Raf

Our standard practice for threads that have been around for a while has been to allow the conversation to grow organically, even when they stray from their original subject matter. But there's a difference between straying and being derailed. This conversation has become derailed, and the thread is only 10 days old. Debate Wierwille's legacy in About the Way. T-Bone is correct. This thread is supposed to be about the Trinity and whether it is an asset or a liability (with all the subtopics raised in the opening post, including whether the doctrine will make the Antichrist's job easier). Let's stick to topic. Modcat5 posting as Raf

While we're at it, why do we always concentrate on the people Jeffrey Dahmer ate. He met SO MANY people he DIDN'T eat. What about them?

Yahweh is the proper name of the Old Testament God. I use it interchangeably with Elohim, which is a title, not a name. I don't use Adonai because it is an even less specific title than Elohim.

You make the assumption that the stories of the gospels were widely known. I submit they were not. Paul makes no reference to them at all, save the last supper. Some scholars genuinely believe he did not know the story of Judas' betrayal [which is a much simpler explanation for "he was seen of Cephas, then of the 12" than the tortured logic VPW used to prove Judas was alive and forgiven/brought back into the fold after the resurrection]. This would be its own thread and would venture into some fascinating territory, but bear with me: The gospels were not written first, and there is only the tiniest indication that Paul was aware of them. His church epistles were written first, and in them he is adamant that the gospel he's sharing came from God through Christ, not through what he learned from the other big shots in the church. This makes painfully little sense, no matter how many times you read it. Everything Paul describes about the life, death, sacrifice and resurrection of Christ is described from the spiritual perspective [the firstborn of all creation is crucified by the princes of this world, not Mary's son executed for insurrection by a church-state collusion after a sham of a trial]. It's only after Paul writes the epistles, at the earliest, that Mark sets out to write the first gospel. I think it's apparent that the original ending to Mark's gospel is lost. The ones we have are clearly fabricated, but without them the gospel stops almost mid-thought. Point is, the biography of Jesus, at least in writing, is spread years after the spiritual account of what happened spiritually. Acts can't help us because it is written after the epistles and after three of the gospels. And John's gospel introduces anecdotes whose omission from the first three gospels is utterly baffling. You mean to tell me none of the previous writers found the raising of Lazarus worth mentioning? Come on. My belief (which of course is not going to get far in this particular forum) is that the gospel accounts are a fictionalized version of what took place, designed to flesh out the background of the important part of the story: the sacrifice and resurrection of Christ. Mark tries to place Paul's Christ back into history, but by the time he writes it has become difficult to sort out which stories are [even allegedly] true and which are clearly made up. There are LOTS of stories. Mark doesn't trust or use them all. Matthew gives us a Jesus who won't shut up but won't just blurt out who and what he is. Luke does the same but changes the order and gives us a different [incompatible] birth story. Then John gives us a Jesus who won't shut up about who He is and what He means. For me, the question is: How much of the gospel Jesus is an actual historical figure, and how much of him is historical fiction? Was he born in Bethlehem (unlikely)? Was he from Nazareth (very likely)? Did he cause a disturbance at the Temple over profiteering (probably)? Do the gospels describe it accurately (almost certainly not)? Did he claim to be a messianic figure (probably)? Did he claim to be One with the Father, the Bread of Life, the Way, the Truth and the Life? Honestly, it's hard to imagine he said all those things and NONE of the first three gospel writers found it worth mentioning. John has taken Paul's Christ and the synoptic Christ and tried to fuse the two stories into one. It should be noted that while these narratives are being constructed, so are many others that were later rejected. A good percentage are just made up stories (some of them are doozies). I understand that in this forum we are taking faith for granted, but I still think it's helpful to understand that the gospels did not write themselves in a vacuum. Competing Christologies were the norm in the first century. There was no singular first century church that fractured. There were a bunch of competing churches that coalesced (or at least tried to). The ones that held Jesus to be "one" with the Creator God Yahweh eventually won out and did its damnedest to destroy any evidence of its competitors. Sure, we call them heresies now. But back then they were all on equal footing. Did the Trinity doctrine help or hinder? Historically? I don't think it did either. I think it just won (and not fair and square).

