#1 John 1:9 interpretation

[thinkingonscripture]

Confession of Sins for the Christian

The Bible mentions two kinds of forgiveness: judicial forgiveness, which removes the eternal penalty of sin at salvation (Eph 1:7), and parental forgiveness, which restores fellowship with God when believers confess their sins (1 John 1:9). At the moment of faith in Christ (John 3:16), the benefits of the cross are applied to us, and we receive forgiveness of sins and eternal life. Scripture…

[alphynix]

The distinctive pinhole eyes, leathery hood, and numerous tentacles of modern nautiluses were traditionally thought to represent the "primitive" ancestral state of early shelled cephalopods – but genetic studies have found that that nautiluses actually secondarily lost the genes for building lensed eyes, and their embryological development shows the initial formation of ten arm buds (similar to those of coeloids) with their hood appearing to be created via fusing some of the many tentacles that form later.

There's a Cretaceous nautilidan fossil that preserves soft tissue impressions of what appear to be pinhole eyes and possibly a remnant of a hood, so we know these modern-style nautilus features were well-established by the late Mesozoic. But for much more ancient Paleozoic members of the lineage… we can potentially get more speculative.

So, here's an example reconstructed with un-nautilus-like soft parts.

Solenochilus springeri was a nautilidan that lived during the Late Carboniferous, around 320 million years ago, in shallow tropical marine waters covering what is now Arkansas, USA.

Up to about 20cm in diameter, (~8"), its shell featured long sideways spines which may have served as a defense against predators – or possibly as a display feature since they only developed upon reaching maturity.

———

NixIllustration.com | Tumblr | Patreon

References:

Anthony, Franz. "500 million years of cephalopod fossils" Earth Archives, 19 Feb. 2018, https://eartharchives.org/articles/500-million-years-of-cephalopod-fossils/index.html

Klug, Christian, et al. "Preservation of nautilid soft parts inside and outside the conch interpreted as central nervous system, eyes, and renal concrements from the Lebanese Cenomanian." Swiss Journal of Palaeontology 140 (2021): 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13358-021-00229-9

Korn, Dieter, and Christian Klug. "Early Carboniferous coiled nautiloids from the Anti-Atlas (Morocco)." European Journal of Taxonomy 885 (2023): 156-194. https://doi.org/10.5852/ejt.2023.885.2199

Kröger, Björn, Jakob Vinther, and Dirk Fuchs. "Cephalopod origin and evolution: a congruent picture emerging from fossils, development and molecules: extant cephalopods are younger than previously realised and were under major selection to become agile, shell‐less predators." BioEssays 33.8 (2011): 602-613. https://doi.org/10.1002/bies.201100001

Mikesh, David L., and Brian F. Glenister. "Solenochilus Springeri (White & St. John, 1868) from the Pennsylvanian of Southern Iowa." Proceedings of the Iowa Academy of Science. Vol. 73. No. 1. 1966. https://scholarworks.uni.edu/pias/vol73/iss1/39/

Shchedukhin, A. Yu. "New Species of the Genus Acanthonautilus (Solenochilidae, Nautilida) from the Early Permian Shakhtau Reef (Cis-Urals)." Paleontological Journal 58.5 (2024): 506-515. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/384922837_New_Species_of_the_Genus_Acanthonautilus_Solenochilidae_Nautilida_from_the_Early_Permian_Shakhtau_Reef_Cis-Urals

Wikipedia contributors. “Nautilida” Wikipedia, 26 Nov. 2024, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nautilida

Wikipedia contributors. “Solenochilus” Wikipedia, 28 Apr. 2022, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solenochilus

[lesbianjohnlennon]

It's queer! by Nelson Motta (O Pasquim)

"o pasquim" was a brazilian alternative weekly, known for its paradoxical and satirical nature, published between 1969 and 1991. it was recognized for its engagement with the brazilian counterculture scene of the 1960s and for its role in opposing the military regime. in 1970, the magazine published an article about john and paul (and brian) affair, written by nelson motta. here's the translation (with adicional notes) 👇

It’s queer! by Nelson Motta

Paul McCartney loved John Lennon, who loved Brian Epstein, who loved Paul McCartney. All the whole London music scene (1) knows this, and there, the famous suspicion about Paul's “death”, which originated with an American DJ, didn't catch on.

The "death" theory is well-constructed, but the true story (the one about their faggotry (2)) makes much more sense. And it's much spicier. I prove what I said (3):

Everything was going great in the John-Paul-Epstein triangle. Everyone loved each other, they adored jelly beans, everything was rosy, smoke and mirrors, etc. Ringo and George Harrison were always on a different page. The duo was Lennon and McCartney — they sang together, composed together, did everything together. Together with Brian Epstein, of course, who was openly queer and quite relaxed about it.

Everything was fine until Paul and John decided that two's company and three's a crowd, etc., and kicked Epstein out of the bed.

It's not proven, but many serious and well-informed people claim that Epstein committed suicide after a fight with Paul. Epstein supposedly gave Paul a very valuable gift, which Paul not only ignored but also hung up on Epstein, who, in despair, killed himself.

But John and Paul had many arguments, especially when Paul was still single and John was already tied down with the Japanese woman. The nippo, who is very wild and forward-thinking (4), didn't mind sharing John with Paul, but McCartney (that face never fooled Sérgio Cabral (5)) had jealousy issues. They fought and made up many times, even through music.

To "show the proof"(6) (I'm not sure why this phrase keeps coming up): Paul made up by composing Get Back (To Me) (7), and Lennon responded with a passionate interpretation of Oh Darling that everyone thought was "darling" (in the female sense) but was actually "darling" (in the male sense)(8). These are some of the great ambiguities of the English language.

But the Japanese woman really tied John Lennon down; no one knows exactly how. Or rather, everyone knows how.

The press started reporting that they were fighting a lot, and the explanations were always about "business and musical matters." Only a fool would believe that, since it's known that Apple was never in danger, none of the Beatles were at risk of starving, and the duo's musical production never suffered any drop in quality or sudden change in style.

After his last fight with John, Paul met Linda Eastman, who, through talks and things like that, convinced him to re-establish his heterosexuality (9). Probably out of revenge, Paul ended up marrying her to get back at John with a "for your information, I've already found someone else to replace you." (10)

The final result: John recording solo (Instant Karma is third on the American charts) while Paul is also making waves as a solo artist with Let It Be, first place on the American charts, and Paul's solo album has already been released.

Some clueless people might ask, "But how do Lennon & McCartney songs keep appearing?"

Elementary, my dear Jaguar (11): The duo has an exclusive contract with the music publisher Northern Songs until 1972, and everything one does will carry the other's name, at least nominally, as a partner. This practice is very common among songwriting duos where both contribute to the lyrics and music interchangeably.

You must admit that, at the very least, this is a respectable theory. I can't prove it because I've never been involved in this affair, which is absolutely not my specialty.

They’re the ones who are queer; let them figure it out.

notes:

(1) in the original, “patota musical de londres”. “patota” has a kind of pejorative meaning of a group of people. also means a group of friends or colleagues.

(2) in the original, “bichisse”, and it was the best way of translation that i could find.

(3) in the original, “mato a cobra e mostro o (the) pau”. again the best i could find.

(4) in the original, “superprafrentex”, which was a common slang in brazil in the 70s, used to describe someone who was modern and progressive.

(5) sérgio cabral was a famous journalist in brazil, and one of the founders of “o pasquim”.

(6) again, in the original, “mato a cobra e mostro o (the) pau”.

