cwsox Posted May 11, 2004 Share Posted May 11, 2004 I will be out of this thread with this one last post. Jugs says: There is a reason why both Catholics & Protestants read from the NT vs OT 2-1 at weekly & daily services: because the only value in the OT scriptures is that which supports the foundation of morality outlined in the NT. Prophecy is the most important link between the 2. So to dispute this is showing ignorance of the faith. Oh? Besides the fact that his other statements are wrong, especially on the Prime Covenant (Old Testament) here is one we can test. What is read by Roman Catholics and mainline Protestants at worship? They read from the Common Lectionary - which has been revised to be the Revised Common lectionary. If Jugs has a command of his facts, then if we were to look at the assigned readings for the three year cycle of readings, we would see, if Jugs were right, that the NT lessons would outweigh the OT lessons by a 2-1 margin. Is that fact? No. Jugs is incorrect as respectfully as I can point out. The Roman/Mainline Protestant lessons, one source You will note that there are four Lessons: The First from the Prime Covanant (Old Testament), the second (Psalmody) from the Psalms which is Prime Covenant (Old Testament), the third (Epistle) from, well, an epistle in the New Testament, and the fourth, the Gospel Lesson, from the New Testament. That means that contrary to Jugs assertion, the readings are half and half, 50-50, not 2-1 as he claims. Setting aside Jugs usual insults (and I acknowledge his apology and offer my own for any offense I may have caused), he is factually incorrect. Here is another source for the lectionaryreadings some may find of note: lectionary for 3 years laid out Those who use the Revised Common Lectionary are Roman Catholics and as I said mainline Protestants, i.e., the Lutherans, Anglicans (Episcopal) and Methodists, Presbyterians, UCC, etc etc etc. For example, here is a UCC link SAMUEL which points out the Revsied Common Lectionary is © Consultation on Common Texts. The Consultation on Common texts (formerly the International Consultation of Ecumenical Texts) is comprised of Roman Catholics and church bopdies represetning almost all of the church traditions around the world. Christians live out of the Prime Covenant (Old Testament) and always have. For a perponderance of readings, here is lectionary from the Syriac that goes back in its roots to the 2nd-3rd century of the Common Era and note the heavy preponderance of OT texts: Syriac Lectionary Now that speaks of the assigned lessons for Sundays and all Church festivals. There are a variety of lectionaries for the daily office. The ones that are foundational to the Church indeed follow the 4 lesson, 2 OT, 2 NT format. There are a myriad of others that follow other formats. That is just fine. For all I get accused of, you will never find a post wherein I say someone is "ignorant of the faith." I offer where I am with at least the attempt, and I may fail to remind sometimes, that always that the vastness of the Gospel and our God is far more than any of us to contain, and that Christians will indeed differ, and I may differ strenuously at points from some or make my case the best way I can and some consider that "holier than thou" or what have you - sorry, it is my life and I apologise if it comes across that way, although I suspect the origin of that is that I make a theological case that differs from others opinions. You never hear me call another "ignorant of the faith" or some of the other slams that get tossed my way. Sometimes I am a strong advocate. Who here is not, at least at times? The only label we should apply is that sometimes many care deeply about the conversation and sometimes each one of us, sinful as we are, is guyilty of failing to respect the other. I confess my own sin and failings. But as Jugs has made an assertion again and uses a stat to back that up, the number of OT vs NT lessons assigned for reading in Christian worship, his stats are incorrect and as he theologizes from them, well, when the foundation is sand, so the argument needs to be reconsidered, it seems to me. One can use that as a way to evaluate. So I dispute you, Jugs, and you are wrong on the facts by which you condemn me. I do not condemn you, not in the least. You as are all of us, we are all beloved by God and live by grace. I applaude you zeal. I disagree with much of what you say, almost all of it. Blast at me as you will. I stand before my God convinced by Scriptures and here I am, I can do no other. And for me, confessionally, the Scriptures are the source for the faith and life of the Church. Sola Scriptura. I have often been wrong in my life and I will often wrong in the future. Big deal. I am human. I take very seriously the mandate laid down by paul Peter Waldenstrom of the Mission Covenant Church in Sweden, "where is it written." So much of what people believe the Bible says, the Bible never says at all. Here is a story that gripped me my first year in seminary and motivates me now to always go back to what the Scriptures actuaklly say rather than someone says they say: In the summer of 1870 Waldenstrom conversed with a few clergymen about religious matters. One of the ministers remarked, "How glorious it is that God is reconciled!" Without further deliberation Waldenstrom replied with the question which afterwards became the slogan of the controversy about the atonement: "Where is that written?" The response of those clergymen present was merely to laugh at the question. Everyone knew quite well that it was written almost everywhere in the Bible. But when they began to seek specific passages, none could be found. source of story The great theology in the church is done in people bringing their differing