blackbird

Canada has a one-China policy and does not have an official foreign diplomatic post in Taiwan. This should tell us something about the liberal left in Canada and their disastrous foreign affairs. Seems liberals and NDP and possibly other parties to a degree want to have it both ways, support Communist states and free Democratic states. They speak with forked tongue. This has proven a disaster and has placed Canada on the watch list with our traditional allies. This situation of loving Communist countries goes back 53 years or so when PM Pierre Trudeau was the first western leader to lead Canada to officially recognize the People's Republic of China and establish diplomatic relations in 1970. It is well-known the Trudeaus had a fascination with Communist dictatorships and became personal friends with Cuba's Fidel Castro. Why Liberals at large so easily bought into this is a mystery. It may have something to do with Liberals in the 1960s feeling their oats and thinking they somehow could be the great arbitrator of the world's problems. They wholeheartedly rushed in to give all their support to the U.N. and embraced multiculturalism as the be all and end all. They continue down this path and have added progressivism into the mix and rejected our historic Judeo-Christian culture and civilization and our European roots as of any importance. It has been said that key Liberals consider Canada as a "post-national" state. Nationalism is frowned on and Canadians have even been accused of genocide without any basis at all. There seems to be an obsession by liberals (and left) with encouraging national shame for colonizing this part of north America. This liberal left thinking has had dire consequences with nation building and national defence. Canada's armed forces cannot even get people to join because of this progressivism/liberalism deeply embedded in our government departments. They have in effect declared war on our historic traditional values. They are trying to change Canada into some kind of liberal/progressive pagan culture with increasing state control of free speech, beliefs, and society in general. This article elaborates on what is happening: "Determined advocates for a progressive world view work all through government, the bureaucracy, environmental and other non-governmental organizations, academia and the media. They are not an organized cabal — a vast left-wing conspiracy, to paraphrase Hillary Clinton — but they do have overlapping agendas and share the twin convictions that a fundamental reordering of society is needed and that they know best how to achieve it. Proponents include Liberals, progressives, socialists, hard leftists and crypto- marxists who support climate alarmism, globalism, big government, stakeholder capitalism, critical race theory and wokeism. The transformation they seek is already well under way. There’s even the danger that, like the frog sitting in the slowly heating water, the rest of us may realize what has happened only after it is too late. Many environmental organizations, including Greenpeace — which the environment minister, Stephen Guilbeault, belonged to when he scaled the CN Tower — view humans’ impact on the planet as inherently destructive and bad. The declared goal of Stable Planet Alliance is “to stabilize and gradually, steadily reduce population and consumption.” One of the alliance’s members, Population Balance, draws “the connections between pronatalism, human supremacy, and ecological overshoot, and their combined devastating impacts on social, reproductive, ecological, and intergenerational justice.” Actual culling of the population may be a bridge too far, but they are certainly no fans of childbearing." Joe Oliver: What progressives are really trying to do and why (msn.com)

Probably the two biggest proofs of the resurrection of Jesus are the empty tomb and the fact that many of the Apostles died as martyrs for their faith or belief in the resurrection. People don't die for a lie. There are other reasons. You can Google it and see for yourself.

You just said it by saying it has been legal for 50 years.

As I said many times, that is a moral question of right or wrong. It has always been considered as wrong by civilized society. Anyone who thinks suicide is fine or reasonable really needs help. However, the government does not use the word suicide in the MAID laws or debates because they don't want people to think that is what it is. It is carefully avoided.

That's because there are many reasons why I trust the "old book". Just one reason alone is Jesus was raised from the dead and seen after the resurrection by many eye witnesses. Anyone who chooses to ignore that fact has to be blind.

Taking human life was always illegal. It was called murder. Still is in most countries.

How do you figure they are making decisions on the the sanctity of life and when it can be ended by assisted dying? Who do you think brought in the MAID law and is adding mentally ill people to it?

Sounds like you're proud of supporting evil and have no qualms about it.

That's the problem. Government has no right to make any decisions on the sanctity of life or when it should be ended. That is God's business. What you're talking about is a group of politicians in their ivory tower counting the votes they will get for making certain decisions.

Your conscience should be able to tell you when to do the right thing and avoid the wrong thing. Conscience is also formed by learning what society expects, what God expects as taught in his word, and what the laws tell us. As for the laws, when government legalizes MAID, what kind of message are they sending to society about the sanctity of life?

I don't know. Maybe somebody didn't like the articles or it pricked their conscience and they complained.

