Beware the sly attempt to of this article to make Baptists into protestants.
This article only covers one small aspect of Baptists, not the entire history, and there are some Baptists which are/were Protestants. That doesn't change the rest of the history of Baptists before or after.
Other than speculations from the liberal media there is no evidence the prosecutor has before or during this case been biased for or against anyone. To say that someone who has certain life experiences is incapable of being objective or carrying out their duties faithfully would mean nearly everyone would have to be removed from their post.
One of the reasons the prosecutor cited for sending this case before a Grand Jury was to place the evidence in the hands of twelve jurors to determine if there was any probable crime committed by the officer rather than him making the determination on his own (as he can do as the prosecutor).
Why are we not trusting the 12 jurors made the right decision after reviewing evidence, asking questions, even questioning the officer, for three months? Why is their ruling in this case the only one being complained about? No one is complaining about their ruling on any of the other cases they have determined over their term as a Grand Jury.
What did the officer do that was illegal? What did the officer do that wasn't in the line of duty and in a manner he would have employed with anyone else in a similar situation?
An over six foot man weighing about 300 pounds physically attacked the much smaller officer after he was told he needed to stop blocking traffic in the street. Afterwards this large man refused lawful orders to halt and put his hands up. Instead the large man turned and charged the officer at which point the officer fired his gun in self-defense.
Other than deciding to neglect his police duties and not confront the large man for blocking traffic what was the officer supposed to do other than what he did? What should have been a simple exchange:
Officer: "You can't walk in the street blocking traffic, move it to the sidewalk."
Offender: "Yes, sir." (followed by him actually going to the sidewalk)
Instead the large man walking in the street CHOSE to be rebellious, CHOSE to mouth off to the officer, CHOSE to assault the officer through the window of his vehicle, CHOSE to try and take the officers gun, CHOSE to refuse to halt and put his hands up, CHOSE to make an attack charge at the officer, CHOSE the risk of being shot and killed.
This large man was a part of a criminal street gang. There are pictures of him flashing their gang signs online, which is something these gangs won't tolerate anyone but their members doing. He had a history of being a bully and criminal. He had marijuana in his system at the time of the incident. Immediately prior to the incident he robbed, assaulted and threatened store clerk. He CHOSE to live that lifestyle which everyone knows leads to violence, prison and possible death.
NASHVILLE (BP) -- If not for a Baptist church split, the Pilgrims might never have come to America.
John Smyth, who often is credited with being the first Baptist, pastored a church where many of the Christians who later came to be known as Pilgrims were members. But when Smyth began to argue with the future Pilgrims over church government, they formed another church under the leadership of John Robinson. In 1620, a portion of Robinson's congregation sailed to Plymouth, Mass., aboard the Mayflower.
Following the split, Smyth became convinced that the Bible teaches believer's baptism and launched the Baptist movement.
"Most people don't realize how closely the Pilgrims and the first Baptists were related. John Smyth and [Plymouth Colony governor] William Bradford knew each other, and in fact Smyth pastored the church where many of the Pilgrims were members before they left England for Holland and then sailed to America," Jason Duesing, provost at Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, told Baptist Press in written comments. "The world of English Separatism was very intertwined. Those that became Baptists were a formative part of the story that led to the first Thanksgiving."
Smyth and the Pilgrims both emerged from a movement in England known as Separatism.
In the late 1500s and early 1600s, the Church of England, which was controlled by the British monarch, was Protestant in its doctrine but largely followed Catholic worship practice. A group of Christians known as Puritans objected to Catholic rituals and thought worship should only include elements taught in the Bible. Many Puritans tried to reform the Church of England without leaving its membership, but some radical Puritans separated from the state church altogether and formed what historians call Separatist congregations.
Being a Separatist could be trying. Many were imprisoned and some were even executed for their beliefs.
A forthcoming Baptist history textbook from B&H Academic titled "The Baptist Story" explains, "In an effort to curb the growth of Separatists, a law was passed in April 1593 requiring everyone over the age of 16 to attend the church of their local parish, which comprised all who lived within a certain geographic boundary."
Failure to obey the law "for an entire month meant imprisonment," B&H authors Anthony Chute, Nathan Finn and Michael Haykin wrote. "If, three months following an individual's release from prison, he or she still refused to conform, the person was to be given a choice of exile or death. In other words, the established church and the state were hoping to be rid of the Separatist problem by sending those who were recalcitrant into exile."
