#because someone talked about inconsistencies in the bible

[elby-and-a-blog]

Inconsistencies in the Bible: A Reflection

“Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.” — Exodus 20:8 “One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.” — Romans 14:5

This is about the Law. Christianity argues that in Jesus' crucifixion, the law is fulfilled. Therefore, ceremonial laws are not required (but ok to practice). This passage in Romans is addressing Jewish and Non-Jewish Christians having their own superiority complexes. Paul is telling them to shut up about what days they consider special because the important thing is to focus on Jesus Christ's salvation, the common denominator between the two.

“… the earth abideth for ever.” — Ecclesiastes 1:4 “… the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.” — 2Peter 3:10

“… I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.” — Genesis 32:30 “No man hath seen God at any time…”– John 1:18

It is plainly given us to understand here, that while we are in this mortal state, we see God only through the medium of certain images, not, in the reality of His own nature. A soul influenced by the grace of the Spirit may see God through certain figures, but cannot penetrate into his absolute essence. And hence it is that Jacob, who testifies that he saw God, saw nothing butan Angel: and that Moses, who talked with God face to face, says, Show me Your way, that Imay know You: meaning that he ardently desired to see in the brightness of His own infinite Nature, Him Whom he had only as yet seen reflected in images. If however any, while inhabiting this corruptible flesh, can advance to such an immeasurable height of virtue, as to be able to discern by the contemplative vision, the eternal brightness of God, their case affects not what we say. For whoever sees wisdom, that is, God, is dead wholly to this life, being no longer occupied bythe love of it. Some hold that in the place of bliss, Godis visible in His brightness, but not in His nature. This is to indulge in over much subtlety. Forin that simple and unchangeable essence, no division can be made between the nature and the brightness. Some however there are who conceive that not even the Angels see God. (Gregory the Dialogist, c. 604)

“… Thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God…” — Leviticus 18:21 [In Judges, though, the tale of Jephthah, who led the Israelites against the Ammonoites, is being told. Being fearful of defeat, this good religious man sought to guarantee victory by getting god firmly on his side. So he prayed to god] “… If thou shalt without fail deliver the children of Ammon into mine hands, Then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, shall surely be the LORD’s, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering” — Judges 11:30-31 [The terms were acceptable to god — remember, he is supposed to be omniscient and know the future — so he gave victory to Jephthah, and the first whatsoever that greeted him upon his glorious return was his daughter, as god surely knew would happen, if god is god. True to his vow, the general made a human sacrifice of his only child to god!] — Judges 11:29-34

Missed the point of the story; the act itself is wrong, and God allowed Jephthah in the same way you allow someone else to do something you know is very, very stupid. The point is to teach the Israelites not to make rash vows. This is echoed in the Sermon on the Mount. Also, Judges is all about people being not the best. This helps illustrate that. Note that it is never stated that God was happy with this arrangement.

“… with God all things are possible.” — Matthew 19:26 “…The LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.” — Judges 1:19

Ambiguity in the pronouns -- are you SURE the he in here refers to God, and not Judah?

“…thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. ” — Exodus 21:23-25 “…ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” — Matthew 5:39

Jesus literally quotes Exodus a few verses before Matthew 5:39. What he's doing here is expanding the law; because we can't be sure if our enemy is truly as depraved as you think we are, and also we don't live in a theocracy anymore, so the law is expanded, so we don't falsely accuse others and acquit blood on OUR hands as well.

“This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.” — Genesis 17:10 “…if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.” — Galatians 5:2

Okay, so this is an interesting point. Paul himself seems to oscillate between circumcision not mattering and circumcision being bad, but both are fueled by the same principle: Physical circumcision means nothing if your Heart (symbolic) isn't circumcised (given to God). In Galatians he condemns the practice, seemingly because people wee flaunting it as a sign of being more holy.

“Cursed be he that lieth with his sister, the daughter of his father, or the daughter of this mother…” — Deuteronomy 27:22 “And if a man shall take his sister, his father’s daughter, or his mother’s daughter…it is a wicked thing….” — Leviticus 20:17 [But what was god’s reaction to Abraham, who married his sister — his father’s daughter?] See Genesis 20:11-12 “And God said unto Abraham, As for Sara thy wife…I bless her, and give thee a son also of her…” — Genesis 17:15-16

Genesis… takes place before Leviticus and Deuteronomy. I feel like y'all have no time sense. Okay, jokes aside, this is a good question. If God were consistent, why does he ban incest in one text, and then just not care on the other? I've heard that it was because He knew that inbreeding would cause actual problems by the time of Exodus, but before then, people had to do it to populate, so therefore it didn't matter.

“A good man obtaineth favour of the LORD…” — Proverbs 12:2 Now consider the case of Job. After commissioning Satan to ruin Job financially and to slaughter his shepherds and children to win a petty bet with Satan. God asked Satan: “Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? and still he holdeth fast his integrity, although thou movedst me against him, to destroy him without cause.” — Job 2:3

Actually, Job was literally a response against sayings like "your sin made you sick" and stuff like that. It's saying that you can't victim-blame people for their suffering. Does that make Proverbs wrong? No??? Favour can come in many forms, not just material wealth. Also, it is to note here that Satan may not even be the Devil as we know him; that concept only exists in Christianity. For all we now, Ha-Satan, the Accuser, is a prosecutor charged with obtaining evidence for his case against Job. If he were the devil… now that makes it spicy. I currently cannot respond to that. I concede.

“Go thy way, eat thy bread with joy, and drink thy wine with a merry heart…” — Ecclesiastes 9:7 “…they that rejoice, as though they rejoiced not…” — 1 Corinthians 7:30

Okay, so these are different responses to the fact that this world is vanity. One response is to enjoy it while it lasts, trusting God. The other is to behave stoically, trusting God. I suppose the emphasis here is in trusting God, and not eating/not rejoicing.

“The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father…” — Ezekiel 18:20 “I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation…” — Exodus 20:5

Ooooh this is actually hard. Not to help that Ezekiel 18:20 is literally a response to "wait, doesn't the child bear the sin of their parents!?"

“Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man.” — James 1:13 “And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham…” — Genesis 22:1

The word used for "tempt" in James 1 is "πειράζομαι". The word in Septuagint's Genesis 22 is "ἐπείραζεν"-- They're actually different forms of each other! So how do we explain James contradicting even the Greek version of Genesis? Well, Augustine of Hippo explains It as thus (emphasis mine): 'It is often asked how this can be true when James says in his letter that God does not tempt anyone (Jas. 1:13). The answer is that the language of Scripture often uses the word “tempt” with the meaning of “prove.” Instead, the temptation spoken of by James is understood only as referring to that by which one falls into the nets of sin. That is why the Apostle says: lest the tempter should tempt you (1 Thess. 3:5). For it is written elsewhere: The Lord your God tempts you to know if you love him (Deut. 13:3). Naturally, this expression says: to know, as if it were said: “to make you know”, because the power of love itself is hidden from man, if God does not make it known through a test of his. [Augustine of Hippo, Question on Genesis, PL 34, Question 57]'.

“Honor thy father and thy mother…”– Exodus 20:12 “If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. ” — Luke 14:26

This is emphasizing that you honor God, even when your family objects to your belief, as it is in a dialogue about not being afraid of persecutions. Jesus condemns his contemporaries for giving tithes instead of taking care of their parents as well, and Paul literally anathematizes those who abandon their family without cause.

“…he that goeth down to the grave shall come up no more. ” — Job 7:9 “…the hour is coming, in which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth….” — John 5:28-29

Job is expressing his despair, not theologizing important truths. Literally right above we know that Job was not treated well. So with that in mind, maybe him complaining about life is not out of the ordinary? On the other hand, Jesus is actually theologizing about the end of the world. So basically this is someone complaining that science is useless vs an entire essay about why science is useful both mentioned in a scientific journal.

“Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. ” — Matthew 16:28 “Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled. Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away. ” — Luke 21:32-33 “And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed. The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light.” — Romans 13:11-12 “Be ye also patient; establish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh.” — James 5:8 “Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.” — 1 John 2:18 “But the end of all things is at hand: be ye therefore sober, and watch unto prayer.” — 1 Peter 4:7 These words were written between 1800 and 1900 years ago and were meant to warn and prepare the first Christians for the immediate end of the world. Some words are those supposedly straight out of the mouth of the “Son of God.” The world did not end 1800 or 1900 years ago. All that generation passed away without any of the things foretold coming to pass. No amount of prayer brought it about; nor ever so much patience and belief and sober living. The world went on, as usual, indifferent to the spoutings of yet another batch of doomsday prophets with visions of messiahs dancing in their deluded brains. The world, by surviving, makes the above passages contradictions.

Hey. Pssst. 2 Peter 3 exists:

"This is now the second letter that I am writing to you, beloved. In both of them gI am stirring up your sincere mind by way of reminder, 2 that you should remember the predictions of ithe holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through your apostles, 3 knowing this first of all, that scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires. 4 They will say, “Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation.” 5 For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth nwas formed out of water and through water oby the word of God, 6 and that by means of these the world that then existed pwas deluged with water and perished. 7 But by the same word rthe heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and sdestruction of the ungodly. 8 But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise vas some count slowness, but is patient toward you,1 not wishing that any should perish, but ythat all should reach repentance. 10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and bthe heavenly bodies2 will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed. 11 Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of people ought you to be in lives of holiness and godliness, 12 dwaiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be set on fire and dissolved, and ethe heavenly bodies will melt as they burn! 13 But according to his promise we are waiting for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells."

