blackbird

I may do that.

That's right! I wrote to our (NDP) MP the other day and told him about the stabbing at Starbucks that killed a 37 year old father in front of his wife and toddler. I told him government and the system are not protecting society. Dangerous people with mental issues should be in mental institutions. Just telling them to go get counseling is not working. They don't pay attention because they are mentally ill to begin with. They are a threat to everyone.

Mentally ill people who have given evidence that they are a danger to society, after careful examination of all facts, should be committed to a mental institution. I will leave the details of how that would work to be decided. It doesn't matter what a person's past is or how the system failed them. What matters is society is protected from future harm. Government and the system are not protecting society.

According to this Wikipedia item, whether it is declining is actually quite complicated and depends on the country and various factors. Surprisingly in a Communist country like China, the article says Christianity is increasing but they don't have accurate statistics. Of course that's not the western world. " However, these forecasts lack reliable data on religious conversion in China, but according to media reports and expert assessments, it is possible that the rapid growth of Christianity in China may maintain, or even increase, the current numerical advantage of Christianity as the largest religion in the world.[11" So while it may be declining in many advanced first world countries, the article seems to be saying it may be in increasing in Africa, and in the southern hemisphere. There is also the question of which denominations are declining. Some of the very large denominations, that are unbiblical, may be declining as more people in advanced countries decide they are non-religious, but some smaller more biblical denominations may actually be growing. There also may be many people who don't belong to a denomination or attend a church for various reasons, that may be Bible believers, who would not be counted in surveys. Covid and other viruses is still a risk of meeting in large groups like churches for older and immuno- compromised people. The statistics may not be very accurate. Decline of Christianity in the Western world - Wikipedia

I doubt Trudeau will do much about the Chinese interference because it mostly benefits the Liberal party. Why would he want to stop the election interference if it helps the Liberals? Besides the Liberals do not have enough support to form a majority government and need all the help they can get. Additionally, it would be very difficult to stop the China supporters from voting Liberal. How is that even possible? Sadly Canada has been led into a relationship with China the past fifty years and has brought in millions of immigrants from China. This is the reality and China has a huge influence in Canada. China has organizations in Canada that promote strong ties with China. How is anyone going to convince the ones who strongly support the Motherland to vote other than Liberal? People, who may not even be necessarily Communist supporters still love their Mother country and Liberals have had ties with China for more than a century through missionaries and then former PM Trudeau establishing diplomatic relations with China under Chairman Mao in 1970. That is the reality.

Trudeau knows he has the NDP backing to keep him in power for another 2-3 years and he probably realizes his time is up because he is fairly unpopular. So he may be planning to step down sometime between now and 2025. Therefore if he is planning to leave politics, he may not care that much about what kind of mess he leaves behind. I think he has already decided he's bailing out in a year or two which will give the Liberals enough time to find a new leader. Roughly ten years is usually the maximum any PM can maintain support anyway and 2025 will be ten years. Also, I doubt he will do much about the Chinese interference because it mostly benefits the Liberal party. Why would he want to stop the election interference if it helps the Liberals? Besides the Liberals do not have enough support to form a majority government and need all the help they can get.

No, I definitely don't hate Catholics. Actually I love them. I am trying to help you see that system is a false system. There are some that would probably rather go to heaven. Salvation is through Christ alone, not through a Pope or a church, not by good works. see John 14:6 and Ephesians ch2, 8, 9 Dr. Henry M. Woods says: "If Christ had meant that Peter was to be the foundation, the natural form of statement would have been, "Thou are Peter, and on thee I will build my church"; but he does not say this, because Peter was not to be the rock on which the church was built. Note also that in the expression 'on this rock' our Lord purposely uses a different Greek word, Petra, from that used for Peter, Petros. He did this to show that, not Peter, but the great truth which had just been revealed to him, viz, that our Lord was the foundation. Built on the Christ, the everlasting Saviour, the gates of hell would never prevail against the Church. But built on the well-meaning but sinful Peter, the gates of hell would surely prevail; for a little later our Lord had to severely rebuke Peter, calling him 'Satan'" (Our Priceless Heritage, p. 40) - the book "Roman Catholicism" by Lorraine Boettner " 6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." John 14:6 KJV

