#Abrahamic faiths

[arcadialedger]

“"If God had not meant for such diversity, he would have made us all alike"

— Shannon Chakraborty, ‘The Adventures of Amina Al- Sarafi’

Not to be dramatic but this book is so good and changing my life.

Not only is it an entertaining adventure, I am learning so much about Islam and as a Christian feeling to much Abrahamic solidarity as a person of faith. We truly have so much more in common than we do different.

Anyways I signed up for a fun pirate romp and instead am getting theological education and having a spiritual experience.

[lauralot89]

Abrahamic Faiths

Because I thought there were only three but it turns out there are more.

Abrahamic faiths are religions that worship the God of Abraham.

Judaism: Characterized by belief in the God who revealed himself to Abraham, Moses, and other prophets, and by living in covenant with God according to scripture and tradition

Christianity: Characterized by the belief that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah and the Incarnation of God

Islam: Characterized by following the teachings of Muhammad, who is viewed as the last prophet sent by God

Baháʼí Faith: Characterized by the belief that Manifestations of God have founded various world religions throughout history, with the most recent being the religion's founder, Baháʼu'lláh.

Druzism: Characterized by following the teachings of Hamza ibn ‘Alī ibn Aḥmad and by belief in reincarnation.

Gnosticism: Characterized by the belief that the world was created and governed by a lesser deity, while Jesus was a messenger of the supreme deity and enabled human redemption.

Mandaeism: Characterized by a lack of set doctrines and creeds and by revering John the Baptist as a major prophet.

Rastafari: Characterized by the belief that God partially resides in every person and by the reverence toward the Ethopian emperor Haile Selassie.

Samaritanism: Characterized by the belief that the Samaritan Pentateuch is the only true, unchanged version of the Torah.

[disgruntledexplainer]

list of abrahamic terms and how they are used

monotheistic: describing a religion which believes in only one God. examples: judaism, islam, jehovah’s witness.

trinitarian monotheistic: describing a religion which believes in only one God, who also exists as three Persons, typically described as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. examples: Catholic Christianity, Orthodox Christianity, and most mainline and evangelical christian sects. some trinitarian monotheistic religions also believe in “Saints”, but these are merely particularly virtuous humans and are not worshiped (though they may be prayed to; there is a distinction between prayer and worship i may get to later).

monolatrous: belief in many gods, but only one that is worthy of worship. example: mormonism.

henotheistic: belief in many gods, but one is held up as more worthy of worship than others. example: early Yahweism (extinct for about 3200 years now).

Dualism: describing a religion that believes in two gods; usually a good God who is actively worshiped, and a weaker evil god who is rejected. All other “divinities” are typically emanations of these two gods, like rays of sunlight emanating from the sun. example: zoroastrianism

Polytheistic: describing a religion that believes in many gods that are all worthy of worship. there are no major polytheistic abrahamic groups, despite accusations that often fly this way or that between groups.

Abrahamic: describing a religion that shares a common cultural mythos with Yahweism, Judaism, Catholic and Orthodox Christianity, and Islam. Examples: All Jewish, Christian, and Muslim religions.

Judeo-Christian: describing a religion that claims direct continuity with second-temple judaism, rahter than a separate revelation tangentially related to it. Examples: Judaism, Catholic Christianity, Orthodox Christianity, all mainline protestant christian sects, most other protestant sects.

Christian: Describing a religion which believes that Jesus is the actual Son of God and worships Him as such. Examples: All self-described Christian groups except Jehova’s Witnesses and Mormons.

High-Church Christian: Describing christian groups which retain the ritual practices and beliefs from the early church (circa 30 AD). Examples: Catholic Christianity, Orthodox Christianity, Coptic Christianity, Anglicanism, Episcopalianism, and Lutheranism.

Low-Church Christianity: Describing christian groups which reject all aspects of early christianity, instead opting to adopted a more free-form individualistic form of devotion more reminiscent of germanic or norse paganism. Examples: most other forms of christianity.

i may add to this post later.