views to the table. It has always been something I am pleased with that my closest clergy friend, at synods, we always voted opposite of each other. I deeply respect those who can present from strength what they believe because I may then see that something I have been given to see is wrong or in need of correction or adaptation. But I will press again and again, where is it written. Jugs, you made a factual assertion and sniped at me and you are wrong on your facts, not only there but many places elsewhere in your threads. That in and of itself means nothing. God's house has many rooms and we are all there. I might suggest that if you leave of the direct attacks on others, your presentation would be enhanced. I also fail to see who you are convincing here with anything. As I understand it, as has been given to me by the Spirit, God is not a God of cultural wars. God stands above culture, and culture is precisely that, historically, ethnically, geographically, chronologically, economically determined. God transcends culture. So must our witness to the Gospel. Trying to make a culture fit the precepts of a particular religious doctrine is inherently wrong. Jesus and those in Scripture who came before and after never tried to change the culture. They called us to a covennantal life with God within the culture we live (the old in but not of thing). Therein lay a huge difference in understanding by which the whole concept of "culture wars" does disturb me as a Christian of a deep and abiding faith. Differ with me. I differ with you. I can also call you "brother" in Christ. I pray you may return the favor. We shall indeed all continue to differ and thank God that diversity within the Realm of God exists and that in God's house are many, many rooms. And when we dwell there all the days of our lives in the eschatological event to come, we shall all be surprised how wrong we all were on so much, how right others were, and how little difference it makes in the Gospel of the One who is Love Incarnate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JUGGERNAUT Posted May 11, 2004 Author Share Posted May 11, 2004 It probably got lost in the Bible discussion so I'll post it again. Today's issue: Should gambling be regulated towards moderation? IMHO: Yes. The consensus by behavioral sciences is that binge & every day gambling takes on a similar addiction to that of alcoholism. Social problems stemming from losses are no less impacting on society than drunk drivers. The technology exists to enforce moderation. It requires giving up privacy in order to gamble but I think it's warranted because it's no less important than applying for loans or margin accts. To limit the invasion of privacy paypal & bank services could still be used but the account would have to be setup as a gamblng type so that the regulations would enforce the moderation. It could not be linked to other accounts. As for cash gambling that is harder to regulate but not impossible. It would require a valid id at which an account would be entered at the casino & that account would be governed by the same regulations. It will be tough to enforce casinos to share customer information so that would inevitably remain a loop hole: a cash gambler could skirt the limits by casino hopping. But even so, these measures would still greatly assist in moderating personal gambling activity. cw, I would kindly appreciate this thread not being overwrought with debate over the value of the OT & NT. I have created a separate thread for a detailed & respectful discussion on the matter. I can only wonder what your motive would be to ignore that request & continue to drum up the subject. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted May 11, 2004 Share Posted May 11, 2004 cw, I would kindly appreciate this thread not being overwrought with debate over the value of the OT & NT. I have created a separate thread for a detailed & respectful discussion on the matter. I can only wonder what your motive would be to ignore that request & continue to drum up the subject. Perhaps because you keep replying to it? Just a thought. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JUGGERNAUT Posted May 11, 2004 Author Share Posted May 11, 2004 It probably got lost in the Bible discussion so I'll post it again. Today's issue: Should gambling be regulated towards moderation? IMHO: Yes. The consensus by behavioral sciences is that binge & every day gambling takes on a similar addiction to that of alcoholism. Social problems stemming from losses are no less impacting on society than drunk drivers. The technology exists to enforce moderation. It requires giving up privacy in order to gamble but I think it's warranted because it's no less important than applying for loans or margin accts. To limit the invasion of privacy paypal & bank services could still be used but the account would have to be setup as a gamblng type so that the regulations would enforce the moderation. It could not be linked to other accounts. As for cash gambling that is harder to regulate but not impossible. It would require a valid id at which an account would be entered at the casino & that account would be governed by the same regulations. It will be tough to enforce casinos to share customer information so that would inevitably remain a loop hole: a cash gambler could skirt the limits by casino hopping. But even so, these measures would still greatly assist in moderating personal gambling activity. cw, there is thread & there you will find my reply to your last Bible post. http://www.soxtalk.com/index.php?showtopic=18708 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sox4lifeinPA Posted May 12, 2004 Share Posted May 12, 2004 So much of what people believe the Bible says, the Bible never says at all. interesting... so like people who believe that God's ok with anyone's sexual preferences, as long as they're living in Love? or the fact that God destined some for hell and others for salvation. or how about Jesus' radically inclusive message? 