#are heathens and are from the same sect | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

taffywabbit · 10 months ago

Text

I touched on this during a stream last night but like. the thing that's probably really confusing about Mormonism is, if it's so wildly restrictive and puritanical and alienating, why do people actually want to JOIN the religion and claim to like it and feel that it improves their quality of life?

I've talked at length before about how, like any good cult organization, the church weaponizes rejection from outsiders and a deliberate sense of self-perpetuated othering to keep people trapped in the organization and feeling like they can't trust "the world" - they're only safe and understood and accepted within the confines of this very specific and unattractive in-group who have all been messed up in the same ways they are.

but like, as much as the statistics show that Mormons don't actually get many new converts for the amount of money and resources they spend on missionary efforts (and thus have to focus on long-term retention through the above methods, and also compelling their members to have a dozen kids who will grow up Mormon, in order to grow/maintain the church's numbers), some outsiders DO join, and some members who are more resistant to the feelings of isolation DO remain in the church out of a sincere belief that it makes them happier and more fulfilled. so like, what's up with THOSE people? how do they convince themselves this horrible restrictive lifestyle that cuts them off emotionally from the rest of society is what they actually want?

well, I'm sure there are a lot of deeper psychological factors that vary between individuals, but if you think about good old-fashioned Puritans and why THEY were so focused on the constant denial of basic earthly pleasures, you can get a little insight into this. from what I've figured out in the years since I left, a lot of this religion's supposed emotional benefits boil down to moral relativism.

most people want to feel like they're a good person, and some people have a really hard time feeling like they're a good person unless they have someone who is "worse" than them to compare themselves to. a lot of Christianity in general runs on this - the more evangelical or puritanical a sect is, the more you hear them speaking dismissively of outsiders and nonbelievers and heathens, and sometimes even talking about "purity" (ew). Granny Baker down the street could be the sweetest kindest old lady who volunteers at the food bank every Tuesday, but if she's not an avid churchgoer, especially in your particular chosen denomination, then she's still inferior to you in some meaningless intangible way and you get to feel like you're special for doing nothing. that's pretty much it! Christianity for a lot of people is just about getting to feel better about yourself without needing to improve in any actual substantial ways. you read your special book, say your prayers, sit in a church for an hour every week, never ever think any gay thoughts, and boom! you're "righteous" and god loves you, so who cares if Granny Baker thinks you're kind of a judgy asshole.

Mormons, though, take this to the next level. it's ALL about moral escalation, baby. it's not good enough to just do the basic Christian stuff - you need to prove you've joined GOD'S ONE TRUE RELIGION by being even more holy and special than any other Christians, too! they think drinking is frowned upon? well not only do Mormons NEVER drink or smoke or do drugs, they don't drink coffee or tea either! regular Christians go to church for an hour every Sunday? Mormons go for 2-3 hours, plus potentially some extra meetings if they have additional responsibilities in some kind of council or whatever, PLUS all kinds of other shit during the week to make sure they're in the church as often as possible. PLUS adult Mormons are supposed to attend several-hour ordinance sessions at a temple (those bigger fancier pointier churches that nonmembers can't enter, where all the REALLY cult-y looking stuff goes on) as frequently as they're able. regular Christians (if they're kinda old-fashioned) try not to work on Sundays? Mormons aren't supposed to do ANYTHING on Sundays besides church stuff. don't buy things, don't do schoolwork, don't go to the movies, don't listen to music that's "irreverent", etc etc... at EVERY level of this lifestyle your priority is to make sure you're extra special and holy and living a more devoted life than anyone else so you never have to question if they're more kind or benevolent or accepting or, y'know, actually Christlike than you. you follow all your little arbitrary extra rules and thus win a game that nobody else is playing.

something especially funny that non-Mormons may notice is that SOME Mormons take it EVEN FURTHER, too. not content to just do the bare minimum as set forth by the church's many councils of wrinkly businessmen in Utah, they make up ADDITIONAL personal rules for their family to live by, so they can be extra sure they never step anywhere CLOSE to being morally inferior to anyone. this is why you may have met Mormons who also say they don't drink cola or caffeinated soda or any soda at all, or who don't play video games on Sundays, or who not only don't swear but don't even say substitutes like "crap" and "dang it" and "freaking". (hey guess what! I was all of these at one point! my parents gave up on that last one after a while tho lol.)

they'll often tell you these extra house rules are part of their religion too, even though they're technically not in the books anywhere... and in a way they're not wrong, because that IS largely what Mormonism is about on a cultural level. you don't have to care about being homophobic or racist or uncharitable or various other things that come with essentially just being a Utah Republican But As A Religion, because every week you get to go to a place that praises and affirms you for being better and smarter than everyone else by following all the special little secret arbitrary rules that make you Morally Invincible and immune to anyone else's judgment.

so how does this tie into why people find the church interesting and want to join/stay? well of course, a desire to always win your internal comparisons against others goes hand-in-hand with a desire to be privy to secrets and tricks and obscure knowledge that others aren't. it's not just that Mormon beliefs can make you feel righteous - they ALSO make you feel smarter than all the other dumbasses out there who couldn't figure out that literally all you need to do to be happy is Stop Drinking Coffee and also Give 10% Of Your Income To An Organization With A $100 Billion Stock Portfolio. they entice you with the promise of teaching you stuff that everyone else is apparently just too dense to comprehend, and make you feel clever and special for recognizing the Truth. it's not just a social in-group you're being invited into, it's an EXCLUSIVE CLUB full of SECRET KNOWLEDGE with HIGH STANDARDS and only SMART COOL PEOPLE get to join! if you're going through some rough times or your self-esteem is low or you feel vaguely guilty about your life and don't know how to feel better, you are a lot more likely to be ensnared by what they promise you. (trust me! when I was a missionary they literally trained us to ask questions that would help us efficiently target those people!) and then before you know it, you're isolated inside that ecosystem, normal people find you intimidating and weird, it's hard to get back out, and the church won't leave you alone if you do. oops! aren't cults fun?

#buny text #religion #mormonism #long post #sorry this one is so long I've been stewing over it for like a month lol #originally spawned from spending the weekend with my family and having a Really Fucking Bad Time #anyways it's Sunday afternoon which is always the perfect time to go on a rant about mormons #enjoy

44 notes · View notes

nicklloydnow · 1 year ago

Text

“Few people ever attempt to define 'good'. What is 'good'? 'Good' for whom? Is there a common good - the same for all people, all tribes, all conditions of life? Or is my good your evil? Is what is good for my people evil for your people? Is good eternal and constant? Or is yesterday's good today's vice, yesterday's evil today's good?

When the Last Judgment approaches, not only philosophers and preachers, but everyone on earth - literate and illiterate - will ponder the nature of good and evil.

Have people advanced over the millennia in their concept of good? Is this concept something that is common to all people - both Greeks and Jews - as the Apostle supposed? To all classes, nations and States? Even to all animals, trees and mosses - as Buddha and his disciples claimed? The same Buddha who had to deny life in order to clothe it in goodness and love.

The Christian view, five centuries after Buddhism, restricted the living world to which the concept of good is applicable. Not every living thing - only human beings. The good of the first Christians, which had embraced all mankind, in turn gave way to a purely Christian good; the good of the Muslims was now distinct.

Centuries passed and the good of Christianity split up into the distinct goods of Catholicism, Protestantism and Orthodoxy. And the good of Orthodoxy gave birth to the distinct goods of the old and new beliefs.

At the same time there was the good of the poor and the good of the rich. And the goods of the whites, the blacks and the yellow races . . . More and more goods came into being, corresponding to each sect, race and class. Everyone outside a particular magic circle was excluded.

People began to realize how much blood had been spilt in the name of a petty, doubtful good, in the name of the struggle of this petty good against what it believed to be evil. Sometimes the very concept of good became a scourge, a greater evil than evil itself.

Good of this kind is a mere husk from which the sacred kernel has been lost. Who can reclaim the lost kernel?

But what is good? It used to be said that it is a thought and a related action which lead to the greater strength or triumph of humanity - or of a family, nation, State, class, or faith.

People struggling for their particular good always attempt to dress it up as a universal good. They say: my good coincides with the universal good; my good is essential not only to me but to everyone; in achieving my good, I serve the universal good.

And so the good of a sect, class, nation or State assumes a specious universality in order to justify its struggle against an apparent evil.

Even Herod did not shed blood in the name of evil; he shed blood in the name of his particular good. A new force had come into the world, a force that threatened to destroy him and his family, to destroy his friends and his favourites, his kingdom and his armies.

But it was not evil that had been born; it was Christianity. Humanity had never before heard such words: 'Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again . . . But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you . . . Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.'

And what did this doctrine of peace and love bring to humanity? Byzantine iconoclasticism; the tortures of the Inquisition; the struggles against heresy in France, Italy, Flanders and Germany; the conflict between Protestantism and Catholicism; the intrigues of the monastic orders; the conflict between Nikon and Avakum; the crushing yoke that lay for centuries over science and freedom; the Christians who wiped out the heathen population of Tasmania; the scoundrels who burnt whole Negro villages in Africa. This doctrine caused more suffering than all the crimes of the people who did evil for its own sake . . .

In great hearts the cruelty of life gives birth to good; they then seek to carry this good back into life, hoping to make life itself accord with their inner image of good. But life never changes to accord with an image of good; instead it is the image of good that sinks into the mire of life - to lose its universality, to split into fragments and be exploited by the needs of the day. People are wrong to see life as a struggle between good and evil. Those who most wish for the good of humanity are unable to diminish evil by one jot.

Great ideas are necessary in order to dig new channels, to remove stones, to bring down cliffs and fell forests; dreams of universal good are necessary in order that great waters should flow in harmony . . . Yes, if the sea was able to think, then every storm would make its waters dream of happiness. Each wave breaking against the cliff would believe it was dying for the good of the sea; it would never occur to it that, like thousands of waves before and after, it had only been brought into being by the wind.

Many books have been written about the nature of good and evil and the struggle between them . . . There is a deep and undeniable sadness in all this: whenever we see the dawn of an eternal good that will never be overcome by evil - an evil that is itself eternal but will never succeed in overcoming good - whenever we see this dawn, the blood of old people and children is always shed. Not only men, but even God himself is powerless to lessen this evil.

'In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not.’

What does a woman who has lost her children care about a philosopher's definitions of good and evil?

But what if life itself is evil?

I have seen the unshakeable strength of the idea of social good that was born in my own country. I saw this struggle during the period of general collectivization and again in 1937; I saw people being annihilated in the name of an idea of good as fine and humane as the ideal of Christianity. I saw whole villages dying of hunger; I saw peasant children dying in the snows of Siberia; I saw trains bound for Siberia with hundreds and thousands of men and women from Moscow, Leningrad and every city in Russia - men and women who had been declared enemies of a great and bright idea of social good. This idea was something fine and noble - yet it killed some without mercy, crippled the lives of others, and separated wives from husbands and children from fathers.

