There's such a push to attend college. I was pleased to read this letter to the editor in this morning's newspaper --

"All high school students should have the opportunity to explore vocational education. Funds should be allocated for classes in culinary arts, cosmetology, automotive repair, carpentry, plumbing, etc. Many students enjoy working with their hands, and these classes would give them the opportunity to not only learn new skills but also to pursue them as careers.

Even students in college-bound high school would benefit from vocational classes. Many academic skills are learned by taking vocational classes; for example, math in carpentry and physics in automotive repair. Upon graduation, the student could go to technical school or to college and use those skills for part-time work.

When students are given the opportunity to take classes that interest them, they will be successful, graduate, gain employment, earn money and enjoy life.

They will not have time to think about drugs, gangs, carjackings and other illegal activities."

WG says, I'd start them even younger than in high school, probably in 5th grade, with simple hands-on occupational tasks.

The author was doing pretty well until this. "They will not have time to think about drugs, gangs, carjackings and other illegal activities." That's just fantasy.

But otherwise, it has some merit. It's already being done in my state. Our county has a vocational center that students are bussed to for a good portion of the day. They have classes for automotive repair, computer tech, and so forth. It doesn't seem to be particularly well attended, but it's there for those who want it. Our community college also has a number of programs for vocational skills.

One big problem is that vocational programs are expensive, so there is the question of where the money will come from.

Another issue is how to get those kids into really meaningful voc programs and yet still have them graduate with a high school diploma. Grad requirements have become progressively stiffer in the last two or three decades, so how to have students take a couple of voc classes a day and STILL get the needed classes to graduate is a real challenge.

The author was doing pretty well until this. "They will not have time to think about drugs, gangs, carjackings and other illegal activities." That's just fantasy.
But realize it's another piece of the "moral strong two-parent family" anchor.

How's that?

Excellent schooling plus training for a successful and stable future and work life.

It takes a village....

Back when we had a large number of two parent families we had the Ten Commandments on the wall and prayer in schools. Voc programs were sparse. Draw your own conclusions.

As for vocational guidance -- Fathers taught their sons automotive work, mechanics, how to build with concrete blocks and wood. Mothers taught their dsughters how to sew and cook and bake and clean house. Children were taught how to care for their pets -- feed them, clean the litter box, walk the dog, clean out the hamster cages. When younger siblings came along, the older sibs were taught by the parents how to diaper and feed and play with the younger ones. Parents played board games like Monopoly and Scrabble and Parcheesi plus card games like Authors and War and Old Maid with their children. Prayers were said in religious schools, not in public schools. The Ten Commandments were not posted anywhere I can recall, especially not in schools. Kids were responsible, eager to learn, empathetic, cooperative with their teachers and classmates.

As for vocational guidance -- Fathers taught their sons automotive work, mechanics, how to build with concrete blocks and wood. Mothers taught their dsughters how to sew and cook and bake and clean house. Children were taught how to care for their pets -- feed them, clean the litter box, walk the dog, clean out the hamster cages. When younger siblings came along, the older sibs were taught by the parents how to diaper and feed and play with the younger ones. Parents played board games like Monopoly and Scrabble and Parcheesi plus card games like Authors and War and Old Maid with their children. You are describing what took place at home, not at the schools. I doubt it was as widespread as you think it was. You really think most homes had hamsters back then, or litter boxes for cats, or had Parcheesi games in the evenings?


Prayers were said in religious schools, not in public schools. The Ten Commandments were not posted anywhere I can recall, especially not in schools.The Supreme Court case that disallowed prayer was from a public school district in New York that mandated prayer. Prayers were said in many public schools and the Ten Commandments were posted in many schools.


Kids were responsible, eager to learn, empathetic, cooperative with their teachers and classmates.Neither one of us has any real idea of how widespread that was. I guess it was somewhat more true then than now. In my experience at two inner city schools, the students were generally cooperative and eager to learn. We had very few problems with discipline, but we didn't tolerate consistent misbehavior. At my last school, the kids were really good. I have no doubt that, in most cases, students learn more now than was the case fifty years ago. Testing data certainly indicates that.

I got my degree from college .I got my career from my apprenticeship (vocational) time while working as I attended college .

