Free Republic 1st Quarter Fundraising Target: $88,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $83,843
Woo hoo!! And now less than $4.2k to go!! Let's git 'er done!! Thank you all very much!!

Posts by Mr Rogers

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • From Fundamentalist Baptist to Catholic – Steve Wilson’s Story

    03/02/2015 6:24:29 PM PST · 513 of 556
    Mr Rogers to terycarl; Iscool; D-fendr

    “E.g., if I told you to give your child a hug in remembrance of me, you wouldn’t think I meant a symbolic hug.”

    No, I would not. But Jesus gave the reason WHY we partake: “IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME”.

    NOT “in a perpetual ongoing sacrifice of me”, but to REMEMBER.

    “The Roman Catholic Church and I think even the consubstantiation view of the Lutheran Church and so forth says, “This is My body,” verse 24 and verse 25, “This is the New Testament in My blood,” and because of a misunderstanding of the meaning of estin, the verb “to be” in the Greek, they have decided that that has to literally be the body and blood of Christ, either in a very physical sense or in a sort of a strange spiritual sense. That’s not what He’s saying. The verb to be, estin, or whatever form you want, singular or plural, is frequently used to mean represents. This bread is not His body, it represents His body. This cup is not His blood, it represents His blood. When Jesus said in John 10, “I am the door,” He meant I as a Savior and shepherd of the sheep represent a door into the sheepfold. He wasn’t literally a door. In Matthew 13 when He gave the parable of the wheat and the tares and He said, “The field is the world,” He didn’t really mean the field is the world. In the parable He meant the field represents the world. And He said the good seed are the children of God and the bad seed, the children of the wicked one. And, of course, the words is and are in those cases simply means represents. It’s used in a figurative, metaphorical sense.

    So, here this represents My body, this bread He said. And this cup represents My blood. It was not His blood. His blood was still in His veins when He said that. It was not His body. His body was still sitting there when He said that. So, we’re not talking about literal things.”

  • From Fundamentalist Baptist to Catholic – Steve Wilson’s Story

    03/02/2015 6:41:00 AM PST · 200 of 556
    Mr Rogers to verga

    You mean when he said ‘Do this in remembrance of me’?

  • From Fundamentalist Baptist to Catholic – Steve Wilson’s Story

    03/02/2015 6:38:12 AM PST · 197 of 556
    Mr Rogers to verga

    “And Tyndale’s translation was terrible, that is why it was banned. “

    Here is his translation online:

    Please tell me where and why he made a terrible translation - cite verses please.

  • From Fundamentalist Baptist to Catholic – Steve Wilson’s Story

    03/02/2015 6:35:27 AM PST · 194 of 556
    Mr Rogers to verga; CynicalBear; Religion Moderator

    “How about using the Encyclopedia Britannica, an unbiased secular source...”

    Are you saying Schaff LIED and posted restrictions that did not exist?

    At the link, belatedly provided, he gives his sources for his quotes. The Oxford restrictions of 1408 are very well known.

    Catholic theologians published reasons why the common man should NOT be allowed to read scripture in the vernacular. They argued a common man could not understand scripture - which is still largely the Catholic position: scripture must be interpreted in the light of Catholic tradition and teaching, rather than dominate what the Catholic Church teaches.

  • From Fundamentalist Baptist to Catholic – Steve Wilson’s Story

    03/02/2015 5:59:35 AM PST · 167 of 556
    Mr Rogers to terycarl

    If no one could READ the Bible, why were so many copies SOLD as soon as it was translated by Tyndale?

  • From Fundamentalist Baptist to Catholic – Steve Wilson’s Story

    03/02/2015 5:57:53 AM PST · 165 of 556
    Mr Rogers to Religion Moderator

    “Source?” [ref: post 55]

    Sorry. I usually remember to include the link:


  • From Fundamentalist Baptist to Catholic – Steve Wilson’s Story

    03/01/2015 7:46:25 PM PST · 55 of 556
    Mr Rogers to Campion; Tucker39

    “Care to specify exactly where and when Catholics were forbidden from reading the Bible for themselves?”

    II. The Middle Ages:

    Owing to lack of culture among the Germanic and Romanic peoples, there was for a long time no thought of restricting access to the Bible there. Translations of Biblical books into German began only in the Carolingian period and were not originally intended for the laity. Nevertheless the people were anxious to have the divine service and the Scripture lessons read in the vernacular. John VIII in 880 permitted, after the reading of the Latin gospel, a translation into Slavonic; but Gregory VII, in a letter to Duke Vratislav of Bohemia in 1080 characterized the custom as unwise, bold, and forbidden. This was a formal prohibition, not of Bible reading in general, but of divine service in the vernacular.

    With the appearance, in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, of the Albigenses and Waldenses, who appealed to the Bible in all their disputes with the Church, the hierarchy was furnished with a reason for shutting up the Word of God. The Synod of Toulouse in 1229 forbade the laity to have in their possession any copy of the books of the Old and the New Testament except the Psalter and such other portions as are contained in the Breviary or the Hours of the Blessed Mary.

