Evan Bedford responded toA Curse on the Betrayal of Canada:
Uh, but didn’t the curs get the majority of the votes in the election?
You see that Harper’s Conservatives won 143 seats. On the other hand, the 2 other national parties, the Liberals won 77 seats and the NDP 37 (Green 0), for a total of 114 seats, 29 seats less than the Conservatives. The Bloc Quebecois won 49 but the BQ is only for Quebec; not one BQ member was elected by Canadians for a united Canada. To allow them to tip the scale and say it is a legitimate coalition in Canada’s favor is like saying a bit of arsenic is fine in your food.
If you were representing the BQ or speaking for them, I would understand your logic, but if you presume to speak for the Green Party and Canadian people in general, who can question that you do them disservice with your lack of simple logic?
All I said was they got the majority of votes. That’s the system we live with. Harper shouldn’t have been playing with fire. He said after the election that he would try and cooperate with the other parties. But his beligerence got the better of him and he had to try and withdraw funding for the other parties. I suspect that that was the straw that broke the camel’s back. If the Conservatives have any brains, they’d boot him out and get someone like Jim Prentice in.
Evan, was it Harper’s alleged belligerence or others’ opportunism, as the words I spoke from God indicate?
Here is the mindset I am hearing from you and others who argue similarly:
If I do something you don’t agree with, I am being belligerent and selfish, but if you do something I don’t agree with, you are selfless and magnanimous.
It was probably a bit of both. It takes two to tango.
Let us allow, for the sake of argument, that Harper was belligerent. Belligerence does not connote wrongdoing. Only hypocrites and liars deny there is a place for aggressiveness in life.
The Republic of Georgia was labeled belligerent by Russia regarding the recent military actions that took place in that area. Any neutral observer could tell you, however, that while Georgia may have engaged in aggressive behavior (belligerence), Russia set them up for it and fully took advantage of the situation for their own selfish and lawless goal of dominating the region. The similarity with our present situation in Canada is in the plotting opportunism of the coalition.
Yes, it takes two to tango. God has set good and evil against one another, too. Am I saying Harper is all good? No. I am saying that God has put him in power, and evil connivers have sought to overthrow him. They are now, according to His Word, being exposed and cast to the four winds.
I guess that’s where we disagree. I was always taught that belligerence was wrong. It certainly isn’t helpful in a minority parliament. It certainly isn’t helpful most anywhere on this planet in the sorry mess we find ourselves in today.
What I meant was “one man’s garbage is another’s treasure.” What is belligerence to the opposition is not so to those in agreement.
Let us agree on two things:
One, it is, or can be, a matter of perception – “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.”
Two, in any case, hostility (real or perceived) for no good reason is not good.
And yes, you are so right; we are in a real mess, all over the world. And God has cursed both the mess and the makers of it. That is why that curse came forth; it was not of our initiation – believe it.
But we are not in a hopeless mess, as some would have us believe.
Finally, Jesus Christ comes to make all things right. He is the resurrection, and He makes a new Heavens and a new earth. All that is lost is lost, yes, but it can be, and will be, replaced with better. The Bible testimony, God’s Word and Promise, is very clear.
We are living in a very exciting age now; granted, it will not be easy, but it will be well worth it for those who believe.
This is the answer to your question, “WWJD” (What Would Jesus Do?).
Hostility is indeed the problem. Sometimes there is no choice, as in WWII. But most often, it’s cultural baggage that does more harm than good. I studied sustainability for several years at the graduate level and came to the conclusion that the root of all of our problems is the inability to dialogue. The sad spectacle that we see regularly in Question Period is simply the most visible manifestation of that.
I appreciate where you are coming from, Evan, but let me ask you a question: Can dialogue solve all problems?
If talking cannot solve everything, then it is not getting to the root of mankind’s problems. From my own experience, I know that dialogue cannot solve everything. But here is a wonderful truth I found out above that. There is a place for conflict, too. God is over all, working all things together for good. As it is written:
“To every thing there is a season, and a time for every purpose under the Heavens: a time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pull up what is planted; a time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up; a time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance; a time to throw away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing; a time to get, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to throw away; a time to tear, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak; a time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace” (Ecclesiastes 3:1-8 MKJV).
If and when you come to know the Prince of Peace, you will also come to know what He meant by this:
“Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth. I did not come to send peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a man’s foes shall be those of his own household” (Matthew 10:34-36 MKJV).
Ultimately, only our Savior Jesus Christ can give mankind that nature whereby we can dialogue, and not only dialogue, but agree, and even fellowship with one another, with fullness and joy.
Until then, God has subjected us to vanity:
“For the creation was not willingly subjected to vanity, but because of Him Who subjected it on hope that the creation itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. And we know that the whole creation groans and travails in pain together until now” (Romans 8:20-22 MKJV).
