blackbird
-
Posts
5,822 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
8
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by blackbird
-
-
It would be so easy for these deluded Catholics to get a real Bible like the King James Bible and study the New Testament and learn why Romanism is not Christianity. But they blindly follow their religion like many people do and just won't be bothered to are too scared to find out the truth. There are also many website that will give the details about it and explain it. Instead of being a cultist and blindly following a false system to the end, maybe think for yourself for once and learn the truth. It is not that difficult to do.
-
2 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:
Hm ? Why me ?
Anyway, yes, born Catholic and still consider myself Christian and Catholic although I only participate for celebratory reasons.That comes as no surprise. Just more evidence of how liberalism is often tied to Romanists or lapsed Catholics. You see what I mean then. Many strong liberals are Romanists and that's likely where a lot of their ideology comes from. According to their thinking, Jesus was some kind liberal or Socialist or progressive which are all wrong. The Bible does not support that liberal ideology.
-
I expect Romanists will downvote and disagree with my views on Romanism, but I am simply stating the facts of how I see it. If you can produce any reasoning or evidence on how I am wrong, feel free.
-
1 hour ago, Zeitgeist said:
I think you’re picking the wrong cause by going after Catholics if defending Christianity is your aim. People from all denominations, all religions, all atheist belief systems, and all political ideologies have committed sins, broken laws, and done bad stuff. Yes some more than others and all is up for debate.
I would worry less about the finer points of your particular religion’s theology than the ability to practice and express your beliefs in this climate of compelled speech, censorship, and cancellation.
Depends on one's perspective. You would say that because you consider yourself a Catholic.
Since it is one of the biggest religions if not the biggest in the western world, it has a massive influence on politics. Therefore it is necessary to speak about it. All these things you mention..compelled speech, censorship, etc. are all related to the Romanist - liberal ideology of authoritarianism based on humanism or man's ideas of what morality is. Romanism does not go by the Bible in general and is somewhat tied to humanist ideology.
-
10 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:
Why don’t you ask @Michael Hardner which denomination he is? I doubt he’s worried about keeping it a secret.
Yes, I would ban blasphemous movies. I thought you were referring to speech. I don't believe in speech control in general. There might be some exceptions. So I would not favour laws to ban certain speech, but in certain cases I might be in favour of banning certain speech. But immoral movies should be banned. If they are called blasphemous movies so be it.
But I don't believe in the Taliban, Iran, Pakistan style of blasphemy laws where one could be executed for blasphemy against Allah or the Prophet.
Ask Michael yourself if you want to know. I don't care. I know he is a liberal much like yourself.
-
59 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:
I think you’re picking the wrong cause by going after Catholics if defending Christianity is your aim.
It is impossible to comment on Romanism as a political-religious system without some people feeling it is "going after Catholics". My critique is not aimed a individual Catholics. I know they are the poor deluded victims of a false religious system. So it is necessary to target the system of Romanism to shed light on the subject. When talking about the political aspect of it, it is necessary to mention those political figures who support the false religious system. Some call it the religion of Babylon. There are claims and some credible information that it formed in the 4th century from the Babylonian mystery religions. A kind of amalgamation of early Christian beliefs and the ancient Babylonian religions. I know of no other way of bringing light on the subject.
I must reiterate Romanism is NOT Christianity in any shape or form. Many deluded people think it is. It uses Christian words but that does not make it Christian.
Read the New Testament KJV and learn why it is not Christianity.
It is a kind political religious ideology that much of the world believes, but it is not Christianity.
-
1 hour ago, TreeBeard said:
You want to blasphemy laws, so are you really one to criticize anyone?
Where did I say I want blasphemy laws? Lying again? It never ends with you.
2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:"Romanism (Popery) is one of the biggest threats to freedom of Canadians. "
The founding religion of the Europeans in Canada, that predates everything except First Nations occupation of their homeland. They planted a cross when their feet touched the soil...
And now it's one of the biggest threats.
I am going to print this symbol out and put it on my wall under the crucifix:
🤔I know you are a closet Romanist. You prove it all the time.
