Jump to content

blackbird

Senior Member
  • Posts

    7,652
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

Posts posted by blackbird

  1. 10 hours ago, Colin Norris said:

    That is the typical godbotherer reply when you have no reply. 

    Of course atheism has no basis.  The meaning implies that. 

    Anyone who believes in immaculate conception and virgin births. Talking snakes, resurrections, dead men walking, walking non and water, parting of The seas and a woman being turned into salt must be living in a cave. 

    Ever wondered why that filthy bible is fill of instances which society knows cannot happen? Why do fantasies like that provoke you to believe it's true because your silly God supposed to have done it.? 

    Surely you can see it's complete lie. The only thing in the bible correct are the page numbers. 

    I debated whether to even answer you because you have a serious attitude problem.  Maybe you have serious personal problems; I don't know.  But God does care about you.  God (Jesus) is there for you if you ever change your mind.  Will pray for you.  We must love our neighbours as God says.  Hate is not the answer.  God is merciful and can help you.

  2. 15 minutes ago, Winston said:

    What is your definition of faith ?

    My friends have faith that I am God, does that mean I am God? And since I am God I choose not to operate by showing any scientific proof that I am God.

    If you would like to save time, Bible quotes are unnecessary, they have near 0 value in the conversation.  

    I gave you the definition of faith from the Bible in Hebrews ch11.  That is the faith we are talking about.  I accept the Bible and it answered your questions or comments better than I ever could.  I will stick with the King James Bible because it is God's inspired word.  Your argument is really with the Bible and with God.  I can't really add to his description of what faith is.  As I said it is necessary to look at the subject through a supernatural viewpoint or eyes, as it says in 1 Corinthians ch2.  There is no other way.

  3. 17 minutes ago, Winston said:

    There is group accountability, biological accountability, sustainable accountability and individual accountability (may be more). Yes one can do whatever they want, does not make it socially moral or ethical.  

    According to your definition and liberal definition, whatever government legalizes is moral.  Therefore according to that reasoning, abortion or killing of unborn babies is moral.  But this is still killing humans and is shown in the Holy Scriptures to be against God's teaching on the sanctity of life and command "thou shalt not kill".  So  your argument that whatever man or government decrees is moral falls down flat.  Likewise, in Nazi Germany in the 1930s, and early 1940s the Jews were considered evil and worthy of the final solution.  Society in general accepted that although probably not everyone.  But the Nazi government approved.  Did that make it good or righteous.  Of course not.  It was still a great evil in God's sight.  Your argument falls flat in that example as well.

  4. 2 minutes ago, Winston said:

    You can' just say look at everything it was created, by this God, you have to prove creation, hence why I asked explain exactly how God makes an electron or an atom or a molecule. 

    God has chosen the vehicle of faith for man to come to him.  You are asking to have proof in scientific terms which is not how God has chosen to operate.  God has said he spoke creation into existence in Genesis Chap. 1.  Other than that there is no explanation given of how he did that or how he created atoms.  But it is reasonable to believe atoms, molecules could not have created themselves.  They required a Creator who we call God.  Therefore we accept it on faith that it was a supernatural act of God.

    The Bible says "1  Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. {substance: or, ground, or, confidence} 2  For by it the elders obtained a good report. 3  Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. " Hebrews 11:1-3 KJV   So you see here it says the worlds were framed by the word of God.  That tells me he simply spoke the creation into existence.

    "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."  1 Corinthians 2:11-14 KJV

    Here we see that the natural man cannot know these things or accept them.  It says they are foolishness unto him.  So they must be spiritually discerned.  The only way to believe in God and what he did is through a spiritual viewpoint.  

    "6  But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. "  Hebrews 11:6 KJV

     

     

     

  5. I have explained without God, there is no such thing as true morality.  Man does what he wishes.  That is called humanism.

    The definition of humanism is: 

    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.

    Atheism or humanism which is closely related means one has a purely materialistic outlook on the world and there is no such thing is good and evil, or right and wrong, with the exception of what humanists deem is right or wrong.  But this type of morality is man centered or hedonistic.  It is wrong because there is no ultimate accountability and one can in theory do whatever he can get away with.  Whatever feels good in the here and now is all that matters.  That kind of world leaves no hope for the future or eternity.  The Bible is about eternity because it teaches God created man with a soul and a spirit and with the possibility of sharing eternity with God in heaven.  He created man in his own image, with an eternal plan.  He teaches that life does not end at death.  But also said that man belongs to God and therefore it is God's decision when one dies, not man's decision.  To back that up God says in the Bible "thou shalt not kill".  He also gives other commandments the central ones being he commands man to love the Lord thy God and to love thy neighbour as thyself. 

