blackbird

I think I already explained to you or maybe someone else, that politics is not Christianity and it is not the church. There are only two parties to vote for in America. (I am not in America, but will try to answer) The only choice that has any chance of being elected are either Democrats and Republicans. This is not a vote for Christian parties as I said. A Christian is really just choosing the lesser evil. Democrats lean more to Socialism, progressivism (LGBTQ stuff taught in schools, trans people rights to use women's washrooms, etc., open borders, climate change radicalism, and the big thing, abortion, which is killing millions of unborn babies. The idea that millions of migrants should be able to just walk in is repugnant to many people who believe in law and order and the sanctity of borders and the immigration system. Every country controls their borders and controls the immigration. Why should America be any different. Why should they just tear down their borders and allow the world to walk in? I don't understand your thinking. I don't see the Bible teaching on that. So when Christians vote, they are not necessarily voting for Trump or DeSantis. As far as I can see, they are voting for the lesser evil. They see Biden and Democrats supporting all those things I listed. That's really all there is to it. It certainly doesn't mean they support Trump's lifestyle or behavior. You seem to think that Jesus was some kind of Socialist or Communist. I don't think so. Jesus taught Christians should be charitable and I believe many are. I have met Christians who give a lot to charity. I know there were some Christians who were successful in business and gave lots of money. They were instrumental in building a Christian school and a church. They gave plenty. Others gave too. Jesus never taught that government should be Socialist or Communist and take wealth by force from people to redistribute. Karl Marx and others taught that one. When preachers pray on television, they are doing that because they are leading a ministry to their followers or viewers on television. Nothing wrong with that. How else could they do it? That doesn't mean all TV evangelists are good or honest. The world is a crooked place and there are scammers in every walk of life. One must be careful who they give money to. Television broadcasting is extremely expensive to begin with and it does take a lot of money to run a program. The Old Testament commands given to Israel about stoning for adultery and other things were only meant to apply to Israel at that time and do not apply to Christians in the church age in the last 2,000 years. The Bible cannot be interpreted without understanding which parts were addressed to who and what time period. Also, most Christians are ordinary people just trying to work and earn a living like everyone else. Many are very immature and do not know a whole lot about the Bible teachings. Becoming a Christian does not require a degree in Bible knowledge or doctrines. It is a simple matter of accepting Christ as one's Savior and Lord and believing he died for their sins on the cross and was raised from the dead. Believing that he is God. Some Christians learn more over time but everyone is different and lead different lives. Your claim that Evangelical Christians are too judgmental of other sins but not their own. I have met many Christians but never heard that kind of thing before. I have not witnessed it either. Sounds more like something you invented to try to attack Christians. They are taught there are sins and taught that some things are wrong. That is what the Bible teaches. But the Bible also teaches we were all born in sin and have a sinful corrupt heart. That is why we need to be born again and turn from sin. Your idea that only Evangelicals point out certain sins is off base, unless Evangelicals are the only ones following the Bible. What is your religious background? What do you believe about Jesus Christ and your own sins? Some might point out certain sins in a certain situation or discussion forum such as this, but there is nothing necessarily wrong with that. The Bible teaches believers to have no fellowship with evil but to renounce it. So how would it be possible to be a follower of Christ and his word, the Bible, without defending what Jesus (God) taught in his word? So I don't know exactly where you're coming from on that. You want everyone to just shut up and let the world go to hell. I don't think that's what Jesus taught. We are to be gracious as much as possible and be loving. But we must always stand up for the truth. Sometimes a child must be spanked in love to correct him. That's the way life is. Saying nothing about anything and just approving of every evil in the world is nonsensical, non-biblical and actually serves the Devil rather than God. You said give an example of one Evangelical leader standing up to big business. Well, I would say there is nothing necessarily wrong with big business, billionaires or rich people. The idea that they are evil and wealth is evil is a Communist idea. The NDP in Canada thinks wealth is wrong because they want to enforce their Socialist or Communist policies through government and confiscate the wealth of big business and corporations. Their leader Jagmeet Singh says so often. But Jesus and the Bible never taught that wealth was wrong. The Bible clearly teaches taking the wealth of others is stealing. How the social gospel people reconcile that I don't understand. Wealthy people who invest their wealth in the stock market and corporations is what creates good-paying jobs and generates wealth and prosperity for the nation.

