Bunny Trails

[Heirbyadoption]

I realize that may seem simplistic or even questionable to some, but we only make agreements upon practice and avoid adding or detracting from doctrine, as a fundamental agreement since our reorganization in 1708 has been that we take only the New Testament for our creed (unlike you High Church folk and many of our dear Menno cousins who have produced a veritable herd of Confessions and Statements of Faith over the centuries)...

I do not see this as simplistic at all. It is an expression of the coherence found within your group as well as brotherly accord. Do you use the Brethren Card at all?

I do not. It is certainly convenient for a quick reference, but I find it presents a very limited and specific box of beliefs and practices for people to relegate us to, and actually hinders our witness as people who take the whole New Testament as their creed.

[temporal1]

Now on Page 49 / Bunny Trails:

Question for you Catholics:
if the Pope spoke in favor of gay marriage, would you consider leaving your church?
Why or why not?

That seems more apropos given the latest out of The Vatican.

“Vatican breaks silence, explains Pope Francis' civil union comments“
https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out ... s-n1245803
Headlines are OFTEN misleading. This is NBC, so. consider bias here, too.
Still, there is more than sufficient written in this to describe the depth of manipulation, cherry-picking, “shoe-horning,” to reflect why “news” reporting cannot be trusted.

This is NOT the first time this kind of deliberate manipulation of the pope’s intent has been crafted then thrown out on the world stage as fact. Recognize patterns, recognize initiators.

As Max says about Catholicism, stick with formal sources.

i suppose i’m similar, in rejecting twitter and other chatter, i try to find formal statements, like SOTU, http://www.whitehouse.gov, etc. “Vile” is in Catholic hierarchy, as it is in gov politics.

“the people” do not need politicians in our everyday lives. gov is needed for basic structure!

not everyday comings+goings - not like the techy world has enabled!
it’s up to “the people” to accept or reject. unfortunately, “the people” have been GULPING DOWN “politics in everything” and begging for more. until that stops, there will be no improvement.
boot them OUT.

i’m not immune, i’m not a purist in rejecting news. but, really.
make the effort, or be dragged around like a piece of trash stuck on the bottom of one’s shoe.
[“you are ‘here’ “] ^^

reject 95% of what is “out-there,” question the remainder. sad, but true.
HK is leader in this. so appreciated.

.. like Jesus, hold onto faith in God, and pray.

[ohio jones]

It was very timely, the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, does that not open your eyes to why Trump was elected, & why the fight against him?
Did God, who took Ruth at such a time as this, not try to help us see His hand? At least, that He is hearing our prayers?

Is it possible that, having appointed three Supremes, his work is done? The chances of another one in the next four years aren't all that great.

In any case, praying for RBG's death doesn't seem very pro-life.

Who prayed for her death????
It was God's timing, doesnt mean we prayed for it. Big difference.
Bidens administration is supposed to "add seats" to the Supreme Court, so if his work was done and the left will follow through with their promise to pack the Supreme court, I'm not sure what difference it would have made then

Perhaps I misunderstood the content of the prayers; you may wish to clarify.

Court-packing, though perhaps widely rumored, stands no chance with a Republican majority in the Senate.

[Outsider]

When we fellowship with conservative Anabaptist's I really feel at home and connected with most all of them. I feel my heart is against divorce and remarriage but yet as what was said about culture and background my mind was struggling with this idea, and I wasn't sure if I could discredit the exception clause and wanted to read scripture right without omitting. Besides with my background being a backwoods hick where alcoholism, domestic violence, adultery and the such were not foreign. It seemed there were legitimate reasons for divorce and even possibly remarriage...

I can't speak to any other's point of view than my own, but I think it's pretty clear what Jesus says in Matthew 15:

8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

10 The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”

11 Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”

I think the permission to remarry after divorcing an adulterous spouse is explicitly stated in the above passage. If we remove the exception clause, "except for sexual immorality" from verse 9 we get: "I tell you anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery." If you divorce and remarry you commit adultery- except for sexual immorality. Seems simple to me.