    Therefore, atheism has no foundation and opens the door to other diabolical ideologies such as Socialism (which is stealing from those that have something to give to others), Marxism, and liberalism / progressivism.  These ideologies are diabolical because they contradict the teachings which God has given us in his written revelation, in English, the King James Bible.  

    The Bible says without faith it is impossible to please him (God).  Without God there is no meaning in life. The central message of the Bible is that man fell from a good relationship with God when Adam and Eve rebelled against God and inherited a fallen, corrupt nature.  He is separated from God.  But God sent his Son to be the Savior for all those who believe in him and accept his sacrifice on the cross as an atonement for their sin and believe that he rose from the dead.  That is man's only hope salvation.  One must be redeemed.

  6. 59 minutes ago, Winston said:

    I think you forgot that this conversation already occurred, where you could not provide evidence of a God, 

     

     

    Yes, I recall we had the conversation. You are incorrect in saying that I presented no evidence.  I presented lots of evidence.  The evidence is in the creation.  You just don't accept it as evidence.  

    57 minutes ago, Colin Norris said:

     

     

  7. 1 hour ago, Accountability Now said:

    Just my opinion, but that typically doesn’t bode well for the vaxxers when they don’t publish data. Like they're hiding something. 
     

    Again….just an opinion

    No, I think it was just a passing news report about the number of people in hospital, in ICU and the number that died.  Don't think they were deliberately leaving out information about the number of people who were vaccinated and the number who were not.  We get some of that on some news reports but new reports are not necessarily official reports meant to cover every detail about the pandemic in an area.

  8. 1 hour ago, Winston said:

     Why would people have faith in a God, if God does not prove existence? If there is no evidence for a God? 

    Its funny to even think a God would care about LGBT rights or human sexuality.

    The evidence for God is all around in the creation.  There are many good articles and videos on that subject at creation.com website.  God cares about everyone, but he has given everyone the freedom of choice to choose which way they are going and what they will believe.  The evidence is there.  The choice is yours.  He created man and woman, male and female.  Those are the only two sexes he created and told them to go forth and multiply in the earth.  Other man-made inventions of sexuality cannot multiply and were not part of his plan.  They developed out of a corrupt human nature after the fall of man.  But he still cares about everyone and wishes they would turn to him in faith.  Without God there is nothing and no meaning.

  9. 9 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

    I just don’t fear it.  People I work with who are much less healthy than I am have made quick recoveries.  I was surprised actually.  Exposure means we are living with the virus.  No big deal.  

    An Toronto ICU nurse on CBC just said the people she is seeing coming into the ICU are sicker and sicker.  Some are dying and some are in a medically-induced coma.   It is very serious.  Sadly 21 died in Ontario in the past day and there are about 400 people in the ICU.  That appears to be about 5% of the people in the ICU die.  Many others will have ongoing medical problems.  So Covid is something to avoid.   A healthy fear is a good idea.

  10. On 1/7/2022 at 8:57 AM, Winston said:

    The push for climate alarmism is primarily based on models with little understanding of how the climate functions globally. I can agree that the alarmism is unnecessarily and cult like. I would say it has become religious, where those asking questions are hunted down. 

    However, where your article looses me is when it makes the assertion this is due to young people loosing faith in God, an assertion with no evidence.

    The reason could be that young people today are not taught to ask questions (what, how and why) or critically think, they are told what to think. It would be better for (less educated) young people to take more logical reasoning, scientific methodology courses, providing them with the ability to critically think about the ideologies presented.

    Fundamentally the climate change claim is a claim of ethics or morals, ie if our actions hurt or kill someone on the other side of the planet, should we change the way we behave? 

      

    Lack of faith in the God of the Bible has serious consequences.  It means young people are taught and imbibe a different world view.  The world view they are taught is secular or humanist.  When God is absent, the individual becomes focused entirely on what humanism teaches them, which is completely contrary to what God teaches about how we came to be here and what the meaning of life is.  It becomes strictly a materialistic world view and their minds then become open to humanist political ideologies like Socialism, progressivism, LGBT rights, Marxism, etc.  For some they worship Mother Earth, another false religion that relegates man to being just another animal.  Such thinking is very prevalent now as we see on social media.  According to mother earth worshipers, man was not a special creation and so has no special value in God's eyes, which is totally contrary to Biblical revelation.  God created everything for a purpose and has a special place for man in his plan.  According to humanism, the creation was just some kind of cosmic accident and there is no purpose to it all.

