#And that particular passage is asking god that if the evil of the world is out to get you

[rights-for-redshirts]

So viel meine Kindheit mir nicht gut getan hat - meine Eltern haben mir, als ich klein war, "will [mich] der Feind verschlingen, so lass die Engel singen: dies Kind soll unverletzet sein" und es war das Tröstlichste ever

[adaginy]

The Big Guide to Humans: Religion

Like many sapient species, humans have religion: beliefs in how their species first came to be, how they should behave, and what, if anything, to expect after death.

However, like languages, humans have thousands of these, some of which are very different from each other and some of which are nearly indistinguishable.

Broadly speaking, Terran religions can be divided 2 ways: - Number of deities: Zero, one, or several. (Most Terran religions have insisted that their god/s are not just the correct ones to worship, but also the only gods that exist. This is shifting somewhat.) - What happens at death: Nothingness, an eternal reward (or punishment) for the actions of one's soul (an animating essence of sapients), or the re-birth of the soul into another body (with difficult lives serving as punishments). Some combine these last two, with rebirth occurring until the soul is ready for its eternal reward.

"Zero deities" includes atheism, that is, believing only in what can be determined by science, with no belief in a soul. It also includes religions that don't focus on the creation of the world but rather on the purpose of one's actions.

"One deity" includes the most common and culturally powerful religions (this is including several minutely different sects of a few different religions). These have a single, all-powerful god that created the entire universe with humans as his master work. Since the discovery of life beyond Terra, sects have divided further over how to fit non-human sapients into their beliefs. Some sects actually insist their religious teachings do not allow for non-human sapients, at all, and we must be the disguised evil forces of their god's opponent. Luckily, and unsurprisingly, you will not encounter these sects' adherents outside of their home planet. Because these religions have been so widespread for so long, many people who no longer follow the beliefs, or perhaps never did, may still set their calendar by the religious holidays and possibly hold celebrations anyway. There are other, unrelated one-deity religions as well, though none remotely as widespread.

Religions featuring multiple gods have fewer practitioners (though some are still among the largest of Terran religions), but more variety. Some have powerful gods of large domains (e.g. of life or death, of oceans), some have very small gods or spirits of protecting single homes and occupying individual plant specimens, and everything in between. Some also worship deceased ancestors, either specifically by name or in a general sense.

Also common is for a human to have beliefs while not considering themselves a member of any particular codified religion. Or, they may consider themselves a member, while holding beliefs that run directly counter to those of their professed religion. For example: Some manner of belief in spirits or small gods seems common among humans*, even among those who would say they only believe in science or they believe in a single god of everything. While a person who acknowledges believing in multiple gods may make a ritualized offering to a river spirit to ask for safe water passage, for example, a person who insists they do not believe in spirits may still pour a heap of Fruity Pebbles (not fruit or rocks, a sort of breakfast candy, see diet) onto a malfunctioning machine to appease the spirit within.**

If a human's religion prevents or requires certain actions, they will tell you when it is relevant: that they need to wake up early for religious observances, that they can't join you for a meal because they are temporarily not-eating for religious reasons, etc. Some humans are very comfortable talking about their beliefs, others may consider them private. Some humans may be delighted to tell you about their religion because it encourages conversions; you are not required to convert if they ask you to and even other humans will find them rude to insist. Some humans may be curious about your beliefs, and some humans have even converted to religions of other species.

*These beliefs, mixed with human propensity toward empathy, are perhaps the source of "stabby the space roomba"-type incidents; see pets and human hive mind debate.

**This is an actual example experienced by one of our editors. The human was annoyed when the candy was removed and was further annoyed when asked why they were bothered if they did not believe the engine had a spirit.

[erose-this-name]

Why do demons look like goatmen? Azazel is a Disney villain.

See, in this book, you might have heard of it, da Bible, God commands the Israelites to release a goat into the wild during Yom Kippur, which would symbolically take the community’s sins with it. Then they had to chase after the goat -- with refreshment stands along the path, of course -- and then throw the goat off a cliff. Like a Disney villain.

(btw, don’t let yourself be like “oh, the weird *Jews*, animal cruelty”, sacrificing animals to atone for sin was very common at the time, especially among Europeans. So it’s more like “oh, the weird Bronze Age peoples, animal cruelty”)

And that particular sacred cliff they threw the scapegoats down is called ‘Azazel’. Thanks to Gentiles who don’t have background knowledge about Israelite geography misunderstanding this Bible passage, Azazel is now also the name of the angel who receives the sacrifice of said scapegoats. And, he’s a cherub!

Azazel then appears prominently in the extremely influential apocryphal Book of Enoch, where he is said to have become a fallen angel because he shared corrupting forbidden knowledge with mankind. Namely, the VERY EVIL dark arts of metallurgy and cosmetics(?). Also, he taught people how to fight wars and do magic tricks and had sex with human women. He then gets blamed for everything, and Archangel Raphael throws him down a hole in the fabric of reality, mirroring a scapegoat off a cliff. 

He then became a pretty popular stock fallen angel character. In the apocryphal Apocalypse of Abraham, Azazel transforms into a sacrificed-animal-eating pigeon (sic. "unclean bird") that taunts Abraham then gets told off by an angel.

In Islamic mythology, Azazil actually becomes THE big bad, taking the role of Satan/Lucifer, and who before his fall was the general of Heaven’s army, and just casually conquered the entire Earth in a genocidal war against a kingdom of world order proto-genies ruled by a king genie literally named King Genie McGenieson (Jann ibn Jann), because Allah decided that humans should rule Earth instead (the genies were sodomites). There are now fewer genies. Also, Azazil is supposed to be the ancestor of all genies, so that’s some next level prioritizing-work-over-family right there.

But of course, Azazel’s most famous and religiously significant depiction is as a genderswaped naive angel girl love interest / DLC antagonist in critically acclaimed anime rhythm game Helltaker. None of these words are in the Bible (except for Azazel, which is).

“So, is that why stereotypical demons like Baphomet look like goatmen”, you ask? “Because popular fallen angel Azazel is associated with scapegoats?” Well, he is associated with goats, but no. I just wanted to talk about Azazel.

It’s because early Greco-Roman Christians decided that those mythical satyrs (goat people) were actually just demons all along! So they just copy-pasted all the old myths of drunken satyrs in the forest and put them into Hell. Your idea of a stereotypical demon is actually just a badly sunburned satyr with a big fork.

Sexy satyr statue for reference (technically it's Pan but close enough). Now imagine him, but more red.

Yeah. Now you know!

[gaiuskamilah]

i'm so fascinated with rheya's story and the concept of her as their goddess, because it's such an obvious rejection of christianity. of course, this is no surprise considering that the book lead is a jewish man and the series has multiple times subverted the antisemitic tropes associated with vampires. religious themes are prominent in bloodbound, and the treatment of it and its distinct parallels to a certain point of view of christianity i think can't be denied.

rheya is referred to as a goddess throughout the series. she's a priestess and arguably the goddess phampira made flesh, which already draws parallels to jesus, who was a spiritual leader himself. gaius augustine is roman and her most devoted follower, converting (turning) people across the world in a similar way the roman st paul the apostle did. gaius also shares a name with st augustine of hippo, arguably the most important philosopher in christian history and theology.

to be a vampire in bb is to drink the blood of another vampire, and all are descended from the priestess-goddess rheya. this immediately evokes similar Eucharistic notions - as in john 6:53-54, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day."

rheya herself has inspired canon organized religion. the chapel built by dracula is highly reminiscent of catholic and orthodox churches:

in the bonus scene in the dark solstice, serafine is also shown to be praying to rheya. this in particular caught my attention because of how it was worded:

"when the First shall return to us... when the Order will burn... when we may once again be free" it's a very messianic prayer and in itself mirrors the christian belief that one day, jesus will return and enact his will and his kingdom onto the earth.

the whole passage can be compared to the lord's prayer. "when the first shall return to us... when the order will burn" - "hallowed be thy name / thy kingdom come / thy will be done / on earth as it is in heaven" which talks about second coming of jesus, and in this case, rheya. vampires are waiting for salvation, waiting for and asking for "deliverance from evil".

despite all this, bloodbound actively rejects rheya as god made flesh, rejects the notion of her as their savior, and arguably even the concept of a savior. mc denying that rheya is neither savior nor goddess is akin to denying that jesus is the savior and is god:

and this even extends to her name itself - rheya apostolous. "christ" is not jesus' actual name, it's a title that means savior. and while we can take "rheya apostolous" as a typical first name-last name thing, i choose to view "apostolous" as a title - and apostolous means "apostle", a follower, not a savior or a goddess.

and again, knowing that the book lead is a jewish man makes this approach make more sense. through christianity has undeniably jewish roots and jesus was jewish himself, judaism denies that jesus is the messiah. this approach to vampire lore as well as the care that was put into it in order to subvert antisemitic tropes rife the concept of vampires makes bloodbound such a refreshing take on the vampire genre as a whole.

