#A Dispensation of the Gospel

[the-big-picture-bible-blog]

If Peter did not preach Paul's grace gospel, why does he speak of grace, the cross, and of faith and hope in his epistles?

QUESTION: Read 1 Peter 1:10-12, 14-21. Within the first chapter of Peter’s first letter, he speaks of the grace of God that would come to them. Not only did He speak of this, but He also spoke of faith and hope they would have by being in God. He also referred to the cross of Christ when he said his recipients were redeemed with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of…

[thepopoptic]

One cannot be the other.

[fullmetal-scar-simping]

Handing out a pamphlet to any mangahood fans giving the 2003 anime a shot:

Ed and Al (and Hohenheim) are not Xerxian. In fact there is no Xerxes. Don't interpret these characters through that lens. Similarly, Xing has no relevance here (it's a single line in a discussion of Amestrian geopolitics, and that's it)

Ed does not metaphysically supply Al's body with energy and nutrients. That's not how the Gate works here

Alchemy itself is handled differently from the manga and Brotherhood

This version of the story will not coddle or spoonfeed you. You will have to deal with complex themes and upsetting scenes, and you will have to pay attention to what's going on in order to understand and interpret the story and characters

In fact, if you're so inclined, repeat watches will absolutely reveal new layers to the pathos, mysteries, and themes presented, and answer questions you will still have after your first watch

I am begging you not to take everything at face value. The characters are not treated as infallible encyclopedias nor are they dispensers of morality lessons. They are treated like people. In that they are flawed, they are not omniscient therefore they do not have Complete Objective Knowledge over their own lives and the world, and the world/other characters will contradict and challenge them regularly

To put a finer point on the above: Don't take Ed and Al's perspectives as gospel. They are not the arbiters of righteousness who shine the light of Goodness and Reason onto the rest of the cast, they are orphaned teens scraping by in world that, by its nature, looms larger than themselves

Romance is not a big element here. You will not be eating well from the Edwin and Royai troughs this go-around

In mangahood Scar was right in killing state alchemists, but prepare yourself for: Scar was right in killing state alchemists, AND he never relents in being anti-military, AND he escalates that fight to magnificent proportions. Your fears about the "scary racialized radical who doesn't reform to your side nor assuages your guilt for the gains of imperialism you enjoy" are made real in 03

No doubt you've already heard that homunculi work differently in the 2003 anime. But to emphasize one of those major differences: the homunculi are not split aspects of one guy. They are all separate, unrelated, individuals

The characters shared between mangahood and the 2003 anime are, ultimately, not the same characters. Character design and some basal core traits link them to the manga, but their backstories, choices, character growth, and even their perspectives end up completely different from the source material

[nerdygaymormon]

Doctrine and Covenants 128:18 - We cannot be pro-family and anti-LGBTQ+ at same time

This verse is specifically about Baptism for the Dead, and the principles presented for this practice are enlightening. It is a lengthy verse, I'll put the entire verse at the bottom of this post. For now, I want to focus on this section:

"It is sufficient to know, in this case, that the earth will be smitten with a curse unless there is a welding link of some kind or other between the fathers and the children, upon some subject or other—and behold what is that subject? It is the baptism for the dead. For we without them cannot be made perfect; neither can they without us be made perfect."

When I think of this from a queer perspective, for all those parents who've kicked out a child because they came out as LGBTQ, how does that action fit with this verse, aren't they are breaking those bonds? I don't know if they are smiting the earth, but they are smiting their family member (smite means "to strike sharply or heavily especially with the hand or an implement held in the hand." This could be a blow so hard that it causes injury or even death).

Many studies have shown that family rejection of LGBTQ children has a negative effect on their mental health as these queer individuals experience higher levels of depression, substance use, suicidal ideation, and suicide attempts. Literally, they are causing injury and death to their child.

Another part of the verse says that this welding of people together needs to be "a whole and complete and perfect union." That doesn't sound like there's gaps or missing pieces, there's no exceptions.

"for it is necessary in the ushering in of the dispensation of the fulness of times, which dispensation is now beginning to usher in, that a whole and complete and perfect union, and welding together of dispensations, and keys, and powers, and glories should take place,"

Interesting that it says all "glories." I've heard too many General Conference talks where queer people are relegated to lower kingdoms, or glories, of heaven, and the LDS Church is only going to focus on people who can become exalted (which current teaching requires a married couple, a man & a woman, to be sealed in the temple). This verse says all of us, no matter what our future glory may be, are to be bound together.

