Jump to content

cwsox

He'll Grab Some Bench
  • Posts

    11,305
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by cwsox

  1. I have never paid a woman for sax in my life. For oboe once, but not for sax.
  2. supersteve superpanics when the rodent apoears StuperSteve more worried when I talk abiut the morees of the Spartans ...
  3. a 20s something male who things he can do anything, he is invulnerable because he the great famous and honord athlete - typical of the male age group, especially of a top quality athlete subcategory so I don't judge that hard - almost all of us would say oh a game of bball ain't gonna hurt...
  4. you need a woman's perspective - go track down Heather Lee at her black hawk site and ask her - she what she says - worth a shot, she is wise in these things
  5. a White Sox fan site that has incorrect spellings in the thread titles of the names of our own players, especially one heading into his 5th season, just doesn't make us look like we know what we are talking about typos happen however and I change about 1 a day in a thread title (thread authors cannot edit the titles once it is posted and they discover the typo) as for the subject at hand: I'd send StJosE6 to NY just as a get well present and ask nothing in return
  6. um, (get the pun there) Steve didn't go to Michigan either -- and will beat you into a bloody pulp for suggesting he did! but then again, when you can't spell a Sox player's name... and an MSU student can...
  7. thank you for pointing out something that should have pointed out right away
  8. Q is only postulated that it must have existed. There must have been a Q - but it remains the unknown. I surely thing there was a Q long since lost. Interesting you like Gospel of Thomas, and of the canonicals, Mark, more than me. Of the 4, Matthew is my favorite Gospel, I guess, although Luke sure has its moments!
  9. 2K4, since you are reading non canonical lit and Jim, since you were discussing the same thing, you might find some good stuff here on how what got into the canon and on all the non canonical lit - check all the links on the left - haven't read everything on this site but it seems very factual and scholarly and solid canon site edited by cwsox because it seemed I should add the first line of the post as it now exists
  10. No to that Thomas you get no points for reading the Summa but will rememeber that boredom forever they are not heretical books properly speaking, just non canonical - althogh some may contain what could be considered heresy, that is a term best avoided for real heresy and not every little thing if you are going to re-read the Big 4, get the Jesus eminar stuff - you will find that fascinating
  11. was your translation or book of the Gospel of Thomas written by Elaine Pagels? There is a lot of nonBiblical literature from that era out there (roughly 50 CE to 200 CE, CE = Common Era, a more inclusive way of saying the one religion centric AD. CE is the designation used by Bible scholars of all faiths). The material in the non canonical literature is very interesting and informs our understandings of what it is the canon of Scripture, one way or another. It is very useful for scholarly purposes. But it is not material in the canon - the canon of Scriptures recognised by the Church as its books of Scriptures, the 27 we have. There are reason Thomas and the others are not canon. The people of the Church in those times did not feel that God was speaking to them by the non canonical books, and/or the non canonical books were saying things that were considered correct, or pushing things that were not in acciord with the message of Jesus and the Gospel. There were prevelant mystery religions (a term of art, not that they were a mystery) and other things going on in those days, especially gnosticism, and the people who were the Church debated and thought and met and discussed and by various processess determined that the 27 books of the Christian Covenant (NT) we have are the books which are canon and the other material was not. The Gospel of Thomas is the most oft cited non Canonical book. Worth reading as a side note. To me it is rather incredibly gnostic at times and takes leaps into fantastical stuff that is, ah, interesting but not Gospel. yet as a key to understanding the culture, mileau and all, essential for scholarly purposes. The Jesus Seminar used it in that way. I love how so many authors print so many books telling us the Gospel of Thomas is being kept hidden from su by the Church and yet so many books out there with it - it has never been hidden, just not canonical. Elaine Pagels is a first class scholar and very respected. I do not always agree with her but she is an excellent scholar.
  12. Bishop Usher and it was 4,000 something BCE so your recollection is very close the day of creation (I just doublechecked) according to the well meaning but wrong Bishop Usher was October 22, 4004 BC
  13. you beat me to it - Jim, you are exactly right- the moutains were thrust up, there was no water covering the mountains people who believe the Scriputres are authoritative (as I do) will find nothing in attempts to "prove" it what the Noah narratives tell us have nothing to do wth their total ahistorical nature
  14. I have left in the ones I agree with as top 10. Fisk by those standards, no. We never got a world series with him (not his fault). A reminder: if Ron Schueler wasn;t so f***ing stupid, we would have signed Clemens and not toronto - Schu thought Navarro had more to offer than Clemens - I can't go on, I get too upset when I reflect on that