[cabinetsecurity]

Re: the Crowley is Lucifer thing

I’m having thoughts

firstly. Crowley being Lucifer would definitively mean that Satan ≠ Lucifer, which, I’ll get back to.

So for starters: Crowley IS the snake in the garden of eden. That is a commonly accepted fact. the serpent of eden is generally considered to have been satan. Revelation directly describes satan as a snake: “And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.” Rev 12:9 KJV. This also describes the falling of a third of the heavenly host, who would become demons.

next we have Crowley’s line during Jesus’ execution minisode. “Seemed a very bright young man. I showed him all the kingdoms of the world.” Good Omens Se1:Ep3 3.21. Crowley and Aziraphale go back a forth a bit here about Jesus but this line in particular is a reference to another biblical passage. Specifically Mathew 4:8-9 says:

“Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.” Mathew 4:8-9 KJV

It is clear that Crowley is referencing this story during the minisode where he is playing a role explicit in being about satan.

in season two we see a lot more to lend credence to Crowley having been an extremely powerful figure in heaven prior to the fall. Lucifer is generally considered to have been an extremely powerful angel. When the archangels are talking about an “Institutional Problem” Se2:Ep6, they are referring to the fall of Lucifer and loss of a third of the heavenly hosts.

Crowley is shown to have been a powerful angel (“they never change their passwords”)(working closely with the designer (God?) on the nebula). But despite seeming to remember some of his time in heaven its unclear if he remembers it all (not recognizing Aziraphale in Eden)(not recognizing Furfur at all)(He seems to know exactly how to bring memories out of Jim). While this could be a sideeffect of falling, it is not something any other demon references.

If its something specific to Crowley that would lead one to think that special care was put into making sure he wouldn’t be causing trouble down the road when he fell. If Crowley was Lucifer, it would make sense for heaven to take that special care. An extremely powerful archangel would make an extremely dangerous enemy, especially with an army at his disposal.

deconstructing the fall a bit; Crowley says on multiple occasions that he never intended to fall, that he was only asking questions, that he just hung out with the wrong crowd. In se2:ep1 we get an idea of exactly what that looked like when he protests to the destruction of the universe after a measly 6,000 years. This scene strongly implies (esp. with Aziraphale’s reaction to his discontent) that this particular issue is what resolved with him falling. But given how early on this questioning was, it may not be unreasonable if he was the first angel to actually question the Great Plan. revising season 1, Crowley expresses a similar opinion in the garden when he comments that “I can’t see what’s so bad about knowing the difference between good and evil, anyway.” Se1:ep1.

Crowley consistently supports and expresses free will. Other people have made longer posts deconstructing the role free will plays in GO so I will keep it short. Season two shows multiple times that both angels and demons aren’t incapable of free will but, because of the bureaucracy and looming Great Plan (as well as lack of access to actual options) they typically do not exercise this ability. Aziraphale expresses that free will is for humans and not within the realm of angels, yet uses free will constantly.

Isiah 14:13-14 KJV says: “For thou [Lucifer] hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.” Compare this to the Genesis tempting of Eve and Adam: “You will not certainly die," the serpent said to the woman. “For God knows that when you eat from it vour eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." In both passages the stated goal is to be as God, in wisdom or power.

Crowley declares that he wants to register a complaint in the holy suggestion box and goes on to say that if He were God, he would Want people to make suggestions. This dabbles dangerously close to a precipice we know he goes over. He’s exercising and encouraging free will well before humans got the chance. Its implied in the Job minisode that Crowley was never successful in actually asking God his questions. “Is God actually talking to him?….But just to be able to ask the question.” Se2:ep2.

This leads back into memory wiping.

Crowley gives two reasons why he fell. A) Hanging around the wrong people and B) asking too many/the wrong questions. Season two shows that the real reason was probably related more to the questions than the crowd. Hanging in the wrong crowd was brought up once in season one but never really touched on again.

my proposed timeline would look something like this: Crowley (Lucifer) begins to question -> he starts stirring up some lower angels with the particular questions -> some more extreme plans start getting discussed -> Crowley (Lucifer) gets brought in and memory wiped and sent to a lower station, like they were planning to do with Gabriel -> another powerful angel takes control and launches a rebellion -> Crowley gets swept up in it and falls as a result -> he regains his memory over time post fall.

this would explain Lucifer and Satan being separate beings, especially if Satan started claiming to be Lucifer.

anyways, thanks for coming to my TedTalk

[thesherrinfordfacility]

Absolute crack notes from the Book of Enoch (Metatron) but the 'Aziraphale was meant to fall' theory and how AWCW might tie into that invokes it for me. With all the discussions about scapegoats and how Aziraphale is responsible for introducing War to humans. Christianity normally holds that the Fall happened long before humans were created, but Enoch presents a different origin for fallen angels and the sins of man: the "fallen angel" Azazel (a name you might recognize from the two goats story in Leviticus) is said to be blamed for all evil in the world, because he teaches mankind how to make weapons and instructs them in the arts of warfare and magic. Man wasn't capable of sinning before Azazel and his cohorts taught them wickedness. As punishment for this, God sends the Archangel Raphael to bind Azazel and imprison him until the Day of Judgement, upon which he'll be cast into a "lake of fire". This definitely means nothing but also it's really funny to me.

on the contrary i think it means a heck of a lot, anon!!!✨ the scapegoat story is literally like a chicken on a spinning rotisserie in my brain 24/7, im so sure that it is going to play some kind of part in explaining aziraphale and crowley's background.

i have read leviticus 16 so many times and still no clearer on azazel, because i think (?) it has been interpreted in so many ways, but the main ones ive gleaned are either:

meaning the literal place where the scapegoat was sent to wander, which is more in-keeping with the original passage from leviticus itself, or

meaning it was for the fallen angel azazel, as seen in book of enoch?

so if we look to the second option in apochrypha, book of daniel makes reference to the watchers as a particular type of angel. enoch goes on to describe that there were good and bad watchers. azazel as a fallen angel taught warfare to the humans, and enoch includes them as one of the 20 bad watcher leaders (along with kokabiel and baraqiel, interestingly), and also according to enoch, as you say, bound azazel and cast him into the desert:

10:4: And again the Lord said to Raphael: 'Bind Azâzêl hand and foot, and cast him into the darkness: and make an opening in the desert, which is in Dûdâêl, and cast him therein.

5: And place upon him rough and jagged rocks, and cover him with darkness, and let him abide there for ever, and cover his face that he may not see light.

6: And on the day of the great judgement he shall be cast into the fire.

7: And heal the earth which the angels have corrupted, and proclaim the healing of the earth, that they may heal the plague, and that all the children of men may not perish through all the secret things that the Watchers have disclosed and have taught their sons.

8: And the whole earth has been corrupted through the works that were taught by Azâzêl: to him ascribe all sin.

and here we cycle back round to the scapegoat again. now, whether or not this literally happens in GO is up for speculation, but i personally think it's unlikely. that being said, i think something similar could happen. let's somewhat hc this:

aziraphale tells AWCW about the plans for the stars, makes crowley start asking questions

aziraphale cautions against it, but AWCW plows on anyway the moron (affectionate) - but symbolically protects aziraphale from repercussions as shown by him shielding him from the shooting stars (thanks again to 🌙anon for this!!!)

AWCW is spurred on by lucifer et al., and is implicated in the more nefarious rhetoric being spouted by satan

aziraphale is similarly brought into this, insomuch that perhaps AWCW refuses to say who started to make him ask questions and thus protects aziraphale OR aziraphale is in fact implicated for his own part but not as harshly - instead, AWCW is punished heavily and can't quite protect aziraphale despite best efforts

(this would also echo two things - the potential "aziraphale was/is/will be raphael" theory, and the verse in enoch 10:4 that he was the one to 'cast AWCW out')

the fall, and potential memory wipe of it?

aziraphale is 'punished' for his own part by being assigned to eden, cast out somewhat from heaven, but not made to suffer the fall (harking back, for me, to aziraphale being the goat that is cast into the wilderness as described in leviticus - not AWCW who was offered up as the goat for god; both goats forming the complete sacrificial offering although only one is killed)

aziraphale inadvertently introduces the concept of war and destruction to humanity in giving away the sword, which crowley seems to applaud/be impressed by

yada yada GO narrative, right up until aziraphale returning to heaven (which then would echo the islamic call that azazel in fact repented, and was returned to heaven - 🌙anon may correct me?)

and when the day of judgement finally happens presumably in s3... aziraphale is given the ultimatum to cast crowley "into fire", in order to rid humanity of all the sin on earth (looking to enoch 10:7-8 here)?

lastly, going back to the whole aziraphale-and-crowley-were-meant-to-be-the-same-person-originally thing... what if they symbolically were in fact just that? both azazel and raphael, and neither of them also, maybe not literally the same angel split in two, but literally mirrors of each other in their narrative?

there are so many loopholes and missing detail in this, i know - and it probably doesn't make a lick of sense, to boot - but this possibility is so exciting for me!!!✨

[sheikah-simp]

⭐star⭐ for Exile//Vilify :0

I know this ask was like FOREVER AGO but I was SICK forever ago and couldn't properly rant about Exile//Vilify in the way I wanted to.

