Raf

The needle has not moved. We're going to keep the phone lines open in the hopes that enough of you who have benefited from GSC can come forward to reach our goal. We are roughly $500 short (the reason it's "roughly" has to do with fees, so if we actually hit $1,500, we'll be a little short, but it sure beats not hitting $1,500). We have 19 days left in our fundraiser. The paypal donate button is on the home page of GSC. Let's finish this!

Strangers in the Night, Frank Sinatra

Whew

Based on the clues I would guess Ocean's 11

I'm told we've broken the $1,000 threshold. $500 to go! I'm also told we may have to set the goal a little bit higher, but I don't know why and I don't have numbers to share at the moment. As soon as I do, you'll know it. But keep those donations coming!

Mighty kind of you, Sudo. Thank you.

Questions about the identity of Jesus Christ are almost as old as Christianity itself. The gospels and epistles are, at least in part, a rebuttal to early claims about exactly who Jesus was, both before and after his resurrection. He's the Son of God. Why? In Mark it's at his baptism. In Luke and Matthew it's by virtue of him not having an earthly father. In John it's a relationship that predates his birth. All answers are Biblically defensible. The inescapable conclusion from the gospels: he is the Son of God. But John is the only gospel that explicitly appears to make the case that he is actually God as well (although John would probably be denounced as a heretic for claiming that the Father is in any way greater than the Son). The Trinity as a doctrine developed over time. That Christ was a being who existed prior to his earthly life can reasonably be deduced from the writings of Paul. We in TWI made the mistake of thinking there was something Biblically unreasonable about a doctrine like "the incarnation," as though there were no Biblical support for it. To the contrary, the Biblical support is strong and must be addressed for a Socinian model (his existence began at conception/birth, just like ours) to hold water. It should be noted that the biggest controversy around the time of Nicea was whether Jesus pre-existed as God or as an angel. That he was "just a man" was not even a finalist. You could (and we did) make a Biblical case that because he is not God (John 14:28) and he was not an angel (Hebrews 1), then he must have been a man, although an extraordinary one. But the case for Jesus as God is far from non-existent. And the case for Jesus as a pre-existing angel is perhaps even stronger (that's the Jehovah's Witness position). For what it's worth, I find it interesting that after he became an agnostic, Bart Ehrman (very recently) began subscribing to the belief that the earliest Christians were Arian (that is, they believed Jesus to be an angel prior to his birth, "the firstborn of all creation" in a very literal sense. My personal belief is that you can't get to one answer because there isn't one answer at the core of the argument. Finding out what the Bible says about who Jesus really was is complicated, perhaps irreparably, by the fact that the Bible's writers don't seem to agree with each other on the subject.

I was still using my typewriter then

FROM PAWTUCKET: I am truly humbled by the outpouring of donations. Yesterday, I was able to pay the $106 monthly hosting completely from donations. I am going to set up the new server this weekend. Once I have kicked the tires, we will switch over to it. Then we will install the updated software that should fix the ongoing outages. Words can't tell you the appreciation of your outpouring.

DWBH, check your DM. Meanwhile, OF COURSE THEY BLOCKED YOU! YOU USED YOUR REAL NAME!

Find me on Twitter dwbh

Correct

MRAP: It really depends on a number of factors. I tend to quote the original post if it was more than a page ago, or if it makes several points that need to be handled separately. This allows the reader to see exactly what you're referring to when you reply. Fast Reply is useful if you're confident there will be no post between your response and the one you're responding to (I used fast reply for this post, for example). Fast reply is also useful if you're responding to the original topic and not necessarily to anything anyone has said in between, or if you're replying to more than one post. And quoting a nine-paragraph post just to day "I agree" isn't usually necessary unless it's not clear what you're agreeing with. Use your judgment. There are no rules about it.

We will be moving to a new server in the next few days, which will allow for the software upgrade. Paw says the site will be more "robust" after the upgrade. I don't know what that means, but I assume it at least means we'll be seeing fewer shutdowns.

The last shot filmed for this movie (not the last shot OF the movie, the last shot filmed) was shot the day after the movie already won the Academy Award for Best Picture.

Amended the opening post. If we reach our goal before April 30, the thread will remain pinned. Anything that keeps coming in will be handled by Pawtucket. My belief is he should consider it a reimbursement for 16 years of doing this on his own. We do kind of owe the guy. But Paw says he'll just apply it to the monthly service fee and pay ahead. In other words, the more we raise now, the less we have to ask next time around. Imagine next year's fundraiser goal... ZERO! That would be nice.

We are at 60 percent!

Can't help you there, waysider. No idea what's going on. So far we're at or near $600, which is awesome. You have paid for the upgrades and taking the financial burden off of Paw for a few months. Our goal is to take the burden off him for a full year, which is why I calculated $1,500. (An earlier calculation of $2,500 was based on an error on my part, for which I apologize. The goal is $1,500. We are 40% of the way there! Pawtucket, by the way, is duly impressed and appreciative.

Deadpool.

Wow. I'm humbled. Thank you. I'll ask Paw for a tally. If he's online now, I'll have an answer shortly.

I wanted to add something here: Pawtucket did not ask me to do this. I did it because I offered to help and, when I found out what the numbers were, I realized that my ability to contribute would not be enough to make a meaningful dent. But if we all did, we could. We're not quite at $200 yet. We're aiming for $1,500. Let's see how far we can get today. I will say that $300 would pay for the new server and upgraded software (ie, fewer site crashes). So let's see if we can get to $300 by the end of the day. Thanks.

If you pledged support, we're counting on you!

Looks like I misunderstood what Paw said. Our fundraising goal should be $1,500, not $2,500. Will edit the opening post.

More! More! By all means, chime in once you've donated!

Guys, let's stay on topic and move this worthwhile conversation to another thread. Not that I have a problem with the digression, but it is an interesting conversation and no one would ever know to look for it on a thread called Atheist FAQ.