JUGGERNAUT

Here's another fact in the NT > OT debate: A typical mass is 50 minutes long. Time devoted to OT readings: no more than 5 minutes. Time devoted to NT readings: no less than 15 minutes (Homily included). That's no less than a 3 to 1 ratio. About prayer in general: PA knows me probably more than most. I'm usually at odds with myself. The scientist in me is always sparring with the evangelist & yet in the greater whole of myself a peaceful co-existence must be found. The faith can never destroy the science & the science can never destroy the faith. So why am I telling you this? Because I inevitably wrap issues of faith with a blanket of science. Try to think of prayer in the logical context of man's purpose for God. If we are created in God's image & his love for is measured by what he allows as a part of our free will then we can draw upon some logical assumptions: 1) The hardest prayers to answer our those that bend free will. Christians that prayed for freedom from persecution from the Roman's eventually were answered. God answered them by bending free will the least. He took control of a Roman who's job was to persecute Christian. St Paul's work would instrumental to ending the persecution. 2) The easiest prayers are those that effect change in our own hearts. So my advice to you is this: Think of the persons in your school which would need the least of God's intervention to become your friend. Then pray for wisdom & courage that you can stumble across something you might have in common & that you will persevere if they should reject you. Remember you're never the only one. There must be kids like yourself in your school praying for the same thing. Ask God to help you find them. Bargaining sometimes helps. Offer 10 Hail Mary's & 10 Our Fathers & he might feel you're more sincere about what you ask for. It sometimes works for me

The NC supercedes the OC. If you need verses I can cut & paste them for you.

cwsox quote: PART A: The rubrics of the various churches have been revised to require that if for any reason a lesson be dropped from the readings at worship, it be the Epistle Lesson, never the First (Prime Covenant/Old Testament) reading. PART B: Whenever Jesus refered to the Scriptures, or for that matter Peter, Paul, Silas, Barnabas, Timothy, Phoebe, Dorcas, etc. etc. referred to the Scriuptures it was to the Prime Covenant/Old Testament. If the Prime Covenant/Old Testament were the Scriptures for Jesus how can it be any less for us as followers of Jesus. We live in the whole, not the part of our own choosing. Juggs: PART A: I fail to see the revelance of what might happen in the future as to do with what happens in the present. There has been much written on this very subject & many authors believe it would lead to a mass exodus in the Church & further separations. But really it's irrelevant to what occurs in mass today. Again given that the Homily will remain devoted to the Gospel & the fact that the Gospel will remain the most important part of the Liturgy of the Word even if that did happen it would simply weaken the attention of the NT over the OT. It would not balance the scales. The NT would still be the primary focus of the LOTW. PART B: In general, that's an obvious point because the NC/NT hadn't been written yet. You can not refer to what does not yet exist. Specifically you are mistaken. There are scriptiual references to where Jesus draws a clear distinction between the OC & the NC. If you do not know this I can cut & paste them for you.

PART A: No where did I enter a debate into the canons of the Church or the structure of the mass as designated in the Catholic Cathechism. Nor do I see what relevance it makes. Referring to Psalms as an OT reading is debateable. Psalms is not treated as a reading of the mass in the sense of the other 3 readings. But since you have choosen to go that route I will go one better. Even if you equate Psalms on the same level you still have the homily which is the sermon portion of the mass devoted to discussion the Gospel. If you measured it in terms of minutes of each mass devoted to NT & OT scriptural references it is a land slide victory for the NT. If you prefer I can provide a copy of the a typical Sunday literature as outlined in the missalette so that people can decide for themselves whether they agree with your assertion that OT shares an equal attention in the Liturgy of the Word. Rather than continue your mode of stating who is wrong I will simply let the facts speak for themselves. For those unfamiliar with the mass verses from Psalms is not treated in the same manner as readings & to suggest otherwise is grossly misleading. PART B: No where did I disregard the importance of the Prime Convenant. Any Bible scholar knows the convenant is essential to the prophecy link between the Two Testaments. I have on more than one occasion in more than one post emphasized the importance of that link. To suggest otherwise again is misleading. PART C: I will continue to attack the message & try to avoid attacking the messenger. With all of your personal references it is hard to beleive you uphold that same virtue. I am just stating a personal observation there. Likewise I will continue to debate you on this issue because I believe the quantiative as well as qualitative facts of the issue weigh heavily towards the NT. This debate was started over the importance of the OT vs the NT in the lives of Christians. The time spent & the attention paid is a valid point to debate in that argument. PART D: If what you are advocating is that we are not called to spread the good news then I strong disagree with that statement. Should I quote the scriptures in direct reference to this vocation? I disagree with your statement that no one in scripture including Jesus attempted to try & change the culture. It's contrary to both the scriptures themselves & the Christian movement. Given that Christianity grew from a Jewish culture how can you dispute that it not only attempted but exceeded in doing so. As to a scriptural reference you need only refer to Jesus' own words that he came into the world to divide brother vs brother when it came to not accepting the new vs the old convenant. If those are not words that clearly are attempting to change a culture then you must have a different definition of what that means. I suggest you read the epistles of Paul & ask yourself honestly the question of whether you feel his efforts were not directed to changing the predominant culture of the time. I do not see how you can come to that conclusion so I am certainly curious to see how you intepret them as you do. It's ok to disagree with whether you believe Christianity is to be active or passive in society. But please don't suggest that Jesus or St Paul share your belief. There is a point at which personal opinion borders on blasphemy & I don't think it's a good idea to test it.

