Free Republic 2nd Quarter Fundraising Target: $88,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $49,912
Woo hoo!! And we're now over 56%!! Thank you all very much for your continuing support!

Posts by Mr Rogers

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • 1 Corinthians Ch. 12

    05/22/2018 10:02:03 PM PDT · 7 of 8
    Mr Rogers to Migraine

    After 12:31 comes a chapter on the need to love - and to let love drive our desires and actions. Then in chapter 14, Paul picks up:

    “Pursue love and desire spiritual gifts, and especially that you may prophesy. 2 For the person who speaks in another tongue is not speaking to people but to God, since no one understands him; he speaks mysteries in the Spirit. 3 On the other hand, the person who prophesies speaks to people for their strengthening, encouragement, and consolation. 4 The person who speaks in another tongue builds himself up, but the one who prophesies builds up the church. 5 I wish all of you spoke in other tongues, but even more that you prophesied...”

    Gifts don’t exist by themselves. They are not doled out one at a time, and only one to a person. As God uses a person, he equips them. And those who do well in small matters may find themselves trusted with more.

    When we love God and love our fellow christians, we can be content to blossom where God has planted us. Millions of wild flowers are seen only by God, hidden from human view and appreciated only by God Himself. That doesn’t make them any less worthwhile.

    But the church at Corinth had become obsessed with easily seen gifts such as tongues. It was being treated as the best gift. And Paul points out that love means we should covet - desire - to be given and trusted with gifts that build each other up rather than ones that benefit the individual:

    “I thank God that I speak in other tongues more than all of you; 19 yet in the church I would rather speak five words with my understanding, in order to teach others also, than ten thousand words in another tongue.”

    That is my take, anyways. Albert Barnes commented:

    In 1Cor. 12, Paul had entered on the discussion of the various endowments which the Holy Spirit confers on Christians, and had shown that these endowments were bestowed in a different degree on different individuals, and yet so as to promote in the best way the edification of the church.

    It was proper, he said 1 Corinthians 12:31, to desire the more eminent of these endowments, and yet there was one gift of the Spirit of more value than all others, which might be obtained by all, and which should be an object of desire to all. That was love; and to show the nature, power, and value of this, was the design of the thirteenth chapter, certainly one of the most tender and beautiful portions of the Bible.

    In this chapter the subject is continued with special reference to the subject of “prophecy,” as being the most valuable of the miraculous endowments, or the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit.

    In doing this, it was necessary to correct an erroneous estimate which they had placed on the power of speaking foreign languages. They had prized this, perhaps, because it gave them importance in the eyes of the pagan. And in proportion as they valued this, they undervalued the gift of being able to edify the church by speaking in a known and intelligible language.

    To correct this misapprehension; to show the relative value of these endowments, and especially to recommend the gift of “prophecy” as the more useful and desirable of the gifts of the Spirit, was the leading design of this chapter. In doing this, Paul first directs them to seek for charity.

  • A Look at the Fruits of the Holy Spirit

    05/22/2018 6:34:48 PM PDT · 35 of 37
    Mr Rogers to Salvation

    “and thus considering them inspired”

    No. There was debate among Catholic scholars concerning how important the Apocryphal books were. Were they authoritative, or just good reading?

    Writing prior to the canon decision at the Council of Trent, Cajetan wrote to the Pope:

    “Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus.

    Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith.

    Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage.”

    “After listing the twenty-two Old Testament books and the twenty-seven authorized canonical books of the New Testament, Athanasius wrote: These are the fountains of salvation, that they who thirst may be satisfied with the living words they contain. In these alone is proclaimed the doctrine of godliness.”

    He explicitly states that the canonical Scriptures alone were used for the determination of doctrine while the books of the Apocrypha held ecclesiastical sanction for reading only and were not considered part of the canon. This distinction is further amplified by Rufinus at the beginning of the fifth century. He is important as a witness to the exact nature of the canon of Scripture for he lived in Rome and wrote his comments on Scripture just a few years after the Councils of Hippo and Carthage under Augustine.