  11. 11 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

    .2. Well - a quick American example says 2/3 of Americans think the government should do more on Climate
    https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2020/06/23/two-thirds-of-americans-think-government-should-do-more-on-climate/

    As Michael Crichton said, “Consensus is the business of politics. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”

    A biblical and scientific approach to climate change - creation.com

    "In the USA, the Global Warming Petition Project has garnered the signatures of some 31,500 scientists resident in the USA alone, including over 9,000 with PhDs, who dispute the claim that CO2 will cause serious problems.29 This alone casts serious doubt on the 97% figure.

    The justification for ‘97%’ has been a 2013 paper that, based on the abstracts of nearly 12,000 climate science papers published from 1991 to 2011, concluded that 97% of those who expressed an opinion endorsed the consensus view that “humans are causing global warming”.30 Based on this, former President Obama’s twitter account declared, “Ninety seven percent of scientists agree: climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” Note how the paper’s claim morphed from humans are causing some global warming into all climate change is man-made and dangerous. This is deceitful (an activist group called Organising for Action posted the Tweet).

    Moreover, the study was conducted by members of another activist group, Skeptical Science, which exists to promote public acceptance of AGW. When the raw data are examined, according to the authors’ own ratings, only 64 of the nearly 12,000 papers actually claimed that most of the warming is caused by human activity. In a follow-up analysis of the same papers, other researchers found that only 41 of those 64 papers endorsed the position that most of global warming was man-made.31 Taking into consideration that ⅔ of the papers expressed no view, that amounts to less than 1% of the papers that expressed a view. How did the authors get their 97%? They amalgamated all views that human-generated greenhouse gases are causing some warming. However, even most skeptics of the alarmism, including many who signed the Global Warming Petition (above) agree that human-generated CO2 causes some warming. This is a trivial finding.

    The survey did not address the question of climate change being ‘dangerous’ or a ‘crisis’ or anything like that. Such claims are made by politicians and actors-cum-activists.

    So, the 97% figure is a dishonest twisting of statistics, and the activists’ own raw data show that very few scientists agree even that most of the warming is due to human activity, let alone that it is dangerous.32"

    A biblical and scientific approach to climate change - creation.com

    Yet the Greta Thunberg crew and millions of young people have been panicked into believing mankind is in some kind of climate crisis and if drastic action is not taken we are all doomed.  They have obviously been fed a false narrative by fear mongers such as Greta and politicians such as Obama, Trudeau, Elizabeth May's Green Party, environmental organizations, and many others and activists who are milking the issue for all it's worth.

  12. 18 hours ago, Winston said:

    Ill be a bit more specific, what does one ton of CO2 released do to the climate, how is it measured and how is the resulting climate change measured? 

    If the opposite happens, one ton of CO2 is removed, what does that do to the climate, how is it measured and how is the resulting climate change measured? 

    I appreciate your feedback Michael, this is an interesting topic. 

    quote  Nearly all of this GHG effect is due to water vapour, and only about 3.3°C is due to CO2. unquote

    If 3.3C of global warming is due to CO2, and man contributes 3% of the CO2 in the atmosphere, is it reasonable to believe man changed that temperature by 3% of 3.3 C?  That seems insignificant.  So even if man could cut his GHG emissions in half, it would make practically no difference to the atmospheric temperature, correct?  That is, if we were able (which is unlikely) to reduce our man-made emissions from 3% of the atmospheric CO2 to 1.5%, that would equate to such a small change of temperature.  It would equate to 1.5% of 3.3 degrees C. That looks like 0.05 degrees C change.  Does that make sense?  So what would be the use of mankind destroying the economies of the world when it would make absolutely no difference to climate change.  A change in the order of 0.05 degrees C is nothing.

    The article on this link says nearly all of the global warming is caused by water vapour, not CO2 as everyone has been led to believe by our political leaders and so-called experts.

    A biblical and scientific approach to climate change - creation.com

  13. 18 hours ago, Winston said:

    Ill be a bit more specific, what does one ton of CO2 released do to the climate, how is it measured and how is the resulting climate change measured? 

    If the opposite happens, one ton of CO2 is removed, what does that do to the climate, how is it measured and how is the resulting climate change measured? 

    I appreciate your feedback Michael, this is an interesting topic. 

