blackbird
-
Posts
9,986 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
8
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by blackbird
-
-
21 minutes ago, bcsapper said:
Oh, absolutely! I thought I was doing you a favour by saving you some time, but in the end, your time is your own to do with as you see fit.
People paid to watch "the God Delusion" debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox. You can watch it for free on youtube at the link I gave above.
1 minute ago, bcsapper said:That's a lot of killing! Was it just the size of the tablets, or was it just to much trouble to put "unless..." in there somwhere?
I'm really not versed in the testaments. Do Christians not believe the Old Testament? Isn't that where the whole creation thing was?
What killing are you referring to? I don't understand your question about tablets.
Now you are asking a technical question about the Old Testament. Yes, they believe in the O.T. But it also has history of Israel in it and commands that were directed only to Israel. The school of theological interpretation I believe is called dispensational which means the Bible is divided up into different time periods or dispensations. That period in the Old Testament is called the dispensation of the law. Today we live in a different dispensation called the dispensation of grace which began 2,000 years ago when the church began. The instructions in the Old Testament that are not universal and were only meant for the Jews at that time, do not apply in the age we live today. Some commands such as the ten commandment are universal for all ages. With the exception of the sabbath law which only applied to the Jews in the dispensation of the law (O.T. times).
-
8 minutes ago, bcsapper said:
God (your God?) is no standard. He says killing people is wrong. It is sometimes, and we figured that out without him.
That standard comes from Judeo-Christian civilization down through the ages. You were probably taught it was wrong because that was handed down through the ages. Could well have come from God and the ten commandments.
-
7 minutes ago, bcsapper said:
God (your God?) is no standard. He says killing people is wrong. It is sometimes, and we figured that out without him.
He says homosexuality is wrong. It obviously isn't.
He says eating pork is wrong? Is that correct? I'm not much of a bible reader.
Yes, God says killing is wrong (with certain exceptions such as capital punishment for murder by lawful authorities, defence in war, police enforcing the law).
The rest of it requires Biblical knowledge, which can be Googled to find the answers. There may have been a prohibition to eat pork in the Old Testament for Israel several thousand years ago. But there is no prohibition for Christians. Some religions forbid pork but not Christians or correct interpretation of the Bible from a Christian perspective.
-
1 hour ago, Army Guy said:
WOW, for a religious guy , that is the best explanation you could come up with.
One could say the same thing about Santa Claus, he has no reason to convince anyone he is real, to do so would not make sense, the Stories of Santa simply state he is real and goes on from there. And yet not many can claim to have seen him or his reindeer
There are lots of reasons to question is there a God, let me ask a few , Why is there a need for WAR, Starvation, murder, the list goes on why did he make us so evil, or capable of doing veil things to each other. He created us then left us to our own devices...sounds like some big experiment. Want to convince someone God is real then answer the hard questions...
Don't get me wrong i believe in God, i have prayed to the man many times, mostly in times of need.
I gave quite a long reply about 1 hour ago. Did you read it or miss it? Then I asked a question about what his standard is for right and wrong. But the long post an hour ago certainly does contain a lot of information. I am not sure what your allusion to Santa Claus is for. I said far more than simply stating God is real in the above post. You must have missed it. Check again.
It is ironic. BC Sapper said I said too much and you said I said too little. Figure that one out.
-
9 minutes ago, bcsapper said:
Please don't do this anymore, in replies to me. I have nothing against you and I don't want to see you wasting your time. I am an atheist who will no more read your "proof" that God exists than you would read my "proof" that God does not. If I were to attempt to put that in a post.
That is your choice. This happens to be a forum where we reply to comments. My reply to you contains detailed information why your claim is wrong. If you can't bear to read it or choose not to for some reason, that is your choice. Maybe someone else will get something out of it. The forum is more than a discussion between two people. Others read and reply to comments often.
Even famous atheists like Richard Dawkins engage in public debate with theists.
If you are not afraid you can watch their debate on youtube:
-
Sadly, the justice system is not an important issue for the great majority of Canadians.
