Posts by Mr Rogers

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Supreme Court Sides With Police In 4th Amendment Case Arising from Officer’s ‘Mistake of Law’

    12/21/2014 6:22:49 PM PST · 23 of 23
    Mr Rogers to VerySadAmerican

    “Look at a cop the wrong way and he has “reasonable suspicion”. Or don’t look at him and you’ll get the same results.”

    That may or may not be true. It is certainly NOT true in this case. However, cops ARE allowed to stop folks based on mere suspicion. They cannot arrest or ticket someone on that basis, but they CAN stop someone.

    You have no Constitutional right to be free from a cop stopping you if something seems off to the cop. It doesn’t mean you are guilty, and stopping you is not punishment.

  • George W. Bush turned up at children’s hospital as Santa, but the buzz was about his elf

    12/21/2014 10:13:10 AM PST · 36 of 41
    Mr Rogers to Exeter

    I agree he is a guy with class. I admire him personally. I was far less thrilled with his policies, although I voted for him twice. I will not vote for his brother.

    But yes, GWB strikes me a a very good guy. He can stop by my place for burgers and a beer anytime.

  • Budget experts: Move Tricare beneficiaries to Obamacare (Pelosi knew)

    12/21/2014 8:34:25 AM PST · 21 of 35
    Mr Rogers to Libloather

    “In an effort to save money, the military services have launched efforts to draw Tricare beneficiaries back to military treatment facilities rather than use private-sector care, which costs the Defense Department significantly more money to provide.”

    Where I live, there is no one in the base hospital to provide care. The last PA who handled retired military left and was not replaced. I couldn’t even get a prescription I’ve had for 10 years renewed without first being referred to a doctor off base. The doctor looked at my records, noted I had been using the prescription for 10 years, asked if I had any complaints, then signed the paper.

    But I haven’t been able to be seen on base for a long time.

    This pretty well sums it up:

    ” But some of this stuff ... I just think some of them really don’t understand the military health system,” said retired Navy Capt. Kathy Beasley of the Military Officers Association of America.”

    I fully expect to be charged more in the not too distant future and I understand it. I do not understand the idea of forcing all retirees onto Obamacare.

    Well, I do understand it. The retiree population is healthier than average, so forcing us onto the exchanges would increase Obamacare’s income while decreasing its spending per patient.

  • Supreme Court Sides With Police In 4th Amendment Case Arising from Officer’s ‘Mistake of Law’

    12/21/2014 7:11:50 AM PST · 16 of 23
    Mr Rogers to Forgotten Amendments

    This is trivial. See post #15. It helps to read the court cases instead of relying on the news.

  • Supreme Court Sides With Police In 4th Amendment Case Arising from Officer’s ‘Mistake of Law’

    12/21/2014 7:10:07 AM PST · 15 of 23
    Mr Rogers to VerySadAmerican; Altariel

    It was impossible for the cop to “know the law”. After this arrest, the defendant argued the wording of the law only required one light to work. In spite of another sentence indicating both needed to work, the court ruled - AFTER the arrest and for the first time - that the wording only required one working light.

    Since this ruling changed the accepted meaning, and came about only after the stop went to trial, there was no way any cop or any lawyer could have known.

    The state supreme court was not asked the question, so it remains a lower court ruling that only one light is needed. The state supreme court pointed out the other sentence indicating two were needed, but since they were not specifically asked they made no ruling. However, in reading the state supreme court’s decision, it seems likely that if it DOES go to them, they will overturn the lower court and rule both lights need to work.

    Since there was no way a cop could have known, in advance, that a lower court would rule only one light was needed, and since the state supreme court seems to doubt the lower court was right, it is ridiculous to expect a cop to predict in advance how a court will interpret the law.

    That is why the US Supreme Court ruled as it did. If cops could only stop people based on the outcome of FUTURE CASES, no one would ever be stopped. The legal principle is that the cop can be mistaken about the law and still arrest you. That doesn’t violate your rights, because the COURTS will determine guilt or innocence. All the cop needs to make the arrest is a reasonable suspicion that the law has been broken.

    For an arrest, a cop merely needs to have a reasonable belief a law was broken. The courts will decide if you did or did not break it. And no cop can be required to know how a future court will interpret the law.

  • Martha McSally Announces Transition Team(Jim Kolbe & other RINOS)

    12/20/2014 7:16:59 PM PST · 22 of 22
    Mr Rogers to Impy

    Time will tell. I wish we could make a bet.

  • Martha McSally Announces Transition Team(Jim Kolbe & other RINOS)

    12/20/2014 6:15:51 PM PST · 20 of 22
    Mr Rogers to Impy

    “So who has a hard on against McSally that they keep attacking her with baseless garbage?”

    What baseless garbage? It is a release by McSally. Are you suggesting it is a lie?

    Are you from the district? Do you now the history of the last few elections? Do you understand how much Kolbe hates conservatives? Do you LIKE having democrats on the GOP transition team?

    Do you think McSally is a conservative? If so, why? If not, then why are you pumped up that Boehner has an extra vote for his ideas? She is lining up to be Jim Kolbe in drag. That is not good news for conservatives...

  • Martha McSally Announces Transition Team(Jim Kolbe & other RINOS)

    12/20/2014 3:26:36 PM PST · 15 of 22
    Mr Rogers to Clintonfatigued

    The way I figured it, her opponent would have been powerless in the minority. In the majority, she is a vote in John Boehner’s pocket to stomp on conservatives. In the end, I could not bring myself to vote for the democrat...but I bet she does more harm to conservatives than he could have.

  • Martha McSally Announces Transition Team(Jim Kolbe & other RINOS)

    12/20/2014 1:47:58 PM PST · 8 of 22
    Mr Rogers to ObamahatesPACoal

    She made no attempt to hide her establishment credentials. Her answers to surveys and during debates made it clear she was the most liberal of the Republicans running in Arizona.

