blackbird

I don't trust Liberals either, but that has nothing to do with capital punishment. They would have nothing to do with it. Hopefully they will be gone soon.

Why do you want to protect convicted murderers? You are devoid of reason and justice. Do you know anything about morality at all?

I thought you meant you were approving it. I could be wrong; I apologize. I am not sure what you mean in your last sentence. I am not pretending anything. I think humanism is sinful. Do you?

Yes, you welcome moving away from our heritage of Judeo-Christian civilization and embrace secular humanism, which is a form of religion, that denies the Biblical God and favours the pagan god of humanism. Humanism is defined: -an outlook or system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters. Humanist beliefs stress the potential value and goodness of human beings, emphasize common human needs, and seek solely rational ways of solving human problems. The fallacy of humanism is, as you see in the definition, that it stresses a false dogma which rejects God's revelation to man which tells us mankind is sinful and corrupt. The evidence of history proves that mankind is sinful and corrupt from start to finish. By ignoring that fact and the need for God's revelation and the one and only Savior, mankind is condemning itself to anarchy and disaster and a lost eternity.

October 7th victims are suing UNRWA U.S.A. for funding UNRWA and the resulting terrorist attacks that some UNRWA employees or members are alleged to have been involved in. Canada just announced it is restoring funding to UNRWA. Does this mean taxpayers in Canada may be on the hook if the Canadian government is also sued?

No, I never said anyone should be tortured. Use the MAID technique. A couple injections. Supposed to be painless and quick. Death with dignity as MAID advocates say. Most Canadians support MAID and think it is a good way to go. I disagree with MAID because it is killing, but capital punishment is for duly convicted murderers and is not the same. If you believe in justice, law and order, you should be supporting it.

DNA is a tool that now proves absolute guilt also. You didn't mention that. We never had DNA evidence decades ago. Now as you say it can prove innocence but you forgot to mention it also is strong evidence of guilt. There are examples of DNA proving guilt. A young woman was raped and murdered in a park in Vancouver and the DNA was the key to conviction. The existence and practice of capital punishment might also save many lives because there might be fewer murders of innocent people. We need to think of protecting the innocent too. Potential murderers might think twice before killing someone. You need to broaden your thinking and not be a one thought guy.

And there are still lots of things we must do that have risks even if the risks are very small. Fly in aircraft, run the medical system, drive motor vehicles. Sometimes there are accidents. Nothing is perfect.

Trudeau should have no power over the courts and judges in criminal matters. Get rid of Trudeau in the next election and bring back capital punishment with new laws that would ensure court cases for murder are absolutely just with no errors. Allowing mass murders to escape justice is a failure and disaster and puts Canadians at risk and costs millions of dollars to keep them in prison.

Haiti is one of the world's worst places and is full of criminals and gangs. We should have nothing to do with it. Canada has lots of problems of its own and we should look after Canadians first. I think most Canadians would agree.

You make two serious errors. 1. I don't have contempt for an individual whom I am discussing with. I disagree with his beliefs. That is a big difference. The issue is the beliefs, not the person who holds them. It would be no different if I were discussing religion with a Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, or any one of the cults. The discussion must be focused on the beliefs, which I have tried to do. 2. His religion is not the same religion as mine. They are complete opposites. On the surface they may appear the same if you just go by one or two words because they both claim to be Christianity. But each has an entirely different understanding of some key doctrines. Since you claimed to have grown up in a evangelical or Protestant background, I would have thought you knew the differences between Romanism and Protestantism. Apparently not.

Good question! The answers are to do with indoctrination. The institution has mechanisms in place right from day one in the education system to indoctrinate its people to believe a certain narrative that they are right about everything and everyone outside the institution is wrong. After all they believe they were ordained by God to be God's representative on earth. This is what we are up against. Pretty tough hill to climb. The only way to counter this is with God's written revelation, the Bible. The reason is because God inspired men to write it. The Bible is a light than can expose darkness and false religion.

