Please find below an article that closely considers Canada's "Silencing the Truth" legislation. A bit long, but it is an excellent read.

For those of us in The Bahamas, let us remember that a word to the wise is sufficient. I pray that we are wise!


Oh, Canada, We Hardly Knew Ye…
Debating Sexual Freedom in the Public Square

By Allan Dobras
May 24, 2004

There is something sinister emanating from Canada. It carries the ominous sound of high-stepping jackboots pulverizing the Canadian Charter of Rights into dust. As Canada leaves behind its heritage the once tight bond with its historic legacy of faith and code of values, has perhaps become irreparably unraveled. America, which shares a similar legacy, now stands in near isolation as it struggles with the same forces of moral anarchy.

Illegal to “Hate” in Canada
On April 26, 2004, the Canadian Senate passed, Private Member's Bill C-250, which provides institutional protection to the practice of homosexuality and other undefined sexual behaviors. The law provides severe penalties for anyone who openly expresses an opinion that may be construed as “hateful” toward homosexual practice or any other “alternative” sexual orientation. Canadians, therefore, no longer have the moral or legal right to question the virtue of deviant sexual behaviors.

The bill was sponsored by Svend Robinson, who was first elected to the Canadian House of Commons in 1979. In 1988, he publicly declared his homosexuality and by so doing became the first openly “gay” member of Parliament. He has been relentless in his pursuit of gay rights and the bill that he successfully promoted—under the guise of protection for homosexual persons—will, in application, profoundly limit freedom of speech and religion in Canada.

The implementation of the new law simply adds “sexual orientation” to a list of “identifiable groups” noted in Section 318 (4) of the Canadian Criminal Code—meaning color, race, religion or ethnic origin, and now, sexual orientation. Most disturbing, the application of Section 318 extends to Section 319, which provides draconian legal consequences for persons expressing what is called “hate propaganda” and “genocide” against a member or members of one of the protected groups. As noted in the Canadian Criminal Code:

319. (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in a public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace if guilty of (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, willfully promotes hatred against and identifiable group is guilty of (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Since sexual orientation is undefined, the term can easily be interpreted to apply beyond homosexuals, but to bisexuals, transgenders, polygamists, pederasts, and co-habiting partners, as well. In order to completely stifle dissent on these issues, the law provides that:

“communicating” includes communicating by telephone, broadcasting or other audible or visible means; “public place” includes any place to which the public have access as a right or by invitation, express or implied; and “statements” includes words spoken or written or recorded electronically or electromagnetically or otherwise, and gestures, signs or other visible representations.

“Inciting hatred,” therefore, can mean openly communicating a negative opinion of homosexuality, whether from the perspective of morality, lascivious behavior, medical consequences, or social corruption. Even though the new law is an admitted violation of free speech, Canadian legal precedent favors the legislation, as declared in a Section 319 footnote:

Although some of this section infringes the right to freedom of expression, as guaranteed by section 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms it has been ruled that it constitutes a reasonable limit on that right and is therefore valid legislation.

Freedom of Speech and Religion Denied
In other words, freedom of expression is trumped by the right of the Canadian people to commit sodomy and other alternative sexual practices without being subjected to the “hatred” of dissenting opinions. Therefore, no public debate can take place in Canada on the merits and morality of any issue involving sexual orientation—e.g., sodomy, same-sex marriage, cross-dressing, or pederasty—if discussion can be construed as expressing a “hateful” opinion. Incredulously, the statute would seem to protect members of parliament who voted for the bill from being opposed for reelection on the basis of the morality of the law they helped pass!

There is a provision in the new law that states, “No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2) if he establishes that the statements communicated were [as follows]: if, in good faith, he expressed or attempted to establish by argument an opinion on a religious subject; or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text…”

It remains to be seen how “secular” criticism of same-sex marriage, for example, can be separated from “belief in a religious text.” Unfortunately, there is precedent in Canadian law to suggest that any criticism of sexual orientation issues will not be tolerated.