    “We most strictly forbid these works in the vulgar tongue” (Harduin, Concilia, xii, 178; Mansi, Concilia, xxiii, 194). The Synod of Tarragona (1234) ordered all vernacular versions to be brought to the bishop to be burned. James I renewed thin decision of the Tarragona synod in 1276. The synod held there in 1317 under Archbishop Ximenes prohibited to Beghards, Beguines, and tertiaries of the Franciscans the possession of theological books in the vernacular (Mansi, Concilia, xxv, 627). The order of James I was renewed by later kings and confirmed by Paul II (1464-71). Ferdinand and Isabella (1474-1516) prohibited the translation of the Bible into the vernacular or the possession of such translations.

    In England Wyclif’s Bible-translation caused the resolution passed by the third Synod of Oxford (1408): “No one shall henceforth of his own authority translate any text of Scripture into English; and no part of any such book or treatise composed in the time of John Wycliffe or later shall be read in public or private, under pain of excommunication” (Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, vi, 984).

    But Sir Thomas More states that he had himself seen old Bibles which were examined by the bishop and left in the hands of good Catholic laymen (Blunt, Reformation of the Church of England, 4th ed., London, 1878, i, 505).

    In Germany, Charles IV issued in 1369 an edict to four inquisitors against the translating and the reading of Scripture in the German language. This edict was caused by the operations of Beghards and Beguines. In 1485 and 1486, Berthold, archbishop of Mainz, issued an edict against the printing of religious books in German, giving among other reasons the singular one that the German language was unadapted to convey correctly religious ideas, and therefore they would be profaned. Berthold’s edict had some influence, but could not prevent the dissemination and publication of new editions of the Bible. Leaders in the Church sometimes recommended to the laity the reading of the Bible, and the Church kept silence officially as long as these efforts were not abused.

    III. The Roman Catholic Church since the Reformation:

    Luther’s translation of the Bible and its propagation could not but influence the Roman Catholic Church. Humanism, through such men as Erasmus, advocated the reading of the Bible and the necessity of making it accessible by translations; but it was felt that Luther’s translation must be offset by one prepared in the interest of the Church. Such editions were Emser’s of 1527, and the Dietenberg Bible of 1534. The Church of Rome silently tolerated these translations.

    1. Action by the Council of Trent.

    At last the Council of Trent took the matter in hand, and in its fourth session (Apr. 18, 1546) adopted the Decretum de editione et usu librorum sacrorum, which enacted the following: “This synod ordains and decrees that henceforth sacred Scripture, and especially the aforesaid old and vulgate edition, be printed in the most correct manner possible; and that it shall not be lawful for any one to print, or cause to be printed, any books whatever on sacred matters without the name of the author; or in future to sell them, or even to possess them, unless they shall have been first examined and approved of by the ordinary.”

    When the question of the translation of the Bible into the vernacular came up, Bishop Acqui of Piedmont and Cardinal Pacheco advocated its prohibition. This was strongly opposed by Cardinal Madruzzi, who claimed that “not the translations but the professors of Hebrew and Greek are the cause of the confusion in Germany; a prohibition would produce the worst impression in Germany.” As no agreement could be had, the council appointed an index-commission to report to the pope, who was to give an authoritative decision.

    2. Rules of Various Popes.

    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).

    3. Rules and Practice in Different Countries.

    In England the reading of the Bible was made by Henry VIII (1530) to depend upon the permission of the superiors. Tyndale’s version, printed before 1535, was prohibited. In 1534 the Canterbury convocation passed a resolution asking the king to have the Bible translated and to permit its reading. A folio copy of Coverdale’s translation was put into every church for the benefit of the faithful, and fastened with a chain.

    In Spain the Inquisitor-General de Valdes published in 1551 the index of Louvain of 1550, which prohibits “Bibles (New and Old Testaments) in the Spanish or other vernacular” (Reusch, ut sup., i, 133). This prohibition was abolished in 1778.

    The Lisbon index of 1824 in Portugal prohibited quoting in the vernacular in any book passages from the Bible. In Italy the members of the order of the Jesuits were in 1596 permitted to use a Catholic Italian translation of the Gospel-lessons. In France the Sorbonne declared, Aug. 26,1525, that a French translation of the Bible or of single books must be regarded as dangerous under conditions then present; extant versions were better suppressed than tolerated. In the following year, 1526, it prohibited the translation of the entire Bible, but permitted the translation of single books with proper annotations.

    The indexes of the Sorbonne, which by royal edict were binding, after 1544 contained the statement: “How dangerous it is to allow the reading of the Bible in the vernacular to unlearned people and those not piously or humbly disposed (of whom there are many in our times) may be seen from the Waldensians, Albigenses, and Poor Men of Lyons, who have thereby lapsed into error and have led many into the same condition. Considering the nature of men, the translation of the Bible into the vernacular must in the present be regarded therefore as dangerous and pernicious” (Reusch, ut sup., i, 151).

    The rise of Jansenism in the seventeenth century, and especially the appearance, under its encouragement, of Quesnel’s New Testament with moral reflections under each verse, which was expressly intended to popularize the reading of the Bible, caused the renewal, with increased stringency, of the rules already quoted. The Jesuits prevailed upon Clement XI to publish the famous bull Unigenitus, Sept. 8, 1713, in which he condemned seven propositions in Quesnel’s work which advocated the reading of the Bible by the laity.