[foxtailsnine]

G: I said love thy neighbor, which part didn’t you understand???

[biblically-accurate-butch]

I'm more active on Instagram but thats because I have a following there.

Since I am more active here now, I will post this here.

It's crazy because I posted this in October, and I saw a post shortly after that said telling people not to conflate the two was redundant because anyone who really cares wouldn't be antisemitic. But that is not true, and it felt off to me. That's just not how people operate realistically. Furthermore, the way a lot of people acted during Hanukkah this year on Twitter and Instagram further proved that this needs to be talked about still.

Remember to be Mindful.

[gramarobin]

[totally-kosher]

A person may know this for himself; he may have the problem of committing a sin that he commits regularly even though he believes that it is haraam and hopes to rid himself of it.

But what is feared for the one who persists in sin without repenting is that it may lead him to a bad end, Allāh forbid, or he may begin to love the sin in which he persists, so that leads him to no longer feel in his heart what he is obliged to believe, which is that it is haraam. So he begins to regard the sin as permissible because he is used to it and loves it.

Hence one of the salaf said: Sin is the harbinger of kufr and there is the fear for the one who persists in sin that if he takes the matter lightly and does it as he does permissible things, without hating it or fearing the consequences, his faith will be rendered invalid.

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allah have mercy on him) said: A man only commits haraam actions because of the weakness of his faith and love; if he does makrooh actions it is because he does not have enough hatred towards it, or because of the strength of the love for it that overwhelmed his heart. No person does any haraam action, such as immoral conduct both obvious and hidden, or sin and transgression, or associates things with Allah for which He has sent down no authority, or speaks about Allah without knowledge, except because of weakness of faith, because of lack of knowledge and belief, or because of the weakness of love and hate. But if his faith is basically sound, which means that he believes in all that Allah sent, then when the believer does these actions, he feels hatred and resentment towards them, and if he does them then it is because his whims and desires overwhelmed him, so when doing them he inevitably hates them and fears Allāh's punishment for them, and he has the hope that he will rid himself of the consequences, either by repenting or by doing good deeds or by being forgiven, and so on. But if he does not hate them and does not fear Allāh with regard to them and does not hope for His mercy, then this is not a believer under any circumstances; rather he is a kaafir or a hypocrite. [Qaa‘idah fi’l-Mahabbah, p. 104]

It was narrated that Abu Hurayrah said: I heard the Messenger of Allāh (blessings and peace of Allāh be upon him) say:

“All of my ummah will be fine except those who commit sin openly, and it is part of committing sin openly for a man to do something at night, then in the morning when his Lord has concealed him he says: O So and so, I did such and such last night, when his Lord had concealed him all night, but in the morning he discloses that which Allāh had concealed for him.”

Narrated by al-Bukhaari (5721) and Muslim (2990).

To sum up: persisting in sin is a major sin, but it does not constitute kufr unless it is accompanied by regarding the action as permissible. Persisting in it does not necessarily indicate that the person regards it as permissible, but it may lead to that.

May Allāh forgive you and have mercy upon you.

Do you think I'm not miserable enough. Why do you have to add onto my pain thinking you're saving me when you're just rubbing salt in my wounds

[plutointerludeart]

Eve; mother of us all

[metellastella]

Animation Usurper

Happy International Asexuality Day!

Fun Fact, I wrote this during Ace Week in October. But apparently I either am so forgetful, or dissatisfied with my prose or am distractible or just couldn’t motivate myself to do clarifying edits, or some combo of those, here we are all these months later. 

So. Let’s make up for lost time.

I’m very far along the ace spectrum, so I typically don’t like Western ‘adult’ cartoons. (as a result of a particular brand of ace, not all ace people experience repulsion) Really, it’s more because the industry has collectively decided ‘adult cartoons’ should mean almost always be *obnoxious and in-your-face* about sexuality, as opposed to some animes made for adults whose focus isn’t that but maybe it includes it occasionally. 