(7) in the original, “Get Back (Volta pra mim)”, which is funnier in portuguese and i tried to keep the tone.

(8) in Portuguese, every noun has a gender. darling can be translated to “querida” (feminine) or “querido” (masculine). 

(9) in the original, “restabelecer a mão única”. “mão única”, which literally translates to “one-way street”, makes a reference to paul’s sexuality, implying he was going (or into) on both “ways”, men and women.

(10) in the original, “pra teu governo já tenho outra em teu lugar”, another idiom. but works in english, anyway.

(11) in the original, “Elementar, meu caro Jaguar”, a playful reference to sherlock holmes’ line.

disclaimer: this was written in 1970, so is full of outdated expressions (and slurs) so read carefully!

[mercymornsimpathizer]

per request of (checks notes) two people….the premises of my interpretation of the plot of gideon the ninth vis a vis cytherea and john are as follows:

i. the actions taken by cytherea and john are not consistent with their stated motivations

ii. this is on purpose

iii. we can work backwards from these characters' actions to determine their real motivations

because i am a funny poster and because i love my followers i will explain further under a readmore. abandon all sanity ye who enter here etc.

why canaan house: john and john's motivations

while john does not appear "on screen" in gideon the ninth, his actions set the plot into motion and shape the conflicts the arise. (1)he sends letters to the scions of each house, requesting that they come to canaan house with their cavaliers and no one else. he does not request the leaders of each house, or the best necromancers of each house, or the most experienced. (2)he does not provide information of what the lyctorhood trials will entail, either in the initial letters or upon arrival at canaan house. (3)during the creation of the first lyctors, he did not inform anyone that the death of the cavalier is not necessary, and (4)he interfered in the ascension of anastasia/samael, (5) the pair who spent the longest studying the lyctorhood process and (6)who we can presume were closest to achieving "true lyctorhood," which we can presume is (7)more powerful than "normal lyctorhood" and (8)does not kill the cavalier.

(9)the stated purpose of the events at canaan house is to create new lyctors to replace those that have (really or apparently) died to the resurrection beasts. (10)john further states that he did not intend for any unwanted deaths; (11)that he intended for the necromancers and cavaliers to enter into lyctorhood willingly; and (12)that, if the necromancers and cavaliers decided not to enter into lyctorhood, he intended that they should have been allowed to leave peacefully. (13)we can presume he also intends that any new lyctors created would be loyal to him, or at least not a threat to him.

are these actions consistent for these motivations? in my correct opinion, they are not. the secrecy of what the lyctorhood trials entail and the choice of very young, competitive people as postulants do not lend themselves well to the postulants making wise, well-informed choices. if john wanted the postulants to enter into lyctorhood willingly, and leave peacefully if not, he could have informed them of what the trials and lyctorhood entail, encouraged cooperation between the houses, and stated explicitly that they could leave at any time.

one way to interpret this mismatch is that john was careless or negligent in how he set up the trials, which is possible but not consistent with his characterization otherwise. another interpretation is that john was not sincere in stated motivations 10-12, and that he rather set things up as he did to create uniquely easy to manipulate per 13, which both makes sense and is in character but is not consistent with his other actions.

why canaan house 2: cytherea and cytherea's motivations

while john shapes much of the plot of gideon the ninth, cytherea as the primary antagonist drives the plot more directly. (14)she kills dulcinea and adopts her identity to pose as a postulant in the lyctor trials, and she poorly reanimated protesilaus's corpse. (15)she presumably is responsible for disposing of the transports, stranding the postulants at canaan house.  (16)she kills first the fifth house and the fourth house. (17) she prompts the ninth to complete the avulsion trial. (18)she attacks gideon, harrow, and camilla after being confronted by palamedes, but (19)repeatedly offers to spare gideon. (20)throughout her murder spree, she writes on the walls, questioning or criticizing  john for the events of her own ascension. (21)she did not participate in dios apate and is not mentioned by mercymorn or augustine as being party to their conspiracy to kill john (i think...correct me if this is wrong!). (22) her identity is not revealed by teacher or the other constructs at canaan house, despite the fact that they presumably would recognize her. (23)she does not contact or encourage the other postulants to contact john or anyone else for help.

(24)cytherea states that her motivation is to sabotage the creation of new lyctors and (25)to draw john to the nine houses, putting himself and the nine house in danger from the resurrection beasts. (26)she strongly implies that this is in revenge for her cavalier or possibly all of the original cavaliers. (27)presumably, she also wants both to survive long enough to accomplish these aims, though (28)she does not seem to intend to survive for very long beyond the events at canaan house.

are these actions consistent with these motivations? again, in my correct opinion, they are not. she does not send a distress call to draw john to canaan house, and she does not encourage anyone else to do so. she kills jeannemary and magnus, even though killing isaac and abigail would prevent the fourth and fifth from ascending; while it could be argued that she would have had to kill magnus to protect her plan, but this isn't true of jeannemary's murder. she further lets other necro-cav pairs live, despite the fact this allows for the opportunity for them to ascend. her stated goals (24 and 25) could be well achieved by (a, for 25) killing (simply or gruesomely) all or most of the necromancers, while allowing the cavaliers to live, and/or (b, for 24) calling or encouraging someone else to call for help or otherwise alert someone that things have gone wrong; neither of these actions would contradict her other stated or implied motivations.

(as an aside: i think many people believe that cytherea killed the fifth first because she suspected they were likeliest to figure out her plan, which is possible but doesn't explain why she would kill the fourth next or why she wouldn't kill the sixth or third.)

one interpretation of this mismatch is that she planned sloppily or haphazardly. while this doesn't directly contradict anything we know about her, it doesn't make much sense to me -- i don't think anyone, let alone a very powerful and reasonably intelligent person, would half-ass a revenge/justice plot as their last hurrah, even if she did not have long to plan or if her plan changed upon realizing that gideon is john's daughter. another interpretation i've seen is that cytherea is simply sadistic and/or dramatic, and that her actions are motivated by a desire to make the postulants paranoid and afraid. i think this is on the right track, but doesn't itself explain everything she does (and the things she does not do).

why be perfect when you could be normal: the original lyctors and perfect lyctorhood

what is "perfect lyctorhood" and under what conditions does it occur? when i use the term "perfect lyctorhood," i'm referring to a situation where both the necromancer and the cavalier ascend to lyctorhood and share their newfound power; this is in contrast to what i'm calling "normal lyctorhood," wherein the necromancer kills and consumes the cavalier and uses them as a power source. in text, john and alecto are the only example we see of "true lyctorhood," while the other original lyctors (and ianthe) are "normal."

while the creation of the original lyctors is not thoroughly described in the text, we do know some details. it is strongly implied that (29)mercymorn and augustine, the first two lyctors, ascended under duress after their cavaliers forced their hands, presumably by killing themselves. much later, (30) anastasia and samael attempted to ascend after (5)spending a long time studying the process, but are (4)interrupted by john, who kills samael. (31)john states this he interfered because anastasia and samael had made a mistake. (32)at no point does john inform anyone that perfect lyctorhood is possible or that the cavaliers do not need to die.

i think it's reasonable to conclude that (33)very skilled necromancers, with strong bonds of mutual respect with their cavaliers, given the right resources (i.e. the trials at canaan house, or something equivalent, and sufficient time) could achieve perfect lyctorhood, or at least come close to it. (34)fear, pressure, and devaluation of the lives of cavaliers, on the other hand, push necromancers towards normal lyctorhood.

