#are ultimately readings that want a reason to reject any sort of mercy for him

[ghostmartyr]

/clears throat/ so, Immi, I hear you like the locked tomb, which is fantastic! from one person also escaping the snk series into TLT to another, what did you think of the characters and plot in HtN? are there any things you're most excited to see when Alecto comes out in 2022?

-pats lifeboat- This baby can fit so much trauma.

SPOILERS, naturally.

With another paragraph informing the curious that unspoiled is the way to go into HtN, since if you aren’t lost and confused, are you really reading Harrow the Ninth?

I read it all in one day, and that was a choice. It does mean my memory and understanding of what all went on is slightly dependent on someone else on the internet exploding over a particular set of paragraphs and explaining their significance to me, but I still enjoyed the hell out of it.

HtN disappointed me on one front in that I was hoping seeing more of Harrow 1.0 would help out any future fic endeavors. On everything else, like the first one, being told the story is such a good time that I’m willing to wait on a full comprehension of where it’s going.

I also really like second person.

What I loved most about HtN is how even without Gideon mentioned until very, very late in the book, you can feel her absence everywhere. In the wrong bubble flashbacks you’re commanded to examine the strangeness, but even in Harrow going about her day, the isolation and the wrongness of it decorate her every action. She’s alone, and she shouldn’t be, and the loss she’s unaware of bleeds into a constant echo of grief.

I don’t think I’ve ever appreciated absence as a narrative tool so much. Obviously griddlehark hours go hard once they start in HtN, but even before then, there is so much power to their connection that looking into a world where it never exists still manages to punch you in the heart with how much each one inhabits everything the other is.

The whole series is amping me up with a few thoughts on loneliness, honestly. Gideon and Harrow grow up alone on the Ninth, save for each other. It takes leaving for that to be any kind of good thing. The first book is tag team Among Us with everyone in their little clusters, slowly learning what other people are about as they all drop dead.

The second book has a different vibe and different plot things going on, but it’s similar in that the protagonist gets thrown into a world they don’t fit and have to put on a show. Only now there are even fewer people to familiarize with, with that number correlating directly to how they all killed the person closest to keeping them from being alone.

Lyctorhood is taking the person dearest to your heart and trapping them there forever while they’re stripped of everything that made them who they are.

...Also Ianthe is there.

Gideon, Mercy, and Augustine are the last Lyctors standing after 10,000 years. There were only seven, starting out. Sixteen acolytes who came to the First. The only pair who didn’t succeed in condensing themselves is separated from the pack and sent to live away from their peers on a tiny planet that no one has anything good to say about.

Alecto is John’s -- who even knows, past A Lot, and he puts her to sleep and locks her in a prison no one but he can get past.

God has seven friends. More if you want to count the people in the Cohort, but realistically, he has seven friends. Then they keep dying.

Harrow spends HtN in a spaceship with five people.

One is trying to kill her.

One ordered that one to try to kill her.

Two could not care less about the useless baby Lyctor.

One is Ianthe.

There is no real endgame. There is surviving life, and life has become a game of running as far away as possible so you don’t share your ruin upon your inevitable death.

It’s bleak and sad.

Harrow’s healthiest relationships are with dead people, and some of them she didn’t know at all in life.

Reiterating it, the most plot significant bit of the world is finding someone else in the world, swearing yourself to them, and smashing your souls together until you’ve lost the connection entirely.

My brain’s not in the best place so I can’t do more than gesture loudly at it, but a few people have mentioned that the series’ thesis is a counter to Ianthe’s statement that love is acquisitive.

Harrow tightens her hold around Gideon until Gideon would rather she just strangle her and get it over with, all things considered. It fucks them both up, and when they start working to get past it, circumstance wraps a chain around both their throats.

The necromancers who become imperfect Lyctors have all acquired their cavaliers, and besides the cav, it kills that bond.

Harrow’s rejection of that is why Gideon’s soul is still in the world of the living (and John blood).

She has spent her entire life eating pieces of Gideon to keep herself a horrid imitation of whole, and when she is finally offered that, she refuses.

Grief and how Harrow just can’t are active elements of the book, and Magnus gives her more therapy in five minutes talking about it than she has ever had in her life, but the reason why that isn’t the end of Gideon is because, unlike all the other Lyctors, Harrow turns the offer down.

With the exception of Babs and Ianthe, the relationship between cavaliers and necros about to do the Lyctor thing is cavaliers promising to burn for an eternity while their necromancer lives off the fumes.

Fuck that is Harrow’s response.

Cytherea says, in the aftermath, that they had the choice to stop.

Harrow stops.

A lifetime of doing exactly what Gideon is telling her to do with her death, and Harrow chooses to stop.

Harrow remembers Ortus’ poetry. She regularly sees her congregation off to their deaths. She keeps Gideon’s glasses. She views Palamedes, head exploded and all, as an infinitely better person than she is because of the quality of his exemplary character. She pulls Gideon the First from the incinerator on the night she plans to kill him.

Kiddo has so many fucking issues, but somewhere, she has learned to respect people for being people. That’s why she and Gideon are the heroes of the story, ultimately, and Ortus saying that they’re heroes worthy of the Ninth doesn’t fall flat. They’re actually trying.

Where that puts us for Alecto, I don’t pretend to know.

Since the first book is the temptation of an end to isolation, only to have it snatched away, the second book is the continuation of isolation with a few promising sparks of human connection that pave the way for hope...

That leaves the third book to shed the isolation and allow the connections to thrive.

With Gideon and Harrow MIA.

I know that the books kick things up into high gear in the final acts each time, but if they’re both gone for the majority of the book, no matter how much fun it is, I’m going to miss them. They’re the core leads, and I don’t want to be without them in the final part.

The 2022 release date has aged my soul. I deliberately planned my GtN read to land a month before HtN came out, then suffered when that was delayed. When really that was nothing at all. I hate waiting.

(Insert note that I’m very glad they aren’t forcing Muir to rush anything out. It’s been a rough time, but also, just in general authors should have the opportunity to create the best versions of their art they can, so the extra time hurts, but it’s obviously for the best.)

What I’m most excited for is probably the cover art. The first two have been awesome, and the artist said he’d likely do print sales for all three when the third’s revealed. My wallet cries but my heart does not.

What I dare not be excited for is the potential for Gideon and Harrow meeting again and perhaps hugging. In their own bodies.

I’d take other bodies, but ideally, y’know.

Also I would love for Harrow to finally meet her popsicle girlfriend.

I doubt it would be a wholly positive experience, but by golly I want it. Maybe they could hug too. It would probably kill Harrow again, but who doesn’t expect several people to die again in the third book?

However it plays out, I’m expecting to enjoy AtN. The writing’s the sort that I’ll happily follow wherever it goes. For everything else, there’s fanfic. The only real worry I have is the whole book will be narrated by Ianthe, and while I mentally groan at that, I actually find Ianthe’s commentary delightful, so even in the worst case scenario I’m having a good time.

Thank you so much for the ask.

[panharmonium]

why are you being like this?

people i’ve met - they’re not like you.  they don’t care.  i don’t matter.

don’t ever think that.  we all matter.

just some meandering thoughts on where the thematic center of merlin bbc lies for me, and how it weaves itself in and out of my fandom experience.

under a cut because this is a) sort of long and b) not really directed anywhere but my own brain, as i keep thinking about and creating for this show.

[as always, before i get rolling, a reminder: when i write about how i engage with this show, it’s just me talking about what gives me, personally, the most satisfaction or enjoyment, not the way i think everybody should do things.  if this isn’t your particular read, please feel free to scroll past.  i am not ever going to bother anybody for engaging with this show in their own way, so please don’t worry about it if we are not on the same page.]

that post about kilgharrah really got me feeling things.  

i struggle a lot with the sort of...non-nuanced ‘fuck kilgharrah/fuck gaius/fuck arthur/fuck whoever’ mode of engagement that i sometimes run across in fandom.  (and i’m not saying there’s anything intrinsically wrong with it; if you have the most fun engaging with the show in that way, please continue to have fun.  i’m just writing, on my own blog and in my own space, about what i personally do or don’t find compelling.)

i struggle with this mode for the same reason that i struggle with the whole ‘fuck yoda!’ narrative that pops up sometimes in tumblr’s star wars fandom.  because it’s not the narrative that the story is actually trying to create, and though this fact doesn’t mean you can’t twist things that way if it gives you more enjoyment, for me, there’s nothing about it that feels good.

writing fictional characters off like this, when the narrative is clearly not asking us to do so, feels...frustratingly false, and externally-imposed, as if characters are being evaluated based on the exacting standards of a universe in which they never lived, in a context where they were never intended to exist.  doing so requires you to willfully ignore what the story is actually trying to say, and it’s fine to go ahead and do that if you want, but for me it strips away so much of what makes the story meaningful.

bbc merlin’s core plotline is about believing in someone’s better nature.  the central storyline is that merlin commits himself to someone who doesn’t always give merlin reason to believe that this commitment is worth it, and yet still there’s always this hope and faith and belief that one day arthur will make it right.  

and this is presented as a worthy choice.  are there problems with it?  of course.  the show knows that, and it gives us places to think about that.  but even with this being the case, the ultimate message of the show is still never that this commitment was useless, worthless, or foolish.  the message of the show is that under the right conditions, people grow.  this show says that when we are given deep love, care, and companionship, we can change for the better.  it says that people, under the right conditions, can learn how to be better than they were before, and that everyone deserves the opportunity to grow into the person they were meant to be.

bbc merlin is not asking us to cancel any of its characters, ever.  that is never the show’s intention.  i won’t try to stop anybody from doing that, if that’s how they have more fun watching the show, but i am still going to contemplate, in my own space, how small that makes the story feel for me.

sometimes i see things like ...‘morgana/gwen/whoever is the only valid character in merlin bbc,’ and i just...first of all, neither of them are perfect, okay, and second of all, it doesn’t MATTER, because that has never been the point of the story.  this story is not asking us to rank characters on a scale of how righteous/unproblematic we think they are.  it’s asking us to CARE about the characters - ALL of the characters - and to root for them (yes, ALL of them), in the fullness of their imperfection.

when i explore the wider fandom, i typically bump up against one of two mindsets.  there’s the shipping mindset, where everybody loves arthur and he’s helplessly in love with merlin.  but i don’t want that mindset (because i don’t ship that pairing), so i look elsewhere.  but the other mindset is an attitude that dislikes arthur, full stop.  and i don’t want that either!

this ‘either/or’ divide is the opposite of what bbc merlin is asking us to do with its characters.  i criticize arthur all the time, but i still don’t think the story is asking me to reject him.  and i don’t WANT to reject him, either - why would i even watch this show, if i didn’t think it was important to see him become who he was meant to be, if i weren’t invested in his growth, if i didn’t ultimately believe in his possibility?  if i didn’t think the show was asking me to root for him - not uncritically, of course; the show is never asking me to do that - but with the core understanding that arthur is somebody worth caring about?

the same goes for morgana.  the show never asks us to write her off.  up until the very end, the show wants us to care about her.  the show wants us to root for her.  the show never asks us to forget that she and the other characters used to love each other; it never tells us to stop wanting morgana to get what she needs.  

gaius, too - the show never wants us to kick him to the curb.  it knows he’s not perfect.  he knows he’s not perfect.  he tells merlin, when talking about his own life, “there has, for the most part, been very little purpose to it.”  but the show doesn’t want us to fixate solely on his failures, or to dump him for his more cowardly moments.  the show wants us to know that he still has value.  it wants us to know that he is doing more good in the world now than he did before, which is all we can ask of a person, in the end.  it wants us to know that he cares, and that he is trying.

and kilgharrah - the show is never asking us to hate him, either!  yes, i get that it’s funny to joke about how “unhelpful” he is; i think that stuff is funny, too - but i also think it matters to understand that in canon, in the show, we are not meant to read kilgharrah as a malevolent figure.  we are not supposed to read him as a villain.  we are supposed to care about him.  we are supposed to understand that he, too, is working, ultimately, for the triumph of Good.  even though his version of this may feel convoluted to us, because kilgharrah isn’t human and can’t possibly be evaluated by human standards, we are supposed to understand that he, too, is trying.  we are supposed to be moved when merlin asks him, “what will i do without you?”

we are supposed to care about all of them.  we are supposed to find all of them worthy.  we are not supposed to evaluate them (and then discard them) according to inflexible, merciless, decontextualized standards imported from a non-merlin-bbc world.

and this doesn’t mean people aren’t still allowed to do that, if it’s fun for them, but for me, analyzing this show outside of its context doesn’t bring me any satisfaction.  we can go ahead and say things like ‘arthur should get his head chopped off’ and like, okay, that’s funny as a joke.  but as an actual analysis of the show - as a sincere interpretation of the story - it fails.  it’s devoid of all context.  we aren’t supposed to be evaluating this story from the perspective of ‘let’s overthrow the monarchy, kings should die, etc etc.’  the context of merlin bbc is that albion is waiting for a righteous monarch, and that this is a desirable, acceptable, correct thing, in the context of that world.  we are supposed to understand that arthur IS the once and future king, and that this IS a good thing, in this universe, and that the journey we are on here is one where he becomes worthy of his seat on the throne and then ushers in a time of peace and justice for all of albion’s people.