    I did have to smile at this in one of her team members’ bios:

    ” she is the founder of Imagine Greater Tucson whose mission is to connect government, stakeholders and community to create community-driven choices for living, working, learning and playing in the Tucson region”

    Yeah - just what we send Republicans to Congress for - to “ create community-driven choices for living, working, learning and playing”...

    “He was appointed to serve on the Arizona State Board of Education and Border Governor’s Conference by Governor Janet Napolitano and currently serves as President for the Arizona Mexico Commission and as a board member for Tucson Youth Development, Alternative Computer Education Charter High School, and the Chicanos Por La Causa Tucson Advisory Council.”

    Yep! That is what I voted for...oh wait! I refused to vote for McSally!

    “...District Scheduler for Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords for 5 years...”

    “Mayor Walkup served as Mayor of Tucson for twelve years”

    “Sharon Bronson: Supervisor Bronson serves as Pima County Supervisor, District 3, and Chairman of the Board of Supervisors...”

    Yes, she is a Democrat.

    ” The simple reality is that education must be a higher priority. Our economy is changing and regions with the best educational systems will experience the strongest economic growth. This is about more than just money, but appropriate funding is critical to improve educational outcomes.”

    http://tucson.com/elections/party/democrat/sharon-bronson/candidate_32a95ee6-cf6d-11e1-b28a-0019bb2963f4.html

    “Saucedo is the Southern Arizona Outreach Coordinator for U.S. Senator John McCain. She served as District Aide for Jim Kolbe for 11 years and as Constituent Services Manager for Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and Congressman Ron Barber for nearly 7 years.”

    I can hardly wait for McSally to support conservatives in the House...

  • We Could Not Have a General Patton Today

    12/20/2014 9:38:11 AM PST · 17 of 35
    Mr Rogers to PIF

    “You mean ‘road’?”

    Cut & paste. Complain to the website I copied it from:

    http://www.5ad.org/Patton_speech.htm

  • We Could Not Have a General Patton Today

    12/20/2014 9:08:52 AM PST · 10 of 35
    Mr Rogers to Signalman

    Patton would rate Obama somewhere below Monty...

  • We Could Not Have a General Patton Today

    12/20/2014 9:08:19 AM PST · 9 of 35
    Mr Rogers to Delta 21

    “Each man must not think only of himself, but also of his buddy fighting beside him. We don’t want yellow cowards in this Army. They should be killed off like rats. If not, they will go home after this war and breed more cowards. The brave men will breed more brave men. Kill off the Goddamned cowards and we will have a nation of brave men.

    One of the bravest men that I ever saw was a fellow on top of a telegraph pole in the midst of a furious fire fight in Tunisia. I stopped and asked what the hell he was doing up there at a time like that. He answered, ‘Fixing the wire, Sir.’ I asked, ‘Isn’t that a little unhealthy right about now?’ He answered, ‘Yes Sir, but the Goddamned wire has to be fixed.’ I asked, ‘Don’t those planes strafing the road bother you?’ And he answered, ‘No, Sir, but you sure as hell do!’ Now, there was a real man. A real soldier. There was a man who devoted all he had to his duty, no matter how seemingly insignificant his duty might appear at the time, no matter how great the odds.

    And you should have seen those trucks on the rode to Tunisia. Those drivers were magnificent. All day and all night they rolled over those son-of-a-bitching roads, never stopping, never faltering from their course, with shells bursting all around them all of the time. We got through on good old American guts. Many of those men drove for over forty consecutive hours. These men weren’t combat men, but they were soldiers with a job to do. They did it, and in one hell of a way they did it. They were part of a team. Without team effort, without them, the fight would have been lost. All of the links in the chain pulled together and the chain became unbreakable...

    ...We’re going to murder those lousy Hun cock suckers by the bushel-fucking-basket. War is a bloody, killing business. You’ve got to spill their blood, or they will spill yours. Rip them up the belly. Shoot them in the guts. When shells are hitting all around you and you wipe the dirt off your face and realize that instead of dirt it’s the blood and guts of what once was your best friend beside you, you’ll know what to do!

    I don’t want to get any messages saying, ‘I am holding my position.’ We are not holding a Goddamned thing. Let the Germans do that. We are advancing constantly and we are not interested in holding onto anything, except the enemy’s balls. We are going to twist his balls and kick the living shit out of him all of the time. Our basic plan of operation is to advance and to keep on advancing regardless of whether we have to go over, under, or through the enemy. We are going to go through him like crap through a goose; like shit through a tin horn!

    From time to time there will be some complaints that we are pushing our people too hard. I don’t give a good Goddamn about such complaints. I believe in the old and sound rule that an ounce of sweat will save a gallon of blood. The harder WE push, the more Germans we will kill. The more Germans we kill, the fewer of our men will be killed. Pushing means fewer casualties. I want you all to remember that...”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_S._Patton%27s_speech_to_the_Third_Army

  • Changes in Catholic Attitudes Toward Bible Readings

    12/19/2014 6:11:18 PM PST · 82 of 124
    Mr Rogers to Rides_A_Red_Horse; Salvation

    I don’t think Salvation was judging all baptist churches. I think Salvation was just explaining the background behind the remark. In like manner, I can’t say how much scripture a Catholic hears during mass since I haven’t been to one. I also can’t speak for all baptist churches since there are probably 75K plus in the USA alone. I can only share what I’ve seen.

    Either way, I’d hope we all read God’s Word outside of church. It is God’s written revelation of who He is to mankind. If we don’t want to know God in this life, why would we want to go to heaven in the next? If we don’t love Him now, why would we want to be with Him in the next?

