#as it is written in The Context of Scripture

[seserakh]

From left to right, top to bottom:

de Buck, Adriaan (1956) The Egyptian Coffin Texts VI, Spells 472-787

Faulkner, Raymond O. (1977) The Ancient Egyptian Coffin Texts II, Spells 355-787

Allen, James P. (1988) Genesis in Egypt

Allen, James P. (2003) Context of Scripture

[infiniteglitterfall]

I do realize this is a real niche post but I cannot tell you how many damn times over the past 10 months I've seen gentiles tell Jews some version of, "Your own holy book SAYS God doesn't want you to have a country yet!"

And it's such an incredibly blatant and weirdly specific tell that they're not part of something that grew from progressive grassroots, but something based on right-wing astroturfing.

1. Staying in your own lane is a pretty huge progressive principle.

Telling people in another group that their deity said they couldn't do X is, I think, as far as you can get from your own lane.

2. It's also very clearly Not In Your Own Lane because I've never seen anyone actually be able to EITHER quote the passage they're thinking of, OR cite where it is.

It's purely, "I saw somebody else say this, and it seemed like it would make me win the debate I wasn't invited to."

3. It betrays a complete ignorance of Jewish culture and history.

Seriously? You don't know what you're referencing, its context, or even what it specifically says, but you're... coming to a community that reads and often discusses the entire Torah together each year, at weekly services... who have massive books holding generations of debate about it that it takes 7 years to read, at one page per day....

And saying, "YOUR book told you not to!"

I've been to services where we discussed just one word from the reading the whole time. The etymology. The connotations. The use of it in this passage versus in other passages.

And then there is the famous saying, "Ask two Jews, get three opinions." There is a culture of questioning and discussion and debate throughout Judaism.

You think maybe, in the decades and decades of public discussion about whether to buy land in Eretz Yisrael and move back there; whether it should keep being an individual thing, or keep shifting to intentional community projects; what the risks were; whether it should really be in Argentina or Canada or someplace instead; how this would be received by the Jews and gentiles already there, how to respect their boundaries, how to work with them before and during; and whether ending up with a fuckton of Jews in one place might not be exactly as dangerous for them as it had always been everywhere else....

You think NOBODY brought up anything scriptural? Nobody looked through the Torah, the Nevi'im, the Ketuvim, or the Talmud for any thoughts about any of this?? It took 200 years and some rando in the comments to blow everyone's minds???

4. It relies on an unspoken assumption that people can and should take very literal readings of religious texts and use them to control others.

And a sense of ownership and power over those texts, even without any accompanying knowledge about what they say.

It's kind of a supercessionist know-it-all vibe. It reads like, "I know what you should be doing. Because even if I'm not personally part of a fundamentalist branch of a related religion, the culture I'm rooted in is."

Bonus version I found when I was looking for an example. NOBODY should do this:

There are a lot of people who pull weird historical claims like "It SAYS Abraham came from Chaldea! That's Iraq!"

Like, first of all, a group is indigenous to a land if it arose as a people and culture there, before (not because of) colonization.

People aren't spontaneously spawning in groups, like "Boom! A new indigenous people just spawned!!"

People come from places. They go places. Sometimes, they gel as a new community and culture. Sometimes, they bop around for a while and eventually assimilate into another group.

Second: THE TORAH IS NOT A HISTORY TEXTBOOK OMFG.

It's an oral history, largely written centuries after the fact.

There is a TON of historical and archaeological research on when and where the Jewish culture originated, how it developed over time, etc. It's extremely well-established.

Nobody has to try to pull what they remember from Sunday school for this argument.

[fivewholeminutes]

EIA (the song) feels like preparing for a great battle to me. Is it vessel feeling finally ready and strong enough to fight sleep??

"Swing wide those gates" as in sleep being slowly closed off from vessel and vessel finally taking a stance and daring sleep to try to take control over him again?

"The gods we thought were dying were just sharpening their blades" - sleep being less and less invasive by the end of the trilogy just to sneak up on vessel again, but vessel is ready this time? (Alternatively: sleep and vessel having enemies in other entities, but that's for a different interpretation, the one where sleep is a tad more benevolent)

"Have you been waiting long for me?" being a dare and not a way to express longing, reunion. I imagine vessel behind the gates standing there with his bigass sword, asking sleep this when sleep opens the gates. You know, like a one-liner before an anime boss fight.

"I am the flood" - he used to be just tangled with sleep as branches in a flood, unable to set his own course, but now he is the force of the flood. Sleep's fucked

"And what was missing from those scriptures will be written in my blood" he knows this won't be an easy fight, despite him getting stronger, but he's willing to write that chapter, even if it costs him much to become free

"What good is all this talk of wings when there is nothing left above" deserves its own post tbh i am feral about the euclid references. I will just say that vessel went "fuck this, the glory is not worth it, it comes with pain, there's no great reward (heaven) in this deal, sleep lied, i won't get anywhere with those wings" (OH the icarus implications here)

The entire 3rd verse. Vessel sleep token when i fucking get you is2g--

"No matter how we feel" - they might fuck each other over, but they spent a good few years together. Codependent, i would even say (i don't wanna go into all my [often conflicting] interpretations of their relationship/deal rn, i just like to imagine sleep as one of those gods that will just disappear without any worshippers, so he was dependent on vessel too). So they had their ups and downs. Sleep did kinda give vessel the promised glory and they were there on that journey together. But it still doesn't mean sleep should stay with him

"We've got a taste for one another and a few good years to kill" listen. Listen i know this can be interpreted as romantic, but OHHH i see rivalry here. They've got a taste for each other's blood. For domination over the other in this tremendous relationship. But it will take time. Vessel can fight back now, but he's still up against a fucking deity. He's confident though, doesn't care fighting back might take years (hello mental issues allegory???), he is the final dawn. He is the flood.

"No matter what is real" - oh boy we're still fucking shit up in the dreamscape department, aren't we, sleep

"It seems that even in arcadia you walk beside me still" - okay yes i know this can reference to that someone walking beside him in all the other eia songs BUT here in this context i think of sleep still lingering in his mind. Vessel is safe in arkadia now, right? Sike! The bad things are still there with you, mate, you carry them in your heart (i'm sorry i might be projecting here) and this part goes so well with "i still need a dark side" from past self and "with the shadows longer to me than a lightyear" in look to windward.

So yeah. I see this song as the moment before a battle. One grand battle or just a first battle in the war? We don't know that yet. But it is going to be a tough fight either way.

[gemsofgreece]

Folklore ask! Any stories on how the Greek mermaids got to be named after gorgons instead of any other countless sea or water spirits in myth? Does it have to do with princess Thessalonike?

I think this is actually a very complex story involving literature, oral tradition, the perception of creatures, women, historical figures and the meaning we apply to symbols according to our circumstances. This is a long story so there is going to be a Read More cut below.

First of all, Modern Greek has two words for the mermaid; γοργόνα (ghorghóna) and σειρήνα (sirína), so as you see both gorgons and sirens were conflated with the image of the mermaids at some point. In fact, the sirens did that first. I write "ghorghóna" in Latin characters to stress the change of the pronunciation of γ to a voiced velar fricative ever since late antiquity but otherwise the word is the exact same.)

Ancient Greek Mythology did not have a mermaid creature in the way we imagine it since the Middle Ages but the Ancient Greeks were aware of an ancient Assyrian deity who was imagined like that. This was goddess Atargatis who was known in Greek as Derceto. Greeks identified Atargatis / Derceto as the same with a mermaid goddess worshipped in Askhelon, somewhere in the north of modern-day Syria, according to Diodorus (1st century BC) but also Ctesias (5th century BC). The Roman Lucian confirmed this perception in the 2nd century AD. It is believed that to some degree this worship was known to Greece, especially during and after the Hellenistic period. For example, there has been a scripture found in Pella, Macedonia (<- coincidence?) dating to 206 AD in which the veneration of an Assyrian water deity is described.

The early Sirens of the Greek mythology (since 7th century BC) were depicted as creatures with the bodies of birds and the faces of women, who would seduce sailors with their beautiful music and singing. However, from the Classic period onwards there is scarce art depicting them with a fish body instead, maybe due to an Assyrian influence or maybe because the Sirens were creatures associated with the water mostly. They lived at the shore waiting for ships to pass and they were children either of River God Achelous or the Titan Oceanus or of Phorcys, son of Pontus (Sea).

A critical moment for the establishment of the siren as a mermaid in European minds might have been the book Physiologicus, written in Greek around the 2nd century in Alexandria. The book was a predecessor of bestiaries and was connecting various beasts (mostly actual animals but also a few mythological creatures) with the Christian doctrine by associating them with some trademark moral qualities they supposedly had. Physiologicus became very impactful and was translated to Latin, Armenian, Ethiopic, Syriac and later to Slavic, Old German and other European languages. I wasn't able to find what exactly was said about the Siren in the original Physiologicus, however the 10th century German copy Bern Physiologicus described the siren as half-woman, half-fish. Also, from the 7th century onwards western European books assert that the sirens are "sea girls" and are described as "having scaly fish tails". I did find a tiny image of a Greek manuscript of the Physiologicus and it has this drawing of the sirens, who indeed look a lot more like merpeople than half-birds:

Again, Physiologicus was very influential and the rest of the Early Christian tradition also explored the theme of the sirens extensively through the lens of morality. Early Christian documents discourage people to believe in the literal existence of sirens (fair enough) but they also shape their meaning into an allegory for prostitutes or any vile lustful women who are a danger for the moral male. In this context, the fish form gains more and more ground as well as alternative imaginings of the sirens as half-snakes or half-dragons. It should be noted that there are even imaginings in which the Siren has simultaneously fish and bird traits. The scaly look though, the picture of the siren ascending from the dark abyss instead of a feathery flying singer was more effective for the description of a destructive, dangerous feminine being. It is in the Byzantine period and respectively in the Middle Ages in West Europe when mermaids really become popular. In spite of all that, the bird version was not obsolete. The 10th century Byzantine encyclopedia Suda describes the sirens as half-birds.

Pages from Suda.

