Thank you "Logos Bible Software" !!!

Dominick Sela said:

I find this book extremely offensive on this kind of web site/forum

Offensive? No. Disagreeable? To some, perhaps. At face value I see no self-promotion but just what the person claimed: celebration of Logos Bible Software to help in the completion of a book. It may be a book some people do not like, but that doesn't change the fact that the Logos software came in useful during the writing.

Chris Roberts said:

Offensive?

Not to me either.

Chris Roberts said:

At face value I see no self-promotion but just what the person claimed

Seriously? With an absolutely enormous image of the cover of the book, a release date, and a web link?

(deleted)

[deleted by user]

deleted by user

deleted by user

deleted by user

This is an interesting thread... a bunch of "Deleted"s.

Marlene C. Crouch said:

Thank you for your help in editing the post, Rosie!  I will read the thread here: http://community.logos.com/forums/t/9288.aspx , with an open mind .  With all due respect, I must tell you what is truly sad to me, and that is:  If a comparison of the Bible with the Catichism of the Catholic Church, The Book of Mormans, The New World Translation,  or any other book written by man is offensive to one who is utilizing the Logos Bible Program.  Think about it.

No worries. I'm glad all of the animosity was resolved. It's kind of amusing now to read all the "deleted" posts. [:)]

I have no objection to a comparison of the Bible with the Catechism of the Catholic Church if it is done objectively with no prior agenda to discredit the latter; if that's the conclusion you've come to after giving it due thought, then fine. In fact, someone on this forum was asking very objectively (I think it was in that thread I directed you to) for some resources to help him check the Catechism to see how Catholics defend it from Scripture. I have a copy of the CCC in print form somewhere (still packed away in boxes), but I do recall it had tons of footnotes referencing Scripture all over the place. I find it important to read and learn from Christians from different traditions, and people of other faiths, even though I might disagree with some or most of their theology. I can't have a fair discussion with them unless I understand their beliefs from their own perspective, not from the perspective of those outside their faith who might have "misunderestimated" it.

Your book title, together with the image on your book cover, might lead one to the conclusion that you believe Catholics are sheep who do not recognize the Master's voice and thus do not belong to Him (John 10:4-6, 25-28). I don't know whether that's what you really believe, but the book presents itself that way, and could be quite off-putting to the very people you hope to reach. The words on your website imply that you wrote the book in order to reach Catholics with the truth of Jesus Christ, which is a noble goal. Except for the fact that most Catholics I know would be very bemused and/or hurt by your assertion that they don't "hunger and thirst for the Word of God " or don't have a "personal, meaningful, relationship with Jesus Christ." You know, Catholics participate in home Bible Study groups, they hold Biblical Conferences, publish Bible Dictionaries, etc. They hold the Bible in high regard. See http://www.salvationhistory.com/studies/courses/online/, for some online Bible study courses being promoted by them amongst their flock. You might not agree with all of the content in such courses, but I'm sure you'd find on the whole that they teach pretty much the same thing you believe the Bible says. Scott Hahn is someone who has done a lot to promote biblical faith among Catholics, but he's done it in conjunction with becoming one of them (he was a former Presbyterian minister), and so he has a hearing among them. You might not be as winsome, with your adversarial approach to what Catholics hold dear.

I might read your book at some point to see all your research. But I can't help thinking it might be based on a somewhat outdated and inaccurate understanding of what Catholics really believe. They love the Word of God and believe it, and use it in their devotions. And they do believe in Jesus as their Savior. Sure, there might be Catholics who don't believe this, don't really understand it, or it doesn't make any difference in their lives -- they are still striving to earn salvation by their good works. However, there are Protestants like that, too -- proclaiming words of faith with their mouths but then turning around with unregenerate hearts and acting as if they don't truly believe what they say. Which is worse? Faith without works (more likely a Protestant error), or works without faith (more likely a Catholic error)? Probably equally fruitless. Both faith and works go hand in hand. It's not that both are separately required for salvation; it's that both acting in concert prove that one's salvation is real. And both Protestants and Catholics believe that, I'm pretty sure. It's just that we come at it from different directions. Among both groups, you will find people who have grown to different levels of maturity in their faith over it.

You might be interested in a paper I wrote for a theology class I took with J.I. Packer a number of years ago at Regent College, addressing differences in how Protestants and Catholics view the question of Scripture "versus" the Tradition of the Church (which the Catholic Catechism would be part of). Is it either/or or both/and? I've posted the paper online here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/25137189

Anyway, I want to commend you for being truly gracious and teachable. And I hope we all remain teachable here on this forum. We only grow together in our knowledge of God and his Word and each other by giving each other the space to grow at our own pace, and being open to learning from surprisingly unexpected places. Yes, even from those we might have thought were hopelessly lost. [;)]

Blessings.

James Macleod said:

Rosie Perera said:

I have no objection to a comparison of the Bible with the Catechism of the Catholic Church if it is done objectively with no prior agenda to discredit the latter; if that's the conclusion you've come to after giving it due thought, then fine.

Why do you object to someone having an agenda? Most people do. I respect authors that honestly state their biases and agendas. I'm really not clear why comparing a Catholic document to the bible (or comparing any two documents for that matter) is offensive, even if there is an agenda. I find the supression of ideas and arguments that might "offend" people more offensive than the offensive work. But since I'm not easly offended I'll let it pass.

