Free Republic 1st Quarter Fundraising Target: $88,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $87,012
98%  
Woo hoo!! And now less than $1k to go!! Let's git 'er done!! Thank you all very much!!

Posts by Colofornian

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • The Unrepenting Repenter

    03/03/2015 11:30:14 PM PST · 8 of 11
    Colofornian to RnMomof7; All
    OK...the article looks good as I skimmed thru it...

    Til I came to this in #12:

    "The businessman learns to show concern for the needs of his clients, yet he batters his wife through neglect."

    Say What?

    So...supposedly...thru this guy's inactions he's describing, that therefore makes him a wife-beater? What?

    So by extension is every parent who may have gone thru a week or month of neglecting their kid(s) an abusive kid-beater for whatever time period that neglect occurred?

    Really? Why do good communicators...
    ...communicating in a publication built on...
    ...Christian communication...
    ...wind up being so poorly able to demonstrate simple common sense and get their phrasing down pat -- minus twisting like that of the above?

  • 11 Reasons the Authority of Christianity Is Centered on St. Peter and Rome

    03/03/2015 11:07:23 PM PST · 39 of 65
    Colofornian to JSDude1; NKP_Vet; All
    Actually it’s centered on Jesus, whether that is in Rome or your local church down the street or even in individual believers in private homes.

    (Yes...I could have sworn Jesus said...oh, yup...just confirmed in my Bible):

    18 Then Jesus came to them and said,

    "ALL AUTHORITY

    in heaven and on earth has been given to

    ME.

    19 THEREFORE

    go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.

    And surely I am with you ALWAYS, TO THE VERY END OF THE AGE.”

    (Jesus, Matthew 28:18-20)

    The going, the making disciples, the teaching, the baptizing...all dependent upon the "THEREFORE"...

    If Jesus doesn't have every iota of authority, there is NO "therefore"...!!!

    And Jesus made it clear that it wasn't a temporary "all authority" status by emphasizing how He's with His disciples "unto the end of the age."

    Those who try to usurp Christ's authority are indeed simply that: Usurpers who sabotage and undermine Christ's very authority!

    (And don't give us this "delegated" authority crap...Yes, Christ "authorizes" people...and yes, people who are "authorized" by Jesus indeed derive whatever sanction He provides directly from Him...but it's NOT a "delegation" as if He's not on the scene...He's still Lord of the Living on earth as well as in heaven)

  • Man Killed by LA Cops Was Bank Robber Using Fake Name: Authorities

    03/03/2015 10:56:09 PM PST · 9 of 20
    Colofornian to QT3.14
    ...a stolen French identity...

    (Well, perhaps the Left can rally under the umbrella, "We are Charlie wannabes??)

  • Bill Cosby Accuser in 2005 Reveals Details of Alleged Assault

    03/03/2015 1:55:46 PM PST · 17 of 53
    Colofornian to manc

    Where have u been in defending Clinton then on fr since fr began? His alleged rapes have been commented on thousands of fr posts...”not proven”...yet we haven’t seen you gone to bat for Clinton eh?

  • Bill Cosby Accuser in 2005 Reveals Details of Alleged Assault

    03/03/2015 1:51:02 PM PST · 15 of 53
    Colofornian to MeganC

    (No sympathy for any of his victims eh?) Clinton victims got plenty of FR sympathy...not so much Cosby’s

  • What magically delicious lucky charms have Pats used upon fumble-free footballs? [Ballghazi Vanity]

    02/27/2015 10:07:41 AM PST · 61 of 63
    Colofornian to edzo4
    You’ve obviously never played sports. In wrestling and boxing you weigh in before the fight what you weigh during the fight is not measured.

    Weigh ins for wrestling are often in a.m. hours for a p.m. meet...we're talking significant time delays...

    It was in the mid-50s for the 2 and 1/4 hrs between when the balls were checked off by Walt Anderson & game time...It was 51 degrees at game time. Your 135 minutes there doesn't even apply to what you were saying, given that you needed a 40-degree threshold.

    Boxing weigh-ins: Hours before...

    Doesn't matter...cause not an equivalent argument...

    (Doesn't reach your 40-degree threshold)

  • Rob Bell And The Progressive Emergent Church Embrace Sodomite Marriage

    02/27/2015 9:21:13 AM PST · 51 of 60
    Colofornian to daniel1212

    K, bro...

  • What magically delicious lucky charms have Pats used upon fumble-free footballs? [Ballghazi Vanity]

    02/27/2015 9:20:00 AM PST · 59 of 63
    Colofornian to edzo4
    ...few ticks

    (Hey, and while you're at it, the next time your fave Pat is called for either offensive or defensive pass interference, just turn to whoever you're watching the game with and say, "It was only a 'few ticks' early...that ref should have left that flag in his pocket.")

    Same with your Pat punt coverage...Hey, if they happen to hit the punt returner a tick or two before he actually touches the ball...so what? (Was only a tick or two)

  • What magically delicious lucky charms have Pats used upon fumble-free footballs? [Ballghazi Vanity]

    02/27/2015 8:41:17 AM PST · 58 of 63
    Colofornian to edzo4
    ...a 1 lb change is psi would occur in a difference of 40 degrees...

    Well, that sucks.

    You should have searched harder for somebody to say it would occur in a difference of something higher than that...

    'Twas 51 degrees at gametime...and the balls were discovered well before enough time on the clock to have gone by for that kind of temp drop [these games are 90 minutes per half ya know]

    Other balls were a tick under...

    (Oh, so last post you tried convincing us only ONE ball was under...no mention of these other 10 balls...and now on this post -- when your own sources are tossed in your face -- you finally concede this fact, eh?)

    Ya know, illegal contact by a defender is only a "tick" longer than what is legal...

    Many holds only become actual restraint because either the blocker or defender holds on to the opponent a few ticks longer...and it moves from just a bad blocking technique or bad defensive posture to an actual hold because once restraint kicks in, it's an actual hold...

    But, hey, your extended defense is that those Patriot holds were...
    ...only a few ticks over...
    ...those delay of game calls on the Patriots?
    ...(Just a few ticks over before Brady got the play off)
    ...Illegal contact?
    ...Just a tick longer on the receiver as he was going out for the pass...
    ...Illegal substitution flag?
    ...Naw, the guy in the game being replaced hung around "a few ticks" longer -- but it was only a "few ticks"

  • Rob Bell And The Progressive Emergent Church Embrace Sodomite Marriage

    02/27/2015 5:13:31 AM PST · 49 of 60
    Colofornian to liberalism is suicide; daniel1212; LeoMcNeil; All
    How can an infant believe?

