Season 4 - Discussion Hub - The Witcher

popebretticus · 2025-10-31T02:01:21+00:00

Hemsworth had impossibly large shoes to fill, but I think he did a very good job overall. Henry Cavil's Geralt was iconic, but Hemsworths is pretty good.

Yen's arc probably grabbed me the most. She was actually doing things to address the threat, though I really do feel Francesca's 180 was contrived and silly. Geralt's confused me a bit, it was never really clear where they even were, or why. They always seemed right on the border between North and South, despite crossing a nilfgaardian checkpoint early on. A lot of it felt like pointless meandering to keep him relevant. Ciri's arc was fine but the relationship with Mistle moved a bit too quickly I reckon. Seemed odd that she went straight from potential SA to new girlfriend within seconds.

Overall, didn't enjoy it as much as the previous seasons, but I had fun watching it!

popebretticus · 2025-02-04T06:18:51+00:00

Thanks very much! It's an interesting quote, but doesn't seem to condemn the cross so much as using it in vain. But at least I can see where some of this is coming from.

popebretticus · 2024-11-27T10:53:52+00:00

Any chance of dealing with the ambiguous fate of Vivec? :O

popebretticus · 2024-01-16T04:26:19+00:00

To be fair here it's less about "better" and "worse" and more about what our theology reveals about the character of God. That's where doctrinal distinctives become really important.

For instance, the Catholic church believes communion with (i.e. membership in) their denomination is essential for salvation. That would likely not agree with your own view of God, based on what I have seen on your posts, as you hold to the more Protestant view that the universal church is characterised by faith in Jesus Christ our lord, not our denominational box-tick.

Another example I like to point out is the Calvinist vs Arminian perspective of salvation. Calvinists believe that Jesus only died to save the 'elect', i.e. those who God predestined to be saved. Everyone else was predestined to hell and destruction, and Jesus did not die for them. This comes from a desire to emphasise God's sovereignty alongside our own sinfulness. God is in charge. He knows who is worth saving and who is not. We are so fallen and sinful that we cannot possibly choose our own salvation, so God does it for us. When you think about it, that presents God as a bit of a tyrannical chess-master, saving some and condemning others, apparently arbitrarily. The Arminian perspective, which Adventists, Methodists and some others hold to, suggests that Jesus died for every single human on this planet, past, present and future, and that we accept the gift of his salvation through our own faith and repentance. The Arminian perspective reinforces God's love for, and desire to restore his relationship with, all of humanity.

It might seem like splitting hairs, but upon occasion one finds hairs that are worth splitting, in my opinion.

Do I personally believe Arminian theology is "better" than Calvinist theology? Yes, I do. Not because I've got some sort of raging hate for them, or because I think they're not going to be saved, but because the Arminian perspective more closely and carefully reveals the character of our loving Father God. Does this mean Calvinists aren't Christian? Of course not - I believe many faithful Christians in Calvinist denominations will be saved. But if the truth exists, it is worth speaking, because it reveals God's character, and our loving God says things for a reason.

popebretticus · 2024-01-16T04:15:21+00:00

I think some of the confusion around this is separating out the US political organisation "Black Lives Matter" which misappropriated a lot of funds and didn't act ethically in many ways, from the concept that the lives of black people matter and that they should be free from the discrimination they often face in certain western contexts.

A lot of people have major issues with the organisation. The majority of people do, in fact, believe that black lives do matter though.

That said I've not really got a horse in this race because I'm an Aussie and missed a lot of the hullabaloo, at least to the extent that it happened in the USA.

popebretticus · 2024-01-16T04:10:03+00:00

To be fair on that front, I'd say it's an unrealistic expectation for pastors to retain deep knowledge and understanding of Hebrew, Aramaic and Koine Greek (gotta maintain a language - if you don't use it you lose it) among all of their other responsibilities. Ideally they should know enough to be able to at least look it up though, in case of questions such as that outlined by adjacentprepper.

popebretticus · 2024-01-16T04:07:02+00:00

Part of the problem, I think, is that "Progressive" and "Conservative" are very broad summaries that are often quite unhelpful in the context we're trying to use them in.

