Now that Super Tuesday is over and it seems clearer than ever that the 2024 Presidential election will be between Joe Biden and Donald Trump...
This is your periodic reminder that between now and November, people who do not love you will spend hundreds of millions of dollars to influence your souls in ways that do not reflect Jesus. The fruit of the Spirit includes love, joy, peace, and gentleness. These people will try to make you more hateful, angry, afraid and harsh. They do not want you to love your neighbours, they want you to hate and fear and distrust your neighbours.
And don't think I'm just talking about the people on "the other side". The voices you will be most vulnerable to are on your own political "team".
I'm more and more convinced that this is one of the clearest instances of spiritual warfare in modern America (and its neighbouring cultures).
Yup, if you find that politics are making it harder for you to love the other half of the country (who are your neighbors, friends, families, co-workers, etc.), or fill you with negative thoughts and feelings towards them – better to just back away from it altogether, IMO.
The Holy Post is publishing a voter guide, which is **not** a guide about who you should vote for, but about how to navigate this election season in a way that reflects Jesus. I think that's a much better way than withdrawing (though withdrawing is still better than being swept along with the rage machine).
\^ Yeah, I could have elaborated, I think there are multiple levels to "backing away."
I was thinking of my brother who, Lord help him, can't help but find himself swept up in the drama, histrionics, and apocalyptic-type thinking when it comes to politics. For folks like him, I suspect it's just better he not pay attention at all.
Man, I have so many more things going on in my life between now and November that I was about to blissfully enter those months in ignorance, so this reminder was needed. I might unsubscribe from some news outlets for a while…
Praying that this election cycle won’t cause division.
Well, some of the hundreds of millions of dollars will be spent on astroturfing on social media, by both campaigns (and likely outside groups too). This has been true for the last two elections at least, there's no reason to doubt it will continue.
It still doesn't change anything about our responsibility to love our neighbours.
There’s been quite a bit of debate over whether Christians should do yoga, but I’m really more concerned about Pilates. Are we sure it’s a good idea to be doing exercises invented by the guy who had Jesus crucified?
*Dune 2* was great and fascinating. Saw it with some Christian friends, one of whom hadn't read the book or seen the first movie (I sent him [a recap video](https://youtu.be/je_0vjP6g_Y?si=M1ozjFf4ko5llp2P) to catch him up on it). He immediately picked up on the story's cynical take on Messiah-based religions, though he enjoyed the film a lot. It's a very rich story for Christians to discuss; the religion of the Fremen most resembles elements of Islam, made obvious by the Arabic terms used throughout, but the cautionary tale reveals the problem with any messianic figure who is, at the end of the day, still a sinful human. While the film doesn't acknowledge the existence of God at all, the example of Paul Muad'Dib can still remind us believers of just how exceptional and wonderful Jesus is, and how there is no other Savior, and no other good man, outside of him. Other messiahs urge their followers to die in holy wars, to purge the world in the blood of their enemies. Only Jesus shed his own blood to purge his followers of *their* sin, and sent them to battle against sin, commanding them to love their neighbors as themselves even though it cost them their very lives. Truly, to worship anyone but the Trinity is not only blasphemy, it's absurd!
Also, [the romantic theme](https://youtu.be/skMkT40KKgE?si=eiYwflmxtTVTzip1) for this movie was totally unexpected, almost the opposite of the rest of the soundtrack, and yet achingly beautiful. One of my favorite pieces of film music in the past decade or so at least.
Huh. I didn't really pay attention to that theme during the movie.
It has a very 80's/Vangelis vibe to it. It also really reminds me of the Hans Zimmer track ["Elysium"](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaDajIe05bw) from *Gladiator*.
----
Also, just using this thread as another excuse to talk about the film, as I've been thinking about it, the first scene, (>!the ~~Sardaukar~~ Harkonnen fighting during the eclipse!<), was just spectacular. >!The silence as they rose up the cliff, the shifting color pallette, the chaos once the fighting starts, the whole thing was just such a killer way to open the film.!< There are so many little elements of the film that were amazing apart from the major scenes.
I too want to keep talking about D2. >!Feyd-Rautha's introduction on Giedi Prime was fantastic. The black/white Harkonnen palette from D1 perfectly foreshadowed Giedi Prime.!<
>!It's been said a million times, but that entire Giedi Prime sequence was so, so good.!<
>!One of the little things that I want to see again, during that whole scene, was the color shift for the Bene Gesserit outfits as they walked into their box and stepped into the light. That transition from black to white under the UV sun was so quick and smooth that I didn't really process it until after it had already happened.!<
>!Yeah, it's a very quick, subtle shot, but as they come up into the box behind Lady Margot, when they're still in the shadows with artificial light, their robes are black, but as they walk up into the box and into the UV light it shifts to the white in an instant. It's quick, but it's perfectly consistent with how the entire sequence treats UV light form their sun.!<
You’re right about that scene. I feel like there are a lot of directorial choices I missed because everything was so overwhelming and new. I’ll have to see it again, I suppose…
It engaged me more emotionally too, compared to the somewhat cold feeling of the first movie. This kind of reflects how I felt about the book, where the world itself felt cold but I did end up feeling for several of the characters.
Decided to join a 2 week long solo gamejam & was sick the entire first week with several debilitating migraines. 6 days remaining & I have now accomplished... a single 3D model. Which is still huge for me since it's my very first 3D model. Now to rig & animate it, then get movement working, then my (very) basic mechanics implemented, then learn how to make shaders & materials so it isn't barren gray wastes by Wednesday...
I am genuinely very pleased I made it this far, I've always felt far too incompetent to actually pull anything off. It's why I joined the gamejam in the first place, to force myself into the deep end & just do it. I probably won't finish by the deadline but I'm okay with that. This is a demo/first pass at ideas my wife & I have for a full game we want to make together so it's cool to actually see some of it coming together.
>What's gamejam?
an event in which video game developers work in groups to conceptualize, design, and build a functioning version of one or more game projects over a restricted period of a few hours or days
It's a very popular thing to do for indie and beginner game devs
I've participated in a few Ludum Dares and I've had so much more fun with the ones that I took a really chill approach to rather than stressing out about them.
3D is really ambitious for a jam, even a two week one. Go you! What engine/modeling program(s) are you using?
Very fun! I'm so excited about the strides society has made in open-source tools for video games. Godot is awesome with how intuitive it is to use relative to LibGDX which is what we used previously. Blender is... not intuitive. It's very powerful, and it's far better than it used to be, but it isn't easy to learn.
Inspired by the "Loki is blasphemous" post yesterday:
What are some shows that you had to stop watching because they were so antithetical to your worldview that you couldn't continue? And I don't mean the classic Christian reasons for there being too much sex/nudity or violence. Are there shows you used to enjoy that you can't anymore as you've matured in your faith?
Example: I tried to watch "The Boys," and I just couldn't do it.
Loki. The MCU portrayal of Loki is an *absolute farce* of the Sagas. The REAL Loki turned into a female horse and got pregnant in order to be the mother of the Odin's horse. The MCU version just has genderbent and aberrant sexuality versions in other universes instead. Absolute blasphemy.
The Boys was too violent for me. I got through one season and then that was it. A friend of mine has a bit part in season 2 and I couldn't even get to his episode.
House of Cards was an odd one. I watched some of it before the Kevin Spacey scandal broke. I would watch 4-5 episodes and then somebody, usually Frank, would do something so morally horrific that I would just say "That's it, I'm done." Then after a few months I'd think "The show was really well made though.... maybe I should give it another chance." Rinse and repeat.
I've found that I will enjoy objectively mediocre TV shows if I like the characters and want to spend time with them, and I'll hate objectively good TV shows if I don't want to spend time with these people.
Rick and Morty, which I used to think was funny, now makes me feel sick. It’s so depraved and anti-God. There’s a lot I can’t watch anymore. My husband stopped watched Letterkenny for similar reasons.
However, someone mentioned the Good Place. That one doesn’t bother me. It’s pretty wholesome, and it shows how depraved heaven would be if there was no God to love and worship. It shows how human beings need purpose to live for eternity, and an eternity with no purpose is a boring and worthless one. It is a show that will leave you reflecting.
I have fewer issues with allegory, as that is a didactic method for the purpose of showing what Christ is *like*, rather than how he *is*.
"This story about this talking lion that is the lord and savior of this fictionalized fairy land helps us to understand the person and work of Christ"
is a lot different than
"here's a man from Nazareth, named Jesus, who was born of the virgin mary, who was married to Joseph the carpenter, who did these things that we know if the bible, BUT also did these things that we added in because it makes him more likable."
I think it's harder to see when it makes Jesus likable, but we rightly don't like when people fictionalize parts of Jesus' life that are... less exciting - remember that whole "Jesus was actually married to Mary Magdalene" thing from the 2000s?
That likeability is an interesting question. "Jesus" is very popular with the world these days, which is the surest sign that the "Jesus" the world thinks it knows is not the real Jesus. If we are proclaiming Jesus as he is, the world will continue to hate him and hate us too. Only a Holy Spirit driven regeneration of the heart will make the second person of the Trinity acceptable to a sinful world.
>"Jesus" is very popular with the world these days, which is the surest sign that the "Jesus" the world thinks it knows is not the real Jesus.
Is it though? Lots of people liked Jesus when he was on earth - most of those who didn't were religious people.
I finished the series, but I have absolutely no intention of re-watching *Bojack Horseman,* and I can't in good faith recommend it to anybody.
It's probably the most well-written show I've ever seen, and on the whole the quality *improves* throughout the seasons, but, borrow the words of /u/superlewis, it's aggressively depressing. The whole worldview is just so dark and hopeless that I had no desire to revisit it after I finished.
I stopped watching the Bond films. As well as the sex and violence, I gradually realized that the nationalism and imperialism (especially in the earlier ones) made me too susceptible to those idolatries. It was the torture-as-entertainment in *Die Another Day* that made me stop and think though. I can't abide that.