Everyone talking about being exalted without their LGBTQ+ family members WON’T BE. If same-gender couples and trans people aren’t exalted, NO ONE will be, instead there will be a curse. “For we without them cannot be made perfect; neither can they without us be made perfect.” We cannot be pro-family and anti-LGBTQ+ at same time.

Here's the complete verse:

18 I might have rendered a plainer translation to this, but it is sufficiently plain to suit my purpose as it stands. It is sufficient to know, in this case, that the earth will be smitten with a curse unless there is a welding link of some kind or other between the fathers and the children, upon some subject or other—and behold what is that subject? It is the baptism for the dead. For we without them cannot be made perfect; neither can they without us be made perfect. Neither can they nor we be made perfect without those who have died in the gospel also; for it is necessary in the ushering in of the dispensation of the fulness of times, which dispensation is now beginning to usher in, that a whole and complete and perfect union, and welding together of dispensations, and keys, and powers, and glories should take place, and be revealed from the days of Adam even to the present time. And not only this, but those things which never have been revealed from the foundation of the world, but have been kept hid from the wise and prudent, shall be revealed unto babes and sucklings in this, the dispensation of the fulness of times.

[greater-than-the-sword]

What do you think of possibility of a demon-possessed person becoming a Christian, but still being possessed and needing a deliverance/ exerceism?

At the moment they convert the demon is exorcised. This not only makes logical sense, but is also attested in one of the missionary accounts ("And the Word Came with Power" by Joanne Shelter).

The reason it makes logical sense is because the Holy Spirit enters someone immediately at the moment of conversion. I do not believe in a second "baptism of the Holy Spirit" necessary for Christians to receive the Spirit. In the book of Acts, the Spirit was dispensed three times: to the Jews, to the Samaritans, and to the Gentiles. After that, all believers have the Spirit at the moment they are born again.

In the gospels of course Jesus cast out the demons himself, presumably prior to faith on the part of the victim, but the work of Jesus was followed by faith immediately so it is narratively simultaneous and it makes perfect sense in the present age that the work of Christ in someone would be accompanied by the immediate removal of any and all demons.

[evolutionsvoid]

When it comes to the denizens of the deep, the Church's opinion can be a bit murky. These beings are not labeled blasphemous or hunted down like other heretical beings, but yet those on high do not openly accept them. They will point to these odd fish and creatures as examples of faith being all around us in this world, but they do not listen closely to whatever "gospels" these entities might share. Some sects openly embrace these beings, seeing them as holy and divine, but the Church itself exudes an aura of wary tolerance. Look to these creatures as proof that even the natural world itself partakes in worship and religion like that of the Church, but go no farther than that. If these things pray or preach, it is of a primordial faith, one far more "blunt" and "savage" compared to the glorious Church of Divine Wealth (or so the faithful of the Church claim). Thus, it is warned to stay true to the Church's teachings, and keep things respectful between oneself and these strange beings. Obviously, as long as one stays away from the sea, there is little chance of encountering one of these creatures. However, in rare instances, it seems that a "pilgrim" may appear upon the shores and walk the lands on some unknown journey.

From their appearance and peculiar gestures, they have gained the label of "Monk," though one may question if this status can truly be handed out on visage alone. Encounters with these beings have occurred both at sea and on land, as these creatures seem far more amphibious than others of their kind. For the sea folk, they have caught these beings in nets, or watched lone individuals slowly pulsing through the shallow waters upon a dedicated path. When hooked and brought up, they offer no tokens or wise words, they simply gesture with their tendrils and nudge their bodies towards a single direction. It appears they are obsessed with a specific destination, desiring it above anything else. Those on both land and sea will do anything to follow some invisible path, with some believers labeling it a pilgrimage. When meeting dry land, they rise up onto their tentacles and slowly slither forth, never pausing in their journey. They will crawl their way across the earth, completing some journey known only to them. No one has been able to piece together their purpose. Some have spoken in an odd tongue to strangers, while others gather random objects and trinkets. Eventually, they will turn around and make their way back to the ocean, and vanish into the depths. Supposedly they found something up here, but no one can really say what.