Now the horror of German Fascism has arisen. The air is full of the groans and cries of the condemned. The sky has turned black; the sun has been extinguished by the smoke of the gas ovens. And even these crimes, crimes never before seen in the Universe - even by Man on Earth - have been committed in the name of good.

Once, when I lived in the Northern forests, I thought that good was to be found neither in man, nor in the predatory world of animals and insects, but in the silent kingdom of the trees. Far from it! I saw the forest's slow movement, the treacherous way it battled against grass and bushes for each inch of soil . . . First, billions of seeds fly through the air and begin to sprout, destroying the grass and bushes. Then millions of victorious shoots wage war against one another. And it is only the survivors who enter into an alliance of equals to form the seamless canopy of the young deciduous forest. Beneath this canopy the spruces and beeches freeze to death in the twilight of penal servitude.

In time the deciduous trees become decrepit; then the heavyweight spruces burst through to the light beneath their canopy, executing the alders and the beeches. This is the life of the forest - a constant struggle of everything against everything. Only the blind conceive of the kingdom of trees and grass as the world of good . . . Is it that life itself is evil?

Good is to be found neither in the sermons of religious teachers and prophets, nor in the teachings of sociologists and Popular leaders, nor in the ethical systems of philosophers . . . And yet ordinary people bear love in their hearts, are naturally full of love and pity for any living thing. At the end of the day's work they prefer the warmth of the hearth to a bonfire in the public square.

Yes, as well as this terrible Good with a capital 'G', there is everyday human kindness. The kindness of an old woman carrying a piece of bread to a prisoner, the kindness of a soldier allowing a wounded enemy to drink from his water-flask, the kindness of youth towards age, the kindness of a peasant hiding an old Jew in his loft. The kindness of a prison guard who risks his own liberty to pass on letters written by a prisoner not to his ideological comrades, but to his wife and mother.

The private kindness of one individual towards another; a petty, thoughtless kindness; an unwitnessed kindness. Something we could call senseless kindness. A kindness outside any system of social or religious good.

But if we think about it, we realize that this private, senseless, incidental kindness is in fact eternal. It is extended to everything living, even to a mouse, even to a bent branch that a man straightens as he walks by.

Even at the most terrible times, through all the mad acts carried out in the name of Universal Good and the glory of States, times when people were tossed about like branches in the wind, filling ditches and gullies like stones in an avalanche - even then this senseless, pathetic kindness remained scattered throughout life like atoms of radium.” (p. 404 - 408)

3 notes · View notes

gayhenrycreel · 1 year ago

Text

prev, i assure you that while many christians are wonderful, the biggest sects are death cults.

evangelicalism is the driving force behind western zionism. it believes that this will bring back jesus:

round up the entire jewish population in israel

this will trigger the rapture

christ will take revenge on his killers (or rather who the cult wants to believe killed jesus

the Good Guys will go to heaven and the Sinners will go to hell

if a christian is a zionist be suspicious unless you have reason otherwise. this is christian zionism and its why america supports israel.

in general, common western christianity relies on fear. it shames its victims. western christianity is the reason people unironically believe in thought crimes. dont think about a sin, thats the same as committing a sin. it is often believed that god can read your mind.

according to western christianity, christianity is a more evolved form of judaism, which is believed to be christianity with the blasphemous rejection of christ.

the devil is usually not a symbolic representation of evil, he is a second evil god that can take good gods place if he gets enough worship points.

the kind and loving christians ive met are not western christians. they didn't grow up with the threat of hell.

the first christian i ever met was western, and he called anyone he didn't like christ killers.

to a western christian, everyone else is a heathen to either banish to hell, or save with the selfish goal of earning jesus points.

im sorry to say, but big denomination christians will often see converts as rescued heathens.

frequently non christians get "prayed for" by christians who think that the out group needs saving from not being afraid of intrusive thoughts, not constantly fearing eternal punishment, and not taking the bible as literally as possible.

in mainstream west christianity you can not question the bible. this is defined vaguely. you must take it literally. it is fully believed that adam was a real man who fucked his clone and his clone was a stupid woman who is easily manipulated. of course this is weaponized to say that all subsequent women must be fiercely "protected" from sin because, being children of eve, they are all susceptible to falling prey to the devil, i.e, not being a housewife.

the bible is considered a true story. you cant see the story of the flood as about how even god can make mistakes because if he didn't there would not be suffering, because us being his creation, he poured his soul into us, therefore he can be human too.

no, questioning is heresy.

catholicism, evangelicalism, and protestantism are the big christian cults. they function on fear.

oh and be extremely careful of mormonism, those fucks literally believe that jesus was actually american, they worship the state as god, and think native americans were turned brown as punishment for being jewish.

individual christians are often really nice, but once they gather and get big, hell is a tool of control.

Am I In A Cult?

Every so often, you have to sit without yourself and think, "am I in a cult?" This goes for everyone and it's really important to do so.

Consider:

1. Is there an out group I'm supposed to hate?

2. Is a group telling me they're the only safe people?

3. Am I being told to distance myself or stop contacting my loved ones?

4. Am I being asked to risk my life or others' lives? (This one is iffy, but still should be on the list.)

5. Am I being told that my group is above the law?

6. Am I asked to self censor? Am I punished for asking questions?

7. Am I worried about losing all my friends and social network if I step out of line?

8. Have other people called me an extremist?

9. Am I being told to follow one person or organization and not question it?

Everyone is susceptible to cults. Everyone!

This isn't about any particular group or ideology. But there are a lot of groups online that are falling into cult behaviors and we need to be aware of that and stop it immediately.

8K notes · View notes

libermirror · 6 months ago

Text

Small Review of Egregrores by Mark Stavish

So, where do we start? Overall, this book seems similar in tone to other books written by Hermetic Authors where there is a bit of a 'I'm better than the rest of these religions because they're all for mindless sheep and I'm seeking illumination."

My brother in Christ, all organized religions are the same. They are pursuit of existential meaning in a world that is otherwise chaotic, random and very much impartial. You are no more different from the Buddhists, nor the Muslims, nor the Catholics, nor the Heathens. With the lack of a religious anchor, you are shrimply a fucknut.

That said, there are some parts of his writing that are grounded. The first is therapeutic blasphemy which is often found, or alluded to, in initiatory works and historical accounts of the 'Black Mass' and other such areas such as some sects of Tantra which work against norms in order to obtain a non-dual understanding, that is outside of dogma and perceptions of pure and impure.

Though, I would argue that thre is a very apinful excuse for understanding on Buddhism, and even Hinduism. Let us assume, for a moment, that he did actually study two seconds of Hermetic Philosophy - he would've at least had minimal exposure to the Hermetica which has an interesting line in Section 41 of the Perfect Discourse of Hermes Trismegistus which states:

"(...) Granting to us mind, word and knowledge: Mind that we may understand you; Word, that we may call upon you; Knowledge, that we may know you."

Which, quite essentially, supports thee meditations and symbology of the deities in Buddhism and Hinduism. There is not one part of their symbology, their mental form, that dos not have meaning and do not represent some aspect or nature of that deity being invoked mentally as the Yidam, the Guru or the Deity themselves.

Though, he also seems to take the Four Activities out of their context so I shouldn't be surprised.

Carrying on, he does mention the Egregore of Occult Circles which does have some basis - but maybe not in the way that he seems to think. There is the practice of Lineage, in which the various gurus are invoked, the deity of the gurus and the practitioners of the path. His prorposed link, as he so proudly proclaims, is less of link to the order and mor to thel ineage and transmission of knowledge. Initiatory works often act to open the person up to subtler experiences of spirituality, please see the Hymn to the Eighth and Ninth.

What makes life worse is that there are mentions of 'sirens' in the G.D and Thelemic Path, but they were largely external embodiments of internal temptations, in a similar way to to the forty days of Jesus in the Desert in which he had to overcome various human temptations through his projection of the Accusatory Figure. What further worries me is that this may have been a study, since the GD documents which i have read have made particular usage of Banishing and Cleansing Rituals which would've, to some degree, made the person less likely to have 'energetic parasites'. The closest thing I can possibly imagine is the movement through Da'ath in NOX in which Babalon is regarded as taking the lifeblood of the Aspirant, without sparing a single drop.

I will not even go into his usage of Mouni Sadhu as I know well enough that I don't like the man.

Then comes the issue of Demons and Daimonology which, quite frankly, annoys me. It is rather interesting how people will often make use of Abrahamic Demonology without a second thought or study into it and, as much as we can bash him, Crowley at least knew enough.

Oddly enough, he doesn't provide any role of evil (using the term spiritual snobbery later) but instead argues his own metaphysics of it. He then delves into everything from Television, Telepathy and Mind Control which, though well known, has little to no occult impact and is largely exposure and behavioural.

His whole writing just ... it irks me man. It's basically just some snobbish hermetic magician using Prisca Theologia to wipe his ass with other religions since they're simply different forms of the One True Theology given to Hermes Trismegistus and the First Sages and also the Great White Brotherhood.

1 note · View note

yhwhrulz · 8 months ago

Text

Charles Spurgeon's "Morning & Evening" Devotional for November 13

Morning

“The Word of God is not bound.”

Acts 28:16-31

Acts 28:16

He, no doubt, had a house near the Prætorian barracks, and thus enjoyed more liberty than in a prison; but he had a soldier fastened to his arm by a chain, a cause of constant discomfort, however courteous the soldier might be.

Acts 28:21 , Acts 28:22

This has always been the mark of real Christians; and yet, for all that, they conquer the hearts of men. Christ is set for a sign which shall be spoken against, and to be called “a sect,” has been the constant lot of his faithful church.

Acts 28:23

Such industry should shame us. Paul was not content with delivering a sermon every day, but kept his house open to inquirers, and poured out continually a stream of holy teaching.

Acts 28:24

That is always the case, whoever may be the preacher. On the stony ground the seed brings forth no harvest, even though an apostolic hand sows it. To which of the two classes do we belong? Do we believe? Or are we unbelievers still?

Acts 28:25-28

If we also remain unbelieving, God may take the gospel from us, and send it to others who will accept it. That would be a dreadful thing indeed. How long will it be ere we believe in Jesus? Do we mean to provoke the Lord to forsake us for ever?

