blackbird

Which ones would you agree with and which would you oppose or disagree with?

I don't think the true God listens to liberal progressives that support or legalize things that oppose the Bible. The only god liberal progressives follow is the evil one, commonly called the prince of this world, the Devil.

Really? What would you say about liberal progressivism on subjects like abortion, same-sex marriage, sexual orientation and gender identity, medical assistance in dying and now in the process of being legalized to include the mentally ill? Would you say liberal support of these agendas are "moral"?

He said destroy them "metaphorically". Granted, he should have avoided using the word "destroy", but the fact he gave a long, detailed post of what the problem is demonstrates he is using words, not violence. He also showed his support for discussion but stressed the liberal/Marxists are not interested in discussion. I don't think he is advocating physical violence. So can you refute or debate the points he makes on feminism, racism, the class struggle, etc.?

Exactly! It is not physically possible to inspect the alleged culprit's mind. It would be guesswork. Nobody in a robe or fancy suit could objectively tell the court what caused the crime. It seems Canada in it's quest to look like it is righteously upholding a constitution or Chart Right for an accused criminal, even murderer, must give an appearance it is bending over backwards. It thinks it can play god in effect. The whole idea is absurd. They should not be focused on a Charter Right because once an accused commits a crime there should be no Charter Right to protect them from accountability for their heinous crime. The accused should be judged for the harm they did and not for their decision to become intoxicated and then excused for the crime. That should be the rule and there should be no deviation, otherwise there is no justice. When one commits a crime, they should be charged and punished for the crime. Period.

Many may agree with you, but also many would disagree. It seems to boil down to whether one is a liberal or left-leaning or a conservative-leaning. Liberal-left people seem more willing to accommodate people accused of crimes if the accused's lawyer can make a strong enough argument that the accused was mentally ill at the time of the crime. This is similar to the Supreme Court ruling of intoxication or the accused's lawyer claiming the accused was acting as an automon and didn't know what he was doing. Conservative-leaning people often don't accept that argument because they believe someone who commits a serious crime should be held accountable regardless of his state of mind at the time. Often the question of state-of-mind of an accused is very difficult to prove or discern because it is an abstract thing that has come and gone by the time the person is apprehended and tried. The problem with giving legitimacy to these things as a defence is they ignore the rights of the victim and their family who have a right to see justice. Letting the accused off may also put society at greater risk as well as sending the message the accused is getting off or getting off lightly. Letting criminals off on NCR or intoxication as a defence is also seen as the liberal soft-on-crime approach which it is. We have seen convicted murderers sent to aboriginal healing centres which led to a huge outcry from the public and opposition party. We have also periodically seen criminals let out on parole who went on to murder other people. In addition we periodically hear the police warning about a dangerous potential rapist who has been released in the community. These releases were all made by our courts and criminal justice system. In Victoria right now, groups of young people have been going into downtown, some with knives or bear spray, and creating mayhem and then being arrested. But as soon as they have been arrested, they have been released shortly after. There are countless cases of repeat offenders in cities in B.C. who have been arrested for crimes of various sorts and they have been released shortly after their arrest. Some dozens of times and even cases of individuals who have been charged hundreds of times and they spent little or no time in jail. Not criminally responsible a slippery designation: DiManno | The Star

The Supreme Court just ruled it can be a legitimate defense. So some will get off because of the ruling.

What is to prevent someone who wants to commit a serious crime from deliberately getting very intoxicated and then committing the crime with the view of using that as a defense? This just adds another possible loophole for a criminal to escape justice for his crime. The fact is the number of NCR (not criminally responsible) rulings is growing in Canada. This new ruling by the SCC will undoubtedly increase the number of NCR rulings. The difficult decisions in the growing numbers of NCR cases | Healthing.ca (1) LIST: Canada’s prominent not criminally responsible (NCR) cases | Globalnews.ca One peculiar statistic is there are over ten times as many people per thousand of population in Quebec who get off on the NCR ruling than in B.C. Quebec judges seem to have a much more lenient view and acceptance of the NCR verdict than the rest of Canada for some reason.

Yes, I respect your opinion, even though we may not always agree on everything. I believe in freedom of beliefs and freedom of religion for everyone.

The Supreme Court just created a new, huge loophole for criminals to get off. As Myata says, who is to say when an intoxicated person is criminally responsible or not criminally responsible for his assault, murder, rape, etc.? It is purely subjective or a matter of opinion. Whatever lawyer can make the most convincing argument wins. The crime itself is not relevant in this new loophole. The only question for guilt or innocence is whether the accused was acting as an "automon" or not. This is a new loophole created by the SCC which believes a so-called Charter Right overrides all common sense and criminality. Since it is impossible to prove what someone was thinking before, during the crime when he was intoxicated, the ruling essentially provides an easy out for those lawyers that can make the claim convincing enough that he was acting as an automon. A bizarre ruling because where is the justice for the crime? I don't really see how intoxication can be considered as an excuse for crime.

