Prayer at funeral of Edmonton slain officers avoids name of Jesus

[blackbird]

2 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Historically, yes.   Absolutely.  But that was the past.  It’s a bold new Canada where it’s pluralistic, which you said you were in favour of.  
 

If you were truly in favour of pluralism, you wouldn’t be advocating for Canada to only be a “Christian nation”.  

I never advocated for only a Christian nation.  Only show some respect for our Christian heritage.  Why is that too much to ask?   Second thoughts I don't accept your definition of pluralism.  I believe in live and let live.  People next door can believe whatever they wish.  That's just being responsible.  I don't accept pluralism if it means agreeing with every ideology and religion in existence.  You seem to claim to but I don't believe you would.

[blackbird]

32 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

You are the worst kind of religious zealot.

Since you don't tell your religious background and don't say what country you came from, that leaves big questions about why you believe the way you do and why you are so intolerant of me.  There must be more to the story that you are not revealing on here.   You carry a lot of hate and anger toward a Bible believer.  Must be a reason, but you're not saying.  Maybe you had some bad experiences in your personal life.

Edited March 29 by blackbird

[Boges]

18 minutes ago, blackbird said:

That's fine.  I never said it should have a state religion.  I am not in favour of a state religion.  But like many countries, there is a culture of one kind or another.  Canada's culture is historically Christian.  Some or Muslim, some Hindu (India), some Buddhist, etc.  Canada's is Christian culture and should remain so.  We should not be forced to change by the woke, progressive liberals.

I think you'll find, more than not, Canada's culture is driven by very non-religious things. 

And if anything Canada's culture is linked to the wide diversity of religions and culture, not just white-bread colonialists who though Reformers in Europe were't pious enough. 

[CdnFox]

13 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Funny term…. I thought Christians used that term when they wanted to be inclusive of Jews.  Otherwise, why not just say “Christian”?

Because if you just say Christian then a lot of certain kinds of Christians might think you mean the WRONG kinds of Christians!  Judeau-christian reminds all Christians that they are united in a common fundamental belief that this is all the jew's fault.

 

[TreeBeard]

13 minutes ago, blackbird said:

I never advocated for only a Christian nation.

You advocate for public officials only promoting Christianity.   Call it what you want.  

 

13 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Only show some respect for our Christian heritage.  Why is that too much to ask?

Christianity is as respected in law as every other religion.  That’s all the respect it gets; equal to all the others.   In fact, it is favoured in many cases, like public Catholic school boards. 
 

Quote

Second thoughts I don't accept your definition of pluralism.  I believe in live and let live.  People next door can believe whatever they wish.  That's just being responsible.  I don't accept pluralism if it means agreeing with every ideology and religion in existence.  You seem to claim to but I don't believe you would.

Pluralism doesn’t mean you agree with all religions.  That’s not even possible. It means, the country is made up of people from many religions and are all treated equally.  
 

 

Edited March 29 by TreeBeard

[blackbird]

9 minutes ago, Boges said:

And if anything Canada's culture is linked to the wide diversity of religions and culture,

I don't know of any country that every worked on trying to be officially a diversity of religions.  How could it even be defined?  Why should a country that historically was built on nominal Christianity become a hodgepodge of religions officially.  Can't see how that would work.  I doubt it has ever been done and ever worked successfully.  There are too many differences between different religions to ever work closely.  Isn't that why Trudeau was reported as saying Canada has no culture or was it some other word?

Edited March 29 by blackbird

[Boges]

Just now, blackbird said:

I don't know of any country that every worked on trying to be officially a diversity of religions.  How could it even be defined?  Why should a country that historically was built on nominal Christianity become a hodgepodge of religions officially.  Can't see how that would work.  I doubt it has every been done and ever worked successfully.  There are too many differences between different religions to ever work closely.  Isn't that why Trudeau was reported as saying Canada has no culture or was it some other word?

So what countries do you feel work culturally? 

Certainly not the UK or the US. Both are as culturally diverse as Canada. France, Germany, Spain? Are those countries models of cultural integration? 

Do we need to go to Eastern Europe where the cultural make-up is more homogenous to see examples of a country should be? I think not. 

Japan is the one Advanced Economy that is quite homogenous and they're headed for a demographic catastrophe as they refuse to embrace immigration and their fertility rate collapses. 

[Boges]

7 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Because if you just say Christian then a lot of certain kinds of Christians might think you mean the WRONG kinds of Christians!  Judeau-christian reminds all Christians that they are united in a common fundamental belief that this is all the jew's fault.

 

And because they probably like a lot of what's in the Old Testament, which is fundamentally a Jewish document. 

[TreeBeard]

4 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Why should a country that historically was built on nominal Christianity become a hodgepodge of religions officially. 

There’s nothing official about it.  Officially, we’re a secular country.  

