Jump to content

Will Multiculturalism be Canada's Achilles Heel (Downfall)?


blackbird

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, herbie said:

WTF has there got to do with here?

Or are you unable to distinguish wear it if you want to from you have to?

Are you unable to understand "It's the most blatant symbol of misogyny, religious bigotry and oppression on the face of the earth, by far. It makes the wife-beater look like a safe space."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The bigger threat to Canada is whitey who thinks his country is being taken away from him/her. As if this Letterkenny Canadiana is the true hallmark of what it is to be Canadian. ?

People have been agonizing over Sharia Law since 9/11. It's not going to be adopted into law. It just isn't. Most Muslims that come here are looking to avoid such extremism. 

But Multiculturalism is more than Islam. South Asian, Latin, Africa/Caribbean Canadians are shaping the future of this county. As are Canadians that have heritage in Western Europe. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, blackbird said:

Thinking all religious beliefs is superstition is pretty dumb.  How much thought have you really put into it?  Very little it appears.  Simple logic should tell you that the universe and everything in it  including mankind did not just appear out of nowhere.

This is pedestrian logic, peddled for ages.  If the universe needed a creator, then the the creator would need a creator too.  There's can't be nothing.   

If you have faith in something, there's really nothing wrong with that.  It's in many cases a good thing.  It's just foolish when one group decides that their beliefs are more important than others, or that their beliefs are more important to uphold/enforce than other people's freedom and rights.  

That you think mosques being built quicker than churches is a problem is very telling of where you fit on the spectrum.  

Edited by Moonbox
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/20/2022 at 5:58 PM, Moonlight Graham said:

Anglo/franco/indigenous multiculturalism has gone very well in Canada, so I anticipate no issues with more multiculturalism going forward because as we all know, different groups like to share power and minority groups never feel slighted.

Ha, I will take that as sarcasm Ha!

Edited by ExFlyer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean, if you can convince every woman in Canada to have 3 children, then sure, we can talk about immigration.  Until then, there's really nothing to say.  Our economy and our nation is based (at present) on expansion and growth and it has been since colonial days, and we're still highly undeveloped compared to most of the rest of the world.  

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

This is pedestrian logic, peddled for ages.  If the universe needed a creator, then the the creator would need a creator too.  There's can't be nothing.   

If you have faith in something, there's really nothing wrong with that.  It's in many cases a good thing.  It's just foolish when one group decides that their beliefs are more important than others, or that their beliefs are more important to uphold/enforce than other people's freedom and rights.  

That you think mosques being built quicker than churches is a problem is very telling of where you fit on the spectrum.  

You said "If the universe needed a creator, then the creator would need a creator too.  There's can't be nothing."

 

This is the central fallacy of atheist thinking.  They can't think beyond the material universe we are in.  The answer to that is very simple really if you take the time to think.

We are talking about a God who is not a material being.  As the Bible reveals, God is a spirit and separate from the material universe.  If he required a higher being to create him, he would not be God.  Therefore, it stands to reason that God is eternal, omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent. This is often referred to as a supernatural being and the subject is supernatural, that is, beyond what we normally think of as something material or tangible that you can see or touch.

The Bible and logic tells us that this God is eternal or always existed.  He therefore did not need a Creator or higher being.  Many people may have trouble wrapping their mind around this because they tend to think of everything as part of the material universe which exists and can be seen or measured.  But one must change their thinking about that.  That requires broadening one's thinking.

The evidence points to a supernatural, intelligent designer, or Creator, we call God.  To summarize the evidence includes:

1.  The immense complexity of the material universe.  The vast amount of computer like data stored in a single cell.  Darwinism or Evolution cannot produce new or that kind of information.  The information had to have been placed in the cell when it was designed and created. 

2.  The laws of physics are so incredible, precise and again could not have happened by some kind of cosmic accident.  The very existence of atoms, energy, molecules, gravity, etc. had to have had a beginning and a Creator. They required an intelligent designer.  The solar system for example which is held in place by gravity and the motion of the planets around the sun required these laws of physics to be able to exist and operate.  This gives us the seasons on earth and the weather, etc.  Some of the greatest scientists that ever lived in the around the 17th century recognized this all required God.  It is pure nonsense to think it could all have happened by some kind of cosmic accident.

3.  The immense complexity of living things has vast amounts of computer like data stored in it and all operates in concert to function as they do.  Again the theory of evolution cannot account for the information required because random chance processes does not produce information. The computer like data and systems that operate living things right down to the basic cell is so complex it is far beyond the most advanced computer systems man has built.  In fact there are multiple systems operating in a cell.  Information must be designed and created by an external being we call God.

