#Beginning to come to the conclusion that nobody knows how Christianity works but would like certain historians to stop pretending they do

[the-single-element]

Good morning.

Today is the second Sunday in Lent, on which we hear the story of the Transfiguration. It’s a mystical experience, a dreamlike, bewildering moment… so different from most of the Good News, which may be studded with miracles, but at least describes events that we can understand.

Every year, at this point in Lent, we try to wrap our heads around it. "What was going on there, on that mountain?" we ask ourselves.

And every year, the context presented alongside the story is an anecdote from the life of Abraham - the famous ancestor of the Jewish people, and the only human before the coming of Jesus whom the Bible calls God's "friend".

Today, in fact, the Transfiguration is paired with God's very first interaction with Abraham, back when his name was still Abram. It was a call for Abram to go on a journey to a foreign land, and a promise to multiply and bless his descendents, who would inherit that land - which meant it was the first moment that we had any concept of a "promised land", the first time since Eden of God rooting blessings in a place.

And Abram's choice to undertake that journey - to abandon the land of his father so that he can live in God's land instead - is the beginning of everything that comes next.

This is no coincidence. God's plan of salvation often hinges on journeys, where people leave the place they were born, led by the Spirit to someplace else. How many prophets' initial calls were of the form of "get up, and go where I'm sending you"? How many of the festivals, under the Sinai covenant, involved the whole Jewish world converging on Jerusalem?

Consider what Jesus's disciples saw, on that mountain we hear about today. They saw Jesus changed, somehow: still recognizably human but also something beyond. They saw Moses and Elijah conversing with Jesus - the two titans of the TaNaKh, whose lives were defined by journeys of their own, which found their conclusion (in Moses's case) at the border of the Promised Land, and (in Elijah's) by him entering Heaven alive. They saw God present, physically and literally.

In short: they saw a vision of the world to come. In that moment, the "promised land" of the Good News - which, unlike the literal Holy Land, is not a patch of soil but a state of affairs - overlaid this world. If "the Way" is the name the early Christians used for the path Jesus trailblazed, then in that moment, Jesus's most trusted confidants had a glimpse of the destination.

And just as the destination - the Kingdom of Heaven - is now something more essential than a physical place, so is the journey. But that journey - picking ourselves up, leaving behind the world we knew, and proceeding, step by step, to the Kingdom of God - is, in some ways, precisely the same process (taking place in our hearts) as the many journeys the heroes of the TaNaKh made with their feet. The logic of the Kingdom is consistent. This is how it works.

...it is no good to just know the destination of a journey. One must also know the way to get there. As Lent proceeds, we'll hear that route explained to us, by three "signs" from John the Evangelist (who either was the John who witnessed the Transfiguration, or was writing down that John's testimony on his behalf). Meanwhile, we will have the benefit of mirroring, in our own Lenten prayer and fasting and almsgiving, the journey through the desert to the Promised Land - or, to put it another way, through the Cross to the Resurrection.

But just as it's important to know the path, it's also important to keep our eyes fixed on the destination - like the wise men following the star. Let’s proceed then, taking today’s readings as another bit of fuel for our hearts, an extra spring in our step. Because we’re not wandering to a country that nobody has seen, a foreign land. Others before us have recognized it for what it was, and made the journey, and even reached the destination. And if we can keep on our own journeys, leaving behind the logic of this world and going towards the promised land... then we will be able to see it too.

[unexpectedreylo]

With Fans Like These...

“Suppose one reads a story of filthy atrocities in the paper. Then suppose that something turns up suggesting that the story might not be quite true, or not quite so bad as it was made out. Is one's first feeling, 'Thank God, even they aren't quite so bad as that,' or is it a feeling of disappointment, and even a determination to cling to the first story for the sheer pleasure of thinking your enemies are as bad as possible? If it is the second then it is, I am afraid, the first step in a process which, if followed to the end, will make us into devils. You see, one is beginning to wish that black was a little blacker. If we give that wish its head, later on we shall wish to see grey as black, and then to see white itself as black. Finally we shall insist on seeing everything -- God and our friends and ourselves included -- as bad, and not be able to stop doing it: we shall be fixed for ever in a universe of pure hatred.”-- C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

I decided to keep quiet on The Affair of the Chair or Chairgate yesterday because I knew it would turn out to be a huge misunderstanding and it would be better to wait until my hunch is confirmed.  And alas it has been.  Instead of breathing a sigh of relief and learning a lesson about not jumping to conclusions too fast, some so-called Adam stans and Reylos aren’t backing down even with the actress in question clarifying that this was all about Adam accidentally bumping her with his chair while he was performing a scene, which annoyed her, not that he beat her with a chair or threw it at her or smashed it over her head.  Some of them were “demanding” he apologize.  What??

Maybe I’m an old fashioned but I thought if you’re a fan, you like that person and if an allegation against that person turns out to be false, you would be happy it’s false.  But there’s something really peculiar and quite wrong with the Judgy McJudgersons on Twitter and the more you think about it, the more disturbing it is.  It goes back to the Lewis quote at the top...people who want to or need to believe the worst about those they don’t like (and there’s a lot of that on social media) will eventually do the same to their friends, their family, the people they “stan,” and even themselves.  So here we are.

I’m nobody’s “stan.”  I don't blindly worship celebrities.  At my age I know that nobody’s perfect and people in the limelight are among the most imperfect and (ahem) complex people you will ever meet.  It’s wise not to put them on pedestals.

On the other hand, it’s also wise not to expect any other human being to live up to the fantasy you have of that person in your head, expecting that person to be perfect.  This isn’t a fair thing to do to anyone.

You know what else isn’t fair?  Automatically assuming the worst about that person the second you hear it, especially from dubious sources.  And not acknowledging you made a misjudgment when the truth comes to light.  I admit, I misjudged when I considered that at worst, Adam’s a big ol’ diva who doesn’t want people looking at him and throws hissy fits.  I don’t think that happened either.

What also disturbed me is how many misappropriated the language associated with rape or sexual abuse.  “Believe the victim” was not an appropriate application for this instance; Adam wasn’t accused of any such thing and I think it’s careless to the extreme to try to put someone on the same moral plane as a rapist or domestic abuser without knowing the whole story.  Take it from someone with experience in the system:  it’s a very serious thing to accuse someone of a crime.  But nothing is serious in the online world and that’s a problem.  People have tremendous power to utterly destroy lives without any consequence to themselves.

Had this actress not clarified her statements, this could’ve rapidly spun out of control.  Someone’s livelihood, marriage, career, and reputation could have been destroyed.  (Look up the sad saga of silent film star Fatty Arbuckle.)  This isn’t an abstraction or just another white man, this is a human being.  This is somebody’s dad.  This is someone who’s worked hard for what he has and what sucks about fame is other people are going to start talking crap about you, true or not.  He’s in a precarious position in Hollywood because there are lots of rivals who want what he’s got and he doesn’t tick off a lot of diversity boxes.  I get the feeling he’s well aware of that too.  But he’s got “fans” eager to take bread of his baby’s mouth so they can ride that high horse and collect the woke clout.  

With fans like these, who needs antis?

[christarango]

I Interviewed the Guy Who Went Into a Museum & "Vandalized" a Picasso.

