blackbird
-
Posts
7,910 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
8
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by blackbird
-
-
1 hour ago, eyeball said:
My own conclusion about the bibles ficticiousness stems from the utter lack of any evidence for the supernatural phenomenon it routinely mentions right from page one on.
What is it that believers don't get about people's conclusions in this regard?
If you don't consider eyewitnesses as evidence then of course you won't see any. But maybe you haven't read it with an open mind.
-
1 hour ago, bcsapper said:
. All are works of fiction and as such, have no say in whether or not I am good.
Have you read part of it? How do you come to the conclusion it is fiction?
-
Just now, eyeball said:
It's the certainty of believers that unbelievers are influenced whether they like it or not that makes these sorts of discussions interesting.
I choose to be good so whether there's a god or not is irrelevant.
Just now, eyeball said:It's the certainty of believers that unbelievers are influenced whether they like it or not that makes these sorts of discussions interesting.
I choose to be good so whether there's a god or not is irrelevant.
I'm glad you choose to be good. But the point I made earlier is that the bible says none are good. It says All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Do you accept the inspiration and authority of the bible?
-
17 minutes ago, bcsapper said:
It doesn't matter if the Bible contradicts me, any more than if Hitch Hikers Guide To The Galaxy or The Bridges of Madison County contradict me. All are works of fiction and as such, have no say in whether or not I am good.
Ahhh, but Your claim the bible has no say is false because it has already spoken. All you can say is you don't believe it. But you can't say it has no say.
-
1 hour ago, bcsapper said:
I don't believe in God, and I'm good. Question answered.
Next!
Question answered seems to imply you have no explanation or anything to back up your claim. Just a bald claim. The bible contradicts you. It says all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Therefore, in the sense of biblical truth, the claim I'm good cannot be valid. The facts of history and reality prove that nobody is perfect. Some might act better than others but all have their bad acts. Wouldn't you agree?
-
1
-
-
Did you see the videos of the passenger jets flying into the two towers? Not sure how one can deny that. The videos don't lie.
-
5 hours ago, segnosaur said:
You are making 2 fundamental mistakes:
1) You are incorrectly assuming that these laws (e.g. against stealing, killing, etc.) are rooted in Judeo-christian values. Restrictions on activities like those are actually common in many cultures, and many of the other things you mentioned (e.g. freedom of speech, fair trial, etc.) come not from Judeo-Christian values but from more secular activites (such as the Magnacarta, which more of a political document than a religious one..
2) You are ignoring all of the restrictions that supposedly exist in the Judeo-christian culture (e.g. thou shalt not commit adultary) that are NOT part of our legal system
Ultimately, I think your biggest mistake is that you are assuming all of western culture is "Judeo-Christian" without actually defining what that term actually means. Just because some of our ancestors may have lived in a part of the world controlled by the catholic church does not mean all elements of our law and culture are traced back to biblical ideals.
I wouldn't agree with you because when I say Judeo-christian culture I am referring to the western world. The western world that encompasses the Judeo-christian culture is the traditional Europe where the Holy Roman Empire existed, the Byzantine Empire (Greece, Constantinople), eastern Europe where the Ukrainian Orthodox church existed, and U.S.A., Canada, Australia, New Zealand. Most of these areas have one thing in common although there are some exceptions in Eastern Europe, they are Judeo-christian. They have fundamental freedoms such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion. The fact is the laws that I mentioned did come from these countries. These countries have had large numbers of nominal christians and varying numbers of Jewish people. That's why they are called Judeao -christian cultures. I never said every part of the bible was written into laws. You mentioned adultery. That is not generally made illegal. Even if Canada has a large number of immigrants from other parts of the world like Africa, middle east, Asia does not alter the fact that Canada was built on the same Judeo-christian culture as Europe and the other countries I have listed. The laws came out of Judeo-christian culture. British North America goes back about 500 years. The immigrants in the first centuries came from France (Quebec) and in the British part of North America, from the United Kingdom. These people brought with them the nominal christianity from France and the United Kingdom. That was the religion of 99% of the people in the major part of Canada's history. Europe had many Jews all through history which is why it is called Judeo-christian culture. You can argue against it but that is the history of the western world. I never said the laws are copied from the bible. It is the general ideas of generations of people who lived in Judeo-christian cultures that the laws originated from. While I don't agree with much of the Roman church's dogmas, one must still acknowledge the ten commandments have been a central part of life in the western world since the early centuries, but ten commandments came from the book of Exodus in the bible. These commandments remained central in people's minds down through the ages. Much of the ten commandments did influence the writing of laws in the western world. I know there are many left leaning and liberals who want to rewrite history so to speak and deny that we live in a Judeo-christian culture because of multiculturalism. But immigrants from outside the Judeo-christian areas is a relatively recent phenomena, say in less than the last 100 years. But the foundation of our society in the western world is Judeo-christian in nature.
