Why Romanism is a danger to Canada

[Michael Hardner]

41 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

 What cases would you consider banning speech?

Can I buy you a parrot ?

[blackbird]

Romanism and liberalism are very closely associated.  Anyone who disagrees should explain where I am wrong.  It just happens that 95% of Quebec are Romanists and Quebec largely votes Liberals.  So it would be hard to argue Liberalism is not Romanism.  

Trudeau often speaks against social conservatives claiming social conservatives want to take away a woman's "right to choose", that is, to choose to kill her unborn baby.  In Romanism there are no consequences for being an immoral politician and supporting such unbiblical beliefs such as abortion, MAID, same-sex marriage, etc.

The dictator of Spain, General Franco, had a lot kind words for Hitler.

"“Adolf Hitler, son of the Catholic Church, died while defending Christianity. It is therefore understandable that words cannot be found to lament over his death, when so many were found to exalt his life. Over his mortal remains stands his victorious moral figure. With the palm of the martyr, God gives Hitler the laurels of Victory.”  General Franco: “Hitler fought for Christianity in Europe” – Banjara Origin News (ivarfjeld.com)

Do you seriously want to continue to be associated with Romanism? 

In Mexico I think you will find organized criminals will always receive a last rites mass and the RC church will not discriminate.  Romanism seems to accept any and every behavior, no questions asked.

Edited June 7, 2023 by blackbird

[TreeBeard]

15 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Can I buy you a parrot ?

Can you buy me an answer to the question by @blackbird?

[TreeBeard]

7 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Romanism and liberalism are very closely associated.  Anyone who disagrees should explain where I am wrong.  It just happens that 95% of Quebec are Romanists and Quebec largely votes Liberals.  So it would be hard to argue Liberalism is not Romanism.  

You completely confuse liberalism, the political philosophy, with the Liberal Party.  
 

I am not convinced you have the capacity to recognize the differences, or to have a conversation about them.  

[Michael Hardner]

3 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Can you buy me an answer to the question by @blackbird?

[Squawk] Why you wanna blackbird when polly wanna kwacker [Squawk]

1 minute ago, TreeBeard said:

You completely confuse liberalism 

This is #1 error on here.  We had a post recently that said liberalism equals communism, for example.

 

[blackbird]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

This is #1 error on here.  We had a post recently that said liberalism equals communism, for example.

You are very clever.  You made a statement that you are on the right track about Christianity and I am on the wrong track.  I asked you to give some proof and you said nothing.  No response.

You say you put me on ignore.  Very clever.  So you can say whatever you feel like without any proof or evidence.  You don't have to answer any questions because you are ignoring a user you don't want to give an answer to.  Very convenient.  Good one Michael.  

Edited June 7, 2023 by blackbird

[blackbird]

There are mountains of evidence to show Romanism is not Christianity by any stretch.

quote

General Franco of Spain said:

“Adolf Hitler, son of the Catholic Church, died while defending Christianity. It is therefore understandable that words cannot be found to lament over his death, when so many were found to exalt his life. Over his mortal remains stands his victorious moral figure. With the palm of the martyr, God gives Hitler the laurels of Victory.”

Before World War II, there was an openly fascist political organization in Spain named Falange. The entire Catholic Youth Organization joined the Falange. General Franco’s brother in law, Serrano Suner, was the Catholic Youth secretary, and most of Robles followers also joined. The Falange employed the successful tactics of the Italian fascists and Nazis: physical violence.

When the people of Spain resisted the fascist takeover, Pius XI spoke out strongly, calling everyone who was not a fascist a Bolshevik, and blessing “all those who have taken the difficult and dangerous task to defend and reinstate the honor of God and Religion.”

Cardinal Pacelli became pope as Pius XII. He congratulated Franco: “With great joy we address you, dearest sons of Catholic Spain, to express our paternal congratulations for the gift of peace and victory, with which God has chosen to crown the Christian heroism of your faith and charity ….    unquote

General Franco: “Hitler fought for Christianity in Europe” – Banjara Origin News (ivarfjeld.com)

But the main reason it is not Christianity is the Bible doesn't support it and if properly understood shows it is a false system.