Chris Kempling of Quesnel, British Columbia (B.C.), was found guilty of unbecoming conduct by the B.C. Collegeof Teachers, which asserted that certain of his writings contained "discriminatory and derogatory statements against homosexuals." He was suspended for one month from his position as a teacher and guidance counselor with the Quesnel Board of Education.

One letter cited by the panel quoted Kempling as saying: "Gay people are seriously at risk, not because of heterosexual attitudes but because of their sexual behaviour, and I challenge the gay community to show some real evidence that they are trying to protect their own community members by making attempts to promote monogamous, long-lasting relationships to combat sexual addictions."

The panel was also disturbed by statements made by Kempling that “homosexual relationships are unstable, ‘gay’ sex poses health risks and many religions consider homosexuality immoral.”

Kempling appealed his suspension to the B.C. Supreme Court on the grounds that the suspension violates the Canadian Charter of Rights protections of freedom of expression and religion. Justice Ronald Holmes of the B.C. Supreme Court upheld the suspension, ruling last February that Kempling's comments were “discriminatory” and could reasonably cause disruption to the school system. Kempling called the decision, “a black day for religious freedom in Canada.”

The possible exception for “an opinion based on a belief in a religious text” is actually a two-edged sword and, if applied literally, could actually facilitate intolerance. The Koran, for example, reads in Surat 9.5:

So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters (Christians and non-Muslims) wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

Legitimizing Homosexual Behavior Worldwide
There is much more behind this legislation than the allegation it will protect persons who engage in sodomy from “hate speech” that could lead to a “breach of the peace.” It is actually part of a worldwide movement to validate homosexuality as a legitimate alternative lifestyle. As noted by the Catholic Civil Rights League of Canada:

- Last fall, the Rt. Reverend Dr. Peter Forster, Anglican Bishop of Chester, England was investigated under hate crimes legislation and reprimanded by the local Chief Constable for observing that some people can overcome homosexual inclinations and "reorientate" themselves. (The Telegraph, 10/11/03)

- In January of this year a Swedish Pentecostal Pastor Ake Green was prosecuted for "hate speech against homosexuals" for a sermon he preached last summer citing Biblical references to homosexuality. (Kyrkans Tidning, 01/11/04)

- Belgian Cardianal Gustaaf Joos faces a lawsuit under that country's discrimination laws for his remarks about the nature of homosexuality and the Church's teaching published in a Belgiummagazine. (CWNews.com, 01/26/04)

- Cardinal Antonio Maria Rouco Varela of Madridis facing a suit in Spainfor preaching against homosexuality in a homily he gave in the MadridCathederal on the feast of the Holy Family. (WashingtonPost, 01/03/04)

- In Ireland, clergy and bishops were warned that the distribution of the Vatican's publication on public recognition of same-sex relationships could face prosecution under Irish incitement to hatred legislation. (The Irish Times, 07/02/03)

The Creed of Total Sexual Freedom
It is most important, however, to understand that the legitimization of homosexual behavior is not the driving issue behind these actions. After all, practicing homosexuals account for perhaps only 2-3 percent of the adult population, which hardly explains why the homosexual rights agenda commands such power.

The answer is that homosexual rights are just the forerunners of a broader pansexual movement pursued by hedonistic elitists who demand total sexual freedom. Their cause is fueled by rogue justices and brazen public officials who have stripped the law of its moral underpinnings and rule by fiat. Canada is just the latest outpost to fall in their worldwide struggle for domination of the culture.

In America, “hate crimes” legislation pending in the House and Senate provides increased penalties, funding grants, and federal interventions pertaining to a list of crimes “motivated by the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, or disability of the victim.” Under these guidelines, almost any crime victim can likely fit within one of the distinctive categories, so the legislation’s major purpose seems to be to gain legal credibility for homosexual behavior. It is no accident that “gay rights” advocates are the prime movers behind the legislation.

If such legislation is passed, deviant sexual behaviors will be protected under law and anyone accused of a crime against a homosexual person, for example, will find that what he says could be used against him. Even where he goes to church could be indicative of his opinions about homosexuality.