1 Timothy 1 9 realizing the fact that (1) law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and (2) rebellious, for the (3) ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and (4) profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers 10 and (5) immoral men and (6) homosexuals and (7) kidnappers and (8) liars and (9) perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to (10) sound teaching, 11 according to (11) the glorious gospel of (12) the blessed God, with which I have been (13) entrusted. do you not know that the unrighteous will not (3) inherit the kingdom of God? (4) Do not be deceived; (5) neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor [1] effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will (6) inherit the kingdom of God. man, I hate it when Paul says things that aren't in the bible. how about Romans 9 before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad--in order that God's purpose in election might stand: 12not by works but by him who calls--she was told, "The older will serve the younger."[4] 13Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." man, I hate it when Paul says things that aren't in the bible. Luke 13 23 And someone said to Him, "Lord, are there just a few who are being saved?" And He said to them, 24 "(1) Strive to enter through the narrow door; for many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able. 25 "Once the head of the house gets up and (2) shuts the door, and you begin to stand outside and knock on the door, saying, '(3) Lord, open up to us!' then He will answer and say to you, '(4) I do not know where you are from.' man, I hate it when JESUS says things that aren't in the bible. the facts and realities of the bible are difficult to swallow sometimes, and we'd all like to feel warm and squishy about the fact that our mothers or brothers may end up in a different place on judgement day, but this is all to His glory... people, step away from your own agendas and realize the truth of Christ's message. none of us know our final destination, therefore make your election secure by treating those around you as if they were yourself and love God above all things. just sayin' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitesoxfan99 Posted May 12, 2004 Share Posted May 12, 2004 interesting... so like people who believe that God's ok with anyone's sexual preferences, as long as they're living in Love? or the fact that God destined some for hell and others for salvation. or how about Jesus' radically inclusive message? man, I hate it when Paul says things that aren't in the bible. how about Romans 9 man, I hate it when Paul says things that aren't in the bible. man, I hate it when JESUS says things that aren't in the bible. the facts and realities of the bible are difficult to swallow sometimes, and we'd all like to feel warm and squishy about the fact that our mothers or brothers may end up in a different place on judgement day, but this is all to His glory... people, step away from your own agendas and realize the truth of Christ's message. none of us know our final destination, therefore make your election secure by treating those around you as if they were yourself and love God above all things. just sayin' Man don't you just hate it when people contradict themselves by quoting passages from the Bible. Previous Thread But we should take everything the Bible says as verbatim. Seeing as how you said that a murderer can still be saved if he "finds" Jesus. But in this passage it clearly says the opposite. I have a question for the people here who truly believe that God has already chosen who will be damned even though they have circumstances they can't control like living being before Jesus came, or by practicing another religion. Why would you choose to worship such a God? Is a God who does not see all people as equal in his eyes (which he clearly doesn't if some are saved and others aren't based on what religion they follow) truly worthy of such worship? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sox4lifeinPA Posted May 12, 2004 Share Posted May 12, 2004 Man don't you just hate it when people contradict themselves by quoting passages from the Bible. Previous Thread But we should take everything the Bible says as verbatim. Seeing as how you said that a murderer can still be saved if he "finds" Jesus. But in this passage it clearly says the opposite. I have a question for the people here who truly believe that God has already chosen who will be damned even though they have circumstances they can't control like living being before Jesus came, or by practicing another religion. Why would you choose to worship such a God? Is a God who does not see all people as equal in his eyes (which he clearly doesn't if some are saved and others aren't based on what religion they follow) truly worthy of such worship? But we should take everything the Bible says as verbatim. Seeing as how you said that a murderer can still be saved if he "finds" Jesus. But in this passage it clearly says the opposite the problem with arguing with people who don't understand the scripture, is that you don't understand the scripture. I sin daily and I believe that I will be among those who go to heaven. I am repentant and accept Christ as the remover of inequities and clenser of my soul. So even if I killed a man yesterday and was without Christ, If I confess my sins and walk a new path, yes, I can be with him in heaven. Man don't you just hate it when people contradict themselves by quoting passages