knapplc

While I appreciate the copypasta of Pastor Piper's sermon, his description of God chooses to ignore the entirety of the Covenant relationship, and thus most of the Old Testament. The Old Testament is entirely necessary prelude to understanding the mission of Jesus Christ. Misunderstanding it leads to erroneous contentions like these. Really, if the whole point of God is to glorify God, then why make creation? Creation is sinful, and has fallen, and therefore cannot accurately reflect the glory of God. God is perfection; the blemishes of Creation detract from that perfection. Were God only interested in his glory, we would never exist, nor would angels. Why did the Son of God come to earth? Why did He die on the cross? What was God’s ultimate highest order purpose in Christ? The answer Mr. Piper proposes to this question is probably his greatest blunder, and (to me) entirely throws his contention that God's purpose is to glorify himself out of consideration. John 3:16, the most well-known of all verses in the Bible, puts paid to this notion: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." THAT was Jesus' purpose, and the glory Jesus' actions gave to God followed along in the wake of this act. The Glory of God is the sizzle, not the steak. It's the wake, not the boat. God cannot exist without Glory, so necessarily the gloriousness of God will be discussed prominently in relation to God - just as his love, his anger and his uniqueness are, as well. I could pull dozens of verses from the Bible talking about God's love, God's anger and the unique nature of God - but that doesn't mean that any of these are the reason God exists, or why he sent Jesus to us.

That's more than two a year! What the heck, Bohl!

It's a good thing those signs say "Through these gates walk the BEST fans in college football" rather than, "Through these gates walk the MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE fans in college football." It's amazing to think that people could watch Martinez play and not recognize the superlative ability he has. But... so it goes.

Judging by your dislike of commercialism, I'm going to guess Groundhog Day?

At some point you have to realize that if Cody was good enough, there would be no leash.

We all know Valentine's day in its current incarnation is some bogus holiday created by evil men in $700 suits as a means to separate you from the cash in your wallet. That doesn't mean that, just because we know this, that we don't participate in it. In some way. I did. I bought cards and candy and cleverly hid them for surprise findings to the delight of the women in my life. Most of you did, too, whether you wanted to or not. What I want to know is, why? Why did you cave to the smarmiest holiday in history? Were you hopelessly smitten by true love, were you trying to make your girl laugh, were you conforming to societal mores, were you being snarky and sarcastic, or were you just trying to get laid? Out with it. What's your story? Note - be honest. It's not a public poll, and nobody will know what you voted.

If Thujone doesn't make a web comic of it, it's not real.

Sam's cut would amount to several hundred dollars, at best. He's not doing this to get rich.

I agree on the first part. Hell, last year for the 1st half of the season, it was "Taylor Martinez & The Cornhuskers" all over ESPN. As for the second part, it's not viewed as reporting news, it's viewed as televising entertainment. Television networks purchase the rights to broadcast games with the intention of making money, not as a news reporting service. They also sell video copies of games, which is a product, yet that's ok? I've purchased copies of old games, and I guarantee the players get nothing from it. I own a copy of the 1996 Fiesta Bowl, and I'm sure Tommie Frazier got zero dollars. But if it's just news, then Huskerboard would have no problem with me posting torrents of past games, or links to online broadcasts of live Nebraska sporting events that people stream from their TV's, right? I knew I was using the wrong terminology. Thanks for that. Regardless of the term, it's still legally viewed differently than a video game. Some smart lawyer type would have to tell us why.

Mr. Panda. Long time, no see. Welcome back.

I think people that say "too high" or "too low" look at Nebraska and Nebraska alone, rather than at all the other teams out there as well. Saying "we're not a top-ten team" doesn't mean much unless you define who is a top-ten team.

I've seen games hyped by who plays in them a brazillion times. When Tebow was still playing it was "Tim Tebow leads his Florida Gators against yadda yadda yadda." Still, TV is different than a video game. While the similarities are profound, they are viewed differently than video games. Video games are considered a product, while televising games are viewed as "reporting news." I put that in quotes because that's not 100% accurate, but that's the gist of it. Someone else can do the legwork on that one.

As Blaine Gabbert.

