blackbird

Nobody says Trudeau needs to be an evangelist for democracy, but there are bigger questions that are well beyond Trudeau and his comments. China has perhaps a third of the world's population and is economically moving ahead steadily. But they are still a one-party totalitarian state which does not recognize such a thing as individual human rights. Some people say China has changed but I would question this. In what way? Economically yes, but politically, no. It is still the same system. Since Pierre Trudeau started the diplomatic relations between Canada and China, it has grown tremendously. There is supposed to be a big difference between our system and theirs as far as human rights. Some people might think they are just being stubborn and not really understanding what we mean in the west by human rights. I think it goes far deeper than that. The Communist revolution was essentially to establish a totalitarian system where everyone works as they are directed and the state in return takes care of everyone. The essential belief is that there are no such things as individual rights. The individual is subservient to the state. The individual only exists for the common good and the state is the supervisor or enforcer of that principle. Any outside criticism or advice on that basic ideology is considered interference in internal matters of the state and is not welcome

You asked for something to cite, but I'm not exactly sure what kind of information you are looking for. Pierre Trudeau was the one who opened diplomatic relations with China in 1970 and it has blossomed ever since. Pierre Trudeau shunned our traditional allies and cozied up to the USSR, China, and Russia. That should tell us something. While Canadians have slept, our Liberal governments have been getting closer and closer to China. "Canada’s long-standing and comprehensive relationship with the People’s Republic of China operates at many levels and in many areas, including in trade, governance and values, health, education and culture. " As I said the Liberals (and probably Conservative governments as well) pay lip service to the lack of human rights in China. This government website describes Canada's relationship. Lots of cooperation and business. Human rights issues? Not so much. http://www.canadainternational.gc.ca/china-chine/bilateral_relations_bilaterales/index.aspx?lang=eng Chairman Mao and Pierre Trudeau

Simple facts. Trudeau said he admired the Chinese system because they can turn it on a dime. I assume he means make instant decisions. But he in his admiration he said nothing about the fact millions of people were killed in the Communist revolutions and the ongoing denial of human rights. Dissidents are locked up. There is not freedom of speech, no freedom of the press, and no fundamental freedoms. The internet is government controlled. Yet Trudeau meets with powerful billionaires from China and Canada allows China to invest in industries in Canada and possibly take them over. Canada is looking for deals with China, but human rights are ignored. http://www.amnesty.ca/our-work/priority-countries/china

They pay lip service to human rights in other countries and Canada goes along like a dumb ox. Trudeau prefers to admire the Chinese system than say anything against their human rights.

Hell has been taught all through church history. It is not an interpretation that occurred 1600 years after the time of Christ. Once one starts giving credence to other writings and fables, he could sink into a pool of quicksand. The Bible is the only authority on spiritual and eternal matters. Hell was always taught, but rejected by some modernist bible translators in modern versions and preachers in modernist churches. Jesus describes hell as a place of suffering in Luke ch16 Revelation describes what happens to the devil and those whose names were not found in the book of life. "And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever." Revelation ch20 vs 10 "And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire." Revelation 20:15 Other writing such as books and myths that claim hell does not exist are not the word of God and do not carry any weight or authority. Rather than trying convince one's self that it doesn't exist, it is better to accept the Bible as God's Word and the gospel. Much better to be born again by faith in Jesus Christ, trusting in his sacrifice for our sins. Salvation is not by works (Ephesians 2:8). Salvation is only through God's grace and mercy that we receive forgiveness of sin. Jesus is the only saviour. We must call upon him and trust in him.

