Christian films are some of the worst pieces of media imaginable.
No one behaves anything like a real person, and it is all essentially propaganda for an idea (the existence of the Christian God) that is not even remotely unpopular.
Somehow, this shit is popular.
Presumably amongst the sort of person who values their media being moral over it being good.
I've heard Kirk Cameron's Saving Christmas is worth seeing just for it being batshit insane.
You are the end result of a “would you push the button” prompt where the prompt was “you have unlimited godlike powers but you appear to all and sundry to be an impetuous child” – Zero, 2022
Christian films are some of the worst pieces of media imaginable.
No one behaves anything like a real person, and it is all essentially propaganda for an idea (the existence of the Christian God) that is not even remotely unpopular.
Somehow, this shit is popular.
Presumably amongst the sort of person who values their media being moral over it being good.
Christian films are some of the worst pieces of media imaginable.
No one behaves anything like a real person, and it is all essentially propaganda for an idea (the existence of the Christian God) that is not even remotely unpopular.
Somehow, this shit is popular.
Presumably amongst the sort of person who values their media being moral over it being good.
You are the end result of a “would you push the button” prompt where the prompt was “you have unlimited godlike powers but you appear to all and sundry to be an impetuous child” – Zero, 2022
I had a weird dream where I was in an urban area of Colerain (a Centralia city) and one of my Twitter friends was driving a minivan down a wet street and rear-ended a pickup truck because she couldn't brake in time
For some reason the police saw fit to close down the entire street until it started snowing
i wasn't actually sure either. but, like, the weirdest thing to me about chick tracts is that in jack chick's world, it seems that christianity itself is almost unheard of, like, people are just utterly confused by the idea of jesus, and it's so...counter to reality itself.
i wasn't actually sure either. but, like, the weirdest thing to me about chick tracts is that in jack chick's world, it seems that christianity itself is almost unheard of, like, people are just utterly confused by the idea of jesus, and it's so...counter to reality itself.
They don't know who Jesus is, but simultaneously hate him
There's an idea that seems commonplace that if you know what Christianity is really about, or at least know as much about it as the average churchgoer, then of course you will believe in it, unless you are just a bitter and spiteful person.
Like, that seems to be the logic evangelists operate under.
All Chick tracts do is dramatize that worldview and expose its implications. Rather like an inadvertant satire, i guess.
Jesus-as-facet-of-reality isn't really a dumb idea. At least, it doesn't seem dumb to me.
But there's a weird argumentative manoeuvre here whereupon being presented with a basic explanation of the Biblical Christ narrative, you are presumed to somehow have access to this facet of reality and a deep understanding of its truthfulness and implications. The two are equated, so evidence for the former is presented when evidence for the latter is what's required.
Jesus-as-facet-of-reality isn't really a dumb idea. At least, it doesn't seem dumb to me.
Oh but I think it is.
Jesus is the son of god first, and an actual facet of god second, in my mind.
This comes across as pedantry, I'm sure, but I feel like placing him as the latter first inherently dehumanizes him, which is pointless, because why would God make a part of themselves a human if they did not want that part to be considered human first and foremost?
^^ i'm not sure i understand the implications of what you're saying there. Jesus was a human being but He was always God and God is everlasting. If you believe that, then to say that Jesus is a facet of reality is simply to say that God is a facet of reality. No?
^ That is not how i understand it. The Son of Man was human. Human and divine, simultaneously.
i'm not sure i understand the implications of what you're saying there. Jesus was a human being but He was always God and God is everlasting. If you believe that, then to say that Jesus is a facet of reality is simply to say that God is a facet of reality. No?
No.
"God is a facet of reality" makes some sense because you are then speaking about, roughly, God the Creator.
God the Son is only the same entity in the strictest sense. It's like arguing a house and a boat are the same thing because they're made from the same kind of wood.
i'm not sure i understand the implications of what you're saying there. Jesus was a human being but He was always God and God is everlasting. If you believe that, then to say that Jesus is a facet of reality is simply to say that God is a facet of reality. No?
No.
"God is a facet of reality" makes some sense because you are then speaking about, roughly, God the Creator.
God the Son is only the same entity in the strictest sense. It's like arguing a house and a boat are the same thing because they're made from the same kind of wood.
