blackbird

Sorry to differ with you betsy, but there are major differences between modern versions such as the NIV and the King James Authorized Version (KJV 1611). You probably are not aware of the problem because most churches use the modern versions and promote them. I may have to post some of the changes brought in with the modern (new age) versions such as the NIV, which is particularly bad. There is a smaller part of christianity that believe the KJV (1611) is the only 100% accurate version for a number of reasons. There is so much to it I can't go into it all here. Get the book called "New Age Bible Versions" by Gail Riplinger. There are strong advocates for the KJV 1611 and strong opponents who make their cases in books as well. I read and studied the book I mentioned. Also belonged to the Trinitarian Bible Society for over 30 years. The have pamphlets on the subject. There is also a KJV website with tons of articles. Not trying to throw in a diversion to your discussion but just wanted to answer a point you made. Blessings.

Did Clinton torpedo her own campaign by deleting tens of thousands of E-Mails? How is it OK to delete 33,000 Emails yet not OK for the FBI to announce they were investigating it?

How is proud to be Canadian measured? How are these numbers on the graph determined? Who took this survey?

Yes, I should have given the actual www link. But I thought it's easy to find. Just Google the Rebel Media. I do it all the time. It is right there. When you look at their website, you should see the video about the story. I preferred not to mention the company myself. It's not necessary anyway as the Rebel has it. They give all the details as well. Don't believe everything the left says against the Rebel Media because you know they will dismiss it as extreme. It's actually not extreme. Quite factual but not politically correct. They don't hold back on giving any information they uncover. I have no reason for doubting their reporting. I had the pleasure of meeting Ezra Levant at a meeting in northwest B.C. before the last election in Sept. of 2015 at a large conference where he made a slide presentation on LNG and drilling for natural gas. Very interesting. Ezra is a very great Canadian in spite of what his detractors say. The place was packed with several hundred people. He talked to many people there as well before and after the presentation. I'm sure he doesn't need the money but works hard to provide a service to Canadians to try to help Canada be a better country. He has to pay the bills thou for what he is doing. That's what I believe anyway.

Sexual abuse and spousal abuse is as old as the hills I would guess. Many accuse christian leaders, televangelists with being the biggest sexual offenders. I don't think so. There has been a significant number of priests in the Roman church who have been implicated in sexual abuse, probably because they take a vow of chastity and they are given an inordinate trust over people with the confessional. They are naturally looked up to by their followers. Chastity is an unnatural and near impossible vow to keep for many people. As for domestic abuse, I believe the Canadian government spends several billions dollars a year on police services (plus provincial social services) to answer calls of domestic abuse. I think we would find alcohol plays a major part in it and it does not favour one political party supporter over another. Around 1900, the turn of the century and early 20th century in the U.S., alcoholism was a huge problem. Men drinking in saloons was extremely common and drunkeness was widespread across the U.S. and of course followed by spousal abuse. When men went home drunk, they often abused their wives. Women formed organizations and fought it, a few even going into bars and smashing the bottles of liquor. The problems and political pressure and marches by these women's groups led to prohibition. Of course many illegal drinking holes and boot-legging sprung up run by organized crime. But a major cause of the abuse has been alcoholism. It is not sensible to claim or suggest somehow that it is linked to Trump supporters simply because one right wing radio personality was caught abusing his wife. Spousal abuse crosses all party lines just as alcoholism does.

Trudeau promised third world countries 2.65 billion to help fight the effects of climate change. He gave around 400,000 to third world countries to pay for abortions. He spent 127,000 on his Christmas holiday with the Aga Khan. He just committed a chunk of money to Syria. He "loaned" Bombardier about 400 million dollars and they gave their executives nearly a 50% pay increase. He gave Artificial Intelligence companies or research about 100 million dollars recenly. I am sure there is a long list of ways he has thrown money around. Those just come to memory.

I doubt your claim that religious are worse offenders than secular people, with the exception of Islam. Christianity in the age of the apostles would have treated their women very well because christianity was new at that time and the bible teaches women must be treated with great respect. I don't think you have any proof that women are better off in societies that are less religious. Also what countries are "less religious"? Russia passed a law recently making it legal to beat wives.