(and as i’ve said before - this is why the merlin bbc finale is so stunningly bad.  it’s not that the show subverts our expectations, it’s that it annihilates its own story, which it has been consistently telling for sixty-three episodes.)

that aside, though - this same overlooking of contextual nuance is the reason why i don’t connect to takes that consider ‘oh no, merlin kills people!’ to be evidence that he’s “changed,” “gone dark,” or “lost his soul.”  merlin does go through a dramatic (and tragic) change by the time we hit season 5, but what happens to him has nothing to do with the fact that he’s killed people.  the context of this show isn’t one where killing is a universal evil.  killing in battle or for the purpose of self-defense is not a morally problematic choice, in this world.  merlin, like everyone else in this show’s context, understands this, and killing a group of enemy soldiers to protect his own life is not something the show intends for us to interpret as an erosion of his humanity. 

what IS framed as an evil act, in the context of merlin bbc, is when someone chooses to kill despite the fact that mercy is an option.  if arthur had killed odin when he could have instead made peace with him, if arthur had executed annis’s champion or vivian’s father when he had already defeated them in single combat, if merlin had killed kilgharrah whilst having absolute power over him - those are morally bankrupt choices, in merlin bbc’s context.

we’re not supposed to see things like merlin killing agravaine as evil decisions.  in the context of the show’s world, killing agravaine is a necessary, morally uncomplicated act.  it isn’t something merlin wants to do, certainly, and he tries to avoid it, and he doesn’t strike back until agravaine tries to kill him first, but ultimately this moment is not supposed to be illustrative of merlin turning down a dark path.  it’s grim, sure, but in the context of the show - in the context of the era - it’s nothing more than the justified wages of aggression.  agravaine brings this fate down upon his own head.  merlin is not a pacifist, and neither he nor anyone else would expect himself to just stand there and let a group of enemy soldiers murder him when he could instead kill the soldiers and get away.  that’s nonsensical and utterly decontextualized.  it’s not an expectation that anyone in-story would have, nor a standard that merlin (or anyone else) would hold himself to.

all that aside, though -

the issue, for me, in summary, is just that i think sometimes we...evaluate this show in ways that it really isn’t meant to be interpreted, without considering the story’s context or thinking about what the story’s actual intent is.  and i think that these decontextualized interpretations are often less generous than what the show is actually trying to say to us, and that sometimes we write characters off when the show absolutely is not asking us to do that.  

and of course, nobody has to listen to what the show is trying to say if they don’t want to.  if it brings someone more enjoyment to pick one character to stan and say ‘the rest of these characters are Bad People and i’m not interested in them,’ then that’s fine!  whatever floats your boat.  

it just doesn’t float mine.

the point of this show, for me, is that everybody deserves a chance.  the point of this show is exactly what merlin says to daegal in the woods, even as daegal is leading merlin into a trap: we all matter.  the theme at the heart of this story is that it is possible to love someone who doesn’t deserve it, and that this can be a worthy choice, a transformative choice, a powerful choice - not necessarily a perfect choice, or even the right choice, maybe, for the person making it, but still a choice that holds value, a choice that creates something good in this world, even at cost.

listen to me, clotpole.  i don't care if you die, there are plenty of other princes.  you're not the only pompous, supercilious, condescending, royal imbecile i could work for; the world is full of them.  but I'm going to give you one more chance.

should merlin have done that?

we can debate that forever.  i am critical enough of arthur pendragon myself, when it comes to merlin’s well-being, and i could easily argue that no, merlin shouldn’t have given arthur as many chances as he did; he shouldn’t have stuck around; he shouldn’t have offered so much of his life to someone who continued to make arthur’s kind of mistakes.

but i think it matters to remember that in canon, thematically, the story’s answer to this question is yes.  mercy, in this story, is the most noble gift a person can bestow on someone else, and i think we are asked to bestow this same kind of mercy on the show’s characters, heroes and villains alike.  we aren’t ever told, in this show, that some of these characters “weren’t good enough” to deserve their chances.  we are told that in this world, compassion is always worthwhile.  love is never wasteful.  it is never foolish to care for people, even and especially when they aren’t yet their best selves.  giving someone a chance does matter.  choosing to care does make a difference, in the end.  

people don’t have to import these themes into their own personal analysis, by any means.  but i am still committed to remembering, in my own work, in my own space, that when we raise the question “was it worth it” in reference to whether these characters truly deserved to be loved, or trusted, or given a chance to grow - the story’s answer is unequivocally yes.

[pineaberry]

Fictober: #29 and #30

SWTOR

STARRING: Satele Shan, and THERON SHAN having several moments!

PART 1: [X] | PART 2: [X] | PART 3: [X] | PART 4: [X]

PART 5: [X] | PART 6: [X] | PART 7: [X] | PART 8: [X] | PART 9: [X]

THE THRILLING CONCLUSION!

THANK YOU FOR PUTTING UP WITH ME! 

@sunsetofdoom @doomhamster @fluffynexu  @anchanted-one @kunoichi-ume @cinlat @velvetsunset and @the-sith-in-the-sky-with-diamond

_______________________

Theron woke up well past noon. A new record considering he hadn’t taken copious amounts of whisky. He rolled over to find the bed empty but Tikal’s scent lingered in the covers and he sighed happily. As his mind slowly woke up, his thoughts lingered on her. Tikal, The Gilded Lady, The Hero of Tython… different people, or perhaps just different aspects of the same person.

She confused him. A reasonable person would hate and resent her for what she had done to him. She had kidnapped him, infected him with an obedience virus, coerced him into helping her plans and that was just off the top of his head. Still, no one would ever claim that Theron was reasonable by any stretch of the imagination. He was chaotic and unpredictable to the point that he had torpedoed every relationship he had ever had.

His last tryst had broken up with him via text. ‘You take too much. You need more than I can give.’

Perhaps that was why it felt good to be with Tikal. With her there were limits. He took what was given and it always seemed to be exactly what he needed. It was warped and twisted but she had taken care of him all this time. Even when he had done something incredibly stupid, she had torn down the door and rescued him. Perhaps it was fitting that she was not the typical sort of Jedi.

Perhaps it’s all Stockholm’s.

Regardless, she had taken him to her bed last night and made the pain fade. That cold chill he always felt around his heart was gone. He sighed and stared at the ceiling all the while feeling foolish for believing she would have more than a fleeting interest in him. The mission was over. Their affair was finished. She had gone off to resume her duties and soon he would be well enough to travel back to Coruscant. 

Tikal would never think about him again.

At that moment door opened and a polished gold protocol droid walked holding a tray of food. As the droid set the tray down, Theron saw it was also carrying a fresh change of clothes. He took that as his cue to get up and hobble into the refresher. When he emerged, the droid was patiently waiting.

“Good afternoon, I am C2-N2. Master Tikal apologizes for not being here, but the High Council requested her presence. She has tasked me with providing food and drink.”

He noted that his blaster, and favorite red jacket were also laid out on the freshly made bed. As he slipped on the new trousers, he noticed the knees were reinforced to hide his injury while he finished healing. Inside his red jacket were his holo and a discrete parcel of strong pain killers along with a note:

‘Take WITH food. Not when you planned to eat, not at lunch time. P.S. I don’t care if you’re not hungry.’

She still thought about him. He mattered.

A strange emotion welled up inside him and he cleared his throat. He thought about dismissing the droid, but decided to interrogate him instead. The silly thing was far too eager to please to notice.

It came as only a slight surprise to find out he was in the Jedi Temple on Tython. Of all the places to end up, he supposed this was the safest. Tikal would be back that afternoon as soon as her responsibilities allowed.

“She asked that your remain in the room,” Ceetoo stated as Theron picked up a muja fruit from the tray and walked past the droid.

“That’s not going to happen.”

“Master Tikal predicted you would say that and so she requests that you not wander too far from the grounds as there are wild beasts roaming the forest. Additionally, she would like you to know that quote: ‘The amount of credits necessary to finance your medical bills would plunge the Republic into a recession’. End quote.”

Theron cracked a smile. “I’ll keep that in mind.”

He wandered out of the dormitories and into the main hallway. Under the hazy overcast light of day, the temple seemed significantly less threatening. He could appreciate the delicate carved walls now that they were no longer obscured by shadows. Padawans mulled around the corridors, some hurried about as though completing a specific errand, others still were trading the latest gossip. Few if any paid him any mind.

As he watched this unexpectedly mundane part of Temple life, he couldn’t help but think of his own childhood. As much as he tried to suppress the thoughts, the reality was that for a large portion of his life this had been his goal. There had been a time when his only thoughts were on visiting Tython and learning how to hone his power. To be here now, surrounded by the very life he was denied was disconcerting. He made a sharp and eventually ended up in the meditation garden but even this only reminded him of a life that would never come to pass.

He didn’t blame Master Zho, how could he? But there were times when he wondered if it would have been better to grow up with a normal family doing normal things and with normal expectations. Yes, there was a galaxy full of wonders that he would never be able to perceive. But perhaps ignorance was bliss if not the more merciful option.

As though the universe continued to conspire against him, he walked around the corner and straight into a small clearing where Satele Shan was waiting.

Fuck me…

“You seem troubled. Is everything alright?” she asked.

Oh perfectly fine. Just walking around taking in the visible reminders of a life I will never have.

“Getting shot will do that,” he grinned as he concealed his emotions from her as best he could.

“Yes, I heard you had been… indisposed.”

“All better now. No need to worry. Or… you know… continue not worrying,” Theron opened his arms as though to put himself under her scrutiny.

Satele looked visibly uncomfortable. She never quite knew how to address Theron. A part of her blamed his lack of emotional discipline, but a quieter, constant voice asked if she were being unreasonable considering the circumstances.

“Yes. I see. If you have a moment Theron, there is something I wish to speak to you about,” she motioned to a pair of benches behind her. Theron eyed Satele warily but followed. He had a bad feeling about this.

“If this is about me being here, don’t worry. I’ll be on the next shuttle to Coruscant.”

“No Theron. I want to ask you about Tikal. I understand you were with her these past few weeks working on a project,” Satele chose her words carefully but ultimately, there was no gentle way of saying it, “it has also come to my attention that you two have been… intimate.”

Theron felt an unpleasant jolt of outrage but remained stoic. “Why don’t you just come out and say what you need to say, Grand Master.”

There was a sharp inflection in the title that hammered home just how much distance was between them. Satele flinched but pressed on.

“It would be an unwise course of action for you to associate too much with Master Ameron. There are tasks that she needs to complete; flaws that she must work on,” she very nearly faltered when Theron gave an incredulous smile.

“So what. This is you telling me to stay away from the wrong crowd?”

“Theron, I understand this may be difficult to hear, but her path is already shrouded in shadow. The dark side touches her actions, and they will only get worse if you indulge in this relationship,” her explanation seemed to ignite a fire in Theron’s eyes.

“Which actions exactly? Because, I read her file. I know what she did. I know that you and the council dragged her all over the the galaxy with a chore list and then had the gall to complain about how she went about it.”

“The motivation behind her actions-”

“Don’t talk to me about motivation. You were the one who sent her out there with a laser sword and a hit list.”

Satele clenched her hands as she kept her own emotions in check. “Is that what you truly believe? Or is that what you tell yourself in order to continue to pursue her? You must know by now that she is not a traditional Jedi. And yes, we use her skills as a last resort, but that does not mean the ends justify the means. She is incapable of holding a normal relationship. Her attachment to you would not be healthy.”

“Of course, it wouldn’t be the first time I almost ruined a Jedi’s career prospects,” he replied unable to keep the bitterness from his tone and Satele’s brow furrowed.

“You misunderstand, I’m not speaking to you on Tikal’s behalf. I’m doing this for you. If you insist on this she will reciprocate. No matter how much you believe otherwise, it will end poorly. I don’t want that for you, Theron. I want to spare you the pain.”

“Then spare me the rest of this conversation,” he snapped as the simmering rage within him bubbled over, “who do you think you are to tell me who I can or can’t fuck? You lost that right the moment you checked the box opting out of having a son. And you know what? That’s fine. You got everything you wanted out of it, but don’t come to me now and pretend we have anything resembling a personal relationship. We’re coworkers at best. And if we’re being honest, considering your track record, you’re the least qualified person to be doling out relationship advice.”

Satele watched as Theron got up, too stunned to respond.

“Good talkin’ to you,” and with that caustic parting he stormed back to the dormitories. He didn’t know what was more infuriating, the Satele’s condescending advice, or the fact that she would condemn their relationship as a failure.

“If you insist on this she will reciprocate. No matter how much you believe otherwise, it will end poorly.”

Right, because the idea that she would love me is so inherently wrong.

He stopped short as the words penetrated the fog of anger. Satele’s warning wasn’t that Tikal would reject him. Her fear was that Tikal would embrace him. Something akin to hope bubbled in his heart.

“How was your walk?” He looked up to see Tikal in front of him. Impulse won out once more and he hugged her.

“Theron? Are you alright?”

He closed his eyes tightly and held on. Later he would blame the painkillers, but for now he needed to feel grounded. He needed to belong somewhere.

“I’m with you, you know that. Right?” he asked quietly and in response he felt her arms wrap around him.

“Well yes, but it’s nice to be told,” she mused and, in that moment, he knew it would all work out. Despite what anybody else thought, they would be okay.

________________________

Original Fictober Promp List HERE!

[douchebagbrainwaves]

THE COURAGE OF DETAILS

They will have all the extra motivation that comes from being freed from the constraints of research. So far, we've reduced the problem from the direction of the arts, you're less likely to depend on this sort of calming lie is that we grow up thinking horrible things are normal. You could start users with a seed filter, but ultimately each user should have his own per-word probabilities based on the pie fallacy is stated explicitly:.1 Combine that with Pirsig and you get: Live in the future is to focus extra attention on specific parts of the email. Most hackers' first instinct is to try to think of startup ideas. As subjects got softer, the lies got more frequent. But if you yourself don't have good taste, how are you going to recognize a good designer? And the reason you should avoid these things is that you are already working as hard as you can in so many print publications—which is one of the first things he'll ask is, how much more.2 Let me repeat that recipe: finding the problem intolerable and feeling it must be very hard. In fact, faces seem to have made that deal, though perhaps it has to be able to filter them. I do, I look them straight in the eye and say I'm designing a new dialect of Lisp.3

In restoring your old car you have made yourself richer. At YC we call ideas that grow naturally out of the corner of his mouth is very disconcerting. This isn't quite true. Competitors commonly find ways to work around a patent.4 If economic inequality should be decreased. The source of the problem it fixes.5 The same is true in the arts, but most hackers are very competitive.

There is no such thing as better, it doesn't make any difference what Larry Page's net worth is compared to yours. Treat a startup as an optimization problem will help you avoid another pitfall that VCs worry about, and rightly—taking a long time it was most of making things easier, but now that the things we build are so complicated, there's another rapidly growing subset: making things easier. Windows itself.6 But really it doesn't matter much which you use. Why do you keep emails around after you've read them? The problem is not, in itself, what makes startups kick butt, but rather that small groups can be select. Marie Curie was on it because she was a woman, but as the corpus grows such tuning will happen automatically anyway.7 What are they to do? You pick the companies you want to get rich, and this trend has decades left to run. Right?

How do you tell whether something is the germ of a giant company. While the best way to discover startup ideas is to work with him on something. Kids, almost by definition, lack self-control.8 But it's not just fastidiousness that makes good hackers avoid nasty little problems. A viable startup might only have ten employees, which puts you within a factor of two? But I also think that the more different it gets.9 I've learned, to some degree, to judge technology by its cover. When you negotiate terms with a startup idea in one month, what if they'd chosen a month before the Altair appeared? What would you think of a financial advisor who put all his client's assets into one volatile stock? But that world ended a few years?

But you can't trust your opinions in the same way about the operating system. Notice all this time I've been talking about the limit case: the case where you not only have zero leisure time but indeed work so hard that you endanger your health.10 The unsexy filter is to ask yourself whether in your previous job you ever found yourself saying Why doesn't someone make x?11 Programs are very complex and, at least, by eliminating the drag of the pointy-haired middle manager who would be your boss in a big company: the pay's low but you spend most of your time working on new stuff. I wouldn't try to defend the actual numbers. Except in a few cases to buy a certain stock. Design by committee is a synonym for bad design. The Matrix have such resonance. Arguably pastoralism transformed a luxury into a commodity. Being at the leading edge of some rapidly changing field, there will be things that are false, and I'm going to talk about it to have anything more useful to say.12

Great programmers are sometimes said to be indifferent to money.13 Of all the approaches to fighting spam, from software to laws, I believe Bayesian filtering will be the single most effective. Don't spend much time worrying about the details of deal terms, especially when you first start angel investing. The part of angel investing that the decisions are hard. When I protested that the teacher had said the opposite, my father replied that the guy had no idea what he was talking about—that he was on the list because he was a programmer that Facebook seemed a good idea to have a mind that's prepared in the right startups is for investors.14 We were all lied to as kids, and some of the growth in economic inequality we've seen since then has been due to bad behavior of various kinds, there has been a qualitative change in the world. A job means doing something people want.