There is no guarantees that a 2 parent home will prevent a child from being influenced by society at large . But it definitely helps .Also if they are attending college ,it may take up to a decade to escape the brain washing indoctrination . Some never break free from the progressive mind meld .

And that has become so widespread and nonsensical that I don't know what can be done to reverse it. I can only tell parents to choose carefully.

You are describing what took place at home, not at the schools.
My point was that kids got good, basic hands-on training and experience at home that was later supported by and fleshed out in school, especially high school

I doubt it was as widespread as you think it was. You really think most homes had hamsters back then, or litter boxes for cats, or had Parcheesi games in the evenings?
I grew up during the '40s and '50s in the South, the Northeast, and spent time with relatives in the Midwest and West. The farm families, of course, had outside animals/pets, but many of my cousins and friends had indoor-outdoor cats and/or dogs plus small animals in cages in the house. And yes, board games and card games were "hot"; summers were spent playing them on a big front porch or on a blanket spread on the lawn under a shade tree. Or on the kitchen table during school holiday breaks.

The Midwest students I taught/tutored during the late '60s and '70s reported similar adventures and experiences.

I agree! Vocational classes are great, especially for people interested in pursuing a trade/going to trade school, or for those who may not be able to afford college or want to jump straight into work instead.

At the middle and high schools I attended, we had the option to take "Career and Technical (CTE)" electives; I'm not sure if they're different from vocational classes, but they sounded pretty similar. I remember a lot of my classmates being really excited to try classes in carpentry/woodworking, architecture/construction, agriculture/animal science, welding, manufacturing, etc. In fact, my high school managed to fit in a program where one CTE elective in the same field per year could let students graduate with an "endorsement" in addition to their diploma that encouraged local community college recruiters to come talk to them and see if they wished to pursue a technical degree in the future.

Even better, my high school got a bond that allowed them to expand their CTE program tenfold; they now have an entire wing dedicated to CTE courses and even allow students to enroll in dual credit ones that allow them to start earning community college credits early; too bad my class graduated right before we could take advantage of all that lol.

Anyways, it'd be great if other schools could do stuff like that as we really need more people in the trades. I think it'd open a lot more jobs up too!

I'm all for vocational programs. I'm just saying that there are challenges that most non-school people are not aware of.

Welcome to the board, Randomperson!

WG, I'm sure that what you are saying was true in some cases and not true in many others. What the numbers were, I don't know. I took three voc classes in HS. I loved them. Learned to weld and do electrical work and still use them fifty years later.

In 8th grade my teacher set up a unit for bill paying, check writing, check register recording, in-person banking possibilities (checking, savings, loans, etc.), how to fill out applications of various kinds.

As high school freshman, our general science teacher assigned groups of three to various car parts (my group got a carburator) that we took apart, discussed the workings of each, and then put them back together.

Most practical classes I ever had!

This is what I got out of vocational school courses in high school .I learned how to set points ;change oil air and gas filters ;adjust carburetor settings . 1all very useful to me until they changed vehicle engines to a degree that you needed a PHD to do basic maintenance on your car . I also learned how to use a ball peen hammer to shape metal into an ash tray. This was the 70s so
i don't know if vocational training has become more relevant since then . My vocational training was on the job. IMO in the real world there would be credit for apprenticeships .

There have been proposals for high schools to put students on tracks in, for instance, the tenth grade. Students could go for vocational training, medical track, academic track, and so forth. That sounds great until you get into what would actually constitute graduating from high school and what to do when a student changes his/her mind at the beginning of twelfth grade.

I would think letting students graduate from high school at the end of tenth grade would be a possible solution. We would then provide them with two or three more years of schooling in which they would choose a track leading either to college work or to job training of some sort. Big obstacle? Athletics.

I'd also like to see students "fast track" their middle school work so that they could, if they chose to do the extra work, finish four years in only three years. There is no point in holding the really smart kids back so they track along with the middle of the pack kids.

I teach at a STEM school. We guide our students to careers in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math beginning in Kindergarten. The important thing that we do as teachers is to show our students what they need to succeed in any career. Life skills are so important, and no matter what they choose to do, they need math and reading skills. Many of our students choose middle and high schools that offer specific vocational areas and the classes they need to meet their goals. These schools exist here in California. It’s exciting to watch this type of education grow, and how many students choose that route rather than the usual middle and high schools.