For this particular Director's Cut, I want to focus not on one particular passage, but sort of just the whole progressing relationship between Astor and Rose, and how they are reflections of each other and the world that surrounds them.

Astor is in his first year at the abbey when he first sees her - just about thirteen years old - while she is having her seventeenth birthday, triumphantly making her way up Mt. Lanayru. And, incidentally, this is something that is brought up again from Astor's POV at the end of the Epilogue:

Tomorrow, Princess Zelda would be going up Mt. Lanayru, as her mother did before her, as did she with all the hundreds of goddesses with whom she shared a singular soul.  ...  She, unlike the others, would not be met with flowers and roars of thunderous applause.  There would be no showers of trumpets and throngs of people lining in the streets.   No, her journey instead was to be made in secret–almost in shame–as the kingdom, in the threat of Calamity, was well aware she had been unable to awaken her mother’s power yet.  They had little hope remaining that she would.

But, of course, this passage is not about Rose, although Rose is clearly in his mind. This passage is about Zelda-Sparrow, Rose's "failure" daughter.

Astor spends what he knows to be his final day in "normal" Hyrule--the Hyrule before the Second Great Calamity--looming over the village of Hateno. This was his birthplace, the place that set his prophecy in motion, and the first place in the world that rejected him for his difference. It's the place he was forsaken from the start.

But. He also spends it there because it is in sight of Mt. Lanayru. He was watching Princess Zelda there. I wanted to get into this more, and somewhat had plans to, but there was going to be a portion of the book that just detailed Astor stalking Link, Princess Zelda, and the rest of the Champions while they set themselves up for their own failures. I was going to extend the things I summarized in the Epilogue into their own chapters, but the book was getting longer than I wanted it to be, and Astor's final line is already the pinnacle of the book proper for him:

“I am Astor, your oracle,” he said.  “The last seer to the royal family, forsaken child of Hateno Village.  Catalyst of the Great Calamity, and Prophet of Doom.”

Astor had owned his identity and his own fate at that point. That's the capstone of the book. There was no need for further chapters, as I thought they'd detract from the gradual progression of Astor's acceptance of his "evil personhood" -- his acceptance of his failures.

A sense of failure, a deep and unshakeable feeling of being damned by the gods, forsaken by Fate, a feeling that he shares with Rose's own daughter, Princess Zelda. Whom the whole kingdom, he knows, shall and already does regard her as a failure. As unable to live up to her legacy, and the legacy of her foremothers.

Rose, to me, and to Hyrule as a whole, is triumph. Even though she does have the inklings of the struggle that her daughter is about to face (she has blockages in her power, can't craft arrows, and ultimately dies because she steps into Malice and is unable to fend off the Stalfos with her light), this is not evident to anyone else in the kingdom. She is, and always would be, remembered as Hyrule's Rose, their beautiful bloom, with a sad, bitter thorn to have been taken so quickly from the world. Even though her power failed her too, this is never how she would be remembered. All of her memory is always joyful and triumphant, because she was chosen and blessed by Hylia, and incredibly, incredibly fortunate in her lifetime. And she is, of course, the inheritor of a kingdom that bears the name of the Goddess that dwells inside her. The Goddess who is always prophesied to win.

Astor, on the other hand, is failure. While Astor is a prodigy in his own right, and "chosen" by Fate in other ways, he is chosen to be favored by the inherent loser--the person in these prophesies that Link and Zelda are always fighting and winning against. The person the kingdom hates. I think that, had I explored Astor following Rose's daughter's journey more, this sense of failure is something he would have deeply empathized with her. Perhaps even developed a sense of love and paternal guardianship over her, especially since she is his last, living connection to Rose. To victory. I think he might have grown to love her the way he would have loved her had Rose still been alive. This is one of the many reasons that I joke that Astor is Zelda's real dad, aside from the fact that he is.

Astor does not know, at the end of the book, if he will live or die. If the Great Calamity - and therefore all his efforts, all his life - will be a success or failure. He knows the kingdom will be plunged into a long era of darkness, and I think he has his suspicions due to the history of the kingdom, but he has also surrendered completely. Because it's not actually about Hylia or Ganon. It is, and always was, about Fate toying with everything and everyone around it. And, having had the great privilege of knowing Fate and dispensing the words of Fate to others, and still considering himself to a degree to be Fate's right hand, he finds peace in the uncertainty. His sense of power and pride comes much less from being a servant of Ganon as it does in knowing that, whether good or evil, he was, in fact, one of those favored (or unfavored) by Fate.

TL;DR Exile//Vilify can be read as a big dissertation on what it means if you are literally, cosmically, pre-destinationally born to be a failure. And then of course there is the shadow of Thelem, haunting the entire narrative, calling out from the pre-destination of his own grave, calling out desperately to Astor that yes, your life and your story will matter, even if that.

Fanfic Writers: Director's Cut

[feedingtheflockministry]

Using the Name of The Lord as a Curse Word

Scripture passage:

Now the son of an Israelite woman, whose father was an Egyptian, went out among the sons of Israel; and the Israelite woman’s son and a man of Israel struggled with each other in the camp. The son of the Israelite woman blasphemed the Name and cursed. So they brought him to Moses. (Now his mother’s name was Shelomith, the daughter of Dibri, of the tribe of Dan.) They put him in custody so that the command of the LORD might be made clear to them.

Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, “Bring the one who has cursed outside the camp, and let all who heard him lay their hands on his head; then let all the congregation stone him. You shall speak to the sons of Israel, saying, ‘If anyone curses his God, then he will bear his sin. Moreover, the one who blasphemes the name of the LORD shall surely be put to death; all the congregation shall certainly stone him. The alien as well as the native, when he blasphemes the Name, shall be put to death.” Leviticus 24:10-16

Message:

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines blasphemy as this; to speak in a way that shows irreverence for God or something sacred : to utter blasphemy. They define curse as; to use profanely insolent language against: blaspheme.

Over the course of my lifetime I have heard a lot of curse words being thrown around to express a variety of emotions. In the last decade in particular the name of The Lord Jesus Christ has been adopted into the realm of curse words. Even some that claim to believe in Him use His name in this manner time to time without considering the sin they commit by doing so.

When we read the Bible we see in many places where this behavior is spoken harshly against, and those that commit this act are put to death. However, American movies and television shows increasingly support this practice, and treat it as if it has been going on for a lot longer than it has. I even hear gamers and film reviewers on platforms like YouTube (as well as other places) use The Lord’s name in this manner. As a believer and follower of Jesus Christ it makes me cringe every time I hear His name invoked in this way.

I believe this practice is on the rise for this reason. The more that people use His name in this way the more disrespect people will pay Him, and the further they travel away from Him into the darkness. Only rebellious people act in such a way. I would call this practice demonic, but demons themselves fear His name and Him. However, the nature behind this practice is indeed evil. To show such irreverence to the Creator of the universe, and Savior of mankind (both male and female) is truly disgraceful. We must all stop using His name in this way, and ask Him to forgive us of our dishonor and disrespect towards Him.

I, as an American say this: The United States of America is a breeding ground for a lot of misinformation, false teachings, false prophetic words, false dreams and visions, slanderous language, corruption, greed, pride, arrogance, sexual immorality, propaganda, deception, all the while raising up a new generation of atheists that strive to make war with The Creator of Life itself by denouncing His visible attributes. These things are found in all areas of American culture which includes, but not limited to, government, economics, and religious institutions. Many people globally are influenced by these institutions in America through writings, videos, television, and social media, and because of that the world’s population follows in pursuit after them and their practices.

The best thing anyone can do, anywhere, is read the Bible and let that be what influences them (by believing what it says, not what they observe in todays world), while praying and seeking to understand it, continually seeking righteousness, and to make peace with Jesus Christ. For only in His name can peace, life, joy, love, patience, kindness, mercy, grace, and salvation be obtained fully.

[jay-avian]

Hello! (overdecorated-furniture here, asking from my main)

I wanted to ask you about the religion/mythology that you mentioned in the post about constellation and month world-building:

Firstly, does your religion/mythology have different deities for different aspects of life, similar to Greek Mythology, or are there a few deities who govern a wider range of things?

Secondly, are there any specific ways of worshipping different deities, or is there one method applicable to all of them (such as offerings at alters or similar)?

And finally, what’s something you think is most unusual or interesting about your religion/mythology?