The way to kill it is to be young. This way you might be able to make something useful.15 I soon reached the conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be anything waiting for it. It was not till we were in our twenties that the truth came out: my sister, then about three, had accidentally stepped on the cat and broken its back. Instead of trading violins directly for potatoes, you trade violins for, say, approach offers as in this approach offers having a probability of more than. The reason our hypothetical jaded 10 year old leaning against a lamppost with a cigarette hanging out of the founders' own experiences organic startup ideas—by spending time learning about the easy part. If anyone wants to take on this kind of project. The cartoon strip Dilbert has a lot of other people's. Pay particular attention to things that chafe you. A company big enough to be fairly conservative, and within the company the people in the future, not now.16 So the guys you end up with special offers and valuable offers having probabilities of.

Notes

Down rounds are at selling it. Living on instant ramen would be improper to name names, while simultaneously implying that lies believed for a patent is conveniently just longer than the 50 minutes they may end up reproducing some of these groups, which is the odds are slightly worse.

Something similar has been happening for a reason.

Most were wrong, but investors can get done before that.

Give the founders.

It was harder for Darwin's contemporaries to grasp this than we can teach startups a lot more frightening in those days, then they're not ready to invest, it is still what seemed to us.

It was harder for you? Exercise for the talk to a car dealer.

Some are merely ugly ducklings in the production of high school kids at least bet money on convertible notes often have valuation caps, a market price if they did that in practice signalling hasn't been much of The New Industrial State to trying to focus on their utility function for money. So it may not be if Steve hadn't come back. They therefore think what they meant. So what ends up happening is that so many trade publications nominally have a single cause.

The existence of people we need to.

Different sections of the world as a definition of property without affecting and probably also the fashion leaders. Later stage investors won't invest.

We could have used another algorithm and everything I write out loud at least for those interested in each type of mail, I advised avoiding Javascript. One of the corpora.

After reading a draft of this essay, I have a standard piece of casuistry for this situation: that startups usually lose money at first had two parts: the source of food. Exercise for the talk to an adult. Throw in the King James Bible is Pride goeth before destruction, and many of the flock, or want tenure, avoid casual conversations with other people's.

If not, and B doesn't, that's not relevant to an investor derives mostly from the example of a type of thing. None at all. Which OS? You can build things for programmers, the work of selection.

So far, I suspect five hundred would be worth trying to capture the service revenue as well, but this sort of Gresham's Law of conversations. But an associate is not pagerank commercialized. A small, fast browser that was really only useful for one user.

It might also be good employees either. There is nothing more unconvincing, for example, would not be surprised if VCs' tendency to push founders to try to be staying at a particular valuation, that all metaphysics between Aristotle and 1783 had been Boylston Professor of Rhetoric at Harvard Business School at the mercy of investors want to stay in a limited way, without becoming a police state. But in most competitive sports, the computer hardware and software companies constrained in a place to exchange views. No Logo, Naomi Klein says that a company that could be mistaken, and—and probably also a second factor: startup founders are in a series.

Together these were the case of the growth in wealth, and there didn't seem to have too few customers even if the president faced unscripted questions by giving a press conference. This probably undervalues the company than you expect.

Dropbox wasn't rejected by all the best startups, the higher the walls become.

Thanks to Brad Templeton, Trevor Blackwell, Fred Wilson, the friends I promised anonymity to, Robert Morris, and Jessica Livingston for smelling so good.

[kingdomofthelogos]

The Time for Confrontation

Read Nehemiah 13

Nehemiah closes out his memoir by rebuking both false teachers and the folly of spiritual ignorance. This chapter exemplifies the subtle and complex ways that corruption and ignorance can slip into a population to cause chaos. Nehemiah’s hand is firm, but he is motivated by service to God, and sees his leadership over the Jewish people as an opportunity to live out his faith. Scripture teaches us there is a time for confrontation, and it comes out of motivation to God and His truth rather than service to public popularity and the protection of institutions. This final entry in Nehemiah’s memoir shows his philosophy of governance, and we do well to appreciate it.

This chapter is included in the Holy Scriptures for a reason. We are to be stewards of God’s truth, and not editors of it. There is a time to do things which are unpopular, to tell people truths that they do not want to hear. There is a time to call out the moral corruption which made itself a home in the righteous institutions of God. Idolatry, the act of having anything other than God serve as the moral authority which deems what is and is not permissible as good, always wants to make its way into the holy places of God in order to corrupt them.

Nehemiah deals with a variety of moral folly in his memoir’s final chapter, and it is important to illuminate them. Tobiah, a member of the Ammonite people who had historically conspired to corrupt the People of God and bring destruction upon them, has once again presented himself as a thorn in Nehemiah’s side. People like Tobiah do not simply walk away when they are defeated; therefore it is not surprising that he sought an opportunity to bring moral corruption into Nehemiah’s work. What is surprising, is that he was handed such an opportunity to do evil by Eliashib the priest.

Eliashib the priest’s wickedness is far more surprising, and also far more damaging, than any of the plots Tobiah has worked. Eliashib and Tobiah were related to one another by marriage, and despite Eliashib’s status as a priest he found himself willing to corrupt his faith out of service to Tobiah. This chapter points to the great distinction between motivations and intentions. It is likely that Eliashib felt good about his intentions, he was just working out a favor with a family member of political importance. Maybe he thought it would keep the peace, maybe he thought it would give him an advantage in the broader regions of the Persian Empire. We don’t fully know Eliashib’s intentions, but such is true with many people in our world today. Regardless, our intentions about a situation do not dictate what is true and what we do know from the text is that Eliashib was motivated to serve Tobiah rather than God. 

Eliashib was a priest, meaning he was in a unique position of spiritual leadership. People would have looked up to him for moral guidance, and many would probably go along with whatever he instructed believing it was good teaching of God’s law. However, Eliashib was obviously not faithful to God’s truths. Just as Nehemiah gives us a documented case of a false prophet earlier in the memoir, he now gives us an example of a false teacher. False teachers are people who, for whatever reason, are more motivated to satisfy people, perhaps people of their choosing, than they are motivated to serve God as faithful stewards of His truth. They are people that choose to be editors of God’s law rather than stewards of it, for they choose what they like and don’t like, replacing inconvenient matters with the things they prefer. In Eliashib’s case, he replaced one of the commanded store houses with quarters for a man who hated the principles of God.

This is something which happens quite frequently. False teachers take out something, perhaps something which seems of little moral importance like a storehouse of grain, and then make an opening for things that reject and desire to replace the principles of God. Nehemiah did not tolerate this, and he had the moral fortitude to eradicate the problem, even though it may have not been popular for him to rebuke a priest in this way.

Eliashib is at worst a conspirator against God’s truths, and at best a spineless man who believes in lukewarm faith. Either way, the fruits of his character are the same. False teachers such as Eliashib have plagued the People of God throughout history, and still plague us today. Nehemiah’s memoir is included in scripture to remind us that we must rebuke such people out in the open and make a public distinction between what is truly holy and what is corrupt.

The second problem Nehemiah faces is also unfortunate, and there is no soft way of couching the truth of it. Ignorance has crept in and is now eroding the People of God. Moreover, this ignorance has resulted from separation from the law and intermarriage with foreigners, where those of Jewish blood chose to assimilate into their spouses' culture rather than learn the basics of their covenant to God.

In regards to those who are profaning the sabbath with work, it is clear that for whatever reason, they are either ignoring the laws of the Sabbath or they are unaware of them. Either way, this is ignorance of God’s order. If everyone lives in keeping with God’s order, society will endure with harmony. If everyone lives in spite of God’s order, society will indeed collapse. Nehemiah has a deep respect for God’s law, and even though he is not a priest or teacher by profession, He takes it upon himself to draw the line and defend the Law of God.

Now we must consider the truth of Nehemiah’s response to intermarriage. Our modern world would read this text with eyes that see hatred for foreigners, but that is not the hard truth being taught. It is quite clear that God is welcoming of foreigners, but they must enter His Kingdom through the covenant, for there is no other way. The ancient world is not the melting pot of the modern West, and if ancient people married outside of their native people group, then either the husband or wife would have to leave behind their homeland and religion to assimilate into that of their spouse’s. Intermarriage is a pathway to unfaithfulness, and that is exactly what has happened here. As Nehemiah’s memoir has documented prior to chapter 13, this has gone on for so long that people are totally ignorant of Moses, the intricacies of the law, and even the joys of the festivals. 

Ignorance can destroy a society, but let us not be fooled as to what it really is. Ignorance is not the same thing as living without formal education, for there are many wise and highly intelligent people who have no formal education. Ignorance is a state of mind that is totally separated from truth. 

The ignorance plaguing Nehemiah’s people is one with many tiers, and we do well to pay attention. There is an ignorance of language, which is the basic tool we use to think and communicate. Having an extensive vocabulary does not make one smart, but thinking clearly with eyes and ears for truth is essential to wisdom. There is also a practical ignorance which plagues the people, for they do not really know a lot about the law and many of their spiritual leaders are either corrupt or uninspired to do anything meaningful. It took a cupbearer to put forth any effort to restore their society.

The last sort of ignorance is spiritual ignorance, an ignorance of purpose. The people have forgotten that they are not an ordinary nation. They are part of a covenantal nation. Everything people do is a spiritual matter, and the Jewish people were chosen with a unique spiritual purpose of blessing the whole earth. Spiritual ignorance leads to complacency; moreover, it takes people to the point of demoralization where they do not care about anything. They become depressed nihilists who are fine living in shame. 

Nehemiah addresses this ignorance, and once again draws the line. This would certainly be unpopular to do, and people would certainly despise him for being so harsh in addressing this matter. Yet, Nehemiah takes a very firm stance. Nehemiah rips out people’s hair and makes them take an oath.

There is a reason this is included in Scripture, for there is a time to confront evil and sin. Nehemiah’s attitude is one that says both “Remember this also in my favor, O my God, and spare me according to the greatness of your steadfast love.” and “Remember them, O my God, because they have defiled the priesthood, the covenant of the priests and the Levite.” When the spiritual leaders act corruptly, Nehemiah takes strong action. He does not espouse a philosophy to sweep issues under the rug out of worry that public rebuke would damage the perception of the priesthood and create division. No, he rebukes people very publicly and clarifies what is and what is not righteous.

One of the great questions that plagues the church is how does the Biblical worldview deal with conflict. Scripture teaches us there is a time to confront evil and corruption. Christ Himself confronts people and addresses evil and sin in a clear manner that is both merciful and severe. Christ is willing to forgive people and give them a new life if they will receive Him, and at the same time He will abruptly rebuke those who prefer to be broods of vipers rather than accept truth. The work on the cross is the ultimate confrontation between life and death, showing us the great love of God.

Nehemiah closes out his memoir with an example of how important it is to take a principled stand in the public sphere. Nehemiah’s motivation is first to serve God and his service to others is an extension of his faith.  His philosophy of governance is one that is motivated by truth and not popularity and peer approval. Revival and restoration cannot endure without principle. The more we look at our current moments as opportunities to live out the Biblical worldview in service to God’s truth, the better we will be positioned for revival.

[catholiccom-blog]

A Primer on Richard Rohr

Full Question

        I've heard that Fr. Richard Rohr teaches some pretty sketchy stuff. Do you know anyone who has a summary of his teachings?        

Answer

For whatever good he does, Fr. Richard Rohr, O.F.M., is not a reliable teacher of the Catholic Faith. All quotes below by Fr. Rohr are taken from his book Everything Belongs: The Gift of Contemplative Prayer.

To Fr. Richard Rohr, Jesus Christ is an ideal guide of sorts, but he’s not truly Lord.

Jesus made clear that he came to save the world (John 3:16), and to this end he founded and commissioned his Church to make disciples off all nations (Matt. 28:18-20). Jesus made clear that he is uniquely the way, truth, and life (John 14:6), that his truth would set us free (John 8:31-32), that those who listened to his apostles and their successors listened to him, and that those who didn’t rejected him and his heavenly Father who sent him (Luke 10:16).

Jesus wasn’t afraid to be a demanding teacher, and many left him when they couldn’t stomach his teaching, e.g., on the Eucharist (John 6:47-71). Jesus also proclaimed that he came to bring a sword and not peace if peace meant a false irenicism in which merely human family members were chosen at the expense of faithful alliance with him, their Savior (Matt. 10:34-39).

Rohr’s Jesus is much more benign. For Rohr, Jesus merely gives “ideal eyes by which to see the real nature of reality” (emphasis added). “Real nature” is important, because Rohr does not present Catholicism as it really is. Rather, it’s a non-demanding, non-threatening, ultimately optional way of life: "The gospel is not a competing idea. It’s that by which see all ideas in proper context. We believe as Christians that Jesus gave us the ideal eyes by which to see the real nature of reality. He does not lead with his judgments"(95, emphasis original).

Some might say Rohr is at least partially right. For example, Jesus did not lead with judgment against the woman at the well (John 4). But after introducing himself as the Messiah and showing the woman her worth, he called her to holiness, noting she had been married five times and was living with someone to whom she wasn’t married. Rohr misses this in assessing the Gospel as he overlooks the hard words Jesus has about various sins in the Sermon on the Mount and elsewhere: "But note that Jesus’ concept of 'the reign of God' is totally positive—not fear-based or against any individual, group, sin or problem" (107, emphasis original).

Even more fundamentally, Rohr falls into religious indifferentism regarding the basic mission of Christ and his Church:

I think Christianity has created a great problem in the Western world by repeatedly presenting itself, not as a way of seeing all things, but as one competing ideology among others. . . . Simone Weil, the brilliant French resistor [a woman who sadly declined to be baptized and become Catholic], said that 'the tragedy of Christianity is that it came to see itself as replacing other religions instead of adding something to all of them.' I could not agree more (93, emphasis added).

Rohr provides insight into his spiritual outlook when he reveals that he believes in apokatastasis (also spelled apocatastasis), a heresy known more in modern times as “universalism,” which teaches that all the damned, whether men or women or fallen angels, will ultimately be restored and join God in heavenly glory for all eternity. This belief was made somewhat popular by the Church Father Origen, who was misguided on a number of doctrinal matters.

Citing unnamed early Church Fathers, Rohr describes this “universal restoration” as “the real meaning” of Christ’s resurrection, which means that God’s love is “so perfect and so victorious that in fact it would finally win out in every single person’s life” (131). He erroneously says that this view “gave rise to the mythology of purgatory” (131). He adds incorrectly that apocatastasis is not a heresy:

When I read the history of the church and its dogma, I see apokatastasis was never condemned as heretical. We may believe it if we want to. We were never told we had to believe it, but neither was it condemned (132, emphasis original).

