blackbird

You absolutely amaze me. I never thought I would run into someone who knew absolutely nothing about the history of the Roman Church or the Papacy. After 1,700 years of false religious dogma such as the worship of idols, the worship of Mary and the Saints, the unbiblical Mass, the unbiblical Priesthood and confession, the sale of indulgences down through the centuries. Not to mention the at least 400 years of the Holy Roman Inquisition where heretics were imprisoned, tortured, and burned at the stake for questioning the Church's teachings and dogmas, most of which are completely contrary to the Bible. Have you not read anything? Guess you never heard of the Reformation when the UK, the Netherlands, part of Germany, and Scandinavia broke away from the yoke of Romanism and formed Protestant churches. Have you never heard what it was all about? How for 1,700 years Rome ruled the western world and intimately controlled everyone's life, extorted their money from them and built the richest institution on earth worth countless billions of dollars in various holdings and real estate around the world. Have you never heard of the history of many past Popes, and clergy and how they indulged in immorality and exploited the people? The Reformation 500 years ago was all about breaking free from the controlling Roman system and a return to the Biblical belief that Christianity is all about a relationship between an individual and God without the Church being the mediator and controlling one's life. It was a revolution and set millions of people free. It led the way toward human rights, democracy and Parliamentary government which we have today. Without the Reformation, there would be none of that because we would all still be slaves of the Papacy.

Western civilization is built on Christian principles already, but liberals are trying to change it. We will move backward if we must worship Mother Earth and consult the spirits of birds or animals to decide on resource projects. Liberals are so screwed up there is not much hope.

Do you not find a problem with the government giving equal weight to indigenous knowledge and science for approval of resource projects? And the fact they say indigenous knowledge is confidential unless the source wants to release it.

Ordinary natives probably have nothing much to do with fighting for native rights. That is done by red power activists and FN activist leaders who demand more and more. But we are talking about indigenous knowledge. Much is made of "knowledge keepers" but little is defined or explained on it. The federal government has bought into it as they do always to placate people for votes.

No, I don't know much about him. Why would I? I am not a Romanist. I am studying a large book about Romanism versus Protestantism. I may look into Thomas Aquinas but it is not really relevant. He was a priest and a monk and supposedly a great thinker or theology philosopher who mixed Aristotle with Christianity. Doesn't sound very Biblical right there. But you can't really blame him. Romanism has not been biblical since it began about 1,700 years ago. It is largely a long list of invented dogmas.

I have been accused of that many times before for defending the Bible and reading it literally. That's fine. I don't care. We know who the accuser of the brethren is. I think you know too. " Yet as we will see today, there is someone who wants nothing more than to get you on a technicality. But there’s good news to all of us. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever and His blood bought us back from the wages of sin. Now death and hell have no sting to those who are in Christ Jesus! " Who is the "Accuser of our Brethren"? | Revelation 12:10 KJV - THE WORD

Not true. I am only telling you what the Bible itself teaches. If you don't want to believe it that's your choice, but it is factually true. Again, a false statement. It's not my message. The Bible says there is only one God and one religion, that is, Christianity as taught in the Bible, (New Testament). You are free to believe it or not. Looks like you don't True Biblical Christianity is opposed to violence and hate. Jesus said to love thy neighbour. So you are not telling the truth. Pope Francis is not a spokesman for Biblical Christianity. He is the leader of Romanism. Romanism rejects the Bible and has invented it's own religion. Most of their teachings were invented in the last 2,000 years long after the Bible was written. Yes, I know there are a lot of natives who are Christians. I said nothing against them. I know they are far better Christians than I am. I have listened to their program on TV from northern Sask. sometimes. I am a fan of them. That is not what we are talking about here.

I have been studying Church history and Romanism and how it conflicts with Protestantism and Bible teachings. Thomas Aquinas is considered a great theologian the Romanism. He lived in the 13th century, was a Franciscan monk and friar in Italy. I have no desire to say much about him. He is looked up to especially devout Romanists. It is important to understand the Papal system is largely contrary to the Bible. It was a authoritarian system for 1,700 years that controlled everyone's personal life to the extreme. You can find books and youtube videos that will tell you about that. Pretty brutal for millions of people through the centuries. That is why we had the Reformation in the 16th century. It was a return to early Christian beliefs.