from the Bible. I'm sorry kid, but there was no contradiction, just your misinterpretation and lack of understanding the scriptures. Is a God who does not see all people as equal in his eyes truly worthy of such worship? The problem once again, is that you don't understand the point of "worship". It isn't that we've done anything that God desires from us. He created us for the sole purpose of bringing glory upon himself. whether elect or non-elect, your life will be for the glorification of Him. We live in a society of individualistic thought and self-worship, so it doesn't surprise me that so many people don't get this idea. "The matrix" would mean alot more to people if they understood this principle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandoFan Posted May 12, 2004 Share Posted May 12, 2004 He created us for the sole purpose of bringing glory upon himself. Aww, is that cute or what! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sox4lifeinPA Posted May 12, 2004 Share Posted May 12, 2004 Aww, is that cute or what! hey man, it's ok if you don't understand...you probably never will. I'm just sorry that it's a concept outside of your grasp. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandoFan Posted May 12, 2004 Share Posted May 12, 2004 hey man, it's ok if you don't understand...you probably never will. I'm just sorry that it's a concept outside of your grasp. What can I say, we can't all be as spiritually sofistimacated as you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sox4lifeinPA Posted May 12, 2004 Share Posted May 12, 2004 What can I say, we can't all be as spiritually sofistimacated as you. What can I say, we can't all be as spiritually sofistimacated as you. I'm not saying I understand it in completeness, I just can take a step back from my self-diluted existence and say, "hmm, maybe this isn't about me" that's a damn question I wish most people on this friggin' board would ask. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandoFan Posted May 12, 2004 Share Posted May 12, 2004 "hmm, maybe this isn't about me" that's a damn question I wish most people on this friggin' board would ask. Hey, me and you both -- some of the self-involved no-Godniks on this board sure do creep me out, too I am just thankful that you deem it "ok" for me not to "grasp" something. I feel truly privileged to have been able to bask in your awe-inspiring wisdom and cool. Thank you from the bottom of my hollow, sinful heart. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JUGGERNAUT Posted May 12, 2004 Author Share Posted May 12, 2004 cw, there is thread & there you will find my reply to your last Bible post. http://www.soxtalk.com/index.php?showtopic=18708 My response to all of these recent Biblical posts WHICH DO NOT BELONG IN THIS THREAD .. will be found there. QUOTE (JUGGERNAUT @ May 11 2004, 10:38 PM) It probably got lost in the Bible discussion so I'll post it again. Today's issue: Should gambling be regulated towards moderation? IMHO: Yes. The consensus by behavioral sciences is that binge & every day gambling takes on a similar addiction to that of alcoholism. Social problems stemming from losses are no less impacting on society than drunk drivers. The technology exists to enforce moderation. It requires giving up privacy in order to gamble but I think it's warranted because it's no less important than applying for loans or margin accts. To limit the invasion of privacy paypal & bank services could still be used but the account would have to be setup as a gamblng type so that the regulations would enforce the moderation. It could not be linked to other accounts. As for cash gambling that is harder to regulate but not impossible. It would require a valid id at which an account would be entered at the casino & that account would be governed by the same regulations. It will be tough to enforce casinos to share customer information so that would inevitably remain a loop hole: a cash gambler could skirt the limits by casino hopping. But even so, these measures would still greatly assist in moderating personal gambling activity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sox4lifeinPA Posted May 12, 2004 Share Posted May 12, 2004 Hey, me and you both -- some of the self-involved no-Godniks on this board sure do creep me out, too I am just thankful that you deem it "ok" for me not to "grasp" something. I feel truly privileged to have been able to bask in your awe-inspiring wisdom and cool. Thank you from the bottom of my hollow, sinful heart. you either get it, choose to ignore it, or you don't. which category are you in? my apologies for placing you in one of those before you had a chance to answer. hey, I've got a hollow, sinful heart too! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JUGGERNAUT Posted May 12, 2004 Author Share Posted May 12, 2004 DAMN you all to HELL! Discuss gambling or get the HELL out of here! I said that in my best Charleton Heston voice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JUGGERNAUT Posted May 14, 2004 Author Share Posted May 14, 2004 Ok no one apparently disagrees with me on the gambing issue Issue for today: profiteering vs honest profits Fact: $1 increase in a barrel of oil = $7 BIL decrease in US purch power Fact: Exxon produced a 21 BIL profit in 2003. More than Microsoft. The FL DA's office is investigating oil companies & profiteering to decide whether to sue the oil companies later this year. Florida is hit harder than most states by the rise of inflation in oil dependant sectors like tourism. The reason why this is a culture issue is because most Americans believe in corporations right to make profits. It's the Adam Smith Wealth of Nations american way. But some of us are not Smith purists any more. We recognize that