blackbird
-
Posts
9,913 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
8
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by blackbird
-
-
Trudeau at this moment is on the CBC/CTV liberal news constantly virtue-signaling about all the goodies he has handed out. This is not the mark of a leader. Sadly many will fall for the constant handout of various goodies as social programs and aid. This is the only thing liberals know how to do. They know little or nothing about building a strong country and helping the economy to grow which is the natural way to solve the housing crisis. All they know how to do is hand out money in the form of grants and social assistance programs.
His only criticism of Pierre Polievre seems to be Crypto currency which he constantly harps on as if this is the central policy of the Conservative Party. This is a typical Trudeau smear and falsehood. This is not the policy of the Conservative Party and never will be. We often heard Trudeau make off colour or nonsensical statements like his love for the Chinese dictatorship or how he is working for equity among Canadians, a pipe dream that will never happen. He lives in an alt reality and has no credibility. The idea that government can solve everyone's financial problems and create a utopian society of equality is a Marxist idea and a lie to just get votes. Such schemes can only lead to loss of freedom and the state micro-managing everyone's life. There is no such thing as a free lunch for everyone.
-
3
-
-
1 hour ago, Tony Hladun said:
Here we go. What's your thoughts on the ASA? I'm an Albertan and I do feel that Ottawa plays fast and loose with what are provincial responsibilities. As an example, Canada is a country of energy consumers and energy producers (we are the 4th largest oil producer in the world). Ontario and Quebec, where the population is, are energy consumers so Ottawa is very consumer oriented. But resource development is a Provincial responsibility but by CO2 regulation and no-pipelines Ottawa tries to choke that industry which is Canada's largest net exporter.
So Notley tried to cozy and Kenney wrote letter's and both got nowhere, but DS, as she says, is trying something different. If Ottawa oversteps its Constitutional bounds or if it targets Alberta with legislation it does make sense for Alberta to fight back. Quebec does it with not-withstanding all the time. Now to negotiate with Ottawa you need a process which the ASA lays out in law. So far it seems the biggest criticism is that the Alberta Cabinet is given the power to act, but how else would you do it? It sounds like the critics want everyone in Alberta, at a given time, to shout "Ottawa is a bad boy!". Now where would that get us.
So guys pull those those pins and throw those grenades.
You are correct. The ASA seems like a very good idea. I see the mainstream media like the CBC and CTV have their liberal-controlled pundits and Marist-leaning university professors and "constitutional experts" on the news and political programs constantly trying to attack the ASA. The CBC and CTV are the biggest propaganda tools of the federal liberals. While the CBC and CTV have access to a large swath of the population, there is no way that opposing views of Canadians and Albertans can express their opinions except on social media which is very limited and the Liberal-NDP coalition want to control social media.
-
6 hours ago, herbie said:
Better idea: So if Thou Shall Not Kill was carved in stone in the 10 Commandments, you're free to explain how it got amended to 'except by the law of the state/king'... no God wold write that. Only a committee of men seeking to uphold the status quo.
You still haven't explained why you believe what you do. Obviously anything I try to explain to you, you automatically reject it. Since you seem to have the all the answers, what is so difficult about explaining why you believe what you do?
The command "thou shalt not kill" never got amended. Nobody changed what the Bible says in the King James Version. There are corrupt versions of the Bible, but the KJV is accurate. Governments and rulers make their own laws on things and on punishments for crimes, but the Bible did not change.
-
People still need food and if the cost of producing grains and foods goes up significantly, the end result will be that food prices will be greatly increased. The costs of farming with the costs of machinery in the hundreds of thousands of dollars and various other expenses are already high. The ordinary Canadians and the countries who are starving will be the ones most affected by the carbon taxes and fertilizer cuts and have to pay the price. If anyone thinks the farmers will be the only ones affected, they are sadly mistaken. Farmers have no choice but to include their costs and losses in the prices grains and produce are sold for.
-
Not only are farmers facing this issue of reducing fertilizer use, but they have been heavily impacted by the carbon taxes.
quote
If Canada’s reigning Liberal Party minority government sees its desired increases to the carbon tax come into force, the end result will be a six figure annual increase to the tax bill of the average farm.
The figure was calculated by Western Canadian Wheat Growers President Gunter Jochum and told to Parliament during a Nov. 2 meeting of the Agriculture Committee.