    He claims that the list he gives is that which the Fathers have handed down to the Church, and that these books alone are used to confirm doctrine and deduce proofs for the faith. He divides the writings circulating in the Church of his day into three broad categories. First, there is the canon of inspired Scripture of the Old and New Testaments which he enumerates. Secondly, there are what he calls ‘ecclesiastical’ writings which were read in the Church but were not authoritative for the defining of doctrine. He specifically mentions the Old Testament Apocrypha in this category. Then there was a third classification of writings which he designates as ‘apocryphal’, by which he means heretical writings which were not read in the Church.”

  • Oprah, Meryl Streep, 100+ other celebrities call for global gender equality in open letter

    05/21/2018 10:55:48 AM PDT · 24 of 89
    Mr Rogers to cgbg

    “You have the power to deliver historic changes for women this year. From the G7 to the G20; from the African Union to your annual budgets; we will push you for commitments and hold you to account for them. And, if you deliver, we will be the first to champion your progress. We won’t stop until there is justice for women and girls everywhere.”

    And just what are the consequences if Saudi Arabia doesn’t comply? If Indonesia turns them down? If Iran says no thanks?

    Do the Oscars have an award for “Least Effective Virtue Signalling by a Multi-Millionaire”?

  • Pope's reported comment to a gay man may indicate a new level of acceptance of homosexuality

    05/21/2018 9:46:37 AM PDT · 81 of 166
    Mr Rogers to DoodleDawg; onedoug

    “So what should the Pope have said? God hates you because you are gay?”

    I suggest, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe the good news!”

    “Repent and be baptized, each of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children, and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call.” With many other words [Peter] testified and strongly urged them, saying, “Be saved from this corrupt generation!”

    “There is no one righteous, not even one.

    There is no one who understands;
    there is no one who seeks God.
    All have turned away;
    all alike have become worthless.
    There is no one who does what is good....

    ... For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. [We] are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.”

    There is no salvation without repentance. ALL have sinned. ALL need to repent. Homosexuality isn’t a special sin, but it remains sin.

  • Best .380 Pocket Pistols for Concealed Carry

    05/21/2018 7:55:05 AM PDT · 38 of 56
    Mr Rogers to Mariner; catman67

    My LCP has a hammer. OK trigger for a tiny gun. I’m a revolver guy, but the LCP goes a long with me a lot of the time.

  • Dem Sen Warner: No ‘Single Piece of Legislation’ Would Have Stopped TX School Shooting

    05/21/2018 7:20:52 AM PDT · 23 of 39
    Mr Rogers to precisionshootist

    And we all know teens cannot find out the combination of a lock, or find the keys to bypass the lock when the batteries fail, etc. And no teen can go at the safe with an axe to bust it open while the parents are at work!

    A kid with regular access to his parent’s room can try 1000 combinations over just a few days. All it takes is patience, determination, and some time alone.

  • Dem Sen Warner: No ‘Single Piece of Legislation’ Would Have Stopped TX School Shooting

    05/21/2018 7:17:09 AM PDT · 22 of 39
    Mr Rogers to Qwackertoo

    “The right way by hardening the target.”

    Recess? Football games? School bus stops?

    If someone just wants to kill people before they are killed themselves, what prevents them from walking up and shooting 20 people standing in a line?

    I think the depressing truth is that a determined, suicidal killer who wants to kill strangers is very hard to stop.

  • Senator Murray Vows to Fight Trump-Pence Administration’s Latest Radical Attack

    05/20/2018 4:28:11 PM PDT · 32 of 38
    Mr Rogers to Robert357

    She won 59% of the vote in 2016, her highest percentage ever:

    Even if she didn’t run again, she’ll have spent 30 years in the Senate.

  • Royal Wedding Emblematic of the Decline of the Church of England

    05/20/2018 11:22:14 AM PDT · 36 of 140
    Mr Rogers to StormEye
    "Why is having ones bloodline mixed away with an alien race of people so fantastic and desirable?"

    Because it beats believing that marrying "an alien race of people" is evil. Or disgusting. Or that the offspring are then impure and inferior.

    There are arguments against this marriage. But the mixing of bloodlines isn't one of them. If anything, it is a plus - the Royal Family could desperately use some 'fresh blood'.

