Posts by Mr Rogers

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • No-homework policy improves home life for younger students at one CPS school

    09/14/2014 9:11:37 PM PDT · 2 of 22
    Mr Rogers to MNDude

    Ridiculous amounts of homework are one of my pet peeves. My youngest is now in 12th grade and doing 3-4 hours a day. I’m sure glad I grew up in the 60s and 70s...

  • Gabby Giffords: Gun Control for Women's Sake Now

    09/14/2014 9:00:15 AM PDT · 28 of 74
    Mr Rogers to Don Corleone

    Sorry. I met too many A-10 pilots who knew her to think very highly of Martha McSally, Lt. Col. USAF Ret. She pro-illegal immigration and a darling of the GOP-E to boot.

  • Pope says world's many conflicts amount to piecemeal WW3

    09/13/2014 7:06:32 AM PDT · 9 of 25
    Mr Rogers to GreyFriar

    “War is irrational; its only plan is to bring destruction: it seeks to grow by destroying,” he said. “Greed, intolerance, the lust for power. These motives underlie the decision to go to war and they are too often justified by an ideology ...,” he said.

    War has solved a number of problems. It is entirely rational in self-defense. Indeed, war is not a person at all. It makes no decisions. People do. Evil people will start a war to increase their power. What should the innocent do? Submit?

    Many Muslims are at war - physical violence - against non-Muslims. What should we do?

    America has been fighting this war with one hand tied behind its back since the 1990s, in part because we refuse to recognize the enemy. It has not helped to have a POS President who is a member of the enemy...

    Nor does what is going on now in any way compare to the horrors of WW1 & WW2.

  • Minnesota Vikings Running Back Adrian Peterson Indicted on Child Abuse Charge (switched his child)

    09/13/2014 6:39:59 AM PDT · 253 of 305
    Mr Rogers to 1010RD; Cvengr

    “I have had success with hundreds of children whose parents said they were out of control or wouldn’t listen.”

    Unless you’ve been very busy in the bedroom, you have not raised hundreds of kids as a parent. The role of a parent is very different from a teacher. The same rules do not apply.

    “I’ve never needed to punish a child with hitting of any kind.”

    I have. Kids like and need clear rules, and to know they are not in control. Like a horse, they thrive when the know someone tougher than them is taking care of life and protecting them. That is when they are safe to enjoy life.

    You can try talking to two year olds if you wish. I’ve met some who would respond to talk. Many more do not. Horses for courses, and choose the discipline that works with your individual child.

  • Minnesota Vikings Running Back Adrian Peterson Indicted on Child Abuse Charge (switched his child)

    09/13/2014 6:34:52 AM PDT · 249 of 305
    Mr Rogers to 1010RD

    “A sheep dog who bites or grips is a bad sheep dog. I doubt a normal sheepherder ever “set the dogs” on the sheep. They simply let their dogs herd the sheep. That’s normal and requires no physical contact from the dog. The rubber hose is indicative of a impatient rancher.”

    You assume the sheep will obey the dog. If so, fine. And if a child obeys the parent, fine.

    But range sheep WILL refuse to obey a dog, then then the dog must enforce its will with its teeth. Not all sheep live in pastures and are worked with daily. Range sheep may need a dog to be aggressive.

    It is even more true of cattle. The idea that herd dogs never ever need to bite is a myth. A dog who will not use its teeth to enforce its will has no control over the rougher animals.

    So it is with kids. Some kids are born pretty willing. Some are not.

    And yes, a rancher can be impatient when he has a lot of sheep to load to meet a deadline...just as a parent can need to meet deadlines that a child cannot understand.

    “Sitting down and reading the Bible won’t do it, but living the Bible will.”

    Part of living the Bible s following its advice.

    “Do not hold back discipline from the child,
    Although you strike him with the rod, he will not die.
    You shall strike him with the rod
    And rescue his soul from Sheol.”

    I don’t think “strike him with the rod” means anything other than what it says. You are ignoring the plain text to create an interpretation no one else holds.

    Further, when a kid will not stay out of a road or stop when told to stop, there is no time to teach & live and feel fuzzy about him. You must enforce your will, or lose. If you lose, you greatly increase the chance that ultimately the kid will lose.

    “Why the Sheol reference? Matthew Henry gets it right again. This is a spiritual issue.”

    Indeed. A kid who knows no discipline, who refuses to obey his parents, is heading to hell. It is the parent’s job to save him from a life of destruction. That includes enforcing the rules.

    It twists the plain meaning of scripture beyond recognition to pretend that the Bible does not teach corporal punishment. You can reject it if you wish, but the Bible clearly endorses it.

    “Utterly different context at 26. The entire chapter isn’t about children, but fools.”

    So “rod” means “rod” when it is talking about fools, but means the Bible when talking about kids? Sorry. I’m not buying what you are selling.

  • Minnesota Vikings Running Back Adrian Peterson Indicted on Child Abuse Charge (switched his child)

    09/12/2014 9:43:25 PM PDT · 184 of 305
    Mr Rogers to 1010RD; JRandomFreeper

    “A child is not a dog. Whacking isn’t a natural consequence at all...Our prisons are full of kids whose parents hit them. It doesn’t work.”

    Dogs are smarter than some young kids...but young kids and dogs and horses all respond well to immediate, proportionate physical punishment.

    I’ve known a great many successful people who were spanked and belted. The idea that it causes folks to end up in prison is silly.

  • Minnesota Vikings Running Back Adrian Peterson Indicted on Child Abuse Charge (switched his child)

    09/12/2014 9:39:30 PM PDT · 181 of 305
    Mr Rogers to 1010RD; Cvengr

    Time outs do not work with many kids. I had two who LOVED time-outs. They are also ineffective with young kids who do not link things thru time.

    Spanking a 12 year old makes no sense to me. But it can work great with a 2 year old.

  • Minnesota Vikings Running Back Adrian Peterson Indicted on Child Abuse Charge (switched his child)

    09/12/2014 9:30:59 PM PDT · 169 of 305
    Mr Rogers to 1010RD

    Actually, sheepherders DO set the dogs on sheep who won’t move. And I’ve helped a sheep rancher use a rubber hose to get sheep thru a ramp before.

    Corporal punishment is definitely allowed and encouraged in the Bible.

    “He who withholds his rod hates his son,
    But he who loves him disciplines him diligently.”

    I’m sorry, but that does not sound to me like encouragement to read the Bible to my kids regularly. That is a good thing too, but it is not what the verse is talking about. The same goes for:

    “Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child;
    The rod of discipline will remove it far from him.”