“The government wants to increase the [carbon] tax, which would cost my farm a whopping $136,000 per year by 2030. This will jeopardize the viability and sustainability of my farm,” Jochum stated. unquote
Carbon Tax to Cost Canadian Farmers Upwards of $100,000 Annually - Vision Times
-
The Federal government has a lofty goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions from fertilizer use in agriculture of 30% by 2030 from 2020 levels.
This federal government plan is described on the government website:
Government seeks guidance on path towards reducing emissions associated with fertilizer - Canada.ca
This government website announced a goal of 30% reduction by 2030 without consultation with the industry or any idea how food production would be affected and how this would fit in with the federal government's plan to greatly increase food production in the face of the U.N. stating much of the world or hundreds of millions of people are facing a crisis and starvation. Canada has committed to greatly increase food production yet the government is making a commitment to reduce fertilizer emissions by 30% by 2030. How do they reconcile this contradiction? Why is the government making this kind of 30% reduction commitment without having any idea of the consequences and how it could be done? Are they putting the cart before the horse? How can anyone make a commitment of that nature without having all the facts and a plan of exactly how such a thing could be done?
The Western Canadian Wheat Growers association says this about it:
"The target of an absolute reduction in nutrients used to produce our food was done without consultation with the fertilizer industry or Canadian grain and oilseed farmers."
The Issues
- Fertilizer Canada has prepared a comprehensive report here.
-
Highlights include:
- A focus on an absolute emissions reduction, rather than an intensity-based target, is misplaced and will likely cause severe economic harm.
- Using modeling software, we’ve estimated that a 30% absolute emission reduction for a farmer with 1,000 acres of canola and 1,000 acres of wheat would have their profit reduced by $38,000 to $40,500 annually.
- Across Western Canada this would mean canola revenues would be reduced by up to $441 million, while wheat revenue could experience a reduction of $400 million.
- More emissions can be reduced through increased uptake of the 4R Nutrient Stewardship program, while actually improving the competitiveness and profit of farmers.
- A reduction in fertilizer use is contrary to the UN goal of eliminating world hunger by 2030.
- The Federal government has set a target to increase Canadian agriculture exports from $55 billion in 2015 to at least $85 billion by 2025. This 55% increase is not attainable if the Federal Government reduces nitrogen fertilizer use by 30%. unquote Fertilizer Reduction | 4R Nutrient Stewardship Program (wheatgrowers.ca
-
8 hours ago, herbie said:
And you're fine with the state murdering actual living people and call yourself pro life? Hypocrite.
Perverted Old Testament concept of "justice"
OK you can call me names if you like. I won't be offended. I understand where you're coming from and realize that is a normal part of conversation with you.
I am not a perfect person but only telling you what I believe from the Bible. I am not infallible and could be wrong. Perhaps you can show me why I am wrong.
Why do you believe what you believe? Where did you learn that belief?
Do you think the state has the authority to punish murderers? Why do you believe capital punishment would be wrong? The Old Testament also says "thou shalt not kill" in Exodus chapter 20 and in Deuteronomy? So why does Genesis 9:6 teach capital punishment for murderers and in Exodus teach "thou shalt not kill? Why do these two teachings appear to oppose each other?
Why do you think the Old Testament teaching on capital punishment in Genesis 9?6 is "perverted"? Does the New Testament abolish capital punishment for murderers? There must be some explanation for why it says capital punishment is in order in Genesis 9:6 and forbids killing in Exodus and Deuteronomy. Can you explain that? Can you explain where you're coming from on that?
-
2 hours ago, herbie said:
I see you're a stereotypical pro-lifer, eh? 25 years is not enough punishment, we have to KILL THEM
Not that any of that, like most of these deflection posts, has dick all to do with WHO rebates get sent to...
You think someone who pre-meditates the murder of someone else should just do his time and walk free? God says in his word in Genesis 9:6 KJV basically a life for a life. That recognizes the sanctity of human life. The victim can never get his life back but you think the guilty person should get to live on and be free on top of that. That is also offensive to the victim's relatives. Doing time and then walking free does not sound like the punishment fits the crime. But you as a liberal wouldn't understand that anyway.
I see you do a lot of deflecting yourself in your comments and don't stick strictly to the topic.
