What Does The Bible Say About False Accusers And #BelieveWomen?
-
So as far as you're concerned since the Bible is written in a different time that bearing false witness against innocent people is now cool?
can u read dude?
can u read dude?
That was some classic typical Steve
"While I think it is wrong to assume all accusers are right and for the defendant to be guilty until proven innocent, I don't think the Bible is the best reason for this"
"You think the Bible doesn't count?!??? You must think all women should be assumed to be right all of the time then!!??"
"...."
Ja.brill Peppers - Cleveland Brown OldBrownsFan, on 02 Jun 2017 - 5:09PM said: "No you are not the work of the devil but you are deceived by the devil." Who's got it better than us? Nooooobody! -
Wait... Christianity is taking credit for laws?
Oh man, have fun with this Cleve
The Bible and the Constitution
The United States Constitution is one of the most brilliant documents ever written. But then why wouldn’t it be, the very core of it comes straight from the Bible. The men that authored our Constitution were not perfect men, but they knew where to find perfection. Our Founding Fathers were men who knew and studied scripture. Their lives were wrapped in God’s Word; it was the chief source of their education. They relied on the Bible and philosopher’s whose own works and commentaries also relied on Holy Scripture. Scripture is what all laws are to be based upon. In Romans 13:3-4; “For rulers hold not terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God’s servant to do you good.” Governments’ duty is to be God’s minister to the people.
https://www.theamericanview.com/the-bible-and-the-constitution/
-
can u read dude?
That was some classic typical Steve
"While I think it is wrong to assume all accusers are right and for the defendant to be guilty until proven innocent, I don't think the Bible is the best reason for this"
"You think the Bible doesn't count?!??? You must think all women should be assumed to be right all of the time then!!??"
"...."
That was some classic typical Steve
"While I think it is wrong to assume all accusers are right and for the defendant to be guilty until proven innocent, I don't think the Bible is the best reason for this"
"You think the Bible doesn't count?!??? You must think all women should be assumed to be right all of the time then!!??"
"...."
I was making the point that due process and presumption of innocence were foundational to our justice system and their roots are biblical and cleve said the bible wasn't the best reason for this but the bible is the reason for this and the concept dates back to Moses. The facts are the facts...Cleve may not like them but it doesn't change them.
-
That was some classic typical Steve
"While I think it is wrong to assume all accusers are right and for the defendant to be guilty until proven innocent, I don't think the Bible is the best reason for this"
"You think the Bible doesn't count?!??? You must think all women should be assumed to be right all of the time then!!??"
"...."
I was making the point that due process and presumption of innocence were foundational to our justice system and their roots are biblical and cleve said the bible wasn't the best reason for this but the bible is the reason for this and the concept dates back to Moses. The facts are the facts...Cleve may not like them but it doesn't change them.
I was making the point that due process and presumption of innocence were foundational to our justice system and their roots are biblical and cleve said the bible wasn't the best reason for this but the bible is the reason for this and the concept dates back to Moses. The facts are the facts...Cleve may not like them but it doesn't change them.
have you ever, in ur entire life, read "anything" about what was going on in Europe during the middle ages? Both men and women would be sent before the inquisition on mere whispers. THAT, and ONLY THAT....was the reason why the founding fathers put into the constitution what they did. The people back then wanted NO FUKKING PART of the old theocracies. It was suffocating horsesht. Did you know that early settlements had a serious enough problem retaining settlers that Benjamin Franklin had to write back about it? They built fortifications to keep the settlers in...that's something we never learned. But the letter written by Franklin back to England is proof positive. People "FLOCKED" to the native Americans. Women especially since the natives they encountered there on the east coast treated women entirely different. But the running narrative about natives always focuse's on the violent tribes like the apache that all the other tribes had issues with.
Point is, the bible is not the founding basis of our constitution no matter how much you want to believe it....otherwise, the church would have run sht from the beginning. Period, end of discussion. There's nothing more for you to say. Your bullsht doesn't trump historical "facts".