Christ said this to Peter: "18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; " Matthew 16:18 KJV This is the verse that the Roman church claims gives them the authority to have Popes and the priesthood. But you have to consider that this verse was not referring to Peter as the "rock". Christ was referring to the confession that Peter had just made. Christ asked Peter "But whom say ye that I am?" Matthew 16:15 Peter responded "16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. " Matthew 16:16 So in Matthew 16:18 when Christ said "thou are Peter and upon this rock I will build my church" He was referring to Peter's confession that he had just made (in verse 16). The confession is the rock that the church would be built on, not on Peter. The book of Acts and the Epistles show that the other apostles did not consider Peter as the head of the church or a pope. In fact Peter was publicly rebuked by the Apostle Paul. If Peter was really the Pope, no other apostle would have rebuked him. See Galatians 2:11-14 KJV

You can say that until you are blue in face, but I know I don't hate Catholics. I have known lots of them. I was one once myself until I learned what the Bible teaches. It is the false teachings that are contrary to the Bible that is the problem. The poor people have been made slaves to a false system. If you want to discuss how that is, fine. That would be rational. But you are losing credibility by your constant insults and it does nothing to defend the system.

quote The whole structure of the Roman Church is built on the assumption that in Matthew 16:13-19 Christ appointed Peter the first pope and so established the papacy. Disprove the primacy of Peter, and the foundation of the papacy is destroyed. Destroy the papacy, and the whole Roman hierarchy topples with it. Their system of priesthood depends absolutely upon their clam that Peter was the first pope at Rome, and that they are his successors. We propose to show that, (1) Matthew 16:13-19 does not teach that Christ appointed Peter a pope; (2) that there is no proof that Peter ever was in Rome; and (3) that the New Testament records, particularly Peter's own writing, show that he never claimed authority over the other apostles or over the church, and that that authority was never accorded to him." - From the book Roman Catholicism by Lorraine Boettner. ThB 1928, ThM 1929. (Master of Theology) Stay tuned.

He is meddling. He has no authority to make pronouncements on internal matters in Canada. Rome has a terrible history in the world for well over a thousand years. Why should anyone pay attention to him? The Papacy is a usurpation of the authority of God. Popes claimed to be Christ or God on earth.

No, I have no hate for the catholic people. I have had Catholic friends in the past. I think they have been deceived by the system for 1,700 years. I just believe the Bible shows the Roman system is false. There is no authorization for a papacy in the Bible. Peter was never a Pope. There was no such thing until about 500 A.D. Almost all the doctrines of Rome were invented over the past 1,700 years and are not taught in the New Testament. You need to study the New Testament. Peter was not the rock that the Church was to be built on. The rock was Peter's confession. It was different Greek word that the Greek word for Peter. Peter is Petros. So the word Petra refers to Peter's confession of Christ. It is not saying Peter is the Pope. The claim that Peter is the rock is a misinterpretation of Matthew 16:18. The New Testament shows itself that all the other apostles never recognized Peter as a Pope. Your wish to throw insults at me does not defend the truth about Rome and what the Bible actually teaches. I will go with what God's word says. Thanks.

That's true. There has been treaties signed over the years and negotiated at times through an official process. That just shows there is no need for the Pope to get involved by repudiating the doctrine of discovery from 500 years ago. Things have developed with negotiations and treaties in the past couple hundred years without the need for the Pope to be involved. He is not the ruler of Canada, likely knows nothing about Canada's complex history, and has no business in meddling in the affairs of Canada. " History of Treaties in B.C. Treaties were promised through the Royal Proclamation of 1763. When Europeans began to settle in the eastern part of North America, before Canada was a country, Britain recognized that those people who were already living here (First Nations people) had title to the land: the Royal Proclamation of 1763 declared that only the British Crown could take possession of lands from First Nations, and only by treaties. In most parts of Canada, the British Crown established treaties with First Nations before Canada was formed. Canada continued this policy of making treaties before the west was opened up for settlement, but in B.C. this process was never completed. In 1991, the British Columbia Claims Task Force, which established the B.C. treaty process, recommended the creation of a British Columbia Treaty Commission to facilitate the negotiation process." History of Treaties in B.C. - Province of British Columbia (gov.bc.ca)

The Pope is not the ruler of Canada. But if something he said makes you feel good, great.