Fair point. Something that is worth looking into more. I always like to examine things like that to get a better understanding. Some people claim to be atheists and others will claim to believe in God, but may not believe in Christ. Belief in Christ as one's personal savior (and that he is God) and that he died for our sins and was raised from the dead is essential for salvation. -- gospel of John.

According to the following information, the Bible had a lot to do with the American system of government. quote Universal Recognition of Almighty God in State Constitutions Nearly all of the fifty states recognize God in the Preambles or the Declaration of Rights of their state constitutions in one or more of the following phrases: “invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God” “endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights” “grateful to God and to those who founded our nation and pioneered this great land” “grateful to Almighty God for our liberties” “grateful to Almighty God for the privilege of choosing our own form of government; for our civil and religious liberty” “with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe”“acknowledging with gratitude, the good providence of God, in having permitted them to enjoy a free government” “Through Divine goodness, all men have by nature the rights of worshiping and serving their Creator according to the dictates of their consciences” “being grateful to Almighty God for our constitutional liberty” “relying upon the protection and guidance of Almighty God” “grateful for Divine Guidance” “grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberty which He has permitted us to enjoy and seeking His blessing upon our endeavors” “grateful to ALMIGHTY GOD for the free exercise of the right to choose our own form of government” “grateful to the Supreme Being for the blessings hitherto enjoyed, and feeling our dependence on Him for a continuation of those blessings” “acknowledging with grateful hearts the goodness of the Sovereign Ruler of the Universe in affording us an opportunity, so favorable to the design; and, imploring God's aid and direction in its accomplishment” “acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the goodness of the great Legislator of the universe, in affording us, in the course of His providence, an opportunity, deliberately and peaceably, without fraud, violence or surprise, of entering into an original, explicit, and solemn compact with each other; and of forming a new constitution of civil government, for ourselves and posterity; and devoutly imploring His direction in so interesting a design” “grateful to Almighty God, and invoking His blessing on our work” “with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, and grateful for His goodness” “grateful to God for the quiet beauty of our state, the grandeur of our mountains, the vastness of our rolling plains” “grateful to Almighty God for the civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing upon our endeavors to secure and transmit the same unimpaired to succeeding generations” “grateful to Almighty God, the Sovereign Ruler of Nations, for the preservation of the American Union and the existence of our civil, political and religious liberties, and acknowledging our dependence upon Him for the continuance of those blessings to us and our posterity” “grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, and humbly invoking His guidance” “grateful to Almighty God for the civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing upon our endeavors to secure and to transmit the same, unimpaired, to succeeding generations” “Since through Divine Providence we enjoy the blessings of civil, political and religious liberty….” Oath Taking – A Recognition of Man’s Duty to God Nearly every state requires public officials to take an oath upon entering their term of service. To the Founders, oath taking was very special. They knew one does not take an oath to people. The oath is taken to God, hence, in nearly every state constitution the words “so help me God” are required at the end of the oath. Furthermore, some state constitutions deny elective office to anyone who does not believe in God, recognizing the situation that if a person who doesn’t belief in the existence of God is required to take an oath to God, it would be meaningless and of no binding effect upon the man’s conscience. Some states constitutions also forbid a non-believer from giving testimony in court, realizing that his oath to God “to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth” would have no binding effect. In other words his testimony could not be relied upon for the truth. The following words are examples found in some state constitutions. Note that, to the Founders, these words were not in conflict with the prohibition of a religious test found in Article VI of the U. S. Constitution which was meant only to prohibit a sectarian or denominational test. It is also interesting to note that many states were adopting constitutions at a time when modern anti-Creator theories were being perpetrated from the likes of Karl Marx and Charles Darwin. It seems the authors of state constitutions wanted it clearly known that they, with America’s Founders, knew the source of their freedoms and liberties and that all public officials must have a belief in a Supreme Being to whom they feel accountable. Hear their words in their state constitutions: “No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any Court.” “The manner of administering an oath or affirmation shall be such as is most consistent with the conscience of the deponent, and shall be esteemed by the General Assembly the most solemn appeal to God.” “That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God” “The following persons shall be disqualified for office: First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God.” “No person who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust or profit under this Commonwealth.” “In God We Trust” Even though the phrase “In God We Trust” was later officially adopted by Congress as the nation’s motto, original histories of the United States are filled with accounts affirming the Founders’ belief that all things were created by God and that upon Him are all mankind equally dependent and to Him they are equally responsible. Sincerely, Earl Taylor, Jr. unquote America’s Dependence on and Accountability to the Creator (nccs.net) The idea that church and state can be separated is really a nonsensical phrase. It is an oversimplification of the whole subject and does not reflect reality. As we can see, Christian culture and Biblical principles have been deeply rooted in American government and thinking. Today the atheists want to remove them but I don't know what kind of heathen nation it would result in. It would not be good. Maybe they want some kind of Communist system.