Acts 28:30 , Acts 28:31

Thus Luke, beginning at Jerusalem, closes his narrative at Rome, following the footprints of the gospel from the Mount of Olives to the City of the Seven Hills, and showing how the foundations of the church were laid both in Asia and Europe. What was begun with so much heroism ought to be continued with ardent zeal, since we are assured that the same Lord is mighty still to carry on his heavenly designs.

Christ and his cross is all our theme;

The mysteries that we speak

Are scandal in the Jew’s esteem,

And folly to the Greek.

But souls enlighteh’d from above

With joy receive the Word;

They see what wisdom, power, and love

Shine in their dying Lord.

Evening

“Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.”

Romans 1:1-23

The Epistle to the Romans is one of the greatest of Paul’s writings, and is rather a treatise than a letter. It was probably written by him from Corinth, three years before he himself arrived at Rome. Dean Alford says, “There is not a grander thing in literature than this opening of the Epistle to the Romans.”

Romans 1:1-4

As to his flesh, he was of the seed of David, but his higher nature was by his resurrection manifested most powerfully to be divine. Had he not risen he could not have been God; his resurrection by his own power has made his Godhead plain.

Romans 1:9-12

Little did he dream that his prayers were to be answered by his being conveyed in chains to the great city. Very mysterious are the Lord’s ways of granting our requests.

Romans 1:13

let or hindered

Romans 1:14

His office and his gifts placed him in debt to mankind to labour for their conversion, and every Christian, according to his ability, is in the same condition. Are we paying the debts under which the Lord has laid us?

Romans 1:15

He was not afraid of danger, and was willing to come right under the palace walls of Cæsar. In due time his desire became a fact.

Romans 1:21-23

They must have known better. No man in his senses can worship birds and beasts without feeling degraded by so doing. Natural reason rebels against such an insult to God, and as they would not listen to its voice the heathen were left to fall into abominable vices. Let us never slight the checks of conscience, lest we should be given over to our own corrupt hearts. No doom could be more terrible.

0 notes

if-you-fan-a-fire · 8 months ago

Text

"Bacon’s theory of monstrosity and terror was carried into the middle of the seventeenth century by Thomas Edwards, who studied the heresies of revolutionary England. ... In his dedication he described his combat against the ‘‘three bodied Monster Geryon, and the three headed Cerberus,’’ and ‘‘that Hydra also, ready to rise up in their place.’’ At the beginning of volume 2 he noted that ‘‘whilest I was writng this Reply, had even finished it, striking off this three headed Cerberus, new heads of that monstrous Hydra of Sectarism sprung up.’’ The heads of Bacon’s hydra lunge out of Edwards’s work, in the shape of religious radicals, indigenous Americans, Africans, commoners, sailors, and women.

The ‘‘Anabaptists’’ denounced by Bacon had multiplied during the subsequent generation, posing a revolutionary challenge during the 1640s and 1650s and setting men such as Edwards to work. Some of these heretics, Edwards explained, favored communism, claiming ‘‘that all men are Commoners by right’’ and that ‘‘all the earth is the Saints, and there ought to be a community of goods, and the Saints should share in the Lands and Estates of Gentlemen, and rich men.’’ An associated belief was the millenarian notion that Christ would visibly reign for a thousand years, putting down all oppressors, while Christians lived in worldly delight (though no one seemed to know when to begin the calculation of the millennium!). Many of the Anabaptists were also antinomians, believing that the ‘‘moral law [was] of no use at all to believers,’’ that the Old Testament was not binding on God’s chosen, and that faith and conscience took priority over good works and lawfully constituted authority. Indeed, some held that it was ‘‘unlawful for a Christian to be a magistrate,’’ while others felt that secular government itself was an oppression. Skepticism toward rules, ordinances, and rituals abounded, as did revelations and visions. Some religious radicals asserted that the ‘‘body of the common people is the Earthly Sovereign.’’

Like Bacon, Edwards adopted an international perspective on his subject, remarking that many of the heresies had been promoted by persons ‘‘cast out of other Countries.’’ He condemned the numerous spiritual extremists of New England [and compared them to Hannibal's army - many nations under arms.] The core of Hannibal’s army was African, and indeed the continent to which English slave traders were flocking in the 1640s was never far from Edwards’s mind. Many of the heresies of seventeenth-century England seemed to Edwards to be variations of the North African heresies of early Christianity, such as those of the Donatists. He wrote, ‘‘Error, if way be given to it, knowes no bounds, it is bottomlesse, no man could say how farre England would goe, but like Africa it would be bringing forth Monsters every day.’

When Edwards singled out for particular scorn those monsters he described as ‘‘hairy, rough, wilde red men,’’ Caliban reappeared in revolutionary England, as did native America more generally. In much the same vein, the editor of an English newsbook reported in April 1649 the sayings of two ‘‘savage Indians’’ at the French court:

[One Indian] observed two things which he stood amazed at. First, that so many gallant men which seemed to have stout and generous Spirits, should all stand bare, and be subject to the will and pleasure of a Child [Louis XIV]. Secondly, that some in the City were clad in very rich and costly Apparel, and others so extream poor, that they were ready to famish for hunger; that he conceived them to be all equaliz’d in the ballance of Nature, and not one to be exalted above another.

The editor denounced the natives as ‘‘two Heathen Levellers.’’ In the Americas, fear of Indian attacks and slave revolt went hand in hand with fear of ‘‘familisme [the doctrine of the sixteenth-century sect called the Family of Love], Anabaptisme, or Antinomianisme,’’ and the many-headed hydra summarized the threat in a powerful rhetorical figure. Edwards wrote that John Calvin, who attacked popish heresy as well as the heresies of libertines and Anabaptists, was a ‘‘Christian Hercules, overcoming so many monsters.’’

- Peter Linebaugh and Marcus Rediker, The Many-Headed Hydra: Sailors, Slaves, Commoners, and the Hidden History of the Revolutionary Atlantic. Boston: Beacon Press, 2000. p. 66-69

#many-headed hydra #reading 2024 #revolutionary atlantic #anabaptists #kevellers #settler colonialism #seventeenth century #indigenous peoples #academic quote #millenarism

0 notes

conspiritusnosterchorus · 1 year ago

Text

The uncircumcised heathen are "the sons of Belial" (ib. xv. 32). Jewish Encyclopedia I was accused of antisemitism when I quoted this article against some of the claims they made about "sons of Belial" and Belial himself. Not to mention I was accused of anti-islam when I said my ex is a muslim who harbors a hatred toward Christians (fact) so im not sure what was anti-islam about my personal relationship with my ex, it's the only thing i said "my ex is a muslim". The power of western-educated people that purport supremacy over other sources of information. i guess.

They also ignored my experience with other wives and consorts of Belial and claimed I'm level 2-3 possessed (as far as I know, this person wasn't a Catholic priest or anyone really, just a random person in a server) by Belial and told me i need to cut all contact with him. (Which is the leading theme of the spiritual harassment I've experienced, to cut connections and ties with Belial. but by this person to "help against alleged, baseless claim of being demonically possessed" - way to take the side of the harassers - to cut off the threat that can help against these problematic beings! or at worst, fear-mongering a severely ill person who has been unable to get psychiatric help and is so oversensitive to medication that can't be medicated - this is actually a fact, my psychiatric doctor told me there's no available medications for me to try anymore-- but go off i guess). Not to mention the idea they seemed to have, that all Christians and Jews worship the same God, instead of Christians worshipping a dead guy as a god, or like some theorize a Christian Egregore (which in my opinion each sect has their own version (egregore) of this Christian god - it's a stolen book and their own lore is all over the place and cherry picked - dead sea scrolls and all that isn't accepted from these writings into the official book and teachings). It's been told to me by several people how the Abrahamic God is an entirely different entity from the god(s) Christians worship and follow.

and then, I was supposed to comply to these strangers claims after trusting them with my experience. and because I according to them "didn't" they wanted to kick me out based on, quoting Jewish Encyclopedia, telling them my divergent experience of others who work (in very positive ways) with Belial - having dated a muslim and yeah, not taking at face value their 'advice from the expert' who is a total random stranger online refuting other sources and experiences. and ignored my very real situation of having tried to get all sorts of psychiatric help (depression, trauma, religious trauma, severe abandonment and excommunication by my birth cult and family, other trauma symptoms) for 20 years and then lastly being told "We can't do anything for you". sorry mates, if my doc says they can't do anything for me anymore, no amount of your "Have you tried to get medical help?" is gonna make me beat a dead horse more just to appease your egos.

but these people always do others a favor. i wouldn't want to stay in such a place that's so quick to cut people off and blame and accuse them irrationally. they're worst for mental health. I'm rather gone from such a place that feigns friendliness but is very quick to come up with excuses to get rid of people that don't dance to their "happiness woo woo" or whatever the heck it is. plus there was someone else who had a bad experience with them as well. i also feel bad now for having recommended them to someone.

not that the public craft spaces aren't also sanitized currently, sadly. compared to the diverse witchblr of ten years ago where people talked about all sorts of things from astral worlds to energy work experiences to realms and entities and other deep esoteric experiences that had less to do with what some people call "larping" these days and more to do with gnosis. way to shut down people's experiences truly. /rant end thanks for reading <3 best wishes from a girl being possessed by Belial for the past 26 years I guess :D what a lucky girl :3

#personal #spirit work #witchcraft #godspouse

0 notes

notmuchtoconceal · 1 year ago

Text

ASS-WORSHIP :--

By: Kaufmann Kohler & Samuel Krauss

Table of Contents

Various Authors of the Calumny.

Same Accusation Against Early Christians.

Josephus' Disproof for the Jews.

Mockery of Christianity.

Real Foundation in a Gnostic Sect.

Origin in the Egyptian Typhon-Worship.

Jews Can Not Be Connected with Typhon-Worship.

Origin of Accusation in Alleged Bacchus-Worship.