Logically, it is only a short step from applying greater penalties to crimes motivated by “hatred,” to discouraging such incidents by prohibiting certain kinds of “hateful” speech. Canada has now placed these prohibitions into law and it would be naïve to believe that this is not the intent of hate crimes legislation in America.

All of these initiatives have as their final purpose the pursuit of same-sex marriage—the culture’s ultimate expression of legitimacy. As a consequence of this occurrence, the oneness of the male/female relationship established by God at the dawn of creation would be joined by practitioners of a behavior He declares to be “abominable,” and the era of sexual anarchy would begin.

In this battle for the culture, the primary obstacle to the success of the hedonists is the committed Christian, whose faith and moral code pose a formidable challenge to their quest for victory. In other words, you are their enemy and you are called upon to make a stand for the faith. If not you, who? Not the media…not the government…not academia. It is the Christian faithful who are being summoned to rise to the task before us and make our voices heard in this, the final battle of the Culture War. As it is written:

And I sought for a man among them, that should make up the hedge, and stand in the gap before me for the land, that I should not destroy it: but I found none. Ezekiel 22:30.



Al Dobras is a freelance writer on religious and cultural issues and an electronics engineer. He lives in Springfield, Virginia.

Perhaps you should read http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_hat6.htm

for the other side of the story. Particularly the part that says, "A lot of misinformation has been circulated about C-250:.......It does not represent a threat to any clergy: priest, minister, pastor or other clergy delivering anti-gay sermons. Anyone delivering an anti-gay speech based on the famous six "clobber" passages in the Bible or similar passages from the holy texts of other religions is immune from prosecution. This immunity would also apply to lay members of any religion."

Here is another interesting quote from that site, please read it carefully: "There is a general belief that Canadian and American citizens are guaranteed almost complete religious freedom. They are free to believe in any religion or none. But their freedom to act on their religious beliefs is not necessarily guaranteed -- particularly if their actions hurt or denigrate others.

Please find below an article that closely considers Canada's "Silencing the Truth" legislation. A bit long, but it is an excellent read.

For those of us in The Bahamas, let us remember that a word to the wise is sufficient. I pray that we are wise!


Oh, Canada, We Hardly Knew Ye…
Debating Sexual Freedom in the Public Square

By Allan Dobras
May 24, 2004

There is something sinister emanating from Canada. It carries the ominous sound of high-stepping jackboots pulverizing the Canadian Charter of Rights into dust. As Canada leaves behind its heritage the once tight bond with its historic legacy of faith and code of values, has perhaps become irreparably unraveled. America, which shares a similar legacy, now stands in near isolation as it struggles with the same forces of moral anarchy.

Illegal to “Hate” in Canada
On April 26, 2004, the Canadian Senate passed, Private Member's Bill C-250, which provides institutional protection to the practice of homosexuality and other undefined sexual behaviors. The law provides severe penalties for anyone who openly expresses an opinion that may be construed as “hateful” toward homosexual practice or any other “alternative” sexual orientation. Canadians, therefore, no longer have the moral or legal right to question the virtue of deviant sexual behaviors.

The bill was sponsored by Svend Robinson, who was first elected to the Canadian House of Commons in 1979. In 1988, he publicly declared his homosexuality and by so doing became the first openly “gay” member of Parliament. He has been relentless in his pursuit of gay rights and the bill that he successfully promoted—under the guise of protection for homosexual persons—will, in application, profoundly limit freedom of speech and religion in Canada.

The implementation of the new law simply adds “sexual orientation” to a list of “identifiable groups” noted in Section 318 (4) of the Canadian Criminal Code—meaning color, race, religion or ethnic origin, and now, sexual orientation. Most disturbing, the application of Section 318 extends to Section 319, which provides draconian legal consequences for persons expressing what is called “hate propaganda” and “genocide” against a member or members of one of the protected groups. As noted in the Canadian Criminal Code:

319. (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in a public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace if guilty of (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, willfully promotes hatred against and identifiable group is guilty of (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Since sexual orientation is undefined, the term can easily be interpreted to apply beyond homosexuals, but to bisexuals, transgenders, polygamists, pederasts, and co-habiting partners, as well. In order to completely stifle dissent on these issues, the law provides that:

“communicating” includes communicating by telephone, broadcasting or other audible or visible means; “public place” includes any place to which the public have access as a right or by invitation, express or implied; and “statements” includes words spoken or written or recorded electronically or electromagnetically or otherwise, and gestures, signs or other visible representations.