    Let me ask you: How can an adult form Christ in himself?

    "19 My dear children, for whom I am again in the pains of childbirth until Christ is formed in you..." (apostle Paul, Gal. 4:19)

    Adults can't do Biblical requisites for salvation, either!

    You see, what WE can't do...God does...thru us:

    28 Then they asked him, “What must WE do to do the works God requires?” 29 Jesus answered, “The work OF GOD is this: to believe in the one he has sent.” (Jesus, John 6; see also Phil. 2:12-13)

    We can't historically participate with Christ's death either...that, too, is by mere nature beyond all adults...we can't be buried with Christ, either; also, beyond us if we rule out SUPERnature and only look at "nature"...yet, thru baptism, Paul says that's precisely what occurs! (See Romans 6:3-4; Gal. 3:26-27; col. 2:11-12)

    Infants can't believe (but ya know, I've seen a LOT of infants relationally TRUST their mommy's milk supply...and last I knew jesus said eternal life was relational...knowing...trusting...John 17:3)

    Also, I'm not sure we should always be discussing baptizing of infants academically...especially given that the Bible that I know talks of at least six people who lived with God from infancy:
    * David: "On you I have leaned from birth" (Ps. 71:6); "From my mother's womb you have been my God" (Ps. 22:10)
    * Timothy (2 Tim. 3:14-15; 1:5)
    * John the Baptist...
    * Samuel
    * Joseph
    * Isaac

    Finally all those people -- like Daniel1212 on this thread -- who said no scriptures are found that specifically say to baptize infants...ignore several Biblical & historical realities:

    1. Every supposed NON "infant baptist" verse of children in the bible also by extension applies to no verses in the Bible that says any aged child -- even teens -- to be baptized! (Yet suddenly people do about turn on this subject matter if they are talking about teens being baptized, or the unbiblical Mormon-like "age of accountability" -- also conspicuously absent from the Scriptures)

    So I guess since the baptism reductionists (those who reduce supernaturally being baptized to the mere man-made natural) claim nobody can presume anything about households, that all those household references to baptism must have been either completely childless...or at least presume that since no primary aged kids, no infants, no toddlers, no pre-teens, or not teens are SPECIFICALLY mentioned (see 1 Cor. 1:16; Acts 11:14: 16:15, 33; 18:8)

    2. With the exception of Tertullian, early church fathers (pre-the 'Rome' of roman catholicism) didn't write against the practice of infant baptism. The ONLY argument re: baptism then was whether itshould be done in the early days (first week post-birth), or a little later...see Council of Carthage, 253 or 254 AD -- just 133 years after John's death. (Council of Carthage: "We ought not hinder any person from Baptism and the grace of god, especially infants...those newly born) -- 66 bishops said ... just single-digit generations after Jesus' ascension...DON'T HINDER children from "coming unto" HIM (exactly as Jesus said...don't be an ostacle...a blockade...to little children coming to Him)

    Origen (185-254), WHOSE FATHER, GRANDFATHER & GREAT-GRANDFATHER were all Christians & who traveled widely & visited many of the churches founded by the apostles...referenced it as "apostolic tradition"...

    Cyprian (215-258) wrote about baptism being days after birth. hippolytus, Tertullian, Justin martyr, and Irenaus all wrote about infant baptism. 'Twas practiced everywhere in the early church with the possible exception of Eastern Syria. Hippolytus' order of service for baptism had wide circulation, was translated into various languages...

    Polycarp (69-155), a disciple alongside John, said at his martyrdom at age 86: "86 years have I searved him."

    Irenaus said that Jesus came to save all through him are bborn again to God...infants, children, boys, ouths, and old men...all stages covered.

  • Rob Bell And The Progressive Emergent Church Embrace Sodomite Marriage

    02/27/2015 4:34:36 AM PST · 48 of 60
    Colofornian to daniel1212; LeoMcNeil; All
    Baptism signifies being made by faith part of a spiritual nation only made up of believers, having passed from death to life, being crucified with Christ and raised to walk in newness of life. (Rm. 6)

    This is the second time you've referenced in this thread something similar (post #36: Baptism signifies being in the spiritual community...)

    There's several things I'm having trouble tracking with this line of thought in light of the actual passages we find early in Romans 6 & elsewhere:

    * 3 Or don’t you know that all of us who were
    ** were baptized into Christ Jesus
    ***were baptized
    ****into his death? 4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.

    Those issues include...

    #1

    This is the same issue I have to constantly deal with the Mormons, & it's troubling to think you're reflecting more Mormon theology here than Biblical theology: And that is the ** phrase in Rom 6:3 above: "baptized into Christ Jesus..."

    Do you know how many times on FR I've had to constantly tell Lds we are primarily baptized into Christ Jesus HIMSELF...and not simply into a church, a sect, a church body, a denomination, or an organization?

    Yes, I know Paul mentions being "baptized into one body" (1 Cor. 12:13)...
    ...but this "body" is more a "new ONE flesh" in very similar ways that a marriage is a "new ONE flesh"
    ...we're not so much baptized into one of XYZ spin-off denominations, but into a PERSON!
    ...I know we like to "spiritualize" things & talk as if this "body of Christ" is something primarily ethereal ...
    ...just like to tend to make marriage more about being a "couple" than how Jesus and Genesis describes it ("no longer two, but one (flesh)"...as if we don't know what the phrase "no longer" means...
    ...yet the PRIMARY NT emphasis is not to place the stress on how you've twice so far stressed being baptized into a "spiritual nation" -- a "spiritual community" -- because, frankly, to way too many evangelicals, baptism is merely a spiritual horizontal act initiated by men who are "choosing" to do so...

    Sorry, Daniel. Scriptures such as the above and Galatians 3:27 puts the proper focus in place -- that we are baptized into a PERSON! Jesus Christ Himself!

    ...for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. (Gal. 3:27; cf. Col. 2:11-12)

    The baptistries in Augustine's day were OUTSIDE the church buildings to remind people that one passed thru the waters of baptism into the church...vs. passing thru the church building waters as if we are dunked into some particular denomination.

    You know, I think I know a reason why some Evangelicals might want to play that down, and it has to do with the real truly HISTORICAL participation in the death, burial & resurrection of Jesus Christ...and we know no mere "symbolic" tokenness can accomplish something so powerful...just as we know that forgiveness of sins, cleansing of sins, justification, salvation, rescue from judgment, regeneration/new birth, adopted sonship, the Gift of the Holy Spirit, etc. are ALL power narratives of the ACTUAL divine transactions that take place...and guess what? ALL of these are linked directly to baptism in the NT...and I will return to that below in #3...