Let's go to the Gorgons now. The Gorgons were daughters of Phorcys, son of Pontus (Sea), much like the Sirens according to one version of their myth. They are too part of the general sea mythological sphere. They lived either beyond the edges or in Oceanus, in a hardly accessible rocky island. Their bodies were imagined as centaurs or wasps as early as in the 8th - 7th centuries BC but after that point they were imagined as humanoid, however sometimes they have snakes in their waist too or a scaly appearance or even wings, like we see happening with Sirens. All original accounts agree to a terrible old-looking repuslive face crowned with snakes. So does their name; Γοργώ (Gorgó) means "terrible looking, fearsome, terrifying". Despite that and before Ovid's popularisation of the Roman version of a victimized Medusa, the Greek Pindar already described Medusa as an incredibly beautiful woman in the 5th century BC. Pindar's take was influential and after this point ancient Greek art depicts a fairer Medusa. One can argue that Medusa typically looks scary but beautiful in pop culture ever since. In other words, as time passed there was some convergence in the way Gorgons and Sirens were imagined; the duality of being beautiful yet terrible and vile, sea creatures, feminine attributes, eventually a scaly look.

Let's make a pause now to talk a bit about Thessalonike and her tragic story. Thessalonike was Alexander the Great's half-sister, so named by her father Philip after an (undefined) victory against the Thessalians. Her mother Nicesipolis died when she was a baby and Philip died when she was a child so she was raised by Olympias. I would like to stress that there was a signficant age gap between Thessalonike and Alexander and there should not have been a lot of interaction between them. After Alexander's death, Olympias had still not married Thessalonike to anyone, favouring her own daughter first. Cassander, one of the diadochi, killed Olympias and Alexander's son and successor and married Thessalonike probably forcefully in order to get a better claim for becoming the King of Macedon. Cassander then named a new city he founded on the site of Ancient Therma after his wife. Thessalonike seemed to have influence over her three sons, especially after Cassander died, however when the first born Philip died, the second son Antipater murdered his mother, most likely because she favoured her third son Alexander to at least share the throne with Antipater while she was also serving as regent. I mostly wrote all this to make a point that the last person who was impactful in Thessalonike's life was Alexander the Great.

Around 338 AD there was an Alexander Romance attributed to Pseudo-Callisthenes. This book was supposedly recounting the life and adventures of Alexander the Great, however it was highly fantastical and inaccurate and became what you would call a liberal historical novel of sorts. This is where the origins of the legend of Thessalonike were. (What if there is some connection to the surviving veneration of the Assyrian mermaid goddess in Macedonia, just a century earlier?) Alexander Romance was a huge success getting translating into 25 languages in pre-modern times and reaching as far as Malaysia and Mali. This is certainly what greatly assisted Alexander to become a legend and hero even amongst foreign nations, gaining even their own local national traits. The original Greek version was so loved amongst the Byzantine Greeks that it got multiple revised editions, including some in which it was recasted in poetic Medieval Greek vernacular. It was one of these copies that the Latin diplomat Leo the Archpriest found in Constantinople in the 10th century and translated it into Latin, which made the Romance very popular in the west too.

Okay, we talked about the duality that the sirens and the gorgons had attained at this point as well as the survival of the interest around them due to the Christian theology. In Byzantine Greek the meaning of the word gorgo (terrible, fearsome) was still fully understood. In fact, in Byzantine Greek there was the word γοργόνη (ghorghóni) which addressed a horrible woman. It is also reported in the local dialect of Amorgos island. It is thus most likely that the shift of Thessalonike as "a gorgon therefore a mermaid" happened at that time and perhaps especially in the copies in the Medieval Greek vernacular and it was due to all this mix of influences.

You see, Thessalonike is not described as just any mermaid or even just like a plain man-eating siren. She appears to have two forms or two personalities in her. She swims in the seas waiting to find a ship and ask the sailors whether Alexander is still alive. In this state she is beautiful and calm and pleasant in her manners, which resembles the romantic view of a mermaid or the initial seductive state of a siren. If the sailors confirm that Alexander lives and rules and conquers the world, she remains this way and sends good winds to help the ship travel to its destination quickly and safely. But when the unsuspecting sailors say "But, Lady, Alexander died long ago!" then she changes and becomes what the Byzantine Greeks would call "ghorghóni". Her power is way more immense than to just grab a dude and eat him. She becomes huge and terrible and with the power of her tail she causes enormous storm waves which break and sink the ship and kill all the sailors. For this reason she was probably engraved in people's perception as a terrible Gorgon.

Here's the thing though: γοργώ (ghorghó) sounds an awful lot like another Greek word, γρήγορος (ghríghoros) which means "quick, fast". Those two are both ancient but etymologically unrelated. The fall of the Byzantine Empire and the annexation of the Greek lands by the Ottomans led to significant changes for the worse in the number of Greek people who had easy access to education and particularly education in relation to their heritage beyond this of the religion. Only select few that kept their riches or Greeks who then fled to the west had easy access to these things. In short, with more limited access to older forms of Greek or old Greek literature eventually γοργός (ghorghós) changed into a variant of γρήγορος (ghríghoros) = fast and its actual meaning of fearsome, terrible was forgotten. In these circumstances, the word γοργόνα (ghorghóna) which was used to address Thessalonike was now perhaps perceived as meaning something in the likes of "swift, agile and lithe" and it became associated with the positive mermaid form of hers. Eventually, the word γοργόνα was established as a generic term for the mermaid just like σειρήνα.

This happened because the legend of Thessalonike as a mermaid as well as the entirety of the Alexander Romance remained popular in the Ottoman period. The Byzantine copies were still circulating in the Greek population and in 1680 a Modern Greek version was printed with the name Φυλλάδα του Μεγαλέξανδρου (loosely translated to "Papers about Alexander the Great"). The book was written in the colloquial Demotic vernacular and it could be read by everyone (who knew how to read). This is how these stories spread and became oral tradition and folk tales. The romantisation of Alexander's character and by extension Alexander himself became a point of reference for their historical origins for both the Byzantine and the Modern Greeks.

The modern book from 1680 (yeah that's modern)

The true reason Thessalonike's legend remained so popular was not due to Thessalonike herself. Thessalonike was a minor historical figure for the most part and her interaction with Alexander was minimal. Some historians believe it was her son Alexander she was grieving for in the original legend but then he was confused with his much more famous uncle. I downright disagree. I believe the reason Pseudo-Callisthenes or the unknown authors and / or all these revisions imagined Thessalonike as the one grieving and wreaking havoc for Alexander was because of her being the name-giver to the city of Thessaloniki which by the ending of the Roman period and the beginning of the Byzantine period became very prosperous and gained a lot of power. Thessaloniki was so loved by Byzantine Greeks that it was considered as the Συμβασιλεύουσα (symvasilévusa) = co-ruler city of Constantinople. Thessaloniki remains the most loved city for the Modern Greeks too. After the unification of Macedonia and its largest city Thessaloniki to the already independent from the Ottomans south and central Greece, Thessaloniki became the "Συμπρωτεύουσα" (symprotévusa), the co-capital to Athens. It is also called Capital or Nymph / Bride of the North. Greeks damn sure love that city. This was a folk legend which connected the ever loved Greek city to a distant past.

Furthermore, the legend explores a theme that resonates deeply in the hearts of the Greeks across millenias. The allure and the danger of being a sailor, of travelling in the seas. The Greeks have always been seafarers. Losing loved ones to seas far away is a very common theme of Greek folk songs. The folk felt represented in this legend with the ghorghona representing the unpredictability of the sea. But this is also how Greeks developed an understanding for this dual creature, beautiful yet ruthless, yet also melancholic and temperamental. The ghorghona became a familiar concept, representing their loved sea and their loved city and their loved symbol of old glories (Alexander). Inevitably, she was "forgiven" of her fearsome qualities and the ghorghona became the beautiful mermaid of the Greek seas that you have to know how to talk to and earn her favor.

The ghorghona became a loved symbol of Greek folklore and she is featured in numerous modern Greek poems, artworks, short stories etc

Modern art by the prolific cartoonist and painter Bost (Chrysanthos Mentis Bostantzoglou, 1918 - 1995). All the national symbols are here: the Ghorghona as the beautiful mermaid, the sea, Alexander, the White Tower of Thessaloniki and the flags.

"The ghorghóna as the captains of old told her story." Modern Greek folk artwork. Look how she eventually becomes a postive emblem of Greece.

Due to the tight connection of the sense of ethnic identity with the Greek Orthodox Christianity for Byzantine and Modern - frequently occupied - Greeks, the popularisation of the ghorghona the mermaid was reflected in the Greek Orthodoxy as well .

Detail from a wooden templum in the Church of Saint Dionysius in Zakynthos (Zante) island.

Detail from the Chruch of the Great Archangels, Tsagarada, Mount Pelion. This templum was probably completed in 1749.

And because this was not enough of a "how to make an Evangelical mad" I guess, you know how saints in Orthodoxy are venerated and they are often imagined as patrons of certain groups of people or certain qualities??? Well...

may I introduce you to Virgin Mary the Ghorghona?

...who also became a novel?

Clearly, this is Mary imagined as Patron Saint of the sailors and those who travel in the seas.

In conclusion, there is not an exact moment in history that suddenly turned the gorgons into mermaids, however I tried to explain how in the long course of time there were many linguistic, cultural and religious points which ever so slowly contributed into changing the perception of the gorgon from an ancient, murderous, fearsome creature to a positive, beautiful (yet at times very dangerous) symbol of ethnic identity.

