#Assuming Jesus is part of god like in some traditions

[slugtranslation-hypmic]

All the MTC song trailer snippets are out? What are your opinions? :D I think Rio's is surprisingly chill and I'm still torn on Samatoki's, the lyrics might decide that one!

Heyy did you listen to the mtc album snippets ?

Nope. Let's check them out!

Backbone:

Title note: Presumably from 気骨, which has a slightly stronger-- almost noble-- connotation than English "backbone." Someone with 気骨 never lets anything stop them from doing what they believe is right, and not necessarily in the personal sense like in the English phrases "Grow a backbone." or "They have a strong backbone." As some people in this comments section are noting, it's also possible to interpret the title literally. The back is a recurring image in Japanese fiction; in this case, it represents Samatoki single-handedly shouldering various burdens for those he cares about. People are also drawing connections to the Aohitsugi's death motifs and Samatoki's skeleton speaker.

20 seconds in: Okay he literally just says the shouldering burdens bit haha. I guess that part is canon authorial intent

24 seconds in: "Nobody can break my 'backbone.'" If we assume this should be interpreted figuratively, that's like "Nobody can make me do anything I don't believe in." / "Nobody can break my spirit."

35 seconds in: "My 'backbone' is my true strength." This + the traditional Japanese-reminiscent instrumentals remind me of the Katen-gumi. Iirc they have a scroll hanging in their main office proclaiming their dauntlessness, an attribute Samatoki embodies well imo.

53 seconds in: This is a mean-spirited thought, but I always find it funny when Samatoki's like "This god damn city is broken and filthy... *takes a drag from a cigarette*" when the god damn city in question is one of the most affluent in the world.

64 seconds in: With that said, it's nice to see him acknowledging the positive presence he has in Yokohama and vowing to rid it of... whatever ills are plaguing it... taxation and ne'er-do-wells with illegal mics, no doubt. An Ichirou-esque sentiment.

71 seconds in: Props to Asanuma for rhyming jinsei and shinsen so well. "My life is always fresh; this is still just the prologue." Samatoki being receptive to growth? You love to see it. With that said, it's interesting to see the discrepancy between the two ideas of "It's time to change." and "My core values will never change." as we see in this song. I'm not sure how that'll actually play out in canon, so we'll have to wait and see.

Overall: That was fun! It had a nice beat. I look forward to hearing the full song when it drops.

Awake:

Title note: ??? 目覚めた? Like, "I'm woke af now"? Haha let me see what this song is actually about and then come back to this...

Side note: I was staying with a friend-- a buddy from the old scanlation team-- when this song preview dropped, and she was keeping me up to date with this song's delayed release drama. When it finally dropped, she was like "YOOO SLUG, LISTEN TO THIS" and turned her phone waaaay up, blasting the sonorous tones of Mr. Komada into our not at all soundproof hotel room, immediately alerting me to two things: 1. I was not awake enough for this. 2. The illumatic Iruma Jyuto was IN the building and, at that volume, probably in every floor of the building. Anyway, I'm still not awake enough for this, but let's go.

5 seconds in: Love the horns. Very MTC and very Gen III Pokemon. Yokohama 8/10 too much water

20 seconds in: hey hey heeey

30 seconds in: I appreciate the technical skill involved, but I am not comprehending one word of this. I'm going to have to look up the lyrics when I'm done fr.

Overall: Seems fun to rap! Once again, looking forward to the full song.

Top YT comment at the time of writing: Juuto: Y'all never seen me like this before! Me: Yeah, no shit.

Scrolling through the comments: Spare lyrics, ma'am? Spare lyrics for the poor? Jesus, there are some thirsty-ass mofos in this comment section...

Well, I didn't find any lyrics, so here goes watch 2 with a lot of pausing, I guess. Hmm the gist of the chorus seems to be "I'm not fucking around anymore" which-- like someone else has pointed out in the comments-- is kind of how Juuto's been since day one...? I'm not sure what's changed. I suppose the biggest difference would be it's no longer "I'll solve this problem" but "we'll solve this problem." I do like the opening of this first verse: When someone makes bad choices, who's left smiling? Who's left grieving? What is right, and what is wrong? Can that be something for every person to figure out for themselves? Here's another interesting bit: I used to think I didn't have any interest in colluding with other people-- it was more like mutual exploitation. But then I joined hands with a couple of like-minded people, and now we share the goal of victory. Yeah, it seems like the biggest changes here are Juuto embracing teamwork, which hell yeah. Opening up and trusting other people with his mission, in turn taking on their missions and incorporating it into one singular goal? That's baller.

Title note revisited: yeah I guess deadass this is "awake" in terms of "I'm woke now" haha. Or like, "I've come around to [the power of friendship]"

NO WAR:

5 seconds in: Oh, now I get why someone on the Samatoki video called this "Riou's baby-ass song"

22 seconds in: I was NOT prepared for the autotune. I think I'm a little too tired because I found this really, really funny.

30 seconds in: "Conflict isn't entertainment; it's not a show." YOU TELL 'EM, RIOU.

44 seconds in: I always really, really appreciate Riou's unwavering distaste for warfare and conflict even as he considers it something worth devoting his life to. I would sincerely love it if the authors were to ever dive into why Riou has such dedication towards serving in the [whatever] army and whatever cause they were fighting for, but I don't think that's the story the authors want to tell. We probably just have to assume it's for whatever Riou considers to be a morally good cause.

49 seconds in: Ignoring the rhyme-induced silliness of "my buddies are my turret," I like the thematic consistency of each MTC member stressing that they're not alone anymore--that is, that they've given up on their self-imposed solitude--and they have each other to rely on and trust with their backs.

53 seconds in: "Practically brainwashed puppet soldiers" Oh?? Mind expanding on this a little, Hypmic? Again, I doubt the writers are keen to delve into the causes of WWIII or why Riou joined up at all, but the suggestion of propaganda or coercion being involved is tantalizing.

65 seconds in: I like the bit that goes (paraphrased): "What can you see when you look out of your binoculars at base camp? Rifles, revolvers--is that it? Instead of obsessing over who's strong and who's weak, why not be soldier who prays for peace?"

Overall: The lyrics are vaguer and more platitudinous than is my preference, but I fully recognize that my interests in this topic are outside of the scope of the story the writers want to tell. Which is fine! The music is pretty chill; I think I'll like this song when it comes out in full.

My favorite YT comment by a landslide: Thank god he's not making us work out again.

Thank you very much for the asks! :D It's fun to check this stuff out, and I probably wouldn't have done so otherwise.

[thepatristictradition]

Your "Biblical World View" is just 19th Century Enlightenment Propaganda

Is it just me, or does everyone stroking their ego about how "Biblical" they are, and how "Bible-Believing" they are (protestants, always), always seem to never actually believe the Bible?

I think so many of the tumors growing on the back of Sola Scriptura (where is that in the Bible?) are a result of late enlightenment, materialist philosophies, built on a bedrock of a hermeneutics of suspicion.

I saw a horrific example of this when I read someone discount John John 8:7-11 because, "Well, that section of John wasn't written by John, actually. It was added by scribes, so you shouldn't take it as seriously." Like, what? If this is your take, do you just not believe in any of the Bible? If some part is less Divinely Inspired, if it is less the Word of God, how is any of the Bible to be believed?

This is very funny, please laugh.

What this does is create impossible win conditions verging on, "If Jesus didn't write the Bible with his own earthly hands and leave it on a table for John the Baptist (not Catholic) to copy by hand, then none of it is real." Do you see how stupid that is? It is very stupid, and also very much not the historical view of the Church.

Scripture is Divinely inspired and Inerrant. It is inspired by God and has no Errors. This does not mean all of Genesis as we have it now was written by Moses himself. But all the people who recorded it for him, translated it, recovered it, and edited it were divinely inspired, and their collective work is without error.

I don't care what kind of historiographic view you take on Gospel authorship-- I care that you actually believe in the Bible. This handwringing over, "oh, who really physically wrote xyz," is a product of actual Free Masons, no I am not kidding.

This is what singled-minded, scholarly fixations on the Bible will do to people, and this is exactly why the Church needs Tradition. Tradition is why we have the Bible in the first place-- you're welcome, by the way. Tradition teaches you how to interpret the Bible. It is nothing less than the height of hubris to assume you know better, you are more imbued with the Holy Spirit, and more worthy of interpreting the scriptures than men who knew the apostles personally.

[mini-jiminie]

To be fair, if you take away isolated/romantic-leaning moments from an already tiny percentage of their life we get to see of any couple, you could come to the conclusion they're platonic. This isn't to say jikook are 100% romantically involved, I just think saying some in-between moments look platonic also doesn't mean much because you could say the same about basically any romantic relationship that isn't in the holding hands all time honeymoon phase.