    In the Netherlands, Neercassel, bishop of Emmerich, published in 1677 (in Latin) and 1680 (in French) a treatise in which he dealt with the fourth rule of the Tridentine index as obsolete, and urged the diligent reading of the Bible. In Belgium in 1570 the unlicensed sale of the Bible in the vernacular was strictly prohibited; but the use of the Antwerp Bible continued. In Poland the Bible was translated and often published. In Germany papal decrees could not very well be carried out and the reading of the Bible was not only not prohibited, but was approved and praised.

    Billuart about 1750, as quoted by Van Ess, states, “In France, Germany, and Holland the Bible is read by all without distinction.” In the nineteenth century the clergy took great interest in the work of Bible Societies. Thus Leander van Ess acted as agent of the British and Foreign Bible Society for Catholic Germany, and the society published the New Testament of Van Ess, which was placed on the Index in 1821. The princes-bishop of Breslau, Sedlnitzki, who afterward joined the Evangelical Church, was also interested in circulating the Bible. As the Bible Societies generally circulated the translations of heretics, the popes Leo XII (May 5, 1824); Pius VIII (May 25, 1829); Gregory XVI (Aug. 15, 1840; May 8, 1844); Pius IX (Nov. 9, 1846; Dec. 8, 1849) issued encyclicals against the Bible Societies. In the syllabus of 1864 “socialism, communism, secret societies, . . . and Bible Societies” are placed in the same category. As to the effect of the papal decrees there is a difference of opinion within the Catholic Church. In theory the admonition of Gregory XVI no doubt exists, but practice often ignores it.

    Does that help?

  • Either Pro-Gay Jeb Is Toast in 2016 or the GOP Is

    03/01/2015 7:34:14 PM PST · 27 of 95
    Mr Rogers to lasereye

    “if Jeb is the nominee I have to seriously consider voting 3rd party”


    Is there enough separation between Jeb & Hillary to squeeze a razor blade in between them? They are F’n Siamese twins. They would make GREAT running mates!

  • A typical Auto Paint Job in California = $1250. OR MORE! EPA Busybodies to Blame?

    03/01/2015 8:58:37 AM PST · 29 of 40
    Mr Rogers to Robert DeLong

    I think the idea was that a $7000 paint job would make my 10 year old Miata look stripping down everything and then painting in bright yellow instead of silver. In the end, I gave it to my 30 year old daughter instead. I still think bright yellow would be a great color for a Miata.

  • A typical Auto Paint Job in California = $1250. OR MORE! EPA Busybodies to Blame?

    03/01/2015 7:39:21 AM PST · 27 of 40
    Mr Rogers to Robert DeLong

    I was told doing a GOOD paint job on my Miata would run $7000. Just getting paint to cover the outside would be much less.

  • ‘Traditional Marriage’ Disgusts NRO Writer

    02/27/2015 6:22:41 PM PST · 34 of 65
    Mr Rogers to driftless2; Chickensoup

    The NRO folks had a hissy fit over an old joke about gays that Steyn quoted.

    “Here are two jokes one can no longer tell on American television. But you can still find them in the archives, out on the edge of town, in Sub-Basement Level 12 of the ever-expanding Smithsonian Mausoleum of the Unsayable. First, Bob Hope, touring the world in the year or so after the passage of the 1975 Consenting Adult Sex Bill: “I’ve just flown in from California, where they’ve made homosexuality legal. I thought I’d get out before they make it compulsory.”

    For Hope, this was an oddly profound gag, discerning even at the dawn of the Age of Tolerance that there was something inherently coercive about the enterprise. Soon it would be insufficient merely to be “tolerant” — warily accepting, blithely indifferent, mildly amused, tepidly supportive, according to taste. The forces of “tolerance” would become intolerant of anything less than full-blown celebratory approval.

    Second joke from the archives: Dean Martin and Frank Sinatra kept this one in the act for a quarter-century. On stage, Dino used to have a bit of business where he’d refill his tumbler and ask Frank, “How do you make a fruit cordial?” And Sinatra would respond, “I dunno. How do you make a fruit cordial?” And Dean would say, “Be nice to him.”

    Read more at:

    “I am sorry my editor at NR does not grasp the stakes. Indeed, he seems inclined to “normalize” what GLAAD is doing. But, if he truly finds my “derogatory language” offensive, I’d rather he just indefinitely suspend me than twist himself into a soggy pretzel of ambivalent inertia trying to avoid the central point — that a society where lives are ruined over an aside because some identity-group don decides it must be so is ugly and profoundly illiberal.

    As to his kind but belated and conditional pledge to join me on the barricades, I had enough of that level of passionate support up in Canada to know that, when the call to arms comes, there will always be some “derogatory” or “puerile” expression that it will be more important to tut over. So thanks for the offer, but I don’t think you’d be much use, would you?”

    Read more at:

  • ‘Traditional Marriage’ Disgusts NRO Writer

    02/27/2015 5:50:44 PM PST · 12 of 65
    Mr Rogers to skeeter

    I subscribed to the magazine 30 years ago. I stopped that quite a while back, and gave up on NRO about 5 years ago. They neither know nor care about any conservative values.

  • Sen. Ted Cruz: Top Priority to ‘Abolish the IRS’

    02/26/2015 5:44:17 PM PST · 32 of 89
    Mr Rogers to xzins

    I’ve met a number of H&R Block people who would love a flat tax.