Yes, there are certain circumstance where police may shot to kill or soldiers but those are only rational that anybody can understand. When it comes to easing the suffering, it becomes highly questionable because suffering is a very subjective thing. People have chosen MAID for things that nobody in their right mind would say is suffering. And offering it to veterans because they suffer from PTSD instead of giving them counseling to treat the PTSD. Things like that, or we have heard of people choosing MAID because they can't afford to live and they want to take the MAID way to escape their circumstances. This is the thing that should have been expected to happen when the government decided to go down that path. That could be one reason why God has a commandment thou shalt not kill. The government is now deciding to give it to anybody who claims they have mental issues. That pretty well opens the door to anyone who wants to claim MAID. The government doesn't seem too concerned because they know there are lots of people who support MAID and have somehow fallen for the notion it is a "individual right" or "choice". The government also know it could save a lot of money on the medical system since that is paid for by the government. The number of people choosing MAID is now over ten thousand per year and could go much higher. But that makes it also a conflict of interest. How much of this MAID is to save the government money? We don't know. MAID opens a can of worms which will be very difficult or impossible to control. Perhaps that is a reason God's command is against killing. MAID makes it very easy for people to lose their lives on a whim. Its a path no country should go down. In addition suffering is a normal part of life. Thousands of people may simply choose to take MAID well before they experience any real "suffering". There are also many drugs that can reduce or eliminate suffering. We need better and more accessible palliative care, not a doctor of death.

I have received a warning that I am reposting under this topic. Please do not keep repeating the same nonsensical comments. I reposted some articles because commenters repeated the same kind of comments and I was only trying to answer them. They apparently did not read the earlier posts I made with articles explaining the topic. But apparently I am not allowed to repost something I posted earlier. So I will have to follow that rule and not repost something. That means I will not be able to give much of reply if people like Treebeard, BC Sapper and others want to keep repeating the same old things.

He gave mankind many things including free will or the ability to choose between right and wrong. He did not create mankind as robots. But he gave them his written revelation with commands such as thou shalt not kill. If some men choose to disobey God and kill then it is man, who has free will, that is in the wrong.

He did not give anything to mankind to allow mankind to kill people. That is a misunderstanding of God. He gave man knowledge, but also said thou shalt not kill. If man uses knowledge to kill people when they must not, it is man that is going against the commandment of God.

No, of course not. God gave mankind knowledge, science, medicine, and the ability to heal people. He gave all these things to mankind.

God is the one in charge of life. He created us and when we die is basically his business. We don't have any right to actively end someone's life. That is playing God. Our bodies and soul, our being, belongs to God. Nobody has any business playing God and actively ending life. You need to accept the fact there is an omnipotent almighty God who you are responsible to and start reading the Bible, New Testament. Stop thinking you are some kind of god because you are not. You are a created being made in the image of God.

You obviously just answered instantly without even reading the article. I don't think it is useful to waste time with back and forth comments when you don't listen and don't read any articles explaining my beliefs. You simple want to argue. I don't see any signs that you are seriously interested in knowing the answers to questions you raise.

No, I said God does not change on certain things. The commandment "thou shalt not kill" did not change. There are exceptions to that commandment and always have been. You know that. Self defence as for example a police officer acting to protect his life or someone's else life. In times of war to defend a nation. Those exceptions always existed.

The question of why allows suffering in this world is one of the most asked questions. I don't have all the answers to that because it is a difficult subject. But there are many articles that go into that and here is one: quote Q: Why does God allow suffering in the world? A: There are no easy answers to the question of the purpose of suffering and evil. The tendency is to blame God for these conditions, but He did not create them. They came as a result of man’s disobedience to God, beginning back in the Garden of Eden; see Genesis 3:16-19. Often suffering and adversity are brought about by disregard of God’s will or by the direct efforts of Satan or by natural disasters in a physical world which is also affected by man’s sin and the resulting judgment. God, however, has offered the most effective solution possible by giving His Son to die for all. Jesus Christ paid the ultimate price when He suffered and died on the cross, having taken upon Himself the sin of the world and all of its horrible consequences. When Jesus returns in power and glory, there will be a new world completely free from sin with its sorrow and suffering (Revelation, chapters 21 and 22). We can be sure that God in His divine purpose desires to bring about in us the greatest good and to allow suffering to be a means of discipline to cultivate love, patience, grace, and faith in our lives. God never asks us to understand; we need only trust Him in the same way that we expect our earthly children to trust our love. Peace comes when we realize we are able to see only a few threads in the great tapestry of life and of God’s plan. Then we can affirm with great joy and assurance that “in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose” (Romans 8:28). The way we react to suffering will determine whether life’s most tragic experiences bring bitterness and despair or become sources of blessing. The greatest joy will come when, in the midst of adversity, we look up into God’s face and say, “I will rejoice in the Lord, I will joy in the God of my salvation” (Habakkuk 3:18). It is then that His promise will be most meaningful, “When you pass through the waters, I will be with you; and when you pass through the rivers, they will not sweep over you. When you walk through the fire, you will not be burned; the flames will not set you ablaze” (Isaiah 43:2). unquote Why does God allow suffering in the world? (billygraham.org)

In a just war, people have a right to self-defense. As a result of the attack on 9-11, and the fact that Afghanistan Taliban were harbouring the 9-11 attackers who were training there, yes I think the west going into Afghanistan was justified. They had attacked the U.S. in 9-11 and killed around 3,000 people in New York. This was a response to that and part of the war on terrorism. That is what it was all about.

