I Pledge Allegiance to Home, Country, or God?

Editor's Note: The only changes that've been made are those necessary to follow our formatting style. We do not endorse Xavier's idea that believers today don't have to follow Torah. At Anabaptist Apologist, we understand that the Old, as well as the New, Testament have interpolations. We believe certain violent passages and "commands" may have been inserted. God's heart as always been for non-violence as that's clearly expressed by Messiah (Jesus). We believe that whatever doesn't agree with Jesus' own words are to be ignored because Jesus claims to have taught all that the Father commanded him and has revealed the perfect intent and will of God. Essentially, he preached the True Torah and restored the True Torah. You'll notice Xavier adds a "Disclaimer" at the end of the article, saying, "Please note that I am not speaking about every government job, such as in the tax office." We're unclear why this is being said.

The Meatless Kingdom | 4

The Meatless Kingdom | 4 In our last study,[1] we looked at what I called the "apex" of the issue, suggesting that the "manna and quail" event recorded in Scripture actually gives us a conclusion altogether different from the mainstream understanding, which is that God has sanctified animal killing for the purpose of eating meat. Indeed, we saw from Exodus and Numbers that God's "provision" of quail was in fact a curse, not a blessing. What this study will do is further support this claim by considering some archeological and historical information that will, once and for all, disparage animal sacrifice and meat eating. The information provided in this section anticipates the rebuttal, "God has ordained animal sacrifice and meat eating because he established the temple and priesthood in charge of animal sacrifices. Why would he do this if he didn't want us killing and eating animals?" The person giving such a rebuttal is sincere, though m

Slings and Stones

Slings and Stones Most of us are familiar with the adage "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me." In case we're uncertain of the meaning of this proverb, we find the following:  The proverb “sticks and stones may break my bones” means a fact that if you are attacked by someone, you will only go through physical pain. Eventually, you can be healed and the body becomes whole, but it will not affect your personality or bravery. On the contrary, the damage done by verbal abuse and hurtful words is always irreparable. The phrase is also used to encourage anyone to think of hurtful words as sticks and stones. [1] Indeed, the body can mend: bruises fade; bones reset; gashes scar over, etc. Words do make lasting imprints in our minds. But is it true that words have more of an effect than physical brutality? Our Rabbi told us not to fear what men can do to the body, but rather beware of the one who is able to destroy both body and soul (life entirely)