#Christ Was Without Sin

[finalgirlsamwinchester]

1.01, "Pilot" | Stephen Adly Guirgis, "The Last Days Of Judas Iscariot" " | 5.22, "Swan Song"

[rabbits-of-negative-euphoria]

if people were fundamentally good, we would not need Christ

[biomic]

cannot even imagine living this way.

[daffodilsonaprettystring]

Guilty as Sin? Is a Destiel song and nobody can change my mind on this

[mysteriouscircumstanceslut]

The nightmare of being alloaro and (almost definitely) having moral OCD

[yeslordmyking]

Matthew 9:12 — Today's Verse for Thursday, September 12, 2024

[justana0kguy]

2023 MARCH 27 Monday

"Let the one among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone."

~ John 8:7b

[eats-the-stars]

I feel like there are roughly two kinds of "painfully weird kid" that you can be during your K-12 school years. the first is your "I am trying so hard to be normal but I just cannot seem to hit the mark. there's just something wrong with me and I don't know how to fix it" and the second is the category I was in, which is your "everyone around me is so incredibly weird but they obviously can't help it so I will just have to accept this."

[wisdomfish]

There is no death of sin without the death of Christ.

John Owen

[serdtse]

//

[mileena--kahnumm]

First Look at 'The Passion of The Christ 2'

[joycrispy]

Awhile ago @ouidamforeman made this post:

This shot through my brain like a chain of firecrackers, so, without derailing the original post, I have some THOUGHTS to add about why this concept is not only hilarious (because it is), but also...

It. It kind of fucks. Severely.

And in a delightfully Pratchett-y way, I'd dare to suggest.

I'll explain:

As inferred above, both Crowley AND Aziraphale have canonical Biblical counterparts. Not by name, no, but by function.

Crowley, of course, is the serpent of Eden.

(note on the serpent of Eden: In Genesis 3:1-15, at least, the serpent is not identified as anything other than a serpent, albeit one that can talk. Later, it will be variously interpreted as a traitorous agent of Hell, as a demon, as a guise of Satan himself, etc. In Good Omens --as a slinky ginger who walks funny)

Lesser known, at least so far as I can tell, is the flaming sword. It, too, appears in Genesis 3, in the very last line:

"So he drove out the man; and placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life." --Genesis 3:24, KJV

Thanks to translation ambiguity, there is some debate concerning the nature of the flaming sword --is it a divine weapon given unto one of the Cherubim (if so, why only one)? Or is it an independent entity, which takes the form of a sword (as other angelic beings take the form of wheels and such)? For our purposes, I don't think the distinction matters. The guard at the gate of Eden, whether an angel wielding the sword or an angel who IS the sword, is Aziraphale.

(note on the flaming sword: in some traditions --Eastern Orthodox, for example-- it is held that upon Christ's death and resurrection, the flaming sword gave up it's post and vanished from Eden for good. By these sensibilities, the removal of the sword signifies the redemption and salvation of man.

...Put a pin in that. We're coming back to it.)

So, we have our pair. The Serpent and the Sword, introduced at the beginning and the end (ha) of the very same chapter of Genesis.

But here's the important bit, the bit that's not immediately obvious, the bit that nonetheless encapsulates one of the central themes, if not THE central theme, of Good Omens:

The Sword was never intended to guard Eden while Adam and Eve were still in it.

Do you understand?

The Sword's function was never to protect them. It doesn't even appear until after they've already fallen. No... it was to usher Adam and Eve from the garden, and then keep them out. It was a threat. It was a punishment.

The flaming sword was given to be used against them.

So. Again. We have our pair. The Serpent and the Sword: the inception and the consequence of original sin, personified. They are the one-two punch that launches mankind from paradise, after Hell lures it to destruction and Heaven condemns it for being destroyed. Which is to say that despite being, supposedly, hereditary enemies on two different sides of a celestial cold war, they are actually unified by one purpose, one pivotal role to play in the Divine Plan: completely fucking humanity over.

That's how it's supposed to go. It is written.

...But, in Good Omens, they're not just the Serpent and the Sword.

They're Crowley and Aziraphale.

(author begins to go insane from emotion under the cut)

In Good Omens, humanity is handed it's salvation (pin!) scarcely half an hour after losing it. Instead of looming over God's empty garden, the sword protects a very sad, very scared and very pregnant girl. And no, not because a blameless martyr suffered and died for the privilege, either.

It was just that she'd had such a bad day. And there were vicious animals out there. And Aziraphale worried she would be cold.

...I need to impress upon you how much this is NOT just a matter of being careless with company property. With this one act of kindness, Aziraphale is undermining the whole entire POINT of the expulsion from Eden. God Herself confronts him about it, and he lies. To God.

And the Serpent--

(Crowley, that is, who wonders what's so bad about knowing the difference between good and evil anyway; who thinks that maybe he did a GOOD thing when he tempted Eve with the apple; who objects that God is over-reacting to a first offense; who knows what it is to fall but not what it is to be comforted after the fact...)

--just goes ahead and falls in love with him about it.

