Spartan Sprinter
Well-known
Yeah for chronological order, watch the hobbit series 1st.
The movies are long i think but interesting
Christian Community Forum
Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate fully in the fellowship here, including adding your own topics and posts, as well as connecting with other members through your own private inbox!
Trump and Netanyahu's 2-state vision: Gaza war's end, Abraham Accords expansion
- Thread starter Kaatje
- Start date
The movies are long i think but interesting
Kem
Well-known
If you can, probably watch The Hobbit first but not completely necessary.
Amethyst
† He hath shed his own blood for my soul
Watched the first one. That was enough Frodo for me.
Watched the first one. That was enough Frodo for me.
I'm easily entertained but didn't think much of those movies, and especially of "precious".
Agree, I don’t get it.
Greg
Well-known
And then at the end of the second book Pippin "borrowed" the Palantir and got burned. Hmmm... Palantir. I'm guessing Peter Thiel also read LOTR, but maybe was rooting for Sauron?
Greg
Well-known
I still need to watch the extended version of Return of the King, but I think I'm going to skip most of the Frodo scenes.Watched the first one. That was enough Frodo for me.
As soon as I saw Peter's name for it, I knew he had to be referencing that. And not in a nice way.
Did you know the version of Palantir he offers to intelligence people, counter terrorism and govt is called Palantir Gotham?
The really dark figures in the whole OWG/NWO people are occult a lot of them anyway- and they like to hint at times, kind of an in joke between the insiders- aimed at the common folk who if they find out, can then be labelled conspiracy theorists for pointing it out.
Greg
Well-known
I didn't know that about Gotham -- interesting! What a joker. With the state of this world, more and more often I find myself taking great comfort in Psalm 2 and who will win in the end.
Upon reflection, I may take back the part about rooting for Sauron though... it was probably Morgoth instead.
Spartan Sprinter
Well-known
Don't they know they're not all accounted for geez LOL !!!!
I really like watching LOTR and then the Hobbit but have toyed around with going the other way. Then there's the 3 Bass & Rankin type cartoons from the 70s and/or 80s!
Work4Peanuts
Well-known
My mom read the books to me when I was little. I love the books, and enjoyed the Lord of the Rings movies. I felt like they left a lot of the light-hearted stuff out of the movies, but there was a lot to unpack in the books, so...
I was out of the country when the Hobbit movies came out. I saw that the first movie was an option on the plane back, thought to myself that I've read the book, and turned it on partway through the movie. Orcs were chasing the hobbits through the woods, when they were in the barrels?!?
What.
I guess the book wasn't exciting enough without orcs everywhere.
I turned the movie off and have never attempted to watch the hobbit movies again.
I was out of the country when the Hobbit movies came out. I saw that the first movie was an option on the plane back, thought to myself that I've read the book, and turned it on partway through the movie. Orcs were chasing the hobbits through the woods, when they were in the barrels?!?
What.
I guess the book wasn't exciting enough without orcs everywhere.
I turned the movie off and have never attempted to watch the hobbit movies again.
I never bothered with the Hobbit movie.My mom read the books to me when I was little. I love the books, and enjoyed the Lord of the Rings movies. I felt like they left a lot of the light-hearted stuff out of the movies, but there was a lot to unpack in the books, so...
I was out of the country when the Hobbit movies came out. I saw that the first movie was an option on the plane back, thought to myself that I've read the book, and turned it on partway through the movie. Orcs were chasing the hobbits through the woods, when they were in the barrels?!?
What.
I guess the book wasn't exciting enough without orcs everywhere.
I turned the movie off and have never attempted to watch the hobbit movies again.
I actually didn't think The Hobbit - the book was on the same level as the LOTR trilogy- book format. It seemed more like a fantasy novel, albeit a good one, with a children's fairy tale theme combined with something like Beowulf. We go out the door with Bilbo into adventures with fairytale creatures, make friends, survive all the challenges, and come home and live happily ever after.
LOTR the books- those are up there with my absolute must have books, no matter what. Desert Island library kind. Because of the depth and richness woven thru the entire trilogy.