Incidentally it was mainly Romanism that ran the residential schools and people were oppressed and lost their freedom.
Anglicanism is close to Romanism and those were the two main churches that along with the Romanist federal government ran the residential schools. Had little to nothing to do with Biblical Christianity and everything to do with the authority of the Romanist political system and churches.
-
1 hour ago, TreeBeard said:
Why do only anti-LGBTQ conservatives get this freedom to disagree?
Lying again? Never said only anti-LGBTQ conservatives get this freedom to disagree.
Obviously you are free to spout your nonsense just as much as any conservative or Bible believer. We see it endlessly on here.
-
This teacher sounds like a wacko. She doesn't understand basic freedoms. Freedom of belief, freedom of religion also includes the right to disagree about some things. Nobody is required to participate in Pride agenda, Pride celebrations, or Pride recognition if that is something they don't believe in. Simple as that. Freedom includes the right to disagree and not participate. That is where this teacher is confused (and ignorant).
-
1
-
-
Why particularly Muslim students? According to liberal - left ideology anyone who does not support their woke, LGBTQ, pride nonsense would not be a good Canadian (or even Canadian). That would include a lot more Canadians than Muslims.
-
Most Canadians don't think religion has anything to do with politics or our system of government in Canada. They could not be more wrong. It is the religion of Romanism which is behind much of politics in Canada. This is where the U.S. differs from Canada to some degree as it was at least in the first few hundreds years more Protestant than Romanist. The U.S. was built on liberty and freedom by people who escaped the authoritarianism of Europe. Now with mass immigration from Latin America it may be leaning more toward Romanism. America never had a Romanist President until John F. Kennedy and now Joe Biden.
Romanism (Popery) is one of the biggest threats to freedom of Canadians. It is a totalitarian system that in history has used any means as its disposal to enforce its will on the populations. Many if not most of our political leaders and their liberal supporters are in fact Romanists. The question is what is their main loyalty to? Is it to Rome and Romanism or to Canada and Canadians? It is a unspoken rule of Romanists never to mention religion and play it low key. But it is behind the scene as the driving force. It is what built much of the educational institutions which many Romanists attended such as both Trudeau Prime Ministers. Even the present controversial figure and former GG, David Johnston can be seen as a loyal Romanist. Google it. He led a delegation to the Vatican representing Canada when he was GG on one occasion. Johnson has now been appointed to protect the Prime Minister in a special position supposedly investigating foreign interference. But is it really a political job to protect Trudeau and Liberals? Many of our political leaders have bowed and scraped to the Popes.
An example of the totalitarian nature of Romanism in history is the Holy Roman Inquisition. An internet article on mainstream news about the Spanish Inquisition makes the claim the Inquisition was directed against Jew and Muslims. This is not completely true. The Inquisition was directed against anyone who questioned Romanism. Various independent groups that formed in Europe as separate religious groups were targeted and genocide was committed against them to eliminate them. This went on for centuries.
Our supposedly democratic government, while under the heavy influence of Romanism, has become more authoritarian than ever. We see that with the imposition of carbon taxes and regulations on Canadian companies and the particular attacks on the energy industry. All this is driven by ideology which the Vatican pushes. Liberals push open borders and oppose patriotism and nationalism of any kind because of the Vatican doctrines of globalism. Trudeau and liberals are strong proponents of globalism and internationalism, which are central to Vatican ideology and beliefs.
We see influence of authoritarian Romanism in liberal ideology where they want to censor everyone and control freedom of speech and other things. This harkens back to the middle ages where Romanism thought they have the right to control everyone. Now with the internet under increasing regulation, it is becoming more like Orwell's 1984. That is Romanism.
The only escape from this mind control is on an individual basis by reading and believing the King James Bible. Rome hates this. Even modern Bible versions have fallen to some degree under the influence of Romanism and should be rejected. Many have fallen for them. The King James Bible was on the list of forbidden books long ago. It is not approved reading by the Vatican. But it is the absolute source of truth that can deliver an individual from falling or remaining under the mental influence and control of Romanism. This also mean liberalism or liberal ideology, which is closely associated with Romanism.