    #2

    You know when a Biblical writer repeats the exact same verbiage ... like when Isaiah does (Is. 41:13) about the "right hand"...or when Jesus starts off a key phrase with "verily, verily, I say unto you"...it means indeed "pay close attention":

    And Paul carefully arranges the tense twice in Romans 6:3: ...were baptized into"

    Why?

    Because man is 100% passive when it comes to baptism (yes, I know these baptism verses in the Bible militate versus your apparent unBiblical "choice" theology).

    See also:

    You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ..." (Gal. 3:26-27) [Not who "chose" baptism]

    You see, the very essence of baptism is NOT self-administration! The summon to be baptized -- like in acts 2:38 -- isn't grammatically focused on the word "let" ... but on "be baptized"...Let's not turn what is a clear passivity of reception into some man-generated activity!

    And why is to be baptized primarily a passive reception?

    a. Because being baptized INTO A PERSON is a profound spiritual DIVINE act...no ONE of us has that power, authority, etc:

    12 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, HE GAVE THE RIGHT to become children of God— 13 children born NOT of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God. (John 1:12-13)

    Did you catch that? Did YOU decide to be born? NO? Oh, but you decided to be REBORN? (Oh. Yeah, good thing Lazarus decided to "signify" his new life by all that power & energy he showed walking out of his grave & having his grave-clothes shed!)

    And yet John clearly says that rebirth isn't "of human decision"?

    Tell us Daniel...why do you ignore John's clear words from John 1:12-13?

    Well, all of this then is VERY CLOSELY tied into my third point...

    3

    That you keep using an extra word "signifies" that isn't to be found in all of these baptism verses (just like too many Evangelicals likewise attach the word "ordinance" to baptism -- even though that word isn't found attached to any of the baptism verses, either!)

    Paul doesn't say baptism is some mere "horizontal sign" that we wave before the world...as if we were mere placard-holders in what goes on in baptism...

    Paul cuts right to it...we were baptized into his death 4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death...

    This isn't just some flowery language drudged up. We HAVE been buried with Him...as we WERE baptized into His death...This is NOT anything that you or I can carry out!

    God did that. We've become a 100% grace-based full-beneficiary recipient & hence receive full benefits of all Christ did for us as a free gift (Col. 2:12-15; Titus 3:4-7; 1 Peter 3:21). And don't go stealing glory of powerful divine things that neither you, nor I, can do...

    Is to forgive sins something only God does? (That's what Jesus indicated) [The forgiveness of sins is repeatedly designated thru baptism -- either directly in so many words...like Acts 2:38...or as a washing away of sins (Acts 22:16), or as a cleansing (Eph. 5:26), or as in sprinkling the hearts clean from an evil conscience (Heb. 10:22).]

    This cleansing -- as these verses show -- is clearly God's work, God's activity -- and HE has chosen to link baptism to that process:

    But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. (1 Cor. 6:11)

    We "were washed"...we didn't do some self-lice removal and self-flea removal...

    Paul, also in Galatians 3, mentions how being "justified by faith" & becoming "sons of God" and being "baptized into Christ" are all interchangeable descriptions of Christian initiation. If baptism is merely some self-generated "inward act" done by mere men, what? Can we "justify" ourselves?

    5 he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit... (Titus 3:5) [see also 1 Peter 3:21]

    Can we save ourselves, or is it purely an act of God?

    Can we initiate adoption proceedings? Or is this an act of God that is linked to baptism? (Gal. 3:26)

    Are we self-rescuers from judgment? Or is this something only God can do, and He has chosen to link this thru baptism? (1 Peter 3:20-21)

    We are given a new nature. Is this something only God can do, and He has chosen to link this thru baptism? (See John 3:5 to go with Titus 3:5)

    ALL: If you want to know perhaps the #1 untold distinction of how various Christians treat baptism, it lies in this very question:

    Do you see to be baptized into Christ Jesus as an act of God, or as an act of man.

    Those who choose the latter will come up with Biblical words -- yet unassociated biblically with baptism...like ...
    ...ordinance
    ...tokenism
    ...symbolism
    ...signifies
    ...witness
    ...an "self-administered" "outward act" on man's part to "demonstrate" -- as if we were mere demonstrators...placard-holders -- what God has previously done in giving us faith...

    What these weasel words resist is that in the New Testament being baptized is more clearly id'd as an instrument of conversion -- not magical water...but as Ephesians 5:25-26 says:

    ...just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing her BY the washing with water through the word...

    The Acts' pattern is clear, whether its Pentecost, Paul's conversion, the Ethiopian eunuch, or the Samritans, or the Ephesian dozen in acts 10, or Cornelius, or the Philippian jailer and his family...the pattern is all uniform: baptism is part & parcel of the Gospel and people are power-deniers if they want to de-link baptism to the Holy Spirit as its direct Agent, or de-link baptism to New Life/Salvation, or de-link baptism to empowering of God's Word-in-action, or de-link baptism to forgiveness, or de-link baptism to justification, or de-link baptism from direct adoption into His family.

    Those are ALL vertical aspects with full divine authority, full divine power enacted...they are not simply "horizontal" signs .... placards we wave around to show what God did thru OTHER means...

    All of these divine actions are DIRECTLY linked to baptism!

  • Rob Bell And The Progressive Emergent Church Embrace Sodomite Marriage

    02/27/2015 2:39:57 AM PST · 46 of 60
    Colofornian to daniel1212; LeoMcNeil; All
    ...Baptizing your guiltless infant

    (Not sure, Daniel, why you reference infants as "guiltless" in a Biblical world that recognizes original sin passed down generation to generation)

    Even the Psalmist recognized infants were far from "guiltless" (see Psalm 51:5; 58:3) ...

    I've had to take Mormons to task on this matter quite often...and I'd hope you'd be one who wouldn't be siding with the Lds on this matter.

  • Rob Bell And The Progressive Emergent Church Embrace Sodomite Marriage

    02/27/2015 2:33:31 AM PST · 45 of 60
    Colofornian to daniel1212; LeoMcNeil; All
    ...instead it can give them a false confidence that they are already children of God.

    Daniel, please don't pretend that you are not aware that this doesn't run both ways.

    Your comment reflects how we could probably go to a fair # of Midwestern states and see baptized-as-infants living as if they were anything but baptized children of God.

