kengs333

How exactly is "homosexuality [the] new whipping boy"? The "gay rights" movement are the one's who instigated this whole uproar and has forced Christians into a position where they have to respond. Christians are no less concerned about the other sins that plague our society. You clearly just do not understand the Bible, yet you continue to make ignorant comments. Do you even know what 1 Corinthians 14 is discussing, let alone what all if 1 Corinthians is about?

Ummm, no it won't. Creating a protected area doesn't mean that there will be a magical barrier surrounding it making it impervious to the effects of climate change and pollution. It's just a PR gimmick that they've adopted from the Mulroney years.

Germany made a quick comeback because it was key to defending the "free world" from the advance of Communism, so the USA poured lots of money into rebuilding it. But yes, there is also some credit due to the German mindset, the predisposition towards industry and hardwork. For all of the blame that it has for the Nazi era, Germany shows what a nation that is not divided against itself can accomplish when there is the need. One thing that the Germans did make a point of doing is rebuilding or repairing its damaged and destroyed architectural heritage. Germans value this aspect of their history because it does have significance; it defines culture and is fundamental to a people's identity. The loss of our architectural heritage in Canada is a significant problem. To me the destruction of old churches is indicatve of the mindset of this country, and growing anti-Christianism.

Oh, I'd say that happened long ago...

Absolutely nothing you've written indicates you are what you've claimed to be. What were the palisades that surrounded their villages for? Decoration?

The only other place on the net that this thing is found is on babble.ca, and was posted by someone named "saga" who has her own message board: http://cfar.proboards104.com/ Seems as though she's really the only person who posts on it aside from a few others, and those that refer to her always use "G." I wonder why...?

The date wasn't "stolen" it was adopted to supplant existing practices to help ease the rightful conversion of the pagans. Christ's birth is not a lie, as opposed to just about everything that you seem to post.

So why weren't Indians more technologically advanced by 3000 years when Europeans first came--on boats the likes of which the Indians had never devised--to the Americas? Being able to take and metal and melt it down and then construct a crude object is one thing, but actually having the ability to create ornate or practicle objects is another. Europeans may have been influenced by many outside sources, but Europeans had the ability to always take it a step further, and while the Indians of North America were not advancing much on their earlier acquired knowledge, the Europeans were constantly developing and improving. Which is why they eventually were able to sail the oceans, and when they arrived in North American were able to purchase the raw material for luxury goods from the local Indians for mere beads, scraps of metal, and other trinkets.

Actually, I was right there with you until you brought up the part about not being Christian. The more I've come to undertsand the Truth, the more dismayed that I've become about Christmas, and the season becomes more difficult to endure. At the same time it dismays me the extent to which Christmas has come under attack by anti-Christians. Despite my issues with the date on which it occurs, I still feel that there has to be an outward recognition of Christ's birth, a time when people can together celebrate that great day. I don't know what kind of Christians you associate with, but in my circle Christmas is a very low key affair where the exchange of material goods is kept to a minimum.

Again, I'm NOT responding to anyone, but we need to be quite clear about historical evidence. Nothing that we know about the past is complete. Even in our modern world with all the means by which we can gather and compile information can we ever really derive a truly accurate picture of anything. But whatever the case, we have to work with what we have, and the written records that we have were produced by Europeans. Why? Because Indians could neither read nor write--until some were taught. Indians such as George Copway have also left us with some records. But in the end we have what we have. But now people are claiming that the true history exists--but where is this? Why hasn't it been written down and recorded, and why is the supposed existence of this "true history" only coming to light 200 or 300 years after the fact when the facts they present are conveniently advantageous to the people asserting these claims???

I looked around at a few more rural regions but none had statistics and then randomly chose Peel and 11 Division. I thought it would be best to find statistics from southern Ontario. Sorry, but Jesus never condemned, and I think in truth he would have been very much dismayed by your behaviour, as well. If you ever care to read the Gospels, Jesus had some very choice things to say about sinners and people commit themselves to evil. Many people on Six Nations are not Christians; they adhere to--if at all--to a religion that is directly contrary to the teachings of Christ. They deny the existence of God, do not accept Jesus as their saviour, and, like you, express hostile, negative, and falacious opinions about Christians. According to the Bible, that's simply not good. And as a Christian, I abide by the teachings of Christ--there's no point in being a Christian if I didn't, because there is no point in being a Christian in name only because being so is no better than not being a Christian at all.

Okay, I'm NOT responding to anyone here, I just have to make it clear that prior to being nearly exterminated by the Five Nations, the Hurons were forced into the Midlands region because of attempts by the Five Nations to increase their territory along the north shore of Lake Ontario. The Five Nations and the Huron may have been related, and may have traded, but they were two quite distinct groups, and like all of the different Indian groups in the region, they were often at war with one another. The Huron may have been affected to some extent by the accidental introduction of diseases originating from Europe and Asia, but that can by no means be considered genocide. The Jesuits never provided the Huron with infected blankets. There is only one known instance of this happening, and this occured much later and was done by the British and not against the Huron.