    “Do not hold back discipline from the child,
    Although you strike him with the rod, he will not die.
    You shall strike him with the rod
    And rescue his soul from Sheol.”

    “A whip is for the horse, a bridle for the donkey,
    And a rod for the back of fools.”

  • How the King James Bible changed the world

    09/12/2014 9:04:15 PM PDT · 125 of 125
    Mr Rogers to terycarl; RoosterRedux

    “heard the entire bible preached over a three year period”

    No, they did not.

    Pre-Vatican II, only about 1% of the Old Testament was covered, and about 16% of the New Testament.

    The current one, read on Sundays and major feast days, covers about 40% of the NT and 4% of the Old.

  • Minnesota Vikings Running Back Adrian Peterson Indicted on Child Abuse Charge (switched his child)

    09/12/2014 8:43:43 PM PDT · 118 of 305
    Mr Rogers to tflabo; 1010RD

    John Gill:

    “Verse 24

    He that spareth his rod hateth his son,.... Who withholds or withdraws his rod of correction, which is in his hand, which he has power to use, and ought to exercise at proper times; he, instead of loving his son, may be said to hate him; for such fond love is no better than hatred; and, if he really hated him, he could scarcely do a more ill thing by him than not to correct him for a fault; which was the sin of good old Eli, and both he and his sons suffered for it;

    but he that loveth him; that has a true love for his son, and a hearty concern for his welfare and future good; he will regulate his affections by his judgment, and not give way to a fond passion, to the prejudice of his child: but he

    chasteneth him betimes, or “in the morning”F24; in the morning of his infancy, before vicious habits are contracted, or he is accustomed to sinning, and hardened in it; or as soon as a crime is perpetrated, before it is forgot or repeated: or every morning, as Jarchi and Aben Ezra; that is, continually, as often as it is necessary, or as faults are committed.”

  • Minnesota Vikings Running Back Adrian Peterson Indicted on Child Abuse Charge (switched his child)

    09/12/2014 8:38:00 PM PDT · 110 of 305
    Mr Rogers to JRandomFreeper

    I’m with you. I wasn’t switched, but the belt sometimes left a mark. I generally needed it if I got it, and I’m better off for it.

    Personally, I always used my hand because then I knew exactly how it felt. However, there were times that finger marks were left. If you ask my kids, they’ll tell you the same I say about my Dad.

    If I had ever used a switch, I’m sure I would have drawn blood at times. But cars, horses and rattlesnakes and cactus can be a lot more dangerous, and whatever it took to make a young child listen was better than a single time of not listening when things got hairy.

  • McDonald's Is Quietly Copying Chipotle's Strategy ("Customization")

    09/12/2014 12:57:00 PM PDT · 36 of 55
    Mr Rogers to aomagrat

    Me too! I stop at a McD’s because I want something fast & cheap - typically a couple of cheeseburgers to go...about $3, eaten while driving.

    If they want me to wait around until buzzed...well, I think not!

    Am I the only person left in America who LIKED fast food? I don’t go to a McD’s for salads, gourmet shakes, foo-foo coffee or health food. I go for burgers, maybe with fries, cheap and fast.

  • Should atheists who refuse to say ‘so help me God’ be excluded from the Air Force?

    09/11/2014 11:15:11 AM PDT · 40 of 48
    Mr Rogers to RedStateRocker

    “Obeying, or enforcing, a bad law is every bit as bad as having written it. IMHO.”

    So when we had people in the squadron who claimed GW Bush wasn’t legally the President and they did not need to deploy, should we have let them?

    If Barack Obama doesn’t like immigration law, should he be allowed to “interpret” it his way?

    Where does it end?

  • Should atheists who refuse to say ‘so help me God’ be excluded from the Air Force?

    09/11/2014 11:11:32 AM PDT · 39 of 48
    Mr Rogers to Lurking Libertarian

    “The statute contains a cross-reference...”

    No, the statue does not. Some legal software will provide you with cross references, and that helps to build a legal case. One can also look at notes provided by Congress for fuller explanation, when they exist. But those are things COURTS do. The military takes a law at face value.

    An affirmation usually means you have a religious objection to swearing an oath, as I do.

  • Should atheists who refuse to say ‘so help me God’ be excluded from the Air Force?

    09/11/2014 10:53:55 AM PDT · 29 of 48
    Mr Rogers to xkaydet65

    I strongly suspect the courts will side with the legal reasoning in the article, and issue a ruling saying the law doesn’t really mean what it says. Courts do that all the time, and it is sometimes a worthwhile thing. After all, the person who updated the AFI probably didn’t have access to legal software to help track down every court case or exception - all they had was the text of the law itself.

    Frankly, the ruling ought to say the words are a religious test and are unconstitutional.

    My only point, as someone who has sometimes had to draft revisions to a regulation, is that the USAF’s hands are tied. The USAF has no business deciding the words are unconstitutional and must be stripped from the law.

    Now, if I were the officer administering the oath, I might not catch an omission of those words by the oath-taker, if you know what I mean...

  • Should atheists who refuse to say ‘so help me God’ be excluded from the Air Force?

    09/11/2014 10:42:56 AM PDT · 23 of 48
    Mr Rogers to right-wing agnostic

    It is public law:

    U.S. Code › Title 10 › Subtitle A › Part II › Chapter 31 › § 502
    10 U.S. Code § 502 - Enlistment oath: who may administer:

    (a) Enlistment Oath.— Each person enlisting in an armed force shall take the following oath: “I, XXXXXXXXXX, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”

    (b) Who May Administer.— The oath may be taken before the President, the Vice-President, the Secretary of Defense, any commissioned officer, or any other person designated under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense.”

    Bad law, but it is the law until revised or overturned.

  • Should atheists who refuse to say ‘so help me God’ be excluded from the Air Force?

    09/11/2014 10:40:47 AM PDT · 20 of 48
    Mr Rogers to RJS1950

    According to public law, the words are required. Congress specified the exact wording and gave no one authority to delete it.

    I think it is wrong, but this is a problem with Congress, not the military. When the AFI was revised, they simply corrected it to align the AFI with the law Congress passed. The USAF has no say in the matter.

  • Ten Great Land Yachts

    09/11/2014 8:54:43 AM PDT · 39 of 90
    Mr Rogers to TexasGator
    In picture form, to help folks visualize:

    "Alternatively, a coupé is often distinguished from a two-door sedan by the lack of a B pillar to support the roof. Sedans have an A pillar forward at the windscreen, a B pillar aft of the door, and a C pillar defining the aftermost roof support at the rear window."