Interpreting these Monks has been an endless effort, with no real way to confirm what is the truth. Some think it is simply the migrations of an animal, perhaps laying eggs or seeking particular nourishment needed for the next stage in life. Yet, they do not appear in large groups, which you would think would happen if this was some kind of life cycle. Some think they are sick and lost, like other creatures of the deep found dying in the shallows. Yet, no weakness is found, and their determination is unstoppable. Those who believe them to belong to some divinity of the depths claim it a pilgrimage, and this is some task given to them by their faith to contact those above. Surely they seek a holy goal, be it dispensing wisdom or gathering sacred materials. Even their actions emanate the ways of the faith, for when threatened they do not turn to violence. It would appear that these Monks are tied to Phlegm in a way, as they can breath out a damp mist of calming Phlegm to subdue foes. Those struck by the greenish cloud that billows from their "face" will find their bodies relaxed and their minds at peace, sedating them into a state of bliss, where they cannot bring themselves to raise their weapons. Any danger is met with these mists, and once the enemy is rendered harmless, they continue on. The other evidence lies in their diet, as the believers claim they show temperance in their feeding. Monks eat very little when on shore, and only eat tiny morsels of meat. They are very careful in tearing their food up into small pieces, as if large portions are blasphemous and gluttonous. Many compare this to the fasting and moderation shown in other worshipers, and that this is clear proof that faith runs within these beings. 

Of course, there are others who are more paranoid about such creatures, which stems from living in a world in chaos. They see these "pilgrimages" as something less holy and innocent. To them, the Monks look more like scouts, and their journey one of collection and study, rather than meditation. Who is to say that these creatures are not scanning the lands and gathering valuable intel to send back to the depths? Why should we believe them holy and not insidious in their design? They wear a familiar visage and hide behind a peaceful demeanor, yet they say nothing of their goals and are unflinching in their purpose. Wouldn't a peaceful fellow of faith take time to sit with others and show kindness? Wouldn't they seek to break bread with like minded folk? Yet they do not waste time in their quests, and are always intent on returning home. Surely there is a chance they are carrying precious details that serve to bolster their own forces and knowledge. After all, everyone else in this world looks to be quite eager in carving up these lands in disarray, who is to say these strange fish are not another hungry beast at the dinner table?

-------------------------------------------------

"Monk of the Sea"

[eternal-echoes]

“Since, in virtue of her mission received from God, the Church preaches the Gospel to all men and dispenses the treasures of grace, she contributes to the ensuring of peace everywhere on earth and to the placing of the fraternal exchange between men on solid ground by imparting knowledge of the divine and natural law. Therefore, to encourage and stimulate cooperation among men, the Church must be clearly present in the midst of the community of nations both through her official channels and through the full and sincere collaboration of all Christians—a collaboration motivated solely by the desire to be of service to all.”

-Gaudium et Spes, PASTORAL CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH IN THE MODERN WORLD

[mybeautifulchristianjourney]

Devotional Hours Within the Bible by James Russell Miller

Pictures of the Kingdom (Matthew 13:31-33 and 44-52)

The parables of Jesus are unforgettable pictures. They are stories laden with truth. Some preachers tell stories which thrill those who hear them, and yet they are tales with no lesson. The parables of Jesus are rustic and interesting, and yet they are vital with spiritual meaning.

The mustard seed is little, so small that one can scarcely see it. Yet it has life in it, and when it is sown in a field it grows and becomes a tree, so large that the birds come and nest in its branches. There would be no reason for our Lord’s telling us about this little seed and its plant merely as a bit of natural history. It is beautiful and interesting even in this way but He had a further purpose in His parable. He uses it as an illustration of His kingdom in the world.

“The kingdom of heaven is like a grain of mustard seed.” Christianity began in a very small way. A little baby lay in a manger that was the beginning of the kingdom of heaven in this world. A kingdom implies a king. Christ ruled over a very small kingdom that night. His mother loved Him as mothers always love their children, and He reigned in her heart. Some shepherds came in during the night and saw the Child-King and worshiped Him. Their lives were never the same again, for one who has had a God-given vision of Christ can never lose the influence out of his heart. They returned to their lowly duty keeping watch over the flock but they were better shepherds afterwards and better men. The kingdom of heaven had entered their hearts.