To go on a bit of an unrelated tangent, Japan has a lot more respect for the ART medium of animation. And aside from aesthetics and effort, middling thematic variety between ‘this is all about sex’ and ‘for kids.’ 

(not fond of violence either) 

Sadly though, I find the style repetitive and haven’t really done a deep dive on anime. It doesn’t sate the ‘novelty-seeking’ aspect of my psychology. But I venerate all the effort. I just wish there was some fusion between the two, where Japanese animation was a little less rigid in its style dictates and Western animation aimed a little higher for quality. Maybe that’s arising, as you’ll see here in a bit later. 

It also doesn’t help that Western adult cartoons seem to think it’s funny to have a dial-it-in art style. 

I don’t like the idea of someone spending months of their lives, limited time on earth per minutes of animation, just to have it look scruffy, or flat, derivative, or unimaginative. That is incredibly disheartening to picture, as an artist. Even just being a hobbyist. 

Call it vicarious existential anxiety, I suppose. 

Maybe some might misread that concern and call me a ‘snob’ for that, but, hey, what’re ya gonna do. 

It’s as if, since again they seem to have very little self-respect for their stories or characters, the crude animation and character design itself is a crutch to add to the writing of comedy, and should be laughed at. 

Maybe people do find that funny. 

And note, I’m not even necessarily talking about making animation realistic or proportioning bodies exactly like anime does. Elegance can be found in the simplest of character designs, if someone deliberately creates it that way. See: the animation studio that produced The Secret of Kells, Song of the Sea, The Breadwinner, Wolfwalkers, and most recently, My Father’s Dragon. 

(kinda glad I dragged my feet and got to give a shout-out to that last one) 

Lego Monkie Kid, for that matter!!!!

Cannot say enough good things about that show. I’ll probably make a whole separate post about it. 

To be honest, I quite frequently find myself digging for aesthetically pleasing ‘moving art,’ and sometimes the story is secondary. A stationary artist doesn’t have to tell me a whole story for me to enjoy their painting- and artist animators who just happen to draw a bad card from the deck and not to be blessed with pairing to good writers nonetheless pique my interest. 

I’ve done enough stationary art browsing over my lifetime, that, in fact, maybe I’ve jaded myself a little. If even a tiny fraction of the stellar character design in art communities online were animated, I think people would start to see the problem, and variety would blossom. 

So, that brings me to an interesting intersection of this musing. 

And don’t worry, the ace spec subject does come back into it full circle. 

Independent animators.

If you had described these two very well-known web animations to me beforehand, and asked me which you think I would like more, I would’ve selected ... 

Bee and Puppycat. 

I mean. Obviously. Cute creatures and whimsical settings. Not too adult and not too babyish either, something that is astonishingly rare among Western animation?? 

You might have heard grumblings of this before in fandom spaces, questioning and wondering about why there seems to be no middle ground.

But, oddly, even though I fully mentally recognize B & P as a landmark achievement, both as a step outside monopolized media production spaces and hitting a sweet spot that is sorely lacking within them ... I just didn’t resonate with it. 

This is baffling to me, because as I mentioned, the style of it is very appealing, so what gives? I’m put off of some shows with good writing because of aesthetic style, (as a corollary to the seeking styles and disregarding writing, kinda like someone may vibe to acoustic stylings of a piece of music even if the lyrics are utterly insipid on their own) but usually the reverse does not happen. Even if I didn’t like the writing or plotting, which is far from the case, as the writing’s fine, I should have been motivated to finish it.

Honestly, I haven’t quite worked that out yet, tho I have an inkling, and it’s related to suggesting an IRL friend to record Bee’s lines since she likes it so much. 

But, that’s not the reason I started this ramble, and not as well-developed as my thoughts on art styles, so forgive me for leaving it aside. 

Enter the Dark Horse animation that, had you asked me beforehand if I would like, I would’ve said ‘yeah prob not for me, I’ll move along.’ 

Helluva Boss (and Hazbin Hotel). 

There are LOADS of reasons I shouldn’t take a shine to this cartoon. 