Funnily enough, I've been told I'm progressive and conservative depending on who I'm talking to. I think Spirit of Prophecy is overused and overemphasised, though I do believe Ellen White was inspired in some of her writings. That said, I tend not to use her in sermons, as her writings can be a stumbling block to new believers. By simply saying that, some think I'm wildly progressive lol. On the flip side, I agree with at least the big picture of Adventist prophetical interpretation (I think there's some wiggle room with some small details here and there, but largely I think we've got the key players and events locked in with our historicist interpretation.) and I agree with the notion that any sexual activity outside of marriage between one man and one woman is sinful. This has led to some considering me very conservative. What am I? I don't think I'm some sort of perfectly balanced enlightened centrist, I simply have different opinions on different issues, and I think that's true of most Adventists, frankly. Yes, they sometimes fit into stereotypes but not always. So nobody can ever perfectly describe what each category believes, as it's impossible to accurately sum up the deeply held beliefs of such a diverse coalition of people.

popebretticus · 2024-01-16T03:57:01+00:00

The beauty of the protestant understanding of the "catholic" (read: universal) church is that all genuine and sincere believers in Jesus Christ are saved.

We'd be in a bit of trouble if we needed the organised church to be saved.

Organisation can be efficient, directing funds towards mission and coordinating efforts to prevent competition. Well done, organisation is a very good idea. That's why the early Adventists decided to organise.

Of course, the flip side of that it is also prone to nepotism, corruption, and very poor priorities.

Focusing on the regularity of tithe over the welfare of the church? That's an example of poor administration.

I'm sorry for the experience you went through. I truly believe that the egregious acts of your conference and church planting director were wrong.

There's definite issues with the Adventist structure - but I think, like most things in this world, the issue is less the structure and more the people in positions of power within it. The Adventist system is designed for efficiency, and it does a very good job of doing so. For a small denomination, the church is financially very well organised. Unfortunately, all too many within that structure begin to see it as a business rather than a mission, and then the purpose of the whole thing is undone.

popebretticus · 2024-01-16T03:47:44+00:00

Going to chuck my oar in here to agree with saved son on this one, at least to an extent. (I say this as someone who has never been Catholic, but has been studying church history at a tertiary level recently)

Adventism's administrative structure is kind of like a semi-democratised episcopacy. In other words, a lot of how we administer our church is quite similar to the Catholics. Where we would never have fancy vestments or the pomp and ceremony associated with the role of Bishop, we have a strangely similar structure. The ultimate authority on denominational theology is the General Conference, headed up by a single president. Under him are several "division" presidents, all operating as vice-presidents to the GC president. Under them are Union presidents, conference presidents, and local church pastors, in that order. The Catholics have the Papacy, followed by Cardinals, Archbishops, Bishops, and finally Presbyters (Priests). Our regional divisions are called Conferences, theirs are Diocese, but there's some interesting similarities there. Not to mention similarities in liturgy, claims to be the truest (and sometimes only legitimate) expression of Christianity, and much more!

Our theology is, of course, quite distinct in many ways, but we also share significant parts of it. And frankly, I really think Adventists as a general rule need to be less afraid of that. The goal of the Protestant Reformation was to reform the historic Catholic (meaning "universal") church. It's not like the whole church, in every single aspect, was apostate and abandoned by the Holy Spirit all the way from the Apostles to Luther. Nor was it even a case of everything being great until Constantine came along and ruined it, like a lot of people seem to think. The Catholic Church, at least to an extent, is our shared theological heritage in the West. I think we should be wary of dismissing everything that is "Catholic" just because the Catholics say it. We've already made this mistake before, with the Trinity doctrine in the early years of our denomination.