I am not an American and do not study or know anything about the U.S. Constitution. But there are articles that delve into that subject if one wants to know more about it. Here is one: quote Parallel Concepts between the U.S. Constitution & the Bible Our last three monthly newsletters have shown the amazing correlation between Biblical concepts and the Principles of Liberty established by the Founders for freedom, prosperity, and peace, and how they were reflected in the Declaration of Independence. This month we will show how many of those same concepts are also reflected in our structure of government as established by the Constitution of the United States. These reflections should not surprise the honest student of American History. Scholarly studies have shown that the Bible was the most quoted source, by far, in all the Founders’ speeches and writings. The reverence which the Founders showed toward Biblical concepts in both the Old and New Testaments was reflected by John Adams when he said: "Suppose a nation in some distant Region should take the Bible for their only law Book, and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited! Every member would be obliged in conscience, to temperance, frugality, and industry; to justice, kindness, and charity towards his fellow men; and to piety, love, and reverence toward Almighty God.... What a Utopia, what a Paradise would this region be." Unquote Parallel Concepts between the U.S. Constitution & the Bible (nccs.net) There are many anti-Christian people in America (and Canada) who want to move their country further away from their Christian heritage and culture. What kind of culture they would replace it with is concerning. It is becoming more evident that they want a more heathen nation. That is destructive to society and is the worst thing that could happen to a country that had a semblance of Christianity previously. We are seeing it now in Canada with abortion on demand, the push for LGBTQ "rights', the teaching of SOGI in the school system (sexual orientation and gender identity), assisted suicide. Things could get even worse. I don't suppose this bothers you. Sad really to go through life in the wrong walk. One needs to study the Bible and become a believer. That is the only thing that sets a person truly free. That's what Jesus said. "31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; 32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. " John 8:32 King James Version.

You are speaking about the U.S. I am not in the U.S. But America has many Christian people and I would assume many hold elected positions. Making laws based on one's personal religious beliefs has always been the way many politicians governed. The code you mentioned has nothing to do with making laws based on one's religious beliefs. Laws against murder, stealing, and many other things may have been made based on Christian beliefs down through the centuries. That is nothing new. A law against murder, stealing, etc. is not establishing religion. Similarly a law against abortion would not be establishing a religion. The Bible is God's revelation to man. It is believed and followed by millions of people. It has been the reference for many politicians down through history. It always has and always will be a guide to many lawmakers. The phrase "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." refers to establishing a particular religion as the religion of the state by law as some countries have. An example would be an Islamic theocracy like Iran where the religious leader, the Ayatolla, runs the country. Using the Bible as one's belief about morality is not the same as "establishing a religion" to be the religion of the state. Many people have their own personal religious beliefs and are entitled to that. It is called freedom of religion. Everyone has the freedom to believe or not believe whatever they choose, but we will all be held to account after death.

I already explained that. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Putin make laws too, but that doesn't make them moral. Making laws to allow abortion for example does not make it moral if the Bible condemns it. Laws are man-made and can say anything. That does not mean that God in his word, the Bible, approves of them. Laws can still be immoral from a biblical point of view. It should also be mentioned there are two different views of what the word moral means. There is the secular humanist or world's view and there is the Bible or God's view. I am speaking about the Biblical view when I say moral or immoral. We should not confuse the two views. You may be thinking of morality from a purely worldly or humanist view which is totally different than the Bible view.

