Stack Exchange
log in

James T

 The Upper Room

General discussion for Christianity.SE, pseudo-meta support, a...
2
1
James T
Jun 29, 2014 20:30
@Anonymous Better yet, a Lutheran Lingo Lexicon
James T
Jun 28, 2014 15:58
There are others here too.
James T
Jun 28, 2014 15:58
@A-friend I am a native speaker of English.
James T
Apr 26, 2014 13:33
@Anonymous I actually am. in general people carry their nationality with them, wherever they go, and it is hard to change!
James T
Apr 26, 2014 01:24
I am currently living in the USA, east coast
James T
Apr 26, 2014 01:22
been busy recently which is why I haven't been around much
James T
Apr 26, 2014 01:22
this and that
James T
Apr 26, 2014 01:01
@TRiG I'm also curious. This has never occurred to me.
James T
Feb 27, 2014 21:51
Indeed, Reepicheep here is correct to say they should go into the Dark Island because it is so obviously marked as the Next Adventure - and they do find a Lost Lord.
James T
Feb 27, 2014 21:50
Having read Lev Grossman's The Magicians and The Magician King, I now see different things in VotDT. In Grossman the characters are visibly concerned about finding the right adventure hooks, etc. - they are genre-savvy, occasionally correctly.
James T
Feb 27, 2014 21:48
The recent film changed that and I can't really argue with it from a story point of view.
James T
Feb 27, 2014 21:47
In the book I think the quest is that they are basically curious about what happened to the lords. They aren't trying to bring them back to Narnia (they leave the first one, Bern, in place; they don't worry particularly about the dead ones; etc.) and there is no particular urgency.
James T
Feb 27, 2014 21:45
@TRiG Reepicheep certainly has his own motivations - sailing into the utter East is his personal quest. Not sure about the Narnian politics in-text, as I think we are "meant" to accept Caspian's early explanation to the children that Everything Is Fine. Out of text, there is a lot of stuff here that doesn't make sense if you poke it. TBQH the entire lost-lords quest isn't well motivated.
James T
Feb 26, 2014 12:47
And not only because he is played by Tom Baker.
James T
Feb 26, 2014 12:47
Also Puddleglum is awesome.
James T
Feb 26, 2014 12:47
The narrative gravity behind "Reepicheep is awesome" is so strong that we just have to construct ludicrous explanations like this.
James T
Feb 26, 2014 12:46
@TRiG Ouch! Clearly, as suggested by Aspermoth in comments, the real Reepicheep is out of action and has been replaced by an evil cyborg duplicate / ghostclone / mirror-universe doppelganger for the duration of the chapter.
James T
Feb 24, 2014 21:17
^^ I thought this might be relevant to thinking about the NT account and how it affects / is affected by our definitions
James T
Feb 24, 2014 21:17
(from God and the World of Signs by Andrew Robinson)
James T
Feb 24, 2014 21:17
> "Whereas solving a Christological puzzle could leave our basic understanding of the world more or less unchanged, engaging in Incarnational thought as a new paradigm may invite a transformation of our worldview."
James T
Feb 24, 2014 21:17
> "In contrast, if we ask, what are the implications of our understanding of God and the world if it is the case that God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself then we open ourselves to a paradigm shift in our understanding of God, the world, and the relation between the two."
James T
Feb 24, 2014 21:16
> "If we think we already know what we mean by 'human' (or 'the world'), and what we mean by 'God', then the Christological puzzle is: how did God become human?"
James T
Feb 24, 2014 21:16
> "The New Testament is not concerned with the identity of Jesus as a puzzle to be solved in the context of fixed notions of God and the world. Rather, it presents Jesus as the key to a new model for life, and a new paradigm through which to understand God's relation to the created order."
James T
Feb 24, 2014 17:12
Also they should behave towards other bunnies as Jesus would, not because they hope to become elect, but because that is what good fluffy bunnies ought to do anyway.
James T
Feb 24, 2014 17:10
The bunnies should just hop along as best they can because there's nothing they can do to make themselves elect or unelect.
James T
Feb 24, 2014 17:05
I like reading Fred Clark, but I do think he is incorrect about Calvinism (as a broad system). I understand he has had bad experiences with some people who march under the Calvinist banner. But the idea is not wrong just because some of its adherents are nasty - sometimes in ways which are attributable to Calvinist distinctives, and other times not so much.
James T
Feb 21, 2014 18:29
Romans 3:8
James T
Feb 21, 2014 18:29
Right, I think we don't want to say that the bad thing is justified for the sake of the good. Certainly Paul wouldn't.
James T