    In 2012, a man in a suit entered the Menil Collection in Houston, Texas.  That man was Uriel Landeros, a self proclaimed artist and a student at the University of Houston.   A cell phone video captured his visit to the prestigious musuem and was posted on YouTube the same day. The video quickly went viral and set the "Art World" on fire.  That's because Mr. Landeros brazenly walked up to Pablo Picasso's 1929 painting, "Woman in a Red Armchair" and spray painted directly onto the priceless piece of art.  In just a few seconds, the Picasso was altered, hanging there with a mysterious image of a bull and the word "Conquista" spray painted across the surface.  "Conquista" is a Spanish word that means "conquest" or "to conquer".  But why?  What did it mean?  The incident pissed off plenty of people worldwide and started heated debates about the true value of "art".  I had the opportunity to catch up with the artist..  vandal.. visionary.. terrorist.  or whatever it is you choose to call him.  

CT:  Who are you, where are you from?

UL:  I am CONQUISTA, the kid who conquered Picasso, but the name my father gave me is Uriel Landeros.  I was born in South Texas in the city of Edinburg, located in the Rio Grande Valley, but I consider Houston my second home because I went to art school there.  I am a Native/Mexican American.

CT:  As an artist, can you describe the work that you create?

UL:  The Majority of my work comes from my dreams and the subconscious, that other spiritual realm that most people don’t pay attention to.  I try to write down all of my dreams and create images from them. I also use all forms of meditation to influence my work, from fasting, sun gazing, prayer and psychedelic rituals. This is the spiritual side of my work but I also spend a lot of time watching news and current events, not only on TV & newspapers but also the Internet. I compare articles from different countries, independent and mainstream newspapers and bring about a conclusion of closer truth, and then I create political art from this. I try to create a voice that is a little rawer with truth trough my images; I stopped making art years ago though all I make now is art history. But both my spiritual and political work is intertwined. The world is one, everything is connected.

CT:  How did the concept to "destroy" a Picasso piece come about? Was it carefully planned or was it spontaneous?

UL:  The year 2012 was very chaotic for America and for the world, Like I said my work is influenced from all this mayhem, I meditated for so long trying to come up with an image of power and symbology. The image of the Conquista in particular came directly from a lucid dream. Once I obtained the image of the bullfighter slaying the golden bull with the all Seeing Eye, I began to plan the heist. It took about 2 months to completely plan everything; I drew blueprints, counted guards, created exit strategies, etc. It was like a hacker stealing classified information. My plan was never to destroy the Picasso painting, if I wanted to destroy it I would have slashed it with a knife or poured acid on it. The whole point was to leave a message to create a voice and spark another fire against this NEW WORLD ORDER. Believe me I know about paint, I am a professional; I knew that the painting would be easily restored.

CT:  Obviously you pissed off a lot of people. At the same time you suddenly had lots of attention on you & your work. Was that the idea from the beginning or did it accidentally happen that way?

UL:  Not everyone was pissed off, some people were very happy with what I did, many strangers clapped @ my actions & and continue to do so. Most of the people who were hating on me where so called “artists” who have never been able to break the veil of success. I did not know the future, I did not know that galleries would take interest in my art, especially not the world renown museum “The Palace of Fine Arts, MACG” in Mexico city.  When those things began to happen, I was skeptical because I thought that the museum and galleries were working with the F.B.I. and U.S. Marshalls.  But after some research I found out those opportunities were legit, so I welcomed them.  This helped me spread the message further. CT:  What's the deal with your solo art show in Houston following the incident? Apparently you were on a live video feed from Mexico. Can you tell me about that? Also, I heard some of your own artwork was destroyed.

UL:  James Art Gallery gave me a solo show in Houston; James Perez has been a friend of mine for several years. Ironically the title of the show was “ Houston, we have a problem”.  We promoted the event saying that I was going to show up at the event, I had been a fugitive for several months & already there was a $15,000 reward for me, so I knew that the cops were going to show up, but we tricked those pigs.  As you know I was there but through live video feed “Skype”.  I was logged in from an ice cream shop in Monterrey, Mexico.  I gave several interviews and said hello to all the people that attended the show.  My work was not destroyed, James and me invited all the local graffiti writers we could find and let them tag whatever they wanted on several of my paintings. The whole point of this was to show the art community that art is not about paintings but rather the message. Fuck the paintings, this is what Picasso would say “Art is a lie that enables us to see truth” For example The Guernica was not about making a pretty painting but rather transmitting the message of the horrors of genocide and war. Art is a weapon, painting and drawing is secondary to the true purpose of the art tool.  So I don’t care if people tag or graffiti my work, what matters is the message I convey. 

CT:  I definitely feel like you have a message that you're trying to convey. What are you all about, what's all this about?

UL:  First of all fuck the NEW WORLD ORDER, once more; I did this for the people who are tired of being treated like slaves. The Conquista was an artistic metaphor with much symbology.  A lot of the art community successfully digested the message although the reactions were diverse. I stenciled a bullfighter killing a bull with the word Conquista below it with spray paint in color gold on a 1929 Picasso painting. It was a lot of work to pull the heist but all the details are another story.  This graffiti was a form of protest/activism against the government and the corrupt church, who continue to abuse their power of imperial rape. A way to tell the people conquer your fear and stand up for injustice. There was much civil unrest all around the globe in the year 2012, the year of the conquista.  Remember the Occupy movement?  The anonymous organization, the immigrant protests in Arizona, and Wikileaks?  And even after I turned myself in to the authorities, it continued with Edward Snowden and the unraveling of the N.S.A. surveillance, abusing their power to infringe in our privacy. The word Conquista is my artist name, it is also the Spanish word for conquer, in reference to the conquistadores and the Spanish inquisition, the biggest unrecognized genocide in the world, because of gold and greed, “Capitalism in its cradle”. Those who converted the natives into Christianity through murder and rape, those same characters who are now looked upon like heroes such as Christopher Columbus. The word Conquista is also in reference to so many innocent kids who got raped by priest who went unpunished because pope Benedict XVI protected them by sending them to the Vatican and granting them political asylum. This was so controversial that the pope had to resign. Conquista is also in reference to the immigration reform and the dream act that president Obama promised and never fulfilled. My people my culture and my family is bullied around society because of the color of our skin because of racism and discrimination. Just look at the laws in Arizona, its as if its still the 1960s in that state. Discriminating against immigrants when in fact the only non-immigrants are the natives/Hispanics, my people. Nobody ever asked any conquistador for a passport or green card, how was this fucking hypocrisy born?  What the fuck is going on? All this seems like a big joke, nobody in power cares to make a positive difference; they are worried about policing the world and selling guns. This is the history that I have begun to convert into my story. The majority of native culture/archeology is now displayed in museums throughout Europe as trophies of genocide, and thus disables the Hispanic community to truly understand their history & culture, because that art is not in its native land. I cannot bring back all the art that was stolen by the conquistadors but I can create new history. New art, so that is what I did for my people. The golden bull represents the stock market, wall street, gold, money being idolized, The federal reserve, the biggest deceiving ponzi scheme that enslaves us all, and the president & government working for wall street banksters instead of the people. The golden bull also represents Picasso “ the Art Beast”, he who understood that art is not a painting or a drawing but rather a political tool to educate and influence the form of thinking of the masses. I am the bullfighter inspired by Picasso to use the art tool, doing the daring move to kill the golden beast. Conquering Picasso in his own game. Fighting against this whole corrupt system. The bullfighting culture and Picasso are both originally from Spain and this is the irony of a Native Mexican American conquering a Spaniard.