The themes of betrayal, loss of innocence, loss of childhood, grappling with adult problems (without the sexual stuff that RUINS most fiction) and completing the assignment to save the world, but losing health and coming back to the Shire and a world that will never go back to the beauty it had.
This is like the Flood of Noah meets WW2 and sacrifices are made, but we can't live happily ever after. There is a gritty reality that paradise was lost, even while the world lives on in a new reality.
The roots of the war that had to be fought (the subject of the LOTR trilogy) stretch back to the beginning, with sin entering the world, gradually poisoning it till finally the things of the world had to die. The aftermath has redemption, but it never puts things back the way they were.
The movie captures some of that, did a really really good job as far as movies based on a book go, but the LOTR trilogy had so much more that couldn't take time in a movie theatre- the movies were long enough as is. They capture the essence, but leave the depth behind.
I was bored to death with the Silmarillion (son of JRR T took his notes and cobbled it together). He did that with a few others, but he lacked his father's depth of Biblical world view and how his father could write.
It's the Biblical world view that the LOTR trilogy uses as a basis that make it what it is. Up there with Pilgrim's Progress and Gulliver's Travels in my estimate, and I like LOTR best probably because it's more modern in the way it's written. The reason these are classics is because of the Bible undergirding each of them.
Work4Peanuts
Well-known
Ugh. The Silmarillion. Nope.
I will always love The Hobbit. Is it deep? Nope. It's made for children. Just like Peter Rabbit, Winnie the Pooh, and Raggedy Ann and Andy. These light-hearted children's books have a place, too, even though they aren't epic, and shape young minds in a way that any modern children's books lack, with optimism and biblical understandings of right and wrong. Maybe we have slightly different ideas of "classic". I still get joy going back and reading them.
Andiamo
Hanging on to the Throne
I ran across one of those cartoons and thought it looked really weird. Lots of cartoons were weird in the 60’s/70’s.
Work4Peanuts
Well-known
Agree. That and they never actually finished the story.
Classic children's books are good enough that adults want to re read them. Narnia series by CS Lewis is one of those. I go back time and again to re read it.
TCC
Well-known
As for the OP, it would surprise me if Bibi was that easily moved into a two-state solution. From that perspective, to me, it almost seems impossible that Bibi would (from where they are now) go for a two-state solution. Typically, tracking with the profound sense of the middle east story, I would imagine as the dust clears there would likely be a revisit of Saudi Arabia normalization...since that was what was on the table at the time of October 7th.
From that standpoint, it appears normalization may not be as off the table as it might seem. From 6 hours ago...
breakingthenews.net
I believe it would be hard for Saudi Arabia to want to normalize with Israel if there is no two-state solution. I don't believe Saudi Arabia would neutralize with Israel if they don't have two-state solution. Technically, I would believe that Saudi Arabia would have to neutralize with Israel and join the Abraham Accords in order for more Arab nations to follow suit. However, I wonder if there could be a Saudi Arabia joining of the Abraham Accords without a two-state solution. I believe it is possible, but not necessarily a "go to" view on that issue.
Kaatje, when I first read you OP, I thought, wow, this sounds like what Uturn on JDF had be thinking would happen. But I guess what that looks like now is that news organization just wanted to push Bibi in that direction I guess. When I read the following comments, it would seem that we might be coming to a place where Israel & USA are just saying Israel will do two-state solution to get more Abraham Accords alliances out of it (which was familiar territory from what happened in 2019/2020). If anything, perhaps this can serve as a reminder of what happened and why. That Palestine would never agree. Although it does not seem like much has changed in the Iranian regime (except more totalitarianism). But the way this is trending, to me, this to be an end to oppressive rule (for now). If the current Iranian admin collapses (which to me looks very likely), then the kinds of negotiation that can happen in a two-state solution I believe would look very different. Because I believe the main one reason Palestine won't agree on a deal is because Iran never wanted peace. Therefore it had been the standing take of Palestine to never agree to anything because it has never been about that. But if Iran is removed from that pressure valve, perhaps there could be a two-state solution.