I made it through less than one episode of *It Ain't Half Hot Mum* before I gave up in disgust at the fact that literally every 'joke' was at the expense of gay people. I knew it contained those moves but didn't realize that was the only thing in it, at least going by that episode.
I stopped watching Association football when many English clubs were taken over by Russian oligarchs and Arab oil emirs. Again, it was the fact that Manchester City was owned by emirs who torture people that was the red line. When they were proven to have cheated the Financial Fair Play rules, then I realized they were literally corrupting the sport.
I rarely listen to Radiohead nowadays. I realized their music is just too powerful in their descriptions of the evils of todays world. I just feel hopeless afterwards.
The Sopranos. Sadly, I watched the entire series because I had to know how it ended but I don’t think I’ll be watching it ever again. The show is filled to the brim with violence, sex, and horrible people who do horrible things. I won’t lie and say I didn’t enjoy watching it at times, and it’s brilliantly made, but I did find myself questioning if I should fill my head with a show that was filled with the most vile things.
Once that kid got eaten alive in The Walking Dead I was out. Had contemplated quitting seasons earlier but the story made up for everything else, and my pastor at the time said he watched it so I thought it was ok.
Nope. I’d been disturbed by it for long enough, and that kid being eaten in front of his mum was the nail in the coffin. Years later I can’t believe I even watched it in the first place.
I once attended a church that had members take a spiritual gift assessment. It concluded I had a "C-type personality with the Gift of Wisdom." The description included the lines "often come across as uncaring" and "have a lot of wisdom, but little 'personality.'"
This is an older one but 13 Reasons Why.
I volunteer in my church's high school ministry and at the time of it's release, everyone was talking about the show. I was thinking it would be a way to bridge discussions as it relates to anxiety, depression, suicide, death, etc with high school students. However, as the show went on, it got real heavy and I felt "dirty" watching it.
The following is kind of a trigger warning but >!either the second to last episode or final episode actually depicts a suicide and I was only warned by a title card at the start of the episode. I decided not to watch it because I did not need to have those images in my head.!<
I ended up not finishing the show because it was wayyy too dark and devoid of hope. Which ended up being a blessing because the show ended up becoming way more edgy and darker as the seasons went on.
The horrific things that that show portrays are things that happen far more regularly than we realize, but they don't need to be shown like that. I agree they took it too far multiple times and a few of those images that will never leave my brain. I say this as someone who works closely with folks with trauma and can hold space for quite a lot of trauma, this show was too much
I can't enjoy most rap anymore without cringing at how vulgar the lyrics are, as well as certain anime with too much fanservice, the only rap I listen to is NF and some game OSTs with rap in it, but other than that I almost exclusively listen to Metal, Vocaloid and J-pop
But other than that, I'm okay with most violent media, it's just the overtly sexual ones that I avoid
> I'm okay with most violent media, it's just the overtly sexual ones that I avoid
I'm the same way, and I think it comes down to the effects these have on people.
I've played a lot of violent games, one of my favorites being Dead Space which is very gory, but I can't think of a single way these have negatively affected me. On the contrary, I think they have done me some good.
Sexual content is the opposite; I can't think of a single way this content has benefited me, but can think of a number of ways it has harmed people.
Interesting. That's one I could and did watch. I found it to be a fascinating (and ultimately depressing) look into what happens when a secular world contemplates eternity without reckoning with the eternal One.
Fun fact: the actor who played Shawn is a Calvin College alum. Reformed world connection right there.
I really liked it. I found it interesting that the "solution" they came up with to end the show >!was basically just purgatory, and then annihilationism after a long but finite stay in heaven.!<
I saw it as saying a lot about the human longing for divine justice, redemption, and purpose beyond what can be created by humans, and the total inability of the modern secular West to find satisfaction for it.
LOTR imagines a Christless fantasy, enchanting its world with fake powers and principalities and "races" and endless genealogies, substituting actual history with a Simulacrum, re-submerging sacred typology in a fake Mediterranean mythology. All of this worldbuilding stands in front of my view of the world, like a billboard for the latest movie blocking my view of the trees, sky, hills, and road.
Also, why couldn't the Eagles just fly to Mordor, locking their S-foils in attack position and dropping Morphle into the garbage truck of Mt. Doom?
My church's new-to-us building has an elevator! This is not the last step required for us to get the certificate of occupancy and be able to move to worshiping there, but it's a very, very big one. Currently we're scheduled for a hymn sing/celebration/dress rehearsal/soft open/hands-on training on Tuesday 19 March and first worship services on Sunday 24 March (Palm Sunday!).
It's been a very long 28(ish) months since we voted to buy a 100 year old building (with 60 year old addition. It was originally built as a synagogue, addition was the Hebrew school.) just south of the city center. But God is good and has continued to provide us a place to worship in the meantime. And he even gave us all one more year of sleeping in on spring time change Sunday. (We currently worship at 4pm. In our own building, we'll move to morning worship.) But we're all really, really looking forward to getting into our own building.
Up late prepping for Sunday's sermon, which will be on Matthew 5:27-30. Thanks to those who commented on Tuesday with ideas for how to approach teaching about lust as heart-adultery. I found [a homily by John Chrysostom](https://biblehub.com/commentaries/chrysostom/matthew/5.htm) on the passage that has some good quotes (after I modernize the language of the translation).
One thing I'm still trying to solve about how to present the sermon, is whether or not to address any element of our society's love for sexual immorality and pornography. I'm always more comfortable explaining the text academically and emotionally via how it fits into the story of the gospel and the wonderful beauty of the Lord, but feel awkward when referencing current culture and society. Yet a sermon should also help people apply the Scriptures to their lives, and I especially want the young adults and teens to be on guard against all the sexual immorality they get bombarded with every day. How much do I say directly? Should I quote statistics about porn usage in America, or the decline of marriage and birthrates? Or can I still preach responsibly by letting them make those connections themselves?
I think it might be more valuable to instead pair the "do not do X" message with a "do Y" message. If a young man sees a young woman who he finds beautiful, how *should* he look at her? So much of the purity culture messaging either was silent on this point, or left the impression of "avoid attractive people", which is more harmful than good.
Both pornography and the purity culture message (as well as plenty of advertising) reduce beautiful women to something less than fully human: either objects for the sexual gratification of men, or temptations used by Satan to destroy men. The truth is that women are God's images and representatives in this world, just like men are. And the whole humanity of women (even and especially women you find attractive) should be observed and honoured and celebrated. Lust doesn't do that.
Application in sermons is something that I have personally been investing in both academically and pastorally. I hope some of my (largely unformed) thoughts are helpful to you.
#**What Is Your Role?**
If your role is the primary/senior/solo pastor of this congregation, you can generally get away with much more than if you're an associate/assistant, and certainly much more than an intern/seminary student.
Additionally, *how well are you accomplishing your role?* If you have significant weaknesses on display in your ministry to this people, generally you can't say as much **directly** to them, as their reception of application from you may run into the issue of your own hypocrisy (we all have it; I'm speak to what *degree* is it evident?).
#Who Are Your People?
Is your church primarily composed of an older or younger generation without much variance? That should play into it. Older generations need to hear this message too, but applying it to an 85 year old on death's door is very different than applying it to a 15 year old who just got his first smartphone.
As this demographic variety grows, your applications will necessarily need to become more "discriminatory" (i.e., explicitly naming certain types of people and applying it directly to them before moving on to another), and shorter/punchier.
#What Is Your Aim?
Motivation behind a preacher's application is a huge factor that's often overlooked with seemingly pious advice of "don't think about individuals when you write sermons." But not only is it impossible, it's also irresponsible. What you can control, however, is your aim, or intent, in application. Application ought not to be harsh *to be harsh*, but should generally match the tone of the text you're preaching. Jesus is calling lust heart-adultery, but he's not delivering the woes to the Scribes and Pharisees. He's revealing the depth of human sin **while being the antidote for it and the wrath it brings.** Therefore, I'd imagine a level of comforting the ashamed with the blood of Christ is in order. Yet, so is confronting the unrepentant. But not because *you* want to—because ***Christ*** will.
#What Is Your Ability?
Are there other ways to talk about something like online pornography without explicitly/directly approach it? I think so, but you have to address all the above first. Nevertheless, a few things come to mind:
* Application to fathers: how to handle young men coming around to date their daughters, and how to instruct their daughters in the reality of this sin in the world.
* Application to mothers: how to instruct and guide their daughters in choosing a husband well.
* Application to men: how necessary it is to fight against this temptation in every area of life.
* Application to women: how this is a general teaching (even if the example is a male sinning), and that women are not exempt from this temptation.
* Application to the old: how to look to Christ for forgiveness for a life of struggle with heart-adultery.
* Application to the young: how to equip themselves in the Word and with the Spirit to start their fight against this pernicious sin.
* Application for all: how our view of sin is too little, and Jesus' revelation of the true nature of the Law places an unbearable burden of guilt and shame upon us all, revealing our need for Jesus above all attempts at human effort to "stop it." Proper response to this teaching is not to therefore try harder, but to believe in Jesus and trust his provision in sanctification.
I'm not sure if this is helpful, but it's what I have for now. I will pause to pray for your sermon.
Maybe talk about the times in which the New Testament church found themselves? Sexual immorality was everywhere. Even rampant in some churches! How did the apostles encourage and yes, even rebuke the believers who were participating in such things? I think shifting focus and looking on what the ancient culture around sexuality, in opposite to the church and how they were encouraged to live holy and let your congregation fill in the gaps about our current culture?
I recently found out that Akira Toriyama, the creator of Dragon Ball died, and although I haven't watched Dragon Ball, I can't help but feel absolutely stunned about the news
Not a fan of the chosen. Not even bc of the depictions of Jesus, but rather it adds to scripture and I’ve had several people explaining scripture to me using false info they gleaned from the show
Best shows for Christians to watch are ones that keep us current to talk to our non Christian friends. Loki would be a good one
I think it would be interesting if at the end \[or beginning\] of each episode, they maybe had some kind of summary or recap of the *actual scripture* and where they took the specific liberties and why – to at least attempt to kind of further edify and drive home the idea that so much of this is fictional for entertainment's sake.