Just found a website that may clarify the legality in Canada. " The Criminal Code of Canada does not state that Canadians do not have the right to use a gun for self protection. In fact, Section 34 clearly defines that Canadians have every right to act reasonably to protect themselves, their family, their property and to protect other people, against a threat. Section 2(b) discusses other options that may be available. Under this heading, it implies that non-violent options should be explored first and that calling 911 would be considered a reasonable first step if the situation allows. It also discusses whether or not the assailant has a weapon as that would determine reasonability in a response to a threat. The key word in all of this is “reasonable”. The criminal code does not grant carte blanche use of firearms but it certainly does not forbid reasonable use in a self protection capacity. " The right to self defence in Canada (beyondthenarrative.ca) The problem for this man was he took his firearm outside to deal with the suspects. That would seem to weaken his chances of claiming self-defence. So he lost his firearms. I don't know if there is a process he could follow to get them back. Maybe. If I interpret this explanation correctly, if someone is stealing your vehicle, you have no right to go after them with a gun since you personally are not threatened. It would appear that there is no right to use a gun to protect private property in Canada. The laws may be different for security guards protecting banks and other property. If an armed person breaks into your home with a gun or knife and you or your family feel seriously threatened, that would be a special circumstance but each case has to be examined on its own. You may be required to warn the intruder to give him an opportunity to back away, leave immediately, or drop his weapon. If he has a gun drawn, that may be a special circumstance where you don't have time to warn him. But each case may be different.

Many liberal and left oriented Canadians are soft-on-crime because they think criminality is society's fault, not the criminal's. That is one of the main reasons we don't have capital punishment for murder. Criminals and gangs know this. "Wokeness in criminal justice? Safe — in Jivani’s view, individual choice plays a role in criminality, as does the presence of father figures and male role models. This is a far cry from the progressive view, which tends to blame crime on the system: systemic racism and other systemic disadvantages being understood as the foundation of crime. Because it doesn’t hold individuals responsible for their actions, the current government has taken a soft-on-crime approach to punishment that coincides with the philosophy of equity." NP View: Jamil Jivani clears the way for Conservatives to embrace the culture war (msn.com)

There's another reason why we don't have capital punishment for murderers. Canadians don't like real justice and don't think the worst mass murderers or serial killers should face the death penalty. That is all part of the soft-on-crime mentality which has been brainwashed into society from infancy. Criminals love it. Many Canadians fear walking the streets or going out of their homes. Criminals can pretty well do what they feel like and shot at will knowing they may not even get caught and if they do, the sentence will be ten or fifteen years for murder and be released on parole after half a sentence. They know if they do what the gang tells them they might make hundreds of thousands in cash and never get caught shooting people. They are willing to take the chance of being shot by other gang members because the money is easy picking and there is no capital punishment anyway if they get caught. Sadly many Canadians like yourself don't have a clue about justice. You think punishment is vengeance because of your lifetime of left wing soft-on-crime brainwashing. Criminals think about people like you and don't have to worry when they shot other people or commit crimes. They know there are lots like you who will be easy on them. Funny how people change their thinking when a loved one gets killed by a criminal. They are suddenly not so soft on crime. People like you are always soft-on-crime and call punishment vengeance as long as the victims are somebody else in the country and it doesn't directly affect them. It's all part of the I'm ok and nuts to everyone else attitude.

There's another reason why we don't have capital punishment for murderers. Canadians don't like real justice and don't think the worst mass murderers or serial killers should face the death penalty. That is all part of the soft-on-crime mentality which has been brainwashed into society from infancy. Criminals love it. They can pretty well do what they feel like and shot at will knowing theymay not even get caught and if they do, the sentence will be ten or fifteen years for murder and be released on parole after half a sentence. They know if they do what the gang tells them they might make hundreds of thousands in cash and never get caught shooting people. They are willing to take the chance of being shot by other gang members because the money is easy picking and there is no capital punishment anyway if they get caught.

You must live in an alt reality. Most people will not work for free and so who is going to provide the goods and services they need?

Money is just a tool to use to exchange goods and services. Without money, society could not function. We need the tool of money to be able to obtain groceries or purchase medications, clothing, gas for our cars, and purchase cars. We need the tool of money in exchange for the work we do for our employer. That's all money is, a tool to make life possible.