  • Changes in Catholic Attitudes Toward Bible Readings

    12/19/2014 9:26:39 AM PST · 44 of 124
    Mr Rogers to lastchance

    “What about whether “signs” are still valid?”

    A valid point. Some churches go to either extreme, either requiring signs or refusing to acknowledge any. It is certainly an area that divides churches.

    FWIW, my sister is a Trinity-believing pentacostal and I am not, but we’ve both worshiped without a problem in each other’s churches. But you are still fully correct to add that to the list I gave.

    There are probably others, but I doubt a very good list would run beyond single digits. American and Southern Baptists, for example, split in the 1800s over the issue of missionaries owning slaves. I’m a Southern Baptist since I’m a member of an SBC congregation, but I was baptized by an American Baptist. I’ve known baptists who were baptized by Lutherans and Methodists. For membership, our congregation requires believer’s baptism, but we do not specify any denomination.

    To be honest, belief in the Trinity is one of the best ways of discerning between cult and Christian. We would accept baptism by a Catholic priest, provided it was done as recognition of conversion and not an an infant. We would not accept it from the LDS, or a pentacostal church that rejected the Trinity.

  • Changes in Catholic Attitudes Toward Bible Readings

    12/19/2014 9:14:05 AM PST · 40 of 124
    Mr Rogers to lastchance

    “Again the prohibitions were against reading wrong translations of the Bible or of reading approved translations without the guidance of the Church.”

    No. The actual prohibitions went much further than that.

    “In the past vulgar translations were not always done at the hand of Biblical scholars and they did contain errors.”

    Also incorrect. Wycliffe’s translation was approved by the Catholic Church for reading on a case-by-case basis, being a very faithful rendering of the Vulgate. Tyndale’s translation in 1525 was excellent - no more perfect than any translation can be, but as accurate as any modern translation you can pick up. For example, from John 3:

    “Nicodemus said unto him: how can a man be born, when he is old? can he enter into his mother’s body and be born again?

    Iesus answered: verily, verily I say unto thee: except that a man be born of water, and of the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh, is flesh. And that which is born of the spirit, is spirit.

    Marvel not that I said to thee, ye must be born a new. The wind bloweth where he listeth, and thou hearest his sound: but canst not tell whence he cometh and whither he goeth. So is every man that is born of the spirit.

    And Nicodemus answered and said unto him: how can these things be? Iesus answered and said unto him: Art thou a master in Israhell, and knowest not these things? Verily verily, I say unto thee, we speak that we know, and testify that we have seen: And ye receive not our witness. If I have told you earthly things and ye have not believe: How should ye believe if I shall tell you of heavenly things?

    And no man ascendeth up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, that is to say, the son of man which is in heaven.

    And as Moses lift up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the son of man be lift up, that none which believeth in him perish: but have eternal life.

    God so loved the world, that he gave his only son for the intent, that none that believe in him, should perish: But should have everlasting life. For God sent not his son into the world, to condemn the world: But that the world through him, might be saved. He that believeth on him shall not be condemned. But he that believeth not, is condemned all ready, because he believeth not in the name of the only son of God.

    And this is the condemnation: Light is come into the world, and the men have loved darkness more than light, because their deeds were evil. For every man that evil doeth, hateth the light: neither cometh to light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doth truth, cometh to the light, that his deeds might be known, how that they are wrought in God.”

  • Changes in Catholic Attitudes Toward Bible Readings

    12/19/2014 9:07:41 AM PST · 39 of 124
    Mr Rogers to Salvation

    Our pastor likes to print out the scriptures that will be used for the sermon. That way folks can read them without needing to flip back and forth. I prefer to flip back and forth because I like to read the verses in context. Most baptist preachers I’ve met agree with me and encourage folks to follow along and read the context around the sermon passage.

    For the main passage, we stand to listen while it is read before the sermon. The pastor explains to any visitors that this is to show our respect for the Word of God, and to ask God to keep us from misunderstanding.

    We’re a small church. During the evening service, anyone can raise their hand and ask questions about any specific passage mid-sermon. That works when you only have 15-20 people there...it is basically a big home Bible study conducted in the church building.

  • Changes in Catholic Attitudes Toward Bible Readings

    12/19/2014 8:52:43 AM PST · 33 of 124
    Mr Rogers to Steve_Seattle

    Most Protestant denominations are over style, not substance.

    Among those who accept Sola Scriptura, the main divisions would be:

    Infant Baptism vs Believer’s Baptism

    Calvin vs Arminius (or should I say Augustine vs other Catholic theologians)

    In 40 years as a Protestant, often using military chapels with varying denominations providing the pastor...that is about it.

  • Changes in Catholic Attitudes Toward Bible Readings

    12/19/2014 8:45:51 AM PST · 30 of 124
    Mr Rogers to Salvation; Campion

    “And the protestants don’t even know that on Christmas, we can listen to 12 different selections from the Bible if we attend all the Masses! / I bet that more than they get in a month. LOL!”

    Surely you jest. If not, then you might want to visit a Baptist church sometime and find out how many selections will be read every week, including Christmas - and in ONE service!

  • Changes in Catholic Attitudes Toward Bible Readings

    12/19/2014 8:42:16 AM PST · 27 of 124
    Mr Rogers to Petrosius

    “This was, indeed, the normal way that most Christians accessed the Scriptures for the 1500 years before the printing press made inexpensive Bibles available to everyone. Prior to that the idea the every Christian should privately study the Bible was absurd since it was impossible.”

    Odd, isn’t it, that the Jews of 30 AD were able to learn their scriptures 1500 years before the printing press made them available:

    “When they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so.”