That sounds like a denial of the Trinity to me, but perhaps i just don't know theology.
Well, i don't, that's not in question. But i always believed God the Father and God the Son were the same in a more literal sense than you appear to be implying.
i'm not sure i understand the implications of what you're saying there. Jesus was a human being but He was always God and God is everlasting. If you believe that, then to say that Jesus is a facet of reality is simply to say that God is a facet of reality. No?
No.
"God is a facet of reality" makes some sense because you are then speaking about, roughly, God the Creator.
God the Son is only the same entity in the strictest sense. It's like arguing a house and a boat are the same thing because they're made from the same kind of wood.
That sounds like a denial of the Trinity to me, but perhaps i just don't know theology.
I deny the Trinity as it is usually understood, though obviously not in general. I was raised Catholic but my current beliefs don't easily fit into any major church's.
Well, i don't, that's not in question. But i always believed God the Father and God the Son were the same in a more literal sense than you appear to be implying.
They are, again, the same in the same way a house and a boat made out of the same kind of wood are. It's hard to say how "the same" they really are without getting into philosophical paradoxes and junk.
In the beginning was the Word. And the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
And?
And i took this to mean that there was Christ (and the Holy Spirit) as a part of the Trinity before the human Birth of Jesus.
i should add that i was trying to consider the evangelical position here, and i was doing so with reference to my own beliefs. If you think that's dumb on the basis of a new or non-standard theology which denies the Trinity, well, you're entitled to your opinion, obviously, but for reasons which are equally obvious, i'm not going to agree with that.
In the beginning was the Word. And the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
And?
And i took this to mean that there was Christ (and the Holy Spirit) as a part of the Trinity before the human Birth of Jesus.
i should add that i was trying to consider the evangelical position here, and i was doing so with reference to my own beliefs. If you think that's dumb on the basis of a new or non-standard theology which denies the Trinity, well, you're entitled to your opinion, obviously, but for reasons which are equally obvious, i'm not going to agree with that.
I don't really blame you.
I am a Christian in only the strictest sense, I suppose.
Theological specifics aside I think we can agree that the idea of anyone who knows about Jesus must be either a purehearted Christian or a terrible person is dumb. I suppose I was more getting at the idea of that being dumb.
Comments
Metropolitan Police Service
For some reason the police saw fit to close down the entire street until it started snowing
Dream traffic control logic
It was a religion birthed in oppression and raised in a world of persecution and fear. The Christian ideology reflects this.
Then it became part of the establishment.
Like, that seems to be the logic evangelists operate under.
All Chick tracts do is dramatize that worldview and expose its implications. Rather like an inadvertant satire, i guess.
it is impossible to truly know of Jesus and also hate him, and conversely if you do not know you are inherently filled with sinful loathing of him
But there's a weird argumentative manoeuvre here whereupon being presented with a basic explanation of the Biblical Christ narrative, you are presumed to somehow have access to this facet of reality and a deep understanding of its truthfulness and implications. The two are equated, so evidence for the former is presented when evidence for the latter is what's required.
Assassin poems, Poems that shoot
guns. Poems that wrestle cops into alleys
and take their weapons leaving them dead
For this reason, I'm actually partial to doctrines that claim that most of Christianity won't be going to heaven.
download the new Santa Tracker app
cool
^ That is not how i understand it. The Son of Man was human. Human and divine, simultaneously.
Well, i don't, that's not in question. But i always believed God the Father and God the Son were the same in a more literal sense than you appear to be implying.
They are, again, the same in the same way a house and a boat made out of the same kind of wood are. It's hard to say how "the same" they really are without getting into philosophical paradoxes and junk.
In the beginning was the Word. And the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
That explains some things.
And i took this to mean that there was Christ (and the Holy Spirit) as a part of the Trinity before the human Birth of Jesus.
i should add that i was trying to consider the evangelical position here, and i was doing so with reference to my own beliefs. If you think that's dumb on the basis of a new or non-standard theology which denies the Trinity, well, you're entitled to your opinion, obviously, but for reasons which are equally obvious, i'm not going to agree with that.
Theological specifics aside I think we can agree that the idea of anyone who knows about Jesus must be either a purehearted Christian or a terrible person is dumb. I suppose I was more getting at the idea of that being dumb.