Bible reading plan--RESOURCE reading plan

JustinWoods said:

Martha,

I appreciate your candid feedback. Thank you for your perspective.

My only response is this--there are too many false assumptions in your reply to even begin.

It's clear you've composed a self-constructed, present-day, culture-bound view of what you think the history of God's Word is and how to approach it dutifully.

I can only encourage you to study the facts about scripture's origins, scripture's historical  treatment of the church fathers dating all the way back to the disciples of Christ himself, and the most profitable hermeneutic by which to study scripture's contents.

I am sorry you have developed such a pessimism toward God's Word. Your words make it obvious that you have been hurt by someone along the way and I know God has the ability to heal those wounds with your submission to his grace.

I ask that you not broadcast your unsubstantiated pessimism in that fashion again. There are cordial ways to address issues without sounding directly disrespectful and offensive and if you cannot see fit to engage your responses in that manner, kindly keep it to yourself.

Justin,

I don't believe you have even gotten to first base in understanding what Martha is saying.  Please refrain from making such statements when you have no understanding.  Martha is Roman Catholic so she objects to the Protestant definition of scripture which does not include the apocryphal or deuterocanonical books.  After this learn what it is you are responding to before opening mouth and inserting foot.

JustinWoods said:

If youre looking for an arguement, dont bother, its not profitable here

Whether she is catholic, protestant, jewish, muslim makes little difference in my statements to her. My suggestions eleviate some of what I saw as issues regarding treatment of scripture in general (talking about successive reading, and calling the reading plan "useless" and such) I dont know why you feel the need to defend her because it was not designed to be an attack. No one is attacking anybody here and if you feel the need to talk to people like that (ie "foot in mouth") then we have no reason to speak. I am on this thing to provoke others to good works and refining our understanding of Holy Scripture, whether protestant or catholic, that is always a good work. You on the other hand, did nothing but insult me in your last comment. I did not do that with her.

You dont think a roman catholic (or anyone) could use a good lesson in hermeneutics? You dont think a roman catholic could use a lesson in the origins of scripture? Well, if that's the case, then I can see why you want to tell me to take my foot out of my mouth. You can't get condescending with any one here, bub. Especially those whose life is designed around God's Word. If you cant write for the good of others--Spare me your sarcastic comments.

 

I will spare you nothing.  You are extremely rude.  It's time to grow up, little boy.

JustinWoods said:

Good, now that we've gotten through the insulting, condescending, ego-filled, non-edifying earthly, sensual and devilish comments out of the way...

God bless you sir, I pray the best for you and your family. I truly do.

God has a great plan for all of us. I believe that. Lets just try to make the best we can out of this side of heaven, shall we? Life's too short.

Not this way my brother. Not this way. There is nothing good possible to come out of that kind of tone here. I try to believe you did not plan it to end up this way, but if it happend, sorry would be much better conclusion.

JustinWoods said:

It wasn't an attack. I can say that again.

I see people are quick to side here. So obviously anything I have to say at this point will be tainted with a negative interpretation in defense. Her response started immediatly negative, her term "useless", and asserted that comment against certain methods of studying scripture. I saw these as symptoms. I dont tell people to stop sneezing, I give them medicine.

Whether we agree or not, or whether people side with you or not,  is not the point. I may have come off harsh but introducing a comment with the absolute judgment of "this is useless" put me on the defense as well. While I stand on the admonitions I gave, I do submit that my tone could have been refined. I do have a record of that "bull in the china shop" mentality. I'm working on it.

Spiritual maturity? Maybe a bit. But anyone who says they have arrived in this regard decieves himself, I'm sure you can agree with that.

Thank you Justin for your explanation. I appreciate it. I know exactly what you mean when you speak about the "bull in the China shop". I am working on my temper also quite a lot. Have a good and blessed day.

JackCaviness said:

If you are like that "bull in a china shop," you should get along well with George . BTW, The Discovery Channel's program Mythbusters disproved the old "bull in a china shop" legend.

Jack

Are you implying that I am so pacific that I manage to get along with even the most difficult of persons -- even bulls in china shops? [:D]

JackCaviness said:

George Somsel said:

Are you implying that I am so pacific that I manage to get along with even the most difficult of persons -- even bulls in china shops?

Oh yes, we can all believe that!

That's what I thought.  After all, I'm just a harmless, loveable little fuzz-ball  .

This kind of thread is inevitable, I feel. And will probably become only more prevalent. I've been reading newsgroups and forums for a number of years, and it's impossible to discuss the blandest of topics without nuclear war escalating. (Original sin, you know.) The written word loses the nuances of physical conversation, and for whatever reason, we all tend to take the most negative construction of remarks that we read. Sarcasm is as prevalent as oxygen in this world, and we learn to see it even where it is not. Discussing the Bible, of course, is a ticking time bomb in any setting. We're all going to need to build in some disclaimers that people are required to read before posting, including being quick to hear, slow to speak, and slow to anger; counting others more important than ourselves; and, when we want to brand someone as a heretic, remembering Paul's exhortations on the gentleness with which we should handle things. We all need to recognize that Logos is a tool for anyone interested in studying the Bible, from the thousands of world denominations to those strictly interested in scholarship. We need to drop our weapons when we enter here, because there will never be anything close to uniformity of belief. Those who struggle with that will make themselves unhappy. The rest will benefit from viewpoints we're not usually exposed to--a good thing, in my opinion.