-
19 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:
You still haven't mentioned why we should be in such a hurry to sell off our non-renewable resources. They have to be there for future generations, particularly coal and oil. The worst thing you can do with coal and oil is burn it. There are tens of thousands of products that are made from fossil resources. Without lubricating oil, nothing moves. There is no electricity. No rolling transport, no industry. If we use up our oil and coal now, we will be robbing our descendents of life above the Bronze Age. Somebody said in this forum that we only have 188 years of oil reserves left. It took 180 million years to produce the oil and at the rate we are going, we will have used it up in less than 400 years. So much for the rights of the unborn.
188 years of oil left means in Canada. That doesn't include other countries and oceans. Also, there are vast gas reserves under the Artic in northern Canada. Jesus Christ may return any time and nobody may need oil in 188 years as the one thousand year millenium rule of Jesus Christ on earth may be established. If that doesn't happen in the 188 years, then the people may transition to other fuels such as the gas or nuclear or combinations of things. But it is foolish to try to cut off the oil production now and make life impossible for the billions of people alive now. We don't know what is going to happen that far in the future. We have to be realistic. The oil is there for us to use now without carbon taxes and crazy environmental regulations that make life miserable and outrageous for millions of people in Canada and elsewhere. Stop trying to push the phony alarmism.
-
4 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:
That is for protecting the environment. It will help give people not yet born, the right to life.
If you want to help people who are starving and millions are starving, you need to change your thinking. Fertilizer is necessary to produce food to help the millions of starving people in Africa and other places.
Seven million people in Somalia don't know where their next meal is coming from and 213,000 are facing catastrophic starvation. One woman on the news lost four of her eight children to starvation. She is in a desperate situation as are millions of others. Please help them by not letting our government harm agriculture and food production.
We have relatives on the prairies that produce various grain crops on 2,000 acres. Their grains are shipping to Canada and to the world along with many other grain farms. They need to keep fertilizing their farm for the grains to keep producing a good quality and quantity of grains. This is essential for everyone.
-
2 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:
That is for protecting the environment. It will help give people not yet born, the right to life.
Millions of people are starving in Somalia and other countries. Cutting back on the use of fertilizer by 30% is clearly the wrong thing to do as it would drastically cut the production of food for the world by a huge amount. It could greatly increase the number of people who starve to death. The use of fertilizer is directly related to the amount of grains and other food that Canada produces.
LAU: Trudeau government accepts and parrots climate misinformation (msn.com)
-
1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said:
You misunderstood. I was using the murderous tyrannical government of China to point out what happens when some government thinks it is smarter than the people. Xi thinks he knows best. He is an arrogant psychopath.
We didn't imprison our populations. We used a variation of quarrantine to limit people's exposure to a deadly disease. How would you suggest we limit the spread? Our death rate is one half that of the UK and one-third that of the US. That was accomplished by all the provincial and the federal governments working together, including all parties.
That is for protecting the environment. It will help give people not yet born, the right to life.
You seem to see a communist under every bed.
Ridiculous. Reducing fertilizer use would be disastrous to agriculture. Anybody should be able to understand that fertilizer is critical to growing crops for food and animal feed. Reducing its use would do nothing for the environment but would sure hurt Canadians and the world.
-
11 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:
You have a very unconventional definition of tyranny.
There are other examples of tyranny in Canada. When the federal government passes laws which violate or infringe on provincial jurisdiction that is tyranny. That is being discussed right now with Alberta bringing in a Sovereignty Act to resist or fight back against federal laws that they consider violate provincial rights. For example, if the federal government brings in a law to reduce the use of fertilizer in the provinces such as 30% reduction by 2035 if that is what it is, Alberta may debate that in the legislature and decide to refuse to comply because they consider it an act of tyranny against provincial jurisdiction over natural resources and agriculture.
Such a reduction in the use of fertilizer could result is a massive reduction in the agricultural production of food for Canada and the world if actually implemented. The price of food is already getting very high for millions of Canadians. I think it has gone up something like 14% or more in the past year. Taking the use of fertilizer out would do great harm to Canada. That is tyranny.
It could then play out in the court if the federal government decides to take it to court.