Jesus addresses the notion of staying single when replying to his disciples' response "it is better not to marry.", with "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given."

I don't think the church should prohibit remarriage in cases of legitimate divorce, because I don't think it's Christ's teaching.- unless you think that Christ is condemning anyone who cannot be sexually abstinent for life. Which I do not believe to be true.

[temporal1]

Is it possible that, having appointed three Supremes, his work is done?
The chances of another one in the next four years aren't all that great.

In any case, praying for RBG's death doesn't seem very pro-life.

Who prayed for her death????
It was God's timing, doesnt mean we prayed for it. Big difference.
Bidens administration is supposed to "add seats" to the Supreme Court, so if his work was done and the left will follow through with their promise to pack the Supreme court, I'm not sure what difference it would have made then

Perhaps I misunderstood the content of the prayers; you may wish to clarify.

Court-packing, though perhaps widely rumored, stands no chance with a Republican majority in the Senate.

i hope Valerie will see this and reply.
i didn’t know what you meant, either, about praying for RBG’s death. it seemed un-oj-ish.

i’m aware, for years, many have been fervently praying for divine intervention, but not aware of prayers for divine destruction. this, as an overall prayer, not personal regarding RBG.

we know there were those praying, and more, for DJT’s death/demise, and continue.
presidents are special targets.

there were different possibilities for RBG, for example, conversion of spirit, or voluntarily stepping down.

she supported death for the unborn. other than crackpots, i don’t believe any prayed for her death. at any stage of her life.

- - - - -

Regarding a Republican majority Senate. i take nothing for granted.
During obama’s 8 long years, regardless of protests+fussing, when votes came in, what did Republicans deny him??

In my view, this is the work of career politicians. They remain. Deals are made, pressure is applied.

Dems are more organized+intolerant, less likely to “cross the aisle.” They take their assigned scripts and stick with them. They do, or they are out.

So it appears to me.

[Joy]

I can't speak to any other's point of view than my own, but I think it's pretty clear what Jesus says in Matthew 15:

8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

10 The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”

11 Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”

I think the permission to remarry after divorcing an adulterous spouse is explicitly stated in the above passage. If we remove the exception clause, "except for sexual immorality" from verse 9 we get: "I tell you anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery." If you divorce and remarry you commit adultery- except for sexual immorality. Seems simple to me.

Jesus addresses the notion of staying single when replying to his disciples' response "it is better not to marry.", with "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given."

I don't think the church should prohibit remarriage in cases of legitimate divorce, because I don't think it's Christ's teaching.- unless you think that Christ is condemning anyone who cannot be sexually abstinent for life. Which I do not believe to be true.

But Jesus didn't say that anyone who divorces his/her spouse, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery. It's "his wife," and "another woman." He doesn't treat the husband and wife alike in His rules of marriage, and that is His right, obviously. I think it is dangerous to add to Scripture. Also note that He warns in Matt. 5:32, that whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery. No exception clause given for women.

I know some men who are abstinent for life, not by choice--they are behind bars for life, but following Christ. And I've known several women who were dumped by ungodly husbands, but they will not remarry someone else because of what Jesus said. How can we say that people can't be abstinent for life if they are placed by their own choices or by other's bad decisions, into categories that Scripture denies them remarriage? Whatever God commands, we can obey.

[Outsider]

But Jesus didn't say that anyone who divorces his/her spouse, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery. It's "his wife," and "another woman." He doesn't treat the husband and wife alike in His rules of marriage, and that is His right, obviously. I think it is dangerous to add to Scripture. Also note that He warns in Matt. 5:32, that whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery. No exception clause given for women.

You may be right.

But many things are addressed to people in general as "men". When someone says "men" or "mankind" or even "a man" it is sometimes certainly referring to both sexes ("mankind"), and I would say as often as not in the case of "men" or "a man".

