blackbird

You can say that until you are blue in face, but I know I don't hate Catholics. I have known lots of them. I was one once myself until I learned what the Bible teaches. It is the false teachings that are contrary to the Bible that is the problem. The poor people have been made slaves to a false system. If you want to discuss how that is, fine. That would be rational. But you are losing credibility by your constant insults and it does nothing to defend the system.

quote The whole structure of the Roman Church is built on the assumption that in Matthew 16:13-19 Christ appointed Peter the first pope and so established the papacy. Disprove the primacy of Peter, and the foundation of the papacy is destroyed. Destroy the papacy, and the whole Roman hierarchy topples with it. Their system of priesthood depends absolutely upon their clam that Peter was the first pope at Rome, and that they are his successors. We propose to show that, (1) Matthew 16:13-19 does not teach that Christ appointed Peter a pope; (2) that there is no proof that Peter ever was in Rome; and (3) that the New Testament records, particularly Peter's own writing, show that he never claimed authority over the other apostles or over the church, and that that authority was never accorded to him." - From the book Roman Catholicism by Lorraine Boettner. ThB 1928, ThM 1929. (Master of Theology) Stay tuned.

He is meddling. He has no authority to make pronouncements on internal matters in Canada. Rome has a terrible history in the world for well over a thousand years. Why should anyone pay attention to him? The Papacy is a usurpation of the authority of God. Popes claimed to be Christ or God on earth.

No, I have no hate for the catholic people. I have had Catholic friends in the past. I think they have been deceived by the system for 1,700 years. I just believe the Bible shows the Roman system is false. There is no authorization for a papacy in the Bible. Peter was never a Pope. There was no such thing until about 500 A.D. Almost all the doctrines of Rome were invented over the past 1,700 years and are not taught in the New Testament. You need to study the New Testament. Peter was not the rock that the Church was to be built on. The rock was Peter's confession. It was different Greek word that the Greek word for Peter. Peter is Petros. So the word Petra refers to Peter's confession of Christ. It is not saying Peter is the Pope. The claim that Peter is the rock is a misinterpretation of Matthew 16:18. The New Testament shows itself that all the other apostles never recognized Peter as a Pope. Your wish to throw insults at me does not defend the truth about Rome and what the Bible actually teaches. I will go with what God's word says. Thanks.

That's true. There has been treaties signed over the years and negotiated at times through an official process. That just shows there is no need for the Pope to get involved by repudiating the doctrine of discovery from 500 years ago. Things have developed with negotiations and treaties in the past couple hundred years without the need for the Pope to be involved. He is not the ruler of Canada, likely knows nothing about Canada's complex history, and has no business in meddling in the affairs of Canada. " History of Treaties in B.C. Treaties were promised through the Royal Proclamation of 1763. When Europeans began to settle in the eastern part of North America, before Canada was a country, Britain recognized that those people who were already living here (First Nations people) had title to the land: the Royal Proclamation of 1763 declared that only the British Crown could take possession of lands from First Nations, and only by treaties. In most parts of Canada, the British Crown established treaties with First Nations before Canada was formed. Canada continued this policy of making treaties before the west was opened up for settlement, but in B.C. this process was never completed. In 1991, the British Columbia Claims Task Force, which established the B.C. treaty process, recommended the creation of a British Columbia Treaty Commission to facilitate the negotiation process." History of Treaties in B.C. - Province of British Columbia (gov.bc.ca)

The Pope is not the ruler of Canada. But if something he said makes you feel good, great.

I'm sure one could dig into history somewhere to find anything they wished to use to make a claim. yadda yadda argument. Didn't Columbus discover north America in 1492? Or was it some viking around 1000 A.D. So who owns north America? What about Captain James Cook in the 1700s who explored and mapped the B.C. coast? Captain Vancouver? What about Confederation in 1867? Does that mean anything? Or the formation of the colony of B.C. in the 1800s?

What about the Fraser River watershed. That extends way to somewhere around Jasper in north east B.C. in the Rockie Moutains. The Skeena River watershed extends from Prince Rupert on the coast hundreds of kilometers inland into the northwest B.C. Sounds like a good argument to claim half the province. Just pick any geographic feature and make your claim. Canada or B.C. will pay, and pay, and pay forever. I grew up in the coastal mountains. So the whole coastal mountain range is mine argument.

No, it's not a racist term. If red power is a racist term, so is black lives matter a racist term. So is white supremacy a racist term. It's only racist to the woke who refuse to live in reality. Red power is a real thing. Do you know what it means? It's a political power group that thinks white people have no right to be in north America and everything belongs to them.

Write a letter or Email your MP. I just did. The government and system is not protecting the people.

Canada today is not under any requirement to follow any "international law" that was in force in the Holy Roman Empire 500 years ago.

According to FN red power activists they own the province or maybe the whole country. In northwest B.C. the Gitskan live in a few villages in small areas, but the hereditary chiefs, who were unelected, claim over a thousand square kilometres far from their villages and have been trying to stop a natural gas pipeline from being built through northwest B.C. The radical environmentalists take advantage of that and join them. There have been illegal terrorist attacks up at the worksite too. Yesterday they arrested some protesters who were breaking the law. FNs have been given land in some places, lots of money, and lots of privileges. But a minority of activists will never be satisfied. They simply think no non-natives have a right to live in northwest B.C.