But the beginning of the kingdom was small indeed like a mustard seed. For thirty years it seemed to have no appreciable growth. The child grew but dwelt in a lowly home in a peasant village. His childhood was not unusual. He was not an unusual boy. There was no halo around His brow. Nothing showed that He was kingly. There were no flashings of divinity on His face. He did no brilliant things. He wrought no miracles. He went to school and learned His lessons but revealed no greatness. According to the customs of His people, he entered the carpenter’s shop at twelve as an apprentice, and for eighteen years worked at the carpenter’s bench. “The kingdom of heaven is like a grain of mustard seed… which indeed is smaller than all seeds.”

We know what the kingdom of Christ is today. It has touched many lands with its holy influence. It has become a great tree with many wide-spreading branches. On its boughs the birds sit and sing. In its shadows the people rest. Its fruits feed the hunger of multitudes. The tree is still growing. The great missionary movement of today is extending it, and it is destined to fill all lands. “The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and planted in his field.

Though it is the smallest of all your seeds, yet when it grows, it is the largest of garden plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and perch in its branches.”

The next parable tells of the pervasive and permeating influence of the gospel of Christ. “The kingdom of heaven is like yeast that a woman took and mixed into a large amount of flour until it worked all through the dough.” Usually in the Bible, leaven stands for something evil. It was a symbol of sin in the Mosaic dispensation. Paul exhorts believers to purge out the old leaven. But here it is used in a good sense. The teaching is very apt. Leaven works secretly and silently. It makes no noise. It works pervasively, creeping out through the dough until every particle of it has been affected. Thus it is that the influence of Christianity permeates society, penetrating everywhere, touching every institution, changing all things.

The illustration may be widely applied. Thus individual lives are changed. The leaven of Divine grace in the heart works out until the whole character is changed. Henry Drummond in one of his books tells of a girl whose life was transformed into great spiritual beauty. Her friends wondered what had wrought the change. At length the secret was discovered in a verse of Scripture which she carried in a locket, “Whom having not seen, you love” (1 Peter 1:8). The leaven works also in communities. Neighborhoods are changed, transformed by the gospel. In mission lands there are many notable illustrations.

The truest work of Christianity is quiet. It is a religion less of organization, than of personal influence. It is not always the most active person who does the most for the advancement of the kingdom of God; often it is the quiet man or woman whose life is holy and beautiful, who really does the most for the changing of other lives. Many an invalid, who cannot take any active part in the affairs of the Church yet exerts a sweetening and ennobling influence in a home, in a community, which far surpasses in its value the busy ministry of one who is always going about, talking, doing good.

The lesson from the leaven, is that it does its work by being put into the midst of the loaf. It will not do any good if laid on the shelf; in however close proximity to the dough. It must be in the mass. There are some Christian people who seem to feel no responsibility for the touching or influencing of other lives. They incline to keep away from people and to be exclusive. But leaven will never do its work if kept away from people. Thus Jesus did He was called a friend of publicans and sinners. He ate with them and mingled with them in all social ways, and His pure, loving, gentle life left its impress on their lives. Jesus did not teach His disciples to hide away from people, to keep out of the world but to live in the world, to be friends of men, to seek to influence others by being with them. He said they were salt but salt to do its work, to perform its mission, must be rubbed into that which it is to preserve.

We need to take the lesson. Be leaven wherever you are. Let your godliness be felt. Let your kindness touch others. Let your example have in it a contagion of joy, of peace, of unselfishness, of sweetness, of purity, which shall be a blessing everywhere. Be sure that you make one little spot of the world better, cleaner, whiter, brighter, gladder because you live in it.

In another parable Jesus says, “The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field. When a man found it, he hid it again, and then in his joy went and sold all he had and bought that field.” There were no banks in ancient times, especially in unsettled countries. It was common therefore to hide treasure in the ground. Not infrequently did one come upon such concealed treasure. Of course, Jesus had spiritual treasure in His thought, as He is illustrating the kingdom of heaven. We do not dream of the wealth of invisible riches that are always close to us as we go through this world. A man may work for years in a field, digging and plowing over it, not thinking of anything of value in it, and then suddenly someday discover that there are valuable minerals or even gems hidden under his pick and plow.