“Inciting hatred,” therefore, can mean openly communicating a negative opinion of homosexuality, whether from the perspective of morality, lascivious behavior, medical consequences, or social corruption. Even though the new law is an admitted violation of free speech, Canadian legal precedent favors the legislation, as declared in a Section 319 footnote:

Although some of this section infringes the right to freedom of expression, as guaranteed by section 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms it has been ruled that it constitutes a reasonable limit on that right and is therefore valid legislation.

Freedom of Speech and Religion Denied
In other words, freedom of expression is trumped by the right of the Canadian people to commit sodomy and other alternative sexual practices without being subjected to the “hatred” of dissenting opinions. Therefore, no public debate can take place in Canada on the merits and morality of any issue involving sexual orientation—e.g., sodomy, same-sex marriage, cross-dressing, or pederasty—if discussion can be construed as expressing a “hateful” opinion. Incredulously, the statute would seem to protect members of parliament who voted for the bill from being opposed for reelection on the basis of the morality of the law they helped pass!

There is a provision in the new law that states, “No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2) if he establishes that the statements communicated were [as follows]: if, in good faith, he expressed or attempted to establish by argument an opinion on a religious subject; or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text…”

It remains to be seen how “secular” criticism of same-sex marriage, for example, can be separated from “belief in a religious text.” Unfortunately, there is precedent in Canadian law to suggest that any criticism of sexual orientation issues will not be tolerated.

Chris Kempling of Quesnel, British Columbia (B.C.), was found guilty of unbecoming conduct by the B.C. Collegeof Teachers, which asserted that certain of his writings contained "discriminatory and derogatory statements against homosexuals." He was suspended for one month from his position as a teacher and guidance counselor with the Quesnel Board of Education.

One letter cited by the panel quoted Kempling as saying: "Gay people are seriously at risk, not because of heterosexual attitudes but because of their sexual behaviour, and I challenge the gay community to show some real evidence that they are trying to protect their own community members by making attempts to promote monogamous, long-lasting relationships to combat sexual addictions."

The panel was also disturbed by statements made by Kempling that “homosexual relationships are unstable, ‘gay’ sex poses health risks and many religions consider homosexuality immoral.”

Kempling appealed his suspension to the B.C. Supreme Court on the grounds that the suspension violates the Canadian Charter of Rights protections of freedom of expression and religion. Justice Ronald Holmes of the B.C. Supreme Court upheld the suspension, ruling last February that Kempling's comments were “discriminatory” and could reasonably cause disruption to the school system. Kempling called the decision, “a black day for religious freedom in Canada.”

The possible exception for “an opinion based on a belief in a religious text” is actually a two-edged sword and, if applied literally, could actually facilitate intolerance. The Koran, for example, reads in Surat 9.5:

So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters (Christians and non-Muslims) wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

Legitimizing Homosexual Behavior Worldwide
There is much more behind this legislation than the allegation it will protect persons who engage in sodomy from “hate speech” that could lead to a “breach of the peace.” It is actually part of a worldwide movement to validate homosexuality as a legitimate alternative lifestyle. As noted by the Catholic Civil Rights League of Canada:

- Last fall, the Rt. Reverend Dr. Peter Forster, Anglican Bishop of Chester, England was investigated under hate crimes legislation and reprimanded by the local Chief Constable for observing that some people can overcome homosexual inclinations and "reorientate" themselves. (The Telegraph, 10/11/03)

- In January of this year a Swedish Pentecostal Pastor Ake Green was prosecuted for "hate speech against homosexuals" for a sermon he preached last summer citing Biblical references to homosexuality. (Kyrkans Tidning, 01/11/04)