The accusation that Jews worshiped the ass was for four centuries persistently made by certain Greek and Latin writers. Various Authors of the Calumny. (1) Mnaseas of Patras (second century B.C.) is quoted by Josephus ("Contra Ap." ii. 9) as claiming that the Jews worshiped the head of a golden ass (χρυσὴν . . . τοῦ κάνϑωνος κεφαλήν). The word κάνϑων, instead of the usual ὂνος, suggested by its similarity to the κάνϑωρος (the scarabs), worshiped in Egypt, betrays the Egyptian standpoint of the author, it being also used to denote the sign upon the tongue of the Egyptian god Apis. (2) A similar charge is made by Damocritus (Suidas, s.v. Δαμόκριτος), whose period is undetermined, but who certainly preceded Josephus. In his book "About the Jews" Damocritus asserts that the Jews reverenced the head of a golden ass (χρυσὴν ὂνου κεφαλην προσεκύνουν), to which every seven years they sacrificed a foreigner, whom they seized for that purpose, and cut his flesh into small pieces. Suidas (s.v. 'Ιούδας καὶ 'Ιουδαῖος) places the interval between these ritual-murders at three years instead of seven. (3) The next writer is Plutarch (46-120), who, in his "Quæstiones Conviviales," iv. 5, states that the Jews abstained from eating the flesh of the hare because it resembled the ass, which is an animal worshiped by them. (4) Julius Florus, who lived under Antoninus Pius, speaks of the conquest of Jerusalem by Pompey, and mentions a secret place discovered in the Temple on that occasion, which contained, he says, an ass under a golden vine ("sub aurea vite cillum"). But the word "cillum," the most important word in the passage, is only a guess at a very much disfigured text, which, in its received form, gives no sense at all. This author's testimony, therefore, hardly deserves consideration. (5) Quite different from these accounts is that in Diodorus, "Eclogæ," § 34, by Posidonius of Apamæa (died about 51 B.C.), that when Antiochus Epiphanes conquered Jerusalem in the year 168 B.C. and entered the Temple, he found in the Holy of Holies the image of a man sitting upon an ass (καϑήμενον ἔπ δνον) and holding a book in his hand; the king understood the statue to represent Moses. In addition to the association of this story with an historical personage, Antiochus Epiphanes, and to the mention of a statue, this account is further distinguished by the element that not the head alone but the whole animal is referred to, just as in Plutarch. Apion combined these accounts in stating that the Jews had in their Temple an ass's head set up, which was discovered when Antiochus Epiphanes penetrated into the sacred precincts (Josephus, "Contra Ap." ii. 7; all the passages referred to are given by Th. Reinach, "Fontes Rerum Judaicarum," i., Paris, 1895). Reinach (p. 131) remarks that it is clear from Josephus that Apollonius Molon, too, was acquainted with the calumny.

( o )

Same Accusation Against Early Christians. As was the case with many another calumny against the Jews, Christianity, the daughter-religion of Judaism, was likewise charged with Ass-Worship (see Minucius Felix, "Octavius," ix., xxviii.). As Tertullian ("Apologia," xvi.) remarks tersely and truthfully, the same accusation was made against Christians because theirs was the nearest to the Jewish religion ("ut Judaicæ religionis propinquos"). Writing against the heathens, Tertullian further says, "Certain people out of your midst have dreamed that an ass's head is our God" (see also "Ad Nationes," i. 11). He quotes Tacitus, who, as is well known, contributed most to spread false reports concerning Judaism. Tacitus' story runs ("Historiæ," v. 3) that the Jews suffered from thirst in the wilderness, and that they followed a herd ofwild asses which led them to a spring of water; in recognition of this benefit they made the domestic ass—its nearest congener—the object of their worship. A similar account is found in Plutarch (l.c. iv. § 5). These accounts are essentially different from the preceding ones, for they endeavor to supply some cause for such a remarkable form of worship.

Josephus' Disproof for the Jews. Josephus knows nothing of any such alleged reason. He takes ("Contra Ap." ii. 7) the whole story as a stupid calumny, all the more despicable as it seeks to detract from the sanctity of the celebrated Temple. With clever irony he remarks that it ill befits Apion the Egyptian to bring forward such an accusation, for nothing can be more absurd than the Egyptian animal worship. The falsity of this shameful charge is established by facts: for Antiochus Epiphanes (Theus), Pompey the Great, Licinius Crassus, and lastly Titus, who all entered the Temple, found nothing there of that kind, but found, instead, the purest forms of divine adoration. Tacitus, as quoted by Tertullian, expressly states that Pompey found no image or idol in the Temple. Although this disproof seems quite sufficient as defense, it gives no clue concerning the origin of such a report. Tertullian indicates that he considers the calumny as simply the offspring of malevolence, for it was in like manner, he relates in his "Apologia," xvi., that a rascal in his town (in "Ad Nationes," i. 14, he is described as a Jew), who had to take care of the wild animals intended for the arena, would carry around an image with the inscription "Onokoites, the God of the Christians." The image had ass's ears, a hoof on one foot, and it carried a book and a toga. The meaning of the word "Onokoites" is not clear.

Mockery of Christianity. But it is very evident that the image must have been intended for the amusement of the crowds, and that the intended mockery of Christianity must have been understood as referring to one of the best-known dogmas of Christianity. The word ὀνοκοίτης, formed after the analogy of παρακοίτης —though not strictly according to philological rules —caused Tertullian to observe "risimus et nomen" (the very name of it made us laugh). It probably hints at something like ex concubitu asini (et feminœ) procreatus, and is thus a malicious insult upon the Christian God, claimed to be a compound being, both God and man (H. Kellner, "Ausgewählte Schriften des Septimius Tertullianus," i. 62, 1871). This anecdote, however, can not be taken as indicating that the Jews transferred the reproach under which they had suffered from themselves to the Christians; for it is simply the silly wit of a coarse hireling that had deserted the Jewish faith to become champion fighter with wild beasts, as Tertullian himself states.

Real Foundation in a Gnostic Sect. Now all these varying accounts are remarkably illustrated by a graffito found in Rome in 1856, representing a man bearing the head of an ass, and nailed to a cross, before whom another man kneels in the attitude of adoration (F. S. Kraus, "Das Spottcruzifix," Freiburg, i. Br. 1872). Another graffito, found likewise on the Palatine in Rome, depicts the same man, and designates him as "fidelis" (faithful); so that this is not intended for a caricature, as usually claimed, but for an earnestly intended symbol of faith (Wünsch, "Sethianische Verfluchungstafeln aus Rom," p. 112, Leipsic, 1898). From the circumstance that at the right of the ass's head (see p. 222) there stands a Y, Wünscn deduces that it is a symbol of the Typhon-Seth worship, for on the numerous curse-tablets in Rome the same symbol always stands at the right of the ass's head of Typhon-Seth.

It is the religious symbol of the Gnostic sect of the Sethinai (from Seth, son of Adam; but also from Seth, the surname of the Egyptian god Typhon); and they in their turn derived the ass's head—as shown in the above-cited quotation from Epiphanius—from the representation of the "Jewish god Sabaoth." Wünsch is therefore inclined to consider the cult of the ass as having foundation in fact and not merely in calumny.

( . )

Jews Can Not Be Connected with Typhon-Worship. It is of course quite correct to say that the ass-cult is connected with the Egyptian god Typhon (Ælian, "V. H." x. 28). Plutarch relates ("De Iside et Osiride," ch. xxx.) that in Egypt the ass was considered of "demoniac" nature (δαιμονικόν, on account of its resemblance to Typhon (compare ib. xxxi.; M. Wellmann, "Ægyptisches," in "Hermes," 1896, xxxi. 242). But this would not explain the story of its adoption by Jews. Plutarch brings the Jews into direct connection with Typhon by making him beget "Hierosolymus" (Jerusalem) and "Judæus," after having fled upon an ass subsequently to the war with Jupiter ("De Iside et Osiride," ch. xxxi.; Reinach, l.c. p. 137). Roesch, referring to the Talmudic account, that in the Second Temple the so-called foundation-stone () took the place of the Ark of the wilderness, thinks thatthis stone is meant by Posidonius and others by their "ass' statue." The upper millstone being also metaphorically called "the ass," the enemies of the Jews took advantage of this circumstance to accuse them of worshiping a veritable ass. He claims also that a four-cornered stone is the determinative for Typhon in the hieroglyphs. But this explanation is too far-fetched to be acceptable; besides, it must not be forgotten that Mnaseas, the oldest authority for the legend, does not call the ass ὂνος, but κάνϑων. Another suggestion, that of Michaelis, that the enemies of the Jews may have seen a cherub in the Temple with an ass's head, is negatived at once by the fact that the cherubim were certainly never so represented. None of these attempted explanations is based on facts. Nor are Philo's statement (i. 371) that the Jews' golden calf represented Typhon (see Winer, "B. R.," s.v. "Kalb"), and the connection of the ass-cult with that of Seth-Typhon asserted by Movers ("Die Phönizier," i. 297, 365), and by W. Pleyte ("La Religion des Pre-Israélites," Leyden, 1865, p. 143).

Origin of Accusation in Alleged Bacchus-Worship. For explanation of the supposed Ass-Worship, the Dionysos-cult must be taken into consideration. Dionysos, or Bacchus, was, under the name of Sabazios, worshiped by the Phrygians; according to some, Dionysos himself was Sabazios, according to others Sabazios was his son. Dionysos was identified with the Semitic divinity Adonis, which easily suggests the name of the God of the Hebrews.

It is said that Dionysos encountered Aphrodite and Adonis in Lebanon; he loved their daughter Beroe (Nonnus, "Dionysiaca," xlvi.). Dionysos is identified with pretty nearly all Oriental deities, as, for example, with Moloch, Baal, Melkart, and Hadad. F. Lenormant says, therefore, in the "Dictionnaire des Antiquités," s.v. "Bacchus": "The disposition was so marked to identify the son of Semele (Bacchus) with the various deities of the Orientals that it was even pushed to the extreme of asserting that the Jews likewise worshiped Dionysos (Plutarch, 'Symposiaca,' iv. 6), an assertion based upon nothing further than the similarity of sound between the name Jehovah, Sabaoth, and that of Sabazios (Valerius Maximus, i. 3, § 2; other passages at Lenormant), likewise upon the existence of the golden vine in the Jerusalem Temple (Josephus, 'Ant.' xv. 11, § 3)." The similarity of the names Sabaoth and Sabazios, and the existence of the golden vine in the Temple, were then sufficient to suggest to the heathens, who knew very little about Jewish worship, that the Jews, like many other nations, cherished some kind of a Dionysos-worship. It is known that the excessive hilarities at the so-called "Feast of the Water-Drawing" at the Festival of Tabernacles gave cause to the accusation that the Jews celebrated Bacchanalia (see Z. Frankel, "Juden und Judenthum nach Römischer Anschauung," in "Monatsschrift," 1860, ix. 125 et seq., and Büchler, in "Rev. Et. Juives," xxxvii. 181). Now, the ass was sacred to Bacchus and an unfailing member of his train; the god is often represented as riding upon one. Note the alleged statue in Jerusalem of Moses riding upon an ass, mentioned above. Silenus, Bacchus' constant companion, also rides upon an ass. Creuzer ("Symbolik," i. 480) remarks that Silenus is the ass. The ass was considered a phallic animal, and when once the Jews were accused of the cult of Dionysos, it was not going very much further to accuse them of sexual excesses, as Tacitus does, holding them capable of every shamefulness. One charge involves the other, and calumniators of the Jews would not be likely to hesitate at an additional falsehood or two. The fables additionally connected with the asscult, such as the fattening of a Greek every seven years for an offering to the ass-god; the attempt of Zabid of Dora to rob the Jews of this god; Tacitus' story of the finding of the water-springs by the wild asses: all of them follow from the idea that the Jews worshiped Dionysos. Everything additional is the offspring simply of the hatred that the world of antiquity bore to the Jews. For this hatred there is no explanation.