No, Christians cannot kill people. You missed what I said. I said all the commandments are repeated in the New Testament as a guide for Christians. So the commandment against killing applies to Christians. Did you deliberately ignore what I said about the teachings in the ten commandments still applying to Christians with the exception of keeping the Sabbath which was only meant for Israel in Old Testament times? The Bible does not say say that Christians should hate people who are different. There you go making up things again. Where did I say the Bible says it is ok to sin? I didn't but you still make the claim. You can say what you want on here, but anyone reading it would know you are lowering yourself to the lowest common denominator. There is nothing to pick and choose about Christianity or the Bible. Pointless to discuss something with someone whose mind is made up to try to defend evil and throw out the total nonsense in an attempt to smear Christianity or believers. I am not here to waste time arguing over nonsense. If you want to have a sincere discussion of truth and what the Bible teaches that is one thing, but what you are saying is totally false. No rational person believes your allegations about Christianity.

The ten commandments are part of the Old Testament law which was directed only at Israel during the Old Testament times. The commandment about the seventh day as a day of rest does not apply to the church which began 2,000 years ago. It was only directed to Israel long ago. The other commandments are still in effect because they are stated in other words in the New Testament. However, a day of rest in the church age has been established as Sunday, but not by commandment, but as a voluntary thing. Nobody is under the Sunday day of rest as a commandment. There are some churches who misinterpret that and have turned it into a command, but that is not biblical. As in many areas, different denominations interpret some things in different ways. That is one reason we have thousands of different denominations. But many Christian churches do still agree on the main teachings of the Bible. quote The Purpose of the Law In Galatians 3:23-29, Paul explained that the law of Moses was a “paidagogos,” which is translated schoolmaster, tutor, or guardian. In the Greco-Roman world, the son of a wealthy man would be cared for by a paidagogos, a slave who was given the responsibility of watching over his master’s son. This guardian would watch over the boy constantly; taking him to school, keeping him out of trouble, guiding him, guarding him, and teaching him. In the life of a young boy, a paidagogos was a good thing. However, when the boy became a man, he no longer needed a paidagogos. He was set free from this tutelage. Paul said the law was just like that in the life of Israel. It’s end-goal was to bring the nation of Israel to a state of maturity and faith, where they would accept Jesus as their Messiah. And once they came to faith in Jesus, like a boy who became a man, they would no longer need the law in the same way. “Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith” (Galatians 3:23-26). A young boy does what is right because his guardian tells him to, but a man does what is right because he is an heir of his father’s household. When a young boy is under a guardian, he is just like a slave (Galatians 4:1-2). And Paul makes the point that the Jews were slaves under the law. But when Christ came, the law was lifted – at least for those who accepted Jesus as their Messiah – because that was the whole purpose of the law. The son of a king doesn’t need a law to tell him to do the king’s will. The son of a king – in many ways – is exempt from the law, but he does the king’s will because he loves the king and because the king is his father. He does the king’s will because the king’s will has become his will. This is what being a Christian is all about. “But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” So you are no longer a slave, but a son, and if a son, then an heir through God” (Galatians 4:4-7). unquote Why Christians "Are Not Under Law But Under Grace" - Radically Christian So you see Christians are free to work on Sunday if their job requires it. While it would preferable for Christians to have Sunday off, many jobs, which are not Christian organizations, require their employees to work on Sundays at times. This is not against Christianity or Christian teachings, except in some churches which as I said misinterpret this subject. Donald Trump is NOT the model that Christians follow. He is a politician. Politics or politicians are not the church and is not a guide for Christian beliefs or behavior. As far as voting is concerned, as I have said on another post, Christians should vote for the least evil leaders and parties. In the U.S. there are only two main political parties to choose from, Democrats and Republicans. We know Democrats strongly support things that are evil such as abortion and progressive ideology. Therefore if a Christian is going to vote, he/she should choose the lesser evil. That's what it boils down. Sixty million babies have been aborted since Roe versus Wade was passed fifty years ago. On the question of wealth. The Bible does not teach that it is a sin to be wealthy. It is how wealth is acquired and what one does with it that is important. Many wealthy people do charitable or good works with part of their wealth and they earn it honestly. quote We know that wealth itself is not sinful. Wealth is not offensive to God because He often blessed His servants with wealth when they pleased Him (Deuteronomy 28:1–8). Abraham (Genesis 13:2), Jacob (Genesis 30:43), and King Solomon (1 Kings 10:23) are examples of wealthy men in the Bible who were used by God in mighty ways. In the Old Testament, wealth was sometimes an indicator of the Lord’s pleasure and blessing. However, wealth has never been an accurate barometer of a person’s standing with God. Some righteous people are poor while some wicked people are rich (Psalm 73; Jeremiah 12:1). In the New Testament, too, several wealthy people were instrumental in advancing God’s kingdom. Matthew (Luke 5:27–29), Joanna (Luke 8:3), Joseph of Arimathea (Matthew 27:57), Zacchaeus (Luke 19:8), and Lydia (Acts 16:14–15) were all individuals of great means who were called by God for a special work and who used their wealth for a righteous cause. Wealth itself is morally neutral. What we do with wealth can either enhance good or create more evil. Wealth can be used for God’s purposes or for selfish goals. unquote What does the Bible say about wealth? | GotQuestions.org Again the commandment about giving a certain percentage in the Old Testament was directed only to Israel at that time and does not apply to the church in the New Testament age. The Bible teaching on marriage and homosexuality has always been the same in both the Old and New Testaments. God created man and woman and meant for them to procreate. Therefore marriage by definition is only between one man and one woman. That is the clear teaching in the Bible. Anything outside that is wrong. What Is the Definition of Marriage in the Bible? (learnreligions.com) The article on this link answers many claims about same-sex unions: The Bible and Same-Sex Marriage: 6 Common but Mistaken Claims | Bible.org