Sources:

Mermaid - Wikipedia

Atargatis - Wikipedia

Siren (mythology) - Wikipedia

The siren: a medieval identity crisis – Mittelalter

Physiologus - Wikipedia

Gorgons - Wikipedia

Thessalonike of Macedon - Wikipedia

Alexander Romance - Wikipedia

Η Γοργόνα Θεσσαλονίκη | Parallaxi Magazine

Φυλλάδα του Μεγαλέξανδρου - Βικιπαίδεια

Ο συμβολισμός της γοργόνας στη λαϊκή παράδοση της Ελλάδας μέσα από τη ποίηση και το τραγούδι

«Ζει ο βασιλιάς Αλέξανδρος;» Η γοργόνα και ο Μέγας Αλέξανδρος – ΧΩΡΑ ΤΟΥ ΑΧΩΡΗΤΟΥ

Ζει ο βασιλιάς Αλέξανδρος;

[blazescompendium]

Blaze's Compendium Entry #10: The Khyah (Cyak, Kack, Khya)

Warning: Faith and religion are important real life topics, that tackles the culture and way of life of millions of real life people. It is a cultural expression, and must be respected by all means. Here, we use a video-game ( some times) and other media series only to ignite the flame of learning about the matter, using its art when well depicted, but we do this with all due respect to the cultures we talk here, grounded by real life sources, cultures and people. And i mean this with respect. Hope you all enjoy.

Also, please note that the Sources for this one will be a bit tricky, since we are talking about a regional and always developing urban legend and cosmology, which is not very well documented in traditional books. In this case we have to turn our attention to personal stories and every day people who lives in this culture.

The Khyah (ख्या) is a mythical creature that is part of the greater Nepali folklore and cosmology. Specifically from the Newar people from the Kathmandu Valley.

Some sources will say that its name means literally ''Ghost'' or ''Haunt'', ''Phantasm'', etc... However i was not able to confirm this. The language spoken by Newar people is the Nepal Bhasa, which is also written in the Devanagari script, just like Hindi. I do not speak this language, so please if you do, reach me out! But in any case, it seems that the word for ''Ghost'' in Newar is ''गुफा'' or ''gupha''. It may be the case that the name: ''Kyah'' got so used to general supernatural occurrences, that it got mixed up. Just like we talked about the Saci in my other post. -This is not uncommon to happen- I used regular online translators to reach this conclusion, but feel free to correct me if i am wrong because i could not consult any native to talk about this matter during my research.

For a bit of context, The Newar are people that historically inhabited the Kathmandu Valley, and the regions around Nepal. As we said before, they speak Newari (Nepal Bhasa). They have 3 major cities, those being Kathmandu, Patan and Bhatgaon. [1] The academic research on the Newar people just started at the early 20th century, the french anthropologist Sylvain, wrote a very famous and complete work called Le Nepal, that was one of the first western written works about the region, and its people. Their religion are mostly Hinduism, Buddhism and there are minorities from other beliefs.

The Newar live in this region since ancient times, way longer before Nepal even existed as a Estate. According to most history books, the Newar would live alone in the region, being sovereigns of the Kathmandu valley up until the Gorgkha Kingdom in 1769. It is very hard to know much about the Newar before that in details, since they are in the region for so long, and mixed so much with other people from around the Nepal, that even their history ends up blending with mythology.

For example: according to the sacred Swayambhu Purana, a Buddhist scripture, the Kathmandu Valley was once a huge lake, Inhabited by Nagas*. That is, until one day the Bodhisattva Manjusri with the help of a powerful sacred sword, sliced the surrounding hills, which in turn made the water flow away. This information is even on Kathmandu government official site!

This myth was later confirmed to have a basis, since NASA themselves found out clues that Kathmandu was in fact, once a huge lake. NASA did not reply me about the Naga thought. Bummer...

*The Swayambhu Purana is a Buddhist text essential to Newar Buddhism. However i sadly could not find a copy online, but there are some summarized versions translated to English, which i am using as guide. For instance the US Wikipedia article, sources books that i also could not find, but i could verify the authors! So... That's something, i guess.

This goes to show how the Newar people are rooted in their mythology, and how this is completely absorbed by even their space and surroundings. Even something as the very foundation of their lands is a hierophany.

This brings us to the Kyah, that we will see can show us a lot about this society.

About the Khyah

The Khyah are supernatural creatures that are hairy, looks like apes, sometimes extremely chubby and have their bodies are totally covered in hair. This description is corroborated my multiple sources, like ''Dietrich, Angela (1998). Tantric healing in the Kathmandu Valley: A comparative study of Hindu and Buddhist spiritual healing traditions in urban Nepalese society. Book Faith India.'' But not only that, the Khyah are also represented in multitudes of paintings and also in costumes for the Yenya Festival. The only thing that can sometimes be different, is that if it will be treated like a Ghost or a more physical creature.

The wealth goddess Lakshmi and two Khyah serving her, in a painting on a Kathmandu temple.

About this painting and sourcing the Khyah appearance:

I have made tireless efforts to pin down the origin of this painting. And many others! This one is present in most of the articles about the Khyah in the internet, even local articles from Nepal itself. However i was not able to pinpoint where it came from. All the sources i found either say this is from a ''temple'' or that it was taken by an individual named: Karrattul. This is not the photographer's name, but instead the name of the profile who uploaded it on the Wikipedia, where it was uploaded in 2012! I tried to reach to Nepali communities and other enthusiasts of History and Mythology, but no one could help me. If you know anything about this painting, please contact me!

For the same reason, it is almost impossible to find sourced materials about the khyah appearance. We know that there are traits like the hair, that keep intact from place to place, but i could not find a central work detailing the creature. We have those paintings from so called temples to trust, and the ceremonial suits used in the Khyah dance.

I will link here a video of a Khyah Dance performance, so you can see the physical traits of this creature are well agreed between the locals.

The Khyah is popular among children, or at least were at one point. This can be seen in a popular children song sang in Nepal. It depicts the Khyah as a cute and hungry little critter, as the kid in the song is encouraged to give food to it. The Kyah seems never to be satisfied sadly...

A banger...

The Khyah is indeed often treated like a type of ghost. In my personal opinion they are simmilar to Djinn, some kinds of yokai and can be classified generically as a type of monster or apparition, in my view at least. (This means a supernatural creature, that is in between a human and a god like being.) The Newar believe that the Khyah has active participation in events of their daily lives. But they also are not all bad or good, they are multiple entities, some good and some bad. Usually there are white colored Khyah who are good, and black colored Khyah who are bad.

They have their own lives, families, and friends. There are a lot of tales and works related to this creature, not counting personal tales of every day people and their encouters with this little devil. That's how ingrained in the Newar culture the Khyah is.

I was able to track the writings of a Kathmandu Valley denizen, which happened to write about the Kyahk! [3] This person was kind enough to provide a lot of personal information about the regional culture, in their personal website. According to the locals, the Khyah would often live in houses, squares, public spaces, and would regularly interfere with their existence. Not all Khyah are bad, some can protect the households they inhabit, they can bring fortune and good luck. Although, the Khyah fears light, so they have to live in dark corners of the house, like the attic or some empty room.

The Unitedstatian Wikipedia page for Khyah shares some unusual information, that we can not trace to any sources. For instance, they mention that this creature supposedly fears electricity. As interesting as it may seen, the source from this particular information goes to a book called: '' Asian folklore studies, Volume 55. Nanzan University Institute of Anthropology'' Which i was unable to find to read online, and was also unable to find it by its ISBN trackers: 9057890984, 9789057890987. Those took me to another book, called: ''Caturmāsa. Celebrations of Death in Kathmandu, Nepal’'

This one seems to exist, but i also could not find it anywhere online. Google Books has some samples, and it guarantees that the word ''Khyak'' or any variations of sorts, are not on it, which means this is a misinformation. Someone probably interpreted that the fact that Khyah fear light, can also apply to electricity as an energy source. I think you won't be letting your homie Khyah uncomfortable having electricity at your house, don't worry.

Again, according to locals [3] There are two variable Khyah: Black and White. The white are the ones who bring luck, and the Black ones gives you trouble. No matter what kind of this creature you have in your house, you should respect it. They are often revered and well treated. They have their own cozy dark place to hide, like the bhandar and dhkuti. Those are places of the house used to store grains and valuables.

There are other variations according to other local sources sources [3] [4] Those Khyah are usually described as:

-Bārāy Khyāh (बाराय् ख्याः) appears in rooms where girls are kept in seclusion during their rite of passage to adulthood (first period). [5] (Very documented, and easy to track on western sources)

-Bhakun Gwārā Khyāh (भकुं ग्वारा ख्याः), literally football, rolls on the ground to move around. (Most common Khyah, probably the one Kaneko tried to draw! Most commonly seen in regional urban legends. Not very documented in translated to English literature)

-Dhāpalān Khyāh (धापलां ख्याः) is a very hairy Khyah. (Very popular because of that children's song, still sang to this day.)

-Lanpan Khyāh (लँपं ख्याः) blocks people’s way on dark streets. (Not much about this one, really. At least not in western sources. It seems that, along with Bhakun Khyah is probably more of a word of mouth thing)

The relationship with Kawancha

The origin legend for the Khyah goes that, in the distant past, two gods had a baby. They fought to see who had the right to hold the baby, but ended up tearing the child apart. The skin peeled off, revealing just flesh and bones that would separate. The flesh became Khyak, and the bones Kawancha, a skeleton that would be the Anthitesis to the Khyak. This relationship is portrayed in paintings and regional dance festivals. [3]

Also known as Kavam, the skeleton monster seems to be the other half of the Khyah. It is extremely hard to find sources about this, not only because it is a very specific regional folk belief passed down orally, but also because the language barriers. One could in theory go there in person to collect sources about this part of the lore, but it is not an option for me. Someone at Reddit pointed out to me that in some regions, they are not related at all, being just monsters from the same sources. So, their lore seem to vary from place to place.

Painting depicting Kwancha/Kavam and Khyah in Kathmandu. Origin Unknown.

As much as I tried for months, I could not come with a source for this information besides literal oral tradition. But for sure these two are indeed connected in some places. You can see them in several paintings at Kathmandu, and they also have their own dance performance telling their story and painting their relationship. As the Reddit user mentioned, their connection will vary from place to place. Being more of a localized and oral tradition.

In the performance you can see Khyah and Kwancha performing together, as they show their relationship. Still according to [3], the instrument played in these performances is the Dhimay. Its made from tree bark, and the legend says the gods later created this tool to help control the beings, and communicate with them. In the author's perspective, this was meant to showcase the duality of our universe. This being the real nature of those beings.

Again, I lack written and traceable sources. While the Dhimay is indeed a real instrument, used on those performances, there are almost no mentions of it being related to Khyah or Kwancha in the western internet. This also falls in the category of facts I could not check because of being probably too of a localized oral tradition.