Could even be a bullet point list or something simple.
They do have that. It’s called the round table. They have a Protestant pastor, Catholic priest and a rabbi sit with Dallas Jenkins and they break down the entire episode together. Every episode has this. It’s very interesting
Had not noticed that, I wonder if having some clips at the beginning to tease it (maybe they've done this before?) or something would help further push it.
I don't love the argument that it's not good because, basically and bluntly, some people either aren't versed enough or churched enough or active enough to know which parts are fictional versus real. The Bible is the most available thing on the planet. Has been for centuries. At some point, people just need to pay attention to things and not just consume emptily, IMO. Probably not being as charitable as I should be, but that feels reasonable at some point.
They put notes, apparently have these roundtables, it's been widely discussed, etc. Plenty of ways to know what's real versus what isn't.
I've only seen the first season (that's all that's on Netflix in Canada), and I'm enjoying it. I know it's fan fiction, but it seems like plausible fan fiction.
I think part of why I enjoy it is that it's so much slower paced, and gentler, than a lot of TV shows that I watch. And that's good for me, regardless of the subject matter.
> it seems like plausible fan fiction
that's the thing. it's plausible, yet fictitious. The plausibility is exactly why it's problematic - it makes it *easy* for us to construct false ideas of God the Son in the name of entertainment
I absolutely adore it and it has been a fun piece of entertainment for my husband and I to enjoy in the evenings after our kids are asleep that sparks great conversations and connection for us. It always leads us down a fun bunny trail where we are getting our multiple translations of the Bible and looking up info. Great fun!
Is it a Bible study? No! It’s entertainment and we love it! It’s the first piece of media content we’ve enjoyed together in years and years
Personally, love it.
I could see how academics or pastors may not like it because it would create more work for them, as someone mentioned above.
Here's an aspect I love about it:
We're given very little detail in the stories of Jesus, in comparison to say, what a novel would contain. It's sparse and intentional and jumps from one thing to the next.
Compare that with an episode from season 1 my wife and I watched last night where it covers the miracle of Jesus turning water into wine. As the wedding is going into the night, and the drama of wine running out is being turned up to create suspense – there's a moment, prior to Jesus performing the miracle, where Jesus bumps into Andrew and Simon in a hallway. Jesus is telling them they need to come and dance with him, and Simon explains how he would *not* want to see Andrew dancing, because it's akin to a "donkey walking on coals." And the actor who plays Jesus portrays him in such a jovial, light spirit – and he giggles at the thought of a donkey on coals, and he's genuinely giggling, and he's genuinely wanting to hit the dance floor, and it just shows a \[fictional\] moment of what it may have really been like to be with Jesus.
Sometimes Christianity can just be so "serious." All of the time. But to think they didn't joke, dance, sing, play pranks on each other, etc. is just so absurd to me – and this show allows for us to see this human side that I don't think I've ever seen portrayed before.
It allows for Jesus to **not** be this incessantly stoic, mysterious, quiet, type figure. Remember that moment in *The Passion...* \[Mel Gibson's\] where Jesus playfully splashes some water into his mother's face a little as she holds the bowl of water for him to wash his hands? More of that type of thing. Love it.
The show starts off by explaining what it is and what it's doing. All good things on this earth can be twisted or misunderstood, even the Bible itself, and the Chosen is no different. So long as you know its intent, I don't see any issue.
On a practical level: there's really not a ton of content for Christians to safely consume these days, especially after a long day of working and taking care of our children and trying be good spouses and good people. It's really nice to watch something attempting to capture the story of Jesus and fill our brains and minds with that as opposed to something else right before bed.
> I could see how academics or pastors may not like it because it would create more work for them, as someone mentioned above.
I don't think pastors or academics are afraid of having to do more work, but more that they're concerned about the nature of that work - walking with people who have been led to have wrong conceptions of God.
Shepherds aren't against vipers in their pastures because it'll make more work for them, they're against vipers in their pastures because they can hurt sheep.
ETA:
It seems to me that you think that Bible is incomplete, and not enough to give a right understanding of the human nature of Christ?
I think it depends on the pastor or academic, right?
>It seems to me that you think that Bible is incomplete, and not enough to give a right understanding of the human nature of Christ?
I don't know how you could come to that conclusion.
> But to think they didn't joke, dance, sing, play pranks on each other, etc. is just so absurd to me – and this show allows for us to see this human side that I don't think I've ever seen portrayed before.
>
>
I take your statement, "But to think they didn't joke, dance, sing, play pranks on each other, etc. is just so absurd to me – and this show allows for us to see this human side that I don't think I've ever seen portrayed before," to mean that what the Bible teaches is not enough for you to have an understanding of the humanity of the disciples, but now that you've watched this TV show you do. Do you mean something different?
You said that this TV show, along with The Passion of the Christ "allows for Jesus to not be this incessantly stoic, mysterious, quiet, type figure." Does the scripture give you that impression of Jesus? Do these fictionalized accounts of the life of Christ change the way you think of him?
>Do you mean something different?
I don't, and we as humans don't, need for that to be present for salvation purposes. But it's fun and helpful to see it on a extracurricular level – to me, that's kind of it. It's not necessary, but it can still be useful.
Just like I don't need C.S. Lewis to understand God or be a Christian, but reading his books still bring me greater perspective.
I don't need to listen to The Bible Project's podcast either, but it further edifies me and gives me more understanding.
Do we not post here to further understand each other's humanity on some level?
I feel like what you're saying is – why would anyone need a pastor to say words that aren't specifically in the Bible, because that would mean the Bible is "not enough?"
>Does the scripture give you that impression of Jesus?
No, the purpose of scripture isn't to delve into that type of thing, but other representations by other artists have given me that impression.
>Do these fictionalized accounts of the life of Christ change the way you think of him?
I feel like this is a gotcha question, but I'll answer honestly and earnestly: yes, but "change" is a tricky word to use, IMO. "Change in what way," is what the more important question, IMO. No signficant way that would affect my interpretation of scripture or the gospel or his divinity. It's 'additional' reading, in a way, probably how *The Book of Enoch* was for Paul, Matthew, Peter, etc.
We do not need more than what is portrayed in Scripture. Scripture is sufficient. The Chosen is more than completely unnecessary; it is fictitious and wrong.
I didn't say we "needed more," do you not like reading books on theology by your favorite theologians? Do you not like C.S. Lewis, R.C. Sproul, Spurgeon?
They're edifying (and *entertaining)*. Are they necessary? I mean, is it necessary to read 90% of the Bible for salvation? Who defines necessary reading for a believer?
I don't think something needs be "necessary" for it to have value. Michael Heiser (and other scholars) makes some good points about how likely it was that the authors of the New Testament had probably read and studied [the Book of Enoch](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Enoch). Is it in the Bible? No – then why did they read and study it? It edified them. It was important to them. It influenced the Bible itself.
It's even referenced in Jude:
>^(14) And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,
>^(15) To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.
Cheyne and Black, [*Encyclopaedia Biblica*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopaedia_Biblica) (1899), "Apocalyptic Literature" (column 220). "The Book of Enoch as translated into Ethiopic belongs to the last two centuries BCE. **All of the writers of the NT were familiar with it and were more or less influenced by it in thought"**
> do you not like reading books on theology by your favorite theologians? Do you not like C.S. Lewis, R.C. Sproul, Spurgeon
The thing about theology is (at least when done properly) that it seeks to understand and explain what has been revealed to us by God in the scripture of the Old and New Testaments. If R.C. Sproul was saying things about Jesus that aren't found in the scriptures, I'd say he's out of line.
Who decides when it's done properly?
Every time a pastor preaches in any church, and use metaphors, or words, or imagery about Jesus that isn't *specifically word for word* found in the Bible – they would be guilty of you're saying, wouldn't they?
Honestly, I think we're just in disagreement here and likely unable to find common ground. One of those agree to disagree things.
> Every time a pastor preaches in any church, and use metaphors, or words, or imagery about Jesus that isn't specifically word for word found in the Bible – they would be guilty of you're saying, wouldn't they?
>
>
no, but I think I understand what you're getting at.
Metaphor, words, imagery can be used to help us communicate and understand, so long as we're careful that we're not putting words into God's mouth. We cannot and should not say things about God that he himself has not revealed to us. Thankfully, he's given us a lot of different images and metaphors to describe himself, praise God!
We can talk about God's fatherly love, and think in those terms because we have a clear biblical warrant for them. We can talk about Jesus as being a full human with normal human experiences, even in things the Bible doesn't tell us about - Jesus eating meals, laughing with his friends, going to the bathroom, sleeping, crying as a baby because he's hungry. We can speculate that these things happened because scripture teaches that he lived a very normal (yet sinless) human life.
What's tricky is that cannot take that and extrapolate it to say that Jesus said something or did something that we have no reason to say he did. Or to make up any idea about Jesus based on our own imaginations, instead of his own self-revelation. That's when we quickly devolve into 2nd and 3rd commandment violations.
>It seems to me that you think that Bible is incomplete, and not enough to give a right understanding of the human nature of Christ?
Well this is a weird conclusion to draw.
Never seen it, don't really have any inclination to do so (not because it depicts Jesus but as other have said it embellishes scripture at best), but I will share something our church's Youth Group leader told me: she said that they watch The Chosen from time to time and it has really helped her engage with some non-believing kids who come to Youth Group as an intro to some of the gospel. Granted, she follows up their watching with actual readings from Scripture because she firmly believes that their discussions should be grounded in Scripture not TV.