    But there is no danger of it ever happening. Congress won’t give up the power. Heck, my GOP Senator from Arizona (McFlake) just voted to approve Obama’s AG pick.

    I don’t want Cruz to make nonsensical, will never happen goals. I’d be happy if he could just get minimal conservative goals - such as defeat Obama’s AG pick. If we cannot manage that, why pretend anything else will happen?

  • BREAKING: Senate Committee Approves AG Nominee Loretta Lynch

    02/26/2015 5:09:14 PM PST · 37 of 45
    Mr Rogers to freepersup

    McFlake hasn’t answered any of my emails either. Maybe it is because mine are obscene...

    I HATE McFlake! I’ll donate to the democrat who runs against him, if needed.

  • New US Diet Guidelines Take Aim at Sugar

    02/23/2015 8:22:29 PM PST · 37 of 69
    Mr Rogers to Tolerance Sucks Rocks

    Given the track record of these dietary guidelines, this make me nervous about eating eggs and drinking coffee. The idiots who write these things are almost 100% wrong...

  • Star Blasted Through Solar System 70,000 Years Ago

    02/20/2015 8:33:52 AM PST · 101 of 114
    Mr Rogers to ctdonath2

    “I’m an engineer. I apply science to create things. I build a machine, set it in motion, and from that starting point & rules behavior emerges. I do not build the machine “mid-flight”...”

    You are an engineer. Maybe God is an AUTHOR.

    “There is nothing wrong with looking at the consequences of something happening and deducing the history thereof. Of course science can investigate history: we can look at how things are, look at how things behave now, and conclude the same rules governing behavior now would, given sensible starting conditions, produce things the way they are now.”

    You seem utterly oblivious to the point. You ASSUME a mechanical process that involves no input from God, and then make deductions based on your assumption. But the assumption that God is an engineer who built a machine and then let it run mechanically without any input from him is YOUR assumption.

    You can make that assumption and proceed from there if you wish, but you cannot complain that God is a liar because He doesn’t submit to your rules.

  • Star Blasted Through Solar System 70,000 Years Ago

    02/20/2015 6:42:10 AM PST · 95 of 114
    Mr Rogers to Buggman

    “He is a trickster god who creates illusions for the sake of confounding those seeking the truth rather than a God of truth who cannot lie.”

    God has not lied. But He has allowed people to believe a lie, if they choose to do so. If someone chooses to seek the truth about God by relying on logic rather than God - if they seek truth by earning it thru their own effort - then God has no obligation to FORCE them to the truth.

    Your belief on the age of the universe ASSUMES a lot of things. It assumes God created the Universe IAW your rules. It assumes all motion can be tracked back to an ultimate beginning because it ASSUMES that there is no Author.

    It allows that a god might exist somewhere, but its intent is to deduce the creation of the world WITHOUT REFERENCE TO A CREATOR.

    Science does not investigate history. It cannot. One cannot subject past events to repeatable experiments. Those making arguments about how the universe was created are investigating HISTORY.

    And that is fine, so far as it goes. But it is an investigation that rejects the idea of a God who intervenes. All the so-called scientific investigation into origins ASSUMES no action by God. It does so because if one assumes God exists and does intervene, then ANYTHING could have happened.

    But at its root lies this thought:

    What should we conclude about the origin of the universe WITHOUT ANY REFERENCE TO GOD?

    Thus you freak out at the idea that an all-powerful Creator God might have created a Universe into being, with motions and light traveling and a “history” built in. After all, if one DOES assume God is an Author, then there is no longer any value in your studies - you are trying to answer a meaningless question.

    God has not lied, but the Bible teaches that God WILL allow men to wrap themselves in a lie once they reject Him. And since all ‘scientific investigation’ into the origin of the Universe rejects any involvement by God, it means you are trying to determine truth after rejecting God as the Answer.

    It is not God who has lied. The foundation of your thought is a lie. You have decided, before starting your investigation, that it must not require any input from God. You have rejected the Creator and are worshiping the Created.

    In essence, “And instead of worshiping the glorious, ever-living God, they worshiped idols made to look like mere people and birds and animals and reptiles.

    So God abandoned them to do whatever shameful things their hearts desired.”

  • Star Blasted Through Solar System 70,000 Years Ago

    02/19/2015 7:55:30 PM PST · 93 of 114
    Mr Rogers to ctdonath2; Buggman

    “Why would He “create a setting” which differs from reality?”

    What matters is not the back story, but how those INSIDE the story behave and think. God would not force man to believe, so He gives us an out - and some choose to take it.

    “Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God.

    21 Yes, they knew God, but they wouldn’t worship him as God or even give him thanks. And they began to think up foolish ideas of what God was like. As a result, their minds became dark and confused. 22 Claiming to be wise, they instead became utter fools. 23 And instead of worshiping the glorious, ever-living God, they worshiped idols made to look like mere people and birds and animals and reptiles.

    24 So God abandoned them to do whatever shameful things their hearts desired.”

    If someone wants to reject God, God will let them go...

  • Star Blasted Through Solar System 70,000 Years Ago

    02/19/2015 11:41:13 AM PST · 88 of 114
    Mr Rogers to ctdonath2

    “Can it do that by falsifying the sensible interpretation of everything we see?”

