blackbird

While it is true we were not there, we have credible testimonies of eye witnesses. This is the same as a court of law. A jury does not have to have been present at a crime scene to know a crime was committed. They rely on eye witness testimony. That is the same with the eye witnesses who wrote the Bible. We rely and believe the eye witness testimony of those who saw Jesus during his life and after he was resurrected. This website has a lot of information about hell being a real place. You say it is a scare tactic. No, it is not. If hell is a real place and I believe it is, then why would we not warn other people about it. Many dismiss what the Bible says as fiction or a myth, but they have made that choice themselves in spite of warnings. Bible Verses About Hell: 21 Eye Opening Scriptures (whatchristianswanttoknow.com)

No, there is no legitimate argument against hell if one believes the King James Bible. The modern versions have removed the word hell from the Old Testament because they are corrupt and it is easily proven. The King James Versions which is based on the Received Text has the word hell in the Old Testament in 31 places. Jesus spoke about hell. He was seen by many eye witnesses after he rose from the dead. (which we commemorate today as a matter of fact - Easter Sunday) So the fact Jesus was raised from the dead means what he said is true. He is God and there is a heaven and a hell. People go to hell by their own choice. Is Hell Real? What does the Bible say? » Reasons for Hope* Jesus (reasonsforhopejesus.com)

quote The truth is that hell is necessary because God’s holy and just nature demands that evil be punished. Similarly, the cross was necessary because God’s merciful nature demanded that salvation be offered. Since everyone falls short of God’s standard (Rom 3:23), everyone deserves hell. At the final judgment, one thing will be patently clear: God is fair. More than merely “fair,” God is merciful and just. What is actually “unfair” is the fact that anyone will be in heaven. No one is good enough for heaven. The opportunity to enter God’s holy presence illustrates His mercy and grace. Jonathan Edwards reflected on the uncomfortable truth of hell: “Tis dreadful, ’tis awful . . . but ’tis true.” The Bible states that people loved darkness rather than light (John 3:19), and that Jesus is the only way to get to heaven (John 14:6; Rom 5:12–17). It’s a Choice God does not send people to hell. People choose to abandon God and He allows it. God does not force people to worship Him or to experience the joy of His presence. Heaven and hell are very real places. Those who fail to accept Christ’s payment for their sins will go to hell. It is that simple. Whether a person will be in heaven or hell after death will depend on whether he chooses to accept God’s gift of salvation and follow Jesus. About this most serious of subjects, it is the Christian’s privilege and duty to proclaim what God has clearly revealed: Hope is found in salvation through Christ alone. unquote Is Hell Real? What does the Bible say? » Reasons for Hope* Jesus (reasonsforhopejesus.com) There are many articles and websites that speak about hell.

Better find out soon. Life can end at any moment and where one goes is for eternity, heaven or hell. Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God. Study the King James Bible while there is still time. It is not an invention of men or a legend. Google and watch the free video "The Life of Jesus". He did perform many miracles, raised the dead and himself was raised from the dead according to eye witnesses.

The fact the Bible is true and everything Jesus said is true is born out by the fact the he died and rose from the dead in his body. Darwin's theories can be dismissed for the simple reason that in Darwin's universe everything is "from nothing, by nothing, and for nothing". From the Book with the same title, Darwin's Universe, by Yan T. Wee. The mere fact that the complex universe exists is in itself evidence for the truth of God and his revelation to mankind. The Bible reveals what God's plan is and why we are here. Darwin's universe has no explanation and no ultimate purpose. According to him the universe was some cosmic accident. The Bible also teaches that life (soul and spirit) of man does not end at death. Therefore there will be consciousness after death. Everyone either goes to heaven or hell according to the Bible.

Why would I try to define it in my own words, which would fall short of accuracy, when I have professional definitions on the internet? Quote so·cial·ism [ˈsōSHəˌlizəm] NOUN a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. synonyms: leftism · Fabianism · syndicalism · consumer socialism · utopian socialism · welfarism · communism · Bolshevism · radicalism · militancy · progressivism · [more] policy or practice based on the political and economic theory of socialism. synonyms: leftism · Fabianism · syndicalism · consumer socialism · utopian socialism · welfarism · communism · Bolshevism · radicalism · militancy · [more] (in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of Communism. Unquote You will notice synonyms for Socialism include welfarism, progressivism, radicalism, etc. which we already have in Canada. To many people, Socialism is a utopian society, but they do not know or understand that it is inherently evil for the reasons already stated. Socialism ignores human nature. One thing about Socialism is it punishes the hard-working, the innovators, and producers while rewarding the lazy, and non-producers.

