blackbird

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.

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.

deleted as per moderator

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.

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?

What are yours? Are you a Muslim?

What you quoted is false. The Bible's Old Testament is to be interpreted in it's context, i.e. much of it is historical. The claim that it is more violent than the Quran shows the professor doesn't know what he is talking about. Maybe he should talk to someone who knows the Bible. The context is of utmost importance and there is context in the Old Testament. I have read that a lot of the verses in the Quran exhorting violence are not in any context, which leaves it to the reader to decide how he wants to interpret it. The key is "context". If you are not willing to accept that, there is nothing much one can say.

Are you a Muslim?

And where do you get the opportunity to persuade people of anything? Do you go to a mosque and speak to some people? Why would they listen to you? The Imam is the one who has the authority to interpret. Do you think they are going to listen to a non-believer tell them how to interpret the Quran or other holy writings? Besides, even if you became familiar with the Quran, you are still a "non-believer" to them. Many of the violent verse are apparently not in a context that you could explain. Apparently the context is ambiguous and could just as easily be interpreted as applying today. At least that is what I read by critics. But the first problem is there is no way you can get to talk to them except maybe the isolated individual.

Check the website religion of peace dot com: Quote Does the Quran really contain over a hundred verses promoting violence? The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding. Muslims who do not join the fight are called 'hypocrites' and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter. Unquote So how do you manage to get around the facts?

That is partially true except Islam is not going to change with any kind of pressure. Read the Quran and you will see the goal of Islam is the complete submission of the world. How do you change that fact? It is not inherently something that you can accommodate or work with to change. Maybe we should look at bible prophecy and see where all this is heading.

I never said the earth was getting warmer. I don't know that. I mentioned the volcanic activity and forest fires to show there are other large emitters of CO2 besides man. If there is any climate change, it likely has nothing to do with man. There are lots of other reasons that could cause it if it is indeed warming up.

Why do some articles report that the observations in the 20th century have contradicted the theory then? It is a very difficult theory to support because computer modeling depends on a host of assumptions. If incorrect assumptions are made and bad data is fed into the computer modeling, then bad data will come out.

There are about 200 active volcanoes, which emit CO2. Forest fires emit CO2. I don't believe in man-made global warming. It is a known fact the radiation output from the sun varies. This obviously effects climate change. There are other causes as well. Man-made climate change theory suits the UN perfectly because it is made up of third world countries who will stand to benefit. Trudeau promised to give them 2.65 billion dollars to help them fight the effects of climate change. He never asked Canadians if they want to give that much money. We are treated like serfs and used for his own agenda.

When I was living up in northwest B.C. I had a log house that took a lot of natural gas to heat. Carbon tax on natural gas was about $200 a year Carbon tax on auto gas was about $100 a year. So both those things were about $300 a year in carbon taxes. I don't agree with your premise that because I had a log house and had to pay more to heat, I should pay more carbon taxes. I am a senior and already paid too much for heating. The government doesn't care. It's a show. I don't agree with the reasoning that people who drive more should pay more carbon taxes either. Lots of people live in northern parts of B.C. and must drive hundreds of kilometres for various reasons. Some people have pickup trucks and work in the logging or mining and must drive great distances. People owned their homes and lived where they lived long before the carbon tax was brought in. They had no choice. I had my log house long before the carbon tax was brought in. Sold it and moved down south. The person that bought it must now pay the high carbon taxes. People that need to see specialists often have to travel to another town hundreds of kilomtres away. I don't agree with the premise that we are causing global warming anyway and I don't agree that some people in B.C. should have had to pay several thousand dollars in carbon taxes while the rest of the world pays nothing. It's not fair and it's a scam. It won't make one iota of difference to climate change. One big volcanic eruption or one big forest fire would probably emit more CO2 than all the cars in B.C. for a year.

"Revenue-neutral" is political bafflegab. There may have been a small general tax reduction sometime in the past eight years, but that doesn't mean the carbon tax is revenue neutral to those who paid it. The fact is most of the carbon tax is paid by a relatively small segment of taxpayers. I paid about $2100 in the past seven years on natural gas home heating and auto gas. People who live in apartments and do little or no driving or ride rapid transit pay little carbon taxes. People who heat their homes with electricity or wood stoves pay no carbon taxes on that. People who live in rural areas and must drive great distances pay more carbon taxes than people who don't need to drive much. It is a discriminatory tax and hits certain people. The minor tax cut would have been general and everyone is the province would have received it, including those who pay little or no carbon taxes. So is that 'revenue-neutral"? Of course not. I would have received very little if anything back from the $2100 I paid. Most of it went to everyone else in the province who didn't deserve it. That's how politicians think.

Trump is elected President. Why keep on harping about him? Accept he won and democrats lost. It's over. Give the man a chance. Isn't that how democracy works?

Why "baby Jebus"?

I paid $2100 in direct carbon taxes in the last eight years in B.C. but I know there are many of you who like Chong and are dying to pay carbon taxes but haven't had the chance yet. I have a suggestion for you. If you and others would prefer Chong because you believe in your heart that man-made climage change is not a fraud, why don't you open your wallet and send the B.C. government (who charges carbon taxes) $2000 and mark it carbon tax gift. I am sure they will love you for it and maybe even send you an official certificate.

The supreme court might approve the travel ban. If a federal government cannot control who enters the country, then you really have a problem.

Just ask any of the border guards patrolling the U.S. with Mexico if they think a wall would be helpful. They are catching illegals every day. Of course lots get through. A good wall will make it far more difficult to get through. Make it a high enough wall nobody can climb over with high tech equipment everywhere. Make it so difficult it won't be worth trying. The U.S. is in a tough geographical area with hordes of economic migrants and drug mules trying to get into the U.S because their countries are so poor and corrupt in central and south America. The situation is never going to change. The wall is the only realistic solution. The U.S. cannot take care of whole world as some seem to think.

Chong is out of sync with all other 13 conservative candidates. I doubt he has much support in the party. I don't think he has much chance. There has to be a difference between parties. If one wants to pay carbon taxes, they can vote for a Liberal or NDP. I think most Conservatives are generally against taxes to begin with. so it is important to have someone who opposes carbon taxes, not support them.

Google ten reasons man-made climate change is a hoax. Thousands of scientists oppose the theory. I paid $2100 in the past seven years on carbon taxes. It hits come people while others pay little or nothing.

He is standing up for America, not giving away the country. The wall will create lots of jobs and keep out lots of criminals. China built the great wall, a good example to keep out the barbarian hordes. Trump will do the same.

Chong is half Liberal half Conservative. Why would a true conservative vote for someone who wants to put carbon taxes on us. Not everyone falls for the man-made climate change hoax. I won't vote for O'Leary either. Where has he been all along. He suddenly appears and want to be leader. We don't even know what he stands for. I think he is a risky choice. I support Kelly Leitch because she has not wavered on her stand. She is against carbon taxes and supports an immigrant interviewing process for everyone. It's a good plan. She is very stable and trustworthy.