  15. I am avoiding this thread for my own reasons - part of it being things get too complex to explain in 20 words or less and I tend to go too much and still just scratches the surface barely. FlaSoxxJim says it very well on many things - I don't buy the "odds are..." theory because of the reasons Jim has given, mathematical odds are a human construct anyway, and my certainty of God does not depend in the slightest on the "odds" of anything. GOWT, I am in total understanding of what you are saying. I would point out that all of the evidence we have today from archeology and elsewhere (and especially important here is what is broadly called the historical critical if Biblical studies) tells us that the Biblical narratives are indeed surviving stories that stem from a people who did live in those times long ago. There is no doubt that those are ancient storiues which have survived to today and have way too much internal and extinsic evidence to not accept that. And there is external evidence for what Moses would have been. The fall of the Hyksos dynasty would have been the end of Moses time of grace with those in power and it is undoubtedly Rameses II who is the Pharoh to whom the Moses stories speak of. On the other hand, I doubt the total historicity of much of the magic sounding stuff in those accounts. That said: I think searching for "Noah's Ark" is like a huge National Enquirer" waste of time. I don't believe that Noah's Ark ever existed - or happened. Every ancient Mesapotamian cultures and many other cultures has flood stories. People lived in places where there were floods. To believe all animal species and varieities (let alone humans) stem from whatever was brought on to a boat is ludicrous. Plus the internal evidence in the Noah accounts as we have them are several wildly divergent stories and sources combined (redacted) into one text that makes no sense. How many animals? 2? 7? How could Noah know what a "clean" animal was long before Moses established the covenant - total impossible. The story never happened Much of what is in both the Prime Covenant (aka Old Testament) and the Christian Covenant (New Testament) as narrative is what is termed by Biblical scholars as myth. Myth has an exact meaning and it is *not* "make believe." Myth, Biblically, is an account or story that whatever the original basis has no historical accuracy or meaning whatsoever. It never happened - or happened in a way that cannot be reconstructed, perhaps surmised, but it didn't happen that way - at all. The only analogy I can give is the George Washington chopping down the cherry tree story - it never happened, Parson Weems made it up, but it survives because it answers the question of how honest was G Washington and what his character really like. The Biblical narratives are a human attempt (guided, I believe by the Spriit) to explain what is unexplainable - the relationship between God and God's people. Which means that while the narratives have no or stupendously exaggerated historical accuracy at all, that is not the point. The stories are true because they attempt to convey truth while the historicity is negligent. There is so much truth, to me, in the Scriptures and it has nothing remotely to do with whether anything can be "proved" because it simply cannot be. My knowledge of God as revealed in the Scriptures (which are the source of the faith and life of the Church, to me) has nothing to do with what can be "proved" or not. In fact all attempts to"prove" faith are by nature tautologies. The teachings of Scriptures are the most neglected part of everything. The radical call to live life in a covenantal relationship is *not* the listing of things to do or not do, or doctrines to agree with or not agree with. The call is far deeper, to be in covenant. That is why time and time again people want to return to the superficial and make mountains out of things that are negligble in Scripture, or offer "simple basic Biblical truths" which simply do not exist, the "straight and simple appliable Bible rules" do violence to the Scriptures. It is not that simplistic. And indeed we are called to wrestle with God (see, Jacob/Israel for example) and really struggle with what the call of God is for us in our realities - not make lists of rules or laws that do not exist in Scripture and are human attempts to control. The exhaustive listings of canon law are the other side of the attempt to control, and these things are neither from God either. Control. Yes the church has been (is yet still in some places) a despotic tyrannical institution that has been all about control. There is much to be said theologically and historically to that fact. And yes, that is not what the Church originally developed and is what the Church is - there has to be a separation from the human (and thus corrupted) institution. That the Church can be simultaneously a palce of much human fault and corruption and yet the Body of Christ in the world is not difficult for me to accept. After all, what human relationship of love does not have its positive and negative. So much more so is the covenantal relationship of love between God and God's people. When Zach (for example) writes of his profound contempt for the church that he has experienced, I agree with him - the church that he experienced is one that many have experienced and the validity there cannot be denied. I embrace Zach my friend for what he says about the Church that means everything to me because he speaks honestly of real experiences. When others write of the Church that has meant good thinsg to them, yes, I agree there too. I generally find myself, a person of toital faith, agreeing with the athetists and skeptics because I think all these things require that type of perspective - and they are speaking what is reality as opposed to defending things are not at all defensible and take us away from what is really being said by God, what is rally important. Now I am pissed off many ( how can he say those things and still call himself a believer!!!! ) but God is so much greater than our fallible attempts to "prove" what cannot be proved by the devices of our own construction. What any one believes is not words but I will post this next Confession of Faith which says as much more as I will say, doing it all in one post beause I am not trying to run up my post count. (This is the confession of faith of the church body to which I belong and when we put things togetehr anewin 1996, I wrote this - this is my writing adoptd by the church body.) Note: point #7 may be of some interest to some. Confession of Faith 1. This church confesses Jesus Christ as Sovereign of the Church. The Holy Spirit creates and sustains the Church through the Gospel and thereby unites believers with their Sovereign and with one another in the household of faith. 