Obviously you are more than free to have your view and that's valid, but I will also say that the "isolated" or selective moments we freak out about are cultural. I'm not sure if you speak korean or follow any korean jikookers, but the stuff they freak out about is actually more of the mundane and not something western fans would be screaming about in a compilation edit, and is actually more consistently across bts content over time. For example, their general dynamic or the ways they speak to each other. Of course they go crazy over the big stuff too like hickey gate (because wtf was that in any culture?), but their entire dynamic over time seems to be more centered for korean jikookers, and that's not just a one off.

Also this is just purely me spit-balling, but while I've always struggled to come to any conclusion about their nebulous relationship, I feel like being friends with loose boundaries doesn't make sense for them as individuals. Maybe this is unpopular, but I think jimin actually has some of the most traditional and strict views on hierarchy and respect in the group based on things he's said or the way he lectured tae (and roped in jungkook too LOL) about being respectful to the hyungs, yet with jungkook it absolutely flys out the window. And seemingly ONLY with just jungkook, who more often than not comes off as the hyung in their dynamic. Similarly, I think jungkook, despite having a rather laissez faire demeanor, is also one of the strictest about setting boundaries in the group. He has no problem pulling away from physical touch if he doesn't like it or calling out fans even if he does so respectfully or, god, the whole perilla leaf thing. Both of them clearly have clear boundaries, boundaries regarding specific things that seem to only loosen in regards to each other.

Just imagining here, but say you knew these two people in real life, say it was a guy and a girl, where they had these incredibly loose and unique boundaries from the rest of their friends, and then ON TOP OF THAT they gave each other hickeys when they were drunk, or sucked each other's ear, or whatever else. Would you assume its entirely platonic? Better yet, would you feel comfortable dating one of them and believe there was nothing between them? I know damn well I'd be paranoid calling every night they were on tour like "hi honey, you hanging out with him again after the concert?" "oh he's just laying on your bed?....again?" "oh the best part of tokyo was you guys staying up all night... just on your phones.....in the hotel..." "oh you guys are dinking again tonight? Make sure there's no bridal carries this time! LOL LMAO hehehaha"

Sometimes I feel like the alternative also seems stranger. Like you mention them not meeting while jimin was so busy, but (tinfoil hat time) the separation felt purposeful to me. You're right, he had no issue meeting yoongi and jhope, sure they were also working more often so he might have run into them at the company, but also he mentions making an effort to keep up with tae. You could argue he just didn't care about keeping up with jungkook, but then they enlisted together and we see them in AYS, jesus, jimin literally started the whole thing to spend time with jungkook, that's not a friend he just stopped caring about. You could also argue that he just wasn't keeping up with friends who would take him away from work (you know like that one friend who you only ever go drinking with), but jimin said himself how him and jungkook talk about music/work for hours and practically forget everyone else while doing so. To me, the lack of contact just felt targeted? specifc? in a way that it wouldn't for just a "friend". I don't know, its just like even in their distance, the line for platonic/romance seems blurred sometimes. Even their mental distance, like in AYS over the whole sausage vs. ham debate. Jungkook didn't give a single fuck that tae thought it was sausage, his only concern was jimin agreeing with him, and that isn't the first time he's been like that only with jimin. I wouldn't care if my bestie disagreed with me, especially if we were amongst our friend group anyway.

Its like that year when jimin flew back for jungkook's bday. I'll say I've always been on the fence about this because while its a nice gesture, part of me is also like well either way he had to fly to hawaii and flying back to korea only lengthened that fly-time a little more than if he'd flown across the US anyway. But then jimin went out of his way to post that fake-out video and iirc he was the one that ordered the cake. Then there's just something about the photo of jungkook. Idk what it is, but something about it made it feel....idk.

Despite me writing this absolute essay, I'm actually constantly on the fence with them too about the nature of their relationship. But there's just always this thing, this like presence in the background, this tension or something that feels off for just friendship.

I love reading people’s opinions on jkk because they’re such a fascinating pair! Essays are more than welcome!

I 100% agree that yes, there is such a poignant difference in the way they interact with one another. They seem to be each other’s exception to…everything really. The cultural and social barriers that govern how they interact with other people blur when they’re together.

I have noticed that in group settings, jk tends to revert to being the maknae™️; his hyungs' youngest little brother. He'll extend this attitude to jm as well. I feel like it's only in a group setting that those two will enforce that age hierarchy and jm will really play into that 'older brother' role. It kind of gives me a bit of whiplash when you see jk alone with jm compared to how he is with his older members.

As you mentioned, jm is one of the most diligent when it comes to adhering to and enforcing age hierarchies. You’ll never catch him slipping when he’s with his older members (but he’ll be slipping and sliding everywhere when with jk). Him being so lax with jk is one of those things that really have me questioning the nature of their relationship. Recently, I was pretty taken aback in ep 6 of ays when jk brings up meeting as 'same-age friends' in another life. Jm's never really addressed jk speaking to him informally. I was pleasantly surprised when he was so open to entertaining jk's idea. I found it really sweet how the conversation was: 'well, how would our relationship have turned out if that age barrier wasn't there to begin with?'. If jk proposed that scenario to say Seokjin, he would've gotten his ass cleared before he could even finish his sentence.

One moment that went triple platinum in the jkk space in 2017 was this behind-the-scenes episode from Bon Voyage S3. Jm takes a photo of jk and when he lingers to look at his phone screen, jk calls out to him and says:

‘애기야 가자’ (let’s go, baby).

Yea no, it does feel like a bit of a fool's errand when trying to justify why they could just be platonic cause, the majority of the signs point to them being....not.

Also yes, I would be one insecure s/o if I was with either jk or jm. Cause what?? absolutely no way would I be fine with my bf doing the things he does with a 'friend'????

Nevertheless, there is a part of me that won't allow me to fully commit to the idea of a romantic relationship. I hate to bring this up because it was such a gross invasion of his privacy but, that video of jk with that woman in his apartment could be one of those contradictions.

You make a lot of exciting, rational and thought-provoking points, anon. I'm happy that you've shared your thoughts with me!

[avelera]

What religion do we think IWTV show Armand is, at this point?

Because with almost any other character, especially a centuries old vampire, I would add "if any", but that really really doesn't apply to Armand. Religion is absolutely core to his character throughout the books in ways that it is for very few characters even within the Vampire Chronicles.

Below the cut is a rundown of Armand's faith in the books, questions that arose as a result of him pretending to be Rashid in the show, and my fundamental question which is: where does that leave us with regards to Armand's faith as it stands today?

Book Background:

For those not familiar, Armand's religion in the books is, presumably, Russian Orthodox when he was a child or its equivalent in Kievan Rus in the 1400s and he was quite devout.

Presumably, when he was sold as a slave to the Venetians and became immersed in the Venetian art scene as part being an artist in Marius's studio (forgive my somewhat patchy memory of TVA, this is based more on TVL which I'm currently re-reading) he would have been surrounded by and partaken in Roman Catholicism.

When he is kidnapped and indoctrinated by the Children of Darkness, a Satanic cult that believes vampires are a punishment sent by God (in a Roman Catholic tradition) and eventually becomes the leader of the Paris Coven, Armand is still heavily steeped in a Catholic, arguably almost Catholic monastic existence.

Even when the Paris Coven transitions into the Theatre des Vampires, Armand maintains a great many of the rules from the Children of Darkness and the Theatre is very much a spiritual successor, reinvented specifically for the Age of Reason because they were hemorrhaging followers and believers in the 1700s.

(Because the Children of Darkness was a fundamentally Medieval cult, founded in response to the Black Death, and the ways of thinking were changing to make that level and flavor of religious devotion old fashioned and no longer as compelling to modern people of the time, but I digress.)

For all that Armand no longer presents as particularly religious by the time of the Devil's Minion, and even to have left that part of his life behind, the events of Memnoch the Devil show that Armand's religious faith was merely dormant, and when given a sliver of proof that God and the Devil, Heaven and Hell exist, his faith returns in a fiery (heh) explosion. Specifically, his reaction is to evidence of the historicity of Jesus Christ via being confronted with the Veil of Veronica. It's a heavily Christian moment, though one that would be meaningful to Catholic and Orthodox believers.

Ok, so there's the book background. So what about the show?

When Armand was presented as Rashid in Season 1, I was quite willing and indeed excited at the notion of Armand reinvented as a member of the Islamic faith.

While it would require some alteration from the book canon as described above, it wouldn't necessarily be all that different than updating Louis from an 1800s plantation owner to a 1900s brothel owner and business man. Basically, I had faith the writers could pull it off and indeed make it beautiful.

Based on the S1 finale, I had assumed that Rashid was a character created wholly by Armand and, in the manner of all masks, therefore included a piece of his true self including his Muslim faith when he prayed.

But now in S2 we have Real Rashid. And we have Armand's theatrical background to show he's familiar with acting and putting on a character, in this case, the character of a real person he knows. So I'm beginning to think, much like Daniel when he shot those questions about Islam at Armand, that Armand was only praying in order to better 'inhabit' the character of Rashid, based on Real Rashid, who presumably is a Muslim.