-
40 minutes ago, dialamah said:
We need government that isn't directed by religious belief. You don't have to have an abortion and you don't have to take part in assisted suicide; that is your right. But you don't have the right to impose your religious beliefs on me through my government. That is no different than a Muslim believing that Sharia law should be the law of the land and imposed on non-Muslims.
No. This is where you do not understand the difference between western culture and ME Sharia law type of government. Most western laws are actually based on Judeo-christian values. Take for example laws against stealing, killing, and the right to own private property. The right to a fair trial. Basic freedoms like freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association are things unique to Judeo-christian culture and do not exist in totalitarian states in other parts of the world. Sharia law makes a man worth twice as much or more than a woman, Man may beat his wife under certain guidelines. Hands may be cut off for stealing. Heads cut off for certain offenses. Female genital mutilation allowed in certain Sharia countries. No such thing as freedom of religion or freedom of speech. You must submit to Sharia in those countries. Western democracies which derive their laws from christian principles have a different view of humanity and individual freedom and responsibilities. Responsibility also goes with individual basic rights; for example respect for human life. In a democratic society anyone is free to advocate their personal beliefs and government is free to take them into account when writing the laws. Whether I agree or disagree with your point of view, you still have the right to advocate what you believe and try to convince your MP or government to do what you think. Everyone has that right regardless of whether the basis of their belief is religious or atheist or agnostic.
-
58 minutes ago, eyeball said:
Well sure but when it says we recognize the supremacy of God right at the very top of our Constitution it seems quite reasonable to ask what Jesus would do. Even more so when the answer is as ridiculous as Betsy's.
So what would Jesus do about what? We need government that respects christianity and the sanctity of life. Life is sacred from the moment of conception to natural death. Governments that allow abortion and doctor-assisted suicide are acting contrary to the will of God.
-
1 hour ago, Moonlight Graham said:
Oh I think Jesus was very political. The state was threatened enough by him that they executed him, didn't they?
I'm not saying I support X number of refugees entering Canada. I'm saying Jesus would very likely support most of them with open arms...then try to convert them
No, I don't think so. Canada has a population of 36 million. There are millions of refugees in the world. Canada would be overwhelmed and destroyed if it tried to take in millions of refugees. We would become a third world country in dire poverty and ruin. Not something Jesus advocated. He never advocated marxism either. Liberation theology is a marxist ideology of taking by force from those that have (government stealing) and giving it to everyone else. Stealing is contrary to what Jesus taught. It was advocated by some marxist priests in central and south America decades ago. Back to the bible.
-
6 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:
Do you really think Jesus, if he were alive today, would support turning away other humans fleeing war and death just because they don't believe he's the son of god?
Canada brings in about 300,000 immigrants a year. That number is divided up into a certain percentage for each category. The largest percentage are people who will contribute to Canada's economy and not be a burden on our social services. Another category is family re-unification. A smaller category are legitimate refugees.
The economy can only take a certain number of refugees per year otherwise it would cause major problems in all sorts of ways. There are literally millions of people fleeing wars in the world. It is impossible to take the vast numbers of refugees in different parts of the world as it would cause a major disruption and cost to Canadians. Housing and jobs must be provided for immigrants. They cannot be dumped onto the streets. The numbers have to be limited and controlled. Canada is only able to help a tiny fraction of the millions suffering in the world. So in effect, millions are turned away. There are many other countries in the world who should be doing their part as well.