I sent an Email to him once and he actually sent me a reply. Very few wealthy, powerful people would answer an Email from an ordinary guy.

Black had two of the charges overturned and he was sentenced for a charge of mail fraud for which he received a three and a half year sentence. He did his time and paid for his offence. He later received a Presidential pardon. The fact is he is one of the most successful and brilliant men in the world. He built one of the largest newspaper chains in the world, Hollinder International, that owned countless newspapers. He wrote books including a History of the U.S.A. which I read. He received the Order of Canada in 1990 for his achievements. He also was made a British Lord although the Canadian Liberal government under Jean Chretien would not accept it. But that was likely because Black was a conservative and wrote conservative articles in his newspaper. The Liberals resented it and were trying to get even. That's how politics works. Black's intellectual abilities far exceed anything you ever dreamed of and his achievements far beyond anything you ever heard of. I understand your sadness because Black has no use for the evil left, liberalism and Socialism. You condemn Black for his fraud conviction, but you blatantly support evil liberalism so you are nobody to judge Black for anything. What liberal politicians have been doing for years is far worse than what Black did. What about the Sponsorship Scandal under Jean Chretien? Scammed taxpayers out of millions of dollars. When are they going to repay taxpayers?

This is an interesting article by Conrad Black on the over-reach of government. Governments seem to believe they have the right to intrude on everyone's personal lives and business. Conrad Black: Government has no business in the bank accounts of the nation (msn.com) These are Marxist-oriented politicians who have no respect for individual rights and freedoms.

Quote Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions “The oceans contain 37,400 billion tons (GT) of suspended carbon, land biomass has 2000-3000 GT. The atpmosphere contains 720 billion tons of CO2 and humans contribute only 6 GT additional load on this ba lance. The oceans, land and atpmosphere exchange CO2 continuously so the additional load by humans is incredibly small. A small shift in the balance between oceans and air would cause a CO2 much more severe rise than anything we could produce.” (Jeff Id) Unquote How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions? (skepticalscience.com) quote Out of the entire atmospheric makeup, only one to two percent is made up of greenhouse gases with the majority being nitrogen (about 78 percent) and oxygen (about 21 percent). Of that two percent, “planet-killing” carbon dioxide comprises only 3.62 percent while water vapor encompasses 95 percent. And of the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, humans cause only 3.4 percent of annual CO2 emissions. What does this all boil down to? As shown by the accompanying graph, not very much. Indeed, anthropogenic effects are real but carbon is such a small portion of the natural cycle, and let’s not forget both the sun and carbon are needed for natural cycles that are good for the earth such as photosynthesis—the process by which plants turn sunlight, water and carbon dioxide into carbohydrates. (For more, check out this Global Warming Primer published by the National Center for Policy Analysis.) Perhaps the most alarming part is the price tag associated with attempting to reduce such a small part of the atmosphere and something we really cannot control. Our analysis shows the cumulative GDP losses for 2010 to 2029 approach $7 trillion. Single-year losses exceed $600 billion in 2029, more than $5,000 per house¬hold. Job losses are expected to exceed 800,000 in some years, and exceed at least 500,000 from 2015 through 2026. It is important to note that these are net job losses, after any jobs created by compliance with the regulations–so-called green jobs–are taken into account. In total, the “climate revenue” (read: energy tax) could approach two trillion over eight years. Keep in mind, this is all for negligible environmental benefits. The science behind global warming is anything but conclusive. Many leading climatologists conclude that climate models aren’t incredibly accurate and even have different opinions (for instance whether it is the sun or oceanic changes) as to what the dominant causes are of global warming and cooling. Nevertheless, it’s easy to pretend the science on global warming is conclusive when environmentalist extremists suppress dissenting opinions. Economist Walter Williams provides a few examples and draws an interesting parallel: There’s a much more important issue that poses an even greater danger to mankind. Unquote Man’s Contribution to Global Warming (dailysignal.com) You should try Google and learn a few basic facts before spouting nonsense. Man's contribution is negligible. You could easily have learned that long ago. Ignorance is bliss.