It's probably the wave of the future. It'll be interesting to see how it all pans out. The greatest objection I hear is that most kids don't really know what they want to do when they are preteens. For that matter, many don't know when they are juniors or seniors.

I envy you, Jenn. Wish I could still do it. It's a great career.

“I envy you, Jenn. Wish I could still do it. It's a great career”

I’m just about finished with my career. It’s way more difficult than it used to be and parents just aren’t parenting anymore. They don’t want to hear anything other than sunshine and roses about their child. Discipline is almost impossible for principals to give, and did I mention that I had to potty train 9 students this year? I’m going to try one more year, then make the final decision.

did I mention that I had to potty train 9 students this year?Pre-K???

Pre-K???

No, regular education kindergarten! That is not a part of my job description!

Wow. That’s just incredible. K students arriving in diapers!

Wow. That’s just incredible. K students arriving in diapers!
Huggies Pull-Ups are very handy for lazy parents.

I was an elem. principal for 16 years. I never recall us having to potty train a K student. It's just craziness.

I was an elem. principal for 16 years. I never recall us having to potty train a K student. It's just craziness.

I’ve been teaching for more than 25 years—high school, middle school, and now elementary. No kidding, 9 weren’t potty trained. Accidents in class, at recess, PE, etc. Who was blamed? Me! The parents claimed it was my fault because their child couldn’t wait in the restroom line. Lazy parents, yes! Is this the new normal? I hope not.

Parents more and more do not want to discipline their children. I am noticing this with our 18 month old granddaughter. Her parents can tell her "no", and maybe she will listen and maybe not. I assure you that she listens to me. It's in learning how to use your tone of voice.

When you say they were not potty trained, do you mean they were still in diapers, or do you mean they were having "accidents"? Accidents I can understand. A five year old in diapers is just crazy.

Pull-ups for a few. The rest had 4-5 accidents a day. That is not potty trained. An occasional accident I can understand, but 9 did this multiple times daily. That’s not normal.

Wow. I can only say you are a trooper. School teachers should never be responsible for having to clean up bathroom accidents. Children in pullups at five years old is just crazy.

If I was still a principal, I'd hire you!!

Wow. I can only say you are a trooper. School teachers should never be responsible for having to clean up bathroom accidents. Children in pullups at five years old is just crazy.

If I was still a principal, I'd hire you!!

Aww, thank you! Only one parent thought their child wasn’t potty trained! The rest were angry. Unfortunately, there was less teaching time because of all the behaviors and lack of parental support. Teachers are retiring and quitting. We are tired! Today’s parents are making it difficult to teach. I’m very worried about this generation, and I am not alone.

I’m very worried about this generation, and I am not alone.
When I taught pre-K, my prime efforts were teaching social skills -- being quiet while another person spoke, sitting quietly while being read to, raising one's hand to ask a question or say something, standing quietly and patiently when in line, saying please and thank you as appropriate, patiently waiting for one's turn, and so much more that -- and, like you are thinking, don't seen to be the social norm any longer.

Teachers are retiring and quitting. We are tired! Today’s parents are making it difficult to teach. I’m very worried about this generation, and I am not alone.I guess it depends on where you are. In my time, I didn't see much degradation of student behavior, and academic performance actually improved some due, I think, to the demands of state testing. But I do understand that's not the case everywhere and I have no trouble believing it. I enjoyed my career as much the last year as I did the first. Wish I could go back to it. Might try to get something part-time next year.

But I won't be potty training kids. That's amazing.

But I won't be potty training kids. That's amazing.
You are teaching Kindergarten. Six of your students haven't been properly potty trained and are being unmercifully teased and bullied by their classmates (who are most likely being encouraged to do so by their parents). Now what?

Honestly, I never even had one that wasn't potty trained and that included pre-K. I imagine I'd tell the parent to take their child home until he/she is potty trained. And I say that as a principal and not so much as the teacher. I guess I'd check out our district policy manual and see where we stood in that regard.

That does not include the occasional accident. Those are to be expected, but several times a day is a completely different issue. If the parent is willing to be helpful, then I suppose we'd try to work out something though I'm not sure what it would be. As to being "unmercifully" teased, we just didn't allow that. I would have one talk with the kids doing the teasing and that would end it. That happened many times. It was not hard to stop.