i think it's also reasonable to conclude that, in line with (13)his motivation to maintain power over the lyctors, john does not want perfect lyctors to be created, and that (4)his interference in the ascension of anastasia and samael was not because (31)they made a mistake but rather (35)to prevent them from achieving power that would rival his own.

connecting the red string

if john and cytherea's actions are not sufficiently explained by their stated motivations (or of them the motivations commonly attributed to them by fans), what motivations would explain their actions? because john (by asking for young people as postulants, and by being secretive about the lyctoral process, and by not stating that postulants could leave) and cytherea (by killing people, and by preventing people from leaving, and by generally encouraging competition and paranoia among the postulants) both created an environment of fear and pressure at canaan house, and because cytherea (by letting both necromancers and cavaliers live in other cases) john (by not providing a deadline, and by not forbidding or obscuring parts of the trials, and by not directly or indirectly supervising the trials) otherwise do nothing to prevent to an outcome that they does not want, i think we can draw the following conclusion: john and cytherea are both attempting to ensure that normal lyctors, and only normal lyctors, are created at canaan house.

in other words, i think john tasked cytherea with going to canaan house to put pressure on the postulants to ascend quickly and to prevent them from leaving alive if they were likely to not ascend. i think he did this because he did not want the postulants to become perfect lyctors, and because he did not want the secrets of lyctorhood to be known to the nine houses in general, and because he did not want to take responsibility for the deaths. i think cytherea likely did want revenge against john, and likely did not want to live beyond canaan house, but did not want to kill john; rather i think she wanted to be killed by john or by one of the new lyctors.

i think that tamsyn muir is a talented writer who has demonstrated an ability to create twisty, multi-layered plots where characters are often working on incorrect or incomplete information and where characters are often not forthcoming or are dishonest about their actions and motivations, and that therefore the mismatch between characters' actions and stated motivations are intentional. i think my conclusion sufficiently explains the actions taken (and not taken) by both cytherea and john in the gideon the ninth, and while it contradicts their stated motivations, i do not think it contradicts any of their actions or any of their demonstrated motivations. moreover i think it is consistent with their characterization in general: cytherea is dramatic and emotionally distraught over her own ascension, but she is not part of the plot against john, and she encourages gideon in her role as cavalier; john is very smart, and has few compunctions about doing horrible things to children (especially to maintain his own power), but does not want to be blamed for the things he does, and so often outsources the dirty work to his followers.

[greentrickster]

Okay, two things:

LGBTQ+ pride FTW 20always, baby!!!!!!!!!!!

Many members of the LGBTQ+ community are in places where it's harmful or even actively dangerous for them to display that pride

So! As someone who's just... wandered into a lot of youtube videos and internet essays and classic literature classes that involved conservative religious terminology, has an English (aka formal bullshitting) degree, and who got an A+ in my neurodivergent masking abilities, I'm gonna let you in on a phrase that's basically a life hack for establishing certain boundaries:

'God has called me.' No seriously, hear me out. This isn't a conservative Christian hype post, it's about how to use the language of conservative Christians to your own ends.

Example 1: Instead of "I'm asexual, I'm not interested in sex," try "God has called me to celibacy." Also works if you're married and the two of you aren't planning on having kids, regardless of if you're actually having sex or not.

Example 2: You're aromantic or have preferences other than straight but aren't in a place where that's safe to admit to: "God has called me to singleness." This also works if you are straight but just aren't in the space to date at the moment.

Example 3: You're going somewhere that might raise some eyebrows but you really want to go to because these are Your People? "God has called me to minister at [place you want to go]." I recommend ministering with the Songs of Solomon (because if you turn your head ever so slightly to the left, they are so much hornier than you'd expect).

Again, this isn't about being a good Christian, or even actually believing in God; it's about framing your truths and experiences in a way conservatives understand and respect. It's about hiding in plain sight during a time where it's even less safe for the LGBTQ+ community than it already was, and being able to establish certain boundaries for yourself in safe ways. It's about saying your truth in ways they'll actually hear.

Also, if you're in a place where people commonly talk about Bible verses and such, I recommend John 11:35 and/or Genesis 9:13 to claim as your personal fav.

John 11:35 "Jesus wept."

It's the shortest verse in the entire bible, and I honestly do like this one a lot. Weeping is something typically done when you can do nothing else. It is heartbreak, frustration, despair, utter and helpless sorrow. And I like the idea of a son of god/prophet/guy doing his best to establish change being characterized as able to weep; it indicates that there is an understanding of these emotions, and thus the potential for empathy and compassion for those who also experience them.

Genesis 9:13 "I have set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and the earth."

It's from the end of the Noah story, God's promising not to flood the world again, no matter what humans do from this point on, because he's decided that that was an excessive reaction on his part. An indication that, while all-knowing and all-powerful, he's still capable of error. More importantly, rainbow cameo.

Anyway, hope this is useful to someone out there, and that everyone's staying as safe as possible in these never-ending Historical Events.

EDIT!!!

@ellipsiswears #raised in church disclaimer: that was not what the rainbow after the flood meant#one of the fundamental tenets of Christianity is that God is perfect does not err#so I recommend not saying that to a Christian unless you're ready for a Discussion#stay safe y'all

^Very important addition! I got a little lost in the sauce of personal interpretation and ways that verse could be read! I did grow up nominally Christian, but neither I nor anyone in my direct family are fundamentalist. And the church that I was with the longest and that my parents still attend from time to time is constantly on the cusp of being kicked out of our denomination for being 'too liberal.' Stay safe, do what research you're comfortable with, and don't be afraid to fact-check me and others like me; we are well-intentioned, but still fallible.

Please feel free to add to this thread with more information and suggestions regarding this topic, in the notes, in the tags, by adding to the thread proper, whatever. This isn't a topic or strategy I've seen discussed anywhere else, and I want people who might benefit from it to have it!

.

(Also, to be clear on the perspective I'm coming from, my own personal belief system boils down to "I firmly believe that there is something Big and Good out there, and there are many correct ways to connect with it and many proper names for it.")

[inevitably-johnlocked]

Five Fics Friday: April 11/25

Happy Friday everyone! Check out these fics added to my MFL list this week, and be sure to give some extra love to the Boosted fics!!! Enjoy!!

SIGNAL BOOSTING

If Only She Said Yes! by Gregorovitch (G, 9,755w, 1 Ch. || Sherlock & Co. || Case Fic, Angst, Grief/Mourning, Bittersweet Ending, Light Humour, Gaslighting, Manipulation, Medical Negligence) – The story of a doctor (a specialist) finding loopholes in the law and using them for his own benefit (sorta successfully). Sherlock and co. to the rescue!

Eyes Like the Sea by winterdaphne2 (M, 14,055 w., 1 Ch. || Post-TLD / TFP Does Not Exist, Angst, Unhealthy Relationships, Abusive Relationships, Ambiguous/Open Ending) – Sherlock and John are in love. After the morgue, maybe that isn’t enough anymore.

RECENT MFLs

One in Ten Thousand by Blind_Author (G, 1,736 w., 1 Ch. || Post-TGG, John's Shoulder Injury) – John seems to have unusual mobility for a shoulder wound… Just a random snippet that came into my mind, set after TGG. Largely gen, but could be interpreted as pre-slash.