    You are assuming it is not sensible to give God credit for being an Author and not just a mechanic. I do not make that assumption.

    I assume God created a setting for man, and that setting included the option of rejecting Him. I see nothing logical about assuming God cannot create a setting, or that everything you see must take into account how you interpret it.

    The back story for Middle Earth is not real. It was made up by the Author as a setting for his book. It wasn’t a lie, but neither is it objectively true. It is just the setting. It is what the characters do in that setting that is important.

  • Star Blasted Through Solar System 70,000 Years Ago

    02/19/2015 10:15:58 AM PST · 85 of 114
    Mr Rogers to ctdonath2

    “but there are some interpretations which are plainly preposterous because they add up to, say, light from stars being created mid-flight to look like they came from farther than where/how they were created. The heavens speak of His creation - do they speak truth of great age and distance? or lies of things being other than what they seem?”

    Was Tolkien a liar? Or an author?

    What is “plainly preposterous”?

    Would God create a universe that REQUIRED belief in Him? Or would He give men the option of denying Him?

    “18 But God shows his anger from heaven against all sinful, wicked people who suppress the truth by their wickedness. 19 They know the truth about God because he has made it obvious to them. 20 For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God.

    21 Yes, they knew God, but they wouldn’t worship him as God or even give him thanks. And they began to think up foolish ideas of what God was like. As a result, their minds became dark and confused. 22 Claiming to be wise, they instead became utter fools. 23 And instead of worshiping the glorious, ever-living God, they worshiped idols made to look like mere people and birds and animals and reptiles.

    24 So God abandoned them to do whatever shameful things their hearts desired. As a result, they did vile and degrading things with each other’s bodies. 25 They traded the truth about God for a lie. So they worshiped and served the things God created instead of the Creator himself, who is worthy of eternal praise! Amen. 26 That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires.”

  • Star Blasted Through Solar System 70,000 Years Ago

    02/19/2015 9:27:25 AM PST · 81 of 114
    Mr Rogers to ctdonath2

    “I assert he _wouldn’t_.
    Initiating a universe “mid flight” as it were means you have to explain why He didn’t do exactly that 20 minutes ago.”

    Why? Why do I need to assert anything that God can or cannot do?

    “Why would He create something of utterly astounding complexity just to make it all _look_ like it has been around much longer when it _wasn’t_?”

    Why did Tolkien create a back history for Middle Earth? It wasn’t needed. Or was it?

    God doesn’t lie. Neither has God issued any formal pronouncements about the age of the Universe. There is more than one way to interpret Genesis, and more than one way to interpret the physical things we see. God is not lying if YOU read in to something what He has never said...

  • Star Blasted Through Solar System 70,000 Years Ago

    02/19/2015 8:15:30 AM PST · 75 of 114
    Mr Rogers to ctdonath2

    You assume a god who created the stars could not create the light traveling as well. I think of God as an Author, who wrote the book AND created the backdrop of the book.

  • National Review redesign -- what do you think?

    02/19/2015 6:59:10 AM PST · 10 of 23
    Mr Rogers to reaganaut1

    I gave up on NR a while back. They rarely wrote anything I wanted to read. Just went there...the font is big enough to read from across the room. Not my taste, but neither is their politics.

  • Christians Concerned as Focus on the Family Watches, Reviews Porn Film ’50 Shades of Grey

    02/17/2015 7:43:39 AM PST · 21 of 50
    Mr Rogers to Boogieman

    ” Do you not think that the armor of God can protect one from spiritual dangers...”

    Only if you are wearing it. And it is not skin. It doesn’t follow you everywhere.

    It is widely reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and the kind of sexual immorality that is not even tolerated among the Gentiles—a man is living with his father’s wife. 2 And you are inflated with pride, instead of filled with grief so that he who has committed this act might be removed from your congregation. 3 For though I am absent in body but present in spirit, I have already decided about the one who has done this thing as though I were present. 4 When you are assembled in the name of our Lord Jesus with my spirit and with the power of our Lord Jesus, 5 turn that one over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the Day of the Lord.

    6 Your boasting is not good. Don’t you know that a little yeast permeates the whole batch of dough? 7 Clean out the old yeast so that you may be a new batch. You are indeed unleavened, for Christ our Passover has been sacrificed. 8 Therefore, let us observe the feast, not with old yeast or with the yeast of malice and evil but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

  • Federal Court Ruling Against Obama Amnesty Could Break Democrat Blockade of DHS Funding Bill

    02/17/2015 7:01:06 AM PST · 15 of 62
    Mr Rogers to KevinB

    Liberals have no interest in truth. They have no honor. NO ruling will weaken their resolve to destroy the country they hate.

  • Christians Concerned as Focus on the Family Watches, Reviews Porn Film ’50 Shades of Grey

    02/17/2015 6:57:31 AM PST · 6 of 50
    Mr Rogers to Boogieman

    Good point. Swimming in a sewer would do you no harm because the filth is on the outside...

  • Vegan MYTHS Debunked with Lierre Keith || Louder With Crowder [VIDEO]

    02/15/2015 5:41:30 PM PST · 46 of 47
    Mr Rogers to Impala64ssa

    I’ve lost nearly 30 lbs going on a low-carb, high fat/protein diet, with smaller portions used because I don’t get cravings between meals. My cholesterol was taken a month ago...unchanged.

