blackbird

Accepting variety in nature, where people are from or skin colour should not be a problem. That's not the same as different beliefs. Some beliefs should not be accepted or agreed with obviously because they are not good beliefs or may be harmful to others.

Now you are grasping at straws. Theologian Charles Hodge said in his Systematic Theology books all men have some knowledge of God. (all meaning in general, not counting those claiming to be atheist, which is probably a very small percentage of mankind) He gives three reasons: 1. Knowledge of God is innate "which is due to our constitution, as sentient, rational, and moral beings" 2. The knowledge of God is not due to a process of reasoning. 3. Knowledge of God not due exclusively to Tradition. The knowledge of God was passed through our first parents, Adam and Eve, and later God chose to reveal himself to Abraham and gave this truth by means of Holy Scripture to Abraham's posterity. "Knowledge of God being intuitive, cannot be subject to scientific proof." The existence of God has been believed by the wisest men down through the ages, is validated by the creation, and taught in the inspired Holy Scripture. If there is no God, then man is reduced to a mere animal and came about by accident or chance, which is an untenable and illogical argument.

ab absurdo

The reasoning is faulty to begin with. Your argument is based on the premise that the correct elements to create the conditions for life just appeared out of nowhere. Hydrogen and Helium are very special atoms, each with a very unique structure. All these atoms had to have been created by a Creator. They just didn't just accidentally appear. So the basic premise that life evolved is built on faulty assumptions. There had to have been a Creator to design all the atoms, laws of physics to govern how all the atoms, molecules, and heavenly bodies were going to behave. Just to say it happened by itself doesn't make sense.

Excellent subject you raise. I agree. Unfortunately I don't see any party putting forward viable solutions. Trudeau is a master at sweet words, but practically no action. He knows how to speak fair things that will appeal to minorities, but accomplishes very little. It's all talk and no action. Even an ordinary citizen has very little input. I've had the feeling for a long time, that communications such as letters or Emails to elected officials just fall on deaf ears, but maybe I'm being too cynical. One problem is that significant improvements would probably take a vast amount of money and then there is the suspicion that much of the money would be wasted in government bureaucracies or siphoned off by special interests and not get to where it should go. I don't trust government with taxpayer's money. I think they waste vast amounts and often make bad decisions.

The claim that science proves there is no God doesn't stand up. The Bible says God is a spirit. Science does not deal with matters to do with the spirit. I am sure you would agree science only deals with the material universe and with what can be observed or measured. The fact the Bible teaches God created the universe out of nothing answers the question of where the universe came from. Nobody has come up with any other sensible explanation. Something does not come from nothing without some external force or power. The answer that God created everything might be a difficult concept for some people to get their heads around, but if you accept the premise that there is a God who is infinitely powerful, then it is easy to accept that the creating the universe out of nothing was a supernatural event which God is capable of. Having said God is a spirit, his creation is measurable and observable. Science does deal with the created universe. However, it does not answer the question of how the universe came into existence and whether there is a Creator God or not, at least not in clear terms that you would want to see. So what evidence do you have which proves God does not exist?

You would be better off to at least admit you can't prove there is no God and take a neutral view. I think that's Altai's point. You can't prove your assertion so why not just say you don't know or there could be a God but you can't prove it either way. At least my point about the complexity of life and everything else and orderly physical laws of the universe lends weight to the argument there had to have been a designer. Your argument it was an accident has nothing to support it.

An accident cannot produce something as complex and intricate as the created universe. Even the complexity of the conditions to enable life to exist on earth had to have had a designer.

I have to give Altai credit for asking the question whether or not there is a God(s). This is a good question and the belief in a God or gods goes back in time as long as man inhabited the earth. Atheists like to claim it is irrational to believe in a God. I disagree based on the evidence of creation which is all around us. Atheists dismiss the evidence of the complexity of human life for example as if it were nothing worth considering. To those who believe in a Creator God, it is obvious everything in creation would have required an infinitely intelligent and powerful designer / Creator. Those who ridicule the belief in God show their own blindness because the evidence is all around us. Even the laws of physics which governs the movement of the Sun, stars, planets, etc. is an amazing result of God's design.

That doesn't prove to be the case in western Europe.

But the christian Bible indeed claims to be the very Word of God. Most christian churches will say it is. Personally I believe the KJV (1611) in the English language is the the only 100% accurate version in English. The other modern versions are corrupted for various reasons, but that is another subject

A bigger concern than DACA would be the situation with N. Korea. Total annihilation is a frightening concept. The possibility that N. Korea and millions of others could be taken out with nuclear weapons puts a whole new idea on the word crisis. It is beyond that. I don't know what to say about it.