Sherlock, Overwhelmed by wendymarlowe (E, 5,682 w., 2 Ch. || Graphic Violence, BAMF John, First Time, Blow Jobs, Oral Sex) – BAMF!John gets a chance to show off a bit during a case. Sherlock realized he likes being manhandled just a bit more than he ought to for someone who insists he has no interest in his flatmate. It turns out John specializes in deducing attraction, though, and Sherlock can't keep it a secret forever. Not even through supper, in fact. Part 9 of John and Sherlock's Kinky First Times

Best Man Bender by Silvergirl (M, 30,120+ w., 16/20 Ch. || WiP || Post-TSo3, Love Sickness, Drugs, Boredom, Reluctant Allies, POV Sally, POV John, Mutual Pining, Not-Nice Mary, Angst with a Happy Ending) – Sherlock counted on John to know how and when to pivot. John hopes he's done it right.

[falsemilkbun]

"Hail bounteous May that dost inspire

Mirth and youth, and warm desire" -John Milton, Song on May Morning

A fic prompt celebration of KBMS in their shared birth month! Text of the images and additional info under the cut:

Guidelines: -Fills to be posted between 5/12 and 5/28 (inclusive of those dates), but you can start writing at any time.

-The prompts do not correspond to dates; you may fill any prompt on any day.

-No minimum wordcount! If your heart cries out for drabbles, go for it!

-Fill as many or as few as you like!

-All ratings and warnings are accepted and welcome, but be courteous and use them appropriately.

-Tag your fills #bounteousmay25 so they can be easily added to the collection.

-Tell your friends! Save these and repost them! Annoy your GC! Prompts:

1) Jealousy

2) Beach Episode

3) Genderswap

4) Wedding

5) Reincarnation

6) College AU

7) Ballroom/Dancing

8) Dungeon Lord AU

9) First Fight

10) “How I remember you.”

11) Changeling Mushrooms

12) Sparring

13) Cooking Together

14) Fairy Tale

15) Time Travel

16) Letters

17) Second Chance

Alternative Prompts:

1) Confession

2) Lost

3) “I’ll take care of you.”

4) “Depollute me.”

5) Keeping Watch

6) Babies Ever After

7) Mirror Mirror

8) Royalty AU

9) Snowed In

10) Defying Fate

11) Monster Encounter

12) Sickfic

13) First Night

14) Rescue Romance

15) Role Reversal

16) Hometown Cuisine

17) Hapless Romantic

Additionally:

-Interpretation of the prompts along your own preferences and how the phrases inspire you is very much encouraged. Don't get hung up on whether 'genderswap' means both of them, for instance, or which roles are being reversed in 'role reversal.'

-This is a celebration, not a challenge or a contest. If all you feel you have is enthusiasm, jump in anyway. Do as many as you like, as long as you like.

Play with us!!

[aliusfrater]

(TW incest, rape and SPN discourse) Feel free to ignore this ask if it makes you uncomfortable. But what’s your thoughts on the idea of Soulless Sam losing his inhibitions and so giving into his darkest desires, and sexually assaulting Dean (which is how the vampire turning scene is read). I often see this tied to the idea that because of the incestuous deal and Azazel’s blood, Sam’s tainted and has this inherent darkness, specifically playing around the idea Sam’s sexuality is dark and perverse, and he harbours these feelings towards Dean and desires to assault him but feels shame and guilt for it. But as Soulless Sam he doesn’t. This reading always felt a little weird and uncomfortable to me but I couldn’t put into words why

okay first and foremost, fundamentals: i'm always going to dislike interpretations of canon that involve anything adjacent to ideas that 'because of the incestuous deal and azazel's blood, sam's tainted and has this inherent darkness' because much of my own interpretation of canon surrounds the idea of breaking down the hunting dichotomy of monstrosity, us vs them/innocent or hunter vs monster that subscribes to the idea of 'inherent evil' or 'unknowable darkness' as the imaginary dichotomy that it is and sam as the original monstrous character of the narrative that represents both 1) the inherent falseness of said dichotomy and 2) how the structures (patriarchal, familial, hunting, abuse etc.) surrounding this dichotomy are fundamentally rotting and are, themselves, the perpetrators of power dynamics that promote the same violence they allege to want to put an end to through the motivations and actions of his character and characters who mirror him. to think of sam as having any kind of inherent monstrosity rather than as a victim to a (quadfold, because samuel, mary, and john were victims here as well) violation of autonomy, or even within the context of sam as a victim, is to uncritically subscribe to this false hunting dichotomy that gets disproven over and over again within canon with sam at the centre (then mirrored within other characters as well) of how this hunting ideal both initially crumbles but reinforces itself. to be frank, sam's motivations are pretty transparently laid out within the arcs that he uses his monstrosity as agency (seasons two, four, six and eight) and the exploration of his motivations and actions in conjunction with other characters ideas and ideals about him as well as how they clash/contrast is majorly important to the falseness of the dichotomy. the usage of the word 'tainted' especially tickles me—this perspective is so unsubtle about its roots in purity culture and how it connects to the us vs them dichotomy, 'us' as the innocent to be protected and the noble/righteous knight that does the protecting. i'm sorry but that's just dipping your toes in the same usamerican fascism that's evident in the show. unfortunately that's not picked up, i guess. anyway the uncritical subscription to this dichotomy also results in the same thought and emotional reaction criminalisation to abuse (in sam's case, largely perpetual autonomy violation) that the narrative utilises within dialogue or filmic/cinematographic techniques within attempts to attribute sam to some kind of unknowable evil that runs in stark contrast to what the same narrative portrays sam as reacting to and what his motivation and literal actions were within these agencies. the dichotomy of monstrosity is also, an entirely unsubtle yet unexplored mirroring of actual bigotry—sam's character easily becomes an allegory for queerness, for brown people (in the context of supernatural as post-9/11 usamerican reactionary media), for other people of colour, Othered people within specific corners of societies, etc. i'm always going to view sam's character from outside of this box.

second of all, 1) this idea sounds like it's coming from a place of interpreting the show through a perspective that intends on finding aspects of canon that align with an idea of sam and dean as a ship which is something i don't like doing because it often hinges on omitting singular explorations of characters and their respective relationships with people within the way that's explored within canon in favour of what is not a canonical relationship/a cononically explored aspect of a relationship. soulless!sam's sexuality and how it differs from sam's is just as canonically explored as sam's motivations about his letting dean get turned and manipulating him about it through a lack of information. the differences between soulless!sam and sam's ideas of their sexuality is so fundamentally different and contrasting due to the 'lacking in inhibitions' factor that it becomes part of soulless!sam's monstrosity which does amount to the deciding of his (functional) execution but the way in which it works is already laid out—it fundamentally includes an aspect of satisfaction that lines up with soulless!sam's Task To Be Conquered/Completed + Self Preservation view of the world and himself. there's the misogynistic aspect/belief of Getting The Girl and/or pleasing her as an accomplishment and, further, sex as pleasure, release, and/or convenience (6.03, 6.09, 6.13, and later mentioned in 7.19) regardless of the contextual relationship between sam and his sexual partner or even consideration for the partner themselves (outside of the sex of course). sam's idea of sex is loaded with both implications of autonomy and while there’s the aspect of what He (believes is his fault) Has Done, as the interpretation seems to imply wrt how it frames the way his shame and guilt complexes work¹, but because what's been done to him and the resulting fates of the people he's had sexual relationships with (sam does believe these deaths are completely his fault and they’re fundamental to his guilt and shame complexes). there's that fundamental difference. while soulless!sam and sam are aspects if the same identity, and have the same memories and abilities—their ideas of themselves, the world around them and their values are drastically changed by a fundamental difference within their metaphysical being—the literal lack of a soul—and it presents within their differences in agencies and where they prioritise those agencies. soulless!sam’s concern was less so his brother and more so the completion of The Job and therefore the usage of his brother as the opportunity presented itself became a viable option, which is something sam with a soul would not have, and is shown to not have (3.15), executed without dean's consent. i'm just checking but we all saw the scene happen, right? sam and dean were working together, they split up, sam got there as it was happening and didn't attempt to stop it.²

