Anabaptist Apologist

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)

The Meatless Kingdom | 3 Introduction In previous studies so far,[*] we’ve looked at Genesis, the book of beginnings, and considered well-known passages that many use to support animal sacrifice and meat eating. It's my belief that this particular study may be the apex on which my conclusions turn, for we'll discover logical, rhetorical questions that render the ideas of animal sacrifice and meat consumption as later inventions of man, not God. It’s already been demonstrated that mainstream interpretations of the “animal skins” worn by Adam and Eve, the alleged ritual-blood sacrifice of Abel, and the apparent “concession” to Noah don’t actually support ritual-animal sacrifice or meat consumption; we’ve already stated that, even if God did give Noah a meat allowance, it must’ve been temporary—and it was a concession; we should agree that concessions aren’t reflections of God’s perfect will. The assumption I'm seeking to disprove in this study is that the Manna and quail  wer