I imagine I'd tell the parent to take their child home until he/she is potty trained.
I'd meet with the parents at their home and help them learn how.

As to being "unmercifully" teased, we just didn't allow that. I would have one talk with the kids doing the teasing and that would end it. That happened many times. It was not hard to stop.
Stop when you re around. but not when you aren't.

I'd meet with the parents at their home and help them learn how.Except that, in Jenn's case, the parents said it was the teacher's problem.


Stop when you re around. but not when you aren't.
So there were times when you allowed your students to be unsupervised??? At any rate, we handled it MANY times successfully. Students did not want to have to see me after I had told them I expected it to stop.

When I was a teacher, I knew what was happening in my room. I knew what was going on at lunch. The only "holes" in my supervision were at recess when teachers alternated, and when students were walking in line from point A to point B. Teachers should never walk in front of the line, but should walk at the rear so you can see. I hadn't learned that at that point in my career.

Except that, in Jenn's case, the parents said it was the teacher's problem.
Thus, problem solve with the parents.

So there were times when you allowed your students to be unsupervised??? At any rate, we handled it MANY times successfully. Students did not want to have to see me after I had told them I expected it to stop.

When I was a teacher, I knew what was happening in my room. I knew what was going on at lunch. The only "holes" in my supervision were at recess when teachers alternated, and when students were walking in line from point A to point B. Teachers should never walk in front of the line, but should walk at the rear so you can see. I hadn't learned that at that point in my career.
I couldn't be in both bathrooms at once or walking to and from school with them or be with them on weekends or riding the bus with them.

I couldn't be in both bathrooms at once or walking to and from school with them or be with them on weekends or riding the bus with them.Bathrooms are easy. Don't let the persecuted in at the same time as the persecutors. Buses can be a problem for sure, but in our case it was very unlikely that the persecutor and the persecuted would ride the same bus. If they did, then the driver was told they were not to sit together. And, of course, the offending child knew he would have to face me if he did not straighten up. As I said, it was a problem that we solved MANY times by simply working together and all of us doing our part.


Thus, problem solve with the parents.Good luck. In the meantime, it will be your job, maybe for months, to clean up messy pants and hope the student has a clean pair.

And, of course, the offending child knew he would have to face me if he did not straighten up.
Ah, the punitive type. Nope, not how I would have handled it.

Good luck. In the meantime, it will be your job, maybe for months, to clean up messy pants and hope the student has a clean pair.
Not at all. The parents and I would have worked happily together. After all, a potty-trained kid would have certainly simplified THEIR lives as well as mine.

Ah, the punitive type. Nope, not how I would have handled it.It works, unlike what we are doing now. Don't believe that? Ask Jenn.

Perhaps the difference between us is that I actually WAS a principal and had to keep a lid on an entire school. You have happy theories. Well, good for you and I wish you well. I am perfectly happy with the approach I used successfully at five different schools.

Hebrews 12:6. Amplified Bible FOR THE LORD DISCIPLINES and CORRECTS THOSE WHOM HE LOVES, AND HE PUNISHES EVERY SON WHOM HE RECEIVES and WELCOMES [TO HIS HEART].”

It works, unlike what we are doing now. Don't believe that? Ask Jenn.
Nope. I raised two rambunctious male children to be respectful of others no matter what age, to express appreciation when needed, and to be peacemakers. Neither one ever failed in those endeavors.


Perhaps the difference between us is that I actually WAS a principal and had to keep a lid on an entire school. You have happy theories. Well, good for you and I wish you well. I am perfectly happy with the approach I used successfully at five different schools.

Hebrews 12:6. Amplified Bible FOR THE LORD DISCIPLINES and CORRECTS THOSE WHOM HE LOVES, AND HE PUNISHES EVERY SON WHOM HE RECEIVES and WELCOMES [TO HIS HEART].”
Mine aren't theories. They're tried and true. You obviously have no idea what the Bible means by punishment and discipline.