I could at least find some sourced paintings. Like this one, shared by the Twitter user Sanjib Chaudhary Who is an author himself on Nepalese culture.

Kwancha and Khyah are shown in this painting on Jaya Bageshwori temple, in Gaushala.

Also, while Khyah is very well documented in the west, the same can not be said about Kwancha. It is easy to find dances, masks, his Megami Tennsei design (being the most easy result) and paintings about the skeleton monster, but almost nothing on its nature and lore. This means I highly doubt everything the Megaten games say about it to be factual, although they do in fact exist in Nepalese culture.

One thing i noticed is that Kaneko himself could have watched a dance performance of Kwancha and Khyah, or at least seen pictures. Because his Kwancha design for Devil Summoner has the clothing in colors and shapes very similar to some Kwancha performers:

This specific clothing can be seen here: Kawancha (Skeleton) Dance of Bhaktapur कवांचा प्याखं , तौलाछें, भक्तपुर ll Part of Bharab Dance ll

The final point on this part is their origin: Which gods crated them? This rent a space in my brain for free for the last year or so. While I could not find it for sure, this does not mean it is wrong or not factually a belief in their tradition. Buddhism has many gods and entities, and i suspect the ones who created the Khyah accidentally, are just regular Devas.

Modern mentions?

Khyah tales are in the heart of Kathmandu people, and many other Nepal regions. For centuries they dominated the children's tales and late night scare stories of that region. In 1992, Jim Goodman published a book called ''Tales of Old Bhaktapur'' Which complied some folk tales from Nepal.

Sure enough, Khyah makes an appearance in it. At page 28, there is a story about a Khyah haunting a house, and how a boy deals with it. Sadly the book is not openly available on the internet, but google books have some parts readable:

There is also the book: Tales of Kathmandu: folktales from the Himalayan kingdom of Nepal (1980). This book was published by the authors Karna Sakya, Linda Griffith. This book seems to put together many popular folk tales from Nepal, and in the page 105 we have a story called ''The Khya of Marusata.''

Now, as this seems to be the case with every freaking material in this search, this book is not available online, but google books has many parts available. Sadly, we can only see the title of the story. What we can know by a quick google search, is that Marusata is some kind of square in central Kathmandu. I tried to search this tale online, but I could not find. Will try to keep searching for it eventually.

Also, in the books first pages, around 20 or so, Khyah are mentioned too:

It seems to classify Khyah as demons, just like their neighbors Rakshasas. Which is not exactly on the point here, but its interesting nonetheless.

The Khyah are still recognized today, and are well known in the community. But even if the western internet made a good job of preserving its lore and some of their character, their presence is very scarce. By going on Eirikr Kaneko Crib's notes I found that one of the most recent official appearances of the creature online was on the site Local Nepal Today. This seems to be a site dedicated to portray and preserve Nepalese culture and report on situations at the region. It is however, done by foreigners that went to Nepal afterwards. The site seems to be dead, but they do mention their hearings about the Khyah! Here they call it Kack.

The authors compare it to European elves and trolls, which is not exactly a good match. They are more akin to Brownies, Silkies and some kind of Kikimora.

In any way, their description matches most sources, and oral sources alike: They are shy, prefer dark and isolated places, and hate the light. They also comment on the duality between the white Khyah and the black Khyahk.

Most important thought, they mentions talking to an elderly woman in Kathmandu, who shared her own stories about meeting the creature:

''An elderly woman in Kathmandu who saw several kacks – all white ones. The closest encounter was with a quiet, furry fellow who came and sat on her lap! Many of those who’ve seen a kack will tell you how these “little people” would come and sit on the edge of their bed for a while, keeping them half amazed, half in shock the rest of the night. A white kack is friendly – but it can still be a bit scary.''

They also gathered information from old Kathmandu citizens on why the Khyahk tales are vanishing nowadays:

'''Well, old people who grew up in the heart of kack territory – Kathmandu – will usually tell you a simpler reason: kacks are shy creatures and so, since the capital has become crowded and noisy, many have left. Sure kacks can hide and move about by stealth, but there’s a limit. Either way, now it’s no-longer in Kathmandu but in the villages you’ll hear about kacks the most.''

In my personal view, its interesting to connect the vast and accelerated growth of Kathmandu, to the losing of traditions and oral folk tales, which ended up making the Khyah tales vanish bit by bit, becoming isolated to small nearby villages.

This makes me a bit sad, because if there is no one trying to preserve those traditions, it may very well disappear as the times goes on. The internet has this amazing tool to preserve culture, but we do not seem to be using it enough.

In this regard, I am glad that Kazuma Kaneko imortalized Kyahk in the Shin Megami Tensei series, even if they are not regular monsters on the newer games, many people probably had their first encounter with this critter through that.

And that is it! Everything I could gather! Hope you guys enjoyed!

Beware the Kyhak at the feet of your bed!

Thank you for reading through it all. I actually started this research more than 1 year ago, but postponed it multiple times, since I started doing scientific research at college, and other monsters looked way more easy to research.

Stick with me for more deep dives on critters from around the world.

Sources: [1]- "Elements of Newar Social Structure". Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute. Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland.’’ - Christoph Von Furer- Haimendorf, 1956.

[2]- Dietrich, Angela (1998). Tantric healing in the Kathmandu Valley: A comparative study of Hindu and Buddhist spiritual healing traditions in urban Nepalese society. Book Faith India.

[3]- Himalayancultures.com -Personal blog of a Kathmandu citzen that shares a bit about regional folklore and culture. Extremely interesting to see stuff from a personal point of view.

[4]-Archive My Sansar - Regional website about Nepali culture.

[5]- Growing Up: Hindu and Buddhist Initiation Rituals Among Newar Children in Bhaktapur, Nepal, 2008, Otto Harrassowitz Verlag. (Pag 174)

[6]- Tales of Old Bhaktapur'' - Jim Goodman (1992)

[7]- Tales of Kathmandu: folktales from the Himalayan kingdom of Nepal (1980)

[8]- Local Nepal Today

[sapphosremains]

i mean you guys all know about me and my sola scriptura issues (insert scream) but was reading an article by wright (article here thanks Kaleb for the intro to him) and even if you don't agree with the interpretation etc, the incredible amount of context he uses to begin to dissect the verses is INSANE. not even beginning to think about translation etc. once again - the Bible is not one book. it was not written by one person. it was not written by God. it was written by real people in a real time with real things happening around them that they were responding to, and it was also written to real people. whether it's the Gospels and their different audiences (Jews/Gentiles) or Paul writing to different places and Timothy etc, there is SO much context. so no, you cannot just read Holy Scripture and take from it what you will because you will come out with an answer that is fundamentally driven by your own preexisting views (i am just as guilty of this). like not to take an extreme example but if you took my texts w even just one friend and took it as a religious book you'd come out w some crazy rules... for example:

I screenshotted and sent an image: ("OxLOVE to my Cambridge bf, he is better than every oxford man") - okay, well Grace is the authority and her word is the law and she's quoted this image so obviously all cambridge men are better than oxford men

"i'm so funny no one has ever been funnier than me ever" - direct truth.

"google it" - ultimate solution to all problems

it is better to text your friends than it is to put on clothes

the cooking implements we are allowed in my sixth form are the only permissible cooking implements

anyway i'm being ridiculous but you take my point CONTEXT IS IMPORTANT

[h0bg0blin-meat]

Hey Meat! Currently combing through Matt Clayton’s Hindu Mythology: A Captivating Guide to Hindu Myths, Hindu Gods, and Hindu Goddesses and I was wondering if you could give like a little introduction to the main concepts/gods/goddesses? I’m seeing many terms like “the Veedas” and “the Shastras” as I go through it and I’m picking up context clues and I could probably google them but I’d like to hear from actual people and especially those who know and care deeply about these Myths (like you <3). So… can you help me? /gen

Heyyy Neptune! First of all I apologize it took me so long to answer you dfnsfjfdjg forgive meeee

I love how ardently you're researching Hinduism. I haven't really read his book, but I'll help you with giving you an overview of it, so to speak.

Firstly lemme tell you about the Vedic knowledge system, which consists of:

Vedas

Vedangas

Upavedas

Vedas: These are the oldest known scriptures of Hinduism. The religion has four Vedas, namely the:

Rig Veda (RV): book of hymns to the deities.

Yajur Veda (YV): book of mantras and worship rituals

Sama Veda (SV): book of chanting songs

Atharva Veda (AV): book of procedures of everyday life

Each of them have four subdivisions:

Samhitas (mantras, hymns, prayers and benedictions)

Brahmanas (explanations and instructions on performing Vedic rituals)

Aranyakas (texts on the meaning and symbolisms of rituals and ceremonies basically). They were mainly composed by sages who meditated in the wilderness, hence the name of the texts (aranya means forest in Sanskrit).

Upanishads (texts on meditation, philosophy and spiritual knowledge)

Upasanas (additional). These are texts on worship.

Vedangas: These are the six auxiliary disciplines of Hinduism, and are heavily linked to the Vedas. They are:

Shiksha: Study of phonetics

Vyakarana: Study of grammar

Chhandas: Study of poetic metres and rhythm

Niruktas: Study of etymology

Jyotishya: Study of astrology and astronomy

Kalpa: Study of rituals and guide to ritual instructions

Upavedas: These are texts regarding certain fields of work like:

Ayur Veda: Study of medicine and life sciences

Gandharva Veda: Study of music, art and dance

Dhanur Veda: Study of archery and warfare

Arthashastra: Study of business and administration

Speaking of Shastras, they are kinda similar to Upavedas, and deal with certain fields of knowledge, like we saw in the case of Arthashastra. There are many shastras:

Bhautikashastra - Study of physics

Rasashastra - Study of chemistry

Jivashastra - Study of biology

Vastushastra - Study of architectural science

Shilpashastra - Study of mechanical arts and sculpture

Nitishastra - Corpus on ethics and policies

Alamkarashastra - Study of rhetorics

Kavyashastra - Study of poetics

Sangitashastra - Study of music

Natyashastra - Study of theatre and dance

Yogashastra - contains instructions and teachings on yoga

Mokshashastra - contains instructions and teachings on moksha

Nyayashastra - contains instructions and teachings on justice, laws and judgement

Dharmashastra - contains instructions and teachings on dharma

Kamashastra - contains instructions and teachings on love, desire and pleasure.

