#commitment to righteousness

[iamentertainmentclub-blog]

Proverbs Daily Reflection – February 16, 2025

When we entrust our work to God, He aligns our plans with His divine purpose. Proverbs 16:3 reminds us that success is not simply about our efforts, but about committing our ways to the Lord. Habakkuk 2:2-3 reinforces this by emphasizing patience—when God gives a vision, it may not happen immediately, but it will come to pass at the appointed time. #josephmekaelpageministries

Proverbs Daily – February 16: Committing Our Works to the Lord Proverbs 16:3 (KJV) “Commit thy works unto the Lord, and thy thoughts shall be established.” Supporting Scripture: Habakkuk 2:2-3 (NIV) “Then the Lord replied: ‘Write down the revelation and make it plain on tablets so that a herald may run with it. For the revelation awaits an appointed time; it speaks of the end and will not…

[mearchy]

classic trope that’s never worn out is when an enemy is your enemy because they are a shining example of everything you once were. they’re everything you would still be had you not descended into a dark mirror, a decayed shadow of your former self. they’re everything you choose not to be, that you gave up, and you love them for it and you hate them for it and you have to fight them, you just have to. the inherent romanticism, the inevitability of hating someone because once you were just like them.

[jiangwanyinscatmom]

Ironically Jiang Cheng is probably the most ideal candidate for actual Mo Dao.

[rawliverandgoronspice]

behold: my second least favorite string of words in the entirety of Tears of the Kingdom.

(it's a little less transparent why this time so I'll explain my thoughts under the cut)

So why do I not like this?

In so many words: because if you remove it, the scene still works, but you lose the moral certainty of what is going on.

This single sentence does so much legwork for the entire game (the kind I dislike), to the point where I'm about 60% sure it's the product of a rework that realized how ambiguous Rauru's position was as the Good Rightful King and needed to nervously reassure the players that Ganondorf Is and Always Was the Invader, Actually.

(no matter that it leaves the gerudos in this awkward in-between state of both invaders and victims, while never dwelling in the specifics of their history and their own agency in the entire thing; brushed off as a sin they have to expiate through loyalty to the winners of that particular strife, but without explicitely blaming them either to avoid the implications of what that would have looked like)

If you remove it, not only do you lose a pretty clunky line that detracts from Ganondorf's intimidating presence (who is he even speaking to? who needs to hear this right now?) that honestly speaks for itself when it comes to his experience with warfare, but also you lose any tension and any mystery regarding why he is attacking in the first place.

You also... kind of rob Ganondorf's motivations of their meaning. "Hyrule will bow down before me" leads to asking... why? What does he want? What does he see in those lands? And what little we get with Rauru and then Link during the final fight begs more questions; why do you prefer hardship to peace? Why do you value strength? What leads you to want to rule a land devoid of survivors, become a king without a kingdom? I don't think we ever get satisfactory answers. If you remove this sentence, on the other hand... Subtextually, it becomes pretty clear that his motivations is that he felt threatened by Rauru's power, which is ripe with subtext and questions about whether this is a legitimate reaction, whether his "no survivor" stance is due to a feeling of betrayal when his own people turned against him post the Demon King shenanigans... I'm not saying it would fix the entire game's writing, far from it, but it would already do *so much more*.

(genuinely, I think he could have stayed completely silent during the Molduga Assault, speaking only in the Show of Fealty before going completely nuts after Sonia's murder, and it would have worked MUCH better in terms of characterization but anyway anyway

EDIT: ALSO!!! that way he wouldn't speak hylian to fellow gerudos, which is weird inherently)

Without this line, the core of the tension between the gerudos and Hyrule comes front in his conversation with Rauru; it allows the cause of his hostility to be Rauru's invitations, that he would have taken as a threat, and would have still made him warlike and domineering without making him cartoonishly flat, because, once again, Rauru is not acting in a particularly more legitimate way when Zelda arrives in Ancient Hyrule; and it would have been... fair to point that out. And make for better characterization for Rauru, and Sonia, and Mineru, and everybody. But the priority was for Hyrule to be pictured as unquestionably holy; always legitimate, always truthful, always beautiful, always just.

Also, and this is more of a nitpick but: why would Ganondorf want Hyrule, specifically, to bow down before him also? Was he at war with the rest of the disparate tribes before, and just carried on his ambitions to the very very newly-founded kingdom as they allied under a new banner? (though it seems to be implies the lands were crawling under monsters in a generic sense, and not Ganondorf's attacks in particular) Why would he even consider Hyrule a legitimate entity worth taking over then, if it is so new, born from the will of a powerful rival, founded by what is basically a stranger to these lands? Why would he covet something so young instead of destroying it and just calling the lands Gerudo Lands II or Grooseland or something?