2. This church confesses that the Gospel is the revelation of God’s sovereign will and saving grace in Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is the Word Incarnate, the Word of God, through whom everything was made and through whose life, death, and resurrection God fashions a new creation. 3. This church confesses the ecumenical creeds, Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed, as true declarations of the faith of the Church. 4. This church confesses the Holy Scriptures as the norm for the faith and life of the Church. The canonical Scriptures of the Prime Covenant (Old Testament) and the Christian Covenant (New Testament) are inspired by the Spirit and record God’s redemptive acts, which reveal and announce God’s covenants with the children of God. The Scriptures bear witness to God’s love and redemptive acts for the children of God in every generation. The canonical books of the Christian Covenant (New Testament) proclaim the revelation and covenant centering in Jesus Christ. Through all of the Scriptures God’s spirit speaks to us to create and sustain Christian faith and call us to service in the world. In the continuation of the proclamation of the Church, God speaks through the Scriptures and realizes the Gospel’s redemptive purpose generation after generation. 5. This church confesses that it acknowledges the Spirit’s gift of the ecumenical tradition of the Church. This church will, as we are able, by reason and mutual consultation, mediate that tradition anew in each generation, always seeking the aid and guidance of the Spirit. 6. This church confesses that the Gospel revealed in Jesus Christ, transmitted by the Scriptures and confessed in the ecumenical creeds, to which the ecumenical tradition bears witness, is the treasure of the Church, the substance of its proclamation, and the basis of its unity and continuity. The Holy Spirit uses the proclamation of the Gospel and the administration of the Sacraments to create and sustain Christian faith and unity, to create and sustain the Church for God’s mission in the world. 7. This church confesses the oneness of all humanity, for each person has been made in the image of God, created by God and breathes with the breath of life given by God. In the Gospel we all are one in Jesus Christ. The Church, for the sake of the Gospel and for its own sake, is called to regard each human being as a person created and loved by God, a person for whom Christ is Incarnate. The Gospel is to be proclaimed to all people. The evangelical mission of the Church is to all people. Each person is called by the Spirit to receive the welcome, comfort, shelter, and redeeming love of the Church; to partake in the gifts of Word and Sacrament as a member of the family of faith in response to and faith in the Gospel; and share in the mission and ministry of the Church. In accordance with the Gospel, this church rejects distinctions amongst people for reasons of race, ethnicity, color, gender, physical challenges, sexual orientation, cultural heritage, or any other false dichotomy when these distinctions result in divisions in the family of God, for the very diversity of humanity reflects the image of God. 8. This church confesses that it is but a portion of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church which is, will be, and remain forever. This is the assembly of all believers among whom the Gospel is preached in its purity and the Holy Sacraments are administered according to the Gospel. For it is sufficient for the true unity of the Church that the Gospel be preached in accordance with a pure understanding of it and that the Sacraments be administered in accordance with the divine Word, which is Jesus Christ. 9. This church confesses that it is mindful of Jesus Christ’s prayer that the Church be one. This church confesses that the multitude of individual church bodies, of which this church is but one, is a scandal and a sin against Christ and the evangelical mission of Christ’s Church. Accordingly, this church shall not exist for its own sake or seek to perpetrate its existence in human history. This church shall endeavor to work with other church bodies in the proclamation and mission of the Church. This church shall endeavor to dialogue with other church bodies regarding the common faith we share and the differing insights into the fullness of the Gospel that God has granted to the various church bodies and faith-traditions. All are called to be a part of the catholic unity of the people of God, a unity which is harbinger of the universal peace it promotes. This church, seeing itself as catholic, shall take steps necessary, in conformance with this confession of faith, to acknowledge as one in faith and doctrine other church bodies for the furthering of the ecumenical and evangelical witness. With integrity to the Spirit’s calling of this church into being and without forsaking our own history and confession, this church shall seek organic unity with other church bodies as we are able, and where unable, to have communion with other church bodies in the fullest measures that are possible. It will be the continuing fulfillment of this church’s purpose and witness when its clergy and laity can unite with other church bodies in organic unity in our faithful and obedient response to Jesus Christ’s prayer that the Church be one. 10. We confess that we do not have the option of keeping the good news of the Gospel of Jesus Christ to ourselves. The uncommunicated gospel is a patent contradiction. Evangelism is rooted in gratitude for God’s self-sacrificing love, in obedience to the Risen One. Confessing Christ must be done today. It cannot wait for a time that is comfortable for us. We must be prepared to proclaim the Gospel when human beings need to hear it. But in our zeal to spread the Good News, we must guard against fanaticism which disrupts the hearing of the Gospel and breaks the community of God. The world requires, and God demands, that we recognize the urgency to proclaim the saving word of God - today. God’s acceptable time demands that we respond in all haste.
  16. I did find it interesting - thanks for posting the link - I never check the mlb site so never would have seen it otherwise
  17. cwsox

