Jump to content

Have the Feds lost their minds completely


blackbird

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, blackbird said:

That is the problem right there.  In fact, you don't support what Jesus said.

historically however, the Indians in Canada do support what Jesus said

Canada founded on 22 June 1603 by French missionaries

who then had 156 years to convert the Indians to Christ

and the French were very successful in this endeavour

hence the Mohawks who saved Canada at Queenston Heights on 13 October 1812

whom panicked the Americans into fleeing when they heard the Mohawk war cries

the Americans thinking that the Mohawks were still vicious pagan savages

when in fact the Americans were decieved

because the Grand River Mohawks were actually Christian farmers, fearsome pagan savages no more

psyops won the day

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

Well, partly muffed. And I didn't think much when I read it. You wrote 'I just started a process of hiring someone in October 2023"

Using the past tense caused me to think you'd done this last year.

However, if you're coming here to complain about that you've come to the wrong place. If I started a process now there is no way in hell I'd be hiring anyone in October. That is WAY too efficient for our government. If I'd just started a process now I'd hope to be hiring someone around this time next year. If it was a simple process.

 

 

wow... next year. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SkyHigh said:

I can only respond to your first point now as I have real life things to get to

First you do realize many indigenous languages were never written right?

They were written wrong? Honestly i don't know what you mean here. I thought most had no written component at all. If i was mistaken then my apologies.

2 hours ago, SkyHigh said:

The bible is written history?

Yes. It may be an incorrect accounting of history but it's a historical document for the most part.

2 hours ago, SkyHigh said:

Well it is now but that's based on oral traditions

Some of it but most of it not so much. They are written first hand accounts. (supposedly.)

2 hours ago, SkyHigh said:

For the old testament this is pretty easy to prove unless you think Adam or Eve wrote Genesis.

This was already covered - please read before you reply.

2 hours ago, SkyHigh said:

The new testament is almost easier to prove Jesus and his crew spoke Aramaic ,the first gospels were written at best 30 years after the crucifixion in Greek(which is a different language) based solely on oral traditions they called creeds.

Based on letters and first hand accounts.  Now - it could be false. It could be forged and made up. But it is a written, not oral history. Very few historians ever actually saw the events they recorded, they refer to documents and testimony and search for physical confirmations.  Then they write their findings down. And thus preserve them in their original form for future historical reveiw.

Written. History.

2 hours ago, SkyHigh said:

Science has proven many of these stories to be pure fiction, well on the other hand many of the indigenous oral traditions have been authenticated by both anthropological and archeological studies.

Well that's just a blatant lie.  Do better.

It's possible some of the stories are fictional, and indeed some have very little corroborating evidence. BUT - i don't recall any of them being out and out disproved.  And the first nations oral traditions tend to reflect what they want them to say today. So its not so much proof as confirmation bias. The 'stories' will of course match the facts.  Have you noticed there's no much effort being made to write down all the stories in a 'definitive official' way? They want them to remain 'fluid'.

2 hours ago, SkyHigh said:

I lived and worked in the north west territories and was afforded the opportunity to sit on band councils. I took the time to try and understand their reality and did my best to study some of their culture 

Which means very little when it comes to assessing the veracity of the stories, other than you sound a little bias.

There is nothing to study. that's the problem with an oral tradition. It's so easily changed to reflect what the people of today want it to say. You can confirm very very little of it because you can't confirm if the story remained as it was originally told over time.

And sorry - but you really did take a severe blow to your credibility when you suggested the bible is just an oral tradition handed down the same way the first nations stories are. And that politics isn't affecting first nations stories.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, blackbird said:

Yes, I believe it because it was a supernatural event.

There are thousands of articles and videos that go into creation versus evolution and related subject.

Go to creation.com

Evolution has been refuted by many people with degrees and scientists.  

There have been no transitional fossils found although if evolution were a fact one would think there would be thousands of fossils showing the evolution from one species to another.  But they don't exist.  It always was only theory.  A theory is not science.

Not really. Fossilization only happens within certain circumstances. 

But even if it was 6 days, we talking 6 24-hour Earth days. Or is it figurative? To teach Out the need for a Sabbath. Because if you could create all existence in a week, you could probably do it instantly and not need to rest. 