    And then I would promptly escort you to many a small town in the South...where perhaps 95% to 100% (well...maybe less these days)...but 25 years ago 95 to 100%...of the townsfolk have "made decisions for Christ" -- many of them perhaps MULTIPLE "decisions for Christ"

    And then we could walk all around the bars or perhaps a strip joint on the edge of town that might also cater to truckers...and you'd see plenty of past "decision for Christ" men!

    Infant baptism is no special "false confidence" issue -- anymore than what some phrase somebody has mouthed at some point in the past.

    It goes both ways...and to somehow pretend it doesn't isn't very forthcoming on this subject.

  • Rob Bell And The Progressive Emergent Church Embrace Sodomite Marriage

    02/27/2015 2:20:51 AM PST · 44 of 60
    Colofornian to daniel1212; LeoMcNeil; All
    ...(infants and slaves had no choice)...the only examples we have of the morally cognizant condition of the baptized is that they were able to choose Christ...

    Sorry, my friend, but you may have to rethink your "choice" filter you run everything thru...'Cause it just "ain't" there in the basic Gospels/Scriptures:

    The Son's Witness to this:

    16 You did NOT choose me, but I chose you and appointed you so that you might go and bear fruit—fruit that will last—and so that whatever you ask in my name the Father will give you. (Jesus, John 15:16)

    The Father's Witness to this (thru the Son):

    "44 “NO ONE can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day." (John 6:44)

    The Spirit's Witness to this thru Paul:

    3 Therefore I want you to know that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, “Jesus be cursed,” and NO ONE one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” EXCEPT by the Holy Spirit. (1 Cor. 12:3)

    Before the downtown LA Church of the Open Door closed down in 1985, its pastors had been J. Vernon McGee (21 years) ensued by Michael Cocoris.

    Cocoris wrote in one of his books that he regretted preaching in effect "decision theology" -- essentially of making "choices" or "decisions" for Christ. It's actually quite bad theology. We can talk of "responses" to the Holy Spirit's promptings, but even as Cocoris & others have pointed out...the usually one NT passage cited for such "decision" theology is ripped out of context...

    It's the passage from Revelation, "behold I stand at the door and knock"...and talks of opening the door to Christ. What people forget or neglect to apply is that this passage was written to one of the seven CHURCHES in Revelation.

    (The other OT verse usually cited is Joshua's "choose this day whom you will serve" is likewise geared toward an "in-house" crowd...the 12 tribes...Joshua 24:1, 15)

    The early Reformers realized how necessary it was for Jesus Himself to choose us; for the Father to draw us; and for the Holy Spirit to rebirth us, illuminate our minds (1 Cor. 2:10-12) and call Christ Lord because of one simple reality:

    Spiritual death of human beings...

    "As for you, you were DEAD in your transgressions and sins...GOD, who is rich in mercy, 5 made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions... (Eph. 2:1, 4-5)

    This is why we read Christ's words in Luke 9 to "let the dead bury the dead." (IoW, let spiritually dead bury the physically dead)

    I'm sorry, my friend, but don't try to build any case on Lazarus resurrection in John 11 based upon either his...
    ...choice to walk out of the grave cave...
    ...or his "moral cognizance"...

    You need to go back to basics re...
    ...the need to give GOD in Christ & God the Holy Spirit 100% credit & glory for New Life...
    ...instead of tipping the glory in favor of men & women having (finally) made the "right choice" based upon their acumen & "moral cognizance"...

    It's not only NOT Biblical but places New Life & its power as initiating with man when the Bible CLEARLY teaches it's ALWAYS with God Himself!

  • What magically delicious lucky charms have Pats used upon fumble-free footballs? [Ballghazi Vanity]

    02/26/2015 9:22:03 PM PST · 56 of 63
    Colofornian to edzo4; All
    ...spreadsheet of wasted time...

    Well, hey, Edzo...you've earned a personal spreadsheet! (Congrats!)

    And ya know, God loves you so much that you're never a "waste of time"...You personally are just that important! (No /s on this!)

    Edzo4's claims 'realified'
    Edzo4's dubious claims... My response... Yet even Edzo4's cited source says...
    "Sadly though your whole deflategate ballghazi fumble fallacy is all based on the premise that 12 footballs were deflated which they were not." (Sorry, I never -- nor have I seen anybody -- claim that "12 footballs were deflated"; the claim has been out there for over a month now -- that 11 of the dozen balls were underinflated (not deflated)...and guess what? (These claims didn't originate with me) "The NFL is investigating the Patriots after 11 of 12 game balls they used in their 45-7 win over the Indianapolis Colts were found to be underinflated." Per Report: Only one Pats football was badly underinflated
    "...the only ball two pounds under was the ball that was in the unsupervised possession of the Indy colts. But you’ve ignored this fact" (Well, so what if there was only a single ball that was a full "two pounds under"? And that the other 10 underinflated balls were less than that...what difference does that make?) "Also, MANY [My note: not ALL] of the footballs bore the initials of AFC title game referee Walt Anderson. However, he was in charge of two other Patriots games this season, and the footballs from those games were kept in circulation, meaning it is possible footballs approved for other games wound up in the AFC Championship Game." Per Report: Only one Pats football was badly underinflated [My note: IoW, since Anderson initialed balls from two previous Pat games earlier in the season, it's possible that some balls from those earlier games were possibly re-introduced into the playoff game without having gone thru Anderson's specific pre-game inspection]
    "...the only ball two pounds under was the ball that was in the unsupervised possession of the Indy colts. But you’ve ignored this fact." Well, now that you've confused the entire scenario, it's difficult to say for sure what you're referencing that I've supposedly "ignored" -- but if I was reading this post of yours & went to your links...I'd come away with that you're somehow attempting to imply that only a single ball was underinflated...when even your own cited source says... (see -->) Per Report: Only one Pats football was badly underinflated [What? Was there really some need to "deflate" that word "badly"?]...the article itself said: "Rapoport reported that the league found MANY of the footballS [My note: plural] were "just a few ticks UNDER THE MINIMUM of 12.5 PSI.

    What?

    Do I really have to define "many footballs" for you per the very article you cited?

    Do I really have to mention footballS is plural for you per the very article you cited?

    Do I really have to tell you that ..."many footballs...under the minimum of 12.5 psi" is against the standards & rules of the NFL???

    What? You gonna start getting on refs' cases for calling offsides? ('C'mon, Zebra! He was 'only' a few steps over the line of scrimmage!')

    The NFL has already provided leeway: The rule says there's a full POUND of leeway [12.5 to 13.5].