I'm sure one could dig into history somewhere to find anything they wished to use to make a claim. yadda yadda argument. Didn't Columbus discover north America in 1492? Or was it some viking around 1000 A.D. So who owns north America? What about Captain James Cook in the 1700s who explored and mapped the B.C. coast? Captain Vancouver? What about Confederation in 1867? Does that mean anything? Or the formation of the colony of B.C. in the 1800s?

What about the Fraser River watershed. That extends way to somewhere around Jasper in north east B.C. in the Rockie Moutains. The Skeena River watershed extends from Prince Rupert on the coast hundreds of kilometers inland into the northwest B.C. Sounds like a good argument to claim half the province. Just pick any geographic feature and make your claim. Canada or B.C. will pay, and pay, and pay forever. I grew up in the coastal mountains. So the whole coastal mountain range is mine argument.

No, it's not a racist term. If red power is a racist term, so is black lives matter a racist term. So is white supremacy a racist term. It's only racist to the woke who refuse to live in reality. Red power is a real thing. Do you know what it means? It's a political power group that thinks white people have no right to be in north America and everything belongs to them.

Write a letter or Email your MP. I just did. The government and system is not protecting the people.

Canada today is not under any requirement to follow any "international law" that was in force in the Holy Roman Empire 500 years ago.

According to FN red power activists they own the province or maybe the whole country. In northwest B.C. the Gitskan live in a few villages in small areas, but the hereditary chiefs, who were unelected, claim over a thousand square kilometres far from their villages and have been trying to stop a natural gas pipeline from being built through northwest B.C. The radical environmentalists take advantage of that and join them. There have been illegal terrorist attacks up at the worksite too. Yesterday they arrested some protesters who were breaking the law. FNs have been given land in some places, lots of money, and lots of privileges. But a minority of activists will never be satisfied. They simply think no non-natives have a right to live in northwest B.C.

I read somewhere in one of the news articles this morning that the Papal bulls or decrees in the 15th century were given to Spain and Portugal. They never mentioned Britain. Britain broke away from Vatican control in the 1500s under Henry VIII. I am not sure how the Papal bulls would be relevant since it was Britain that colonized the territory now called Canada except Quebec was colonized by France and later conquered by Britain. Britain was not under Papal control in the past 400 years when most of the colonization occurred. Don't know if Britain even recognized those doctrines when they colonized Canada. I don't think Canada is under the direction or control of the Vatican. But this is just another reason Canada should not be paying for the Pope's trip. Paying for a Papal trip may somehow be agreeing that the Vatican has some say over Canadian affairs when they should not. Sets a dangerous precedent.

You can still just ignore my posts and replies. Nobody is forcing you to read them. This is Canada. Everyone, including Bible believers, have a right to express their beliefs and opinions. If you don't like it, don't come on the forum or ignore the person.

VATICAN CITY (AP) — The Vatican on Thursday responded to Indigenous demands and formally repudiated the “Doctrine of Discovery,” the theories backed by 15th-century “papal bulls” that legitimized the colonial-era seizure of Native lands and form the basis of some property law today." Responding to Indigenous, Vatican rejects Discovery Doctrine (msn.com) This was a statement issued by the Vatican over 500 years ago. I don't really see how something stated 500 years ago in the Vatican has any relevance to anything today in Canada. Also, should a statement like this made today have any meaning or significance to how Canada is governed now? Most of the world was settled or colonized by people migrating from one area to another. That is how Europe was settled and developed. So what is the difference in Canada or north America? I don't see how aboriginals in north America have perpetual ownership of large areas of land that their ancient ancestors may have travelled across or just lived within a 1000 kilometers of centuries ago. However, I can see this as being used as an excuse for more or continuing demands for compensation for colonization by past populations. I don't think much of what is often being claimed is valid.

So you have nothing to justify your claim that I am intolerable other than hate. Nobody is forcing you to read my postings and you could have put me on the ignore list. It is not that you just disagree with someone else. Your problem is the fact you cannot tolerate someone even speaking. That proves you have a real mental problem. Why have you not put me on the ignore list like Michael? I am not going to stop posting because someone has mental problems. Ignore me and get help. You are getting into the area of threatening.

The 15 year old in a Starbucks in Vancouver was stabbed to death because he asked a guy not to vape close to a toddler. That's a pretty strong reaction to a comment someone made isn't it? So what is it I said that makes you so angry to accuse me of all those things? Can you give some examples of what I said that deserve that? Perhaps give me a chance to review what you claim is a lie, arrogant, and hateful.