CT:  Whoa, thats heavy.  You were just released from jail for what you did, that's fucking crazy.  How long were you locked up?

UL:  I was in prison for 21 months, almost 2 years.

CT:  What were you thinking about while in prison? Any new concepts or artwork created during that time?

UL:  I was a prisoner before I went to prison, but it was in that dark cold place, in that cage, when I was hungry, when I meditated, that I understood what freedom was.  If your mind is free they can never imprison you. The power of the third eye is limitless, the universe is born from it. I created over 100 paintings and thousands of drawings. I will soon publish all these works online and I will exhibit them in a prison series for my next Art show. My force of creation has only gotten stronger.

CT:  What's next for you?

UL:  I am organizing my next event.  I will soon publish the date and details.  I am also in the process of publishing a book about the entire story, all the things I could not say because of lawful repercussions, how I pulled the heist (it was some oceans 11 shit) and also my life as a fugitive.

CT:  How can we follow you and see how this evolves?

UL:  I’m always accessible through Facebook that is the social media of my choice, but I also have twitter, instagram, pinterest, photobucket, vine, we heart it and email of course. Or just watch the news or Google me.

CT:  Best of luck to you!  Anything else you want to add?

UL:  Yea I just want to give a shout out to everyone out there trying to provoke and stimulate a positive change in the world, all those free hugs people, all the honest police and every activist who has put their life in danger for the benefit of the community, especially Edward Snowden, thank you.

[sketchguk]

Couldn't you write your smut without touching people's religion? If it wasn't Christianity you would disrespect like that but another religions the whole tumblr would be jumping on that. The hypocrisy.

I’m so sorry my response is so long, but I think it’s important we discuss!!

Hey! My main purpose of TKAA wasn’t to disrespect anyone :( I’m incredibly sorry if it came across that way. It’s a self indulgent fic, I realize, but when writing this, I wanted the themes to reflect my own personal struggle with religion. And as the author, I’m writing a fictional story from my experience. I wanted to write about the struggles of growing up in a religious household. I come from a Buddhist background, but I also spent some time in church and in youth group. I even read the Bible as a child because sometimes, it’d be the only reading material I’d have around as my dad has a ton of books about both Buddhism and Christianity in the house. I’d pray almost every night because it just felt right, even if I had nothing to pray for. Sometimes I’d have chats with God before bed because it was a way for me to relieve stress. To talk about things I can’t tell anyone else in hopes of some miracle.

Some people might say, “Oh? She goes to church? She prays? She reads the holy scripture? Well I guess she’s Christian.” And I sort of believed that for a while too. For the longest time, even I denounced pre-marital sex. From a young age, I had this idea drilled into my head that I’d have a giant scarlet red letter etched onto me if I were to ever indulge in lustful sin. I wanted to wear a white dress at my wedding, and if I had sex, I’d be forced to wear a cream one instead, and everyone would know. Virginity is such a social construct btw, nobody would know if you are a virgin just by looking at you. And I soon learned that being Christian isn’t just about the practice of the act. It’s about the principles and the foundations of being a good person. Maybe I figured that out when my pastor was forced to leave the church for cheating on his wife. It was such a shock to me, and it really made me rethink to put my faith elsewhere. If I couldn’t look up to the person who was guiding me, who could I trust?

What it means to be a Christian is different for everyone. There’s a lot more to religion that I’m probably not aware of, and I know I’m not the most educated person in regards to Christianity, I fully acknowledge this. But this story is based off of how it felt for me to teeter between a mindset of my own, and one that’s crafted for me by the adults around me.

Today, I’ve come to learn that sex is a very healthy activity so long it’s done safely. And that’s all that matters to me when people come to tell me about their endeavors. I’m not a judgmental person who’s fixated on the fact that “You’re supposed to be religious, so you should be punished for this. How could you possibly turn against your faith??” This might even apply to other religions as well, but I’m not the most educated in the matter. There are definitely irl cases in which my friends, who come from all different walks of life, experience the “falling” of faith as a child, an adolescent, and even in our adult life, I see it all the time. And a few of these cases stem from being put into the church, or the temple, or the synagogue as a child without choice. My parents took me to the temple, and they took me to church at the very beginning because I wasn’t allowed to stay home by myself. And therefore, I was exposed to religion without fully knowing what it meant to me. But when I grew older, I was allowed to make my own choices. So I stopped going to both places of worship.

I’m not trying to make this all about me though. I imagine this is a bit of a universal feeling. Maybe not everyone has experienced it, and maybe not everyone is religious. But maybe the thought of “what does religion mean to me?” has come across our minds. This is not about me “losing” my faith now that I’m an adult. It’s more of a rediscovery of how I see religion and how I choose to identify with it.

I identify as an agnostic atheist. My views on pre-marital sex have shifted since then. Perhaps this is a TMI because nobody asked about me in particular, but this is how I view pre-marital sex now (and by no means do you have to agree). I still think sex is a very sacred thing, but it’s something that I would want to partake in with someone I love and trust. With someone who is special to me, and whom I know I will not regret doing it with, even if I’m not married. And the characters of TKAA, although it may not be explicit, they’re also young adults who were birthed from a house of religion. The conflict of the story revolves around them sneaking around OC’s parents because they know it’s “inherently wrong” to do it. But just like me, and other young adults around the world, they’re figuring out how sex fits into a lifestyle like theirs, one in which they’re heavily involved in a faith that stigmatizes sex. They’re childhood friends, and even if they’ve never admitted it to one another, they’re very much in love.

Also, I’d like to mention that this story is based off of Fall Out Boy’s song “The Kids Aren’t Alright.” I love this song with all my heart because it resonates with me. For me, it’s a song for when I’m quite literally not feeling alright. It’s a song that tells me it’s okay to be down, to be hurt, and I don’t have to pretend. Most people might turn to religion, but for me, I seek solace in my best friend and in my partner. When the world is against me, including religion and my own mindset towards it, I can go to them for comfort. And that was the plan for the TKAA couple.

I mentioned from the very beginning that this story would be risqué because I would have expected criticism! It’s a sore subject, and it’s not meant for everyone. But it’s a story I wanted to tell because it was meant for me and everyone else who struggles. I mean no disrespect with this story towards Christianity or towards any other religion. And maybe there’s some truth to what you have to say. I’m not sure how the Tumblr community would react if this was written about another religion. I think they ought to keep in mind that this is just fanfiction.

Obviously I didn’t know that this fic would head anywhere. It was the 3rd fanfic I had ever written and published in my life. I literally fulfilled a request for a fwb!jk in 4 days. But I wanted the story to be meaningful to me, so that’s why I divulged into a religious theme. I got praise about the smut and I feel like that’s what most people got lost in. I would have too, but behind the story, there’s substance to it that not everyone realizes :( and maybe I should have done a better job at portraying it, please forgive me for that. I obviously couldn’t fit all that I wanted to in merely 10k words. But I want readers to interpret the story for themselves and to draw their own conclusions. To have discussions about this because it’s helpful to me and to the community to air out how they feel. You don’t always have to agree with my POV, but stories are a great way to make real life connections, even if this is fictional.

And let me tell ya, TKAA is a work of fiction with real life problems that I, the author, have faced.