I read somewhere in one of the news articles this morning that the Papal bulls or decrees in the 15th century were given to Spain and Portugal. They never mentioned Britain. Britain broke away from Vatican control in the 1500s under Henry VIII. I am not sure how the Papal bulls would be relevant since it was Britain that colonized the territory now called Canada except Quebec was colonized by France and later conquered by Britain. Britain was not under Papal control in the past 400 years when most of the colonization occurred. Don't know if Britain even recognized those doctrines when they colonized Canada. I don't think Canada is under the direction or control of the Vatican. But this is just another reason Canada should not be paying for the Pope's trip. Paying for a Papal trip may somehow be agreeing that the Vatican has some say over Canadian affairs when they should not. Sets a dangerous precedent.

You can still just ignore my posts and replies. Nobody is forcing you to read them. This is Canada. Everyone, including Bible believers, have a right to express their beliefs and opinions. If you don't like it, don't come on the forum or ignore the person.

VATICAN CITY (AP) — The Vatican on Thursday responded to Indigenous demands and formally repudiated the “Doctrine of Discovery,” the theories backed by 15th-century “papal bulls” that legitimized the colonial-era seizure of Native lands and form the basis of some property law today." Responding to Indigenous, Vatican rejects Discovery Doctrine (msn.com) This was a statement issued by the Vatican over 500 years ago. I don't really see how something stated 500 years ago in the Vatican has any relevance to anything today in Canada. Also, should a statement like this made today have any meaning or significance to how Canada is governed now? Most of the world was settled or colonized by people migrating from one area to another. That is how Europe was settled and developed. So what is the difference in Canada or north America? I don't see how aboriginals in north America have perpetual ownership of large areas of land that their ancient ancestors may have travelled across or just lived within a 1000 kilometers of centuries ago. However, I can see this as being used as an excuse for more or continuing demands for compensation for colonization by past populations. I don't think much of what is often being claimed is valid.

So you have nothing to justify your claim that I am intolerable other than hate. Nobody is forcing you to read my postings and you could have put me on the ignore list. It is not that you just disagree with someone else. Your problem is the fact you cannot tolerate someone even speaking. That proves you have a real mental problem. Why have you not put me on the ignore list like Michael? I am not going to stop posting because someone has mental problems. Ignore me and get help. You are getting into the area of threatening.

The 15 year old in a Starbucks in Vancouver was stabbed to death because he asked a guy not to vape close to a toddler. That's a pretty strong reaction to a comment someone made isn't it? So what is it I said that makes you so angry to accuse me of all those things? Can you give some examples of what I said that deserve that? Perhaps give me a chance to review what you claim is a lie, arrogant, and hateful.

So what is it I said that makes you intolerant or hate me?

Your claim that you are intolerant of me proves you are not telling the truth about believing in fundamental freedoms. I am the only one defending the Bible truths here. Strange coincidence that you are intolerant of me then isn't it? If you want to know there are others in churches that profess to believe the Bible just look up the evangelical churches in your city on the internet and see what their confessions of faith are. Many will tell you their beliefs are based on the Bible. I never said you do not have the right to not believe in what I said. You and Fox both make false claims that I am denying you to believe what you want. I can't stop what you or anyone believes. That may be because you and a couple others are simply antagonistic toward my advocating for Biblical Christianity. If you can't stand my comments, just ignore them and move on. But you chose to claim how intolerant you are toward me.

"Jeremiah 9:23 Thus saith the LORD, Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, neither let the mighty man glory in his might, let not the rich man glory in his riches: 24 But let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me, that I am the LORD which exercise lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness, in the earth: for in these things I delight, saith the LORD. Philippians 3:10 - That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death; Romans 12:2 - And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God. John 17:3 - And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. 1 John 4:6-7 - We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error. (Read More...) John 17:1 1-3 These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee: 2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him. 3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. 2 Peter 3:18 - But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen. " BIBLE VERSES ABOUT KNOWING GOD (kingjamesbibleonline.org)

That raises questions of where you came from and what you were taught because it does indicate hate and anger the way you worded things. Admission of intolerance is a form of hate. Perhaps you came from a place where bigotry and hate is a common thing. We see that in many countries. You are in a western country where basic Bible belief is fairly common. When you accuse those who believe in the teachings of the Bible with strong language of condemnation as you do, you are in the wrong. When you say you are intolerant of people who believe the Bible, you are certainly not accepting of western values of human rights such as freedom of religion, freedom of expression, and other basic freedoms.

Obviously it was not God's purpose to do it that way. God has his own purposes that the Bible tells us and we are not the bosses. We are as a speck of dust and must believe God's ways are not our ways, and are infinitely higher than our ways. The Bible tells how God chose certain people to create the nation of Israel and through that nation to communicate his written revelation, the Old Testament. Then through that nation, Jesus Christ came to earth to redeem lost mankind. We must learn what all that means. It is not a democracy where the created being tells the Creator how things should be. It is not a political system. The first principle is to accept there is a divine Creator and accept His written word, the Bible as the final authority on all matters of faith and morals. Then learn what it says and go from there. I believe the King James Bible is the authoritative word of God in the English language because it is based on the Received Text which are the copies of the original manuscripts.

Unless you can learn to communicate in a rational way about the subject and quit attacking the poster, your comments will continue to fall on deaf ears. We get tired of the endless personal attacks that contribute nothing.

You are displaying hate and anger. I would suggest you go to your local health unit and seek help.

No, I think Canada officially (Parliament) decreed we are a "multicultural" country. That implies officially a hodgepodge of religions and officially not a Christian country. How would that work if none of the religions agree with each other? It means officially Canada has no one culture or belief. It's whatever anyone wants or decides at any given moment.