cw, there is thread & there you will find my reply to your last Bible post. http://www.soxtalk.com/index.php?showtopic=18708

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.

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.

For those who don't know the sermon in a Catholic mass is the Homily. It follows the reading of the Gospel & it's main focus is to discuss the meaning of the Gospel. A survey by the Catholic Digest found that the OT reading at a daily mass is the least inferred during the Homily. Likewise the variance of reading selections from the OT year to year is much lower than that of the NT. Meaning that a Catholic whose Bible exposure comes solely from mass will become acquainted with far more readings from the NT than the OT. Another survey by the Catholic Digest confirmed that Catholics are far less trouble naming all the books of the NT than they do the OT. If they can't name them I highly doubt they read from them

I don't think any one disputes that the US has violated the rules with respect to human rights. No doubt the US is a continuous repeat offender. But again I ask the question with respect to warring nations for which the rules apply where does the US rank? IMO, a nation that does not allow reports of abuse to circulate should be ranked behind the US. I think if the US is #1 in disclosure of such reports then that should boost their ranking.

In my education & experience dealing with several Christian denominations i conclude that these denominations including both Catholics & Baptists indeed place greater importance on the New Testament over the Old Testament. In higher level scripture studies the focus is placed on prophecy links. The Old Testament is studied with respect to it's relation to prophecy links in the NT. Beyond that it's considered symbolic at best & not to be taken literally. At least that has been my experience including ND. Furthermore the mass & daily services support the NT having a greater importance over the OT. In Catholic mass there is only one OT reading per mass & a reference to Psalms. The bulk of the liturgy of the Word is devoted to the NT. The bulk of sermons in the other denominations are devoted to NT scripture as well.

CW, I apologize for the insults. I hope you can understand that when I visit the thread & read your posts as well as the others budgeted by time I try to respond to all at once. Sometimes the tone of some can overshadow the tone of others. Some of them are inflamatory & designed to solicit that kind of response. I do believe that the preponderance of the evidence suggests you are wrong that there is not an apparent value system in Christian faiths that gives greater attention & credence to the NT over the OT. If you wish to debate it in a respectful manner I would welcome that. I have over 12+ yrs of theological study both at the high school & college level so I think I am qualified to do so. I will set up a different thread to debate this because I do not believe it plays a major role in the topic of this thread.

I'll make this simple for you in case you weren't paying attention. Whether he's a clergy man, a writer, or any other acclaimed profession for which you feel he should be exalted it will not change a thing. It is the message & not the messenger to which I will respond. If your out to make this personal that's your greivance & not mine.

It's ridiculous that I have to go back & quote the original question when both the appearance of the question is early in the thread & the answer clearly infers upon the subject matter of the original question but it's obvious some of you are having problems keeping track of these things. So I've included the question in the post.

I doubt that very much. I'll gladly put my 12+ yrs of studying scriptures up against his any day. Especially since I've written papers on the subject for ND. You're definitely wrong in your presumption. Technically you quoted a question & it is the quote function of this board that lost that information. It does not carry over inheritance level of quotes.