[phoenix-is-the-hottest-thing]

Some people need to understand queer coding opens character identities and relationships up to a solid queer interpretation, but that doesn’t equal “this character 100% fits my headcanon and if you disagree you’re a [REDACTED]”

From a literary analysis perspective, as long as your interpretation is reasonably evidence-based it’s valid. As this is fandom, I’d add “sincere” to that since unlike an academic setting we get bad faith actors but that’s it.

So, to have a valid “interpretation” you have to do the work in good faith, and you have to be able point at the text to support your interpretation. If you can’t, or don’t want to, that’s a headcanon, and it’s totally fine.

“But this character is a lesbian she likes a girl!” There’s more to queerness than straight and gay. You could reasonably interpret a girl who likes another girl as plenty of different things:

Lesbian

Bi

Ace/aro and something else

Straight and closeted trans

Straight and lover is closeted trans

And so on.

So when you have an interpretation, someone might tell you, “I think this other thing.” The polite way to handle this if you don’t like it is to say “that’s so cool we can see different things in the ambiguity of art”. Maybe blocking each other if you dislike their interpretation that much.

That’s of course unless you both want a debate to further refine your understanding of the text or just like to argue or whatever. Which is fine! As long as it’s not overly bitter or whatever, it’s fun to discuss.

“So how do I know which interpretation is more canon than another?”

See, that’s the thing, you can’t. Canon is kind of shaky in the first place. The canon is just what’s written that’s recognized as true/correct text, not the way to understand it (and not what the author says is true, some people take Word of God as canon because it allows the following of one concrete interpretation instead of acknowledging multiple, but strictly speaking it is not). You can only interpret the canon.

For example, 4-komas bonuses of serialized manga are usually non-canon because they are jokes and not meant to be taken seriously as a part of the story’s text. That’s what canon actually is for, originally it’s to talk about which books are genuinely part of the Bible and which are to be deemed offshoots that shouldn’t be taken as a Catholic Church-endorsed religious text.

I guess that’s what gets people confused? That there’s no actual truth to imagined worlds, only what happens in the eyes of the beholder when they interact with art?

Because that’s what it means, canon often has nothing to do with who’s “actually a lesbian” short of them saying it directly. An onscreen wedding is said to “make a couple canon” precisely because there’s only so many ways you can interpret a wedding, but all that means is that the text says they’re together at a point in time. One way I can think of having a canon sexuality would be a canonical character sheet, or an omniscient narrator saying so, but everything less is basically an interpretation.

Note that interpretation obviousness can go from “that’s a stretch but I like it”, to “you only need eyes to see it”, they’re both still interpreting. Even a character talking sexuality technically only makes canon that they’re willing to say so, but that’s when critical thinking comes in.

If you hear a character say “I’m a married lesbian” and think “they’re just confused” with no evidence, you look like an idiot. You absolutely can argue which interpretation is more valid or likely by pointing out inconsistencies, stretched evidence, or that one interpretation has a higher volume of evidence/etc. This is how you avoid relativism and “nothing the text says matters” trolls.

Occam’s Razor is another way you might be tempted to try and determine whose thesis is stronger. This technique works through figuring out which interpretation requires the least amount of assumptions (saying something arbitrary is true as a basis) but it doesn’t make anything canon, or more interesting, it’s not a concrete sign of superiority. Just means it has stronger fondations.

However… your interpretation being stronger, more popular, better worded etc. or you thinking someone else’s is immoral, stupid, etc. doesn’t give you license to be a bully, to call people names, to dox them, dig up dirt to make them look worse, and so on and so forth. Thinking you’re right and they’re wrong does not make you above basic respect, politeness, or consequences. You’re not better than everyone else.

As a child, I used to think I was always right because I was logical, and I clearly made logical sense so there was no way for there to be a logical reasoning that arrived at a different conclusion. (Newsflash: Child me was very wrong! Sometimes multiple things can be equally valid! And even if they were not equal, that didn’t give me license to deride people publicly!)

Queer coding is by its nature interpretative. Coding is the author leaving hints about their characters by using a “code”. Some hints, almost everyone in your section of fandom might have the exact same interpretation about. Some hints might be dead obvious. Some hints might leave you overjoyed. Some hints you might ignore because they make you uncomfortable.

Some people will disagree with you about how they interpret the coding, or might even just state that they believe people have a right to interpret the canon however they want, even in ways you don’t like. That is normal. That is not a threat to your interpretation.

Don’t be a petty cunt about it.

Essentially,

[clonerightsagenda]

Episode 21:

Kabru: Elves treat short lived races like infants. Source: my mom

Someone get Cithis moisturizer, she's looking a little gray.

"It was my dream to join a squad, but as a tall man I could not." Kabru would have been the most cringefail canary unless their training made him better at killing monsters. That being said he was trained by an ex-canary so I guess not. Possibly because canaries are most focused on taking out the human dungeon lords? Ofc in that Adventurer's Bible short he gets to be Kabru the Lubricant User.

Izutsumi may sense spirits because she's part monster but I prefer to believe it's due to the tradition that cats can see ghosts

Interesting that Marcille (a much more adept mage) can't see ghosts and Laios (very little training) can. Guess he also has a predisposition toward spirit magic which is funny bc he doesn't like them

I've noticed an inconsistency with coloring characters' pupils - some are black, some white, and some characters with dark enough irises don't have a defined pupil at all. Most of the citizens of the golden country don't have pupils even if their irises are light in color. Is that intentional to make them a bit more uncanny? (But if so, how come a few of them do have them?)

Laios: I got to touch a minotaur's boobs. Anyway where are the girls

Get rejected by a cat and stand in the corner in shame… I feel you Laios

Funny that the winged lion made up the prophecy presumably after settling on Laios as a good mark, but it ends up happening for real.

Marcille looking uncomfortable as Senshi talks about the villagers struggling to keep their sanity after existing for so long

I thought new episodes come out on Thursdays, but I guess this week's isn't out yet

[trekkiedean]

while I'm being earnest: the thing is, this show is not consistent about most things. I've talked in the past about how, for instance, there are arcs that just don't make sense when viewed through a purely watsonian lens, or episodes that are a lot more effective out of context. the writers' room was not particularly cohesive. continuity is a joke. characterization changes from one episode to the next. (I've heard that they didn't have a writers' bible, and I have no idea whether that's true, but frankly I think I'd be more surprised if it wasn't true.) and that's before we get into how actors' and directors' choices can bring new layers to the episodes as written, or even seem to say something completely different from the episodes as written!

I think that's a big reason why this fandom is so huge and rich and has lasted so long: there's room for so many interpretations. not only is it possible to pick and choose which parts of canon to keep, I'd argue that to some extent it's actually necessary to do so; there are so many inconsistencies and continuity errors and internal contradictions that you'll just never be able to come up with a grand unified theory of supernatural. fandom lives in the inconsistencies and the continuity errors and the internal contradictions! and with spn, there are so many of them, and so much of the show, that there are very few theories and headcanons and interpretations that can't be justified in some way. yes, there are some I like more than others, and yes, there are some I think are better justified than others! but in general, even if I completely disagree with someone's take, I can also see where they're getting it from. I may think, and point out, that there are things that contradict their take, but they'll have some examples of things that support it. which one of us is right? both of us! neither of us! two supernatural fans, three opinions, baby!

but the downside of the fact that there are very few interpretations that can't be justified is that…there are very few interpretations that can't be justified. like, I'm sorry to break this to everyone, but no voice is ever going to ring out from the heavens and declare conclusively that one of us is the winner of fandom. (and even if it did, my people don't generally put much stock in that kind of thing.) someone's interpretation being different from yours, even wildly different, even different in a way you don't like, is not necessarily a sign that they haven't watched the show, or that they don't enjoy it, or that they're stupid, or that you're coming from a place of cool logic and rationality and they're just making shit up and projecting, or that they want to spite you personally. I think all of us (and I totally include myself in this) could stand to get a little more comfortable with that. because at the end of the day what matters a lot more than whether you think someone is right or not is how the two of you treat each other. publicly mocking and belittling someone because you don't like their take on a fictional character is just not the way to keep a fandom going.

[ladyhindsight]

Hi, I saw that previous ask that was sent by someone else about the parallels between the Shadowhunter society and Israel and it reminded me about the way that Cordelia is portrayed in TLH. When CC initially said that there would be Iranian characters (Cordelia and Alastair) in TLH (before the series was released), she was asked on her tumblr blog if these characters would be Muslim. She said that they cannot be Muslim because Shadowhunters do not follow any religion therefore they are all atheist. But this was really strange to me because in all of her books, the characters reference God a lot, their swords are named after angels in the bible, they are always quoting bible verses, and they also reference events that happened in the bible. So it always seemed like to me that the entire shadowhunter society was based off of religion. If Shadowhunters are all atheist then why are they always talking about God and the bible? In TMI, it’s stated that the two first Shadowhunter parabatai were Jonathan and David who were close as brothers; this is referencing Jonathan and David from the bible. It’s stated that the entire Shadowhunter race was founded when the angel Raziel mixed his angel blood with human blood which means that in this universe angels are REAL. I also think it was stated that Raziel was sent down by God or something but I can’t remember. the demons of hell (Asmodeus, Belial, etc) are also real. Hell is real as well apparently.

