For those who assume supporting a Trump presidency over a Biden one means being a MAGA Trumper....

[Bray123]

But Church history is part of history. You can't have the American Revolution without its religious elements. In fact, you don't even have the colonies without those factors. You don't have people being brought out of the dark ages unless you have a Protestant Reformation. The first book ever printed on a press was a Bible. The first words spoken over a phone line were "What hath God wrought?". You don't have the dark ages without Catholicism. It's all intermingled.

This is what we're up against, poor education. The first words spoken on a telephone are quite famous and easily Googled.

The first telephone conversation in history was made in Boston, the U.S. between the inventor Alexander Graham Bell and his assistant Thomas Watson on March 10, 1876. "Mr. Watson, come here, I want to see you," said Bell into his experimental telephone to Watson who was in another room but out of earshot.

 

[InThe312]

Here's where it gets thorny. The Catholics, and later the Protestants wrote the history books. They were living in the comfortable places of being in power and able to write them. Meantime the anabaptists were on the run being hunted for their lives. Their histories were written occasionally, but scattered, sometimes lost, and did not have the comfort of editors. You acknowledge this problem when it comes to, say, the native American peoples. Why is it so hard to imagine with others.

I don't know if you can find the books online in a digital format or not, but the two best resources I have found are Trail of Blood and Foxe's Book of Martyrs. There are also some decent books, paper copy, from Rod and Staff Publishing, a Mennonite press.

James Carroll was not a scholar of christianity or the bible, he was a minister. Shall we accept that Joseph Smith's own musings are the truth of god? He was a self proclaimed educator of their religious view. Much of Carroll's opinion is discredited by actual scholars. He has zero knowledge that other scholars would not have access to since he lived in the 19th century.

Foxe really just talks about the origins of the church of England and catholic persecution. He certainly doesn't stake a claim to the "one true church" baptist BS. I would agree he says that protestants and their ilk are christianer than the catholics, but stops short of direct lineage to the 1st century church. And by the way, his martyrs that he chronicled (along with the potentionally 100s of other authors that tacked onto the original manuscript) are the ones that died while working on behalf of the protestant church.

They were all part of the same split from the catholic church around the 16th century. As you so politely referred to the writers of the constitution as much wiser men than me, all legitimate scholars of christianity, who are certainly more knowledgeable and wiser than you, agree on the basic timeline of the church and it's various fractures.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1787890636869226742

 

[jomar]

Seemingly every legitimate scholar disagrees with you. But I guess that's par for your course.

I think my favorite part of your arguments is that I always find the exact website in the first few results of a basic Google search that you summarized as your own thoughts from all of your study.….

Yeah, I picture the guy in some vast Russian cubicle farm sitting in front on three or four screens, one for his designated target (Lit) and the rest for frantic research

 

[HisArpy]

Despite being the majority in Israel, the Jews there do not use that power to force the gentiles to practice Judaism.

Fundamentalist Christians in the United States want to force all Americans to follow their interpretation of the Bible.

The first is a failure to understanding what "dominating their society" means. If Jews are the ones in charge they are the dominant segment of Israeli society. That they don't force others to convert to or practice Judaism is irrelevant to who is dominant in that society. This dominance translates directly to majority rule in a democracy.

The second is a flat out lie based on propaganda and ill wishes.

 

[JaySecrets]

This is what we're up against, poor education. The first words spoken on a telephone are quite famous and easily Googled.

The first telephone conversation in history was made in Boston, the U.S. between the inventor Alexander Graham Bell and his assistant Thomas Watson on March 10, 1876. "Mr. Watson, come here, I want to see you," said Bell into his experimental telephone to Watson who was in another room but out of earshot.

Sorry.. the first Morose Code message sent... I apologize for misspeaking the detail, though the point remains.

 

[Sean Renaud]

The first is a failure to understanding what "dominating their society" means. If Jews are the ones in charge they are the dominant segment of Israeli society. That they don't force others to convert to or practice Judaism is irrelevant to who is dominant in that society. This dominance translates directly to majority rule in a democracy.