Therefore plenty of the Bible can be put up to interpretation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, blackbird said:

Yes, I believe it because it was a supernatural event.

you'll note that Genesis 1 does not actually say that God created the Universe to include Earth in only six days

the passages read "let there be",  "let the" & "let us"

so it doesn't say that God wrapped the process up in 6 days

it simply says that He set process in motion in 6 days

bear in mind that the Singularity ( Big Bang ) theory postulates

that the Universe expanded from the size of a marble to many light years across

in only milliseconds

so in comparison to General Relativity, creating a universe in 6 days is a rather slow pace

144 hours after the Big Bang, the Universe was already trillions of trillions of miles in diameter

 most of the expansion took place in the blink of an eye

the Universe has been expanding extremely slowly in comparison ever since

God only said "let there be light", but He did not say it would appear within 144 hours

to wit, Genesis 1 only states that God willed the Universe to happen in 144 hours

it does not however say how long it took for that process to play out

by our perception, the Universe was dark for 400 million years

then all the stars started to ignite at once, in a very short time, cosmically speaking

but of course, if you existed outside of space-time, that 400 million year number is irrelevant

as if you were outside of space-time

you could cross that 400 million year gulf instantaneously in fact

space-time is a bubble, if you are outside of the bubble : time is meaningless

outside of the bubble is the 5th dimension and above, where our concept of time is non existent

thus the Bible is not in conflict with science, it simply states that God is a transdimensional being

God in Heaven exists beyond four dimensions

which, according to science, would allow Him to be anywhere & everywhere at the same time

beyond four dimensions, God could move from the Singularity to now, 14.5 billion years

then go back again, back & forth through space-time outside of the four dimensional bubble

and to us that would appear to be like instantaneous teleportation

144 hours of our space-time, could be billions of years if you are outside of four dimensions

furthermore, Genesis 1 does not state that the 6 days happened sequentially

it does not say that it was 6 days in a row

could have been 6 days of intervention, day one, Big Bang, day two, the stars are ignited, etc

but to our perception, those days could be hundred of millions of years apart

Genesis 1 only invokes a process, and it is quite accurate according to General Relativity

there was darkness, then light, and through that star light the building blocks of life are created

that the ancient Hebrews understood the nature of the Universe 3000 years ago : miraculous

they had the answer, except for the elasticity of space-time beyond four dimensions

contrary to being unscientific, YHWH is apparently an equation : God is math

Edited by Dougie93
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Boges said:

Therefore plenty of the Bible can be put up to interpretation.

"Not only can we take the Bible literally, but we must take the Bible literally. This is the only way to determine what God really is trying to communicate to us. When we read any piece of literature, but especially the Bible, we must determine what the author intended to communicate. Many today will read a verse or passage of Scripture and then give their own definitions to the words, phrases, or paragraphs, ignoring the context and author’s intent. But this is not what God intended, which is why God tells us to correctly handle the Word of truth (2 Timothy 2:15)."

Can/should we interpret the Bible literally? | GotQuestions.org

There is nothing in the Bible to indicate it should be taken in any way but literally.  There are a few places where it is obvious that a particular part is meant to be symbolic or metaphorical, but that is not the case with Genesis.  It is meant to be taken as it is stated.

"

The first mistake we make is complicating the Bible, not taking it literally, not taking it at its word. Our mistake is trying to formulate a spiritual meaning with our human mind. This is the origin of all twisted concocted doctrines.

Examples;

In the Bible it’s written that God created the earth and the heavens. If you do not a take those words literary and truly believe God created the earth and the heavens, you have denied the Truth – denied God.

It’s written that Abraham went to sacrifice his only son. If you do not take those words literally, you have denied the Truth

When it’s written, do not steal, do not worship idols, do not commit fornication, do not lie, do not covet, do not kill, etc, – it means so, take it at its word

When Jesus said forgive others for you to be forgiven, it means that – no other meaning

When Jesus said worry not about tomorrow, it means that – no other meaning

Not taking the Bible literally is the first step in denying the Truth.

You cannot obey Jesus, obey the Truth, unless you take Him at His Word

When you deny the Truth, you create an idol, a god."