I read the original post to be asking and exploring whether the Trinity doctrine has been a net asset or liability to Christianity, its purpose, mission and spread. And that's a profound question. I eventually came to the conclusion that the Trinity doctrine gives its believers an advantage in appreciating the Lordship of Christ, while rejecting the doctrine gave us an advantage in appreciating his faithfulness, obedience, commitment and sacrifice. I'm not impressed by a sinless God. I am impressed by a sinless man. I can say I certainly found it easier to believe Jesus was a man than that he was God. Too much didn't make sense, and I have to wonder how many people over the centuries have rejected Christ in their hearts because its central claim, that God became a man, was so absurd. But you could say that about a lot of beliefs. The virgin birth, for example (or virgin conception). The Great Flood. Lots of beliefs. Is the Trinity really that different? Of course, Johniam's question is also a spiritual one. He sees the trinity as spiritually harmful to those who believe it. So to agree with him is to reject the trinity, and you must disagree with him if you embrace the Trinity. Is it an asset or liability? Does believing it make you a better Christian or does it hinder your walk? Well, that depends, doesn't it? I believe the earliest Christians were not Trinitarian. Paul gives us a Jesus who is subservient to the Father. In fact, Paul speaks nothing at all about Jesus' earthly ministry [the last supper being the only real exception]. Paul is much more concerned about the spiritual aspect of Christ's ministry, the "principalities and powers" behind what took place on Earth. Jesus wasn't crucified by the Jews, the Romans, or Pilate. He was executed by "the princes of this world," which is not a reference to human beings. What's interesting, then, is that the Christ of this spiritual storyline is referred to as "the firstborn of all creation," which can be interpreted a number of ways. The way most consistent with TWI Christology is that Jesus was first... not chronologically, but in order of importance. But other Christians take it literally. Jesus being the firstborn of all creation, to the Jehovah's Witnesses, means that he was the first being created by God, and the agent by which God created everything else. Yahweh and Son, from the beginning. To Trinitarians, that is not a creation of Jesus but a begetting, and it's something that happened before there was any such thing as time. It's not something that can be explained. Just accepted. So there. So what's all this mean? I believe it demonstrates that the New Testament tells two separate Jesus Christ stories. One is down to earth, and the other is, for lack of a better word, cosmic. It becomes easy to see why the early church couldn't settle on his identity. The two stories are not compatible except when one is recognized as metaphorical from a human perspective. Unless he really is God or the first creation of God. Obviously I'm in no position to answer whether the doctrine has helped or hindered God's plan. I think BOTH stories are made up, one largely and the other entirely. But I am fascinated by the exploration of the question. Enjoy. While you can.

If you were born when this movie came out, you could not drink legally when Beavis and Butthead Do America came out. Not legally anyway. Or smoke for that matter, though that didn't stop a lot of people. "I think I have a way out of this. We, uh, call the police, and we have 'em send over one of their sketch artists. And Miss Balbricker can give a description. We can put up 'Wanted' posters all over school..."

Didn't see your response, George. It is not Beavis and Butthead. It's older than that. Not much older in geological terms, but in movie terms, quite some time.

No, but she was in it. You know why they call her Lassie, right?

The 2016 clue was actually a mistake on my part. Stranger Things debuted in 2016. But this scene premiered in 2019. Glad you figured it out anyway. Gerald McRainey played dad in the original Neverending Story. John Wesley "Flash" Shipp played him in the sequel. Everyone else was recast except the bookstore owner, Thomas Hill (perhaps as well known as the priest in V: The Final Battle, though that could just apply to me).

Yes!

You're missing and making my point at the same time. We don't use that faulty reasoning to cling to BC as opposed to BCE. I agree with you. Tyson does use that reasoning. At least, he does in the video. That reasoning is what I'm criticizing.

I am impressed too. And I think showing appreciation is warranted. I simply don't believe that declining to switch from BC to BCE is a reasonable method of showing that appreciation. That DOES give the church "points," as you put it. Anyway, I'm splitting hairs here. The church deserves a lot of credit not only for commissioning this important work but also convincing the world to go along with it. Could you imagine the discussion coming up on the House floor today? "You want us to do WHAT? Get the church's hands off our calendars! You're telling me the all-wise scientists had it wrong all this time? My calendar, My choice!"