. . . . .
In reading comments, it is clear we would not imagine it being God's will for Israel to accept a two-state solution. Or parts of Israel to be under Arab governance. Several weeks ago I posted a controversial perspective which I believe Pastor Adrian said much better. That Israel is still (and always will be) under the Abrahamic Covenant with God, yes. But being a country in disobedience to God, we might expect God to also strive with Israel as well in how He also may discipline them. And I believe that is what I was after, but Pastor articulated it much more clearly than I came across. Amen.
My sense about the direction of this is that Israel will lean toward a one state solution. And remain in that resolve. And that somehow Saudi Arabia still normalize. Perhaps with some Iranian regime fallout. That is my gut level sense about what might be around the corner for them. However, on a more practicle level, it would seem to me that Bibi might be opened to something of a two-state solution if Iran is not the antognist of Palestine. That just makes common sense. However, Bibi is known for not budging from a one-state solution. So even though it might be likelier to have a two-state solution without Iran so forward, I would still not see it as altogether something Bibi would resolve to be about (seeing it purely from a socio-political perspective).
But in the sense of what Evangelical Christianity might feel about how God honoring what Israel might do or does not do concerning Gaza and future rule, I would put forth once again here the reason some controversy ensued over my prior addressing. But this time without literary devices. Just plain speak. Because Pastor Adrian's clarity upon my own views has helped me to see it more soundly in this way. With that in mind though we still see comments in this thread about how wrong it would be for Israel to have a two-state solution. I don't say that advocating for one. But my main reason for bringing up the controversy over the ways of understanding Isreal currently under the Abrahamic Covenant does tend to be something Evangelical Christianity feels somewhat moved to have a position on. Like we would see a two-state solution not in God's will. And it is understandable given the Abrahamic Covenant that we might hold this view and hold it firmly.
However, in light of Ezekiel 36 and 37, I would submit that we the church though do not know the exact will God has for Israel in our contemporary moment. We know that Joel 3:2 referes to judgements rendered for what occurred during the tribulation. And the reason for that judgement is how certain nations divided Israel "for the purpose to scatter them throughout the world." I would have to think this pertains to the tribulation era. Because even though God can use nations in certain ways and hold them accountable for going too far with even His own intentions, I don't believe Joel 3:2 is speaking about the diaspora from 70 AD to 1948. Because that was God's judgement on Israel for forsaking their own Messiah.
And when we look at Israel since 1948, we do see Arab nations wanting to disperse Israel from their land over decades of warfare. With also an accompanying theme of the surrounding watching world trying to find diplomatic solutions to high tensions between two people groups (Israelis and Arabs) in general. The intentions of diplomacy (although man centered) were not for the purpose to disperse Israel. But rather to apply reasonable diplomacy to help bring stability to the middle east region. God is not angry in Joel 3:2 for diplomatic efforts to bring peace to the middle east. He likely would be angry if diplomacy was stupidly placating political doctrines to push Israel out. I could understand God's anger against dumb adherence to two-state solutions that at their core have ideology ultimately to oust Israel from their land inadvertently. But that is not the whole of negotiation we see before us. We do see many nation states wanting to bring peace to the middle east as a virtue not a harm to Israel in part. And that does exist on some genuine socio-political spectrums.
So if the above is true about our day and age, and God may use two-state solution pressures to discipline modern Israel (even within the context of the Abramaic Covenant), the question that does not seem to have resolve is: Why does the church get a say in how God's discipline should or should not look upon Israel in our day and age as it relates to the Abrahamic Covenant? If we know Israel is in difiant unbelief by virtue of God placing them under judicial hardening, we know that has value today in what we are looking at concerning Israel. Yet, in some ways it would seem the church would want the director's cut say on whether the church would or would not be comfortable with how God's discipline may fall upon Israel in our day and age. To me that sort of thing might run the danger of the church perhaps becoming too boisterous a shot-caller in "what God really means for Israel" in the short term. And by that notion, develop eschatological schematics on what that might all mean for us in how the church might look upon the middle east developments.