1. HH & HB are barely above the likes of Rick and Morty and Simpsons et all in its incessant ‘adult’ jokes 

and again don’t misunderstand me here, I /enjoy/ Star Trek Lower Decks. It makes tolerable and judicious use of adult jokes and doesn’t overly rely on them.

2. HH’s style- while absolutely cool- is behind B & P in terms of preference. BUT. In terms of creativity and flow, is heads and shoulders above practically all big name cartoons out there. What I call the “golf ball eye” phenomenon, in which eyes are perfectly round with mere dots. So you get two moldy foods to consume for the price of one: lack of variation in creativity AND lack of character expressiveness and nice looks. Three sci fi examples are Star Trek: Lower Decks, Final Space, and Solar Opposites. One I love, the middle is not bad, and S.O.’s humor is great. Buuuuut. Their face aesthetics….. Even SU Pearl’s exceedingly simple, no-pupil eyes add SO much to the draw of the character with just the inclusion of a single color. I’m not asking for much. I promise. Not even Owl House style highlights are a bare requirement. I know how hard animating is. I like things like She-Ra, soft and round shapes, and tend to dislike sharp edges (Sorry, most recent Ninja Turtles remake. Kipo, you’re fine hunny, just a lil off) and yet. Somehow HH has bypassed that into ‘wtf why do I love this so much.’ Wily little sneaks. 

I mean, when the likes of Aquaman 2022 feels like ‘a breath of fresh air’ because there’s so little visual variety in animation, you know something’s amiss. Not to knock it too hard, though. I wish that had been that artist’s “breakout role,” tbh, instead of the first job he got stuck with before that, because he will be forever remembered as the guy who ruined a nostalgic fandom’s wishes at behest of executives and not the guy who made something as whimsical and fun as this iteration of Aquaman. The character was usually the butt of the joke among DC fans to begin with, and therefore has more leeway to be silly. That style won extra points that supplements its questionable aesthetic raw merit. To be fair, there’s so much motion in the character’s body emoting, that also goes beyond very stiff, basic poses common in other shows, I have to give points for that, too. 

3. HH universe takes religious concepts and obviously has no respect for them. In a somewhat similar but more lowkey way, recalling a screed by a practicing Hindu who was understandably angry at the less-than-respectful comedic moments in ATLA towards certain cultural aspects, I simply find the /premise/ cringe. I know cringe culture is dead and all. I even agree with that general sentiment. I think Vivzie will sleep fine at night if one backwater Tumblr blog- who’s ultimately still complimenting her- uses the term as a one-off. 

It doesn’t help that the vision of Hell typically forwarded in the modern day that is used to terrorize fundie-raised kids during childhood doesn’t resemble the original Hebrew belief and therefore the whole show ends up reminiscent of so much IRL totally unnecessary angst. 

I’d almost rather have a fantasy setting that had its own underworld concept, or could be similar to HH canon but with 4th wall breaks that slyly hinted they’re all in Dante’s Inferno which was, historically, political satire of the time (essentially a longform political cartoon, hue hue) and 0% Biblical to begin with …..  Idk. 

(though I did have a strange conversation with someone recently which indicated Dante’s Inferno may have been based on pieces of the Quran. Weird.) 

4. HB characters are abrasive. I could barely get through Homestuck. Lower Decks is here again a good comedy counterexample of characters that aren’t CONSTANTLY backbiting each other for the sake of a joke.

(or verbally abusing children, as one sci fi protagonist everybody loves to hate)

So, the mystery: how did I manage to stick with this cartoon, with so much pulling against it? 

Again, can’t quite put my finger on it 

But, I know that by the second episode, it had one little grip on me with Stolas sweetly serenading his daughter against a backdrop of the cosmos and exploding planets. 

Encouraged, I thought that perhaps there would be more sincere moments like that. I was hurting for musical animation after all, I can barely comprehend why it’s not more common. (sadly, Centaurworld did not really effectively scratch that itch, for me personally, tho I did latch onto a couple songs long term). Corporations want people hooked on their content, but you don’t offer us that which burrows into the brain and repeats itself for days at a time? 