  • US bishop...raises eyebrows and sets social media alight with a very different Royal wedding sermon

    05/19/2018 9:27:22 AM PDT · 8 of 43
    Mr Rogers to simpson96

    The Beatles said it to music, and took less than 4 minutes:

    All you need is love
    All you need is love
    All you need is love, love
    Love is all you need

    Love, love, love
    Love, love, love
    Love, love, love

    All you need is love
    All you need is love
    All you need is love, love
    Love is all you need

    That the message is heretical isn’t surprising since it was offered by someone called “The Most Reverend Michael Curry”. Although I’m pretty sure The Most Reverend doesn’t love President Trump.

  • US bishop becomes break-out star of the royal show

    05/19/2018 8:57:58 AM PDT · 28 of 43
    Mr Rogers to Jan_Sobieski

    Someone who adores “love” can excuse adultery. After all...”I love her. her! her!” It was the Supreme Court’s excuse for legalizing homosexual marriage. After all:

    “The nature of marriage is that, through its enduring bond, two persons together can find other freedoms, such as expression, intimacy, and spirituality. This is true for all persons, whatever their sexual orientation…There is dignity in the bond between two men or two women who seek to marry and in their autonomy to make such profound choices.”

    “Marriage responds to the universal fear that a lonely person might call out only to find no one there. It offers the hope of companionship and understanding and assurance that while both still live there will be someone to care for the other.”

    Why swear to forsake all others, if love is god? Why not “love” everyone? And you should “love” someone enough (according to this preacher) to give them things for free after you worked to make them - although they don’t need to love you enough to pay you for your efforts!

    When love becomes our highest good, we can justify anything. You can abort because your child wouldn’t be fully loved. You can kill someone if they stop loving you. You can dominate others because you love them and want what is good for them - liberalism!

    When love reigns supreme over all other virtues - truth, honesty, justice - it enables any evil.

  • A Gospel Choir Just Sang "Stand By Me" at the Royal Wedding and It Was Beautiful

    05/19/2018 8:41:22 AM PDT · 104 of 182
    Mr Rogers to LibertarianLiz

    “They couldn’t take it -— some bi-racial American actress is going to do better? “

    Maybe. After all, she has spent her life dealing with a highly dysfunctional family. OTOH, her coping mechanism seems to be running away.

  • A Gospel Choir Just Sang "Stand By Me" at the Royal Wedding and It Was Beautiful

    05/19/2018 8:21:28 AM PDT · 96 of 182
    Mr Rogers to SeekAndFind

    Would it be unkind to ask if the song was Harry’s plea that she stand by him more steadfastly than she stood beside her first husband? More steadfastly than with her second long time lover (although unmarried)?

    It seemed a bit ironic hearing “Stand By Me” at a wedding for someone who has never stood by any of her family before...

  • US bishop becomes break-out star of the royal show

    05/19/2018 8:09:56 AM PDT · 16 of 43
    Mr Rogers to spacejunkie2001

    He mentioned Jesus, but only in the sense that Jesus affirmed love. And his sermon was entirely about “love” - how “love” conquers all!

    But while “God is love” is scripture, “love is God” is a demon’s lie. Seek God and find both God and love. Seek love as supreme, and in the end, you’ll find neither.

  • Controversial US bishop raises eyebrows in the chapel and sets social media alight with bizarre [tr]

    05/19/2018 7:22:37 AM PDT · 33 of 44
    Mr Rogers to Gideon7

    “How does St. Paul say it?

    Love is not jealous, rude, or boastful. Love does not insist on its own way. Love is unselfish, sacrificial, kind and just.

    Love seeks the good and the well-being of the other. Love makes room and space for the other to be. (See 1 Corinthians 13:4-7)

    This love, this is the way of Jesus. And it’s game changer.

    Imagine our homes and families when this way of love is the way. Imagine our neighborhoods and communities when love is the way. Imagine our governments and countries when love is the way. Imagine business and commerce when this love is the way. Imagine our world when love is the way.

    No child would go to bed hungry in such a world as that. Poverty would become history in such a world as that. The earth would be as a sanctuary in such a world as that.

    We would treat one another as children of God, regardless of differences. We would learn how to lay our swords and shields down by the riverside to study war no more.

    There would be a new heaven, a new earth, a new world. A new and beautiful human family.

    The very dream of God.

    Love is strong as death. It’s flashes are flashes of fire. Many waters cannot quench love.”