4.  Darwinism has been shown to be unsupported because if it were a fact, there would be millions of transitional fossils showing the evolution between the different species for example.  They do not exist.  Empirical science does not support evolutionism.  The scientific method requires proof and claims must be substantiated.  Darwinism or evolution is unsubstantiated and is a religion, not science.  Yet in many quarters it is taught as a fact by atheists who cannot accept the simple logic that the universe required an intelligent designer creator.

Beliefs like this are not "enforced".  It is not possible to force someone to accept this understanding.  It is an individual choice to some extent.   

  

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Boges said:

The bigger threat to Canada is whitey who thinks his country is being taken away from him/her. 

Which it is. That isn't really in dispute given the latest reports that Canada will achieve 50% foreign born population by 2040. And it will grow from there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

This is the central fallacy of atheist thinking.  They can't think beyond the material universe we are in.  The answer to that is very simple really if you take the time to think.  

You don't seem to know what fallacy even means. 

The universe exists.  We know this.  The only question is whether it had a beginning, or if it's always just been

If you believe it had a beginning, and that there was nothing before, you have to rationalize what created any of it.  God is the explanation, but where did God come from?  If he was just always there, as you'd argue, then there's no reason the Universe couldn't have just always been there too.  The fact that it's infinitely vast and complex explains nothing.  

Regardless, a theological debate is a waste of time.  You're not wrong for believing in God, or even in Christianity or whatever.  What is wrong is that you think the scribblings and proclamations of a bunch of wealthy, privileged clerics and bureaucrats from 2000 years ago in one small part of the world is preferable/truer/wiser than those from other parts of the world, or even worse, should be followed before observable science.  

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

4.  Darwinism has been shown to be unsupported because if it were a fact, there would be millions of transitional fossils showing the evolution between the different species for example.  They do not exist.  Empirical science does not support evolutionism.

Oh my.  The Earth is also flat, I suppose?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

You don't seem to know what fallacy even means. 

The universe exists.  We know this.  The only question is whether it had a beginning, or if it's always just been

If you believe it had a beginning, and that there was nothing before, you have to rationalize what created any of it.  God is the explanation, but where did God come from?  If he was just always there, as you'd argue, then there's no reason the Universe couldn't have just always been there too.  The fact that it's infinitely vast and complex explains nothing.  

Regardless, a theological debate is a waste of time.  You're not wrong for believing in God, or even in Christianity or whatever.  What is wrong is that you think the scribblings and proclamations of a bunch of wealthy, privileged clerics and bureaucrats from 2000 years ago in one small part of the world is preferable/truer/wiser than those from other parts of the world, or even worse, should be followed before observable science.  

Oh my.  The Earth is also flat, I suppose?

You said "What is wrong is that you think the scribblings and proclamations of a bunch of wealthy, privileged clerics and bureaucrats from 2000 years ago..."

 Actually that is not correct.  The apostles and prophets were not wealthy or privileged clerics.  In fact the authors of the Bible came from all walks of life. 

quote

Ultimately, above the human authors, the Bible was written by God. Second Timothy 3:16 tells us that the Bible was “breathed out” by God. God superintended the human authors of the Bible so that, while using their own writing styles and personalities, they still recorded exactly what God intended. The Bible was not dictated by God, but it was perfectly guided and entirely inspired by Him.

Humanly speaking, the Bible was written by approximately 40 men of diverse backgrounds over the course of 1500 years. Isaiah was a prophet, Ezra was a priest, Matthew was a tax-collector, John was a fisherman, Paul was a tentmaker, Moses was a shepherd, Luke was a physician. Despite being penned by different authors over 15 centuries, the Bible does not contradict itself and does not contain any errors. The authors all present different perspectives, but they all proclaim the same one true God, and the same one way of salvation—Jesus Christ (John 14:6; Acts 4:12). Few of the books of the Bible specifically name their author. Here are the books of the Bible along with the name of who is most assumed by biblical scholars to be the author, along with the approximate date of authorship:
unquote

Who were the authors of the books of the Bible? | GotQuestions.org

Science tells us the universe is expanding.  Therefore, it is reasonable to assume it had a beginning at some point in time.

If a theological debate or whatever kind of debate you wish to call it is a waste of time, why are you on the forum debating anything at all.  Why should anyone contradict you if you think it is a waste of time.  Do you have a closed mind to everything?  That is the only conclusion one could draw from your statement that a debate is a waste of time.

I did not say my point of view is wiser than observable science or other views from other parts of the world.  I gave you the reasons for my view and science supports what I have told you.  I simply believe that science, logic, evidence of the creation proves that it was created by a superior intelligence.  The argument for that point of view is based on science, what famous scientists believed, logic, and rational thinking, and the testimony of Holy Scriptures.  You have put forward nothing to counter those arguments. 

On top of all the reasons I gave you, there is the simple philosophical reason and that is the question of why we are here.  Dismissing God as the reason leaves the atheist with no explanation as to why we are here, for what purpose?