And so on.

Then we have the Puranas, which are texts on various topics, usually legends and lores. A few examples are:

Brahma Purana

Vishnu Purana

Matsya Purana

Kalika Purana

Vamana Purana

Shiva Purana

Agni Purana

Bhagavata Purana

And so on. The latest Purana ever written was the Kalki Purana, which was around 400-600 years ago. It is believed that Ved Vyasa (the author* of the epic Mahabharata) composed all these Puranas as well. But many disagree.

*some believe Ved Vyas got Ganesh (the God of wisdom, success and remover of obstacles, and the son of Shiva) to write the Mahabharata for him. While some believe Ved Vyas wrote it himself.

Then we have the Sutras which are aphoristic (concise expression of a general truth/principle) texts. Some examples are:

Brahma Sutras

Yoga Sutras

Nyaya Sutras

Kama Sutra

and so on.

Then comes Itihasa (historical texts), which include the two major epics of Hinduism, namely:

Ramayana (composed by Valmiki)

Mahabharata (composed my Vyasa/Ganesh)

Read the epics I'll not spoil it for ya heehee

Now, for the Gods. Oh man there are so many, but not 33 crore (1 crore = 10 million), contrary to popular belief, but rather 33 types.

In the very beginning of the pantheon, the main Gods were:

Indra (god of thunder and rain and the King of Gods)

Agni (god of fire)

Mitra (god of friendship, sun, daylight)

Varuna (god of waters, oceans, night time)

Vayu (wind god)

Soma (wind god, also sometimes called the moon god)

Ushas (goddess of dawn)

Ashwins (twin solar gods of medicine and sons of Surya)

Surya (Sun god)

Rudra (another wind/storm god who later became another form of Shiva)

Vishnu (bro doesn't have any specific assigned field tbh)

And a few others like Brihaspati (Jupiter god), Pushan (solar god of meetings, marriages, roads and cattle), Savitr (god of speed and cosmos) and many others.

Now there was this supreme vague deity in the Vedas. It's not Brahman yet. They (for the lack of a better set of pronouns) appear later. But it is some kind of supernatural force that let to the creation of this universe, and was initially mostly referred to as Prajapati (sometimes it wasn't one being though, rather a group), from what I can infer. Some may even called em Purusha. In the link you'll also get the First Creation Myth of Hinduism.

There is also an agnostic section in the Rig Veda, known as the Nasadiya Sukta. In this specific section we know there's some form of a supreme deity, but it's very vague as to what it is.

Moving on, in around mid-Vedic period, Vishnu became heavily popular, and two new deities came into being, namely Brahma (who soon got the title of Prajapati) and Shiva (from Rudra because previously Rudra had an alternative name called Siva. So Ig that's where 'Shiva' stemmed from. But again not sure).

Vishnu and Shiva became extremely popular, to the point that they got an entire sect of people dedicated to each of em, hence Vaishnavism and Shaivism (respectively) were born. Vaishnavs heralded Vishnu to be the Supreme God, while Shaivites heralded Shiva to be the Supreme God. (Soon Harihar or Vishnu-Shiva sect also emerged where both the Gods were considered the same, and hence both were the Supreme Gods, or Supreme God, if we consider them one entity) But in the future we can see Vaishnavism took over the spotlight, and finally during the age of the epics, Sanatan Dharma was born, which eventually became synonymous with Hinduism, and now almost everyone considers Vishnu is the Supreme Lord (while many others consider it to be the Brahman, who Vishnu, Shiva and Brahma are a part of).

Vishnu actually gained the most popularity from the two epics that I've mentioned, and the first one is almost entirely surrounded around his avatar, Ram (yes he has avatars now). His most popular avatars include Ram and Krishna, and the latter has an entire organization dedicated to him (ISKON or International Society for Krishna Consciousness), and this org considers THIS avatar as the Supreme Lord, and actually considers Vishnu as his avatar, not the other way around. Krishna also appears in the famous Bhagavad Gita, which is the prime philosophy book of guidelines for the Hindus today.

Buckle up, it's about to get more confusing cuz now Vishnu is our main character for a while (bro has HEAVILY influenced this religion atp there's no turning back for him now). His evolution is so interesting cuz who'd have thought in the Rig Vedic times that he'd grow up to be THIS popular TOT. Not Indra for sure xD.

Anyhoo so about Vishnu's avatars. He has ten main avatars that appear through the cycle of Hindu Yugas (eras):

Matsya: Big fishiee. Some paintings portray him as a merman tho.

Kurma: Giant tortoise go brrr.

Varaha: A boar-man :D. Pumba's gunna vibe with him fs.

Narasimha: Very angy lion-man. Will be besties with Sekhmet in a heartbeat i just know it.

Vamana: Cute "lil" dwarf (covered the universe in three steps)

Parshurama: Appears in the Mahabharata

Rama: Main character of Ramayana (hence the name).

Krishna: One of the main characters of the Mahabharata, and the younger brother of Balarama.

Balarama/Buddha (sources vary)

Kalki (future avatar)

Now Mohini is the female form of Vishnu. Whether or not she counts as an avatar is debated. She's the goddess of beauty and a seductress that lures bad guys (mostly Asuras) and then kills them, or atleast teaches them a lesson (but she also attracts the devas sometimes. Shiva for example). So yeah.

His wife is Lakshmi, who's the goddess of wealth, fortune, power, beauty, fertility and prosperity. She also has avatars btw.

Now the Second Creation Myth is pretty messy. Different sects have different takes on it. Usually it is considered that:

Brahma created the universe (or universes in case of the multiverse version).

Vishnu preserves the universe

Shiva destroys the universe

This process is considered cyclic and after the destruction Brahma creates a new universe, and it keeps repeating.

The origin of these three gods are also debated. Some say Brahma created Vishnu and Shiva, some say Vishnu created Brahma and Shiva, some say Lakshmi created Brahma, some say Shiva created Brahma and Vishnu. Some say Vishnu and Shiva are two of the Adityas (comprising of Indra, Agni, Mitra, Varuna, Surya etc.), and hence the children of Kashyap and Aditi.

Quick desc of Shiva is that he's the god of destruction, rebirth, time, benevolence etc. He also has avatars, plus a female form, called Shivani. His wife is Parvati, who ALSO has avatars, primarily Kali, Durya, Gauri etc. Sometimes Parvati and Lakshmi's avatars overlap. Sometimes, Vishnu and Parvati's avatars overlap (like Krishna-Kali).

He and his wife have two sons- Ganesha (god of wisdom, beginnings, remover of obstacles etc.), and Kartikeya/Murugun/Skanda (god of war). Who's the elder one is debated but usually Kartikeya is considered older.

Also Brahma's wife is Saraswati (goddess of wisdom, knowledge, music, flowing water, abundance etc.), who was born from him. Bro has faced some issues with falling for ppl (women) he has created actually lol, which is why he was cursed by Shiva and even lost one of his heads, hence ending up with four heads, when he initially had five. Check this site out as to why he was cancelled by Mahadev (another name of Shiva).

Now we have two Holy Trinities:

Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva (However, Vishnu and Shiva are way closer to Indra, while Brahma's kinda like the dad of the group, yk)

Saraswati, Lakshmi, Parvati

Then we have the Devas and the Asuras, who can be compared to the Aesir and Vanir, in a way. The Devas are usually the benevolent one, who attained the amrit (elixir), while the Asuras are usually the antagonists. But tbh, in my opinion, both of these groups are morally grey as fock.

Parents of Devas (Rishi/sage Kashyapa and Aditi)

Parents of Asuras (Rishi/sage Kashyapa and Diti)

Diti and Aditi and daughters of king Daksha (one of the Prajapatis). The reason the Asuras turned out the way they did was cuz Diti approached Kashyap at an unholy hour, to put it shortly. Sources say she was also jealous of how Aditi's kids turned out, which might be another factor to how her kids turned out in turn (lot of 'turn's we're getting ahah)

They are described well in the Samudra Manthan, from the Vishnu Purana. Have a look.

Now see, this stark contrast between the Devas and the Asuras didn't quite exist back in the earliest Rig-Vedic period. In fact, some of the most prominent Devas were referred to as Asuras in the Rig Veda, most famously Varuna, who was actually referred to as the leader of the Asuras/Asuryas. Other Devas who got referred to as Asuras include Indra, Agni, Mitra, and a few others. So I have a feeling the concept of the modern-day Asuras didn't quite exist back then.

Now for the concepts of Hinduism, like Moksha, Dharma etc., I think I'll refer to actual practising Hindus to explain it to you, since they'd be able to explain them in a much better way. They can also add to my explanations of things, or correct me if I explained anything wrong. So I'mma tag em.

@kaal-naagin @zeherili-ankhein @inc0rrectmyths @randomx123 @ssj2hindudude @blue-lotus333 (idk if you're a Hindu but you still know a lot so) and anyone else who wanna join.

[whencyclopedia]

Book of Genesis

The Book of Genesis is the first book of the Jewish scriptures and the Old Testament of the Christian Bible. Genesis takes its name from the opening line in Hebrew – beresit, ("in the beginning") – later translated into Greek as genesis ("origin"). Genesis is the first text of what eventually became designated the Pentateuch, the Jewish Torah ("teachings"): five books of the Laws of Moses.

The Documentary Hypothesis

Genesis consists of a variety of literary details: myth, hymns, prayers, sacrifices, rituals, oracles, folk tales, and historical narratives. Tradition claimed that the first five books were written down by Moses, who passed them to his general Joshua when the Israelites arrived in Canaan from Egypt. In the 19th century, the social science disciplines of archaeology, anthropology, and sociology emerged and were utilized to study ancient civilizations and ancient texts. What is noteworthy in Genesis is that several of the stories are repeated, but with varying details. At times, the God of Israel is referred to as "Lord," but at other times as "God almighty." When this occurs we also find theological differences, as well as indications of changing historical contexts that included politics.