Take The Bible Literally – Do Not Complicate It » Christian Truth Center

There are many websites that tell you not to take the Bible literally.  But these are written by Bible deniers.  Satan is at work in world trying to draw people away from God and his word and getting them to follow him.  That's what it is all about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, blackbird said:

The first mistake we make is complicating the Bible, not taking it literally, not taking it at its word. .

but we can experiment to see that space-time is malleable

for example, time passes more slowly for a satellite in orbit than for you here on the ground

because the satellite is moving at Mach 25

so velocity matters

thus, if God was moving at the speed of light

what was only days to God

would appear to be millions of years to you viewing it from you relative space-time position on Earth

if God was moving faster than the speed of light, to wit, He was moving transdimensionally

that would be time travel, so what is six days for God then, could be billions of years to you now

Genesis 1 actually says that God "created the heavens"

"heavens" is plural, the multiverse, so the Old Testament actually invokes quantum mechanics therein

what is in the scripture,  invokes scientific theories of today, thousands of years in advance

Edited by Dougie93
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

You must.  Not we must.

I am talking about how to read the Bible.  If one receives a prescription for life-saving medicine, he should follow the instructions as stated.  It is the same with the Bible.  If one reads the Bible, it should be taken literally unless there is good reason why something is not meant to be taken literally.  That should be shown by the context.  If you don't follow the instructions on medicine literally, it could have dire consequences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, blackbird said:

I am talking about how to read the Bible.  If one receives a prescription for life-saving medicine, he should follow the instructions as stated.  It is the same with the Bible.  If one reads the Bible, it should be taken literally unless there is good reason why something is not meant to be taken literally.  That should be shown by the context.  If you don't follow the instructions on medicine literally, it could have dire consequences.

Sure, that's what I said, fill your boots.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

There is nothing in the Bible to indicate it should be taken in any way but literally.

how do you envision God in Heaven ?

is He only a 33 year old Rabbi from Nazareth ?

do you view God as just being Jesus ?

do you not think He could come in other forms than that ?

father, son, holy ghost, are they are all the same man to you ?

and even if so, do you think Jesus of Nazareth could move faster than light if He chose to ?

how far do these miracles go ?

just turning water into wine, or razing Lazarus from the dead ?

or could God bend space-time to His will as necessary ?

perhaps more importantly ; would He bend space-time to His will ?

is there something constraining Him ?

some threshold of His own making which He would not cross ?

how much can He tamper with His own creation ?

how miraculous is the God you worship ?

Edited by Dougie93
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, blackbird said:

I am talking about how to read the Bible.  If one receives a prescription for life-saving medicine, he should follow the instructions as stated.  It is the same with the Bible.  If one reads the Bible, it should be taken literally unless there is good reason why something is not meant to be taken literally.  That should be shown by the context.  If you don't follow the instructions on medicine literally, it could have dire consequences.

I thought this thread was about the government's inclusion of native knowledge, not the origin of the bible. Bible says Jesus spoke in parables, which indicates they mean something else, and are not to be taken literally.

It's also a fact that there are references in the bible from one section to another, and these are wrapped up in the verses, which means you have to read the whole thing to understand what it means, then go back and start over. So to imply that this mystical text should be taken literally seems incorrect. You understate the depth and complexity of Christian thought as studied by great thinkers, Thomas Aquinas et al.

Also, Pope Francis encourages greater tolerance and understanding with other religions, including Islam.
He encourages tolerance of gays in the church, and gay marriage. So it seems there are differing views within Christianity than just yours, or your pastors.

You are giving people misleading or confusing information that may be harmful to them and could lead to violence.

Back to the OP, I see nothing wrong with this process. It is part of the changes Canada had to make after being called out by the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous. Says so right there in your link.

Canada has to honour its legal obligations. There are treaties for native land and fisheries, that Canada must protect by law, and this is part of that process.

It doesn't mean there has to be native input on all government projects, but natives are invited to give input, and when they do give input, it has to be considered. But 'considered' does not mean the government has to obey it or do anything about it, necessarily.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

I thought this thread was about the government's inclusion of native knowledge, not the origin of the bible. Bible says Jesus spoke in parables, which indicates they mean something else, and are not to be taken literally.

in fairness, the Government of Canada is invoking an alternate faith as the state religion

Western civilization is based upon the Judaeo-Christian faith

now the Government of Canada is invoking a pagan religion from before 17th century Canada

what civilization did this pagan faith of the pre-Christian Indians create ?

what it some place you would actually want to live ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

in fairness, the Government of Canada is invoking an alternate faith as the state religion

Western civilization is based upon the Judaeo-Christian faith

now the Government of Canada is invoking a pagan religion from before 17th century Canada

what civilization did this pagan faith of the pre-Christian Indians create ?

what it some place you would actually want to live ?

