u/Impressive_Flan_411

Hey everyone. I've noticed something interesting. Songs like "Wade in the Water", "Wayfaring Stranger", "I'll Fly Away", and "Swing Low, Sweet Chariot" seem to be appreciated by a lot of people who aren't religious. You'll hear them in movies, TV shows, Americana, bluegrass, country, folk festivals, and performed by artists who don't usually/mainly sing Christian music like Bob Dylan, Richie Havens, Louis Armstrong, Johnny Cash, Stevie Wonder, and even P Diddy (in "I'll Be Missing You" he interpolates "I'll Fly Away").

By contrast, contemporary worship songs like "Holy Forever", "Goodness of God", "What a Beautiful Name", or "I Surrender" don't seem to have the same crossover appeal. Outside of church contexts, they don't appear to receive nearly the same level of appreciation.

Why do you think that is? Do you think it's an issue to do with musical style, cultural history, authenticity, nostalgia, or something else? I'd love to hear your views on this.

Hey everyone. Something that came to my mind recently is that I don't understand how the perpetual virginity of Mary survives if we're reading the New Testament as literature rather than defending a later theological tradition.

The Gospels repeatedly refer to Jesus' brothers (James, Joses/Joseph, Judas, and Simon) and also mention his sisters. The most straightforward reading is exactly what it sounds like: Mary and Joseph had a normal marriage after Jesus' birth and had additional children.

Yes, I'm aware of the traditional responses:

1. "Brothers" can mean cousins.
2. They were Joseph's children from a previous marriage.
3. The Greek and Semitic terminology is broader than modern English.

The problem is that none of those explanations actually comes from the Gospel narratives themselves. They arise because the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity already exists and the text has to be reconciled with it.

Even many modern biblical scholars (eg Dan McClellan, Bart Ehrman, Francesca Stavrakopoulou) including scholars who are theologically conservative Christians like NT Wright (33:44 mark of the YT video), consider the natural historical reading to be that Jesus had biological siblings. The perpetual virginity doctrine is generally understood to be a theological development rooted in early Christian views about virginity and holiness, not something clearly taught by the New Testament itself.

This is why the doctrine feels like cognitive dissonance to me. If the text naturally suggests one conclusion, but every ordinary reading has to be reinterpreted to preserve a pre-existing dogma, isn't that a textbook example of starting with the conclusion and working backward?

I'm genuinely interested in hearing arguments that rely primarily on the biblical text itself rather than appeals to later Church tradition. If the perpetual virginity is actually taught in Scripture, where is the clearest evidence?

Hey everyone. I don't understand how the perpetual virginity of Mary survives if we're reading the New Testament as literature rather than defending a later theological tradition.

The Gospels repeatedly refer to Jesus' brothers (James, Joses/Joseph, Judas, and Simon) and also mention his sisters. The most straightforward reading is exactly what it sounds like: Mary and Joseph had a normal marriage after Jesus' birth and had additional children.

Yes, I'm aware of the traditional responses:

1. "Brothers" can mean cousins.
2. They were Joseph's children from a previous marriage.
3. The Greek and Semitic terminology is broader than modern English.

The problem is that none of those explanations actually comes from the Gospel narratives themselves. They arise because the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity already exists and the text has to be reconciled with it.

Even many modern biblical scholars (eg Dan McClellan, Bart Ehrman, Francesca Stavrakopoulou) including scholars who are theologically conservative Christians like NT Wright (33:44 mark of the YT video), consider the natural historical reading to be that Jesus had biological siblings. The perpetual virginity doctrine is generally understood to be a theological development rooted in early Christian views about virginity and holiness, not something clearly taught by the New Testament itself.

This is why the doctrine feels like cognitive dissonance to me. If the text naturally suggests one conclusion, but every ordinary reading has to be reinterpreted to preserve a pre-existing dogma, isn't that a textbook example of starting with the conclusion and working backward?

I'm genuinely interested in hearing arguments that rely primarily on the biblical text itself rather than appeals to later Church tradition. If the perpetual virginity is actually taught in Scripture, where is the clearest evidence?

Hey everyone. Obviously this is an extremely unlikely scenario, but it's an interesting thought experiment.

If Bronny James were to somehow finish his career ranked ahead of Kobe Bryant on the all time NBA list, what would he realistically have to accomplish? Basically, what would Bronny's resume have to look going forward from season 3 onwards to until his retirement for you to confidently rank him above Kobe all time?

Interested to hear everyone's criteria and where they think the bar is.

Hey yall, I'm curious to hear everyone's opinions. If you had to pick one Anglican musician, composer, or choir as the greatest of all time, who would it be?