After the period of the united monarchy under King David and his son, Solomon (c. 900 BCE), two separate kingdoms were created: the Northern Kingdom of Israel and the South Kingdom of Judah. A way to explain the formation of the text was proposed by Julius Wellhausen (1844-1918), who taught at the University of Göttingen in Germany, in what became known as the Documentary Hypothesis. As we do not know who actually wrote the biblical texts, the various elements were assigned to a source:

J, the Jahwist, or Jerusalem source The Hebrew name of God (revealed in the book of Exodus) consisted of four consonants, YHWH ("I am that I am"), described as the tetragrammaton. We have the German J, for the pronouncement of the Y sound. The later Masoretic version added vowels, which gives us the English version, Jehovah (which does not appear in the Bible). The J source utilized anthropomorphic portraits of God; "the face of God," "the hand of God." In these texts, God often visits the earth.

E, the Elohim source The E comes from a form of the Canaanite el, pluralized as representing several aspects of the godhead, but also from the tribe of Ephraim, settled in the Northern Kingdom of Israel. The E source portrays God as a more abstract being who does not come to earth, but communicates through angels.

P, the Priestly source The P source is a collective term for priestly concerns. This includes the sacrifices, rituals, hymns, prayers, and the begats of Genesis. The Hebrew begat ("brought forth") was the term for procreation. All ancient cultures emphasized bloodlines in detailed genealogies. This validated concepts and practices handed down through the generations. In oral cultures, the repeated lists of the begats may have been a way to memorize oral traditions.

D, the Deuteronomist source This source was named after the last of the five books assigned to Moses (Deuteronomy). It is a collective term for the final form of the traditions that were written down. In 722 BCE, the Neo-Assyrian Empire invaded the Northern Kingdom, and refugees from the North migrated to Judah. This may be when northern traditions were first joined to southern traditions, combining the J and E sources.

In 587 BCE, the Babylonian Empire invaded Judah and destroyed the Temple of Solomon. At that time, some Jews were taken captive to the city of Babylon. This period is known as the Babylonian exile." The theory is that the "Deuteronomist," either a person or school of scribes, completed the final redaction, or editing, of all the combined sources while in Babylon, beginning c. 600 BCE, but with further editing over the next several centuries (in a range from 538-332 BCE).

Jews Mourning the Exile in Babylon

Eduard Bendemann (CC BY-SA)

Continue reading...

[mariacallous]

When the American Jewish Committee began working with U.S. bishops years ago to educate Catholics about antisemitism, they didn’t anticipate a global spike in the hatred they were trying to combat.

Nor did they know that just weeks before they would ultimately publicize their work, Pope Francis would suggest that Israel is guilty of genocide in Gaza.

But when Rabbi Noam Marans and Bishop Joseph Bambera came together last week to launch a glossary of antisemitic terms, annotated by Catholic commentary, that was the context. Marans described the glossary as a “milestone” ahead of the 60th anniversary of the church’s landmark declaration that Jews did not kill Jesus. And he noted that while relations between Catholics and Jews have massively improved from centuries past, they’re facing new stresses.

“It’s easy to lose perspective on an event like this, which was surely unimaginable to my grandparents in Bialystok, Poland,” Marans said at the launch event on Wednesday. “This has been a complete transformation in the relationship that has benefitted both communities.”

Referring to the Jewish blessing to mark significant occasions, he said, “It’s a shehechiyanu moment.”

Then he added, “And even shehechiyanu moments have flies in the ointment.”

In the document published last week, the AJC’s “Translate Hate” ongoing glossary — which has around 60 entries on antisemitic terms — has been appended with Catholic commentaries on 10 of those entries. The commentaries were written by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Committee on Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs, which Bambera chairs.

The entries with commentary range from “Blood libel” to “From the river to the sea,” a common chant at pro-Palestinian rallies that the AJC and other Jewish groups say is a call for Israel’s annihilation.

For example, in the entry on “Blood libel,” the canard that Jews kill Christian children and use their blood for ritual purposes, the Catholic gloss notes that the church has long rejected the idea, but that it still pops up in some Catholic discourse.

“Today, this charge may disguise itself in less traditional forms that must also be disavowed, such as the idea that the Jewish people support abortion as a means of ritualistic child sacrifice, or that Jews are intent on spilling the blood of their enemies for its own sake,” it says.

The entry on “From the river to the sea” says the church endorses the two-state solution and “encourages Catholics to understand and respect the deep religious connection Jews feel towards Israel.”

And in the entry on “philosemitism,” the Catholic commentary notes that the church has advised against seders that appropriate Jewish tradition. “The best way for Christians to experience the Seder meal is to observe it by invitation from a Jewish family or organization that welcomes non-Jews to this central celebration of Jewish life,” the commentary says.

The guide comes at a time when, perhaps awkwardly, the topic of Catholic antisemitism could hardly be more topical.

The adherence of J.D. Vance, the U.S. vice president-elect, to a strain of traditional Catholicism has renewed attention to varieties of Catholic belief. (Vance has weighed in on church debates, saying, for example, that while he is “not a big Latin Mass guy,” he did not support the church’s recent effort to restrict the traditional liturgy that prays for Jews to convert to Christianity.) Both Marans and Bambera said antisemitism exists in the traditionalist wing of the church but portrayed it as a fringe attitude.

Meanwhile, a series of recent statements by Pope Francis has provided a case study in the way Catholic values and scriptural citations can grate on Jewish ears.

Last month, Francis cited experts saying “what is happening in Gaza has the characteristics of a genocide,” and called for the charge — which Israel strenuously rejects — to be “carefully investigated.” Then, this month, he attended the inauguration of a nativity scene at the Vatican that positioned baby Jesus on a keffiyeh, or Palestinian scarf — a nod to activists who have identified Jesus, a Jew born in Roman times, as a Palestinian. Both incidents drew outcry from Jewish groups, and the nativity scene has since been removed.

Earlier, in a letter to Middle Eastern Catholics on Oct. 7, the one-year anniversary of the Hamas attack, Francis denounced “the spirit of evil that foments war,” and quoted a passage from the Gospel of John to call it “murderous from the beginning” and “a liar and the father of lies.” The quote raised eyebrows because, in the New Testament, it is spoken by Jesus to a group of Jews, whom he calls children of the devil.

The word choice drew criticism from Philip Cunningham, a theology professor specializing in Jewish-Catholic relations at St. Joseph’s University.

“It is perilous to cite polemical words out of context, particularly words that have consistently sparked enmity toward Jews for centuries,” he wrote in America, a Jesuit magazine. “There is also something peculiarly surreal about this in a letter dated Oct. 7.”

A considerable portion of Wednesday’s event was taken up with Marans and Bambera discussing — and not quite seeing eye to eye — about Francis’ recent comments. (The pope has also issued statements condemning antisemitism, including during the current Gaza war.) Marans, AJC’s director of interreligious affairs, said in an interview that Francis has demonstrated his opposition to antisemitism — but added that his conduct has precipitated a “crisis” borne of “a lack of proper attention to Catholic-Jewish relations.” The genocide accusation, Marans said, was the most problematic.

“Whimsical use of the word ‘genocide’ against the Jewish people is dangerous because it characterizes the only Jewish state in a way that is grist for the mill of Jew-haters — which Pope Francis is absolutely, unequivocally not,” Marans said. “How does one rationalize those disappointments in speech and action with that overwhelming commitment to opposing antisemitism?”

For Bambera, the pope’s statements are simply expressions of the Catholic emphasis on the value of peace and human life. Francis’ statements stem from his concern for “the dignity of the human person,” the bishop said, including both Palestinians and Israelis.

“When he reflects upon the suffering of people who are victimized by terrorism and war, whether it be the Jewish people or countless others around the world, he will always speak of the value of human life and the need to preserve and protect it,” Bambera said at the event. He also reiterated Francis’ opposition to antisemitism.

But while Bambera and Marans read Francis’ words differently, they agreed on the path forward: more dialogue.

“I absolutely understand and appreciate the reaction of the Jewish community, the concern, perhaps the hurt, perhaps a worry about what this says about our relationship,” Bambera said in an interview. “One of the most significant things about the relationship that we have established, and that quite frankly Pope Francis supports and encourages, is the fact that we Jews and Catholics alike can talk candidly about this.”

The AJC has promoted Catholic-Jewish dialogue for more than half a century. It was active in shaping the 1965 church declaration that rejected antisemitism and said the Jews did not kill Jesus, called “Nostra Aetate” and adopted as part of Vatican II. The group consulted on the document, bringing on Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel as an adviser.

Marans said the relationship has only improved since then. He added that — even in light of the pope’s statements on Israel — Catholic attitudes toward Israel are in a better place than those of some liberal Protestant denominations that have weighed divestment from Israel.

“It is a different universe on the Catholic side because there is such commitment to Catholic-Jewish relations,” he said. “It is a given of the Catholic Church today that it is supportive of Catholic-Jewish relations wholeheartedly.”

The AJC touted plans to translate the Catholic edition of its glossary into more languages, including Spanish and Polish, and hopes to use it as a model both for Protestant denominations and other religions. Holly Huffnagle, the AJC’s U.S. director for combating antisemitism, said the group’s core goal is to teach people what antisemitism is and how to recognize it.

“People are more likely to listen to those they know, those they trust,” she said. “If you are Catholic, you’re more likely to listen to your priest than a Jewish leader.”

Working with interfaith partners, she said, has become especially important as those ties have frayed recently, in a moment where protest of Israel’s actions, and antisemitism, have been on the rise.

“The Christian space is a natural partnership,” she said. “What does it look like to go to other faiths and figure out how to do this project jointly? We have to take a step back in this moment, as we’ve seen real relationships decline.”

Both Bambera and Marans said the key to success in this project would be Catholic leadership using the glossary and imparting its message to the rank-and-file. Bambera said the archbishop of a major American archdiocese asked if he could distribute it to his clergy — which he took as a good sign.

He added that he hopes to have “more conversations about hard questions” between Catholics and Jews.

“Those hard questions shouldn’t stop the dialogue,” he said. “They should be able to grow because the dialogue is rooted in mutual respect and understanding.”