    And now you want to somehow...
    ...retroactively...
    ...arbitrarily...
    ...with full-blown arrogancy that the Pats can just well do as they damn well please with their own superimposed self-authority...
    ...remove these NFL standards and replace them with own self-designations? (And ONLY for the Patriots?)

    Really?

    Hey...just tell those Patriots, then, to "redraw" the line of scrimmage a few inches or a few feet wherever they want!

    Tell those Pats to expand the seconds ("a few ticks") it takes to get off a play 83% of the time! (That'll reduce those delay of game penalties!)

    Tell those Pats who are being substituted for that they actually now have a "few ticks" longer to get off the field...and that they won't be called for as many "illegal substitution" penalties...

    All because Patriot fans seem to indicate that their team is so mighty they can now retroactively, arbitrarily, and arrogantly dictate to the league what the exact "ticks" should be on not only this rule, but ALL of the NFL rules!!!

  • What magically delicious lucky charms have Pats used upon fumble-free footballs? [Ballghazi Vanity]

    02/26/2015 2:16:30 PM PST · 52 of 63
    Colofornian to edzo4
    Well, of course!

    (a) Brady's been playing vs. all those inner-division pushovers for 15 years! When you have it that easy, ya better have some stats to show for it!

    (You yourself said in post #35: "...they play in the saddest, worst division in football. During this time period the Bills are the 4th worst team, the Dolphins have a losing record: 107-117, and the Jets have barely escaped break even going 113-111. They’ve won the AFC East outright 12 out of the past 14 seasons."

    (b) It could be that the Pats have had a new physician "operating" along the sidelines since 2007.

    (We hear he's quite good at his specialty of doctoring footballs! : ) )

  • What magically delicious lucky charms have Pats used upon fumble-free footballs? [Ballghazi Vanity]

    02/26/2015 12:46:29 PM PST · 45 of 63
    Colofornian to All
    the Pats didn't even face a team that wound up with a winning record til November.....didn't face a second team that wound up with a winning record til December...

    Self-correction: Didn't face a team with a winning record til Oct. 30...a 2nd team with a winning record til November...& a 3rd team with a winning record til December...

  • What magically delicious lucky charms have Pats used upon fumble-free footballs? [Ballghazi Vanity]

    02/26/2015 12:39:31 PM PST · 42 of 63
    Colofornian to edzo4
    ...The fact that you collate a winning streak with cheating is hysterical...

    Actually, the Patriots have been equal-opportunity cheaters. It doesn't even take "a winning streak" for them to rely on cheating:

    LA Times, 4 weeks ago: Patriots' rule-bending goes back decades, to 'snow plow' game in 1982

    (The Pats were 2-14 in 1982)!

  • What magically delicious lucky charms have Pats used upon fumble-free footballs? [Ballghazi Vanity]

    02/26/2015 12:35:51 PM PST · 41 of 63
    Colofornian to edzo4; All
    ...they play in the saddest, worst division in football. During this time period the Bills are the 4th worst team, the Dolphins have a losing record: 107-117, and the Jets have barely escaped break even going 113-111. They’ve won the AFC East outright 12 out of the past 14 seasons.

    (Yeah, what is it with these Patriots? They bump up vs. these same pushovers year in, year out for six of their games...then whoever they are "in cozy" with ... schedule-wise...ensures they get a bunch of THE worst extra-division teams on top of that...)

    Prime examples: 2013...when they played the 2-14 Texans & the 4-12 Bucs, 4-12 Falcons, 4-12 Browns...and NONE of the teams in their own division even had winning records that year...
    2008...2-14 Chiefs, 2-14 Rams, 4-12 Seahawks, 5-11 Raiders & even 3 Western teams they played that year didn't have winning records (over half of their sched didn't)
    2012...10 teams on their sched had losing records, including the 2-14 Jaquars...the Pats couldn't even beat 5-11 Cards that year...

    In their 2011 Super Bowl appearance year, the Pats didn't even face a team that wound up with a winning record til November...didn't face a second team that wound up with a winning record til December...so wins over 5 teams with winning records that year -- including the playoffs...qualifies them for the SB? (No wonder they lost it!)

    2007 and 2014 were about the only seasons they faced stiff schedules & even then more extra-division pushovers (3-13 Bucs in 09; 4-12 Bengals in '10)

    So...I take it from the above is that your argument is the Pats essentially play in the "JV division" of the NFL...so no wonder they don't fumble as often?

    ...your mom I bet she misses you...

    These 7 words were the only part of your post making any sense.

    So thank you for the reminder...I'll call her.

  • What magically delicious lucky charms have Pats used upon fumble-free footballs? [Ballghazi Vanity]

    02/26/2015 10:03:56 AM PST · 40 of 63
    Colofornian to edzo4

    Thanks for your contribution eggnoz4

  • What magically delicious lucky charms have Pats used upon fumble-free footballs? [Ballghazi Vanity]

    02/25/2015 10:16:40 PM PST · 37 of 63
    Colofornian to edzo4; All
    ...since 2000.

    Haven't cast any shadows on 2000-2006...just used them as point of comparison to later years...

    Not sure why you FEEL the need to defend their 2000 - 06 squads...

    Again, you're reading challenged...Their fumble rates were 1.4 to 1.6 2003 thru 2006...nobody's a shadow on those years...

    Their fumble rates for 2007 & follows:
    0.8, 1.1, 1.1, 0.7, 1.3, 1.0, 1.9 and 0.9...

    It went up in 2013 because they committed 6 fumbles -- one-fourth of their season total ... in a freezing game vs. Denver in which the Broncos fumbled 5x.

    But, again, thanks for opening the door for me to share the above.

    Didn't squeeze it into the thread...so your comment allows the light of day to shine on New England's dark corners during the '07 to 14 seasons!

  • What magically delicious lucky charms have Pats used upon fumble-free footballs? [Ballghazi Vanity]

    02/25/2015 6:58:21 PM PST · 34 of 63
    Colofornian to edzo4

    Re your last comment...what? Reader-challenged? The Pats went to 3 super bowls in 4 yrs...2001 to 2004 ...show me where anybody in this thread has challenged those appearances...but hey thanks for the comment...because now when free person and lurkers read these threads they will know the backdrop...it’s not just that ne magically and statistically “overcame” poor records...all this drastic sudden improvement came after 3 super bowl appearances in 4 yrs

  • Thereís a glaring contradiction in NFLís Deflategate timeline ['Ballghazi' Pats' sting?]

    02/25/2015 4:39:25 PM PST · 33 of 34
    Colofornian to Hot Tabasco

    No that was a special teams ball used by both teams

  • Thereís a glaring contradiction in NFLís Deflategate timeline ['Ballghazi' Pats' sting?]