""Debt or deficit", "taxes", and "crime" had a similar response rate of between 1 and 1.5 per cent each week when Canadians are asked to name the most important issue government should tackle."
Quebec wants feds to focus on environment, for Alberta it’s the economy: PCO polling (msn.com)
Equally sad is the top issue for Quebec is the environment, something no man or government can control or change. I guess Quebecers have all the wealth they need from equalization and favouritism by Ottawa. So they can be interested in a phony issue like the environment as their hobby horse.
-
1 hour ago, bcsapper said:
EDIT> Sorry, I didn't read your post correctly. The idea that anyone would compare MAID to the Holocaust was so far into the domain of the hopelessly insane it flew right by me. Please ignore my "denial" comment, above.
If according to you there is no God, what is your standard or basis for determining right or wrong?
By what standard or reference do you come to the conclusion that individual choice to commit suicide or doctor-assisted suicide is moral or right? By what or whose authority would MAID be right or moral?
Would it be right for some medical professional or relative or friend to suggest to someone who is mentally-challenged they have the option of MAID?
-
1 hour ago, bcsapper said:
It really doesn't, because there is no God, whether you believe it or not.
Wow!
I have news for you.
quote
The Supernatural in the Natural
The universe is objectively unnatural; it is astonishingly supernatural!!
We have lived in this naturalistic world for so long that we forget that it is an unnatural world to begin with. It is unnatural to get something from nothing. It is unnatural to have a whole ocean of distinct, finely calibrated, subatomic particles materializing from nothing. It is unnatural to have random and unrelated physical laws governing the universe from nothing. It is even more intriguing for these laws of nature to be fine-tuned to sometimes one in a million million part to birth a life-permitting universe from nothing. And it is even more mind-boggling for these laws of nature to be exquisitely fine-tuned to each other to sustain this universe from nothing. unquote\
- from Darwin's Universe, From Nothing, By Nothing, For Nothing - Survival for Nothing by Yan T Wee available on Amazon
quote
Arguments for theism and against atheism
Watch this page
Anselm of Canterbury's version of the ontological argument appeared in his work Proslogium.
The majority of philosophers of religion, or those who have extensively studied the issue of the existence of God, are theists (72 percent).[1]
In relation to the debate between theism and atheism, theists often criticize atheism as being contrary to persuasive argument and have a number of arguments against atheism.
Within Christendom, the discipline of Christian apologetics has been developed. Christian apologetics is the defense of the Christian faith through logic/evidence based arguments. The word apologetics comes from the Greek word apologia (from Greek ἀπολογία), which means "speaking in defense".
Arguments for the existence of God include:
Teleological argument: The universe exhibits overwhelming evidence of deliberate, intelligent, purposeful design, which implies an intelligent designer. See also: Arguments against evolution and Origin of life
Evidential apologetics is an approach in Christian apologetics which emphasizes the use of evidence to demonstrate that God exists and that there is compelling evidence to support Christianity and the Bible. In addition, there are various arguments that atheists or other unbelievers weigh evidence improperly (see: Atheism and evidence).
Moral argument. Objective morality exists. Atheism lacks objective moral standards. Not possessing a coherent basis for morality, atheists are fundamentally incapable of having a coherent system of morality (See also: Atheism and morality and Atheist population and immorality and Atheism and hedonism and Atheist hypocrisy) .[2] Atheism leads to moral and cultural decline (see: Atheism and culture).
Cosmological argument: Every event in our universe necessarily has a cause. However, it is impossible that there should be an unending chain of causes going back. Therefore, there necessarily must be a cause distinct from the universe as we know it which is capable of causing all things and is itself uncaused. Atheism denies that that first cause is God. Christians point out that the question "Who created God" is an illogical question.[3] See also: Atheism and the origin of the universe
Historical arguments for the existence of God (subset of evidential apologetics). For example, arguments stemming from historical accounts such as Christian historical apologetics, Christian legal apologetics and archaeological evidence such as Bible archaeology
Bible prophecy
Atheism and presuppositional apologetics
Ontological argument
Atheism and irrationality - Atheism cannot account for the laws of logic, consciousness or human reason.