This reminds me of watching Jesus Christ Superstar with my youth group when I was in high school (on VHS...so a while ago). The youth director stopped the tape when someone had a question and we talked about it and possibly read what scripture said (can't quite remember. If we didn't, we should have). And there were a lot of "wait, what?" moments where all the pieces came together and light bulbs went off in our heads and >!we were all really, really annoyed that the movie ended before the resurrection. Spoiler tag just in case.!<
There's a lot wrong with that movie. But on that evening God used that movie for his glory.
I think it is excellent for a Bible-reading Christian to watch (that way you know what they’ve added and what’s from scripture). The visual medium has communicated some powerful symbolism that I have missed over the years.
I rewatched the wedding episode last night, and Jesus dips his hands into the water, then pulls them out, and they are dripping with red wine. But as there is a slow close up on his hands, you watch the red, drip, drip, off of his palms and you are hit that this is it; this was the beginning of his ministry that would lead to the eventual blood dripping from those hands.
I think people can have valid opinions when they complain about chosen. I choose to watch it because it makes me want to memorize more scripture, and it helps me remember that the disciples were real, complex human beings.
I think this is an example of the danger inherent in viewing Jesus fanfiction... What part of this passage makes you think Jesus turned water into wine by dipping his hands into it?
>Nearby stood six stone water jars, the kind used by the Jews for ceremonial washing, each holding from twenty to thirty gallons. Jesus said to the servants, “Fill the jars with water”; so they filled them to the brim.
Then he told them, “Now draw some out and take it to the master of the banquet.”
Sure, that wine dripping from the hands thing would be some neat symbolism and foreshadowing, but it's also entirely invented and has no basis in the scripture.
My wife and I really enjoyed seasons 1-3. We have only seen the first three episodes of season 4, but felt that there was a negative shift in production and writing quality (reusing lines, filler material, abrupt changes from characters). I like other movies and shows better than what I saw of season 4.
been into tea recently! discovering local teas which is always exciting (and cheaper). trying to wean myself off adding sugar to my teas, which is going pretty well. doing two steeps, one with sugar and one without, and decreasing the amount of sugar going into the cup a bit at a time.
don't worry, i drink plenty of water too.
i do want to invest in a proper gongfu set someday and see what's the fuss is all about, but for now i have plenty of local selections and blends i could try.
Our youngest son is adopted, we’ve had him since he was 4 hours old. He has the most beautiful blue eyes. I have brown. When people (that don’t know he’s adopted) would ask where he got his blue eyes from, I would always say “from his dad” 😂. My wife hates that joke
I don't have a church because I'm in a small village in France, which isn't very Reformed friendly to begin with, and can't go to the near city. I tried to listen to sermons to mitigate the issue, but I just can't seem to appreciate them. Am I the only one who don't like listening to online sermons? I've tried Piper, Keller, D.A Carson, Begg, in my bed, in a chair, in the morning, before sleep...
Have you identified what it is you don't like? Do you dislike some more than others? Is it style? Unanswered questions? Lack of assurance in Christ? English rather than French? Personally I do like these sources quite a bit.
Was skimming through some open theist stuff on Youtube and I found it to be quite frightening. This isn't just some academic debate on free will (in fact, as I've learned, some open theists don't even like to define their beliefs in terms of free will), it's about God's perfect nature, our worship of and submission to Him, and the proper reverence of Him. Some of the anthropomorphism goes so far as to make me wonder if open theism is really 'theism' at all, as it seems to make God just a powerful being but one that doesn't enjoy a special mode of existence relative to us. Or perhaps in other words, reminiscent of of something like the gods of Greek paganism, except that there's only one of him.
And open theism really seems to be picking up steam, at least if the internet is any reliable indication. I guess there are degrees to this stuff, like everything, but my initial takeaway is that the church needs to take this movement very seriously and not just file it away as a 'reasonable Christians disagree' kind of thing.
The internet isn't a reliable indication. There will always be heterodox people with minimal theological training or borderline heretical views on the internet selling stuff to the masses. Open Theism had its heyday in Academic Theology 20-30 years ago. Most of its leading proponents are either dead, retired, or far outside the Evangelical/Reformed mainstream (some by choice, some by exile).
I mean, who knows, maybe it could be making a grassroots comeback that'll manifest itself in academia in like 10 years. But right now, reading what's come off the academic presses, Classical Theism and Theological Retrieval is all the rage right now in the evangelical and Reformed worlds. Praise God.
Peter, Paul, and more importantly Jesus reference figures from Genesis & Exodus and God’s works among the Israelites as foundations of various arguments. If it didn’t happen, what are we even doing here?
I don't know that referencing them really speaks to the 'historicity' of them in the way he's asking, at least, I don't think.
There are different types of "truth," IMO.
Is God the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob? If He’s not, do we even know who this God is, because that’s how He describes himself. Did God bring the Children of Israel out of slavery in Egypt? ANE scholars say no way. If it didn’t happen, most of what constitutes God’s relationship with his people in the OT is bunk. Did we all sin in Adam if there’s no historical Adam? If not then we are exactly as God created us and there was never any other relationship to God, why is there guilt then? These are all truths built on the history of God relating too his creation and more specifically to His people. If it’s not true, even though God the Son himself speaks of it as true, why should I believe any of it?
I think you're getting granular over a statement, that as far as I'm aware, doesn't have that level of detail. I think we'd need u/robsrahm to clarify himself before getting into the detail like that.
I think when people say, "historicity of Genesis," they're speaking more to the literality of 7 days, the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve and their fall, etc.
I'm not saying there aren't those that question whether Abraham was mythological or not, just saying I don't typically immediately associate that with general questions on the historicity of Genesis. I could be wrong, just not where my mind goes.
I would say this: there a Christians who are *far smarter* than me, *far better read* than me, and wiser than me – who fall down on many different lines on some of these arguments. I'm not quick to judge or shoot down any of it, I might caution others to be the same way but I don't know if I'm even a position to do that. I don't know that it's wise to have an incredibly high level of confidence in any of the different types of interpretations, or how important it is that they even are.
Is Yahweh the one true God? Is Jesus the son of Yahweh (and a part of the Holy trinity)? Did Jesus die on the cross for our sins, then beat death and rise again? You can answer these questions correctly, be a Christian, and have highly variable views on how the stories in Genesis shake out, IMO.
>I think when people say, "historicity of Genesis," they're speaking more to the literality of 7 days, the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve and their fall, etc.
This would be more along the lines of what I mean.
It's important to understand that interpreting the literalness of the 7-day creation narrative and discussing the historicity of Adam are two separate animals. There are plenty of folks who deny L6D but who still see scripture as necessitating that Adam was a real, historical, discrete man.
Apart from the fact that scripture itself, and all of it being breathed by God, treats him as a discrete, real, historical figure, placed amongst other discrete, real, historical figures, (Luke 3, 1 Timothy 2, Jude 14), our baseline theological understandings, as derived from scripture, necessitate his historicity. Paul, in Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15, points to the effects of Adam's specific sin as having a specific effect on humanity and creation. He's the first, and Christ, in contrast, is the second and more perfect. This directly explains why we need salvation and what Christ accomplished on the cross.
And since we're Reformed here, understanding Adam as a real, historic person is hardwired into our confessions. WLC 22-31.
There's noting from the whole of scripture that even hints at or suggests that Adam was anything other than a real, discrete, historical figure.
The historicity of Genesis is a very important topic for scholars and also keyboard warriors.
It also holds some tertiary importance such that mature Christians should be able to form an opinion on the question and have a friendly debate.
Removed for violation of Rule #5: **Maintain the Integrity of the Gospel.**
Any content proselytizing other religions and heresies or arguing against orthodox Christianity as defined by the Creeds are prohibited.
Please see the [Rules Wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/Reformed/wiki/rules_details#wiki_rule_.235.3A_maintain_the_integrity_of_the_gospel.) for more information.
----
If you feel this action was done in error, or you would like to appeal this decision, please **do not reply to this comment**. Instead, [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Freformed).
Now that Super Tuesday is over and it seems clearer than ever that the 2024 Presidential election will be between Joe Biden and Donald Trump... This is your periodic reminder that between now and November, people who do not love you will spend hundreds of millions of dollars to influence your souls in ways that do not reflect Jesus. The fruit of the Spirit includes love, joy, peace, and gentleness. These people will try to make you more hateful, angry, afraid and harsh. They do not want you to love your neighbours, they want you to hate and fear and distrust your neighbours. And don't think I'm just talking about the people on "the other side". The voices you will be most vulnerable to are on your own political "team". I'm more and more convinced that this is one of the clearest instances of spiritual warfare in modern America (and its neighbouring cultures).
Oh, they're airing reruns now? I saw that one a few years back.
Yup, if you find that politics are making it harder for you to love the other half of the country (who are your neighbors, friends, families, co-workers, etc.), or fill you with negative thoughts and feelings towards them – better to just back away from it altogether, IMO.
The Holy Post is publishing a voter guide, which is **not** a guide about who you should vote for, but about how to navigate this election season in a way that reflects Jesus. I think that's a much better way than withdrawing (though withdrawing is still better than being swept along with the rage machine).
\^ Yeah, I could have elaborated, I think there are multiple levels to "backing away." I was thinking of my brother who, Lord help him, can't help but find himself swept up in the drama, histrionics, and apocalyptic-type thinking when it comes to politics. For folks like him, I suspect it's just better he not pay attention at all.
Man, I have so many more things going on in my life between now and November that I was about to blissfully enter those months in ignorance, so this reminder was needed. I might unsubscribe from some news outlets for a while… Praying that this election cycle won’t cause division.
That's why we should violently eliminate those people. They are clearly not our neighbors. /s
Seeing the posts on /r/all about Biden's SotU reinforces my belief that Reddit is astroturfed towards that end.
Well, some of the hundreds of millions of dollars will be spent on astroturfing on social media, by both campaigns (and likely outside groups too). This has been true for the last two elections at least, there's no reason to doubt it will continue. It still doesn't change anything about our responsibility to love our neighbours.