So basically the implications of this are that Cordelia assimilated into the Shadowhunter religion rather than her own. Since she’s a Shadowhunter that means she’s half angel.. so of course she can’t be Muslim because her entire existence disproves that in CC’s view. So since CC chose to make angels and God real in her universe, and also saying that Cordelia and Alastair cannot be Muslim, what is she even trying to say?? That God and angels and the bible are real but other religions aren’t??

Not to mention that Cordelia and Alastair are half white by father and have English first and last names (just like all of CC’s characters of colour..)

The faith of Raziel has been a previous discussion point on the blog years past, so I'll reiterate some points here. The topic has rared its head every now and then again, mostly because it is inconsistent and senseless and pretty insensitive to the whole concept of religion.

Clare created a religion for the Shadowhunters to follow, to believe in Raziel as their angelic creator, and formed some base rules for it, which essentially are that Shadowhunters have their own religion and thus don't practice others, and the Ascendants have to convert from the any previous religion to the one of the Nephilim. When discussing Sona, it is stated that "some Islam and Qur’an stories have been blended into Sona’s beliefs, though she is not exactly Muslim as Shadowhunters do not conform to any mundane religion and have their own where they worship Raziel." Which is still yeah, alright, but the whole faith in Raziel is still contradictory at best.

How can you draw so much religious inspiration while at the same time divorce yourself from it completely? The Nephilim religion is based on their creation, mundane religions also based on creation myths, so how is the Nephilim one the one everyone has to adhere to when all the stories are true? It's ludicrous that the Shadowhunters are brought up with such doctrines as "all the stories are true", basically act atheistic, but also at the same time demand other people from other religion to join their faith instead and adhere to their doctrines in which you wouldn’t necessarily believe in.

It seems "all the stories are true" don't apply to religion but fantasy elements such as witches, warlocks, vampires, werewolves, and faeries. With religion (Abrahamic ones to be exact), Clare is being picky.

The Shadowhunters aren't even particularly religious themselves, they have no culture or customs surrounding the faith of Raziel, no rites or holidays or sacred traditions or anything. They might as well be atheistic in the sense that none of the characters, sans Cristina (and her family?), practice the Nephilim religion. But even with Cristina, how does her faith show other than her belief in angels and her religious medallion she wears? Clare not being particularly religious is really reflected on the fact that not much though went into this. Previously when discussing Jonathan Shadowhunter, I said that:

Jonathan’s country of origin is never told, but of course from when the map was what it was during the Crusades. Not that it really matters because we can pretty much deduce they were Europeans since the First Crusade was initiated by the Latin Church and was partaken by the contemporary European kingdoms and empires. There’s also the fact that the roots of the birth of the Nephilim are in religious wars, and trying to remove Jonathan Shadowhunter and the origin of the Nephilim from that is evasive. Okay, let’s leave this thing here and go do this completely other stuff, totally didn’t just try to invade another land and get distracted. It’s interesting to note some liberties authors and filmmakers take when it comes to representing a part of some culture, religion, or myths. What makes inspiration differ from misrepresentation and all that. The wiki states that: “Jonathan then transformed his sister, Abigail, and his friend, David, into Shadowhunters. Inspired by the tale of their coincidental biblical namesakes, Jonathan and David took that story and became the first parabatai, performing a ritual where they took each other’s blood, spoke the oath, and inscribed the runes upon each other.” In Books of Samuel, Jonathan and David, bonded by a strong friendship, form a covenant by taking a mutual oath. “Now it came about when he had finished speaking to Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as himself.” It’s funny that an author writes their coincidental biblical namesakes when there is absolutely nothing coincidental about it. It isn’t just that Clare was inspired by the writings in the Old Testament, she outright writes that her characters took that story, being coincidentally named the same, and created the parabatai bond based on it. They acted on religious texts. And of course, Jonathan’s sister just happened to be named after the second wife of King David. [...] Why is their faith so centered on Raziel alone when their universe is obviously filled with other god-like beings and entities? I guess it’d be fine if Raziel was worshiped as a patron but didn’t exclude other faiths and the Nephilim didn’t outright demand you to just drop the religion you practice. Why is it suddenly the Shadowhunters’ business what you can worship and what not? There plenty of polytheistic religions so why can’t the Shadowhunters be polytheistic too? It’s nothing away from worshiping Raziel.

Clare made ground rules for the Nephilim religion but failed to ask the follow up question that essentially makes the basis crumble. Let's even consider Jace Herondale who first said that he does not believe in angels or a god. As the series progress, it becomes all the more evident and rather glaringly so that angels (Ithuriel) and Raziel himself/themselves(?) are very real. Jace experiences no growth or acknowledgment as to this. When Jace is faced with Lilith, he throws her and Sammael's love and Sammael's earlier demise at hands of the archangel Michael at her face, names his angel blade Michael when fighting Lilith, but at no point do we really see how did we get from point A to point C where any of this contradictory behavior is realized or discussed between the characters. Or even acknowledged that holy shit, these biblical beings actually exist.

Hell, even The Last Hours has God (or a god?) himself smiting down Belial, a fallen angel, and NO ONE EVEN BATS AN EYE. Most Shadowhunters are really apathetic towards heaven-level stuff happening right in front of them. In some other older post I said:

The thing that strikes me as particularly odd is that they constantly cite the Bible, and their oaths—the parabatai one, for instance, from the Old Testament—are of biblical origin, and Jonathan Shadowhunter himself was told to be a crusader, yet none of it is considered Jewish or Christian. Angels are inherently religious beings, and Abrahamic religions and whatnot where they appear are far older institutions than Shadowhunters are as a race. I just don’t see it as a good idea to draw so much from their religious mythology but completely cut ties with their spirituality and meaning.

[Here's a link to a post compiling some of the earlier pondering on this mess.] If you want, you can also check my Jonathan Shadowhunter tag, I've been sent some great thoughts about him and the Nephilim creation.

Part of the problem also lies, once again, within the worldbuilding, the major lack thereof, because I don't think materializing the Princes of Hell was in the early plans for Clare, at least considering books 1-3 of The Mortal Instrument. None of it was essential to her nor a primary objective in the development of the Shadowhunting world.

[2n2n]

the Sounds of Nightmares...

Well specifically I'm being baited by the stupid Sounds of Nightmares podcast, despite my own insistence that I don't care about aside material or really consider any new content commissioned by Bandai-Namco, and the scattered independent producers of all the various things under the property, necessarily relevant when analyzing the 2 games helmed by Tarsier Studios ...

Which-- I do stand by that ! Here is... an important... precursor, to talking about it.

I think who produces something is very important. It's not the franchise name which makes something enjoyable to you, it is what voice is creating it. If there were JSHK stories written by someone other than Iro-sensei, or if the property was sold off to another artist & writer, would you still be a fan of JSHK? This is how properties like... Warrior Cats (which is a book packaging deal comprised of at least 7 ghost writers), Star Wars, Marvel, work-- those characters, worlds, are not anybody's baby, but are loose concepts which people are paid to contribute to, to generate money as a franchise. It banks not on artistic integrity, but recognition of the property.

For example, I don't love everything that 'Adventure Time' is, or has become. It has passed through different directors, artists, writers, to the point that the original team who made it what I love, is not a part of something as derived as Distant Lands or Fiona & Cake. I also think somebody could like Fiona & Cake and not like OG Adventure Time. Because these are entirely different creations, with different vibes. I'm sure everybody actually has a relationship like this to SOME franchise! Liking early seasons of AT under Pendleton Ward, doesn't incline me towards liking how Adam Muto directs things, once he takes over. If my favorite board artists gradually leave, and are replaced, then I may not relate to the new voices writing episodes. I may not recognize what I loved in the original thing at all, in these new voices. OR sometimes, I CAN like a new voice... that's the roulette spun when things change hands many times.

I mean, people can like or dislike any Star Wars movie, as a mundane example. There is not 1 voice for all trilogies. Or extended universe novels. Or games. Or cartoons. Or Spinoffs. Famously.

By design, art created this way can't represent a singular vision, goal, or worldview... so as a result, these things tend to be haphazard, sloppy, inconsistent, roguely retconning or redefining aspects of canon as different writers or artists want to remake, reinterpret, or ignore set-ups proposed by others, in favor of their own. You'll have characters... often forgotten, brought back, killed multiple times, imbued with significance as quickly as they are written off. Some writer might introduce a concept which the next installment's writer hates. Individual teams or studios for different disciplines (one may commission a wholly different place to make an app game, a podcast, and a comic), may have hardly any communication with one another, and may only be working off of a loose lore bible or rubric. It depends on... the integrity of the franchise ... but almost by uhm, virtue of being a franchise, I'd say most don't... have.... integrity. Because it's often better to just throw more and more darts at a board and test what your audience likes .... artist integrity doesn't necessarily make something popular or speak to what the audience wants, after all. If anything I'd say being an artist with integrity makes one stubborn and liable to act regardless of what the audience wants ...