Um, because I have absolutely no agenda whatsoever, myself.[;)]

OK, so I don't object to people writing books with agendas, or books that offend people. Of course people have agendas. But I was trying to explain to her that I didn't think she'd reach the very people she wanted to reach with it because of the way her message was packaged (I haven't seen the insides, so I can't comment on its content). She obviously cares about people and wants to win them to Christ. A lack of subtlety about it was my only real beef with her approach. My own agenda might have been less subtle than I'd hoped... But I admit I had one, too.

And if you want to talk about suppression of ideas and arguments that might "offend" people -- many of us chose to retract our messages on this forum because they were found to be offensive. But if we want to love each other in Christ, and encourage each other to know and love him more, sometimes that means withholding inflammatory stuff, and getting our message across through what Eugene Peterson calls "telling it slant" (after a poem by Emily Dickinson):  

Tell all the Truth but tell it slant---
Success in Circuit lies
Too bright for our infirm Delight
The Truth's superb surprise
As Lightening to the Children eased
With explanation kind
The Truth must dazzle gradually
Or every man be blind--- 

FYI if interested, as everyone seems to have missed it -- there are excerpts of the book on  the web site originally linked to, you can get a feel for the type of scholarly research being written in the book.

MJ. Smith said:

Let me tell you a true story of exactly why I object to some agendas. They kill people. In high school, I played doubles in ping-pong with Chuck Goldmark. His father was a state senator. My junior year of high school, the John Birch Society began a smear campaign claiming that his mother was a communist. When his dad lost the election, his parents John and Sally Goldmark sued and won a defamation suit. The trial rated an article in Time magazine. The judge wrote a book on the case. Life goes on. John and Sally die. Chuck marries and has two children. Christmas eve many years later, a man who believed the John Birch Society smears killed Chuck and his family in a particularly brutal manner. His motive? the Chuck and his family were Jewish Communists. They were neither. Sorry but some agendas do require a severe rebuke from society. Without seeing the book, I do not know whether the book in question is one of them. But I do believe that the author is responsible for proving that the text is reasonable before posting it on this type of forum.

We were talking about theological and scholarly agendas, not killing people. You  have a very passionate argument but the act of some wacko is irrelevant to a book about catholic doctrines as compared to the bible. The book will stand or fall on it's own merits.

MJ. Smith said:

Then again, I don't believe promoting one's on non-Logos materials - beyond a tag line of a blog link - is appropriate on the Logos forums.

I don't agree either but Marlene already apoligized a number of times. What more do you want, blood?

Marlene, I can't wait to read your book!  I'm glad to see that there are still some out there who see the deception and anti-christ spirit of Rome.

Whether directly or indirectly, our point of view is promoted through anything we say in the forum.  I would venture that many on the forum, enough to be a majority, believe in God.  That is a point of view which means they believe there is a God.

That said, there comes a point when you get further and further out on the branches from that root belief that people splinter and the twigs of the branches get more sensitive to movement of external elements.

Therefore, I am careful to ensure that others never are wondering what I believe, nor do I get in a position to deny my Lord by being silent since it is He who saved me.

America has become a bastion of compromise and obsequiousness to the liberals who would deny Truth for Truth makes them responsible.  May this forum never become part of that abyss.

Mark A. Smith said:

this forum is not a place to discuss those differences nor to promote my particular point of view

I've kind of followed this thread with a bit of interest.  I understand that the web site is sponsored by Logos and those who participate do so as quests and should behave with a high level of decorum.  However, I am curious as to why the op should not be allowed to express his/her work within the Logos universe given the dominate nature of this company in the industry especially if that post promotes the brand.  I find it a bit odd to say that he/she should not participate because of an advertising agenda given that Logos (imo) is one big marketing company....even to the extent that at least one executive participate(d) in a thread about Logos on other a related boards  (i.e. Bible.org). 

I'm not necessarily against the policy as expressed here as much as I am curious as the notion of limited advertising on a company board with products that promote the brand while outside boards are, at times, freely used to promote the brand.  Perhaps I have missed something I don't know.

I will leave this issue after this post.  Indeed it is bad form to spam a forum made to promote a publisher and its products.   Catching such issues does help to keep forums clean from endless posting that serve as a form of self-promotion.  The notion that someone is "hostile" to catholics as a reason to limit their posts in the diverse world we live in now strikes me as kind of odd when Logos itself has a portal to a site that deals with UFO's (fiction I suppose) in its front page in the lower right hand corner which apparently isnt a Logos product.  Not that this really matters per se but some of the policies on forums like this just leaves me curious. 

Kevin Becker said:

ReneAtchley said:

Logos itself has a portal to a site that deals with UFO's (fiction I suppose)

Yes, it does appear odd. However, it is a site promoting a book by Michael Heiser, Logos' academic editor. Once you get that connection, it's not all that odd.

Thanks for that explanation, Kevin! I was beginning to think the Logos site had been hacked and that link put in. It's still a bit odd since that book has nothing to do with any of the other things that the link list it appears in have to do with (the only connection I see is that the main character of the book happens to be "a young scholar of the Hebrew Bible and the languages of antiquity"), and it's promoting one particular Logos employee's somewhat offbeat passion of ufology. It should have a disclaimer that this does not represent Logos's ideas or opinions or else people might get the wrong idea...

PeterLi said:

This is an interesting thread... a bunch of "Deleted"s.

Laughing over in Illinois! Makes me wonder what I missed.

Marlene - trust the other folks when they tell you to upgrade to 4.0. It's a whole new level!

Jerry