Trudeau is talking right at this moment and says we cannot be a country unless all Canadians build an inclusive country where all Canadians are contributing and benefiting equally referring to Canadians with disabilities. What exactly does that mean?
Does it mean for example that every Canadian should have exactly the same income, the same standard of housing, the same food on the table, and same of everything one can imagine? This sounds more like a declaration of Communist or Marxist ideology if you take what he says literally. That is tyranny. Socialism and Communism has always failed wherever it has been tried.
Trudeau obviously believes that the federal government's job is to use any and all imaginable measures to implement his Marxist ideology to build some kind of Orwell's 1984 utopia. If that is not tyranny, I don't know what is. He grew up with a silver spoon and does not live in the real world but in some kind of alt reality where he goes around giving out millions of dollars, actually tens of millions of dollars almost every day of taxpayer's money as if it were his own. Free everything for everyone. Only the most simple-minded liberals could possibly take what he says as rational.
-
18 hours ago, herbie said:
Yes that's exactly right. Women have always had the ultimate decision and they always will. You can pretend all you want you should have a say,
And as far a MPs go, you're not elected to make your own choice, you're elected to do what your electors asked. If you insist on holding socially conservative don't run as a Liberal. Join the Conservatives, they think those issues matter above all else (or so it seems).
You need to thank God that your mother did not decide to abort you. If you were in the womb, would you really think or say it is your mother's choice or are you just saying that for other people?
-
1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said:
So, we should just release them without any hearing to determine their likelihood of re-offending? There is no mechanism be 100% accurate, but it is the parole boards who have to make that judgement. What is the alternative? The law says 25 years before consideration. That was the compromise when we abolished Capital Punishment. As a Christian, I am sure you would agree that hanging is not something any Christian could approve of. The problem is that Canadians do not want to pay the taxes that should pay for rehabilitation of prisoners.
There should be capital punishment for 1st degree murder. The idea that murderers should get out after 25 years is repugnant to anyone who believes in justice and the protection of society. The way the liberal mind works is convicted murderers still have rights and have the right to be rehabilitated at any risk and released back into society. The conservative and Christian believes the protection of society comes before a criminals so-called right to be free. Apparently you just don't get it.
Many Bible-believing Christians would approve of capital punishment for murder because as I have told you before that is what the Bible teaches. See Genesis 9:6 KJV and Romans ch13. Why should taxpayers have to pay for a lifetime of keeping a convicted 1st degree murderer behind bars or even 25 years at over 100,000 dollars per year? What did the taxpayers do to deserve this?
-
3 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:
So far, no Canadian Government has behaved in a dictatorial manner. If you believe they have acted unconstitutionally, retain a lawyer and take them to court. That is the arena for determining constitutionality.
tyranny definition - cruel, unreasonable, or arbitrary use of power or control:
The Supreme Court is made up of liberal appointees. It is nothing more than a branch of the Liberal government. They approve of the killing of unborn babies. They were the ones that ordered the government to implement doctor-assisted suicide. They are the ones who order that many violent prisoners should not be held in prison. They are the ones that decreed that a life sentence for murderers is 25 years and after that, every prisoner must have a parole hearing every few years, putting the victims families through hell. So they are not protecting Canada from tyranny. Quite the opposite. If widespread violence in public schools in Toronto, Vancouver, Surrey and other places is tyranny, we have it. If widespread immorality falls under the definition of tyranny, then we have it.
-
18 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:
Neither Canada nor the US has ever experienced "tyranny."
Depends how you define "tyranny" and who you ask. If the approximate 100,000 per year of unborn babies who were aborted were able to answer that question, I think they might consider it tyranny. People who consider medically-assisted suicide of ten thousand people per year and increasing every year might consider that as tyranny. People who are victims of the soft-on-crime approach of the liberal justice system might consider it tyranny. Just ask the relatives and friends on the James Smith Cree nation in Saskatchewan what they think of the murder of their loved ones in September by a violent offender released by the parole board. You might also ask the former students and survivors of the residential schools whether they think the residential school system was tyranny.
-
On 11/27/2022 at 5:31 PM, eyeball said:
No, you see drag queens and gender orientation as an opportunity to cancel the left wing for being the Gates of Hell.
How's that working out for you BTW?
I replied 2 hours ago to your post with a short 300 word explanation of what the central message in the Bible is.