Established by who or what? Not the Bible. I already gave you ample proof Peter was never a Pope and a number of verses prove the church was not founded on Peter. Loraine Boettner gives a very in depth explanation of the Biblical teaching concerning Peter and demonstrates clearly Peter was not the "Rock" that the church was to be built on. The whole Papal system stands or falls on the correct understanding of Peter's position. It is important to understand this and therefore vitally important to consider what scholars like Loraine Boettner say about the verses related to it. quote 2 The “Rock” “And I say to thee, thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matthew 16:18, Confraternity Version). Romanists quote this verse with relish, and add their own interpretation to establish their claim for papal authority. But in the Greek the word Peter is Petros, a person, masculine, while the word “rock,” petra, is feminine and refers not to a person but to the declaration of Christ’s deity that Peter had just uttered—“Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Using Peter’s name and making, as it were, a play upon words, Jesus said to Peter, “You are Petros, and upon this petra I will build my church.” The truth that Peter had just confessed was the foundation upon which Christ would build His church. He meant that Peter had seen the basic, essential truth concerning His person, the essential truth upon which the church would be founded, and that nothing would be able to overthrow that truth, not even all the forces of evil that might be arrayed against it. Peter was the first among the disciples to see our Lord as the Christ of God. Christ commended him for that spiritual insight, and said that His church would be founded upon that fact. And that, of course, was a far different thing from founding the church on Peter. Had Christ intended to say that the Church would be founded on Peter, it would have been ridiculous for Him to have shifted to the feminine form of the word in the middle of the statement, saying, if we may translate literally and somewhat whimsically, “And I say unto thee, that thou art Mr. Rock, and upon this, the Miss Rock, I will build my church.” Clearly it was upon the truth that Peter had expressed, the deity of Christ, and not upon weak, vacillating Peter, that the church would be founded. The Greek “petros” is commonly used of a small, movable stone, a mere pebble, as it were. But “petra” means an immovable foundation, in this instance, the basic truth that Peter had just confessed, the deity of Christ. And in fact, that is the point of conflict in the churches today between evangelicals on the one hand, and modernists or liberals on the other—whether the church is founded on a truly divine Christ as revealed in a fully trustworthy Bible, or whether it is essentially a social service and moral welfare organization which recognizes Christ as an example, an outstandingly great and good man, but denies or ignores His deity. The Bible tells us plainly, not that the church is built upon Peter, but that it is “built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the chief comer stone” (Ephesians 2:20). And again, “For other foundation can no man lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ” (1 Corinthians 3:11). Without that foundation the true Christian church could not exist. If Matthew 16:18 had been intended to teach that the church is founded on Peter, it would have read something like this: “Thou art Peter, and upon you I will build my church”; or, “Thou art Peter, and upon you the rock I will build my church.” But that is not what Christ said. He made two complete, distinct statements. He said, “Thou art Peter,” and, “Upon this rock (change of gender, indicating change of subject) I will build my church.” The gates of hell were not to prevail against the church. But the gates of hell did prevail against Peter shortly afterward, as recorded in this same chapter, when he attempted to deny that Christ would be crucified, and almost immediately afterward, in the presence of the other disciples, received the stinging rebuke, “Get thee behind me, Satan; thou art a stumbling block unto me, for thou mindest not the things of God but the things of men” (v. 23)—surely strong words to use against one who had just been appointed pope! unquote For the whole section on this subject, go to: Roman Catholicism : Loraine Boettner : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive You of course claim that nobody should listen to what anyone else says about a biblical doctrine. But the Bible refutes that claim too. I gave you an article with lots of verses that prove that wisdom is often in a number of counsellors. So your claim that nobody else's understanding or interpretation can be considered is false.

I study what learned people have to say about a lot of biblical topics. Nothing wrong with that. I never said they were infallible. "Proverbs 15:22 says, “Without counsel purposes are disappointed: but in the multitude of counselors they are established” (KJV). Proverbs 11:14 and 24:6 also mention the value of a “multitude of counselors” or having “many advisers.” The general principle is that there is wisdom in seeking a wide range of advice from others instead of relying solely on one’s own knowledge or intuition. Considering other points of view and drawing on the experience of others is good." Why is a multitude of counselors valuable (Proverbs 15:22)? | GotQuestions.org You on the other hand only believe what the RCC told you. No it isn't. That is what the RCC and catechism claim, but not the Bible.

People just had enough of the PC party by around 1990 and that's when the Reform Party was formed.

The Bible is clear it isn't necessary for salvation. The thief on the cross was never baptized yet Jesus indicated he would be saved.

That's hilarious. You claim I appeal to non-biblical sources even when I don't say they are infallible, yet you believe the blasphemous doctrine of Papal infallibility when the Pope speaks ex cathedra.

Your choice. I don't have much more to add anyway. I've said most of what there is to say at this point. Good night.

You are correct. He tragically thinks the Catholic church has all the truth and only it can interpret the Bible. It is true there are thousands of Protestant or non-Catholic denominations but most of them agree on basic doctrines. He tries to paint a picture of thousands of denomination being all different which is not factual. Many of them if not most differ on minor matters but agree on central teachings from the Bible.