#i am the donk #DONK DONK DONK

0 notes

wolfsbanemanor · 1 year ago

Text

What religion are they, and if they have one, how do they practice?

They are currently non-religious. However, they were raised as "Worshippers of the Watcher," courtesy of their father (and, to a lesser extent, their mother.) They became disillusioned with the Watcherians when they were teens, for a number of reasons. There are many sects of Watcherians, some very analogous to real-world religions (particularly the Abrahamic religions), and others not. (The one Caleb and Lilith were raised in is probably most analogous to Evangelical Christianity in practice.) They do agree on two big things, however: One, it's super-duper important to praise and please The Watcher (the player, for non-Simmers out there), who was both kind and cruel, loving and wrathful at the same time, and two, Occult Sims are inherently bad because they represent the Watcher's Shadow/Dark Side. And so even if they hadn't left the Watcherians before becoming vampires, they'd be personas-non-gratas there now. The Watcherians were very influential in Willow Creek at the time they lived there. In some Sim Worlds, asking what church/temple/whatever someone attends is a very rude question unless you know them well; not so in Willow Creek. And was not uncommon to be asked by a complete stranger about their thoughts on the Watcher, or to hear someone praise the Watcher, or lament that public schools did not have organized (Watcherian) prayer sessions.

So, how did they practice? Well, they read and studied the Watcherian Holy Book. Their father would often drill them on passages; they were encouraged to memorize it, cover-to-cover. (Depending on whom you asked, that was either in case "Heathens" took over Simlandia and forbade religion, or because the Watcher or some agent thereof would quiz them on it as part of their judgment for the afterlife.) They prayed several times daily. They had a "Sinner's Prayer," basically about how awful they were for literally just existing and how they needed the Watcher's forgiveness, guidance, and wisdom. They had prayers in which they begged the Watcher to forgive them for their transgressions. They had a Simlish version of "Now I Lay Me Down to Sleep" that they prayed each night before bed. They had the Watcher's Prayer, believed to have been handed down from The Watcher themselves. They prayed before meals, thanking the Watcher for providing food for them. (When they ate together as a family, meals could not start until this prayer was said.) They attended Sunday School (or an analog of it) and Youth Group, and Watcherian Book Study; they were almost always at some religious event or another. And their pastor visited frequently with his wife (whom Caleb noted never really seemed happy), because he was good friends with their dad. (For his part, he wasn't happy they left, and even considered them to be troublemakers, but he did help them organize a funeral service for Edward and Artesia when they died in that car accident.) They attended worship each week, no matter what. Even when the roads were bad in the winter, or when one of them was sick with the llama flu. And it didn't matter what else was going on, events at their church/temple/whatever thing came first. Lilith was always advised to cover up, so as not to cause men and boys (even her own father and her own twin brother) to think "bad" woohoo-related thoughts about her and therefore "stumble" and sin. Some Watcherian women even went so far as veiling themselves, either once they reached puberty, or after marriage, though it wasn't a common practice in their particular sect. (Most women in their group wore big, fancy hats to worship service, including Artesia.) Both Caleb and Lilith were told to wait for marriage (to a member of the opposite sex) to even think about woohoo, or else they'd no longer be worthy of love (and the Watcher would punish them for all eternity), although it may have been more emphasized for Lilith. They were also forbidden from reading or watching certain secular media, like Henry Puffer. Edward never went as far as burning books, but book-burnings were not unheard of in their sect. Their particular sect didn't declare any food (apart from Mermadic Kelp, the unpalatable-to-non-vampires-anyway Blood Fruit, or the Forbidden Fruit of the PlantSim) to be off-limits, but other Watcherian sects forbade pork and shellfish, and even blood transfusions. And if someone died, they were not to plead with the Grim Reaper or hand him a Death Flower in exchange for that Sim's life, but to accept it and even to be happy for them because they were going to meet the Watcher and (if the Watcher judged them worthy) spend all eternity with Him/Her/It/Them. (There wasn't agreement on what pronouns the Watcher used, and as to how many there were, the general answer was that the Watcher had many different aspects, but there was ultimately only one Watcher.)

#headcanons #rambunctious religions by lumpinou #caleb vatore #lilith vatore #the sims 4

1 note · View note

libidomechanica · 2 years ago

Text

Unseen

A limerick sequence

One unbecoming years, pale grew, it is that makes it bleeding nails; we rubbed the saints,—I love answerless, and the city. Into one, methought their education.

At last thou! And thousand are not despise. Was apt to be. I believe a hand so through a mist: they did enthral or gall the heathen in the quest. Done forever.

— The joy the conceit of him remain. Believe if they thought she with the inoculation. Trod underfoot if any pass before, reduc’d to bring again. ’ Well!

So brimmed with any body in the painted Fragments lie! Now, that lucent wavering look on her Faults, if Belles had recently so, as Socratic royalty.

Fans clap, Silks russle, and flood and what’s uppermost of new or hoard of stone. But ev’ry life melts with poets through the last so history, which the same—it wearies out.

The injuries were the carved lady’s eyeballs pure and the Powder from Day’s detested Day, which eyes with man the shirtless Jeanie’s heart free, as they are rags or dust.

So short can never can comparison had wish’ to pay. Saw the groves, yet inexperience could never learnt in little ones are fair: to dance with you beauty.

Again, I am one with a nobly place confounded ear; she, who as yet t is but an inferior Priest have been knows. Her tongues were no sooner reading.

I do love the best of temper’d him with new stings unfold, waft on the sun; while the twilight dawned; and out on death. In the lawful reason where Mahler wrote his face.

Some thought to your Venus! For youth sublime and had been contends, it soothers maim. And indecision, oh Thou Jewel utter’d; but of Psyche. Whoever wants an heir.

From that he was what ev’n in Slumber sound my echoing straiten’d for thee, ’ and kept the Board. I’m a philosopher of the many-winter’s feelings, or transferr’d.

The thing of all Monarchs of our own score. Bare on its placed accord before growing Combat, or where day be deceive the living world my spirit leaps with music.

A dying lovers dare not. And pass’d I blindfold her, and her future strike, and keep my drooping eye; but love me from out and shaven hear who should disturb their boots.

First time how many benedictions new; most true. Bright movement was clear, our Gipsy-Scholar of the man. Elephant unite, transform’d a vast Buckle for her sects?

Before me, that’s enough thee, that shall be kept its produces—You. And, that word of Self, that know the ship from each contended wide, and seem to kissing his wife weans.

Nothing, and office of his attraction’? But thought our maladies want, save in verse, which, if not I, for miles away, it eats the new day comes, adoring crown.

The joy their mother city thick and White array’d; themselves on it, and foolish, new, seraglio, wherefore should cost thou? A most encourage passed an older friend?

Your real Griefs, and the lurking at the sun will to end the Peer again? But ev’ry day lang; he’s peevish an’ jealous mad, In the wintry tempest, to the bonie Jean.

My plan but I, if but for blood the tree, are not to disfigure out how to switch #1 with #3. How to be going to the worse, to put on nature’s darling at her troth?

He mighty wing to feel another. And, asleep: a maid of Dian’s this awkward the sky. While with her recklessness, a hand as alabaster pale: would make ye blue.

With fire the crowd above a waterfall. To love, hatred with her side are his traine. The wink, but still believe if the swarthy Moors. Dreamed this goodly grown humble kind.

With her glass, twas better still; and bask and whiskers, to dance the porch with, Let us remember? The dead from this new native unto gracious act, and all the sky.

Singing of the broken profit thee? Canopy of her days. Held carnival at will be past that all in vain. And those throat, before the thraws in my loosening.

But sweepstakes for ever old yet never see through thou couldst no harbour finde in this occasion, who think and we should so abide? Nations break of days like to come.

Love distance lies nor equal husbands, I do claim men’s pride I boast: wretched Maid! Some life may be my dwelling Bag he renders vain the scream. And blood and gibe the same.

Her aid, how men through they had before a feat to-day. Her lived again to state: since they grow; the Gnomes direct, to ev’ry Pow’r all the musk-bull browses; he had been?

Felt with fainting Fears, soft Sorrow. And not lie alone is done, we dropt, and pass our long having tact and thus set at last I spoke. More endears, and he beats his taste.

It is a very clear for my pains to fair and Innocently so, as soon their passing breast, a great expects your true delight in the lass o’ Ballochmyle.

The resides. The more esteem’d to set a glazed with sidelong glances apart i carry your beauty’s patterned in its girth; but even the maxim for mankind!

I never told me of the fair Head, and tears, instead of a bell, and spiral- talk. Her title was a Catholic, and I lov’d at such as we walk in and flip-flops.

Shall outlive it—lower yet—be happy? That Jury-men may slip from cages pull the Prize not, madam: by your face was glad i’m happy skies, breadth, nor fail in it.

Were ever on their own mind, when to Mire. I copy or my draught would excuse: sweet thou mad’st me leave this voice, we repair; the boy’s mite, ’ and, like the wretched make.

That is goodly and a flatter I the day, I feel her slave, and in her head with her Hand is sunk below the just clear the hearts command, the brake. And Love deny’d.

Gude faith! My heavenward and sip without discrimination, I can’t without a smooth Iv’ry Neck. Waking not fulfil your winged horses over the clematis.

Rage, rage against the dying love’s day. Sweet the Warders with her glossy raven black, brown, or Pooh! And each field, and a light hide those bright, can lay an Europe’s sight?

Saw the stands upon misprision grow cold.—But, artists! A Love Supreme. He does not with the ground, as we prayer, as doth Love speak? He always rattles, remember?

I am. Well as verse—I wish it any less photorealistic? Leave her weakness in another doth me tie are humbler Province is the fronting them twa.

Ah, Psyche tender lover pants upon a Matadores, but oh, thought she slept their ambition. The pleasant fruits of joy to day and an eyelash dead or sleep.

From hence it any less photorealistic? But grim to shine; and strange in the eye of salmon sing is soul was round and root, and, which is not more its vanity.

I hear smells, I see there in wild race. Where Light hover, an old hostel, called the white rose up, and features, that the dark hours, with each vulgar fraction’? There is in them.

His beard, and the plank, and from the scream. While great court-Galen poised him, and feasted with Ida’s at time we shall reasons as they sang to weak. In brighter shine as well!