[doing-something-unholy]

Do you think they'd let omega males become priests?

Hear me out: so basically the catholic church's justification for only ordaining men is that they have to act "in the image of christ" who, if we Play In This Space, was a man. (A middle eastern man but I guess race isn't the important part here 😒 if anyone knows what magical jesus powers are made available solely by virtue of *checks notes* having a dick, please share. Inquiring minds would like to know.)

But if sex is So important for ordination, then in a world where people have two sexes, surely that would come into consideration, too? Which means we have to know:

Given that the scriptures make little to no reference to what jesus physically looked like, i imagine it probably would be vague about this, too. Although we have One real world scripture to go off of (two actually, but they're both in Revalations and say the same thing): "I am the alpha and the omega." In context it means beginning and end, but in an omegaverse world we could say that it indicates a secondary sex as well. It'd fit, God has no gender nor sex, and he is technically both mother and father of the world since he's the only creator of it.

However, catholics really dont like it when you imply jesus was intersex (given that Mary only had one set of genetics to give her son, he would've been a clone of her, so...) so I don't think they'd like "both" as an answer. And you could argue that the divine side of jesus has both/neither but he is also fully human so he'd have a single secondary sex.

Now lets step out of catholicism for a moment. (thank god eugh) The bible was written by men and thus all of the "heroes" are men. Jesus is a male savior because obviously A Woman cant be their lord, lol? And I think that attitude would carry over into them calling him an alpha. I know modern chistians would insist he'd be an alpha.

Anyway i forgot where i was going with this but yeah. Sorry ur priest oc might not be able to get ordained unless he takes scent blockers and is really sneaky about it 😔

[hiswordsarekisses]

If you want to someone to learn the truth, give them the Scriptures and let the Holy Spirit teach them.

…Teach them to pray for understanding, insight, wisdom, and discernment.

…Teach them to read the whole context of the passages.

…Teach them how to use a Hebrew and Greek dictionary, and other helpful tools.

…Above all, teach them to ask God to put “the love of the truth” in their heart. (2nd Thess 2:10) It’s the love of the truth that saves us from deception.

To love the truth requires not only the humility to realize we are capable of being wrong, but it also requires the desire to know the truth regardless of what it is. It also requires the genuine desire to know if we are wrong.

To love of the truth is also wanting to know the truth “just because it IS the truth” - even if it’s not what we wanted, or what we liked - or what we hoped it would be.

…But we should never ever teach someone what to see, or what to believe.

It takes humility to teach in this way… Humility to know that “the one who thinks he knows something does not yet know as he ought to know. (1st Cor‬ ‭8‬:‭2‬‬) - we should always be very careful to remember that truth.

If you are innocently wrong in what you see or believe (and it IS totally possible for every human to be deceived) then you will have lead someone into deception with you, and that part is not so innocent - because you will have become a false teacher!

His Word is powerful “The unfolding, or entrance, of God’s Word GIVES light, or understanding; it actually imparts understanding all by itself - by its power - to the simple.” (See Psalm 119:130)

The Word is not just a book - it is ALIVE! It’s a person! (John 1:1)

It gets on the inside of us and it changes us, it renews our mind, it makes us wise - it breathes life into us in every way!

His Word is so powerful and full of life! It needs no human aid. The same God Who teaches us will teach them too. He promises that His Word will not return void, but will accomplish exactly what He has sent it out to do. (Is 55:11)

“I have written these things to you about those who are trying to deceive you. And as for you, the anointing you received from Him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But just as His true and genuine anointing teaches you about all things, so remain in Him as you have been taught.” 1st John‬ ‭2‬:‭26‬-‭27‬

God knows what He is doing and is capable of keeping His promise to finish the work He has started in all of us. (Phil 1:6)

It’s not our work. It’s His.

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work. (2nd Timothy 3:16-17)

For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that through endurance and through the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope. (Romans 15:4)

[mikarchive2]

do you have any ciel/sebastian fics you'd recommend? it's difficult to wade through ao3

of course! ive been in these trenches for a while so ive done my share of AO3 wading. hope you enjoy my findings! 💗🫡

the classic(s):

stain the water clear! a must-read. #1 sbcl fic forever its like scripture to me. portrays their dynamic exactly how ive always envisioned it, in a way thats both devastating and so dark but also strangely tender and loving and intimate. (+ i recommend reading other works by objectlesson as well, i feel like they Get It like no one else does.)

the other classic kuro scholars on twitter always talk about it the flowers of evil series - personally i have a complicated relationship with this one cause i just dont enjoy sebastians characterization in it but it is extremely well-written and has some really iconic moments (the fucking mind games here... unparalleled) so if i were you id definitely check it out! feels very canon-compliant too.

(both of these can be somewhat triggering at times so heed the tags and make sure to take care of yourself!)

pwp:

bloodletting was the first sbcl fic i found that i actually enjoyed and it has such a special place in my heart, its almost a classic to me too... its the only sub sebastian fic i know of which is so sad because thats literally canon. to me. lets all shut up about the daddy dom bullshit and get on this immediately. 💯

i love pretty much all fics by martialartist861s #good old yaoi. (im especially fond of the one where they fuck while sebastian is in his old man from book of murder form and they get off at the emphasized age difference, i think thats crazy and i dont think ive seen it before. respect both for unhinged originality and the eroticism. + the sex pollen one)

taunt & fold. omegaverse moment! i really like the way its written.

that tutor, indulging has virginity play which is honestly such a game-changing concept in the context of this ship...

to have and to cherish is the only non-explicit one on this list and its just about them making out but i think its cute!

(edit). forgot to mention la destruction! hot and well-written and worth checking out.

[sojourner-between-worlds]

Not so long ago, another Christian on here shared an article about the "problems" with the Chosen. Now, I fully believe and support thinking critically about the media we consume, especially for something depicting the life of Christ. That being said, I'd like to offer some thoughts of my own about some of the most commonly cited "problems" with the series. (I ended up referencing the above article in most points, but almost all of them I have see elsewhere as well. That article was just an easy frame of reference.) I'm not here to convince anyone to watch it; I'd just like to offer an alternate perspective for anyone who is willing to listen and think critically.

As a disclaimer: no, this show is not flawless. It's a flawed show made by flawed people doing their best. There are times I take issue with it myself. There are valid criticisms. The ones below are, quite simply, ones that I believe are not.

Buckle up; this is going to be a long one.

1.Mormon Influence I can't believe I still have to explain this one, but I still see it listed as a reason not to watch, so here we go: VidAngel/ Angel Studios Mormon ties had no more bearing on the series content for being the streaming distributor than CBS currently does for being allowed to broadcast it. When a company solely has distribution rights, that does NOT mean they are making content decisions. The only time a distributor would have say on content is if they are partnered, which usually means they are paying for production in some way. Angel Studios never gave a penny towards production (this is the largest crowd-funded series to date, remember? They have no studio backing). They never had any influence. And, oh yeah, as of May 2024, they were deemed to be in breach of contract and now the Chosen no longer has any ties to the company. No influence. Got it? Good. Then we can move on.

2."What does your heart tell you?" (This one could be included in point 4, but I've seen it so often it gets its own, haha.) Okay, this one? This one I agree was not a good writing choice. However. I think this one needs a little more thought rather than taking it at knee-jerk. Yes, the heart is deceitfully wicked and cannot be trusted. But there's some nuance here that I think gets left behind when well-meaning people call out the series for this line. The heart, as referred to in Proverbs, is the will of man. The heart, in pop culture, is often synonymous with emotions. Within the context of the scene, its very clear that the second meaning is the one intended. Now, I will say "feelings are fickle" until the day I die (because they are) because they can't always be trusted to reflect the truth. Again, however. Feelings do exist to tell us things. That is literally their purpose. Not always accurately reflecting the truth of something doesn't change their purpose. And that is what the writers were going for in this scene: the emotional weight of the truth Nicodemus has found. Could they have probably found a less controversial way to convey this? Yeah, maybe. But I can say that this wasn't intended to be the Disney "follow your heart" mumbo-jumbo it constantly gets written off as.

3.A Hearsay Gospel This point was taken directly from the referenced article. I'm choosing to address it not because it's a popular "problem" but because it's actually one I'd never seen before and I think it shows a gross misunderstanding of the inspiration of the Gospels and Scripture as a whole. This point posited that it's unbiblical to show Matthew and John taking notes because it undermines the Spirit-led inspiration of their writings. Except that it doesn't. The Greek word used when talking about this is more literally translated "God-breathed." Which is not the same as "God-dictated." If it were the latter (and what the writer of said article implied), then there would only be one Gospel account. That would be all we need because everything would be in it. Or, if there were still four Gospels (given that they were written with different intended audiences), they would all sound the same and have the exact same details about shared recorded events. But they don't. Because God didn't tell them, verbatim, what to write down. This is why there is variety yet harmony. This is why each writer has a distinct voice in the way they wrote. Because God didn't dictate; He led. There is a difference.

There is also the matter of the Gospel of Mark. Many scholars believe that Mark may have used Matthew's Gospel as a reference when he wrote his own because it shares so much in terms of content (93% of Mark can be found in the others). Does that make it less inspired? The obvious answer is "no" (or it wouldn't still be in our modern Bibles).

The episode most criticized for this point was s2 ep3, where a woman runs past Matthew and he desperately calls after her, "Healed you of what?" Therefore making it something he didn't personally witness that he wrote down. But here's the problem with this: that entire episode is based on one single verse from the book of Matthew: 4:24. Which, if you look it up, says only that Jesus healed many people. As any writer can tell you, not every note makes it into the final draft. Provided something like that did historically happen and provided Matthew did write it down, that doesn't mean everything he took notes on would have been in the completed manuscript later. Therefore: no hearsay.

Bottom line: what made it into their Gospels is still being presented as things they personally witnessed, and taking notes doesn't detract from being led to write or from being led what to include.