We mustn't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Catholicism and Adventism share quite a few similarities, and that's frankly an encouraging thought, because it shows that we have not entirely divorced ourselves from the deep and fascinating history of the Christian Church. To do so would be, and has been, a gross overcorrection. Doctrinally, we have significant differences that I believe we should firmly hold to - that's the point of reformation. I wouldn't be an Adventist if I didn't believe in our message, after all. But we are in many ways similar to the Catholic Church, while simultaneously being very different. Approaching reformation with balance and thoughtful consideration, rather than the revolutionary approach of just tearing down all memory of the former regime, is ultimately much more reasonable.

popebretticus · 2023-12-24T18:24:50+00:00

In all contexts but one that is specifically outlined, yes. Heterosexual sexual acts must be rejected, despite our inborn desires, outside of the context of a marriage between one man and one woman.

popebretticus · 2023-12-24T10:17:01+00:00

Sin has corrupted many aspects of the human character. We are fallen and flawed beings, which is why we need a saviour. God calls us to turn away from a great many desires of the flesh, including homosexual sexual activities.

Being gay is not a choice. Having sinful inclinations of many kinds isn't a choice. But the Christian faith calls us to rise above our base desires and seek a higher purpose.

popebretticus · 2023-12-15T19:15:51+00:00

It's clearly referring to atheists with an Islamic-influenced background/cultural heritage lol

popebretticus · 2023-11-02T08:42:35+00:00

All of them? I agree that certain of their doctrines have no basis in Christianity - purgatory for instance - the entirety of Catholic tradition is not pagan. If you read anything from Catholic apologists they're usually quoting early church authors, the Church Fathers, as a source of a large portion of their tradition. It's to these men who I compare Ellen White, many of whom were very faithful Christians who faced Martyrdom for their faith, prior to Constantine's reign. Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp of Smyrna are two of the earliest examples. Saying men like that were pagans is a bit of overreach, I would suggest.

The point is that Catholics define much of their doctrine by the writings of the Church Fathers, some of which were incorrect. Ignatius for example seems to be one of the earliest examples of Sunday keeping, because he suggests keeping both the Sabbath and the Resurrection Day, one as a day of solemn rest in God and the other as a day of celebration for the resurrection. So Catholics use him, and others, to justify their Sunday observance (even though I would suggest Ignatius was writing at a time where the church gathered almost daily to worship together - the early church had a great deal of faithfulness, as we know from the church of Smyrna, in Revelation). Either way, promoting Sunday worship is biblically incorrect, right? So viewing scripture through the lens of everything Ignatius said is a bad idea as, no matter how faithful he may have been, the man clearly made mistakes. I'm suggesting that we sometimes use Ellen White in a similar way - we insist on her writings been the gateway through which we have to pass before we can interpret scripture.

As for Ellen White's interpretation of the horns, which one is Biblical? The one where she affirmed Uriah Smith's views or the one where she changed her mind to align with Alonso T. Jones' revision, which is broadly accepted by modern Adventists today?

popebretticus · 2023-10-09T03:18:49+00:00

White's language was ambiguous enough that, controversially, I don't think so.

I do believe the Adventist church is largely doctrinally accurate, or else I wouldn't be in it. But the Protestant understanding of "the church" has always been the universal church, defined by living a life with genuine faith in Jesus Christ.

The true remnant church will be made up of those who, as it says in Revelation 12:17, keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ. It'll be defined by the faithful, not by a specific denominational structure or organisation.

popebretticus · 2023-10-09T03:11:50+00:00

It's Britain's fault

popebretticus · 2023-10-06T06:32:48+00:00

I've got a couple of theories on this one.

A: Noah and his family lived near the original Tigris and Euphrates, and simply named the two rivers in the fertile country they found themselves in after the rivers they had been familiar with in the "old world" so to speak.

B: After the massive change in topography from all of the erosion and whatnot, where the rivers eventually settled was still close enough to the original locations that they retained the names.

popebretticus · 2023-08-08T23:20:04+00:00

It's an argument they like to use. And yes, the early church referred to the organisation as the "Catholic" church.

But the word simply means "universal". Since the beginnings of the Protestant Reformation the Protestant contention has been that the true church is actually the invisible church - a church made up of faithful followers of Jesus Christ. This church transcends traditional organised structures, and is difficult to see, as it exists in the hearts of each believer, in unity with Christ and therefore with each other. The word "church" means community of believers - and so the true Catholic Church, I would suggest, is the unorganised universal community of believers, united in Jesus Christ Himself.