    02/25/2015 3:24:55 PM PST · 31 of 34
    Colofornian to discostu

    Good question

  • Thereís a glaring contradiction in NFLís Deflategate timeline ['Ballghazi' Pats' sting?]

    02/25/2015 2:18:34 PM PST · 29 of 34
    Colofornian to discostu; All
    Why would they be trying to catch the Pats in the act? Why not just properly inspect the balls and make sure they’re inflated properly?

    OK...think of the jackie robinson little league team that just had its national title taken away because they recruited kids from other LL districts...their own Chicago version of a "dream team"...

    Other coaches & admins in other LL districts in Chicago whose players were from those other districts knew it was happening...
    ...they knew about it as the team was formed...
    ...they knew about it during ALL levels of tourney play, which is multiple in LL...
    ...they knew about it in August AFTER they won the national championship...

    It really wasn't til about November...and then again in December...when an opposing coach whose allstar team lost 43-2 to the Chicago dream team started ... and cont'd making noise about this...'Twas actually an initial investigation in Nov that didn't go anywhere...resurrected in Dec

    Now why do I bring this parallel example up?

    Because say I'm the Nevada team coach that lost to the dream team in the national finals. And I know about the cheating that's been going on.

    I have several choices, & not all are mutually exclusive:

    1. I could go to Ntl LL a day before the game
    2. I could go to the umps pre game
    3. I could go to the umps during the game...who would in turn feed it to the Ntl LL protest committee put together to handle protests immediately...and, btw, NOT a great testimony either to the coach or to LL to do that all by waiting to do it in front of a national audience...

    Choice #3 could result in a protest, which due to the lack of info, probably wouldn't hold up. But then the coach would get the "sour grapes" and "is this the ONLY way you can win?" and "why are you discriminating vs. black families?" kinds of accusations...

    So if I was such a coach, I might hope that I don't have to do any of these...I'd just hope we'd win, anyway, & eliminate the winning by the back door route.

    So, while choice #3 might be a very late last-ditch option, it might be one worth trying if losing, which the Colts were doing at half.

    Sounds to me like the Colts opted for something akin to choice #1 as the best option...skipped choice #2...and may have done choice #3...but in a very subtle way so as to avoid it being broadcast live on national TV vs. making a big show of things the way a LL protest would go down.

  • Thereís a glaring contradiction in NFLís Deflategate timeline ['Ballghazi' Pats' sting?]

    02/25/2015 2:04:52 PM PST · 28 of 34
    Colofornian to jjotto; GeronL; All
    (And one of the probs is just as the NFL isn't all that interested in holding off-the-field player-perps to too high of standards, the same thing goes for off-the-field cheater-patterns...probably in this case Brady)
  • What magically delicious lucky charms have Pats used upon fumble-free footballs? [Ballghazi Vanity]

    02/25/2015 2:01:24 PM PST · 29 of 63
    Colofornian to Defiant; All
    If the study were to determine if race discrimination existed, instead of deflation, with statistics like these, the Justice Dept. would have Bellichick’s ass.

    (Exactly)

  • Thereís a glaring contradiction in NFLís Deflategate timeline ['Ballghazi' Pats' sting?]

    02/25/2015 1:49:55 PM PST · 27 of 34
    Colofornian to golf lover; jjotto; iontheball; All
    Read post #26...

    I'll add to what I said there...

    Well, any Pop Warner QB who throws a lot could tell the diff 'tween an underinflated football and one that isn't -- no matter what the actual weight on some scale is.

    Those who try to make this about why the refs who weighed the ball in the first place ignore the realities that ya better believe the QB isn't going to be throwing balls in a big playoff game that are off psi-wise than what he's use to practicing with...

    Otherwise, the Patriots would have already given the walking papers to whatever low charge they had who submitted the balls to the refs.

    I mean, why would some equipment mgr...knowing that Brady likes his psi level at "X"...fill 11 of the 12 balls in a playoff game to just "Y"??? Why would they jeopardize a playoff game?

    I mean, that'd be like major league pitchers throwing one certain type of baseball all thru Spring Training...and a similarly weighted ball -- yet different in grip, etc. -- suddenly placed in their hand on Opening Day.

    I'm stumped why people even go in this direction, knowing these kind of parallels.

  • Thereís a glaring contradiction in NFLís Deflategate timeline ['Ballghazi' Pats' sting?]

    02/25/2015 1:41:53 PM PST · 26 of 34
    Colofornian to iontheball; All
    ...how you determine if a ball is under or over inflated....

    “Every team tampers with the footballs,” Matt Leinart said on Twitter. “Ask any Qb In the league, this is ridiculous!!”

    Leinart then carved out one exception: “Actually my guy @kurt13warner didn’t tamper w the footballs because he wore gloves,” Leinart said. “Used to irritate me..So correction, almost all QBs!”

    Source: ESPN: Leinart says “every” quarterback tampers with the ball, except one

    “That would have to be driven by the quarterback,” Madden told The Sports Xchange on Wednesday. “That’s something that wouldn’t be driven by a coach or just the equipment guy. Nobody, not even the head coach, would do anything to a football unilaterally, such as adjust the amount of pressure in a ball, without the quarterback not knowing. It would have to be the quarterback’s idea.”

    Madden’s position makes a lot of sense. Quarterbacks are particular about their footballs. Anybody doing anything to the footballs without the quarterback’s knowledge or consent would be asking for a tongue lashing...

    Source: John Madden: Blame Tom Brady for deflated footballs

    So my reaction is two-fold:
    1. Whatever is said about whether refs can -- or can't --tell the difference, there were plenty of ex-NFL qbs who in the wake of Deflategate's early articles who essentially said "Yup. Better believe you can tell the difference."

    2. Just as this last article says "quarterbacks are particular about footballs" -- well, baseball pitchers are, too, when it comes to game-day baseballs.

    And not just pros. Any high school pitcher and even most regular Little League pitchers can tell differences in balls like a rubberized t-ball vs. other balls.

    The QB knows...and not only that...they don't want to practice with one certain level psi...and then wind up playing game-day with another...because it can throw 'em off just like a pitcher not being able to hit the strike zone because of an underweight baseball.

    And QBs have to throw the ball longer than 30 yds.

    Whatever the game-day psi is, ya better believe that the equipment mgr supplying the balls knows what Brady practices with day in, day out...that it's all very intentionally set...and to think that the equipment mgr would risk a Patriot playoff game by giving Brady balls something other psi-wise to what he's comfortable practicing with...is simply reaching for thin-air apologetics.