It had nothing to do with exercising church authority. It had everything to do with the Reformation and a return to biblical or apostolic christianity. Rome opposed the Reformation and fought it every step of the way. I think there was the thirty years war and the Inquisition for four hundred years. The founding of the Jesuits and creation of the Counter-reformation in the 1500s, and the Council of Trent to oppose the Reformation were some of the tools used to oppose the Reformation There is a fascinating video on youtube about much of this. I think it is called the History of the Bible but not 100% sure. It's about a 2 or 3 hr video. Prior to the 1500s, there were no translations of the Bible in the English language. Prior to the Reformation, the church was controlled by Roman Catholic Church throughout Europe since it started after 312 A.D. It became the Holy Roman Empire and kings and emperors were under the authority and control of Rome. (with the exception of a few smaller independent baptist sects in Europe who were eventually killed by the RCC) The RCC had it's own version, the Latin Vulgate, which it had been using down through the ages within the Catholic Church. A large part of the teachings of the Roman Catholic church were rejected during the Reformation. Followers of the reformed churches and other churches which split from Rome wished to have a bible in their own languages and not one which might be tailored to support the doctrines of Rome. Rome did not believe individual people should have a Bible or be able to read it in their own languages. For over as thousand years, people were told by their priests what to believe. Then in the 1500s Martin Luther and some others discovered that the teachings and practices of Rome contradicted what the Bible said. About that time Rome's representatives were going around Europe selling indulgences to collect money to build the Saint Peter's basilica in Rome. Indulgences were meant to cover a person's sins and there were different prices for different kinds of sins. Then when the Reformation took place in the 1500s, those who followed the Reformation and left the Roman Church required a Bible which they could understand. The Reformation brought a rejection of the Roman Catholic system of the church as the final authority and interpreter of truth and their system of all grace and salvation comes only through the mass, baptism, and other sacraments, plus a long time in a fictitious purgatory. The Reformation returned to the apostolic teaching of the necessity of a personal relationship with Jesus Christ by faith alone, the Bible teaching that all truth came to ordinary men and women through the Scriptures by the teaching of the Holy Spirit, not priests or popes. Therefore it was necessary for ordinary believers to have access to Bible written in their own language so they could read and study it for themselves. That meant new Bibles had to be translated from the most trustworthy extant Greek and Hebrew manuscripts into the English language and other languages in Europe such as German (Martin Luther's) in the 1500s. Several English bibles were produced in England in the 1500s with tremendous opposition from Rome. Some people were burned at the stake for opposing Rome and working on producing Bibles in English. Rome had always used priests to teach people what the Bible meant and always used only the Latin Vulgate which nobody could understand except the priest who had learned Latin. The New Testament had originally been written in Greek and so copies of the originals were kept in the eastern orthodox part of the world. When the Muslims overran the byzantine empire, some eastern orthodox people fled to western Europe bringing the early Greek manuscripts with them. These were some of the manuscripts which were used to produce the English versions in the 1500s and the 1611 King James Version. This web page gives a history of the King James Version and events leading up to it. http://www.av1611.org/kjv/kjvhist.html

Here is a short article which will shed some light on it. Quote “Hell” or “Hades” in Matthew 11:23 et al.? "And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day." (Matthew 11:23, KJV) Critics claim that the KJV is wrong for translating two Greek words “αδης (Hadēs)” and “γεεννα (Gehenna)” both as “hell.” These critics claim that Hades is merely a place of the dead, and not a place of torment and fire. However, we must get our understanding of biblical words from the Bible rather than from Pagan lore. The biblical definition of “Hades” indicates that it is a place of fire and torment. Luke 16:23-24 portrays the rich man being “tormented” in the “flame” of Hades. Thus, “hell” is an appropriate translation of “Hades.” Since “Gehenna” is Hebrew and “Hades” is Greek, it would make sense for the Greek-influenced Hebrews of the New Testament to use the two words interchangeably in referring to hell. Paul, despite referring to Hades numerous times, never uses the word “Gehenna” in all his letters which were addressed to Greek-speaking Gentiles. The only place outside of the Gospels where “Gehenna” is referred to is in James’ epistle (3:6) which was addressed to Jews. We must understand that the Greek of the New Testament is not a uniform dialect. Jesus used a Semitic dialect to Jews in Judea whereas Paul used the standard Greek dialect in his letters to the churches throughout the Roman Empire. "Hades" was the word for hell when the audience may not have understood "Gehenna". Apparently with the Hellenistic influence the word "Hades" was gaining currency even in Judea. But "Hades" was the only word for hell for the Gentiles. Why in the world would a Gentile in Rome understand the Hebrew word "Gehenna"? Common sense must be applied in ascertaining why the Bible uses both "Hades" and "Gehenna". There seems to be no difference between the biblical Gehenna and the biblical Hades. “Gehenna” is the Hebrew word for hell and “Hades” is the Greek word for hell. The KJV, being a translation, translates both words for hell as “hell.” Unquote http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/hell-or-hades-in-matthew-1123-et-al

