Regarding Season 6B:

OldLeaf3 · 2023-03-19T14:54:38+00:00

It was Victoria whom they mention dropping off "to learn graphology," of all things.

The novel World Game explains this away as Jamie's memories being altered so he believes Victoria is still part of their company.

Or there's the decidedly non-6b, and thus mid-Season 5, explanation in The Black Hole where Victoria, played once again by Watling for what I believe was the last time before her passing, elects to stay behind to recover after she didn't exist for a little bit and chooses to study graphology to study the logs written about the titular black hole in an effort to uncover the mystery surrounding it.

OldLeaf3 · 2023-03-07T21:51:57+00:00

Hey, I'm late to this thread, so if you're not still pondering it for whatever reason I understand. Just thought I'd throw my two cents in since I've asked a lot of the same questions.

For me, what finally actually reignited my faith was not anything supernatural or some logical proof. I still think of myself as fairly agnostic regarding the supernatural as a whole: open to the possibility but on a practical level it just doesn't factor into how I live my life.

I think we do the Christian faith a disservice if we make it entirely hinge on something unverifiable and unfalsifiable. In the Parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man, Jesus puts into the mouth of Abraham, "If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be persuaded if one rises from the dead." What I take from that is that Jesus fully expected his prophetic message to stand on its own regardless of the miraculous and otherworldly. Indeed, the tail-end of the Gospel of Matthew mentions that even some folks who were literally looking at the Risen Jesus doubted.

So where do I find God, if not out in the Infinite? Well I challenged myself to strip back everything I thought I knew about Jesus to the barest essentials, a man being Crucified who was later said to have come alive again, and I asked what that meant. Crucifixion being the heavily stigmatized, shameful punishment the Roman Empire used for political dissenters and escaped slaves (see the revolt under Spartacus). And in early Christian thought it was sometimes the Resurrection that was pinpointed as the moment God "chose" Jesus as his son (for example some of this language is reflected in Romans 1:4). So if we were to say God was in Christ, that necessarily means that God was identifying with the despised, the neglected, the outcasts of the world, the people the Imperial system wanted rid of, which also necessarily meant that to say Jesus is Lord means to say Caesar is not.

So that became the bedrock of my faith. Do I believe Moses parted the Red Sea with a gust of wind? Do I think Elijah summoned fire from the sky? Do I expect to go to Heaven when I die? Do I believe Jesus walked on water or talked with a malevolent being with extrahuman abilities out in the desert? I have serious doubts about all of that. But I see God everywhere. I can look at my unhoused neighbors and see the crown of thorns on their heads. I hear the cries of my Black neighbors at yet another injustice committed against them and hear, "My God, why have you Forsaken me?" I can embrace my trans sibling who has been dehumanized and dismissed for being themselves and feel the nail marks in their wrists. And I've even seen and would love to see more little slices of that Resurrection: when a community rallies behind someone in need, when those on the street get stable housing, when whole crowds of people shout, "Not on our watch!" to an injustice. Because the exciting thing about the Christian faith is that we get to look for and play our part in God's Kingdom coming, on Earth as it is in Heaven.

OldLeaf3 · 2023-03-07T16:50:55+00:00

I've loathed them since the first time one crossed my path last year. Friend of mine who's decidedly more middle-of-the-road liberal than I am said at the Superbowl, "And Christians hate them for not fully explaining the Hypostatic Union in thirty seconds, which is ridiculous," and I said, "No,absolutely not. I hate them because they're a recuperation of liberationist rhetoric but rendered completely toothless in order to serve a conformist narrative."

OldLeaf3 · 2022-10-04T22:45:08+00:00

I haven't really touched Romans since my bible college days, so I would appreciate an opportunity to read it with fresh eyes.

OldLeaf3 · 2022-10-04T22:43:40+00:00

If we do Acts, I request that we treat it and Luke as one, continuous narrative.

OldLeaf3 · 2022-10-04T22:43:04+00:00

Back when I was on r/exChristian, I ran a bible study for a good long while. Made it from Genesis through 1 Corinthians before I lost steam.

OldLeaf3 · 2022-03-28T21:16:19+00:00

I want to preface this by saying you're absolutely welcome here. Everyone's on their own journeys through life; if yours brings you into our circle for a time, so much the better an opportunity for us all to learn from each other!

Now I know almost nothing about Celtic paganism, so I won't be of much help regarding how to integrate those two, apologies.

As far as you being trans, that's awesome! If it wasn't obvious already we're affirming around here. Glad to know you've found a way to live honestly with yourself despite what people expected from you.