  • What magically delicious lucky charms have Pats used upon fumble-free footballs? [Ballghazi Vanity]

    02/25/2015 1:25:07 PM PST · 26 of 63
    Colofornian to Berlin_Freeper
    I am blessed by my enemies. ;)

    (The Lord blesses us at times precisely because of them)

  • NFL employee handed kicking game ball to Patriots' locker room attendant [Hmm...Brian Williams?]

  • What magically delicious lucky charms have Pats used upon fumble-free footballs? [Ballghazi Vanity]

    02/25/2015 12:57:16 PM PST · 19 of 63
    Colofornian to edzo4
    BTW Ben Jarvis never fumbled At all till after he played for the patriots not pee wee not high school not in college.

    (But, of course, he fumbled NUMEROUS times for the Bengals in a few years' time with them)

  • What magically delicious lucky charms have Pats used upon fumble-free footballs? [Ballghazi Vanity]

    02/25/2015 12:55:17 PM PST · 17 of 63
    Colofornian to Berlin_Freeper; Lakeshark; All
    :)

    (Yeah, the level of inconsistency on the part of FREEPERs sometimes becomes WAY too obvious)

  • What magically delicious lucky charms have Pats used upon fumble-free footballs? [Ballghazi Vanity]

    02/25/2015 12:54:08 PM PST · 15 of 63
    Colofornian to mkleesma

    :)

  • What magically delicious lucky charms have Pats used upon fumble-free footballs? [Ballghazi Vanity]

    02/25/2015 12:36:12 PM PST · 13 of 63
    Colofornian to Dilbert56
    Maybe the coach unloads players who fumble ..

    Not a bad surmisal to check out if you haven't yet looked @ the individual stats...

    What you say might be so if you go all the way back to 1999...didn't recognize some names from that season...and they seemed to have a lot of rushing fumbles that year.

    If you look @ the 20 players on the last chart of the thread, you'll see players like BenJarvus Green-Ellis that doesn't fit your theory.

    He carried the ball over 500 times for the Pats...almost 600 total touches...zero fumbles...THEN he goes over to the Bengals for a few years and fumbles 5x.

    Kevin Faulk is another one...he's fumbled the ball 25x in his career...including a playoff game. Before the 2007 season, he already had 23 TOTAL fumbles to his name.

    2007 comes along and he only fumbles twice more thru 2011...and one of those was on a punt return.

    Yeah, Welker fumbled it 6x as a Pat WR...but considering he had 762 touches...it's a pretty good "rate" to fumble only once at WR every 127 touches.

    I'd say half of the players on that list started careers elsewhere ...Morris, Moss, Taylor, Amendola, Gaffney, Lloyd, Stallworth, Lafell, Evans ..most of them fumbled more elsewhere before coming to the Pats... (Moss had more fumbles elsewhere but a better fumble ratio with Pats)

    A few of those ... Amendola, Lafell still with NE.

    Other guys that went elsewhere...like Maroney and Woodhead...really didn't have that bad of a fumble rate either...similar to Welker's ratio...

  • Thereís a glaring contradiction in NFLís Deflategate timeline ['Ballghazi' Pats' sting?]

    02/25/2015 11:59:15 AM PST · 19 of 34
    Colofornian to McGruff
    The Final Score was 45-7. A superball couldn't have helped the hapless Colts.

    Not a Colts' fan...

    Are you telling us, tho, if a Democrat wins a primary, say 45,000 votes to 7,000 votes, and had dead voters, and repeat voters aiding that sweep into office, we are simply to ignore the dead voters & repeat voters...and move right along...saying a "supervote" couldn't have helped the hapless Dem primary opponent?

  • What magically delicious lucky charms have Pats used upon fumble-free footballs? [Ballghazi Vanity]

    02/25/2015 11:42:05 AM PST · 8 of 63
    Colofornian to Veggie Todd
    : }

    Well, your impersonation of other FREEPERs was so perfect, that, of course, I was taken in. :)

  • Thereís a glaring contradiction in NFLís Deflategate timeline ['Ballghazi' Pats' sting?]

    02/25/2015 11:40:28 AM PST · 12 of 34
    Colofornian to july4thfreedomfoundation
    Amnesty for illegals, ISIS on the march, Obama taking over the Internet, the country coming apart at the seams, and there are still those out there worried about this so-called “deflate gate” BS? Seriously?

    (Exactly! What are you doing commenting on this chat thread, anyway?

    And why then -- if what you say is so "seriously" so...did you waste your time commenting on this other sports thread 3 days ago?

    1980 'Miracle on Ice' U.S. Olympic hockey team reunites in Lake Placid: Post #4

    Or "who cares" -- in light of your sober list -- about the Oscars? (Yet you found time to comment on that)

    Or why your numerous posts a few days back on some ancient coins found in Israel?

    And I'm sure if we searched last week, all month, January...we could find LOTS of July4thFreedomFoundation posts on "trivial" matters beyond ISIS, Obama, & the country falling apart at the seams.

    And yet you presume to don your pulpit and preach against trivial pursuits?

    Seriously?

  • What magically delicious lucky charms have Pats used upon fumble-free footballs? [Ballghazi Vanity]

    02/25/2015 11:30:24 AM PST · 6 of 63
    Colofornian to Veggie Todd; All
    New England won the game. It’s settled science.

    Well, hey, wherever a Democrat has "won" a settled November race, that's "settled science" as well.

    Yet, if present & later articles unveil that she won her Democratic primary with the help of dead voters, repeat voters, etc. what? You don't comment on that? You just defend her with "settled science" comments?

  • What magically delicious lucky charms have Pats used upon fumble-free footballs? [Ballghazi Vanity]

    02/25/2015 11:26:10 AM PST · 5 of 63
    Colofornian to jjotto

    (If you look at the “Pat Stats” chart — left side under weighing stats contributing to notion of “urban legend”...I did my best to review stats which might reinforce the notion that this is all myth)

  • Thereís a glaring contradiction in NFLís Deflategate timeline ['Ballghazi' Pats' sting?]

    02/25/2015 11:11:36 AM PST · 5 of 34
    Colofornian to Pearls Before Swine
    So, if the football weighs something over 400 grams, what is the expected deviation of the football's weight by manufacture, and by environmental change?

    The question could be relevant IF...
    ...the officials failed to weigh the Colts' footballs...

    'Cause if they DID weigh the Colts' footballs as well, then to have all 12 Colts' footballs in sync -- and almost 90% of the Pats' footballs out of sync...