Recently a question was asked whether only Christians will be saved by God? Scripture tells us otherwise. The Bible tells us that to know him is to follow his way. His way being his philosophy of life with respect to faith & morals of course. If you simply acknowledge his divinity & do not follow his way he will claim he does not know you. This clearly places a greater weight of importance on the way you live over the God you worship. So in answer to the question, regardless of who/how you worship your salvation will ultimately be determined by how you live your life. I personally believe that this leads to a segregated after-life or something similar to Dante's levels of hell. If the after-life is suppose to be a reward for some & punishment for others then segregation is what comes to mind. You will essentially wind up in a place where every one follow's a path similar to your own. The degree to which you have led a sinful life is the degree to which your after-life will be void of good people. If you departed as a murderer than you will arrive in a Hell populated by murderers forever feeding off one another. If you departed as a torturer then you will arrive in a Hell populated by torturers. Philosophically, the lower the level of Hell the further away from God you will be. So the levels of Hell must be ordered by degree of a sinful life. The real kicker is that it's not the reality of your life on Earth by which you will be judged but rather that which lies in your heart. This is the essence of the scriptures that refer to thinking sin as greater than doing sin. You will not be judged by every sinful thought you have but rather the core constitution of those thoughts. They ultimately define your morality even if that morality is bounded by civil law on Earth. That is what is meant by looking into one's heart. What is their core belief system when free from the constraints of law. This is also why Christians are called to preach. Not to condemn others but rather to educate them & demonstrate the importance of both acknowledging sin & asking for forgiveness in their own lives. You can not commit a sin without offending another. Either you sin against someone or you sin against God so asking for forgiveness is paramount to salvation.

I'm glad you asked this question because it's often misunderstood. The core theme in Christianity is do not judge lest thee be judged by your own criteria. This applies to salvation as well. Christians are called upon to pray for departed souls regardless of their ideology or sins. Yes that means praying for Hitler, Stalin, & the likes. The philosophy behind this is that if you true believe that God is all-merciful, all-forgiving, & all-loving then it does you no service to your own salvation to define boundaries on God's. As a Christian though you may hate Saddam or Bin Laden for the murderous acts they have committed against others God still expects you to show mercy & kindness through prayers for their souls.

After reading the past posts I think you all now have a clear picture of why I did not want to involve scripture in this thread. Cwsox you may be happy with your opinion on the meaning of the scriptures & you're denial in believing that the NT carries greater weight on faith & morals than the OT, but the majority of theologians, not to mention the structure of the mass itself states your wrong. 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. Now some of you might think my last sentence is arrogant or demeaning but what else is one to say when someone professes their personal opinion as the only truth & it is contrary to the standard norm in the faith? You can't call that person mistaken because they have an agenda in doing so. So the least harshest reference in ignorance. ================================ It's apparent by some of you that continue to use circular arguments like defending hedonism by defining it as being solely the opposite of moralism that you seem to think this culture war is about advocating the legislation of morality. It's not. Historically an attempt to do results in amplifying the very vice one is trying to regulate or limit. No this is about education & endoctrination. Not outlawing vices. Christianity is not about imposing morality. It's about spreading the teachings of morality. Like every other human organization it has it's good seeds & bad & it has people that try to use it for good & for evil. That is the way of our species. There is good & bad in all of us & in any organization we belong to. It's just simply human nature. That is why an attempt to impose morality should be scrutinized to no end. Usually behind the attempt is a power broker(s) that is attempting to use a movement to establish greater power & control. That's what history shows us. My education comes from no less than 200 credits as an undergrad & grad. I never took rudimentary classes in college because I placed out of them. This allowed me to specialize my education into both engineering & social sciences. If you believe that you will always be able to find surveys & stats to back up an argument your simply living in a dream world. But to believe that an argument can be supported solely on a personal opinion is equally flawed. Inevitably you have to do what most social scientists do : draw inferences upon the information at hand. You correlate information from different sources to draw an educated assumption of the behavior of that information. In the little time I have to devote to this site that is what I try to do. ================================ The culture war is real & as much as you choose to ignore it, things are going to get further divisive. Your hatred for preachers or those who wish to have an equal voice in American schools is not going to deter their devotion & will. Nor should it. Hatred & persecution from those who fear such values being mentioned in schools should never be looked upon as valid. Free speech is a much greater issue in what is taught in schools than whether Stern should have the right to entertain you over public air waves. That is the central issue of this war. The core central issues in America's culture war today are: abortion, religious persecution, safe-sex, same-sex relations, gambling, & human rights. There are of course many others but these are the main ones. Each of these issues should be explored in detail in our school systems. Rather than slant the context of each issue (what occurs today) simply present them in a matter of fact context & leave the student to decide their position on them. Endoctrination is expected by the family, Church, or guardians of the child & not the school. But the school should never slant a position so as to threaten that endoctrination. The school should always teach in a matter of fact context and nothing more. ================================ Today's issue is gambling. A poltician in IL has gone so far as to refer to gambling as a tax on the poor because of it's addicttive behavior. Now you can either deny that society has a responsible to limit or regulate that behavior or you can accept it. Based on all of the behavioral science studies to date the addiction is strong enough to where if it was classified as a disease it would be epidemic in proportion. With this in mind I do believe that it should be regulated & with current tech that is certainly possible. We have limits on drinking, driving, & other areas of life where addiction can & does affect society. Gambling is no different. Tech should be used to limit the amount of time & frequency of times that an individual can play. Of course this requires a personal id to gamble & violates the right to gamble anonymously but I feel it's a worthy trade off.