  • Home Owner Associations robbing people of their rights, their savings and their homes

    02/15/2015 12:46:41 PM PST · 141 of 234
    Mr Rogers to WayneS; Alberta's Child

    “That’s easy. They don’t read it before they sign it.”

    In my case, we were given outdated CC&Rs with no mention of an HOA. The revised ones, which we did not see for several years, allowed the formation of an HOA but did not mandate it. During a time when the ownership of many lots was locked up in a court battle, a majority of the remaining lots voted to start the HOA. That was the first time I saw the revised CC&Rs.

    My realtor had died in the meantime, so suing him wasn’t an option. I guess I could have sued the title company, but I had never lived in an HOA and it didn’t seem worth the fight at the time.

    I have a lot less sympathy for someone who buys into an HOA and then complains. We had looked at building a home in one area, but the CC&Rs required HOA permission just to plant a tree - the rules ran close to 100 pages. So we didn’t buy...but those who did would have no right to complain.

  • Home Owner Associations robbing people of their rights, their savings and their homes

    02/15/2015 12:33:14 PM PST · 138 of 234
    Mr Rogers to C. Edmund Wright

    “The fact that you did not have a problem in a 3 year time frame doesn’t invalidate the notion that it can (and does) happen in many cases.”

    OK. But my Mom’s neighborhood went downhill with an HOA. My daughter’s neighborhood is going downhill with an HOA.

    As I pointed out, an HOA can be good for some neighborhoods. However, those who haven’t lived in one may not fully appreciate what Nanny-States they can turn in to. In ours, it varied each year with the BOD. One BOD was into total control. There would be a recall and they would be thrown out. The next year would be quiet. Then the folks who ruined the previous BOD would be the only ones who bothered to vote, and the 3rd BOD would be as bad as the first.

    Over 6 years, every other BOD was recalled due to their overbearing behaviour. The final BOD allowed a vote on continuing the HOA, and the tired homeowners voted it out.

    Before living in one, I had no idea what petty tyrants tended to float to the top of an HOA. We had butt-wipes patrolling the neighborhood, looking for someone they could complain about. Every other BOD tried to pass rules that frankly would not have stood up in court.

    I went to multiple meetings and told the BOD that if they adopted the rule, I would sue. They would then consult the attorney, who would tell them the CC&Rs did not permit them to do what they wanted to do. Or they would pass the rules, and then be forced to back down by angry homeowners.

    In the years since the HOA was adopted, property values have gone up, not down. The market as a whole locally has been flat. But then, this was never supposed to be a ‘gated community’ type of place. The CC&Rs had no restrictions in them that were not already in the County Code. The BOD had very limited authority to pass more - but every other BOD tried.

    BTW - I was on two of the post-recall BODs. It was a very happy night for me when the vote came in overwhelmingly to disband the HOA.

  • Home Owner Associations robbing people of their rights, their savings and their homes

    02/15/2015 9:34:50 AM PST · 18 of 234
    Mr Rogers to The Antiyuppie; C. Edmund Wright

    “OTOH, without a HOA, you can wind up living next door to someone with a washing machine in the front yard or with people sacrificing goats in the backyard.”

    That is what the pro-HOA folks said when we disbanded the HOA. 3 years later, there are no polka-dot houses, no washing machines in the front yard (zoning violation) and no one has offered any goats as a sacrifice to anyone.

    Lots of folks HAVE spent money fixing up their homes or yards, though. It is easier to do than when the HOA BOD used the “Anything goes for people we like, and nothing goes for people we dislike” rule of approving upgrades...

  • Home Owner Associations robbing people of their rights, their savings and their homes

    02/15/2015 9:30:52 AM PST · 14 of 234
    Mr Rogers to C. Edmund Wright

    When people want to live in a nice neighborhood cheek-to-cheek, an HOA can help. The HOA can enforce rules that help everyone’s property values.

    I was in one where there was no common property & the homes were spread out. After 6 years of HOA fights, we voted to disband the HOA by an 85:15 margin.

  • Science Says: Hot Guys Are A-Holes

    02/13/2015 8:07:00 AM PST · 31 of 51
    Mr Rogers to C19fan

    ” a perhaps unprecedented development was among the women involved, who were found to be no more selfish than average- lookers.”

    That doesn’t match what I’ve seen in 56 years of being around people. “High Maintenance” wasn’t a term developed to describe men...

  • Brian Williams’s Truth Problem, and Ours

    02/13/2015 6:33:21 AM PST · 12 of 12
    Mr Rogers to Lake Living

    I agree. Men reject truth because the truth is: God lives, and is coming again “to judge the living and the dead”. That is the truth that drives men to seek lies.

    As we go from a post Christian nation to an anti-christian nation, truth will be valued by fewer and fewer people.

  • Panel warns Tricare in ‘death spiral’ (Different than Husseincare's death panels)

    02/12/2015 6:52:27 PM PST · 20 of 39
    Mr Rogers to OldSmaj

    I’m retired & on Tricare. I’ve seen a doctor one time in the last 3 years. The visit lasted 2 minutes, tops. He asked me one question. The PA who used to handle my stuff left and was not replaced, so they now outsource me to whoever is willing to take almost no pay. I reckon I’d better stay healthy, because I’m screwed if I get sick.