That leaves us with a question: was Armand praying out of personal faith, or to better perform as "Rashid"?

Then there's the fact that in this season, we learn what alterations have been made to Armand's background. He is no longer Andrei of Kievan Rus, he is Arun of Delhi.

Thing is, Muslims make up a little over 10% of the population of Delhi today (according to a cursory Google search) so it's still entirely feasible that Armand was born into a Muslim household, rather than say a Hindu one, and practiced that faith as devoutly as Andrei practiced Russian Orthodoxy.

But then we get into the thornier issue, because Andrei/Amadeo/Armand going from Orthodox to Catholic is still a conversion, it's perhaps a less fundamental one. Especially since as a peasant in the 1400s, the differences in dogma between Catholics and Orthodox beliefs would be less relevant to Andrei than they would be to, say, a priest. (Not to say these differences aren't important. Just saying that many laymen at least in the Catholic faith at this time only had a fuzzy idea of what the dogma even was.)

But making Arun, who might have been Muslim, convert to a faith that believes in Jesus Christ as the Messiah rather than Muhammad as the Prophet is a much bigger, more fundamental betrayal and a potentially forceful conversion. Do you see what I mean?

So basically, I'm wondering where we're at in terms of potential later story beats that revolve around Armand's faith being specifically some flavor of Christianity (ex. in Memnoch) and potential prologue story beats of his time as a painter in Venice with Marius which would likewise have been fairly steeped in the Christian faith which this version of Armand was almost certainly not born into (at least, it would be very unlikely, Christians making up less than 1% of Delhi today, I confess I don't know the historical percentages).

So, where do we stand on Armand's faith by the present day? Did he convert wholeheartedly (or perhaps reluctantly, or perhaps neither since he didn't remember his childhood he simply adopted the faith of those around him, who knows?) to Christianity under Marius and the Children of Darkness and therefore consider those faiths as fundamental to him as his book counterpart, since they'd represent 99% of his life, or was his Muslim prayer as Rashid in any way a homage to his childhood faith, if he even recalls it?

[spurgie-cousin]

here's a ✨quick recap of the Jessa and Ben interview from the "Now That We're a Family" podcast✨for @undercoverduggarblog and anyone else who's curious if they spilled any tea.

I will say the couple who was interviewing them seemed to be the exact same flavor of fundamentalist as the Seewalds, so it was mostly the same cheesy fundie platitudes you hear in any "interview" the Duggars or similar fundies do. so this might be kind of short but there were a few interesting parts I'll highlight:

Jessa and Ben said that they were really focused on teaching catechism memorization to their kids, which I guess isn't super shocking information, I've just never heard anyone besides Catholics talk about catechisms lol. The Catholic Catechism for those who don't know is a separate thing from the Bible which kind of summarizes the principles of the religion, kind of like a cliff notes situation for all of Catholic theology. Other denominations usually focus more on individual stories from the Bible to summarize the principles of their faith, but according to Ben there is a Baptist Catechism too and the Seewald kids will be memorizing it. -

Ben says he was working for Jim Bob at the time he and Jessa got married doing lawn care, remodeling, and construction, idk if I knew that previously. He said he started tutoring Jessa's siblings after that, and now he's been a pastor for 4 years after doing an internship at his previous church. -

Jessa says some of the first conversations she had with Ben pre-relationship were about theology, and that she had been reading more about the Reformed tradition and practices at that time after talking to Ben. Ben says he got Jessa's phone number originally by asking Jim Bob if it was ok to talk to her about theology outside of church stuff. -

Both said even before marriage, they had a lot of disagreements theologically (obviously, bc Jessa was raised by Jim Bob and Michelle who basically made up their own version of Baptist). Ben says some of their biggest disagreements were on the topics of predestination (as we know, since he also got into it with JB over that), how God decides who should be saved, "The Atonement" which I assume just means Jesus dying for our sins (not sure what there is to argue about there), etc. He goes on to say he didn't see it as a deal breaker as far as courting Jessa because he was very into her, and also "a lot of Christians disagree on these topics", but he did want to try to eventually "figure it out". -

They say that they put the theological discussions on pause after Ben proposed. Jessa laughingly says "don't worry, we picked back up (after we were married)" and I guess for me personally I just don't understand how you can talk about these things SO much and never resolve them. Like how are you talking about predestination for MONTHS? and if you guys disagree about a subject to the point that your conversations end in anger and crying (i'll get to that soon) I don't understand not just agreeing to disagree. Honestly to me, it really sounds like Ben had a campaign from the beginning to change Jessa's mind about these things, which is good in some ways I guess bc he's slightly more progressive than she was raised, but still. It definitely feels like that was always the goal, to get Jessa to believe what Ben does, and I mean what other choice does she have in this world they live in but to give in? -

Ben says the theological differences really started bothering him after marriage (shocker). So they continued their arguments, Ben showed Jessa endless books and shit "proving" his points, and Jessa says she started to get pretty heated about their disagreements (at one point she says Ben was like "maybe we should just pray about this" to which she answered "you pray!!"). They both say they were never at the point of yelling, but Jessa would sometimes start crying out of frustration, as would Ben after seeing her cry, and they'd just end in the same place they started. Ben says he thought that if he just "presented a good argument" it would change Jessa's mind about these things they disagreed on and that he hadn't anticipated that they would struggle over this so much (have you met any Duggars, Ben??). -

Ben says that he realized these conversations weren't productive and that he wasn't "leading" Jessa well (🙄) so he started trying to diffuse hard conversations by being like "hey, let's drop this and go on a date", or doing something that would distract both of them before things got heated. -

Jessa says nowadays she agrees with Ben on more things and considers herself a four-point Calvinist. She says Ben used to have "hyper-Calvinist" tendencies and that he's chilled out a bit in that area (I don't know what she means by this lol). -

The couple who are interviewing them are also from big Christian families, and they ask Ben and Jessa if they ever get exhausted from trying to maintain so many relationships with both of their large groups of siblings, in addition to Ben's church members. Ben says yes, and that with Jessa's siblings (he specifically mentions hers and not his lol) there are just some that they see and have over a lot, and some they just "don't connect with as much" and don't see often. Jessa cuts him off here and says that her family does have weekly/monthly things they do where they see everyone. She also says there are certain family units that she and Ben try to connect with more than just at the big family gatherings (1. why'd she say it like that and 2. i wonder who 👀). Overall, Jessa says she always feels like she's not doing enough to maintain her relationships with all of her siblings and that it's a struggle. -

Ben and Jessa get asked about the time they take for just the two of them. Ben says they used to do a date night at least once a week, but that since having more kids there have been "seasons" where that hasn't happened (I'm so tired of hearing that word at this point in the interview). Nowadays they both say that they do maybe one or two date nights a month where they go out, and also a lot of at-home dates where they watch a movie or read together. The reading together sounds sweet don't get me wrong, but for me personally, I feel like I would be driven to insanity by taking turns reading aloud and not just getting to go at my own pace (I've got attention problems tho). -

The types of books they read together are also usually about theology (they just can't get enough). They say right now they're reading a book on prayer, and in the past they've read about things like Baptist Covenant Theology, which Jessa says "went over her head". The way Ben talks about it, I feel like the reading together thing is another attempt to sell Jessa on his beliefs (Ben seems super geeked about Calvinism). The interviewer husband says their reading together is good because it prevents them from developing separate world views from each other without the other one knowing (sounds threatening?). -

As far as the movies they watch for date night, Ben says "westerns, sci fi, something black and white". They say as far as morality and movies go, they're pretty similar on the things they "don't want to see" and they use those rating websites for parents to decide if a movie is "clean" enough for them to watch. Ben says he really loves fantasy, sci fi, and imaginative stuff whereas Jessa says jokingly that she prefers movies "with humans" or things like Dick van Dyke. Ben says he got Jessa to watch Star Wars once, which she describes as "everything I don't love", but she got into it a little bit by the end. They both like movies like Pride and Prejudice. -

The wife interviewer tells a weird story about how she and her sister got mad at their husbands for showing them Lord of the Rings because it's "creepy and weird"?? which I just included because of how egregious a statement that is lol. Ben defends Lord of the Rings and the interviewer husband says that he and Ben can appreciate fantasy bc they have the ability to think "deeper" than their wives (he's joking but it still made me mad). Jessa said she originally was worried that watching fantasy was dabbling in the occult and the other wife agrees. which isn't surprising but makes me sad.