Jesus was not into politics and numbers of refugees a country should take. Those decisions are up to a country to make. There are many issues to consider when a government decides the numbers. There is nothing that says Canada must take a certain number of refugees and nothing says Canada must open it's borders to any number of people. Every country has the sovereign right to determine how many people and who it will allow in.
-
4 minutes ago, -1=e^ipi said:
The USA doesn't have some section 1 limiting their first amendment like Canada has limiting section 2 of the charter.
Whatever the government deems a 'reasonable' restriction is allowed. Thus, our freedom of speech is an illusion. Fact is, criminal codes 319 and 320 are not deemed unconstitutional by our failure of a constitution. If we had proper constitutional protections of freedom of speech we wouldn't have to put up with such nonsense.
Yes, there's a lot of truth in that. Individual citizens are also blocked and hurt by the Human Rights Councils in Canada. A kind of kangaroo court where anybody can make a complaint and they are provided with legal representation free of charge while the defendant must pay for his own lawyer. This happened to Ezra Levant. He won after two years in a Human Rights Tribunal but it cost him 100,000 dollars in legal fees in the end. So who really won? If one has to hire a lawyer and fight through the courts, it's not really freedom.
-
4 minutes ago, -1=e^ipi said:
Not reasonable at all. All hate speech should be legal and a society that bans 'hate speech' is a society that does not have freedom of speech.
Yes, many people have argued that the Constitution and Charter brought in by Trudeau was a deceptive document and the Supreme Court has been in effect writing new laws themselves. An unelected group of nine judges creating laws. Totally undemocratic. But yes, our freedom of speech is limited thanks to the courts. We need to defend what freedom of expression we have. Doing nothing is not an option. "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." Can't remember who said that but it's true.
-
Just now, -1=e^ipi said:
No it doesn't. It pretends to. But section 2 is limited by section 1 and as a result we do not have true freedom of expression in Canada like the fortunate citizens of the USA have.
Just now, -1=e^ipi said:No it doesn't. It pretends to. But section 2 is limited by section 1 and as a result we do not have true freedom of expression in Canada like the fortunate citizens of the USA have.
I don't know what the U.S. has. but you are correct in saying freedom of speech in Canada is not unlimited. You don't have it in a situation which is likely to cause a riot or libel or slander an individual. But there is nothing in the law about fair criticism of an ideology or religion.
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, -1=e^ipi said:
Canada doesn't have freedom of expression. See section 1 of the charter and all of our 'hate speech' laws.
Actually I Googled and looked at the Charter today and it does guarantee freedom of expression. Didn't you see it in the Charter?
The laws concerning hate speech are limited to certain circumstances and are subject to reasonable limits and the Charter. Altai quoted a Canadian law above and I answered her to show her that the law says right in it it applies if the speech (or expression such as tearing up a Quran in public) if it is likely to cause a riot. As I pointed out to her that would limit the law to a situation where a group of Muslims were present such as a meeting in a Mosque. You couldn't go in and tear up a Quran because it would likely cause a riot. That is the kind of thing the law she quoted would apply. There is no law that completely prohibits freedom of expression guaranteed in the Constitution. Such a law would be unconstitutional.
-
17 minutes ago, Altai said:
According to Canada Criminal Codes;
319 (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of
So according to the law above, someone is not allowed to incite hatred against Islam, such as ripping Quran.The law you quoted does not say ripping a Quran by itself is inciting hatred against Islam. Read the whole sentence above. It has to cause a breach of the peace. (maybe a riot) Since most people are not Muslims, they would not get upset. So probably there were be no breach of the peace. If it were done in front of a group of Muslims, then it would cause a problem. If it were done in a Mosque, it would be different. Then it would probably be against the law because it would probably cause a riot. It all depends on the individual situation. I think it would have to be done where a group of Muslims are physically located. I doubt if somebody a hundred or thousand miles away can claim the law was broken because they heard about it in the paper or on TV.
-
Just now, hot enough said:
Take it up with the the US based Physicians for Social Responsibility.
You can't answer Army Guy.
-
1 minute ago, hot enough said:
Nice diversionary screed, bb.
Are you equally thankful to live in a country that prevents others from doing this or actively supports countries like the US/UK that butcher people who want the same things?