Does the above sound crazy? lol. Does my considering it in such a way seem to be missing some point? I ask because eschatology is not nearly as simple as perhaps any of us might have thought it might. Maybe it's far more simple than we might or some might make it out to be, granted. But it certainly is going in wanky ways that have a lot of us guessing. Which would admittably be likely healthy since we are dealing with the mind of an infinite God and how eschatology means what it does coming from such a deep mind as His, amen. But the prime object concerning Israel, to me, would be the story God is telling with her in use. More than perhaps a story we might overlay upon that. So in whatever way Israel moves, we have our clarity in how things go. Ultimately at some point, we are likely shareholders in an age of Ez 38. So however that comes about would be "God's will." Even if in part that means a two-state solution, though, am I wrong?
For me, what is God's will is what He shows us in how He uses or does not Israel at this time. In this sense it would seem God is telling us His will through how he works with Israel. If a two-state solution (discipling Israel currently) or a one-state solution (bringing about events through a more triumphal mode for Israel). Either way, two-state solution or one-state solution will be how God brings Israel to her peak moments in the age of grace. And this is something the church may not be privy to. Yet we feel it is God's will that we know God's will more for Israel in their late stage age of grace moment than how He fulfills prophecy according to His will in that brief season with Israel? To me this is a quagmire. Am I missing something in that? Because I agree with Joel 3:2. That that is something God says to nations at the end of the tribulation. Perhaps some of that might spill over onto the age of grace. But since God started the diaspora. And He brought Israel back to their land with much tension. And they still are in partial hardening mode, how in heaven's name could the church possibly know how to apply Joel 3:2 to today if we ommit genuine nation state efforts to bring peace to the middle east as inconsequential? Or worse, in opposition the the will of God we might feel more privy to? To me honestly this possibly approaches a danger of overlaying the accoutrements of the Abramaic Covenant and Joel 3:2 according to the sensibilities of how the church might size it up. But have no real actual bearing on the theatrical soundness in which God Himself uses Israel to play out a matter. In how we might simplify eschatology, this I would see as the church's role in end times in part. But is projecting the mantle of God's intent toward Israel in the age of grace afforded the church by Jeol 3:2? In some ways the way in which we might incert meaning into it to me possibly suggests Joel 3:2 is not a plumbline verse most soberly grasped perhaps within Evangelicalism as to how to apply it for late stage age of grace Israel. For the above stated reasons of concern.
If I am missing something, I am totally open to reconsider. But to me the story unfolding for us is how Ez 38 prequel occurs. Period. Where we are all the audience in that. Is this though not likely the case? I know this post is long...lol. I'm trying. But my attempts through shorter using far more spirited tactics did make shorter posts, but I don't think helped all that much in underscoring this concern bringing it to full circle--if that is perhaps even a thing to do. But thanks for those who took the time to read this book of mine. My intentions prior in some cloud of mischief did keep things shorter. But likely did introduce other abnormalities in contrast to what my purest question, observation, and intention would be. This much longer and more boring approach to the issue is the real sentiment. And reason for the length. To provide caring and hopeful most sober context to at least why I might have concerns along these lines. If that makes sense? Blessings.
From that standpoint, it appears normalization may not be as off the table as it might seem. From 6 hours ago...
Breaking The News
I believe it would be hard for Saudi Arabia to want to normalize with Israel if there is no two-state solution. I don't believe Saudi Arabia would neutralize with Israel if they don't have two-state solution. Technically, I would believe that Saudi Arabia would have to neutralize with Israel and join the Abraham Accords in order for more Arab nations to follow suit. However, I wonder if there could be a Saudi Arabia joining of the Abraham Accords without a two-state solution. I believe it is possible, but not necessarily a "go to" view on that issue.