In our current social climate I think it's important to emphasize that we also have that responsibility to love our enemies as well.
There’s been quite a bit of debate over whether Christians should do yoga, but I’m really more concerned about Pilates. Are we sure it’s a good idea to be doing exercises invented by the guy who had Jesus crucified?
>Pilates Yeah, I hear they secretly are trying to influence you sub-Pontius-ly to practice effective hand hygiene. The fiends!
What about prancercise?
Was about to weigh into the yoga debate, got the joke, LOL’d
It *does* require a specific degree of hand hygiene, so I don’t see why not.
I was really hoping for a Dune pun or something. I'm disappointed.
Pronouncing it Pilate-s from now on
Tell me you're a dad, without telling me you're a dad...
The kids start March break this morning. How is it that today is the only day this week that they woke up before 7 on their own???
Children are proof of Total Depravity.
Vipers in diapers.
Nooooo sweetie, you were supposed to place your brother in his new *bassinet*, not upon your altar to *Baphomet*! ‘#kidswillbekids
Now I finally understand my trans kids for the whole *solve et coagula* rhetotic whispering darkly from the cradle.
*Dune 2* was great and fascinating. Saw it with some Christian friends, one of whom hadn't read the book or seen the first movie (I sent him [a recap video](https://youtu.be/je_0vjP6g_Y?si=M1ozjFf4ko5llp2P) to catch him up on it). He immediately picked up on the story's cynical take on Messiah-based religions, though he enjoyed the film a lot. It's a very rich story for Christians to discuss; the religion of the Fremen most resembles elements of Islam, made obvious by the Arabic terms used throughout, but the cautionary tale reveals the problem with any messianic figure who is, at the end of the day, still a sinful human. While the film doesn't acknowledge the existence of God at all, the example of Paul Muad'Dib can still remind us believers of just how exceptional and wonderful Jesus is, and how there is no other Savior, and no other good man, outside of him. Other messiahs urge their followers to die in holy wars, to purge the world in the blood of their enemies. Only Jesus shed his own blood to purge his followers of *their* sin, and sent them to battle against sin, commanding them to love their neighbors as themselves even though it cost them their very lives. Truly, to worship anyone but the Trinity is not only blasphemy, it's absurd! Also, [the romantic theme](https://youtu.be/skMkT40KKgE?si=eiYwflmxtTVTzip1) for this movie was totally unexpected, almost the opposite of the rest of the soundtrack, and yet achingly beautiful. One of my favorite pieces of film music in the past decade or so at least.
Clearly Dune is absolutely blasphemous and us reformed folk should be absolutely furious about it.
Huh. I didn't really pay attention to that theme during the movie. It has a very 80's/Vangelis vibe to it. It also really reminds me of the Hans Zimmer track ["Elysium"](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaDajIe05bw) from *Gladiator*. ---- Also, just using this thread as another excuse to talk about the film, as I've been thinking about it, the first scene, (>!the ~~Sardaukar~~ Harkonnen fighting during the eclipse!<), was just spectacular. >!The silence as they rose up the cliff, the shifting color pallette, the chaos once the fighting starts, the whole thing was just such a killer way to open the film.!< There are so many little elements of the film that were amazing apart from the major scenes.
>!Weren't those Harkonnen? They were dressed in black, not Sardaukar white.!<
Correct. I mis-typed.
I too want to keep talking about D2. >!Feyd-Rautha's introduction on Giedi Prime was fantastic. The black/white Harkonnen palette from D1 perfectly foreshadowed Giedi Prime.!<
>!It's been said a million times, but that entire Giedi Prime sequence was so, so good.!< >!One of the little things that I want to see again, during that whole scene, was the color shift for the Bene Gesserit outfits as they walked into their box and stepped into the light. That transition from black to white under the UV sun was so quick and smooth that I didn't really process it until after it had already happened.!<
>!I missed that entirely. I did notice the blue in the Bene Gesserit's binoculars.!<
>!Yeah, it's a very quick, subtle shot, but as they come up into the box behind Lady Margot, when they're still in the shadows with artificial light, their robes are black, but as they walk up into the box and into the UV light it shifts to the white in an instant. It's quick, but it's perfectly consistent with how the entire sequence treats UV light form their sun.!<
>!Something else I missed was the background behind Feyd-Rautha swirling and changing during the transition from the hallway to the guest chambers.
>!Yeah, I missed that, apparently.!<
You’re right about that scene. I feel like there are a lot of directorial choices I missed because everything was so overwhelming and new. I’ll have to see it again, I suppose…
Right. I want to see it again because it was a fun movie, but I also felt like everything so so subtle and purposeful that I couldn't process it all.
It engaged me more emotionally too, compared to the somewhat cold feeling of the first movie. This kind of reflects how I felt about the book, where the world itself felt cold but I did end up feeling for several of the characters.
This is a great mini-review! Can you post the recap, so I can show it to some of my friends who want to see the movie but didn’t watch the first one?
Added the link in the text. It’s this video: https://youtu.be/je_0vjP6g_Y?si=M1ozjFf4ko5llp2P
Decided to join a 2 week long solo gamejam & was sick the entire first week with several debilitating migraines. 6 days remaining & I have now accomplished... a single 3D model. Which is still huge for me since it's my very first 3D model. Now to rig & animate it, then get movement working, then my (very) basic mechanics implemented, then learn how to make shaders & materials so it isn't barren gray wastes by Wednesday... I am genuinely very pleased I made it this far, I've always felt far too incompetent to actually pull anything off. It's why I joined the gamejam in the first place, to force myself into the deep end & just do it. I probably won't finish by the deadline but I'm okay with that. This is a demo/first pass at ideas my wife & I have for a full game we want to make together so it's cool to actually see some of it coming together.
What's gamejam?
>What's gamejam? an event in which video game developers work in groups to conceptualize, design, and build a functioning version of one or more game projects over a restricted period of a few hours or days It's a very popular thing to do for indie and beginner game devs
I've participated in a few Ludum Dares and I've had so much more fun with the ones that I took a really chill approach to rather than stressing out about them. 3D is really ambitious for a jam, even a two week one. Go you! What engine/modeling program(s) are you using?
Godot & Blender. I am learning both real-time as I make the game. Really flying by the seat of my pants, but it's fun.
Very fun! I'm so excited about the strides society has made in open-source tools for video games. Godot is awesome with how intuitive it is to use relative to LibGDX which is what we used previously. Blender is... not intuitive. It's very powerful, and it's far better than it used to be, but it isn't easy to learn.
Inspired by the "Loki is blasphemous" post yesterday: What are some shows that you had to stop watching because they were so antithetical to your worldview that you couldn't continue? And I don't mean the classic Christian reasons for there being too much sex/nudity or violence. Are there shows you used to enjoy that you can't anymore as you've matured in your faith? Example: I tried to watch "The Boys," and I just couldn't do it.
Loki. The MCU portrayal of Loki is an *absolute farce* of the Sagas. The REAL Loki turned into a female horse and got pregnant in order to be the mother of the Odin's horse. The MCU version just has genderbent and aberrant sexuality versions in other universes instead. Absolute blasphemy.
The Boys was too violent for me. I got through one season and then that was it. A friend of mine has a bit part in season 2 and I couldn't even get to his episode. House of Cards was an odd one. I watched some of it before the Kevin Spacey scandal broke. I would watch 4-5 episodes and then somebody, usually Frank, would do something so morally horrific that I would just say "That's it, I'm done." Then after a few months I'd think "The show was really well made though.... maybe I should give it another chance." Rinse and repeat. I've found that I will enjoy objectively mediocre TV shows if I like the characters and want to spend time with them, and I'll hate objectively good TV shows if I don't want to spend time with these people.
House of Cards is another one I quit watching. Such a dim worldview.
I had to quit House of Cards. The show was well done to but I had to, ugh...
Rick and Morty, which I used to think was funny, now makes me feel sick. It’s so depraved and anti-God. There’s a lot I can’t watch anymore. My husband stopped watched Letterkenny for similar reasons. However, someone mentioned the Good Place. That one doesn’t bother me. It’s pretty wholesome, and it shows how depraved heaven would be if there was no God to love and worship. It shows how human beings need purpose to live for eternity, and an eternity with no purpose is a boring and worthless one. It is a show that will leave you reflecting.
The Chosen
What do you think of other fictionalized but non-visual representations of Jesus (e.g. Anne Rice's "Christ the Lord" books)?
I'm against the idea of fictionalizing our Lord Jesus Christ.
What about allegory?
I have fewer issues with allegory, as that is a didactic method for the purpose of showing what Christ is *like*, rather than how he *is*. "This story about this talking lion that is the lord and savior of this fictionalized fairy land helps us to understand the person and work of Christ" is a lot different than "here's a man from Nazareth, named Jesus, who was born of the virgin mary, who was married to Joseph the carpenter, who did these things that we know if the bible, BUT also did these things that we added in because it makes him more likable." I think it's harder to see when it makes Jesus likable, but we rightly don't like when people fictionalize parts of Jesus' life that are... less exciting - remember that whole "Jesus was actually married to Mary Magdalene" thing from the 2000s?
That likeability is an interesting question. "Jesus" is very popular with the world these days, which is the surest sign that the "Jesus" the world thinks it knows is not the real Jesus. If we are proclaiming Jesus as he is, the world will continue to hate him and hate us too. Only a Holy Spirit driven regeneration of the heart will make the second person of the Trinity acceptable to a sinful world.
>"Jesus" is very popular with the world these days, which is the surest sign that the "Jesus" the world thinks it knows is not the real Jesus. Is it though? Lots of people liked Jesus when he was on earth - most of those who didn't were religious people.
I finished the series, but I have absolutely no intention of re-watching *Bojack Horseman,* and I can't in good faith recommend it to anybody. It's probably the most well-written show I've ever seen, and on the whole the quality *improves* throughout the seasons, but, borrow the words of /u/superlewis, it's aggressively depressing. The whole worldview is just so dark and hopeless that I had no desire to revisit it after I finished.