2) this interpretation is just also, plainly, inconsistent with sam's character and how he changes as soulless!sam. getting off tangent but i’m poking hole here: even within the assumption of the narrative's dichotomy of monstrosity and how it manifests within sam's sexuality, there's been no expressions of these factors of his sexuality within the actual arcs that related to the usage of his abilities within his agency. his relationship with ruby Could Have worked here if not only for the fact that it represents the further extension of azazel's deed as an autonomy violation within the abusive dynamics of their relationship, down to the fact that a) she raped him and b) twas without his being under the influence of demon blood as well as the idea that their abusive dynamics perpetuates, within sam's perspective, beyond filling dean's role within his life during his grief. if sam's 'darkness' is inherent i don't think the expression of it within his sexuality would only be evident within the singular instance of his monstrosity that is unrelated to the demon blood. further connecting the idea of sam's autonomy violation as a baby to the idea of an inherent monstrosity that manifests within his sexuality then within this same idea of applying azazel's blood as a childhood sexual assault allegory, victims of csa do not inherently inhibit a sexuality that is dark and perverse as a result of what had happened to them. anyway, soulless!sam has been seen to take initiative before both on his own behalf either personally or to serve a hunt (and will be seen doing so well past his time in 6.22) as well as in his sexual relationships; there's the idea presented here that sam wants to assault dean and that the evidence is within the fact that soulless!sam, who has less inhibition than sam, lets dean get assaulted by someone else through nonaction, which just isn't canonically consistent with how soulless!sam's agency works. i think that if sam truly and deeply had a desire to rape dean and he was within a position where he lacked the moral compass³, shame, and guilt that we're assuming is the rasson for which he has not with a soul, he would have quite literally done so or at the very least initiated it himself rather taking advantage of dean being turned into a vampire as it happened. in 6.05, soulless!sam didn't set that up, he didn't time anything perfectly just so that he could get his rocks off at... watching dean be metaphorically raped when he indeed really wanted to do that ?? ²he took advantage of the situation as it happened and his reaction ties back to the idea of dean's violation + The Job as a Task To Be Solved. supernatural is also a show that loves mirrored and foiled circumstances/characters; if there was an intent to explore soulless!sam’s character as harbouring those feelings about dean then i think that there would've been a circumstance directly or indirectly involving soulless!sam, or maybe even sam after his ressurection, that narratively mirrored dean's forceful ingesting of vampire blood as metaphorical rape that places sam within the role of the abuser. back to the point, i do think the boundary crossing aspect of sam literally watching it happen and using its result is the point and ultimately a part of the gothic horror framing of the show and their relationship, but i just don't think the aspect of it being what sam 'secretly desires' is canonically supported but it does comes from an incredibly shallow or straight up noncanon assessment of soulless!sam’s character, intentions, and motivations for the purpose of (and this circles back to point numero uno) placing him within a specific role within a shipping interpretation of sam and sam and dean's relationship despite them literally being laid out for you in the show both within dialogue and action.

the thing about this interpretation is that it could be really interesting to me, especially regarding the mention of azazel's deal as 'incestuous'. i'm generally a fan of interpreting azazel feeding sam his blood + other aspects of the way it's narratively framed both regarding the inital event as well as how it perpetuated through sam's life—especially regarding azazel and john as foiled patriarchs and how the existence of the dichotomy of monstrosity within the hunting as existing synonymously with the winchester familial dynamic and how what hunting meant to sam within his childhood and how that itself is also framed by the narrative—as child sexual assault and the idea of sam allowing dean to have his own autonomy violated, despite not making the decision himself but ultimately indeed weaponsing his nonaction and omitting information (another instance that breaks the dichotomy btw. dean is a victim and he is still quite simply treated as dean both to be saved and as the saviour (which i'm not mentioning to negate him as a victim but the framing of his monstrosity is important to me)—in stark contrast, sam's identity is compartmentalised into the monstrous soulless!sam vs the sammy that needs to be saved, which is exactly what the interpretation you've described also does) could have been seen as a perpetuation of the abuse he was subjected to, much like how ruby herself as a perpetuation of azazel's autonomy violation and much of her relationship with sam runs concurrently with how sam's relationship with azazel worked—granted that dean is cured by the end of the episode and sam does admit to using dean's violation for the job one episode later. the thing is though that this perspective isn't particularly canon compliant either because, again, we're already privy to sam's what motivations were in 6.05 both in terms of knowing how soulless!sam's ideas of other people have changed with his lack of a soul + how his agency works as well as his literal confession lining up with how the audience knows his agency works.

i don't really know else to convey my ideas without just eventually regurgitating the episode in words.

there's also a hint of an uncritical adoption of dean's and the narrative's dean skew perspective in here somewhere that i can't put my finger on. like the attribution of sam's— the monstrous body—sexuality as something inherently Wrong and inherently having ill intent is very much how sam's sexual endeavours are treated by characters within the show that subscribes to the dichotomy of monstrosity, namely dean, as well as audience members who uncritically adopt his perspective + attribute it to sam's 'inherent (unknowable potential) darkness' (ultimately false ideology ->) despite the linear and canonical events including surrounding sam's character exploration. there's also that aspect of dean's rational canonical distrust of sam that translates into ³dean's re-assumption of authority over sam's autonomy that starts out as a teamwork effort while hunting but quickly snowballs (and soulless!sam lets him until it presents as a threat to his self-preservation)

as well as the careless yet somehow popular audience attribution of dean's facade to sam in an attempt to understand sam's character. there's the application of sam' soullessness outwards and onto aspects of sam's character that are crucial when he Does have a soul and the assumption that soulless!sam is what sam is 'truly like' when despite the obvious missing metaphysical factor that is a lack of a soul. there are other examples of characters without souls on the show and it's very easy to acknowledge how it might change a person. quite frankly i think it's kind of funny that they had sam be the most inherently capable soulless person on the show because even he channeled his 'lack of inhibition' into surefire agency rather than descending into a version of himself completely without agency. tbh the more i think about this answer, the more it becomes that thing where through applying an understanding of dean's character and how dean's character supposedly works to aspects of sam's character, and certain factors, his motivations in particular, are attributed to other factors of his characteristics unfaithfully, thereby flipping the roles of their relationship and woobifying the version of dean that's actually presented to us. like this perspective of sam is impossible to unravel because they have the ingredients but they're putting them together with the wrong combinations.

just quite fundamentally, this version of samdean just isn't canonically compliant which is like fine and cool and fun. if subscribing to the dichotomy of monstrosity within your interpretation of samdean as a ship makes you hard then go right ahead <3 but the pretense of canon compliance is what really irks me as usual

¹hilariously i've never seen this one in a samdean interpretation before. an uncritical adoption of sam's own guilt and shame complexes ?? usually people have the ability to see right through these even if it's not all the way to how dean affects it lol

[gloomwitchwrites]

GloomWitch 3.5k 3.7k 3.8k Follower Event: Spooky Bingo

Yeah, yeah. I know it says 3.5k. But that has come and gone. There's almost 4k of you now. Wild. Absolutely insane. I told myself that after the 1k event, the next milestone would be 3.5k. We're here folks! In fact, we're past it! Thank you so much for all your support. I hope you enjoy the lovely little event I’ve put together.