  • The United States should be nervous about the Scottish independence referendum

    09/11/2014 7:20:58 AM PDT · 85 of 88
    Mr Rogers to driftless2

    Scottish independence would be like California becoming independent - a blessing to those who remain behind!

  • How Christian fundamentalist homeschooling damages children (Salon)

    09/11/2014 6:44:37 AM PDT · 76 of 83
    Mr Rogers to Faith Presses On

    I’ve met plenty of fully educated public school grads who have about a third grade education after 12 years. How is that better?

    My daughter was homeschooled thru 8th grade. She is taking calculus and a variety of AP classes as a 16 year old senior. It doesn’t seem being homeschooled before the 9th grade hurt her any...

  • How the King James Bible changed the world

    09/10/2014 4:43:33 PM PDT · 112 of 125
    Mr Rogers to terycarl

    “The KJV was, of course, in English and while there were many latin versiions of the bible available, they were not in the hands of the people because they were prohibitively expensive..”

    Actually, that began 100 years before the KJV, when Luther and Tyndale made their translations. However, there was a demand for scripture in the vernacular, which is why Wycliffe’s followers labored so hard to distribute hand written copies. There was a reason the Jews in the days of Jesus knew the scriptures - because it was emphasized. Had the Catholic Church wanted, it could have done so as well. It chose not to do so, because it could not reconcile what was in the scripture with what the church was teaching.

  • How the King James Bible changed the world

    09/10/2014 4:39:16 PM PDT · 111 of 125
    Mr Rogers to terycarl

    “Christiaans baptized households full of people.”

    There is no example of baptizing a baby in scripture, nor would it have made any sense to Jews. Baptism by water was for converts, not for infants.

  • How the King James Bible changed the world

    09/10/2014 1:33:54 PM PDT · 106 of 125
    Mr Rogers to Dr. Sivana; daniel1212

    Well, if someone refuses to read anything that might not agree with what they already believe, then they certainly won’t ever feel challenged!

    Heck, Augustine and Jerome never agreed on the status of the Apocrypha, and even the Council of Trent refused to decide between them! If two Great Church Fathers can’t even agree on if the Apocrypha is good for doctrine or not, then just how useful are Church Fathers? Indeed, how useful is a Council if it can’t decide?

    “Ultimately, the teachings of the Church Christ founded, the Holy Roman Catholic Church, provides the guidelines.”

    Given the discrepancies between the New Testament and the Roman Catholic Church’s theology, the inescapable conclusion is that Christ did not found the Roman Catholic Church. There were no Christian priests in the New Testament, nor Bishops, nor Pope. There was no evolving doctrine. There was no purgatory nor indulgences. Baptism was for believers, because it makes no sense to baptize someone who cannot or does not believe.

    All that is obvious if one simply reads the New Testament by itself. But it can only be discovered by someone who values the Word of God over the Word of Church.

  • How the King James Bible changed the world

    09/10/2014 12:57:50 PM PDT · 104 of 125
    Mr Rogers to Dr. Sivana; daniel1212

    “Oh, a priest, theologians, Church fathers, Church doctors, Holy Saints, and much much more.”

    I’d suggest skipping those and simply using a decent commentary that includes discussions of the original language and the historical setting. Theologians will argue over almost anything. The Church Fathers were all over the place. In one writing they would say one thing, and in another say another - with the same person writing! Church doctors and Holy Saints were interested in preserving Catholic theology, and cheerfully would do so at the expense of the word of God.

    The New Testament knows of two types of human priests - Jewish priests, offering blood and other sacrifices, and every Christian, offering sacrifices of obedience, thankfulness, etc. There were no priests in the New Testament in the Christian Church. Someone who is a priest is, by definition, someone who does not accept the authority of the Word of God over his own theology - so why consult him to find out what the word says, when he doesn’t CARE about what it says?

    That was why Wycliffe was so dangerous to the Roman Catholic Church. By getting the word of God into the hands of believers, he allowed the believers to discover they had been lied to about what God wants of them. That is also why they attacked Tyndale, and attacked Luther, and why they still attack the KJV - because letting people read the Word of God leaves the Roman Catholic Church with no foundation.

    A church who wants people to “do penance” instead of repent is not interested in the Word of God.

  • How the King James Bible changed the world

    09/10/2014 7:21:54 AM PDT · 87 of 125
    Mr Rogers to Dr. Sivana

    ” If it were just to make for better German, Germans wouldn’t have to lean on it for a radically different theology...

    Every year, when the reading turns to 2nd Corinthians, and the term “bowels” is used in a way unfamiliar to most modern Americans, our priest explains what is meant. That is preferred to changing the word to something that might be more in tune with modern idiom, but NOT what God inspired the Sacred writer to write.”

    They did not “lean on it” - that we are saved by faith and not by working is excruciatingly obvious to anyone who reads the New Testament, and reasonably obvious to anyone who reads the Old.

    Nor is the goal of a Bible translation to create something that you must go to the priest to understand. As Tyndale pointed out, if you have the scripture translated, you can judge the priest, instead of “leaning on” the priest.

    The Jews were commanded to know God’s Word themselves, so why would it be wrong for Christians to have access?

    Your arguments against Bible translations were made for hundreds of years by the Catholic Church, but it eventually broke down and allowed commoners to read the scripture - although it prefers translations that twist the meanings of words like “repent”.

    You are selling what no one is buying, not even the Catholic Church anymore - that commoners are not smart enough or godly enough to read God’s word in their own tongue.

    Why is this a bad translation of 2 Cor 6:

    “We have spoken freely to you, Corinthians; our heart is wide open. 12 You are not restricted by us, but you are restricted in your own affections. 13 In return (I speak as to children) widen your hearts also.”

    Instead of:

    “Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels.”

    Do you know nothing of the duty of a translator? Why is it the Catholic Church now agrees with translating it: “ You are not constrained by us; you are constrained by your own affections”?

  • How the King James Bible changed the world

    09/10/2014 7:09:28 AM PDT · 86 of 125
    Mr Rogers to Dr. Sivana; daniel1212

    “St. Thomas Moore’s pointed speech certainly had less solipsisteic reasoning behind them. It is how the epithets are employed, and the lack of foundation for them that makes it petty compared to a St. Thomas Moore.”


    So it is OK for a Catholic to be a horse’s butt, and even to torture and execute Protestants, but it is not OK for a Protestant to be a horse’s butt who does not kill Catholics!

    When More wrote that Tyndale was no longer a “heretic swollen with pride”, but had become “a beast discharging filthy foam of blasphemies out of his brutish beastly mouth “- a “railing ribald” - a “drowsy drudge that has drunken deep in the devil’s dregs” and so on...saintly Sir Thomas More was just being “pointed”, eh?