The second is a flat out lie based on propaganda and ill wishes.

Bruh we just watched abortion laws get trampled over the last few years. Every fucking year we have to hear people bitch about a war on Christmas as if you don't get two fucking weeks off for your holiday. We might label it winter break but GTFO. Just like we get a day of for Easter. We have a man who is selling Bibles. Its okay that you're winning and don't want an honest game but don't lie about it.

 

[JaySecrets]

James Carroll was not a scholar of christianity or the bible, he was a minister. Shall we accept that Joseph Smith's own musings are the truth of god? He was a self proclaimed educator of their religious view. Much of Carroll's opinion is discredited by actual scholars. He has zero knowledge that other scholars would not have access to since he lived in the 19th century.

"Discredited" by "scholars who begin with a Catholic view, or a Catholic influenced view of church history. That's the most untrustworthy source.

Foxe really just talks about the origins of the church of England and catholic persecution. He certainly doesn't stake a claim to the "one true church" baptist BS. I would agree he says that protestants and their ilk are christianer than the catholics, but stops short of direct lineage to the 1st century church. And by the way, his martyrs that he chronicled (along with the potentionally 100s of other authors that tacked onto the original manuscript) are the ones that died while working on behalf of the protestant church.

I've read the book. You are wrong.

They were all part of the same split from the catholic church around the 16th century. As you so politely referred to the writers of the constitution as much wiser men than me, all legitimate scholars of christianity, who are certainly more knowledgeable and wiser than you, agree on the basic timeline of the church and it's various fractures.

I refer to my first statement.

 

[Bn2f]

The first is a failure to understanding what "dominating their society" means. If Jews are the ones in charge they are the dominant segment of Israeli society. That they don't force others to convert to or practice Judaism is irrelevant to who is dominant in that society. This dominance translates directly to majority rule in a democracy.

The second is a flat out lie based on propaganda and ill wishes.

You continue to go out of your way to single out the righteous women here in hopes of somehow impressing them so they can fuck you. It’s not gonna happen. Even here, on a sex site, them knowing that you suffer from a bad back only takes that 0 percentage points into the negatives.

I still applaud your persistence.
A toast to HisAr!
May his supply of Rohypnol never run out.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Sorry.. the first Morose Code message sent... I apologize for misspeaking the detail, though the point remains.

It's Morse Code, named after James Morse, and the message was an expression of his exasperation sent to Alfred Vail. Kind of like we would say "Jesus Christ!!" today, meaning frustration, not praise of Jesus.

 

[JadeKnight]

This is my first time posting in the PB, but I have rather enjoyed reading the circular logic presented by a handful on here. The only reason I decided to post here is because the OP reminded me of how skewed and wrong their interpretation of the Bible they follow is. The whole claim of the bible following just one stance the entire way is untrue if the right parts are actually looked at and brought to the surface, not buried like most try to do. If the interpretations aren't done right, then there really isn't a reason to follow what's been given. I have studied the bible and found that fetuses aren't considered more than livestock.

Exodus 22-22-25 only states that a fine should be given to the owner of the woman should somebody injure a woman where the fetus is aborted or killed, but they should be executed if the woman is injured or killed. Leviticus 24:21 says the killing of livestock is only a fine, but killing a human is death. Fetus death = fine, Livestock death = fine thus fetus = Livestock.

Exodus 21: 22-25 gives directions of how a priest should perform the abortion of a fetus in a pregnant woman who had had sex with someone who wasn't her husband, while her husband was present. The authors considered some pregnancies illegitimate. Neither the author, priest, woman, paranoid husband, alleged paramour, Moses, nor God is recorded worrying about a fetus.

​

Deuteronomy 28:53 gives the command to eat children during the last desperate stages of some unforeseen enemy siege. Such a great show of being unequivocally pro-life.