    Indeed, before 1000 BC we find:

    “And these words which I command you today shall be in your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up. You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes. You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates.” - Dt 6

  • Changes in Catholic Attitudes Toward Bible Readings

    12/19/2014 8:33:59 AM PST · 23 of 124
    Mr Rogers to lastchance

    “One example would be the whole bit about Catholics being discouraged from reading the Bible during the Reformation.”

    Commoners were actively discouraged from reading the Bible as a matter of Catholic Church policy.

    “The first index published by a pope (Paul IV), in 1559, prohibited under the title of Biblia prohibita a number of Latin editions as well as the publication and possession of translations of the Bible in German, French, Spanish, Italian, English, or Dutch, without the permission of the sacred office of the Roman Inquisition (Reusch, ut sup., i, 264).

    In 1584 Pius IV published the index prepared by the commission mentioned above. Herein ten rules are laid down, of which the fourth reads thus:

    “Inasmuch as it is manifest from experience that if the Holy Bible, translated into the vulgar tongue, be indiscriminately allowed to every one, the rashness of men will cause more evil than good to arise from it, it is, on this point, referred to the judgment of the bishops or inquisitors, who may, by the advice of the priest or confessor, permit the reading of the Bible translated into the vulgar tongue by Catholic authors, to those persons whose faith and piety they apprehend will be augmented and not injured by it; and this permission must be had in writing.

    But if any shall have the presumption to read or possess it without such permission, he shall not receive absolution until he have first delivered up such Bible to the ordinary.”

    Regulations for booksellers follow, and then: “Regulars shall neither read nor purchase such Bibles without special license from their superiors.”

    Sixtus V substituted in 1590 twenty-two new rules for the ten of Pius IV. Clement VIII abolished in 1596 the rules of Sixtus, but added a “remark” to the fourth rule given above, which particularly restores the enactment of Paul IV. The right of the bishops, which the fourth rule implies, is abolished by the “remark,” and the bishop may grant a dispensation only when especially authorized by the pope and the Inquisition (Reusch, ut sup., i, 333).

    Benedict XIV enlarged, in 1757, the fourth rule thus: “If such Bible-versions in the vernacular are approved by the apostolic see or are edited with annotations derived from the holy fathers of the Church or from learned and Catholic men, they are permitted.”

    This modification of the fourth rule was abolished by Gregory XVI in pursuance of an admonition of the index-congregation, Jan. 7, 1836, “which calls attention to the fact that according to the decree of 1757 only such versions in the vernacular are to be permitted as have been approved by the apostolic see or are edited with annotations,” but insistence is placed on all those particulars enjoined by the fourth rule of the index and afterward by Clement VIII (Reusch, ut sup., ii, 852).”

    http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/encyc/encyc02/htm/iv.v.lxi.htm

    Please note these restrictions were in place for centuries during which Protestants had very good access to scripture, along with very good translations.

    “What they were discouraged from doing was reading certain translations.”

    Actually, I have a reprint of the original New Testament translation by Tyndale. It contained no notes and was (and is) a very good translation. It was published with strong opposition from the Catholic Church in the early 1500s.

    “Catholics are still not supposed to interpret Scripture for themselves unless the plain meaning is obvious. That has always been the case.”

    90% of scripture has an obvious plain meaning. It only becomes difficult when one tries to reconcile the plain meaning with Catholic theology.

  • 'You are a white lady telling me what is racist!': Whoopi Goldberg loses it with Rosie O'Donnell

    12/19/2014 6:28:54 AM PST · 64 of 91
    Mr Rogers to LittleBillyInfidel

    I’ve got a terrible temptation to send Obama an old key and tell him to “Park it!”...

  • Salon Writer Accuses "White Guy" of Racism after He Tried to Sit Next to her on Crowded Train

    12/18/2014 4:05:13 PM PST · 19 of 96
    Mr Rogers to rightistight

    “A scholar of Black women’s intellectual history, Black feminist thought, and race and gender in popular culture, Dr. Cooper writes extensively about both historic and contemporary iterations of Black feminist theorizing.”

    http://www.brittneycooper.com/

  • For Advent: Where in the New Testament are "priests" mentioned?

    12/17/2014 9:57:15 PM PST · 42 of 144
    Mr Rogers to Petrosius

    “That English uses only one term for these two distinct offices is a result of a defect in English...”

    Incorrect. English does in fact HAVE words for the proper translation, and no honest translator would pretend otherwise.

    “A-1,Adjective,4245,presbuteros

    an adjective, the comparative degree of presbus, “an old man, an elder,” is used

    (a) of age, whether of the “elder” of two persons, Luke 15:25, or more, John 8:9, “the eldest;” or of a person advanced in life, a senior, Acts 2:17; in Heb. 11:2, the “elders” are the forefathers in Israel; so in Matt. 15:2; Mark 7:3,5; the feminine of the adjective is used of “elder” women in the churches, 1 Tim. 5:2, not in respect of position but in seniority of age;

    (b) of rank or positions of responsibility,

    (1) among Gentiles, as in the Sept. of Gen. 50:7; Num. 22:7;

    (2) in the Jewish nation, firstly, those who were the heads or leaders of the tribes and families, as of the seventy who assisted Moses, Num. 11:16; Deut. 27:1, and those assembled by Solomon; secondly, members of the Sanhedrin, consisting of the chief priests, “elders” and scribes, learned in Jewish law, e.g., Matt. 16:21; 26:47; thirdly, those who managed public affairs in the various cities, Luke 7:3;

    (3) in the Christian churches, those who, being raised up and qualified by the work of the Holy Spirit, were appointed to have the spiritual care of, and to exercise oversight over, the churches.

    To these the term “bishops,” episkopoi, or “overseers,” is applied (see Acts 20, ver. 17 with ver. 28, and Titus 1:5,7), the latter term indicating the nature of their work, presbuteroi their maturity of spirtual experience.