    ...that'd be difficult to pin the blame on the manufacturer -- assuming both teams get their balls from the same source. Right?

  • Thereís a glaring contradiction in NFLís Deflategate timeline ['Ballghazi' Pats' sting?]

    02/25/2015 11:07:54 AM PST · 3 of 34
    Colofornian to All
    For an in-depth research look on Pat Stats & Ballghazi, see companion thread post:

    What magically delicious lucky charms have Pats used upon fumble-free footballs? [Ballghazi Vanity]

    (All done in a playful St. Patty's angle!)

  • What magically delicious lucky charms have Pats used upon fumble-free footballs? [Ballghazi Vanity]

    02/25/2015 10:52:34 AM PST · 1 of 63
    Colofornian
  • Thereís a glaring contradiction in NFLís Deflategate timeline ['Ballghazi' Pats' sting?]

    02/25/2015 10:52:04 AM PST · 1 of 34
    Colofornian
  • NFL employee handed kicking game ball to Patriots' locker room attendant [Hmm...Brian Williams?]

    02/22/2015 7:22:03 PM PST · 55 of 56
    Colofornian to lepton
    Btw, there is one HUGE flaw with Sharp's figures that do weigh down the "NON-NE" side: It's the bottom player in his charts--Brandon Tate.

    Tate has so few Non NE "touches" (only 35) -- that for him to have 11 fumbles with only 35 touches weighs down that side heavily.

    In checking ALL 11 of those fumbles were either as a kick or punt returner.

    The rest are probably "a wash"...but Sharp blew it to include him without realizing what that was doing to his analytics.

  • NFL employee handed kicking game ball to Patriots' locker room attendant [Hmm...Brian Williams?]

    02/22/2015 6:00:31 PM PST · 54 of 56
    Colofornian to lepton
    Thanks for responding with your insights.

    Warren Sharp took a broader approach with individual players -- including "touches" (receptions & runs):
    New England Patriots Fumble More Often When Playing for Other Teams

    His analytics zero in on 19 players who had both NE time & non-NE time...five of which had 300+ touches for the Pats (Welker, Maroney, Green-Ellis, Morris and Woodhead)

    Of course, people have rightly id'd one potential considerable flaw in his #s: Those fumble #s reflect special teams' fumbles, which don't belong since teams don't use team-supplied footballs.

    (I say potential because I think it looks like it could be a "wash"...for example, yeah, Brandon Tate's special teams fumbles for the Bengals shouldn't be included in his figures; yet guys like Wes Welker's fumble #s also goes down, etc.)

    So in looking @ Sharp's charts at the above link, I figured I needed to know which of those 19 players (+ Faulk -- he doesn't include any pre-NE 2007 stats for comparison analysis like I did) -- were involved in special teams returns...and then how many of those fumbles were wrongly included in his analysis.

    And, frankly, I was a little surprised to see backs like Faulk having been a special teams returner early in his career -- so even my analysis needs a very slight corrective. Faulk had 3 fumbles as a special teams returner -- but one of them occurred after 2007 so probably won't alter the ratios all that much.

    I was surprised to see that many of his fumbles came on pass catches.

    Well, anyway, all that info is available online (for people who know how to find it)...so this weekend...took some time to capture it all into one doc:
    Mainly, pinpointed which of those 20 players had special teams returns -- and if they committed fumbles on specific seasons -- were they special teams' related (how many?)?
    Secondly, Sharp didn't include playoff stats...which, given that the whole thing blew up during playoffs, I think is relevant & broadens the "touches" for measurement comparisons. So I began adding those #s in as well.

    All that's left to do now is to crunch the #s and then run the new fumble-ratio #s as an improvement on Sharp's take.

    If I get time later to do that tonight, may have that up first thing in #.

    (I'm actually surprised nobody else that I could find ran a "corrective" on Sharp's #s to give us the best comparison...but, again, I think -- after tabulated the special teams' based fumbles...it'll probably be a wash or close to it)

    Bottom line I've found -- is you do need about all 20 players -- their collective stats totaled -- to see if a huge distinction was looming as a shadow from the past.

    Later in the week, it'd also be interesting to do a breakout:
    What's the ratio comparison of WR, TE, RB fumbling after a catch vs. a RB rush fumble...and to see if all those #s are also similar. (There were a few backs I didn't want to take the time to delve into their steep history -- like Fred Taylor, for example -- so I don't have all the raw data on all 20 of those players).

  • Reflections: My Neighbour The Catholic

    02/20/2015 9:10:48 PM PST · 80 of 82
    Colofornian to Salvation; Gamecock; All
    One person’s opinion only.

    (That's just your solo opinion) :)

  • Reflections: My Neighbour The Catholic

    02/20/2015 7:49:36 PM PST · 75 of 82
    Colofornian to Chainmail
    When this kind of internecine divisiveness emerges, it is exactly what the devil wants. What better than Christians going after Christians?

    And so, what you're seemingly telling us is...then...this is exactly what the devil wants (internecine devisiveness)...
    ...and your contribution to exactly what the devil wants is to engage in reverse "Christians going after Christians"?

  • Reflections: My Neighbour The Catholic

    02/20/2015 7:18:01 PM PST · 73 of 82
    Colofornian to Chainmail
    But I contend that just standing there and letting others trample the faith you love is in itself a lack of faith.

    Agreed.

    I don't antagonize, I resist.

    Well, the "say unto others" maxim applies here: If you as a Catholic don't want Evangelicals to label you as "Babylon"...then perhaps you may need to consider refraining labeling them as demonic.

  • Reflections: My Neighbour The Catholic

    02/20/2015 7:14:44 PM PST · 72 of 82
    Colofornian to Chainmail
    When fellow Christians openly deride another's Christianity, particularly at a time when the Atheists and the Muslims and the perverts are attempting to overwhelm Christian faith, values, and culture, it is the work of the Devil, not Christianity.

    Step beyond yourself for a moment here.

    Imagine you are either a latecomer to this thread...or a lurker...
    ...and they've read now four times on this thread your referencing other Christians' expressions on this thread is either "the work of the devil" or is in "proximity" with the devil, or has "thrilled" the devil...
    ...can you not see how these newcomers/lurkers might wonder how you've failed to see these constant linkages of other Christians to the devil as itself "deriding"?

    You see, what brought me into this thread was this constant knack you have for engaging in the very religious expression behavior your critique in others:

    Simply put: You deride the religious ways others deride the religious ways of others...(but somehow your derision is to be sanctioned)

    Sorry...but you either need to consider altering your own personal standards...or begin consistently applying what you do toward others...to yourself...