The accurate translation in English is the King James Versions (1611) because it is the only translation based on the received text or textus receptus for the New Testament. Around 1880 two heretical Church of England (possibly priests) decided to make a new version based on two corrupt New Testament manuscripts. They did not like the King James Bible (1611). They appear to have been influenced by Rome and diabolical powers. At least one of them was involved with the occult. One manuscript is called the Codex Sinaiticus manuscript and was found in a waste paper basket in a monastery. The other corrupt manuscript was called Codex Vaticanus and was pulled out of the Vatican library. These two manuscripts were older than the manuscripts upon which the KJV (1611) was based and they developed a theory claiming they were more accurate even though they differed with the Received Text in thousands of places in the New Testament. Age does not prove accuracy. These two manuscripts were probably discarded in the early centuries because they were corrupt. And the accurate manuscripts upon which the received text is based were probably worn out from use. That would explain why the accurate manuscripts are not as old as the few that were pulled out around 1880. Yet these modernist heretics grabbed onto them and based their new translation on them. In a separate but related issue, modern version have in fact taken the word hell almost completely out of the Old Testament. Modern bible translators have altered the Bible in thousands of places, in some ways, to make it is more in line with new age thinking. It is all part of the corruption of literally all modern versions of the Bible. I would add that hell has been taught in the Bible for the past 2000 years. It is only in modern versions and modernist churches that have taken hell out of the Bible and want to present a more gentle approach. It's all part of the great falling away or apostasy prophesied would occur in the last days. The failure to teach something does not change the fact of it's existence. I am a follower of the KJV (1611) and completely reject the corrupt modern versions. If you want to know more about this I suggest you get the book "New Age Bible Versions" by Gail Riplinger. Available through Amazon or from their actual website avpublications dot com

Good grief! I hope you're wrong about 40% in the polls. Rex Murphy has an excellent opinion piece on the National Post website called "For Trudeau, governing is entirely about sweet words, not action". I think this describes him to a tee. He made many promises that he did not keep in the election campaign. We know what some of them were. So it amazes me that he still has 40% in the polls. Shows how gullible a large part of the electorate is. They probably never pay attention to what is happening after they cast their ballot.

No it wasn't invented. Jesus taught it is an actual place. But he doesn't want anyone to go there. We get involved in talking about politics and ideology often on the internet. Try convincing someone who believes in Marxism-socialism that it's a bad idea. Communist countries banned religion or tried to abolish it because it doesn't fit in with the ideology of Communism. The Marxist ideology if I am correct is based on the idea of taking from those that have and giving to those that do not have (by force if necessary). If you want to oppose Marxism or some offshoot of it, the Bible will support you.

Correct. Jesus gave an account of the conversation between a rich man in hell (after he died) and Abraham. Jesus never said it was a parable, which leaves the conclusion that it was an account of a conversation that took place from a rich man in a place called hell. Luke Ch16 vs 19 - 31 (King James Version 1611) The KJV (1611) is God's written revelation to man.

You must admit our legal system has often convicted people who were later found innocent. It is not infallible by any stretch. Much use has been made of the not criminally responsible plee. It is a difficult thing to oppose when there may be experts who may view people who commit those kinds of crimes as not mentally fit. A lot of power has been put in the hands of experts. A non-expert in the field of mental issues up against a ostensible expert such as a psychiatrist has an uphill battle in a court.

Yes. I shouldn't have used that phrase. It makes light of a real place. It wasn't invented.

Could be that money is the object. .They pay lip service to human rights but it can't interfere with trade.