Happy writing! 🌿

So the way my pantheon works is there are gods/major deities and then there are spirits/minor deities. Gods are what you'd expect, they are in charge of major parts of life or the world and are worshipped by most people. Spirits are either in charge of smaller things, or perhaps not worshipped as much (and therefore have a bit less power).

For example, there is an ocean/water goddess, but there are spirits for lakes and rivers and whatnot. There is a god of the earth, of the ground, but there are spirits for different types of terrain.

Fun irregularities regarding god/spiritdom that are interesting:

The god of ruin would normally be a spirit since not many people follow him or are aware he exists, but is a god because his job is important. He is necessary for when things get too old or too powerful; he's the bringer of new starts.

Death, on the other hand, chooses to be a spirit instead. Yes, there are rulers of the realms of the afterlife (kinda like Heaven and Hell, but different), but the spirit of death acts as a shepard, guiding good souls to a good afterlife and keeping the "wolves" where they belong. He prefers simplicity and will typically appear to people only in basic shepard's clothes.

The god(dess) of darkness and shadows started out as a spirit, but has gotten a decent following. They aren't necessarily "evil", but people pray to them in order to hide themselves, secrets, or other things. Good prayers include for safe passage to another country, hiding an artifact or family treasure, keeping secrets safe to protect a friend, etc. (More sinister prayers are self explanitory)

As far as worship goes, I would imagine people would give offerings to the deities and make little altars if they were really devoted. Depending on if they're linked, some people may have multiple gods/spirits on an altar. (An example pairing from one of my stories is an altar for the ocean goddess, the storm/rain god, and the wind spirit. This particular altar is found in a sailing ship.) Acts of service and other actions of churches or temples are depending.

[childofchrist1983]

But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear: Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ. For it is better, if the will of God be so, that ye suffer for well doing, than for evil doing. - 1 Peter 3:15-17 KJV

Some people claim a religious persuasion, because it is the religion of their parents. When questioned, they can't give a reason for their beliefs. Without knowing why they follow a particular path, they can easily lose their way and be led away from God. We were given a "roadmap" of sorts by Father God Almighty and the LORD Jesus Christ, and following this leads us to eternal salvation and eternal life in Heaven. Satan meanwhile, is more than happy to have us not believe in God and His Truth and have us listen to those who would turn us away from this righteous path.

This Bible passage mentions "a good conscience". How do we develop a good conscience? First and foremost, we need to listen to Jesus Christ's teachings and to the voice of God throughout the Holy Bible. We need to look at the Commandments and read the letters to the early Christians that help to provide guideposts along the road. The early Christians were persecuted for their beliefs. They were also ridiculed for their joy and their desire to do good.

You would think that goodness would bring praise and not ridicule, but it really is no different today. Those who work for the poor, or try to bring justice into our society are put down either as being a "goody-goody" or as being dangerous for trying to upset the status quo. Goodness can make others feel guilty and since they don't want to feel guilty, they blame those who are good. Have you noticed that people often stand back when someone needs help, but once one person steps in to help, the bystanders will join in? It seems that there are more people interested in taking pictures of a tragedy and then posting them on social media than they are in getting involved! I don't know what kind of conscience they have, but I wouldn't call it "good".

I wonder if they have ever heard Jesus' parable of "The Good Samaritan"? We have heard. We do believe. We have hope and we can tell others the reason for our joy. God given us the tools we need to fight against sin and Satan and to follow God and His path to righteousness. His promise of eternal salvation and an eternity in His Kingdom of Heaven has given us such joy that our hearts and our lives have been changed. May we always be ready to tell others of our faith in Father God Almighty and the LORD Jesus Christ!

Thank Father God Almighty and the LORD Jesus Christ for His mercy and grace. May we all accept Him and His eternal gift of salvation and ask that He would transform our hearts and lives and give us a new direction according to His will and ways. Thank Father God Almighty and the LORD Jesus Christ for His Holy Spirit who saves, seals and leads us. May we always thank Father God Almighty and the LORD Jesus Christ for His almighty power and saving grace. For He is our strength, and He alone is able to save us, forgive our sins and gift us eternal salvation and entry into His Kingdom of Heaven.

May we make sure that we give our hearts and lives to God and take time to seek and praise Him and share His Truth with the world daily. May the LORD our God and Father in Heaven help us to stay diligent and obedient and help us to guard our hearts in Him and His Holy Word daily. May He help us to remain faithful and full of excitement to do our duty to Him and for His glorious return and our reunion in Heaven as well as all that awaits us there. May we never forget to thank the LORD our God and our Creator and Father in Heaven for all this and everything He does and has done for us! May we never forget who He is, nor forget who we are in Christ and that God is always with us! What a mighty God we serve! What a Savior this is! What a wonderful Lord, God, Savior and King we have in Jesus Christ! What a loving Father we have found in Almighty God! What a wonderful God we serve! His will be done!

Thanks and glory be to God! Blessed be the name of the LORD! Hallelujah and Amen!

[dwellordream]

DISABLED CHILDREN: BIRTH DEFECTS, CAUSALITY AND GUILT

“In his book on intellectual disabilities, Chris Goodey draws illuminating parallels between the medical and psychological description of modern ‘coping strategy’. Parents in the contemporary Western world are informed by the experts (obstetricians, paediatricians and so forth) that their child is disabled. Almost as a reciprocal gesture, those experts expect parents to demonstrate a ritualised hierarchy of reactions (among others initial shock, followed by rejection of the child, leading to acceptance of the diagnosis). 

This is termed the ‘coping strategy’, and is comparable to the pre-modern version of such a ‘desanctification ritual’, in which supernatural agents such as devils, witches or fairies were blamed for producing the ‘wrong’ child. So, what caused the ‘wrong’ child according to medieval notions? Medieval thought has commonly used the imagery of the microcosmos, whereby the human body represents on the small scale the ordering and hierarchy of the wider world on the large scale. 

William of Conches (c.1090–c.1160) stated in his Sacramentarium that the body from head to foot is likened to all of creation. By analogy, what can go wrong with the macrocosmos, i.e., the corruption of the world through sin, can also go wrong with the microcosmos, i.e., the corruption of the body through illness. Refinements and additions were made throughout the high Middle Ages to this basic notion. 

In particular, the entire business of engendering children was focused upon in terms of the analogy of the corporeal and the spiritual. Of fundamental importance was the notion of sin, especially Original Sin. Augustine, writing in the late fourth century, had set the tone: though God had given humans the capability for sexual intercourse, and in essence the act was good, in practice every concrete act of intercourse was evil and therefore every child could literally be said to have been conceived in the sin of its parents.

Such ideas went a long way. By the thirteenth century a bestiary compiler could say that all new-borns, of all species, are ‘dirty’: ‘In fact, all recently born creatures are called “pulli”, because they are born dirty or polluted’, and only the act of baptism both metaphorically and literally cleans the infant. Given the fact that human beings only enter this world by procreation, one may then ask how, in medieval aetiologies, temporal factors and the actual practices of intercourse determined the appearance and character of the child. 

In a series of translations of writings known as the Pseudo-Clementines from Greek into Latin as The Recognitions around AD 410 by Rufinus, texts which were very popular in the Middle Ages and survive in numerous manuscripts, a passage states that sexual incontinence is accompanied by demons whose ‘noxious breath’ produces an ‘intemperate and vicious progeny … And therefore parents are responsible for their children’s defects of this sort, because they have not observed the law of intercourse’.

Here, in late Antiquity, we already have the main line of argument that was to be pursued throughout the Middle Ages, which can be summed up as follows: intercourse at the wrong time and in the wrong way will result in the birth of defective children. The Chronicon Salernitanum (chapter 14), written in the tenth century, mentions a woman who conceived by a priest and whose child was born without bones, which demonstrates, sneers the chronicler, that her repentance had not been stiffened with true contrition.

Gratian in the mid twelfth century cites a letter by Boniface suggesting that corrupt sexual unions would produce corrupt children. And in an early fifteenth-century sermon Bernardino of Siena links neglect of filial duty with the punishment of begetting crippled, ugly, foolish and corrupt children. However, a seemingly dissenting theory was proposed on the grounds of logical reasoning by Albertus Magnus, who turned the emergent notion of hereditary traits on its head. 

Possibly with a hint of irony Albertus claims that wise fathers beget foolish children, while foolish parents breed wise offspring: ‘wise men mostly produce defective, foolish (fatui) children … because he who is good at study is bad at sex (malus in venero acto)’, since ‘sex is the most foolish act a wise man commits in all his life’, therefore the reverse must be true as well, and ‘simple men’ have wise offspring.

Nevertheless, medieval notions of heredity were far from comparable with the modern Mendelian, never mind genetic, concept of heredity, despite occasional random similarities. Although mid sixteenth century, Ambroise Paré’s work on monsters is still pertinent for discussion of the Middle Ages, since he cites many medieval examples of monstrosities, but also in mindset he is not far from medieval understandings of the monstrous. 