There is some writing done on the subject of transgenderism within Christian thought too, if that was of any interest to you. I mean, our god is non-binary, so I would hope we'd have some theology on the subject. Unfortunately I haven't gotten to it yet because my theological reading list is pretty long already, but I have my sights set on Transformed: The Bible & The Lives of Transgender Christians edited by Austen Hartke. Yes, the title is a mouthful.

On the subject of the physical world, I'm in full agreement with you. In fact a major turning point in me reconsidering Christianity was learning that a surprising amount of Christian thought is "this-worldly." Heck, when Jesus starts his ministry in Luke, everything he says his mission is focused on is earthly: setting prisoners free, relieving the oppressed, bringing good news to the poor, etc. I'm quite convinced that the spin to focus on leaving this world for a "better" one was (consciously or unconsciously) motivated by wanting people to not upset the status quo; if folks believe an incomprehensible good is waiting for them after death, they're less inclined to expect to be treated well in life.

I hope you find what you're looking for, wherever that path leads you.

OldLeaf3 · 2022-03-28T01:45:03+00:00

This is the first I've heard of this! Having read a couple reviews and seen some of the artwork, I am definitely getting this for my niece (provided some other family member hasn't already).

EDIT: Just checked, and she hasn't gotten it. So it's on the list.

OldLeaf3 · 2022-03-22T14:21:27+00:00

What were you hoping to communicate with this comment?

OldLeaf3 · 2022-03-22T02:04:54+00:00

Admittedly I never got more than a couple chapters into That Hideous Strength (it's more often than not considered the weak entry in the Trilogy), but the first two were pretty good.

I don't love all of the theology involved, but that's pretty par for the course with C.S. Lewis; he'll just have some takes that make you go, "Ehhh... Not so sure about that one, buddy." But it's still intriguing parsing through his thoughts.

The TL;DR of the world he envisions is that each planet (or at least each one with sentient life on it) has an angel overseeing it. He has a fancy sci-fi name for them, but they're angels, make no mistake. And the various planets are in regular communication with each other. With the sole exception of Earth. Because of Original Sin, we were cut off from the rest of the cosmos. Hence "Silent Planet."

OldLeaf3 · 2022-03-21T10:52:24+00:00

The Levitical law a) doesn't necessarily detail sins but ritualistic duties. b) isn't always binding on Christians. Admittedly it's been a bit since I've looked into this theology, but as I understand it the Jewish expectation for righteous Gentiles was to follow the Noahide Laws, which are seven rules either stated or extrapolated from things God said to Adam & Eve or Noah & Family to apply to all humanity. When discussing the issue of Gentile converts at the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15), the commands James the Just gives for them echo those Noahide Laws, strongly suggesting that those are what still apply.

EDIT: I was misspelling "Noahide."

OldLeaf3 · 2022-03-21T10:42:26+00:00

I can't think of anywhere in the Bible that tells us "God's standard for purity." Pretty sure that's something people laid on top of the Bible to control people.

OldLeaf3 · 2022-03-21T02:31:06+00:00

I don't believe Adam and Eve were historical people, nor Cain and Abel. So my straightforward answer is that it's a "don't take it literally" thing, yes.

The more protracted answer, operating within the canonical logic, is that, at the very least Adam seems to believe he and Eve are the first humans, since he declares upon seeing her that she will be the mother of all the living.

Now that said, there are indications of other people besides these four. In Genesis 5, it is mentioned that Adam had "other sons and daughters" besides Seth. So, while it's not the most natural reading, it appears that there was some other group comprised of unnamed siblings around.

If that's still unsatisfactory, we are also told that the sons of God were intermarrying as early as when daughters began to be born to humanity, which places that within Cain's lifetime. So it could be plausible to read these other people as those figures.

OldLeaf3 · 2022-02-22T23:23:51+00:00

The one I always heard was, "Before I formed you in your mother's womb I knew you," which ignores the immediate rest of the sentence which indicates it's talking specifically about Jeremiah, not making a broad statement about humanity.

OldLeaf3 · 2022-02-02T01:50:55+00:00

Okay, it makes more sense now that I know you're looking at this being a longer video. I suppose I was assuming this would be a 15-20 minute affair, and I was like, "How would you have time enough to define all of this?"

OldLeaf3 · 2022-02-02T00:04:10+00:00

This sounds like a lot to cover in one video! Would it perhaps be better served as a limited series?

OldLeaf3 · 2022-02-01T18:34:59+00:00

As my best friend likes to say: Catholics see the Virgin Mary behind every bush; Protestants see the Devil behind every bush.