    Has it been proven that man is the cause of global warming or excessive climate change?  What is the proof?

  14. In the minds of many climate change leaders, climate change is not about saving the planet at all.

    quote

    Statements by the leaders of the climate change lobby show that the core issue is political/philosophical, rather than about saving the planet. For example:

    The German economist and IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) official Ottmar Edenhofer (that is, this is a mainstream view):

    “But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.” (said in 201011)

    For a non-mainstream view, we have Extinction Rebellion (XR) co-founder, Stuart Basden (2019):

    “And I’m here to say that XR isn’t about the climate. You see, the climate’s breakdown is a symptom of a toxic system that has infected the ways we relate to each other as humans and to all life.”

    He goes on to use neo-Marxist rhetoric criticising “heteronormativity”, “patriarchy”, “white supremacy”, and “class hierarchy”. He says XR is about fixing the system; that is, destroying Western society.12

    Furthermore, there is an inconsistency between the ‘walk’ and the ‘talk’ about a ‘global’ concern. If the concern was truly about saving the planet from global warming due to human-generated CO2, surely the greatest sources of the CO2 should be the main target for the action? Then why, when China is the world’s largest CO2 producer, is no one protesting outside Chinese embassies? Australia (for example) contributes just 1.2% of the world’s emissions, and yet is a target for activism. Yet if its emissions disappeared completely (with Australia reduced to a pre-industrial age), it would not make a detectable difference in world CO2 levels.  unquote

    A biblical and scientific approach to climate change - creation.com

  15. 9 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

    1. An asteroid could hit the earth this year - what of it ? You didn't say how this possibility should change our thinking or actions or what it means.

    2. Well - a quick American example says 2/3 of Americans think the government should do more on Climate
    https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2020/06/23/two-thirds-of-americans-think-government-should-do-more-on-climate/

    Man contributes a total of about 12 PPM of the earth's CO2 in the atmosphere or 3%.  The other roughly 338 PPM of CO2 or 97% is natural.  Canada contributes about 0.18 PPM or 1.5% of man's contribution.  That is 1.5% of 12 PPM.  Negligible or next to nothing.  So tell me how is man the cause of climate change?  It has been likened to Canada throwing a cup of water into an Olympic-sized swimming pool.  It will make no difference.

    Since scientists admit it is impossible to prove that man is causing excessive global warming because it cannot be repeated in a lab, why do you accept man is the cause?  Because somebody else says so or because a poll of people who have no proof and everyone thinks so because somebody else says so.  That's not science.  Popularity contests and polls are not science.  Neither is speculation science. 

    Ask Winston. He says he is a scientist.  Winston, tell us if man-made climate change is speculation. or science.  If it is science, what is the proof?

  16. 10 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

    Why does the United States allow itsself to be influenced by Canadian propoganda?

    Lorne Green, William Shatner, Justin Bieber, David Frum, Chris Wylie, Shania Twain, Faye Wray, Louis B. Meyer,

    Alexander Graham Bell, Michael J. Fox, Christopher Plummer, Wayne and Schuster, "Franklin W. Dixon", a quarter of the cast of Young and the Restless, the former Avro Arrow engineers who put Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin on the moon, Peter Jennings, and about a hundred thousand other influencers. 

     

     

     

    Still don't know the difference between western democracies and Communist dictatorships I see.

  17. Mandatory vaccination for everyone may be coming to Canada or to the provinces as a last ditch effort to head off a continuing and spreading pandemic.  It could be imposed by the provinces under Emergency measures Act because seven million Canadians are holding out and refusing to be vaccinated and the health care system could be heading for disaster.   Like many other Canadians, I do not accept that thousands of Canadians in need of heart and cancer surgeries must die waiting while hospitals are overloaded with unvaccinated Covid patients.

  18. 5 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

    By your numbers was she was already 3 weeks pregnant when they went to an "undisclosed "island. Where was she in the week of March 20th? anyway, we are getting away from the topic about Chinese influence in Canada.

     She could easily have had an 8-1/2 month pregnancy.  There is nothing to prove she got pregnant in March.  That argument has no merit.

    I don't think it is that far from the topic because it just demonstrates the Liberal PMs close ties and affection for Communist countries.

  19. 23 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

    I can't believe you really believe that stuff. ?