Atheism and the Problem of Evil (see also: Atheism and gratitude and Atheism and Hell)
Atheists lack a coherent and compelling ultimate basis for knowledge. See: Atheism and epistemology
Atheism is an unnecessarily limiting view of the world (see: Atheism is an unnecessarily limiting view of the world).
Common arguments against atheism
unquote
Arguments for theism and against atheism - Conservapedia
The following website explains why you should believe the Bible. The KJV is 100% accurate and based on the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts.
Why should I believe the Bible? | GotQuestions.org
The Bible begins with the assumption that God is. It does not attempt to try to prove the existence of God because it is inspired by God himself. Since God is omnipotent (all powerful), he has no reason to try to convince man that he exists. He created mankind. Why would the Creator have to get down and beg for anyone to believe he is God and exists? It simply would not make sense. No, the Bible simply states he is and goes on from there.
-
2 hours ago, bcsapper said:
By all means, go ahead. Base your entire life on those texts if you want. Just don't imagine for a moment that they apply to anyone else.
Does anyone have any right to question or oppose the Holocaust? Was that everyone's business or nobody else's business but the Nazis?
Seems to me the principles taught in the Bible, as for example, the ten commandments are universal principles that apply to everyone. If those principles apply to everyone then your reasoning is seriously flawed.
-
1 hour ago, bcsapper said:
By all means, go ahead. Base your entire life on those texts if you want. Just don't imagine for a moment that they apply to anyone else.
Unless, of course, they have made the same choice as you.
God's revelation applies to everyone whether you believe it or not. Personal beliefs are nothing more than personal beliefs. They do not necessarily agree with God's revelation to mankind. Therefore someone who does not believe in God or his written revelation could easily be dead wrong about many things and probably is wrong because he bases his beliefs on his own feelings or on what a non-believing world has said.
-
On 12/30/2022 at 12:59 PM, Aristides said:
Suicide is not murder and it is not illegal.
"Murder" is a law term that refers to something that is against the law. Although suicide may not be illegal, it is still killing one's self which is playing God. Because something is not illegal, does make it moral or right in God's eyes. When human life ends is God's business, not man's. God created man in his own image and human beings belong to God. Not submitting to God's will, as revealed in his written revelation, the Bible, is rebellion against our Creator.
-
58 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:
Just as I thought, you think only liberals have ethics violations??/ LOL
Don't drink that kool aid West LOL
Oh? Or were they all fed up with the cons breaking the ethics rules?? LOL
Trudeau and Liberals have a history of ethics violations and scamming taxpayers. Oink oink
-
1
-
-
48 minutes ago, Aristides said:
Yes but Ng did not profit personally. What she did was unethical but it wasn't corruption unless she was getting a kick back.
Just using taxpayer's money to help the Liberals get elected. Give your head a shake. The kickback is Liberals getting elected. How much do you think cabinet ministers get paid? Using taxpayer money to help Liberals get elected is a serious abuse of taxpayer's money. That is not democracy either.
According to this table of salaries of Senate and H of C, they get paid:
ministers $90,400 plus $2,000 car allowance.
This is in addition to an MPs salary of $185,800.
There are additional payments of thousands of dollars for holding various positions.
-
2 hours ago, Aristides said:
It would be corruption if Ng had benefited personally but there is nothing to indicate she had. This is a question of ethics.
The approx $23,000 went to a PR firm run by Avaro and she worked as a key person on Trudeau's election campaign. She works for the Liberals almost every day on the CBC program Power and Politics.
-
quote
As a new prime minister in 2015, Justin Trudeau set out his expectations for cabinet ministers.
“To be worthy of Canadians’ trust, we must always act with integrity,” Trudeau wrote in the introduction to “Open and Accountable Government,” a guide for ministers.
It’s not enough, he stated, to be in technical compliance of the law. Rather, ministers must uphold “highest standards of honesty and impartiality,” an obligation that went beyond official duties, Trudeau explained.