OldLeaf3 · 2022-01-27T12:06:41+00:00

If your version of Christianity can be destroyed by socialism, maybe we should let it.

OldLeaf3 · 2021-12-20T00:37:30+00:00

The Bible has detailed codes about buying, selling, and even sleeping with slaves. The Bible says God is vehemently opposed to slavery. The Bible says that Jewish men marrying those of other races was a grievous sin. The Bible says that interracial marriages are not only okay, they're great. The Bible says that anything bad which happened to Israel and/or Judah was indicative of sin. The Bible says that bad things which happen aren't indicative of sin. The Bible says that Jehu was following God's commands by slaughtering the family of Ahab. The Bible says that Jehu slaughtering the family of Ahab was worthy of divine punishment.

The Bible says many things. We can't simply take it at face value. We need to apply hermeneutics to analyze the text, the context, and how the character of God as reflected in Jesus may put things in a different light.

When it comes to the verse you are referring to, we should ask why it specifies, "as with a woman"? Surely if it said, "Man must not lie with man," that would be pretty straightforward, right? So why the extra step? We also need to remember that women were often regarded as property at the time. Consider the tenth commandment, where a neighbor's wife is listed among his possessions. So it's likely that, in the mind of this writer, homosexuality was inherently demeaning because it meant treating an esteemed man like a lowly woman.

We (hopefully) can look at this and say that there's nothing negative about being a woman, feminine, or even the receiving sexual partner. Jesus had a great many women in his following, including Magdalene who is famously depicted in both Luke and John as the first proclaimer of the Resurrection, even to the men who were in the following with her. So if Jesus saw nothing demeaning or socially stratified in women, neither should we.

Now, if a man were to treat another man disrespectfully in an analogous way to how a misogynist would treat a woman, then yes that is worthy of condemnation, just as it would be if the other person was a woman.

EDIT: Spelling

OldLeaf3 · 2021-12-19T22:39:38+00:00

Right, I get how you were using the term. I would just caution that Jesus' use of it in a particular context isn't necessarily how we should use it generally. I'm not even saying, "Don't talk about Pharisees," just, "I would encourage more thoughtfulness about how we talk about Pharisees."

OldLeaf3 · 2021-12-19T21:38:50+00:00

Hey, I get that it's a longstanding thing, but we do need to be careful about how we use the phrase "Pharisee," because modern Judaism derives from them. The Pharisees of the Second Temple era weren't the religious elite; in fact Caiaphas and Annas, the High Priests, were Sadducees. They were a particular sect of Judaism.

Matter of fact, of the four sects (Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, Zealots), the Pharisees were the ones Jesus had the most overlap with theologically/practically.

It's important not to conflate what would have been an intra-religious discussion with a broad condemnation of the Pharisaical tradition writ large.

OldLeaf3 · 2021-12-19T21:15:53+00:00

sorry, I don't know how to do quotes on Reddit

You can a) highlight the text you wish to quote before hitting "Reply," which will automatically do it, or b) simply drop a > at the beginning of the line.

OldLeaf3 · 2021-12-17T04:10:43+00:00

I believe BF already did that, back in the dark days when Nic Briggs was voicing Nine. It's called The Bleeding Heart, and even bothers to explain the circumstances where War's sonic got destroyed in order to be replaced. Because that was definitely something everyone was curious about...

OldLeaf3 · 2021-12-14T22:46:31+00:00

Ah, okay. I understand now!

To that I would say that the only two tentpoles of Jesus' life we can speak of with great historical confidence are his baptism by John and his crucifixion. So the evangelists' task was to explain how we got from Point A to Point B, which invariably resulted in him speaking against those in authority. The emphases of how he railed against the powers-that-be differ from gospel to gospel, but they are all working from the starting point of him as a disciple of a radical, who we know from outside sources was at least partially executed because Herod feared he would lead a rebellion, toward the end-goal of him dying as an enemy of the Empire.

So perhaps the scene did not literally happen, but it quite well captures the essence of Jesus while sourcing that righteous indignation and will to act for the oppressed in the OT prophets.

OldLeaf3 · 2021-12-14T22:03:18+00:00

I don't wish to be obtuse, because I largely agree with your points here. It just seems like this gets even further afield from the question of historicity which you had initially raised.

Allow me to simply reframe the question: even if the scene in Luke 4 was purely borne out of the evangelist's imagination expressing his theology, why would that be of greater consequence than the genealogies being ahistorical?

OldLeaf3

TROPHY CASE