I think you're missing the point. The Glory of God, as you define it, is the basic essence of God. It is what God is. God would not be God without glory, and to believe in God is to inherently believe in that glory. Therefore God would not waste his time simply coming here to be glorious in our presence; what good would it do? God's glory does not in and of itself solve the problem for which Jesus came, which is to bridge the gap between God and man. God can exist in his glory without that gap being bridged. God can come to earth and display his glory, live a life, and leave earth without that gap being bridged. God's glory is, therefore, coincidental to the true purpose of Jesus' life. Make no mistake. There is ONE reason, and ONE reason only for Jesus to have come to earth. It has nothing to do with displaying that God is God, or God is glorious, or God is great. By focusing on those things you're focusing on the sizzle, not the steak. Further, Jesus' ministry and miraculous works were coincidental to his mission as well. Sure, they helped to serve as bona fides to his godhead, but in and of themselves they were not his reason for coming. The single, solitary, sole reason Christ came to earth was to bridge the gap between God and man, to erase the sin which forever removed us from God's presence, and to provide righteousness to the unrighteous. That is it, period, end of story. Every single other thing is coincidental to that purpose. This is all well explained in the Covenant process throughout the Old Testament (see especially Jeremiah 31). This is all well explained in the verses pertaining to the Last Supper, and again in Hebrews (see especially Hebrews 8 and 12). The Old Testament spends a lot of time leading up to this new covenant embodied in Jesus. Jeremiah and Isaiah spend a lot of time proclaiming man's inability to maintain a covenant relationship with God, through his sinful nature. Jeremiah in particular lambasts Israel (and humanity in general by extrapolation) because of our continuing unfaithfulness to our covenant relationship with God. Man turns away from God over and over and over despite God giving Man chance after chance after chance. Therefore God tells us, through his prophets, that he will give us one last chance, that he will create a covenant for us which we cannot break. What were all of those covenants? Were they methods by which God could proclaim himself in glory to man? No - God has no reason to proclaim his glory, and routinely does not. He describes himself basically, "I am," and "There is no other like me." God has no need to boast - he is without peer, therefore why boast? Displaying his glory would be entirely boastful, and wholly unnecessary. Nope. All of those covenants were methods by which the relationship between God and man could be made right again. Since Adam and Eve broke troth with God, that has been the main goal of nearly every one of God's interactions with man. So when it comes time to make THE covenant, the last covenant, the binding, everlasting covenant, God sends his son (who is also God), to be the mechanism by which the covenant is consummated. Had Jesus come to earth, proclaimed the glory of God, lived a life and left us with a lot of wisdom, but did not die in our place, his trip would have been wasted. The death of the perfect son was the sole reason he came here and lived among us. All else, whether that be teaching or miracles or whatever else, including flashing the glory card, was superfluous to that single, necessary act. Maybe you and I are just messing around with semantics. I'm trying to be as specific and clear as I can, in my verbose way. If you want me to dig out my bible study stuff and draw the map via actual verses I'll do that.

This debate has passionate opinions on both sides. Let's all remember to argue the issue and not start attacking each other.

That's not a "jump the shark" moment, that's the crux of the argument. The suit is alleging that EA Sports intentionally designed the game so that users would upload actual players. That's little more than a wink and a nod from the intent of the law, and it is something that bears looking into legally. There's a lot of talk of this going to the Supreme Court. Just because the name on the case is distasteful doesn't mean that the merits aren't worthy of legal scrutiny. Anna Nicole Smith was the plaintiff in a case that went before the Supremes. Legal merit can come from anywhere. Personally, I'd rather they look into it and define the legalities of it than have the shadow of exploitation hanging over it. And while I understand that there are a large number of people who think there is no exploitation, there are many who do, which makes it a question worthy of an answer. Raking Keller over the coals on this, whether he wins the suit or not, is incorrect. This is what our constitution is set up for.

OK, fair enough. You may just be a crazy internet person, but so am I. There's no shame in that. I also don't think you and Carlfense are that far off, even though a lot of words will be exchanged before that becomes clear. From what I gather you both think this situation goes beyond just EA Sports' game - it's just the level of beyond and the ramifications you're apart on. And I don't think you're all that far apart. Aren't internet discussions fun? So little gray area, so much black-and-white.

So being involved in one aspect of the legal world automatically means that you know all aspects of the law? I'm not trying to be a dick about this, but please don't be so naive people... Ah, yes. Naive. That would describe me to a T. You've stated that your "expertise" in this field comes from conversations with someone who works for sports media, and another guy in college athletics. I've talked to people in both fields within the past 24 hours. I also work in the legal field. Does that make me more knowledgeable than you, and you the naive one? Or am I still naive because I don't think the sky is falling? Here's a tip - people who don't agree with your assessment aren't automatically naive. They just have a differing opinion. "Naive" is an oft-incorrectly used word. Using it does not bolster your argument.

Huh. The way Carlfense talks, you'd think the guy was a lawyer or involved directly in the legal world or something. Go figure.

Two words: Bing. Go.

Happy Birthday, AR! Thanks for everything you do around here.

I can understand why someone who's not a fan of the Huskers would think that 1995 Nebraska wasn't an "important moment." 1995 was a terrifying ride through the landscape of college football where one team annihilated everyone/everything in its path. It was the college football equivalent of Sherman's March, where a superior force utterly humiliated and demoralized their opponent in every engagement. I can imagine how non-Husker fans would want to diminish that accomplishment. I imagine most of the college football world would just as soon forget 1995 ever happened.

I wonder what impact this will have on fantasy sports. MLB tried (unsuccessfully) to limit the use of players' stats and information in fantasy sports applications a few years back. They lost, on the grounds that using such information was no different than the local paper printing a box score. The obvious difference here is that a likeness is being used. Still, I think they have little chance of success.

Please tell me you see the tremendous irony in this post.