Skip to main content

Agree with James VanderSlik. Christians give "insider" non-standard meanings to words. When I am on the road I occasionally listen to Catholic Radio. Their preachers use standard English and standard dictionary meanings.

Maybe it is because I am not a pastor that the big words don't give any trouble but the two letter words and the pronouns do. For example, 

1 John 4:4

New International Version (NIV)

 

4 You, dear children, are from God and have overcome them, because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world.

Exactly what does "in" mean? 

 

 

On the other hand, this accomodation is misused in Washington State. There is no state standards for "service animal." Many winos and crazies seems to have one. In a city, a "junkyard" dog should not be a service animal.

It is a terrible idea! "THE respect that comes with inclusion."  BULL!  Respect comes with pulling your share, contributing to a win.  

One of my kids coaches Little League.  The youngest kids play T-Ball and don't officially keep scores but every kid knows who the winners and losers are. 

bill wald on January 30, 2013

In reply to by anonymous_stub (not verified)

I have been able to hold a "middle class" job for 30 years, raise 5 kids who all turned out well (or at lest wisely chose their mother),  pay all the bills, cut firewood, drive a car, do carpentry, read, write, and do math better than most people, yet I have always been terrible at every sort of organized sports. I am at least smart enough to know that I should not play team sports. Do I have a "sports disability?"  

If a person is able to do everything well that is required to be done on a sports team, which requires mental, social, psychological, and physical qualities, then in what other ways might this person be "disabled?"  

I hate thinking about it, but apparently the only way St Paul could think of for a "Christian" person to judge his abilities thus his thus disabilities was against the professional soldier and the professional athelete. This must through some light on the theoretical problem and the pragmatic problem of the legal and social status of people with physical and/or mental disabilities.

Are you helping a disabled kid by praising him for simply wanting to do something or are you actually praying for and/or assuming God will do somekind of miracle? 

This moden American culture - what passes for culture - has ruined so many useful ancient words, "gay," for example, that I can no longer get upset with the degrading of "Olympics."  I have nothing against organizing activities for disabled kids and calling them "olympics" as  long as it helps them.

I can see any good that will come from legally requiring disabled kids on high school sports teams. All it will produce is "make work" for lawyers. Schools will be required to prove in court that a specific disabled child should not be playing on the field with a specific sports team.

Further, the new "women in combat" rules "prove" that women are qualified to play in the Bowl  Games and the football Super Ball game. THAT should stir the "Christian" pot. 

 What is an “Ecumenical Faith Declaration”?  A peaceful and harmless solution to a complicated problem. A title on a file folder. Maybe a good place to put the Ephocripha, the Didache, and other historical documents. 

I'm not a pastor so someone please explain to me how this texual analysis verifies the hypothesis that the Bible is self-explaining and sufficient to instruct in all matters theological and all matters of civil law and social relationships to the majority of Americans who are hard pressed to understand the language of the simplified NIV?

Moses and Jesus taught that the "real LAW" was to "love God and be a good neighbor." and all the rest is simply commentary. Our creeds and catechisms are commentary on the commentary, yes? We have ours, dispensationalists have Scofield's Notes, and the Catholics have their Catechism. We don't need to understand any of the commentaries as long as we believe (in) them? (Whatever "in" means.)  

 

Seems to me the concept of "our making" is not Reformed. Regeneration precedes  (logically and temporally) conversion, We should be identifying the elect e.g. the regenerate and assisting their conversion to discipleship. It may seem like only words but words are important because our important theoretical (can't think of the right word) thinking is done in words.

Unlike our "dispenational" brothers and sisters, we don't evangelize for the purpose of "getting the lost into the lifeboats." If Reformed theology is correct, there is nothing we could do to keep the elect out of the lifeboats or to get the unregenerate into them. 

These days in Canada and the US most evangelism is designed to snatch people from other congregations and denominations. Our members have no training to deal with people who have a logical defense for other religions or even atheism. Off hand, I don't have a solution.   

My Dad was a non-practicing Jew an always tithed. He said something to the effect that if God wanted 10% he was going to give 10%. (Mom always  was a Christian). We never missed out on anything. The bills were always paid on time.

Three decades before I heard of the CRC, I heard a Baptist sermon on tithing. I asked the preacher, "Gross or net?" He said, "Gross." In 50 years it has never "cost" us anything. The old people in First Everett CRC say the same thing. Tithing doesn't "cost" anything. With God, "A deal's a deal."

We want to hear from you.

Connect to The Network and add your own question, blog, resource, or job.

Add Your Post