Really? So people that commit murder, steal, and break various other laws etc. which is immoral behavior should not be discriminated against by having it outlawed in "THE LAW"??? and be punished by the "THE LAW"??? I'm afraid you have it wrong. There is no such thing as "equal rights' in many subjects and areas of life, in the laws, and in how society operates. One could argue that everyone has "equal rights" to hold whatever religious beliefs they choose. The fact is fundamental rights include freedom of religion in the Charter of Rights which take precedence over the law. Where the law conflicts with freedom of religion, the Charter of Rights is supreme. But more important than that, the Charter of Rights and laws of the land are human made documents. Where they conflict with God's law in the Holy Bible, then God's law takes precedence. I give one example. The government of Germany under Adolph Hitler and the Nazis ruled that the Jews should be eliminated and killed six million of them in the gas chambers. They were acting contrary to the Bible or law of God which takes precedence and is supreme. Nobody would disagree with that. People are free under their religion or religious beliefs to have an opinion contrary to what they consider is an immoral law and cannot be forced to do things that would in effect condone or support such behavior such as support the practice of abortion and some other things.

People who disagree with immoral behavior must be free to decline to have any part in it, such as bakers, videographers, photographers when same-sex couples want a wedding service. It simply goes against the conscience of many people and they have human rights. Doctors, nurses and others who disagree with killing unborn babies certainly should not be forced to have any part in it for the same reason. Discrimination has different meanings. Discrimination can be perfectly right and moral. People are discriminated against all the time for all kinds of reasons. There is no blanket definition of the word and no such thing as everyone must be treated equal. Criminals in prison cannot be treated equal to everyone else in society because of the circumstances. People who have religious beliefs or morally oppose something cannot be forced to support it or participate in what they see as immoral or wrong. It cannot be held against them for declining to be part of something immoral. A society that tries to force people to be part of something immoral is a totally corrupt and evil society.

I already gave you verses that would support divorce on the grounds of psychological abuse. It shouldn't take much common sense to understand that unless you think psychological abuse should be ok. Nobody in their right mind would think that is something anyone should have to put up with in their marriage or in any other personal relationship. Abuse is a kind of hell. Nobody should be forced to spend their lives in that situation. God calls us to be able to live in peace with a relationship with him. How is it possible for someone to properly be at peace with God and serve him if they are being tormented and abused by an abusive partner? "14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? 15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? 16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, 18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty. " 2 Corinthians 6:14-18 KJV Marriage is to be a loving relationship where the two become one flesh, not a kind of war or situation of mental or physical abuse by one partner on the other. Each partner is to love the other as himself or herself. That is what God ordained marriage to be.

That's the level of discourse. Would rank it as an F.

I've already told you an abused person need not remain in an abusive relationship. Seems simple but you can't understand it. If divorce is required to escape an abusive relationship, how can it be a sin? That is not what God ordained people to suffer in a marriage and destroy their lives in.