    As the Beatles so eloquently put it:

    There’s nothing you can do that can’t be done
    Nothing you can sing that can’t be sung
    Nothing you can say but you can learn how to play the game
    It’s easy

    Nothing you can make that can’t be made
    No one you can save that can’t be saved
    Nothing you can do but you can learn how to be you in time
    It’s easy

    All you need is love
    All you need is love
    All you need is love, love
    Love is all you need

    Love, love, love
    Love, love, love
    Love, love, love

    All you need is love
    All you need is love
    All you need is love, love
    Love is all you need

    OK. The dude in the funny outfit didn’t start singing a Beatles song. But he totally screws things up, turning “God is love” into “Love is God.”

    As CS Lewis put it: “We may give our human loves the unconditional allegiance which we owe only to God. They they become gods: then they become demons. Then they will destroy us, and also destroy themselves. For natural loves that are allowed to become gods do not remain loves. They are still called so, but can become in fact complicated forms of hatred...

    ...St. John’s saying that God is love has long been balanced in my mind against the remark of a modern author (M. Denis de Rougemont) that “love ceases to be a demon only when he ceases to be a god”; which of course can be re-stated in the form “begins to be a demon the moment he begins to be a god”. This balance seems to me an indispensable safeguard. If we ignore it the truth that God is love may slyly come to mean for us the converse, that love is God.”

    Another writer put it this way:

    A fourth misunderstanding about love is the confusion between “God is love” and “love is God.” The worship of love instead of the worship of God involves two deadly mistakes. First it uses the word God only as another word for love. God is thought of as a force or energy rather than as a person. Second, it divinizes the love we already know instead of showing us a love we don’t know.

    To understand this point, consider that “A is B” does not mean the same as “A equals B.” If A = B, then B = A, but if A is B, that does not mean that B is A. “That house is wood” does not mean “wood is that house.” “An angel is spirit” does not mean the same as “spirit is an angel.” When we say “A is B”, we begin with a subject, A, that we assume our hearer already knows, and then we add a new predicate to it. “Mother is sick” means “You know mother well, let me tell you something you don’t know about her: she’s sick.”

    So “God is love” means “Let me tell you something new about the God you know: he is essential love, made of love, through and through.” But “Love is God” means “Let me tell you something about the love you already know, your own human love: that is God. That is the ultimate reality. That is as far as anything can ever go. Seek no further for God.”

    In other words, “God is love” is the profoundest thing we have ever heard. But “love is God” is deadly nonsense.

  • Spielberg, DiCaprio, In Early Talks To Team On Ulysses S. Grant Epic (tr)

    05/18/2018 8:09:07 PM PDT · 92 of 105
    Mr Rogers to circlecity

    “And that’s where Grant really stood above Lee - he understood strategy as well as tactics.”

    Grants strategy - “The Anaconda Plan” - was only possible because the North could afford the losses. Yes, Grant strategically wore the Confederacy down.

    Big whoop. If two guys beat one guy in a fight, we don’t praise them for their strategy or tactics, although they would be stupid not to take advantage of their numbers.

    “Grant made a calculated strategic decision that it was better to lose a bunch of soldiers in a short amount of time than a whole bunch more over a longer period of time...”

    That is the easy excuse for bad tactics. It s why so many men have been lost - and were lost by Grant - throwing numbers into the meat grinder.

    The north wore the south out. Numbers and time was on their side. Lee seemed to understand that the biggest disaster for the south would be Lincoln’s re-election. The South might have won in 4 years. It could not win in 8.

    That is my point. Grant wasn’t a great general. He was a stubborn one, and stubborn sufficed BECAUSE time and material and manpower was on his side. When Grant became President, his flaws couldn’t be hidden behind superior resources and he failed.

  • Spielberg, DiCaprio, In Early Talks To Team On Ulysses S. Grant Epic (tr)

    05/18/2018 6:42:49 PM PDT · 85 of 105
    Mr Rogers to DoodleDawg

    “He captured three armies in the field and beat every general the Confederates sent against him.”

    Depends on the circumstances. If three guys clobber one in a fight, then which of the four was the best?

    In the Battle of the Wilderness, the Union lost over 17,000 to 11,000. After it, Grant disengaged and repositioned his army.

    Shortly afterward, the Battle of Spotsylvania. The Union lost over 18,000 to Lee’s 13,000. Grant withdrew and repositioned.