This is one of the controversial issues in Canada. There are laws against so-called "hate speech" in Canada. But a lot depends on how one determines what the law is saying. Theoretically the Constitution guarantees freedom of expression. But there are some laws which seem to limit it in certain situations. We will have to do some searching on the internet to determine exactly what the limitations mean.

Why wasn't this investigated and determined who is spying before making it public and giving the spies time to pick up their equipment and make a getaway? Now we may never know who has been spying. Pretty shody work. If the CBC discovered this, why didn't they go the police first and find out who was doing it before reporting it on the news?

They are planning to re-write and are probably open to input from anyone who is interested. Now is the time to write to the Minister.

I have to admit I liked Marc Garneau even though I'm not a Liberal, but I think this is overkill. 75 meters from a building seems excessive and yes it will make it very difficult to fly a drone in any city or town. Even if you go to a park, many parks are small and 75 metres or 250 feet is quite a long distance. The 9 km from any airport is also overkill. That should be refined. I don't know what kind of research they did to come up with that figure. When was the last time any aircraft was flying below 500 ft even 5 or 6 km from an airport? Many small towns or villages have a small airfield that is very lightly used located less than 9 km from town. There should be special consideration for these airfields. Aircraft should not be flying below 500 feet or more over populated areas. I think there are regulations for aircraft as to how low they are allowed to fly over populated areas. I wonder if he just made up that 9 km regulation on the fly without considering that small airfields near small towns are not the same as a large busy airport near a large city. Small aircraft can also climb pretty fast when they take off and shouldn't be flying low several km from the airfield unless theyh have a reason. I know there are crop dusting aircraft but this is a special situation which can be worked out. The new regulations should be more flexible. I would think some kinds of more flexible regulations would work if the government licensed recreational users. They would then be more compelled to operate within the regulations if they were reasonable.

It's simple. Sakoko = no immigration.

The proof of God is in the creation and in the Scriptures. In the English language it is the King James Authorized Version. It is an accurate preservation of the inspired original manuscripts. Therefore if one has the KJV 1611 he/she may consider it as effectively God's inspired scriptures in the English language. The Old Testament is the Hebrew bible and the New Testament was written by the Apostles and prophets. "For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." 2 Peter ch1 vs 21. Men receive faith through the preaching of the bible. That is God's ordained way of giving men faith. Faith is a gift of God. He could use any method he chooses to give men(and women) faith, but the bible tells us one of the main methods is through the bible. "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." Romans ch10 vs17. People who are waiting until they see some kind of miracle such as a vision or a bolt of lighting with an appearance of an angel might be waiting a long time or never see it. God has chosen the simplicity of his written revelation (called special revelation) to communicate with man. The evidence of God in creation is referred to a general revelation.

I have seen native wearing caps that said "Native Pride". Natives dress up in their traditional costumes and parade around at gatherings or official government ceremonies. Is that a problem? If not, why is it a problem for a Caucasians to defend their race or be proud of being Caucasian? Or are Caucasians supposed to be ashamed?

God does not attempt to prove his existence in the Bible. He simply states "I am". The evidence for his existence is everywhere in creation. If anything, he might be laughing at those who think he does not exist. He is infinitely more knowledgeable and powerful than anyone or any thing. He has no need of anyone for anything because he is God and is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. He knows everything, is in complete control of everything and is not in need of anything.

God existence is better described as an absolute truth according to the bible. There is no possibility that it is only a possibility.

Have you thought about what it would be like to live under Sharia law and everything that it entails and give up your fundamental freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom to have a drink when you feel like it, etc? Liberals and lefties in the west take their freedom for granted and have no clue what life would be like if it all disappeared and they suddenly fell under an islamo-fascist dictatorship. While liberals and lefties work to destroy the Judeo-Christian civilization we have, there are a smaller number trying to plug the leaks in the hull before we sink and save what freedom we have.

Funeral businesses have made it onto the CBC's Marketplace and were examined for the way they charge ten or twelve thousands. I have no objection to alcohol being served in a memorial service. The only thing I would say is the Funeral companies will be looking at it as another money-making scheme. Whoever is paying the bill will be expected to fork out a lot of money for drinks, much like a wedding reception. There is big money to be made in the wedding business and funeral business. If you are going to be financing a funeral be very careful what you sign up for when you sit down with the memorial service representative to decide what you want. They are finely tuned high pressure salespeople and experts at getting people to buy very expensive funerals.