You obviously have no idea what the Bible means by punishment and discipline.You need to learn that just because you happen to disagree with the Bible does not mean someone else doesn't understand it. This is the word translated as "punishes". mastigóō – properly, to whip (scourge) with a mastigos (see 3148 (https://biblehub.com/greek/3148.htm) /mástiks, a "whip"); to "flog (scourge) a victim, strapped to a pole or frame" (Souter); (figuratively) God sending severe pain in the best eternal interests of the believer (see Heb 12:6)
Reflection: As in the Lord's dealing with Job, God's purifying love is all-wise when we experience temporal suffering. Hence, it always works for our greater eternal gain as we live in faith (Ro 8:18-25,38). For example, God authorized an incredible amount of earthly pain (bringing heavenly gain) in the lives of Jeremiah and John the Baptist.

Now I would agree that "discipline" and "punishment" are not synonyms, but the meaning of "punishment" is pretty well universally understood. For you to suggest that I don't understand it because you don't like the idea is just foolishness.

I congratulate you on the raising of your two sons. I will still take the benefit of my 24 years as a school principal when it comes to dealing with children. Our kids were happy and well-behaved children because they knew the boundaries and were comfortable with them, and they also knew we insisted on a certain level of decent behavior.

No, because you are a literalist.

I'd sure love to interview some of those children, now adults!

I have no idea why you insist on arguing over everything. I am, however, glad to find out you are not a literalist. That means I can take your words to mean that you love my methods of discipline, you support me completely, and you are certain that all of my schoolchildren turned out just fine. Wonderful, Wondergirl!

I have no idea why you insist on arguing over everything. I am, however, glad to find out you are not a literalist. That means I can take your words to mean that you love my methods of discipline, you support me completely, and you are certain that all of my schoolchildren turned out just fine. Wonderful, Wondergirl!
And you get a D- in reading comprehension! That's not what a literalist is. You're twisting and shouting again. The more you talk about being a teacher and principal, the less I believe you.

And in a non-literal manner, I understand your words to mean that you completely approve of my views and support me fully.

Well, that's about as foolish as reading Heb. 12:6 and somehow coming to the conclusion that God does not punish those He loves. You read a text and decide it means the total opposite of what it clearly says, and yet I'm twisting??? You judge the Bible by your own views and beliefs. You need to try it the other way around.

Mr. Literalist, please do some honest thinking and stop taking verses out of context.

God loves you. Has He punished you?

Mr. Literalist, please do some honest thinking and stop taking verses out of context.Just another general criticism with no specifics. If you want to be taken seriously, then make your case carefully.


God loves you. Has He punished you?Many times, and I am very grateful for it.

You asked for context. Here it is. I will guess that you will ignore it, but others reading this post will see it plainly. I would suggest you read verse 8 with great care. It certainly seems to apply to you.

5 (https://www.biblehub.com/hebrews/12-5.htm)And you have forgotten the exhortation that addresses you as sons: “My son, do not take lightly the discipline of the Lord, and do not lose heart when He rebukes you.6 (https://www.biblehub.com/hebrews/12-6.htm)For the Lord disciplines the one He loves, and He chastises every son He receives.”7 (https://www.biblehub.com/hebrews/12-7.htm)Endure suffering as discipline; God is treating you as sons. For what son is not disciplined by his father? 8 (https://www.biblehub.com/hebrews/12-8.htm)If you do not experience discipline like everyone else, then you are illegitimate children and not true sons.

Here are notes on the Greek word translated as "disciplines".

παιδεία (Tdf. παιδία; (see Iota)), παιδείας, ἡ, (παιδεύω), the Sept. for מוּסָר;1. the whole training and education of children (which relates to the cultivation of mind and morals, and employs for this purpose now commands and admonitions, now reproof and punishment): Ephesians 6:4 (https://biblehub.com/interlinear/ephesians/6-4.htm) (cf. Winers Grammar, 388 (363) note); (in Greek writings from Aeschylus on, it includes also the care and training of the body.) (See especially Trench, Synonyms, § xxxii.; cf. Jowett's Plato, index under the word Education).
2. "whatever in adults also cultivates the soul, especially by correcting mistakes and curbing the passions "; hence,
a. instruction which aims at the increase of virtue: 2 Timothy 3:16 (https://biblehub.com/interlinear/2_timothy/3-16.htm).
b. according to Biblical usage chastisement, chastening (of the evils with which God visits men for their amendment): Hebrews 12:5 (https://biblehub.com/interlinear/hebrews/12-5.htm) (Proverbs 3:11 (https://biblehub.com/interlinear/proverbs/3-11.htm)), f (see ὑπομένω, 2 b.), ; (Proverbs 15:5 (https://biblehub.com/interlinear/proverbs/15-5.htm), and often in the O. T.; cf. Grimm, Exgt. Hdbch. on Sap., p. 51; (cf. (Plato) definition παιδεία. δύναμις θεραπευτικη

Wasn't Jesus punished for our sins?