I have searched the Bible, but I have not found any sorts of other punishments setdown or commanded for the condemnation of abortions. Jesus himself makes zero mentions of it anywhere. Yes, he continues to push 'Thy shall not kill' in his reduction of the Ten Commandments into his version of Six Commandments, but he also never states that any previous rules or laws that were followed before no longer have to be followed. If there is anything within the bible that shows fetuses are considered to be more than livestock or there is a true punishment for killing them beside a fine, please show me.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

This is my first time posting in the PB, but I have rather enjoyed reading the circular logic presented by a handful on here. The only reason I decided to post here is because the OP reminded me of how skewed and wrong their interpretation of the Bible they follow is. The whole claim of the bible following just one stance the entire way is untrue if the right parts are actually looked at and brought to the surface, not buried like most try to do. If the interpretations aren't done right, then there really isn't a reason to follow what's been given. I have studied the bible and found that fetuses aren't considered more than livestock.

Exodus 22-22-25 only states that a fine should be given to the owner of the woman should somebody injure a woman where the fetus is aborted or killed, but they should be executed if the woman is injured or killed. Leviticus 24:21 says the killing of livestock is only a fine, but killing a human is death. Fetus death = fine, Livestock death = fine thus fetus = Livestock.

Exodus 21: 22-25 gives directions of how a priest should perform the abortion of a fetus in a pregnant woman who had had sex with someone who wasn't her husband, while her husband was present. The authors considered some pregnancies illegitimate. Neither the author, priest, woman, paranoid husband, alleged paramour, Moses, nor God is recorded worrying about a fetus.

​

Deuteronomy 28:53 gives the command to eat children during the last desperate stages of some unforeseen enemy siege. Such a great show of being unequivocally pro-life.

I have searched the Bible, but I have not found any sorts of other punishments setdown or commanded for the condemnation of abortions. Jesus himself makes zero mentions of it anywhere. Yes, he continues to push 'Thy shall not kill' in his reduction of the Ten Commandments into his version of Six Commandments, but he also never states that any previous rules or laws that were followed before no longer have to be followed. If there is anything within the bible that shows fetuses are considered to be more than livestock or there is a true punishment for killing them beside a fine, please show me.

Welcome, be warned you need a thick skin here. Very well written first post to.

 

[JadeKnight]

No worries, I think I've pretty much identified the ones to look out for. The crazies and stubborn ones pretty much have the neon signs plastered for all to see.

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

This is my first time posting in the PB, but I have rather enjoyed reading the circular logic presented by a handful on here. The only reason I decided to post here is because the OP reminded me of how skewed and wrong their interpretation of the Bible they follow is. The whole claim of the bible following just one stance the entire way is untrue if the right parts are actually looked at and brought to the surface, not buried like most try to do. If the interpretations aren't done right, then there really isn't a reason to follow what's been given. I have studied the bible and found that fetuses aren't considered more than livestock.

Exodus 22-22-25 only states that a fine should be given to the owner of the woman should somebody injure a woman where the fetus is aborted or killed, but they should be executed if the woman is injured or killed. Leviticus 24:21 says the killing of livestock is only a fine, but killing a human is death. Fetus death = fine, Livestock death = fine thus fetus = Livestock.

Exodus 21: 22-25 gives directions of how a priest should perform the abortion of a fetus in a pregnant woman who had had sex with someone who wasn't her husband, while her husband was present. The authors considered some pregnancies illegitimate. Neither the author, priest, woman, paranoid husband, alleged paramour, Moses, nor God is recorded worrying about a fetus.

​

Deuteronomy 28:53 gives the command to eat children during the last desperate stages of some unforeseen enemy siege. Such a great show of being unequivocally pro-life.

I have searched the Bible, but I have not found any sorts of other punishments setdown or commanded for the condemnation of abortions. Jesus himself makes zero mentions of it anywhere. Yes, he continues to push 'Thy shall not kill' in his reduction of the Ten Commandments into his version of Six Commandments, but he also never states that any previous rules or laws that were followed before no longer have to be followed. If there is anything within the bible that shows fetuses are considered to be more than livestock or there is a true punishment for killing them beside a fine, please show me.

 

[InThe312]

"Discredited" by "scholars who begin with a Catholic view, or a Catholic influenced view of church history. That's the most untrustworthy source.



I've read the book. You are wrong.


I refer to my first statement.