SO. all that out of the way....

Where all Little Nightmares bonus material is concerned, I take in each on their own terms, and don't necessarily absorb it all into my 'canon'. I mean, I feel LN2 entirely threw away what VLN did, by locking the 2 games in an enclosed loop.

I can't think "this aside comic EXPLAINS this thing from the games" when the games writers don't often acknowledge or engage with what those teams are doing.

BUT BY ENGAGING WITH THINGS ON THEIR OWN TERMS, I CAN ALSO BE LIKE... UGHH??? urhghgg... any random thing COULD beguile me. I mean, nothing is STOPPING ME from LIKING a new installment of Adventure Time, it's just that I DON'T like them, as fate has it.

I think the Sounds of Nightmares, is ,, HILARIOUSLY badly written, like from a quality or believability of voice standpoint. The dialogue is so cartoonishly bad. Feels a bit like a fanfic written by a 14 year old 😭 unfortunately it do be sounding like the exact kind of dialogue the writer of 1&2 has mocked & talked about swerving to avoid in his own work. Like the lack of subtlety... its so funny when LN1&2 are, entirely composed of subtlety.

but you know what I cannot resist, in my godforsaken bones ................................................... the notion of Mono & Six having been siblings in their previous existence. For The Love of God!!!! THIS AVVY BAIT!!!!!!!!!!!!! AAOURUUGHHH ... Mono as a little brother growing older, struggling with the idea of his big sister abandoning him, refusing to believe she ever would willfully do such a thing... falling down an oubliette of moral decay, torturing children & sending them into oblivion in his desperation to reach her. The concept that he may do all of that only to become trapped in a loop where he both doesn't fully recognize her, or himself, but is also continuously abandoned by her endlessly. But also Did Find Her, Did Reunite, Does Have Her. So maybe the kid torture was the right choice.

I LIKE THE IDEA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! But it is mildly frustrating to engage with, because of the lack of... absolutes. I feel like the implications are intentionally opaque yet ubsubtle all at the same time (Six's theme softly plays as Otto shouts at recognition of her yellow raincoat.... he is perfecting tuning the frequencies of the nightmares... he comments on the eyes watching him.... a tan trenchcoat is seen in the seamstress area wherein bodies are made to tether children into this other realm... otto mentions the importance of donning many masks...). There is a plausible deniability to it, and I wholly believe creating Red Herrings tastelessly is expected of the property, given the entire bait-and-switch of VLN is you thinking that girl is Six, But No She's An Unrelated Raincoat Girl (why?) (it helps the franchise recognizability by there always being SOME sort of girl in the iconic raincoat.. how could you sell an app game without that visual cache?)

I think the threat of "is this Six? Wouldn't that be interesting...." is frustratingly imperative to maintain audience attention, while the open possibility of saying "naaah lol nvm" is important to 'save' the lore (particularly if the audience doesn't like or rejects an idea ... you can pretend anything was the intention all along retroactively). This is the madness of franchises... *rubs temples*...

so what do I have to say. I do think the writing is not good, but I think the concept is delicious. I would love for Mono to have created a device to communicate with the Nowhere (and it as a semi-reality semi-dreamspace IS original canon...), and I like that suffering is essential to reaching towards it. I would love the creation of this device to be the inception of the Signal Tower, I would like his only window into this world to be the thing that will entrap him, as if the two cannot exist apart. I would like Six as a long-lost older sister who escaped through her dreams, but perhaps anticipated her brother following behind her.

The vibes of Otto, are great. I love a guy muttering "my beloved..." about his sister, and pathetically whining about how she'd never leave him. I like how much "Sisi" sounds like "sissy". I love how he speaks always in possessives about her "my Sisi" while Noone also fsr validates this by saying "your Sisi". Yeah!!!! I like how absorbed his life is in this, like he's had no pleasures or joys outside of his sister, and is always yearning for her.

I would say it suits Mono's description of being "uncommonly single-minded. When he sets himself to a task, he rarely gives up before it's completed." He's a uniquely determined person, to a fault. The Thin Man erodes many in his terrible city, so corrosive is the humm of his Signal Tower. I would like all of the irradiated child remains found in the Pale City to be children he treated with his machine, who were not only lost to their nightmares, but trapped within the Signal's call.

Imagining Six & Mono's lives before winding up in this nightmare... I haven't had anything in mind; I like to engage in the world as it is now, on its own terms. I would imagine neither remember what existed before this, anyway. Suddenly being proposed "Mono was Six's obsessive little brother" is like being electrocuted. UGUGHHH... YEAH??????? FINE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! if YOU want to, SAY THAT.... !!!! to ME.... ! it's designed specifically to torment ME.... to test my integrity....

It is also kind of HILARIOUS!!!!! Ahhhhh imagine working tirelessly to reunite with your sister, only to have the demons that be give you the ironic fate of being unable to remember or recognize her in such terms, yet there is a draw, a pull, a sense to need to protect & keep her at all costs. And then what ! It would be amazing to fall in love with her, to find her beautiful. It would be amazing to fuck her brains out like that !!

For the mostpart I don't have... interest at all in Noone's, visions or what have you, it feels a little mind-numbingly episodic, but I could probably enjoy plenty of it fully visualized...? I don't really vibe the podcast medium as a tool for storytelling I am afraid; it feels simultaneously less than a book and also less than a visual medium. Not enough immersive prose or opportunity for shifts in perspectives a book could offer, limited duration, a kind of hokey amount of SFX and the need for a contrived framing narrative (which basically demands a lot of unnatural exposition to convey anything), really dampens it for me. I read it all as transcripts because that's a little more tolerable, but that just leaves me wishing it didn't need to be in a scripted format, and was .... a book .

My favorite concept it did bring forth, which well-aligned with my own impressions, was that seamstress room. I liked the half-made doll stabbed onto the table, and Noone feeling a connection, as if that was her, and all of these awaiting clothes. I enjoy the idea that one's consciousness is sort of split & hobbled when in-between reality & dream, until a vessel is made on this other side, which 'completes' you at last. I like the mythology of that, of needing a new body... exploring the 'doll' aesthetic we've got here.

I also like.... the notion of time not being linear, the Ferryman simultaneously existing for a lot of children. Since I'm only willing to engage Sisi & Otto as Six & Mono... I would love the notion of timelessness, that despite 'searching' for his sister for years, they might come into existence in this world at just the same time; maybe the Ferryman could have promised Six that her brother will come, & the matter of time is relative here as everything warps. They won't be apart, actually. I am FOND of the idea of Six & Mono's clothes coexisting in a trunk... despite Six having disappeared much 'before' his, in our world. Perhaps her body isn't finished being stitched together until Mono appears. That would be what I would like... </3 Maybe sissy only left because it was promised that you would eventually come.............. only the illusion of abandonment. To motivate you </3 come chase meeeeeee otouto

[audhdnight]

Disclaimer, before I get into this: I do not believe a god of any kind exists. Some people believe the god of the Bible exists as a single entity among many other entities, and to that I say, to each their own. I personally do not hold that belief, so when I talk about what god could have done or what god is and isn’t, this is in a purely hypothetical sense. It is to draw attention to the inconsistencies in the way the Christian god is presented, in hopes that his followers might recognize a bit of their cognitive dissonance and realize they could look at things a lot more objectively.

Moving on~

The following image is a screenshot of part of a post I made last week. The entire thing is not relevant to this specific discussion, so I’ve only included two specific paragraphs, although if you’d like to read the whole thing I can post it here too. (The image description is in the alt text.)

In the comment section of this post, a Christian woman replied:

I’m going to break down these analogies because I am seriously so sick of seeing people repeat them as if they actually make any sense at all.

To start, her analogy of the lion’s den is omitting the fact that my hypothetical father in this scenario not only created the den and put the lions in it, but then also put me into it. Then he saved me, and expected me to be grateful and worship him and decide “wow, he saved me so I guess he must love me pretty much! guess that means I have to follow every rule he sets for me now!” She also makes it sound as if there are only two choices: worship this convoluted father with a praise kink, or else jump back into the pit of lions. When in reality, what’s stopping me from simply walking away from it all? Is the den and the ground around it the only thing that exists in this world? Because I would assume if I keep walking, I would keep finding ground to walk on. And eventually I’d come to a place where my father isn’t, and I’d probably just stay there.

In the second comment she uses the example of a couple who decided to set boundaries in their relationship. Right off the bat, this argument is completely invalidated by the simple fact that there is no equal partnership between a person and “God”. There is a massive power imbalance, in which no form of equality can ever exist. Even setting that to the side, though, we need to acknowledge that these are not “boundaries”, in the sense that all parties must abide by them or else part ways. They are rules, and only the non-God party has to follow them.