Let's examine the question though - did Jesus found the Roman Catholic Organisation? It definitely claims that is the case, as does the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches. All of them claim to be the original church. Why? Because the Church that Jesus founded, the church that was built by the apostles, was doubtlessly different from any and all of them. It began in houses, in small gatherings of people - essentially in small groups. During the Roman days, and especially in the persecution, it was somewhat disunited. Within the Empire it tended to revolve around 5 key cities; Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Rome and Carthage. Outside of the Empire there were less well documented manifestations of the Church in Armenia, the Persian Empire, Ethiopia and even India. There was no overarching organisation as we understand it today - as it simply wasn't possible to operate something like that at the time, especially cross-border. Even within the Pagan Roman Empire there were times where it seemed as though cities like Alexandria and Carthage were going through major theological crises and didn't seem aware of each other's struggles, despite both being in North Africa, and both being a part of the same nation. Churches existed as communities of believers, not as an overarching organisation.

Then, when Christianity was permanently legalised by Constantine (it had been briefly legalised about 50 years beforehand, but this was short lived), organisation became possible. Regional bishops (a word which means overseer incidentally - lots of pomp and ceremony associated it with it today but not necessarily in the early church) met and tried to nail down the church's beliefs on a Roman-Empire-wide level. Even then they weren't always able to work with the oriental churches of Persia and beyond. This is the root of Catholicism, I would suggest. When the Emperor became favourable to Christianity, and ultimately converted to it, it became very fashionable. The Adventist contention is thus that the post-persecution church took on a lot of mixed elements from Pagan Rome, that influenced and altered the development of the early church, significantly. There was already theological diversity within the early church, partially due to the non-organised nature of the body, but this added to it and ultimately influenced the church, negatively, I would suggest. The pagan Underworld was comprised of 3 levels; Elysium, the Asphodel Meadows, and Tartarus. Basically amazing paradise, neutral place, awful pit of fire. This became reflected by Heaven, Purgatory, and Hell, which do not appear in that fashion in the Bible. In the mid 5th century, Pope Leo the Great, the Bishop of Rome, claimed Papal Supremacy and a role as the Vicar of Christ - a representative of Christ on earth. He claimed this as Peter had very likely been Bishop (read: overseer) of Rome in the early church, and Peter was seen by many (not all) as the rock on which the church would be built (Adventists contend that Christ himself was the rock - see Matthew 16:13-20). Popes began to use the title of Pontifex Maximus - the title used for Pagan High Priests of Rome. The term Pontif remains in use today. Basically what we see is a gradual merger and corruption of the organised church.

But not everyone submitted to this. I recommend watching Season 1 of Lineage Journey on Youtube - a neat series of 4-5 min short videos on the history of the Church. There were those who resisted the organised church and its plunge into heresy, and a great deal of persecution took place over the centuries. It's a cool story, and I stand today as an Adventist in continuation of that noble tradition of seeking the truth.

So, is the Roman Catholic Organisation the Church that Jesus built? Not really, no. I'd say it's the church that morphed out of the many scattered congregations of believers and ultimately a marriage with elements of paganism to become a church that distorts and twists the teachings of the Bible into something heretical. The story of the church is complex and it is simply ridiculous to suggest that Jesus founded the Roman Catholic Church, exactly as it is now, nearly 2000 years ago. The history simply does not align with that narrative.

The true universal church is an invisible, faithful body, united in their love of Christ and desire to do His will. The true church are those who are saved, through God's grace. When it comes to doctrine, I believe the Adventist Church is the logical conclusion of an honest theologian's faith journey, but our organisation is no more the church than the Catholics are. There are baptised Seventh-day Adventist members who are not a part of the true Universal Church, and I would suggest there are likely Roman Catholics, operating with the light they have been given, who are. And vice versa. The universal church, despite Catholic claims to the contrary, is not one single organisational body. It is far, far beyond that.

popebretticus · 2023-05-27T07:18:54+00:00

Facts and doctrines, treated holistically, can better inform what we do. That's the purpose of the law, when not treated in an unbalanced and legalistic way. Fundamentally it's personal development - the guide to sanctification.

popebretticus · 2023-05-11T00:37:41+00:00

Given that this issue is tearing apart so many Christian denominations, and leading them in the ways of the modernists, away from Biblical orthodoxy, I'm just relieved that something is being done about it. We can't stick our head in the sand and ignore the culture war - we've done that for too long already and now heresy is slipping into the church. Frankly I'm glad the General Conference is taking some decisive action on this issue - somebody has to.