The problem is that the manner in which 11 Division Peel and Six Nations categorize their crime statistics differs somewhat, so I used TOTAL assaults which include rapes, for instance. If I recall correctly, there were 19 reported rapes on Six Nations, about 100 in 11 Division Peel. Care to do the math? Moreover, if you believe the statistics that feminists churn; what's the rate of reporting rapes? One for every ten that occur? Name similar sized community in southern Ontario that has its own police and I would be happy to look at the number. I searched around for a bit, but I don't think that there are going to be stats available on line for a district of ten thousand because they all fall within a larger police jurisdiction.

I have neither fudged numbers or history. You are the one who has repeatedly claimed that the Five/Six Nations Iroquois have always occupied the Grand Reiver valley contrary to all historical and archeological data; have denied the sheer murderous behavior Five Nations displayed to the Huron, Petun, and Neutral Indians during the mid-1600s; totally fabricated the relationship between the Ojibway and Five Nations during the 18th century. The statistics I used were provided by the Six Nations police service; it constitutes crimes that occured on Six Nations. What I did was compared the numbers between Six Nations and 11 Division in Peel. The numbers show that there is a much higher rate of crime per capita on Six Nations.

Honestly, this one-liner drivel that you always resort to is pathetic. I don't know how many times I make lengthy arguments, only to have it flippantly dismissed, then accused of not having an argument. If you don't want to consider what I write, then so be it, but spare us all your flippant, sarcastic remarks. Why you've survived this long being like this is beyond me.

Here's something interesting. Apparently there qre problems at Queen's when it comes to race and sex, and again the big boogie persons are whites and males. I tried to find statistics for the university but all I could find were the stats for the class of 2011, and those did not include anything on race. It did show that male-to-female ration is 43% to 57%, and I would suspect that this is consistant with previous years. Most universities have a higher female population than male; this has been the case for quite some time, but evidently this is not an issue. I know that my university was certainly in the same boat, and in terms of "visible minorities" my university has quite a high number, and this seems to have increased in recent years. Anyone know where there are stats about Queens that would clarify this supposed "whiteness and maleness" problem. http://www.thewhig.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx...auth=Ian+Elliot

That's so sad. You make assumptions about what I believe based on your bigoted; but I guess that's not racism, is it? No, I don't care much for McHale, because he's no better than the hot heads who are running the show on the Six Nations side. I'm simply a law abiding Canadian who doesn't care much for the nonsense going on in Caledonia. What difference does it make what country my "grand daddy's" [sic] is from? Again, how is that not a racist statement? I've already explained what kind of a person both of my grandfathers were; you are nothing compared to them, whatever your race or heritage.

...

Yeah it is, actually, because of your professed radical senitments and your occasional direct and indirect threats to use violence, other means to force your agenda. You, to me, are little better than McHale, and boy if I don't read all of those posts at your other favorite forum where you and others constantly go on and on and on about the identities and characters of the pro-Canadian protesters at Caledonia. So you're just being a tad hypocritical (again) aren't you?

The name Skye sounds familiar...

...

Although there are better sources, I think a quotation from Wikipedia will suffice for you: You really seem to be having no luck today in intepreting and misrepresenting the Bible today, aren't you?

No, sorry, if you read the Bible from front to back you do see that homosexuality is immoral and a sin; it is referred to specifically or generally (sins of the flesh) on a number of occasions as being sinful; moreover, marital unions are always referred to as between a man and a wife; are there any lengthy, clear passages in which deviant sexual behaviours are explicitly praised and approved? Nope. Moreover, in my opinion, when a true believer reads the Bible, they understand where it stands on deviant sexual behaviour because they understand the reason why Jesus came; all such urges and impulses that distract people and lead them astray from leading a Christ-like life are sins. People who dwell on these nonsensical and heretical issues such as "Jesus is Gay," "the Bible condones homosexuality," etc. are non-believers, anti-Christians, or those that don't follow the teachings of the Bible in regards to idle debate and seeking too much knowledge when it comes to biblical issues. Also, in the early Christian movement, there were--supposedly--some pretty bizarre stuff going on, but the Church that survived successfully expunged all of that nonsense. Why? Because true Christians recognized it as false prophecy and contrary to the teachings of Christ.

...

Yeah, her ramblings are doing "your side" a world of good. Pretty much everybody here thinks that she's a crank and it looks to me that not many people have much sympathy for Six Nations. Way to go jennie! No, it's not a personal attack--it's a factual comment about her obnoxious behaviour and her self-promoting, agenda-ridden meddling in other peoples affairs. Oh, and the discussion here broke down when she again failed to answer questions, admit the truth. People at the landfill don't care much for Six Nations; they know that those people will only cause trouble, and really screw up the issue for those that it really has some importance. Just like they did Red Hill.