    Marius wrote in his biography of More: “To stand before a man at an inquisition, knowing that he will rejoice when we die, knowing that he will commit us to the stake and its horrors without a moment’s hesitation or remorse if we do not satisfy him, is not an experience much less cruel because our inquisitor does not whip us or rack us or shout at us. . . More believed that they (Protestants) should be exterminated, and while he was in office he did everything in his power to bring that extermination to pass.”

    But Luther was rotten because he called Catholic bishops names....hmmmm...

  • How the King James Bible changed the world

    09/09/2014 6:53:23 PM PDT · 69 of 125
    Mr Rogers to Dr. Sivana

    “Luther’s insults don’t change the fact that he added a word that wasn’t there.”

    He added it to make the sentence GOOD GERMAN. When you translate, you always change it some because you are changing languages. If you seek what is now called “dynamic equivalence”, then you add and subtract more, because you are trying to translate the thought instead of just the words.

    A word for word translation isn’t generally considered very readable, certainly not for longer passages. For example:

    “14 `And as Moses did lift up the serpent in the wilderness, so it behoveth the Son of Man to be lifted up,

    15 that every one who is believing in him may not perish, but may have life age-during,

    16 for God did so love the world, that His Son — the only begotten — He gave, that every one who is believing in him may not perish, but may have life age-during.

    17 For God did not send His Son to the world that he may judge the world, but that the world may be saved through him;

    18 he who is believing in him is not judged, but he who is not believing hath been judged already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.”

    While reasonably literal, it is not truly literal - and yet it is awkward to read in English. As a study tool, it is great. As a devotional bible, it is lacking.

    “I had not read the cites from Luther you provided, but it is consistent with the worst I had read of the man.”

    I gather, then, you haven’t bothered to read Sir Thomas More either. It was the style of the day, regardless of which side one supports. If you think the Catholics of the day dripped with politeness, you would be sadly mistaken.

  • How the King James Bible changed the world

    09/09/2014 5:40:29 PM PDT · 67 of 125
    Mr Rogers to Dr. Sivana

    “And yes, ADDING the word “alone” to Saint Paul IS a big, big deal.”

    Not if you are translating into GERMAN, as Luther explained back in 1530:

    “I know very well that in Romans 3 the word solum is not in the Greek or Latin text — the papists did not have to teach me that. It is fact that the letters s-o-l-a are not there. And these blockheads stare at them like cows at a new gate, while at the same time they do not recognize that it conveys the sense of the text — if the translation is to be clear and vigorous [klar und gewaltiglich], it belongs there. I wanted to speak German, not Latin or Greek, since it was German I had set about to speak in the translation. But it is the nature of our language that in speaking about two things, one which is affirmed, the other denied, we use the word allein [only] along with the word nicht [not] or kein [no]. For example, we say “the farmer brings allein grain and kein money”; or “No, I really have nicht money, but allein grain”; I have allein eaten and nicht yet drunk”; “Did you write it allein and nicht read it over?” There are countless cases like this in daily usage.

    In all these phrases, this is a German usage, even though it is not the Latin or Greek usage. It is the nature of the German language to add allein in order that nicht or kein may be clearer and more complete. To be sure, I can also say, “The farmer brings grain and kein money,” but the words “kein money” do not sound as full and clear as if I were to say, “the farmer brings allein grain and kein money.” Here the word allein helps the word kein so much that it becomes a completely clear German expression. We do not have to ask the literal Latin how we are to speak German, as these donkeys do. Rather we must ask the mother in the home, the children on the street, the common man in the marketplace. We must be guided by their language, by the way they speak, and do our translating accordingly. Then they will understand it and recognize that we are speaking German to them.

    For instance, Christ says: Ex abundatia cordis os loquitur. If I am to follow these donkeys, they will lay the original before me literally and translate it thus: “Aus dem uberfluss des hertzen redet der mund” [out of the excessiveness of the heart the mouth speaks]. Tell me, is that speaking German? What German could understand something like that? What is “the excessiveness of the heart”? No German can say that; unless, perhaps, he was trying to say that someone was altogether too generous, or too courageous, though even that would not yet be correct. “Excessiveness of the heart” is no more German than “excessiveness of the house, “excessiveness of the stove” or “excessiveness of the bench.” But the mother in the home and the common man say this: “Wes das hertz vol ist, des gehet der mund über” [What fills the heart overflows the mouth]. That is speaking good German of the kind I have tried for, although unfortunately not always successfully. The literal Latin is a great obstacle to speaking good German.”

    “By that reasoning, a Jehovah Witness New World Translation would be better than none at all.”

    The Jehovah Witnesses deliberately distorted the translation to teach theology that the text did not teach, as did the D-R. When the D-R translates ‘repent’ as ‘do penance’, it is deliberately distorting the Word of God to insert its theology where the text does not support it.

    When both the D-R and KJV insert “bishop” for a word that does not mean bishop, they did so deliberately to create a Hgh Church organization where it was not found in the text.

    This is quite unlike Tyndale, or the New American Standard or the English Standard versions, which translated the text.

    “I’d rather have a vulgate and learn the Latin.”

    Sad, but I believe you would. The actual text of the Word of God is challenging for Catholic theology.

  • Victoria Osteen and Her Joy-Robbing Brand of Cheap Christianity

    09/09/2014 4:54:42 PM PDT · 291 of 300
    Mr Rogers to Zuriel

    **How is one united with Christ?**

    “For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit.”

    That is how you come to be in Christ - thru the baptism Jesus gives, immersion in the Spirit.

  • How the King James Bible changed the world

    09/09/2014 3:46:36 PM PDT · 64 of 125
    Mr Rogers to Campion

    Here are some of Tyndale’s arguments against the Catholic Church, citing what he was told by the Catholic Church:

    ” This was commanded generally unto all men. How cometh it that God’s word pertaineth less unto us, than unto them? Yea, how cometh it, that our Moseses forbid us, and command us the contrary; and threaten us if we do, and will not that we once speak of God’s word? How can we whet God’s word (that is, to put it in practice, use and exercise) upon our children and household, when we are violently kept from it and know it not? How can we (as Peter commandeth) give a reason of our hope; when we wot not what it is that God hath promised, or what to hope? Moses also commandeth in the said chapter, if the son ask what the testimonies, laws, and observances of the Lord mean, that the father teach him. If our children ask what our ceremonies (which are more than the Jews’ were) mean; no father can tell his son. And in the eleventh chapter he repeateth all again, for fear of forgetting.