For quick navigation and filtering, "#gloomyevent" is the event tag.

Event Status: Closed

Requests will start posting on 10/1 (full schedule is below the break as requests come in).

Event Details, Rules, Examples, and the Masterlist can be found below!

Rules:

Non-anon asks only. Taken prompts cannot be repeated. Available slots will be updated below. You can also double check before submitting.

Submit your request via the ask box.

Please choose from one of the following fandoms: Lord of the Rings, The Hobbit, Star Wars, Skyrim, Call of Duty (age appropriate characters only).

I have the right to deny any request.

Make sure to clarify that the request is for this event. My ask box is always open and you don’t want to be lost in the mess.

Be as vague or specific as you want. Be clear on spice level (if you want any). Vague requests will get writer's creative choice.

Prompts can be interpreted as straight horror, dark comedy, spooky, spicy, or multigenre.

Example Request:

Can I request [insert prompt & info here] for the 3.5k follow event?

For Spooky Bingo, could I request [insert prompt & info here]?

Event Status: Closed

Masterlist / Prompts:

Summon a Demon: Darth Maul (Star Wars) Hansel & Gretel: Gaz and/or Soap (CoD) - 10/15 Zombie AU: Task Force 141 (CoD) - 10/21 Haunted House: Thorin Oakenshield (The Hobbit) - 10/13 Stalker AU: Thorin Oakenshield (The Hobbit) - 10/4 Witch AU: Simon "Ghost" Riley (CoD) - 10/12 Chased Through a Corn Maze: John Price (CoD) Targeted by a Serial Killer: Aragorn (LotR) - 10/22 Body Horror: Captain Rex (Star Wars) Cult Sacrifice: Thranduil (The Hobbit) - 10/11 Picked Up a Hitchhiker: Anakin Skywalker (Star Wars) - 10/16 Eldritch Horror: Ahsoka (Star Wars) Free Space [Any Spooky Idea]: Simon “Ghost” Riley (CoD) Vampire AU: Thranduil (The Hobbit) Trick or Treating: John "Soap" MacTavish (CoD) - 10/9 Liminal Spaces: Kylo Ren (Star Wars) - 10/7 Graveyard Keeper AU: Simon "Ghost" Riley (CoD) - 10/1 Imaginary Friend: Kyle "Gaz" Garrick (CoD) - 10/5 Haunted Carnival: Simon "Ghost" Riley (CoD) Halloween Prank Gone Wrong: Merry & Pippin (LotR) - 10/23 80’s Summer Camp Slasher: Simon "Ghost" Riley (CoD) - 10/3 Haunted Hayride: Lord of the Rings Abducted by Aliens: Task Force 141 Werewolf AU: John Price (CoD) - 10/8 “Because You Were Home”: Star Wars

taglist:

@foxxy-126 @km-ffluv @sweetbutpsychobutsweet @singleteapot @firelightinferno

@glitterypirateduck @tiredmetalenthusiast @protosslady @miaraei @cherryofdeath

@saoirse06 @ferns-fics @unhinged-reader-36 @miss-mistinguett @ravenpoe67

@tulipsun-flower @sageyxbabey @mudisgranapat @ninman82 @lulurubberduckie

@leed-bbg @yawning-grave81 @azkza @thetaekwondofeline @nishim

@voids-universe @iloveslasher @talooolaaloolla @eternallyvenus @sadlonelybagel

@haven-1307 @itsberrydreemurstuff @spicyspicyliving @keiva1000 @littlemisscriesherselftosleep

@blackhawkfanatic @sammysinger04 @dakotakazansky @suhmie @kadeeesworld

@umno-yeah @padawancat97 @garfunklevibes2012 @thepetitemandalorian @mrsdurin

@kylies-love-letter @daemondoll @jackrabbitem @lovely-ateez @arrozyfrijoles23

bingo board made using Canva

[thinkingonscripture]

The Spirit’s Convicting Ministry to the World

In the NT, God the Holy Spirit took on a new ministry after Jesus returned to heaven (John 16:7-15; cf., Acts 1:6-8; 2:1-4; 15:7-9). Part of His ministry is to believers, and part is to unbelievers. Concerning the Spirit’s ministry to believers, Jesus said, “I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I go, I will…

[officiallordvetinari]

Below are 10 articles from Wikipedia's featured articles list. Links and descriptions are below the cut.

On Saturday, May 1, 1920, the Brooklyn Dodgers and the Boston Braves played to a 1–1 tie in 26 innings, the most innings ever played in a single game in the history of Major League Baseball. Both Leon Cadore of Brooklyn and Joe Oeschger of Boston pitched complete games, and with 26 innings pitched, jointly hold the record for the longest pitching appearance in MLB history.

Clarence 13X, also known as Allah the Father (born Clarence Edward Smith) (February 22, 1928 – June 13, 1969), was an American religious leader and the founder of the Five-Percent Nation, sometimes referred to as the Nation of Gods and Earths.

Henry Edwards (27 August 1827 – 9 June 1891) was an English stage actor, writer and entomologist who gained fame in Australia, San Francisco and New York City for his theatre work.

The law school of Berytus (also known as the law school of Beirut) was a center for the study of Roman law in classical antiquity located in Berytus (modern-day Beirut, Lebanon). It flourished under the patronage of the Roman emperors and functioned as the Roman Empire's preeminent center of jurisprudence until its destruction in AD 551.

Minnie Pwerle (also Minnie Purla or Minnie Motorcar Apwerl; born between 1910 and 1922 – 18 March 2006) was an Australian Aboriginal artist. Minnie began painting in 2000 at about the age of 80, and her pictures soon became popular and sought-after works of contemporary Indigenous Australian art.

Ove Jørgensen (Danish pronunciation: [ˈoːvə ˈjœˀnsən]; 5 September 1877 – 31 October 1950) was a Danish scholar of classics, literature and ballet. He formulated Jørgensen's law, which describes the narrative conventions used in Homeric poetry when relating the actions of the gods.

Legends featuring pig-faced women originated roughly simultaneously in The Netherlands, England and France in the late 1630s. The stories tell of a wealthy woman whose body is of normal human appearance, but whose face is that of a pig.

The Private Case is a collection of erotica and pornography held initially by the British Museum and then, from 1973, by the British Library. The collection began between 1836 and 1870 and grew from the receipt of books from legal deposit, from the acquisition of bequests and, in some cases, from requests made to the police following their seizures of obscene material.

Qalaherriaq (Inuktun pronunciation: [qalahəχːiɑq], c. 1834 – June 14, 1856), baptized as Erasmus Augustine Kallihirua, was an Inughuit hunter from Cape York, Greenland. He was recruited in 1850 as an interpreter by the crew of the British survey barque HMS Assistance during the search for John Franklin's lost Arctic expedition.

Sophie Blanchard (French pronunciation: [sɔfi blɑ̃ʃaʁ]; 25 March 1778 – 6 July 1819), commonly referred to as Madame Blanchard, was a French aeronaut and the wife of ballooning pioneer Jean-Pierre Blanchard. Blanchard was the first woman to work as a professional balloonist, and after her husband's death she continued ballooning, making more than 60 ascents.

[apilgrimpassingby]

Theology of Demons Miscellanea

"There was never any question [for the Christian] of attributing all evil to man - indeed, the New Testament has far more to say about dark superhuman powers than the Fall of Adam." C. S. Lewis, "Evil and God" in God in the Dock.