Please let me know if I didn’t address anything :( maybe I missed the point lol sorry but this was basically my purpose for writing TKAA. The public perception of it isn’t in my control when my intentions were to write for me, as all of my writing is. Some users have asked that I write a sequel, but I have no idea honestly. I don’t even know how I could go about that. If anything, I think a prequel would be more appropriate in which I discuss all of these thoughts. And I really don’t mean to come across as offensive or hypocritical, that’s the furthest thing I want to do, but I can’t express how sorry I am if I did.

[mysteriesofmarcy]

My problems with Star vs.

As much as I love this show, there are some things I just hate about it. So, let’s get started!

The first thing that bothers me is how they just went and abandoned the earth plot lines. With season 4 being likely the last one, I can't see them giving proper conclusions to any of the earth character arcs, including the Jackie-Marco-Star love triangle. Even in the limited appearances of the earth characters in season 3, they were either in complete one off episodes (like Stump Day) or else they just decided to ignore everything those characters already had going on just so they could help with the main plot of the season (like Janna in Deep Dive). The latter even had a moment where Marco tries to flirt with Janna, and she just silences him. They didn't want to do anything with Janna, they just wanted her to be there.

My next problem is that I believe the show is getting too political. I'm like Tom: I don't do politics. I signed up for a wacky, weird and wild comedy and action show, not a political commentary. The whole monsters and Mewmans coming together subplot in particular feels like they're trying to push a message that I don't necessarily agree with. I won't go too deep into this because I usually try not to say my political views on the internet, but suffice it to say that the show is getting too heavy into politics for my taste. Again, I want a fun and lighthearted cartoon, not a heavy hitting (and heavily biased) look at the world we live in.

My third problem with this show is the shipping. I'm generally pretty ambivalent to ships (except Phinbella. Those two HAD to end up together.) But this show is SO focused on shipping that it kinda rubs me the wrong way. Plus, there's also the problem that when Marco chooses one girl, all the others will feel disappointed.

This next point goes with the shipping. I am not entirely convinced of Starco becoming a thing. And that has earned me a LOT of flak from the crazy hardcore shippers. I just think that Starco might be the biggest of all the red herrings this show has thrown at us over the years. And I have a pretty solid record of correctly guessing these red herrings before they happen, so take that for what you will. (For example, I correctly predicted after The Battle For Mewni that Eclipsa would be assumed guilty until inevitably being proven innocent, and I correctly predicted after Divide and Conquer that she is going to be the queen to start season 4.)

My next problem is not so much about the show itself, but more about the crew. Like most of Hollywood, they seem to have bought into the philosophy that straight people, whites, Christians, and males (all of which describe me) are inferior to their LGBT-whatever, non-white, atheist, and female counterparts. I even saw a tweet once where one of the crew was excited that the episode Face the Music was entirely created by women! Ooooh, special! And when someone pointed out (quite correctly) that the gender of the writers/storyboarders/other crew members doesn't matter one bit, the original crew member gave an even more infuriating response that we should care about it because apparently, it's a big problem in the industry. I don't think that's a good enough excuse. I would much rather watch an episode made by qualified women than unqualified men, but I would also rather watch an episode made by qualified men than unqualified women. What matters is the quality of the content, not the gender of the people making it.

This next point, again, relates to the previous point: Alfonso and Ferguson. Apparently Disney execs told Daron Nefcy at the beginning of the show that Marco had to have male friends, or else they wouldn't greenlight the show. Then when season 2 rolled around, Daron just didn't know what to do with those guys, so she basically wrote them out. There's a lot of hate surrounding them, but I think they were necessary. They showed that Marco had some semblance of a social life even before he met Star. Now, I do think they could've been handled a bit better on screen. It's as if they were written to be the most annoying people possible, so nobody would mind when they were written off. In that sense it worked. But I still feel like they overall brought the show down. They were necessary, but they were a necessary evil.

Now, there is a show where I just couldn’t get into it, no matter how hard I tried. It's Steven Universe. While it was sometimes an interesting show and it had a good premise, I eventually had to leave, mostly because of the fandom. I heard about multiple incidents happening there, most notably when angry SJWs attacked a fan artist for her drawing of Rose. And I just felt alienated there. I felt like I couldn't relate to any of the fans except those that I already knew from Gravity Falls, and I didn't care about any of the characters. If I had kept watching, I would've done so for only one reason: Stevonnie. Not the giant girl, the ship. I know I said earlier that I'm usually not much of a shipper, but I do have a soft spot for cute couples. But in the end, they weren't enough to keep me on as a fan.

I like Star vs a lot, but it does have its share of problems. And I hope Daron Nefcy and the crew can make the most of whatever Disney gives them in season 4 and (possibly) beyond.

[mst3kproject]

409: Indestructible Man

Both this movie and last week's MUZ have an appearance by the Angel's Flight Trolley in Los Angeles, which climbs a steep hill and makes the news every ten years or so when somebody dies on it.  They're the only two MST3K movies that show it, and it doesn't actually mean anything that I happened to watch them one after the other.  It's just an interesting coincidence and I thought I'd mention it.  Anyway.

After Charles 'the Butcher' Benton is executed by gas chamber, mad scientist Dr. Bradshaw procures his corpse for an experiment. Exactly what the experiment in question was supposed to do the movie never tells us, but what it actually does is bring Benton back to life as an indestructible killing machine!  He promptly sets out to find and murder the former associates who turned state's evidence on him and sent him to the gas chamber in the first place, leaving a trail of destruction in his wake.  The police investigate this new crime spree, only to find that all the evidence points to the impossible conclusion that the culprit is a man who is already dead!

This could have been a really interesting movie, but it wasn't.  A story about a criminal brought back from the dead could explore ideas about the afterlife, about morality, about what to do with such a rare second chance.  Having a scientific rather than a supernatural motivation for his ressurection could also be cause to examine the biological nature of life and death and its relationship with the spiritual and philosophical meanings we layer onto it.  Indestructible Man doesn't bother with any of that, though.  All it wants to be is the world's cheapest monster movie.  Who needs special effects when you can just zoom in real close on a very sweaty Lon Chaney Jr?

So instead of anything thought-provoking we get a story told to us by dickhead dick Dick Chasen, who does this annoying Dragnet narration to exposit things that could be better delivered by action and dialogue.  He's supposed to be our protagonist but we're never interested in what's happening to him because his situation is never nearly as interesting as Benton's has the potential to be.  I don't think the movie wants us to root for Benton, but we end up feeling like we know him a lot better than we do Chasen, through the simple magic of Show-Don't-Tell.  Chasen's character development is him sitting in a car telling a woman his life story.  The things he's saying aren't particularly interesting, nor is his voice or the visuals that accompany the scene – in fact it's so dull it nearly brought Joel to tears!  Benton, however, actually does things to show us who he is, which is much more powerful even when the character is mute, and the things he does humanize him far more than Chasen's less-than-heartfelt speech about police work.

Chasen's motivation in the movie is to find the missing money – this is just part of his work, and he wants to be thorough.  There's nothing personal riding on it for him, and therefore it's not very compelling.  Benton's motivation is revenge.  He's mad as hell at the three accomplices who squealed on him, and everything he does after his resurrection goes towards the goal of taking them by surprise and making good on his jailhouse revenge threat.  This anger alone constitutes more convincing emotion than Chasen shows in the whole movie.  When Chasen is frustrated, he talks boringly about it. When Benton is frustrated, he breaks necks.  The writers probably figured we'd respect Chasen as somebody who keeps his emotions under control, but Casey Adams is a crummy actor so we just don't believe in those emotions, period.