    They will say haply, the scripture requireth a pure mind and a quiet mind; and therefore the lay-man, because he is altogether cumbered with worldly business, cannot understand them. If that be the cause, then it is a plain case that our prelates understand not the scriptures themselves: for no layman is so tangled with worldly business as they are. The great things of the world are ministered by them; neither do the lay-people any great thing, but at their assignment. ‘If the scripture were in the mother tongue,’ they will say, ‘then would the lay-people understand it, every man after his own ways.’ Wherefore serveth the curate, but to teach him the right way? Wherefore were the holy days made, but that the people should come and learn? Are ye not abominable schoolmasters, in that ye take so great wages, if ye will not teach?

    If ye would teach, how could ye do it so well, and with so great profit, as when the lay-people have the scripture before them in their mother tongue? For then should they see, by the order of the text, whether thou jugglest or not: and then would they believe it, because it is the scripture of God, though thy living be never so abominable. Where now, because your living and your preaching are so contrary, and because they grope out in every sermon your open and manifest lies, and smell your unsatiable covetousness, they believe you not when you preach truth. But, alas! the curates themselves (for the most part) wot no more what the new or old Testament meaneth, than do the Turks: neither know they of any more than that they read at mass, matins, and evensong, which yet they understand not: neither care they, but even to mumble up so much every day, as the pie and popinjay speak, they wot not what, to fill their bellies withal. If they will not let the lay-man have the word of God in his mother tongue, yet let the priests have it; which for a great part of them do understand no Latin at all, but sing, and say, and patter all day, with the lips only, that which the heart understandeth not.

    Christ commandeth to search the scriptures. John 5. Though that miracles bare record unto his doctrine, yet desired he no faith to be given either to his doctrine, or to his miracles, without record of the scripture.

    When Paul preached, Acts 17 the other searched the scriptures daily, whether they were as he alleged them. Why shall not I likewise see, whether it be the scripture that thou allegest? Yea, why shall I not see the scripture, and the circumstances, and what goeth before and after; that I may know whether thine interpretation be the right sense, or whether thou jugglest, and drawest the scripture violently unto thy carnal and fleshly purpose; or whether thou be about to teach me, or to deceive me?

    Christ saith, that there shall come false prophets in his name, and say that they themselves are Christ; that is, they shall so preach Christ that men must believe in them, in their holiness, and things of their imagination, without God’s word: yea, and that Against-Christ, or Antichrist, that shall come, is nothing but such false prophets, that shall juggle with the scripture, and beguile the people with false interpretations, as all the false prophets, scribes, and Pharisees did in the old testament. How shall I know whether ye are that Against-Christ, or false prophets, or no, seeing ye will not let me see how ye allege the scriptures? Christ saith, “By their deeds ye shall know them.” Now when we look on your deeds, we see that ye are all sworn together, and have separated yourselves from the lay-people, and have a several kingdom among yourselves, and several laws of your own making; wherewith ye violently bind the lay-people, that never consented unto the making of them. A thousand things forbid ye, which Christ made free; and dispense with them again for money: neither is there any exception at all, but lack of money. Ye have a secret council by yourselves.

    All other men’s secrets and counsels know yet and no man yours. Ye seek but honor, riches, promotion, authority, and to reign over all, and will obey no man. If the father give you ought of courtesy, ye will compel the son to give it violently, whether he will or not, by craft of your own laws. These deeds are against Christ.

    When a whole parish of us hire a schoolmaster to teach our children, what reason is it that we should be compelled to pay this schoolmaster his wages, and he should have license to go where he will, and to dwell in another country, and to leave our children untaught? Doth not the pope so? Have we not given our tithes of courtesy unto one, for to teach us God’s word; and cometh not the pope, and compelleth us to pay it violently, to them that never teach? Maketh he not one parson, which never cometh at us? Yea, one shall have five or six, or as many as he can get, and wotteth oftentimes where never one of them standeth. Another is made vicar, to whom he giveth a dispensation to go where he will, and to set in a parish priest, which can but minister a sort of dumb ceremonies. And he, because he hath most labor and least profit, polleth on his part; and setteth here a mass-penny, there a trental, yonder dirige-money, and for his beadroll, with a confession-penny and such like. And thus are we never taught, and are yet nevertheless compelled; yea, compelled to hire many costly schoolmasters. These deeds are verily against Christ. Shall we therefore judge you by your deeds, as Christ commandeth? So are ye false prophets, and the disciples of Antichrist, or Against-Christ.

    The sermons which thou readest in the Acts of the apostles, and all that the apostles preached, were no doubt preached in the mother tongue. Why then might they not be written in the mother tongue? As, if one of us preach a good sermon, why may it not be written? Saint Jerom also translated the bible into his mother tongue: why may not we also? They will say it cannot be translated into our tongue, it is so rude. It is not so rude as they are false liars.

    For the Greek tongue agreeth more with the English than with the Latin. And the properties of the Hebrew tongue agreeth a thousand times more with the English than with the Latin. The manner of speaking is both one; so that in a thousand places thou needest not but to translate it into the English, word for word; when thou must seek a compass in the Latin, and yet shall have much work to translate it well-favoredly, so that it have the same grace and sweetness, sense and pure understanding with it in the Latin, and as it hath in the Hebrew. A thousand parts better may it be translated into the English, than into the Latin. Yea, and except my memory fail me, and that I have forgotten what I read when I was a child, thou shalt find in the English chronicle, how that king Adelstone caused the holy scripture to be translated into the tongue that then was in England, and how the prelates exhorted him thereto...In so great diversity of spirits, how shall I know who lieth, and who sayeth truth? Whereby shall I try and judge them?

    Verily by God’s word, which only is true. But how shall I that do, when thou wilt not let me see scripture?

    Nay, say they, the scripture is so hard, that thou couldst never understand it but by the doctors. That is, I must measure the meteyard by the cloth.

    Here be twenty cloths of divers lengths and of divers breadths: how shall I be sure of the length of the meteyard by them? I suppose, rather, I must be first sure of the length of the meteyard, and thereby measure and judge of the cloths. If I must first believe the doctor, then is the doctor first true, and the truth of the scripture dependeth of his truth; and so the truth of God springeth of the truth of man. Thus antichrist turneth the roots of the trees upward. What is the cause that we damn some of Origen’s works, and allow some? How know we that some is heresy and some not? By the scripture, I trow.

    How know we that St Augustine (which is the best, or one of the best, that ever wrote upon the scripture) wrote many things amiss at the beginning, as many other doctors do? Verily, by the scriptures; as he himself well perceived afterward, when he looked more diligently upon them, and revoked many things again. He wrote of many things which he understood not when he was newly converted, ere he had thoroughly seen the scriptures; and followed the opinions of Plato, and the common persuasions of man’s wisdom that were then famous.