-
1
-
-
This is especially for those last few commenters who spend their time fighting against God. Seems they don't know anything about the message of the Bible and the danger they are in for eternity.
quote
God’s Word to You: A Summary of the Bible
In the beginning, the all-powerful, personal God created the universe. This God created human beings in His image to live joyfully in His presence, in humble submission to His gracious authority. But all of us have rebelled against God and, in consequence, must suffer the punishment of our rebellion: physical death and the wrath of God.
Thankfully, God initiated a rescue plan, which began with His choosing the nation of Israel to display His glory in a fallen world. The Bible describes how God acted mightily on Israel’s behalf, rescuing His people from slavery and then giving them His holy law. But God’s people – like all of us – failed to rightly reflect the glory of God.
Then, in the fullness of time, in the Person of Jesus Christ, God Himself came to renew the world and restore His people. Jesus perfectly obeyed the law given to Israel. Though innocent, He suffered the consequences of human rebellion by His death on a cross. But three days later, God raised Him from the dead.
Now the church of Jesus Christ has been commissioned by God to take the news of Christ’s work to the world. Empowered by God’s Spirit, the church calls all people everywhere to repent of sin and to trust in Christ alone for our forgiveness. Repentance and faith restores our relationship with God and results in a life of ongoing transformation.
The Bible promises that Jesus Christ will return to this earth as the conquering King. Only those who live in repentant faith in Christ will escape God’s judgment and live joyfully in God’s presence for all eternity. God’s message is the same to all of us: repent and believe, before it is too late. Confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, and you will be saved. Unquote
God's Word to You: A Summary of the Bible in 311 Words (thegospelcoalition.org)
-
1 hour ago, eyeball said:
No, you see drag queens and gender orientation as an opportunity to cancel the left wing for being the Gates of Hell.
How's that working out for you BTW?
I see the liberals as creating Sodom and Gomorrah, not the kind of country any thinking moral person would want. Do you really believe you can fight against God and win? Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.
"27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: 28 So Christ was4 once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation." Hebrews 9: 27, 28
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said:
The manner in which greenhouse gases affect the re-radiation of energy is physics. That is what physicists have to do with it.
Carbon taxes are a method of detering the emission of GHG's.
Taxation is not socialism. The bible tells you to pay your taxes. Therefore, it is your Christian duty. Every non-socialist government collects taxes. Brand, Freawine and Cerdic collected taxes.Are you accusing King Cerdic of being a socialist? The Roman Catholic Church collected taxes. How do you propose a government fund healthcare, law enforcement and social services without collecting taxes.
Some taxes perform a duel purpose. They collect revenue and sometimes are in place to provide incentive for people to act in a certain way for the benifit of the nation.
You have to expect the government of BC to have some socialist policies. They are a socialist party. They were elected by the voters of BC and when it comes to government, the voter is always right. If they didn't want an NDP government, they should have voted Liberal...you know, the right wing government that brought in the carbon tax in the first place.
quote
7. In socialism, the state attempts to control all communication
“In socialistic countries, centralisation of the means of communication and transport is in the hands of the State.” In communist nations, people are not allowed to have freedom of speech. Violations can be severely punished (I.e., “Meta-owned Facebook and Twitter have been blocked in China since 2009”). Since God owns the world, nobody has the right to restrict free speech, especially the proclamation of the gospel (Psalm 24; Acts 1:8-9).
8. In socialism, a utopia comes from a revolutionary change from the outside in.
“Marx’s utopianism lay in the aim of abolishing the distinction between state and civil society, and in the harmony he assumed would emerge.” This goes against the biblical principle that systemic change doesn’t start from the outside. Instead, it starts from the inside when people are born again in their hearts from above (John 3:3-8).
9. Socialism categorizes people as either the oppressed or the oppressors.
The Marxist revolutions were started by inciting the so-called proletariat to overthrow the social systems of the so-called bourgeoisie, thus pitting poor and rich citizens against each other. This violates the Bible principles of justice and impartiality in which God commands us not to show favoritism to either the rich or the poor (Leviticus 19:15).
Also, a popular form of contemporary socialism called “critical theory” violates biblical principles by categorizing people based upon their sexual identity, economic status, skin color, ethnicity, or gender. Biblically, there is only one human race made in the image of God. In Christ, all the walls that divide humanity have been broken down (Genesis 1:27; Galatians 3:28, Ephesians 2:14-22).