It’s true that some people, like St. Gregory of Nyssa, espoused apocatastasis in the early Church when the Church had not pronounced definitively on the matter. But as the belief spread it was condemned by the regional Council of Constantinople in 543, and Pope Vigilius confirmed the council's pronouncements.

Ten years later, the Second Council of Constantinople, an ecumenical or universal council, reaffirmed the condemnation of various heretics and “their sinful works,” including Origen, with no correction on the recent condemnation of apocatastasis (canon 11). If apocatastasis were indeed true, the Church’s infallible teachings on mortal sin and the eternal punishment of hell, for example, would be rendered meaningless.

It is true, as Rohr says, that the Church has never pronounced that any particular person is in hell (132). But the Church has reaffirmed the existence of hell and its eternal punishments, most recently in Pope Paul VI’s Credo of the People of God (12) and the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1033-37). Lest there be any doubt, the Catechism affirms—citing St. John Damascene, who lived from 676 to 749—“There is no repentance for the angels after their fall, just as there is no repentance for men after death” (393).

In light of his espousal of apocatastasis, Rohr’s book title—Everything Belongs—makes more sense. In the end, there is no condemnation, only reconciliation and eternal communion with God: “For me, the utter powerlessness of God is that God forgives. . . .  God seems to be so ready to surrender divine power” (153). Rohr’s God is all mercy, and a distorted mercy at that, and thus there is no justice.

Consequently, for Rohr there is a tension between truth and love.  Jesus says that his truth will set us free (John 8:32), but Rohr says “the law does not give life; only the Spirit gives life, as Paul teaches in Romans and Galatians” (40). But Paul is speaking of the Old Covenant law, not the liberating New Covenant law of Jesus, and Rohr overlooks St. Paul’s hard pronouncements on mortal sin and damnation. “True religion is always about love. Love is the ultimate reality” (103), Rohr adds, whereas “a lot that’s called orthodoxy, loyalty and obedience is grounded in fear” (102). “The great commandment is not ‘thou shalt be right,’” he says. “The great commandment is to ‘be in love’” (88).

Love trumps truth, because God will win out in every person’s life, Rohr says, since “God will turn all our human crucifixions into resurrection” (132). Here Rohr fails to see that hell is man’s “definitive self-exclusion from communion with God” (CCC 1033, emphasis added), and that true love entails not compelling one to have communion. God will not force us to accept heaven.

In citing Acts 3:21 to defend universal restoration, Rohr fails to see that those who will not listen to the prophet—namely, Jesus—will be destroyed (Acts 3:23). This is not to pronounce eternal judgment on non-Catholics and thus exclude invincible ignorance but rather to affirm further that hell exists and that human beings can choose it. Choices do have consequences, some of them possibly eternal. In that light, the Second Vatican Council Fathers teaches in sober urgency regarding non-Catholics:

But often men, deceived by the Evil One, have become vain in their reasonings and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, serving the creature rather than the Creator. Or some there are who, living and dying in this world without God, are exposed to final despair. Wherefore to promote the glory of God and procure the salvation of all of these, and mindful of the command of the Lord, 'Preach the Gospel to every creature,' the Church fosters the missions with care and attention" (Lumen Gentium 16, emphasis added, footnotes omitted).

In contrast, even though Jesus founded Catholic Church (Matt. 16:18-19) and gave the Great Commission to make disciples of all nations (Matt. 28:18-20), for Rohr the Church and her mission are not so important and urgent:

Institutional religion is a humanly necessary but also immature manifestation of this 'hidden mystery' by which God is saving the world. . . . Institutional religion is never an end in itself, but merely a wondrous and 'uncertain trumpet' of the message (180, emphasis original).

I personally do not believe that Jesus came to found a separate religion as much as he came to present a universal message of vulnerability and foundational unity that is necessary for all religions, the human soul, and history itself to survive. Thus Christians can rightly call him “the Savior of the world” (John 4:42) but no longer in the competitive and imperialistic way that they have usually presented him. By very definition, vulnerability and unity do not compete or dominate.  n fact, they make competition and domination impossible. The cosmic Christ is no threat to anything but separateness, illusion, domination, and any imperial ego. In that sense, Jesus, the Christ, is the ultimate threat, but first of all Christians themselves. Only then will they have any universal and salvific message for the rest of the world" (181-82, emphases added).

Jesus Christ does indeed love all and thus died for all, but the true unity he preaches requires a choice to accept or reject him and his Church, as he preached 2,000 years ago. The Christ whom Rohr preaches is not the authentic Jesus, and his related proclamation of the gospel is not the one that that the Church has proclaimed and safeguarded for 2,000 years with the power of Holy Spirit. As a result, Rohr remains an unreliable and spiritually dangerous guide for Catholic and non-Catholic alike.

[meru-chanx3]

Solana, Rossete, Reiner, and Soleil!

SO MANY AIFJAISCPODS TY MAKO!!! AAA

Full Name: Solana Clovehart (from 9lives)Gender and Sexuality: straight femalePronouns: she/herEthnicity/Species: a Gifted (being blessed with magic/witch)Physical appearance: reddish orange hair worn in braided pigtails, golden eyesBirthplace and Birthdate: The Capital (I still haven’t done much world building for 9lives yet pkodwjaifscd)Age: 20Guilty Pleasures: hoarding an abnormal bunch of animals she finds in the swamp near her shack in the forest as pets (toads, salamanders, tarantulas). She absolutely adores them. Phobias: she used to be afraid of heights, but she’s overcome it with the help of her sister and some broom flying lessonsWhat They Would Be Famous For: being the leader of the party who discovered the cure for the Snow White plague that was killing off the humans. She’s always been using her medicinal magic to help others, especially humans, and was scorned for her involvement with them, especially by Lionel, who had a rivalry with her sister Luna.What They Would Get Arrested For: being suspected of overthrowing the king when she and her party traced the seed of the plague back to him and his royal circle.OC You Ship Them With: Lionel Padfoot; he had previously looked down on her for devoting herself in a useless field of magic. However, after being turned by a cat by Luna as revenge for ruining Lana’s campaign to assist the humans, he comes to appreciate her when she rescues him from stray dogs. She heals him and he decides to stay by her side during her quest to find a cure. He ultimately falls for her selflessness and devotion to help those in need. OC Most Likely To Murder Them: King Medicus or his henchmen. Or even the plague. That was what killed her sister when she refused to abandon a village of infected humans.Favorite Movie/Book Genre: medical text books, history booksLeast Favorite Movie/Book Cliche: n/aTalents and/or Powers: she’s managed to use the skills she’s learned in school and alter them for medicinal use. Her magic is quite effective and convenient.Why Someone Might Love Them: her sweet nature and unrelenting drive to learn Why Someone Might Hate Them: some claim her to be a traitor to the Gifted for helping lowly humansHow They Change: Although she initially seemed undeterred by the other Gifted being hostile to her, Lionel as her cat sees her crumble and weep when she’s by herself in her shack. She wants to stay strong in order to help others, but the pressure can be crushing. By the end, she’s happy with the path she’s chosen and the friends she’s made, but Gifted and human. Why You Love Them: She’s given so much up for others and tries her best to catch up to her older twin sister.

Full Name: Rosette (from Lord Drache’s Inner Hell [fantasy/comedy])Gender and Sexuality: straight femalePronouns: she/herEthnicity/Species: humanPhysical appearance: orange-brown wavy hair in side ponytail (bun when she’s hunting or fighting), sharp green eyesBirthplace and Birthdate: Bohrenn, Chelona. August 28Age: 19Guilty Pleasures: sunsets; watching the golden sky darken into a blanket twinkling night blanket eases her and gazing at all the stars a little less lonely somehowPhobias: n/aWhat They Would Be Famous For: apprehending the demon king Drache, if only Reiner would let her turn him in as bountyWhat They Would Get Arrested For: snagging food from the open market. Huntresses gotta eat.OC You Ship Them With: Reiner as a sibling ship. He’s everyone’s little brother, really ww. She has a love-hate relationship with Drache and Soleil. They can get under her skin, but she still cares for them, although she doesn’t want them to know that.OC Most Likely To Murder Them: Drache wouldn’t last five seconds against her.Favorite Movie/Book Genre: doesn’t read muchLeast Favorite Movie/Book Cliche: ew romance. Like, romance isn’t a bad thing, but some novels just. Overdo it.Talents and/or Powers: killer knife skillsWhy Someone Might Love Them: tough and reliable, but still caringWhy Someone Might Hate Them: she can be pretty selfish and does things only if there’s some sort of benefit for her, using her pretty looks to decieve men and get what she wants. She kind of takes advantage of Reiner this way and he either doesn’t realize or doesn’t seem to mind.How They Change: She grew up in the slums and got into some dangerous, shady business in order have some food on her plate at the end of each day. Her mindset was to always be suspicious of others and fight to survive and when Reiner helped her one day, she couldn’t help but take the opportunity to latch onto him and pretend to be his friend so he could provide for her. When Reiner let Drache join their party, they butted heads a lot and he would often call her out on her bullshit. When Soleil forced his way into their group, she couldn’t stand him either because he desperately trying to win her heart. But overtime, she’s become fond of everyone and has learned to care for others instead. Why You Love Them: she’s like that one older sister who treats you like shit sometimes, but would always have your back when you’re having trouble

Full Name: Reiner (from Lord Drache)Gender and Sexuality: straight malePronouns: he/himEthnicity/Species: human Physical appearance: fluffy white hair, gentle blue eyesBirthplace and Birthdate: Cherza, Chelona. March 7Age: 16Guilty Pleasures: playing in rivers and the rain, although he catches colds easily, poor childPhobias: spiders, and just insects and bugs in generalWhat They Would Be Famous For: being the prophesied hero of ChelonaWhat They Would Get Arrested For: being too pureOC You Ship Them With: Drache falls for his sweetness, which causes him to shed his rough skin and become a kinder person. OC Most Likely To Murder Them: because of his insane luck, no enemy can touch him. He tries to avoid fights as much as he can because he doesn’t want to hurt anyone anyways.Favorite Movie/Book Genre: adventureLeast Favorite Movie/Book Cliche: n/aTalents and/or Powers: apparently, he fits the hero of the prophecy and is blessed with insane luck and power. He’s easily able to get through nearly any situation and barely has to try. Why Someone Might Love Them: he’s compassionate and always stands up for justiceWhy Someone Might Hate Them: his flaws are that he can be really naive and doesn’t know what’s happening of what he’s doing half of the time. How They Change: Reiner had initially been pretty naive and let people get away with anything if they came up with good reasons or unless they were blatantly acting out of evil. Thus, Rosette was able to slip under his bad guy radar and leeched off his wealth and luck. However, after showing mercy to Drache and befriending the pathetic demon king, he’s learned from him how to be more careful. Why You Love Them: he’s just. a really pure boy. And Drache is always afraid Soleil might taint him and Rosette might lead him down a path of violence and he just wants to protect his innocence ww

Full Name: Soleil (from Lord Drache)Gender and Sexuality: agender (technically since he’s a hermaphrodite, although he’s cool with being referred to as a dude) and bisexualPronouns: he/himEthnicity/Species: angelPhysical appearance: straw blond hair that falls around his neck like a thin mane (Kaoru from Enstars), energetic lavender eyesBirthplace and Birthdate: was kicked out of Heaven on June 9 Age: appears to be in his early 20sGuilty Pleasures: Flowers. He’s studied floriography and can gather the most beautiful, meaningful bouquets, but they don’t do him any good when ever woman or man refuses him for being too pushy.Phobias: large bodies of water. For some reason, he has a crushing fear of drowning. Maybe because Lune picked the ocean as the place to dump him from the sky. Drache, Reiner, and Rosette encounter him by saving him from sinking to the bottom.What They Would Be Famous For: banished for lusting for human loveWhat They Would Get Arrested For: excessive flirting and borderline sexual harassment qo[wpfkejids you fail at being an angel, you filthy sinner. How is Drache a more decent character.OC You Ship Them With: I would ship him with Rosette but she wouldn’t like it at allOC Most Likely To Murder Them: Rosette. Or Drache. Whoever he manages to tick off more.Favorite Movie/Book Genre: romanceLeast Favorite Movie/Book Cliche: sad endingsTalents and/or Powers: healing powers and flight (although it takes him ages to learn how to fly. He never really used his wings much in the past). He also used to have light magic, but that was taken away from him by his supervisor Lune as part of his punishment.Why Someone Might Love Them: it pains him to see people alone and he can be good company and hears people out (he fell in love with Rosette from heaven because he saw how lonely she was living on her own before she met Reiner)Why Someone Might Hate Them: sometimes, he doesn’t know when to shut up or restrain himselfHow They Change: Initially, Sol comes off as annoying, frivolous, and clingy, but as he learns about how difficult life can be and how complex humans are, he becomes more considerate and respectful. It hurt him that Rose rejected him even though he was banished for trying to pursue her, but he eventually accepts just being friends with her. Instead of lounging around,  like he used to, Sol now contributes what he can to his party and becomes more responsible, as Reiner looks up to him and Drache as older brothers.Why You Love Them: despite being kind of a perv, he actually is really caring and has a lot of love to give. He just wishes others would love him back.