Never said that. There you go making false accusations again. I know you can't help it. If someone asks how indigenous knowledge works with the Bible, I reply. I don't mind if others bring up the Bible or religious beliefs. I welcome them. Others are more willing to talk about it than you, who try to silence others from speaking about it.

It is about the government's regulations around indigenous knowledge and their claim that is is confidential. They won't define what it means. But as often happens, when I post something, somebody brings in the Bible and of course I must respond. Yes, but there is a lesson in a parable of course. We agree on that. I'm not sure what you're referring to as mystical text. Can't really comment. I will have to look into Thomas Aquinas to see what he believed. I would be cautious about someone like that. Might get back on that later. I wouldn't go by anything he says. The whole papal thing is unbiblical to begin with. The Romanist system is not supported by the Bible. Yes, I understand there are different views on some things. Gay marriage is not biblical at all. Tolerance, if you mean living in peace, I can agree with. But tolerance doesn't mean one must agree with something. Nobody should be persecuted. Nonsense. I am not giving misleading information. Lots of people disagree with what I say as they do with many other comments on the forum. But I don't say anything harmful and don't promote violence. I defend the Bible. Why do you make false insinuations? You know where that comes from? Satan. What legal obligations say we need to accept indigenous knowledge? If someone says a white eagle told me you can't build a pipeline here, I say nonsense. I don't go by what white eagles say.

I am talking about how to read the Bible. If one receives a prescription for life-saving medicine, he should follow the instructions as stated. It is the same with the Bible. If one reads the Bible, it should be taken literally unless there is good reason why something is not meant to be taken literally. That should be shown by the context. If you don't follow the instructions on medicine literally, it could have dire consequences.

"Not only can we take the Bible literally, but we must take the Bible literally. This is the only way to determine what God really is trying to communicate to us. When we read any piece of literature, but especially the Bible, we must determine what the author intended to communicate. Many today will read a verse or passage of Scripture and then give their own definitions to the words, phrases, or paragraphs, ignoring the context and author’s intent. But this is not what God intended, which is why God tells us to correctly handle the Word of truth (2 Timothy 2:15)." Can/should we interpret the Bible literally? | GotQuestions.org There is nothing in the Bible to indicate it should be taken in any way but literally. There are a few places where it is obvious that a particular part is meant to be symbolic or metaphorical, but that is not the case with Genesis. It is meant to be taken as it is stated. " The first mistake we make is complicating the Bible, not taking it literally, not taking it at its word. Our mistake is trying to formulate a spiritual meaning with our human mind. This is the origin of all twisted concocted doctrines. Examples; In the Bible it’s written that God created the earth and the heavens. If you do not a take those words literary and truly believe God created the earth and the heavens, you have denied the Truth – denied God. It’s written that Abraham went to sacrifice his only son. If you do not take those words literally, you have denied the Truth When it’s written, do not steal, do not worship idols, do not commit fornication, do not lie, do not covet, do not kill, etc, – it means so, take it at its word When Jesus said forgive others for you to be forgiven, it means that – no other meaning When Jesus said worry not about tomorrow, it means that – no other meaning Not taking the Bible literally is the first step in denying the Truth. You cannot obey Jesus, obey the Truth, unless you take Him at His Word When you deny the Truth, you create an idol, a god." Take The Bible Literally – Do Not Complicate It » Christian Truth Center There are many websites that tell you not to take the Bible literally. But these are written by Bible deniers. Satan is at work in world trying to draw people away from God and his word and getting them to follow him. That's what it is all about.

It is tragic. I don't know who offered the prayer, but the person who offered a prayer started by addressing the god who is known by many different names. He ended with an Amen but no mention of Jesus Christ. Obviously this was a politically correct prayer meant to try to appease all religions. But not a true prayer. Praying to all the gods is not a Christian prayer. According to the Bible, the only access to the true God is through Jesus Christ. That is why Christians end their prayers with In Jesus name, Amen.