Your choice could be based on its impact on Anglican worship, musical excellence, theological depth, influence on sacred music, longevity, or simply how much it has enriched your own faith and prayer life.

There are so many remarkable contributions to Anglican sacred music across different centuries and styles, so I'm interested to see what people choose and why.

Hey everyone. I've always enjoyed building hypothetical teams using specific versions of NBA players (for example, 2008 Kobe, 1992 Rodman, 2023 Brook Lopez, etc.) and thinking about how they'd perform in today's NBA. It got me wondering if this could work as an actual game mode in NBA 2K.

Imagine an online mode where each player drafts or creates an all-time roster using one specific season of each player, with some sort of salary cap, overall cap, or point system to keep teams balanced. You could then take your custom team online and play against other people's all time creations.

I think it would be a fun mix of basketball knowledge, team building, and gameplay strategy. Instead of everyone using the same historic teams or current rosters, you'd see unique lineups and interesting roster construction decisions.

Do you think 2K should add a mode like this? If so, what "limits" if any you would add to ensure a balance in playing against other opponents?

The NBA has produced countless unforgettable moments, but I've been wondering which single play stands above the rest as the most iconic in league history. Not necessarily the greatest play in terms of difficulty or importance, but the one that has become the most recognizable and enduring over time. Every era seems to have at least one moment that instantly comes to mind when you hear a nickname or see a replay.

A few obvious candidates are Michael Jordan's "The Shot" over Craig Ehlo, Kobe Bryant's lob/alley-oop to Shaquille O'Neal against the Trail Blazers, LeBron James' chasedown "The Block" in Game 7 of the 2016 Finals, Ray Allen's game-tying three in Game 6 of the 2013 Finals, and Kawhi Leonard's Game 7 buzzer-beater against the 76ers. There are plenty of others too.

If you had to pick just one, what do you think is the most iconic play in NBA history, and why?

Hey everyone. I've been thinking about how fans value team success versus individual excellence, especially for players who aren't the undisputed #1 option on a championship team. Rings are often treated as the ultimate measuring stick, but winning championships as an elite second option is a very different accomplishment than being recognized as the best defender in the league multiple times. It made me wonder which achievement is actually more impressive in a historical sense.

Scottie Pippen and Ben Wallace seem like good examples of the comparison. Pippen won six championships as Michael Jordan's co-star and is widely considered the greatest "Robin" in NBA history. Wallace, meanwhile, won four Defensive Player of the Year awards, which is tied for the most ever, and established himself as one of the greatest defenders the game has seen.

With this in mind, I'm not asking who was the better/greater overall player between these 2. Instead, I'm asking which accomplishment carries more weight, being the elite second option on 1 or multiple championship teams; or winning 1 or multiple DPOY awards? Which do you think is the greater accomplishment, and why?

Hey everyone. I've noticed something interesting about NBA GOAT discussions.

When I look at all time rankings from major sports media outlets and many analytically minded basketball fans; the consensus often seems to be that Michael Jordan and LeBron James are the top two, while players such as Kareem Abdul-Jabbar are more commonly ranked third. In a lot of these rankings, Kobe Bryant ends up somewhere in the 7-10 range, and occasionally even outside the top 10 like Bleacher Report's Top 100.

However, when I listen to everyday/casual basketball fans, sports talk shows, podcasts, YouTube channels, former players, or even non-fans, Kobe seems to come up in GOAT conversations far more often than players who are frequently ranked above him.

In practice, it often feels like the public GOAT debate is "Jordan vs. LeBron vs. Kobe", rather than "Jordan vs. LeBron vs. Kareem"

So why do you think that is?

Is it because Kobe's game was aesthetically similar to Jordan's? His popularity and global influence? The "Mamba Mentality" persona? His untimely demise? Or is it something else entirely?

Thoughts? To be clear, I'm not asking whether Kobe is the GOAT. I'm more interested in why he seems to occupy such a prominent place in GOAT discussions despite often being ranked below several other players on "mainstream media"/many "serious fans" all time lists.

Hey everyone. I've been reading and listening to more of N. T. Wright recently, and I'm curious how Anglicans here view him.

He seems to be one of the most influential Anglican theologians and New Testament scholars of the last few decades, particularly through his work on Paul, the Resurrection, the historical Jesus, and the Kingdom of God. At the same time, he doesn't seem to fit neatly into either the theological progressive or conservative camps within the C.O.E, which makes him especially interesting to me. For example, he is pro women's ordination, but seemingly conservative regarding same sex marriage.

For those familiar with his work, what do you think of his contributions to Anglicanism and biblical scholarship? Has he influenced your own theology, and what areas do you agree or disagree with him?