America sure does have it share of hate crimes. It strats with hating the truth. Just today, I heard a tour guide at a museum encourage kids to continue the American Revolution because there is inequality (financial, medical, racism) in our land. Truth was slain. These babies in thjs story were hated, and now they are dead. All kinds of socialist dogma gets shattered all over this site, truth gets slain again. So in a way, Jim is right. And it does start with rhetoric...mostly from academics touting critical race theory and trying to jam it into choldren's and students' minds. Haters of the truth. Haters of babies. Haters of their neighbors. And haters of the God who created and sustains them.
Isn't Jim Bakker peddling Apocolypse survivalist supplies now that he actually read a Bible in jail? This is likely one of those supplies specially designed to protect buyers from the plagues and woes, etc. Or whatever nonsense he wants to spin.
Jim Lincoln wrote: Yes, Carl, America has its share of guilt. excerpt from, "Explaining the numbers behind the rise in reported hate crimes" It probably would be even better if the Indiana attorney general did pay more attention to the living, while they are still aliveâť—
No matter how many times you hear it, there's no such thing as hate crime. How a bad guy feels or what he is thinking while committing a crime cannot be known. At best, hate crime is a more self-justifying way of saying thought crime.
Cross your fingers of both hands behind your back with your eyes closed while jumping over a doormat that has cornmeal or grits sprinkled underneath it. You will start to recover in 3 and a half minutes. Fully cured after five minutes. We actually formulated it like that so people could do it at home on their lunch break. Guaranteed or your money back. Cures all diseases: HIV, TB, Pneumonia, Malaria, West Nile, cancer, coronavirus, heart failure, any virus cold flu and sore toe. One size fits all.
Joel wrote: The Reformers killed the Baptists for their baptisticness. Thereâ€™s different kinds of history books.
You're talking of Anabaptists; I'm not one of those. English Baptists came in Particular (Calvinist) and General (Arminian) flavors, but both were persecuted (not so much murdered) because they were Dissenters, repudiating Tudor/Stuart Anglican "via media" worship. Presbys and Congregationalists were also hassled. Hence, the Mayflower people.
This is more or less standard English history. Too bad it doesn't make Baptists look as singular or heroic as we'd like, but I don't respect sectarian history unless it's backed up with credible scholarship.
Oops, someone just cracked open the can of Waldenses! They are generally misunderstood hated by Catholics and Protesters alike, old and new. â€śReformedâ€ť and â€śBaptistâ€ť were not two words that went well together even during the time of the Reformation. The Reformers killed the Baptists for their baptisticness. Thereâ€™s different kinds of history books.
Dr. Tim wrote: The Waldenses baptized by immersion prior to the Reformation. â€śEquivocationâ€ť is a fine word when used correctly, which in your post, Neil, it was not. The nearest equivalent idiomatic expression would be â€śbeating around the bush.â€ť I have a ton of faults, but beating around the bush generally isnâ€™t one of them.
Equivocation: "The use of expressions susceptible of a double signification, with a purpose to mislead." Maybe you don't intend it, but that's the effect.
And Immersion (mode) isn't my point; Credobaptism (subject) is. Even E. Orthodox baptize by immersion. I would like to see documentary evidence of Waldensian Credobaptism from sources not having an ax to grind (namely, Baptists). And even if you're right, it only proves it dates back to the 12th Century at the earliest (i.e. Peter Waldo's lifetime).
Pretty shaky to split a denomination over, which is what Landmarkists did to Southern Baptists back in the 1850s. As if there wasn't enough division already.
The Waldenses baptized by immersion prior to the Reformation. â€śEquivocationâ€ť is a fine word when used correctly, which in your post, Neil, it was not. The nearest equivalent idiomatic expression would be â€śbeating around the bush.â€ť I have a ton of faults, but beating around the bush generally isnâ€™t one of them.
PolitiFact wrote: .... Finally, there is also some truth to Klobucharâ€™s statement about the adverse effects of negative rhetoric. After studying the pattern and seasonality in the FBI data, the Center for the Study of Hate & Extremism found that "hate crimes have increased in every presidential election year since national FBI recordkeeping began in the early 1990s." In 2016, the spike also corresponded with the election month of November. Levin said that hate crimes fluctuate more than usual around "catalytic, emotionally-charged events, terrorist attacks, and conflictual elections." "Weâ€™ve seen that hate crimes have increased not only around all elections, but Brexit as well in the UK. Thatâ€™s a lesson for all of us to maybe tone down the rhetoric," Levin said.
excerpt from, "Explaining the numbers behind the rise in reported hate crimes"
It probably would be even better if the Indiana attorney general did pay more attention to the living, while they are still aliveâť—
The names of those pastors polled should be fully disclosed to the consuming public. And its noteworthy that those pastors who are the most "educated" are the ones who are most accepting of same-sex marriage. Which proves Paul assertion that "Professing to be wise, they became fools."