Dr. Newell Hillis says: Lecturing in Kentucky recently, I saw a cave of diamonds, newly discovered. One day a farmer, plowing, thought the ground sounded hollow. Going to the barn he brought a spade and opened up the aperture. Flinging down a rope, his friends let the explorer down, and when the torches were lighted, behold, a cave of amethysts and sapphires and diamonds. For generations the cave had been undiscovered and the jewels unknown. Wild beasts had fed just above those flashing gems, and still more savage men had lived and fought and died there. And yet just beneath was this cave of flashing jewels.

We do not know what hidden treasures of spiritual good there are all the while so close to us that our hand could take them if we saw them. Sometimes we come suddenly upon them, and then we should instantly seize them and appropriate them, whatever it may cost us. The man in the parable sold all he had and bought the field in which the treasure was concealed. We should be ready to give up all we have to get the spiritual riches that we find.

The parable of the pearl teaches almost the same lesson as that of the hidden treasure. “Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant looking for fine pearls. When he found one of great value, he went away and sold everything he had and bought it.” The merchant sought goodly pearls the best that could be found. Then when he heard of this best of pearls, he was willing to give up all he had that he might possess it. Too often, we do not live for the best things. When we find something even better than the good we should be eager to possess it, no matter if we have to give up all we have to buy it.

[bluecatwriter]

Director's Cut for A Pale Orphan these two together are underrated!

Thank you for this! I love Mina and Renfield's relationship, so I'm happy for the chance to ramble about this one.

"A Pale Orphan": "On October 2nd, R.M. Renfield invites Mina Harker to visit him, and realizes that she is on the path to death unless he does something to intervene."

(CW for Christianity)

-As with many of my fics, this one was born out of a desire to expand on a part of the book that's just summarized in canon. After their conversation where Renfield says he hopes to God he will never see her again, he sends for her and they just hang out for a while… and then that night he attacks Mist!Drac in an attempt to save her life. I really wanted to dig into this scene and show a bit of their rapport and his motivation for turning on his master.

-People often point out that Renfield becomes motivated to save Mina because of her kindness, and I did want that to come across somewhat, but I liked exploring the idea of his protective instincts rising to the surface when he sees how alone she is— no one else in the group is protecting her, and Renfield feels the responsibility falling to him. It's a bit patriarchal, but he's also right— Mina can't stop what she can't see, and she does need someone who's outside the situation looking in to intervene.

-I start with him looking out at an oak tree, thinking about all the Life it supports. I was very restrained in not breaking out my geekery about how oak trees support more different kinds of organisms that the other trees in nearly any ecosystem they're part of!

-As I noted in the headnotes, I diverged a bit from canon by having Renfield instantly be able to tell that Mina is being fed upon— it worked better with the flow of the scene in my head. I expanded upon the image of her being transparent, showing how he is able to see how drained she is, even if everyone else can't.

-The mix of angst and sweetness in this fic was interesting to write; Renfield is going through twelve stages of grief while Mina is oblivious to what's going on and just wants to hang out and chat with someone who's not actively shutting her out. 

-Throughout the fic, I tried to show Renfield looking at Mina and constantly thinking, "Baby!" I headcanon her as 20 here, and I know that even I am starting to view 20-year-olds as babies, so I imagine the effect gets much magnified by the time you reach 59.

-I knew I wanted them to discuss literature, and I racked my brain for a novel with suitable themes, before copping out and just using the Bible, since I'm familiar with it and there's a lot of books there with all the themes you could wish for.

-Renfield says his favorite book of the Bible is Ecclesiastes (which just so happens to be my favorite, too— what a coincidence!). ;) Mina's less-than-thrilled reaction is similar to the others in my Bible study who suffered through three months on Ecclesiastes because of my suggestion to cover the book. I thought Renfield would like it for its nihilism, and some of the words from the poetry in it provided a nice echo throughout the story.

-In contrast, Mina chooses the Gospel of John, which reads more like a novel than most parts of the Bible (I've always been fond of the extensive dialogue), and that led naturally into them small-talking about writing and Mina's career, all with Renfield's despair about the whole situation simmering underneath.

