Canadians need to force politicians to rein in spending. Canada may be heading for bankruptcy as happened to Greece a number of years ago. The NDP and Liberals don't seem concerned and the NDP is pushing and signed a deal with the Liberals that could increase spending by tens of billions of dollars. Canada's debt is increasing by 400 million per day according to this article. When the country is spending more money than it receives in revenue, there is the potential for bankruptcy. Stronach says we are fairly close to bankruptcy. So how do Canadians force government to reign in this potential debt crisis? I don't see any way that Canadians can stop the governing party from it's present course.

First of all, I am not going to say Stanley Knowles was evil. That is not my job. He was a long-serving and famous politician in Canada highly respected by many Canadians, much like Tommy Douglas and others. This is what the Canadian Encyclopedia says about Stanley Knowles. "Born in the US of Nova Scotian/New Brunswick parentage, Knowles had a profoundly religious upbringing in the SOCIAL GOSPEL tradition of the Methodist Church. He never forgot his mother's death from tuberculosis in 1919 or his father's firing from a machinist's job in 1932; both incidents marked his choice for theological studies at United College, Winnipeg, and then for political action via the CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH FEDERATION in 1935. He had to change laws rather than souls." " for almost 40 years he badgered successive governments into enlarging Canada's nascent WELFARE STATE. " So we can understand why he believed in making Canada a welfare state. This is what he was thoroughly indoctrinated in by the false ideology of the social gospel taught in the Methodist Church in those days. He badgered the government for decades to make Canada a welfare state. Or a Socialist state in common terms. This is much the same as Tommy Douglas who was a minister as well. It is ironic that these men came from social gospel churches and now their party is the most anti-Bible party in existence as they support same-sex marriage and abortion more strongly than any other party. These ideas were the centre of the CCF party which he belonged to and later became the centre platform of the NDP. Today the Liberal party is shifting more and more toward the ideology of a welfare state. We can see how it originated from the false gospel or social gospel of certain denominations and today from the Pope as well.