As for Crowley --I barely need to explain him, right? People have been making the 'didn't the serpent actually do us a solid?' argument for centuries. But if I'm going to quote one of them, it may as well be the one Neil Gaiman wrote ficlet about:

"If the account given in Genesis is really true, ought we not, after all, to thank this serpent? He was the first schoolmaster, the first advocate of learning, the first enemy of ignorance, the first to whisper in human ears the sacred word liberty, the creator of ambition, the author of modesty, of inquiry, of doubt, of investigation, of progress and of civilization." --Robert G. Ingersoll

The first to ask questions.

Even beyond flattering literary interpretation, we know that Crowley is, so often, discreetly running damage control on the machinations of Heaven and Hell. When he can get away with it. Occasionally, when he can't (1827).

And Aziraphale loves him for it, too. Loves him back.

And so this romance plays out over millennia, where they fall in love with each other but also the world, because of each other and because of the world. But it begins in Eden. Where, instead of acting as the first Earthly example of Divine/Diabolical collusion and callousness--

(other examples --the flood; the bet with Satan; the back channels; the exchange of Holy Water and Hellfire; and on and on...)

--they refuse. Without even necessarily knowing they're doing it, they just refuse. Refuse to trivialize human life, and refuse to hate each other.

To write a story about the Serpent and the Sword falling in love is to write a story about transgression.

Not just in the sense that they are a demon and an angel, and it's ~forbidden. That's part of it, yeah, but the greater part of it is that they are THIS demon and angel, in particular. From The Real Bible's Book of Genesis, in the chapter where man falls.

It's the sort of thing you write and laugh. And then you look at it. And you think. And then you frown, and you sit up a little straighter. And you think.

And then you keep writing.

And what emerges hits you like a goddamn truck.

(...A lot of Pratchett reads that way. I believe Gaiman when he says Pratchett would have been happy with the romance, by the way. I really really do).

It's a story about transgression, about love as transgression. They break the rules by loving each other, by loving creation, and by rejecting the hatred and hypocrisy that would have triangulated them as a unified blow against humanity, before humanity had even really got started. And yeah, hell, it's a queer romance too, just to really drive the point home (oh, that!!! THAT!!!)

...I could spend a long time wildly gesturing at this and never be satisfied. Instead of watching me do that (I'll spare you), please look at this gif:

I love this shot so much.

Look at Eve and Crowley moving, at the same time in the same direction, towards their respective wielders of the flaming sword. Adam reaches out and takes her hand; Aziraphale reaches out and covers him with a wing.

You know what a shot like that establishes? Likeness. Commonality. Kinship.

"Our side" was never just Crowley and Aziraphale. Crowley says as much at the end of season 1 ("--all of us against all of them."). From the beginning, "our side" was Crowley, Aziraphale, and every single human being. Lately that's around 8 billion, but once upon a time it was just two other people. Another couple. The primeval mother and father.

But Adam and Eve die, eventually. Humanity grows without them. It's Crowley and Aziraphale who remain, and who protect it. Who...oversee it's upbringing.

Godfathers. Sort of.

[insanechayne]

Next time you can just @ me sis ✌🏻💖

[frankkster]

LEARNING AND UNLEARNING

Well. This atheist meme certainly paints “religion” in a very bad light. And I get it. As a follower of Jesus of Nazareth (who many people believe is the Son of God), I want nothing to do with the negative, judgemental attitudes that infest religion like a cancer. So, from a Jesus-following perspective, what about the points made in the meme? Give me a few minutes to go over them and, hopefully,…

[ominouspositivity-or-else]

*The Eucharist is the body of Christ under the appearances of bread and wine.

**God is bound to these sacraments, meaning he always gives grace through them when they are done, but he is not bound by these sacraments, meaning that God can do literally whatever he wants and can of course go around them and provide grace in other ways.

***7 sacraments, listed: Baptism, Confirmation, Holy Eucharist, Confession, Anointing of the Sick, Holy Orders, and Matrimony.

Feel free to add nuance in the tags or talk about why you find the teachings strange! Let me know if there's anything utterly baffling that I didn't include!!!

Also please remember to be respectful!!! Not everyone knows theology like you might!!!

[yeslordmyking]

If You Return to Sin After Being Delivered From It, Your Punishment Will Be Worse

2 Peter 2:20-22

[20]For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.

[21]For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.

[22]But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.

To learn something is sinful and to turn and repent of it, but then return to that sin is like a dog returning to it's vomit. It's better not to know something is sinful than to learn it's sinful and return to it after God has delivered you. Don't return to your wickedness, no matter how hard it is to be righteous. Ask God and the Holy Spirit for strength to walk in rightstanding with Him and not fall weak to flesh.

I know we can't be sinless, I know it takes time to change your lifestyle from habits and wordly mindsets, but in the end there's no excuses for knowledgeably sinning than to admit selfishness, wickedness, and to know eternal punishment is the result of such ignorant defiance of the Lord. Prayers that I myself, the lost and unsaved, and other brothers and sisters in Christ, completely turn from sin and backsliding. No matter how much it "made us happy", "satisfied us", seemed "harmless" to our souls, or how "miserable" we feel without it. Firstly God is the only thing that can actually make us happy and anything else is deception by our flesh. Secondly, we should rather prefer misery and holy suffering in our temporary lives far more than anything that risks the reward of eternal suffering and damnation. You don't have to be happy, you just have to obey God's commands and be holy. Maybe choosing that will have God bless us with happiness we don't see coming until we're truly righteous. I pray we forsake feelings and emotions, and only act out of holiness righteousness and purity.