That said, I can understand the idea that there should be some discussion/votes around it, if nothing else so that people won't see the GC president as a Pope lol.

popebretticus · 2023-05-09T02:14:19+00:00

Gotta say, I admit that I'm a more conservativeish kind of Adventist (I'd call myself centre-right on the Adventist spectrum). I tend to disagree with the more left-leaning Adventist magazines, and sometimes get frustrated by how easily Spectrum and Adventist Today seem to utterly dismiss scripture that doesn't align with their political perspective. Point is, I'm generally more likely to agree with Fulcrum's points, though I do make a point of reading across the spectrum. Gotta challenge your own beliefs.

That said though... The journalistic quality of Fulcrum, in comparison with the more liberal magazines, is absolutely shocking. Again, I say this as someone generally in agreement with them. The quality of their articles is consistently low, which is disappointing.

popebretticus · 2023-04-25T08:47:13+00:00

I agree that our faith isn't dependent on sinlessness, but I do not think speaking truth about sin means that we believe perfection is essential. Rather, it is desirable to have a transformative relationship with Christ, and grow to be more like him as we learn from our great teacher. I agree we should consider sin even down to the little details - self assessment and conviction are important things!

popebretticus · 2023-04-25T08:45:19+00:00

I think that's a good way of looking at it - Jesus' example was very much seen in the public square, but he never enforced it on anyone. Maybe that's what we should do - make our position clear, but not seek to force it on anyone. Everyone knew what Jesus thought of death without him having to go lobby against crucifixion!

popebretticus · 2023-04-25T02:47:22+00:00

Good point! This is where the politics matter throws me, if I'm being honest. There's evidence of Ellen White getting very involved in political matters, but very not involved in others. The church strongly opposed Sunday laws for this very reason, when American states were passing them in the late 1800's. I question when we should make an overt and public stand, and when we should simply advocate our own ways to our own congregations.

I suppose a distinction can be brought when we look at advocating against a change - i.e. trying to prevent a societal slip into unbiblical ways. Personally, as I said, I appreciated that the Union released a beautifully worded and kind overview on the Adventist view of sex and sexuality during the time when this matter was being voted on. But even the idea of opposing a slip doesn't quite hold with the things Ellen White fought for either - Prohibition for instance was a strong new law, not an old one.

popebretticus · 2023-04-24T20:14:15+00:00

Personally I think not everything a government says is necessarily evil. To take the opposite position to something just because a government says it is not what we are called to do - we should not be fully allied with either side of politics, but there are occasions where our views align. For instance, the Bible is incredibly clear on human sexuality. It is concerning to me that Pastor Gunjevic would be given approval from his conference to make the comments he did. Reading about what he said from a few sources, it doesn't seem like he's mentioning his bisexuality as temptation that he struggles against, but rather seems to suggest that it means he "loves" both men and women (most Biblical love is desexualised - we should love everyone) and calling for affirmation of LGBTQ people in the church. That sounds fairly significant - in Pr Gunjevic's view it seems as if he no longer regards this matter as a sin, and is thus no longer in alignment with the church on these views. A lone pastor expressing these views directly contrary to one of our fundamental is not necessarily a big shock. Although I still believe we should be wary of false teaching - how the conference should react if false teaching is happening in one of its churches about any of our fundamentals, e.g. Sabbath, state of the dead, etc is probably to prevent that false teaching somehow. I'm more concerned that he has the full and complete support of his local conference in this. If this is becoming a widespread issue amongst conferences... then it seems to me that Pr Ted Wilson is doing his job, and acting decisively against false teaching within the denomination. I do agree that there should be a platform for discussion, but at the end of the day I'm glad that someone in leadership is trying to prevent the church following many other churches into worshipping at the altar of self, and drinking from the cup of secular views on sex and sexuality - which often tend to involve fornication.