What makes Benton's revenge plot even more appealing is that his intended victims, Joe, Squeamy, and Lowe, are also terrible people.  For starters, Squeamy and Joe are thieves and killers as well, and before we even meet them we've already learned that they turned on a friend so they wouldn't have to give him his share from their last heist.  The script takes some trouble to drive home that this was shady even by criminal standards – Squeamy is unable to find work as a safe cracker anymore, because others figure that what he did to Benton he's likely to do to them too.  Then there's Lowe, who was supposed to be Benton's attourney but did a half-assed job because Joe and Squeamy bribed him.  He's also firmly in the Douchebag Box.  It's hard not to take a side in this revenge plot, and the side we take is definitively Benton's.

Benton isn't even all bad.  Among the people he does not kill is his ex-girlfriend, Eva Martin.  Indeed, it seems that he cared about her very much, even after she rejected him romantically – enough to leave her a map to the missing money!  I remember when I first saw this episode, I spent the whole movie waiting for Eva to get carried off and need rescue but it didn't happen, and apparently the reason is simply because Benton respects her!  Indeed, he respects her a hell of a lot more than Chasen does – at the end Chasen goes and tells her boss she quit, because he's about to propose to her and doesn't want to give her the option of saying no!  The scene makes it hard to believe that the script was written by two women.

Aside from that one scene, though, writers Vy Russel and Sue Dwiggins also treat Eva with a great deal of respect.  Not only is she never the damsel in distress (in fact, by trying to warn Joe and Squeamy that Benton is still alive, she actually serves a plot purpose outside of falling in love with Chasen!  How about that?), she is not condemned for working at a Burlesque!  She explains how she ended up in that business and that she stays at it because it's a reliable job and she makes good money.  She's on good terms with her co-workers and they support one another when their boss is being a jerk.  I've seen way worse depictions of strippers in much more recent movies.

Now about the title.  I have from time to time taken issue with these movies and their inaccurate or misleading titles. Examples are many and familiar at this point and I shouldn't need to repeat them.  Indestructible Man ends with Charles 'The Butcher' Benton dying all over again, so is its title just another lie?  I am going to say no!  There's a big difference, after all, between 'dead' and 'destructed'.  Benton stays true to his title by being one but not the other!  The cops hit him with a bazooka, which clearly causes him a lot of pain but doesn't leave a mark – his actual death happens by electrocution, which fries his brain but doesn't destroy his body.  So for all that sucks about this ending, I can't actually complain about the title!

What does suck about this ending is that it's a complete accident!  The movie has to end with Benton's death, of course, because even if he's a fairly sympathetic villain he is still definitely the villain of the story.  In a better movie, even a better movie made in the 50's, the process that resurrected Benton ought to have been the key to killing him again – even with Bradshaw and his assistant dead, the police could find his notes and make something of them to destroy the indestructible man.  Instead, however, we get the accident with the gantry and the power cable, which seems like the equivalent of the lightning strike in The Mad Monster or the garbage truck in Blood Feast.  Nobody could figure out how to end the movie properly, so they ended it with a coincidence.  As in those other examples, it feels like cheating.

Back at the beginning of the review I observed that this story could have explored ideas of life and death but didn't.  When I think about it, I suspect it was something that came up during the writing process and was deliberately avoided.  Leaving aside life, the movie doesn't even get very deep into death, which is kind of interesting in itself because it makes Indestructible Man a rather heathen movie.  There is no hint that Benton experienced anything between his death in the gas chamber and his resurrection on Bradshaw's slab, not even anything so cliché as the tunnel of light and the voice telling him his time's not up (or whatever the opposite is for people who are going to hell).  His threat to his associates from death row, that he will get them somehow or other, suggests that he had some kind of premonition he would come back... but this isn't explored either, and might well be empty bluster on Benton's part.

I'm guessing that having been hired to write a silly sci-fi detective movie, Russel and Dwiggins explicitly decided that the story didn't have the time (or the production the money) to get into the metaphysics of the situation.  This is actually kind of a problem, since upon learning that a man has come back from the dead, the first thing anybody's going to ask him is what he experienced. If they had Benton give an answer, it would need further exploration – and if they had him say nothing, it might anger their assumed-to-be-Christian audience.  Therefore they chose to make Benton mute, so that no answer could be given.  This serves the intended purpose, certainly, but as I observed above, it also ruins any chance of the story meaning anything even without going into the meaning of life.  A man who can't talk can't introspect in a way the audience is privy to.

If you want a movie that ressurects a criminal and actually has him re-examine his life and confront ideas about mortality and morality... I'm afraid that's All Dogs go to Heaven. This, sadly, is just The Indestructible Man.

[maximuswolf]

How do I tell my family that being raised religious traumatized me? via /r/atheism

How do I tell my family that being raised religious traumatized me?

There are some days that I’m alright. Other days, I’m a complete mess. I was raised from birth in the Catholic Church, meaning I was baptized and circumcised as an infant, Confirmed before age 10, and made to confess my sins in the rite of Reconciliation before age 13. Sunday Mass was mandatory, Mom and I said four prayers before bed each night. Even my illustrated children’s books portrayed Jesus walking on water and Jonah living in a whale.

I was a decent Christian. I participated in choir as a kid, and eventually became Worship Leader for a protestant church, and later, their audio engineer. I wasn’t lukewarm, I had what I considered a real relationship with God. Many of my closest friends attended and participated in the same services. I was proud to service the church, and the community of people whom I loved. But nobody can remain a teenager forever.

My early twenties hit hard. Out in the real world, I anxiously awaited those prophetic moments where my faith could shine. I worked a few jobs, mainly an EMT in the back of an ambulance handling fucked up emergencies, and worked nights running audio for a nightclub where I was the only religious guy in the building. In the back of an ambulance, people would confide in me how much they craved death. Late at night working the club, I saw addicts and homeless people start every kind of altercation under the sun. Despite my growing depression, the only time I was memorably caught off-guard was when a co-worker of mine at the club asked, off-handed, why the fuck I believed there was some kind of greater plan at work here. While I was cognizant that I was being asked for my Peter 3:15- “always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you” I was woefully unprepared to answer the question. I stuttered and gave no answer. For twenty years of indoctrination and Christian upbringing, nobody had ever given me a good reason to support the idea that the Bible was true.

I delved into every resource that was available to me, looking for answers. I went to the church first. Attended more confession, more private bible studies, brought my questions to the priests, etc. Only then did I begin exploring the religious debate scene. I listened to Christopher Hitchens, Dawkins, Dillahunty, Harris and others. I compiled an enormous notebook of the debate landscape, as closely as I was able to assess it. And ultimately, the curtain fell, and my religion lay naked before me: The Bible was but one of many, many religious texts which was assailed by rationality, logic and facts, and defended only by logical fallacies, cherry picking of information, and the frantic insistence that we utilize faith by many millions of sycophantic believers such as myself. My depression worsened. I prayed for healing, to no avail. My friends told me to pray harder. I bought a gun and tried to summon the courage to end my life. It brought me many tears, and no solutions or endings.