You can read more of our correspondences regarding the coalition matter at our Notice Board, if you like.
As I mentioned, sometimes dialogue is not the answer (as in WWII). However, in a democratic parliament like our country has, dialogue is the only answer. Rhetoric and hostility are totally counterproductive. That’s why we’re at the impasse where we find ourselves now.
There is a flaw in your reasoning. You propose war (WWII example) is the alternative to dialogue. But, you say, with good sense, open warfare is not an option in the Canadian Parliament. So, according to your thinking, there is no other alternative but to talk.
But why, if Hitler was wrong and needed to be opposed, in his case by military might, should those who are wrong in Parliament not be opposed also, in this case by words? Is that hostility to persons or to wrongness? Should men cave in to error?
Did not Churchill oppose many of his peers in the years leading up to WWII, when they were wrong and sticking their heads in the sand about the intentions of Hitler’s Germany? Churchill was refused and treated like a political pariah for his stance. What choice did he have but to maintain his case, which he knew to be right? History vindicated him, and he was there to help when all others failed. He was always there to help, but some, no doubt, viewed him as hostile and dismissed him when they could not hear his words. Dialogue could not reach them.
If imperfect man can bear long and prevail, how much more will Jesus Christ the Perfect win out in the end, being right in all He says to mankind who opposes Him? That is the conflict that needs to be resolved for mankind to prosper in peace – the one that men have with their Creator. It will be resolved because He is perfectly able to accomplish that for us. He raised Himself from the dead to do it. He has raised us from the dead to participate in the doing.
Part of the problem lies in the fact that most of our decision making organizations rely on rhetoric rather than dialogue. Dialogue is the act of coming to the table with the knowledge that you might learn something new and valuable from your opponents, and also that you may have more in common with your opponents than you might think. Churchill was perhaps the greatest statesman in the 20th century, but if the English parliamentarians had more of a culture of dialogue instilled in them, I’m sure he could’ve shown Chamberlain et al the light much sooner.
I would strongly urge you to google the term “deliberative democracy”. The 3rd entry by the University of Oregon, in particular, is quite good.
No doubt there are better ways to run a city or country than to have lobbyists determining most policies. I can see the wisdom of “Deliberative Democracy” from this perspective.
We are not, however, talking about fine-tuning or even over-hauling the present system of governance to replace it with something else dependent on human goodwill and wisdom, as “Deliberative Democracy” professes it does. From our perspective in Christ (Who is God come in the flesh), mankind is simply not up to the task, not remotely so. That is also the lesson of history, which has brought us to this present juncture where mankind is rapidly destroying himself and the world (as you well know).
If it were possible for mankind to lift himself by his bootstraps, God would not have sent His Son into this world to die for us. It is that simple. Apart from God, which we all are without Christ, we have no hope:
“LORD, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man who walks to direct his steps. LORD, correct me, but in measure: not in Your anger, lest You bring me to nothing” (Jeremiah 10:23-24 HNV).
We need not a new system of government, but a new heart through Jesus Christ, Who makes it possible to listen to and receive the wisdom from above that is corrective and brings peace. Of this wisdom it is written:
“Her ways are ways of pleasantness, and all her paths are peace. She is a tree of life to those who lay hold upon her; and happy is everyone who keeps her” (Proverbs 3:17-18 MKJV).
Isn’t that what you are hoping to see, after all? That is what we have, and that is what we are talking about. That is why we look to God as the Answer, and not man (read For Whom Do We Vote? and the follow up articles linked at the end).
And in case you think we are talking pie-in-the-sky with no earthly reality, take a look at what we are doing, on our other site: harvesthaven.com.
If you are ever in our vicinity, or would simply like to visit, let us know. We would be glad to meet you and visit in person, Evan.
I would also like to add one more thing. According to the definition you give for dialogue, that is something God has given us to have in essence and truth at thepathoftruth.com. Whenever we have something to say from Him, we have also found that we learn something from those with whom we come into contact (just like here). You can see more of this in our correspondences at The Issues of Life.
Click HERE to go back to the Notice Board.
A reader's response to "A Curse on the Betrayal of Canada": Reader's response: you are wrong. i dont agree. you have no right to pronounce judgment on a…
How is it that people can smoke themselves to death or drink their lives into oblivion, and the government makes some lame gestures at trying to say it’s bad for your health? But you dare mention “raw milk” and you have the health police on your door step and all your activities monitored!
Victor corresponds with Preston Manning, Member of Parliament and leader of the Reform Party, encouraging Mr. Manning to stand in the Lord before men by publicly acknowledging Him and giving Him His due. If we are not willing to do this in the Lord by declaring and standing in what is right and true, in everyday circumstances, what are our lives about, and what are they worth?