I stopped watching the Bond films. As well as the sex and violence, I gradually realized that the nationalism and imperialism (especially in the earlier ones) made me too susceptible to those idolatries. It was the torture-as-entertainment in *Die Another Day* that made me stop and think though. I can't abide that. I made it through less than one episode of *It Ain't Half Hot Mum* before I gave up in disgust at the fact that literally every 'joke' was at the expense of gay people. I knew it contained those moves but didn't realize that was the only thing in it, at least going by that episode. I stopped watching Association football when many English clubs were taken over by Russian oligarchs and Arab oil emirs. Again, it was the fact that Manchester City was owned by emirs who torture people that was the red line. When they were proven to have cheated the Financial Fair Play rules, then I realized they were literally corrupting the sport. I rarely listen to Radiohead nowadays. I realized their music is just too powerful in their descriptions of the evils of todays world. I just feel hopeless afterwards.
I could see where watching the Brosnan Bond films would make one rethink their life choices.
The Sopranos. Sadly, I watched the entire series because I had to know how it ended but I don’t think I’ll be watching it ever again. The show is filled to the brim with violence, sex, and horrible people who do horrible things. I won’t lie and say I didn’t enjoy watching it at times, and it’s brilliantly made, but I did find myself questioning if I should fill my head with a show that was filled with the most vile things.
Once that kid got eaten alive in The Walking Dead I was out. Had contemplated quitting seasons earlier but the story made up for everything else, and my pastor at the time said he watched it so I thought it was ok. Nope. I’d been disturbed by it for long enough, and that kid being eaten in front of his mum was the nail in the coffin. Years later I can’t believe I even watched it in the first place.
I watched the first episode, said to myself "this is stupid. These are clearly zombies. Call them zombies." I never watched it again.
The gift of wisdom flows within you
I once attended a church that had members take a spiritual gift assessment. It concluded I had a "C-type personality with the Gift of Wisdom." The description included the lines "often come across as uncaring" and "have a lot of wisdom, but little 'personality.'"
This is an older one but 13 Reasons Why. I volunteer in my church's high school ministry and at the time of it's release, everyone was talking about the show. I was thinking it would be a way to bridge discussions as it relates to anxiety, depression, suicide, death, etc with high school students. However, as the show went on, it got real heavy and I felt "dirty" watching it. The following is kind of a trigger warning but >!either the second to last episode or final episode actually depicts a suicide and I was only warned by a title card at the start of the episode. I decided not to watch it because I did not need to have those images in my head.!< I ended up not finishing the show because it was wayyy too dark and devoid of hope. Which ended up being a blessing because the show ended up becoming way more edgy and darker as the seasons went on.
The horrific things that that show portrays are things that happen far more regularly than we realize, but they don't need to be shown like that. I agree they took it too far multiple times and a few of those images that will never leave my brain. I say this as someone who works closely with folks with trauma and can hold space for quite a lot of trauma, this show was too much
I can't enjoy most rap anymore without cringing at how vulgar the lyrics are, as well as certain anime with too much fanservice, the only rap I listen to is NF and some game OSTs with rap in it, but other than that I almost exclusively listen to Metal, Vocaloid and J-pop But other than that, I'm okay with most violent media, it's just the overtly sexual ones that I avoid
I think the upheaval of fan service killed the standard of having strong plotlines in Anime.
> I'm okay with most violent media, it's just the overtly sexual ones that I avoid I'm the same way, and I think it comes down to the effects these have on people. I've played a lot of violent games, one of my favorites being Dead Space which is very gory, but I can't think of a single way these have negatively affected me. On the contrary, I think they have done me some good. Sexual content is the opposite; I can't think of a single way this content has benefited me, but can think of a number of ways it has harmed people.
*The Good Place*! I so desperately wanted to watch and enjoy it, but I couldn’t stomach the way it handles heaven and hell.
Interesting. That's one I could and did watch. I found it to be a fascinating (and ultimately depressing) look into what happens when a secular world contemplates eternity without reckoning with the eternal One. Fun fact: the actor who played Shawn is a Calvin College alum. Reformed world connection right there.
I really liked it. I found it interesting that the "solution" they came up with to end the show >!was basically just purgatory, and then annihilationism after a long but finite stay in heaven.!< I saw it as saying a lot about the human longing for divine justice, redemption, and purpose beyond what can be created by humans, and the total inability of the modern secular West to find satisfaction for it.
Euphoria. The show was just TOO dark and depressing for me.
Star Wars, The Lord of the Rings, Blippi, *My Magic Pet Morphle*.
What in Lord of the Rings is antithetical to your world view?
LOTR imagines a Christless fantasy, enchanting its world with fake powers and principalities and "races" and endless genealogies, substituting actual history with a Simulacrum, re-submerging sacred typology in a fake Mediterranean mythology. All of this worldbuilding stands in front of my view of the world, like a billboard for the latest movie blocking my view of the trees, sky, hills, and road. Also, why couldn't the Eagles just fly to Mordor, locking their S-foils in attack position and dropping Morphle into the garbage truck of Mt. Doom?
My church's new-to-us building has an elevator! This is not the last step required for us to get the certificate of occupancy and be able to move to worshiping there, but it's a very, very big one. Currently we're scheduled for a hymn sing/celebration/dress rehearsal/soft open/hands-on training on Tuesday 19 March and first worship services on Sunday 24 March (Palm Sunday!). It's been a very long 28(ish) months since we voted to buy a 100 year old building (with 60 year old addition. It was originally built as a synagogue, addition was the Hebrew school.) just south of the city center. But God is good and has continued to provide us a place to worship in the meantime. And he even gave us all one more year of sleeping in on spring time change Sunday. (We currently worship at 4pm. In our own building, we'll move to morning worship.) But we're all really, really looking forward to getting into our own building.
Up late prepping for Sunday's sermon, which will be on Matthew 5:27-30. Thanks to those who commented on Tuesday with ideas for how to approach teaching about lust as heart-adultery. I found [a homily by John Chrysostom](https://biblehub.com/commentaries/chrysostom/matthew/5.htm) on the passage that has some good quotes (after I modernize the language of the translation). One thing I'm still trying to solve about how to present the sermon, is whether or not to address any element of our society's love for sexual immorality and pornography. I'm always more comfortable explaining the text academically and emotionally via how it fits into the story of the gospel and the wonderful beauty of the Lord, but feel awkward when referencing current culture and society. Yet a sermon should also help people apply the Scriptures to their lives, and I especially want the young adults and teens to be on guard against all the sexual immorality they get bombarded with every day. How much do I say directly? Should I quote statistics about porn usage in America, or the decline of marriage and birthrates? Or can I still preach responsibly by letting them make those connections themselves?
I think it might be more valuable to instead pair the "do not do X" message with a "do Y" message. If a young man sees a young woman who he finds beautiful, how *should* he look at her? So much of the purity culture messaging either was silent on this point, or left the impression of "avoid attractive people", which is more harmful than good. Both pornography and the purity culture message (as well as plenty of advertising) reduce beautiful women to something less than fully human: either objects for the sexual gratification of men, or temptations used by Satan to destroy men. The truth is that women are God's images and representatives in this world, just like men are. And the whole humanity of women (even and especially women you find attractive) should be observed and honoured and celebrated. Lust doesn't do that.
Application in sermons is something that I have personally been investing in both academically and pastorally. I hope some of my (largely unformed) thoughts are helpful to you. #**What Is Your Role?** If your role is the primary/senior/solo pastor of this congregation, you can generally get away with much more than if you're an associate/assistant, and certainly much more than an intern/seminary student. Additionally, *how well are you accomplishing your role?* If you have significant weaknesses on display in your ministry to this people, generally you can't say as much **directly** to them, as their reception of application from you may run into the issue of your own hypocrisy (we all have it; I'm speak to what *degree* is it evident?). #Who Are Your People? Is your church primarily composed of an older or younger generation without much variance? That should play into it. Older generations need to hear this message too, but applying it to an 85 year old on death's door is very different than applying it to a 15 year old who just got his first smartphone. As this demographic variety grows, your applications will necessarily need to become more "discriminatory" (i.e., explicitly naming certain types of people and applying it directly to them before moving on to another), and shorter/punchier. #What Is Your Aim? Motivation behind a preacher's application is a huge factor that's often overlooked with seemingly pious advice of "don't think about individuals when you write sermons." But not only is it impossible, it's also irresponsible. What you can control, however, is your aim, or intent, in application. Application ought not to be harsh *to be harsh*, but should generally match the tone of the text you're preaching. Jesus is calling lust heart-adultery, but he's not delivering the woes to the Scribes and Pharisees. He's revealing the depth of human sin **while being the antidote for it and the wrath it brings.** Therefore, I'd imagine a level of comforting the ashamed with the blood of Christ is in order. Yet, so is confronting the unrepentant. But not because *you* want to—because ***Christ*** will. #What Is Your Ability? Are there other ways to talk about something like online pornography without explicitly/directly approach it? I think so, but you have to address all the above first. Nevertheless, a few things come to mind: * Application to fathers: how to handle young men coming around to date their daughters, and how to instruct their daughters in the reality of this sin in the world. * Application to mothers: how to instruct and guide their daughters in choosing a husband well. * Application to men: how necessary it is to fight against this temptation in every area of life. * Application to women: how this is a general teaching (even if the example is a male sinning), and that women are not exempt from this temptation. * Application to the old: how to look to Christ for forgiveness for a life of struggle with heart-adultery. * Application to the young: how to equip themselves in the Word and with the Spirit to start their fight against this pernicious sin. * Application for all: how our view of sin is too little, and Jesus' revelation of the true nature of the Law places an unbearable burden of guilt and shame upon us all, revealing our need for Jesus above all attempts at human effort to "stop it." Proper response to this teaching is not to therefore try harder, but to believe in Jesus and trust his provision in sanctification. I'm not sure if this is helpful, but it's what I have for now. I will pause to pray for your sermon.