    The Divine arrangement seen throughout the NT was for a plurality of these to be appointed in each church, Acts 14:23; 20:17; Phil. 1:1; 1 Tim. 5:17; Titus 1:5. The duty of “elders” is described by the verb episkopeo. They were appointed according as they had given evidence of fulfilling the Divine qualifications, Titus 1:6-9; cp. 1 Tim. 3:1-7; 1 Pet. 5:2;

    (4) the twenty-four “elders” enthroned in heaven around the throne of God, Rev. 4:4,10; 5:5-14; 7:11,13; 11:16; 14:3; 19:4. The number twenty-four is representative of earthly conditions. The word “elder” is nowhere applied to angels. See OLD.”

    http://www2.mf.no/bibelprog/vines?word=%AFt0000866

  • For Advent: Where in the New Testament are "priests" mentioned?

    12/17/2014 9:49:21 PM PST · 41 of 144
    Mr Rogers to Petrosius

    “Again, you are ignorant of the history of the term priest and its usage in English.”

    No, I am not. It was used for Catholic “priests”. The meaning is someone who did what the Catholic priest does, including offer sacrifices. What it meant in Old English is irrelevant, since none of us use Old English now.

    Does the New Testament, as delivered by the Apostles, warrant “priests” - hiereus - in the Church? The answer is obviously NO.

    So what is the role envisioned by the Apostles for the elders - the presbutero?

    Contrary to the article, this passage:

    “13 Is anyone among you suffering? Let him pray. Is anyone cheerful? Let him sing psalms. 14 Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord.”

    does NOT suggest they administered sacraments, with all the theological baggage that word includes. It means the elders - plural - would go and pray for the sick members. This has nothing to do with sacramental theology.

    It is important to be accurate in translating the Word of God. Translating “presbutero” as “priest” can only be deliberate distortion. It is utterly unjustified linguistically. That is why Tyndale, in 1526, translated it correctly:

    “Is there any man diseased among you? Let him call for the seniors of the congregation, and let them pray over him, and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord: and the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up: and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.”

    That is a good Greek to English translation. There is no justification for translating “presbutero” as priest. Doing so is deceptive. It mangles the Greek to impose a theology the Apostles did not share.

  • For Advent: Where in the New Testament are "priests" mentioned?

    12/17/2014 7:38:43 PM PST · 32 of 144
    Mr Rogers to Petrosius

    “Since the English word priest, despite the desire of some, means both presbuteros and hiereus your statement is misleading.”

    No, it is not. The English word for priest includes the theology of the Catholic Church - which makes sense in that a Catholic priest functions like a Jewish priest, offering a sacrifice. Indeed, in English, the word “priest” includes the idea of offering sacrifices.

    But the Apostles knew of no such thing. There was no offering of sacrifice by the elders. The only sacrifices offered were offered by the universal priesthood of believers offering sacrifices of thanksgiving and good deeds.

    When the Apostles used presbutero (elder) and NOT hiereus (priest), there was a reason. The elders were not priests. They were never, ever referred to as priests by the Apostles. To take a meaning from an English word which was born out of Roman Catholic theology and inject it into a word which had no such meaning to the Apostles is at best ignorance and at worst deliberate dishonesty.

    If the Apostles had wanted the elder to be thought of as a priest, they could have used the word for it. That they refused to do so, even though they were Jewish, is very important.

    The Apostles COULD have described presbutero as overlapping hiereus. They did not. At no time do they call the elders “priests”. Instead, they clearly describe Jesus as the High Priest, serving perpetually and giving ALL access to God:

    “24 For Christ has not entered the holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us; 25 not that He should offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood of another— 26 He then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself...

    ...Therefore, brethren, having boldness to enter the Holiest by the blood of Jesus, 20 by a new and living way which He consecrated for us, through the veil, that is, His flesh, 21 and having a High Priest over the house of God, 22 let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water...

    ... 15 Therefore by Him let us continually offer the sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of our lips, giving thanks to His name.”

  • For Advent: Where in the New Testament are "priests" mentioned?

    12/17/2014 5:43:52 PM PST · 16 of 144
    Mr Rogers to Petrosius

    If one wants to know what the New Testament says, it helps to pay attention to the language it was written in. If the writers of the New Testament believed there was a priestly office for someone in the church, apart from Jesus as High Priest, they would have said so.

    Instead, they used different words.

    This certainly suggests they saw no priestly role for an officer in the church.

  • For Advent: Where in the New Testament are "priests" mentioned?

    12/17/2014 4:52:06 PM PST · 14 of 144
    Mr Rogers to Salvation

    There was a Greek word for “priest”. It was used in describing Jewish priests, and used of Jesus as High Priest. It was not used of any Christian office in the congregation...

  • There Was No Way a P-51 Could Replace the A-10

    12/17/2014 7:42:04 AM PST · 27 of 100
    Mr Rogers to Gen.Blather

    “Even the most spectacular equipment will not sell just on its merits. You need some cronyism in your corner or it’s no sale.”

    When I worked operational test, it was also apparent that even if your product stunk, you could get Congress to fund it - if you had the right people in your pocket.

  • Michelle Obama: I Was Asked to Take Something Off a Shelf at Target

    12/17/2014 6:56:01 AM PST · 46 of 185
    Mr Rogers to Mr. K

    “And she views someone asking her for help as racism?”

    Only if the other person is white.

    Actually, folks are also prejudiced against white military officers. I’ve been asked to help get things off of shelves, and I’m 3 inches shorter than the Moose. But since I’ve lived a life of white privilege, I don’t realize it is meant to demean me. Noblesse oblige, don’t you know - like the time I helped push a black woman’s car 1/4 mile off an Interstate. And I just thought it was people being nice people...