The one time capitalism fails to take advantage of something, and it’s the pleasant things. Figures.

So, back into the thick of it, I’m halfway through the season and have found some bits and pieces to like, but still am questioning if the likable outweighs the negatives. Then I see Blitz and Moxie do their duet. Now that scene alone was worth everything else. Purely aesthetically it’s a treasure, a subtle shift in artstyle that mimicked the likes of Disney, and the character depth upgraded several notches.

So now by this point, I knew, I’m gonna watch the rest of this series at least. Dunno if I was gonna be super invested in the fandom, but not everything you watch will consume your soul like that, so all good. 

And then. 

Drumroll. 

The Wrath Ring pair visits the club. 

They are relentlessly mocked for being ‘too vanilla’ for everyone around them. 

Man. 

You don’t know HOW hard that hit me. You can’t comprehend it. 

Feeling constantly out of place b/c of not being allosexual. It’s not a perfect parallel obviously, but it nonetheless struck a deep vein of accumulated angst. 

Irony of ironies, the cartoon that may have slipped through my fingers because of VERY SIMILAR issues to that scene IRL managed to take a pickaxe to my psyche. 

Seeing two people being unapologetic about being more modest in their desires in the face of what could be interpreted as amatonormativity on steroids was indescribable. 

In fact, the parallel gets even closer to reality when you consider any perfectly ordinary woman who’s had the accusations flung at her for being ‘frigid’ or ‘repressed’ whether by men pressuring her or well-meaning friends or acquaintances who think they know what’s good for her better than she does. 

An excellent counter-anthem: 

I’d think she’d resonate with this too, and if not, maybe see the episode with new eyes after reading this little entry. 

In the modern era, in these ways, there is ubiquitous prude shaming and over-forced sex-positivity even of non-aces. 

So, I formally present to you my carefully constructed headcanon on behalf of bygone Ace Week: Moxie and Millie are both gray ace. Their attractions are more subtle than that palm sweaty, instant-draw that ‘primary attraction’ often generates, and subsequent strikes of physical desire. 

They might or might not have ‘secondary attraction’ as their only experience (demi) in the stylings of the very popular Friends-To-Lovers trope, but without their backstory of how they met, we can’t determine that yet. 

They are alloromo, of course. Alloace. Probably hetace. 

After some reflection, as an inversion, Blitz could probably be read as aroallo. 

(I know it’s played as if he’s simply ‘afraid’ of getting in a serious relationship, but if you pay close attention, his platonic relationships are presented the exact same way- so it could be just relationships and emotional vulnerability in general. It doesn’t directly have to mean he experiences romo attraction. We don’t see a lot of him deliberating and being ‘drawn’ to it but shying away- rather he’s so oblivious to romance he stumbles into inviting Stolas out without even once thinking what it might mean to the other. Sorry but, that is an incredibly common experience among aro people, not realizing how they’re coming across to another person!!) (and his response to a clearly romantic overture of watching movies and cuddling even more hints that his brain operates in aro mode)  

And Angel Dust gives off vibes which are much more straightforwardly aroallo.

And to round it all out, we have the canon aroace character, Alastor. 

And thus concludes HH’s careful courting of me. The initial rocky start, the resistance, has evaporated and I am invested.

...

P.S. 

If you’d like to see some more independent animation, check out Lackadaisy, which is absolutely stunning 

And Talon, the fluidity of which is somewhat rougher, but is nonetheless ambitious, has some neat light effects, and definitely for those who adore dinosaurs 

[sambargestuff]

[cultofcreatures]

You know what's really fucking stupid? All three abrahamic religions believe in the same god, which from what I'm lead to believe, is the most important part of all three of those religions. But they all try to kill each other because they disagree about who a -messenger- was(/is going to be)? The more I think about it, the more stupid and irritating organized religion gets. Do y'all religious folks ever actually stop and think about anything critically, or do you just do what everyone else is doing? I honestly don't really care if it's "more complicated than that" to you. All you're doing is somersaults to try to justify holding onto a status quo. I'm begging y'all religious folk to stop and think critically for just like. Five minutes.