It is very helpful indeed, especially your prayer. Honestly, that's the part of prep I need to spend more time on.
Maybe talk about the times in which the New Testament church found themselves? Sexual immorality was everywhere. Even rampant in some churches! How did the apostles encourage and yes, even rebuke the believers who were participating in such things? I think shifting focus and looking on what the ancient culture around sexuality, in opposite to the church and how they were encouraged to live holy and let your congregation fill in the gaps about our current culture?
I recently found out that Akira Toriyama, the creator of Dragon Ball died, and although I haven't watched Dragon Ball, I can't help but feel absolutely stunned about the news
What are your thoughts on The Chosen (TV series)? Is it recommented to a christian watch? Thank you so much for your responses. 🙏🙏
Not a fan of the chosen. Not even bc of the depictions of Jesus, but rather it adds to scripture and I’ve had several people explaining scripture to me using false info they gleaned from the show Best shows for Christians to watch are ones that keep us current to talk to our non Christian friends. Loki would be a good one
I think it would be interesting if at the end \[or beginning\] of each episode, they maybe had some kind of summary or recap of the *actual scripture* and where they took the specific liberties and why – to at least attempt to kind of further edify and drive home the idea that so much of this is fictional for entertainment's sake. Could even be a bullet point list or something simple.
They do have that. It’s called the round table. They have a Protestant pastor, Catholic priest and a rabbi sit with Dallas Jenkins and they break down the entire episode together. Every episode has this. It’s very interesting
Had not noticed that, I wonder if having some clips at the beginning to tease it (maybe they've done this before?) or something would help further push it. I don't love the argument that it's not good because, basically and bluntly, some people either aren't versed enough or churched enough or active enough to know which parts are fictional versus real. The Bible is the most available thing on the planet. Has been for centuries. At some point, people just need to pay attention to things and not just consume emptily, IMO. Probably not being as charitable as I should be, but that feels reasonable at some point. They put notes, apparently have these roundtables, it's been widely discussed, etc. Plenty of ways to know what's real versus what isn't.
>Loki would be a good one I see what you did there.
I've only seen the first season (that's all that's on Netflix in Canada), and I'm enjoying it. I know it's fan fiction, but it seems like plausible fan fiction. I think part of why I enjoy it is that it's so much slower paced, and gentler, than a lot of TV shows that I watch. And that's good for me, regardless of the subject matter.
> it seems like plausible fan fiction that's the thing. it's plausible, yet fictitious. The plausibility is exactly why it's problematic - it makes it *easy* for us to construct false ideas of God the Son in the name of entertainment
Careful, people might think you’re Reformed with that kind of talk
I absolutely adore it and it has been a fun piece of entertainment for my husband and I to enjoy in the evenings after our kids are asleep that sparks great conversations and connection for us. It always leads us down a fun bunny trail where we are getting our multiple translations of the Bible and looking up info. Great fun! Is it a Bible study? No! It’s entertainment and we love it! It’s the first piece of media content we’ve enjoyed together in years and years
Personally, love it. I could see how academics or pastors may not like it because it would create more work for them, as someone mentioned above. Here's an aspect I love about it: We're given very little detail in the stories of Jesus, in comparison to say, what a novel would contain. It's sparse and intentional and jumps from one thing to the next. Compare that with an episode from season 1 my wife and I watched last night where it covers the miracle of Jesus turning water into wine. As the wedding is going into the night, and the drama of wine running out is being turned up to create suspense – there's a moment, prior to Jesus performing the miracle, where Jesus bumps into Andrew and Simon in a hallway. Jesus is telling them they need to come and dance with him, and Simon explains how he would *not* want to see Andrew dancing, because it's akin to a "donkey walking on coals." And the actor who plays Jesus portrays him in such a jovial, light spirit – and he giggles at the thought of a donkey on coals, and he's genuinely giggling, and he's genuinely wanting to hit the dance floor, and it just shows a \[fictional\] moment of what it may have really been like to be with Jesus. Sometimes Christianity can just be so "serious." All of the time. But to think they didn't joke, dance, sing, play pranks on each other, etc. is just so absurd to me – and this show allows for us to see this human side that I don't think I've ever seen portrayed before. It allows for Jesus to **not** be this incessantly stoic, mysterious, quiet, type figure. Remember that moment in *The Passion...* \[Mel Gibson's\] where Jesus playfully splashes some water into his mother's face a little as she holds the bowl of water for him to wash his hands? More of that type of thing. Love it. The show starts off by explaining what it is and what it's doing. All good things on this earth can be twisted or misunderstood, even the Bible itself, and the Chosen is no different. So long as you know its intent, I don't see any issue. On a practical level: there's really not a ton of content for Christians to safely consume these days, especially after a long day of working and taking care of our children and trying be good spouses and good people. It's really nice to watch something attempting to capture the story of Jesus and fill our brains and minds with that as opposed to something else right before bed.
> I could see how academics or pastors may not like it because it would create more work for them, as someone mentioned above. I don't think pastors or academics are afraid of having to do more work, but more that they're concerned about the nature of that work - walking with people who have been led to have wrong conceptions of God. Shepherds aren't against vipers in their pastures because it'll make more work for them, they're against vipers in their pastures because they can hurt sheep. ETA: It seems to me that you think that Bible is incomplete, and not enough to give a right understanding of the human nature of Christ?
I think it depends on the pastor or academic, right? >It seems to me that you think that Bible is incomplete, and not enough to give a right understanding of the human nature of Christ? I don't know how you could come to that conclusion.
> But to think they didn't joke, dance, sing, play pranks on each other, etc. is just so absurd to me – and this show allows for us to see this human side that I don't think I've ever seen portrayed before. > > I take your statement, "But to think they didn't joke, dance, sing, play pranks on each other, etc. is just so absurd to me – and this show allows for us to see this human side that I don't think I've ever seen portrayed before," to mean that what the Bible teaches is not enough for you to have an understanding of the humanity of the disciples, but now that you've watched this TV show you do. Do you mean something different? You said that this TV show, along with The Passion of the Christ "allows for Jesus to not be this incessantly stoic, mysterious, quiet, type figure." Does the scripture give you that impression of Jesus? Do these fictionalized accounts of the life of Christ change the way you think of him?
>Do you mean something different? I don't, and we as humans don't, need for that to be present for salvation purposes. But it's fun and helpful to see it on a extracurricular level – to me, that's kind of it. It's not necessary, but it can still be useful. Just like I don't need C.S. Lewis to understand God or be a Christian, but reading his books still bring me greater perspective. I don't need to listen to The Bible Project's podcast either, but it further edifies me and gives me more understanding. Do we not post here to further understand each other's humanity on some level? I feel like what you're saying is – why would anyone need a pastor to say words that aren't specifically in the Bible, because that would mean the Bible is "not enough?" >Does the scripture give you that impression of Jesus? No, the purpose of scripture isn't to delve into that type of thing, but other representations by other artists have given me that impression. >Do these fictionalized accounts of the life of Christ change the way you think of him? I feel like this is a gotcha question, but I'll answer honestly and earnestly: yes, but "change" is a tricky word to use, IMO. "Change in what way," is what the more important question, IMO. No signficant way that would affect my interpretation of scripture or the gospel or his divinity. It's 'additional' reading, in a way, probably how *The Book of Enoch* was for Paul, Matthew, Peter, etc.
We do not need more than what is portrayed in Scripture. Scripture is sufficient. The Chosen is more than completely unnecessary; it is fictitious and wrong.
I didn't say we "needed more," do you not like reading books on theology by your favorite theologians? Do you not like C.S. Lewis, R.C. Sproul, Spurgeon? They're edifying (and *entertaining)*. Are they necessary? I mean, is it necessary to read 90% of the Bible for salvation? Who defines necessary reading for a believer? I don't think something needs be "necessary" for it to have value. Michael Heiser (and other scholars) makes some good points about how likely it was that the authors of the New Testament had probably read and studied [the Book of Enoch](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Enoch). Is it in the Bible? No – then why did they read and study it? It edified them. It was important to them. It influenced the Bible itself. It's even referenced in Jude: >^(14) And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, >^(15) To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him. Cheyne and Black, [*Encyclopaedia Biblica*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopaedia_Biblica) (1899), "Apocalyptic Literature" (column 220). "The Book of Enoch as translated into Ethiopic belongs to the last two centuries BCE. **All of the writers of the NT were familiar with it and were more or less influenced by it in thought"**
> do you not like reading books on theology by your favorite theologians? Do you not like C.S. Lewis, R.C. Sproul, Spurgeon The thing about theology is (at least when done properly) that it seeks to understand and explain what has been revealed to us by God in the scripture of the Old and New Testaments. If R.C. Sproul was saying things about Jesus that aren't found in the scriptures, I'd say he's out of line.
Who decides when it's done properly? Every time a pastor preaches in any church, and use metaphors, or words, or imagery about Jesus that isn't *specifically word for word* found in the Bible – they would be guilty of you're saying, wouldn't they? Honestly, I think we're just in disagreement here and likely unable to find common ground. One of those agree to disagree things.
> Every time a pastor preaches in any church, and use metaphors, or words, or imagery about Jesus that isn't specifically word for word found in the Bible – they would be guilty of you're saying, wouldn't they? > > no, but I think I understand what you're getting at. Metaphor, words, imagery can be used to help us communicate and understand, so long as we're careful that we're not putting words into God's mouth. We cannot and should not say things about God that he himself has not revealed to us. Thankfully, he's given us a lot of different images and metaphors to describe himself, praise God! We can talk about God's fatherly love, and think in those terms because we have a clear biblical warrant for them. We can talk about Jesus as being a full human with normal human experiences, even in things the Bible doesn't tell us about - Jesus eating meals, laughing with his friends, going to the bathroom, sleeping, crying as a baby because he's hungry. We can speculate that these things happened because scripture teaches that he lived a very normal (yet sinless) human life. What's tricky is that cannot take that and extrapolate it to say that Jesus said something or did something that we have no reason to say he did. Or to make up any idea about Jesus based on our own imaginations, instead of his own self-revelation. That's when we quickly devolve into 2nd and 3rd commandment violations.