-
I was making the point that due process and presumption of innocence were foundational to our justice system and their roots are biblical and cleve said the bible wasn't the best reason for this but the bible is the reason for this and the concept dates back to Moses. The facts are the facts...Cleve may not like them but it doesn't change them.
have you ever, in ur entire life, read "anything" about what was going on in Europe during the middle ages? Both men and women would be sent before the inquisition on mere whispers. THAT, and ONLY THAT....was the reason why the founding fathers put into the constitution what they did. The people back then wanted NO FUKKING PART of the old theocracies. It was suffocating horsesht. Did you know that early settlements had a serious enough problem retaining settlers that Benjamin Franklin had to write back about it? They built fortifications to keep the settlers in...that's something we never learned. But the letter written by Franklin back to England is proof positive. People "FLOCKED" to the native Americans. Women especially since the natives they encountered there on the east coast treated women entirely different. But the running narrative about natives always focuse's on the violent tribes like the apache that all the other tribes had issues with.
Point is, the bible is not the founding basis of our constitution no matter how much you want to believe it....otherwise, the church would have run sht from the beginning. Period, end of discussion. There's nothing more for you to say. Your bullsht doesn't trump historical "facts".
have you ever, in ur entire life, read "anything" about what was going on in Europe during the middle ages? Both men and women would be sent before the inquisition on mere whispers. THAT, and ONLY THAT....was the reason why the founding fathers put into the constitution what they did. The people back then wanted NO FUKKING PART of the old theocracies. It was suffocating horsesht. Did you know that early settlements had a serious enough problem retaining settlers that Benjamin Franklin had to write back about it? They built fortifications to keep the settlers in...that's something we never learned. But the letter written by Franklin back to England is proof positive. People "FLOCKED" to the native Americans. Women especially since the natives they encountered there on the east coast treated women entirely different. But the running narrative about natives always focuse's on the violent tribes like the apache that all the other tribes had issues with.
Point is, the bible is not the founding basis of our constitution no matter how much you want to believe it....otherwise, the church would have run sht from the beginning. Period, end of discussion. There's nothing more for you to say. Your bullsht doesn't trump historical "facts".
What you want to believe or I want to believe is irrelevant. What are the facts. The facts back up what I am saying. You can deny it like some can deny the tide doesn't rise....but that doesn't stop the tide from rising does it? Don't mistake what I am saying. I don't believe the founders set up a Christian nation. They set up a nation where people of all faiths or no faith can live. I am speaking of the biblical influences of the founders that found it's way into their writings.
-
The United States Constitution is one of the most brilliant documents ever written. But then why wouldn’t it be, the very core of it comes straight from the Bible. The men that authored our Constitution were not perfect men, but they knew where to find perfection
Oh geeeezzzz
-
have you ever, in ur entire life, read "anything" about what was going on in Europe during the middle ages? Both men and women would be sent before the inquisition on mere whispers. THAT, and ONLY THAT....was the reason why the founding fathers put into the constitution what they did. The people back then wanted NO FUKKING PART of the old theocracies. It was suffocating horsesht. Did you know that early settlements had a serious enough problem retaining settlers that Benjamin Franklin had to write back about it? They built fortifications to keep the settlers in...that's something we never learned. But the letter written by Franklin back to England is proof positive. People "FLOCKED" to the native Americans. Women especially since the natives they encountered there on the east coast treated women entirely different. But the running narrative about natives always focuse's on the violent tribes like the apache that all the other tribes had issues with.
Point is, the bible is not the founding basis of our constitution no matter how much you want to believe it....otherwise, the church would have run sht from the beginning. Period, end of discussion. There's nothing more for you to say. Your bullsht doesn't trump historical "facts".
What you want to believe or I want to believe is irrelevant. What are the facts. The facts back up what I am saying. You can deny it like some can deny the tide doesn't rise....but that doesn't stop the tide from rising does it? Don't mistake what I am saying. I don't believe the founders set up a Christian nation. They set up a nation where people of all faiths or no faith can live. I am speaking of the biblical influences of the founders that found it's way into their writings.