Yes, He was. The punishment He received was the judgment that would have rightly fallen upon us. Now, the discipline we receive as sons/daughters is meant to point us in the right direction and to correct our wrong beliefs and actions. That is the clear and obvious intent of the Hebrews passage.

But if you have a different view on that passage, then please put it forward. Just bear in mind that you need to directly deal with the text. Just accusing others of being too literal is not an argument. I invite you to tell us, with justification, what you believe the text means.

Our heavenly Father is not like this. How do I know? I know Jesus. Jesus loves me unconditionally. Jesus is my model not only to love others but also to be gracious, kind. Jesus said he was about his Father’s business -- not the punishing business but the adoption business. God loves me and, thanks to the sacrifice of His Son, will spend eternity delighting in me and me in Him.

Hebrews 12:6 quotes Proverbs 3:11-12 -- a direct quote copied from the legalistic Old Testament then partially rewritten (probably by some unknown translator) into the New Testament

A better translation of Hebrews 12:6 is "For whom the Lord loves he instructs, just as a father the son in whom he delights."

First you claimed I took the Heb. scripture out of context. When I provided the context, you chose to not look at the Heb. 12 text at all. I can only assume you have chosen to ignore it as you do any other passage that does not agree with you.

As for Jesus, He drove people out of the Temple with a whip and overturned their tables TWICE. He chewed out His disciples several times such as when they did not cast the demon out of the young boy or when they completely missed his statement concerning the leaven of the pharisees. He pronounced a thorough condemnation of the Pharisees, and for those of us who accept the Bible, or for that matter the words of Christ Himself, He is coming again to bring judgment on the earth. So if you truly "know Jesus", then you will acknowledge these things. I genuinely fear for you, that you have essentially invented a "Jesus" that matches up to your beliefs. I sincerely hope you will read your Bible more carefully and choose to let it establish your beliefs.

I might add that nowhere in the Bible does it say that God loves us "unconditionally". He certainly has a great love for "the world", but He does not accept people without condition. That is an unbiblical idea.

Of course I read it AND its OT predecessor.

He certainly has a great love for "the world", but He does not accept people without condition. That is an unbiblical idea.
Ah, you don't believe in Jesus and what He did for us. Now I understand where you're coming from.

I'll wave to you from heaven.

Perhaps I see your problem. You do not know the Bible. You do not know the Bible because, I think, you fear the Bible. You realize it will destroy your mythical Jesus. There is a real Jesus. When faced with what the Bible says about that person, you resort to silly comments about waving. I would encourage you to face the truth.

I'd love to know your view on this. It is certainly not "unconditional".

36 “Now therefore the whole nation of Israel must know beyond the shadow of a doubt that this Jesus, whom you crucified, God has declared to be both Lord and Christ.” 37 When they heard this they were cut to the quick, and they cried to Peter and the other apostles, “Men and fellow-Jews, what shall we do now?”
38-39 Peter told them, “You must repent and every one of you must be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, so that you may have your sins forgiven and receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

He certainly has a great love for "the world", but He does not accept people without condition. That is an unbiblical idea.
The "condition" is my accepting, by the power of the Holy Spirit, that Jesus died for me, loves me, and will welcome me into heaven someday.

That Hebrew text was copied from Proverbs. The translator must have been at a loss so threw that in.

The "condition" is my accepting, by the power of the Holy Spirit, that Jesus died for me, loves me, and will welcome me into heaven someday.That's not too bad except you left off what Peter included. Do you see it?


That Hebrew text was copied from Proverbs. The translator must have been at a loss so threw that in.Why? Because it disagrees with your views? Even worse, this is the Proverbs text. In what way does it support your idea that God will not discipline and punish those who are His chldren???