    blue moon beer

    Bells - just last week a local judge and I were discussing Bells - Bells is great and I will only drink it there - I remember when it opened, it was maybe 1996? in Kalamazoo a mile or so from my house - not living in Kazoo now and trying like hell to find a job there so I can move back - did you go to WMU or Kazoo? Why don't I rememebr that? Damn I love Kalamazoo. I want to move back there so much - never should have left - Kazoo is 85 miles from where I am now - I wanna go back so damn much...
  18. these have been claimed - and to a good home!
  19. I have a pass (for two people) for the private autograph session on Saturday 3-5 pm with CLee and Thigpen the first person who PMs with an address I will send the pass to
  20. cwsox

    brandofan -

    I have no doubt that is how it came down! it wasn't an interview, it was a community event (non political event about a very political thing and I was totally non political as required - all depends on what role one plays) but as Murdoch owns no newspapers out here, today I am all over the two area papers (with great photo in one) with the immortal quote "life happens" and got an interview lined up with another paper for later today - which will be political brandofan - no DeMille problems here - I am actually on and have been on tv more than enough to not get an ego out of it - one time though in 1983 was great fun, I watched the news footage in a bar and it was funny when people in the bar realized that the dude (me) sitting there was the same guy on the tv screen at that moment
  21. cwsox

    blue moon beer

    good info there, thanks - as for bread, other things, I never eat bread, only do pizza once a year when I plan to be sick the next day, I read labels very carefully - I have learned to make a lot of things with no yeast since they stick yeast in everything even canned and dry soup! It is in Ritz crackers! If it has yeast, I do not eat it. The local bar/restaurant named a burger after me which includes no bun, no ketsup (vinegar activtaes yeast), no pickle (vinegar) - it is a slab of meat with fresh veggies - boring, healthy, and fun that I have a buger named in my honor!
  22. cwsox

    brandofan -

    that local project I told you about - the NBC affiliate and the ABC affiliate each gave the story about 4 minute air time (slow Sunday night?) and about half of it on each station was me - quotes from me, me speaking, me looking deep in thought, me consulting with others, others consulting with mem me standing in the hallway - and they did a really good editing job on what they selected for the quotes which they used to punch up the story - not the first time on tv by a long, long long shot - I give give news video - I was very aware of the cameras and from experience knew how to give them the angles and the shots and the sound bytes (short sentences) they wanted - surprised me that so many were used! interesting that the local Faux News affiliate covered the same event and did not give me 1 second of airtime - another proof of the right wing bias of Faux News! But screw it, getting that much airtime on the other two - and looking good - hell baby I looked good! I am going to call both tomorrow and try to get copies of what they showed - two newspapers also covered the event and will be anxious to see what they print tomorrow - and at work tomorrow my boss will calling me a dumb s*** and ask me how stupid can I be (as I keep his office going despite his neglect) so all the good feelings from this will be gone soon enough
  23. cwsox

    blue moon beer

    I knew you'd pop in on this thread!!!! As far as beer goes, I don't drink!!!!! but... remember the Dumb Guy character on David Letterman? Picture me: "This here blue moon tastes good!" Besides being cheap and not liking beer, it is on my "allergic" list although last night I threw the list away I really, really like the tatse of that - my buddy didn't like it at all - but I was happy! I have to find out if anyone in town sells it -- I could see myself drinking this stuff - as far as your educated advice as to move into the world of beer, I shall bookmark this thrad for future reference - I feel good that you give blue moon beer a thumbs up - the problem is that beer is brewed with yeast and yeast is not allowed in my body per the doctor's orders which I know is the right thing from experience - yeast is a bad, bad thing when it gets in me - while I had no problems much today (well I did but they were mild) to do this regular would be not wise. But I liked it! I really liked it! thanks for the info, which as I say, is bookmarked for future referance!
×
×
  • Create New...