I still need to make proper pages for 9lives, Lord Drache’s Inner Hell, Heartstrings, and Haunted orz. But I think I’ll do that when I have at least one portrait to attach to each main character;;

[blackchristiannation]

LISTEN: Whyte House Family Devotions #322 (Sunday, April 8, 2018): "Unchanging Human Nature," by Billy Graham

https://soundcloud.com/danielwhyteiii/whyte-house-family-devotions-322-040818-unchanging-human-nature-by-billy-graham

[caption id="attachment_40916" align="alignleft" width="156"] Daniel Whyte III[/caption] My family and I have had morning devotions, or family altar as some people call it, every day ever since my wife, Meriqua, and I were married 30 years ago. We have prayed and read the Bible together as well as other devotional books as a family, and it is the only reason why this family has stayed together, and the only reason why God has blessed our family and used our family in ministry all of these years. We read Ephesians 5 and 6 every morning as it relates to the role of each member of the family and how that we need to put on the whole armor of God to fight against the devil who is seeking to destroy our family and all Christian families, churches, and Christians. So, now after 30 years of doing this in our home, we are opening this up to others who don't have a family to pray with, who don't have a spouse, or who are single by choice, and to encourage all families who are still intact to go back to the family altar and have devotions together every morning. In these devotions, you may hear me deal with a temptation I'm facing in my life, you may hear me rebuke my wife about not doing what she should be doing, or you may hear me get on one of my children's cases about something they're doing. Don't be shocked; this is real life. SING "DOXOLOGY" Praise God from Whom all blessings flow Praise Him, all creatures here below Praise Him above, ye heavenly hosts Praise Father, Son and Holy Ghost Amen Billy Graham said, “Make it your goal to build strong foundations for your life -- foundations constructed from prayer and the truths of God’s Word.” ------ PRAY THE LORD'S PRAYER Our Father which art in Heaven, Hallowed be Thy Name, Thy Kingdom come, Thy Will be done in earth, as it is in Heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For Thine is the Kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen. ------ EPHESIANS 6:4 And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. So far, we have discussed how fathers may provoke their children to anger by capriciousness, unreasonableness, favoritism, selfishness, criticism without praise, and demanding perfection. Steven J. Cole writes in his commentary on this passage, “Fathers may provoke their children to anger by extremes of over- and under- discipline. Some parents react to the permissiveness of our society by laying down the law in their homes. They have rules for everything and they expect instant and total compliance, or there are consequences. The home is run like a boot camp, where when the drill sergeant yells a command, you’re supposed to respond instantly. But in that sort of environment, there is no heart of concern that the child become all that God wants him to be. There is no explanation to the child of the reason for the rules. It’s just discipline for discipline’s sake. "Other parents react to the legalism that they have encountered by allowing anything. They don’t want to stifle their children’s developing personalities. So they don’t establish and enforce any standards or rules. Marla and I once visited a young family where the boys were running on the kitchen countertops and the parents just laughed and shook their heads as if to say, “Well, boys will be boys!” Another time, I was horrified to watch high school kids at a church social at someone’s home step on the couch and climb over the back, rather than walk around! The parents had not taught these children any respect for others’ property. "Under-discipline will result in anger in the children when they get out into the world and get penalized because they don’t understand how the world works. They’ll be angry towards a 'mean' boss who won’t tolerate their hang-loose approach. They’ll be angry when they get fired for being a few minutes late every day because they were raised with a lack of discipline.” ------- PRAYER ------- DEVOTIONAL PASSAGE: Psalm 123:1-4 1 Unto thee lift I up mine eyes, O thou that dwellest in the heavens. 2 Behold, as the eyes of servants look unto the hand of their masters, and as the eyes of a maiden unto the hand of her mistress; so our eyes wait upon the Lord our God, until that he have mercy upon us. 3 Have mercy upon us, O Lord, have mercy upon us: for we are exceedingly filled with contempt. 4 Our soul is exceedingly filled with the scorning of those that are at ease, and with the contempt of the proud. Regarding this passage, Matthew Henry writes: “Our Lord Jesus has taught us to look unto God in prayer as our Father in heaven. In every prayer a good man lifts up his soul to God; especially when in trouble. We desire mercy from him; we hope he will show us mercy, and we will continue waiting on him till it come. The eyes of a servant are to his master's directing hand, expecting that he will appoint him his work. And also to his supplying hand. Servants look to their master or their mistress for their portion of meat in due season. And to God we must look for daily bread, for grace sufficient; from him we must receive it thankfully.” --------- PRAYER FOR THE ESTATES 1. Clergy (church) 2. Government 3. People (citizens) 4. The press (media) 5. New media/Online journalists PRAYER FOR CHURCH LEADERSHIP - For all pastors, church leaders, denominational leaders, Bible teachers, missionaries, and ministry workers. GOVERNMENT LEADERS 1 Timothy 2:1-2 says, "I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty." President Donald Trump and his administration Vice President Mike Pence First Lady Melania Trump Second Lady Karen Pence All White House staff including: House Liaison Joyce Meyer All leaders of federal agencies including: National Credit Union Administration Chairman J. Mark McWatters All state governors including: New Hampshire Governor Chris Sununu All city mayors including: Belle Isle, FL, Mayor William G. Brooks All members of Congress including: Florida Representative Daniel Webster All law enforcement officials including: Belle Isle, FL, Police Chief Laura Houston All military leaders including: Defense Secretary James Mattis / General Lori J. Robinson, Commander of U.S. Northern Command Leaders of nations around the world including: Malaysia's Prime Minister Najib Razak For the peace of Jerusalem PRAYER FOR THE PEOPLE / CITIZENS PRAYER FOR THE MEDIA PRAYER FOR CURRENT EVENTS AROUND THE WORLD - For the comfort of the families of 3 people killed in a vehicle-ramming attack in Munster, Germany; for the recovery of the 20 people injured - For the comfort of the families of nearly 70 people killed in fighting in Syria this week, and we pray for thee ultimate resolution of the conflict. - For the comfort of the families of three people killed in a fire in Israel and for the recovery of the dozens who were injured PRAYER REQUESTS Marilyn please give her a Godly husband Jean please help him to become a preacher if that is Your will Ighemuno Help her to come to know You as Saviour, and help her to grow in the faith THOSE WHO HAVE ACCEPTED CHRIST AS SAVIOR Josphine Linet Joyce THOSE WHO HAVE RECOMMITTED THEIR LIVES TO CHRIST Jennifer Chinwe Constend DEVOTIONAL READING: “Unchanging Human Nature,” by Billy Graham John 1:29 says, “Look! There is the Lamb of God who takes away the world's sin.” At the cross of Christ, sin reached its climax. Its most terrible display took place at Calvary. It was never blacker or more hideous. We see the human heart laid bare and its corruption fully exposed. Some people have said that man has improved since that day, that if Christ came back today, He would not be crucified but would be given a glorious reception. Christ does come to us every day in the form of Bibles that we do not read, in the form of churches that we do not attend, in the form of human need that we pass by. I am convinced that if Christ came back today, He would be crucified more quickly than He was two thousand years ago. Sin never improves. Human nature has not changed. Amd the only hope for a better world is found in Jesus Christ, whom so many continue to reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Now, if you do not know Jesus Christ as your Savior, allow me to show you how you can place your faith and trust in Him for Salvation from sin and Hell. First, accept the fact that you are a sinner, and that you have broken God's law. The Bible says in Romans 3:23: "For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God." Second, accept the fact that there is a penalty for sin. The Bible states in Romans 6:23: "For the wages of sin is death…" Third, accept the fact that you are on the road to hell. Jesus Christ said in Matthew 10:28: "And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." Now that is bad news, but here's the good news. Jesus Christ said in John 3:16: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." Just believe in your heart that Jesus Christ died for your sins, was buried, and rose from the dead by the power of God for you so that you can live eternally with Him. Pray and ask Him to come into your heart today, and He will. Romans 10:9 & 13 says, "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved… For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." If you believe that Jesus Christ died on the Cross for your sins, was buried, and rose from the dead, and you want to trust Him for your Salvation today, please pray with me this simple prayer: Holy Father God, I realize that I am a sinner and that I have done some bad things in my life. I am sorry for my sins, and today I choose to turn from my sins. For Jesus Christ sake, please forgive me of my sins. I believe with all of my heart that Jesus Christ died for me, was buried, and rose again. I trust Jesus Christ as my Savior and I choose to follow Him as Lord from this day forward. Lord Jesus, please come into my heart and save my soul and change my life today. Amen. If you just trusted Jesus Christ as your Saviour, and you prayed that prayer and meant it from your heart, I declare to you that based upon the Word of God, you are now saved from Hell and you are on your way to Heaven. Welcome to the family of God! I want to congratulate you on doing the most important thing in life and that is receiving Jesus Christ as your Lord and Saviour. For more information to help you grow in your newfound faith in Christ, go to Gospel Light Society.com and read "What To Do After You Enter Through the Door". Jesus Christ said in John 10:9, "I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture." Until next time, May the Lord Bless You!

Daniel Whyte III has spoken in meetings across the United States and in over twenty-five foreign countries. He is the author of over forty books including the Essence Magazine, Dallas Morning News, and Amazon.com national bestseller, Letters to Young Black Men. He is also the president of Gospel Light Society International, a worldwide evangelistic ministry that reaches thousands with the Gospel each week, as well as president of Torch Ministries International, a Christian literature ministry. He is heard by thousands each week on his radio broadcasts/podcasts, which include: The Prayer Motivator Devotional, The Prayer Motivator Minute, as well as Gospel Light Minute X, the Gospel Light Minute, the Sunday Evening Evangelistic Message, the Prophet Daniel’s Report, the Second Coming Watch Update and the Soul-Winning Motivator, among others. He holds a Bachelor’s Degree in Theology from Bethany Divinity College, a Bachelor’s degree in Religion from Texas Wesleyan University, a Master’s degree in Religion, a Master of Divinity degree, and a Master of Theology degree from Liberty University's Rawlings School of Divinity (formerly Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary). He is currently a candidate for the Doctor of Ministry degree. He has been married to the former Meriqua Althea Dixon, of Christiana, Jamaica since 1987. God has blessed their union with seven children.

[queenscooby-blog]

Skyrim : Character Stories & an Entry Opportunity into the miniseries!👀👍

All my Skyrim characters have backstory's that somehow interlink with one another and I'm currently writing their story's out to create like a little mini series of my own. Each book focuses on one of my characters and explores their mindset, emotions, ambitions and backgrounds. I have : Ezra of House Tulle (a 29 year old Woodelf). This humble elf has no interest in war or violence. He spends his days picking flowers and reading books and occasionally selling them, he hunts most rabbits and mudcrabs for food. Ezra is a skilled healer and is considered a close friend to Issalia of House Wenfel. He has no love interest and lives in a small cabin near Riverwood (Truthfully, something tells me Ezra could swing both ways if y'all know what I mean...hahaha) ... He later moves to Solstheim to fulfill a teaching post at Wenfel College under the request of Issalia whom he met at the College of Winterhold when he studied Restoration. Then Issalia of House Wenfel. A respected 26year old Imperial that is the last of her House. At the age of 11, Issalia left Cyrodiil after her home was tragically burnt down with it's residents all insidr in a riot against the Stormcloak spies. Issalia left on the back of a Khajiit Trading Caravan and travelled back with them to Elswyr where she learnt much about them. After that, Issalia carved herself a life of education and rights to freedom. She has travelled across much of Tamriel and has studied with the highest of peoples and has gained respect from the word surrounding her. She is a highly respected, but peaceful young woman who arrived in Raven Rock, Solstheim to build a school for the people on the island as a starting point of her spread of knowledge. Here is where she meets her current lover, Teldryn Sero, who immediately takes interest in her after meeting her in the tavern. The Wenfel College is the first of many and has educators from all over Tamriel that had become trusted close friends of Issalia during her time as a scholar. Her College offers free studies and dorms for it's students and is considered very well developed and offers everything from Blacksmithing to Flute playing. Any person from any age & race may enter under the condition that they do not harm the other scholars. The College offers hands on and theoretical practice for all subjects and Issalia is able to take the scholars on excursions for learning purposes or just for a fun break anywhere the majority agrees upon. Issalia has inherited all of her families' inheritance and so she has many resources at hand to spare and she chose it to educate. Aside from the fun things like the Wenfel boat; her inheritance includes the title of Legate in the Imperial Legion. Issalia chose to abandon this post upon her 17th birthday and passed it on to her good friend Priya Tullius. Her long last friend of her Cyrodiilic childhood merely came to visit her for some time at the Wenfel College to eventually thank Issalia for the post and congratulate her on her work, but not forgetting to scold her from time to time. Priya of House Tullius - A 27year old Legate of the Imperial Legion directly under her uncle, General Tullius, alongside her motherly figure - Legate Rikke. As a child who lost her parents at a young age she was taken care of by the gracious residents of House Wenfel, Vyla and Caulder Wenfel were the heads of the house and treated her like family much like her Issalia whom she treated like a little sister. Vyla Wenfel was the rightful godmother of Priya, because she was best friends with Ziia Tullius, her mother. Priya hardly ever spent time with Caulder and her uncle due to their partake in the Legion. She was just as heartbroken as Issalia was about the tragic Wenfel Fire (as it came to be named) & was highly upset when Issalia decided to just pack up and leave. After that, she travelled under the protection of her uncle and trained under him until she became almost the best and was once assigned to protect the Emperor after receiving her status as Legate, where she failed. Priya had been ambushed on The Katariah and had been unable to defend the Emperor from a Stormcloak invasion that outnumbered the Imperials by 50 at the least. Here is where she met Dovah, a Stormcloak-True-Nord, who saved her life by throwing her over board. She eventually met him on her travels back to her General and spent a few gracious nights in his home... *clears throat awkwardly* Unfortunately, she would not allow herself to continue this relationship and ended it with the manwhorish Dovah. General Tullius was furious at her failure as a whole, but it was understandable and later on he cooled down a bit. It was not long after that she had received news from a General Tullius to travel to Solstheim to interrogate Issalia Wenfel. While shocked at the be, she also felt horrified at the fact that Issalia Wenfel had had a recent relationship with Ulfric Stormcloak. She almost thought of Issalia as a disgrace to the Wenfel name. Priya went to Windhelm in peace to collect info about the situation to find some reason not to despise Issalia anymore than she already did. Priya spoke to Gulmar who explained that it was hot and steamy while it lasted, but Issalia couldn't stay long - she had to go and continue with her ambitions (which he thought were very noble). Ulfric seemed very upset about it all and it took Priya all she had to not kill him right then and there - but that would be bad for the Legion's Reputation to kill him like that. When Priya Tullius left for Raven Rock, she could see the humongous Wenfel College and when she met the grown up Issalia the first thing she did was slap her. Issalia took this lightly, however Priya and Issalia only seemed to grow more and more hateful by the day. Priya had been rude to Teldryn (she's so prejudice, BTW) and had hated on the hands to hands combat instructor, Dovah whom Issalia had hired, too. She had scolded Issalia for leaving and pushed it in her face that it was cowardly, but Issalia would not always - however did, snap and push back some time after and say that Priya was a Tullius and not a Wenfel and therefore had no right to judge her on her own decisions. Despite her hostility to the scholarful Issalia, she was still offered a job as a One-Handed instructor at the College, but Priya rejected because she didn't want to see Dovah and she didn't like Argonians or Elves, or Nords, or Khajiits, or Bretons or you know, anybody who wasn't an Imperial. However she left Solstheim without Issalia, sparing Issalia mercy to prosecution for so-called 'treasom', only because she felt that Issalia could still do greater things and she felt the sisterly bond reignite in their fiery times together. Dovah... There's really not much to say here, I mean he's the Dovahkiin and he saved Priya's life feeling his love for her and ultimately ended up heartbroken. He is a 28 year old Nord and has a liking for Issalia and thus spurting the hate on for Teldryn Sero. However, he came to terms with it and has now just settled for being her trusted comrad. Note: I didn't want to add much to his story and his name is very simple, because this is a very popular game and I didn't want to upset anybody in a way. Like I know it's very typical that he's a Nord Dovah who supports the Stormcloaks and such, but I just went with what I was sort of given on the wallpaper of the PS version. I'm sorry if he isn't that entertaining. Aside from those characters, I have a Khajiit character - Ma'ida, who is of an elderly age and took care of Issalia (who is obviously my main character) when she first arrived in Elswyr, although she plays a big role we don't get to hear much of her as much as the other characters, but still we do. I'm currently writing her story actually, it's a lot shorter so I can keep her mysteriousness, but I suspect she'll be heard of a lot more and have another major book of her own like the others in the next Part of the series. The second part of the series is focused on Issalia's more humane side where we go into detail about how she helps poverty stricken settlements and fights for the rights of the people who have their rights violated. She works alongside a series of complex and differrnt freedom fighters from different races, ages and backgrounds. This group is called the 3 Banner Pedestal Group, also known as the White Banner Group. The 3 banners title represents the three departments it mainly focuses on and the banners it's holder carries. The white banner represents respect. The gold banner represents love. The silver banner represents rights. They do this within the laws of the cities and successfully build up many poverty stricken settlements all over Tamriel. However nearing the end we are confronted by the beautiful Skyrim and her city, Windhelm as a last feat. It is here where things get a little more brutal than usual. This is where Issalia loses her and Teldryn's 10 week old baby in a miscarriage during a brutal riot by the opposing party that gets out of hand. This enrages many people and not just Teldryn and Issalia who are suffering from heartbreak. Ulfric who feels remorse for Issalia in his heart and his love for her, ends the feud and grants the people in the Gray Quarter their rights. My favorite part about planning this out was when I realised I could add the Blades in as Dovah is Dovahkiin so they could have a little more protection and thus, I did. Guys, if you would like your very own personal Skyrim character to be a part of Part Two just let me know and I'll definitely love to do it. I'm definitely going to credit you for that and give all copyright to your character to you, because it's only fair. If you wish to do so... Please fill this form out for your character, hehehe: Name: Age: Race: Appearance: Love Interest: Personality Traits: Education (where your person studied, this is not mandatory): Skillset: Occupation (DB, COW, TG, Blades, Greybeard, lit anything guys, even a shop owner or something): Fav. Weapon and it's name if it has one: Background: Likes: Dislikes: + anything you want to add incase I forgot something, like a fav book or something... I mean, anything really - even fav words or things, siblings maybe? I don't know. Also for you to fill out if you wish so : Your social media usernames, like Instagram or Wattpad or anything you want so I can refer you to anybody who reads it and a bit about what you do on there. Like for instance, a Wattpad name like 'theromankitty' and you write horror stories and things, I can be like, "Hey guys, follow ______ if you like _____ stories!" Or anything like that you know. 😘Thanks guys, if you read this - I mean, I'm not really popular on Tumble since I just started this like 10 mins ago... Hehehe!