I don't think any of that was even accounted for, because, beyond everything else: to me, this sentence is so clearly and painfully crammed in here to shield Hyrule from any potential blame and immediately characterize Ganondorf as Bad without having to remove any of the causes that could lead one to side-eye Rauru's little pet project as equally questionable.

Beyond the clumsiness, it is cowardly --and, I think, a little damning.

[terminalkisser]

gabriel does not Have 'catholic guilt' he GIVES other people it. namely the ferryman

[halflingkima]

the brosca warden storyline is insane (affectionate) to me, and it's wild that I happened to choose it first.

I've not played through all the origins myself, but from what I gather in general, I think brosca has the least material effect on later material gameplay – all of the effect is in brosca's character choices/response, which is completely up to the player whether or not/how much to honor.

the 'dwarf commoner' origin title is misleading – brosca's casteless, classless, as low class as possible and fighting tooth and nail while being actively pushed lower. accepting the warden offer is the easiest choice in the world (even aside from escaping the dwarven death sentence) because it offers any level of respect as a person.

later, when they return to orzammar with the treaties, the city insists they were never born. there's record of their death: when they joined the grey wardens. according to orzammar, brosca's homeland, their origin – brosca did not exist until they became a grey warden, at which point they were considered deceased.

(on top of the official records at the shaperate, no npcs acknowledge that you're a dwarf, let alone from the city. you can speak – briefly – to your family, but they're the only ones who acknowledge your past. I found it frustrating while playing that the origin didn't affect much, but that affected my own gameplay; brosca's origin makes the political dilemma seem laughably simple.)

and then. when the archdemon is slain, whether or not brosca survives, they're made a paragon, which is akin to a dwarven god. brosca is immortalized in their people's mythology forever – the same people who refused to admit they existed until their legal death. (presumably bhelen minimizes or eradicates the caste system, but whether or not that takes –) the history of the paragon brosca will almost certainly erase their origin as a casteless dwarf. when, arguably, they wouldn't have become a paragon without that history.

[christophernolan]

Ngl Odium makes some great points about how Dalinar is a hypocrite and I agree. I’ve never warmed up to him at all.

[t-u-i-t-c]

Inevitable Fierce Battle! The Decisive Demon Recapturing Mission!

[a-godman]

We should Commit our Souls to the Faithful Creator and Live to Righteousness Today

As those under the mighty hand of God for His discipline, suffering in our soul, we should commit our souls to the faithful Creator who loves us and cares for us, realizing that we have died to sins in the death of Christ so that in His resurrection we might live to righteousness under God’s government. Amen! This week we have been enjoying the matter of living a Christian life under the…

[thinkingonscripture]

Dedication to God and the Spiritual Journey

For Christians, dedication to God is the starting point for the spiritual life and the advance to Christian maturity. Dedication is a synonym for commitment, devotion, loyalty, and positive volition. According to Charles Ryrie, “There is perhaps no more important matter in relation to the spiritual life than dedication.”[1] In another place he states, “Dedication concerns the subjection of my…

[fearlesswriterblog]

Promises Require Trust and Commitment

Psalm 37: 5-6 contains powerful promises we can count upon in your lives. Commit your way to the Lord;    trust in him, and he will act.6 He will bring forth your righteousness as the light,    and your justice as the noonday. God promises to act on my behalf, bring out righteousness and justice for me if I will commit myself to Him and trust Him. How are you at commitment? Do you start things…

[femvaylin]

Honestly I think I should have been born an evil video game woman

[chuluoyi]

࿐ ࿔ 🕰️ 「 07:55 A.M 」

a little drabble based on this outrageous ask :)) and half-inspired by some lines from the broken ring: this marriage will fail anyway—that's my new roman empire everyone ehe🥹 and who can resist domestic husband!gojo?😋

a part of gojo's love entries

“you’re cheating on me.”

morning breakfast. satoru stopped chewing his toast at your wild accusation, his baby blue eyes blinking rapidly as he processed your words before turning to you and bursting out—

“huh?!”

“last night,” you charged, eyes narrowing in distaste. “i can’t believe you.”

“whaaa?” he tensed up, racking his brain for any indicators that he might have wronged you in any way, until he came across an irrefutable truth—

“wait no, last night, you almost made me lose it in my pants!” even satoru’s face reddened slightly while recounting your nightly tales. “before i busted it inside you. how is it possible that i’m committing adultery?!”

you huffed, looking away from him righteously. “in my last night’s dream, you did.”

. . .

“eh...” satoru blinked again, fully absorbing your words, before stupidly smiling. “what? you dream about me?”

you scowled, picking at your omelette. “yes. about you running away with five bimbos, banging them in a cottage in the middle of the woods, and leaving me here waiting for you like an idiot.”

he burst into uproarious laughter, so loud and crisp it made him wheeze. “what? seriously? you— ahahahaha!”

you threw him an unamused look, mildly irked.