For example:

“If a man strikes the eye of his male or female servant, and destroys it, he shall let him go free for the sake of his eye.

Would you assume that if a woman put out a servant's eye, she could keep the servant, despite the harm done? There's a whole lot of laws stated that way in the Torah.

And the passage says if he divorces one wife and marries another- what if he took a second wife without divorcing the first?
After all, the strict rule of monogamy only specifies Bishops and Deacons...

I know some men who are abstinent for life, not by choice--they are behind bars for life, but following Christ. And I've known several women who were dumped by ungodly husbands, but they will not remarry someone else because of what Jesus said. How can we say that people can't be abstinent for life if they are placed by their own choices or by other's bad decisions, into categories that Scripture denies them remarriage? Whatever God commands, we can obey.

Yes, "there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others", but I wasn't talking about eunuchs- forced or voluntary. But I wasn't talking about extreme situations. I was talking about people in everyday life, and with everyday associations with people of the opposite sex.

And why should a young divorcee be treated differently than a young widow by the church? I know Paul is talking about supporting people out of the church's funds, in context, but the content is applicable to the situation we're discussing.

Paul says in 1 Timothy 5: "11 But refuse the younger widows; for when they have begun to grow wanton against Christ, they desire to marry, 12 having condemnation because they have cast off their first [d]faith." - but it's no the remarriage that Paul is finding fault with because he then says: "4 Therefore I desire that the younger widows marry, bear children, manage the house, give no opportunity to the adversary to speak reproachfully."

Is adultery as "sin unto death"? And if it is, then is the offended party in the marriage alive, and the offending spouse dead in Christ? And then is he or she not then a widower/widow?

I really have no ax to grind here, because I don't feel firmly convinced that the spirit is with me in my leanings.

So what is the role of a divorced woman in a CM community?

[Outsider]

But Jesus didn't say that anyone who divorces his/her spouse, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery. It's "his wife," and "another woman." He doesn't treat the husband and wife alike in His rules of marriage, and that is His right, obviously. I think it is dangerous to add to Scripture. Also note that He warns in Matt. 5:32, that whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery. No exception clause given for women.

You may be right.

But many things are addressed to people in general as "men". When someone says "men" or "mankind" or even "a man" it is sometimes certainly referring to both sexes ("mankind"), and I would say as often as not in the case of "men" or "a man".

For example:

“If a man strikes the eye of his male or female servant, and destroys it, he shall let him go free for the sake of his eye.

Would you assume that if a woman put out a servant's eye, she could keep the servant, despite the harm done? There's a whole lot of laws stated that way in the Torah.

And the passage says if he divorces one wife and marries another- what if he took a second wife without divorcing the first?
After all, the strict rule of monogamy only specifies Bishops and Deacons...

I know some men who are abstinent for life, not by choice--they are behind bars for life, but following Christ. And I've known several women who were dumped by ungodly husbands, but they will not remarry someone else because of what Jesus said. How can we say that people can't be abstinent for life if they are placed by their own choices or by other's bad decisions, into categories that Scripture denies them remarriage? Whatever God commands, we can obey.

Yes, "there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others", but I wasn't talking about eunuchs- forced or voluntary. I wasn't talking about extreme situations. I was talking about people in everyday life, and with everyday associations with people of the opposite sex.

And why should a young divorcee be treated differently than a young widow by the church? I know Paul is talking about supporting people out of the church's funds, in context, but the content is applicable to the situation we're discussing.

Paul says in 1 Timothy 5: "11 But refuse the younger widows; for when they have begun to grow wanton against Christ, they desire to marry, 12 having condemnation because they have cast off their first [d]faith." - but it's no the remarriage that Paul is finding fault with because he then says: "4 Therefore I desire that the younger widows marry, bear children, manage the house, give no opportunity to the adversary to speak reproachfully."

Is adultery as "sin unto death"? And if it is, then is the offended party in the marriage alive, and the offending spouse dead in Christ? And then is he or she not then a widower/widow?