[mrgeorgeogden]

The Cross Mystery Revealed

George Ogden Notes:

Who is the “Lamb of God”? Jesus - John 1:29

John 1:29 New King James Version (NKJV) The Lamb of God 29 The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!

“What does it mean that Jesus is the Lamb of God?” Answer: When Jesus is called the Lamb of God in John 1:29 and John 1:36, it is referring to Him as the perfect and ultimate sacrifice for sin. In order to understand who Christ was and what He did, we must begin with the Old Testament, which contains prophecies concerning the coming of Christ as a “guilt offering” (Isaiah 53:10). In fact, the whole sacrificial system established by God in the Old Testament set the stage for the coming of Jesus Christ, who is the perfect sacrifice God would provide as atonement for the sins of His people (Romans 8:3; Hebrews 10).

When was the “Lamb of God slain”? The Lamb Slain from the foundation of the World - Rev. 13:8, 1 Peter 1:18-20. Jesus was destined to die before the idea to create the Earth was even fulfilled. We must remember that God is not confined to our perception of time - He is limitless, almighty, all knowing. He knows all things that have been, are, and are to come. This means even before the Genesis 1:1 God knew the sacrifice that would need to be made in order to bring mankind to Him.

God’s purpose in the salvation of his people is invincible - it cannot fail -because it is based first not on our choosing God but on God’s choosing us. “He [God] chose us in him [Christ] before the foundation of the world.”

Our salvation did not begin with our choice to believe in Christ—a choice which was real and necessary. Our salvation began before the creation of the universe when God planned the history of redemption, ordained the death and the resurrection of his Son, and chose us to be his own through Christ.

Revelation 13:8 New King James Version (NKJV) 8 All who dwell on the earth will worship him, whose names have not been written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Jesus Christ is the Lamb of God who died for the sins of the world (John 1:29). Jesus mission became clear to mankind only after He had been crucified on the cross. Yet the scriptures reveals in Revelations 13:8 that “the Lamb was slain from the creation of the world” Peter repeats this truth in even more detail when he wrote about the precious blood of Christ.

Firstly Peter makes it clear (in verses 18 and 19 above) that we are “redeemed from the empty way of life by the blood of Christ” and that this was accomplished “before the creation of the world” In other words, the fall of mankind did not destroy God’s purpose in creating mankind. God is omniscient (all knowing) and nothing takes Him unaware nor is He unprepared for any event. God does not go running after Satan trying to sort out the mess he (satan) creates. Rather, the blood of Jesus has already taken care of it.

There is nothing satan, sin or sickness can bring that the blood has not already made provision for. Our redemption is in the blood. The blood is God’s answer to everything that satan throws at us. You can be sure that God has made certain that the blood of Jesus has enough authority and power to meet all mankind’s needs. And you know what? Not even satan understood the redemptive power in the blood until after the death and resurrection of Jesus.

The next time you go to the presence of God with a need, don’t encourage unbelief by trying to work out in your mind how God will provide the answer. Take comfort in the fact that the blood of Jesus is the answer. The blood is our omnipotent God’s provision for all our needs. If Jesus’ blood had not been shed from the creation of the world, then we might have had a good reason to worry. God would have overlooked a vital fact. But glory is to God. In His all-knowing wisdom He has slain the lamb before the “creation of the world”. The blood has provided for our redemption, every need and provision.

Genesis 3:15 is the first scripture to identify Jesus on the cross. This is the first promise of mercy and grace form sin. Adam and Ev have been tempted to sin and they sinned. God is addressing Satan. God is addressing the enemy. Her seed is Jesus. We know that women do not have seeds. Men have seeds. This is a prophecy of a virgin birth. That Jesus will be born as a woman’s seed. He the Messiah will crush Satan’s head. Satan’s seed will bruise Jesus’ heel. This is a picture of a virgin birth, and Jesus dying on the cross to save all of us. This is a prophecy. That the Messiah will come. That the Dragon slayer (Jesus). The serpent crusher (Jesus) is going to come from the women’s seed.

Genesis 3:15 King James Version (KJV) 15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

God further illustrated His redemption plan when he made clothing for Adam and Eve from animal skins: “… Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.” This was the first blood sacrifice as a covering for their sin—a picture of what was to come in Jesus Christ, the lamb of God, who would die and be raised from the dead to TAKE AWAY our sin.

As you contemplate this truth, I want you to think about the fact that, as God killed these animals to cover Adam and Eve, He knew that this would happen to the Son of God one day—in fact, knew this before He had created the universe, before there was time, God had predetermined that the Son of God would become a sacrifice for sin so that those who received the gift of salvation could be saved for eternity.

The devil is not omnipotent. He does not know when Jesus will come. He thought Able was the seed to come. He thought immediately the woman’s seed would be the savior.

“Why did God accept Abel’s offering but reject Cain’s offering?” Answer: The stories of the first act of worship in human history and the first murder are recorded in Genesis 4:1-15. This follows the account of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, their disobedience to God, and the entrance of sin into the human race. Death, the judgment pronounced upon them by God, soon made its entrance in the first family. His brother Cain brought “some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the Lord” (Genesis 4:3). But on Cain and his offering the Lord did not look with favor. We do not know how God expressed His rejection, but it was evident. In Jude’s epistle, Jude 1:11, we read, “They have taken the way of Cain,” referring to lawless men. This may mean that they, like Cain, disobediently devised their own ways of worship; they did not come by faith. Cain’s offering, while acceptable in his own eyes, was not acceptable to the Lord. Mostly likely, Cain’s offering was unacceptable because it was bloodless (see Leviticus 17:11); he was perverting God’s prescribed form of worship. Rather than repent at God’s rebuke, Cain became angry, and later, in the field, he killed his brother Abel (Genesis 4:8).

Audio below time: 3:05 ”What was the mark that God put on Cain”:

“What was the mark that God put on Cain (Genesis 4:15)?” Answer: After Cain killed his brother Abel, God declared to Cain, “Now you are under a curse and driven from the ground, which opened its mouth to receive your brother’s blood from your hand. When you work the ground, it will no longer yield its crops for you. You will be a restless wanderer on the earth” (Genesis 4:11-12). In response, Cain lamented, “My punishment is more than I can bear. Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me” (Genesis 4:13-14). God responded, “Not so; if anyone kills Cain, he will suffer vengeance seven times over.” Then the Lord put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him" (Genesis 4:15-16). The nature of the mark on Cain has been the subject of much debate and speculation. The Hebrew word translated “mark” is ‘owth and refers to a “mark, sign, or token.” Elsewhere in the Hebrew Scriptures, ‘owth is used 79 times and is most frequently translated as “sign.” So, the Hebrew word does not identify the exact nature of the mark God put on Cain. Whatever it was, it was a sign/indicator that Cain was not to be killed. Some propose that the mark was a scar, or some kind of tattoo. Whatever the case, the precise nature of the mark is not the focus of the passage. The focus is that God would not allow people to exact vengeance against Cain. Whatever the mark on Cain was, it served this purpose. In the past, many believed the mark on Cain to be dark skin—that God changed the color of Cain’s skin to black in order to identify him. Since Cain also received a curse, the belief that the mark was black skin caused many to believe that people of dark skin were cursed. Many used the “mark of Cain” teaching as a justification for the African slave trade and discrimination against people with black/dark skin. This interpretation of the mark of Cain is completely unbiblical. Nowhere in the Hebrew Scriptures is ‘owth used to refer to skin color. The curse on Cain in Genesis chapter 4 was on Cain himself. Nothing is said of Cain’s curse being passed on to his descendants. There is absolutely no biblical basis to claim that Cain’s descendants had dark skin. Further, unless one of Noah’s sons’ wives was a descendant of Cain (possible but unlikely), Cain’s line was terminated by the Flood.

What was the mark that God put on Cain? The Bible does not say. The meaning of the mark, that Cain was not to be killed, was more important than the nature of the mark itself. Whatever the mark was, it had no connection to skin color or a generational curse on the descendants of Cain. To use the mark on Cain as an excuse for racism or discrimination is absolutely unbiblical.

The devil thought that Able was the seed to come. Hence the murders campaign began with Cain killing Able. So the first murder is over religion. Both brothers approach God one is man’s way. The other is gods way. Cain killed Abel. The devil thinks now the Messiah cannot come to pass. He was out to corrupt the women’s seed. Then Satan finds out later on Able is not the one.

“Why did Cain kill Abel?” It was premeditated murder, caused by anger, jealousy, and pride. John wrote, “Do not be like Cain, who belonged to the evil one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his own actions were evil and his brother’s were righteous” (1 John 3:12). The evil in his heart was further revealed when the Lord asked Cain, “Where is your brother Abel?” “I don’t know,” he replied. “Am I my brother’s keeper?” (Genesis 4:9). The Lord brought a curse on Cain, and he went out from His presence.

“How, why, and when did Satan fall from heaven?” Answer: Satan’s fall from heaven is symbolically described in Isaiah 14:12-14 and Ezekiel 28:12-18. While these two passages are referring specifically to the kings of Babylon and Tyre, they also reference the spiritual power behind those kings, namely, Satan. These passages describe why Satan fell, but they do not specifically say when the fall occurred. What we do know is this: the angels were created before the earth (Job 38:4-7). Satan fell before he tempted Adam and Eve in the Garden (Genesis 3:1-14). Satan’s fall, therefore, must have occurred somewhere after the time the angels were created and before he tempted Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. Whether Satan’s fall occurred hours, days, or years before he tempted Adam and Eve in the Garden, Scripture does not specifically say. The book of Job tells us, at least at that time, Satan still had access to heaven and to the throne of God. “One day the angels came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came with them. The LORD said to Satan, ’Where have you come from?’ Satan answered the LORD, ‘From roaming through the earth and going back and forth in it’” (Job 1:6-7). Apparently at that time, Satan was still moving freely between heaven and earth, speaking to God directly and answering for his activities. Whether God has discontinued this access is a matter of debate. Satan’s access to heaven will be ended at the end times war in heaven.

Why did Satan fall from heaven? Satan fell because of pride. He desired to be God, not to be a servant of God. Notice the many “I will…” statements in Isaiah 14:12-15. Ezekiel 28:12-15 describes Satan as an exceedingly beautiful angel. Satan was likely the highest of all angels, the anointed cherub, the most beautiful of all of God’s creations, but he was not content in his position. Instead, Satan desired to be God, to essentially “kick God off His throne” and take over the rule of the universe. Satan wanted to be God, and interestingly enough, that is essentially what Satan tempted Adam and Eve with in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 3:1-5). How did Satan fall from heaven? Actually, a fall is not an accurate description. It would be far more accurate to say God cast Satan out of heaven (Isaiah 14:15; Ezekiel 28:16-17). Satan did not fall from heaven; rather, Satan was pushed.

There was hundreds and hundreds of years during Adam’s life. Adam is still around. He died after 930 years. Back in those days they lived long lives. During that time fallen angels take the form of a man Hebrews 13:2. They came to the daughters of man and had sex with them producing Nephilim (half angel, half human). Their thoughts are evil continually. Giants before and after Noah’s flood: Matthew 24:37-39 King James Version (KJV) 37 But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, 39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

Angels can take the body of a man and a peer like a man. In terms of sex we say they are sexless. But in the Bible they always appear as a man. They are not suppose to abuse that position. But this happened back in Noah’s day. Hebrews 13:2 New King James Version (NKJV) 2 “Do not forget to entertain strangers, for by so doing some have unwittingly entertained angels.” They are called sons of God. Because they were created directly from God. Adam is called son of God because he was created directly from God. We are created from Adam. We are born into the family sons of God through Jesus Christ sacrifice on the cross. Angels don’t have the position of family sons of God.

“Are the demons the disembodied spirits of the Nephilim?” Answer: With the understanding that the sons of God were the fallen angels, and that the Nephilim were the hybrid offspring of the union between the fallen angels and human women, the question then arises, What happened to the spirits of the Nephilim after they were killed, whether by the flood, or in the case of the possible post-flood Nephilim (Genesis 6:4; Numbers 13:33), after the flood?

Some speculate that the disembodied spirits of the Nephilim remained on the earth and became what we now refer to as demons. The presumption is that, as angelic-human hybrids, the spirits of the Nephilim would have been different from the human soul-spirit, having the ability to remain present in this world despite no longer having a physical body. This would possibly explain the desire the demons have to possess human beings, thus gaining control over a physical body. This would also make some sense from the perspective of the fallen angels, who are outnumbered 2-1 by the holy angels, giving them a good reason to seek to increase their ranks.