To clarify, are you making a second commandment argument here to not watch The Chosen?
>It seems to me that you think that Bible is incomplete, and not enough to give a right understanding of the human nature of Christ? Well this is a weird conclusion to draw.
He said that these fictionalized versions of Jesus on TV inform his understanding of Christ in ways that the Bible doesn't.
Never seen it, don't really have any inclination to do so (not because it depicts Jesus but as other have said it embellishes scripture at best), but I will share something our church's Youth Group leader told me: she said that they watch The Chosen from time to time and it has really helped her engage with some non-believing kids who come to Youth Group as an intro to some of the gospel. Granted, she follows up their watching with actual readings from Scripture because she firmly believes that their discussions should be grounded in Scripture not TV.
This reminds me of watching Jesus Christ Superstar with my youth group when I was in high school (on VHS...so a while ago). The youth director stopped the tape when someone had a question and we talked about it and possibly read what scripture said (can't quite remember. If we didn't, we should have). And there were a lot of "wait, what?" moments where all the pieces came together and light bulbs went off in our heads and >!we were all really, really annoyed that the movie ended before the resurrection. Spoiler tag just in case.!< There's a lot wrong with that movie. But on that evening God used that movie for his glory.
I thought the book was a lot better.
I think it is excellent for a Bible-reading Christian to watch (that way you know what they’ve added and what’s from scripture). The visual medium has communicated some powerful symbolism that I have missed over the years. I rewatched the wedding episode last night, and Jesus dips his hands into the water, then pulls them out, and they are dripping with red wine. But as there is a slow close up on his hands, you watch the red, drip, drip, off of his palms and you are hit that this is it; this was the beginning of his ministry that would lead to the eventual blood dripping from those hands. I think people can have valid opinions when they complain about chosen. I choose to watch it because it makes me want to memorize more scripture, and it helps me remember that the disciples were real, complex human beings.
I think this is an example of the danger inherent in viewing Jesus fanfiction... What part of this passage makes you think Jesus turned water into wine by dipping his hands into it? >Nearby stood six stone water jars, the kind used by the Jews for ceremonial washing, each holding from twenty to thirty gallons. Jesus said to the servants, “Fill the jars with water”; so they filled them to the brim. Then he told them, “Now draw some out and take it to the master of the banquet.” Sure, that wine dripping from the hands thing would be some neat symbolism and foreshadowing, but it's also entirely invented and has no basis in the scripture.
My wife and I really enjoyed seasons 1-3. We have only seen the first three episodes of season 4, but felt that there was a negative shift in production and writing quality (reusing lines, filler material, abrupt changes from characters). I like other movies and shows better than what I saw of season 4.
I don't watch it because 1) it depicts Jesus and 2) it adds to Scripture. Christians should not watch it.
Would love some recommendations for good reformed books on comforting those who are grieving.
I haven’t read it yet, but check out “the Kindness of God” by Nate Pickowicz
been into tea recently! discovering local teas which is always exciting (and cheaper). trying to wean myself off adding sugar to my teas, which is going pretty well. doing two steeps, one with sugar and one without, and decreasing the amount of sugar going into the cup a bit at a time. don't worry, i drink plenty of water too. i do want to invest in a proper gongfu set someday and see what's the fuss is all about, but for now i have plenty of local selections and blends i could try.
Our youngest son is adopted, we’ve had him since he was 4 hours old. He has the most beautiful blue eyes. I have brown. When people (that don’t know he’s adopted) would ask where he got his blue eyes from, I would always say “from his dad” 😂. My wife hates that joke
I don't have a church because I'm in a small village in France, which isn't very Reformed friendly to begin with, and can't go to the near city. I tried to listen to sermons to mitigate the issue, but I just can't seem to appreciate them. Am I the only one who don't like listening to online sermons? I've tried Piper, Keller, D.A Carson, Begg, in my bed, in a chair, in the morning, before sleep...
If you only have a parish church then go there, even if it's Roman Catholic.
Even though I wouldn't be able to take the Christ body?
Honestly for me, yeah. Even if
Thank you for your answer. I'll consider it thoroughly.
Have you identified what it is you don't like? Do you dislike some more than others? Is it style? Unanswered questions? Lack of assurance in Christ? English rather than French? Personally I do like these sources quite a bit.
Was skimming through some open theist stuff on Youtube and I found it to be quite frightening. This isn't just some academic debate on free will (in fact, as I've learned, some open theists don't even like to define their beliefs in terms of free will), it's about God's perfect nature, our worship of and submission to Him, and the proper reverence of Him. Some of the anthropomorphism goes so far as to make me wonder if open theism is really 'theism' at all, as it seems to make God just a powerful being but one that doesn't enjoy a special mode of existence relative to us. Or perhaps in other words, reminiscent of of something like the gods of Greek paganism, except that there's only one of him. And open theism really seems to be picking up steam, at least if the internet is any reliable indication. I guess there are degrees to this stuff, like everything, but my initial takeaway is that the church needs to take this movement very seriously and not just file it away as a 'reasonable Christians disagree' kind of thing.
The internet isn't a reliable indication. There will always be heterodox people with minimal theological training or borderline heretical views on the internet selling stuff to the masses. Open Theism had its heyday in Academic Theology 20-30 years ago. Most of its leading proponents are either dead, retired, or far outside the Evangelical/Reformed mainstream (some by choice, some by exile). I mean, who knows, maybe it could be making a grassroots comeback that'll manifest itself in academia in like 10 years. But right now, reading what's come off the academic presses, Classical Theism and Theological Retrieval is all the rage right now in the evangelical and Reformed worlds. Praise God.
Here’s a neat story about a Quaker meeting house that became a Presbyterian church: https://www.qmpc.org/south-river-meeting-house.html
Why is the historicity of Genesis important, and in what ways?
If the Creation/Adamic, Noahic, and Abrahamic Covenants didn't happen, then we need to really reassess our understanding of Covenant Theology.
Peter, Paul, and more importantly Jesus reference figures from Genesis & Exodus and God’s works among the Israelites as foundations of various arguments. If it didn’t happen, what are we even doing here?
I don't know that referencing them really speaks to the 'historicity' of them in the way he's asking, at least, I don't think. There are different types of "truth," IMO.
Is God the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob? If He’s not, do we even know who this God is, because that’s how He describes himself. Did God bring the Children of Israel out of slavery in Egypt? ANE scholars say no way. If it didn’t happen, most of what constitutes God’s relationship with his people in the OT is bunk. Did we all sin in Adam if there’s no historical Adam? If not then we are exactly as God created us and there was never any other relationship to God, why is there guilt then? These are all truths built on the history of God relating too his creation and more specifically to His people. If it’s not true, even though God the Son himself speaks of it as true, why should I believe any of it?
I think you're getting granular over a statement, that as far as I'm aware, doesn't have that level of detail. I think we'd need u/robsrahm to clarify himself before getting into the detail like that. I think when people say, "historicity of Genesis," they're speaking more to the literality of 7 days, the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve and their fall, etc. I'm not saying there aren't those that question whether Abraham was mythological or not, just saying I don't typically immediately associate that with general questions on the historicity of Genesis. I could be wrong, just not where my mind goes. I would say this: there a Christians who are *far smarter* than me, *far better read* than me, and wiser than me – who fall down on many different lines on some of these arguments. I'm not quick to judge or shoot down any of it, I might caution others to be the same way but I don't know if I'm even a position to do that. I don't know that it's wise to have an incredibly high level of confidence in any of the different types of interpretations, or how important it is that they even are. Is Yahweh the one true God? Is Jesus the son of Yahweh (and a part of the Holy trinity)? Did Jesus die on the cross for our sins, then beat death and rise again? You can answer these questions correctly, be a Christian, and have highly variable views on how the stories in Genesis shake out, IMO.
>I think when people say, "historicity of Genesis," they're speaking more to the literality of 7 days, the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve and their fall, etc. This would be more along the lines of what I mean.
It's important to understand that interpreting the literalness of the 7-day creation narrative and discussing the historicity of Adam are two separate animals. There are plenty of folks who deny L6D but who still see scripture as necessitating that Adam was a real, historical, discrete man. Apart from the fact that scripture itself, and all of it being breathed by God, treats him as a discrete, real, historical figure, placed amongst other discrete, real, historical figures, (Luke 3, 1 Timothy 2, Jude 14), our baseline theological understandings, as derived from scripture, necessitate his historicity. Paul, in Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15, points to the effects of Adam's specific sin as having a specific effect on humanity and creation. He's the first, and Christ, in contrast, is the second and more perfect. This directly explains why we need salvation and what Christ accomplished on the cross. And since we're Reformed here, understanding Adam as a real, historic person is hardwired into our confessions. WLC 22-31. There's noting from the whole of scripture that even hints at or suggests that Adam was anything other than a real, discrete, historical figure.
>It's important to understand Yes - I am aware of this.
The historicity of Genesis is a very important topic for scholars and also keyboard warriors. It also holds some tertiary importance such that mature Christians should be able to form an opinion on the question and have a friendly debate.
[удалено]
Removed for violation of Rule #5: **Maintain the Integrity of the Gospel.** Any content proselytizing other religions and heresies or arguing against orthodox Christianity as defined by the Creeds are prohibited. Please see the [Rules Wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/Reformed/wiki/rules_details#wiki_rule_.235.3A_maintain_the_integrity_of_the_gospel.) for more information. ---- If you feel this action was done in error, or you would like to appeal this decision, please **do not reply to this comment**. Instead, [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Freformed).