I watched a documentary showing a huge amount of manufacturing has moved from the U.S. to China in the last number of decades. They believe at the present rate, China will surpass the U.S. as the economic superpower within 20 years. Trudeau admires the system of China. It is a totalitarian state that does no recognize human rights or democracy.

Actually Confederation occurred in 1867. We are now celebrating Canada 150.

Could it be some kind of provocateur?

How are Zionists racist? According to Wikipedia the word: " Zionism (Hebrew: צִיּוֹנוּת‎ Tsiyyonut [t͡sijo̞ˈnut] after Zion) is the national movement of the Jewish people that supports the re-establishment of a Jewish homeland in the territory defined as the historic Land of Israel (roughly corresponding to Canaan, " That being the case, how is the Jewish people wanting to re-establish their Jewish homeland racist?

Ezra Levant has a video on the Liberals and NAFTA. He thinks it is possible the Libs are taking subjects to the negotiations so NAFTA will fail and they can have China as the major trading partner. It is just an opinion. I'm not sure what to make of it. I do find it strange they would be taking things to the bargaining table which they know Trump would abhor and have nothing to do with free trade.

Yes, this country is going to hell in a handbasket!

I believe most Canadians would disagree with a so-called "jury of experts" and a system which would let someone in those circumstances be released. Wikipedia says " In the United Kingdom, Ireland, and the United States, use of the (insanity) defense is rare;[4] however, since the Criminal Procedure (Insanity and Unfitness to Plead) Act 1991,[5] insanity pleas have steadily increased in the UK. " It seems Canada is a leader in a number of questionable "progressive" things, which many seem to pride themselves on. The not criminally responsible defense seems to be one of a number of things Canada is taking a lead in. Other subjects are same-sex marriage, doctor-assisted suicide, open borders, and of course abortion on demand.

I guess you haven't been following the latest. Didn't the fella who decapitated someone on a bus walk free recently? Being found "not criminally responsible" doesn't meant one can never walk free again apparently in Canada. It all depends on the decision of a judge at some point in time. The fella who killed his three kids a few years back and was declared NCR has recently had a judge rule he will not get dangerous offender status, even though he has had many incidents of violence in custody and authorities believe he is a danger. He is still in custody, for now.

Trudeau is in Quebec on CBC at this moment answering questions about the illegal migrants flooding into Quebec. He is doubling down on the idea Canada is a welcoming and open country for migrants and refugees. He repeated this several times. He also calls the illegal migrants irregulars repeatedly. He obviously continues to send the message to the world to come on in. We will welcome you and take care of you. The Canadian government has set up refugee camps on the border and openly welcomes them to come in. He claims there is no advantage to coming in "irregularly" on how they will be processed. But he gives such a soft approach to the whole thing one would think they are welcoming illegal migrants with open arms, which they are. Almost 7000 have crossed into Canada in the last six weeks.

Eyewitness accounts of many supernatural events does constitute evidence. It is your bias that is getting in your way. Without knowing beans about it, you dismiss it as brainwashing. The irony is you are the most brainwashed person on here with your constant nonsense about the U.S. and west. So you are the last person who should speak of brainwashing.

Science and the Bible are two different things. Science is defined as a branch of knowledge conducted on objective principles involving the systematized observation of and experiments with phenomena, esp. concerned with the material and functions of the physical universe. (Oxford dictionary) On the other hand the Bible is a written revelation from God and a supernatural book. Much of what is recorded in the Bible is supernatural in character or nature. It does not claim to fit the definition of science according to the Oxford definition of science. People sometimes add confusion to the subject by arguing the Bible is scientific. It is not meant to be and is not a scientific book. The events recorded such as the creation account in the beginning part of Genesis in the King James Bible (1611) are supernatural. While I believe they occurred as they are written, it is not meant to try to fit it into a scientific mould. God who created everything did it in a supernatural way and is not required to prove how he did it. Neither are believers required to prove how God created the universe out of nothing. The evidence is all around us in the creation and the Bible itself gives ample evidence that it is indeed the word of God. One either accepts it by faith or doesn't.