    They will say yet more shamefully, that no man can understand the scriptures without philautia , that is to say, philosophy. A man must be first well seen in Aristotle, ere he can understand the scripture, say they.

    Aristotle’s doctrine is, that the world was without beginning, and shall be without end; and that the first man never was, and the last shall never be; and that God doth all of necessity, neither careth what we do, neither will ask any accounts of that we do. Without this doctrine, how could we understand the scripture, that saith, God created the world of nought; and God worketh all things of his free will, and for a secret purpose; and that we shall all rise again, and that God will have accounts of all that we have done in this life! Aristotle saith, Give a man a law, and he hath power of himself to do or fulfill the law, and becometh righteous with working righteously. But Paul, and all the scripture saith, That the law doth but utter sin only, and helpeth not: neither hath any man power to do the law, till the Spirit of God be given him through faith in Christ.

    Is it not a madness then to say, that we could not understand the scripture without Aristotle? Aristotle’s righteousness, and all his virtues, spring of man’s free will. And a Turk, and every infidel and idolater, may be righteous and virtuous with that righteousness and those virtues. Moreover, Aristotle’s felicity and blessedness standeth in avoiding of all tribulations; and in riches, health, honor, worship, friends, and authority; which felicity pleaseth our spiritualty well. Now, without these, and a thousand such like points, couldst thou not understand scripture, which saith, That righteousness cometh by Christ, and not of man’s will; and how that virtues are the fruits and the gift of God’s Spirit; and that Christ blesseth us in tribulations, persecution, and adversity! How, I say, couldst thou understand the scripture without philosophy, inasmuch as Paul, in the second to the Colossians, warned them to ‘beware lest any man should spoil them’ (that is to say, rob them of their faith in Christ) ‘through philosophy and deceitful vanities, and through the traditions of men, and ordinances after the world, and not after Christ?’

    By this means, then, thou wilt that no man teach another; but that every man take the scripture, and learn by himself. Nay, verily, so say I not.

    Nevertheless, seeing that ye will not teach, if any man thirst for the truth, and read the scripture by himself, desiring God to open the door of knowledge unto him, God for his truth’s sake will and must teach him...

    But now do ye clean contrary: ye drive them from God’s word, and will let no man come thereto, until he have been two years master of art. First, they nosel them in sophistry, and in benefundatum . And there corrupt they their judgments with apparent arguments, and with alleging unto them texts of logic, of natural philautia , of metaphysic, and moral philosophy, and of all manner books of Aristotle, and of all manner doctors which they yet never saw...

    When they have thiswise brawled eight, ten, or twelve or more years, and after that their judgments are utterly corrupt, then they begin their divinity; not at the scripture, but every man taketh a sundry doctor; which doctors are as sundry and as divers, the one contrary unto the other, as there are divers fashions and monstrous shapes, none like another, among our sects of religion. Every religion, every university, and almost every man, hath a sundry divinity...Man’s wisdom is plain idolatry: neither is there any other idolatry than to imagine of God after man’s wisdom. God is not man’s imagination; but that only which he saith of himself. God is nothing but his law and his promises; that is to say, that which he biddeth thee to do, and that which he biddeth thee believe and hope. God is but his word, as Christ saith, John 8 “I am that I say unto you;” that is to say, That which I preach am I; my words are spirit and life.

    God is that only which he testifieth of himself; and to imagine any other thing of God than that, is damnable idolatry. Therefore saith the hundred and eighteenth psalm, “Happy are they which search the testimonies of the Lord;” that is to say, that which God testifieth and witnesseth unto us.

    But how shall I that do, when ye will not let me have his testimonies, or witnesses, in a tongue which I understand? Will ye resist God? Will ye forbid him to give his Spirit unto the lay as well as unto you? Hath he not made the English tongue? Why forbid ye him to speak in the English tongue then, as well as in the Latin?

    Finally, that this threatening and forbidding the lay people to read the scripture is not for the love of your souls (which they care for as the fox doth for the geese), is evident, and clearer than the sun; inasmuch as they permit and suffer you to read Robin Hood, and Bevis of Hampton, Hercules, Hector and Troilus, with a thousand histories and fables of love and wantonness, and of ribaldry, as filthy as heart can think, to corrupt the minds of youth withal, clean contrary to the doctrine of Christ and of his apostles: for Paul saith, “See that fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, be not once named among you, as it becometh saints; neither filthiness, neither foolish talking nor jesting, which are not comely: for this ye know, that no whoremonger, either unclean person, or covetous person, which is the worshipper of images, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.” And after saith he, “Through such things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of unbelief.” Now seeing they permit you freely to read those things which corrupt your minds and rob you of the kingdom of God and Christ, and bring the wrath of God upon you, how is this forbidding for love of your souls?”

  • How the King James Bible changed the world

    09/09/2014 3:35:54 PM PDT · 63 of 125
    Mr Rogers to Campion

    It shows that getting approval of a vernacular translation required one to be well connected, and to sometimes need the express permission of the Pope. I doubt many shopkeepers in London could get that.

    Face it: the Catholic Church, as a matter of policy, did not want vernacular translations in the hands of commoners. They were OK in the hands of a few select rich people, but they argued that commoners were too low and too vulgar to understand the Word of God.

  • Victoria Osteen and Her Joy-Robbing Brand of Cheap Christianity

    09/09/2014 3:31:54 PM PDT · 288 of 300
    Mr Rogers to Zuriel

    How is one united with Christ?

    “For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit.”

    If you are in Christ, you have died with Him and been raised with Him:

    “But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5 made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved. 6 And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, 7 in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. 8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. 10 For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.”

    Water baptism is a type. It doesn’t place us in Christ - the Spirit does that! In Christ we have forgiveness and new life.

    Water baptism has value, but not in justifying us or giving us life. The function of water baptism is clear in scripture - to save us out of the world. That is value enough. One need not pretend it unites us with Christ in direct contradiction to scripture, nor does one need to pretend it causes forgiveness of sin.

  • How the King James Bible changed the world

    09/09/2014 3:23:30 PM PDT · 60 of 125
    Mr Rogers to ducttape45; Campion


  • How the King James Bible changed the world

    09/09/2014 3:19:06 PM PDT · 59 of 125
    Mr Rogers to Dr. Sivana

    “I don’t know how “huge” the demand was. In England, the Crown ordered purchases of it...”

    That did not apply to Tyndale’s translation, nor to Wycliffe or Coverdale.

    In the 1200s, the price of a full Wycliffe’s bible would have taken the average person 15 years to earn - IF that person had no other expenses of any sort! By Tyndale’s time, the price of a complete New Testament was down more than 200-fold.