-We get a few lines hinting at Renfield's backstory and family situation. (I've been very inspired by imsorryimlate's excellent fic "The Thunder Rattling Your Ground" for some of Renfield's backstory.)

-In this fic I throw in one headcanon for why Renfield and Jonathan don't interact when they're in the same room, showing that Renfield simply doesn't like his Vibes (there might be some envy there, too— Renfield can sense Dracula's fingerprints on him). 

-Mina gets a chance to gush about her cute husband, and then dispense her sage wisdom about marriage. In my headcanon Renfield never married, because he's gay and had no interest in pretending that he could enjoy being married to a woman.

-It was important to me that in this conversation, Mina get a chance to apologize for treating Renfield like an interesting case to be gawked at. Growth!

-Also I like the moment when she tells Renfield he reminds her of Mr. Hawkins because of his kindness and gentleness. This is the moment when he begins to realize he's gonna throw hands with a vampire.

-I had fun describing the various members of the Crew of Light through Renfield's eyes: he's like "BABY [Jonathan], BABY FACE [Quincey], HEAD EMPTY NO THOUGHTS [Arthur], FAILURE [Van Helsing] and ACTUALLY WORST PERSON IN EXISTENCE [Jack]." He's not entirely fair to any of them, but he's not entirely wrong either!

-I love the theme of sunset being a time of dread, and I thought it gave a nice ominous feel.

-Renfield kissing Mina's hand and sending her on her way with God's blessing is one of those things I keep forgetting is canon— it's such a great moment between them, a sign of him doing what he can in the moment even as he steels himself to what he will do later to defend her.

-Renfield is ready to rumble at the end of the fic. The transition from despair/helplessness to rage/gonna-try-anyway-even-if-it's-hopeless was the goal of this fic, and I think it came off pretty well.

-This fic also inspired one of my favorite drawings I've done!

Thanks again for the ask!

(Ask game here)

[superbdonutpoetry]

How Do I Know...

… off the bat what Corinthians 5:19 means? 2 Corinthians 5:19 – Authorised Version To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. Simply because it starts with the archaic phrase, “to wit“, which means “namely” in modern English, which tells me verse 19 clarifies what is said in…

[angeltreasure]

“Why is it that next to the birthday of the Savior of the World, your most joyous and most venerated festival returns on this day [on the Fourth of July?] Is it not that in the chain of human events, the birthday of a nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior? That it forms a leading event in the progress of the Gospel dispensation? Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer’s mission upon earth? That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity?”

- John Quincy Adams 🇺🇸 🦅 🎆 🎇

[the-big-picture-bible-blog]

Is our gospel the same as that which Jesus and the 12-Apostles taught?

COMMENT (in response to an article teaching that there is more than one gospel): Readers, please take a few minutes to read Galatians 1:6-12. It plainly says that there is one Gospel, the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Any time more than one Gospel is taught in scripture or by any teacher, by Biblical teachings, it is a different or false interpretation of scripture. Please read Acts 8:36-38,…

[unitedbyprayer]

(via Do It For The Glory Of God)

Do It For The Glory Of God

https://www.unitedbyprayer.com/united-by-prayer-wall/do-it-for-the-glory-of-god

Glance through many Christian social media sites and you often discover a critical spirit surfacing and a judgmental attitude being fostered, and yet Christians are to be urging brothers and sisters in Christ, to live together in godly harmony. As Christians living in the non- essential Christian doctrine, we need to be gracious, uncritical, and living together in godly harmony. There should be no arguments on what to eat or what to drink, what day to worship or what ordinances to follow,  whether we live or die, eat or speak, we are to Do It For The Glory Of God. The wonderful thing about the Christian life in this Church dispensation is that in those non-essential doctrines, we are given the grace to follow our own consciences, knowing that each one will give an account of their own lives to the Lord Himself. The liberty of this age of grace is that we have not been placed under any required law, we are living under grace. Because we are in Christ, we have been set free from the law of sin and death, when the Son set us free we are free indeed. Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. Let us aim for harmony in the Church and try to build each other up in our most holy faith. Let us follow after the things which make for peace so that we may edify one another, and let us pursue what promotes a godlike tranquility in the Body of Christ and build up one another in godly grace. In essential doctrine, may there be unity. In non-essential doctrine, may we demonstrate tolerance. In all doctrine, may we be those that show Christ's love.

Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification.

Our United Prayer:​

Heavenly Father, forgive us for the times when we have allowed a critical spirit to interfere with godly harmony in the Body of Christ. Give us discernment to know when to stand for the truth of the gospel of grace and when to refrain from ungodly criticism of others, and help us in all our dealings with our brothers and sisters in Christ, to demonstrate Your love. In Jesus' name we pray, AMEN.

[visceravalentines]

Ngl you're right about the black phone but like. Honestly about half the movies in the "slasher" fandom aren't slashers at all. Like you cannot tell me the boy is a slasher when literally two (2) characters are killed. I know some disney movies with more kills than that. (I've also seen some people calling beetlejuice a slasher and at this point? Fuckin go for it, there are no rules here, anyone is a slasher if we want them to be)

fuckin preach. i sometimes see pennywise in the mix?? like........that's a alien clown personification of the evil in men's hearts, not Guy With Knife. once i saw the Joker. like..........he do murder, yes. with pencils and bombs. it for sure doesn't matter, chase ur bliss, but sometimes people do just be saying things huh??

nobody asked for this but i'm gonna take this opportunity to plug (once again) My Heart is a Chainsaw by Stephen Graham Jones by laying out the slasher requirements according to the protagonist Jade who is all of us. gospel below the cut if u even care

1. THE PRANK: "Years ago there was some prank or crime that hurt someone and then the slasher comes back to dispense his violent brand of justice" 2. BLOOD SACRIFICE: "Think Judith Myers...Casey Becker...Marion Crane" 3. ADULTS: "Those parents and teachers and cops who dismiss all this tomfoolery of the kids just being kids." 4. OVERNIGHT: "The slasher needs for all this to happen pretty much Overnight. The reason you need that is because a slasher that happens over a single bad night in Haddonfield, it's believable that the adults who could put a stop to it are distracted or it's their night off" 4.5. PARTY: "Slashers love to crash parties." 5. SIGNATURE WEAPON: "Jason has his machete, Michael has his kitchen knife, etc." 6. SOMEONE TO WIELD THAT WEAPON: the slasher themselves obvi 7. THE FINAL GIRL: the slasher's opposite. "Final girls are the vessel we keep all our hope in. Bad guys don't just die by themselves, I mean. Sometimes they need help in the form of a furie running at them, her mouth open in scream, her eyes white hot, her heart forever pure."

anyway i love that book and slashers and horror analysis bye

[deafmangoes]

An Album of Christmas Carols - 3

Okay let's address the elephant in (on?) the platform:

"Scrooge" (2022, Luke Evans)

I didn't like it.

I will explain in some detail why I didn't like it, but for fairness' sake I'll also talk about the things I did like.

The main reason I didn't like it is because this isn't Ebenezer Scrooge. It's a fundamentally very different character, and for one simple reason.

Scrooge wouldn't keep a pet dog.

Quite aside from anything else, he would see it as a pointless and frivolous expense, but the main reason he wouldn't keep a pet dog is because Scrooge has utterly buried his empathy when we first meet him. He doesn't care about anything or anyone, barely even himself - there's no way he'd open his heart even a tiny crack for the sake of a dog.

The film tries to pass her off as having previously belonged to Marley but oddly fails to properly establish that in the flashback scenes where Marley's alive (although we do see a different dog).

And speaking of Marley...

Ghosts? Ghosts!

Credit to this film, Marley's design is amazing. It's a departure from the traditional but in ways that really work, and I especially loved the coins over the eyes (which makes me think someone on the team had fond memories of Robert Zemeckis' 2009 A Christmas Carol, staring Jim Carrey...), as I thought it made perfect symbolism for being blinded by avarice.

Luke Evans is too busy singing to notice Marley appear in the door knocker and this version dispenses with all the other signs except the bells (which happen mid-appearance) - Marley even excuses this as "those in charge demand a touch of pageantry".

The change to Marley's age, relative to Scrooge, was another interesting departure. They went for a "mentor/mentee" vibe, rather than the "equal partners" they're usually shown to be. It feeds into a much larger attempt to humanise Scrooge from the beginning, which I'll get into, but I do think was a mistake and chips away at the narrative integrity.

(Pictured, my expression through a lot of this film).