The Nephilim explanation for the origin of the demons is partly the result of a misunderstanding of who exactly are the “spirits in prison” in 1 Peter 3:19 (see also Jude 6). Many misunderstand the “spirits in prison” to be all of the fallen angels who rebelled against God. If all of the fallen angels are imprisoned, then there must be an alternate explanation for the existence of demons; thus, the need for the Nephilim explanation. However, clearly, not all of the fallen angels are imprisoned. Satan, the leader of the angelic rebellion against God, is not imprisoned. Why would God allow the rebel leader to remain free but then confine the angels who followed Satan in the rebellion? No, it makes more sense to understand the “spirits in prison” as the fallen angels who participated in an additional rebellion, viz., the sons-of-God/daughters–of-men incident. The fallen angels who mated with human females are the ones who are imprisoned. There is no solid biblical reason to reject the idea that the demons are the same beings as the fallen angels.

Definition of The Nephilim /ˈnɛfᵻˌlɪm/ (Hebrew: נְפִילִים‎) were the offspring of the “sons of God” and the “daughters of men” before the Deluge, according to Genesis 6:4 of the Bible. According to Numbers 13:33, they later inhabited Canaan at the time of the Israelite conquest of Canaan. An either similar or identical biblical Hebrew term, read as “Nephilim” by some scholars, or as the word “fallen” by others, appears in Ezekiel 32:27.

“When people began to multiply on the face of the ground, and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that they were fair; and they took wives for themselves of all that they chose. Then the Lord said, ‘My spirit shall not abide in mortals forever, for they are flesh; their days shall be one hundred twenty years.’ The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went in to the daughters of humans, who bore children to them. These were the heroes that were of old, warriors of renown.” (Genesis 6:1-4, New King James Version (NKJV))

“The Lord said to Moses, ‘Send men to spy out the land of Canaan, which I am giving to the Israelites’ … So they went up and spied out the land … And they told him: ’… Yet the people who live in the land are strong, and the towns are fortified and very large; and besides, we saw the descendants of Anak there.’ … So they brought to the Israelites an unfavorable report of the land that they had spied out, saying, 'The land that we have gone through as spies is a land that devours its inhabitants; and all the people that we saw in it are of great size. There we saw the Nephilim (the Anakites come from the Nephilim); and to ourselves we seemed like grasshoppers, and so we seemed to them.’” (Numbers 13:1-2; 21; 27-28; 32-33. New King James Version (NKJV).

LAND OF MORIAH mo-ri’-a ('erec ha-moriyah; eis ten genitive ten hupselen): Abraham was directed by God to take his son Isaac, to go into the land of Moriah, and there to offer him for a burnt offering (Genesis 22:2) upon a mountain which God would show him.

David prepares to kill Goliath (Nephilim).

1 Samuel 17:39-40American Standard Version (ASV) 39 And David girded his sword upon his apparel, and he assayed to go; for he had not proved it. And David said unto Saul, I cannot go with these; for I have not proved them. And David put them off him. 40 And he took his staff in his hand, and chose him five smooth stones out of the brook, and put them in the shepherd’s bag which he had, even in his wallet; and his sling was in his hand: and he drew near to the Philistine.

Why did David choose five smooth stones before going to fight Goliath? He know Goliath had four brothers Ishbi-Benob, Saph, Goliath, and an unnamed giant with six fingers on each hand and six toes on each foot. He was going to take them all out at the same day.

Philistine Giants Destroyed 2 Samuel 21:15-22 New King James Version (NKJV)  15 When the Philistines were at war again with Israel, David and his servants with him went down and fought against the Philistines; and David grew faint. 16 Then Ishbi-Benob, who was one of the sons of the giant, the weight of whose bronze spear was three hundred shekels, who was bearing a new sword, thought he could kill David. 17 But Abishai the son of Zeruiah came to his aid, and struck the Philistine and killed him. Then the men of David swore to him, saying, “You shall go out no more with us to battle, lest you quench the lamp of Israel.” 18 Now it happened afterward that there was again a battle with the Philistines at Gob. Then Sibbechai the Hushathite killed Saph, who was one of the sons of the giant. 19 Again there was war at Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaare-Oregim the Bethlehemite killed the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam. 20 Yet again there was war at Gath, where there was a man of great stature, who had six fingers on each hand and six toes on each foot, twenty-four in number; and he also was born to the giant. 21 So when he defied Israel, Jonathan the son of Shimea, David’s brother, killed him. 22 These four were born to the giant in Gath, and fell by the hand of David and by the hand of his servants.

David takes Goliath’s head to Jerusalem and buried it.

1 Samuel 17:54 American Standard Version (ASV) 54 And David took the head of the Philistine, and brought it to Jerusalem; but he put his armor in his tent.

What do you do with the head of a Giant? You pick a mountain and you bury the scull. The Giants were the seed of the serpent. Who God warned about in the book of Genesis 6:4. The enemy had used these giants to corrupt the earth in the days of Noah. He had used the Giants to keep the children of Israel out of the promised land.

1 Samuel 17:23 New King James Version (NKJV) 23 Then as he talked with them, there was the champion, the Philistine of Gath, Goliath by name, coming up from the armies of the Philistines; and he spoke according to the same words. So David heard them.

Jesus has to be crucified in the city of Jerusalem. There is nowhere else he can be crucified. This is the first place where Adam sinned. This is the first place where Adam fell when he ate from the Apple of knowledge (Genesis chapter 3). The place where he hid among the fig trees. Right up on the Mount of Olives is Bethphage (Hebrew means “House of unripe figs”). Bethphage was considered the outermost reach of the city of Jerusalem. Jesus cursed the fig tree Mark 11:13-21. When he is on his way to Jerusalem. It all goes back to Adam. Jesus begins to fulfill the types and shadows of going to the cross. Genesis 22 God tested Abraham, “Take now your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I shall tell you.” Isaac said, “Look, the fire and the wood, but where is the lamb for a burnt offering?” And Abraham said, “My son, God will provide for Himself the lamb for a burnt offering.” And Abraham stretched out his hand and took the knife to slay his son. Angel of the Lord called to Abraham, “Do not lay your hand on the lad, or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me. ”Then Abraham lifted his eyes and looked, and there behind him was a ram caught in a thicket by its horns.

God the father sends his son to Mount Moriah to put the cross on him.But he goes up to a place called Calvary.

Mark 15:22 New King James Version (NKJV) 22 And they brought Him to the place Golgotha, which is translated, Place of a Skull.

The cross is placed in the spot where king David in (1 Samuel 17:54) place the head of Goliath. There is the head of a giant (Nephilim) that represents the seed of the serpent. And Jesus is hanging on the cross. There are his feet (The seed of the serpent will bruise Jesus’ heel). They are above the head of Goliath’s head somewhere under the ground. His feet are above the head of the seed of the serpent (Jesus shall bruise the serpent’s head).

So God Said, (speaking to Satin or the serpent) Genesis 3:15 New King James Version (NKJV) 15 “And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise your head, And you shall bruise His heel.”

When they crucified Jesus. Because the wood was so scarce. It was common to use an already existing tree or permanent post as the base of the cross. The fact that Jesus may have been crucified on a living tree. Brings beauty to the title of Jesus as the Tree of Life. Crosses also were much shorter then normally depicted. Placing them at eye level to the crowd. This was so that all that passed by would see the consequences of deposing Roman. This process would be all the more painful by first receiving a flogging. Torn flesh from the scourging to the back would be pressed against the wood of the cross (painful). As they would alternate from hanging on their hands to standing on their feet. It was common for victims to last several days while hanging on the cross. Making Jesus’s death after only hanging on the cross a few hours very unusual. It is believed that the victim died from asphyxiation. Caused from the sheer exhaustion of hanging on the cross. People see the crucifixion as they laid one foot on top of the other and nailed the feet together. That’s not what they did! They found evidence of a crucified man in Jerusalem. They put the nails through the back of heels one on each side of the cross. They placed a piece of wood between the heel and the nail. So they could pull the nail out. So Jesus was crucified in the heel of the foot. So the point is when Jesus died on the cross his feet are on top of the head of the serpent. The giant Goliath (Nephilim)! Place Calvary, also Gagulta Hebrew word meaning skull (Skull mountain, place of [the] skull). A picture of evil, of demonic activety, a picture of Satan. As the blood of Christ pours out on Gagulta mountain. Mercy and grace abounds for the sinner.

The phrase “by His stripes we are healed” refers to the punishment Jesus Christ suffered—floggings and beatings with fists that were followed by His agonizing death on a cross—to take upon Himself all of the sins of all people who believe Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior. “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6).

Videos of:

Jesus on the Cross

What was crucifixion like?

“Where was Jesus for the three days between His death and resurrection?” Answer: First Peter 3:18–19 says, “Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison” (ESV). The word spirit refers to Christ’s spirit. The contrast is between His flesh and spirit, and not between Christ’s flesh and the Holy Spirit. Christ’s flesh died, but His spirit remained alive.

First Peter 3:18–22 describes a necessary link between Christ’s suffering (verse 18) and His glorification (verse 22). Only Peter gives specific information about what happened between these two events. The KJV says that Jesus “preached” to the spirits in prison (verse 19). However, the Greek word used is not the usual New Testament word for preaching the gospel. It simply means “to herald a message”; the NIV translates it as “made proclamation.” Jesus suffered and died on the cross, His body being put to death. But His spirit was made alive, and He yielded it to the Father (Luke 23:46). According to Peter, sometime between Jesus’ death and His resurrection Jesus made a special proclamation to “the spirits in prison.”

In the New Testament, the word spirits is used to describe angels or demons, not human beings. In 1 Peter 3:20, Peter refers to people as “souls” (NKJV). Also, nowhere in the Bible are we told that Jesus visited hell. Acts 2:31 says that He went to Hades (New American Standard Bible), but Hades is not hell. Hades is a term that refers, broadly, to the realm of the dead, a temporary place where the dead await resurrection. Revelation 20:11–15 in the NASB and the NIV makes a clear distinction between the Hades and the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the permanent, final place of judgment for the lost. Hades is a temporary place for both the lost and the Old Testament saints.

Our Lord yielded His spirit to the Father, died physically, and entered paradise (Luke 23:43). At some time between His death and resurrection, Jesus also visited a place where He delivered a message to spirit beings (probably fallen angels; see Jude 1:6); these beings were somehow related to the period before the flood in Noah’s time (1 Peter 3:20). Peter does not tell us what Jesus proclaimed to the imprisoned spirits, but it could not be a message of redemption since angels cannot be saved (Hebrews 2:16). It was probably a declaration of victory over Satan and his hosts (1 Peter 3:22; Colossians 2:15). Ephesians 4:8–10 also seems to give a clue regarding Jesus’ activities in the time between His death and resurrection. Quoting Psalm 68:18, Paul says about Christ, “when he ascended on high, he took many captives” (Ephesians 4:8). The ESV puts it that Christ “led a host of captives.” The reference seems to be that, in paradise, Jesus gathered all the redeemed who were there and took them to their permanent dwelling in heaven.

All this to say, the Bible isn’t entirely clear what exactly Christ did for the three days between His death and resurrection. From what we can tell, though, He comforted the departed saints and brought them to their eternal home, and He proclaimed His victory over the fallen angels who are kept in prison.

Before Christ, I was a different person. This person was my old self. But that person died. And my old life is now hidden in Christ. His mercy and grace has covered me. This doesn’t mean that I will never stumble. Or fall back into old habits. But I will call them what they are old habits of the old person. Who has been crucified with Jesus and is no more! Jesus did not just die for us. He died as us.

George I am struggling. That is not your true self. Your true self in God’s eyes is Jesus at the right hand of God. Even when I fail, Jesus love for you will not fail. You are who God says you are Holy, Pure, Blameless, and Righteous. Not because of anything you’ve done. But because of what Jesus has done. We all want victory! Amen!

We do not want to be bound to anything. All right there’s no condemnation. The Bible states it clearly. Let us share and understand that Jesus took our condemnation at the cross. God will never condemn you for your addiction. Never!

The way to overcome our thought life. Is to not even try. It’s like a man in quicksand the more he tries the deeper he goes. So does that mean we just indulge. Of course not! The whole idea of falling back into the arms of the one who was crucified for us. Is that Jesus will cause us to walk in victory. Our mistakes do not define us. Our past does not define us. Shame has no place in our life. Sin shall not have Dominion over us. Because we are under Mercy and Grace. Grace has given us the power to Break FREE. Glory to God, Thank you Jesus!

40 Days after the Resurrection

Jesus spent 40 days after his resurrection from the dead on this earth. Most of that time he spent with his disciples before he went back to heaven. There were 40 days between the resurrection of Christ and the ascension of Christ. Then after the ascension of Christ there were ten more days to Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit was sent by God to baptize the church into the body of Jesus.

I. The Morning of Day One

A. Very early in the morning a group of several women, including Mary Magdalene, approach the tomb to complete burial customs on behalf of Jesus (Matt 28:1; Mk 16:1; Jn 20:1). B. They behold the tomb opened and are alarmed. C. Mary Magdalene runs to Peter and John with distressing news of likely grave robbers (Jn 20:2) D. The women who remain encounter an angel who declared to them that Jesus had risen and that they should tell this to the brethren (Mk 16:5 Lk 24:4; Mt 28:5). E. They are filled with fear at first and depart from the tomb afraid to speak (Mk 16:8) F. Recovering their courage they decide to go to the Apostles. (Lk 24:9; Mt 28:8) G. Meanwhile Peter and John have gone out to the tomb to investigate Mary’s claim. Mary Magdalene followed them back out to the tomb arriving before they left. Peter and John discover the tomb empty though they encounter no angel. John believes in the resurrection. Peter’s conclusion is not recorded. H. The other women have reported what the angels say to the Apostles. Peter and John have not yet returned and these remaining apostles are dismissive of the women’s story at first (Lk 24:9-11). I. Mary, lingering at the tomb weeps and is fearful. Peering into the tomb she sees this time two angels who wonder why she weeps. Jesus then approaches her from behind. Not looking directly at Jesus, she supposes him to be the gardener. Then he calls her by name, and Mary, recognizing his voice, turns and sees him. Filled with joy she clings to him. (APPEARANCE 1) (Jn 20:16) J. Jesus sends her back to the apostles with the news to prepare them for his appearance later that day. (Jn 20:17) K. The other women have departed the apostles and are on their way possibly back home. Jesus then appears to them (Mt 28:9) after he had dispatched Mary. He also sends them back to the apostles with the news that he had risen and that he would see them. (APPEARANCE 2)

II. The Afternoon and evening of day one. A. Later that Day, two disciples on their way to Emmaus are pondering what they have heard about rumors of his resurrection. Jesus comes up behind them but they are prevented from recognizing him. First Jesus breaks open the word for them, then sits at table with them and celebrates the Eucharist whereupon their eyes are opened and they recognize him in the breaking of the bread. (APPEARANCE 3) (Lk 24:13-30) B. The two disciples returned that evening to Jerusalem and went to the Eleven. At first the eleven disbelieved them just as they had the women (Mk 16:13). Nevertheless they continue to relate what they had experienced. At some point Peter drew apart from the others (perhaps for a walk?) And the Lord appeared to Peter (APPEARANCE 4)(Lk 24:34; 1 Cor 15:5) who informed the other ten who then believed. Thus the disciples from Emmaus (still lingering with the apostles) were now told (perhaps by way of apology) that it was in indeed true that Jesus had risen (Lk 24:34). C. Almost at the same moment Jesus appears to the small gathering of apostles and the two disciples from Emmaus. (APPEARANCE 5) Thomas was absent (although the Lucan text describes the appearance as to “the eleven” this is probably just a euphemism for “the apostles” as a group) They are startled but Jesus reassures them and opens the scriptures to them (Lk 24:36ff). D. There is some debate as to whether he appeared to them a second time that night. The Johannine account has significantly different data about the appearance on the first Sunday evening from the Lucan account. Is it merely different data about the same account or is it a wholly separate appearance? It is not possible to say. Nevertheless since the data is so different we can call it (APPEARANCE 6) (Jn 20:19) though it is likely synonymous with appearance 5.