- Belgian Cardianal Gustaaf Joos faces a lawsuit under that country's discrimination laws for his remarks about the nature of homosexuality and the Church's teaching published in a Belgiummagazine. (CWNews.com, 01/26/04)

- Cardinal Antonio Maria Rouco Varela of Madridis facing a suit in Spainfor preaching against homosexuality in a homily he gave in the MadridCathederal on the feast of the Holy Family. (WashingtonPost, 01/03/04)

- In Ireland, clergy and bishops were warned that the distribution of the Vatican's publication on public recognition of same-sex relationships could face prosecution under Irish incitement to hatred legislation. (The Irish Times, 07/02/03)

The Creed of Total Sexual Freedom
It is most important, however, to understand that the legitimization of homosexual behavior is not the driving issue behind these actions. After all, practicing homosexuals account for perhaps only 2-3 percent of the adult population, which hardly explains why the homosexual rights agenda commands such power.

The answer is that homosexual rights are just the forerunners of a broader pansexual movement pursued by hedonistic elitists who demand total sexual freedom. Their cause is fueled by rogue justices and brazen public officials who have stripped the law of its moral underpinnings and rule by fiat. Canada is just the latest outpost to fall in their worldwide struggle for domination of the culture.

In America, “hate crimes” legislation pending in the House and Senate provides increased penalties, funding grants, and federal interventions pertaining to a list of crimes “motivated by the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, or disability of the victim.” Under these guidelines, almost any crime victim can likely fit within one of the distinctive categories, so the legislation’s major purpose seems to be to gain legal credibility for homosexual behavior. It is no accident that “gay rights” advocates are the prime movers behind the legislation.

If such legislation is passed, deviant sexual behaviors will be protected under law and anyone accused of a crime against a homosexual person, for example, will find that what he says could be used against him. Even where he goes to church could be indicative of his opinions about homosexuality.

Logically, it is only a short step from applying greater penalties to crimes motivated by “hatred,” to discouraging such incidents by prohibiting certain kinds of “hateful” speech. Canada has now placed these prohibitions into law and it would be naïve to believe that this is not the intent of hate crimes legislation in America.

All of these initiatives have as their final purpose the pursuit of same-sex marriage—the culture’s ultimate expression of legitimacy. As a consequence of this occurrence, the oneness of the male/female relationship established by God at the dawn of creation would be joined by practitioners of a behavior He declares to be “abominable,” and the era of sexual anarchy would begin.

In this battle for the culture, the primary obstacle to the success of the hedonists is the committed Christian, whose faith and moral code pose a formidable challenge to their quest for victory. In other words, you are their enemy and you are called upon to make a stand for the faith. If not you, who? Not the media…not the government…not academia. It is the Christian faithful who are being summoned to rise to the task before us and make our voices heard in this, the final battle of the Culture War. As it is written:

And I sought for a man among them, that should make up the hedge, and stand in the gap before me for the land, that I should not destroy it: but I found none. Ezekiel 22:30.



Al Dobras is a freelance writer on religious and cultural issues and an electronics engineer. He lives in Springfield, Virginia.

Very good CG.
I say yes to these laws If you are going to use your religion to hate then yes you should keep it in the 4 walls of your church. Yes in your church you should be free to teach what you want and when we open our community center we will be free to teach what we want. You can't force people to follow the rules of your religion just because you believe in them. It called freedom of religion it also means freedom from religion.

Well, they (homosexuals) can do as they wish, debate all they want and convince themselves as much as they want.

But to them I say this........

When it is your day of judgment, and you stand before god, try to debate with him, and see how far that goes......
Keep in mind that it is too late by then, and your mere 30-60 years of bodily pleasure will be nothing to an eternity of HELL........ :hot:

im not gay, but does that mean anyone that commits sin will go to hell? because if so, then we are all going to hell, no human is exempt from sin.

im not gay, but does that mean anyone that commits sin will go to hell? because if so, then we are all going to hell, no human is exempt from sin.