[lauralot89]

A question for Tumblr theologians:

Is there a consensus on who the angel in Daniel Chapter 10 is?

10 A hand touched me and set me trembling on my hands and knees. 11 He said, “Daniel, you who are highly esteemed, consider carefully the words I am about to speak to you, and stand up, for I have now been sent to you.” And when he said this to me, I stood up trembling.

12 Then he continued, “Do not be afraid, Daniel. Since the first day that you set your mind to gain understanding and to humble yourself before your God, your words were heard, and I have come in response to them. 13 But the prince of the Persian kingdom resisted me twenty-one days. Then Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, because I was detained there with the king of Persia.

I had thought that it was Gabriel, since Gabriel tends to be the messenger angel, but Daniel already interacted with Gabriel in Daniel 8 and 9 and does not identify this angel as him.

Or did Gabriel come in a whole new form because he didn't want to admit he'd been detained and needed Michael's help?

[perplexingly]

Spirit companions

[tellingittash]

[worldweaverofmediocrity]

oh non-cannon np usage

how I love thee

also I believe the term is asura. not devil, techically there is only one Devil aka Satan aka Lucifier aka the Snake in the Tree. not many devils, blame dnd for that.

[zoroastriancowboy]

Mardun-Farrukh's Critique of the Abrahamic Faiths

The 9th-century Iranian philosopher Mardan-Farrukh criticized the monotheistic religions of Islam, Judaism, and Christianity, focusing on their creation stories and theodicies. He believed that the belief in an all-powerful deity who created the world and the evil within it was illogical and criticized the texts of each religion for supporting this belief. Mardan-Farrukh was especially critical of the type of monotheism practiced by Islam, which he believed was responsible for the pressure on the Zoroastrian community in Iran. He believed that the Zoroastrians were being ground down into a small, deprived, and harassed minority, lacking all privileges or consideration.

Mardan-Farrukh found fault with the Jewish texts in particular, challenging the creation story of the Bible. He questioned why the delay of six days was necessary if Jehovah only needed to command, stating that the existence of that delay was ill-seeming. Mardan-Farrukh also noted that Jehovah made Adam and Eve and therefore made their inclinations. He criticized Jehovah's will and command as inconsistent and unadapted, and thus believed that the Biblical god was an opponent and adversary to his own will.

Mardan-Farrukh believed that the curse of Jehovah on Adam affected everyone and reached unlawfully over people of every kind at various periods. In contrast, the Zoroastrian God, Ohrmazd, was seen as a wise being whose actions were wholly just and accessible to reason. Mardan-Farrukh did not spare Christianity in his criticisms, noting that his unfavorable remarks on the type of monotheism held by Judaism and Islam would apply to Christianity as well. During the prior Sasanid era, there was often heated polemics between Zoroastrian priests and prelates of the rival faith of Christianity.

Mardan-Farrukh believed that humans had little knowledge and little wisdom but still did not let noxious creatures in among their own young ones. He questioned why the merciful sacred being would allow demons into the world, especially since there were no opponents or adversaries. He also questioned why Jehovah did not fortify the garden where he placed Adam to prevent Satan from getting in.

In conclusion, Mardan-Farrukh's criticisms of Abrahamic monotheism were focused on the illogical nature of the belief in an all-powerful deity who created the world and the evil within it. He believed that the texts of Islam, Judaism, and Christianity supported this belief and were thus flawed. He also questioned the stories of creation and theodicy found in these texts, stating that they were inconsistent and unadapted. Mardan-Farrukh's criticisms of the type of monotheism practiced by Islam were especially harsh due to the pressure on the Zoroastrian community in Iran. He believed that this community was being ground down into a small, deprived, and harassed minority, lacking all privileges or consideration.