 

Edited June 7, 2023 by blackbird

[Moonbox]

You're not a reasonable person and therefore not worth debating.  Even on a theological basis, you're incurious, dogmatic and ignorant, but when this is your over-arching rationale for any/all secular matters, it just makes you an angry fool.  

[blackbird]

Devout Romanists bow down to the Fascist dictator at his death.

General Franco: “Hitler fought for Christianity in Europe” – Banjara Origin News (ivarfjeld.com)

Edited June 7, 2023 by blackbird

[blackbird]

6 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

The founding religion of the Europeans in Canada, that predates everything except First Nations occupation of their homeland.  They planted a cross when their feet touched the soil...

And now it's one of the biggest threats.

Romanism always was a threat to freedom and democracy.  This has been the case for the past 500 years and continues to be true.  Look how the Liberals cozied up to Communist China for the past 50 years.  Notice how they are trying to maneuver themselves out of the spotlight about Chinese interference in Canada's elections.  The Trudeaus have always had special affection for Fidel Castro and Communist dictators.  Trudeau and Liberals thought they could make China become like Liberals.  China laughed Trudeau off eight years ago.  They must be still laughing at the naivety of Liberals.

[blackbird]

Here is another important fact of history that many are not aware of.

The Republic of Ireland, a Romanist country, was neutral in World War II.  While the allies and many Canadians gave their lives in the defence of freedom and to oppose the Nazis,  Ireland was able to stand on the sidelines and do nothing.

One of the leaders of Ireland said this:

quote

Largely forgotten outside of the British Isles, De Valera towered over Ireland like a colossus – not only did he found the Fianna Fail party and help to establish the Constitution, but he also served as prime minister and president on multiple occasions. Indeed, De Valera founded the modern Irish state, as much as Mustafa Kemal Ataturk created the modern nation of Turkey around the same time.

Perhaps the most controversial episode of De Valera's epic career took place in 1945 when – in light of Ireland's neutrality and independent foreign policy during the just-completed Second World War – he, as prime minister, extended his condolences to the vanquished German people over the death of Nazi dictator and architect of the Holocaust Adolf Hitler.

unquote

The Irish Nationalist And The Nazi: When Eamon De Valera Paid His Respects To Adolf Hitler (ibtimes.com)

Why is it heavily Romanist countries such as Italy, Spain, and Ireland seemed to be sympathetic to Hitler and the Nazis?

Edited June 7, 2023 by blackbird

[blackbird]

Then there is the question of why Romanist-controlled Canada refused to allow a ship of German- Jewish refugees to enter Canada and save them from the Holocaust.

Just prior to the outbreak of WW2 in 1939, Ireland also refused to let German Jewish refugees and other refugees to settle there.

Edited June 7, 2023 by blackbird

[TreeBeard]

45 minutes ago, blackbird said:

refused to allow a ship of Jewish refugees to enter Canada and save them from the Holocaust.

Would you be in favour of allowing a ship of Muslim refugees to land in Canada from Iran who are trying to escape the Ayatollah?

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, TreeBeard said:

Would you be in favour of allowing a ship of Muslim refugees to land in Canada from Iran who are trying to escape the Ayatollah?

Of course.  Canada already allowed thousands of refugees to come to Canada, but it's record of helping them is not perfect.  It seems to get tangled up in bureaucracy sometimes.

[TreeBeard]

11 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Of course.  Canada already allowed thousands of refugees to come to Canada, but it's record of helping them is not perfect.  It seems to get tangled up in bureaucracy sometimes.

In a previous post you were concerned about refugees having an impact on “white European founding people”.   Now you’re in favour of accepting boatloads of Muslim refugees?   
 

I don’t believe this change of heart you suddenly had….

 

 

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, TreeBeard said:

In a previous post you were concerned about refugees having an impact on “white European founding people”.   Now you’re in favour of accepting boatloads of Muslim refugees?   

There is no change.  You asked if am opposed to a boatload of Muslim refugees coming in.  I told you I am not opposed if they are legitimate refugees such as Afghans in danger by the Taliban.

That is different from mass immigration from the third world.  You asked about refugees on an emergency basis and I said I support that depending on the circumstances.  That is different than the Liberals plan to bring in half a million immigrants a year from the third world.  I oppose that.

The problem is not a small number of refugees who are trying to escape death by the Taliban;  the problem is mass immigration of hundreds of thousands or half a million people a year from the third world which the Liberals are bringing in.