My son, do not reject or take lightly the discipline of the Lord [learn from your mistakes and the testing that comes from His correction through discipline];
Nor despise His rebuke, For those whom the Lord loves He corrects,
Even as a father corrects the son in whom he delights.

I'd still like to see your comments on the many places I shown where Jesus sternly rebuked people.

a bunch of Rabbis were in one of their debate the Talmud moods as they frequently are . The topic was an oven and whether it was impure under Jewish law .Well most of the Rabbis agreed it was impure.

But Rabbi Eliezer insisted it was . He said if I am right this carob tree will fly away ..... and it did .The other Rabbis said Jewish law is not determined by a carob tree.

So Rabbi Eliezer said if I am right this river will flow backward .And it did . That did not convince them ,He made the walls of the room shake and fall . That did not convince them .

So final he called on Divine help . A voice from heaven was heard "why are you differing with Eliezer as everything he has said is in accordance with the Talmud ? "

You would think the voice of God should've been the final arbiter .It wasn't .

The other Rabbis cited Deuteronomy 30:12, "It is not up to heaven"

Since the Torah is not in heaven, heavenly voices have no special authority to interpret it. “Since the Torah has already been given to us from Mount Sinai, we do not pay attention to heavenly voices.”

Eliezer had God on his side ..but the Rabbinical majority rules . God smiled and said “My children have defeated me, my children have defeated me.”

(The Oven of Achnai)

I'd still like to see your comments on the many places I showed where Jesus sternly rebuked people.
Tell me about Jesus when He was here on earth, about His humanness, when He reacted just like we should when seeing theft and corruption by modern-day Pharisees (and not voting for them).

Except that much of his rebuke was for His own disciples. What about that???

But even at that it still is plainly true, by your own response, that Jesus rebuked people.

The missing condition Peter included but you left out was repentance. I thought you might see it.

Jesus was fully human at the time, just like you are now, with the same emotions and reactions.

God bless you WG. I can believe your ideas or I can believe the clear and plain teachings of the Bible. I’m going with the Bible. It requires no excuses or illogical explanations.

"The clear and plain teachings of the Bible" that have been messed with (added to, changed, deleted) by many translators, some with their own agendas or their church's agenda, through the centuries.

If that is true, and there is no evidence of it, but if it’s true, then no part is reliable. That would include the parts you believe. All discussions of the Bible would just be fruitless nonsense since it would be impossible to determine the genuine.

Have you ever considered the extreme measures you must take to attempt to explain away the parts of the Bible you don’t like?

Didn't you read what Athos wrote about all those translators? He knew whereof he spoke. I spent four years in a Christian college discussing that sort of thing. This has nothing to do with parts I don't like (whatever THAT means). The part I live by are Jesus' words in John 13, 34"A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. 35By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another."

We follow that and all is well.

Yeah, I read what Athos wrote. He, apparently like you, had no support for his beliefs. But if you know of NT passages that were corrupted by "translators", then put it out for us to see. In your four years of discussing such things, surely you have good examples of this. I'd like to see them. Until you can, then there is no point in talking about it. It's all just idle speculation.

How do you know the John passage you mentioned was not corrupted by a "translator"?

It comes down to a simple rule for you. You accept what you like and discard what you don't like. That has been apparent for a long time.

Love one another. So let it be written, so let it be done.

It's what I dislike about trying to discuss anything with you. The Hebrews passage is a perfect example.

1. You claimed I took it out of context. I provided the context, so you then went to...
2. The "translator" miswrote the Prov, 3 passage. I provided the answer for that as well, then you went to...
3. The "translators" corrupted much of the NT. You claimed to have talked about those places for four years in college. I asked you to show us where that happened, and now we are here, which is nowhere.

It's simply true. You accept what you like and discard what you dislike. It certainly seems that you are attempting to manufacture your own truth.

Love one another. So let it be written, so let it be done.

Thus sayeth Wondergirl.

Jesus. John 13:34: "Love one another."

That's one of those corrupted texts, isn't it? Remember those dishonest translators you mentioned?

This bear repeating.

But if you know of NT passages that were corrupted by "translators", then put it out for us to see. In your four years of discussing such things, surely you have good examples of this. I'd like to see them.

Titus 3:9

I don't think a discussion about the reliability of the text of the NT is a "foolish controversy". But it's good to let it drop. Unproductive, as it turned out.