#for me full-on apologist I would say Noah

[the-unconquered-queen]

*Apologist ≠ you stan them even though you recognize they're "bad"; apologist here means that you stan them but you also think they either didn't do anything wrong or you make excuses for the things they did wrong to justify them. And then problematic doesn't just mean that the Choices fandom has mixed feelings on them, it means that they actually did do some bad shit.

[winged-fool]

I need to learn to stop checking the main tag and stay out of the comment sections of social media posts because the Wyatt apologists are at it again and they are just feeding into my bitter anger filled salt so here we go. I’m apologizing in advance for the length and incoherence of my bitterness.

Part of why Wyatt’s crush on Rosa makes my skin crawl is the age difference. I know yee yee white boys like Wyatt. The fact Wyatt is late 20s-early 30s and isn’t married with at least one kid is sus. Wyatt is from an affluent ranching family and the fact no age appropriate white woman in Roswell decided he was marriage/father material is very telling and the fact it seems they are going to have him pursue a young WOC makes my skin crawl because that is a red flag. Even if Rosa wasn’t a WOC it would be a red flag. Especially considering his BFF was racist Hank who prayed on a 15 year old victim(Noah’s victim Carla) while simultaneously having a thing for Lindsey speaks volumes about Wyatt’s character.

Please note I’m not excusing Lindsey. She’s your typical racist white woman. She’d loudly insist she’s not racist while defending the actions and words of a racist white man she’s dating. But also was there a point to the character of Lindsey in S2 other then to exist for 🚗 to slut shame women and get away with it?

And this is bugging me particularly about 3x03. Why is no one(except Kyle) calling Wyatt out on his past behavior? If I’ve said it once I’ll say it 1000 more times. Amnesia is NOT absolution. They want to do this racism/police brutality plot with Burt? Fine. I can’t stop them obviously. But from what I understand Wyatt was up until 72 hours ago one of the people harassing and hate criming Burt and Burt isn’t allowed the space and dignity to NOT accept Wyatt’s apology? And I’m seeing people compare Wyatt’s amnesia to Isobel’s? Fucking false equivalency. Isobel experienced dissociative black outs stemming from childhood trauma, Noah weaponized those blackouts to slither into her psyche to target Rosa and used Isobel’s body as a murder weapon. Isobel did not receive absolution from Liz until it was revealed that Isobel didn’t murder Rosa. Wyatt in his full mental facilities CHOSE to commit heinous violent hate crimes against the Ortecho family and other Latinx people. Him not remembering that is not the same as Isobel’s trauma being weaponized against herself, Rosa, Kate, and Jasmine. 🍤🍤🍤

Oh no 🍤🍤🍤 sorry the main tags and comments on other sm made you so angry! But honestly, you have incredible takes here! Not incoherent at all!

I hadn't thought about Wyatt still being single in his late 20s, that's an interesting point! And yes, excellent points about Linsey!! And oh Racist Hank, I - like the writers - totally forgot about him too lol

Amnesia =/= Absolution!! I love that so much. You are 100% correct, my friend! I'm annoyed with Burt being in this season but yeah you're right that he should be able to have the autonomy and space to call Wyatt's behavior out and not have to accept his apology.

Big yikes on people comparing Isobel and Wyatt's amnesia though!! Also this: Isobel did not receive absolution from Liz until it was revealed that Isobel didn’t murder Rosa. Wyatt in his full mental facilities CHOSE to commit heinous violent hate crimes against the Ortecho family and other Latinx people. Him not remembering that is not the same as Isobel’s trauma being weaponized against herself, Rosa, Kate, and Jasmine. Absolutely well said!! I have nothing more to add, just to say that I fucking love it. Your takes are so good I s2g.

[trinitiesblog]

podcast 202 - Gregory of Nazianzus vs. Noah Worcester on subordinationist texts

Many readers have thought that especially in the fourth gospel, Jesus is presented as God himself, or as “fully divine” or as possessing a “divine nature,” any of which would imply that he is the uncreated creator, all-knowing and all-powerful (and these independently of any other), immune to temptation or death, ultimate in authority, and not in any sense “under” any other, the ultimate source of all other good things.