I have come to the unavoidable conclusion that I have been psychologically abused, lied to, and gaslighted for the better part of twenty years, by the people that I trusted and loved. I understand that nobody had ill intent towards me, but nonetheless I am battered and broken, and my deconversion has left a dozen of my most valued friendships in ruin, never to be reclaimed. It negatively affects my performance at work, and my productivity at home. Worst of all, I don’t think I’ve even communicated half of this effectively to any of my family. I still feel love, but it is tempered by the pain of so many hard lessons. The only thing I’ve been able to manage is to hold everybody at arm’s length, tolerate religious holidays and pretend like they don’t hurt me, and generally withdraw from most contact with family.

I feel broken inside, and I don’t want to address it with them because it could force them to make a decision between me, or the religion they’ve held their entire lives. But even now, they express their sadness at how I don’t call them, and how they miss me. They don't know I’m torn apart in a deep way, and yet still lost for the words that might communicate all of this to the people who love me, and who also inflicted this torment upon me. I’m afraid that I’ll have to tell them that I love them, but that for the sake of my health and sanity, I have to minimize contact with them.

Please, if you’ve experienced what I’m going through, give me advice, or maybe just tell me it's going to be alright.

Submitted January 29, 2021 at 07:10PM by greenmachine8885 via reddit https://ift.tt/3t9siuN

[jmyers104]

Calvinism vs. Arminianism: A Crash Course

Introduction

For the sake of this discussion board, the focus will be limited to the TULIP acronym (Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace, and Perseverance of the saints). Calvin did not create this acronym, but generally speaking, Calvinists hold to the above-mentioned doctrines and Arminians do not. After a brief comparison, Scripture will be surveyed to determine which view is biblical.

Explanation

Arminians deny the doctrine of total depravity. Human nature was affected by the Fall, but God has enabled the sinner to repent and place his faith in Christ. Man has free will and his eternal destiny depends on how he uses it. The Calvinist, however, affirms that all men are totally depraved. Not only is man incapable of saving himself, but he is neither willing nor able to believe in the gospel. He remains enslaved to his sin nature, and his only hope of salvation is for God to intervene.[1]

Concerning the doctrine of unconditional election, Arminians believe that God determined the elect by looking down the corridors of time and seeing who would respond to the gospel. Calvinists believe that such a view gives too much credit to man and devalues the doctrine of God's sovereignty.[2]

What about limited atonement? Arminians believe that Christ's atonement was a “potential” atonement. That is to say, Christ's atonement for sins made it possible for any man to be saved, but salvation is only put into effect if accepted. Calvinists, on the other hand, generally believe that Christ died only for the elect. This was not a potential atonement, but an actual one that guaranteed salvation for God's elect.[3]

Arminians affirm that the Holy Spirit can be resisted. Though He draws people towards salvation in Christ, man's free will can stifle His work and prevent their salvation. Calvinists maintain that when the Spirit draws someone, He cannot be resisted, and that individual will surely be saved. Making a distinction between a general call to salvation that goes out to everyone and a particular call that sees the Spirit drawing certain individuals, one author writes the following: "In addition to the outward general call to salvation, which is made to everyone who hears the gospel, the Holy Spirit extends to the elect a special inward call that inevitably brings them to salvation."[4]

Arminians generally affirm that believers can lose their salvation, although there is some disagreement among Arminians on this point. Calvinists teach that those whom God saves will persevere to the end and see their salvation fully realized – not based on their efforts, but based on God's sovereign election. True, some abandon the faith, but such individuals were never saved to begin with (1 John 2:18-19).[5]

Examination

The important question to ask at this point is not which system seems to be the most air-tight, but rather which one is biblical? Each of the 5 points will now be examined in light of Scripture.

          Scripture describes man as spiritually dead. There are no truly righteous men (Rom 3:10). Showing the extent to which our nature is affected by the Fall, King David laments, "Indeed, I was guilty when I was born; I was sinful when my mother conceived me" (Ps 51:5). Before salvation, all men are dead in their trespasses (Eph 2:1). The parallel is clear: just as dead people cannot resurrect themselves, so spiritually dead people cannot give themselves spiritual life - dead people cannot do anything. The Fall has affected even our minds and hearts. Every inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood (Gen 8:21). The human heart is full of evil (Eccl 9:3); indeed, it is deceitfully wicked (Jer 17:9). In Mark 7:21-23, Jesus notes the specific manifestations of this evil: "For from within, out of people’s hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immoralities, thefts, murders, adulteries, greed, evil actions, deceit, self-indulgence, envy, slander, pride, and foolishness. All these evil things come from within and defile a person.” It seems clear from Scripture that man is unable to save himself and indeed cannot do so because he is spiritually dead.

What about the doctrine of election? The Old Testament describes how God chose a nation, but this is not the same as electing individuals for salvation. Logic would almost dictate that if man cannot respond to the gospel call because he is dead, then he needs a divine work to take place inside him. Does Scripture speak of this kind of election? Ephesians 1:4 says that God "chose us in him, before the foundation of the world." This election was an act of God that took place before man was even created, which implies that it was not based on man's actions. The Arminian may object, stating that God foresaw our actions and chose His people based on that, but the doctrine of total depravity shows that nobody would have responded were it not for God's work, and other Scripture verses support this view (Matt 11:27; Matt 24:22; Mark 13:20; Acts 13:48; Col 3:12). But how is it fair that God chooses some and not others? According to one author, " It would have been perfectly just for God to have left all men in their sin and misery and to have shown mercy to none. God was under no obligation whatsoever to provide salvation for anyone." The fact that God saves some and not others is not unfair, for anything less than hell is mercy.

Next is the doctrine of limited atonement. Calvinists and Arminians should all be in agreement on the fundamentals of the gospel: Christ died to atone for the sins of man, and Christ’s atonement is the only hope for salvation. Those who deny this truth are outside the circle of orthodoxy. The contention is centered on the nature and extent of the atonement (as seen above). God loves the world (the people, but not the sinful world system) and demonstrated his love by giving up His only Son so that those who believed in Him would have eternal life (John 3:16). Indeed, Christ died for the world (1 John 2:2). There are other Scripture’s that “reign in” any possible misunderstandings on this point; that there are people in hell is sufficient proof that salvation is not universal, but only for those who believe in Christ. Still there is a noticeable tension here; while Christ died for the world, Jesus explicitly states that He lays His life down for His sheep (John 10:11). Logically speaking, it is hard to fathom why Christ would die for the sins of those who are in hell. For Him to atone for their sins and still allow them go to hell seems like double jeopardy, but if this were the case, it would only further highlight just how depraved man is and how foolish it is to reject Christ. It seems as though either could be true, but here is what is certain: Christ’s atonement was sufficient to atone for the elect, and He was certainly capable of atoning for every sin that everyone ever committed. Regardless, everyone who is in heaven – and will one day enter heaven – will be there because Christ paid the penalty for their sins.

As with limited atonement, there is some common ground among Calvinists and Arminians. Both should agree that the Holy Spirit plays a vital role in salvation, but there is disagreement on the degree to which He draws sinners. It has already been established that man is dead in his trespasses. He needs to be brought to life, and God accomplishes such a spiritual resurrection by the Holy Spirit. Here is what we know from Scripture: “The wind blows where it pleases, and you hear its sound, but you don’t know where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit” (John 3:8). All those led by the Spirit are God’s sons (Rom 8:14). In 1 Corinthians 6:11, Paul writes, “But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.” The Holy Spirit’s role in salvation is undeniable. The Father chooses people for salvation, Christ secures that salvation, and the Spirit applies that salvation to our lives.