I don't believe the founders set up a Christian nation. They set up a nation where people of all faiths or no faith can live. I am speaking of the biblical influences of the founders that found it's way into their writings.
so you realize that entails all of those people, have to make accomodations for each other. That goes for Atheists too. There's things that people of religion get to enjoy, like tax exemptions for ex. But at the same time there's things people of religion have to understand they're not going to get. Abortion, prime example. You Christians can ex communicate people found to have abortions from your flocks. I, having zero interest in your religion...don't want to be legally bound by your faith on that issue. You all have the right to want to be exempt from behaviors that you don't condone based on your faiths, but you don't have the right to expect me or anyone that doesn't believe in sky wizard to abide by an article of your faith. Is that clear enough? And that right there is exactly what the founding fathers had in mind.
-
-
Free will is the foundation of Christianity. it is not something ever forced. It is a message that is preached where some respond and willingly accept the gospel message and want to become a Christian. People are free to reject it. The reason I am for making abortions illegal is because there is another life involved. It is not just a part of the mother like an arm or leg but a whole new human being. Science itself shows that to be true.
-
Whenever I see the religion guy referring to science to back up his points I have to have a little laugh
Ja.brill Peppers - Cleveland Brown OldBrownsFan, on 02 Jun 2017 - 5:09PM said: "No you are not the work of the devil but you are deceived by the devil." Who's got it better than us? Nooooobody! -
-
Whenever I see the religion guy referring to science to back up his points I have to have a little laugh
Whenever I see the religion guy referring to science to back up his points I have to have a little laugh
It kinda takes away the science denier argument you like to use.
-
Whenever I see the religion guy referring to science to back up his points I have to have a little laugh
It kinda takes away the science denier argument you like to use.
It kinda takes away the science denier argument you like to use.
Until you start heavily cherry picking what you like to use, and then incorrectly referencing what you do use...
-
It kinda takes away the science denier argument you like to use.
Until you start heavily cherry picking what you like to use, and then incorrectly referencing what you do use...
Until you start heavily cherry picking what you like to use, and then incorrectly referencing what you do use...
The science you use for arguing climate change is not even settled science. I don't believe it can be argued that a baby in the womb is not a unique separate individual human being. That is settled science.
-
here is science u cannot deny, when that baby is in the womb it is part of the mother. It isnt seperate, it could not live without the mother. If something goes awry with the pregnancy the mother very often suffers severe complications and in generations past....she most often died when complications arose.
end of debate on that front. Its part of HER body. End of discussion. Now, u are still free to be distasteful of abortion....im not the buggest fan of women who get reg abortions as a form of birth control. But they arent the norm.
The norm is women who are in the wrong place andvthe wrong time and have been left high and dry by a man. So they would gave to care almost exclusively fir the child which means working....something c9bservatives are ceaselessly contemptuous of.
u just cant win with Retarded conservatives that on the one hand bemoan female equality in the workplace, bemoan social netting etc,etc.....then effirtlessly hop on the pro life wagon as if women arent taking all those social and economic circumstances into their decision.
And listen, im not even bringing up circumstances of rape and incest. Ill be cery clear if the supreme court even thinks about hearing a case which would essentially sanction men passing their genes on by force. Im ALL for civil war. All for it. The U.S can dissolve. We're essentially then going back to europe in the dark ages, a place people git in rafts to cross a huge body of water to get away from.
-
here is science u cannot deny, when that baby is in the womb it is part of the mother. It isnt seperate, it could not live without the mother. If something goes awry with the pregnancy the mother very often suffers severe complications and in generations past....she most often died when complications arose.
end of debate on that front. Its part of HER body. End of discussion. Now, u are still free to be distasteful of abortion....im not the buggest fan of women who get reg abortions as a form of birth control. But they arent the norm.
The norm is women who are in the wrong place andvthe wrong time and have been left high and dry by a man. So they would gave to care almost exclusively fir the child which means working....something c9bservatives are ceaselessly contemptuous of.
u just cant win with Retarded conservatives that on the one hand bemoan female equality in the workplace, bemoan social netting etc,etc.....then effirtlessly hop on the pro life wagon as if women arent taking all those social and economic circumstances into their decision.
