Humble One wrote: I have heard that kids are not affected by this virus, so the govt schools have remained open. Also, they are providing free meals for many kids, and closing them would end this. And they provide a 'baby-sitting service' for parents who work, and closing them would put the kids at home with no supervision, or parents would have to stay home to take care of them, and who would go to work?
Agreed. I do not have 2 children and a husband that earns more than 60K a year. People do not understand that I am a single mother and that I need to work.
They then assume I am lazy, and an improper lady, for not following the trend. They call me a bad mother and condemn my children. Look public school works for me and my children are better behaved than the local home schooled children.
Great Sermon on Biblical Modesty Great Sermon on Biblical Modesty
While I was hearing this sermon my heart stirred up to Praise my God for giving such men for the children of God to expound from the word of God. God in his mercy gave you all the grace to speak the truth in love. Surely, any woman pursuing godliness will not be offended by this message but examine herself, repent and turn to modesty. All Praises to God.
Here's what I do in my housewifery: I wash and dry all the clothes, but I don't fold them. I buy $1000 worth of food every month, at least, shop, bag, bring home, unload, put it away, cook. Vaccuum, steam clean, mend, pay all the bills, do the taxes, make and keep the family appointments, fill up the car with gas, help with homework, cook, clean up, clean up, clean up, did I mention I clean up? Scrub toilets. Vaccuum the van. Pick weeds. ETC. If a lady wants to add homeschooling into this mix, more power to her. I'm already overworked, but, happily, not underappreciated or underloved!!! Praise God for a good Husband who has learned how to live with this weak, fallen woman in understanding. And, who works hard enough to put the kiddos in Christian school so I can be happy. Blessings to all ladies who can do it all AND homeschool. More power to you. And if you can do it in a dress and high heels, even better. I wear jeans.
I'll bet you're right about the "desperate housewives" show. Alas, I have not seen tv in a very long time, but I have heard about this show. Housewifery has been put up as a new form of Legalism for women. It's not enough to be Born Again, you know, especially in "our circles," you must also homeschool your eight children, bake bread,and all sorts of other things to reach true Spirituality. It's nonsense. I speak with many women often and when I ask, "How is your homeschooling going?" very, very often tears slide down faces of overwhelmed, underappreciated mothers whose Manly-Dominion husbands are guilting them into a job no one could do. (which neither you nor your fathers were able to bear....) and then wonder why the wives are too tired....
A Democratic Conservative wrote: Rumor has it that New York will be Struck AGAIN with another Disaster like 9-11. . . . . . Only WORSE !
ALPHA MODERATOR: Please note that this poster (who is really Tony Lopes-Cisneros of Chicago) is very threatening in a frightening way. Can all his posts be blocked, or at least reported to the FBI? The post partially quoted above is not something that should be overlooked. Thank you, Steven. Molly
God will use Mr. Obama, perhaps, as you say, in judgment on America. But if this is so (and I don't deny that you are right, if a little overstated as usual), we deserve it. We wade through the blood of 40 million dead babies.
Did you guys read the whole article. It turned my stomach. Here's a bit I cut and pasted (In answer to "do you also talk about the Cross?):
Schuller: There‚Äôs nothing wrong with talking about the cross because the cross is the symbol of hope and talking about the suffering of Jesus Christ is just one small piece of the whole Gospel message. And to focus too much on the suffering of Jesus Christ is to put emphasis on a small area which is insignificant compared to the larger area of serving Jesus Christ.
Thank you for pointing that out. My understanding would be that a redeemed man who may prior to his Salvation have practiced homosexuality will no longer practice homosexuality, nor may he justify it as right. However, he may still not be attracted to women sexually and may live a celibate life because he is not inclined to marry. He may be attracted to men, I suppose, but would be struggling against this attraction as we all struggle against remaining sin. But to your point, if he retains the sin in his heart, he is unrepentant and not saved. Or is that too strong?
There are a lot of Yes on 8 messages happening, including a bumper sticker on our van. We trust the Lord to answer the prayers of His penitent children who with open hands beg Him to have mercy on California.