In a separate post I made a while ago about my issues with the god of the Bible, I brought up the fact that the true biblical God cannot be loving. He supposedly led the nation of Judah on a colonization campaign through the ancient Middle East, giving them full permission to slaughter entire cities, take all their shit, and keep their women as slaves. I said that I cannot in good conscience follow a god who says murder is wrong, but then explicitly instructs his “chosen people” to murder thousands upon thousands of people just because they were “gentiles” living on the land promised to them by that same god. In the comments of that post, another woman said this, which is a very common belief in Christianity:

This is why I hate the concept of “sin” as a whole. It’s not bad because it’s bad, it’s bad because god said so. Which means he can also say something completely different, and that makes it okay but just for him. Murder isn’t murder when god kills someone. Stealing isn’t stealing if god said you could have it. Rape isn’t rape if god told you that you could keep that woman as a slave.

So in the analogy of a woman and her partner, these are not boundaries like “we can’t hit each other or fight, we can’t lie to each other or cheat”. They are rules that say “you can’t hit me or talk back, you can’t keep things from me or leave this relationship. but me? I can do whatever I want”.

The god of the Bible is not a loving deity. He is a control freak who is perfectly happy to let you suffer for all eternity if you decide you don’t like the way he runs things. I see a lot of Christians in my comments constantly, telling me that god didn’t decide to punish you for not loving him. It’s just a natural consequence; if you decide to be separated from him, his protection doesn’t work and that’s why it’s torment.

To that I always say, why? Why did god make a reality in which his protection only extends to those who worship him? Why did he make it so that we have to suffer if we’re apart from him? He’s all-powerful right? So couldn’t he have created a reality in which, whether you liked him or not, the outcome was the same? All people, regardless of faith, had an afterlife that didn’t torture them? I don’t know if it’s just that Christians have no imagination or what, because I can conceive of multiple ways in which suffering simply wouldn’t have to exist if I had made the world.

Of course the response I always get is “But you’d have to take people’s choice! We’d be robots!” And again I ask, why? God could have made it so that we could all only make choices within the bounds of what does not harm ourselves or others. He could’ve made it so that greed and hate and apathy simply didn’t exist in people’s minds, if he wanted to. And sure, maybe you’d say it isn’t fair to keep people from being able to make those choices. But I would say that in this hypothetical reality, we wouldn’t know the fucking difference. We would be happy. Everyone would have what they needed, no one would ever suffer.

Anyway, “free will” within Christianity does not exist. You cannot give true consent in an imbalanced power dynamic, or when saying “no” is unsafe, and god meets both those conditions.

This whole thing is another great example of how Christians actively believe a whole lot of directly conflicting things, but the indoctrination keeps them from seeing it.

[hotchfiles]

CM is soooo inconsistent even with the most clear cut shit they go back and change shit instead of googling A sentence, and actually my biggest pet peeve is when they go back and make a member of the family from someone on the team be a victim of a murderer or serial killer like whats the need to do that?? did they need to add that no actually jjs sister was the victim of a guy?? the story doesnt suddenly have more depth because of it (and they did it to Derek like twice)

the only reason i dont hate the jj one is because they didnt go in depth about roz having or not a history with depression and i love seeing predators get lockedt, but it pained me so much because that god damn necklace was everything to jj, she held on to it, it was a symbol of roz and it got mixed with something so horrible

the one i notice the most is hotch’s, they never talked enough of his family and when they did was to confuse us

like ok haley and him met during high school, high school sweethearts, i assumed then that they started dating then, but then Aaron says he was sent to boarding school (which was never mentioned before nor after that one episode), Jack seems to have cousins, but Jess never talks about having children and she lives in a big house apparently but then she lives in a apartment complex, but Haley doesn’t have other siblings so where are those cousins from? is a way of saying? like, is it henry? but henry is barely one when the cousins are brought up

honestly it pisses me offfffff like they gave complete free range to all writers and never simply wrote the facts the threw at us down like i reread all my chapters everytime im writing so i wont do exactly THAT !!!!!!

i have improvised bibles for my long fics !!!!! A SHOW THAT BIG SHOULD HAVE A SOLID BIBLE

[talenlee]

Decemberween 2022: Rabbi Tovia Singer

New Post has been published on PRESS.exe: Decemberween 2022: Rabbi Tovia Singer

Oh yeah, Decemberween, when I recommend a bunch of free, online content that I find enjoyable so you can partake of it in this period of Everything Being Busy, what kind of fun cool interesting media are we talking about today? Well, extremely deep Tanakh scholarship from what amounts to the internet version of a conservative Jewish call-in show.

Look, when I recommend media, you know I’m not recommending media veganism. I don’t think that Rabbi Singer is in any way going to line up with me on almost any front. I tolerate a pretty high level of what I’d call ‘coot factor’ when it comes to religious scholarship. I imagine, I assume, that say, an Orthodox Jewish Rabbi who lives In Israel probably has some pretty cruddy views about oh, you know, maybe that country they’re living in called Palestine, and I’m not asking you to make exception to that.

Matthew corrupted Jewish Scriptures to craft a preposterous Christmas story - Rabbi Tovia Singer

Watch this video on YouTube

Still, I have been listening to a lot of this guy this year, because of a specific area of scholarship where he’s been working very hard since the 1980s. Singer is an aggressive and constant opponent to the idea of Messianic Judaism.

Messianic Judaism is the idea of Christians trying to convert Jews. This is typically done by claiming that Christianity is compatible with Judaism, or that Judaism has been Christianity all along. There’s also a lot of imagery nonsense, like trying to use The Wordless Book style storytelling over the Seder to show that hey, doesn’t this bread remind you of Jesus?

What I’ve known for a long time is that the gospels are inconsistent, and this should be a problem for people who claim that the gospels represent divine literal truth. What I didn’t know is how much the New Testament is inconsistent with the Old Testament, where phrases that I knew didn’t line up are demonstrated changes in the text, rather than what I, an English language speaker thought growing up, that they were just translated differently.

Immanuel's Mother was No Virgin! Matthew Corrupted Isaiah – Rabbi Tovia Singer

Watch this video on YouTube

Anyway, Rabbi Singer defends his position and his faith and his values, and provides a perspective on Christianity from the position of someone who knows it very well and who knows the faith it claims to own. I find these talks and these long form textual conversations about specific wording changes in the two components of the Christian Bible super interesting. What’s more, they’re just going to come at things on a different footing. Me, an atheist, pointing out how Christianity does feature ritual cannibalism and a human sacrifice, get eyerolls because of course I’d just ‘not get it’ because I’m not religious. But when someone who is religious brings those same ideas to task, that position looks very different.

It’s interesting to me, and Rabbi Singer seems to have an extraordinarily strong grasp of all the concepts. When he talks about Dispensationalism and Evangelical Christianity, his mastery of the topic aligns with what I know, and he justifies what he knows from texts that I can go look up (even if I have to trust others translating Hebrew). Some of it is still Preacher dialogue, and I’m familiar with that, but it’s still really damn interesting to me.

Happy Hanukkah.

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

#Decemberween2022

[johnhardinsawyer]

What We Talk About When We Talk About God

John Sawyer

Bedford Presbyterian Church

5 / 26 / 24 – Trinity Sunday

Isaiah 6:1-8

John 3:1-17

“What We Talk About When We Talk About God”[1]

(Holy, Holy, Holy)

How do you express the inexpressible?  How do you talk about something that cannot be captured in words?  You could try to weave some metaphors and similes together or maybe write a poem.  You could try to capture it in an image, or piece of art, or music.  You could try to tell a story about an experience.  You could even try living in a different way.  

What do you talk about when you talk about God?  I’ve discovered that just about everyone talks about God in a different way. . . if, in fact, they talk about God.  For some people, God is “love.”  For others, God is “judge.”  For still others, God is “vengeful,” or “forgiving,” or “unforgiving” – “ready to punish” – or “ready to open God’s arms in acceptance.”  For some, God is “petty” or “fickle,” or “confusing,” or “inconsistent.”  For others, God is “the same – yesterday, today, and tomorrow.”  For some people, God is “omniscient” and “omnipresent” and “omnipotent.”  For others, God is deeply “personal” and “intimate.”

I know that I’m probably painting with a large brush, but usually the way someone talks about God is based upon how they were raised, where they went to church – whether they went to church – and what they’ve picked up along the way in life.  There are some folks who have picked up more than others.  I was talking with someone last week about how it had been Pentecost Sunday and they said, “What is that?”  And when I told them about the story of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost in Acts, Chapter 2, they said, “Ummm. . . okay?” looking at me with a confused expression.  Let’s just say that they were not familiar with the concept.  And that’s okay.  Nobody should be judged for what they may or may not know about God or the Bible.  Besides, it’s kind of hard to do a 30-second elevator pitch on what the Holy Spirit is while your kids are running around on a crowded playground on a Sunday afternoon.  

But even if you have more than 30 seconds, it’s still hard.  I was talking with some pastor friends of mine this past week about how today is Trinity Sunday in the life of the church.  One of my pastor friends shared that he has never preached a sermon specifically on the doctrine of the Trinity because it’s hard to understand – much less explain.  The doctrine of the Trinity – how God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit –is something to which Christians hold dear –an essential tenet of our faith – and yet it is something that we can’t fully explain, no matter how hard we try.  

Whether you are talking about God in 30-second soundbites on a playground or in an elevator or have read and/or written volumes on who God is, there will always be something about God that isn’t just hard to explain, but defies description. In the end, God is mystery – a Holy mystery.  