"Intellectually, the problem is that religion is essentially reasonable and atheism is unreasonable and the consequences of the militancy of contemporary atheism are not only unreasonable but offensive to reason. Few things in our murky lives could be more obvious and indisputable than that there must be some force in the cosmos that causes spiritual insight, authenticated miracles, and is able to grasp the notion of the timeless, the limitless, and the fact that at some point in our past there was some kind of creation. I am not touting religious practice (though I am a practitioner, having long ago lost faith in the non-existence of God, but respect all even semi-rational religious views, including atheism). It need hardly be said that horrible acts have been committed in the name of religion. That is the problem when mere people interpose themselves between the terrestrial life we all know and the spiritual life which is elusive, personal, largely inexpressible, and the subject of much doubt, some of it informed and intellectually respectable doubt." This describes the existing situation. The liberal ideology of ridiculing other religions, including christianity, and exalting Islam, will mean the continued growth of Islam. This is done by atheists as a way to shove the Judeo-Christian culture aside. In doing so, Islam will continue to grow unabated. Liberals like yourself will lose their freedom and in the process civilization will be destroyed. You will end up with fundamental Islam because it is very militant and will take over eventually. They demand accommodations and will not take no for an answer. They don't care what you think. You cannot stop it with your atheism. They consider atheists as non-believers or Kafirs. The future does not look good for lefties, atheists, or liberals. In aiding Islam to take a dig at christians, they will be bitten badly in the long run.

They don't consciously want to or believe they are destroying the west. The point Conrad is making I think is that the militant atheism and anti Judeo-Christian ideology is threatening civilization. Most people are like frogs sitting in a pot of water on the stove that is very slowly being heated up. They don't realize what is happening because the process is slow and insidious. It is permeated in every level of government, the media, and society. This ideology is pushed under the guise of multiculturalism or diversity but is in fact an anti religion ideology with exceptions.

What the article says is " I made the point that while the Enlightenment did not begin as being atheistic, the concept of reason was quickly subsumed into skepticism, and the Enlightenment has generally evolved over five centuries toward the complete dismissal of religion as contrary to reason. " This is the state of the media. They are dominated by atheism and humanist ideology. The government at all levels of the bureaucracy is well-represented by atheism. Political parties to the left of centre are also swamped with atheism. Yet they are quick to defend fundamental Islam under the guise of diversity. But the same accommodation or understanding does not extend to other religions. This is destroying western civilization (Judeo-Christian culture) as we have known it to be down through the ages. Anyone who does not fall into line with this atheist-dominated ideology is dismissed as irrational.

You lost me on that post. You'll have to make your point a little clearer please. I don't see those people as standing up for christian beliefs. More like defending Islamic fundamentalism.

Another peculiar aspect to this destruction of civilization as we know it is Pope Francis' statements. Pope Francis apparently said "Muslim terrorism does not exist". Jihad watch has an article: “What he apparently meant is that not all Christians are terrorists and not all Muslims are terrorists—a fact evident to all—yet his words also seemed to suggest that no specifically Islamic form of terrorism exists in the world, an assertion that stands in stark contradiction to established fact.” Indeed. Pope Francis is not only disastrously wrongheaded about an obvious fact that is reinforced by every day’s headlines, but he is also deceiving and misleading his people about a matter of utmost importance, and keeping them ignorant and complacent about a growing and advancing threat. “Leave them; they are blind guides. And if a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit.” (Matthew 15:14) Unquote

Just looked at a CBC article from 2012. Apparently judges will look at the details of a home invasion where the owner or occupant defends himself. Reasonable force is allowed. I didn't read it in detail so not sure if a gun can be used for self defense or defense of property.

Why doesn't Trudeau keep church and state separate. He is keeping the church from having any say while sucking up to Islam. He visits mosques. He brought in M103 and wants to give Islam special status. Conrad is correct. Liberals want to drive all other religions away and exalt Islam with special Sharia to protect it against criticism. Sometimes where Trudeau is making a public announcement he brings in Muslims for the backdrop. Aboriginal religion (whatever that is; it hasn't been made clear) is to be promoted and paid for in native schools as well. Conrad is correct. Our Judeo-Christian culture is to be given short shrift while he pushes ahead with his own favourites.