Posit

Jesus recognized that people BELIEVED in sin, a carry-over from the Old Testament teachers. What He did was forgave everyone's sin - something considered a blaspheme against the Church of the day and way more than a sin. And He taught that if you think you have done something wrong, to get over and stop doing it ("sin no more") "You believe......" Absolutely that is judgmental - that's all you have to go on. In Hebrew the actual interpretation of the 10 Commandments really means the 10 Commitments. If you were spiritually connected enough you might be able to see the error in your ways.

Leviticus is Old Testament, something Jesus dispelled as fable. Christians only came with the New Testament.

Last estimate I heard from a very reliable source is that the trust has about $25 billion dollars in it, but that almost $24 billion has gone missing.

Ok, so lets put this into a modern context and the example you provided. It is well known that many priests and ministers in our society have molested children, adulterated with people in the congregation, committed theft and some are alcoholics and drug addicts. Yet the Church (pick one denomination) having known about the problem cleric allowed the priests and ministers to continue to preach, and in some of the most heinous cases relocated them to other districts to continue. The Churhc hide the crimes and refused to involve the law to prosecute many of these people. If in fact these people are evil and have sinned, then what about all of the millions of people they ministered to? If the men were evil and if the men (and women in some cases) were sinners then could they still minister in a way consistent with the Bible? Or would they not be passing on evil in their messages since according to the Bible Satan works through deception and in mysterious ways? The wost of evil in our most recent memory has been Hitler and his creation of the Holocaust. Yet in the 60 million he slaughtered with no mercy, there was lots of good that came of it. We now have vaccines and medical knowledge that advanced us as society and in the end has probably saved hundreds of millions more people around the world. We have jets and nuclear technologies that came out of that war. We have distribution networks and have allies with nations we would not ever have had we remained out of the war. In no way am I suggesting that the end justifies the means but that what we perceive has evil, or perceive as sin is nothing more than a personal judgment being erroneously applied to others. It has no place in society and was dispelled by Jesus as coming from God. I suggest that we are on a path were each one we meet makes a contribution to our lives, our memories and our life experiences. Some will stand out more than others but no one is less important. If you cloud your mind and consume your thoughts with self-victimization, and outward condemnations, then you will be bound to repeat the mistakes of the past, and instead of moving forward and evolving you will not only delay your evolution and personal growth but your will stunt others around you as well, since you are part of their growth and advancement and they cannot leave you behind.

The Christian concept of "sin" says that it is answerable to God and I maintain there is no sin because even God, would not punish anyone. Sin is just one of the many ways invented by the church to control the masses. If I'm not mistaken, eating pork is not considered a "sin" to Muslim, but it is a law with which they guide themselves.

Ummmm....if you in fact followed the story, the three boys ran because three other men were coming in to attack them with 2x4's. And I have no doubt that had they stuck around the mob mentality of the Caledonians that gathered that night would have convicted and sentenced them without any trial. Funny too that the story put out by the builder changed almost every day for a week following and the story as told by the three boys remained consistent from the beginning. If you are so quick to judge, then what about the embellishments told by the brother Joe?

Perfect example huh? In reality there is no sin and there is no evil.

By combining polls CTV predicted that if the election were to be held today the following results would be posted: Liberals 60 seats, Conservatives 35 seats, NDP 12 seats.......no guesses on others..... That is majority territory.

"Sin" is a Christian construct and has no value in Canadian debate. "Evil" is a disingenuous attempt to label someone who fails to live up to your own sanctimonious inconsistencies. It too, has no place in Canadian debate. So really, it is not the society that is screwed up but an individual who can't debate without using religious dogma as an argument.

Actually many of the Mohawk Peacekeepers are a branch of the OPP in Ontario. While they are given some autonomy, for the most part they have to answer to the OPP. Remember Larry Hay?

The real-time footage wasn't made up. Hey if in fact you have watched it several times, I wonder if you could remind me how many non-natives were injured or died as result of the rocks being thrown. And how many native people were injured or died as a result of the rocks being thrown at them? It is a real easy question that you should be able to answer quickly, if in fact you watched it once.

Have you watched Rocks At Whiskey Trench Yet? It is a documentary and you can see for yourself how brutal and violent Canadian people are. However, I know your fear gets the better of you Gary and maybe you should go hide under Christine's bed....or doesn't she let you in her room?

Ummmm I don't think there is a thread about "nothing", but there may be quite a few porn sites where M.Dancer is the major contributor.....

I presented the facts, moutarde. Maps and archaeology ARE proof. You on the other hand have nothing, no proof - just your tiny little useless voice of hate and racism and few people buy it. When are you going to Desreonto, boy? It seems they have a party all lined up for you.....

Tell me FTA, if you rid yourself of the legal system, then where do your rights come from.....? I'll give you a clue because the framers of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms knew: I do believe that LesActive has those inalienable rights from birth.

Hmmmm come to think of it there seems to be a missing gene that has retarded your ability to learn.....

Wrong again chum. The Haudenosaunee were along the Grand River eons before the British ever stepped into what is now Ontario. That's been proven to you over and over again and still you make up lies.

Welcome to reality. It is a long uphill battle against the cadre.