Feb 21, 2014 18:28
Without excusing or minimizing the original badness - I'm thinking along regeneration or redemption lines.
James T
Feb 21, 2014 18:28
Can something seem bad but later turn out to have been good? Perhaps via (bad thing) + (later actions) = (good thing overall)
James T
Feb 20, 2014 19:22
@fredsbend I think it is just suspicion on the part of group 1 that if circumstances were different, members of group 2 would merrily go off to club baby seals. Like any other absolutists-vs-pragmatists thing, where we agree on most stuff and are on the same side, so we have to argue about tactics and philosophy and hypotheticals instead.
James T
Feb 19, 2014 19:52
@AJHenderson We are having a bit of a disagreement in the environment group of my church currently, between the viewpoints of (1) the natural world has intrinsic value as God's handiwork and is worthy of protection, and (2) safeguarding the natural world is beneficial for us. The outcomes are the same for now, but philosophically the justifications are very different.
James T
Feb 12, 2014 03:30
@Anonymous I would not say the world is sinful so much as is tainted by sin
James T
Feb 12, 2014 03:28
@Anonymous Not by me.
James T
Feb 12, 2014 03:28
@Anonymous Sometimes we do good and sometimes we don't. I believe we could not act morally without the grace of God. "Intrinsic" is a slippery word which may lead to paradoxes or wrong conclusions if deployed incautiously.
James T
Feb 12, 2014 03:10
@Stizzle84 hello!
James T
Feb 12, 2014 02:43
@Anonymous I think this has already happened.
James T
Feb 12, 2014 02:42
@Anonymous I was always confused reading Narnia when the children (esp. Peter IIRC) would swear "by Jove". The Aslan = Jesus thing was confusing already and now they are invoking Jupiter?
James T
Feb 12, 2014 02:35
@Anonymous haha, amazing
James T
Feb 12, 2014 02:30
@Anonymous If I had my way all chat comments would be in gigantic neon flashing letters, with little animated spangles. Wait, sorry, that is what I would rather not happen.
James T
Feb 12, 2014 02:27
@Anonymous it's probably for the best
James T
Feb 5, 2014 19:19
This was in the recent debate and I think the additional protective amendment didn't succeed. Online bill text is only from stage 2 though. I don't know what the status is.
James T
Feb 5, 2014 19:15
One might be able to mount a human rights challenge on the basis of right to a family life etc., and argue that only a wedding in St Bumble's Church is good enough. I do not think that would succeed (and I'm not a lawyer) but it might take a while to find out.
James T
Feb 5, 2014 19:13
this is in addition to existing law about freedom of religion
James T
Feb 5, 2014 19:12
ie, you can't force the church to apply in general (and the government may not say yes), or to register any of its ministers specifically, and even if someone is on the register, they still don't have to carry out a marriage
James T
Feb 5, 2014 19:11
"Nothing in [the section about licensing] (a) imposes a duty on any religious or belief body to [ask to be allowed to marry same-sex couples]; (b) imposes a duty on any such body to nominate under section 9 any of its members to be registered as empowered to solemnise marriages between persons of the same sex; (c) imposes a duty on any person to apply for temporary authorisation under
section 12 to solemnise marriages between persons of the same sex; (d) imposes a duty on any person who is an approved celebrant in relation to marriages between persons of the same sex to solemnise such marri…
 

 Christianity 2014 Election

Open Discussion for christianity.stackexchange.com/election/2
James T
Jun 19, 2014 01:21
I see from the election roster that we have some interesting and good candidates standing. Which is nice :-)
James T
Jun 19, 2014 01:21
@Caleb Thank you for thinking of me. I don't think I can justify standing this time. As you may have gathered from the drop in my participation recently, I haven't had a lot of time to spend on this site. (I got a substantial promotion at work, which as usual entails more work.) I hope to spend more time here over the coming months but I wouldn't be a good moderator choice this year.
 

 DJClayworth YEC

Discussing my answer to the YEC question
James T
Apr 16, 2014 00:53
@DJClayworth Personally, I don't know very many YECists at all, and none who are scientists. (I do know plenty of those.)
James T
Apr 15, 2014 00:36
@DJClayworth I do not think this is a tautology, for basically the reason you give here. It's hard to find "scientists outside the movement" (ie, outside the YEC party) who accept any of the YEC claims or even believe there is much of a case to answer. The challenge is to find scientists who aren't involved in young-earth advocacy, but do consider young earth to be at least an open question.