Kaatje, when I first read you OP, I thought, wow, this sounds like what Uturn on JDF had be thinking would happen. But I guess what that looks like now is that news organization just wanted to push Bibi in that direction I guess. When I read the following comments, it would seem that we might be coming to a place where Israel & USA are just saying Israel will do two-state solution to get more Abraham Accords alliances out of it (which was familiar territory from what happened in 2019/2020). If anything, perhaps this can serve as a reminder of what happened and why. That Palestine would never agree. Although it does not seem like much has changed in the Iranian regime (except more totalitarianism). But the way this is trending, to me, this to be an end to oppressive rule (for now). If the current Iranian admin collapses (which to me looks very likely), then the kinds of negotiation that can happen in a two-state solution I believe would look very different. Because I believe the main one reason Palestine won't agree on a deal is because Iran never wanted peace. Therefore it had been the standing take of Palestine to never agree to anything because it has never been about that. But if Iran is removed from that pressure valve, perhaps there could be a two-state solution.
. . . . .
In reading comments, it is clear we would not imagine it being God's will for Israel to accept a two-state solution. Or parts of Israel to be under Arab governance. Several weeks ago I posted a controversial perspective which I believe Pastor Adrian said much better. That Israel is still (and always will be) under the Abrahamic Covenant with God, yes. But being a country in disobedience to God, we might expect God to also strive with Israel as well in how He also may discipline them. And I believe that is what I was after, but Pastor articulated it much more clearly than I came across. Amen.
My sense about the direction of this is that Israel will lean toward a one state solution. And remain in that resolve. And that somehow Saudi Arabia still normalize. Perhaps with some Iranian regime fallout. That is my gut level sense about what might be around the corner for them. However, on a more practicle level, it would seem to me that Bibi might be opened to something of a two-state solution if Iran is not the antognist of Palestine. That just makes common sense. However, Bibi is known for not budging from a one-state solution. So even though it might be likelier to have a two-state solution without Iran so forward, I would still not see it as altogether something Bibi would resolve to be about (seeing it purely from a socio-political perspective).
But in the sense of what Evangelical Christianity might feel about how God honoring what Israel might do or does not do concerning Gaza and future rule, I would put forth once again here the reason some controversy ensued over my prior addressing. But this time without literary devices. Just plain speak. Because Pastor Adrian's clarity upon my own views has helped me to see it more soundly in this way. With that in mind though we still see comments in this thread about how wrong it would be for Israel to have a two-state solution. I don't say that advocating for one. But my main reason for bringing up the controversy over the ways of understanding Isreal currently under the Abrahamic Covenant does tend to be something Evangelical Christianity feels somewhat moved to have a position on. Like we would see a two-state solution not in God's will. And it is understandable given the Abrahamic Covenant that we might hold this view and hold it firmly.
However, in light of Ezekiel 36 and 37, I would submit that we the church though do not know the exact will God has for Israel in our contemporary moment. We know that Joel 3:2 referes to judgements rendered for what occurred during the tribulation. And the reason for that judgement is how certain nations divided Israel "for the purpose to scatter them throughout the world." I would have to think this pertains to the tribulation era. Because even though God can use nations in certain ways and hold them accountable for going too far with even His own intentions, I don't believe Joel 3:2 is speaking about the diaspora from 70 AD to 1948. Because that was God's judgement on Israel for forsaking their own Messiah.
And when we look at Israel since 1948, we do see Arab nations wanting to disperse Israel from their land over decades of warfare. With also an accompanying theme of the surrounding watching world trying to find diplomatic solutions to high tensions between two people groups (Israelis and Arabs) in general. The intentions of diplomacy (although man centered) were not for the purpose to disperse Israel. But rather to apply reasonable diplomacy to help bring stability to the middle east region. God is not angry in Joel 3:2 for diplomatic efforts to bring peace to the middle east. He likely would be angry if diplomacy was stupidly placating political doctrines to push Israel out. I could understand God's anger against dumb adherence to two-state solutions that at their core have ideology ultimately to oust Israel from their land inadvertently. But that is not the whole of negotiation we see before us. We do see many nation states wanting to bring peace to the middle east as a virtue not a harm to Israel in part. And that does exist on some genuine socio-political spectrums.