And the thin hairs of words. But though on the rose up, and barb’rous Pride: with too much with such the Mortals bend the sunflower as he the moon was gone, and said she cccome?

’ My Phillis, will flourish with the brightly taut in the soul! While the hollow shows: the colours flings, colours and all the World the knack? Airs have to wait for you to come.

Or—what is with you better yet to fret the fine Edge of mine in his glad Wings, a thing to like, thou grand legitimate Alexander! But certes it conceal’d.

Love too long, leapt up, and he can kill! In the purple fritillaries the snow careful Plumes displays, possession. When we passe, most humbly own—’tis decorum.

While the ones whose ridge the wood where I go; long hair. It being Love, ’ why not said she if you’re lovely, and Halberds in grosser Air below, if the moon—cold weighty.

That early June, where she then presume the aforesaid Baba just clearing at her frightening, plumed by Longinus or the imperial present for the gout?

Not the genial art, and kye, and lost hath got blue devilish malignant witch! Twas certainly ran many risks, yet in bud and breath in the chill of being not you?

I mean to abuse of his Cheapside; at length I find, happy title was apt to blame it. Somewhere it before me; carelessly array’d; with boys, or her return!

And blessing; is convinced that which yet join not scent to a tree. Superbly, and cut through that single cord, but still shall view in cloudless Sky. Saying, I have at all.

—And lips as without my song: in brief agony what shall have we known to my horse, a horse fallen: her side hortensius. Take, oh, take wi’ naebody; naebody.

But now it is large; their cause they did not mind. But I who like yonder motions, and some rejoic’d in such uneasy virtue, All, our Sex resign thy dear concern.

The glowing bosks of Gold. And have need not now; she would breed sweet place costume. Made when they’re wet with you! Soft yielding ransackt heart But I who like this modern dinners?

As thy toil reward the lurking those bright against the wing, his Arrow hit; nay, but an orphan; left all their Chocolate shall join its brilliant bow. Doth follows light hints.

Her voice comes, the rest, did I look’d this sin there is Spain? To draw the Planets thro’ the gallows’ need: so with those white linen hence, there’s bitter breast a thunderbolt.

And gazed upon the night to flit in Air, weighs the Melodious-moving this new feelings as sympathy, universal sun. And scorn to add a Furbelo.

For the great comments various Off’rings of his captive’s hours. The zephyr wanton eyesight poring over his wonder then, before than a catbird hates and imps.

Which leans something much noise. Let the thought, at settled gravity at work no more. Now let us roll all thanks, do pay for this mind assume the breast. Come with Lampoons.

At length my fav’rite Lock; ariel himself shall not do—the pilferer. She said, this last: one speak. Snuff they cannot sink his thine eyes, whose that just be right, can love.

With her condition. He did not care: we knelt and happy, for a man who looked across thy stamp the fair life of mee, if now there the Sufí; a Road whose great Locke?

The entire world rush’d by black, brown, or far Cathay. And do—I’ll tell no more and a bird, that thought too deep judge in haste; yet each a fame, like Gods the Prize is lost!

And third upon her brethren, though the wit, the Sun, their coffin; but Phillis, has met wi’ the quest. And fashion it to form no clog against the savior of Remorse.

Though wise men at the ills the truth to trie; beauty shall pass by her garb, or none of accident. Ladies stare! Became masculine in her Eyes half dissolv’d in Light.

Jenny her side. So Julia once lived so that in guys it gently peruse! The Gnome, in burning sleep who have a mutual kiss drop down by the Indian mine!

Those hills of that cookery rather lends. Love make a frame inversely clung to its wound, fly; see the Lock a though the year’s principle of their farthing candlelight.

Save that sun thine eyes; my doubt, after long love.—In politician; or—what is the fatal Engine on her cheek, passion went: methinks we may have other’s clamour!

And fall he shall forgot. Nor would never been toss’d down the first a nations. In the affair, not a man and fair began to gather’d in her Eyes the crime is, there!

#poetry #automatically generated text #Patrick Mooney #Markov chains #Markov chain length: 7 #209 texts #limerick sequence

0 notes

therealvinelle · 4 years ago

Text

Carlisle and theology

So, there are a lot of thoughts in this fandom on Carlisle’s brand of faith, and Carlisle seeing vampirism as inherent sin, and it’s time for this Christian philosophy nerd to butt in, featuring all the quotes.

First of, let me do my usual disclaimer - the Carlisle of the books is not the Carlisle of the movies. Carlisle of the movies believes he’s damned, because while the movie does mostly quote the conversation from the books, they cut him off halfway through, completely changing the meaning. Book Carlisle is making an argument, and his conclusion is the opposite: vampires have souls.

"Edward's with me up to a point. God and heaven exist… and so does hell. But he doesn't believe there is an afterlife for our kind." Carlisle's voice was very soft; he stared out the big window over the sink, into the darkness. "You see, he thinks we've lost our souls." (New Moon, page 20)

Later in the same book when Edward believes he has died and gone to heaven, his first words are: “Carlisle was right.”

So, book Carlisle doesn’t believe they’re all damned. If he did, creating others would be to damn them. If he had doubts about their souls and decided to risk it anyway, his “I made vampires” angst would be about their souls. It’s not:

"(Choosing to turn others) is the one part I can never be sure of. I think, in most other ways, that I've done the best I could with what I had to work with. But was it right to doom the others to this life? I can't decide." (New Moon, page 21)

was it right to doom the others to this life.

He says nothing about their souls. His issue is the life they’re now living because of him: “was it right to turn others into bloodsucking demons, all of whom have a body count?”

Which is a very fair question, I’d be wondering that too. Edward, Emmett, Esme, and Rosalie are all murderers, they live in the constant pain of bloodlust, they must live in this very particular way or be nomads, and they’re not truly immortal, for sooner or later death will come in the brutal form of being torn apart and burned. Not to mention both Edward and Rosalie have very ambivalent feelings about what they became.

Carlisle wondering if turning them was the right call appears to have nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with the pragmatic reality of what it means to have created a vampire.

But if Carlisle doesn’t believe vampires are damned, what does he think then?

His backstory, admittedly told through Edward (who projects a lot onto Carlisle), is helpful.

His strength returned and he realized there was an alternative to being the vile monster he feared. Had he not eaten venison in his former life? Over the next months his new philosophy was born. He could exist without being a demon. He found himself again. (Twilight, page 160)

Carlisle had been raised to believe in witches and demons, eternal damnation for the wicked and the whole shebang. He wakes up a vampire and he knows what this means, he is now a senseless monster who kills people.

Well, turns out this isn’t the case. He doesn’t have to kill people. More, he still has his faith in God, which by protestant doctrine is what you need to enter Heaven. (This right here is one big bone I have to pick with fanon Carlisle. People keep ascribing a very Catholic brand of theology onto him, as he believes existence is sin and one must do penance. He’s Anglican, and Anglicans adopted Protestant doctrine. Protestant salvation comes through faith.)

Now, if his existence doesn’t automatically lead to sin, and if he is still in command of himself, able to believe in God and be devout, who’s to say he’s damned?

The urge to kill people remains present, of course, but humans are tempted to sin too. All of God’s children are tempted. (And yes, he did arrive at the conclusion that vampires are among God’s children. If he didn’t, he wouldn’t believe they had souls.)

Edward specifies that Carlisle created his own philosophy. As in, he didn’t just say “I don’t have to kill people, neat. Being a monster is still horrible, though”, he sat down and went full Zarathustra.

This is where my love for theology comes in.

Christian thought is founded on the relationship between God and Man. How Man is saved, the definition of sin, absolution, all of it - it’s all built on the supposition that Man is human. Well, Carlisle just found out that there’s God, Man, and Vampire - and potentially (Carlisle at this early point in time would still think witches and such were real) others as well.

He also learned that the notion of monsters being bound to sin, or having made deals with Satan, are also wrong. He never met the guy, he has his conscience, and he lives as morally as ever.

This invalidates pretty much everything he ever learned, and Carlisle’s sitting there in the English woods realizing the same thing Nietzsche later would when science challenged religion: he has to figure out Christianity from scratch.

I think Carlisle came up with his very own doctrine.

Edward outright says so: his new philosophy was born. We see Carlisle engage in all sorts of behavior completely contrary to anything a devout 17th century priest would have been doing. He associates with heathens like Aro, Amun, or the Amazonians, allows his family to be non-believers, considers fallen women like the Denali to be wonderful people and respects them as equals, he performs abortions, he allows material luxuries under his roof, he marries a woman who committed suicide.

There’s also the fact that his was a time full of alternate interpretations of Scripture. I won’t get into this part of European history, suffice to say that with Martin Luther’s 97 theses, the Christian world exploded with different sects and branches. Anabaptism, Calvinism, Quakers, Lutherans, the list just keeps going. It wouldn’t have been a foreign concept to Carlisle to sit down and say “Alright, who is God and what does He want from us”

I keep seeing Carlisle written as a Christian parody who cries because once when he was having sex with Esme in the dark some light entered the room and he saw her ankle, and now he thinks they’re both going to hell. And if we’re talking about the movies then sure, that guy seems the type. Book Carlisle is not this, and there’s nothing in canon to indicate as much, quite the contrary. (Yes, Edward is angsty about souls, but that’s not what Carlisle believes at all. It’s made clear over and over these two don’t agree on religion, so the argument that Edward somehow downloaded his religious angst from Carlisle defeats itself.)

It seems to me Carlisle came to the conclusion that sin is to take lives for pleasure, and that vampires are neither damned nor inherently sinful. This is the only action he appears to condemn, to view as sinful. Apart from that, he will kill to defend himself or others (the newborn battle and James), he’s pro-abortion, and he did not oppose Rosalie getting her revenge.

Apart from that I’m not going to extrapolate much, in part because that’d be hard to do when we don’t have a lot to go on and I’m not actually a theologician, and in part because this post is very long now. Feel free to ask if someone wants me putting on my philosophy hat and pretending I’m a vampire with a religious crisis.

(I will say this though: the notion of vampires being inherently sinful is just Original Sin in a hat. If Carlisle believes in it, then he also believes in Original Sin for humans, vice versa if he doesn’t. Doesn’t seem to be the case, but if it is then the vampirism by itself still isn’t any more damned than humanity.)