I think there are some things we can fix if we have the will to do it. Other things, maybe not so necessary. B.C. to B.C.E. = not necessary. I would discuss things I think are necessary, but it would veer too much into politics. Let's just say I favor changing SOME location names so they honor something we, today, deem worthy of honor. And some names just have to go ("Atlantic goliath grouper" is a perfectly fine name for a fish. The name it replaced is not). All of which is to say: I agree with you, Bolshevik, but that wasn't really what I was disputing. If someone wants to switch to BCE for culturally sensitive or historically accurate reasons, more power to them, as long as the general public understands, which more and more people do. I could see secular, Jewish or Muslim communities favoring BCE and CE. I could even see Christians favoring BCE on the grounds that the calculation was off (Jesus almost certainly wasn't born in 1 AD, which means ALL the numbers are off). I could also see, just as easily, not giving a flip, the way we all feel about Odinsday, Thorsday and Friggaday. I'm just rejecting the logic expressed in the video, because it's not reasonable. "I don't want to change because..." The reason you give has to make sense. His doesn't. There is nothing wrong with giving religious people credit when it's due... for following science. A religious person came up with the big bang theory. Religious people came up with all sorts of terrific things by employing or attempting to employ the scientific method to a problem. That does not mean we owe the religion any deference (for the same reason we don't owe Newton's alchemy or Ford's anti-Semitism any deference). Nothing wrong with sticking with BC. It's just that Tyson's "why" is BS.

How someone can simultaneously be so smart and so dumb is astonishing to me. You don't want to be called an atheist because of the way some atheists act? That's stupid. Atheism doesn't address behavior. It addresses one answer to one question: Do you believe in God (or gods)? If the answer is no, you are an atheist, as he acknowledged. The end. Now, if he had just said, "I am an atheist, but I shun the label because it comes with sociological baggage that I regret," then that would make some sense. But "some atheists prefer BCE and I prefer BC" is no reason to say "I'm not an atheist." So much to unpack here. So he's saying some religious folks used science to fix the calendar for tens of thousands of years of accuracy, and for that he doesn't want to switch from BC to BCE. ONE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE OTHER! Why does religion get deference when religious people properly employ science? Makes no sense. Now, if he doesn't want to be called an atheist, that's his prerogative. But his reasoning is not logical or sound. He employs non sequiturs, straw man arguments and ad hominems. I expected better.

This should be easy: "Hello. Hi. I'm lookin' for a friend of mine. He's supposed to be there." "What's his name?" "His name's Michael Hunt... uh, Mike, Mike. Yes, Mike." ... "Is Mike Hunt here? Is Mike Hunt here? Has anybody seen Mike Hunt?" "Practically everybody in town, from what I hear."

Nope. ???? Most of the actors from this movie outgrew their roles by the time the sequel rolled around 6 years later. The roles were all recast. That doesn't explain everyone. The bookstore owner was played by the same guy, but the main character's father was recast. Not entirely sure why. The original movie was a financial failure, though it is now beloved in and considered a classic in some circles. It's theme song didn't do will on initial release, but it did become mildly popular when it came out on Betamax and VHS. It became even more popular in 2016.

PEDAL? PEDAL????

According to the source material, the climactic scream near the end of the movie is "Moonchild!" *** The theme song is sung by the lead singer of the group Kajagoogoo, known in the U.S. for its hit "Too Shy." *** The movie actually adapts only half of its source material, teasing more to come, which, honestly, should have been expected even without the teaser.

"Fool. Your fare is the only thing stopping me from breaking your face."

Having never been involved in circular chatter on this site before, I can only feign sympathy.

"Where to?" "I'm the Angel of Death. Take me to hell." "Got any luggage?" *** "Don't think I feel sorry for you 'cause your daddy died. My father came back from the Korean War with his brains so scrambled, he thought he was Jesus! They put him in a nuthouse for five years, when he came out, he didn't think he was Jesus no more, he thought he was God. Which made me Jesus." *** "You are a pitiful b****."

Again, I had to go on "movies about murder I have not seen," so no clues would have helped. I had to stumble on it.

And how do we know this story happened? Easy. Jonah told someone when he got out. RIght? And that person said, "wow, Jonah, that's the ONLY possible explanation for where you've been this week. Yup." Come on, really?

Not The Verdict. The Juror. Trial by Jury (same movie different actors). Is it Murder in the First with Christian Slater?

So many of the Bible's stories crumble when you look at them that way. Hey, Jonah! Where you been?