    Do you suppose it was the Moose’s car I pushed? Back when they were poor, impoverished black folk, struggling to live on a 6 figure salary? I don’t think so...the lady thanked me for helping. I can’t see the Moose thanking anyone for anything.

  • Actress Lena Dunham Says She Already Feels the Pending Republican Congress ''Invading Her Uterus''

    12/17/2014 6:44:00 AM PST · 34 of 140
    Mr Rogers to Lazamataz

    I think I’ll go wash myself off. Maybe with carbolic acid. Just the title of this thread made certain parts feel....diseased.

  • Pope Francis Offers US Help in Closing Guantanamo

    12/16/2014 6:13:15 AM PST · 13 of 30
    Mr Rogers to Gamecock

    Send them all to the Vatican. Give the Vatican Guards something to do...

  • Mark Levin to the GOP: I AM ONE INCH AWAY FROM LEAVING YOU!

    12/15/2014 4:05:10 PM PST · 21 of 119
    Mr Rogers to gwgn02

    This comes from a study on why churches have left liberal denominations:

    ““Among the broader, longstanding concerns that convinced departing congregations that they no longer had a home in their denominations that Carthage College researchers found were:

    • “Bullying” tactics by denominational leaders.

    • A perceived abandonment of foundational principles of Scripture and tradition.

    • The devaluation of personal faith.

    “The ones that left said reform was not possible,” said Carthage sociologist Wayne Thompson, study leader.”

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3237303/posts

    Sound familiar?

  • HEIEN v. NORTH CAROLINA decided by supreme Court.

    12/15/2014 3:26:26 PM PST · 38 of 45
    Mr Rogers to zeugma

    “Some of us have been consistent in maintaining that such rules are not mere ‘technicalities’, but are fundamental to the maintennence of our freedom.”

    The tainted fruit theory requires us to let obviously guilty people go free because a cop made a mistake. We might want to fine police departments, but I remember one example where a guy who smashed a woman’s head in with a cinder block went free.

    What about the dead woman’s rights? What about my right to walk down the street in freedom, not assaulted by thugs or gunned down with stolen fully automatic weapons?

    We have ample protection built in already.

    “More than two centuries ago, this Court held that reasonable mistakes of law, like those of fact, could justify a certificate of probable cause. United States v. Riddle, 5 Cranch 311, 313. That holding was reiterated in numerous 19th-century decisions.”

    That was an 1809 decision: “But as the construction of the law was liable to some question, the court will suffer the certificate of probable cause to remain as it is. A doubt as to the true construction of the law is as reasonable a cause for seizure as a doubt respecting the fact.”

    Cops are not experts in the exact wording of every law. No one is. They cannot be required to distinguish “relevant code provision, which requires that a car be “equipped with a stop lamp” vs “stop lamps”. No one alive knows all the traffic codes and public laws to that level of detail.

    Suppose the same cop stopped me. When I acted like a normal person, he would have waived me on, or issued a citation for having one inop brake light which I could have fought (and won) in court.

    As the conservatives on the Court wrote:

    “Because the Fourth Amendment tolerates only objectively reasonable mistakes, cf. Whrenv. United States, 517 U. S. 806, 813, an officer can gain no advantage through poor study. Finally, while the maxim “Ignorance of the law is no excuse” correctly implies that the State cannot impose punishment based on a mistake of law, it does not mean a reasonable mistake of law cannot justify an investigatory stop...

    ...The Fourth Amendment prohibits “unreasonable searches and seizures.” Under this standard, a search or seizure may be permissible even though the justification for the action includes a reasonable factual mistake. An officer might, for example, stop a motorist for traveling alone in a high-occupancy vehicle lane, only to discover upon approaching the car that two children are slumped over asleep in the back seat. The driver has not violated the law, but neither has the officer violated the Fourth Amendment.

    But what if the police officer’s reasonable mistake is not one of fact but of law? In this case, an officer stopped a vehicle because one of its two brake lights was out, but a court later determined that a single working brake light was all the law required. The question presented is whether such a mistake of law can nonetheless give rise to the reasonable suspicion necessary to uphold the seizure under the Fourth Amendment. We hold that it can...

    ...Noting that the State had chosen not to seek review of the Court of Appeals’ interpretation of the vehicle code, the North Carolina Supreme Court assumed for purposes of its decision that the faulty brake light was not a violation. Id.,at 275, 737 S. E. 2d, at 354. But the court concluded that, for several reasons, Sergeant Darisse could have reasonably, even if mistakenly, read the vehicle code to require that both brake lights be in good working order.

    Most notably, a nearby code provision requires that “all originally equipped rear lamps” be functional. Id.,at 282–283, 737 S. E. 2d, at 358–359 (quoting N. C. Gen. Stat. Ann. §20–129(d)). Because Sergeant Darisse’s mistaken understanding of the vehicle code was reasonable, the stop was valid. “An officer may make a mistake, including a mistake of law, yet still act reasonably under the circumstances. . . . [W]hen an officer acts reasonably under the circumstances, he is not violating the Fourth Amendment.” Id.,at 279, 737 S. E. 2d, at 356. “

    Here is an important point:

    At the time of the stop, no court anywhere had ruled the traffic code required only one working light. The NC Supreme Court did not review it because they were not asked to, but the cop COULD NOT HAVE KNOWN HOW THE COURT WOULD APPLY THE LAW IN THE FUTURE. The wording is conflicting, and the court did not decide until later that only one light was required - and based on the wording, I think the only error was when the court decided only one light was needed.

    But the cop had no way of knowing, at the time of the stop, that both lights needed to be out for a violation. Thus you are holding the cops to an impossible standard - how will a court interpret the law on some future date.