I think the point is that although the men in question may be sexually attracted to other men, rather than women, they do not fornicate with anyone and are therefore not fornicators of any variety. If they also are able to mortify their heart's sin, then they are not sinning. In the manner of an alcoholic who no longer drinks, so to speak. That is, he is no sodomite who does not sodomize.
on the question of whether a Catholic girl could be come queen of England...does anyone care about this? Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, is Catholic, I think, but she won't be queen, only Princess Consort. As for Kate Middleton, I do not know if she has a church affiliation. Not that it would matter, as she (assuming she marries Prince William, assuming he ascends the Throne) won't be a reigning queen, but queen consort. And even assuming a reigning queen, the British monarch doesn't "rule," but reigns, with the duties to Parliament to warn, advise, and consent. A strong nationalism, loyalty to country and people, would seem to be most important here, since we're past the days of drawing and quartering, public hangings, and tying people up to posts until the tides come in, a la previous British sovereigns in their religious fervors. I am not British, but I know this: Americans would revolt en masse before allowing the POTUS to lead a national church.
I am currently reading through this version. Does anyone have any info about it, specific passages that might be badly translated, for example. It is very readable. Except for at Genesis 10 (?), before the beginning of the Tower of Babel account it says, "Once upon a time..." which was jarring, to say the least.
I hope I am not insincere, but I appreciate the counsel to look inside my heart to see for sure. I do want people to have a Bible they can understand, and I do wish T would stop capitalizing.
Jim, I read that article on Dr. Morris. It seemed reasonable. Thanks for the heads-up on that. I have nostalgic feelings for Dr. Morris on a personal level and have not studied all his writings.
I would lend out easy-to-understand Bibles, probably whatever I had handy. We have a lot of versions around the house.
English itself has developed over the centuries. Things don't mean what they once did and there is something to be said for changing certain words, such as in the Abigail case.
I have the same problem with hymns that are constantly referring to the "breast" as if 21st century Americans use that word in ordinary language to indicate deeply felt emotions. In our culture, the word almost exclusively references female anatomy and I WISH THEY WOULD CHANGE THE HYMNS TO SAY "HEART." I am sure people will say I have a perverted mind here, but actually I don't. It's just an example of how language changes over time. When people come to church off the streets and hear songs about us "lisping our praise" and "leaning on thy loving breast" it's got to make them go, "HUH?"
I love the comment about Dr. Morris! What a faithful, godly man he was, and his work for the truth of six-day creation was enormous and outstanding.
There's Tony again. He keeps reappearing, but this incarnation (a Democratic Conservative) is vintage Tony. I keep all his posts in a file as I previously said I would a year or so ago. Also because he once called me demon possessed and I like to keep track of people I might bring an action against for defamation someday.
Oh, but back to the discussion at hand: if you listen to Dr. Michael Barrett for example, for any length of time, you will hear him re-translating constantly. From the Hebrew or Aramaic or Greek. Into words other than those in the KJV. Dr. Alan Cairns does this as well, as do many others we would recognize as faithful believers. So there is at least an understanding that there are at least some passages in the KJV that don't mean in modern English what they used to mean. And while people who have read the Bible for 55 years (as someone posted) may easily understand it (let's hope so after half a century!!), that doesn't answer the question about the ploughboy..the ordinary kid whose mind and memory are not soaked with the Scripture. What is that person supposed to read?
Fair enough. Please, if you have time and the inclination, would you address this question.
Assuming a faithful group of scholars, and understanding that language does develop over centuries, would it be wrong to attempt a faithful up-to-date version?
I also can understand the KJV, but many, many people cannot. This is illustrated constantly by preachers who say "This would be better translated such and such" or "May I translate it this way?" Faithful men who love their AVs but realize a need to make it even more clear.
Of course God can keep His word before us. How grateful we are He allowed translation at all! Although it would be better if we all could read the Hebrew and Greek. Alas for me, I never learned.
I love my KJV, though I am not a KJV-only person. Would you please address the question of readability? Tyndale wanted plough-boys to be able to read the Bible, but ordinary people may encounter difficulties with 400 year old English (ask any Shakespeare teacher). I don't think it's fair (as I've heard some preachers say) to say that these people OUGHT to be able to understand it. Would you be OK with the NKJV which updates the language?
Churchill a Christian, that's funny. My point was he almost singlehandedly (voicedly) saved the world (don't parse that statement up, Boys; I'm speaking in general terms) while being an unbeliever.
Rogerant and Christiana, you have to take all these boys with tons of salt. Listen, if a woman shouldn't hold political office (drum roll, here comes the inflammatory question....) should she participate in choosing those who should lead?
(It's bait, girls, to see if the boys'll bite.)
You can hardly find a place more full of bizarre, vitriolic, angry, silly, and just-plain weird comments than on sermonaudio. Check any of the comment threads if you don't believe me. Steven must be up late every night with his Alpha Moderator hat on!
Loving my Savior, Serving my husband, Teaching my children, Baking my bread, (currently) doing endless laundry, and VOTING MCCAIN/PALIN!!!!! Molly