Christmas Past is Olivia Coleman playing an exaggerated version of herself. Her design, made of malleable wax, allows a lot of creative freedom on the part of the animators, and avoids the usual issues with the whole 'ineffable being of light' thing.

Scrooge's childhood in this film is a complete change from normal. Taking, I think, from Dickens' own experiences, Scrooge here was a child labourer (+1 sympathy points), his father went to a debtor's prison (+1 Freudian excuse), and for once his mother didn't die in childbirth! These points also come up in the 2004 A Christmas Carol musical staring Kelsey Grammar - the writers and animators of Netflix's adaptation have clearly shopped around for ideas.

A change I didn't understand was the names - Nephew Fred becomes Harry. Sister Fan becomes Jen. Curious choice. Scrooge's love interest remains Isabel this time.

We skip Scrooge's time with Fezziwig, meeting the man later in life and having Scrooge begin his romance with Isabel only after he'd started working with Marley (which... again confuses matters, he was already on the up when the engagement began instead of being a poor apprentice).

And this is when the movie threw me for a loop. It just straight up uses the songs from Albert Finney's 1970 musical.

Not even the good ones. Although it did make "Happiness" shorter and more bearable than 1970's snoozefest.

We see young Scrooge and Marley close down a bakery and are informed that it belonged to Bob's father, which I actually liked. At least within this film's logic and treatment of Scrooge, it made it feel like he took on Bob as an employee out of buried guilt.

Christmas Present was... weird. A big nod to 1970's take on the character for sure, even reprising "I Like Life" (with Gospel, for some reason), but boy howdy did I hate the Minions Cheerlings, or whatever they're called. Those pink-purple fairy bastards.

Fred Harry's party is shown, and again a credit to the adaptation - they showcase a lot of diversity that genuinely did exist in Victorian London, in this case Harry is in an interracial marriage (which does imply Scrooge might also be a bit racist). The Cratchit's Christmas runs beat-for-beat as it usually does, including a (again, mercifully shorter) version of "On A Christmas Morning" from 1970's version. Scrooge is given reinforcing visions that Bob's poverty is both directly and indirectly his fault - poor wages in the present and eviction in the past.

Christmas Present makes a, as far as I know, unique transformation into Christmas Yet To Come - sadly accompanied by the bloody Cheerlings who now become 'Fearlings'.

We're treated to a (shorter, again) version of "Thank You Very Much" delivered by Tom Jenkins the Toymaker rather than Tom Jenkins the Soup Vendor before heading straight to the graveyard.

To his credit, and the film's, Scrooge's overall more human characterisation comes out in force here - he admits his own guilt and even confronts that he might be past saving, but begs to at least exchange his life for Tim's and correct the injustice he's done to the Cratchit family as a whole. That was a good change.

Despite leaning on 1970's version for many things, Scrooge does not go to Hell. Shame.

Highlights & Humbugs

Like I said at the outset, I didn't enjoy this version. It doesn't quite know what it wants to be - a creative reimagining of the story, particularly Scrooge's character, or a nod to a famous musical adaptation of the past. The songs are schizophrenic, partly because some come from the 70s and some from the new 20s. The opening number is saccharine and lifeless, and misses out on contrasting the general happiness with something like 1970's "I Hate People". We do get "Tell Me", but it doesn't have the same impact.

Prudence the dog doesn't add to the story and messes up Scrooge's characterisation. Marley's good, though the age difference makes him less of a reflection of Scrooge's life choices and more an example not to follow. The added humanising of Scrooge works in some ways but detracts in others - rather than a "cruel, wrenching, covetous old sinner", as Dickens puts it, we get the impression of a guilt-ridden middle-aged man who doesn't know how to redeem himself but secretly wants to.

And, uh, Cheerlings. See picture above for my thoughts on that.

Overall... 3 out of 10 Humbugs. It's just not good. Sorry Tumblr fans of "DILF Scrooge".

[tavtime]

Possibly my most low-impact but annoying fandom trait is that I take the word "canon" to mean "appeared onscreen in the text of the game that I am playing." Not in a different, related game. Not in dialogue that was written but never recorded and/or did not make it into the final story. Not as revealed by a writer or actor who treats tweeting like dispensing gospel. In the game. That we all played. And are ostensibly discussing.