[evilwickedme]

I would like to see the Jewish headcanons please

Hi yes thank you so much I wasn't fishing for this at all

We've already covered this in that post that gained me 150 followers in a week, but obviously Peter Parker is Jewish. My personal headcanon is that he's Ashkenazi and somewhere between Reform and Conservative. Like he flip flops on keeping Kosher and observes the high holidays as best as he can assuming there's no world saving he needs to get done, but overall being Jewish to him is about community and culture over the religious part of it

For Bucky Barnes, however, being observant was a way to reclaim his identity after... Well, you know. He's vaguely conservadox? He doesn't really define it beyond being Sephardic. He keeps Kosher (which was difficult during WWII unfortunately) and wears tzitzit and goes to shul whenever he can. He'd love to keep Shabbat but it's just not practical most of the time - essentially it's like being an on call doctor, where your job is essential to saving lives and therefore he can't keep Shabbat properly, but he likes to have Friday night dinners with his friends (and Natasha, whether they're together at the time or not) whenever he can. He doesn't know if God exists, but during the High Holidays is when he comes the closest to believing it

Bruce Wayne is canonically Jewish but like, by accident? I feel like he less defines himself as Jewish and more defines himself as Not-Christian™. His mother used to take him to Synagogue but the memories are vague now, but he always enjoyed lighting the candles on Hanukkah, especially with Jason. He stops celebrating the holiday after Jason dies, because he loved it so much. It's a shame because I KNOW Cass would love Hanukkah and Steph would be so into the Maccabees' story

Tim is also Jewish but he's entirely non practicing; his parents were never around to celebrate any holidays or impart any Jewish traditions on him and Bruce had stopped doing the one Jewish thing of lighting the hanukkiah/menorah (whichever you wanna call it) by the time he became Robin. The main Jewish thing in his life is antisemitic garbage being published about both Bruce and himself, especially once he becomes CEO of WE

Damian was raised Muslim and doesn't really know how to feel about being half Jewish. When he grows up he might try to find a way to reconcile those two parts of his identity, but the only Jewish person who actually practices that he sees even irregularly is Batwoman, who's his cousin once removed and he's not exactly close to, so he just doesn't feel the need to deal with it yet

The Thing and Batwoman are canonically Jewish this doesn't count as a hc I just love them

Same for moon knight minus loving him cause I have a bunch of his comics but just haven't gotten around to reading them

Actually can we talk about Mayday Parker? Because I feel like Peter would absolutely raise his daughter to be Jewish. He wants her to feel that connection to the Jewish people even though he's always been so wishy-washy about it and she grows up to be way more observant than him

I actually don't want canon!Clark to be Jewish, but I think exploring his Jewish subtext in fic can be so interesting? Cause, you know, he's Moses and shit. I feel like an Modern Orthodox Clark would have the exact same values as current Clark but also I'd love to hear his thoughts on certain Mishnahs, you know? Also having read the Death of Superman arc earlier this month I can confirm all Jesus metaphors in adaptations are such bullshit oh my God did you even read the comic

Anyway I think that's it for now? Unfortunately I have not read Every Comic Ever yet so there might end up being even more HCs later on (especially since I plan to read Greg Rucka's Lois Lane series soon and I'm hoping for some Jewish subtext in that)

Thank you so much for asking this was so much fun!!

[jods-duplicitous-sluts]

Alecto the Ninth News

Part Two

If you haven't read part one, click here. If you are looking for part three, click here.

Another bunch of screenshots and links after the cut

If you enjoy this post please reblog so more people can see it!

Source: The Portalist Interview

• wonder who all this could reference...let's see: Gideon, Harrow, Ianthe, John, Judith, Coronabeth, Pyrrah, Aiglamene, and Sarpedon are who I can think of that match this in the literal sense of not being dead[well...] at the end of Nona. But if we start including souls we've seen in the river and deaths we've only heard about or were in any way ambiguous....it gets more interesting. I'd imagine the BOE who were on the Ninth will continue to be involved like AIM and Pash. I'd assume Paul will be a major player despite not technically appearing in two books and maybe Juno Zeta and Kiki?

Source: The Library Journal

• this kind of ties into the above but also ties into the harrowing of hell/what's wrong with the river plot line. I'm still saying John did something to damn the river and feeds off the energy of all the ghosts of the past 10,000 years being unable to cross to the beyond. I'd also venture that it has something to do with needing to restore the soulnof Earth as the rightful power/God of their universe. But eh. Maybe that's too simple. Again, all just speculation on my part.

Source: In the Margin

• This whole interview is great but this part about tragic figures in the locked tomb stuck out to me. It definitely seems like the third temptation will be a subject for Alecto and yet again heading into the Catholic allegories. Obviously referencing to the third temptation of Christ.

For the third and final temptation in Matthew (presented as the second temptation of the three in Luke) the devil takes Jesus to a high place, which Matthew explicitly identifies as a very high mountain[or a tower], where all the kingdoms of the world can be seen. The spot pointed out by tradition as the summit from which Satan offered to Jesus dominion over all earthly kingdoms. The temptation to assume leadership over the kingdoms of man. The kingdoms Jesus would inherit through Satan are obtained through love of power and political oppression. Barrett characterizes this "the old but ever new temptation to do evil that good may come; to justify the illegitimacy of the means by the greatness of the end." [From Wikipedia]

Basically the temptation to overthrow God.

Source: In the Margin

• A return to Canaan House and its mysteries. Is this in regards to the devils and the tower, Abigail and her theory about the secret private chambers of the Emperor, Palamades being systematically lied to about the ages and psychometric signatures in Canaan House or Harrow and her secret door theory? Or something else entirely...but I'm glad that we may get another glimpse into Canaan House.

Source: Nerd Daily Aug. 2020 interview

• Now this interview is pre-Nona as its own book, but I can't think of any 2 characters that interact in Harrow that would have had a moment that fits this in Nona. Brutal sincerity? It feels like it has to involve Harrow, John, Ianthe or Gideon in some way.

Source: The Nerd Daily 2020

• Again on the theme of love which relates to Nona, but TazMuir has said in other interviews to expect that theme to continue onto Alecto.

Also don't expect everyone to get what's coming to them which doesn't shock me.

Source: LA Book Review

• Pre-Nona interview. But talking about Gideon and Harrow’s relationship dynamic changing as their standing changes. Obviously we're going to see some fallout/paradigm shifts with Gideon being the heir aparent of God and Harrow basically becoming a heretic of sorts.

Source: The Library Journal

• Broad strokes here about character growth and a painful but begrudging happiness that some characters will find. But there is a chance at happiness. So that's something a lot of haven't been counting on.

Source: Vox Bookclub Podcast transcript

• while this is a reference to Harrow the Ninth it does mention to look out for more biblical allusion in Alecto. Now, I'm pretty sure this is pre-Nona announcement and obviously we got all the John biblical references but from the other interviews we've been talking about we know there is so harrowing of hell and temptation of christ in our future. Maybe someone more upon Bible study can chime in with other Biblical passages or stories that may come into play that fit the same theme?

Source: The Coode Street Podcast

• Paraphrasing but On episode 598 of the Coode Street podcast, Tamsyn Muir said that Alecto the Ninth was completed but hadn't been edited yet and that she doubted it would be out by the end of 2023 as it was a "chonky boy" or a "chungus" (her words). That podcast was released in December, so I'm assuming recorded in November or earlier.

Seems to me like any listed dates right now are probably placeholders until Tor announces an official release date.

PHEW! That was a lot so far. To be honest there are some other podcast interviews I know I've listened to in the past but haven't had time to revisit for this project so I may be missing some things.

We have one more roundup of interview screenshots to go, but it will have to be its own post. And the theme of part 3 of ATN news is: CW: Ianthe Tridentarius. Yep. There are so many mentions referring to Ianthe in Alecto that they will be their own post. [Yikes]

Click here to see part 3 of this post

[midnight-omega]

Catholicism in Omegaverse hc

I have a real unhealthy obsession with making Super Catholic Characters and forcing them to Confront Their Catholic Guilt And Trauma all day every day and my omegaverse stories are no exception to this soo... I have some ideas on how to warp Catholicism to my omegaverses :))

Pls be conscious of any TWs i placed some of them in particular may be very upsetting pls skip them if needed! Also a long post so pls keep reading under the cut fr

📿 Most basic tenants, core beliefs, rites (things like confession and confirmation), and services (mass, funerals, and wedding ceremonies) don't really need much changing and can stay true to the real world

📿 Typically God Himself and the Holy Family are depicted as totally dynamicless or a combination of all dynamics (Revelation 22:13, Revelation 1:8 worth the google lmfao)

📿 Historical Jesus (jesus the person not the religious figure) was probably a Beta but it's hard to tell since Rome sacked Israel destroying most early Christian documentation and followers.

📿 However sometimes when referring to the Holy Trinity dynamics do come up just like the Trinity is coded with gender irl. The Father (masculine) as The Alpha, the Son (masculine) as The Beta, and Holy Spirit (feminine) as The Omega

📿 All Saints have defined dynamics as many of them were real people. You'd typically pray to a saint that follows your own dynamic (an omega probably wouldn't pray to an alpha saint for help with an omegean issue for example)

📿 Orders that follow certain saints (think Franciscan monks for example) must be the dynamic of the saint or they cannot live with the rest of the devotees.