So if the above is true about our day and age, and God may use two-state solution pressures to discipline modern Israel (even within the context of the Abramaic Covenant), the question that does not seem to have resolve is: Why does the church get a say in how God's discipline should or should not look upon Israel in our day and age as it relates to the Abrahamic Covenant? If we know Israel is in difiant unbelief by virtue of God placing them under judicial hardening, we know that has value today in what we are looking at concerning Israel. Yet, in some ways it would seem the church would want the director's cut say on whether the church would or would not be comfortable with how God's discipline may fall upon Israel in our day and age. To me that sort of thing might run the danger of the church perhaps becoming too boisterous a shot-caller in "what God really means for Israel" in the short term. And by that notion, develop eschatological schematics on what that might all mean for us in how the church might look upon the middle east developments.
Does the above sound crazy? lol. Does my considering it in such a way seem to be missing some point? I ask because eschatology is not nearly as simple as perhaps any of us might have thought it might. Maybe it's far more simple than we might or some might make it out to be, granted. But it certainly is going in wanky ways that have a lot of us guessing. Which would admittably be likely healthy since we are dealing with the mind of an infinite God and how eschatology means what it does coming from such a deep mind as His, amen. But the prime object concerning Israel, to me, would be the story God is telling with her in use. More than perhaps a story we might overlay upon that. So in whatever way Israel moves, we have our clarity in how things go. Ultimately at some point, we are likely shareholders in an age of Ez 38. So however that comes about would be "God's will." Even if in part that means a two-state solution, though, am I wrong?
For me, what is God's will is what He shows us in how He uses or does not Israel at this time. In this sense it would seem God is telling us His will through how he works with Israel. If a two-state solution (discipling Israel currently) or a one-state solution (bringing about events through a more triumphal mode for Israel). Either way, two-state solution or one-state solution will be how God brings Israel to her peak moments in the age of grace. And this is something the church may not be privy to. Yet we feel it is God's will that we know God's will more for Israel in their late stage age of grace moment than how He fulfills prophecy according to His will in that brief season with Israel? To me this is a quagmire. Am I missing something in that? Because I agree with Joel 3:2. That that is something God says to nations at the end of the tribulation. Perhaps some of that might spill over onto the age of grace. But since God started the diaspora. And He brought Israel back to their land with much tension. And they still are in partial hardening mode, how in heaven's name could the church possibly know how to apply Joel 3:2 to today if we ommit genuine nation state efforts to bring peace to the middle east as inconsequential? Or worse, in opposition the the will of God we might feel more privy to? To me honestly this possibly approaches a danger of overlaying the accoutrements of the Abramaic Covenant and Joel 3:2 according to the sensibilities of how the church might size it up. But have no real actual bearing on the theatrical soundness in which God Himself uses Israel to play out a matter. In how we might simplify eschatology, this I would see as the church's role in end times in part. But is projecting the mantle of God's intent toward Israel in the age of grace afforded the church by Jeol 3:2? In some ways the way in which we might incert meaning into it to me possibly suggests Joel 3:2 is not a plumbline verse most soberly grasped perhaps within Evangelicalism as to how to apply it for late stage age of grace Israel. For the above stated reasons of concern.
If I am missing something, I am totally open to reconsider. But to me the story unfolding for us is how Ez 38 prequel occurs. Period. Where we are all the audience in that. Is this though not likely the case? I know this post is long...lol. I'm trying. But my attempts through shorter using far more spirited tactics did make shorter posts, but I don't think helped all that much in underscoring this concern bringing it to full circle--if that is perhaps even a thing to do. But thanks for those who took the time to read this book of mine. My intentions prior in some cloud of mischief did keep things shorter. But likely did introduce other abnormalities in contrast to what my purest question, observation, and intention would be. This much longer and more boring approach to the issue is the real sentiment. And reason for the length. To provide caring and hopeful most sober context to at least why I might have concerns along these lines. If that makes sense? Blessings.
Similar threads
- Article
- Article
- Article
- Article