III. Interlude – A. There is no biblical data that Jesus appeared to them during the week that followed. The next account of the resurrection says, “Eight days later” namely the following Sunday. B. We do know that the apostles surely exclaimed to Thomas that they had seen the Lord but he refused to believe it. (Jn 20:24) C. Were the apostles nervous that Jesus had not appeared again each day? Again we do not know, the data is simply silent as to what happened during this interlude.

IV. One week later, Sunday two. A. Jesus appears once again (APPEARANCE 7) to the apostles gathered. This time Thomas is with them. He calls Thomas to faith who now confesses Jesus to be Lord and God. (Jn 20:24-29)

V. Interlude 2 A. The apostles received some instructions to return to Galilee (Mt 28:10; Mk 16:7) where they would see Jesus. Thus they spent some of the week journeying 60 miles to the north. This would have taken some time. We can imagine them making the trek north during the intervening days.

VI. Some time later – A. The time frame of the next appearance is somewhat vague. John merely says “After this.” Likely it is a matter of days or a week at best. The scene is at the Sea of Galilee. Not all the Twelve are present. They have gone fishing, and Jesus summons them from the lakeside. They come to shore and see him (APPEARANCE 8 ) . Peter has a poignant discussion with Jesus in this appearance and is commissioned to tend the flock of Christ (Jn 21). B. The Appearance to the 500. Of all the appearances you might think that this one would have been recorded in some detail since it was the most widely experienced appearance. Many accounts, it seems, would have existed and at least one would have made its way into the scriptures. Yet there is no account of it, other than it did in fact happen. Paul records the fact of this appearance: 1 Cor 15:6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. (APPEARANCE 9) Where did this take place. What was it like. What was the reaction? We simply do not know. Proof once again that the Bible is not a history book in the conventional sense. Rather it is a highly selective telling of what took place, not a complete account. The Bible makes no pretenses to be something it is not. It is quite clear that it is a selective book: (Jn 20:30). C. The Appearance to James. Here again we do not have a description of this appearance only a remark by Paul that it did in fact happen: 1 Cor 15:7 Then he appeared to James. (APPEARANCE 10) The time frame is not clear. Only that it happened after the appearance to the five hundred and before the final appearance to the apostles.

VII. The rest of the forty days. A. Jesus certainly had other on-going appearances with the disciples. Luke attests to this in Acts when he writes: Acts 1:3 To them he presented himself alive after his passion by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days, and speaking of the kingdom of God. B. During this time there is perhaps the one appearance we can attribute to this time period as recorded by Matthew (Mt 28:16) and Mark (Mk 16:14). It takes place an “a mountaintop in Galilee.” Mark adds that they were reclining at table. For these notes this appearance (time frame uncertain) is referred to as (APPEARANCE 11) It is here that he give the great commission. Although Mark’s text may seem to imply that Jesus was taken up from this mountain, such a conclusion is rash since Mark only indicates that Jesus ascended only “after he had spoken to them” (Mk 16:19).

Evidently Jesus had also summoned them back to Jerusalem at least toward the end of the period of the forty days. There they would be present for the feast of Pentecost. We can imagine frequent appearances with on-going instruction for Luke records that Jesus “stayed with them.” Most of these appearances and discourses are not recorded. Luke writes in Acts: And while staying with them he charged them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, he said, “you heard from me, for John baptized with water, but before many days you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 1:4)

VIII. The final appearance and ascension: A. After forty days of appearances and instructions we have a final account of the last appearance (APPEARANCE 12) wherein he led them out to a place near Bethany, gave them final instructions to wait in Jerusalem until the Holy Spirit was sent. And then he was taken up to heaven in their very sight. (Lk 24:50-53; Acts 1:1-11).

Audio below time: 3:05 ”What is the significance of ‘40 days’ in the Bible?”:

“What is the significance of ‘40 days’ in the Bible?” Answer: The number 40 shows up often in the Bible. Because 40 appears so often in contexts dealing with judgment or testing, many scholars understand it to be the number of “probation” or “trial.” This doesn’t mean that 40 is entirely symbolic; it still has a literal meaning in Scripture. “Forty days” means “forty days,” but it does seem that God has chosen this number to help emphasize times of trouble and hardship. Here are some examples of the Bible’s use of the number 40 that stress the theme of testing or judgment: In the Old Testament, when God destroyed the earth with water, He caused it to rain 40 days and 40 nights (Genesis 7:12). After Moses killed the Egyptian, he fled to Midian, where he spent 40 years in the desert tending flocks (Acts 7:30). Moses was on Mount Sinai for 40 days and 40 nights (Exodus 24:18). Moses interceded on Israel’s behalf for 40 days and 40 nights (Deuteronomy 9:18, 25). The Law specified a maximum number of lashes a man could receive for a crime, setting the limit at 40 (Deuteronomy 25:3). The Israelite spies took 40 days to spy out Canaan (Numbers 13:25). The Israelites wandered for 40 years (Deuteronomy 8:2-5). Before Samson’s deliverance, Israel served the Philistines for 40 years (Judges 13:1). Goliath taunted Saul’s army for 40 days before David arrived to slay him (1 Samuel 17:16). When Elijah fled from Jezebel, he traveled 40 days and 40 nights to Mt. Horeb (1 Kings 19:8). The number 40 also appears in the prophecies of Ezekiel 4:6; 29:11-13) and Jonah 3:4. In the New Testament, Jesus was tempted for 40 days and 40 nights (Matthew 4:2). There were 40 days between Jesus’ resurrection and ascension (Acts 1:3). Whether or not the number 40 really has any significance is still debated. The Bible definitely seems to use 40 to emphasize a spiritual truth, but we must point out that the Bible nowhere specifically assigns any special meaning to the number 40. Some people place too much significance on numerology, trying to find a special meaning behind every number in the Bible. Often, a number in the Bible is simply a number, including the number 40. God does not call us to search for secret meanings, hidden messages, or codes in the Bible. There is more than enough truth in the plain words of Scripture to meet all our needs and make us “complete and thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:16).

[catholiccom-blog]

A Primer on Richard Rohr

Full Question

        I've heard that Fr. Richard Rohr teaches some pretty sketchy stuff. Do you know anyone who has a summary of his teachings?        

Answer

For whatever good he does, Fr. Richard Rohr, O.F.M., is not a reliable teacher of the Catholic Faith. All quotes below from Fr. Rohr are taken from his book Everything Belongs: The Gift of Contemplative Prayer.

To Fr. Richard Rohr, Jesus Christ is an ideal guide of sorts, but he’s not truly Lord.

Jesus made clear that he came to save the world (John 3:16), and to this end he founded and commissioned his Church to make disciples off all nations (Matt. 28:18-20). Jesus made clear that he is uniquely the way, truth, and life (John 14:6), that his truth would set us free (John 8:31-32), that those who listened to his apostles and their successors listened to him, and that those who didn’t rejected him and his heavenly Father who sent him (Luke 10:16).

Jesus wasn’t afraid to be a demanding teacher, and many left him when they couldn’t stomach his teaching, e.g., on the Eucharist (John 6:47-71). Jesus also proclaimed that he came to bring a sword and not peace if peace meant a false irenicism in which merely human family members were chosen at the expense of faithful alliance with him, their Savior (Matt. 10:34-39).

Rohr’s Jesus is much more benign. For Rohr, Jesus merely gives “ideal eyes by which to see the real nature of reality” (emphasis added). “Real nature” is important, because Rohr does not present Catholicism as it really is. Rather, it’s a non-demanding, non-threatening, ultimately optional way of life: "The gospel is not a competing idea. It’s that by which see all ideas in proper context. We believe as Christians that Jesus gave us the ideal eyes by which to see the real nature of reality. He does not lead with his judgments"(95, emphasis original).

Some might say Rohr is at least partially right. For example, Jesus did not lead with judgment against the woman at the well (John 4). But after introducing himself as the Messiah and showing the woman her worth, he called her to holiness, noting she had been married five times and was living with someone to whom she wasn’t married. Rohr misses this in assessing the Gospel as he overlooks the hard words Jesus has about various sins in the Sermon on the Mount and elsewhere: "But note that Jesus’ concept of 'the reign of God' is totally positive—not fear-based or against any individual, group, sin or problem" (107, emphasis original).

Even more fundamentally, Rohr falls into religious indifferentism regarding the basic mission of Christ and his Church:

I think Christianity has created a great problem in the Western world by repeatedly presenting itself, not as a way of seeing all things, but as one competing ideology among others. . . . Simone Weil, the brilliant French resistor [a woman who sadly declined to be baptized and become Catholic], said that 'the tragedy of Christianity is that it came to see itself as replacing other religions instead of adding something to all of them.'  I could not agree more" (93, emphasis added).

Rohr provides insight into his spiritual outlook when he reveals that he believes in apokatastasis (also spelled apocatastasis), a heresy known more in modern times as “universalism,” which teaches that all the damned, whether men or women or fallen angels, will ultimately be restored and join God in heavenly glory for all eternity. This belief was made somewhat popular by the Church Father Origen, who was misguided on a number of doctrinal matters.

Citing unnamed early Church Fathers, Rohr describes this “universal restoration” as “the real meaning” of Christ’s resurrection, which means that God’s love is “so perfect and so victorious that in fact it would finally win out in every single person’s life” (131). He erroneously says that this view “gave rise to the mythology of purgatory” (131). He adds incorrectly that apocatastasis is not a heresy:

When I read the history of the church and its dogma, I see apokatastasis was never condemned as heretical. We may believe it if we want to. We were never told we had to believe it, but neither was it condemned (132, emphasis original).

It’s true that some people, like St. Gregory of Nyssa, espoused apocatastasis in the early Church when the Church had not pronounced definitively on the matter. But as the belief spread it was condemned by the regional Council of Constantinople in 543, and Pope Vigilius confirmed the council's pronouncements.

Ten years later, the Second Council of Constantinople, an ecumenical or universal council, reaffirmed the condemnation of various heretics and “their sinful works,” including Origen, with no correction on the recent condemnation of apocatastasis (canon 11). If apocatastasis were indeed true, the Church’s infallible teachings on mortal sin and the eternal punishment of hell, for example, would be rendered meaningless.

It is true, as Rohr says, that the Church has never pronounced that any particular person is in hell (132). But the Church has reaffirmed the existence of hell and its eternal punishments, most recently in Pope Paul VI’s Credo of the People of God (12) and the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1033-37). Lest there be any doubt, the Catechism affirms—citing St. John Damascene, who lived from 676 to 749—“There is no repentance for the angels after their fall, just as there is no repentance for men after death” (393).

In light of his espousal of apocatastasis, Rohr’s book title—Everything Belongs—makes more sense. In the end, there is no condemnation, only reconciliation and eternal communion with God: “For me, the utter powerlessness of God is that God forgives. . . .  God seems to be so ready to surrender divine power” (153). Rohr’s God is all mercy, and a distorted mercy at that, and thus there is no justice.

Consequently, for Rohr there is a tension between truth and love.  Jesus says that his truth will set us free (John 8:32), but Rohr says “the law does not give life; only the Spirit gives life, as Paul teaches in Romans and Galatians” (40). But Paul is speaking of the Old Covenant law, not the liberating New Covenant law of Jesus, and Rohr overlooks St. Paul’s hard pronouncements on mortal sin and damnation. “True religion is always about love. Love is the ultimate reality” (103), Rohr adds, whereas “a lot that’s called orthodoxy, loyalty and obedience is grounded in fear” (102). “The great commandment is not ‘thou shalt be right,’” he says. “The great commandment is to ‘be in love’” (88).

Love trumps truth, because God will win out in every person’s life, Rohr says, since “God will turn all our human crucifixions into resurrection” (132). Here Rohr fails to see that hell is man’s “definitive self-exclusion from communion with God” (CCC 1033, emphasis added), and that true love entails not compelling one to have communion. God will not force us to accept heaven.

In citing Acts 3:21 to defend universal restoration, Rohr fails to see that those who will not listen to the prophet—namely, Jesus—will be destroyed (Acts 3:23). This is not to pronounce eternal judgment on non-Catholics and thus exclude invincible ignorance but rather to affirm further that hell exists and that human beings can choose it. Choices do have consequences, some of them possibly eternal. In that light, the Second Vatican Council Fathers teaches in sober urgency regarding non-Catholics:

But often men, deceived by the Evil One, have become vain in their reasonings and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, serving the creature rather than the Creator. Or some there are who, living and dying in this world without God, are exposed to final despair. Wherefore to promote the glory of God and procure the salvation of all of these, and mindful of the command of the Lord, 'Preach the Gospel to every creature,' the Church fosters the missions with care and attention" (Lumen Gentium 16, emphasis added, footnotes omitted).

In contrast, even though Jesus founded Catholic Church (Matt. 16:18-19) and gave the Great Commission to make disciples of all nations (Matt. 28:18-20), for Rohr the Church and her mission are not so important and urgent:

Institutional religion is a humanly necessary but also immature manifestation of this 'hidden mystery' by which God is saving the world. . . . Institutional religion is never an end in itself, but merely a wondrous and 'uncertain trumpet' of the messag" (180, emphasis original).

I personally do not believe that Jesus came to found a separate religion as much as he came to present a universal message of vulnerability and foundational unity that is necessary for all religions, the human soul, and history itself to survive. Thus Christians can rightly call him “the Savior of the world” (John 4:42) but no longer in the competitive and imperialistic way that they have usually presented him. By very definition, vulnerability and unity do not compete or dominate.  n fact, they make competition and domination impossible. The cosmic Christ is no threat to anything but separateness, illusion, domination, and any imperial ego. In that sense, Jesus, the Christ, is the ultimate threat, but first of all Christians themselves. Only then will they have any universal and salvific message for the rest of the world" (181-82, emphases added).

Jesus Christ does indeed love all and thus died for all, but the true unity he preaches requires a choice to accept or reject him and his Church, as he preached 2,000 years ago. The Christ whom Rohr preaches is not the authentic Jesus, and his related proclamation of the gospel is not the one that that the Church has proclaimed and safeguarded for 2,000 years with the power of Holy Spirit. As a result, Rohr remains an unreliable and spiritually dangerous guide for Catholic and non-Catholic alike.