dpwozney

You seem to be using some different definition for Christian. For my definition of a Christian, a Christian is someone who does not endorse, support, and/or celebrate pride, given that the Greek word hyperēphania in Mark 7:22 has been translated in at least sixteen Bible translations as "pride", and given the other references to pride in various Bible translations. But you have the idea that the Greek word hyperēphania in Mark 7:22 has been translated in at least sixteen different Bible translations as "pride". So you actually have some idea. According to this article, "... the New Testament documents are very accurate. Therefore, when the scholars translate from the Greek into the English (or into any other language), we can trust that what is translated is accurate and reliable."

Is it your position that the authors of the American Standard Version, the Basic English Bible, the Douay-Rheims Bible, the Holman Christian Standard, the King James Version, the Lexham English Bible, the New American Standard Bible, the New Century Version, the New Living Translation, the New Revised Standard Version, the Jerusalem Bible, the Third Millennium Bible, the Webster's Bible, the Weymouth NT, the World English Bible, and the Young's Literal Translation have all mistranslated the Greek word hyperēphania in Mark 7:22 as "pride"?

The American Standard Version, the Basic English Bible, the Douay-Rheims Bible, the Holman Christian Standard, the King James Version, the Lexham English Bible, the New American Standard Bible, the New Century Version, the New Living Translation, the New Revised Standard Version, the Jerusalem Bible, the Third Millennium Bible, the Webster's Bible, the Weymouth NT, the World English Bible, and the Young's Literal Translation translate the text as "pride". American Standard Version, Mark 7:20-23 Basic English Bible, Mark 7:20-23 Douay-Rheims, Mark 7:20-23 Holman Christian Standard, Mark 7:20-23 King James Version, Mark 7:20-23 Lexham English Bible, Mark 7:20-23 New American Standard Bible, Mark 7:20-23 New Century Version, Mark 7:20-23 New Living Translation, Mark 7:20-23 New Revised Standard Version, Mark 7:20-23 The Jerusalem Bible, Mark 7:20-23 Third Millennium Bible, Mark 7:20-23 Webster's Bible, Mark 7:20-23 Weymouth NT, Mark 7:20-23 World English Bible, Mark 7:20-23 Young's Literal Translation, Mark 7:20-23 ".

Anybody can call himself or herself a Christian. Anybody can use their own personal definition for Christian. Not all people claiming to be Christian believe that the Bible is the word of God. Not all people claiming to be Christian believe that Jesus Christ referred to pride as being an evil thing. Not all people claiming to be Christian believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ or that Jesus Christ performed any miracles. Nevertheless, there are Christians who do believe that Jesus Christ referred to pride as being an evil thing. So my original point remains valid: Endorsing, supporting, and/or celebrating pride does not include Christians.

Christians believe Jesus Christ referred to pride as being an evil thing. As a result, endorsing, supporting, and/or celebrating pride does not include Christians (which is the point). If it is not evil, it is not pride, according to the word-of-God definition for pride. Christians do not go around using non-word-of-God definitions and disagreeing with Jesus Christ. Again, the point is that endorsing, supporting, and/or celebrating pride does not include Christians. Christians are instructed to "Abstain from all appearance of evil." (1 Thessalonians 5:22)

"City of Edmonton Senior Policy Advisor" Gibby Davis is quoted in this December 8th Edmonton Journal article. Endorsing, supporting, and/or celebrating pride does not include Christians. Jesus Christ referred to pride as being an evil thing. "And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: All these evil things come from within, and defile the man." Mark 7:20-23 (KJV)

“According to Canadian law, we only recognize marriages if they are valid in the place where the couple resides. This means that if a couple came to Canada to marry because they couldn’t get married where they live, then according to this rule, it would not be a valid marriage in Canada either”, said “Professor Brenda Cossman from the faculty of law at the University of Toronto”, according to this April 10 Global News article.

Do you really think the Wild Rose party is being derailed because Danielle Smith stated she is “pro-gay marriage” and “If we’re elected, a Wildrose government is not going to be legislating on contentious moral issues”?

If people of the same sex, who thought they were married in the “Province of Alberta”, cannot get a divorce while residing in any of most states in the U.S.A. or in the U.K., were they ever really married in the first place?

Can you prove that “every abortion performed is a result of the determination of being medically necessary as determined by a patient and her physician”? What statement, or statements, in what ruling by your “Supreme Court” supposedly claims that “EVERY Abortion is medically necessary”? What law “says every abortion is medically necessary”?