  • HEIEN v. NORTH CAROLINA decided by supreme Court.

    12/15/2014 12:47:57 PM PST · 32 of 45
    Mr Rogers to kevkrom

    I met a cop who tried to pull over a car for ‘acting suspicious’. IIRC, his suspicion was nothing more than 3 really big guys crammed in the back seat while the front had only the driver.

    The car ran. When they finally got it stopped (and searched), they found stolen military grenades and fully automatic weapons in the trunk. All three guys in the back were armed felons.

    In spite of my ‘white privilege’, I’ve been pulled over for something that struck the cop as suspicious. We chatted for a few minutes and I went on my way. Maybe I should have cussed at him, and then floored it...what do you think?

  • HEIEN v. NORTH CAROLINA decided by supreme Court.

    12/15/2014 12:41:58 PM PST · 31 of 45
    Mr Rogers to zeugma

    “However since the pretext for the stop was not legal, anything arising from it was tainted.”

    Ah yes, the ‘tainted fruit’ theory that conservatives used to get upset about instead of endorsing.

    If the stop was for what a reasonable person could conclude was justified, then illegal activity it uncovers is not tainted.

    “Roberts, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, and Kagan, JJ., joined.”

    When the only justice who agrees with you is Sotomayor, you are in pee-poor legal company!

  • HEIEN v. NORTH CAROLINA decided by supreme Court.

    12/15/2014 12:38:13 PM PST · 30 of 45
    Mr Rogers to zeugma

    It allows cops to be human. If a cop could reasonably believe X is the law, then stopping someone for doing X is not a horrible thing. It actually does work both ways. More than one law has been thrown out by courts for being too vague to enforce.

  • Not just gay issues: Why hundreds of congregations made final break with mainline denominations

    12/15/2014 6:29:32 AM PST · 11 of 16
    Mr Rogers to Gamecock

    “Among the broader, longstanding concerns that convinced departing congregations that they no longer had a home in their denominations that Carthage College researchers found were:

    • “Bullying” tactics by denominational leaders.

    • A perceived abandonment of foundational principles of Scripture and tradition.

    • The devaluation of personal faith.

    “The ones that left said reform was not possible,” said Carthage sociologist Wayne Thompson, study leader.”

    Am I the only one who thought this was written about the GOP?

    • “Bullying” tactics by GOP leaders.

    • A perceived abandonment of foundational principles of the Constitution and freedom.

    • The devaluation of personal responsibility.

    “The ones that left said reform was not possible,” said Tea Party activists...

  • Three Obama nominees who may now be confirmed, thanks to Ted Cruz (Harry Reid using nuclear option)

    12/15/2014 6:25:19 AM PST · 11 of 40
    Mr Rogers to Dave346

    The idea that starting on these nominations this morning instead of this evening makes any difference in how many get confirmed is shear stupidity. The idea that someone like Reid would not use every bit of power possible to destroy America before turning over the reins - even if it meant sticking around until 11:59 PM on 31 Dec, is ludicrous.

    Besides - since when has CBS News reported accurately and fairly on any issue?

  • Senate approves $1.1 trillion spending bill

    12/14/2014 8:30:34 AM PST · 157 of 190
    Mr Rogers to Mr Rogers; Lurkina.n.Learnin

    My screwup. If they voted Nay, it means they felt the heat coming from their home state. I still hate them both.

  • Senate approves $1.1 trillion spending bill

    12/14/2014 8:27:30 AM PST · 156 of 190
    Mr Rogers to Lurkina.n.Learnin

    “Arizona: Flake (R-AZ), Nay McCain (R-AZ), Nay”

    One always knows McCain will fight against conservatives, just like his ‘good friend’ Ted Kennedy would. But McFlake has been a disappointment. He ran as a conservative until he won, then immediately went hard left so he could screw himself up into McCain’s butthole. I hate him more than McCain.

  • Senate approves $1.1 trillion spending bill

    12/14/2014 8:23:15 AM PST · 155 of 190
    Mr Rogers to txnativegop

    “the WaPo story quotes Schumer and other Dem senators as thanking Cruz and Lee for allowing them to get more nominations through the Senate than otherwise would have been the case.”

    Actually:

    “If the Senate had voted Monday on the spending bill under the original agreement, Reid would have had to wait until Monday evening to start processing nominees...”

    Only an idiot or a turtle would believe the Democrats were not going to push all their nominees thru before losing control of the Senate.

    From a GOP senator:

    “...adding that until Saturday, liberals were being faulted for holding up the spending bill. “Now, I guess the blame will be shared,” she said.”

    Oh golly! Imagine the GOP being “blamed” for holding up a spending bill! We sure would not want THAT to happen!

    The GOP-E. What is the difference between them and the Democrats? Nothing!

  • GOP Senators upset they have to work on the weekend

    12/14/2014 6:31:19 AM PST · 34 of 38
    Mr Rogers to Theodore R.

    “... the Republican primary voters of AZ have a dismal track record.”

    Very true. The reality is that John McCain will be an Arizona senator until he decides not to run, or dies. I’m slightly more hopeful that McFlake can be taken out in 2018. If he gets a second term, then Arizona’s political history indicates he’ll be there until he dies. In Arizona, senators are elected for life...

    ;>(

  • GOP Senators upset they have to work on the weekend

    12/13/2014 6:56:44 PM PST · 12 of 38
    Mr Rogers to Wisconsinlady

    Both of my Arizona Republican senators, including the one who pretended to be a conservative, are upset. McFlake is in office thru 2018...but I will remember.

  • Growing divide among Senate Republicans on spending bill?