“Creating the culture of integrity and accountability that allows us to earn and keep the trust of Canadians will require constant attention,” he wrote. unquote
Trade Minister Mary Ng should resign | The Star
Do I sense hypocrisy?
-
What is hilarious is some of the Trudeau supporters on here who don't understand why this is a scandal.
Thousands of dollars of taxpayer money being paid to a public relations firm run by Amanda Alvaro, who was one of Trudeau's lead campaigners for his election. She is also a well-known liberal defender on the liberal CBC Power and Politics daily program. So taxpayer money was used to campaign for the Liberals and some don't understand the problem.
Another article says this is only the tip of the iceberg
Tasha Kheiriddin: Mary Ng scandal is but the tip of a terrible iceberg | Montreal Gazette
The $22,000 and something of taxpayer money in this case is peanuts compared to the 50 million dollars given to the Aga Khan foundation around the time Trudeau took a trip to the Aga Khan's island, but he never had to resign over that. But it is the principle that taxpayer money is being funded to a PR firm and to people who campaign for Liberals.
-
8 hours ago, eyeball said:
Millions of human beings around the world died in this process.
I'm curious, there's probably good reason to believe most of these died before they were saved so is it safe to say they're burning in hell and will do so for eternity?
I'm just trying to make sure it got all the facts of your belief system in a consistent logical order.
The Bible says God is the judge. It would be pointless to speculate on such a thing. It accomplishes nothing.
-
1 hour ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:
I am not a historian but I think that Romans did invade other countries to spread Christianity just like the Arabs did in 6th century but I could be wrong.
There is no doubt that Christianity is less violent than Islam because Jesus himself was a man of peace and stood for love and was a victim of authority, however, the Christian church became very abusive in 16th and 17th century and destroyed many lives just like Islam is doing now in middle east that was why Christian faith was weakened later in 29th century.
You may be thinking of the Roman church, which is not actually a biblical church but it did grow to be the major religion in Europe through the ages since the 4th century. After the Roman Empire disappeared in the early centuries A.D., the Holy Roman Church took control of Europe through subservient kings and emperors. They did have crusades in the middle ages and some of it was to resist the takeover or control of the holy lands by the Muslims. There have been struggles in those areas ever since. There have been wars through the centuries for control of different areas or countries. Most of Europe remained in control of the Roman Church until the Reformation 500 years ago when Rome lost control of some countries in northern Europe.
The Reformation took place in the 16th century and split a large part of the Roman church within part of Germany, the Netherlands, Scotland, and England becoming Protestant and rejecting Rome and the Pope.
The Bible does not teach wars as the way to spread its message. Jesus never taught that wars were the way to spread the gospel. The wars that took place had a lot to do with control of countries, imperialism, self-defence, and power struggles, which has nothing to do with what the Bible teaches. There have been divisions and conflicts between different religions and beliefs down through history as well. Nations do have the right to defend themselves.
-
3 minutes ago, Contrarian said:
Yes, I agree, he never does that.
The issue arises for someone ideological like him though is, what will his group do when unable to implement the theory?
Of course he can't call for it, that is against the law and part of the religion, sure. But any religious doctrine can turn violent when unable to impose their way. Even the Buddhists have a radical movement, Myanmar and Sri Lanka.
I want to know from @blackbird how will his group, which he represents a group that follows an interpretation of Christianity, how will he and his group implement their ideas without force if society refuses his ideas, which clearly in 2022 a modern society does not have time for such ideas, but that is my view.
Jesus never advocated the use of force to spread his message or gospel. People simply choose themselves what they believe in this world. Those who believe will be saved. (John 3:16, etc.) There would never be the use of force as we see in some Islamic countries. Bible believers support a government that maintains law and order and basic freedoms for the protection of society. But that's as far as it goes. Jesus said my kingdom is not of this world.