What exactly was the Spanish Inquisition? (msn.com)
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, TreeBeard said:
These schools took Indigenous children aged 5 to 16 from their homes and communities and separated them from their culture. Speaking First Nations’ languages was against the rules and the schools often had poor living conditions. Many children were underfed. Many became ill.”
The Indigenous children had to be removed from the backward, barbarian culture and taught how to live in white man's world. The world has been changing for centuries and something had to be done so they could survive.
There were some bad consequences such as poor living conditions, but we do not know the extent of it. It may be overblown in order claim endless compensation.
Funny you have not offered any solution on what could have been done instead. There was nothing else that could be done. Of course they had to learn to speak white man's language, English or French, in order to get a job and survive.
Aboriginals had a different idea of work, and life and that had to be changed in order to survive. People did feel they need to help aboriginals and that was what it was all about.
The reason FNs are in such a sad state is because they were not fully and properly integrated and assimilated. They cannot be fully supported by taxpayers forever. Many of them are unemployed, on alcohol and drugs, and committing suicide. It is a dire situation in many reserves. Poor housing in many places, poor water, and lack of services. The reserve idea may have been a mistake, but of course they wanted their own property where they could live and govern themselves to some degree. It has not worked very well.
You can condemn helping them as "assimilation" but that was what was necessary to help them.
-
3 hours ago, TreeBeard said:
That’s revisionist history. They took perfectly happy kids away from their parents too. Just for being indigenous.
Nonsense. I have firsthand knowledge of the kind of thing that happened. Social services put two indigenous kids in my home for a week or so and the little girl said a man in the indigenous home where she lived, perhaps a father, or grandfather, put her hand on the stove to teach her a lesson.
-
On 5/29/2023 at 10:21 AM, Queenmandy85 said:
but God doesn't give a rat's pajamas how you label yourself.
Why did God destroy Sodom and Gomorrah?
"The sinful ways of Sodom and Gomorrah were so corrupt that God destroyed the two cities with fire sparing only the family of Lot." Why Did God Destroy Sodom and Gomorrah? Their Story of Sin in the Bible (christianity.com)
"The Bible story of Sodom and Gomorrah is a cautionary tale of the destructive consequences of sin. Sodom and Gomorrah were cities mentioned in Genesis, notorious for their flagrant sin. Genesis 18:20-21 states,
“The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know.”
Why did God destroy everyone on earth with the flood except Noah and his family?
Hint...
"6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. 7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. {both…: Heb. from man unto beast}
8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD. 9 These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God. {perfect: or, upright} 10 And Noah begat three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
11 The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. 12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth." Genesis 6:6-12 KJV
-
On 5/31/2023 at 1:09 PM, TreeBeard said:
Not many of them deny human biology; only the science denying fundamentalists do.
Right-thinking Bible believers believe in real science that is empirical, i.e. that can be proven by the scientific method.
Only blind atheists believe in unproven theories like the theory of evolution which has been rejected by many brilliant scholars and scientists. Everyone with a brain realizes things don't just happen without a cause. The universe was not an accident. It was designed and had to have an immensely intelligent designer Creator. One of the principles of all science is every effect has a cause.
Darwinists are religionists because to them evolution is a kind of religion. There is no proof it even happened, but they believe it on blind faith. Even some mathematician scientists say there was not enough time in the universe for life to form by random chance processes. The mathematical law of probability is against evolution. They say the chances of life forming by random chance is like giving a monkey a typewriter and seeing how long it would take the monkey to type randomly and come up with the complete works of Shakespeare. It just couldn't happen. Yet people are so gullible they will believe anything.
At least Bible believers have evidence on their side that the universe was created. The evidence is all around us in the existence and complexity of everything. Atoms, molecules, energy don't evolve. They had to have a designer Creator.
See creation.com website
-
1 hour ago, TreeBeard said:
Lies. That’s a sin.