    4

    Snopes made a mistake regarding Trudeau's April 1971 movements

    Close

    4

    Posted by

    u/LoicyT

    4 years ago

    Snopes made a mistake regarding Trudeau's April 1971 movements

    https://www.snopes.com/justin-trudeau-is-fidel-castros-love-child/

    Snopes made a mistake regarding Trudeau's April 1971 movements : Snopes (reddit.com)

    The first couple made a big impression at a local sugaring event, for example, on March 27, and the press (in a testament to the level of scrutiny the prime minister’s new wife received) noted that Margaret did not travel with Pierre on an April trip to the Niagara region:

    Included is an image of a 2 April 1971 article from The Brandon Sun.

    For the remainder of April, Pierre was busy with governing, as attested to by logs of the Canadian House of Commons, making unlikely that his work would take the couple anywhere near Havana.

    This "remainder of April" (which would be April 3-30) statement is incorrect. I think Snopes should publish a retraction here. Two articles in The Ottawa Journal from that month document that Pierre and Margaret vacationed in the Carribean from April 8th to April 18th.

    13 April 1971 https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/41523862/

    Trudeau and his wife left here Monday by chartered plane on a quick sidetrip to an unidentified nearby island. They arrived here Thursday on a brief "second honeymoon,"

    16 April 1971 https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/41524010/

    Trudeau lunched privately Thursday with Trinidad and Tobago's prime minister, Dr. Eric Williams. Trudeau flew in from Tobago, the sister island of Trinidad, where he has been holidaying with his wife since Tuesday. Shortly after his luncheon engagement, Trudeau took a return plane to Tobago to rejoin his wife, Margaret. The Canadian high commission said it was in not in a position to say when the prime minister and his wife would leave Tobago. "We know he has to be back in Ottawa on April 18," a commission spokesman said. The Trudeaus already have visited Barbados and spent a day swimming off Bequia, a tiny island in the Grenadines, and nearby islets when they visited St. Vincent Monday.

    April 13 was a Tuesday. This means the chartered plane trip was on April 12, and they arrived in Bridgetown on April 8.

    April 16 was a Friday, so it was April 15 when Justin Pierre left Margaret alone in Tobago when he visited Trinidad, and they had arrived in Tobago on April 13.

    The snopes article also lists:

    Fidel Castro, for his part, was in Cuba during this conception window.

    In terms of public appearances, Castro gave a address to attendees of the “first education and culture congress” on 1 April 1971.

    On 19 April, he gave a defiantly anti-American speech that commemorated the 10th anniversary of the defeat of the United States‐sponsored Bay of Pigs invasion.

    Snopes has not account for Castro's location from April 2-18. Will it? This is the very period during which Margaret was in various Carribean islands east of Cuba.

     

    So tell me again how they were thousands of kilometers away?

  20. 3 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

    I can't believe you really believe that stuff. ?

    quote

    In April 1971, the Trudeaus took a long “second honeymoon” all around the Caribbean. According to Wikipedia, they visited one island they declined to disclose. It is the only island they did not disclose. From Wikipedia:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Trudeau

    Footnote 19 of the same Wikipedia article cites to a April 13, 1971 article from The Ottawa Journal. The article states that the Trudeaus were visiting an unidentified island in the Caribbean and wanted the press to give them privacy:

    To be clear: they disclosed all the other locations they visited but asked the press for privacy when they went to the “unidentified” island. Come on.

    Justin Trudeau was born 8 1/2 months later. In 1976, Pierre eagerly became the first NATO leader to travel to Cuba. He brought his wife. Before even leaving the tarmac, both Trudeaus were showing an unusual amount of familiarity with Fidel considering he was a national leader they just allegedly met. Within hours of their first official meeting, Margaret was photographed intimately touching and holding Fidel Castro with both arms. The Trudeaus announced they had become besties with the dictator and sang his praises during the height of his human rights violations.  unquote

    Of Course Fidel Castro is Justin Trudeau’s Dad. Nobody Has ‘Debunked’ Anything | by Karen Leibowitcz | Medium

     

    article re Trudeau trip.png

  21. 2 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

    Silly urban folklore. At the relevant time, Mrs. Trudeau was thousands of Kilometres away from President Castro. 

    Now Sir Mick J....

    No she wasn't thousands of kilometers away.  That is a fake claim by some.  Here is the point.  PM Trudeau and the Mrs. went on a secret vacation down in the Caribbean at the time she was said to become pregnant.  So she wasn't thousands of km away.  Check that out and find the article.  It is speculated that Pierre loved the idea of having a son by a strong virulent macho man who he greatly admired.  I will try to find the article.

×
×
  • Create New...