In chapter 13 he cites examples of monsters that are created by hereditary diseases, where intellectual disability and epilepsy are mentioned in close conjunction: ‘also if the father and the mother are fools usually the children are scarcely if ever intelligent (similarly epileptics give birth to children who are subject to epilepsy)’. 

By way of cultural comparison some evidence from the Islamic world may be useful, such as ideas from early twentieth-century Palestine cited by Dols: ‘Insanity could also be inherited; some people believed that coitus nudus, intercourse in the open, or during menstruation affected the mental state of the child.’

And in the hadith, the pious traditions in Islam, in treatises on Prophetic medicine the aetiology of mental disorder is sometimes mentioned, for instance by Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziya (d. 1350), The Medicine of the Prophet, who says that ‘a man who does not perform ghusl, or major ablutions, before sexual intercourse is responsible if his wife gives birth to a mentally retarded child’.

Most discussions in medieval treatises centre on the method used in intercourse. Any deviation from the one prescribed method (the so-called missionary position) was seen either to avoid the main purpose of the act, namely procreation, or if a child was conceived by any other method then it would ‘suffer deformities because of its parents’ aberrant practices’.

A popular work falsely ascribed in the Middle Ages to Albertus Magnus, De secretum mulierum (On the Secrets of Women), mentions three main reasons why defective children are born: firstly, if the woman did not lie absolutely still but actually moved during intercourse, the male seed ‘might be divided and a defective child conceived’; secondly, the woman should not let her thoughts wander during intercourse, but she should concentrate on what is going on, otherwise if at the critical moment she thought of something else, e.g. some animal like a cow, the child might turn out to resemble one; and thirdly, any non-standard coital position might result in birth defects in those children who were the results of their parents’ experiments in the conjugal bed.

Here we have an example of the immensely influential concept of the maternal imagination. During intercourse and/or pregnancy, the mother can be imprinted by images that she sees, which will affect the shape and nature of the unborn or even unconceived child. This belief can be traced back to at least the Old Testament, where in Genesis 30:25–43 Jacob placed striped branches in front of the sheep of Laban, so that all the offspring of that flock were born with striped fleeces, which Jacob claimed as his own. 

The topic is picked up in the early second century in a gynaecological text by Soranus, and again in Augustine’s treatise Against Julian, both of which tell the story of a disfigured Cyprian tyrant who had beautiful works of art placed in the bedroom, so that his wife would look at those during sex rather than him, and thus he would not father a disfigured child. 

Similarly, in the aforementioned thirteenth-century bestiary it is said that many people think that pregnant women should not look at ugly beasts such as apes and monkeys, in case they should bring children into the world who resemble these caricatures. For women’s nature is such that they produce offspring according to the image they see or have in mind at the moment of ecstasy as they conceive.

In the Renaissance, such classically-inspired ideas sustained and renewed their popularity; for example, in his astrological treatise Liber de vita of 1489, Marsilio Ficino mentions that ‘people who are making babies often imprint on their faces not only their own actions but even what they are imagining’, thus extending the maternal to a paternal imagination as well. In wealthy Italian households it became important to surround potential parents with desirable images, located strategically so that they could be regarded at key moments. 

Leon Battista Alberti repeated this belief in De re aedificatoria (1452) with regard to painted portraits in the bedchamber: ‘Wherever man and wife come together, it is advisable only to hang portraits of men of dignity and handsome appearance; for they say that this may have a great influence on the fertility of the mother and the appearance of future offspring.’ Additionally, astrological explanations were offered. 

An example can be found in the twelfth-century text Causae et curae by Hildegard of Bingen: though men know the proper time for agricultural activities yet they beget their own offspring at any time without regard to the proper period in their lives or to the ‘time of the moon’, and defective children are the likely outcome of such heedlessness.

In the more scientific work, as opposed to spurious texts attributed to him, Albertus Magnus (c. 1206–80) argues that deformed births could be a result of particular causes, which would be related to the paternal seed and the maternal reception thereof, while general causes could include the location and the relationship of the stars at the time of conception.

Albertus is not exactly certain which one of these causes is responsible, but he notes that some planetary conjunctions are recognised as particularly malicious, and points out that conception and birth should be avoided at such times. Specific problems might arise with regard to children born under a new moon, as they might be defective in sense and discretion.

 Albertus claims to have seen himself the results of astrologically mistimed conceptions on two occasions, where human beings were born with truncated arms and legs who ‘figuram corporis humani non habebit’ (will not have the appearance of a human body). 

For a popular expression of similar ideas one can look even farther back, finding them in Old English texts, which seems to indicate the antiquity and the persistence of these notions, whereby the characters and the fates of children are influenced by the position of the moon on the day they are born. We find that the food consumed by the pregnant woman could have an influence on the shape of the child as well, according to the same Anglo Saxon culture which produced such astrological treatises. 

In a collection of medical, astrological and magical texts we find the notions that ‘if a woman is four or five months pregnant and she frequently eats nuts or acorns or any fresh fruit then it sometimes happens because of that that the child is stupid’; furthermore, if the expectant mother eats flesh of bull, ram, buck, boar or gander ‘or that of any animal which can beget, then it sometimes happens because of that that the child is humpbacked and deformed [?]’.

It is worth pointing out that all the meat the pregnant woman should avoid consuming is from male animals, and only the male of the species has the capability to beget, as we shall see. Here we also touch on concern with the very modern topic of maternal nutrition. 

Soranus, practising medicine under emperors Trajan and Hadrian, had already said in his Gynaecology that pregnant women should be challenged in their desires ‘for harmful things’, by telling them that what is harmful to the stomach is also harmful to the foetus ‘because the fetus obtains food which is neither clean nor suitable, but only such food as a body in bad condition can supply’.

If a parent was particularly blamed for inappropriate behaviour that negatively influenced the development of the baby, it was the mother. A handful of examples from both the very early and very late Middle Ages may illustrate this point. 

In the fifth century Nemesius, compiler of an influential tractate on the soul, also looked at child development, and with regard to the causes of unfavourable bodily temperament stated: ‘if the surroundings are dry, bodies become dry, if not all in the same way, and if a mother lives an unhealthy life and is luxurious her children will in consequence be born with a poor bodily temperament and wayward in their impulses.’

…Popularly disseminated notions on improper sexual conduct can also be found in religious literature aimed at what might be termed a mass-market: penitentials, preaching and sermon tracts. Here the argument based on sex and sin is expanded upon, and damaging factors such as pregnancy, lactation or menstruation are considered. 

Robert of Flamborough, in the Liber penitentialis (1208–13), warned that children conceived during pregnancy (disregard the biological impossibility for the moment), during menstruation, or before a previous child was weaned, would be lame, leprous, given to seizures, deformed or shortlived. Note that all three inopportune times Robert refers to are times that were believed to be infertile periods, in other words naturally contraceptive periods. 

With the absence of modern over-nutrition, in the past (as still in many traditional societies) the lack of nutrition influenced female fertility to the extent that the physical demands of breastfeeding on the body tended to prevent conception during that time. As we know from medieval childcare manuals, breastfeeding would ideally have continued until children were weaned at around two years of age. Conception during these two years was then unlikely. 

Many modern hunter-gatherer societies equally do not wean children until two years old, and have lower levels of calorific intake than Western women, so among such peoples births tend to be spaced out at two-year intervals. One could speculate that precisely because of the lack of conception during such times, which medieval people, especially women, may well have been aware of, they were forbidden by moralists, as intercourse then would have been for pleasure only and not for procreative purposes. 

In his Sermons, Berthold of Regensburg adds to such lists of physical deformities the dangers of deafness, mean spiritedness and demonic possession, again, potential disability and moral defectiveness in children is ascribed to their conception at forbidden times, to which Berthold adds the six weeks immediately after childbirth (yet another infertile period), and furthermore notes that nobles and burghers are less prone to such sins than the peasantry. In his sermon on matrimony, he writes: 

All the children who are conceived at such times you rarely will gaze at with a loving look; for it is either possessed by the devil, leprous, epileptic, humpbacked, blind, crippled, dumb, foolish or has a head like a mallet. … And this happens mainly to peasants and ignorant people. It does not happen to noble people and burghers in towns. 

A thirteenth-century French church synod proclaimed that the children conceived from illicit sex would be born humpbacked, crippled, or deformed in some way. From a fourteenth-century manuscript we have the usual prohibition of sexual activity during menstruation, lactation and pregnancy, and the prediction that children born from such unions would be leprous, lunatic or possessed.