When Christians vote, they have to hold their nose because they often have to vote for the lesser evil. There are only two choices in America, Republicans or Democrats. Democrats support killing unborn babies, they support same sex marriage and LGBTQ whatever that might mean, open borders, and environmental madness fighting climate change. So there is no real choice for someone who believe in the sanctity of human life and the traditional family and rejects all this woke, progressive nonsense. The choice is clear and it's not Biden and the democrats.

Different sexual preference? Are you serious. Have you studied what the Bible teaches about the subject before invoking the name of Christ. His word is the Bible. So what it teaches is what he teaches. Actually your argument is with God, not Betsy who you falsely call names. The love of Christ is falsely used to try to silence people who really believe what God said. Before you step out on a limb and criticize or call someone a bigot for standing for God, Christ, and the Bible, you need to get your facts straight. But all this is nothing new. We know those who stand for Christ and the Bible are the targets of ridicule, smearing, scoffing, criticism, and all sorts of false accusations. That is just par for the course because we know who runs this world. Christ is God and God condemned homosexuality. So trying to claim that Christ would support or agree with the practice is ludicrous. He died on the cross to pay for the sins of man. Those who accept him by faith and are born again receive forgiveness and will not face judgment. I pity those who spend their time fighting against God by attacking believers. Does anyone seriously think they can win that one? Certainly not in the long run or in eternity. "27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:" Hebrews 9:27 KJV

The Bible is clear. The unborn are humans. The idea of putting a time on it is purely man-made or humanism. The Bible shows God recognizes the unborn as a person. That's should be good enough. We don't make our definitions of who is a person. The Bible also says in Genesis that murder is punishable by death. Murder and abortion are related in that both involve killing an innocent human. But there is the death penalty for murder in some places or there used to be. The death penalty in certain cases cannot be wrong if the Bible allowed it in Genesis. See Genesis 9:6 KJV. If one doesn't believe in God (Jesus) and the Bible, he is on the wrong road to destruction. Death will be a fearful thing.

If Pierre Poilievre said he is pro-choice (women choosing abortion if they wish), yet he got married and his wife had a baby, who he is proudly carrying in the focus of the cameras and apparently loves. He has a mental contradiction. He loves this baby, but would he have approved of his wife aborting the baby earlier if that had been her wish? He has a problem and a serious mental conflict. I wonder what he would say if a reporter asked him if he would have been ok with his wife aborting the baby during her pregnancy. This is a fair question for anyone who said they are pro choice to the world. You can't have it both ways.

If she opposes abortion, she must be pro-wife, pro-motherhood. This is one of the main purposes of marriage but it is being denigrated today by society. But I have not seen anything about her beliefs on it. Sadly I think Pierre Poilievre has said he is pro choice; a poor belief to have. That is the wrong position to have. The slaughter of the babies must be stopped. I noticed Pierre was proudly carrying his little toddler around. Babies, not yet born, are a priceless treasure and their life is sacred. I am not sure how anyone could be ok with that little toddler Pierre is carrying being aborted earlier.

The Haida are still aggressive in some ways. They demanded and the left-leaning, woke provincial Liberals in BC and the NDP bow to their demands. They changed the name of the Queen Charlotte Islands to an aboriginal name called Haida Gwaii. They also are changing the name of a main town or village on the islands which has been called Queen Charlotte City to an aboriginal name. I heard a story about a white man who had a relationship with a Haida woman or girl on the islands which did not work out. They made sure he left the islands.

Who cares? Do I need your permission to reply to your posts now? Since when did you every ask me for permission to comment on my posts?

You just proved what the OP says. You as a liberal are also an evolutionist or Darwinist and believe man is just another animal to be treated as such. Many scientists, paleontologists etc. do not believe in evolution or Darwinism for a number of key reasons. One of Charles Darwin's greatest fears which he stated was that the fossil record would not support his theory of evolution with a record of transitional fossils. This nightmare for him turned out to be true. If evolution were a fact one would think there would be millions of transitional fossils showing the changes from one species to another over the hundreds of millions of years. But they do not exist. By and large the fossils are clear fossils of each species. They do not show transitions from one species to another. Renowned paleontologists will tell you this. Creationists do not disagree with the fact that mutations do occur at times as in the case of viruses or bacteria building resistance to antibiotics. But this is not Darwinian evolution. An example would be the new strains of Covid viruses that come out from time to time. Nobody disagrees about that. That is not Darwinism or evolution from one species to another. Holy Scripture says God created man in his own image and it says he gave man dominion over all fish, animals and the earth. He did not make man as just another animal but created him with a special place in the universe and in this way ordained the sanctity of human life. Evolutionism or Darwinism of course denies this and treats man as just another animal as my OP describes. That is what liberalism and most politicians embrace. So don't expect to be treated much better than another animal in the long run because that is what their ideology teaches them. In fact the public school system is teaching all children the same ideology. Liberalism is in the process of murdering Judeo-Christian culture and respect for human life and religious beliefs. We can expect nothing but evil and further destruction of everything society stood for over the millenium.