No way. But if you ever drive through the Tyendinaga Mohawk Territory, you would want to...  ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

No way. But if you ever drive through the Tyendinaga Mohawk Territory, you would want to...  ;)

but the Tyendinaga Mohawks are not from Mississauga

the Tyendinaga Mohawks are from New York, displaced by the American War of Independence 

these Mohawks threw themselves at the mercy of the British Crown

Canada saved them from the Americans

we don't owe the Tyendinaga anything

they owe the British Crown for giving them the lands they live on, which were not theirs to start off with

the British Crown was their protectors against the American republic

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

what civilization did this pagan faith of the pre-Christian Indians create ?

Well I heard they weren't that nice to one another. Most didn't live long. Neolithic culture without a written language. As in they had no great book.

But that does not mean I approve of the Indian Act of Canada.

I may approve of its name...

Indians did a good job keeping the Act named that way. No one had the guts to open it up and revise it, the can of worms too deep, and it is now become Canada's undoing. The native tail wags the Canadian dog. They played against Canada in the courtroom of the court rooms, as it were. All nice and legal like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

but the Tyendinaga Mohawks are not from Mississauga

the Tyendinaga Mohawks are from New York, displaced by the American War of Independence 

these Mohawks threw themselves at the mercy of the British Crown

Canada saved them from the Americans

we don't owe the Tyendinaga anything

they owe the British Crown for giving them the lands they live on, which were not theirs to start off with

the British Crown was their protectors against the American republic

Yeah well those Mohawks live like kings now, I tell you. I'm not sure if their territory goes across both sides of the border, but in any case they made a killing on selling gas and cigarettes for decades. Now they have weed everywhere as well.

The people have figured out how to preserve their native culture. Tax the white man.  ;)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

Well I heard they weren't that nice to one another. Most didn't live long. Neolithic culture without a written language. As in they had no great book.

But that does not mean I approve of the Indian Act of Canada.

I may approve of its name...

Indians did a good job keeping the Act named that way. No one had the guts to open it up and revise it, the can of worms too deep, and it is now become Canada's undoing. The native tail wags the Canadian dog. They played against Canada in the courtroom of the court rooms, as it were. All nice and legal like.

it is the Indians who demand that we maintain the Indian Act

it is the Indians who refuse to join Canada, invoking the Indian Act as their bulwark against assimiliation

the British Crown protected its Indian allies from the Americans

the Indians in Canada have defended & upheld their independence by way of the Indian Act

if you remove the Indian Act, that forces them all to become "Canadians"

but they don't want that, they insist that they are not Canadians, by the terms of the Indian Act

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

I thought this thread was about the government's inclusion of native knowledge, not the origin of the bible.

It is about the government's regulations around indigenous knowledge and their claim that is is confidential.  They won't define what it means.  But as often happens, when I post something, somebody brings in the Bible and of course I must respond.

 

58 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

Jesus spoke in parables, which indicates they mean something else, and are not to be taken literally.

Yes, but there is a lesson in a parable of course.  We agree on that.

 

58 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

So to imply that this mystical text should be taken literally seems incorrect. You understate the depth and complexity of Christian thought as studied by great thinkers, Thomas Aquinas et al.

I'm not sure what you're referring to as mystical text.  Can't really comment.   I will have to look into Thomas Aquinas to see what he believed.  I would be cautious about someone like that.  Might get back on that later.

 

58 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

Also, Pope Francis encourages greater tolerance and understanding with other religions, including Islam.
He encourages tolerance of gays in the church, and gay marriage. So it seems there are differing views within Christianity than just yours, or your pastors.

I wouldn't go by anything he says. The whole papal thing is unbiblical to begin with.  The Romanist system is not supported by the Bible.