I've liked this quote for a long time, but I've recently wondered "is it true?"

At least on a statistical level, yes.

The fall of Adam is referenced three times in the New Testament - Romans 5:12-21, 1 Corinthians 15:20-28, 1 Timothy 2:12-15. By contrast, dark superhuman powers appear in Romans 8:38, 1 Corinthians 15:25-26, 10:20-22 and maybe 2:6-8*, 2 Corinthians 4:4, Galatians 4:3-9, Ephesians 2:2, 3:10 and 6:12, Colossians 2:8, 2:15 and 2:20, 1 Peter 5:8, 2 Peter 2:4, 1 John 4:1-3 and 5:19, Jude 6, and, of course, Revelation 12-13 and 20 - all without counting the Gospel exorcism narratives.

Which leads me onto my next point - despite all of this, and a stated desire to get back to the Bible, Protestant theologies in my personal experience tend to marginalise the demonic and angelic realm (excluding certain denominations like Pentecostals). Sure, they affirm their existence, but there's a discomfort with attributing anything specific to them, especially in the present day, or with giving them a prominent place in theology.

And it's not just me saying. Folklorist Jeremy Harte in his book Cloven Country: The Devil and the English Landscape (about, well, the Devil in English and Welsh folklore) says that:

"In practice, if not in doctrine, Protestant writers rejected the numberless demons that had provided their medieval precursors with such varied explanations of bad weather; they were also disinclined to attribute disasters to Satan himself, as this would abrogate from the sovereignty of God." (p.199)

Because I want to hear what some real Protestants have to say on the issue, tagging @theexodvs and @greater-than-the-sword - particularly, I want to know if you think the marginalisation of demons is a real trend in Protestant theology, and if, so, where it comes from.

My personal theory is that Protestantism began in early modern Europe, where the demons had already been driven out by the people who first converted those countries to Christianity - so Protestant theologians see demons as marginal because, in their time and place, they were.

*Saying "maybe" because that interpretation's unpopular among modern Biblical scholars, but it's what I'm inclined to and has Patristic precedent: for example, St. Athanasius identified the wisdom of the Greeks with occultism and the worship of idols (On the Incarnation 46.4)

[artandthebible]

The Last Judgement

Artist: Jacob de Backer (Flemish, c. 1555-1585)

Date: ca. 1580

Medium: Oil on canvas

Collection: Private Collection, Spain

The Last Judgement

The first thing to understand about the final judgment is that it cannot be avoided. Regardless of how we may choose to interpret prophecy on the end times, “people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment” (Hebrews 9:27). We all have a divine appointment with our Creator. The apostle John recorded some details of the final judgment:

Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. The earth and the heavens fled from his presence, and there was no place for them. And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what they had done. Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire. (Revelation 20:11–15).

This remarkable passage describes the final judgment - the end of history and the beginning of the eternal state. We can be sure of this: no mistakes will be made in our hearings, as judgment is meted out by the perfect and all-knowing God (Matthew 5:48; 1 John 1:5). God will be perfectly just and fair (Acts 10:34; Galatians 3:28). God cannot be deceived or misled (Galatians 6:7). God is incorruptible and cannot be swayed by any prejudices, excuses, or lies (Luke 14:16–24).

Everyone who has ever lived will face God someday. “Nothing in all creation is hidden from God’s sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account” (Hebrews 4:13).

[annabelle--cane]

do we have any information on the approximate dates or year that TMA takes place in? I’m obsessed with timelines and I’m so curious about if those dates are Known or not or can only be guessed about

yes we do! some parts of the timeline are a little vague, but every live and "in situ" statement (with a few exceptions) has a date attached to it. I won't go through every known date, and I'm also not scrupulously checking to make sure I've copied all these numbers down correctly so there's probably an error or two in here, but some significant ones include:

s1

mag 13 - alone: the first live statement and the first hard date for the show, 13 january 2016

mag 22 - colony: martin's statement after being trapped by jane prentiss, 12 march 2016

mag 26 - a distortion: sasha's statement about meeting michael, 2 april 2016 (<- that was my fourteenth birthday :3)

mag 38 / mag 39 / mag 40: jane prentiss's attack on the institute, sasha's death, and all the debrief statements afterwards, 29 july 2016

s2

mag 41 - too deep: jon's statement about exploring the tunnels and his first supplemental tape about gertrude's murder, 2 september 2016

mag 43 - section 31: basira's statement about diego molina + the start of her giving gertrude's old tapes to jon, 19 september 2016

mag 47 - the new door: helen's statement about the hallways, we meet michael in person for the first time, 2 october 2016

mag 61 - hard shoulder: daisy's statement about seeing the coffin for the first time, 1 december 2016

mag 73 - police lights: basira's statement about rescuing callum brodie from maxwell rayner, 11 february 2017

mag 76 - the smell of blood: melanie's statement about her investigations into war ghosts, at the end she and jon have a bit of a fight about how That Is Not Sasha, 13 february 2017

mag 78 / mag 79 / mag 80: jon releases not-sasha from the table, martin and tim get trapped in the corridors, jon meets leiter, elias smashes leitner with a metal pipe, all on 16 february 2017

s3

mag 81 / mag 82: jon makes a statement at georgie's place about a guest for mr spider at the same time as daisy interviews the remaining archives staff to try and ascertain his whereabouts, 18 february 2017

mag 89 - twice as bright: statement of jude perry, ft. jon hand crispification, 24 april 2017

mag 91 / mag 92 (/ maybe mag 93?): statement of mike crew, death of mike crew, jon daisy and basira's encounter in the woods, the big elias conversation at the institute, 28 april 2017. mag 93 might also be recorded on this day, I'm not quite sure, because georgie's statement (mag 94) is 29 april, but I don't know if that's fully the next day or if jon got back really late on the 28th, recorded mag 93, and then georgie gave her statement in the wee hours of the 29th. up to interpretation and how little sleep you envision jon as having.

mag 100 - I guess you had to be there: lynne hammond's is 2 may 2017, robin lennox's is 20 may 2017, brian finlinson's is 26 may 2017, and "john smith's" statement doesn't have a date.

mag 111 - family business: gerry's posthumous statement about smirke's 14, 30 june 2017. again, trevor and julia's statement about how they met in mag 109 is dated 29 june, and I don't know if it's an either-side-of-midnight thing or a full day elapsed between them.

mag 118 - the masquerade: martin and melanie pull a fast one on elias while the rest of the gang sets up explosives in the unknowing, 6 august 2017.

mag 120 - eye contact: elias's statement about jon's coma dreams + elias's arrest, 9 august 2017.

s4

mag 121 / mag 122: oliver banks gives his statement about point nemo and jon wakes up, 15 february 2018

mag 128 - heavy goods: breekon deliver's the coffin and jon slurps a statement right out of his head, 3 march 2018

mag 132 - entombed: jon buries himself alive to rescue daisy, 24-26 march 2018

mag 141 - doomed voyage: on the boat to norway jon slurps a statement about mikaele salesa out of a shiphand's head, 11 june 2018

mag 142 - scrutiny: jess tyrell comes in to complain about jon slurping a statement out of her head and haunting her nightmares, 12 june 2018

mag 146 / mag 147: jon gets intervened on about all the brain slurping, they go to hilltop road and find annabelle's statement, 20 july 2018

mag 157 / mag 158 / mag 159: peter releases not-sasha and brings martin to the panopticon for a showdown with "elias," julia and trevor attack the institute, daisy goes monster mode, and jon follows martin into the lonely and saves him with the power of gay love and also slurping peter lukas's brain so hard he explodes badly, 25 september 2018

mag 160 - the eye opens: jon reads a normal statement and nothing bad happens, 18 october 2018.

s5

fuck if I know

[mybeautifulchristianjourney]

Fallacy: God Would Not Command What We Cannot Do

Many argue that God wouldn’t command something we’re incapable of doing. However, this assumption is flawed. A command does not imply ability.