Faced with the choice of exile or death, most Separatists opted for exile, including about 40 who ended up in Amsterdam with their pastor, Francis Johnson.
In 1608 a second Separatist church traveled to Amsterdam pastored by Smyth. At first the two congregations fellowshipped with each other. Their pastors had known each other since Johnson served as one of Smyth's tutors at the University of Cambridge, according to The Baptist Story.
But conflict emerged when Smyth took issue with the Johnson congregation's distinction between pastors, teachers and ruling elders among its leadership. Smyth believed Scripture combined the three positions into one office, the pastor/elder, and he said every church should have multiple elders or pastors. This and other differences led to a break of fellowship between the two churches.
The doctrinal conflict also contributed to a split in the church led by Smyth -- though historians disagree about whether the church split occurred in England or the Netherlands.
John Robinson led a faction of about 100 members from the Smyth church who eventually relocated to the city of Leiden and became known as Pilgrims, famously moving to America and landing on Plymouth Rock in 1620. Smyth soon came to believe that only followers of Jesus should be baptized and administered baptism to himself and his congregation by pouring. Later Thomas Helwys assumed leadership of the congregation, which some regard as the first English Baptist church, when Smyth sought to join a Mennonite church in the Netherlands.
Years later, when Bradford recounted the Pilgrims' journey to America as well as their celebration of the first Thanksgiving in 1621, he noted their interaction with the Baptists.
Among the members of an early Separatist church, Bradford wrote in "Of Plymouth Plantation," was "Mr. John Smyth, a man of able gifts and a good preacher, who afterwards was chosen their pastor. But these afterwards falling into some errors in the Low Countries" -- a reference to the congregation's adoption of Baptist views in the Netherlands -- "there (for the most part) buried themselves and their names."
Despite the Pilgrims' unfavorable view of Baptists, Duesing said they should be remembered with thankfulness this Thanksgiving.
"This congregation of 'pilgrims' had already endured the arduous journey of leaving England due to ... persecution from the established church, yet, a section of them desired still to travel further," Duesing said. "Life in Holland was difficult for English expatriates, and for some a prosperous future both for the church and in terms of economic and social survival, seemed dim. The Mayflower group determined to leave ... for New England, then, in part to continue to have the freedom to establish their church separate from the state, but also to do so in an environment that gave more potential for long-term survival. The idea of America seemed worth another arduous and costly journey for these reasons."
As Bradford wrote, the Pilgrims also hoped to be a part of "propagating and advancing the Gospel of the Kingdom of Christ in those remote parts of the world."
In another connection to Baptists, many of the Pilgrims' descendants -- the New England Congregationalists -- became Baptists during the First Great Awakening of the 1730s and 40s.
All Christians, including Baptists, should study the Pilgrims, Duesing said, because they were "a heroic group who sought a better life for their children and grandchildren centered around a church faithful to the New Testament and positioned for seeking the advance of the Gospel."
I would have a better chance of believing all that if all the witnesses, including Wilson would have been cross examined. The problem with this whole proceeding is the man doing the prosecuting in this case has had a father and other members of his family on the very same police force as Wilson and the prosecutor really had no insentive to find the truth in the matter. Too many axes to grind. As I said earlier, I really don't know what is the truth in this case.
From the sound of it they did a very good job examining the witnesses. Several of the witnesses admitted, when they were finally before the Grand Jury, that their testimony was either a lie or they had simply repeated what they had heard elsewhere.
All of these were "cross examined" so to speak since in the Grand Jury system each member of the Grand Jury can ask questions of those on the stand.
The threshold for finding probable cause to refer a case to trial is very low in a Grand Jury and after three months going over this case the Grand Jury determined there wasn't probable cause to even think the lowest considered charge had any merit.
From all the evidence available it seems clear this young man robbed a store, pushed the store clerk/owner around, threatened him, went out walking in the street disrupting traffic by refusing to move for cars, then when confronted by the officer and told to get out of the street, this young man decided to not only ignore the officer but to attack him through the car window. After a struggle the assailant then started to walk off until the officer ordered him to stop at which point he turned and charged the officer from a close distance. Several eyewitnesses testimonies present this as what happened and the autopsy results and the officers testimony agree.