#carlisle cullen #long post #theology #religion #twilight #twilight meta #twilight renaissance #this was written because of my #pet peeve: badly written christian characters #thank god the star wars fans haven't realized how Christian the Jedi are #or the fanfiction would get ugly

299 notes · View notes

papirouge · 2 years ago

Note

“Christians” love Tolkien because those Christians are Roman Catholics like he was. There’s also a HUGE overlap that’s almost a circle of fans that are racist. They deem themselves as the tall white eternally beautiful elves while the other “lesser” races are the ugly orca, dwarves, etc. There’s serious idolatry going on with them and that dead man and his boring story

FINALLY someone gets it 😭

I'm so confused at people being shook by my statement because..... it's was just a feeling (me being weirded out by their obsession)

Ironically enough, them getting so defensive cemented my opinion lol Sorry but the fact that so many Christians are gatekeeping so hard a stupid secular book is very concerning and lowkey pathetic.

Guys, C.S Lewis and Tolkien didn't die on a cross for you, okay? None of these men will be next to you when you're before God White Throne on Judgement Day and He asks you why you were defending a witchcraft glorifying book like your life depended on it 💀

Someone argued that it was just "imagination" and I got so confused because... ugh, yeah, things coming from imagination can be sinful as well🥴

Aren't the plentiful of satan worshipping artists, music producer, screenwriters, etc. aren't creating things from their imagination?

That's the problem with most Christians these days: they'll be more than happy to call out the evilness of heathens but have a discernment close to 0 when it comes to their own shortcomings. It's one thing to enjoy the LoTR but acting so oblivious to its actual content problematicness is delusional.

And yep, there's a huge overlap between Tolkien simps and Western cultural supremacists ; that's why they think a blonde pale elves and White mages are somehow less evil than those from other (more melanated) places 🙃

They are the same weirdos entertaining stupid debates about mUh bEautIfUl ChUrcHeS MatTeRs tO wOrsHiP gOd when they're out there every sunday on dead churches surrounded by abominable idols and corrupted freemason satan worshipping on the low clergy... Everyday I thank God for never being fully indoctrinated by those sects called denominations.

Sorry but Gandalf ain't anymore "holy" than the witch doctors of "savages" they think being so superior to just because their civilizations made pretty churches 🕍⛪😍

The fact that we're at the end times but the new generation of Christian be out there having such stupid debates and defending stupid demonic books is everything you need to know about how mediocre the state of the Western Church is.

#i grew up going to catechism and got baptized but as soon as I read the Bible I dipped #out of the Catholic sect is a quickness lmao #that's why Catholics can't fool me with their 'we don't worship Mary uwu' LOL #answered

1 note · View note

araitsume · 4 years ago

Text

The Acts of the Apostles, pp. 188-200: Chapter (19) Jew and Gentile

This chapter is based on Acts 15:1-35.

On reaching Antioch in Syria, from which place they had been sent forth on their mission, Paul and Barnabas took advantage of an early opportunity to assemble the believers and rehearse “all that God had done with them, and how He had opened the door of faith unto the Gentiles.” Acts 14:27. The church at Antioch was a large and growing one. A center of missionary activity, it was one of the most important of the groups of Christian believers. Its membership was made up of many classes of people from among both Jews and Gentiles.

While the apostles united with the ministers and lay members at Antioch in an earnest effort to win many souls to Christ, certain Jewish believers from Judea “of the sect of the Pharisees” succeeded in introducing a question that soon led to wide-spread controversy in the church and brought consternation to the believing Gentiles. With great assurance these Judaizing teachers asserted that in order to be saved, one must be circumcised and must keep the entire ceremonial law.

Paul and Barnabas met this false doctrine with promptness and opposed the introduction of the subject to the Gentiles. On the other hand, many of the believing Jews of Antioch favored the position of the brethren recently come from Judea.

The Jewish converts generally were not inclined to move as rapidly as the providence of God opened the way. From the result of the apostles’ labors among the Gentiles it was evident that the converts among the latter people would far exceed the Jewish converts in number. The Jews feared that if the restrictions and ceremonies of their law were not made obligatory upon the Gentiles as a condition of church fellowship, the national peculiarities of the Jews, which had hitherto kept them distinct from all other people, would finally disappear from among those who received the gospel message.

The Jews had always prided themselves upon their divinely appointed services, and many of those who had been converted to the faith of Christ still felt that since God had once clearly outlined the Hebrew manner of worship, it was improbable that He would ever authorize a change in any of its specifications. They insisted that the Jewish laws and ceremonies should be incorporated into the rites of the Christian religion. They were slow to discern that all the sacrificial offerings had but prefigured the death of the Son of God, in which type met antitype, and after which the rites and ceremonies of the Mosaic dispensation were no longer binding.

Before his conversion Paul had regarded himself as blameless “touching the righteousness which is in the law.” Philippians 3:6. But since his change of heart he had gained a clear conception of the mission of the Saviour as the Redeemer of the entire race, Gentile as well as Jew, and had learned the difference between a living faith and a dead formalism. In the light of the gospel the ancient rites and ceremonies committed to Israel had gained a new and deeper significance. That which they shadowed forth had come to pass, and those who were living under the gospel dispensation had been freed from their observance. God's unchangeable law of Ten Commandments, however, Paul still kept in spirit as well as in letter.

In the church at Antioch the consideration of the question of circumcision resulted in much discussion and contention. Finally, the members of the church, fearing that a division among them would be the outcome of continued discussion, decided to send Paul and Barnabas, with some responsible men from the church, to Jerusalem to lay the matter before the apostles and elders. There they were to meet delegates from the different churches and those who had come to Jerusalem to attend the approaching festivals. Meanwhile all controversy was to cease until a final decision should be given in general council. This decision was then to be universally accepted by the different churches throughout the country.

On the way to Jerusalem the apostles visited the believers in the cities through which they passed, and encouraged them by relating their experience in the work of God and the conversion of the Gentiles.

At Jerusalem the delegates from Antioch met the brethren of the various churches, who had gathered for a general meeting, and to them they related the success that had attended their ministry among the Gentiles. They then gave a clear outline of the confusion that had resulted because certain converted Pharisees had gone to Antioch declaring that, in order to be saved, the Gentile converts must be circumcised and keep the law of Moses.

This question was warmly discussed in the assembly. Intimately connected with the question of circumcision were several others demanding careful study. One was the problem as to what attitude should be taken toward the use of meats offered to idols. Many of the Gentile converts were living among ignorant and superstitious people who made frequent sacrifices and offerings to idols. The priests of this heathen worship carried on an extensive merchandise with the offerings brought to them, and the Jews feared that the Gentile converts would bring Christianity into disrepute by purchasing that which had been offered to idols, thereby sanctioning, in some measure, idolatrous customs.

Again, the Gentiles were accustomed to eat the flesh of animals that had been strangled, while the Jews had been divinely instructed that when beasts were killed for food, particular care was to be taken that the blood should flow from the body; otherwise the meat would not be regarded as wholesome. God had given these injunctions to the Jews for the purpose of preserving their health. The Jews regarded it as sinful to use blood as an article of diet. They held that the blood was the life, and that the shedding of blood was in consequence of sin.

The Gentiles, on the contrary, practiced catching the blood that flowed from the sacrificial victim and using it in the preparation of food. The Jews could not believe that they ought to change the customs they had adopted under the special direction of God. Therefore, as things then stood, if Jew and Gentile should attempt to eat at the same table, the former would be shocked and outraged by the latter.

The Gentiles, and especially the Greeks, were extremely licentious, and there was danger that some, unconverted in heart, would make a profession of faith without renouncing their evil practices. The Jewish Christians could not tolerate the immorality that was not even regarded as criminal by the heathen. The Jews therefore held it as highly proper that circumcision and the observance of the ceremonial law should be enjoined on the Gentile converts as a test of their sincerity and devotion. This, they believed, would prevent the addition to the church of those who, adopting the faith without true conversion of heart, might afterward bring reproach upon the cause by immorality and excess.

The various points involved in the settlement of the main question at issue seemed to present before the council insurmountable difficulties. But the Holy Spirit had, in reality, already settled this question, upon the decision of which seemed to depend the prosperity, if not the very existence, of the Christian church.

“When there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.” He reasoned that the Holy Spirit had decided the matter under dispute by descending with equal power upon the uncircumcised Gentiles and the circumcised Jews. He recounted his vision, in which God had presented before him a sheet filled with all manner of four-footed beasts and had bidden him kill and eat. When he refused, affirming that he had never eaten that which was common or unclean, the answer had been, “What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.” Acts 10:15.

Peter related the plain interpretation of these words, which was given him almost immediately in his summons to go to the centurion and instruct him in the faith of Christ. This message showed that God was no respecter of persons, but accepted and acknowledged all who feared Him. Peter told of his astonishment when, in speaking the words of truth to those assembled at the home of Cornelius, he witnessed the Holy Spirit taking possession of his hearers, Gentiles as well as Jews. The same light and glory that was reflected upon the circumcised Jews shone also upon the faces of the uncircumcised Gentiles. This was God's warning that Peter was not to regard one as inferior to the other, for the blood of Christ could cleanse from all uncleanness.

Once before, Peter had reasoned with his brethren concerning the conversion of Cornelius and his friends, and his fellowship with them. As he on that occasion related how the Holy Spirit fell on the Gentiles he declared, “Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as He did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?” Acts 11:17. Now, with equal fervor and force, he said: “God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as He did unto us; and put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?” This yoke was not the law of Ten Commandments, as some who oppose the binding claims of the law assert; Peter here referred to the law of ceremonies, which was made null and void by the crucifixion of Christ.

Peter's address brought the assembly to a point where they could listen with patience to Paul and Barnabas, who related their experience in working for the Gentiles. “All the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.”

James also bore his testimony with decision, declaring that it was God's purpose to bestow upon the Gentiles the same privileges and blessings that had been granted to the Jews.

The Holy Spirit saw good not to impose the ceremonial law on the Gentile converts, and the mind of the apostles regarding this matter was as the mind of the Spirit of God. James presided at the council, and his final decision was, “Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God.”

This ended the discussion. In this instance we have a refutation of the doctrine held by the Roman Catholic Church that Peter was the head of the church. Those who, as popes, have claimed to be his successors, have no Scriptural foundation for their pretensions. Nothing in the life of Peter gives sanction to the claim that he was elevated above his brethren as the vicegerent of the Most High. If those who are declared to be the successors of Peter had followed his example, they would always have been content to remain on an equality with their brethren.

In this instance James seems to have been chosen as the one to announce the decision arrived at by the council. It was his sentence that the ceremonial law, and especially the ordinance of circumcision, should not be urged upon the Gentiles, or even recommended to them. James sought to impress the minds of his brethren with the fact that, in turning to God, the Gentiles had made a great change in their lives and that much caution should be used not to trouble them with perplexing and doubtful questions of minor importance, lest they be discouraged in following Christ.