Not really. There is no way to determine if man is causing global warming because man only contributes 3% of the total greenhouse (CO2) in the atmosphere. The other 97% of CO2 is natural. Therefore it has been impossible to prove man is the cause. Man is blamed simply because it is in human nature to blame mankind for everything and now including the weather and climate. Besides it is a good excuse for the U.N. to extort more money from developed nations to give to the rest of the world.

The 2022 budget proves once again that Socialist systems get an F for failure. Socialist systems want everything but they fund nothing adequately. An example is the public health care system. The provincial and federal governments do not provide adequate funding for the health care system because to provide proper care for everyone would require a vast amount of funding. So we have 900,000 people in B.C. who do not have their own doctor. The system provides a degree of health care for everyone, but it is inadequate for many who need health care. The majority think it is adequate but that is only because most of them are in the younger age bracket and do not yet require health care. Many people who require health care start to learn the deficiencies of the system. It is the same with the public insurance system in B.C. B.C. pays the highest auto insurance rates in north America. They have been over-charging us for years and the last year or so have been giving rebates because they have been caught with their hands in the till to often. But that's Socialism. Inefficient, wasteful and expensive. But it keeps a lot of bureaucrats employed to run it who have all the job security, benefits, and pensions that many other people do not have.

I think we agree on that. I look at police, roads, fire protection as basic public services, not Socialism. Just one of the serious problems arising out of our Socialist public health care system in B.C. is that it was reported today that 900,000 people in B.C. do not have their own family doctor. The Socialist NDP solution is to build clinics where mass health care can be provided. This would provide second class care, not the kind of care people would get with their own family doctor who knows their health conditions and problems and is dedicated to his patients. Socialist politicians don't worry about things like that. They just want to mass produce inferior services because there would never be enough money to provide first class services in the Socialist system. A large part of the money has to go to the huge bureaucracy to run it. B.C. is facing contract demands in a few months for 300,000 public servants whose contracts are up for renewal and they want 5% to cover inflation. This will cost billions more. The money is just not there. This on top of everything else like millions for the RCMP for retroactive pay, and massive housing shortages, etc.

I'm sure the Communist parties in Russia and China all reach agreement to do all the evil things they do too. Compromise among a gang of thieves doesn't make it right. Right and wrong is not determined by a so-called "compromise" between crooked politicians, Communists, thieves or anyone else. You have no right to other people's property simply because you think they have more than you or you need something that you think they don't need. However Socialists think they are not bound by any kind of moral laws. They think they can do whatever they wish. They think, after all, it's for the "common good". Rob Peter to pay Paul. It's all ok with them. That's the same reasoning we have abortion on demand which is the killing of the innocent and medical assistance in dying, which again is killing of people based on some kind belief that what a Supreme Court says must be morally correct. It is simply moral bankruptcy.

Your problem is you have no moral compass. Socialism is simple stealing. I would suggest you consider going out and buying a King James Bible and reading it or read it online. Nobody has the right to confiscate someone else's property and redistribute the wealth. That's called Communism, Marxism, or Socialism depending on a variety of related factors.

I said quite a while ago we are wasting our time trying to talk to these birds. They are totally blind to reality. Like talking to a brick wall.

The only churches who ran the residential schools were the Roman Catholic church (about 60%), the Anglican, the United, and the Presbyterian to a lesser extent. The rest of churches, such as Baptists, Community churches, Evangelical churches, etc. and the cults had nothing to do with residential schools. The Roman church is not a "Christian" church. It was formed from Nimrod's Babylonian religion back in the early centuries. Read this article and watch the video: The Babylonian Roman Catholic Church – Hear the trumpets If you seek the truth with all your heart in the King James Bible, you will know the truth and the truth shall set you free.

Frank Stronach, founder of one of Canada’s largest global companies, says the country is “fairly close” to a public debt crisis and Canadians need to force politicians to rein in spending. Canada may be heading for bankruptcy as happened to Greece a number of years ago. The NDP and Liberals don't seem concerned and the NDP is pushing and signed a deal with the Liberals that could increase spending by tens of billions of dollars. Canada's debt is increasing by 400 million per day according to this article. When the country is spending more money than it receives in revenue, there is the potential for bankruptcy. Stronach says we are fairly close to bankruptcy. So how do Canadians force government to reign in this potential debt crisis? I don't see any way that Canadians can stop the governing party from it's present course.

