knapplc

Tell me where I'm wrong: God is omnipotent. God loves me unconditionally. God placed me in this creation. It is within God's power to have placed me directly in Heaven. I was born guilty of another man's sin. It is within God's power to obviate all of my sin right now. Which of those statements is wrong?

Pre-Spring Game, 2010, there weren't ten people in this state who thought Martinez was in the mix to start. Right now we have a poll where 21% of respondents think Carnes is our best quarterback. If we'd have run this poll last year Martinez wouldn't have gotten 2% of the vote (and rightly so). Right - so why are people saying it's so impossible to think that Carnes could be starting next year? Seems to be a lot more momentum in his favor this year than there was in Martinez's last. I don't know the answer to that. You'd have to ask someone who thinks it's "impossible" for Carnes to start, and I think those kinds of people are very rare on this board. I'm of the opinion that he'll have a legit shot to win the position and if he can, he'll start - but that Martinez is most likely to start. Of course, I also felt there was no way a healthy Zac Lee did NOT start last year, so what do I know?

I don't know if it's even possible, considering the relationship between scholarship athletes and schools. I also don't know if student-athletes couldn't go on strike right now. I'd like to hear from a current student-athlete, though. I presume they'd far rather play and get a few $$$ in their pocket than go through labor negotiations.

Can you think of a scenario where the players would stop football? Even if they unionized, they would still likely lose out on their scholarships, meaning that many of them (most?) would have to leave school. We've had MLB, NBA, and it looks like an NFL strike. It's not out of the question to assume it could happen in college athletics. I don't see it happening, but it definitely is a possibility. The glaring difference being those athletes are paid, at minimum, hundreds of thousands of dollars per year and have the ability to absorb the loss of income. These students do not have that luxury. Although, I suppose, if these suits in some way lead to payment for NCAA players, we could see NFL-style labor disputes and the like. That would suck.

Pre-Spring Game, 2010, there weren't ten people in this state who thought Martinez was in the mix to start. Right now we have a poll where 21% of respondents think Carnes is our best quarterback. If we'd have run this poll last year Martinez wouldn't have gotten 2% of the vote (and rightly so).

Can you think of a scenario where the players would stop football? Even if they unionized, they would still likely lose out on their scholarships, meaning that many of them (most?) would have to leave school.

If you look at that video, Cody runs from our 35 to their 25 in about five seconds. That's 40 yards in five seconds. Note: 1) He did not start his run at the 35, he started a few yards back. He was at top speed at the 35. 2) he did not run in a straight line, but rather curved to avoid defenders. Regardless, this is not "speed" in the sense that we think of speed when we talk about a fast player. It shows reasonably average football speed, nothing elite. That play does not tell me Cody is slow. But it doesn't tell me he's fast, either.

It may not lead to the end, but it could heavily affect the way we view games. So could ESPN's deal with the SEC and/or Texas. So could conference expansion. So could a lot of things. Bottom line is, there are billions of dollars available for putting live football on my TV. Televised football is not going to stop because one group wants a slice. Likely video games aren't going to stop, either. In fact, an agreement could be reached whereby player likenesses are nearly spot-on in the games, meaning a win/win for everyone. This doesn't have to be Armageddon. It could work out all right.

I don't need to read another book. I've read 100 books on this stuff. I'm one of the few people you'll run across on the Internet who really, truly has read the Bible cover-to-cover (no BS) (although I skipped a bit of Leviticus). I know what it says, I know the theology behind it, and the bottom line is, it makes no sense. An omnipotent God has no reason to filter his children through this reality.

I could show you ten videos of such plays by Martinez, yet you continue to discount him. Oddly, in favor of Green, who has one (1) highlight of this nature.

The root of both cases is that the players are being exploited by Entity X, who is profiting from their activity/likeness unfairly. I don't see where they're wrong. If that leads to the end of video games... oh well. It will not lead to the end of intercollegiate athletics, and that's what I'm a fan of. Nor will it lead to the end of televised athletics, which I watch when I can't attend games. Again... oh well.

Stripped to its essential core, the point of Piper's sermon is that God shows love by allowing us to share in his glory. But that's not correct, because we don't inherently share in that glory. We have to jump through hoops. We were placed in this creation, branded guilty from birth through association with Adam & Eve, and we have to spend the rest of our lives trying not to muck up our chance at heaven, where we then get to abide in the glory. God's glory comes with many strings. If I do not believe in him, and in Jesus' sacrificial death on the cross on my behalf, I am precluded from God's heaven. God states that he loves me: John 15:13 Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends. Romans 5:8-11 But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him! For if, when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! Not only is this so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation. Ephesians 2:4-7 But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions--it is by grace you have been saved. In order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. Galatians 2:20 I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. But does he? Does he really love me? I don't think so. If he did, he would not have branded me guilty at birth. He would not have placed me in this creation at all, where all I can do is mess up my chances of everlasting heaven, and where the pitfall of hell is far more likely: Matthew 7:13-14 - Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide, and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and many are those who enter by it. So, to review: God loves me so very, very much. Despite this, he condemns me to everlasting damnation by placing me in this creation. I have a chance at salvation (from a crime of which I am not the perpetrator), but the chances of that salvation are quite slim. In fact, even though God loves everyone everywhere equally, most of us won't go to heaven. Why? Because we didn't jump through the hoops. Do this, think this, believe this, and you're in. Don't do those things and you're out. Why? What is the point in this? It's ridiculous to think that a God who loves me like his own dear son would even dream of treating me this way. Becoming a father very much opened my eyes to the logical fallacy of this tenet of Christianity. There is NO WAY I would treat my child like this. Not remotely. Yet my capacity for love is infinitely lesser than that of God. So how can a God who loves me like this display his love for me by condemning me? And make no mistake - it's God who condemns us. God is omnipotent. There is nothing God cannot do. God could, if he wanted, have simply created Man in heaven with him (where he says he wants us eventually), and entirely cut out the sinful creation in which he places us. There is NO NEED to put me here, to brand me sinful, and "give me chances" to gain salvation. An omnipotent God can put me in heaven from the start - but he didn't, meaning he wanted me here, sinful, needing salvation. Sorry, but that's not how a loving father treats their child.