Yes, I believe it because it was a supernatural event. There are thousands of articles and videos that go into creation versus evolution and related subject. Go to creation.com Evolution has been refuted by many people with degrees and scientists. There have been no transitional fossils found although if evolution were a fact one would think there would be thousands of fossils showing the evolution from one species to another. But they don't exist. It always was only theory. A theory is not science.

Those were supernatural events that God controlled. They were out of the ordinary but they nevertheless occurred as recorded. Because of the evil of mankind before the flood, God destroyed all of mankind with the exception of Noah and his family. See Genesis. God did give mankind his revelation by means of his written word, the Bible. There are many articles that explain why the Bible is true and accurate. I leave it to you to study them. If you have not studied them, I am not sure how you can know. There are also many audio and video messages on the internet which go into all aspects of the Bible. The Divine Appointment | SermonAudio

The Bible proves it. You haven't studied it; yet you dismiss it all. That's not reasonable. I don't "laugh" at FN religions. I simply state if a religion is contrary to the King James Bible (the English translation of the Holy Scriptures), I cannot accept it. I am not singling out FN religions particularly. There are many false religions in the world. God inspired men to write the Bible. Nobody can convince you on a forum. I have enough experience to know that much. It is up to you to work that out. In summary, In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth. Genesis 1:1 He made man out of the dust of the earth. Man had fellowship with God. Genesis ch. 2 and 3 Man was given a choice of good or evil. To obey God's commandments or to disobey. Genesis 2: 16, 17 Man chose evil. Genesis 3:11; 3:23, 24 God left heaven to take on human form. Philippians 2:5-11 Jesus himself would become the sacrifice, the atonement for man's sins. Hebrews 9:27, 28 It may be that few will be saved. The Bible says many are called; few are chosen. You say you can't accept that a loving God would allow that. Well, God created the universe and mankind. It is his prerogative. It was mankind that rebelled against God and broke his commandment. God has offered his Son as an atonement. Those who believe will be saved; those who reject Him will not be. It is God's universe. Who are we to question God?

That is the problem right there. In fact, you don't support what Jesus said. You just said so right there. He said clearly in the gospel of John, he is the ONLY way to heaven. "6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. " John 14:6 KJV That is a central teaching. There is only one God and only one truth which is stated in that verse. You either reject that and follow heathen religions or accept what the Bible says, what Jesus said. From what I heard, the Pope doesn't accept what the Bible said. I heard he said something to the effect that there are other ways to get to heaven. Perhaps you could read the gospel of John. Aboriginals worshiping Mother Earth are not worshiping or following the true God. Why do you think many missionaries travelled and lived among heathen nations in Africa and other nations down through the centuries?

I had a feeling you might say something like that because you said you were either an atheist or an agnostic and were not sure if you believed in God. That is the problem right there. You don't know what to believe so you are quite open to accepting heathen beliefs as some kind of legitimate basis for running a country or making decisions about resource projects. I'm afraid it would be unlikely I could convince you in a few sentences on a forum that God is real and there are reasons why we should stand up for our historic Judeo-Christian beliefs. It is your responsibility to straighten that out in your own mind. This is the same problem with many liberals and NDP. Society took Bibles out of schools and said they want to be multicultural. Now they are living with the consequences. Confusion and misguided decisions.

Depends what you mean by "spiritual rights". That is a very vague term. Western civilization is built on Judeo-Christian heritage and beliefs. Many of our laws came from Biblical principles. I don't know much about indigenous spiritual beliefs. I read a little from time to time. But I believe some of the beliefs of some aboriginals in the distant past is Mother Earth worship. A small number of FN still worship the false god of Mother Earth. But it is a big thing with tree huggers and environmental radicals. If that is part of indigenous knowledge, forget it. I would oppose accepting that is some kind of argument against resource projects. If the federal government is trying to cater to that belief, that would be quite tragic and harmful.