What? Children's aid taking neglected or abused kids into foster care and government putting kids in residential schools that would otherwise receive no education? That has always been the role of the government, provincial and federal.
Why has it suddenly become wrong for the government to try to help the native kids for the last 150 years?
-
2 hours ago, TreeBeard said:
Because you say so?
Because there is no proof of genocide. It is a fake claim. It is useful to claim endless compensation from the government.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, TreeBeard said:
Because you say so?
Let’s assume you’re correct. Do you think all the good things could have been introduced without needing to separate children from families or force them out of their lands?
The children had to be taken care of by the powers that be. Otherwise you would have had genocide by starvation. Then you would be whining about that.
-
4 hours ago, TreeBeard said:
Do you think all the good things could have been introduced to the local population 200 years ago without a genocide?
There was no genocide.
-
On 5/30/2023 at 11:13 PM, TreeBeard said:
Was it moral for God to order babies to be killed?
1 Samuel 15
2 Thus saith the Lord of hosts: ‘I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he lay in wait for him on the way when he came up from Egypt.
3 Now go and smite Amalek and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.’”
Whatever God orders is moral. God is sovereign in everything.
"He also gives him a reason for the command, that the severity he must use might not seem hard: I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, v. 2. God had an ancient quarrel with the Amalekites, for the injuries they did to his people Israel when he brought them out of Egypt. We have the story, Exod 17 8, etc., and the crime is aggravated, Deut 25 18. He basely smote the hindmost of them, and feared not God. God then swore that he would have war with Amalek from generation to generation, and that in process of time he would utterly put out the remembrance of Amalek; this is the work that Saul is now appointed to do (v. 3): "Go and smite Amalek. Israel is now strong, and the measure of the iniquity of Amalek is now full; now go and make a full riddance of that devoted nation." He is expressly commanded to kill and slay all before him, man and woman, infant and suckling, and not spare them out of pity; also ox and sheep, camel and ass, and not spare them out of covetousness."
-
On 5/30/2023 at 11:13 PM, TreeBeard said:
Was it moral for God to order babies to be killed?
1 Samuel 15
2 Thus saith the Lord of hosts: ‘I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he lay in wait for him on the way when he came up from Egypt.
3 Now go and smite Amalek and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.’”
Taking the Bible out of context again.
-
9 hours ago, BeaverFever said:
Do you think it’s appropriate for children to hear all those biblical stories that normalize incest?
If someone were write a book with those kinds of stories in it it you would ban it.
Of course whoever would be teaching the Bible in schools would have to have a certain degree of knowledge of it and be qualified. We couldn't have you or Treebeard teaching it. There are a few historical passages in the Bible that could be taken out of context as Herbie or Treebeard do for their own reasons to try to discredit the Bible. Those kind of people could not teach it of course. Must be a Bible believer teaching it to begin with. We don't use teachers to teach subjects if they oppose the subject to begin with.
-
37 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:
Why would God make the 10 Commandments if one of them is useless?
Just gave you a lengthy explanation of that and the link for more information.
Apparently you don't read anything more than one or two lines. So of course you don't understand the answer.
-
25 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:
Most useless commandment ever then! Why would God make the 10 Commandments if one of them is useless? Or, why do Christians claim the commandments to be holy?
You either trust God and his revelation and admit you don't understand everything in it but are willing to learn
OR you reject it all and remain in darkness.
There are two schools of thought.
One is belief that God created the universe, revealed himself in his written word which we can study and learn.
The other school of thought is unbelief which manifests itself in various ideologies such as secular humanism, Darwinism, Communism, etc.
Why Romanism is a danger to Canada
in Federal Politics
Posted
Oh yes we can prove who is correct or on the right road. Jesus spoke about two roads if I recall correctly. The prophet Isaiah said " 20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." Isaiah 8:20 KJV
If you think you have the correct version of Christianity, please give some evidence or proof. Let's examine it honestly and see who is correct. You insist I am wrong and you are correct, but give no proof. Give us the proof that you are correct. What is your basis?