Libraries are filled with books – some brand new and some old and dusty – that talk about God:  who God is, how God works, what God has done and is doing.  I have a dusty old – but very good – book on my shelf, called The Meaning of Revelation,  by a theologian named H. Richard Niebuhr.  For Niebuhr, if someone is going to talk about God then this means that something about God has been revealed to them and that faith – some kind of belief or, at the very least, hope – has entered the picture.  As Niebuhr writes:  

When a Christian says “God” [they do] not mean that a being exists who is the beginning of the solar system or of the cosmos, or the great mathematician who figured out a world in which mathematicians can take delight.  What [they mean], what [they point] to with the word “God,” is a being infinitely attractive, which by its very nature calls forth devotion, joy and trust.  This God is always “my God,” “our Good,” “our beginning” and “our end.”  To speak about God otherwise, in the first place at least would be like speaking about beauty in a picture to which one did not respond with delight, as though color and texture and balance, just as they are in themselves or impersonally considered, were beauty.[2]

In other words, when we talk about God, there is something that draws us to who God is – some connection of some sort.  Hopefully, there is some awe and wonder, some devotion and joy and trust involved.  

In today’s two scripture readings, we find two completely different depictions of God.  In Isaiah, we see a fantastic revelation of the throne of God – complete with angels flying around and God’s robe filling the room.  And, in the Gospel of John, we see a more intimate revelation of God – a nighttime conversation between two people:  one of them a curious man named Nicodemus and the other, Jesus of Nazareth – who came to be called Jesus Christ.  

Let’s start with Isaiah, who is writing in a time of great change.  Today’s passage begins, “In the year King Uzziah died. . .” (Isaiah 6:1)  This was about 700 years before the birth of Jesus.  Like many of the kings of Israel and Judah over the years, King Uzziah “did what was right in the sight of the Lord” (2 Chronicles 26:4). . . until he didn’t.  According to the story of Uzziah, the king reigned for fifty-two years, but partway through his reign he walked into the Temple – a very Holy place – and demanded to be able to make an offering to God in an improper way.  You see, there were laws about what should be offered to God and who should make those offerings and Uzziah was not following the rules.  According to the story in 2 Chronicles, there were eighty priests who withstood the king and turned him away.  When Uzziah the king got angry with these priests, he was struck with a skin disease and was sick until the end of his days.  Yep.  This is one of those sometimes-confounding stories in which God’s judgment is on display in the Bible.  I don’t have an explanation, except to say that if you are going to make an offering to God, be sure that your heart and mind are in the right place.  

Anyway, in the year that King Uzziah dies, the prophet Isaiah is in the very same place where this showdown with the priests had occurred.  And suddenly Isaiah is visited by a very different King.  Isaiah is somehow able to see this powerful and holy vision of the throne room of heaven.  As the story goes, the room is only so big and God is so much bigger.  So, it’s like Isaiah can only see God’s feet and the hem of God’s robe – along with these heavenly six-winged angels. 

Can you imagine the scene?  I can’t.  It sounds absolutely wild, and yet this is what some folks talk about when they talk about God – a large being, sitting on a throne, causing mere mortals to quake in their sandals.  

You will notice that Isaiah, seeing this strange and Holy sight, immediately confesses that he should not be there: “Woe is me!” Isaiah says, “I am lost, for I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips; yet my eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts!” (Isaiah 6:5)

By contrast, in today’s reading from John, we find Nicodemus sitting face-to-face with God.  Nicodemus, though, is not trembling because he has no idea who Jesus really is.  As far as Nicodemus knows, he is talking with a great teacher named Jesus who somehow has a special connection with God.  He says, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God; for no one can do these signs that you do apart from the presence of God” (John 3:2)  As we listen in on this private conversation between this great teacher from Nazareth and this religious leader from Jerusalem, we find Nicodemus trying to figure out just who Jesus is.  And so, we get some confusing crosstalk about what it means to be “born from above” and a lot of talk about “ascending” and “descending.”  It’s clear in the moment that Nicodemus does not understand any of this, but then Jesus gives one of the greatest less-than-30-second elevator pitches in all of scripture:  

For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life.  Indeed, God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.  (John 3:16-17)

It’s short and to the point.  It can be printed on bumper stickers and held up on signs at football games.  For many Christians, this is what we talk about when we talk about God.  It is, in so many ways, the heart of the good news.  Now, when some Christians talk about God and John 3:16, they focus on the belief part, as in, “You’ve got to believe what I believe about God and talk about God and talk about God in the same way that I do.”  But if you notice, in John 3:16, Jesus doesn’t begin by talking about belief.  He begins by talking about God’s love, specifically God’s love for the world.  It is God’s love for the world that is revealed in the person of Jesus Christ.  And it is the person of Jesus Christ, who, by the power of the Holy Spirit, reveals God’s love for us and for all the world and inspires a response.  As Niebuhr writes, “What this means for us cannot be expressed in the impersonal ways of creeds or other propositions but only in responsive acts of a personal character.”[3]

In other words, we can say all kinds of things about God with our lips, but the meaning of God‘s revelation to us – God being revealed to us – has an impact on the way we live.  So that when we talk about God, we don’t always have to use words.  Sometimes, all we need to do is let our lives speak.

It’s interesting, that in both of today’s scripture readings, we see people who respond to God by faithfully living.  God asks, “Whom shall I send,” and Isaiah says, “Here am I Lord, send me.”  (Isaiah 6:8). In John’s Gospel, we aren’t told whether Jesus’ words sink in with Nicodemus here in Chapter 3, and yet, at the end of John’s Gospel, it is Nicodemus, who lovingly and reverently helps take Jesus’ body and lay it in the tomb.[4]  We don’t know whether or not Nicodemus ever confesses that Jesus is Lord with his lips, but we do know that Jesus has touched his life and that he has responded by going out of his way to honor Jesus.  There is something Holy at work in all of it.  The Holy Spirit is at work.  

I don’t know, exactly, when it began to happen for me, but a few years ago when I talked about God, I started using the phrase, “The Holy,” as in:  “when we encounter the Holy. . .” or “when the Holy finds us. . .” or “when the Holy enters our lives. . .”  I think in adopting this turn of phrase, I was trying to express something that was inexpressible – pointing to the mystery of God but saying that it was and is still very much God who is at work in the world and in our lives.  

There is this direct, personal, and intimate connection with the Holy that can be just a glimpse of all that God truly is.  As Niebuhr writes, “Revelation means the moment in our history through which we know ourselves to be known from beginning to end, in which we are apprehended by the knower.”[5]  From one-on-one conversations full of doubt in the dark of night to full on revelations of God’s glory, we are known and loved and called by the One who knows and loves and calls us.  

The Holy is all around us and – through faith – becomes the lens that helps us not just to see God in the world, but to make some sense of the world and live in ways that tell of God’s great love, and power, and beauty, and calling, and awe-inspiring, life-changing, mysterious presence.  

What do we talk about when you talk about God?  May our words be filled with humility and hope in God’s great love for us and for the world.  May our faithful response be filled with great love and action that point to the Holy, Holy, Holy all around.

In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.  Amen.  

-------------

[1] Today’s sermon just so happens to have the same title as a book by the pastor and author, Rob Bell, but I have not read the book and don’t know exactly where Bell comes out on all of this.  

[2] H. Richard Niebuhr, The Meaning of Revelation (New York: The MacMillan Company, 1941) 25-26.

[3] Niebuhr, 153.

[4] See John 19:38-42.

[5] Niebuhr, 152.

[ifyouwantit-itsalreadygarbage]

Brett Ehrman talking about being shocked by apparent inconsistencies in the Bible as someone raised Christian I would have to hear him speak about it himself because the four gospels are literally right there in plain sight. Bart*

[rainsmediaradio]

Rhapsody Of Realities 17th December 2023 By Pastor Chris Oyakhilome (Christ Embassy) – Communicate His Love.

TOPIC: Communicate His Love. Today’s  Scripture: Ephesians 4:29 Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers.

RHAPSODY OF REALITIES DEVOTIONAL FOR TODAY SUNDAY 17TH DECEMBER 2023.