Which brings up another point, the police officer volunteered to give testimony to the Grand Jury and subject himself to any question they had. That's very unusual that the subject of a Grand Jury investigation would agree to such let alone volunteer. Most refuse since they aren't allowed to have a lawyer with them.
I don't see any wrongdoing or cover-up in this particular case.
You guys are correct that the militarization of the police and the increasing control of the police by the federal government has been a real problem and it's only getting worse.
In the Ferguson case I don't think this was a factor as it seems clear the officer asked the perp to stop walking in the middle of the street and the perp mouthed off, refused to leave the street and then proceeded to assault the officer. At some point the perp tried to get the officers gun and was shot in his hand. The perp began to leave and the officer ordered him to halt. The perp charged the officer, as one eyewitness described it "as if he were a football player going for a tackle". Armed or not, a 6' 4", 300 pound man charging at a much smaller man is a serious threat, especially when they have already shown total disregard for the law and a willingness to cause harm or worse. The officer shooting the man seems justified in this situation.
That said, in many other situations around the country I believe the police are trained to quickly go to drastic, violent, even life-threatening actions are too quickly. They are also trained to take an "us vs. them" attitude and approach, along with a manner of superiority. These actions tend to inflame situations rather than calming them.
It's interesting to watch how the police in some other countries deal with criminals and suspects in a much more rational, calm and measured approach than do most American police. I'll often be watching such and think of what would have happened to that suspect had he been dealing with American police...and it wouldn't have been good for them!
I can believe they quote those in your list. I believe they think those in the list were or are intelligent human beings. But does that equate to being thankful?
Leftists only use the writings or sayings of the people mentioned to excuse their actions, to justify themselves.
Thankful? No, not really. Being thankful requires the ability to think beyond oneself . . . . the ability to believe that people can do something for someone else without it benefitting themselves . . . . selflessness.
Indeed, rabid Leftists are opportunists willing to use the ideas or work of anyone that might advance their own personal agenda. They may be glad others have done some of the work for them but I doubt they are actually thankful.
Those Mike listed are certainly in the Leftist "Hall of Fame" and they look to such as celebrities and useful tools or causes to meet their agenda but rabid Leftists are too narcissistic to be truly thankful toward others.
Those calling the shots among the black "protestors" had already announced they were going to "protest" no matter the outcome. Yet a chief of police down there stated that he didn't forsee anything like last night happening. Well, considering virtually everyone else did, if he didn't then he needs to be replaced.
Considering all the evidence the Grand Jury had access to, which we now have, it seems this is a pretty clear case. The fact black agitators don't care about the evidence or facts is nothing new. To them, that's a "white thing" and used to "keep the black man down".
I think I read a report recently of a Muslim prayer day at the US National Cathedral.
Yes, and from what I've read only one Christian, a woman, was brave enough to get in the midst of this and start praying in Jesus name and then openly calling out those who allowed the desecration of a Christian church by allowing Muslim prayers.
In the West it's all about entertainment, over-indulgence, self. Few in the West pursue excellence and we have so many now that are uneducated and indoctrinated from the public school systems that they can't understand what's going on around them and most don't care.
Recall that America used to have strict standards regarding who could vote but today virtually anyone can vote. This gives us millions of public school uneducated voters who base their lives on emotions casting votes for who will lead them. Is it any wonder we have the leaders we do? The dominate Parties in America have rigged and control the election system so they can be sure only their compliant members will be available to "choose" from come election time.
America elected a community organizer with no real-work or real-life relevant experience to be president, not once, but twice. Does anyone really have to wonder whether Putin is smarter than Obama? Putin has decades of real experience, has a grasp of history, and actually cares about his nation. Meanwhile Obama...well, he likes to play golf, hang out with the rich and famous and collect donations.
Many people think America is not mentioned in the scriptures: irregardless, what if people
in America aren't mentioned, because they don't see things happening, atleast not immediately, and just aren't involved with the 'end times'?
I find that possible. Not probable, but my imagination could conceive the notion. Lazy America, and maybe blind to what is really going on.
A new movie idea!!
(on a lighter point, I guess...)
All those constantly trying to fit America into Scripture, and specifically the end-times, seem to cause more harm than good.
What about Brazil, India, Japan, Korea (or many others)? These are significant nations, some with ever growing economic, military and cultural influence. Why aren't these "prophecy preachers" trying to fit them into the Revelation?