The fact that the Supreme Court would unanimously make such a ruling is beyond any rational person's understanding. The ruling leaves the door open to anyone charged with a crime to claim they were very drunk or severely intoxicated by drugs or a combination of both makes a mockery of justice. It leaves the door open to very smooth-speaking lawyers and wavering judges who actually believe the nonsense. It will likely increase the number of not-criminally-responsible findings (NCR) meaning more victims and their relatives will not find justice in our legal system. It creates a large loophole in the system which leaves the government and Parliament in the position of trying to craft a new law to at least partially close the loophole. But since the Supreme Court made this ruling, the pandora's box is opened and judges now will more likely be required to make more rulings of NCR based on intoxication and criminals will get off more often. This is a direct result of our 1982 Charter of Rights and a supreme court system that is packed with judges who almost always now interpret the Charter in a bizarre way that gives extreme rights to the accused or individual at the expense of the victims and society. We saw the Supreme Court take a similar position on the Omar Kadhr case. "The Globe and Mail reports that, "Omar Khadr is not coming home yet – but the Supreme Court of Canada has moved his repatriation considerably closer." CANADA VIOLATED KHADR'S CHARTER RIGHTS "In an 9-0 ruling this morning...." Supreme Court rules Canada violated Omar Khadr's charter rights | The Council of Canadians

Canada’s top court says voluntary extreme intoxication a defence in violent crimes (msn.com) This reprehensible ruling just sent a message to society that if you get drunk enough you can commit serious crime and get away with it. This needs an immediate response from government. Since there is no higher court in the land to appeal to, action must be taken by government to protect innocent Canadians from the consequences of this ruling. I have believed for a long time that rulings from the SCC are sometimes very immoral but this tops them all.

I gave the article explaining it and quoted part of it. It doesn't defy credibility. I accept it on faith exactly the same way I accept the rest of the miraculous events in the Bible including the virgin birth and the resurrection. The Bible is a book about God's miraculous work and power. God is omnipotent. quote 6 Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought: 7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: 8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. 9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. 10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. 11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. 13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. {judgeth: or, discerneth} {judged: or, discerned} 16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ. unquote 1 Corinthians 2:6-16 KJV

We have disagreed all along and will continue to disagree. I just don't agree with the whole idea that a gang of semi trucks, RVs, motorhomes, can go into the middle of a city and block the streets off, forcing businesses to close, and thousands of people party around, set up camping and occuping the streets for weeks on end. The whole thing is anarchy. However, you have a completely different view of the world that doesn't make sense to me. If they did that on your street or shut down your business so you lost thousands of dollars for weeks on end, you might think differently. Most Canadians were repulsed by the occupation because it is repulsive. We will not agree so let's just agree to disagree.

No I think it was illegal. They were illegally honking horns, blocking the streets, harassing people, shutting down businesses. Hundreds of tickets were issued for illegality, and many people were charged for offenses. Some were charged with criminal offenses. Nobody in their right mind would say it was "legal".

I disagree. I think the frozen accounts were only of big donors who were supporting something illegal such as blockading the border or the illegal occupation of downtown Ottawa. Any small donors who had their accounts frozen were likely unfrozen soon after. The government only took this measure of freezing certain accounts because they had to stop the illegal activities that were going on and restore order. Law and order is a government's main function. As for the Rebel News reporters being assaulted or interfered with, I don't agree with that. If the government did not take action to stop anarchists and illegal blockades, occupations, you would have a downfall of government and end up with a dictatorship like in the many other countries. Special interest groups like the so-called Freedom Convoy are anarchists and cannot be allowed to take over this country.

Quote 2. Hebrew scholars of standing have always regarded this to be the case. Thus, Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written: ‘Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.’9. unquote Genesis, including creation in six days, is meant to be taken literally. There is nothing to indicate it is an allegory or metaphorical. It is the same as the virgin birth or the resurrection. Those were miraculous or supernatural events as well and are meant to be taken literally. You can't pick and choose which parts of the Bible you will take literally unless there is some clear evidence it is meant to be taken in another way. We have to remember the Bible is a supernatural book and the events recorded in it are supernatural acts of God. This link goes into a fair amount of detail about the subject about taking Genesis literally. The same principle applies to the Flood. Should Genesis be taken literally - creation.com

I have no problem if accounts of criminals blockading the border and illegally occupying Ottawa were frozen. Wish they would give as much attention to the criminals who are committing illegal acts daily in cities in B.C. and being arrested and released right away countless times. One guy smashed a store owner's window with a sledge hammer, was arrested, and sentenced to ONE DAY in prison and a year's probation. Some of them have been arrested dozens and even hundreds of times and never spent any real time in prison. What a farce! The NDP in answer to mayors of cities in B.C.'s concerns, said they appointed someone to study the crime issue for four months. There you have it. The complete uselessness of the BC NDP. I can almost guarantee that the BC NDP will not last past the next election. Unfortunately that is not for several more long years of criminals ruining the life of law-abiding citizens. You can see some of the light sentences given out for assault at this website: Assault (Sentencing Cases) - Criminal Law Notebook (criminalnotebook.ca)

I thought you might be more enlightened about the Bible. Obviously you never studied it. However, I will not try to refute the nonsense in that comment as it does the job itself.