[blackbird]

1 minute ago, TreeBeard said:

There’s nothing official about it.  Officially, we’re a secular country.  

No, I think Canada officially (Parliament) decreed we are a "multicultural" country.  That implies officially a hodgepodge of religions and officially not a Christian country.  How would that work if none of the religions agree with each other?  It means officially Canada has no one culture or belief.  It's whatever anyone wants or decides at any given moment.

[CdnFox]

3 minutes ago, Boges said:

And because they probably like a lot of what's in the Old Testament, which is fundamentally a Jewish document. 

Well that's what i said originally actually but TreeBeard correctly pointed out that you could just say 'Christian" and it would mean the same thing as everyone knows the christians came from the jews.  That's why i was explaining why they say 'judeo-christian" rather than just Christian, even tho it's arguably a redundant term.

Also my answer was somewhat tongue in cheek

[TreeBeard]

5 minutes ago, blackbird said:

No, I think Canada officially (Parliament) decreed we are a "multicultural" country.  That implies officially a hodgepodge of religions and officially not a Christian country.  How would that work if none of the religions agree with each other?  It means officially Canada has no one culture or belief.  It's whatever anyone wants or decides at any given moment.

The Supreme Court has had quite a bit to say about secularism and what it means in Canada.  Indeed, Canada is definitely a secular coutry, meaning that no one religion is favoured over another.  

 

from https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/check/art2a.html

Secularism is closely linked to the notion of “state neutrality” in respect of religion, which the Supreme Court has articulated as follows: 

“... following a realistic and non-absolutist approach, state neutrality is assured when the state neither favours nor hinders any particular religious belief, that is, when it shows respect for all postures towards religion, including that of having no religious beliefs whatsoever, while taking into account the competing constitutional rights of the individuals affected.” (S.L. v. Commission scolaire des Chênes, [2012] 1 S.C.R. 235 at paragraph 32; see also Loyola, supra at paragraphs 43-45).

A breach of a duty of state neutrality must be established by proving that the state is professing, adopting or favouring one belief to the exclusion of all others and that the exclusion has resulted in interference with the complainant’s freedom of conscience or religion (Saguenay, supra at paragraph 83). While the state cannot favour one religious view at the expense of others, the duty of neutrality does not require it entirely to abstain from celebrating and preserving its religious heritage (Saguenay,  supra at paragraphs 87 and 116).

[ExFlyer]

39 minutes ago, blackbird said:

And that is what Jesus said it would be like.  That's why they threw countless Christians to the lions in the Roman Empire in the early centuries.  That's why Rome persecuted millions of people down through the centuries for being heretics.  You prove what side you're on.

So, christians killing christians???  How appropriate and god like is that LOL

32 minutes ago, blackbird said:

That says it all.

You misunderstand or misconstrue. It is you specifically that I am intolerant of, not the entire sect or even religion in general.

23 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Since you don't tell your religious background and don't say what country you came from, that leaves big questions about why you believe the way you do and why you are so intolerant of me.  There must be more to the story that you are not revealing on here.   You carry a lot of hate and anger toward a Bible believer.  Must be a reason, but you're not saying.  Maybe you had some bad experiences in your personal life.

My background, religious or otherwise is absolutely immaterial when discussing you and your zealous and belligerent attitude.

And what country I came from??? There is no nationality required to identify belligerence, there are belligerents everywhere.

I am intolerant of all belligerent zealots that accuse those of all number of things that do not agree with them.

What I believe is as immaterial because it is you that I am talking to and about, not a religion or sect or cult.

My personal life, which has been outstanding, is equally immaterial when  talking about you.

 

[blackbird]

10 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

It is you specifically that I am intolerant of,

You are displaying hate and anger.  I would suggest you go to your local health unit and seek help.

[CdnFox]

Just now, blackbird said:

You are displaying hate and anger.  I would suggest you go to your local health unit and seek help.

Pot, this is kettle. Kettle - meet pot.

[blackbird]

39 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Pot, this is kettle. Kettle - meet pot.

Unless you can learn to communicate in a rational way about the subject and quit attacking the poster, your comments will continue to fall on deaf ears.  We get tired of the endless personal attacks that contribute nothing.

[ExFlyer]

53 minutes ago, blackbird said:

You are displaying hate and anger.  I would suggest you go to your local health unit and seek help.

Heck no.

No hate or anger at all.

Just intolerance. A struggle against religious fanaticism and those that display it.

It is on thing to have beliefs. It is one thing to have strong beliefs. It is quite another to argue and demean and smear others that clearly do not agree with you. That is fanaticism and in your case, religious fanaticism. Not just religious but singular religion.

 

Edited March 29 by ExFlyer

[blackbird]

7 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Heck no.

No hate or anger at all.

Just intolerance. A struggle against religious fanaticism and those that display it.