Yes, Rory, that is what it means! However, there is an "out." There is always an "out" in religions. There would be no point to them if there was not.

A Christian claims the Blood of Christ to wash away sins,
or his (the believes) good works and the Blood of Christ,
or the believes good works, the blessings of the Church and the Blood of Christ.
There is no total agreement here among Christians. :raw:

By the way. There are some forms of Christianity that says the even if you do claim the Blood there is no guarantee of Heaven, just the hope of Heaven.

There is even a Denomination that implies that the Blood is not enough! You have to go to another place (Purgatory) to "burn off" sins that the Blood has not reached! Then you can go to Heaven. Purgatory is not Hell, it is "suburb" of Hell (or of Heaven, depending on your view!)

Well, they (homosexuals) can do as they wish, debate all they want and convince themselves as much as they want.

But to them I say this........

When it is your day of judgment, and you stand before god, try to debate with him, and see how far that goes......
Keep in mind that it is too late by then, and your mere 30-60 years of bodily pleasure will be nothing to an eternity of HELL........ :hot:

Hey Islander thanks for your concern but here is some food for thought.
The Creator created everything. Everything serves the Creator’s purpose, even those of us that you see as different.

I would like for you to do a little project you can do it right here on the Internet. Look up persecution of left handed people. Then please let me know why did Christians murder men women and children for being left-handed. Why did they call them workers of the devil? Why did they teach being left handed was a sin?

Also why did they condemn the thought and the people behind it to death for saying the world was round. Oh sorry the Bible says the 4 corners of the world and everyone knows a sphere can’t have corners. There the earth bring round is a myth.

Have a nice day on our flat world.

Yes, Rory, that is what it means! However, there is an "out." There is always an "out" in religions. There would be no point to them if there was not.

A Christian claims the Blood of Christ to wash away sins,
or his (the believes) good works and the Blood of Christ,
or the believes good works, the blessings of the Church and the Blood of Christ.
There is no total agreement here among Christians. :raw:

By the way. There are some forms of Christianity that says the even if you do claim the Blood there is no guarantee of Heaven, just the hope of Heaven.

There is even a Denomination that implies that the Blood is not enough! You have to go to another place (Purgatory) to "burn off" sins that the Blood has not reached! Then you can go to Heaven. Purgatory is not Hell, it is "suburb" of Hell (or of Heaven, depending on your view!)

I see that you have been studying "Religion" CG.
I can tell you right now that there is No Church or Denomination that is completely right. The Bible says that there is "None Righteous" no "Not one"!
The only truth that we have the Word of God and what ever comes from the Word of God.

If you want to know the "out" to sin then read the Bible for yourself and come to a conclusion on it. Why do you quote the views of others?
What does the Bible say CG?

I see that you have been studying "Religion" CG.
I can tell you right now that there is No Church or Denomination that is completely right. The Bible says that there is "None Righteous" no "Not one"!
The only truth that we have the Word of God and what ever comes from the Word of God.

If you want to know the "out" to sin then read the Bible for yourself and come to a conclusion on it. Why do you quote the views of others?
What does the Bible say CG?

You have two Bibles, Delroy, which one? The Protestant version or the Roman Catholic version? They differ in the number of "Books" each contain. I have a copy of each on my book shelf. (As you say, I have been studying religion. I used to teach it too.) Which Bible should I read to find the truth?

If you are a Protestant, the answer lies in the Protestant Bible. If you are Catholic, it lies in the Catholic Bible. The truth is, there is no definitive answer. The answer lies in what "works" for you, what seems to you to be the most logical answer, and after coming to a conclusion all the believer can say is, "this is what I believe. This is what works for me." But is it the "Truth?" You will never know! (Until the end!) That's called faith!

Rory asked a question. I provided an answer. Yes, there was a way to avoid the price of sin - but no one is quite sure what form it takes - it's all faith again! Nothing wrong with that!

The answer lies in what "works" for you, what seems to you to be the most logical answer, and after coming to a conclusion all the believer can say is, "this is what I believe. This is what works for me." But is it the "Truth?" You will never know! (Until the end!) That's called faith!