Even so, as I say, as time goes on, the flame wars will come. This subject is too precious to us to ever let us be casual in attitude. Even though we're people of the Book, we struggle to live by the grace it describes. It's always been that way, and always will be--even with Logos users.

I like the idea of a resource reading planner.  If it's possible, I say do it.  If it's not possible, well I didn't have it before and can say I won't miss it.[Y]

Bob Pritchett said:

Our plan is to support all versified texts next. (Versified books are more fine-grained and easier to divide up than regular books of prose broken by chapters.) Eventually we want to support reading plans for any content.

That's completely understandable to do versified first.

It would really be nifty to be able to add study guides (MacArthur) and other lesson style formats (Biblical School of Evangelism) on a reading schedule like attending class. Then all the homeschooling moms out there might let us buy more titles. [co][}][Z][Z][Z][Z][Z][Z]

Would that require the introduction of a site license if one were allowing their kids to study on the computer?

Justin,

There are two other works by Thomas Aquinas in the pipeline.

Summa Contra Gentiles (4 Vols.) is on Pre-Pub.

Catena Aurea: Commentary on the Four Gospels (8 Vols.) is on Community Pricing.

I was wondering if there was a time frame on this?  Or will it be in the next version of the software?  Or will it be something one can download?  THankyou for your hard work!

JustinWoods said:

...I see people are quick to side here. ...

With all due respect, Justin, has it not occurred to you that perhaps when everyone commenting here did not see Martha's post as you did that perhaps there might be some merit in their subsequent comments? I would hope so.

It is quite interesting that you immediately label opinions of others who do not concur with yours as "taking sides". Perhaps they are merely calling it as they read Martha's post and haven't any intent of "taking sides"?

I have the inclination, to which I probably shouldn't indulge, to end on a "For crying out loud..." note for some peculiar reason.

Debra

JR Woods said:

With due respect, we are light years beyond that thread. For you to dig up old skeletons and apply your opinion on a topic that has been dead for a while is impetuously unnecessary. Does that sound pushy? Maybe.

Yes, it does sound pushy.  Who are you to determine what opinions shall or shall not be brought forward?  You are certainly free to express your opinion, so please allow others the same privilege.

JR Woods said:

which is why I formed this forum to start with.

You formed this forum?  Here all along I was under the impression that Logos formed the forum. 

JR Woods said:

My favorite resource is St. Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica, which is finally in my library now, thank God, and I would love to have a software program to split it up over the next year. What resource would you like to have in a program like that? 

I can think of quite a few such as Barth's Church Dogmatics.  I suppose it wouldn't kill me to read Aquinas either.  After all, why else did I buy it?  Also one could do worse than to become familiar with the Church Fathers.  Calvin is probably a bit brief to spend an entire year reading -- especially since his Institute was the text for a course in Calvinism I took in college (one semester).

MJ. Smith said:

I also find it based on poor analysis (professional opinion) for the following reasons:
1) Using Wikipedia numbers, the canon supported is less than the accepted canon for 1,654,000,000 Christians world wide i.e. about 79% of the Christians
2) The canon supported represents a common canon for less than 25% of church history
3) People using Logos are apt to be using reading plans for purposes in addition to personal Bible Study.
4) The current configuration does not easily accept a number of common readings plans - Zondervan, Chronological, International Standard Lesson readings etc. for which Logos users may wish to plan OR read
5) The current configuration does not link easily to reading cycles of the liturgical traditions - for example, the 2 year reading cycle of scripture in the Office of Readings [readings essentially continuous through a book, books not in order]
6) The current straight through configuration assumes a single sequence while the real world has multiple sequences - the most obvious being the Tanahk vs. "standard American Protestant"
7) I have no objection with people who need only its current functionality continuing to use it as they do now.

MJ,        my thoughts on your latest list:
1) Using Wikipedia numbers, many of the 1,654,000,000 Christians cited don't use Bible software or own computers.
2) Logo Bible software has only been around for the last 1.25% of that church history. Give them a chance to get rolling.
3) Touché!
4) I wish it did. Reese Chronological Bible would be another to add.
5) Not being a lectionary user I have no comment. You probably know what you're talking about.
6) My son read the World Book Encyclopedia straight through A~Z and he survived. He did annoy the rest of the family with his discoveries.
7) Me neither.

I envision Logos being my centralized master reading management system, even for books outside of my Libronix resources. Britannica's Great Books of the Western World is still under copyright but if I could create a custom reading plan on the order of Mortimer J Adler's Paideia Proposal, I could use it to track my progress through the hardback versions. One last addition would be a comprehensive scripture memorization program. (I am aware of the Memlok program in Logos format. Memlok takes 10 yrs for 700 verses.) My son memorizes whole books of the Bible. We need broader choices. As time goes on I am sure we will see some of them.