 

That raises questions of where you came from and what you were taught because it does indicate hate and anger the way you worded things.   Admission of intolerance is a form of hate.

Perhaps you came from a place where bigotry and hate is a common thing.  We see that in many countries.

You are in a western country where basic Bible belief is fairly common.   When you accuse those who believe in the teachings of the Bible with strong language of condemnation as you do, you are in the wrong.  When you say you are intolerant of people who believe the Bible, you are certainly not accepting of western values of human rights such as freedom of religion, freedom of expression, and other basic freedoms.   

Edited March 29 by blackbird

[CdnFox]

18 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Unless you can learn to communicate in a rational way about the subject and quit attacking the poster, your comments will continue to fall on deaf ears.  We get tired of the endless personal attacks that contribute nothing.

With you they fell on deaf ears to begin with - you continue to lie.  But now everyone reading this knows you're lying as well. I'm satisfied with that.

[ExFlyer]

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

That raises questions of where you came from and what you were taught because it does indicate hate and anger the way you worded things.   Admission of intolerance is a form of hate.

Perhaps you came from a place where bigotry and hate is a common thing.  We see that in many countries.

You are in a western country where basic Bible belief is fairly common.   When you accuse those who believe in the teachings of the Bible with strong language of condemnation as you do, you are in the wrong.  When you say you are intolerant of people who believe the Bible, you are certainly not accepting of western values of human rights such as freedom of religion, freedom of expression, and other basic freedoms.   

Where I came form is totally immaterial and why it is an obsessive concern of your is interesting LOL

Incorrect, intolerance is just expressing distaste and dislike of certain things. Fanaticism and extremism are some. I am also intolerant of bee stings and mosquito bites.

Your assumption of bigotry and hate is very unchristian of you that is supposed to love all LOL

Basic bible belief may be common (although I would have to have proof of that) but religious fanaticism and extremism you display is more cult like than anything.

Never once said I was intolerant of people that believe in the bible, just you.

I fully agree and believe in "freedom of religion, freedom of expression, and other basic freedoms", it is you that does not believe in the right to not agree with you.

All the posts in this thread are against you and your attitude and preaching.

 

 

 

 

Edited March 29 by ExFlyer

[blackbird]

16 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

I fully agree and believe in "freedom of religion, freedom of expression, and other basic freedoms", it is you that does not believe in the right to not agree with you.

Your claim that you are intolerant of me proves you are not telling the truth about believing in fundamental freedoms.  I am the only one defending the Bible truths here.  Strange coincidence that you are intolerant of me then isn't it?

If you want to know there are others in churches that profess to believe the Bible just look up the evangelical churches in your city on the internet and see what their confessions of faith are.  Many will tell you their beliefs are based on the Bible.

I never said you do not have the right to not believe in what I said.  You and Fox both make false claims that I am denying you to believe what you want.   I can't stop what you or anyone believes.

16 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

All the posts in this thread are against you and your attitude and preaching.

That may be because you and a couple others are simply antagonistic toward my advocating for Biblical Christianity.  If you can't stand my comments, just ignore them and move on.  But you chose to claim how intolerant you are toward me.

 

Edited March 29 by blackbird

[blackbird]

17 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Never once said I was intolerant of people that believe in the bible, just you.

So what is it I said that makes you intolerant or hate me?

[CdnFox]

7 minutes ago, blackbird said:

That may be because you and a couple others are simply antagonistic toward my advocating for Biblical Christianity

1 - you are not advocating for christianity. You're driving people away from it.

2 - it's the lying, arrogance, intolerance and hatred people are fed up with.

3 - it's not a few. It's pretty much everyone. Some are being decent enough to tell you, the rest are thinking it.

There's an old saying - if 10,000 people think you're an asswipe, and you think you're NOT an asswipe, it really doesn't matter at that point if you're right or not. Something you're doing needs to change.

[blackbird]

8 hours ago, CdnFox said:

1 - you are not advocating for christianity. You're driving people away from it.

2 - it's the lying, arrogance, intolerance and hatred people are fed up with.

3 - it's not a few. It's pretty much everyone. Some are being decent enough to tell you, the rest are thinking it.

There's an old saying - if 10,000 people think you're an asswipe, and you think you're NOT an asswipe, it really doesn't matter at that point if you're right or not. Something you're doing needs to change.

The 15 year old in a Starbucks in Vancouver was stabbed to death because he asked a guy not to vape close to a toddler.  That's a pretty strong reaction to a comment someone made isn't it?

So what is it I said that makes you so angry to accuse me of all those things?  Can you give some examples of what I said that deserve that?  Perhaps give me a chance to review what you claim is a lie, arrogant, and hateful.

Edited March 30 by blackbird

[RedDog]

The bigger question is, was there any sign of “pride” support. At Roger’s Place there would be.

We need to get modern priorities in order.