The Gentile converts, however, were to give up the customs that were inconsistent with the principles of Christianity. The apostles and elders therefore agreed to instruct the Gentiles by letter to abstain from meats offered to idols, from fornication, from things strangled, and from blood. They were to be urged to keep the commandments and to lead holy lives. They were also to be assured that the men who had declared circumcision to be binding were not authorized to do so by the apostles.

Paul and Barnabas were recommended to them as men who had hazarded their lives for the Lord. Judas and Silas were sent with these apostles to declare to the Gentiles by word of mouth the decision of the council: “It seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; that ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well.” The four servants of God were sent to Antioch with the epistle and message that was to put an end to all controversy; for it was the voice of the highest authority upon the earth.

The council which decided this case was composed of apostles and teachers who had been prominent in raising up the Jewish and Gentile Christian churches, with chosen delegates from various places. Elders from Jerusalem and deputies from Antioch were present, and the most influential churches were represented. The council moved in accordance with the dictates of enlightened judgment, and with the dignity of a church established by the divine will. As a result of their deliberations they all saw that God Himself had answered the question at issue by bestowing upon the Gentiles the Holy Ghost; and they realized that it was their part to follow the guidance of the Spirit.

The entire body of Christians was not called to vote upon the question. The “apostles and elders,” men of influence and judgment, framed and issued the decree, which was thereupon generally accepted by the Christian churches. Not all, however, were pleased with the decision; there was a faction of ambitious and self-confident brethren who disagreed with it. These men assumed to engage in the work on their own responsibility. They indulged in much murmuring and faultfinding, proposing new plans and seeking to pull down the work of the men whom God had ordained to teach the gospel message. From the first the church has had such obstacles to meet and ever will have till the close of time.

Jerusalem was the metropolis of the Jews, and it was there that the greatest exclusiveness and bigotry were found. The Jewish Christians living within sight of the temple naturally allowed their minds to revert to the peculiar privileges of the Jews as a nation. When they saw the Christian church departing from the ceremonies and traditions of Judaism, and perceived that the peculiar sacredness with which the Jewish customs had been invested would soon be lost sight of in the light of the new faith, many grew indignant with Paul as the one who had, in a large measure, caused this change. Even the disciples were not all prepared to accept willingly the decision of the council. Some were zealous for the ceremonial law, and they regarded Paul with disfavor because they thought that his principles in regard to the obligations of the Jewish law were lax.

The broad and far-reaching decisions of the general council brought confidence into the ranks of the Gentile believers, and the cause of God prospered. In Antioch the church was favored with the presence of Judas and Silas, the special messengers who had returned with the apostles from the meeting in Jerusalem. “Being prophets also themselves,” Judas and Silas, “exhorted the brethren with many words, and confirmed them.” These godly men tarried in Antioch for a time. “Paul also and Barnabas continued in Antioch, teaching and preaching the word of the Lord, with many others also.”

When Peter, at a later date, visited Antioch, he won the confidence of many by his prudent conduct toward the Gentile converts. For a time he acted in accordance with the light given from heaven. He so far overcame his natural prejudice as to sit at table with the Gentile converts. But when certain Jews who were zealous for the ceremonial law, came from Jerusalem, Peter injudiciously changed his deportment toward the converts from paganism. A number of the Jews “dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.” This revelation of weakness on the part of those who had been respected and loved as leaders, left a most painful impression on the minds of the Gentile believers. The church was threatened with division. But Paul, who saw the subverting influence of the wrong done to the church through the double part acted by Peter, openly rebuked him for thus disguising his true sentiments. In the presence of the church, Paul inquired of Peter, “If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?” Galatians 2:13, 14.

Peter saw the error into which he had fallen, and immediately set about repairing the evil that had been wrought, so far as was in his power. God, who knows the end from the beginning, permitted Peter to reveal this weakness of character in order that the tried apostle might see that there was nothing in himself whereof he might boast. Even the best of men, if left to themselves, will err in judgment. God also saw that in time to come some would be so deluded as to claim for Peter and his pretended successors the exalted prerogatives that belong to God alone. And this record of the apostle's weakness was to remain as a proof of his fallibility and of the fact that he stood in no way above the level of the other apostles.

The history of this departure from right principles stands as a solemn warning to men in positions of trust in the cause of God, that they may not fail in integrity, but firmly adhere to principle. The greater the responsibilities placed upon the human agent, and the larger his opportunities to dictate and control, the more harm he is sure to do if he does not carefully follow the way of the Lord and labor in harmony with the decisions arrived at by the general body of believers in united council.

After all Peter's failures; after his fall and restoration, his long course of service, his intimate acquaintance with Christ, his knowledge of the Saviour's straightforward practice of right principles; after all the instruction he had received, all the gifts and knowledge and influence he had gained by preaching and teaching the word—is it not strange that he should dissemble and evade the principles of the gospel through fear of man, or in order to gain esteem? Is it not strange that he should waver in his adherence to right? May God give every man a realization of his helplessness, his inability to steer his own vessel straight and safe into the harbor.

In his ministry, Paul was often compelled to stand alone. He was specially taught of God and dared make no concessions that would involve principle. At times the burden was heavy, but Paul stood firm for the right. He realized that the church must never be brought under the control of human power. The traditions and maxims of men must not take the place of revealed truth. The advance of the gospel message must not be hindered by the prejudices and preferences of men, whatever might be their position in the church.

Paul had dedicated himself and all his powers to the service of God. He had received the truths of the gospel direct from heaven, and throughout his ministry he maintained a vital connection with heavenly agencies. He had been taught by God regarding the binding of unnecessary burdens upon the Gentile Christians; thus when the Judaizing believers introduced into the Antioch church the question of circumcision, Paul knew the mind of the Spirit of God concerning such teaching and took a firm and unyielding position which brought to the churches freedom from Jewish rites and ceremonies.

Notwithstanding the fact that Paul was personally taught by God, he had no strained ideas of individual responsibility. While looking to God for direct guidance, he was ever ready to recognize the authority vested in the body of believers united in church fellowship. He felt the need of counsel, and when matters of importance arose, he was glad to lay these before the church and to unite with his brethren in seeking God for wisdom to make right decisions. Even “the spirits of the prophets,” he declared, “are subject to the prophets. For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.” 1 Corinthians 14:32, 33. With Peter, he taught that all united in church capacity should be “subject one to another.” 1 Peter 5:5.

1 note · View note

thorraborinn · 6 years ago

Note

So I’ve been reading up on Disablots, Volva and how sex rituals were uncommon but not unheard of, recently, and one question still seems to elude answers for me: would it have been considered acceptable for a young man to offer himself up as a sacrifice to a Volvaor or Freya in any sense, as Ottar may have, not even to learn Seidr? Also I can’t find much on the stage of life Ottar was in so how might he compare to the youth archetype of Adonis?

(2/2) While it was certainly “unmanly” and taboo for a male to practice Seidr, would being in service to one or enraptured by one be considered the same? I’ve heard that some sects of heathenry varied in gender roles so which ever ones were the most feminist would be interesting if they worshipped freya distinctively over Odin.

I think that you might be coming into this with some beliefs that you’re not articulating, but which also aren’t something that can be taken for granted. I don’t know of any undisputed evidence for sex rituals other than Ahmad ibn Fadlan’s account. It has been proposed as an aspect of some rituals (such as seiðr) but that remains unclear. I also don’t know of any theory that interprets Öttarr as a self-sacrifice, just that he made frequent sacrifices to Freyja. I *believe* the standard explanation for the line about his altar being turned to glass is that he burned offerings so often that the stones started to melt and fuse. Freyja is helping him to be able to recite his genealogy in order to make an inheritance claim, which he wouldn’t need to do if he didn’t plan on continuing to live. I do believe it has been interpreted in terms of mystery cult initiation, though I can’t recall any details about who would have authored something like that. Jens-Peter Schjødt has written a lot about initiations and ritual, but I don’t know if he covered that poem specifically. I recommend looking into him if you can.

If by “sacrifice” you mean in a sense of like, dedicating the rest of one’s life to a deity then yeah, that is at least realistic and may be an accurate description of the “wife” of Freyr in Ǫgmundar þáttr dýtts, part of Saint Olaf’s saga, who was ritually married to an idol of Freyr and accompanied it on processions. I don’t really see any argument to be made that this would be done for a vǫlva other than as a student or apprentice. To be “enraptured” in service to someone would absolutely be considered argr, I would tend to think far more so than doing seiðr itself. “Loss of control” is perhaps more central in the set of things associated with being argr than anything else.

Something being argr doesn’t mean that it’s bad. I mean, the people who used the term in the sagas would have disagreed with that statement, but I’m saying it now. The assignment of that argr designation, at least as we are able to see it, comes from the perspective of the aristocratic land-owning class. If our textual sources are correct, in the Viking age there were chieftains and petty kings who were also seiðmenn, so the situation regarding ergi in the sagas seems to reflect a change over those several hundred years (which is hardly surprising). See this post for more about my thoughts on ergi: https://thorraborinn.tumblr.com/post/185767861973/the-social-role-of-sei%C3%B0r-and-sei%C3%B0folk-as. It’s actual function isn’t in its lexical meaning but in its being used for social control and reinforcement or assertion of social hierarchy. Remember that yeah, it was “shameful” for a man to do seiðr, but we only know that because of all the men who did seiðr.

I’m not sure how much gender roles varied but they probably varied more in terms of how fluid those gender identities or assignments were. The example that’s probably been beat to death by now is Saxo saying that Starkatherus (Starkaðr), a heathen from Denmark, went to Sweden and was disgusted by how “unmanly” their rituals were (which according to Saxo involved cross-dressing but if we look to comparative world religions we do see examples of ritual specialists actually completely changing gender, whether to the other of a binary pair or to something outside of a binary, in some cases perhaps even only during the ritual). Given that Frö- placenames (it’s hard or impossible to tell if a place is named for Freyja rather than Freyr; on the other hand some are securely for Freyr and definitely not for Freyja) are more common in Sweden then Denmark, if Saxo’s account reflects anything to do with reality, then yeah we might see some correspondence between Freyja-worship and nonbinary and/or non-rigid gender formulations, though I’m not sure if it’s possible to determine the relationship between these two variables though. I also don’t see any reason why Óðinn couldn’t also be associated with egalitarian gender relations or nonbinary or fluid gender identities, other than that he also was worshiped specifically by a particular class of patriarchal monarchs. It’s not clear that his worship was exclusive to them, and we also don’t know that the seið-phobia of Haraldr hárfagri and Eiríkr blóðøx was always a feature of that class of people. In the post I linked to, what I describe as class antagonism between patriarchal aristocracy and seiðfólk is not necessarily a historical antagonism, just a dynamic antagonism during that particular period leading up to the end of heathenry.

#ask #waywardtravelerfart

42 notes · View notes