Why is Quebec using imported oil while opposing the Energy East Pipeline project? Should cut off the transfer payments to them and stop allowing imported oil into eastern Canada.

The Heritage committee in Parliament apparently starts studying the motion on Islamophobia today. Ezra on The Rebel Media thinks they will come out with a law to try to stop "Islamophobia" in all federal government departments including the Armed Forces. What exactly that will mean remains to be seen because the word Islamophobia seems to mean fear of Isalm. How do you outlaw or ban a fear of Islam? We will see what they come out with.

Correct. People who find themselves displaced by lower paying jobs or are displaced by technological advances need to prepare themselves by making plans to get into another occupation or field and retrain. Society is constantly changing. Telephone companies used to employ large numbers of people to maintain and repair the old mechanical switching system in the telephone exchanges. It took a lot of maintenancemen to maintain, and lubricate those mechanical switches. When those were replaced with electronic exchanges in the 1970s, people had to retrain or transfer to other jobs in the company or retire if they had enough time. The new technology probably reduced the workforce to 10% of what they had before in the telephone exchanges. But they still needed a lot of employees in all kinds of other jobs in the company. But newer technologies create some jobs in computer sciences, programming skills and software/hardware engineering. The days of the small town shoemaker, candlestick maker, and blacksmith are gone. Barbers are still needed though. I know a barber who was once a janitor in the hospital but when they announced they were laying off because of government cutbacks and he wouldn't have a job, he re-trained maybe twenty years ago to be a barber and has not regretted it a bit. He said cleaning up blood, etc. in the hospital was not a pleasant job. Now he has good working hours and can choose his own days off and gets to chew the fat with all the customers. It's an easy stress free job. Another barber I know hires a replacement in the winter and takes off to his mobile home in Arizona.

I have been involved in watching everything for years and I can tell you nothing is decided or chosen from Britain. The Governor General goes to England to be sworn in. That's all. Yes he is chosen by PM. It is because the Queen is still the Queen of Canada. We have what is called a Constitutional monarchy. It means we have a Queen as head of state and a Governor General who represents the Queen in Canada. We also have a Constitution which gives us all the rights to self-government. The Queen is only a figurehead. She visits Canada occasionally and may perform a ceremony. But that's about all she does with Canada. The system with a governor general and a Queen is a good one because the Armed Forces and RCM Police swear allegiance to the Queen and the people largely support the Queen. This means it would be very difficult for someone to come in and take over the government like a dictator. I am not criticizing other systems such as republics, but we are satisfied with our system.

No. I'm afraid you have a misunderstanding of how our system in Canada works. It's not a dictatorship at all. You would have to do some studying and talk to people to see how it works here. I was involved in a political party in a local electoral district or riding. Each party in an electoral district has annual meetings where they elect their board of directors and executive. Anyone who wishes may put his name forward to become a candidate for a party in that district. Then the party members choose which contender they wish to be their candidate. It is done by having a campaign and then an election in that district. Then when a general election is held, each party's candidate runs to be the member of parliament for that district. There are 338 electoral districts in Canada and 338 members must be elected to fill the seats in Parliament. It is an involved process that is governed by a department of government called Elections Canada. There are certain rules about financing parties, riding (district) associations, and campaigns that must be followed. It is done democratically by the Elections Canada laws. It has nothing to do with Britain which is far away on the other side of the ocean and has no interest in our elections and how we choose our government.

Actually the British royal family has nothing to do with governing Canada. Neither does the governor general in Canada. He is not involved in the political process. Canadians have different political parties and elect the members of parliament. The party that gets the most members of parliament elected becomes the government of Canada. The governor general is chosen by the Prime MInister who was chosen by his party and elected to be a member of parliament. The governor general is mainly an official representative of the Queen but was not chosen by the Queen. His function is to attend official ceremonies, give out the Order of Canada awards in a little ceremony. But he has nothing to do with the executive branch of government which introduces laws in Parliament which must be passed by a majority of the 338 members of Parliament. The governor general is more of a figurehead. The only time he does something to do with the government is if the government is defeated and falls. Then he can call an election or if there are enough members of the opposition parties, he can appoint an interim government to govern. But he never makes laws. We know this because we have studied it for years and follow what the governor general does. Is is sometimes interviewed on the news. I was fortunate to have met three prime ministers and met one of them twice. Before he became PM, he came to our town to campaign, I was fortunate to have lunch with him and about eight people and talk with him for about half an hour. I am just an ordinary person; not a politician. That was a a number of years ago. That was a big blessing. Canada became mainly independent from Britain in Confederation which we celebrate this year as it is the 150th anniversary since 1867. Canada became more independent over the years until now we are completely independent.