    12/13/2014 10:32:05 AM PST · 9 of 76
    Mr Rogers to Jim Robinson

    Mitch McConnell is like my own Senator, John McCain: He only fights conservatives. If they worked 1/10th as hard against Democrats as they do against the Tea Party, we would see progress.

  • Boehner to Aide-Turned-Lobbyist: 'No One Ever Really Leaves Boehnerland'

    12/12/2014 4:31:20 PM PST · 4 of 19
    Mr Rogers to cotton1706

    There is A Land With No Balls?

    And other than the fact that Obama seems like a Raging Bull of Testosterone compared to Boehner, what is the difference between Boehnerland and Obamaland?

  • Obamacare Enrollees Could Get Hit With Surprise Costs (Obama's tax scam getting called out)

    12/12/2014 3:09:04 PM PST · 10 of 30
    Mr Rogers to tobyhill

    This is what I’m looking forward to seeing:

    “Reconciliation. Although the tax credit is paid in advance directly to an insurer on a monthly basis, it is in fact a tax credit that must be claimed on the taxpayer’s annual income tax return. Final eligibility for the credit, therefore, cannot be known until the taxpayer files his or her annual return, at which point household income for the year will be finally determined. A “reconciliation” must then occur between the tax credit already received and that to which the individual is actually entitled...

    If the taxpayer turns out to have been eligible for more than had been paid, the taxpayer gets a refund. If, however, the government has paid more than the taxpayer in fact turns out to be entitled to, the taxpayer must pay the money back.”

    http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2012/05/20/implementing-health-reform-the-premium-tax-credit-final-rule/

    So if someone bought Obamacare on the market, and their wife got a part-time job, increasing their family income, then there is a good chance they will owe money back on their health insurance. How happy will they be when they have to fork over $$ or get a smaller refund ‘because of Obamacare”...

    Heck, how happy will they be when they are required to file a new form as part of their taxes?

    ;>)

  • U.S. pastor faces ‘crimes against humanity’ charges for opposing gay agenda

    12/12/2014 2:33:49 PM PST · 60 of 76
    Mr Rogers to wagglebee

    So can we sue homosexual activists for violating Russia’s laws? Can Putin file a class action lawsuit against Obama?

  • If Boehner Breaks Hastert Rule over CRomnibus, that Frees ALL Republicans to Support New Speaker

    12/11/2014 6:44:12 PM PST · 60 of 168
    Mr Rogers to xzins

    Unhappily, a large majority of House members secretly agree with Boehner. They vote more conservative than they are, and pass off THEIR cowardice as his.

    But what to do? I refused to vote for the House race this time because I loathed both candidates - Gabby Gifford’s Mini Me & McSally. McSally will vote straight GOP-E unless she is allowed off the reservation by the GOP-E for votes where it won’t matter regardless.

    So what does one do?

  • All Animals Go To Heaven, Says Pope Francis

    12/11/2014 8:49:40 AM PST · 83 of 212
    Mr Rogers to Resolute Conservative

    My personal opinion is that the Bible was written to reveal God to man. It therefor has little information on how God views the rest of creation. If you had to communicate something to an ant, how much info would you include in the message?

    I don’t know the fate of animals, but I’d be very surprised if God doesn’t love them too. What provisions He has made (or not made) for them is something we won’t know until we get there ourselves. However, I won’t be surprised if heaven has a LOT of animals. Heck:

    Balaam, the Donkey, and the Angel

    22 Then God’s anger was aroused because he went, and the Angel of the Lord took His stand in the way as an adversary against him. And he was riding on his donkey, and his two servants were with him. 23 Now the donkey saw the Angel of the Lord standing in the way with His drawn sword in His hand, and the donkey turned aside out of the way and went into the field. So Balaam struck the donkey to turn her back onto the road.

    24 Then the Angel of the Lord stood in a narrow path between the vineyards, with a wall on this side and a wall on that side. 25 And when the donkey saw the Angel of the Lord, she pushed herself against the wall and crushed Balaam’s foot against the wall; so he struck her again.

    26 Then the Angel of the Lord went further, and stood in a narrow place where there was no way to turn either to the right hand or to the left. 27 And when the donkey saw the Angel of the Lord, she lay down under Balaam; so Balaam’s anger was aroused, and he struck the donkey with his staff.

    28 Then the Lord opened the mouth of the donkey, and she said to Balaam, “What have I done to you, that you have struck me these three times?”

    29 And Balaam said to the donkey, “Because you have abused me. I wish there were a sword in my hand, for now I would kill you!”

    30 So the donkey said to Balaam, “Am I not your donkey on which you have ridden, ever since I became yours, to this day? Was I ever disposed to do this to you?”

    And he said, “No.”

    31 Then the Lord opened Balaam’s eyes, and he saw the Angel of the Lord standing in the way with His drawn sword in His hand; and he bowed his head and fell flat on his face.

    32 And the Angel of the Lord said to him, “Why have you struck your donkey these three times? Behold, I have come out to stand against you, because your way is perverse before Me. 33 The donkey saw Me and turned aside from Me these three times. If she had not turned aside from Me, surely I would also have killed you by now, and let her live.” - Numbers 22

    Notice: “Then the Lord opened the mouth of the donkey...” Not, the Lord put speech into the donkey’s mouth, but the Lord OPENED the mouth of the donkey!

    I ride horses frequently. If one ever speaks to me with human speech, I’ll probably be too dumbfounded to converse. But it does suggest something lies beyond what some theologians see...

  • All Animals Go To Heaven, Says Pope Francis

    12/11/2014 8:16:21 AM PST · 17 of 212
    Mr Rogers to Resolute Conservative; Slings and Arrows

    “Scripture reference? As much as I’d like to think so I haven’t read anything that suggests this is true.”

    For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. - Romans 8 NKJV