📿 Though the Church discourages speculation on the Holy Family's dynamics and refuses to take a position, Omegas have kinda claimed Mary for their own. Most Catholics who find an extreme importance in worshipping Mary are omegas

📿 Priests are mostly betas

📿 Betas have the easiest time getting into a seminary and convincing church officials of their vocation (a vocation is like your holy life purpose and in traditional Catholicism its either to fuck and make babies or to be a priest)

📿 Alphas are allowed in the priesthood but it is much more difficult for them to be accepted into a seminary. The church traditionally sees the vocation of alphas and omegas as the filling God's kingdom kind. Ruts also complicate things

📿 Chastity vows are still mandatory for clergy (ur mated to GOD now)

📿 It is assumed that betas have an easier time renouncing mating compared to an alpha (this is NOT true but the church is the church)

📿 Omegas are banned from seminaries and cannot enter priesthood. They are considered unclean and sinful by nature

📿 Eve is an omega hence the original sin being pinned on omegas (just like its pinned on women irl)

📿 Painful heats are considered part of God's punishment for disobeying His orders and partaking of the fruit

📿 Betas are not part of the creation story oddly enough (Adam the first alpha and Eve the first omega) and they're a little absent from the Old Testament, but they have a huge presence in the New Testament.

📿 Omegas do have a place in the clergy if they can convince the Church of their vocation. Omegas exclusively become nuns.

📿 Nuns are actually very valued simply because certain fields require that omegean touch. Teaching (Catholic schools are still very much a thing), childcare (orphanages and stay houses), and other social work (homeless shelters, food drives, anything that involves helping people in need) rely heavily on nuns

📿 The Church tends to wrongly make alphas masculine coded only and omegas feminine coded only

📿 its a major reason why many no long actively practice the religion

📿 Just like irl the Church struggles to keep up with modern times and this can be seen in the pairings they endorse

📿 The Church only supports a/o, b/b, a/female b, and male b/o pairings as these are the parings that can breed

📿 When a couple wants to take the next step and create a mate bond the Church asks that they HOLD OFF

📿 the Church strongly frowns upon sex before marriage and therefore mating before marriage

📿 Couples must complete pre cana first! and must marry like a good Catholic couple, in a Church under God officiated by a priest.

📿 Then the church asks they mate and make as many babies as possible lets go

📿 speaking of the Church irl still frowns upon contraception, so so does the omegaverse Church

📿 The Church also considers suppressants a form of contraception (and as a way omegas get around suffering for the original sin if the person is like crazy religious) so they aren't allowed

📿 Only in a medically needed situation are suppressants allowed

TW// Slightly NSFW for the next 4 bullet points

📿 Masturbation is also a no no both in irl and omegaverse Church

📿 So... relieving yourself during a rut/heat is frowned upon as this is a form of masturbation and God created the rut/heat cycle for babies not for selfish pleasure !! You have your heat and you deal with it !! You lie in your sinful slick and you pray !!

📿 Devout dynamics and clergy sworn to celibacy struggle with this (tho there is a black market for priest suppressants)

📿 Nuns and devout omegas have some of the worst heats, possibly even worse than a first heat just because they ignore their bodily needs and basic instincts in the name of religion

📿 This is viewed very... holy? Not sure of the right word here but it's held in high esteem and part of why nuns are such a big deal. Normal omegas tho aren't held so highly just bc they are free to mate

📿 Alpha admission into seminaries is rare because of this as well, Church authorities are wary of them being able to handle a rut like this

TW// SA, pedophelia, molestation for the next 4 bullet points

📿 There's a false statistic claiming that almost all sexual assault perpetrated by a priest are the crimes of alpha priests

📿 as said this is false, since the vast majority of the priesthood consists of betas most of the predators are betas as well

📿 SA, molestation, and grooming are still massive issues in the Church

📿 Male omegas are the biggest target of these crimes, though anyone can be affected. Male omegas are considered more vulnerable and easier to manipulate since the Church is very confused on the crossroads between gender and dynamic and refuse to update teachings (by this i mean since they create images of masculine alphas and feminine omegas female alphas and male omegas get lost. To someone from a devout pack/family with one of these dynamics it can be incredibly confusing and distressing to listen to church teachings making them more venerable to manipulation by gross old priests)

TW// NSFW for the next 2 bullet points

📿 The Church still frowns upon anal sex fr. Sometimes this confuses people to think sex with male omegas is sinful but anyone who paid attention in health class knows penetrative sex with a male omega isn't actually anal at all.

📿 The Church rarely clarifies this making it even harder for devout male omegas

📿 priests, monks, nuns, and clergy in general are expected to be as scentless as possible. It’s like a metaphor for shedding earthly desires and instincts to become a conduit for the heavenly. To be scentless is to be close to God. Some really devout older Catholics also strive to be scentless tho it’s not required of laymen

📿 it’s customary to wear heavy sent blockers to mass and abstain from communion or mass entirely if you are in heat or rut

📿 nuns close to children (pre school/elementary teachers, orphanage staff) are allowed to have scent as this helps the pups

📿 Children and recent dams (a person who has given birth) are also exempt from scent blockers, but all other laymen are certainly expected to wear their patches and spray on their covering perfumes before mass

📿 If a pre heat/rut or full heat/rut is occurring during a fast day the person is exempt from fasting and participating in any religious festivities

Okaayy i think thats all for now fr might add on later

[alpaca-clouds]

Paganism in medieval Europe

Okay, you know what? Fuck it. I am going to continue rambling about medieval Europe for a while. It is kinda fitting for the season anyways given that I associate winter and the holiday season with Lord of the Rings first and foremost.

So, let me talk about this one myth about the middle ages that exists in two opposite versions... and both are wrong! Paganism in medieval Europe is one of those things that people really love to get wrong and depict in whatever way suits them.

On one hand we have the conservative Christians who will basically ignore how paganism was for a while in the very early medieval period at times suppressed with violence and just go: "Europe is Christian and basically was always Christian, because that is just how it is."

While on the other hand you have the Neo Pagans (especially white women) who will tell you: "Oh, yeah, paganism was so suppressed, but some very curagous women still kept it alive and they were also burned during those medieval witch hunts!!!" (If you want to know why the witch hunts were not medieval, look right over here.)

Both are not right. Because the truth is a lot more complicated. Some of you might have even heard about this one part of it - Christmas.

See, here is the thing: Yes, during the pagan hunts (which mostly happened between the late 4th and the 8th century) paganism was very, very much suppressed within Europe. Again, temples and holy sites were burned down, idols were defaced and so on and so forth. And yes, people were killed during those times for their beliefs. How many died during this time? Frankly, we do not know. There have been some mass graves found in Eastern Europe that we assume are connected to this - but we frankly do not know how many died or were displaced due to this.

But... And you know there is always a "but". Christians realized after a while - just like the Romans did when it came to suppressing Christians - that suppression actually does not work very well in terms of converting people to your religion. So, they tried a different approach: Incorporation.

And this is where the Christmas story comes in. I do not need to tell you that even if Jesus really existed, the entire "travelling so so long for the citizen count" and basically all about the birth story is made up. This is something we can proof. And even if it happened, it would not have happened at midwinter. So, no, December 24th or 25th is not the birthday of Jesus.

No, the reason that midwinter became Christmas is, that basically all of the indigenous European religions celebrated midwinter. So, to convert thema after a while the Christians went: "Oh, we also have this super rad midwinter celebration, because it turns out that our Jesus was tots born on midwinter, you know?" This story is fairly well known. What people do realize less is that it was not just midwinter.

Over the time a lot of indigenous religious festivities were incorporated into the just Christianity. Old gods now became saints, with angels and saints absorbing old pantheons. That way Christians could remain with the "only one God" argument, but also be like: "Oh, yeah, you can totally keep worshipping your gods, because see, they were actually angels!"

Which is also why Christian tradition does differ always a bit between the different countries throughout Europe. Like which of the Christian holidays are celebrated and in what way is not the same. Because they often were mixed up with whatever indigenous holiday happened around the same time.

So, yes. A part of European paganism survived even until the modern day. But not through rebellious women or anything like that, but thanks to Christians just incorporating those holidays into their own religion.

... And also that is why we have an Easter Bunny.

[paradoxcase]

Chapter 26 of Gideon the Ninth

Honestly, what the fuck Harrow

Dulcinea says a lot of fascinating and very strange things and Gideon doesn't notice any of them

Very curious about what "the manner of the Fifth" is, I guess we never got to see them do any necromancy before they died. I presume the person who is "very far from here" is the Emperor/God/John?