If you accept that God is not involved, you must conclude that we are just an accident in the cosmos.  That there is no ultimate purpose for our being.  You must conclude we are here by nothing, for nothing.  That makes no sense whosoever.  If you believe we are just an accident then you would have to conclude we are just a bunch of chemicals that happened to come together to form a complex living organism.  We have no purpose and our existence is meaningless.  Take your choice.  Atheist scientists cannot answer that one.  Others with a little more faith can tell you there is more to it than what atheists say.  They have no purpose or explanation for existence.

 

 

 

 

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the problems with so-called "multiculturalism" should be very simple to understand.  Canada was founded on Judeo-Christian civilization originating in Europe.  While there are many who have apostate or many false ideas, there were also people who held biblical beliefs down through history.  Many principles came with the European settlers such as the dignity and worth of the individual and gradually resulted in enshrining concepts of human rights, democracy, religious freedom, and the western ideas of the rule of law applied equally to both genders, as well as the equality of the sexes.  This is not the case in many third world countries.

Unfortunately, these Judeo-Christian principles do not exist in many parts of the third world such as Asia, Africa, the middle east, central America.  These are areas where today Christians are heavily persecuted and killed for their faith.  Yet many European settlers who started Canada brought with them beliefs in freedoms and human rights for the individual.  But here we are today having multiculturalism forced on us which results in bringing millions of people in from the third world who do not share the same belief systems where they came from.  If anyone thinks this is not having a negative impact they should think again.  Many of them simply do not understand these historic Judeo-Christian beliefs or why the original settlers held them.  Many immigrants are quite willing to vote for Marxist or Socialist type governments, (NDP and left leaning liberals) and embrace secular humanist ideas that are contrary to Judeo-Christian beliefs.  Some of them don't even understand our Constitutional Monarchy and want to get rid of it.  What would they replace it with?  A dictatorship such as where they came from in Africa, the middle east, or Asia?  So yes, multiculturalism does have a negative influence on society in Canada.

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, blackbird said:

You said "What is wrong is that you think the scribblings and proclamations of a bunch of wealthy, privileged clerics and bureaucrats from 2000 years ago..."

Actually that is not correct.  The apostles and prophets were not wealthy or privileged clerics.  In fact the authors of the Bible came from all walks of life. 

It is correct.  That's how they decided which books went into the Bible, which were omitted and how to interpret various matters of faith.  These were far from unanimous, and whether you're talking about Christianity, Judaism or Islam (or any other faith for that matter) there were disagreements, schisms and even wars to figure out whose version was best.  Given that until recently only the wealthy and educated could even read/write, we can determine the Holy texts were very much driven by the privileged.  

Regardless, there's nothing wrong with having faith and believing in something, but when you're proselytizing to people who aren't interested and claiming one faith is superior to the others, you're showing a total lack of class.  In your case, I'd add baffling ignorance and overt racism to the description.  

Edited by Moonbox
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

It is correct.  That's how they decided which books went into the Bible, which were omitted and how to interpret various matters of faith.  These were far from unanimous, and whether you're talking about Christianity, Judaism or Islam (or any other faith for that matter) there were disagreements, schisms and even wars to figure out whose version was best.  Given that until recently only the wealthy and educated could even read/write, we can determine the Holy texts were very much driven by the privileged.  

Regardless, there's nothing wrong with having faith and believing in something, but when you're proselytizing to people who aren't interested and claiming one faith is superior to the others, you're showing a total lack of class.  In your case, I'd add baffling ignorance and overt racism to the description.  

 

 

 

You just had to throw "racism" into the discussion even though I said nothing against any race or skin colour.  The books of the New Testament were determined by believers in the early centuries based on what the Scriptures actually said.  Some other books were dismissed as heretical or false.  Had nothing to do with wealth or privilege.  The believers were led by God the Holy Spirit, just as people are today in determining what is true and what is false.  The Old Testament was the Hebrew Bible that existed centuries before the Church age began 2,000 years ago.  Again nothing to do with wealth or privilege.  The fact is every religion cannot be true.  There can only be one comprehensive truth which is what the Bible reveals and exposes the falseness of other religions.  Belief in the truth of God's word has nothing at all to do with racism, but everything to do with what is truth.   There are believers in the Bible in every country and among every race.  If you have never really studied the Bible, you are not really in a position to criticize or comment on it.  

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, blackbird said:

You just had to throw "racism" into the discussion even though I said nothing against any race or skin colour.

No, you just suggested in numerous different ways that European/Western/Judeo-Christian culture/faith was superior and more desirable to anything out of Africa, Middle East or Asia, and outright stated that mosques being built in London(istan) was bad.  You don't pass the sniff-test because you didn't explicitly slur skin colors.  You did a good job of that just pointing out how undesirable the "alternatives" are from specific regions.  It doesn't take a genius to connect the dots!? 