As Christians, we have the Spirit of Christ. We’re the light of the world. We’re to think, love, talk, and conduct all our affairs in life like Him. Colossians 3:17 admonishes us to allow every detail in our lives words and actions to align with the character of Christ: “And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus….” In other words, the character and presence of Jesus ought to radiate through you in your every day walk. Like Him, let your words be gracious and graceful. Practice the love of Jesus through your words. People remember you more for the things you said to them and how you made them feel through your words. So, make up your mind that your words will communicate the presence and love of Jesus. Let the world see Jesus in you. Let them feel His love in the words you speak. In the same way that the Lord Jesus was confident to say, “…If you have seen me, you have seen the Father…” (John 14:9 CEV); your testimony ought to be, “If you have seen me, you have seen Jesus.” Let Him be who they see and hear when they listen to you. Never use terrible, abusive and insulting words even if you’re angry. Never be happy that your words made someone else sad. That’s inconsistent with your nature of love. Be like Jesus: the Bible says, “…And the common people heard him gladly” (Mark 12:37). When people hear you, they should be glad because of your gracious and graceful words of life to them that stir the love for Christ in their hearts. PRAYER Dear Father, I thank you for your wisdom that’s in my heart and in my words, and your love that’s seen and heard in me today. Through my words, lives are transformed and improved; those you’ve placed in my path are blessed, encouraged, and edified by my gracious and graceful words, in Jesus’ Name. Amen. FURTHER STUDY: 1 Peter 4:11; 7-11 Everything in the world is about to be wrapped up, so take nothing for granted. Stay wide-awake in prayer. Most of all, love each other as if your life depended on it. Love makes up for practically anything. Be quick to give a meal to the hungry, a bed to the homeless—cheerfully. Be generous with the different things God gave you, passing them around so all get in on it: if words, let it be God’s words; if help, let it be God’s hearty help. That way, God’s bright presence will be evident in everything through Jesus, and he’ll get all the credit as the One mighty in everything—encores to the end of time. Oh, yes! Proverbs 16:24; 24 Gracious speech is like clover honey—good taste to the soul, quick energy for the body. Ephesians 4:29 MSG 29 Watch the way you talk. Let nothing foul or dirty come out of your mouth. Say only what helps, each word a gift. 1 YEAR BIBLE READING PLAN: Revelation 9 & Jonah 1-4 2 YEAR BIBLE READING PLAN: John 21:13-25 & 2 Chronicles 31 Read the full article

[mothlegs]

did nottt like this one

the first i remember of the dream was a chimera priest- as in, he had two sets of dna, and his blood wouldnt be shown as being his

i follow him around for a bit in the car, only seeing him in moonlight from the windows

it's around 3am, it's an hour earlier when i wake up

i have trouble processing what he's saying, he talks about swearing on the bible, its relation to blood, and then we go downstairs and he starts chopping vegetables.

i ask him why so early, i dont remelber what exactly he answers other than "besides, ive already talked to my mom"

oh also. because i've been asked about it somewhat recently- this dream was in english, i distinctly remember the priest speaking english and myself speaking english, though when i was with the rest of my house i'm not sure if they spoke english or danish

somehow i come to the conclusion that the priest has been possessed by ghosts. he said that he was the man me and asriel saw standing over our bed. i confusedly questioned it, he reconfirmed that i and astiel dreemurr had slept in the same bed and had seen him in our room. i had no memory of this and told him so

i ask if he has trouble sleeping, he says yes and i say i do too (true irl)

at some point during this i think about my mom, wondering if she had been possessed(?) too. something to do with my tiktok join date which was apparently in april i think, the 25th..? i had to find someone who knew me before that date, i think something related to plurality and imitative DID

then it sorta transistions to not being about me, but some woman instead? and she married the priest. someone said it was like she had married twins, and his stories were inconsistent, like one day saying he was finnish and the next day he wasn't (this was specifically what was said, as well as a bit more details i dont remember)

i think around this i remember swiping through tiktoks with someone by my side, think to show him something. then pretty much all the videos were of this nonverbal autistic guy (real person) doing a buncha things, including playing rugby?

transitions to me being in my room and very dizzy. i go out to the hall, theres a bathroom to my left, V says something to A about keeping me in check. i sort of question it, dont think i get an answer. A is cleaning? i said something about being dizzy i think, and something was said about one contact person noticing and the other not, but not actually just like... theoretical..? idk words

oh and this was in my old group but with the people from my current group, slight layout change too. there was a flock of adults by the office, including M (used to be my contact irl) and Mw (adult i like) and some others i cant recall

V misgenders me when referring to me but then corrects himself? made me happy ehe. we all go into A's room and talk about the weirdness. A said for him it was like everything was becoming darker and low resolution, while for me it felt like the world was tilting- the dizziness i mentioned.

i think this was where i woke myself up intentionally, but not entirely sure

at other points in the dream, it really functioned the same just in different settings. like something about being in the mall parking lot with my grandma, and moving things from one car to the other. there was something about weapping breasts in clear plastic that im pretty sure was sexual..? but it wasnt a sexy dream at all. something about someone (in the mall?) wanting to show off her breasts and me being interested in the appearance of how the clear plastic changed how it looked..?? i. do not know how to describe it but it really was not sexy to me it was just interesting. i have that a lot too irl hoh...aceness intensifies lol

but moving things between cars. there were 4(?) glitches bottles, which i dont think were safe to drink from since the glitches had left the water open to air. one of the bottles didnt have a neck, it just curved around it, and i showed it to my grandma and a lady who was standing next to the car.

my grandma seemed...out of it, not quite there mentally, as i tried to make a system for sorting it. i said we'd sort it based on if we wanted to keep it or not, and the keeping stuff would be moved to the other car

one of my irl plushies, Peter Pilot, was there but had no clothes and har leaves stuck in his fur. i considered him and decided to keep him. my grandma's spacyness was making me uncomfortable. i think the car was covered in fur(?idk if thats the word, could be a rug or steeringwheel-cover texture too idk)

some other related dream, i was with...3? people. i don't remember much except them deforming, losing ability to speak and melding into inhuman shapes, impossibly wide mouthes and big heads

and then. i dreamt basil detransitioned and everyone left me. but i think this was the first dream i had

ky said something about having become friends with basil again because of him having changed to a cool pfp. i asked to see it and his bio. i dont think ky ever replied, but referred to him with she/her during the dream. this probably comes from basil having changes his name on discord to his old name irl, though not one he ever used while knowing me. now im wondering if thats the point of it, yet he kept the name i gave him to match mine. betrayer. but anyways

i looked and saw sleepy was away, had the same status as irl, but then later i looked back and their name had changed, something about being logged off. they had a bio now, i dont remember the specifics but it said theyd be gone for an unspecified amount of time. it was out of nowhere and without warning. i remember half seriously wondering if they were testing me to see if i would become bad like i was before

i saw one person typing in a dm, but then stopped, and then another person did as well but... at first these two were the same person, but then when the second started typing, the first became another person

think thats all i remember. it was all very incredibly disorienting, strong dissociation the entire time, strong disconnect and maybe even loss of reality. scary

[annebelle93]

Obey me boys react to an MC with a Th.D

You just finished your Th.D (Theology and religious studies Doctorate), younger of the class and now you’ve been struggling a bit to decide on what to write. Lucky you, you wake up in devildom, surrounded by all of the figures you’ve been reading about for the last years.

Lucifer

Is a bit impressed at first. You’re so young and already speak Latin? Maybe this exchange won’t be a total waste of time

Then he is annoyed

You just ask SO. MANY. QUESTIONS.

“MC, I swear to Diavolo, if you ask me one more time to teach you Sumeric I’ll lock you in your room!”

After you pester him over and over again with questions, he secretly asks Barbatos to find him a copy of your thesis

It’s about him. 300 pages of him.

The man is intrigued.

“Did you really spent three years writing about me?”

“Yeah, man” you shrug “the history f***ed you up. I always thought you were a much more complex character then described in the Bible”

He will teach you Sumeric now. And ancient Latin. And whatever dead language you ask him.

Honestly, he will marry you if you ask him nicely enough

Mammon

He doesn’t like you very much at first

Why do you use so many big words? It’s confusing

Very disappointed on how little you know about him compared to his brothers

“What do ya mean not enough lore?”

“I’ll show ya lore”

Lucifer may or may not have to “rescue” you from field trips to the fourth circle

Levi

Snake boy is flustered

You know him?

You actually like his stories?

You are i-i-interested in the g-great admiral?

“Why should I share my stories with a normie like you?”

Is very confused by you and he doesn’t like to be confused, so he keeps his distance

Until you slide a copy of an article you wrote about “Leviathan through cultures: similarities and idiosyncrasy”

You are a big obsessed nerd like him, only he likes video games and you books (don’t get me wrong, you like playing too, you just suck at it)

“I’m your Ruri-chan” he whispers after reading it

“Come with me! I’ll tell you every thing you need to know!” *anime pose*

Satan

HE. LOVES. YOU.

Finally someone who understands the beauty of spending hours reading in a library

At first was a bit bothered to always find someone else using the library

But you are very quiet when you concentrate

And you concentrate. For hours.

Very different from your overall hyper and impulsive behavior

Will happily explain to you all the inconsistencies in human literature

His memory is amazing, so he remembers every single event

Is very eager to explain why Satanás is far superior in literature and not at all the same character as Lucifer

“Why the humans always get it confused? It’s not that hard” procedes to give a very hard explanation

By the end of the program your research is so detailed and refined you can’t even publish it. No one will believe THAT level of details.

Asmo

Like Mammon, doesn’t like you at first.

Goes batshit crazy when you ask him why he doesn’t have three heads

“You appear one time to one human as an ugly beast after loosing a bet and then suddenly everyone thinks you are ugly!”

Demands you write at least one article proving to the humans he is beautiful

Will send you 7728372 selfies for you to use on the article

Likes to braid your hair and do your nails while you study, because “by Diavolo, you can be quiet when you focus!”

Is constantly worried about you because you don’t stop studying to drink water, eat or exercise

“Who is going to spread my beauty to the humans if you die?”

Secretly he just worries about you, nothing to do with spreading his beauty

Beel

Is VERY confused by you.

He didn’t ever remember he was once a god after he fell, how do you?