I know she means that she doesn't want gory details of how they died but I feel like I should make a comment here about how she's now spent 270 pages not telling me things I want to know, so she clearly does not care about the gory details of much of anything

This is even worse than the whole "if they kill one twin, the other one will be stronger" thing. There's really some fascinatingly fucked up stuff you can do with the idea of a society that runs on death energy and I really like that Muir just took this all the way to the finish line

I'm starting to get a weird sneaking suspicion... so, becoming a Lyctor seems to be what makes you immortal in this universe. Dulcinea says she will "probably" live forever, but definitely seems to think that is worse than dying, in fact she is constantly romanticizing the idea of dying. But, supposing she were here for the same reason that everyone else is here, the only way she would live forever is if she found all of the theorems and became a Lyctor, which seems very unlikely now that she's sick and has given all her keys away. In fact, even if she weren't sick and hadn't given her keys away, it would be very easy to not become a Lyctor if you didn't want to, way easier than actually becoming one if you did want to. But she says she will probably live forever, that she would like to die but probably won't, and that it feels like she's been dying for ten thousand years. I think she's pretty clearly not the actual heir to the Seventh, for reasons that I've been saying throughout this readthrough. Is she already immortal? Is she already a Lyctor, who has actually, literally, been around for ten thousand years? Is she the original Lyctor from the Seventh House, given that she does seem to know things about the Seventh House and they way they see the blood cancer that don't seem to be made up, and does genuinely seem to be sick?

Also, she never actually says what she means by that last question. She tells Gideon the phrase is part of the ritual of becoming a cavalier primary, but doesn't actually tell her what it means, or what she meant when she said that. Is she disappointed in her cavalier who ascended to Lyctorhood with her (assuming she is a Lyctor)? They certainly haven't been talking about Protesilaus at all in this conversation

I'm really curious why she is so sure that Gideon wasn't "trained in the traditions of the House of the Locked Tomb" and that she doesn't fight like a real cavalier, given that I don't think she's had any opportunity to observe Gideon doing traditional Ninth House things or fighting anyone, the most she's seen is Gideon holding a sword the wrong way once. Even Protesilaus wasn't present during the scenes where Gideon was fighting someone (or something). So how is she so sure of this?

Given how maturely Harrow reacted to the deaths of the Fourth teens, I'm sure she's going to be absolutely thrilled when she finds out Gideon told Dulcinea this

Yeah, I think she's definitely up on all the Space Jesus jazz

I know I said it was weird that Palamedes knew Harrow's last name way back when, but like, clearly they've all exchanged names at this point, right? Is it weird that Mayonnaise Uncle knows her last name?

Does he actually know anything about her that she doesn't already know? I would think that if there had been some secret about Gideon's origins that Glaurica had known that Gideon didn't, than Harrow would have been aware of that as well, since she was in charge of the whole House, but I don't think Harrow actually knows about any Space Jesus stuff. I guess by "murderers" he's probably referring to whatever happened to Pluto's population 16 years ago. Regardless, I'm interested to see where this goes

[ringneckedpheasant]

Hi! I saw your Bible post and if you're interested in doing this, I have a few things you could look into/do which might make the process easier if you have trauma/want to approach it like a set of myths/historical document! I studied theology and religion at uni (particularly queer and eco theology) and came at it from a non-christian angle. Anyway feel free to delete this ask if it's not useful/too much etc. I just thought I'd give some ideas!

Yale has a series of online free lectures on the Old Testament which are super interesting and don't assume any faith! They go into the various myths which inspired the various stories in the bible (such as the flood), and the history of particular parts of the old testament library (they also have one for the new testament but I haven't watched it so don't know how good it is)

Look into apocrypha! The Nag Hammai scriptures, the gospel of Judas etc. Might actually be super interesting to you if you like the myth/history aspect! They're the books which were de-classified as canon (or never were canon), but all were written super early (2nd century) I specifically recommend the Gospel of Mary Magdalene and the Gospel of Judas. "Lost scriptures" by Ehrman is a great laymans book explaining the histories/controversies around this and even goes into the controversies surrounding the secret gospel of Mark aka the gospel where Jesus seems to have gay sex. (Ehrman writes a lot of good layman books on the bible which might be worth looking at!)

If you're looking at the NT maybe look at books like Jesus the Jew by Geza Vermes or The Crucified God by moltmamn. They're a bit specialised but it is SUPER important to modern historical studies of jesus to situate him as a Jew because that is who he was! Also Moltmamns book is v leftist and not fundamentalist.

"And man created God" by Selina O'Grady goes into detail about all the OTHER religions around during the 1st century (emperor cults etc.) Which is great for context for the gospels and also learning about cool religious traditions around in the 1st century!

Queer theology? Maybe? Might be fun for ya? Queer readings of the Bible are abundant from Ruth, Judas, David and Jonathan and jesus and there's quite a few books on them (I'm not dropping any here because I've read some Intense Theological Ones which Im not sure would appeal but if you Google you will find)

Look into Song of Songs the Official Sex is Good and Holy Book in the bible! (It's also just beautifully written)

Looking at things like "the Muslim Jesus" might also be interesting? Little collections of how Islam has viewed/interpreted Judaism and Christianity and why is always interesting and often another angle on those myths/historical documents

I'm sure other people could give you more ideas/ways to approach! I approached from a non religious angle but my institution was firmly situated in the Christian tradition so is slightly biased that way. But anyway! I just thought I'd give some starting points you could look at on the myth/history angle?

Have a lovely day!

I AM LOOKING??!!?? gd this is EXACTLY what I didn’t know I needed, all of this sounds very up my alley & like it’ll be great for what I’d be trying to get out of it. like. I have gone from “this is a thing I’ve been idly thinking about” to “this is a thing I could reasonably do and where I could start”!

I’ve done a little bit of looking into queer readings of things in the past (particularly david & jonathan) but then I had a years-long period that I technically still haven’t gotten out of where I physically could not bring myself to open a bible so I haven’t tried to actually read those stories myself while keeping a queer perspective in mind. also have had more years of lit classes that I dropped out of halfway through the semester so I have slightly more knowledge of how to dissect and analyze Texts than I used to

[talenlee]

St Nicholas, The Trinity, and the Miracle of the Brick

The Trinity is a really stupid idea, right?

If you’re a recovering Protestant, you may not have heard this voiced aloud at some point from someone who knows what it is, so let me be the one to do it for you. The Trinity is a really, really stupid idea.

I know that part of my own experience about the Bible growing up was treating a lot of assumed knowledge as true. There are all sorts of details people provide about the Bible, about things that that are tradition and, basically, fanfic. There are things the Bile says that almost nobody accepts as literal — the spies claims that the Promised Land was ‘full of Giants,’ you’ll see so much effort meant to express that, hey, actually, no really, what they mean was like giants, liiiike giants. And when they talk about slavery, well you need to understand this other thing and —

We talk about Cathlics and their Pope and their Apocrypha, but Evangelicals have their own secondary texts, and their sources and explanations are based on fucking smoke. The Pope may be a terrible idea but at least he exists. Anyway, the Trinity. The Trinity lives in this space. The claims that the Trinity are in the Bible are based on some … let’s call them spicy negotiations.

One idea is that, for example, God uses ‘us’ and ‘our’ in Genesis. Which yeah, he does, because God in the book of Genesis is one god amongst many. He says that, and refers to other gods. But the modern Evangelical monotheist perspective chooses to ignore all the other gods’ presence in the work, and claim instead that God’s use of a communal plural refers to God having some special multi-dimensional persona. Another example is a point where Jesus, speaking poetically, claims to have been ‘I and the father are one,’ which you may interpret as a literalistic unity of two individuals (a bit odd), or maybe a firm and commanding way to assert that two people are in absolute agreement (so normal as to be boring). And that’s kinda what they have. There’s no point where Jesus says ‘there’s a thing called the trinity,’ or ‘I, the holy spirit, and God, exist together as one thing,’ and instead everything that has to be made to explain the Trinity is layer upon layer of nothing.

If you already believe the Trinity exists, and you want to ignore the Bible’s use of poetic language, and also want to change what some verses are actually about in a cross-referenced kind of linguistic connect-the-dots, you can make a case for it, but all the evidence is like that. It’s ‘oh, yes, this is obviously a metaphorical phrase, but what if it’s not?’ and ‘oh this is talking about this king in this point of history, but what if it’s not?’ and so on and so forth.

You’ll find that almost always, when told this, the typical response from Christian apologists isn’t to try and make it make sense, but to instead disdain this criticism. It is a hipster sneer of a doctrine, where if you don’t get it, well, it’s just because you don’t get it. It can’t be that the idea of it is silly. It has to be that actually, it’s a sensible idea regarded by serious people and it addresses a problem or meets a need in their religious perspective, and if you don’t see how sensible it is, that’s on you. And this sort of assumed deference is used to build government policy.

See, the Trinity is the idea that three things are the same thing and also their own distinct things that are not that same thing. It is a magic trick of a phrase and every metaphor for its application is a silly attempt to try and redefine ‘is’. One of the strongest points to prove the Trinity was the argument, once upon a time, that it had to be true, and it had to be divine in origin, because nobody who was trying to make a compelling, provable, true case for anything would forward a position that was so obviously wrong.

And this is where we get the Miracle of the Brick.