 

[JaySecrets]

It's Morse Code, named after James Morse, and the message was an expression of his exasperation sent to Alfred Vail. Kind of like we would say "Jesus Christ!!" today, meaning frustration, not praise of Jesus.

Yeah... "What God hath wrought" SO translates that way. You really are unwilling to acknowledge God's role or man's worship of Him in ANYTHING in history! Willfully ignorant definitely applies.

 

[JaySecrets]

This is my first time posting in the PB, but I have rather enjoyed reading the circular logic presented by a handful on here. The only reason I decided to post here is because the OP reminded me of how skewed and wrong their interpretation of the Bible they follow is. The whole claim of the bible following just one stance the entire way is untrue if the right parts are actually looked at and brought to the surface, not buried like most try to do. If the interpretations aren't done right, then there really isn't a reason to follow what's been given. I have studied the bible and found that fetuses aren't considered more than livestock.

Exodus 22-22-25 only states that a fine should be given to the owner of the woman should somebody injure a woman where the fetus is aborted or killed, but they should be executed if the woman is injured or killed. Leviticus 24:21 says the killing of livestock is only a fine, but killing a human is death. Fetus death = fine, Livestock death = fine thus fetus = Livestock.

Exodus 21: 22-25 gives directions of how a priest should perform the abortion of a fetus in a pregnant woman who had had sex with someone who wasn't her husband, while her husband was present. The authors considered some pregnancies illegitimate. Neither the author, priest, woman, paranoid husband, alleged paramour, Moses, nor God is recorded worrying about a fetus.

​

Deuteronomy 28:53 gives the command to eat children during the last desperate stages of some unforeseen enemy siege. Such a great show of being unequivocally pro-life.

I have searched the Bible, but I have not found any sorts of other punishments setdown or commanded for the condemnation of abortions. Jesus himself makes zero mentions of it anywhere. Yes, he continues to push 'Thy shall not kill' in his reduction of the Ten Commandments into his version of Six Commandments, but he also never states that any previous rules or laws that were followed before no longer have to be followed. If there is anything within the bible that shows fetuses are considered to be more than livestock or there is a true punishment for killing them beside a fine, please show me.

Actually work for a living, and so don't have the time at the moment to answer this post with the attention it deserves. I am copying the post, saving on my docs, and going to actually go to the text, in context, and give a full answer. Be prepared that, since you went here, the answer will be extensive. But it will be answered. Suffice it to say that the short answer is that you are removing context as a matter of convenience to misuse Scripture to justify what Scripture clearly condemns. But there will be a more thorough response.

 

[Bn2f]

…there will be a more thorough response.

No worries, I think I've pretty much identified the ones to look out for. The crazies and stubborn ones pretty much have the neon signs plastered for all to see.

JK I am pretty certain it wasn’t your intention but you just made JS cream in his Quaker knickers.

Also, anyone listening to a Christian who supports trump is listening to a person who disregards the values of their lord and savior Jesus Christ.

 

[JadeKnight]

Oh, I'm just curious about the context since I pulled straight from scripture for the source. It could be considered cherry picking like most Christians like to do, but there really is nothing more to pull from either before or after what I pulled. Those were the rules by themselves as written. I neither added or took away from those passages as written.

 

[Bn2f]

Oh, I'm just curious about the context since I pulled straight from scripture for the source. It could be considered cherry picking like most Christians like to do, but there really is nothing more to pull from either before or after what I pulled. Those were the rules by themselves as written. I neither added or took away from those passages as written.

Make sure to be seated in something comfortable and allot a good portion of your day because the reply you get will be epic.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Yeah... "What God hath wrought" SO translates that way. You really are unwilling to acknowledge God's role or man's worship of Him in ANYTHING in history! Willfully ignorant definitely applies.

You can't even spell the guys name correctly, you attributed his transmission to someone else, and don't understand why he chose to send that as his first coded message.

You don't think for a minute that maybe some newspaper of the day asked him about why he chose those words? Instead you think the mention of god automatically backs up your assertion? But hey when someone who can spell his name, and knows what his first message sent was, and the why's of him choosing those words, is obviously wrong, since it doesn't agree with your preconceived thoughts on it.