There are many diseases in this fallen world that we cannot stop. I think you will agree to that. You incorrectly said "like God intended". So let me ask you why you said "like God intended". How do you know that?

God does not change in certain central matters perhaps would be more accurate. God does different things in different times in history would be more accurate. It might not be a completely clear statement to say God does not change. That all depends what one is talking about. God's commandments such as thou shalt not kill does not change. God's command to follow him and believe in him and his word does not change. We could probably find many things where God does not change. But certain ways God dealt with people down through history have changed. That is true. Certain commandments and directives that were given to Israel were only meant for them, such as the one you mentioned, only applied to them at that time in history. So perhaps saying God does not change was not the best way to explain that to you I admit. Like many subjects or questions, we have to go into more detail and explanation to understand something properly.

"A related issue is that of assisted suicide. Essentially, a person seeking assisted suicide is seeking to euthanize himself, with the aid of another person to ensure that death is quick and painless. The person assisting the suicide facilitates death by making preparations and furnishing the needed equipment; but the person seeking death is the one who actually initiates the process. By taking a “hands-off” approach to the death itself, the facilitator seeks to avoid charges of murder. Proponents of assisted suicide try for a positive spin by using terms like “death with dignity.” But “death with dignity” is still death, “assisted suicide” is still suicide, and suicide is wrong. We live in what is sometimes described as a “culture of death.” Abortion on demand has been practiced for decades. Now some are seriously proposing infanticide. And euthanasia is promoted as a viable means of solving various social and financial problems. This focus on death as an answer to the world’s problems is a total reversal of the biblical model. Death is an enemy (1 Corinthians 15:26). Life is a sacred gift from God (Genesis 2:7). When given the choice between life and death, God told Israel to “choose life” (Deuteronomy 30:19). Euthanasia spurns the gift and embraces the curse. The overriding truth that God is sovereign drives us to the conclusion that euthanasia and assisted suicide are wrong. We know that physical death is inevitable for us mortals (Psalm 89:48; Hebrews 9:27). However, God alone is sovereign over when and how a person’s death occurs. Job testifies in Job 30:23, “I know you will bring me down to death, to the place appointed for all the living.” Ecclesiastes 8:8 declares, “No man has power over the wind to contain it; so no one has power over the day of his death.” God has the final say over death (see 1 Corinthians 15:26, 54–56; Hebrews 2:9, 14–15; Revelation 21:4). Euthanasia and assisted suicide are man’s attempts to usurp that authority from God. Death is a natural occurrence. Sometimes God allows a person to suffer for a long time before death occurs; other times, a person’s suffering is cut short. No one enjoys suffering, but that does not make it right to determine that a person should die. Often, God’s purposes are made known through suffering. “When times are good, be happy; but when times are bad, consider: God has made the one as well as the other” (Ecclesiastes 7:14). Romans 5:3 teaches that tribulations bring about perseverance. God cares about those who cry out for death and wish to end their suffering. God gives purpose in life even to the end. Only God knows what is best, and His timing, even in the matter of one’s death, is perfect. We should never seek to prematurely end a life, but neither must we go to extraordinary means to preserve a life. To actively hasten death is wrong; to passively withhold treatment can also be wrong; but to allow death to occur naturally in a terminally ill person is not necessarily wrong. Anyone facing this issue should pray to God for wisdom (James 1:5). And we should all remember the words of former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, who warned that the practice of medicine “cannot be both our healer and our killer” (from KOOP, The Memoirs of America’s Family Doctor by C. Everett Koop, M.D., Random House, 1991)." unquote What does the Bible say about euthanasia / assisted suicide? | GotQuestions.org

You demonstrate you are being deceptive. Why would you single something out of the Old Testament which does not give a complete picture and would give an incorrect belief about the Bible and Christianity. You might fool some people, but you are not fooling me on this one. I already explained that was only directed to Israel at that period in history and only by authorities in a judicial process. There was no vigilante permitted. You obviously ignored the detailed explanation I posted and are continuing to try to deceive. The Bible does not teach what you are insinuating.