“hey, wifey,” satoru nudged you, his grin stretching wide in sheer delight. “no one else can make my body react the way it does around you, you know~”

“…”

“this here,” your husband then shamelessly gestured towards his crotch. “—is broken already. my happy friend here can’t get up anymore if it’s not you.”

“…”

“i mean it! you’re the only one who can give me an erection!”

you whipped your head around him, scandalized. “ew! satoru, you—!”

“well, that’s the fact! nothing too embarrassing— we’re married!” he shrugged as you bulged a vein. “besides, shouldn’t you be proud? you've truly got me wrapped around your pinky~”

seeing how you were cutely pouting throughout breakfast, still all giggly, satoru led you back to bedroom to cuddle you.

“there, there, sweets... happy now?” satoru pulled you closer and pat your back, his body still slightly shaking with suppressed laughter.

“hmph.” you put your hands around his torso with pursed lips, squeezing him in return.

“look at this, it’s only when she’s spooked that the wife shows me any affection,” satoru exclaimed with a dramatic sigh. “so, what else did the dream version of me do to you, huh?”

“you bend each bimbo on every surface, lied to me that you’re on a long mission,” you huffed, grimacing as you recalled your dream vision. “you’re the worst.”

satoru still had that dopey grin on this face, and right this second, he thought you were the absolute cutest, because how could you think that he is capable of looking at anyone else the way he looks at you?

you have his heart, body and soul already. hasn't he told you that?

“is that so, poor you,” he retorted with mock sympathy. “but since you’re so worried...”

and suddenly, he rose from the bed with his arm around your back and another under your knees, cradling you in a princess carry. and with the smuggest smirk he whispered—

“...well, i have to make it up somehow. how about i bend you on your vanity desk now, hmm?”

[historicity-was-already-taken]

What I struggle with, as a public historian and a US American leftist, is how right wing US Americans can say they love history and call themselves “history buffs,” but get so righteously indignant when it is suggested that we can learn from history, and that it is normal and healthy to discuss the flaws and dark sides of various historical figures.

It’s like a wall which I, speaking as a public historian, wish I knew how to dismantle. Like when someone’s all REMEMBER THE ALAMO, I think the natural response is something along the lines of “certainly, but it’s important remember that one of the things the revolutionaries were fighting for was the freedom to continue their enslavement of other human beings.”

For me, that’s not a political statement. It’s a commitment to view historical events and figures for what they were in all their good and their bad and their complexity. But you say that to someone with right wing US American politics, and it’s like you spat on their mother and pooped on the flag.

I do make political posts here as an angry, frustrated progressive citizen of the USA who is also a historian. But right now, I’m posting as a historian, who happens to be a left wing US American. I don’t want to talk shit, I want to figure out how to fix it.

But then, knowing what I do of MAGA Americans, I don’t think there is a fixing it? Unambiguously valorizing the American past in order to maintain the illusion that this country was at some point Great is kind of their whole Thing.

Idk. Just some stray thoughts.

[al-kol-eleh]

The most astounding development in the past year and a half has been the unquestioning acceptance of a paradigm wherein the heinous acts committed by the people of Gaza on October 7th are cited as proof of their morality and the righteousness of the Palestinian cause while simultaneously citing the Israelis (Jews) choice to restrain themselves from inflicting massive casualties and similar atrocities as irrefutable proof their irredeemable depravity.

[jiangwanyinscatmom]

Morally, I would take Wei Wuxian using dead soldiers corpses to win a war, protected his "past enemies" because further torture of them was kicking a down dog and hypocritical when he "won", and using abandoned grave ghosts.

Over, a man that orchestrated a rape of prostitutes and burnt them and their brothel, lied to his wife about committing incest, then choosing to threaten her with said committed incest and having killed their son under the guise of another clan who hates him having assassinated him.

Over, a man that tells another man to have let their fellow allies die, and to put a grandmother and a two-year old back into labor camps, while refusing to uphold his own debts yet screaming at everyone else about what they owe him.

Over, a man that claims righteousness, yet refuses to see cruelty and excessive violence for what it is because of his own hate for a family name despite winning a war against the family that hurt him, uses the fact that another's mother is a whore and that taints another from being able to be righteous.

Over, a man that chooses to buy into his own version of a friend despite the clear signs of manipulation and excessive cruelty and murders he has committed makes him uncomfortable to confront.

A good man admits to their actions and doesn't make excuses. Tell me, when at any point in text, did Wei Wuxian deny the consequences of what he chose to do and act on and make excuses for himself even as others chose words for him?