cwsox: Another fallacy in your argument against the Bible is that you do not place value on the New Testament vs the Old Testament. There is clearly a distinct value of one over the other. In terms of Christianity the only true value of the Old Testament is that which correlates to the New Testament. Jesus himself defined the greatest commandment in the Golden Rule. Likewise he illustrated with his life the importance of prophecy in the faith. It is the prophetic link that uniquely defines Christianity from all other faiths. With this in mind the greatest books of the Bible & the ones that speak the most for today are those written by the St. Paul. If you were to plot the growth in numbers of Christians vs Bible books it would be an exponential curve that shows it's greatest growth during the time of St. Paul. His story alone is one that again measured against mathematical probabilities is 1 in a million & no other figure in history parallels it amongst so many diverse cultures. St Paul being a Roman wrote the most with respect to morality in a modern society. Rome is considered are most closest cousin to the ancient world with respect to how are society is governed today.

cw: No one mentioned scriptures nor has there been a scriptual reference made in this thead. Your post simply illustrates that no text (outside of perhaps math or science) should be taking literally in context. All books relating to philosophy, psychology, or social science if you will have a bias by the author. The same goes for political books as well. What we are talking about is core values & core morals. These have been around for centuries & have been endoctrinated through tradition in societies the world over. In America that tradition is associated with Christianity. Hopefully no one here would suggest disputing that. Your post clearly defines you as an arrogant disrespectful human being to suggest that you are a qualified theologian or student of the Bible. Any one can pick out passages from any epic book & assign their own personal opinion to them to define their meaning or character's meaning in the book. Your opinion is hollow and fruitless if no credible source supports it. There really is no point in debating a hollow opinion. Any educated student of the Bible knows that the best approach to studying it is correlation. Given that it took many centuries to write the significance of prophecy is what separates the Bible from any other book in existence. Prophecies that span several 1000 of years correlate to one another over that time. The mathematical probabilities that this could happen or that the faith could grow as it has over time place Christianity in a category all it's own. Especially given the extent to which western society has changed in that time frame. csg: If you are in doubt of what hedonism is then I suggest you either visit the library or do searches on Google. To ascertain it's definition as the opposite of moralism is foolish because you negate the fact that it is about placing one's happiness through pleasure above all else. That is the essence of hedonism & it comes in many forms: greed, lust, & envy among others. They are all hedonistic in nature. Likewise I do not believe the death penalty is a social norm. It is certainly not a Christian norm. Christianity grew because people were willing to risk martyrdom for their faith. Not one of the early leaders from St Peter to St Paul escaped martyrdom. You are likewise wrong if you believe there is no relation or better yet burden upon society as a result of personal moralism. When grouped together personal moralism defines society. Even beyond the rule of law when it comes to mob rule or simply respecting the law. That is why there is a societal responsibility to define personal moralism. There are people who dedicate their very lives to the subject of morality, ethics, & social science & they are better qualified to educate individuals then you or I. To believe otherwise is presumptuous if not arrogant to a fault.

If they disclose the fact that the good majority of the 18000 cases Rumsfeld cited deal with actions of abuse against US soldiers & not POWs I think those procedures & many others will be updated. Can someone explain to me what a woman 5 months pregnant is serving duty in Iraq? I might have heard it wrong but as I understand one of the smiling women in the pics is 5 months pregnant with her corporals baby. He's implicated as well.

This par for the course in this thread as well: Does an accepted culture of hazing at high schools & colleges add to the likelihood of such behavior being considered normal in adult life? When you listen to the graduates of such circles of life discuss how they don't see anything really wrong with it on Oprah & the likes it's hard to argue that it doesn't. There are even initiation rights into sports & social clubs in junior high that I don't think the rest of the world would laugh at either.