    “It is more important to get the language right than to publish in every possible language.”

    By that theory, none of us would own vernacular translations, since no translation is perfect. Indeed, there are disputes about readings in the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts, so perhaps we all ought to ignore the Word of God!

    Thankfully, men like Tyndale and Luther disagreed.

    From Tyndale’s 1525 translation of John, with original spelling:

    “And as Moses lifte vp the serpent in the wyldernes even so must the sonne of man be lifte vp 15 that none that beleveth in him perisshe: but have eternall lyfe. 16 For God so loveth the worlde yt he hath geven his only sonne that none that beleve in him shuld perisshe: but shuld have everlastinge lyfe. 17 For God sent not his sonne into the worlde to condepne the worlde: but that the worlde through him might be saved. 18 He that beleveth on him shall not be condepned. But he that beleveth not is condempned all redy be cause he beleveth not in the name of the only sonne of God.”

    I’d rather have nothing but Tyndale’s 1525 translation in 2014 than none at all!

    “But God which is rich in mercy thorow his greate love wherwith he loved vs 5 even when we were deed by synne hath quickened vs together in Christ (for by grace are ye saved) 6 and hath raysed vs vp together and made vs sitte together in hevenly thynges thorow Christ Iesus 7 for to shewe in tymes to come the excedynge ryches of his grace in kyndnes to vs warde in Christ Iesu. 8 For by grace are ye made safe thorowe fayth and that not of youre selves. For it is the gyfte of God 9 and commeth not of workes lest eny man shuld bost him silfe. 10 For we are his worckmanshippe created in Christ Iesu vnto good workes vnto the which god ordeyned vs before that we shuld walke in them. ...”

  • How the King James Bible changed the world

    09/09/2014 1:18:58 PM PDT · 51 of 125
    Mr Rogers to redgolum

    The commoners knew enough to have a hunger for the Bible in their own vernacular. That is why Wycliffe’s awkward translation was circulated at great risk. That is why Tyndale’s translation sold as fast as they could be printed. That is why Luther’s translation flooded the country - there WAS an unmet demand for good vernacular translations.

    I’ll admit to regarding Jerome much higher than Augustine. It would be fascinating to have them as Freepers, however!

  • How the King James Bible changed the world

    09/09/2014 1:16:00 PM PDT · 49 of 125
    Mr Rogers to redgolum

    I would say Luther and Tyndale (and the later versions, most importantly the KJV) solidified the language...caused it to jell, so to speak. Luther, Tyndale and others had to choose between phrases and terms that differed in various locations, and the choices they made then became the standard everywhere.

  • How the King James Bible changed the world

    09/09/2014 1:13:17 PM PDT · 47 of 125
    Mr Rogers to wagglebee; RegulatorCountry; afraidfortherepublic; Salvation

    “The committees explicitly states that former translations are used.”

    “Scholars tell us that around 90% of the King James Version is from Tyndale’s works with as much as one third of the text being word for word Tyndale. Many of the popular phrases and Bible verses that people quote today are mainly in the language of Tyndale. An example of which is Matthew 5:9 “Blessed are the peacemakers.” The importance of the Tyndale Bible in shaping and influencing the English language is paramount. According to one scholar Tyndale is “the man who more than Shakespeare even or Bunyan has moulded and enriched our language.”

    Not all were used equally, and none of the translations consulted overruled the Greek or Hebrew texts.

  • How the King James Bible changed the world

    09/09/2014 1:06:38 PM PDT · 45 of 125
    Mr Rogers to Dr. Sivana

    “The earlier Catholic Bible in English, the Douay-Rheims, was published in 1589 (NT) and 1611 (OT).”

    That version ceased printing around 1635. The KJV owes far more to the Tyndale and Coverdale translations from the mid 1500s. The DR Bible used today is the one largely based off the KJV, with Catholic theology added (1750).

    “But in the Middle Ages, Europeans who could read, read Latin.”

    Yet there was a huge demand for Bibles in English and German. How could that be, if folks only read Latin?

  • How the King James Bible changed the world

    09/09/2014 1:03:55 PM PDT · 44 of 125
    Mr Rogers to Salvation

    Anyone who does a translation “changes” what they translate. That is why no translation should be unquestioningly accepted. However, Luther’s translation was faithful in trying to convey the meaning into German. Tyndale’s translation was faithful in trying to convey the meaning into English, and the KJV owes a great deal to Tyndale.

    And since the D-R Bible is essentially a KJV with Roman Catholic theology inserted (regardless of the Greek or Hebrew), the most famous Catholic English translation owes a lot to the KJV and thus Tyndale as well!

  • Rebuilt 18th century ship tests French waters

    09/09/2014 8:25:56 AM PDT · 10 of 33
    Mr Rogers to BenLurkin
    And they needed to know a lot of them!

  • Leo Tolstoy: an epic Google doodle for novelist of 'astonishing scope and vigour'

    09/09/2014 8:20:34 AM PDT · 30 of 55
    Mr Rogers to Borges

    I’ve got at least a thousand books in my house, but my tastes run in other directions than yours.

    From the article:

    “He gazed joyfully, his eyes moist with tears, at this bright comet which, having travelled in its orbit with inconceivable velocity through immeasurable space, seemed suddenly – like an arrow piercing the earth – to remain fixed in a chosen spot, vigorously holding its tail erect, shining and displaying its white light amid countless other scintillating stars,” wrote Tolstoy. “It seemed to Pierre that this comet fully responded to what was passing in his own softened and uplifted soul, now blossoming into a new life.”

    Sounds very metrosexual to me!

  • Leo Tolstoy: an epic Google doodle for novelist of 'astonishing scope and vigour'

    09/09/2014 7:31:53 AM PDT · 9 of 55
    Mr Rogers to Borges

    Dang! I’m 56, and just learned I had never lived, and never will!

    Oh to go riding horses when I COULD be reading Leo “Will It Never End?” Tolstoy...

  • Cal State No Longer Recognizing Christian Groups

    09/09/2014 7:15:30 AM PDT · 30 of 81
    Mr Rogers to xzins

    The Intervarsity folks ought to take over a gay rights group - flood their meeting and vote themselves in...then discuss the sinfulness of homosexuality.

  • Victoria Osteen and Her Joy-Robbing Brand of Cheap Christianity

    09/09/2014 7:09:33 AM PDT · 283 of 300
    Mr Rogers to Zuriel

    Did you even read this?
    “By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, PREPARED an ark to the SAVING of his house.....”. Heb. 11:7

    Noah was WARNED (grace) of God. He HAD to DO something to be saved.