Last is the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints, and Scripture affirms this doctrine repeatedly (Jer 32:40; John 5:24; John 6:47; John 10:27-30; Rom 5:8-11). To say that a believer can lose his salvation is to fail to understand God’s salvific work, for He who began a good work will bring it to completion (Phil 1:6). If it were up to man, salvation would certainly be lost. But God has chosen a people to justify, sanctify, and glorify; and this new people group will worship and enjoy Him for all eternity. He will not fail in bringing this to pass. Therefore, I agree with Starling’s assessment of Pelagianism. While I never would have thought to refute his teachings using Deuteronomy, there is sound biblical truth contained in his chapter on Deuteronomy.

Conclusion

We would do well to learn from Charles Spurgeon, as he seemed to understand better than most the balance between God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility. To him, God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility “are two lines that are so nearly parallel that the human mind that pursues them farthest will never discover that they converge, but they do converge, and they will meet somewhere in eternity, close to the throne of God, whence all truth springs.”[6]

Ultimately, he recognized that his salvation was wholly a work of God. In thinking through God’s saving work in his own life, Spurgeon writes,

How did you come to be a Christian? I sought the Lord. But how did you come to seek the Lord? The truth flashed across my mind in a moment: I should not have sought Him unless there had been some previous influence in my mind to make me seek Him. I prayed, thought I, but then I asked myself, How came I to pray? I was induced to pray by reading the scriptures. How came I to read the Scriptures? I did read them, but what led me to do so? Then, in a moment, I saw that God was at the bottom of it all, and that He was the author of my faith, and so the whole doctrine of grace opened up to me, and from that doctrine I have not departed to this day, and I desire to make this my constant confession: “I ascribe my change wholly to God.”[7]

Ultimately, it is God who gets the glory for our salvation. Whether one holds to the doctrine of free will or denies man’s ability to even respond of his own volition, all Christians must acknowledge that we are saved by grace through faith, not as a result of our works, but as a gift of God.

[imjustthemechanic]

The Stone Knight

Part 1/? - Two Statues Part 2/? - A Curious Interview Part 3/? - John Doe Part 4/? - Escape Attempt Part 5/? - Making the News Part 6/? - Fallout Part 7/? - More Impossible Part 8/? - The Shield Thieves Part 9/? - Reality Sinks In Part 10/? - Preparing a Quest Part 11/? - The Marvelous History of Sir Stephen Part 12/? - Uninvited Guests Part 13/? - So That’s What It Does Part 14/? - The What and the Where Part 15/? - Gearing Up Part 16/? - Just Passing Through Part 17/? - Dinner with Druids Part 18/? - Kracness Henge Part 19/? - A Task Interrupted Part 20/? - The Red Death Part 21/? - Aphelion Part 22/? - The Stone Giants Part 23/? - Nat the Giant Killer Part 24/? - An Interrogation Part 25/? - Guilt Part 26/? - Rushman’s Brilliant Idea Part 27/? - Hunter in Hiding Part 28/? - Ridiculous Part 29/? - The Guy from Barton Part 30/? - Sherwood Forest Part 31/? - Buckeye’s Fall Part 32/? - Robin Hood Part 33/? - Fantasies and Consequences Part 34/? - Swords of Damocles Part 35/? - The Road to London Part 36/? - View from the Top

Some conclusions at last, and the beginnings of a plan.

           The observation platform at the top of the skyscraper was creatively called the View from the Shard, and was a nice airy little place with a hardwood floor and potted plants, and a little bar that served snacks and alcohol while people looked out over the city.  The view itself was certainly very impressive, with London spread out below them to the horizon on every side.  Cities like this were Natasha’s natural habitat.  She’d been taught to blend into the urban jungle, to know its predators and prey, anywhere on the planet.  Seeing it from up here made her feel, as Robin had already noted, like a hawk on a perch, ready to swoop down on anything she liked.

           Sam took up a role as unofficial tour guide for the group, pointing out landmarks like Big Ben, the London Eye, and the replica of the Globe Theatre.  Nat pretended to be interested in what he was saying, just in case of watching eyes or listening ears, but her eyes stayed on the Tower.  As she’d expected, from here she could see right inside the walls.  The Tower grounds were full of tourists roaming around looking at the various sights and historical locations.  When Nat took out a pair of binoculars, she could pick out the Yeomen in their Tudor costumes with the Queen’s initials on the front, and the black specks of the Tower ravens.

           Her eye was unavoidably drawn, however, to the tallest and oldest part of the castle – the White Tower.  It was currently closed to the public and surrounded by scaffolding while some sort of work was done on it.  The White Tower was William the Conqueror’s original keep, although it hadn’t gained its famous name until his successor Henry the Third had it whitewashed. It was the strongest and most defensible place in the Tower of London, perfect for hiding something you didn’t want anybody else to get to.  The question was, where in the White Tower would the Grail be?

           Natasha had never been inside the White Tower, but she’d looked it up online the previous evening, after telling Allen to go to bed.  There were four floors, each divided into three rooms.  What had once been the great hall was now the Royal Armory, a museum displaying historical armor and weapons.  Other rooms were now used to store the rest of the armory collection, for employees, and for equipment that maintained the air quality and helped preserve the building.  The third room, in the south-east corner of the building, was St. John’s Chapel.

           According to the papers Nat had read, the Chapel had not been part of the original building plan – the design had been changed to include it and its semi-circular apse only after the foundations had already been laid.  That had caught her attention, and now as she stood musing on it from a thousand feet in the air, she was sure she had it right.  William the Conqueror had re-hidden the Holy Grail under the floor of the chapel in his new castle.

           It made sense on multiple levels.  In the Christian worldview of Sir Stephen, or of William himself, the Grail was something evil and demonic.  Placing a consecrated room overtop it and having regular prayers and masses there would provide spiritual energy to keep it under control, almost as if God were literally sitting on it.  It was also a place nobody would dig up in the Middle Ages, because they would assume there were tombs under the floor that should not be disturbed.

           In modern times, of course, things were different. People had a far more secular outlook and old bones had become something to dig up deliberately, to study and DNA test and do reconstructive portraits of.  The Chapel of St. John had survived that, too, however.  The Tower of London was a Grade I Listed Building as well as an UNESCO World Heritage Site.  Digging it up was a Federal and International crime, and the Chapel was particularly valuable because it preserved its original Norman interior.  It was even still in use, with services said in it on a semi-regular basis.  If there were anywhere in England where the Grail could have sat quietly for a thousand years undetected, the basement of St. John’s Chapel was the place.

           “Figuring out how to get in?” asked Sharon, coming to look over Nat’s shoulder.  Allen had come up on her other side, and was also looking down into the Tower.

           “Getting in will be easy,” said Nat.  “Figuring out where we’re going once we’re in is the hard part, but I think I’ve got it.”

           Sharon nodded.  “Where is it, exactly?”

           Nat shook her head.  “Not here,” she reminded her.  There were people all around them.  The bartender was serving drinks, tourists were chatting to each other or on their phones, and a teenage girl was taking selfies right next to them.  Any one of these people might be Zola in disguise.  “We’ll get a hotel room, put up some ivy, and then I’ll explain.”

           “Sounds good,” said Sharon.  “Are we doing this tonight?”