    The the Battle of North Anna. The Union lost 4,000 to Lee’s 1500. Grant repositioned.

    Then Cold Harbor. Grant lost over 12,000 to Lee’s 5,000.

    Grant kept losing more men in indecisive battles. But he had more men to lose. He wore Lee down because he could. But that isn’t the mark of great leadership or spectacular tactics!

  • Spielberg, DiCaprio, In Early Talks To Team On Ulysses S. Grant Epic (tr)

    05/18/2018 11:51:40 AM PDT · 51 of 105
    Mr Rogers to DoodleDawg

    “In General Grant and the Rewriting of History: How the Destruction of William S. Rosecrans Influenced Our Understanding of the Civil War, Frank Varney challenges Ulysses Grant’s widely read Personal Memoirs, especially as they pertain to the wartime performance of Union General William Rosecrans. Varney, an assistant professor of history at Dickinson State University in North Dakota, questions long-held beliefs regarding events involving Grant and Rosecrans in the all-important western theater. While Varney covers a lot of ground in this first volume of a projected two-volume series, the central theme is his contention that, given Grant’s propensity “to make himself look better and blame his errors on others”—coupled with the unwillingness of many historians to challenge “Grant’s veracity”—the general’s flawed version of events has distorted the nation’s understanding of America’s defining conflict (x-xi).

    Varney takes a number of well-known Civil War historians—Bruce Catton, Peter Cozzens, Shelby Foote, Lesley J. Gordon, Earl J. Hess, James McPherson, Allen Nevins, Brooks Simpson, and Steven Woodworth, just to name a few—to task for sometimes engaging in lazy scholarship. While some come in for more criticism than others, Varney calls each of them out for a variety of mistakes or errors in judgment, the most egregious of which is falling under the spell of Grant’s Memoirs when drawing conclusions regarding Grant’s successes and Rosecrans’ failures. While Varney’s allegations have some merit, the author’s claims often fall flat in light of his own missteps...

    ...Aside from these significant criticisms of Varney’s work, he does successfully demonstrate that Grant’s Memoirs need to be treated with the same careful reading as other Civil War memoirs, that Grant and others did sometimes go out of their way to undercut Rosecrans’ accomplishments, and that historians have at times given Grant’s version of events a pass. Again, the central tenet of his book is compelling.”

  • 1 Corinthians Ch. 8

    05/18/2018 11:21:58 AM PDT · 15 of 25
    Mr Rogers to tired&retired

    “You make this a lot more complicated than it really is. Thoughts manifest in our soul and it is why we must be careful what we think. These thoughts create sin.”

    No. WE ARE SINNERS. The Bible says it is our nature to sin and do evil, and that is why we must be born again.

    “Many times Jesus healed by merely saying, “You are forgiven.” He was healing the soul with a prayerful high frequency thought.”

    No. That simple does not match what we find in the Bible.

    5 Seeing their faith, Jesus told the paralytic, “Son, your sins are forgiven.”

    6 But some of the scribes were sitting there, questioning in their hearts: 7 “Why does he speak like this? He’s blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?”

    8 Right away Jesus perceived in his spirit that they were thinking like this within themselves and said to them, “Why are you thinking these things in your hearts? 9 Which is easier: to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up, take your mat, and walk’? 10 But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”—he told the paralytic— 11 “I tell you: get up, take your mat, and go home.” - Mark 2

    “When you are truly “Born again of the Spirit,” you begin to perceive directly from your consciousness or spirit rather than just your five senses.”

    No. The Holy Spirit is a PERSON. We do not then perceive from OUR “consciousness or spirit”, but from HIM. “16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever. 17 He is the Spirit of truth. The world is unable to receive him because it doesn’t see him or know him. But you do know him, because he remains with you and will be in you.”

    What you teach is in direct contradiction to the Word of God. Follow that path, and it will lead to Hell.

  • Spielberg, DiCaprio, In Early Talks To Team On Ulysses S. Grant Epic (tr)

    05/18/2018 10:32:46 AM PDT · 26 of 105
    Mr Rogers to circlecity

    Grant has huge failures as a general. His success was founded on one thing: The North could afford to lose more men than the South. He also had a habit of claiming his victories and blaming his losses on others.