  • Lina Greenhouse is wrong about King v. Burwell

    02/11/2015 6:38:39 AM PST · 11 of 20
    Mr Rogers to Howard Slugh

    Thank you for the post!

  • Lina Greenhouse is wrong about King v. Burwell

    02/11/2015 6:38:13 AM PST · 10 of 20
    Mr Rogers to tinyowl

    Liberals have no interest in logic, honor or reason. They only care about getting what they want.

    Unhappily, that describes much of America now. The liberals on the Court, including Roberts, have no interest in interpreting the Constitution. They vote for what they want or do not want. Once they vote, they will make up any reason to justify it, but they don’t care if their ‘reason’ is absurd.

    Reason does not matter to a man without honor. Only results. The only Justice on the court I truly respect is Thomas. Scalia writes well, but he also tends to vote for what he wants. Alito and Roberts have no honor. The rest don’t even pretend to have it.

  • Breaking: SCOTUS denies stay; gay marriage is on in AL [only Thomas and Scalia dissent]

    02/09/2015 6:26:03 AM PST · 10 of 34
    Mr Rogers to GIdget2004

    Regardless of what they tell pollsters, the large majority of Americans are not in any sense Christian. The nation has turned its back on God, and did so years ago. Unless there is a huge revival, this country has no God-blessed future.

  • Residents of gated communities bled dry, sold out by their own Home Owner Associations

    02/08/2015 3:05:17 PM PST · 78 of 126
    Mr Rogers to truth_seeker

    “First the basics: Anybody buying an HOA property gets complete disclosures, including rules, budgets, bylaws, what is paid by the association etc. BEFORE THEY DECIDE to complete the purchase.”

    Didn’t happen to me. I bought the house and moved in and lived there a year before they decided to start the HOA. The CC&Rs I received when I bought the place turned out to be old ones.

    “Among the pros of an HOA are security, certainty of maintenance, amenities (pools, etc.), degree of conformity, protection of property value etc.”

    The HOA I was in had no common property. It maintained nothing. 90% of dues went to pay management fees and file required state forms.

    “I have seen associations with problems, get turned around by concerned owners, with the skill and willingness o get involved.”

    I was on the BOD twice. But if you didn’t want to get screwed, you needed to attend every meeting.

    The happy news is the HOA made itself so unpopular that it was voted out of existence - IAW the rules. 90% voted to eliminate the HOA.

  • Pope Francis Is Not Saving Souls, But Losing Them

    02/07/2015 6:56:27 PM PST · 70 of 72
    Mr Rogers to terycarl

    “DUH.......perhaps their presence in church indicates that they are open to reforming their lives.......think????? “

    Sorry, but I’ve met MANY unrepentant sinners in church. Not so many in a BAPTIST one...but the number of homosexual accepting churches is evidence that repentance is not taught by many churches.

    As Jesus said:

    “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field. But while people were sleeping, his enemy came, sowed weeds among the wheat, and left. When the plants sprouted and produced grain, then the weeds also appeared. The landowner’s slaves came to him and said, ‘Master, didn’t you sow good seed in your field? Then where did the weeds come from?’

    “‘An enemy did this!’ he told them.

    “‘So, do you want us to go and gather them up?’ the slaves asked him.

    “‘No,’ he said. ‘When you gather up the weeds, you might also uproot the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest. At harvest time I’ll tell the reapers: Gather the weeds first and tie them in bundles to burn them, but store the wheat in my barn.’”

  • Pope Francis Is Not Saving Souls, But Losing Them

    02/07/2015 7:36:52 AM PST · 54 of 72
    Mr Rogers to terycarl

    “I thought that the church was MEANT to house sinners”

    REPENTANT sinners. If you are not willing to acknowledge God and accept His will, you have no place in His body.

  • Nashville Evangelical Church Comes Out for Marriage Equality

    02/02/2015 7:13:19 AM PST · 23 of 55
    Mr Rogers to C19fan

    ” Born into a five-generation, classical Pentecostal family, my perspective on God and spirituality has widened considerably into a more inclusive vision; one which embraces the liturgical, evangelical and charismatic streams of the Christian Church. While I am “tribally” a 21st century, evangelical minister, I have a heart to see the historical, contemporary and future manifestations of the Church converge, truly informed and benefited one by the other.”

    The church’s home page describes itself as

    “Loving God | Loving Self | Loving Others”

    “We experience God through creation, tradition, reason, scripture and the every-day moments of life. We believe in the liberty of individual conscience, the call of every person to live out their own journey, and the responsibility of each of us to be the express image of God in the world.

    God loves us immensely and is not to be feared. At GracePointe we believe that Jesus’ life, death and resurrection teach us who we are – the beloved children of God. We love God best when we fulfill our lives’ purpose of loving ourselves and others.

    If you have ever wondered if you belong, we’ve all wondered that. Our Church expresses its love in the radical hospitality of Jesus – welcoming all persons into our midst, without regard to race, age, gender, sexual orientation, or physical abilities. You are part of the human family and thus our family, God’s family. So welcome to GracePointe Church.”

    So this is NOT an Evangelical Church.

    “GracePointe exists to provide a safe place to better understand and experience God’s love and full acceptance of us, as we are, and His commitment to the process of making us whole in Christ.”