Then again, science based thinking requires examination of the facts, but theological based thinking only requires faith.

 

[wizzard426]

Oh, I'm just curious about the context since I pulled straight from scripture for the source. It could be considered cherry picking like most Christians like to do, but there really is nothing more to pull from either before or after what I pulled. Those were the rules by themselves as written. I neither added or took away from those passages as written.

So.......God doesn't like cucks or queers......both hallmarks of communism!

 

[JaySecrets]

You can't even spell the guys name correctly, you attributed his transmission to someone else, and don't understand why he chose to send that as his first coded message.

You don't think for a minute that maybe some newspaper of the day asked him about why he chose those words? Instead you think the mention of god automatically backs up your assertion? But hey when someone who can spell his name, and knows what his first message sent was, and the why's of him choosing those words, is obviously wrong, since it doesn't agree with your preconceived thoughts on it.

Then again, science based thinking requires examination of the facts, but theological based thinking only requires faith.

Yeah... Because I suck at spelling sometimes (Shakespeare was horrible at spelling and spelled his own name a few different ways) and spaced for a second on the technology development involved, I now don't know how words work. If you doubt my understanding of the language, I invite you to go to my poetry posts and threads -I have a few audio recordings of other of my works as well in an audio thread -, so long as you can respect the purpose of those threads and not try and bring a political debate over into them, and judge for yourself how skilled I am or am not with the language and how words work.

I am supposed to just accept your counterintuitive explanation of very simple, plain, obvious words because you are good at spelling? Now that's a bit of a stretch, don't you think?

 

[ll74]

I am supposed to just accept your counterintuitive explanation of very simple, plain, obvious words because you are good at spelling? Now that's a bit of a stretch, don't you think?

You have openly admitted that the definitions of words are flexible and are, at times, to be ignored in favor of what you wish them to be.

 

[JaySecrets]

@JadeKnight
“You shall not wrong a sojourner or oppress him, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt. You shall not mistreat any widow or fatherless child. If you do mistreat them, and they cry out to me, I will surely hear their cry, and my wrath will burn, and I will kill you with the sword, and your wives shall become widows and your children fatherless.
If you lend money to any of my people with you who is poor, you shall not be like a moneylender to him, and you shall not exact interest from him. If ever you take your neighbor’s cloak in pledge, you shall return it to him before the sun goes down, for that is his only covering, and it is his cloak for his body; in what else shall he sleep? And if he cries to me, I will hear, for I am compassionate.
You shall not revile God, nor curse a ruler of your people.
You shall not delay to offer from the fullness of your harvest and from the outflow of your presses. The firstborn of your sons you shall give to me. You shall do the same with your oxen and with your sheep: seven days it shall be with its mother; on the eighth day you shall give it to me.
You shall be consecrated to me. Therefore you shall not eat any flesh that is torn by beasts in the field; you shall throw it to the dogs.

That is Exodus 22:21-30. Please point out where it says what you claim it does. Pretty sure you are getting references wrong.

The passage is Exodus 21. And here is what it says:

When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

Did you catch that? If the baby is not hurt, there is just a fine. If the baby is hurt, it’s eye for eye, hand for hand, foot for foot, life for life. The preborn baby’s life is given the same value as every human life. Hmmm. Does the theme continue? Lets find out.

Whoever takes a human life shall surely be put to death. Whoever takes an animal’s life shall make it good, life for life. If anyone injures his neighbor, as he has done it shall be done to him, fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; whatever injury he has given a person shall be given to him. Whoever kills an animal shall make it good, and whoever kills a person shall be put to death.

Sure sounds like Leviticus isn’t saying what you claim it does in relation to Exodus 21. In fact it’s reenforcing the value of every human life. Including the pre-born.

As pointed out earlier, you did not put a legitimate reference for the claim that the Bible gives abortion instructions to the priest, so I will search surrounding chapters for you… I can’t find a reference for what you claim anywhere. SO unless you can provide one for me to look up….