I really have no ax to grind here, because I don't feel firmly convinced that the spirit is with me in my leanings.

So what is the role of a divorced woman in a CM community?

[Joy]

But Jesus didn't say that anyone who divorces his/her spouse, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery. It's "his wife," and "another woman." He doesn't treat the husband and wife alike in His rules of marriage, and that is His right, obviously. I think it is dangerous to add to Scripture. Also note that He warns in Matt. 5:32, that whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery. No exception clause given for women.

You may be right.

But many things are addressed to people in general as "men". When someone says "men" or "mankind" or even "a man" it is sometimes certainly referring to both sexes ("mankind"), and I would say as often as not in the case of "men" or "a man".
Oh, of course. One has to examine the context, as well as other pertinent Scriptures on the issue. Which led me to my reluctant conclusion on the whole matter.

And the passage says if he divorces one wife and marries another- what if he took a second wife without divorcing the first?
After all, the strict rule of monogamy only specifies Bishops and Deacons...

That question is moot here, since bigamy is illegal in this country, and probably most countries. An extreme situation.

I know some men who are abstinent for life, not by choice--they are behind bars for life, but following Christ. And I've known several women who were dumped by ungodly husbands, but they will not remarry someone else because of what Jesus said. How can we say that people can't be abstinent for life if they are placed by their own choices or by other's bad decisions, into categories that Scripture denies them remarriage? Whatever God commands, we can obey.

Yes, "there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others", but I wasn't talking about eunuchs- forced or voluntary. But I wasn't talking about extreme situations. I was talking about people in everyday life, and with everyday associations with people of the opposite sex.
Well, with 2.3 million people behind bars in this country, it's not as extreme as one might think.

And why should a young divorcee be treated differently than a young widow by the church? I know Paul is talking about supporting people out of the church's funds, in context, but the content is applicable to the situation we're discussing.
The way churches treat divorcees is another question. Each individual case should be handled accordingly, to the extent of guilt or innocence in the broken marriage. My opinion. A widow, we assume, is not responsible for the death of her departed husband.

Is adultery as "sin unto death"? And if it is, then is the offended party in the marriage alive, and the offending spouse dead in Christ? And then is he or she not then a widower/widow?
Would you agree that there are different types of adultery? If the adultery of which Jesus spoke--lusting after a woman--were the same type as the physical act, then there would be a whole lot of stoned men, right?

I really have no ax to grind here, because I don't feel firmly convinced that the spirit is with me in my leanings.

[Judas Maccabeus]

IF, and I say IF, the claims of fraud are not true. If they are, then we really do not know if it is a close election or not. You keep going from the assumption that there was no fraud. I posit that there was fraud and a lot of it.

Just a few testimonies from the many given at the Michigan State Senate committee oversight hearing on election hearings today. I know that the outcome of the election will go to Joe Biden, but if you listened to the testimonies of the many people today at the Michigan hearings, it is obvious the election was fraught with fraud.


[video][/video]

[video][/video]

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/1 ... eled-video



https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/1 ... ate-lines/

The Amistad Project said that they have sworn declarations that state over 300,000 ballots are at issue in Arizona, 548,000 in Michigan, 204,000 in Georgia, and over 121,000 in Pennsylvania. They claim that their evidence reveals multi-state illegal efforts by USPS workers to influence the election in at least three of six swing states.

And why have they not given this slam dunk evidence to the DOJ? Because it simply does not exist. It is simply implausible that such a conspiracy could be carried without the Postal Inspection Service noticing it. Or maybe one assumes that 100% of workers in the postal service are for Biden, and willing to commit a felony, with cameras EVERYWHERE, without other workers reporting it, including ones who are likely for Trump? Tampering with the mail is a FELONY, for which one can go to jail. Or maybe one assumes that this could be pulled off without Republican election officials noticing it, in places where 50% of election officials are likely to be Republican. While the USPS has a Trump donor as its director?

You can believe in a flat earth too. It requires just as much dismissal of the evidence.

J.M.