That "HIS-story" you referenced was created with the belief that the 1844 document was legal. Six Nations has establish that it was a fraud and therefore, the entire assumption becomes unraveled. It is like those people who like to create an idea in your mind that Six Nations has no aboriginal right to the lands on the Haldimand and that they are essentially "immigrants". But then the evidence, by way of French 17th century maps and 13th century archaeology of the tract pops up and throws the assumption into mythdumb. That is why the government has agreed to put the sale document aside and provide further evidence to substantiate the sale. So far they are unable (or perhaps "unwilling") to produced that evidence. Until they can produce supporting documentation as I mentioned earlier,the document has no value in resolving the disputes. One other point is that if Six Nations indeed agreed to and signed the sale, why would they continue to complain after 1844 saying they did not agree? There is a long record of letters, minutes of meetings and delegations to the Governor demonstrating that Six Nations was upset at the sale of the Plank Road lands to settlers without their consent. One document does not out weigh all the rest.

The Plank Road sale claimed to have been signed by 47 Six Nation Chiefs using marks only (x), without witnesses or attestations confirming the marks. Then Six Nations presented Crown with evidence that deeds were being issued to settlers six months before the agreement was to have been signed. And finally, Six Nations produced evidence that they only had about 28 condoled (legal) Chiefs at Six Nations during the time these things were purported to have been signed and I think it was 6 signatures that were on the document were for people that were in off the reserve at the same time. So Six Nations requested that the agreement be set aside and the government provide documentation, minutes or other correspondence concerning the negotiations prior to the agreement. The government has said they have them....only they can't find them.....Six Nations then produced their copies that proved they were in negotiation for a Plank Road lease, the monies received would be added to the Six Nations trust. There was no agreement in any of the pre-agreement documentation suggesting that Six Nations ever agreed to sell the lands. To get out of their embarrassment the government tried to throw $125 million at the Confederacy..... At least that is my understanding of what I have heard from some of the people involved in negotiations.

From what I have heard Six Nations claims the document was fraudulent. They were able to prove the satisfaction of the present negotiators that the agreement was never made and that the attempts previous to the signing were to stop the lands sales that were taking place without Six Nations' consent. In admitting that the document may be misrepresenting the concerns of Six Nations, our negotiators have agreed to go back to the archives and see if they can find any correspondence, or other confirming documentation to advance the belief that Six Nations did in fact sell the land. So far our side has come back and haven't offered Six Nations any confirmations. As well, our negotiators recently offered Six Nations $125 million to settle 4 of the claims without any accounting of how the claim was to be apportioned or accounted for. From my POV it appears that the government is trying to head off full acknowledgment of the fraud and instead have tried to buy their way out of the crime.

If he is such a fan of Bill Davis, how come he is acting and talking a whole lot like Mike Harris? He'll lose the election over that image regardless of any good ideas he might have contributed. The problem with John Tory is that his ego is bigger than his life experiences.

Not only do you not understand that there is no court to be considered but you don't understand the application of the doctrine of latches.....The accepted FACT is that Six Nations protested, complained, argued, filed grievances and made delegations to the Crown over the illegal land sales, the illegal occupations and development of the Haldimand from the very beginning. There is no basis the doctrine of latches because all the conditions have been met to prove that the issues have been on-going since the early 1800's So your trying to argue this point is a non-issue and a red-herring to any legal discussion on the Six Nations' claims. The lands that mark the Haldimand Tract are the jurisdiction of Six Nations Confederacy - all of them - and they have never capitulated the interest in the Tract. Six Nations is not demanding for all the lands back to a degree that they will displace existing home owners and businesses. There are insisting, however, that undeveloped lands that are unceded be returned to their possession and jurisdiction. While there may a few approved sales in which the Crown and Six Nations agree, much of the undeveloped lands, whether part of the original legal sales or not have the potential to be traded for the illegal lands that have been occupied and are difficult to secure. And so development on those lands must also be stopped until the issues are resolved. For a few legal sales there are thousands more that were never legally, or willfully transferred. That is the issue and that is where negotiations will take us - to a negotiated settlement agreeable to the Crown and the Confederacy Any costs that are to be levied are the responsibility of the Province and/or the Federal Government, and not Six Nations. Whether a car is stolen or land is stolen, the title must be returned free and clear of any encumbrance. So if the governments need to buy out developers or relocated infrastructure is is totally their responsibility. Another major issue aside from the request for annexes however, is the cost of loss of use of those lands for 180 years forward averaged to today's values, which the government has acknowledged (and under-estimated) at the table. The government CONTINUES to ignore the "Rule of Law" concerning the Haldimand by consulting and accommodating the Confederacy on ANY development in the tract. The fact that we are at odds with Six Nations is caused by they Provinces failure to uphold the laws of Canada guaranteed under the Constitution.

I see that as a "no". It is what I expected of you because you can't give up your power in favour of allowing the "Rule of Law" to apply equally. You're just another in a long line of Canadian hypocrites, I guess....

You missed the point entirely. The "Rule of Law" does not regress. It evolves and it does not consider the emotional or political will of Canadians. Rather as one legal concept is understood it is applied tomore and more cases. I fully accept the "Rule of law". Haven't you noted my emphasis all along? Yet the "Rule of Law" says that the government is WRONG in advancing development on lands native have an interest in without consulting them and accommodating their concerns. Do you support the government complying with the "Rule of Law" and prescribing that all citizens tow the line equally, Riverwind - even if it means losing control over certain lands? Simple question where a yes or no answer will suffice.