-
1 hour ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:
I wonder why Jesus don't help millions of patients right now suffering severely from pain from various rehabilitating diseases cancer being just one. Or even better why did your Jesus allow this to happen at the first place, Why they choose painful sickening chemotherapy, they should have just invited Jesus into their life then pain gone and problem solved!!!!!!
Our medical doctors should be retrained in their field. To handle deadly diseases we don't need medications or therapy. Train them to invite Jesus. Even better make the priests and nuns to replace doctors and surgeons.
God save this land if the religious people take control. Look what happened to Iran. I saw it with my own eyes. They turned a heaven on earth into a real hell with Satan as the leader declaring himself God's agent on earth and people as slaves of themselves by force.
Down with backward barbaric religions,
"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)."
Why does God allow suffering in the world? (billygraham.org)
-
No need for anyone to choose suicide or medically assisted death. One can call upon Jesus Christ to be with him and give him strength to get through whatever he is facing whether it is emotional distress or physical illness and pain. He has said I will never leave thee nor forsake thee. We can demonstrate, even in our last days and hours, that the dignity of human life should be respected above all and that we trust God and his Son to deliver us.
"“For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” Romans 10:13 KJV
"1And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
2And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
3And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.
4And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away." Revelation 21:1-4 KJV
-
2 minutes ago, eyeball said:
Who on Earth said they weren't?
The advocates and supporters of doctor-assisted death are the ones who are saying doctor-assisted death is the dignified way to go, which of course is a misuse of the word dignity as explained in the article. Thousands are falling for it.
You replied so quickly, I doubt you even read the article. You remind me of a dog down the street that as soon as he hears me walking by, he barks. Did you reply as soon as I commented without even reading the information or article?
-
The "death with dignity" movement and there is even an organization that uses that name, are well-meaning people, but terribly misguided. They simply don't understand that the true dignity of a person is not in how a person dies, but in the fact that everyone is created in the image of God. The application of the word dignity to death is a terrible deception and falsehood. Dignity has nothing to do with how a person dies. Death with dignity is a phrase that could not be further from the truth.
-
Debunking the “Death With Dignity” Myth
by Care-Net Blog
From CareNet blog
Posted by Tiffany Dawson on Aug 10, 2017 7:00:00 AM
“Death with dignity” sounds merciful. It sounds peaceful. If I were terminally ill, I wouldn’t want to die a painful death either. I have no doubt that advocates of death with dignity (physician assisted suicide) have good intentions, but beneath the peaceful face of the “death with dignity” movement is a spiritually dark concept that has practical implications.
In particular there are two premises in the “death with dignity” concept that are false.
The first idea, implied in the movement’s name, is that a person can lose his or her dignity by suffering at the end of life and can regain it by choosing when to die and avoiding suffering. This is not true.
According to Merriam Webster, “dignity” means, “the quality or state of being worthy, honored, or esteemed.”
What “death with dignity” advocates forget is that, no matter how much suffering the patient is going through, even if they are suffering without hope of survival, these terminally ill patients are still just as valuable and worthy of life as they were before they were suffering.
Humans cannot lose their dignity. Dignity is something every human inherently possesses, because we are all made in God’s image.
Inducing death, or even letting someone die when that person could live, is an affront to human dignity. It devalues the inherent worth of the individual and says that people can lose their worth or value due to circumstances. But worth is not based on circumstance, it is inherent and cannot be diminished.
True “death with dignity” means letting people die naturally only after everything possible is done to save their lives and there is no possible way left of saving them. It means letting natural causes take over, not human intervention. It means the patients themselves or the parents of extremely young patients decide when to let natural causes take over. And it means the medical personnel and loved ones who surround the suffering patients must treat them with love and dignity to the end, no matter how hard it is to care for them. unquote
For the rest of the article, go to:
Debunking the “Death With Dignity” Myth « Word & Work (wordandwork.org)
Canadian Children’s Activity Book Indoctrinates Kids into Euthanasia
in Federal Politics in Canada
Posted
That is a good question and one of the most asked questions.
I found this explanation quite useful:
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)
There are many websites which attempt to answer that from a biblical standpoint. A search engine can find them.