    I read it. Noah needed to do something to save his family from destruction. But Noah was ALREADY RIGHT WITH GOD. hE WAS ALREADY JUSTIFIED IN THE EYES OF GOD!

    “Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation. Noah walked with God.”

    The Flood separated Noah from the evil around him, and baptism with water corresponds to that. Deal with it!

    “And go into long interpretations of baptism, and STILL you won’t address ‘being buried with him’.”

    I have not gone into long explanations. They are not needed. It is simple. Paul uses baptism as a type - an image to explain things. It is union with Christ that saves us, and we KNOW, WITHOUT QUESTION, what that union involves:

    “For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit.”

    It is very simple. It is very obvious. But I don’t have a crayon large enough to draw the picture for you, r do I see value in repeating the truth endlessly to someone who won’t listen.

    There is no moment of burial. When Jesus baptizes us in the Holy Spirit - when He IMMERSES us in the Holy Spirit - we are united with Christ, part of His Body. We are then viewed as Christ Himself is viewed: “and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus”. “For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.”

    Water baptism does not place us in Christ Jesus. The Spirit does that. Period. This is not open to debate. It is plainly taught.

  • Victoria Osteen and Her Joy-Robbing Brand of Cheap Christianity

    09/08/2014 10:07:10 PM PDT · 276 of 300
    Mr Rogers to Zuriel

    “I guess he didn’t need to BUILD the ark after all since he was saved before the flood.”

    Noah was approved by God prior to the Flood. He was already right with God:

    “Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation. Noah walked with God.”

    That sure sound like approval to me, before the Flood and before the Ark was built.

    So what did the Flood do? Hmmmm? In what sense did the Flood ‘save’ Noah?

    Well, it separated him from the evil generation he was in - which is what water baptism does for us. Sanctification, not justification. Important, but it does not make us right with God. God does that prior to water baptism.

  • KJB: The Book That Changed the World

    09/08/2014 9:50:33 PM PDT · 28 of 257
    Mr Rogers to daniel1212; NKP_Vet

    “Yet the KJV is quite close to the Douay–Rheims Bible, with some significant exceptions such as penance for repentance.”

    It is hardly surprising that the current Douay–Rheims Bible is close to the KJV, since the original Douay–Rheims Bible was one almost no one wanted to ever use.

    “The New Testament was reprinted in 1600, 1621 and 1633. The Old Testament volumes were reprinted in 1635 but neither thereafter for another hundred years...Much of the text of the 1582/1610 bible employed a densely latinate vocabulary, to the extent of being in places unreadable. Consequently this translation was replaced by a revision undertaken by bishop Richard Challoner; the New Testament in three editions 1749, 1750, and 1752; the Old Testament (minus the Vulgate apocrypha), in 1750. Although retaining the title Douay–Rheims Bible, the Challoner revision was a new version, tending to take as its base text the King James Bible...”

    Since 1750, the Douay–Rheims Bible has largely been the KJV with Catholic theology inserted so the ‘faithful’ would not be ‘deceived’ into ‘error’ by reading what the Word of God actually says.

  • Toronto: Denzel Washington Recalls N-Word Insults at 'Equalizer' Press Conference

    09/08/2014 12:32:45 PM PDT · 35 of 54
    Mr Rogers to Son-Joshua

    A year ago, my Filipina wife had some bum shout “Go back to China! Go back to China! Go back to China!” at her in the Costco parking lot. She ignored him, and now she laughs about it.

    But I don’t think it would win her any sympathy points with liberals. Filipinas tend to be overachievers who believe in things like hard work and education...

  • Why Don’t More Men Go Into Teaching?

    09/08/2014 11:53:10 AM PDT · 46 of 50
    Mr Rogers to gop4lyf

    My BIL teaches Jr High. He was a plumber before he took up teaching. If he is gay, it will be a surprise to his 3 kids and his wife of 35 years!

    If they would allow discipline in the classroom, I’d love to teach. I have no desire to babysit kids who don’t give a darn, nor to try to entertain them. I’m retired and have spent time tutoring high school math, but I don’t think I would fit in teaching full time...nor do I think an old, retired military guy would be quite what the female administration (almost 100%) would really want.

  • Victoria Osteen and Her Joy-Robbing Brand of Cheap Christianity

    09/08/2014 7:03:38 AM PDT · 273 of 300
    Mr Rogers to Zuriel

    “Noah did not have a new life until he was out of the water.”

    Noah was on the Ark. Why? Because God had already accepted him. He was right with God before the Ark was built, since he built it in response to God’s command. Noah was accepted by God long before the Flood!

  • Victoria Osteen and Her Joy-Robbing Brand of Cheap Christianity

    09/08/2014 7:01:30 AM PDT · 272 of 300
    Mr Rogers to Zuriel

    “FOLLOWS new life? So you’re saying that, symbolically, the Israelites had new life without crossing the Red Sea, but passed through the sea to be a people set apart.”

    Yes - God had already claimed them as His own, and had already decided to bring them out of Egypt. They were already saved by God, and already His Chosen People. They were not accepted by God based on crossing the Red Sea, but crossed the Red Sea because God had already accepted them!

    “Whether you realize it or not, you seem to interpret Acts 2:38 this way:
    “Repent, and be baptized every one of you with the Holy Ghost in the name of Jesus Christ and ye shall receive remission of sins”.”

    Peter was not teaching a systematic theology class, thank God! What he said, after the people repented, is summarized in three sentences:

    “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” 40 And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.”

    The emphasis was on the Baptism of the Holy Spirit - after all, that is what drew the men to listen to Peter to begin with! Acts Chapter 2 is about what happened when the Apostles received the Holy Spirit!

    Peter undoubtedly also insisted on water baptism for the new converts, all of whom were Jews who fully understood the concept - unlike today, when almost no one in the unsaved populace knows what it is or why it might be done.

    Peter did not need to explain to the listening Jews what water baptism meant because they already knew. It was already long accepted by the Jews as a symbol of the inner change that had already taken place - after all, no adult is baptized against his will. No Jew believed the water gave life, or that it was anything other than an outward symbol of the inner reality.

    As for “the remission of sins”, the Greek can by interpreted two valid ways - baptized to gain forgiveness, or baptized in recognition of forgiveness. Given that the audience was Jewish, and that they ALL understood before Peter said a word that water baptism RECOGNIZED the change, it is pretty simple to know how they interpreted Peter, and indeed what Peter meant.

    To be made part of the body of Christ requires baptism of the Holy Spirit - the Baptism that Jesus does. That is directly and explicitly taught: “For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit.”