JLO wrote: However, if you want a fair, honest discussion, then SA/Breaking News/Comments is a cool place to hang your hat -- Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, Jew, Muslim, agnostic, atheist, other, undecided or in-transition alike.
I don't believe you should be portraying yourself as a spokesman for Sermon Audio. I will check with the moderators just to be sure.
CAS wrote: Along those lines, one of these days I'll get around to reading Neil Postman's "Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business." From Wiki... Postman distinguishes the Orwellian vision of the future, in which totalitarian governments seize individual rights, from that offered by Aldous Huxley in Brave New World, where people medicate themselves into bliss, thereby voluntarily sacrificing their rights. Drawing an analogy with the latter scenario, Postman sees television's entertainment value as a present-day "soma", by means of which the consumers' rights are exchanged for entertainment.
Hi CAS. Here is an interview with Postman from 1986. http://vimeo.com/19884984
Although Postman probably doesn't hold to the same conservative views in Politics and Religion I do, it's well worth looking into.
Along similar lines is the book Why Johnny can't preach (How media shapes the message)
CAM wrote: Also, whatever happened to Luther's teaching on private interpretation? How is this even possible today with 1000s of good online sermons, instantly beamed to our hand-helds, which, however, constantly distract us from the study of the biblical text -- black-letters-on-white-page -- alone? How can these collections of fine conservative sermons, ultimately, be in compliance with Sola Scriptura? Perhaps listeners are conservative now, but -- by-and-by -- by listening to these sermons instead of reading the Bible only, won't many of these listeners -- who, through laziness, have departed from reading the Pure Text alone -- inadvertently end in the liberal dust bin of history? Note: The average American now reads no more than 4 lines on a screen or page. Hard to read and study the Bible with this almost illiterate-level of, self-induced, attention deficit.
Those are pertinate observastions. But how does it relate to the subject of Election?
pb wrote: Defending the Roman Catholics and their bibles again Mike. Benedict16 will be proud of you.
I'm not really a fan of Mike; but How did you arrive at the conclusion that he was defending catholosism fro what he posted?
[ [1) A stretch. Mary was a woman, nothing more, and that's obvious in the NASB verse(her) and context. 2) RC's hold Mary ever virgin because they DON'T believe what their bible says to the contrary. Matt. 13:55,56 (Douay-Rheims) "Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary, and his brethren James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Jude: And his sisters, are they not all with us?..." 3)Yes.]