No, not true. Canada is an independent country and has been for a long time. We share the same Queen and belong to the Commonwealth of Nations. But we are completely independent.

I live in a town of about 18,000 or 20,000 people in the area and Walmart certainly does save a lot of money. What is the alternative? I have seen cherries sold in Walmart for $1.97/LB or KG and sold at the same time in another supermarket for $5 /LB or KG. Clothes in Walmart are a fraction of the price of small clothing stores. Same with shoes. You can get a pair of runners for $20 or $30 in Walmart. In a small shoe store you may pay double the price. Even breakfast cereals are much cheaper in Walmart than regular supermarkets. Walmart has the advantage of obtaining and selling goods in quantity and using their own networks of warehousing, trucking and infrastructure. They are able to do things more economically and efficiently through the whole infrastructure and supply network. Small businesses do not have that ability. It's a bit like comparing McDonalds and ordinary restaurants. You can buy a hamburger in McDonalds for say $6 but I have seen hamburgers in independent restaurants for $12 or more, plus you must leave a 12% or 15% tip. I have compared prices of some things in Walmart with other stores. Saying Walmart doesn't save money is not a believable statement for anyone who has shopped in Walmart and compared prices. Almost everything is cheaper in Walmart. That's the advantage of free enterprise. You say it damaged small business. That is true. Now you are telling the truth. But small businesses also only pay minimum wages to hired employees, which is the same that Walmart pays. The only people that make significant money in a small business are the owners if the business is successful, not the hired employees. But you need to consider the cost of living for the thousands of customers that don't make a huge wage and must buy their goods. They would be a lot poorer without the Walmarts and Canadian Tire stores, and the No Frill grocery stores. Some towns controlled by the small business sector have managed to keep Walmart out of town. This has hurt the majority of the population by forcing them to travel great distances to find a Walmart or forcing them to shop in a small shop with high prices. Should a few small business owners be protected at the expense of the thousands of ordinary citizens? I don't think so.

OK. Of course there are benefits. We have Walmart and Canadian Tire which I am always running to. I'm sure without Walmart, life would be far more expensive and a lot of things would not be available here. I consider Walmart a very valuable store. When I need something, that's the first place I think of because the price is not so bad. A lot of groceries are coming from China as well. We are pretty much dependent on goods from China now. Instead of learning French in western Canada, young people should start learning Chinese, especially in greater Vancouver. It would probably be more useful.

So at what point do you draw the line? Do you think there could be any consequences for dealing with China?

CNN had a one hour documentary on Inside North Korea last night. Everyone worships their leader. Nobody criticizes anything. They seem to be reasonably happy and have a certain amount of material goods. The family CNN was visiting had good food on the table at dinner. Think they have stores that sell smart phones. They have TVs in their homes although they looked like older TVs, not the modern flat screen TVs. It's not permissible to criticize the government or leaders. They have camps in the mountains were prisoners are sent or are executed. That way they have no problems or disagreements.

I think the Canadian governments since Pierre Trudeau opened diplomatic relationship with China have built up a huge relationship. No, I am not saying we should or could cut economic and political ties with China or other countries right now. It is far too big and complex. FN is a whole different issue. I would like to stick to the issue of China for now as it has me thinking. But you raise a good question about where do we go now and what should Canada be doing.

Yes, Trudeau speaks at times on the subject of human rights to "encourage" China. Personally I think Trudeau and many others are very naive. They have drunk the Kool Aid so to speak. I hope you keep an open mind on this subject and don't become too entrenched in defending Trudeau or the liberals on their cozy relationship with China because there is much more to learn about this and what it may mean in the long term. In your link, this is part of what Trudeau said: "Building closer economic ties will make it easier for China and Canada to speak frankly about governance, human rights and the rule of law, Trudeau told several hundred people at an event hosted by the Canada China Business Council. “I remind everyone that as a country that has seen first hand the benefits of free expression and good governance — Canada encourages China to do more to promote and protect human rights,” he said in his 22-minute speech. “In the global village, we all have stake in what happens here. “The success of the world is inexorably linked to China’s success, and I know that these are not easy conversations to have, but they are necessary ones.” The Liberals and Trudeau seem to be very naive and I think their reasoning is flawed. I don't believe he is correct at all. Liberals have the exalted belief that somehow forging closer ties and intertwining Canada's economy with China is going to cause them to listen and change. This is the biggest fallacy and charade one could imagine. AS I said before the whole concept is the individual has not rights; the collective is all that matters and all individual rights and existence is subservient to the good of the state and collective.