Practice field speed is worthless in real-game situations. Cody has yet to show anything resembling elite speed in a game situation. In fact, he's shown quite the opposite. It doesn't matter if a guy is a practice warrior. If he can't translate it to the field, those skills are worthless.

What does this Robertson case have to do with the Keller case, other than you think it has more merit?

You did copypasta from John Piper. Here's one source, word for word with this post. Those are Piper's points, from a sermon he gave sometime in the 1980s (If I recall correctly). Piper most certainly does say that the purpose of God is to glorify himself. The very first line of the first paragraph of the points you copied states, "I would like to try to persuade you that the chief end of God is to glorify God and enjoy Himself forever. Or to put it another way: the chief end of God is to enjoy glorifying Himself." This is a picture of a self-serving God, not a loving God. Frankly, if this is truly the God of Christianity, it doesn't hold water. Creation would be pointless, or rather, it would point to a God so vain that the entire reason for Creation was to provide him with praise. But even if that's the God of Christianity, why make man? He already had angels to do his worshiping. What need does he have of man?

I was cruising through some article yesterday and this was listed in "related news" so I posted it here because I thought it was funny. Typically, between myself and Nexus, you're going to get articles literally minutes after they were released. I doubt you'll find many forums with quicker access to Husker news than HuskerBoard.

I think Robertson has a case here. I don't see how the fact that he played basketball at an NCAA-sanctioned institution should give them the right to use his image in perpetuity. I think the NCAA is abusing that privilege, and their free use of student-athletes' images should end when their eligibility ends. If they want to use those images afterward, they should provide recompense.

Wrote what off? We rode the last OC out of town on a rail for stumbling at the end of the season. When you can half your offensive staff and reshuffle the rest, it's pretty hard to say we just wrote last season's troubles off.

I didn't say I know the correct definition. I don't. I'm simply saying, for about the seventh time now, that you can't use simple online references to define that term in the discussion you're having. I don't have to know the correct definition to point out that the one you're using is wrong. There is no argument about that, and I don't know why you're going on about it so much.

We've seen what Bo does with two- and three-star athletes, not to mention walk-ons. He has the ability to coach them up and get the best out of them. I'm not that worried that he's essentially taking a walk-on onto the coaching staff. He'll get the best out of them.

My apologies. I mistakenly thought you were interested in a sober discussion, not just random angst. Have fun storming the castle.

Webster's defines terms for use in the spoken common tongue. It has nothing to do with legal definitions. It doesn't matter how old it is, it's not the correct source for the definition you're using. Then give me the "legal" definition. Do something besides saying "you're wrong" without providing evidence. You're the person defining "art," not me. I'm simply pointing out that your methods are wrong. If you want to be correct in your stance, go do the leg work and find the correct definition. Failing that, stop acting as if you know what the definition is. You don't, and you've admitted as much. What in the hell are you talking about? You're taking this on an extreme tangent. I simply asked what somebody considered as art. I then stated what I thought could be considered as art, and you came in and said "you're wrong" without providing any shred of evidence to the contrary. When in a debate, it's generally a good idea to present evidence when telling the other side that they are incorrect, unless of course you are a politician. I simply stated you were using an incorrect definition of the term, which you were. Any time you want this tangent to end, you can find the correct definition and speak from an educated position. Or you can keep perpetuating this tangent.

Martinez is GREAT! He is an awesome football player and I have always rooted for him. He does not hurt us being on the field and I have never said that. But is it a stretch to say MAYBE someone could make us even better? It was my opinion. And funny enough I found alot of people agreeing with me.... Seems as if the husker fans on this board are more JUDGMENTAL and QUICK TO CONCLUSIONS than anything. Is there some reason you took this as directed personally at you? If I was speaking to you, I would have quoted you. Nor do I understand the angst over the "judgmental" nature of the board. If you find a board where members aren't judgmental, you've found nirvana. Good luck with that.

Webster's defines terms for use in the spoken common tongue. It has nothing to do with legal definitions. It doesn't matter how old it is, it's not the correct source for the definition you're using. Then give me the "legal" definition. Do something besides saying "you're wrong" without providing evidence. You're the person defining "art," not me. I'm simply pointing out that your methods are wrong. If you want to be correct in your stance, go do the leg work and find the correct definition. Failing that, stop acting as if you know what the definition is. You don't, and you've admitted as much.

Webster's defines terms for use in the spoken common tongue. It has nothing to do with legal definitions. It doesn't matter how old it is, it's not the correct source for the definition you're using.