You are totally obsessed with a false view of the world. You have been reading or been taught a string of falsehoods. You can be helped but only if you are willing to listen and change. I would hazard a guess that I am forty years older than you and have been studying and reading things for decades longer than you.
-
On 2017-03-26 at 0:36 PM, Altai said:
Anti-Islamic protesters attacked Quran during a meeting in Canada. Its not problem we have 10 billion other copies but the problem is this action is the outward appearance of a person's tendency to violence. So they are animating to destroy "Islam" by ripping a book. These persons are Anders Breiviks of the future.
They should be detained and should be rehabilitated.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/03/23/ontario-schools-muslim-prayers_n_15568254.htmlYou know back in the middle ages (much of the past 1700 years) people who spoke against the Roman Catholic church teachings were considered as heretics. The Roman Catholic church was very powerful and controlled kings, queens, emperors and countries in Europe. They had the Inquisition in parts of Europe for hundreds of years where heretics could be tried, tortured, and burned at the stake. Many were. The Spanish Inquisition was very infamous. You can google it if you don't know. Much of this history has been minimized. The powers that be get to write the history. After the Reformation 500 years ago, the western world gradually changed and rights of the individual became part of the constitutions of countries and the RCC lost much it's power over many countries and individuals. The Holy Roman Empire collapsed and after year of wars and political struggles, republics and democracies rose out of the ashes. They could no longer silence critics or people who have a different religion or view of the world. Many people also fled the oppression in Europe to come to America in the 1700s to seek a new life and freedom to live and practice their religions in peace.
In the last couple centuries, democratic countries adopted Constitutions which guarantee basic freedoms like freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom of association. I am thankful to live in a country which still respects these fundamental freedoms. One will not be arrested and "rehabilitated" for exercising their basic freedom of expression. If one want to burn a certain book or holy book in public, they are not breaking any law because that is their right to do so. What one believes about any religion or holy book is a matter of personal belief and cannot be legislated by government. The better way to convince someone of the error of their beliefs and the correctness of your beliefs is by rational discussion and for christians, the use of the bible. Book burning does not accomplish much and with some people causes hostility. Or if you wish to go around speaking to people on the street or knock on doors to try to convince people of your point of view, you are free to do that. Many parts of the world do not have these basic freedoms. Many places a citizen cannot criticize the government or leaders. In the western countries, that is considered a democratic right. We must always be on our guard because there are people who want to take away our fundamental freedoms in the interest of protecting people from offense and political correctness.
-
On 2016-12-05 at 9:01 AM, Smallc said:
We were having an interesting discussion in chat the other day, surrounding the definition of words like proof, evidence, and religion.
There were two sides to the issue - one, taken up by 2/3 of our moderating staff, held that evidence and proof are not important factors in our every day life - that evidence is not required in most circumstances, and that we operate on faith. It was also the position of one of the moderators that everyone is religious, whatever their belief in a deity and/or their holding of evidence free beliefs.
I disagree - first, I feel that proof is important to everything we do. Part of their argument hinged on the example of the rising sun - that we all have faith that the sun will rise, but not evidence. I, of course, see it completely differently. As a person basing their decisions on evidence, I know that the sun doesn't in fact rise. I know that the sun is currently shining on a different part of the world, and that the world is turning. I can verify that with readily available evidence.
A second example had to do with crossing traffic. I don't have faith that a car will stop or will stay stopped. I used the best evidence available at the time (my senses - something you can't always trust, I'll grant you that) and proceed with caution once I am satisfied - I was told bad example, and I was never able to really get a satisfactory example to counter.
A third example hinged around trusting people in our daily lives. One moderator argued that we trust people in our lives on faith. Another member countered that we trust people only because that generally works. I explained that I really trust no one, unless they give me reason to - I need evidence that I can trust them, as I know that most people can't be trusted.
What is your opinion - is evidence overrated? Do we require evidence in our daily lives? Am I - a now faithless person who holds as few evidence free beliefs as possible, religious?