 And an early fifteenth-century book of homilies, basing its knowledge on St Jerome, provides the full catalogue, stating that ‘children conceived during maternal menstruation would be lepers, maimed, unshapely, witless, crooked, blind, lame, dumb deaf and of many othre mescheues’. Of the three inopportune, even proscribed, times of conception, menstruation was singled out as particularly important to avoid if parents wanted to prevent the conception of impaired children. 

Menstruation was regarded as dangerous by scholastic authorities, using arguments in part derived from Aristotle. Aristotle had argued in Generation of Animals, IV, 3–5 that foetal aberrations should be blamed on a divergent movement of the female matter, and an imbalance of female matter with the formative sperm. 

While acknowledging that during the medieval period two competing and widely debated models of conception existed – the single-sex and the two-seed theories – it is, for the purposes of discussing medieval notions of birth defects, almost irrelevant to which theory a medieval authority subscribed. Misogyny was ingrained enough to find ample scope in both theoretical models for almost exclusive ‘blame’ on the woman. 

Broadly put, according to the single-sex model of natural science, the menses (or menstruum, female seed) accumulates gradually over each cycle as a kind of formless matter. Only the male seed has form itself and is pure maleness. The female simply receives the seed and nurtures it, but does not generate. By extension of this reasoning the female is of necessity defective; an idea that is theologically backed up by Genesis, where Eve’s creation out of Adam’s bent rib made Eve herself deviant from the male norm. 

The clearest expression of this kind of argument can be found in Albertus Magnus’ De animalibus, where, moving on from the premise of menses as formless matter, he reiterates the practical advice given by theologians and physicians alike that semen has the best chances of ‘forming’ the menses in the earlier part of the cycle. 

If conception takes place during a later stage of the cycle, however, there is a sliding scale of degradation and degeneration: having missed the ideal time for generating male offspring, the next best would be female children, hence only slightly deformed, followed by the severely defective (disabled) progeny, and lastly and worst no offspring at all – the horror vacui of medieval philosophy. It is worth just repeating this descending scale from perfect male, to slightly imperfect female, to certainly imperfect deformity, to nothing. 

Such notions are also apparent in medical texts, for instance the Lilium medicinae of Bernard de Gordon, where conception during menstruation is blamed for the birth of an epileptic child: ‘When a person is begotten during the time of menstruation or from unclean seed, or if the parents are epileptic, and if after his birth he falls into epilepsy, such a person does not seem curable.’ Another famous physician and Bernard’s contemporary, John of Gaddesden in his Rosa anglica, states similar things about the aetiology of congenital epilepsy.

 The effects of malconception could have a straightforward causal link, a rational explanation even. In discussing the origin of dwarfs, for example, Albertus Magnus describes a nine-year-old girl whom he had seen in Cologne who had not yet reached the height of a one-year-old boy. He followed the argument of Avicenna, which was perfectly scientific by the standards of the day, explaining that the lack of growth was due to the fact that at the moment of conception only a part of the paternal seed had reached the maternal uterus.

During the same century, writing c. 1276, Giles of Rome in his more general discussion of embryology De formatione corporis humani in utero holds a rather neutral opinion, stating blandly that although normally the male seed generates a male foetus from the menstruum, nothing in nature is so stable and fixed that things cannot go wrong sometimes, which is obvious from the fact that occasionally monsters are born with deformed members.

The medieval scientific approach was one that regarded all material creation as inherently imperfect, hence birth defects and congenital disability were not just individual markers on a sliding scale of imperfection, but also natural events to be expected.”

- Irina Metzler, Medicine, Religion and Gender in Medieval Culture

[truthandadare]

27 & 29 ?? 👀

Well hey, anon nibling!

27: What do you listen to while writing? 

I take my writing ambiance VERY seriously 😊. I can’t write a single word without music and find it exceptionally challengingly to concentrate when songs have lyrics, so I stick to instrumental. I’m a massive score/soundtrack fan, especially when writing and this year we were gifted a couple of amazing ones including Bear McCreary’s Rings of Power and God of War Ragnarök, and Ramin Djawadi’s House of the Dragon. I could go on and on and goodness I have actual data to back me up, cause my Spotify wrapped was all composers….. 

Fun fact about me, I actually started my career in opera and musical performance many moons ago. So classical music has always had a loving (if a tad stern) grip on my heart. There's nothing I love more than when I find a bit of score that fits just perfectly for a scene I’m dreaming up in my noggin. I listened to “Awaken” by Dario Marianelli from the Jane Eyre so many times when writing Act Two of Symmetry that it shot up to my most listened song of the year 🙈

I also love to have soundtrack ambiance on my tv when writing and highly HIGHLY recommend Ambient Worlds he does a superb job and the videos are gorgeous.   

29: Favorite line/passage you wrote this year?

Well dammit this has my brain somersaulting between pick-your-favorite child and imposter syndrome. 

There are some lines I’m excited for yall to read, one in particular that I’ve had tucked away since the beginning when I was mapping Symmetry. My favorite moments of writing fic this year were with Silco’s POV. I’m especially proud of lines in his POV that were a little less flowery and punched directly in the gut. Chapter 15 is one of my favorite chapters and I’m particularly proud of the ending:  

“He had to keep working despite the distraction of her. He was the one who could stomach summoning monsters, so he had to do the dirty work. Had to continually bury himself in necessary evil without complaint. 

But oh, if he could somehow bury the entirety of himself in her, he would not have hesitated.”

Oh, oh, AND! My next project is an original work that I’m hoping to get published. It’s an Appalachian Gothic tale thats very close to my heart and the only real passage I have so far is the opening. 

“Gryme women take a good long time to die. They linger, too stubborn to succumb to their own mortality until they are dragged to the end with tattered memories and bones as brittle as sapsucker eggs. All are prickly as the pine and hardy as the rhododendron within the mountains we incorrectly call home. 

That is why, dear cousin, it was such a shock when they found your corpse beneath the sourwood trees before your twenty-second birthday.” 

Thanks for asking!

[dailyaudiobiblechronological]

11/11/2022 DAB Chronological Transcription

John 14-17

Welcome to Daily Audio Bible Chronological. Today's the 11th day of November. I'm Jill so glad to be here with you. It's truly my joy, my honor and my privilege to be reading the Word of God. I don't know why I get to do this, but I'm really grateful that I do. And I am so glad that you all are here with me in community and still individually listening. And collectively we make up the beautiful body of Christ. And I'm thrilled that so many are taking this journey through the Bible to just allow God to speak to us and allow His Word to wash over us, to change us from the inside out. That is the goal. Today we're going to read John chapters 14 through 17. And just a couple of days left this week in the New English translation, John 14.

Commentary:

What a beautiful and important reading we have today. These are the words of Jesus in the final gospels before his arrest. So we must pay attention to that first and foremost. And secondly, we should probably pay attention to the words. It's a beautiful prayer, but it's an essential prayer. He's going away. And the world and the followers that have watched thus far cannot comprehend what is about to happen. And it's easy to believe when we have the evidence right in front of us. It's so much harder to believe when the evidence is gone. And so Jesus is explaining as much as he can to people who cannot comprehend that he's going away, but he's going to leave the Spirit of God with them so that they may continue to experience what they have already experienced in his absence. I can imagine it's a little bit like I see your lips moving, but I do not know what you are saying. I think that's probably would be my position if I didn't know everything I know now, and I was standing there listening for the first time. But that's purely speculation because that's not the case. I want to share the commentary from the God of your story on this particular passage before we pray, because it is such an important passage in John's gospel. We've spent the last several days listening to the final conversations between Jesus and his friends before Jesus is arrest. We concluded this conversation today with a prayer. And this prayer is one of the most heartfelt and engaging things Jesus ever spoke. This is the way to have eternal life, to know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ the one you sent to earth. Notice the simplicity of these words. The way to eternal life is to know God. Not to know about God, or to do the things on behalf of God, but to know God. The study of God and the work of God are a natural outpouring of a life with God and not the other way around. Knowing God in an intimate friendship is our primary purpose on this earth and leads us to eternal life. Jesus said, I am not asking you to take them out of this world, but to keep them safe from the evil one. They do not belong to this world any more than I do. Make them holy by your truth. Teach them Your word, which is truth. Just as you sent me into the world, I am sending them out into the world. Jesus prayer was not to remove his friends from planet Earth, but rather to send them into the world armed with the truth of God's word and the spirit of truth within. And notice these words just as you send me into the world, I am sending them. Think about that. According to Jesus, we are commissioned and sent into the world in the same way Jesus was. Don't read that statement and automatically diminish it as a metaphor or something less than it really is. We are sent into the world as the Father sent Jesus. Are we living from this perspective? Do our lives reflect this reality? Unless we think that this was a prayer specifically over Jesus as disciples, and that they got a commissioning and a version of the Holy Spirit we can never have, we must simply turn to Jesus next sentence. I am praying not only for these disciples, but also for all who will ever believe in Me. And through their message, consider what Jesus prayed over all of us who will follow him. I encourage you to read John 17, 21 and 23 again one last time and see the subtle way we diminished the reality Jesus was praying for most of the time. We look at this as a prayer for unity among us, and yes, it is that. But this isn't only about getting along and playing nicely together. This is about union. Jesus gave us the glory given to him by the Father. That is mind blowing. But it was for a reason, so that we could have union with God through Jesus. Listen to the way Jesus describes this as you are in me, Father, and I am in you. I am in them and you are in me. This is what being intertwined with God looks like. This is what union and collaboration looks like. This, friends, is what a relationship with God looks like. And only this leads to eternal life.