St Nicholas is a guy from that period of history where it’s pretty reasonable for us to say, yeah, this guy existed and he was a dude and the reports of his life were probably based on reasonably real things that reasonably happened. Like, yes the dude was probably at this place in this time, and no, the story of him teleporting to save a ship, probably didn’t happen. The things that happened are probably the foundation of the stories of the things that didn’t. Multiple miracles about one or more golden cups? Probably had a golden cup somewhere, and the stories are built out of that. St Nicholas is also seen to be somewhat one of the lineages of people who became Santa Claus, which means even Protestants talk about him a lot around Christmas. And being who they are, these days, there’s a lot of focus on what a badass he was because he beat someone up for disrespecting the Bible.

This is from the Council of Nicea, in 325, so about three hundred years after the events the Bible is supposed to be about and about the time the Bible is being solidified into a single document. We know it’s about the time it’s being solidified because this is the incident, the event that solidifies it — the Council of Nicea. It’s in this incident that a lot of people get to codify their personal fanfiction into the Bible and choices are made about what the Bible should include to make absolutely sure that eventually, they’ll be able to justify it, and therefore, everything about what the Bible had in it would be nice and clearly laid down, with no ambiguities, mistakes, typos, or contradictions, right?

Right?

One of the areas where there was a lot of contentious argument was about the Trinity. See, there were these detractors of the idea, who pointed out that the idea is stupid. St Nicholas pretty much argued that of course it’s stupid, that’s how you know it has to be divine, nobody would come up with that if they were trying to fool you. I love this argument because it is such a stupid solution to a stupid problem.

Anyway, then an opponent got up and argued that hey, no, this idea sucks and is mid. Saint Nicholas, then, [redacted] this guy. And I say [redacted] because if you ask Kirk Cameron he righteously grabbed the guy and dragged him out of the room and threw him on the ground and beat him for his defiance of the lord’s will. And if you follow the St Nicholas Centre (your one stop website for all your St Nicholas needs) they’ll say he slapped him, while citing an article that described it as punching him. Whatever the issue is, Saint Nicky got a short wicky and the sitch got sticky.

Also in this situation, to argue that the Trinity totally made sense, Saint Nicholas picked up a brick, and showed it to the assembled group of biships. He argued the brick was composed of air, earth, and fire, just like how the Trinity is composed of all three things! The miraculous tradition then holds that this brick caught fire in his hand, and its light showed everyone how right and true he was! This, we are told, is the Miracle of the Brick!

Now, again, this is probably based on some historical events!

Which makes me wonder if the guy who already had punched someone out over arguing with him about the Trinity hefted a brick and waved it around the room and gave people a good reason to agree with him, and after the fact they all agreed it was a miracle because that didn’t make them look like a big pile of idiots who suck.

Just a thought.

Sometimes I wonder if it’s worth having these conversations about points of sticky doctrine like the Trinity. Sometimes I wonder if it’s worth anyone’s time to point out the way that this very serious subject is founded on extremely ridiculous arguments that are, themselves mostly just wishing very hard for a thing to be true. But I think one of the things I find the most interesting and helpful in this kind of examination is to demystify the things that are treated as true, assumed as true, and see just how much of these things are based on the Bible, and how many of them are just…

Y’know.

Someone threatening you into believing it.

Check it out on PRESS.exe to see it with images and links!

[crepes-suzette-373]

I remember seeing a theory relating to Ju Peter. In Japanese (シェパード・十・ピーター聖) his name features what looks like a cross. Historically Saint Peter was crucified in Rome by Emperor Nero (known for his cruelty and sadism) on an upside down cross, as blame for starting a fire in Rome. It could tie into the belief that Ju Peter will betray (Nero)na Imu in some way in the story.

If there is going to be a traitor Gorosei, it's definitely Ju Peter. Based on the positioning of the Doflamingo / Imu panels, Ju Peter occupies the same position as Corazon would, if he were to have been in the picture (based on the positions of the swords in both panels). Additionally, Ju Peter is the only Gorosei that have questioned the World Government at any point. During Wano he questioned why the WG felt the need to hide the real name of the Gum-Gum Fruit. He was also the one who questioned Imu as to why they selected Lulusia. Finally the most important part that I believe to be the key to the puzzle lies in real life Christian theology. Saint Shepherd Ju Peter is named after Saint Peter. Assuming that Ivankov was right when speculating about Imu's identity, they would be Saint Nerona Imu. This namessake most likely is a reference to the real life Emperor Nero. And it just so happened that it's said that Emperor Nero killed Saint Peter by method of cruxification. The precedent for cruxification as a method of punishing Celestial Dragons has already been set with Figarland Garling killing Mjosgard in this way.

Plus ju Peter is named after the planet Jupiter named after the Roman god Jupiter the Roman equivalent to Zeus who is poseidon and hades/plutos brother both Poseidon and pluton are connected to imus enemies

That is true. There is strong references to Christian tradition and history in Juu Peter's name.

"Nerona" in reference to Nero's name specifically is connected to a painting named "Pochodnie Nerona", or "Nero's torches", a painting depicting Christian martyrdom.

十 is the "Ju", the number 10. It is indeed what the Japanese still use to say to refer to the Christian cross (十字 Juuji, lit. "the number 10 character"). Shepherd as well, is reminiscent of John 21:16 in the Bible, where Jesus addresses Peter. In the Japanese Bible, Jesus commanded Peter to "飼い" the sheep, which can be translated as "shepherd" the sheep.

I thought about it, but haven't made a full theory about it due to there still being too many vague elements about the Gorousei (and also I don't remember those Doflamingo panels, do you remember what chapter?)

[garden-of-islam]

How Islam differs from Christianity

Good afternoon, I hope you're all taking care of yourself. Let's talk about Christianity. I am not here to insult the faith tradition of our brothers and sisters. This is merely a short essay describing how Islam is different than Christianity from the perspective of a Christian dominant culture. I grew up in America, I know what's in our cultural background noise and what isn't, and I simply want to fill in a few gaps. Insha'Allah, I will do this with as many faith traditions as I can, including polytheistic traditions as well as the history of symbols that have become culturally corrupted. I will probably fumble some of it due to being American, but I'll do my best.

If you get the feeling that I'm writing this entire project with equal parts disappointed-but-not-surprised, exhaustion, disdain, and hope, it's because I am. I can't take anything seriously, I know too much, my brain is exploding, and the only thing I care about is living for the pleasure of God SWT but I'm somehow still pretty bad at it. That is the byproduct of being Autistic and having God as your life-long, special interest. I could tell you the tale of how that came to be, but most people assume I'm lying or that I was dreaming when I say I saw an angel when I was 3 years old, and that gets tiresome so I don't wanna. Maybe later.

Islam is a monotheistic tradition that recognizes all the prophets that Christianity recognizes as well as many others, both named and unnamed. We believe that prophets were sent to all peoples so that they could be warned of the truth and correct their evil ways. Those ways, of course, are worshiping the creation instead of the creator. Idols made by the hands of men that usually represented ancestors who came to be idealized, animals or plants of the Earth's ecosystem, celestial bodies including the Earth itself, or even Jinn disguised as "demi-gods," "ghosts," "powerful spirits," "aliens," or in other ways are all parts of the creation that humans have placed their trust in instead of the Creator Himself. On that note, God is not gendered. There isn't a neuter way to refer to Him in Arabic but using the male pronoun allows differentiation from the goddess-heavy pagan traditions. Before I converted, I used to refer to God as, "It" because I rejected the Christian idea of the "Father" as a Man in the sky.

There is no Trinity concept in Islam, though not all modern Christians believe in the Trinity. We do not refer to Him as Father and we do not believe that Jesus or rather, Isa AS is God incarnate. We DO believe that Jesus is the messiah, but we believe that the crucifixion was a hoax. We DO believe he ascended to Heaven by the will of God and the help of the angels and that he will descend from the Heavens the same way at the end of time to help the people of that time survive the horrific trials that are to come. For those waiting on Christ to be reborn, well, we just don't jive with that. As for the third piece of the trinity, the Holy Spirit, we believe the counselor that came after Isa AS was actually Muhammad ﷺ, and that we've been able to access God through prayer and repentance all along. Unlike every prophet that came before him who were each sent each to their own people with a specific message, Muhammad ﷺ was sent to all mankind with the final revelation meant to be preserved for the rest of human history - the Qur'an. This is because other scriptures have been edited and corrupted, including the Bible. (Like, Paul just decided his letters were as good as gospel? The audacity. And don't even get me started on the rest of it.)

We believe that sins fall only on the doer of the sin. None of humanity bears the weight of the sins of Adam or anyone else and therefore, no great sacrifice was needed to free us in order to serve our Lord or have our repentance accepted. (The only exception to this rule is that Cain or Qabil bears some of the blood of every murder for having been the first to commit this crime.) Instead of original sin, we champion the concept of the fitra and believe that all babies are born Muslim - in submission to the will of God. For this reason, we more often refer to converts to Islam as reverts. This means they are reverting back to the truth. But this sounds scary to the western ear if they've never heard of it before, so I will continue to use the more generic term for changing religions. We believe that Adam was tricked by Satan first, and then shared the fruit with Eve. They both bore the sin equally, and Eve is not blamed for the fall of Man the way she is under the Christian framework.