But especially in the gospel according to John, Jesus explicitly says that his authority, teaching, and power come from God, from the God who sent him and who works with him and through him and testifies to him, his God and our God, the Father. Don’t such statements plainly imply that Jesus is not God himself, but that he is someone else, and is dependent on God for his mission, authority, wisdom, and power? And if Jesus were the God of Abraham and Moses, he wouldn’t have any “Father” or any god over him, right? But Jesus in the fourth gospel explicitly claims to have both!

In this episode, you’ll hear contrasting approaches to reading such texts. First, ancient catholic bishop, rhetorician, and polemical theologian St. Gregory of Nazianzus (d. 390) from his famous “theological orations,” given just before what would come to be called the second “ecumenical” church council. In short, he asserts that it is rather obvious that the above subordinationist-sounding texts should be understood as having to do with Jesus’s “human nature” only.

In contrast, early American theologian Noah Worcester (d. 1837) argues that because of the ordinary use of pronouns, we ought to take such claims as having to do with Jesus’s whole person, and that asserting him to be talking (without any hint of it) only of one of his parts (natures) would make Jesus a deceiver. He also notes that the author of this gospel is constantly at pains to correct the reader’s potential misunderstandings of Jesus’s sayings. Why then, if John means to assert that Jesus is God, does he not qualify or explain so many sayings in his gospel which would lead the reader to think that Jesus is a lesser being than God who is dependent on him?

Moreover, what if the shoe were on the other foot? What if Jesus were always presented as asserting his own absolute independence of any other, with no one over him – and the unitarians said that he was only speaking of the power of God within him, and not of his human self, the one in whom that power operated? If such unitarians would merely be evading the obvious force of such texts, why are not trinitarians, in the actual case, merely evading the force of the many clear subordinationist texts?

In this episode you’ll hear the entirety of Worcester’s 1827 tract “The Doctrine of Pronouns Applied to Christ’s Testimony of Himself.” For your listening pleasure, I’ve slightly modernized his language.

Tweet This

. – Jesus in John 5:30″]

Links for this episode:

St. Gregory of Nazianzus, One God and Christ: The Five Theological Orations and Two Letters to Cledonius, trans. Williams & Wickham

16 American Unitarian Tracts

God and his Son: the logic of the New Testament

podcast 184 – Where did Jesus say “I am God, worship me”?

podcast 183 – Challenge Unmet

podcast 166 – Alvan Lamson’s On the Doctrine of Two Natures in Jesus Christ – Part 2

podcast 165 – Alvan Lamson’s On the Doctrine of Two Natures in Jesus Christ – Part 1

podcast 156 – Dr. J.R. Daniel Kirk on A Man Attested by God – Part 2

podcast 155 – Dr. J.R. Daniel Kirk on A Man Attested by God – Part 1

podcast 146 – Jesus as an Exemplar of Faith in the New Testament

podcast 145 – ‘Tis Mystery All: the Immortal dies!

podcast 124 – a challenge to “Jesus is God” apologists

podcast 116 – George R. Noyes’s Explanation of Isaiah 9:6 and John 1:1

podcast 86 – Kermit Zarley on distinguishing Jesus and God

podcast 70 – The one God and his Son according to John

podcast 66 – Before Abraham was… what?

podcast 63 – Thomas Belsham and other scholars on John 8:58

podcast 62 – Dr. Dustin Smith on the preexistence of Jesus in the gospel of John

podcast 61 – Dr. Dustin Smith on preexistence in ancient Jewish thought

podcast 22 – a cure for odium theologicum

podcast 16 – How is Jesus “the one Lord”?

podcast 15 – Are Paul’s “one God” and “one Lord” one and the same?

podcast 14 – One God, One Lord, Two Interpretations

This week’s thinking music is “Space (Full)” by Andy G. Cohen.

  http://trinities.org/blog/podcast-202-gregory-of-nazianzus-vs-noah-worcester-on-subordinationist-texts/