When it comes to the christian religion, there are two aspects to consider. If you want evidence, there is the christian bible. The bible is full of evidence of the veracity of it's claims. This is true in the sense that there are many miraculous events or occurrences recorded in the bible. Many were recorded by eyewitnesses to these occurrences. Someone questioned the truth of the supernatural claims by alleging the writers might have been lying. The argument to that is that many who wrote the events in the bible died for what they saw and believed. One doesn't die for a lie. Why would they even bother if it was all a lie? That argument doesn't make sense.
Religion is also based on faith. What is faith? One definition taken from the bible is the verse in the book of Hebrews ch11 vs1: "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." (King James Authorized Version) Now we believe the promises of God in the bible based on faith. This is not an empty faith. It is supported by the veracity of the bible itself. The bible does not say it is a scientific manual. It is a revelation from God to man to communicate his vital message. Miraculous events in the bible should not be viewed from a purely scientific viewpoint. Miraculous events are supernatural occurrences by the power of God and therefore cannot be proven or rejected by the scientific method.
The other important evidence I should mention is the evidence of creation. To see that all we have to do is look around us and consider the complexity of the universe, of life itself, of the beauty in nature, in the flowers, birds, and wildlife. Also consider the complexity of living creatures. The eye for example or the brain. The creation could not have come about by accident. Some claim there was initially a big bang or giant explosion. This however doesn't make sense. One reason it is faulty is an explosion always produced chaos or disorder, not an orderly universe such as what we have. Secondly, it does not explain how or why it started or where the material came from. Again creation, according to Genesis, was a supernatural event, whereby God created everything out of nothing, by speaking it or simply willing it into existence. Because of the complexity of creation, it had to have a master designer. It could not have happened by pure accident.
-
8 hours ago, hot enough said:
You quote a man, an organization, that avidly supported US war crimes in Vietnam. How can this be seen as godlike? A man who advised a plan that would see a million or more murdered. A man who suggested a plan of action that saw a German war criminal sentenced to death.
Why would a purported Christian support such deep evil, quote such deep evil, as an expression of god's love?
Is this what tolerance and acceptance is all about in your mind?
I don't think this has anything to do with the subject, not what Billy Graham might have said or not. Also the OP has nothing to do with the war in Afghanistan or elsewhere. The topic is to do with the interpretation of the bible.
-
1
-
-
deleted as per moderator
-
11 minutes ago, Argus said:
Several years ago the members of a mosque here in Ottawa voted to remove the imam who had come from Saudi Arabia on the grounds that his views and teaching were out of line with Canadian values. Those people might attend mosque but they are members of the community. They interact with other Canadians regularly, and consume Canadian news media. There is no way for them to not understand how different some of those religious values are from what is standard in Canada, and no way for them to not get that some of those views would be considered absolutely unacceptable here. Some of them will bull ahead regardless, convinced theirs is the one true path. Others will think about it.
Glad they rejected the Imam from Saudi Arabia. There have been reports of other radical Imams preaching in some Mosques. Never heard they were removed. But this is a difficult solution to a massive problem. You say there are Canadians interacting with some of their community. I have no idea what kind of interaction there is and how this can solve the problem. The danger of some people, who are alienated from their community, becoming radicalized is still there. Very difficult problem. People can't just walk into a mosque or stop a Muslim somewhere to start a discussion. As I said, they may not accept anyone outside their community having credentials. The Canadian law and cultural standards do work in our favour. But it is not the whole solution to deal with radicals or extremists.
-
Just now, hot enough said:
Compare yours to the Professor's.
No I'm not a Muslim. The professor's claim would be rejected by 99.999% of bible scholars and anyone who has a relatively basic knowledge of the Bible. Go to any website on bible commentary and interpretation.
So are you a Muslim?
-
1
-
Can You Be Good Without God?
in Religion & Politics
Posted
The eyewitnesses were chosen by God and given a special role. That means they could not be unreliable in what they recorded. You have to remember the bible is a supernatural book produced by an infinitely powerful God.
You are unaware of the fact that God inspired men to write the bible and promised to preserve it. So he oversaw the preservation of it in the King James Authorized Bible in the English language. It is preserved in other languages as well of course. This overcame the problem of languages, time, and people's character. The KJV is with us today as clearly as it was in the original languages two thousand years ago.