I think he pointed out since Canada became a country in 1867, there were no black slaves in Canada. Slavery had been abolished around 200 years ago and prior to that time, when it did exist, it was a relatively small number in British North America. So what is all the outrage about slavery in Canada? I think it is clear aboriginals in north America were not the saints in history prior to colonization many seem to try to portray themselves as.

Excellent post with much very important information. I also read that, back in history probably before colonization, aboriginals who took slaves sometimes treated them brutally or killed them. I once found an arrowhead near a tiny island which was called Massacre Island. Apparently the aboriginal women and children, who lived on the island, were killed by another tribe when the men were away probably hunting.

I ask this because of liberal politicians (includes the Liberal, NDP, Greens and what have you) support policies and ideology contrary to the sanctity of human life, traditional family structure and traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs which built western civilization. Medical assistance in dying is granted as human life is worthless and individual choice takes precedence over what our Creator God has commanded in the west's historic Judeo-Christian belief system. This is also evident in the pro choice for abortion for all in any circumstances. This is also the case in the curriculums taught in schools called SOGI, sexual orientation and gender identity. They support a free for all and every individual can do their own thing. That is all that matters. Evolution, a debunked and unsupported theory, is still taught in public schools as if it is the gospel truth. Evolutionism is really nothing more than the denial of God and the teaching that man is nothing more than an animal with no purpose in his existence. This denial of accountability to God is what has led to doctor-assisted death, widespread abortion, and will further move man to the survival of the fittest. The public health care system need not be funded to provide the best care for everyone because humans are just animals and will die off anyway. If there is not enough money for public health care for everyone, so what? It will be provided according to the budget and those who can't get the necessary treatment to survive, will just have to die off as they are only animals anyway according to evolutionism or Darwinism. And if one is not happy with the system, they can always request MAID, the final solution, which will put them out of their misery. quote Mankind is a doomed race in a dying universe. Because the human race will eventually cease to exist, it makes no ultimate difference whether it ever did exist. Mankind is thus no more significant than a swarm of mosquitos or a barnyard of pigs, for their end is all the same. The same blind cosmic process that coughed them up in the first place will eventually swallow them all again. And the same is true of each individual person. The contributions of the scientist to the advance of human knowledge, the researches of the doctor to alleviate pain and suffering, the efforts of the diplomat to secure peace in the world, the sacrifices of good men everywhere to better the lot of the human race - all these come to nothing. This is the horror of modern man: because he ends in nothing, he is nothing." "When Darwin deduced the theory of natural selection to explain the adaptation in which he had previously seen the handiwork of God, he knew that he was committing cultural murder. He understood immediately that if natural selection explained adaptations, and evolution by descent were true, then the argument from design was dead and all that went with it, namely the existence of a personal god, free will, life after death, immutable moral laws, and ultimate meaning in life." (William Provine) Unquote -from Darwin's Universe, From Nothing, By Nothing, For Nothing - Survival for Nothing. Is this what liberalism is all about and the driving force behind political liberal policies, and even other parties policies, and governance? I tend to think so. This is the thinking and ideology of Darwinism, evolutionism, liberalism or the New Atheism and is the reason for the atheistic, evolutionary curriculum in public schools and the general ideology of almost all political parties, particularly the left leaning Socialists and liberals.

Glad PP pointed out some of major failings of the Liberal government in his acceptance speech. He mentioned the disasters of the Passport office, the ArriveCan app, the affordability crisis, the housing crisis, etc. He really has his guns set on the disaster which is the Liberal-NDP coalition. If he keeps focused on those things, he will be a resounding success.