in an interconnected global economy where a corporation has a global presence much larger than that of an American one Smith's traditional supply & demand theories break down & a much greater hand is needed to balance the needs of society & govt vs the needs for a corp to earn a profit. Should the oil industry be regulated to prevent collusion & profiteering? Our greed based culture traditionally prefers less to more regulation. But in 2004 is our dependancy on oil any less than that of water? I believe in the modern age that oil dependancy is no less in importance than electricty. In that respect just as Com-Ed has to get rate hikes approved so to should the oil companies have to get price increases approved. If nothing else it will delay price increases & give us more time to prepare for them. This is not a radical measure like that of which occured in CA. It's simply applying the same measures we use now to limit the profiteering by corps like Com-Ed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JUGGERNAUT Posted May 15, 2004 Author Share Posted May 15, 2004 QUOTE (JUGGERNAUT @ May 13 2004, 01:48 PM) She's a degenerate endoctrinated from a degenerate lifestyle. I don't need statistics to come to that conclusion. The only mystery is what were the cause & effect relationships that led to that life style. That's what I want to know. Experiments in 1971 foreshadow abuses Situations drove subjects to do horrible things By John Schwartz New York Times News Service Published May 13, 2004 In 1971, researchers at Stanford University created a simulated prison in the basement of the campus psychology building. They randomly assigned 24 students to be either prison guards or prisoners for two weeks. Within days, the "guards" had become swaggering and sadistic, to the point of placing bags over the prisoners' heads, forcing them to strip naked and encouraging them to perform sexual acts. I applaud you for posting this because I question Stanford's reasoning in conducting such an experiment. The last part for certain borders on sexual harrassment laws which now exist in most states in the context where it is the state & not the victim that decides whether to prosecute the assailant. But let's put that aside for now. What I question in this experiment is what purpose does it have w/out first putting the guards through a rigorous training/endoctrination program? And perhaps that's the key to this. There is a big difference between endoctrination & training. Training is void of a value system & it's presented as a this is what you "should" do. Endoctrination is much more disciplines & the material is presented as a this is what you "will" do. And there lies the whole point behind the culture war in America. If you think about it both qualitatively & quantatively the fault lies in the school system. In the absence of morally endoctrinated parents, teachers, & admins a student acquires a value system from media & peers. The difference between America pre-1960's & post 1960's is that the value system (predicated on Christianity) was ENDOCTRINATED into the lives of Americans. The same value system was prevalent in the home, in the school, & in the work place. Yes there were exceptions as there will always be exceptions, but by & large society as a whole had the same endoctrinated value system. Some of those values were bad. The unequal treatment of blacks is one of them. But those bad values were not widely accepted to where they were not w/out challenges. Eventually the Christian values spearheaded by MLK & others bore a hole through those that choose to persist in the bad values because of the feeling of power & greed it gave them. Eventually good triumphed over evil with the civil rights movement. Today America's kids are endoctrinated by video games, movies, TV, music & of course the internet. Even peer pressure takes a back seat to the influence of these interactive inputs to their senses. It is time to endoctrinate them in the schools with a basic understanding of right & wrong. That understanding does exist & is at the core of every major life philosophy that exists in this world. It is basic morality 101. I can say proudly that if I had been drafted into that experiment above I would not have stood for such abuse. Either it would stop or I would die trying to prevent it. The same applies to if I had been assigned to that prison. That is what a core value system produces. People willing to die for the sanctity of human rights. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JUGGERNAUT Posted May 15, 2004 Author Share Posted May 15, 2004 Gay Marriage debate: http://www.soxtalk.com/index.php?act=ST&f=1&t=18896 Outsourcing debate: http://www.soxtalk.com/index.php?act=ST&f=1&t=18902 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JUGGERNAUT Posted May 17, 2004 Author Share Posted May 17, 2004 Cause & Effect of Pedophiles: http://www.soxtalk.com/index.php?act=ST&f=1&t=18993 Applying logic to facts- WMDs in Iraq: http://www.soxtalk.com/index.php?showtopic=19021 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JUGGERNAUT Posted May 18, 2004 Author Share Posted May 18, 2004 Bowling for Columbine: http://www.soxtalk.com/index.php?act=ST&f=1&t=19058 Interogation Techniques: http://www.soxtalk.com/index.php?act=ST&f=1&t=19107 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JUGGERNAUT Posted May 22, 2004 Author Share Posted May 22, 2004 Democracy First, republic second: http://www.soxtalk.com/index.php?act=ST&f=1&t=19271 Professor advisory board to Congress: http://www.soxtalk.com/index.php?showtopic=19374 Rationing gas prices: http://www.soxtalk.com/index.php?showtopic=19380 Cub culture: http://www.soxtalk.com/index.php?showtopic...=0entry354145 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.