10. Socialists believe the Government is responsible for all social care.
In Socialist and Communist countries, the state is responsible for caring for the poor and providing all goods and services necessary for citizens. They would conceptually view families, churches, and nonprofits as competition to the state if they attempted to do the same. Contrariwise, scripture admonishes Christians, churches, and ministries to serve as benefactors to their larger secular community as witnesses to the gospel (Luke 10:25-37; Galatians 6:10; Titus 2:14; Titus 3:8). unquote
The argument democracy produced Socialism is also a false argument. If democracy produced it then the majority are wrong and produced an evil system, i.e. Socialism. The other thing is the democratic system is also at fault. The Liberal or NDP government can win an election with less than 40% of the vote because of the division of votes among various parties. If the system delivered Socialism then it only proves the democratic system is seriously flawed and corrupt and the voters are wrongheaded, which seems to be the case. The majority supported Hitler in the 1930s in Germany. Does that mean he was righteous or a honourable leader? Of course not.
You might be able to make the argument that a very limited system of taxation was not Socialism if it were used for only a FEW essential things such as paying for the armed forces, highways, and a few other essential things. But when the taxation is such that it takes a major part of one's income in order to fund all kinds of social programs and have government provide everything for everyone, then that is Socialism. It removes freedom and makes everyone a servant of the state.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said:
The manner in which greenhouse gases affect the re-radiation of energy is physics. That is what physicists have to do with it.
Carbon taxes are a method of detering the emission of GHG's.
Taxation is not socialism. The bible tells you to pay your taxes. Therefore, it is your Christian duty. Every non-socialist government collects taxes. Brand, Freawine and Cerdic collected taxes.Are you accusing King Cerdic of being a socialist? The Roman Catholic Church collected taxes. How do you propose a government fund healthcare, law enforcement and social services without collecting taxes.
Some taxes perform a duel purpose. They collect revenue and sometimes are in place to provide incentive for people to act in a certain way for the benifit of the nation.
You have to expect the government of BC to have some socialist policies. They are a socialist party. They were elected by the voters of BC and when it comes to government, the voter is always right. If they didn't want an NDP government, they should have voted Liberal...you know, the right wing government that brought in the carbon tax in the first place.
The argument you use that taxation is not Socialism is false because there are at least ten strong reasons why Socialism is anti-Christian.
quote
10 Reasons Why Socialism and Marxism are Antithetical to Biblical Christianity
APRIL 12, 2022/
0 COMMENTS /
UNDER : SOCIETAL TRANSFORMATIONS
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels wrote The Communist Manifesto in 1848, relating it to what they called “scientific socialism.” The 20th century and beyond are fraught with examples of the embarrassing failures of both communism and socialism (I.e., The Former Soviet Union, Venezuela, North Korea, Cuba, Soviet-era Eastern Germany, to name a few).
Despite this dubious history, we currently have high-profile political leaders, like congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio promoting a form of Marxism called “democratic socialism.”
The following are ten reasons why socialism is antithetical to the tenets of biblical Christianity.
Socialism is against the biblical view of the nuclear family.
Marxists argue that “the nuclear family performs ideological functions for Capitalism – the family acts as a unit of consumption and teaches passive acceptance of hierarchy. It is also the institution through which the wealthy pass down their private property to their children, thus reproducing class inequality.”
Hence, socialism is against the biblical principle of parental rights related to their children and the prominence of the nuclear family (Genesis 1:28-29, Proverbs 22:6, Ephesians 5:22-6:4).
2. Socialists claim education belongs solely to the state
Marxist education aims at producing faithful citizens. Therefore, it is primarily an ideological tool to program children to be loyal to the state. In communist and socialist nations, education and the curriculum are controlled by the state and are not considered the responsibility of the parents. Models like homeschooling children would be illegal. This contradicts the biblical framework regarding parents being responsible for educating their children the way they choose (Proverbs 22:6; Deuteronomy 6:6-9).