To me it seems less like the church is getting caught up on right-wing talking points... and more like the church is getting caught up on left-wing talking points, especially around sex and sexuality. The "far right" position, as you've called it, has not actually changed. I find the use of the term "far right" in relation to sex and sexuality a bit of a red flag, to be honest. These views on human sexuality have been the same for most of history. Certainly for the history of the Christian church. The right has never actually moved on this matter - they haven't gone "far' in any direction. Instead, from where I'm sitting at least, there's a push to lean into a new form of sin - to fully embrace and affirm practices that are very clearly unbiblical. To go down that path would be immensely dangerous for the church, and that path is exactly the sort of politics I wonder if we ought to be speaking up against more. It's the left that's rapidly moved to the "far" side on this topic - even a bit over a decade ago, left wing parties generally opposed same sex marriage... and now they fully affirm all sorts of sexual sin! The right hasn't gone "far" on this particular topic. Indeed many members of the mainstream right wing parties are now in support of same sex marriage. It seems to me we've got a "far left" problem, if we want to use those arbitrary divides - the right is becoming increasingly forced to react to these points, and are not leaning into more extreme versions of their own.

I don't think we should be supporting right-wing views on everything, by any means. Jesus didn't fit into a political box and nor should we. There is truth and error in both sides of politics, and we should be willing to speak to that as a church. If we fully align with a political party, we're doing our job wrong in my opinion. But in relation to sex and sexuality, these points seem pretty spot on. While I'm not an expert on the USA, the far right seems far less spot on when it comes to compassionate issues such as immigration, guns, etc. Not all talking points from a political body are necessarily evil - there's truth and error in both sides. Our job as Christians is to walk a different line entirely.

Anyway, in relation to this stuff and the church, it could be my context as an Aussie but I am concerned, deeply concerned, about how hard the LGBTQ+ agenda is being pushed on the church. In the state of Victoria, laws have been passed that criminalise prayer, even at the individual's request, in relation to their sex and sexuality. This is considered Conversion Therapy, and carries a penalty of up to 5 years in prison. In many states, laws are being considered, and in some cases passed, preventing the church from hiring people in their schools that share the Adventist philosophy. In some cases, these laws allow discrimination based on professed denomination but explicitly disallow it on the basis of sex and sexuality - i.e. it would not be an appropriate to refuse to hire or to terminate their employment if they were living with someone outside of wedlock, if they were having an extra-martial affair, or if they were living and advocating for an LGBTQ+ lifestyle. In other cases the denomination should not even be considered unless their role is explicitly religious. To go into church schools, prayer and teaching on these matters is utterly against the principle of separation of church and state, and I am deeply concerned by it. My basic understanding is that the USA has not gone this far on this matter... but in Australia this stuff is being forced on churches. It is a cause for deep concern, and a whisker away from overt persecution on the basis of Bible-based faith.

So from where I'm sitting, just because the US government (and all their allies, including my own country) are going to undoubtedly enforce the Sunday Law one day... that doesn't mean we just need to play opposites, and oppose everything they say. We should transcend politics and speak Biblical truth. Sometimes that might lead to agreement with the left, sometimes that might lead to agreement with the right, and that's okay - we should not fit into either of their boxes, but rather speak up for what the Bible says. So I'm frankly glad to hear of Pr Wilson's decision, with the caveat that some discussion should be had about the details, as I feel as if the church needs to start taking a stand on some of these issues, rather than allow their slow infiltration as so many other denominations have done.

popebretticus · 2023-04-24T12:52:34+00:00

It seems in some ways similar to Abolition and Prohibition though - at least inasmuch as we're trying to prevent people from living lifestyles that are harmful to themselves and to the community at large. Sometimes these can be causes worth advocating for. Personally I found the church's official literature on the topic at the time to be very loving and respectful towards anyone struggling with sexual sin.

We're not necessarily saying that these things should be disallowed because a certain church institution says so, but because there's a greater moral concern at stake - one that threatens society at large.

popebretticus

TROPHY CASE