That is a very poor, amateurish attempt to discredit the Bible. First of all the Old Testament, King James Version, is based on the Hebrew Bible called the Tanakh. The New Testament is based on over 5,000 copies of Greek manuscripts or part of manuscripts from over 1,000 years ago. The Old Testament was originally written over a period of 1,500 years and completed over 2,000 years ago. The original New Testament books were written in the first 100 years after Christ and copies were made repeatedly through the centuries. There is no connection to ancient Egyptians. Anyone who studied the Old Testament would know a large part of it includes the history of the Jewish nation from the time of the father of the Jews, Abraham as recorded in Genesis. Nothing to do with the Egyptians other than the 400 years the Jews were in captivity in Egypt. If the Old Testament had come from Egypt, why would it be a history of the Jewish nation where they lived in ancient Israel? That Egypt claim doesn't make sense at all. Exodus describes how they were rescued and escaped captivity miraculously. The Jews made and kept very careful copies of the Old Testament Scriptures which were passed down through the ages. There is some information at this website although I have not really studied it as I don't have time at the moment. It does say in one part: Quote The archaeological record evidences the existence of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah as centers of commerce geographically located where Genesis indicates. A trade list from Ebla, a thriving commercial center at the time the Bible specifies for the existence of the five Cities of the Plain mentioned in Genesis 14, records the names of the cities, spelled exactly as they are found in the Hebrew Bible. Furthermore, evidence points to their destruction through earthquake activity in which layers of earth were hurled into the air, accompanied by intense heat that molded together layers of sedimentary rock and severe burning, probably when a basin of oil beneath the Dead Sea ignited and erupted. Brimstone (bituminous pitch) is also found plentifully in the area, along with abundant salt, sulfur, and natural gas deposits.[6] An explosion of the natural gas and oil lifted the salts and sulfur and bitumen high into the air, causing them to rain upon the city, destroying it. One portion of the falling deposits fell upon Lot’s wife, who had stopped fleeing to look back longingly upon the city, turning her into a pillar of salt (Genesis 19:26).[7] Careful stratigraphic excavation of houses in the Cities of the Plain evidences that they were destroyed by fire that started on the roof and spread to the interior when the roof collapsed, supporting Genesis 19:24: “Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven.”[8] The Biblical record of the existence and destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is accurate. Unquote That is particularly interesting because it goes a long way back, several thousand years before Christ and the account is recorded in Genesis. Archaeological Evidence the Old Testament / Hebrew Bible is God's Word (faithsaves.net) As I have not had time to study this article right now, I cannot say I would agree with everything in it. It is not infallible, but may have useful information. Only the Bible is infallible, the King James Version of 1611. If you are going to comment on it, it might be wise to study is and learn something about what you are talking about.

How would anyone know? They don't debate those subjects as far as I know.

I have already answered that false claim a number of times on here. If you are serious about wanting to know the truth about it, just put it in a search engine. "Why is there evil in the world" Or some such similar wording. Yes, most of the world is in deep trouble because they will not listen to what the Bible says and what many preachers have been preaching through history. "19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. {in them: or, to them} 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: {so…: or, that they may be} 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. " Romans 1:19-23 KJV

God has stated "thou shalt not kill". This is also a self-evident truth that has been universally believed down through the ages. One does not have to believe in the God of the Bible to understand that commandment and agree with it. It's common sense.

Because the God of the Bible is the true God and has been the main religion of the western world for centuries. Other religions are the main religions of other countries, like Hinduism in India, Buddhism in southeast Asia, Islam in the middle east, and part of Africa. One must actually study the Bible and the differences between the religions if he wants to know what it is all about. It is nothing I can explain in detail on here. Google will also explain it. I have tried to explain some things from time to time on here but it usually doesn't convince anyone. One must be truly interested in learning and use a search engine to find information.

I was going to write a brief to the House of Commons committee which is considering medical assistance in dying for the mentally ill, but I decided against it after composing the brief. They have a system where they accept briefs or letters from individuals up until a certain date, only a few days from now. It is in it's third reading and looks like it is going through. But I realized my name would be on record and the people in the committee and government are not trustworthy as they are most likely secular humanists and anti-God and anti-bible. Therefore, since my letter would be Bible-based, and argue what I believe God thinks about it all, it would be like sending a letter to a bunch of wackos, people hostile to righteousness and biblical values. Not a wise idea. I don't see any possibility any good could come of it. Existing legislation and policy proves the government is anti-God and anti-Christian. The PM proves almost daily they have no use or respect for Judeo-Christian values. So I don't see any use of trying to deal with them. I don't see much hope for the future of this country. It is on a downward spiral. God calls individuals out of the world to become his sons and daughters and be not a part of this evil world system.