Yes, I understand there are different views on some things.  Gay marriage is not biblical at all.  Tolerance, if you mean living in peace, I can agree with.  But tolerance doesn't mean one must agree with something.  Nobody should be persecuted.  

58 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

You are giving people misleading or confusing information that may be harmful to them and could lead to violence.

Nonsense.  I am not giving misleading information.  Lots of people disagree with what I say as they do with many other comments on the forum.  But I don't say anything harmful and don't promote violence.  I defend the Bible.  Why do you make false insinuations?  You know where that comes from?  Satan.

 

58 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

Canada has to honour its legal obligations.

What legal obligations say we need to accept indigenous knowledge?  If someone says a white eagle told me you can't build a pipeline here, I say nonsense.   I don't go by what white eagles say.

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

Yeah well those Mohawks live like kings now, I tell you

what, in Brantford ?

I wouldn't live in Brantford, that's the hood, bro

a Mohawk just ambushed a cop and killed him on Indian Line the other day

then carjacked an innocent bystander to make his escape

Brantford is no joke, they take no prisoners down there, Indian Posse rules

is Brampton safer than Brantford ?

which hood is worse ?

nobody ever messes with me in Brampton, but down Indian Line in Brantford, I am on alert

Edited by Dougie93
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Yeah it's the other people who are the problem. ?

Never said that.  There you go making false accusations again.   I know you can't help it.  

If someone asks how indigenous knowledge works with the Bible, I reply.  I don't mind if others bring up the Bible or religious beliefs.  I welcome them.  Others are more willing to talk about it than you, who try to silence others from speaking about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, blackbird said:

I am not giving misleading information.  Lots of people disagree with what I say as they do with many other comments on the forum.  But I don't say anything harmful and don't promote violence.  I defend the Bible.  Why do you make false insinuations?  You know where that comes from?  Satan.

You are giving misleading information when you tell everyone they must take the bible literally.

As well, your message that other religions are false and only yours (your interpretation, not Christianity) is the only one valid could lead to hate and violence. The world's got enough hate already. That is what Pope Francis spoke against when he encouraged dialogue and respect between different faiths.

Hell, you guys can't even get your own show together.

You accuse me of being influenced by Satan? Hah hah hah. Such judgement. Such arrogance.
Not a very good Christian, are you. Maybe not even a christian at all. We get a lot of fakers here...

Keep working on it.

11 minutes ago, blackbird said:

What legal obligations say we need to accept indigenous knowledge?  If someone says a white eagle told me you can't build a pipeline here, I say nonsense.   I don't go by what white eagles say.

Why do I get the impression you're projecting an image or a Christian colonialist, whose attitude towards the godless heathen savages is on full display. You're not for real. You are a faker, I say.

Or not. Who cares what you are.

Actually a lot of natives are Christians, but they probably don't live up to your standards...

I indicated it's part of the right to protect land treaties. Actually the answers are in your link where it explains the criteria that natives have the right to give input on.

Signed,

A mere denizen of lucifer's abode

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

what, in Brantford ?

I wouldn't live in Brantford, that's the hood, bro

a Mohawk just ambushed a cop and killed him on Indian Line the other day

then carjacked an innocent bystander to make his escape

Brantford is no joke

is Brampton safer than Brantford ?

which hood is worse ?

No Tyendinaga is in Eastern ON. Between Belleville and Napanee.

Bring yer wampum there...

;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, OftenWrong said:

You understate the depth and complexity of Christian thought as studied by great thinkers, Thomas Aquinas et al.

I have been studying Church history and Romanism and how it conflicts with Protestantism and Bible teachings.  Thomas Aquinas is considered a great theologian the Romanism.  He lived in the 13th century, was a Franciscan monk and friar in Italy.  I have no desire to say much about him.  He is looked up to especially devout Romanists.   It is important to understand the Papal system is largely contrary to the Bible.   It was a authoritarian system for 1,700 years that controlled everyone's personal life to the extreme.  You can find books and youtube videos that will tell you about that.  Pretty brutal for millions of people through the centuries. That is why we had the Reformation in the 16th century.  It was a return to early Christian beliefs.  

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.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Popular Now

  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,692
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Gator
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Gator earned a badge
      First Post
    • Gator earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • Jeary earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • CdnFox earned a badge
      One Year In
    • admined earned a badge
      Reacting Well
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...