    God loves us where we are, but not AS WE ARE.

    God demands repentance. Until we repent, we are children of wrath. We become sons of God in Christ, but we are not all the sons of God.

    This is a church that has rejected the Gospel: REPENT and BELIEVE. It rejects both.

  • Born Again - The Bible Way

    02/01/2015 6:25:45 PM PST · 59 of 107
    Mr Rogers to Cvengr; Morgana

    “And John testified, “I watched the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and He rested on Him. 33 I didn’t know Him, but He who sent me to baptize with water told me, ‘The One you see the Spirit descending and resting on—He is the One who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’ 34 I have seen and testified that He is the Son of God!”

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

  • Why Catholicism Is Preferable to Protestantism

    02/01/2015 7:07:57 AM PST · 92 of 355
    Mr Rogers to Arthur McGowan

    “So, the Holy Spirit has founded 40,000 Protestant churches? “

    The term ‘church’ in the NT comes from the word meaning a gathering of people. It is used to describe a gathering of people who gathered for a riot in Acts. Tyndale correctly translated it ‘congregation’.

    In that sense, the Holy Spirit has founded a few hundred thousand ‘churches’ - congregations. There are and will be tares among the wheat, as Jesus predicted. There will be deceitful men who will lead many astray, as was happening even in the time of the Apostles.

    But as Peter wrote, believers have scripture to keep them from going too far astray, combined with the Holy Spirit if they are, indeed, believers. Peter said to trust scripture over experience or men - good advice to everyone.

    It is a pity the Catholic Church ignores what Peter wrote:

    “So we have the prophetic word strongly confirmed. You will do well to pay attention to it, as to a lamp shining in a dismal place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. First of all, you should know this: No prophecy of Scripture comes from one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the will of man; instead, men spoke from God as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.

    But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, and will bring swift destruction on themselves. Many will follow their unrestrained ways, and the way of truth will be blasphemed because of them. They will exploit you in their greed with deceptive words. Their condemnation, pronounced long ago, is not idle, and their destruction does not sleep.”

  • Why Catholicism Is Preferable to Protestantism

    01/31/2015 8:57:09 PM PST · 13 of 355
    Mr Rogers to Morgana

    ” So the Protestant must rely on his own judgment above that of his church.”

    Try the Holy Spirit. If you don’t know Him, you are not a Christian.

    “However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come.”

  • Loretta Lynch meets Ted Cruz. A grand old time is had by all [Watch Video]

    01/30/2015 10:54:21 AM PST · 43 of 48
    Mr Rogers to Chainsawj

    Jeff Flake, AZ (R) and supposedly a “Tea Party” kind of guy, has said he has no reason to object to her. I’m betting both AZ GOP Senators will vote for her confirmation.

  • Resist the Lynch Nomination

    01/30/2015 8:35:40 AM PST · 25 of 33
    Mr Rogers to Rummyfan

    Arizona senator Jeff Flake told BuzzFeed on Wednesday that “the president should always get his people unless there is something disqualifying about them, and there’s nothing disqualifying about her.”


    The bastard ran as a Tea Party conservative, then went very hard left the day after the election! I’ll vote Democrat next time if needed!


    01/28/2015 9:13:52 AM PST · 29 of 106
    Mr Rogers to knarf

    Dude, I don’t know of any Christians who haven’t already figured out we are living in a nation that has turned away from God. Your vanity is kind of like posting that the sky is blue...

  • Southern Baptist Leaders Call for Integrated Churches

    01/28/2015 6:36:27 AM PST · 34 of 36
    Mr Rogers to odawg

    “People like him says such things as a way to portray themselves in what they think is a more acceptable, morally superior, enlightened, levels.”


    There really is no ‘leadership’ in the SBC. It is a collection of individual churches who support missionaries and seminaries with their funding. But the SBC only exists to make funding of missions and seminaries easier. No one in the SBC has the right to speak for any member congregation.

    The “SBC leadership” has become a bunch of panty-waist liberals sucking up to the media. They care more about what the Washington Post thinks than the member churches. This is their way of saying, “I’m not a racist”. In my experience, those who proclaim they are not racists usually are.

    I’m a member of a small SBC church. We have a few blacks, a few Filipinas, are more white than anything else and about half the congregation is retired. We’ll welcome anyone who repents, believes and is baptized. We don’t need some liberal white southerner worrying about racism in the south in 1840. Many of our members are old, but none of us are THAT old!

  • Dear FRiends, We need your continuing support to keep FR on the air. [FReepathon XXVII]

    01/27/2015 10:18:41 AM PST · 30 of 476
    Mr Rogers to trisham

    For anyone:

    How do I update my credit card information so my contribution won’t be interrupted?

  • Transgender teen's death stirs action in US and beyond

    01/26/2015 6:20:48 AM PST · 10 of 23
    Mr Rogers to NetAddicted

    I wouldn’t care if he HAD gone thru conversion therapy. Someone who wants to pretend they are a different sex than their body parts indicate is deeply troubled and needs lots of therapy - and that therapy should not be oriented at helping them enjoy their twisted view of themselves.

    There are people who want to have their arms or legs removed because they view them as foreign. Would anyone suggest we allow surgery to remove the body part?