Actually there are huge problems with some hereditary chiefs and FNs that claim thousands of square kilometers as their territory in northwest B.C. The Coastal Gaslink Pipeline project is an example. Environmental radicals from other places including the U.S. join with the hereditary chiefs to try to stop the project. All elected band councils along the pipeline route approved of the project. It's more complicated when you add the environmental radicals, environmental organizations, FNs from other parts of Canada all opposing the project when it doesn't personally even effect them and is not in their areas. Then throw in the so-called indigenous knowledge and a federal government that doesn't know what it's doing and claiming confidentiality, you have a real mess.

You are diverting to a somewhat different subject. Probably trying to bait me. I won't bite. Stick to the topic of indigenous knowledge and the confidentiality around it.

" Indigenous knowledge must be included in environmental impact assessment reports by the Impact Assessment Agency and any review panels — but that knowledge is still subject to confidentiality. Disclosure of this confidential knowledge can only be released after consulting with the group from which it came, according to the law. Confidentiality agreements with Indigenous groups govern the exact terms of each group’s knowledge, but the overall result is that the public doesn’t get to know about the non-science on which decisions to build are made. What we have built is a system of secret, highly subjective cultural and spiritual beliefs that are somehow equivalent to science in the eyes of federal officials. It’s the exact opposite of “evidence-based” and it certainly does not “follow the science.” Cultural concerns should be discussed when we’re considering the construction of large projects — but not in secret, and not under the falsehood that they are equal to science." Jamie Sarkonak: Liberals defer to secret spiritual beliefs to approve energy projects (msn.com) Your argument is not very clear. The article does say it involves aboriginal Spirituality. I am not sure what your point is on that. Whatever it involves is being kept confidential so the public cannot examine it to see clearly what is going on. We see that the federal government is hiding behind confidentiality and saying indigenous knowledge may be kept secret under the terms of confidentiality. This means nobody is able to examine what exactly would be their argument against a resource project because they have the right to keep their explanation of indigenous knowledge confidential. Whether it is connected with aboriginal spirituality or not, it should be fully transparent and out in the open so everyone can see whether this so-called indigenous knowledge is reasonable or false. Is it just an excuse to extort more money from the federal government or resource companies? Or extort land. We don't know and apparently we can be kept in the dark. As for you bringing the Bible into it, that seems kind of odd. The Bible stands for honesty, openness and fair dealing, not secretive backroom dealing such as keeping the meaning of "indigenous knowledge" confidential.

Everyone can see that most of that 35 million dollars wasn't for "security" and it wasn't a state to state visit. Security would have been a very small part of the total. It was money doled out to various FNs groups to pay for various religious events, masses, etc. led by the Pope, and pay for travelling, accommodations, for expenses for all the people that wanted to attend. No wonder it was 35 million dollars. Quit trying to deceive us. It was a religious pilgrimage to FNs fully funded by taxpayers. No to popery.

I would add that the NDP motto seems to be make the rich pay or make the greedy corporations pay. This demonstrates their very simplistic view of the world, a complete lack of understanding of how the prosperous free nations have accomplished what they have. If it wasn't for the wealthy who invest all their money in stocks and corporation, there would be no well-paying jobs. That is where all the well-paying jobs come from. But the NDP are completely blind. Unfortunately, the Liberals are moving more toward the left in an effort to gain more NDP votes. Watch the Liberals come out with their budget tomorrow. They will be handing out billions of dollars for everything they can think of.

Can hardly believe. Just came across an article which points out that government and departments like pipeline authorities or impact assessment authority are required to give "indigenous knowledge" and science equal weight in their decision-making. The Federal government website even says that much. "Both Indigenous Knowledge, including oral knowledge, and western scientific knowledge systems are equally valued. When it is considered with other knowledge systems, including western science, the integrity of Indigenous Knowledge will be maintained." Indigenous Knowledge Policy Framework for Project Reviews and Regulatory Decisions - Canada.ca Yet apparently nobody is able to define what indigenous knowledge is. Jamie Sarkonak: Liberals defer to secret spiritual beliefs to approve energy projects (msn.com) This issue could certainly provide Pierre Poilievre and Conservatives with a mountain of ammunition to use against this government. I just hope they are aware of it. The one hazard is they will be accused of racism. That is the go-to accusation that is always used against opponents be it China interference or anything else.