Prayer:

Father, today I pray that you would make us one, that we would be united together, not in beliefs, but in our love for one another, for our love for Jesus, for our love for the Father, and for our love of the Spirit of God. We thank you that you give us eternal life and that we have that now. It doesn't begin after this life. It has already begun. We only find that through you, and we are grateful by us. Now, in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Amen.

Announcements:

Daily Audio Bible is home base. That's the website. Check it out if you have not take a look around. If you would like to partner with us. Thank you so much for this partnership. We could not do this without you. If you're giving by mail DAB PO Box 1996, Springhill, Tennessee 37174 or hit the Give icon. It's located at the top right hand corner of your mobile app. Or look for the Give icon on the website. If you need prayer several different ways for you to reach out 800-583-2164 or hit the red circle button up at the right hand corner of your mobile device. You have two minutes on the prayer line. Hit Submit. Turn the wheel over to chronological and it will get to the right place. That's going to do it for me today. I'm Jill. One more day together this week and then we will wind it on down. I look forward to it. Until then, love one another.

Community Prayer Line:

Hi, this is Mindy in Missouri. Last year I had submitted on a prayer wall, on the prayer wall that my husband John had been severely injured. He had fallen and had multiple skull fractures and brain bleeds and he was in a coma for a few weeks. He coded and was projected significantly and permanently disabled. And I reached out for help from anywhere I could find for him and our family, and I never got back on the website. And I apologize for that to update you, but I just now saw the option to record a message on the app. And I want to let you all know so many of you I know prayed for him. And I thank you so much from the bottom of my heart. He had a miraculous recovery. He was injured on May 26. By the end of June was projected to be significantly and permanently disabled. But we went to Atlanta for rehab after being in St. Louis for hospital for six weeks. And he turned around at rehab and he was back at work September 1. The skull was put back in in November. He was off work for a week. Our lives are pretty much back to normal. He still struggles with depression and anxiety and that goes with the frontal lobe injuries. But he is for all practical purposes fully recovered, completely considered to be fully recovered. And I saw this option and just had to let everybody know. Thank you so much for praying for him. Thank you so much for praying for me for guidance and a miracle happened and I wanted to let you all know that. So thank you all so much and most of all thank God.

Good morning DABC family. This is the Burning Bush that will not be devoured for the glory of our God and King this morning. Today is November 7 and I heard a prayer from a prayer request from the Lady of Victory who's not feeling so victorious today. She's still mourning the loss of her son. Father God, you know what that feels like and we ask that you reach out and comfort her, Father, that you help her heart recover. Father, I pray that you put people in her life so that she can start to see the purpose in her pain. Father, I pray in the name of Jesus for breakthrough.

Good morning, family. It's Inge from Denmark. It is November the 7th and I'm calling in to pray over LOV, who called in earlier today, Lady of Victory, claiming that she does not feel so victorious today because you miss your son when you lost a year and a half ago. I just want to tell you, LOV, it does not matter that you do not feel victorious because you are victorious in Christ. The way we feel will not do. It will not change that fact. He does not depend on us feeling victorious. For him to give us victories, that's amazing. I do not want to belittle your grief. I share it. As you know, I lost my son five and a half years ago. And I know what it's like to sit with arms wide open, wanting to get that embrace that physical feeling, upholding your son like you did when he was teeny weeny little Bill. And you can't. And there's this hole inside of you. But I just want to say that there's a way out of it. There's a way through it, maybe not out, but through. God will bring you through it, through the darkness, through the tough days and the heavy days. And you have victory in Jesus Christ, Lady of Victory, regardless of how you feel, regardless of the pain, the grief, the sorrow, all the stuff that you can't bear, he will bear it with you.

Good morning. DABC family, I want to lift up Lady of Victory in prayer this morning. I heard her request and yes, Lady of Victory. There are days that we do feel like that seemingly God is moving for everyone else that we pray for, but seemingly he's not moving for us. But we know by his word that he is there. So Father, I pray Lord, you heard the cry and the concern for our dear sister God. I pray Lord, that your peace will continue to emerge in her life, to overwhelm her with your peace, God. And God, her request is that you will show her your glory. So God, I thank you that in your time you will show her your glory, lift her from this place that the enemy is trying to drag her into. Satan, you're the liar and the Lord rebuke you even now. And God, I thank the Lord for the peace you would give my sister. And God, I thank the Lord for the joy of the Lord will be her strength and God. She will rise up and declare that you are God and declare the victory that's even in her name will come to pass. We thank you in advance. God. We praise you right now. And we pray this prayer in the mighty, the matchless, the marvelous, the marvelous and the majestic name of Jesus, we pray. God, we have declared what you have decreed in your word. So therefore, God we say Amen. So be it and let it be so. In Jesus name. God bless you, guys.

[leonbloder]

What Is A "Bible-Believing" Christian and Why Is That A Problem?

In a recent 60-Minutes interview, the newly elected Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, was asked about his faith and how it informed his decision-making.  Johnson had this to say: 

I am a Bible-believing Christian. Someone asked me today in the media, they said, ‘… People are curious. What does Mike Johnson think about any issue under the sun?’ I said, well, go pick up a Bible off your shelf and read it — that’s my worldview.

You might very well be wondering, "Why would you have to attach 'Bible-believing' to the word 'Christian?' Couldn't you just say 'I am a Christian' and leave it at that?"

Well, there's a reason why some Christians feel the need to use that modifier, and it begs an explanation. 

I grew up in a faith tradition that proudly used "Bible-believing" before the word Christian and also smugly referred to the way they saw the world around them as "having a biblical worldview."

On the surface, these descriptors seem innocuous. But they are indicators of how those who use them understand the role of the Bible in their expression of the Christian faith.

The reason why I can speak of these things is that I experienced them firsthand when I was growing up in the evangelical, fundamentalist wing of the Christian Church.  

The reason why we would say that we were Bible-believing Christians was to set us apart from other "so-called Christians" who didn't interpret the Bible the same way we did.  

And to say that we had a biblical worldview meant exactly what Speaker Johnson explained in his response.  The Bible had the answers to every question we might have, and it was both inerrant and infallible. 

Not coincidentally, we were also anti-science, against women leading in the Church, harshly homophobic, and driven to believe all manner of conspiracy theories.  In addition, we believed climate change was a hoax, and the theory of evolution was evil. 

We also performed the most incredible rhetorical gymnastics when explaining why some parts of the Bible either didn't make sense or contradicted other parts of the Bible.  

To say that this is an uncritical way of interpreting Scripture is the understatement of all understatements.  It also haughtily assumes that any Christian who thinks differently isn't a real Christian. 

Recently, I read an article by Dr. Guy Nave, a biblical studies professor who commented on Speaker Johnson's declaration about the Bible like this: 

Ultimately, the worldview we select says far more about who we are than about God or the Bible. Johnson is not a “Bible-believing” Christian; he’s a Christian who chooses and uses particular portions of the Bible to support a worldview he already embraces. 

Here's the thing: I could call myself a "Bible-believing Christian" because I believe the Bible is authoritative, inspired, and inspiring.  It's authoritative in that it reveals how people have tried through the ages to understand God and how God relates to the world.  

It's also authoritative because it contains the story of Jesus and the Church formed in his name.  It's ultimately a story of hope and transformation and God's tireless work to give both to us all.  

It's not inerrant, and it's not infallible, however.  We know too much about how it was written and formed to support that notion.  

It's also not whatever we want to make of it, especially when we pick and choose to lift up only the out-of-context portions that seem to support how we see the world and ignore the passages that don't.  

Or when we refuse to read it critically, using all the resources at our disposal to understand it more fully.  

Moreover, to hold to a biblical worldview in the sense that Speaker Johnson does implies that nothing more needs to be said about how we should live other than what is contained in Scripture. 

But God is still speaking, you see.  

God didn't stop speaking when the Bible was put together by committee and imperial fiat in the 5th century.  

God speaks to us still, and we learn more and more about the Bible with every passing archaeological discovery, new historical and literary scholarship, and so much more. 

The worldview of the Bible was that the world was flat, women may or may not even have souls, it was okay to commit genocide, slavery was just fine, having multiple wives (or even a harem) was permissible, and people who were gay should be killed. 