It was not just Rush. Some college students responded the same. Indicating that what they saw looked more like hazing than torture. Of course we have the recent scandal in Chicago to attest to that. They did the talk show circuits & such & yet there were still several girls who refused to accept that throwing s*** & beating underclassmen was abnormal. It does not surprise me when similar if not worse attrocities are occuring on our high school & college campuses that such behavior would appear normal to GI's. Any code of conduct is only as good as the belief behind it. It matters not if it's in writing if it's not accepted as normal. When I first heard the remark & remembered my pledge years & then recalled Old School it didn't seem so off base. With one very clear exception: other than peer pressure, we choose to accept the circumstances of our own free will. The problem of course is that you agree to accept any circumstance & find out the details later. This is why I point to Rumsfeld as not the cause of the abuse but for not doing all he could to prevent it. I believe if he had made a public statement on it in a press conference before the prison was used in that capacity this kind of abuse would have been less likely to occur. Even if that's not the case then at least the attrocities would have been more viewed as exceptions instead of the norm. In general with respect to the Geneva convention rules if they are more ideals than rules then where does the US rank in conforming to them with respect to other warring nations? If the US is near the top or number 1 in that list then there isn't much of an argument.

The gist of the information in that article has already appeared in the investigations & local newspapers. Rather than discredit the New Yorker I will simply say the bias is clear in the article. No where does the article mention the difficulties in processing charges once the abuse is reported. No where does it discuss the time that it normally takes in the armed forces not just in the cases of prisoner abuse but likewise in the cases of sexual assault which occur here in America. This was touched upon last week in during the investigation when members of Congress brought it to America's attention that the codes & conducts in this area is over 47 years old & has yet to be upgraded. Rumsfeld expressed this dilemma last week in that they simply don't know how to efficiently prosecute the abuse & push the news up the chain of command. It's not hard to imagine why. Suppose one of the 6 is found to be not-guilty. That opens the doors for a civil suit against the US armed forces & his/her superiors. So there is a real conflict there. Not just in the armed forces but in homeland security as well. The Congress has yet to deal with that conflict: the need to expedite information up the chain of command vs the need to properly prosecute a case. That being said as reports suggest Bush was not aware of this reports. The buck stopped with Rumsfeld & he either didn't take it serious or choose to keep it from the president. With what we know today Bush is to blame for trusting Rumsfeld to do the best job possible. Rumsfeld on the otherhand is simply to much of a detail-oriented person to be excused. Perhaps he did know the seriousness of the matter & did take the charges seriously. Perhaps politics in the Pentagon & familiar relationships created a sense of trust in the Pentagon to do the right thing. In any case, in the chain of command his word was as good as the Pres. himself. There is no higher up. Bush delogates authority he doesn't exercise it. In determining whether Rumsfeld should resign here's the question you should ask: If Rumsfeld makes a clear & definitive public statement in 2002 (after Shock & Awe) with respect to the treatment of POW's is there less likely a chance this abuse occurs? If you answer yes then he should resign. In my opinion it's pretty cut & dry. I feel he should resign.

Hedonism: the ethical theory that achieving one's own happiness thru pleasure is the proper goal of all conduct. Moralism: the ethical theory that individuals should conform to established sanctioned codes or accepted notions of right and wrong <the basic moral values of a community>. There lies the culture war of America. The hedonists vs the moralists. Now this debate is pretty simple: You compare the pros & cons of hedonism vs moralism with respect to society & determine which is better for the society. I've yet to see a study that suggests hedonism is best. Next you determine which aspects of a persons life will inevitably lead to hedonism & do the same for moralism. Since we are dealing with behavioral science at this point religion inevitably enters the picture. Now that there is well over 30 yrs of detailed information available in this area conclusions can be easily drawn.

Please do. Your personal opinion in support of your hollow conclusion has been more than noted in this thread. Once again denying facts does not make them any less factual or significant. It only places yourself in that category. Now if your argument is that those who engage in sadism, depravity, hedonism etc are just as likely to be church-going Christians than any other group please provide a basis other than your personal opinion for doing so. If you don't have one than it's not really worth debating. Furthermore if you have nothing but your personal opinion to debate with then perhaps you should choose another thread. I can offer no less than 1000 points with statistics to back up my assertions that American citizens who engage in sadism, depravity, hedonism, debauchery, divorce, & murder are less likely to be Church-going Christians than any other group. Otherwise I wouldn't even bother to make the argument. I do wish to point out a personal opinion about atheists though. I do not yet have any statistical or empirical reference to make this claim but based on my personal experience there are considerable numbers of them whom are closer to Christians than one would think. They do not believe in God, but they do believe in Jesus. Not as the son of God but as a philosopher. They do read the Bible not as the word of God but as a philosophy for life. I guess you could call them Christians that believe in the man but not the God. As a point of distinction I will refer to them as Godless Christians. Since there are others who follow moral philosophies we shall remove atheists them from the debate altogether. There is clearly a distinction between hedonists & non-hedonists & when discussing a debate on America's Culture War (of which there have been no less than 100 books written in the past 34 yrs) that's the clear divide.