Again, everyone, including your government, is entitled to their own opinion as to what is, and what is not, medically necessary. Everyone, including your government, is free to make up their own definition as to what is, and what is not, medically necessary. Not every abortion, that is performed, is medically necessary. The so-called “Supreme Court judges”, the people who voted for the Charter, and Harper all stated their allegiances to Elizabeth the Second. Elizabeth the Second is not Queen of the “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland”, contrary to the requirement in this Fifth Schedule, which states: “Oath of Allegiance I A.B. do swear, That I will be faithful and bear true Allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria. Note. The Name of the King or Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland for the Time being is to be substituted from Time to Time, with proper Terms of Reference thereto.”. Elizabeth the Second claims to be Queen of the “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland”. The provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick expressed their desire to be federally united into one Dominion under the Crown of the “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland”, not the Crown of the “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland”, according to the British North America Act, 1867.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion as to what is, and what is not, medically necessary. Everyone is free to make up their own definition as to what is, and what is not, medically necessary. Not every abortion, that is performed, is medically necessary.

Is the above sentence a question? The above sentence lacks a question mark, but begins with the word “how”. Also, the grammar is problematic. I understand the health-care system, but you do not appear to understand what is meant by “delisting abortion”. Emergency medical services, or ambulance services, are delisted. Emergency medical services, or ambulance services, are not denied to people because they cannot afford to pay. Emergency medical services or ambulance services, are the same for a “poor person” who cannot pay and does not pay, as they are for a “rich person” who can pay and does pay. If true, such a ruling would have been made by people who stated their allegiance to Elizabeth the Second. Elizabeth the Second is not Queen of the “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland”, contrary to the requirement in this Fifth Schedule, which states: “Oath of Allegiance I A.B. do swear, That I will be faithful and bear true Allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria. Note. The Name of the King or Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland for the Time being is to be substituted from Time to Time, with proper Terms of Reference thereto.”. Elizabeth the Second claims to be Queen of the “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland”. The provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick expressed their desire to be federally united into one Dominion under the Crown of the “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland”, not the Crown of the “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland”, according to the British North America Act, 1867.

Delisting abortion does not have to mean that abortion providers would have less funding. Delisting abortion does not have to mean that there would be two-tiered healthcare or less access. I understand correctly that taxpayers pay for abortions that happen not to be medically necessary and that could instead be paid by people having the abortions.

Why should the “Province of Alberta” lose “federal funding” and have “their health care taxes go to other provinces” if anyone in the “Province of Alberta”, who wants an abortion, still has access to an abortion?

I doubt the WR intends to fight this in court. According to CBC News, “Wildrose Leader Danielle Smith said she has absolutely no intention of legislating on abortion, and that includes delisting”. Delisting abortion does not mean that a private abortion clinic, purchased by a non-profit organization, would not get funding for people who cannot afford to pay for an abortion. Delisting abortion means making only the people, who can afford to pay for their abortions, pay for their abortions. Delisting abortion does not mean that anyone, who wants an abortion, would no longer have access, or the right, to an abortion.

The fact, that Danielle Smith supports the system of having taxpayers pay for any and all abortions that are not medically necessary and could be paid instead by the people having the abortions, does matter to certain potential voters. Why should the “Province of Alberta” lose “Federal funding” and have “their health care taxes go to other provinces” if people in the “Province of Alberta” still have the right to an abortion?

Whether or not the above is completely true, the above is irrelevant to what I wrote, which is that Danielle Smith supports having taxpayers pay for any and all abortions that are not medically necessary and could be paid instead by the people having the abortions.

Danielle Smith supports having taxpayers pay for any and all abortions that are not medically necessary and could be paid instead by the people having the abortions.

Can you prove neither emergency medical services nor ambulance services are charter rights?

Delisting abortion services does not mean that people would no longer have the right to abortion services. Emergency medical services or ambulance services are delisted, and people still have the right to emergency medical services or ambulance services.

If true, such a ruling would have been made by people who stated their allegiance to Elizabeth the Second. Elizabeth the Second is not Queen of the “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland”, contrary to the requirement in this Fifth Schedule, which states: “Oath of Allegiance I A.B. do swear, That I will be faithful and bear true Allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria. Note. The Name of the King or Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland for the Time being is to be substituted from Time to Time, with proper Terms of Reference thereto.”. Elizabeth the Second claims to be Queen of the “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland”. The provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick expressed their desire to be federally united into one Dominion under the Crown of the “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland”, not the Crown of the “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland”, according to the British North America Act, 1867.

I doubt they want to try to delist abortion. But again, I don’t speak for the “Wildrose Party”, nor am I speaking for the “Wildrose Party”. Therefore, I don’t know why I am even being asked questions about the “Wildrose Party”.

I don’t speak for the “Wildrose Party”, nor am I speaking for the “Wildrose Party”. However, according to CBC News, “Wildrose Leader Danielle Smith said she has absolutely no intention of legislating on abortion, and that includes delisting”.

Emergency medical services or ambulance services are delisted, and emergency medical services or ambulance services are still available to those who cannot afford it, at the time. Delisting abortion services does not mean that abortion services would no longer be safe and available to those who cannot afford it, at the time.