Verses like "Choose life..." or "If you are willing..." do not prove human capability. These are imperatives, not statements of what we can do. What we ought to do does not mean we can do it.

This idea is also unscriptural. God gave the Law for two purposes: to reveal sin and to magnify it, leaving no one with an excuse for claiming self-righteousness. As Martin Luther said to Erasmus, "When you are finished with all your commands and exhortations from the Old Testament, I'll write Romans 3:20 over the top of it all":

"For by works of the law no human being will be justified in His sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin" (Romans 3:20).

The Law was not given to prove free will but to show human inability. It reveals what we cannot do, not what we can. Nowhere in Scripture does God’s Law suggest that natural man is morally able to obey it.

The consequences of Adam's sin are clear: humanity is spiritually powerless. We are unable to:

Understand God (Psalm 50:21; Rom 3:11).

Perceive spiritual truth (John 3:3).

Know our own hearts (Jer 17:9).

Walk the path of life (Jer 10:23).

Escape the curse of the Law (Gal 3:10).

Receive the Holy Spirit (John 14:17).

Hear, understand, or accept God’s Word (John 8:47; 1 Cor 2:14).

Bring ourselves into God’s family (John 1:13; Rom 9:15-16).

Produce repentance or faith (Eph 2:8-9; Phil 1:29).

Come to Christ (John 6:44).

Please God (Rom 8:8).

Humanity, in its fallen state, is utterly incapable of coming to God. Salvation is entirely dependent on God's grace, not human effort. This truth compels us to recognize our helplessness and trust in God’s mercy and power alone for redemption.

Preemptively Addressing the Objection from Deuteronomy 30:11: "It Is Not Too Difficult"

Deuteronomy 30:11 states that God's commands are "not too difficult" or "beyond your reach." Some might interpret this to mean that humans inherently possess the ability to obey God's law. However, this interpretation fails to consider the broader context of Deuteronomy, which emphasizes humanity's dependence on God’s grace for obedience.

The Context of Deuteronomy 29:4 and 30:6

In Deuteronomy 29:4, we read, "But to this day the Lord has not given you a heart to understand or eyes to see or ears to hear." This highlights the spiritual blindness and inability of humans apart from God's intervention. Yet, in Deuteronomy 30:6, God promises, "The Lord your God will circumcise your heart... so that you will love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul." Here, God commits to transforming the hearts of His people, enabling them to love and obey Him.

Together, these verses show that while God's law is near and clear (30:11), true obedience depends on God’s grace to overcome the hardness of human hearts.

God's Grace Enables Obedience

The commands in Deuteronomy 30:11-19 must be understood in light of God’s prior promise to circumcise hearts (30:6). Without God's transformative grace, the commands of the law are impossible to fulfill. This is why Deuteronomy 30:11 cannot be read apart from 29:4 and 30:6. Obedience is not the result of human willpower but of God's work in us.

Philippians 2:13 captures this truth well: "For it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure." Obedience flows from God’s grace, not from our innate strength.

Understanding the Imperatives in Context

Deuteronomy 30:11’s call to obedience does not suggest that humans can obey God apart from His enabling grace. To interpret it this way would ignore the indicatives in 29:4 and 30:6, which make it clear that God must first transform the heart. The commands of God are “not too difficult” because God Himself provides the grace necessary for obedience.

The Relationship Between Imperatives and Indicatives

The Bible consistently pairs commands (imperatives) with declarations of God’s grace (indicatives). The imperatives call us to love and obey God, while the indicatives remind us that such obedience is only possible through God’s enabling work. Jesus underscores this in John 15:5: "Apart from me, you can do nothing."

[sybillum]

wisdom enthroned // wisdom hath builded her Home

wisdom enthroned

russian icon, ~15th century

There are two main types of this icon: the one of Kyiv and the one of Novgorod. The very first icon was found in Novgorod and dates back to around 15 century, though the first church blessed in the name of Sophia the Wisdom of God was built in 989 in Novgorod, and the next one in 1037 in Kyiv. 

DESCRIPTION

The middle figure is the Almighty in the shape and form of a Fiery Angel, who is enthroned on the golden throne supported by seven pillars. He is clothed in the royal attire and belted with a jewelled belt, with a royal crown on His head. In His right hand he holds a sceptre with a cross on the top of it, and his left hand is holding a scroll which He places on top of His chest. On the sides one can see the Theotokos with the Child and saint John the Baptist with a scroll that says: ‘I testify’. Above the head of the Angel is Christ Pantocrator, above Him - another golden throne with an open book, that symbolises the presence of God. There are three kneeling angels on both sides of the throne. 

The Fiery Angel being Christ is drawn from the words of saint Paul:

‘but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles,but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God’; ‘It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption’ — 1 Corinthians 1:23-24; 30

and in the book of Revelation, in which saint John describes Him as such: 

‘And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle. His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire; and his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters.’ — Revelation 1:13-15

wisdom hath built her home

russian icon, ~14th century 

Comes from a st Kyrill monastery near Novgorod. 

The foundation of this icon’s plot comes from chapter 9 of Proverbs: 

Wisdom has built her house;     she has set up its seven pillars.

She has prepared her meat and mixed her wine;     she has also set her table.

She has sent out her servants, and she calls     from the highest point of the city,

    “Let all who are simple come to my house!” To those who have no sense she says,

    “Come, eat my food     and drink the wine I have mixed.

Leave your simple ways and you will live;     walk in the way of insight.”

DESCRIPTION

Sophia the Wisdom is shown in the bottom part of the icon - she sits on the throne with seven feet, surrounded by the glory of five concentric spheres. The octagonal double-coloured halo is around her head. The nine angelic orders are shown in the concentric spheres. Just below there is the feast, which is surrounded by the wine-servant and two young men, slaughtering the lamb, the servants of the Wisdom and those, who have been called to the feast by Her. Above the feast the Theotokos with the Child is depicted. Nearby, right on the tower, there is king Solomon with the unrolled scroll in his hands, upon which the beginning words of the Proverbs chapter 9 are written. Opposite of him there is saint John of Damascus with another scroll, upon which the first words of the canon of the blessed Cosmas of Maiuma* for the Maundy Thursday are written. At the top of the icon the symbolic image of the ‘house of Wisdom’ is depicted - a large one-domed church with six zakomarov-type ceilings and seven pillars, in between which the seven Ecumenical Councils are presented. Above that, there are seven angels in medallions. 

MEANINGS

Traditionally, the image of Sophia Divine Wisdom has been interpreted as the image of the Second Person of the Trinity - the Son of God Jesus Christ, as it is said in 1 Corinthians 1:23-24: ‘but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles,but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.’

With this understanding in mind, it becomes obvious that the ‘house’ mentioned in the Proverbs is the house of flesh that was taken by the Saviour, and the symbol of His Church, as the Church is the Body of Christ. The seven pillars are the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit, brought forth into the world through the Incarnated Christ. Also, these pillars can be associated with the seven churches of the Revelation. 

The feast, prepared by the Wisdom, is the foreshadow of the Eucharistic meal.