scorpio

Opposed to creationists who accept all viewpoints.

He wasn't a cop.

Don't know about that. I've lived in Alberta all my life and voted since 1971. This anti-Trudeau thing is part of our lives unfortunately. Most people out here would rather die than change their political leanings. At least other Provinces take a chance with other parties, not here it seems. For the record I vote ABC: anything but conservative.

And thus Jesus becomes God and the Church is born at Nicea 300 years later.

Wrong again. This isn't partisanship. If ANY member of parliament said the things PP said I'd feel the same way. Totally inappropriate conduct and utterings that should not be allowed in the House of Commons. Didn't the Speaker of House recently reprimand your guys about their conduct, particularly during member statements?

The blind cannot see.

So why did he apologize? Conservative MP Pierre Poilievre has apologized for saying Canada's aboriginals need to learn the value of hard work more than they need compensation for abuse suffered in residential schools. Poilievre, the parliamentary secretary to the president of the Treasury Board, rose in the House of Commons on Thursday afternoon to acknowledge his mistake. "Yesterday on a day when the House and all Canadians were celebrating a new beginning, I made remarks that were hurtful and wrong," he said. "I accept responsibility for them and I apologize." (CTV news) He made a racist comment, pure and simple. In light of his apology his intolerant behaviour continues with the lastest tar baby comment. And I'm sure we can expect more of the same.

See post 31...tar baby and his comments about the First Nations apply.

Let me help you with that: Poilievre was caught on tape using foul language directed at colleagues in a committee meeting,[8] and making unparliamentary arm gestures and was accused of mocking the Speaker of the House of Commons[9][10] in June 2006. Poilievre later apologized for making gestures within the Commons;[11] no apology has been made for unparliamentary language within Committee. Poilievre suggested that native people need to learn the value of hard work more than they need financial compensation. Poilievre made the comments during a radio interview June 11, 2008, just hours before Prime Minister Stephen Harper apologized for abuse Aboriginal children endured in once-mandatory residential schools Poilievre's behaviour came under intense national scrutiny in February 2007. During a radio interview with CFRA on February 22, 2007, he asserted that the Liberal party was pandering to extremist members within its own ranks: "Now we know that a lot of extremist groups and people with some very hard left-wing views have advocated for a long time that these provisions should be scrapped. Now a lot of those people supported Stéphane Dion in the leadership. A lot of them are in Stéphane Dion's caucus. And, for example, there are members of Stéphane Dion's Liberal caucus who want to legalize Hezbollah ..."[17 On May 29th 2009 Poilieve's comment that "they have the man who fathered the carbon tax, put it up for adoption to his predecessor and now wants a paternity test to prove the tar baby was never his in the first place" (tar baby is offensive to most African Americans, and has no place in the House of Commons). from Wikipedia See a pattern here?

Poilievre's racist comments have come up before. He is young and arrogant, and even with his insincere apologizing his true colours will continue to shine through.

Kinda made my point. Sort of like what we're doing in Afghanistan.

Well, Americans were duped into believing mushroom clouds were imminent. But I'm very proud to report that Canada and countless other countries did not didn't buy the "big" lie. We believed the following: "UNMOVIC led inspections of alleged chemical and biological facilities in Iraq until shortly before the U.S. invasion of Iraq in March 2003, but did not find any weapons of mass destruction. Based on its inspections and examinations during this time, UNMOVIC inspectors determined that UNSCOM had successfully dismantled Iraq’s unconventional weapons program during the 1990s" Wikipedia

Dave_ON is essentially correct. The "new" linguistic-correct precept is 'Thou shalt not murder.' The whole eye for an eye (which justifies the desire for the death penalty by holy folks) is taken out of context. Death was precribed for unruly children to adulterers and everything in between back in the day of the Old Testatment. The irony is that even the new version of thou shalt not murder applies to state sanctioned exectutions in the larger sense. Christians, though, will undoubtedly point to the lawful justification of applying the noose. I wonder if Moses should have been put to death for "murdering" an Egyptian, Exodus 2:11-12.

Or the bribe to Cadman.

Fox

Oh Besty, Dog posted a very insightful post. And I, like him, would like answers to these questions. Please respond.

deleted

I could believe this except for the documented cases of NDE (near death experience) where some individuals were brain dead, and when revived could correctly identify people and conversations in the operating room. link link2

Yeah, gotta love them old crusades, Spanish Inquisition and the Salem witchburnings? But that's kid's stuff next to how many killed and died under the guise of Christianity.

+1

But yet she derides those who don't "see it her way." You have to go back and read some of her posts in this topic area. I have no problem with people wanting to believe what they want to believe. But it has to work both ways. She MUST respect those individuals who disagree with her if she wants the same. It's that easy. She can share her joy over this holiday, but it would help to leave out the editorializing.

Ask Betsy this question? (I've tried and she refused to answer). Is she willing to imagine for a moment that she might be wrong? I certainly am.

Because, Muddy, Betsy tends to prostletize with her posts. And I find that offensive on a public forum. Everyones entitled to believe what they wish, just don't make it a continual mantra.

Okay, you've named 3 people, cited 3 biblical sites and wikipedia. Hardly impressive. What about considering "The Bible Unearthed" written by Israel Finkelstein, Professor of Archaeology at Tel Aviv University, and Neil Asher Silberman, a contributing editor to Archaeology Magazine, and who are archeologists of this century. It is a totally secular publication and calls into question just about everything we've "known" about the old testament history and archeology, especially in regards to biblical timelines and mythical history. You can't use biblical sources to prove the bible. You need impartial science and investigation, not more apologists.

What atheists? Got a secular link for these "evidences and proof?"