And listen, im not even bringing up circumstances of rape and incest. Ill be cery clear if the supreme court even thinks about hearing a case which would essentially sanction men passing their genes on by force. Im ALL for civil war. All for it. The U.S can dissolve. We're essentially then going back to europe in the dark ages, a place people git in rafts to cross a huge body of water to get away from.
here is science u cannot deny, when that baby is in the womb it is part of the mother. It isnt seperate, it could not live without the mother. If something goes awry with the pregnancy the mother very often suffers severe complications and in generations past....she most often died when complications arose.
end of debate on that front. Its part of HER body. End of discussion. Now, u are still free to be distasteful of abortion....im not the buggest fan of women who get reg abortions as a form of birth control. But they arent the norm.
The norm is women who are in the wrong place andvthe wrong time and have been left high and dry by a man. So they would gave to care almost exclusively fir the child which means working....something c9bservatives are ceaselessly contemptuous of.
u just cant win with Retarded conservatives that on the one hand bemoan female equality in the workplace, bemoan social netting etc,etc.....then effirtlessly hop on the pro life wagon as if women arent taking all those social and economic circumstances into their decision.
And listen, im not even bringing up circumstances of rape and incest. Ill be cery clear if the supreme court even thinks about hearing a case which would essentially sanction men passing their genes on by force. Im ALL for civil war. All for it. The U.S can dissolve. We're essentially then going back to europe in the dark ages, a place people git in rafts to cross a huge body of water to get away from.
And something you cannot ignore or hide is that pro choice is just a sanitized word for killing a baby in the womb. And that baby is a separate human being...period end of story. Saying the baby is dependent on the mother doesn't change that fact. Most abortions are done out of convenience..another unhappy fact.
-
All of this depends a lot of how you define things OBF. And I have a feeling your definitions don't match the norm for modern medicine.
I'd also argue "baby murder" is the sensationalized wording...
Ja.brill Peppers - Cleveland Brown OldBrownsFan, on 02 Jun 2017 - 5:09PM said: "No you are not the work of the devil but you are deceived by the devil." Who's got it better than us? Nooooobody! -
can u read dude?
That was some classic typical Steve
"While I think it is wrong to assume all accusers are right and for the defendant to be guilty until proven innocent, I don't think the Bible is the best reason for this"
"You think the Bible doesn't count?!??? You must think all women should be assumed to be right all of the time then!!??"
"...."
That was some classic typical Steve
"While I think it is wrong to assume all accusers are right and for the defendant to be guilty until proven innocent, I don't think the Bible is the best reason for this"
"You think the Bible doesn't count?!??? You must think all women should be assumed to be right all of the time then!!??"
"...."
Actually the two points that are specifically valid are that because you and Cleve are idiots you automatically stand against any guideline mentioned just because they might possibly be in the Bible. II point which is perfectly clear is that you and cleve are cnts of the first order.
?
WSS
www.westsidesteve.com www.myspace.com/westsidestevemusic www.cdbaby.com/artist/westsidestevesimmons -
All of this depends a lot of how you define things OBF. And I have a feeling your definitions don't match the norm for modern medicine.
I'd also argue "baby murder" is the sensationalized wording...
All of this depends a lot of how you define things OBF. And I have a feeling your definitions don't match the norm for modern medicine.
I'd also argue "baby murder" is the sensationalized wording...
Abortionists agree: abortion is killing
https://www.liveaction.org/news/abortionists-agree-abortion-is-killing/
-
That was some classic typical Steve
"While I think it is wrong to assume all accusers are right and for the defendant to be guilty until proven innocent, I don't think the Bible is the best reason for this"
"You think the Bible doesn't count?!??? You must think all women should be assumed to be right all of the time then!!??"
"...."
Actually the two points that are specifically valid are that because you and Cleve are idiots you automatically stand against any guideline mentioned just because they might possibly be in the Bible. II point which is perfectly clear is that you and cleve are cnts of the first order.
?
WSS
. II point which is perfectly clear is that you and cleve are cnts of the first order
just spell it with a K dhipshit
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login