34 minutes ago, blackbird said:

If you have never really studied the Bible, you are not really in a position to criticize or comment on it.  

My grandfather was an Anglican Canon and my father grew up in a rectory.  I've had a healthy religious education, thank you, and actually often defend the Church (and other faiths for that matter) against atheists who scoff at belief by default.  What they're actually mocking, however, is loudmouthed buffoons trying to shove scripture down their throat as indisputable fact rather than the allegorical and heavily edited stories they are.  

Edited by Moonbox
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, blackbird said:

If anyone thinks this is not having a negative impact they should think again.

The horse left the barn years ago and it's probably worse than you think. My Chinese grand-kids are growing up to be fine young atheists and any concerns I might have about my in-laws conservatism is tempered by my daughter's communist upbringing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They're building mosques and closing churches because the Moslem population is growing and the percentage of church going Christians is shrinking. That's ALL there is to it.

And the next generation of those immigrants are going to be as atheist and un-fun-dumb-mental as most of us are now.

So discussion of religion is pointless regarding immigration. This is a secular country and will stay that way. No one shit bricks over eastern Europeans being orthodox, Chinese being atheists or Sikhs usurping the order of things. If you did or do, you defined yourself as a racist.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, eyeball said:

The horse left the barn years ago

the horse was never in the barn

Canada is a product of the British Empire

which was 25% of the world's population at the time Canada's founding

 the Chinese were British

the Indian Hindu's, Sikh's & Muslims were British

most of the Africans were British

British is not a race, British is not a place

British is simply a system of governance called Parliamentary Supremacy

we British are the ones who made these people's British

trying to deny that they are British now is contrary to the very essence of being British

we are the Roma Britannia, founded by the Romans

anybody could be Roman

anybody can be British

Empires are inherently multicultural

Imperium is a Roman word, a Roman invention

the Romans did have any concept of "race" as it is defined now

the founding Romans were not even Italians, they were Greeks

the founders of Britain were not from Britain, they came from Rome

our multiculturalism dates back 1,979 years, to 43 A.D. 

Edited by Dougie93
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, herbie said:

They're building mosques and closing churches because the Moslem population is growing and the percentage of church going Christians is shrinking. That's ALL there is to it.

the Muslims have always outnumbered the Christians in the British Empire

the Muslim population of British India was 94 million

the population of the United Kingdom at the time was only 18 million 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Yep...as a seaman and Earthling I'm content using my position directly above the center of the earth as both my starting and finishing point - everything else is scenery.

I find the largest groups of immigrants, from China, South Asia & the Philippines

to be more like the British who founded Canada than the naive born Canadians now

most native born Canadians now are more like Americans

the greatest cultural threat to Canada is not immigarnts

rather it is being absorbed into the American culture by default

America is and always was the only real threat to Canada

not by military force

simply by osmosis

Edited by Dougie93
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

I don't know.  I mean, it's not the immigrants fault themselves so you can relax lol, so there's some bad public management going on.

I believe the statistic is meaning houses as opposed to "housing"  for people.

If the statistic was for places to live, it would mean that half the people in Canada are out on the streets. I believe it does not include apartments and rental units.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Moonbox said:

No, you just suggested in numerous different ways that European/Western/Judeo-Christian culture/faith was superior and more desirable to anything out of Africa, Middle East or Asia, and outright stated that mosques being built in London(istan) was bad.  You don't pass the sniff-test because you didn't explicitly slur skin colors.  You did a good job of that just pointing out how undesirable the "alternatives" are from specific regions.  It doesn't take a genius to connect the dots!? 

My grandfather was an Anglican Canon and my father grew up in a rectory.  I've had a healthy religious education, thank you, and actually often defend the Church (and other faiths for that matter) against atheists who scoff at belief by default.  What they're actually mocking, however, is loudmouthed buffoons trying to shove scripture down their throat as indisputable fact rather than the allegorical and heavily edited stories they are.  

You have admitted your lack of understanding in trying to equate western Judeo-Christian beliefs and culture with the heathenism in the jungles of Africa or Borneo or some place.  I don't imply western Judeo-Christian culture is superior;  I simply observe that it is superior.  That is not racism and is nothing to be ashamed of.  You have been brainwashed by the woke who have no understanding of the real world.  If you think the heathen practices of scalping, offering human sacrifices, taking slaves, brutalizing slaves, treating women as inferior slaves, and all the rest of it is civilized and acceptable behavior, you have a problem.  If you think putting a bone or ring through one's nose or lip and going around naked or covered in paint makes sense, what can I say.  You would rather mock those who believe in the Bible and claim the heathen in the jungle have an equally admirable culture or Islam's teachings are equal to the Bible or Christianity, you have a big problem.   Is this what they taught you in the Anglican religion?  If that is the case, it has nothing to do with the Bible.  The Bible is not allegorical or heavily edited.  That is fiction.

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...