Romanists beliefs in just getting rid of the border and allowing everyone in the world to come in.  What do you think?  Should we have borders and immigration restrictions or not?

Edited June 8, 2023 by blackbird

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, TreeBeard said:

In a previous post you were concerned about refugees having an impact on “white European founding people”.  

Yes, I still am concerned.  The white European founding people are a declining people in Canada.  Refugees are not the same thing as immigrants.  I was talking about immigrants from the third world who are growing at a faster rate and the European founding people are declining in Canada.

[TreeBeard]

1 minute ago, blackbird said:

I was talking about immigrants

But, in that post, you said “refugees”. 

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, TreeBeard said:

But, in that post, you said “refugees”. 

Yes, you are correct.  I did use the word refugee because I was replying to you question.  You said

"Would you be in favour of allowing a ship of Muslim refugees to land in Canada from Iran who are trying to escape the Ayatollah?"

You also referred to one ship of Muslim refugees.  I answered accordingly.

Not sure what you are driving at.  I have clarified.  A ship of Muslim refugees is not the same as mass immigration.  This has drifted away from the topic quite far now.  I think I have said enough on refugees.

[TreeBeard]

7 minutes ago, blackbird said:

I did use the word refugee

You used the term refugee in last year’s post that I pointed out.  

[blackbird]

Just now, TreeBeard said:

You used the term refugee in last year’s post that I pointed out.  

OK maybe I did.  I might have made a mistake.  I do admit I sometimes use the wrong word or words.  

Now, are you a Romanist or what is your religious background?

[OftenWrong]

5 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

Would you be in favour of allowing a ship of Muslim refugees to land in Canada from Iran who are trying to escape the Ayatollah?

You used the term refugee in the old-school context. That is,  a political refugee escaping a war-torn region or escaping some other grave danger. But the new Trudeauean "refugee" (neo-refugee?) is an economic refugee. In other words people escaping poverty. And there's a whole lot of them. You know, like several billion. That's why there is confusion on use of this word today, covered broadly by the convenient media term "immigration".

So which is it being talked about here fella? Who is it that's on your boat.

[blackbird]

This news item gives a fairly good idea of the political beliefs of the present Pope.  It reveals he is a progressive, Socialist, and his beliefs have nothing to do with Biblical Christianity.  He is a kind of populist and believes and advocates what appeals to the heathen world.  It is all about winning popularity with unbelievers or non-Christian heathen.  That is what matters to him.  Bible truth is of no consequence.  He must actually believe that Jesus was some kind of Socialist or progressive, which of course is a blasphemy.

Pope Francis: all you need to know about the Progressive Pontiff (msn.com)

First of all Socialism or wealth re-distribution is contrary to the commandment 'thou shalt not steal".

Secondly, his embracing all religions is exactly contrary to what Jesus would do.  Jesus taught there is no salvation apart from faith in Him.  See gospel of John for proof.

Embracing people with unbiblical beliefs on sexuality and in effect, condoning it all is also completely contrary to what Jesus and the Bible teaches.  The Bible says to have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness.  He obviously rejects the Bible and believes acknowledging anything and everything as acceptable.  This is secular humanism, which God rejects in the Bible.  This is much like what Trudeau, Biden, and other Liberal Papists do.   Trudeau said today to people who wanted pride flags at schools who rejected them, not to worry;  the government will fly a pride flag on Parliament Hill.

The Pope is the complete opposite of Jesus Christ and advocates and promotes everything that is in direct opposition to God and the Bible.  He may win popularity contests in this world.  Jesus took the opposite position as did his believers.  That is why he was crucified and his followers were persecuted and martyred over the centuries.  The same situation exists today in the world.  

If you want to be loved by the world, follow the Pope's example.  

"13  Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: {strait: or, narrow} 14  Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."  Matthew 7:13 KJV

Edited June 8, 2023 by blackbird

[Moonbox]

Please, go on.  I'm excited to not read it some more.  

[TreeBeard]

28 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Bible truth is of no consequence. 

He cherry picks different parts of the bible to adhere to, or take wisdom from, than you do.  But you all cherry-pick.  
 

Do you think women should teach men?  Can women be ministers in your religion?