4.Unscriptural Script There are several points under this one, so we'll take them one at a time. --"House" vs "Business". This one is, once again, directly from the aforementioned article, but I wanted to address it briefly anyway. This is in reference to Jesus, at age 12, staying and teaching in the temple when his family had already started home. The author claims that "the Bible says, 'Be about my Father's business'" and claims that saying "in the house of my father" (as the show does) is Catholic-inspired and unbiblical. I don't know about the Catholic-inspired part, but I can say that it depends what translation of the Bible you're looking at. KJV uses the business wording. ESV and HCSB both use the house wording. (And if you want to mince accuracy, ESV and HCSB are both more literal than KJV/NKJV.) Unless you take only one translation as being the True Translation, then you can't say the line they went with is unbiblical.

-- Apparently certain things demean Christ, such as him practicing his Sermon on the Mount as opposed to it "being inspired" (see point 3 for the rebuttal of the second part). Except it doesn't. Because Jesus was also very human. Which people tend to forget when talking about this point specifically. It's wrong to have him practice what to say specifically. It's wrong to show him with a sense of humor. It's wrong to [fill in the blank; there are many of these]. Most of them amount to "it's a sin to be human." There are a lot of things that are a direct result of the Original Sin that are not, of themselves, sinful. It's not sinful to say something in a way people don't understand (so he practices to make sure people will understand what he means). It's not sinful to be nostalgic (its an acknowledgement of things that were good in the past). It's not sinful to show Mother Mary supporting Him (we all need earthly support in the form of other people; this is literally one of the purposes of the church!). Every single thing I've ever heard anyone say is "demeaning" is actually just portraying Him as every bit the human He became.

-- The first "arrest". Quintus wanted to talk to Him. He wasn't charged with anything. He wasn't imprisoned. Quintus gave Him a warning and let Him go. This does not contradict Jesus declaring it was not yet His time because it wasn't. He wasn't arrested. I don't know how many more ways I can say this.

-- "Nathanael couldn't have been a drunk because Jesus said there was no guile in him." Except the definition of "without guile" is not "sinless". The definition of guile is "deceit, cunning, hypocrisy or dishonesty in thought or deed" and many modern translations use the word "deceit" in that verse instead. Jesus is saying that he is honest and not a hypocrite. There's nothing about drinking in there at all. I'm not trying to call out this author specifically, but when I say that it's important to understand what words mean, this is exactly what I'm talking about.

-- John the Baptist. One of the points I've seen repeatedly is that it's sacrilegious for Peter to call him "Creepy John". I have to ask if these people understand that Peter called him that in anger and before he met Jesus. After that, it's a running joke along the lines of "remember when you didn't believe me" from Andrew. This is peak sibling behavior. That's all I can say about that.

-- "Matthew couldn't have been autistic because it's not in the Bible/ it didn't exist back them/ etc." I haven't seen this one in a long while, and I made a whole post about this way-back-when, but it bares repeating. The word "autistic" doesn't appear in the Bible in part because the word wasn't even coined until the 1900s. I don't know what else to tell you on that front. Since I've already made a post about this, all I'm going to say here is that it's important representation that is made all the clearly by the overwhelmingly positive response it received from autistic fans. Jesus called all sorts, the outcasts of society, the lowest of the low. And, yes, He calls autistics, too. If there's a problem here, that's all on you, buddy.

5. The Music This particular writer pointed out this lyric specifically: "Got no trouble with the mess you've been" and quite frankly I'm having hard time understand the problem with it because he doesn't come out and say it. It is, in fact, a completely true statement. God is not put off by our messes. We don't have to fix ourselves before coming to Him. Its also worth pointing out the past tense here: been. As in, He calls you out of your mess. You don't stay there. So I have no idea what the supposed problem here is; I only know that it's not one.

In general, I don't have a problem with people not liking certain styles of music. I do take issue, however, when anyone tries to assign morality to a style. Music is amoral. It can be used in immoral ways, just like anything else can be, but music itself does not have a morality. It doesn't have "mystic undertones"; it is in a style that you yourself associate with mysticism. If you don't care for the style, that's fine, but don't assign it a morality it doesn't have.

.

.

Know of something I missed? I certainly didn't cover every controversy so let me know and I'll let you know what I think of it!

[acti-veg]

is it actually wrong to be Islamophobic? and by this i mean "disliking Islam". NOT saying "all Muslims are terrorists" or we should treat Muslims badly in any way. but to dislike the religion - not the people? are there not lots of verses encouraging violence in the Quran? (this is a genuine question - i don't know the answer)

It is perfectly fine to challenge or dislike any belief system, religious beliefs are not unique in any way in that respect. However, when you ‘hate’ an entire religion you’re not really just challenging a specific belief; because religions are extremely diverse, representing a fairly wide group of belief systems that may only share some key common features. One person’s Islam can be very different to another’s. Those who hate Islam as an entire religion tend not to know very much about it, in my experience.

There are certainly passages that can be interpreted as violent in the Quran, as there are in the Bible, but the Quran and modern Islam are not the same thing. Religious believers negotiate with scripture for meaning, and apply it to their lives. You can interpret ‘violent’ passages as reflective of the specific struggle that was happening at the time that the Quran was written, you could view it as a spiritual battle, or as encouraging violence against non-believers more generally.

If you are violent, your Islam will be violent. If you are a pacifist, your Islam will be peaceful. If you took a moderate Muslim from an affluent area in East Sussex and asked them to speak to a militant Islamist from an impoverished community in Kabul, they’d barely even recognise each other’s religion as being the same as their own. They may both claim that the other is not a ‘real Muslim,’ yet you’d hate all Islam on the basis of the behaviour of one of them? Or based on the text they both hold as sacred?

To view a religion as essentially just words on a page, or Muslims as a homogenous, unchanging group is a very narrow and inaccurate view. All religions are organic belief systems that change depending on the historical period, the cultural context, by mosque and even by individual. When people say they ‘hate’ Islam, when asked why, they usually break into criticism of Muslims as an entire people, which is Islamophobia. Or, they just point to specific lines in the Quran, which is fine, but very reductive and simplistic. At that point you’re just criticising a book.

People who ‘hate Islam’ generally don’t have a good grasp of what it is they even hate, and that goes for a lot of the more forceful critics of religion more generally. They haven’t studied the Quran, they haven’t engaged in Muslim culture, they haven’t really even talked to Muslims about what their beliefs even are. They read some out of context Quran quotes on the internet, or a few lines from someone like Ibn Kathir, and they think they understand the entire religion well enough to declare that Islam is violent. Religion is complex, they’re not just dead texts, they’re lived beliefs that are coloured by perception, culture and history as much as any other belief is.

What Islam is for most people is just what they have heard about it, and that is usually negative coverage from media sources. Even for you, I’d question why you are specifically focusing on the religion that the media has told you to hate, rather than any other religious or political ideology. That isn’t a criticism of your character, none of us are immune to propaganda. I’d just encourage you to reflect for yourself just how much of this thinking comes from your study of Islam, and how much comes from negative representations in the media.

[opencommunion]

"In a very early issue of al-ʿAhd, an anonymous writer laid out his take on the notion of shaheed and shahada (martyrdom) by tapping into the root meaning of the verb shahada (to testify) and its various nominal derivations. The author proposed the following revealing definition of the shaheed by bringing it back to the literal meaning of the term shaheed (witness): 'the shaheed: one who looks at and understands his situation, and copes with it or acts upon it … And the shaheed in Islamic thought is the believer who looks at his situation and his society and the realities of its scriptures, and acts upon it … even if this involves dying.' This etymological exercise emphasizes the notion that the shaheed is a witness to a line of conduct that is determined by his social and political context. He testifies to a cause by experiencing a reality that when encountered only in written form remains abstract. In so doing, he embodies it or gives it 'presence.'" Bashir Saade, Hizbullah and the Politics of Remembrance: Writing the Lebanese Nation (2016)

[lilgreeneyes71]

Romans 3:10 (As it is written), There is none righteous, no, not one:

Paul is quoting scripture in the Old Testament notice is said as it is written

so let's take a look at where it's written

notice both Psalms start by saying the

fool hath said in his heart there is no God

so Paul's quoting the scriptures on

unbelievers many scriptures make

reference to righteous people in the Bible, so there is no contradiction when you take

Romans 3:10 in context we were all under

sin. I will put Romans 3:10 -18 together

with the scriptures he's quoting in the Old Testament so you can understand who

Paul is speaking about, then I will put up

the rest of Romans chapter 3 so you can

see it in the full context in which it was

written.

Romans 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

Proof that he is speaking in general and quoting scripture in the Old Testament , because there are people including myself that seek after God as well as seek out his will and not our own

Romans 3:11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.

Romans 3:12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

Psalm 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.14:2 The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God.14:3 They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

Psalm 53:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good.53:2 God looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, that did seek God.53:3 Every one of them is gone back: they are altogether become filthy; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

Romans 3:13 (Their throat is an open sepulchre); with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips:

Psalm 5:9 For there is no faithfulness in their mouth; their inward part is very wickedness; (their throat is an open sepulchre); they flatter with their tongue.

Romans 3:14 Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:

Psalm 10:7 His mouth is full of cursing and deceit and fraud: under his tongue is mischief and vanity.

Romans 3:15 Their feet are swift to shed blood:3:16 Destruction and misery are in their ways:

Isaiah 59:7 Their feet run to evil, and they make haste to shed innocent blood: their thoughts are thoughts of iniquity; wasting and destruction are in their paths.

Romans 3:17 And the way of peace have they not known:

Isaiah 59:8 The way of peace they know not; and there is no judgment in their goings: they have made them crooked paths: whosoever goeth therein shall not know peace.

Romans 3:18 There is no fear of God before their eyes.

Psalm 36:1 The transgression of the wicked saith within my heart, that there is no fear of God before his eyes.

The Rest of Romans 3 the conclusion of why Paul wrote what he wrote in this Chapter

Romans 3:19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, (and all the world may become guilty before God). 3:20 (Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight): (for by the law is the knowledge of sin).3:21 (But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested), (being witnessed by the law and the prophets);3:22 (Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe): for there is no difference:

All have sinned and come short of the glory of God

Romans 3:23 (For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God);

3:24 (Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus):

3:25 (Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past), through the forbearance of God;

3:26 (To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus).

3:27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.

3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

3:29 Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also:

3:30 Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.

3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.