First of all, I am not going to say Stanley Knowles was evil. That is not my job. He was a long-serving and famous politician in Canada highly respected by many Canadians, much like Tommy Douglas and others. This is what the Canadian Encyclopedia says about Stanley Knowles. "Born in the US of Nova Scotian/New Brunswick parentage, Knowles had a profoundly religious upbringing in the SOCIAL GOSPEL tradition of the Methodist Church. He never forgot his mother's death from tuberculosis in 1919 or his father's firing from a machinist's job in 1932; both incidents marked his choice for theological studies at United College, Winnipeg, and then for political action via the CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH FEDERATION in 1935. He had to change laws rather than souls." " for almost 40 years he badgered successive governments into enlarging Canada's nascent WELFARE STATE. " So we can understand why he believed in making Canada a welfare state. This is what he was thoroughly indoctrinated in by the false ideology of the social gospel taught in the Methodist Church in those days. He badgered the government for decades to make Canada a welfare state. Or a Socialist state in common terms. This is much the same as Tommy Douglas who was a minister as well. It is ironic that these men came from social gospel churches and now their party is the most anti-Bible party in existence as they support same-sex marriage and abortion more strongly than any other party. These ideas were the centre of the CCF party which he belonged to and later became the centre platform of the NDP. Today the Liberal party is shifting more and more toward the ideology of a welfare state. We can see how it originated from the false gospel or social gospel of certain denominations and today from the Pope as well.

I would assume every denomination thinks they have the "one true faith". Certainly the Catholic Church has always believed they have it. But that was why the Reformation took place five hundred years ago. It was a return to the Bible and biblical truth or the one true faith. No church has it perfectly because mankind is not perfect. But there are some churches that believe closer to what the Bible teaches than others. The Catholic church is not one of them. Therefore those that support it and follow it's belief system are in error. Socialism is one of the serious errors of some apostate and false churches.

You are free to donate and help low income people all you want. That's a good thing to do. But you don't have the right to help yourself to other's money to do it. That's stealing. That's what the liberal left think they can do without any limits. The belief of liberals may partly come from the Socialist side of the Catholic church or apostate churches that think government should be some kind of social service agency for everyone (Socialism). Passing a law doesn't make something moral as you seem to think. Hitler passed lots of laws or issued orders-in-council. So did Stalin and Chairman Mao. That doesn't make things moral. Some Catholic priests in central America and south America were supporters of Communism decades ago. They were known as liberation theologians. Our present Liberals and NDP seem to think there is nothing they cannot do and if they wish to do it, they think it must be moral. Socialism is only one characteristic of this Liberal - NDP government. It also considers itself as liberal - progressive which is why it passes immoral laws which I already mentioned.

No the Liberals did not promise a Dental Care program, or a Pharmacare Program in the last election. The NDP might have but nobody expected them to form government. Most Canadians did not vote for new Socialist programs. Most Canadians did not vote for a majority government. Nobody told Canadians how much all this is going to cost either. Is is presumption to say Canadians are willing to pay for all these things. Here's what Trudeau's Liberals have promised for their third term | CTV News

quote Like Bernie Sanders, the pope is a socialist. He has had many unkind words about capitalism (“the dung of the devil”), but no corresponding criticism of socialism. Like Sanders, his ideas about economics were shaped by Marxist thinkers and activists. unquote www.crisismagazine.com/2019/pope-franciss-socialist-agenda Trudeau and company are Catholics and therefore follow the Socialist agenda of the Vatican. This is why they send Canadian's taxpayer money around the world as part of their agenda. This has nothing to do with charity. Taxpayers have no choice. It is all politics of liberal elites who believe in multilateralism and working for the U.N. Marxist agenda. It also helps set them up for a future position after they retire from electoral politics and seek a good job in the U.N. like Bob Rae received. John McCallum became an ambassador to China until he was removed for being too China friendly? They also combine their beliefs with evil progressivism and send money to support abortion in third world countries. Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development | Department of Economic and Social Affairs (un.org)

No, they are not. Their educational institutions are not Christian. Far from it. Read the Jesuit Oath and their Extreme Oath. The Jesuit Oath (truthontheweb.org) Read: ROMAN CATHOLICISM EXPOSED (jesus-is-savior.com)

No, Canadians did not vote for these programs. Only a minority voted for Liberals and NDP.