Is this the worldview that we want to embrace as followers of Jesus?  I think not. 

I love the Bible, even though it frustrates me sometimes.  I've dedicated my life to its continued study and interpretation.  I preach from the Bible every time I stand in front of my congregation. I use Scripture in these Daily Devos just about every day. 

But in the end, the ultimate authority in my life ought to be Jesus Christ.  If there is any biblical worldview I would strive to have, it would be to do everything I can to love God and everybody just as Jesus did. 

That is truly what it means to be a Bible-believing Christian with a biblical worldview. 

May we all adopt this worldview and continue reading and studying the Bible with an open heart and mind.  May we learn what it means to follow Jesus and put him above whatever we think or believe about the Bible itself. 

And may the grace and peace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with us all, now and forever. Amen.  

[curtklingermanposts]

Outnumbered By A Rogue Society

Overwhelming Odds

There is a plethora of articles, blogs and media that talk about the ills of society. In many instances, they actually praise evil, and those who participate in it. If you focus on all those reports, you might think society is going to hell in a handbasket, and there’s nothing any of us can do about it. That is one of the bluffs of the enemy. “What are going to do about it, Christian? There’s nothing you can do to stop it.”

Romans 12:2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

Have you ever asked yourself that question? “What can I do to make any difference?” When you immerse yourself with all the negativity, you are actually doing the opposite of renewing your mind. You are programing it to doubt the Word of God; in fact, you might even go so far as to doubt God, Himself. Stating the obvious, the more you immerse yourself in worldly thinking, the more you think like the world. In so doing, you may find yourself buying into the devil’s lie.

There is truly nothing new under the sun. We are not the only ones who felt outnumbered. There are number of examples in the Bible, such as King David for one. Don’t forget the disciples hid themselves out of fear after the Crucifixion. That changed after their encounter with Jesus after His Resurrection, and when they were baptized with Holy Spirit. That particular minority changed the world. Let’s examine another example of one facing overwhelming odds: the prophet, Elijah. Before we do, remember this:

Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is He that is in you, than he that is in the world (1 John 4:4).

Feeling Outnumbered

The majority is not necessarily the majority, even when it’s a million to one. Some like to say, “God and me make a majority,” and to a degree that’s true; however, God does not need anyone else to make up The Majority. He is the Majority, regardless of the numbers.

On one hand, as the Body of Christ, we are to walk in unity, and as such, work together. Nonetheless, there are times when the Lord calls an individual to do an “impossible task” with no help from others. In such cases, it leaves no room for doubt God deserves the glory when it is complete. Elijah had a number of instances when he was the sole protagonist. As a suggestion, read his story, especially since only a few Scripture passages will be used here (see 1 Kings 17:1 – 2 Kings 2:25).

God sent Elijah to king Ahab who did evil in the sight of the Lord. He and his wife, Jezebel, led Israel into idolatry. This included worshipping Baal. In their first encounter, Elijah declared to Ahab, “As the LORD God of Israel liveth, before Whom I stand, there shall not be dew nor rain these years, but according to my word” (1 Kings 17:1). It did not rain for three years, after which, Elijah was sent to him again. This meeting included a showdown with 450 prophets of Baal.

1 Kings 18:22-24 Then said Elijah unto the people, I, even I only, remain a prophet of the LORD; but Baal's prophets are four hundred and fifty men. Let them therefore give us two bullocks; and let them choose one bullock for themselves, and cut it in pieces, and lay it on wood, and put no fire under: and I will dress the other bullock, and lay it on wood, and put no fire under: And call ye on the name of your gods, and I will call on the name of the LORD: and the God that answereth by fire, let Him be God (He is God, NASB). And all the people answered and said, It is well spoken.

As we know God shows up, after which Elijah slew the 450, and rain returned to the land (see 1 Kings 18:17-46).  After hearing the news, Jezebel threatened to kill Elijah, who fled for his life when he heard of it. After 40 days, the Word of the Lord came to him as he hid in a cave (see 1 Kings 18:9). He said so him, “What are you doing here Elijah?”

Elijah responded, I have been very jealous for the LORD God of hosts: for the children of Israel have forsaken thy covenant, thrown down thine altars, and slain Thy prophets with the sword; and I, even I only, am left; and they seek my life, to take it away” (1 Kings 19:10).

Does this setting look familiar? A nation goes rogue, and those who stand for God are vastly outnumbered. When they take a stand, their livelihood is threatened -perhaps, even their very lives. They feel isolated and, ready to throw in the towel. “The end is near!”

Join The Majority

How did God respond to Elijah? He put him on the offensive. He gave him a number of tasks to complete, which would turn things around in the end. One specific thing the Lord said was, “Yet I have left me seven thousand in Israel, all the knees which have not bowed unto Baal, and every mouth which hath not kissed him” (1 Kings 19:18).

Another obvious statement is we’re never truly alone. God is with us, and He has others standing in the gap. By communing with Him, you join the Majority. It sounds like an oxymoron when comparing numbers. In the very end, it is the few who remain. This bears repeating: we’re not home yet.

Here’s another takeaway: if we the few will listen to Holy Spirit, we will gain the instruction and direction needed for a time such as this. As individuals, each of us can influence our segment of society, which has a ripple effect. When everyone does their part, they all coalesce and impact society as a whole. It’s the leaven affect.

Matthew 13:33 Another parable spake He unto them; The Kingdom of Heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened.

perfectfaith.org

[eschatologicalblank]

Tongues

I have some Thoughts about languages and theology that have been just. rotating in my brain for ages, so I'm just going to vomit them up here.

the story of languages in the Bible begins in Genesis. God gives Adam and Eve - gives the whole of humanity - three pairs of gifts and responsibilities. the first - the gift of all the fruits of almost all the trees, and the responsibility to not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil - and the third - the gift of the world, and the responsibility to fill it and look after it - are talked about fairly often. but the second one does not, in my opinion, get anywhere near as much attention as it deserves.

Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals.

Genesis 2:19-20

the second gift is language, and the second responsibility is also language! doing word stuff isn’t just a thing that we do, it is a divinely given privilege and responsibility. there are plenty of good reasons to get angry about language deprivation - things like beating kids who speak in their native language in school, parents not teaching their D/deaf kids a signed language (or not learning it themselves so they have someone to talk to) - but I think this is another good one. language is a gift and a responsibility; where the heck do you get off, withholding a gift from their Maker, and preventing the fulfillment of a responsibility He has seen fit to bestow upon them?

the story then continues in Genesis, with Babel. God tells the people to spread out, they decide to stay together and build a giant memorial to themselves in the form of a tower reaching the heavens, God collapses the tower and makes them all speak different languages. pretty simple exegesis, the existence of multiple languages (and in particular the existence of language barriers and all the divisions and problems they cause) comes from sin and the fallenness of humanity and the world, etc etc. but like, what about Revelation 5:9 and 7:9, which specifically point out that the great multitudes of heaven are of every language? there’s a sermon in there somewhere about how even the consequences of sin will be sanctified, be made perfect in the new creation - and indeed, the new creation will be all the better for those things, it won’t just be Eden restored but Eden made better by its conspicuous repairs, like that thing where they stick pottery back together with little bits of gold (looked it up, it’s called kintsugi). idk, I’m not a vicar I just have Thoughts that I cannot figure out how to articulate.

and then there isn’t much (I guess the shibboleth thing? but eh) until Acts, and pentecost:

They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them.

Bryd hynny roedd Iddewon crefyddol o wahanol wledydd wedi dod i aros yn Jerwsalem. Clywon nhw'r sŵn hefyd, ac roedd tyrfa fawr wedi casglu at ei gilydd i weld beth oedd yn digwydd. Roedden nhw wedi drysu, am fod pob un ohonyn nhw yn clywed ei iaith ei hun yn cael ei siarad.

Acts 2:3-6

(yes, I do think I’m funny. thank you for asking!)

anyway, this passage is like. the entire theological justification for translating the Bible. and like, from a certain point of view it almost seems weird that you’d need a justification? but then, readings in synagogues are usually done in Hebrew (in addition to another language or on its own), and Muslims are generally expected to learn the specific dialect of Arabic the Quran is in in order to read it because they believe it was dictated word-for-word by God Himself. so I guess you kinda do need one.

and like, that’s had so many effects both on Christianity and language? there are a whole host of languages whose written forms were invented by Christian missionaries specifically so the people who spoke them could have a Bible translation in their language. heck, Cymraeg’s pre-existing alphabet was altered, k switched out for c, because the guy given the job of printing Welsh bibles didn’t have enough k’s to typeset an entire page of it, and it stuck because the efforts to get Welsh people reading the bible boosted them up to having one of the highest literacy rates in Europe at the time. some of the earliest Christians in Korea were converted not by a missionary, but by the pages of the bible which a missionary had brought with him and which a local official decided would make for nice wallpaper.