This is what works for me CG.
God is not a fool and no "mans" version of the Bible can remove the Spirit of discernment and Truth from the heart of a believer. Whether it be the Protestant version, Roman Catholic, NIV, NAS or NKGV it doesn't matter. The Spirit inside of many believers was there before they even knew the Bible existed or the contents of it. It is the Spirit of God that reveals whether what we are reading is truth or not. This is beyond text written in a book CG.

Tell me what has your spirit revealed to you?

This is what works for me CG.
God is not a fool and no "mans" version of the Bible can remove the Spirit of discernment and Truth from the heart of a believer. Whether it be the Protestant version, Roman Catholic, NIV, NAS or NKGV it doesn't matter. The Spirit inside of many believers was there before they even knew the Bible existed or the contents of it. It is the Spirit of God that reveals whether what we are reading is truth or not. This is beyond text written in a book CG.

Tell me what has your spirit revealed to you?

Not for the first time, I see that you have an understanding of the Christian faith that is not the norm. (By the way, I mean that as a compliment.) Too many people's understanding is set in stone. They only "think" what their denomination tells them to think. They believe only what they are told to believe. They leave no room for the Spirit to move. You seem to leave room for the Spirit to speak - maybe even for the Spirit to change? Maybe even to speak in a new voice?

You asked what my spirit has revealed to me. By spirit, what do you mean? Buddhist don't generally believe in a spirit, be it with a small "s" or a capital "S." What do you mean by spirit, with a small "s?" Let me know I am willing to answer.

Hi Delroy it was nice to put a face to the name yesterday. But what a joker you are to tell me you knew who I was because of the Holy Spirit. You asked Helen if Vicky was out there and she said yes. From that you knew exactly who I was. As there were only 4 in that group of us that was out there. 1 was Helen 1 was a male who looked like a male 1 was a 20 something female and 1 was me.
When I wanted to ask you more you just left what happened?

I just figured it out while typing this. You did not want me to find out your holy spirit was Helen. The web of deception does not become you Delroy you should have just said I asked Helen. As lies and deception were the name of the game at that protest yesterday

Hi Delroy it was nice to put a face to the name yesterday. But what a joker you are to tell me you knew who I was because of the Holy Spirit. You asked Helen if Vicky was out there and she said yes. From that you knew exactly who I was. As there were only 4 in that group of us that was out there. 1 was Helen 1 was a male who looked like a male 1 was a 20 something female and 1 was me.
When I wanted to ask you more you just left what happened?

I just figured it out while typing this. You did not want me to find out your holy spirit was Helen. The web of deception does not become you Delroy you should have just said I asked Helen. As lies and deception were the name of the game at that protest yesterday

You got me wrong Vicky.
I knew who you were before I asked your friend "Calypso" (or is it Helen now) if you were out there as a gesture because I knew it was you before I asked her.

I left because my purpose was across the street.

Not for the first time, I see that you have an understanding of the Christian faith that is not the norm. (By the way, I mean that as a compliment.) Too many people's understanding is set in stone. They only "think" what their denomination tells them to think. They believe only what they are told to believe. They leave no room for the Spirit to move. You seem to leave room for the Spirit to speak - maybe even for the Spirit to change? Maybe even to speak in a new voice?

You asked what my spirit has revealed to me. By spirit, what do you mean? Buddhist don't generally believe in a spirit, be it with a small "s" or a capital "S." What do you mean by spirit, with a small "s?" Let me know I am willing to answer.

The capital "S" is to identify the Spirit of God and the small "s" is for any other spirit.

The spirit inside of a man as I have come to know it is that thing which proceeds thought. The best way that you can identify the spirit of a man is by what he speaks. This is because the spirit proceeds thoughts and thoughts proceeds actions. So it is very easy for you to tell me what your spirit revealed to you because all you have to do is tell me what's on your mind.

The web of deception does not become you Delroy you should have just said I asked Helen. As lies and deception were the name of the game at that protest yesterday

By the way...she never answered my question.
I guess I looked a little intimidating.