As for Satan himself, he was not an Angel. Angels are incapable of disobeying God. Satan, or Iblis as he is named, was actually from among the Jinn. He worshiped so fervently that his status was elevated to be allowed to worship among the angels. However, when God created Adam, he commanded the Angels to prostrate to this creation in respect. Iblis refused out of pride and was promised punishment on the day of Judgement. He asked for respite until that day, and God rewarded him with what he asked for. His response was to promise that he would lead as many humans astray as he could with the time he was allotted. He then tricked Adam into eating the fruit and when he and his wife were in turn punished, they asked for forgiveness. God rewarded them with what they asked for.

Jinn and Man alike have free will. All other created beings are considered to be in a constant state of worship. Those of us with freewill volunteered for this test we call life before we were born, hoping to reap the reward of paradise. Those who fail will follow in the footsteps of the Shayatin who serve Iblis and will fall into the Hellfire after Judgement. There are Jinn of all religions just as there are humans of all religions. But just because there are Muslim Jinn does not mean we should seek to mingle or partner with them, as this constitutes a severe form of shirk called, "magic." The animals and plants are smarter than us because they didn't throw their akhira on the line just to experience the dunya.

As for Judgement Day, it only happens once. Not once for each person, but rather, once. After passing, we wait in our graves until the appointed hour and we all go through it together. Even after it comes to a close, we still have the final test before entering heaven: crossing the bridge of Sirat. Christianity has no concept of Sirat, but some other religions do. We don't believe in the rapture and we have very clear descriptions of the signs of the end times so that we don't confuse the Anti-Christ or the Dajjal with Isa. In fact, the pervasive belief that Isa is to be reborn seems to be just one more hazy idea that will allow many people to fall into the trap of wrongly believing the Dajjal is the Messiah.

Most of us do not believe that martyrs will receive 72 virgins in heaven. It's a weak hadith and only became popularized after the western world used it as an excuse to explain its concept of "Islamic t*****ism." We DO believe that men and women alike will be given heavenly spouses along with their earthly spouses, if they had one. This is often misunderstood because of how Arabic is gendered and this can make the translation difficult. Translation errors also account for misunderstanding the hijab. The verse is often translated using the words, "outer garments" to mean, "Jilbabs" which obfuscates the discussion around the veil and the barrier it provides. Even if we are uncovered and casual in our daily lives, we are still required to veil for worship in order to have our prayers accepted. Some modern Christians are beginning to readopt this practice. It was abandoned in the mainstream decades ago with changing fashions. I applaud those who have decided to go the extra mile in returning to this practice.

No dessert today, go eat a vegetable.

[unbidden-yidden-deactivated20240]

Hello! Did you by chance see the article on Hey Alma that came out today (9/29) by about being anexvangelical Jewish convert and also an Atheist? People seem to be very angry about it, and see the person's actions as appropriative based on the way she talks about her reasons for conversion, but I (a Jew by birth myself) am genuinely having a hard time seeing the problem--to my eye it seems that if born-Jews can be Atheists, there is no reason a convert cannot do so as well, and still be genuinely a Jew and feel called to other parts of Jewish experience. I think some of the rage is that she came from an evangelical tradition that was appropriative, and part of her call to Judaism was that she wanted a faith community and went to Judaism because it felt familiar, comfortable. A lot of people seem to feel like if you're not converting out of spiritual desire, then why do it, and see her need for community and rootedness as better served elsewhere. But it seems to me like she's come as a genuine participant, learner, and seeker, if not of god exactly, and that all the rest is between her and her Rabbi. But people are REALLY mad about this, and if there is something I'm missing, i want to understand what it is. You often have really interesting and nuanced takes about these sorts of things (conversion, appropriation, the intersect of ex-christian-experiencing those things), so I'm just very curious to hear what you make of it, if you're willing to share.

Hi! Thank you for your kind words and confidence in my ability to unpack this... situation.

I assume this is the article you mean?

I think part of the problem here is not that you can't be atheistic or non-theistic as a ger - plenty of valid Reconstructionist gerim fit that description - and rather that this article was framed in a deliberately provocative presentation and tone. It's on Hey Alma so that's not promising.

There aren't comments on the article itself, so I checked Twitter and there's like, one or two comments defending her in a sea of criticism, much of it unnecessarily cruel. That said, I think the article I linked has been edited. This is what the article says as I read it now:

And this is a screencap I saw on Twitter:

The first one is fine (if somewhat confusing as to what her point is); the second one is big yikes. 😬

If this was changed, then it's very possible that other edits were made as well. Even just this one change from the original shows that the original piece very much has a "not like other girls" vibe to it that I don't appreciate.

All that said, Judaism is an orthopraxic religion, so I'm a lot more interested in what an atheist convert does and how she acts than I am in dissecting her exact beliefs beyond just "does she pass the sniff test?"

At the end of the day, she either had a valid conversion or not. If not, then she's not Jewish and Hey Alma should retract the piece and issue an apology. If she did have a valid conversion through an accepted Jewish movement, then the issue of whether she should have been converted or not lies solely with her conversion rabbi and beit din. They are the ones who act as gatekeepers for the community and it is their professional responsibility to decide if someone's motives are correct and if their behavior backs up their stated goals and motives. If they think a conversion is a bad idea, it is their job to work with the person to explain why it's not a good fit and to gauge sincerity if their reasons shift.

And look, there's a lot worse reasons to convert than a sense of belonging to the Jewish people and a search for community. There are people who try to convert solely to be able to speak about their anti-Zionism "as a Jew" rather than as a plain old vanilla gentile. There are also people who try to convert because they think it will bring them closer to Jesus and/or allow them to "connect to The Holy Land." There are people who try to convert because they think it will make them richer or give them better networking connections. There are people who grudgingly convert rather than break up with their Jewish fiance. There are people who try to convert because they think it will make them more interesting. There are people who try to convert so they can be "Jewitches" and deflect accusations of appropriation in their pagan practice.

There are bad reasons to convert, but I don't think this quite crosses that line.

I don't love it, and I don't like her original language about other gerim. Admittedly I am very much a theist and hope that everyone finds the right path for connecting to the Divine, whether that's from an overtly theistic perspective or through a deep appreciation for the vastness of the universe and our part in it. (There's also a conversation to be had about whether the strict binary of theist/atheist is even remotely coherent, but that's for another post.) But it's not up to me. It was up to her rabbi and beit din, who I trust exercised their professional judgment in making that determination.

So yeah, if someone feels like a member of the Tribe and takes the right steps to formally join, including commiting to living a life of Torah and mitzvot, even in the absence of a belief in G-d, then who am I to judge? A rabbi and beit din found this person worth converting, and absent other indications of intentional malice or deceit, she's a Jew and people need to chill out.

When did we start holding by Beit Shammai rather than Beit Hillel?

[a-god-in-ruins-rises]

Where do Christians get this idea that pagan priests need to be a part of some bloodline?

the israelites.

the ancient israelite priests were supposedly required to be  patrilineally descended from aaron. and just in general, ancient israelites were very preoccupied with hereditary descent. that's why you have these long lists of genealogies throughout the bible.

then christians also inherited this tradition from their jewish predecessors. that's why they claim that jesus is a descendent of david (despite joseph not being involved in his conception). and then this also translated to christian monarchies where they began created king-lists and genealogies for their kings and making monarchies hereditary.

pre-christian indo-european societies didn't have these sorts of preoccupations with hereditary descent. there were some hereditary monarchies but they are generally rare and short-lived. and there /were/ priesthoods passed down hereditarily, but this was just one of several methods for priests to be chosen. and it seems like it was unusual for more public/civic priesthoods. and from what i can tell, the druids tended to play a vital civic role. so i have a hard time believing they were this hereditary priesthood, which typically seems to be reserved for priesthoods of temples establish by powerful aristocratic families.

just imagine you're some ancient greek aristocrat in some small farming village. you are called by some god/goddess to establish a temple. you use your fantastic wealth to build such a temple. so you'd probably have some ownership of it, even if you allow it to be used by the public. and so it makes sense you can dictate how the priesthood is chosen and it seems natural to want your children to inherit it. just like a person who starts a business might want his children to inherit it.

but there wasn't some automatic rule that all priests in all circumstances must be chosen by hereditary descent, like there was in ancient israelite society. in addition to inheritance we find priests chosen by election, allotment, and appointment.

and again, even if we assume the bloodline thing is true there's no reason why priests couldn't exist today. the jewish kohanim exist today still despite being hereditary. who is to say the priestly druidic bloodline isn't still around? and again, even if it's not, there was obviously some condition that was met that made those bloodlines priestly in the first place. why can't those conditions be met today?