3. Socialists claim the state deserves the highest allegiance.
In many communist nations like the former Soviet Union and contemporary countries like North Korea and China, Bibles are confiscated, churches buildings are burned, and evangelism is illegal. This is because they see Christianity as a rival religion to the authority of the humanistic secular state. This goes against the biblical command to put first God’s Kingdom and worship and serve Jesus as the only true Lord (Matthew 6:33; 1 Timothy 6:15).
4. “Socialists believe in the abolition of private property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.”
This is antithetical to the biblical premise of the individual right to own private property and the command for believers to create wealth to promote God’s covenant (Exodus 20:15; Deuteronomy 8:18; 1 Kings 20:6, Isaiah 65:21-22; Mark 10:39-21).
5. Socialism advocates a progressive income tax.
In a socialist system, people are taxed based on their income. This is called a progressive tax structure. As an example of the influence of socialism in the United States, “The top 1 percent (taxpayers with AGI of $546,434 and above) earned 20.1 percent of total AGI in 2019 and paid 38.8 percent of all federal income taxes. In 2019, the top 1 percent of taxpayers accounted for more income taxes paid than the bottom 90 percent combined.” This goes against the biblical principle that all people, irrespective of their income, should pay the same percentage which is a “flat tax.” (This is similar to the Biblical principle of the tithe which is 10% of a person’s income (Leviticus 27:30; Proverbs 3:8-10; Matthew 23:23).)
6. Socialism opposes the rights of a family inheritance.
In a contemporary Marxist and Socialist framework, either leaving an inheritance to children is not allowed, or the state confiscates much of the family inheritance through double taxation. This goes against the biblical principle of leaving an inheritance to children (Proverbs 13:22). unquote
con'd in next post
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:
The facts have been laid out for you, and for you to wave your hands and say it's complicated is negligence. You still have a duty in a democracy to pay attention to solving problems.
Its too bad you don't take your own advice and pay attention to facts presented to you.
-
2 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:
Science is not a question of being a follower or admirer. It is based on observation. It doesn't matter if the person studying the problem is a nice guy or not.
Professor Hawking was a physicist, not a theologian. Have you ever read Sir Issac Newton's thesis on the Book of Revelations? He believed it was his greatest contibution to humanity, but it was and still is, viewed as claptrap by theologians. When Professor Hawking says something about physics, you can take that to the bank. His religious views come from an area outside his expertise.
If I want to know something about Physics, I would go to a physicist. If I want to know something about theology, I would consult the Archbishop of Canterbury or the moderator of the United Church of Canada.
Canada has to do all it can to limit carbon emissions. If we don't, how can we tell other nations to make the sacrifices needed to prevent an extinction event. Sudden changes in climate have terrible consequences. You only have to look at the fall of the western Roman Empire. All of the data we have collected on the warming of the earth confirms it is warming at a rate the natural system cannot adapt to.
You have not explained what Stephen Hawking has to do with the discussion about climate change and Socialism of the carbon tax. Yet you bring him into the discussion as if because he was a physicist, that is supposed to prove something. It proves nothing. Hawking was a physicist as you pointed out. This has nothing to do with carbon taxes or Socialism of the carbon tax.
Hawking demonstrated his ignorance by talking about God and theology the way he did. He knew nothing about the subject, yet many people think he was a genius. But that is another discussion which is just a diversion from the subject.
You say you would consult the Archbishop of Canterbury or the moderator of the United Church of Canada. But that would not be a wise choice because they are not necessarily followers of the Bible and may not take it literally. The United Church has given a lot of evidence to show it is not a real biblical church. The Anglican church has serious problems itself and could not be a trustworthy source to consult. The only way to know the real truth is to go right to the source of truth, the Bible itself and consider commentary of those who can prove they really believe the Bible themselves and have sound evidence that can be verified by the Bible.
Your fear about extinction is far overblown fear-mongering and is unwarranted and unproven.
Trudeau's constant ranting about all the money he spends on goodies is revolting.
in Federal Politics in Canada
Posted · Edited by blackbird
PP has been criticized about his cryptocurrency comment, but it was a trivial comment and a trivial issue. I doubt it will have much political value for long. The real issues that most Canadians are concerned about are the multi-billion dollar failing health care system, the housing shortage, and the high inflation. Yes Trudeau is still flying around the world creating greenhouse gases and throwing millions of dollars around every day. How many billion dollars is the Liberal government in debt now and Canadians must pay the interest on government debt?