           “I hope so,” Nat said.  “Faster is better.  Get it out, and get out of the country.”  She’d been thinking about that, too.  They could stow away in the cargo section of the Chunnel train, and reach France without having to go through customs.  From there they’d just have to get to Kazakhstan without being noticed.  Nat had done that before in the opposite direction, so she was confident she could do it again.  The trip itself would hopefully give them time to figure out how to use the Grail, and fix the problems it had caused. It wasn’t time to think about that yet, though.  Sir Stephen had the right idea for now – one step at a time.

           She stepped back from the window and looked around. “Where are the guys?” she asked. Sam, Sir Stephen, and Robin were no longer with them.

           “I’ll bet Robin dragged them off to go on the Ferris Wheel,” said Allen.  “That seems like it would catch his eye.”

           Nat wouldn’t have been surprised if it were true, but as it turned out they found the others around the other side of the observation deck where the café and gift shop were.  Sir Stephen was, unsurprisingly, eating – he had a slice of carrot cake, and in between mouthfuls he was telling a group of schoolchildren about the time his friend Buckeye had tried to woo a girl by shooting an apple down from a tree with an arrow.

           “The apple was not properly ripe,” he explained, “so the arrow went in, but the apple did not fall.  Buckeye was therefore obliged to climb up and retrieve it while the girl and her friends made fun, and worse, on his way up he broke a branch, leaving him unable to climb down again.”

           “Your friend had a weak arm or a lousy bow,” said Robin Hood, who also had a slice of cake – his was chocolate.  Sir Stephen was eating with a fork, but Robin was just pulling pieces off with his fingers and getting them covered with icing that was then smeared all over his coffee cup.  “I don’t care if the apple was ripe or not – I could put an arrow through the stem to cut it down, and another through the apple before it hit the ground!”

           “Buckeye was a knight,” sniffed Sir Stephen, “not a common archer.”

           “I’m not a common archer, either,” said Robin. “I’m the best there is.”

           “A knight on horseback would run you down where you stood,” said Sir Stephen.

           “His horse would be dead under him before he got anywhere near me,” Robin countered.

           “He’s right, you know,” said Natasha.  “At the Battle of Crecy in 1346, English archers completely obliterated the French cavalry.”

           Sir Stephen pretended to be shocked, as if Natasha had betrayed him.  “You’d take his side?”

           “It’s not a side,” said Natasha, recognizing the argument as a joke.  “It’s history.  Come on, guys, we have to do some shopping.”

           The kids who’d been listening waved goodbye, and their teacher smiled at the two men he assumed had been telling made-up stories.  Robin was chuckling as they walked out.

           “Don’t mind him,” he said, pointing a thumb at Sir Stephen.  “He’s just sore that they’d all heard of me but not of him.”

           “I am not ‘sore’,” Sir Stephen protested.  “I’m only confused why so much attention is paid to a poacher and highwayman.”

           “I’m kind of confused about that myself,” Robin admitted cheerfully, “but they don’t seem to be demanding my head on a pike, so I’ll take it.”

           “It’s all in your point of view,” said Nat, attempting to herd them towards the lifts.  “We’re not really into quest stories nowadays – they’re seen as old-fashioned.  Robin Hood was supposed to have lived during the time of King John, who is remembered as incompetent if not outright evil, and the popular legend is that he stole from the rich to give to the poor, but even if he didn’t, he’s remembered more as a rebel than a criminal, and everybody likes rebels.”

           “Do they?” asked Sir Stephen.  This was completely alien to his worldview, in which the King ruled by divine right and any who opposed him were opposing God.

           “We’ve got to make you watch Star Wars,” said Sharon, patting Sir Stephen’s back.

           Their next stop was at the Millennium Park B&Q, where they bought shovels, picks, crowbars, and tarpaulins, along with a couple more potted ivy plants.  The clerk who packed it up for them cheerfully asked what kind of gardening they were going to be doing.

           “No gardening,” said Nat.  “Archaeology.”

           “Yeah?” the clerk smiled.  “What kind?”

           “We’re going to dig up a Norman chapel,” said Nat. “It’s gonna be one for the history books.”

           “I’ll look forward to seeing you on Time Team, then,” said the clerk.

           Nat thought he was more likely to see them on Crimes that Shook Britain, but she just paid the bill, and they moved on to a room in a Safestay hostel.  There, they put up ivy and horseshoes to keep unwanted visitors out, and Natasha pulled up the Google satellite map of the Tower grounds.

           “You can’t see it from the bird’s eye view, of course,” she said, “but while we were driving past I noticed that the walkway beside the A400 is at almost the same height as the outer curtain wall.”  She poked the place.  “That’s also one of the narrowest points in the moat besides the ones that border on the Thames.  That means nobody will have a good angle on what we’re doing, so we can climb up to the Develin Tower, then along the top of the wall to the workshops, where the inner wall is only a few yards away.  Drop to the ground between the workshops and the hospital block, and the chapel is just around the corner.”

           “How do we get in to the actual building?” asked Sharon.

           “Through the doors, I’m assuming,” said Nat.  “I mean, it’s a medieval castle, there’s not gonna be ducts we can climb through.  The good news is that the keep is closed to the public for restoration work. The contractors are gonna need to be able to get in and out, probably during hours when the area isn’t open to the public, so they’ll have one of those keypads on the door.  I can figure that out, no problem.”  It was a little funny, honestly, how high tech modern security was so easy for her to break, while the walls of a castle remained as they had always been, impenetrable.

“The problem there,” she went on, “is that there’ll be guards around, and I’m sure the night guards will be much more practically dressed and lethally armed than the daytime ones.  Somebody will have to stay outside the walls at a vantage point while the rest of us go in, so they can warn us if anyone’s coming.”  She looked up at Allen, standing behind her to see the map over her shoulder.  “That’s gonna be your job?”

“Me?” he asked in surprise.

“Yeah,” said Nat.  “We’re gonna put you up on one of the bridge towers with my binoculars, where you’ll have a view of everything going on down in the grounds.  If anything happens, you text me.  We’ll need to know if somebody’s seen us.”

           “How will I know?” asked Allen.  “It could be just the contractors, or the guard changing or something.”

           “Then you have to inform us of any of those things,” said Nat.  “We’re gonna be in the basement, don’t forget.  We’ll need to have eyes outside.”

           Allen’s jaw set.  “All right,” he said.  He was determined not to let them down this time, and Nat felt rather pleased with herself for having found him a job he could do that would be actually helpful but still within his comfort zone.

           “For the rest of us,” Nat added, “the most important thing has to be getting the job done.  Everything else is secondary.  No matter what happens, we have to walk out of there with the Grail so that we can get rid of it.”

           “After I get my memories back,” Robin said.

           “Right,” Nat agreed, although she was still having doubts about that.  “Of course. What that means is that if somebody gets hurt, the rest of us have to carry on.  If somebody gets arrested, or even killed, the rest of us have to carry on. We aren’t going to get a chance to come back and try again tomorrow night – I’m sure they inspect this place, basement and all, very thoroughly, and if they find we were in there they’ll step up the guard.  Or worse, they’ll dig deeper to figure out what we were looking for.  Do you understand?”

           They nodded, but she wasn’t sure they really did understand.  Except for Allen, all of Nat’s companions in this had some kind of combat training, but it wasn’t like hers.  They lived in a world where lives could still be more important than missions.  This was a place where it couldn’t be.  Not if the alternative was the Red Death and his Nazi followers getting the Grail. This was a mission almost meant for somebody like a black widow.  Maybe, in the fantasy-tinged world they found themselves in, it was Nat’s destiny as much as it was Sir Stephen’s.