“What do you mean Mammon is seen as a part of me? Mammon is Mammon, I’m Beel”

Eventually he begins to enjoy listening to you talk about your research. You are very passionate about it and he enjoys when people like his brothers

Was upset when you reminded him about the god thing, because he recalled humans used to give him food offerings all of the time and now they don’t

You walk around with food on your pockets now

Belphie

Doesn’t like you. Doesn’t dislike you. You are just there.

Thinks you’re weird for writing 300 pages about Lucifer. Who would want to know that much about him?

Eventually he finds out you like to cuddle when you read in bed and “whatever, you are warm, I’m sleepy. I’ll indulge you”

He is like a big cat around your legs while you read

One day he peaks at what you are writing now

It’s about Lilith and how much of a power figure she is through history

You don’t see her as a fragile little girl

He will hide his face, he can’t let you see him emotional after all

But he’s is much more affectionate. He’ll even let you run your fingers through his hair now

Will tell you everything about his sister

And I mean EVERYTHING.

The rest of the boys are here now!

[mariproducer]

Venting about s5 bible stuff under the cut it’s gonna be disjointed I just need to let out my thoughts

absolutely no mention of chat blanc in the bible besides it being placed in the special akumatization section... ofc the bible is simply an outline so there’s a chance it could be brought up (e.g. in evolution we had no indication that young! alix was going to be forced to remain in the burrow until monarch was defeated) but i have no clue which episode it could be brought up in. and the fact that the bible has no indication of an identity reveal and the discussion of cb ... kinda needs one to begin with since it involves identities... who fuckin knows

so far there has been a contradiction with the bible where nathalie shit talks gabriel for his stupidity even though the bible says she has her own ulterior motives buttt then again this is mlb king of inconsistency soooo whos to say this mindset will stick (or the bible is to a T with the plot)

also ^ no mention of sentimonster shenanigans which is uh. hm. ok then? on one hand, it makes me feel like all this sentimonster teasing was a fuckin joke or smth, on the other hand this means the sentimonster stuff was likely squeezed in at the last minute if theres no proper mention of adrien OR felix possibly being sentimonsters (or maybe i misread? idk i looked at every instance of felix on the doc and found nothing)

speaking of felix... mostly nothing on him... which is frankly disappointing, as someone who’s always excited to see him on screen. i mean thanks for the confirmation that he’ll transform with the peacock miraculous and make one sentimonster? oh and he has a different last name ... erm ok then... he’s hardly present ANYWHERE on the script and its making me ☹️ bc he was the most interesting character we’ve gotten (Cuz he had motivations and acted out on his own volition) and boom nothing of note...

i don’t wanna hope bc i hate having expectations especially when they’re likely to be let down but grrrr i just want more felix damnit...

worried for the possible chance of ppl ripping into kagami again. the plotlines lined up for her in s5 just reek of “we need to make a character ooc to fit a specific plotline we want” and its just UGHHH kagami doesn’t deserve this! at all! i need to get her out of this show NOW

im sick and tired of andre the ice cream man and im even more sick and tired that most mar!chat episodes have to do with this guy! (and no weredad is NOT any better) like fuck this guy i hope his business goes under 

tbh the lila shit and the “adrien never finds out his dad is hawkmoth” shit deserves its own goddamn post because what. the. actual. FUCK.

im still in tears (in a funny yet sad way) that they literally could not feasibly write off luk@nette in canon bc they had to ship luka off to another country for the rest of the season like LMFAO??? but also I HATE YOU?? i knew that they had him learn their identities to screw him over one way or another 

the reverse LS stuff is stupid bc why the hell does adrien suddenly develop feelings for marinette like seriously WHERE THE HELL DID IT COME FROM look i get why lb -> cn even if its so hamfisted i could at least see the logic here but ADRIEN -> MARINETTE??? adr!enette HARDLY got any screentime last season and when they did it was the bare minimum and hardly compared to their scenes in prior seasons so like wtf

why the fuck is there a miracle box in antarctica WHO PLACED IT THERE LOL

Ok m done for now let’s talk about positive things bc there are some things I’m looking forward to!

Alya as Scarabella FOR THREE EPISODES! sure the premise of two of those episodes sucks balls but im happy to see scarabella in action again

im actually excited for one episode: Determination! The akumatized villain takes us back to the wax museum but this time it seems like she’ll bring to life wax statues of all the heroes so idk maybe im excited for big fights. 

[fandomhasruinedmylife]

Weird RWBY Headcanons that make no sense pt.2

Note: Still in my happy little land of “Nothing Bad Ever Happened” because I am in denial during hiatuses. This one is kind of long, my bad.

Jaune played softball (yes, softball. no, not baseball.). He was really good at it too. His mom still has pictures of him from every year he was on the team. They’re all on the fridge at his family’s home.

Jaune’s sisters got him into Taylor Swift at a young age, and he still listens to her as a guilty pleasure.

Ruby’s a skater kid. She got rusty when she went to Beacon due to getting swamped down by work, but she used to be “One of the best,” according to Yang at least. She used to scare the hell out of Qrow and Tai, because she would come home covered in scrapes and bruises, but what could they do? Say no to her? To Ruby? Yeah, that wasn’t happening.

Weiss will say some of the most out of pocket stuff without thinking about it and then immediately regret it. The thing is that the severity of the comments are inconsistent.

So sometimes she’ll say the most spoiled rich kid stuff, like, “Why can’t they just buy a new one?” before getting a side eye look from Blake and correcting herself and pointing out how the comment was insensitive.

Other times it’ll just be stuff where you question where it came from, like, there’s dead silence then Weiss just says, “If you think about it, Dante’s Inferno is just Bible fanfic.” And then nobody knows what to do with that, so they just stay silent, which ultimately leads to Weiss quietly apologizing and everyone telling her she doesn’t need to.

Or, she’ll say stuff like, “Yeah, I think my dad hit me once,” then get the saddest looks from Yang, Blake, and Ruby, and follow it up with, “Oh, I said something sad again, didn’t I?” and getting slow, concerned nods in return.

There are a lot of mumbled apologies from Weiss because of this, which means there’s also a lot of Ruby, Blake, and Yang panicking and telling her it’s not necessary.

Similarly, Nora will occasionally just drop the wisest or deepest things anyone’s every heard, just out of nowhere. Like, someone will be talking about life and then Nora will just chime in with, “Yeah, that’s the crazy thing about life. It’s very big and you’re very small, and ultimately when you die the world will continue on without you, but also in a sense, it won’t. There’s a strange beauty to it. A weird mixture of grief and survival,” and everybody will just sit slack-jawed and questioning their perception of her until right after she goes, “Can I just call potatoes pre-fries?”

There’s a running joke about Ren being the best wife/husband (they’re used interchangeably). He’ll make flower crowns, cook breakfast, do household chores, etc. This ends up confusing the hell out of the rest of the school for a moment because RWBY, JNP_, Sun, and Neptune are all calling Ren their husband/wife, and nobody can figure out who’s actually dating Ren.

Adding onto that, it is a known fact around the school that, at this point, nobody asks who’s dating who when it comes to RWBY, JNPR, Sun, and Neptune, they’re all just weirdly close and everyone just accepts it.

One time, Yang made a joke about starting a band with Jaune and Sun and calling it The Blondies 3.0. Then, Jaune asked why 3.0 instead of 2.0, which Sun responded to with “So we can kick one out and then rebrand.” Soon there was a whole plot line on what albums they would make, how the break up would go, who would get kicked out, there was even a plan for a failed comeback. The only that stopped them was Blake and Pyrrha.

Ilia’s an astronomy nerd. I know we know, like, nothing about her parents, but I like to think that’s where it came from. Like, they used to teach her about the stars and the universe, and after they died Ilia just kind of held onto to it, because it was all she had left of her parents. She’s not super into astrology, though she does know the constellations and their stories. (Blake is kind of the astrology to Ilia’s astronomy)

Kids and stray animals love Ilia, and she has no idea why. Like, kids will just kind of follow her around and hug her ankles and ask her to tell them stories about the constellations or the White Fang, and she will. And stray animals will come up and give puppy eyes, then suddenly she’s buying dog treats. The kids and the animals know why they love her, but she’s got no clue.

I like to think Ilia is very similar to Qrow in a couple of aspects, specifically love language type stuff. Like, when you do something stupid, she will call you an idiot for it and she will never let you live it down, but she’ll also check to make sure you’re ok and not physically injured in some way. She’s also a nickname collector, and has one for everybody (except for Penny and a few other because they very seriously requested that she stop, which she respects).

Multiple guys have tried to trip up Pyrrha when it comes to her mythology knowledge, since a lot of her actions allude to Achilles. They fail miserably every time due to the fact that Pyrrha just genuinely does enjoy fairytales and mythology. Occasionally, RWBY, JNR, Sun, or Neptune will just ask her about it just so she can talk about it because it makes her happy.

A lot of people in the White Fang had little to no education when it came to Grimm, so there are nicknames for different Grimm. (Ex. Beowolves = Hellhounds, Boarbatusk = Demon Hogs, Lancers = Steroid Wasps, Death Stalkers = Big Boy/Ole Crawlers, etc.)

Vacuo is pretty similar due to their isolation. So, Ilia, Blake, and Sun will talk about Grimm using nicknames, and nobody will know what their talking about.