#i just have. I have very strong thoughts about how people discuss Christianity

[violexides]

every day i sit and i go man. i wish people were normal about religion 

[starcurtain]

What do you think about Sunday and Aventurine? and their interaction in 2.1, I know Sunday did what he had to do but I just have a strong dislike for him ever since. He is an interesting character though.

I mentioned on a previous ask that I wanted to talk about narrative foils/character parallels, and that ask mentioned Aventurine being similar to Robin and a little to Sunday. But I thought I'd combine that character foils idea with this post about Sunday because...

Aventurine and Sunday are Near Perfect Character Parallels

(Also sorry to Youtuber Fayato who I screencapped this image from; I literally couldn't find a single other good image of Aventurine and Sunday in the same frame!)

In media, the concept of the narrative foil refers to a character who contrasts another character; by setting the two characters and their plots side by side, the audience is better able to understand the traits of the central character.

And by setting two surprisingly similar characters in opposition to each other, it becomes very clear how even those facing similar circumstances can take diametrically opposed paths in life.

First, let's start with the basics:

Aventurine and Sunday are both characters whose real fathers were never in the picture, and who lost their mothers right in front of their eyes to traumatizing events.

They both experienced the violent deaths ("death" in Sunday's case) of their sisters.

They both were "rescued" by people who intended to use them by growing them ("grooming them" in Sunday's case) into a figure of authority.

They were both told they were "chosen ones" growing up. And yet ultimately this status as the chosen one is in doubt: Aventurine isn't sure if his family's faith is real, while Gopher Wood tells Sunday that Penacony's chosen should have been Robin all along.

They both became self-sacrificial, Aventurine through his obvious willingness to throw his life away, and Sunday through his plan to remain outside the sweet dream to be its keeper while everyone else got to live in "paradise."

They both are trapped by their situations, Sunday by his inability to leave the cage, Aventurine by his inability to accept the life he isn't able to throw away.

They both became the "villain" of their respective patches and both faced "death."

Personality-wise, they both strongly favor being in control, to the point that their scene together is an aggressive power struggle over each other.

This is how the "future" Aventurine describes himself:

Does it sound familiar? It should, since that's exactly how people describe Sunday.

But they also both prioritize their families, and they are equally altruistic at the core while seemingly self-centered on the exterior.

They both, of course, have the blessing of an aeon.

And here's where I'm going to take a massive tangent, but it's important: I do tend to be among those who think there is at least some connection between Ena, the Order, and Gaiathra.

I've heard all sorts of reasons that they can't be two different concepts for the same being, from the whole "Gaiathra is a goddess of trickery and that's not related to order" to the whole "the Order's followers worship with song while Gaiathra's followers specifically don't," but I think something that has been missing from the discussion of Ena and Gaiathra's possible connection is that "Order" as a concept has entirely different definitions depending on which cultural context you approach it from.

The most mainstream modern concept of "Order" is something that is imposed: A power from on high descends to quell the chaos of the mortal world, to "bring order" through guidance to humanity. This is very Abrahamic, very modern Christian, and that is reflected in the imagery surrounding Sunday. Sunday, as a manifestation of the Order's power, believes he will be able to uplift Penacony from the mire, free people from their unfulfilled desires and confusion, and bring about perpetual peace by enforcing his understanding of harmony on the populace trapped in the dream.

Sunday's Order is not the natural state of the world but something that must be carefully cultivated and maintained, a constant battle against the chaotic forces of life and its temptations. This type of "Order" promises an idyllic future, but at the cost of the present freedom of everyone who submits to the law, who must surrender their original fate for a structured sweet dream.

We understand this concept of "Order" because at its core, it's the one that modern societies largely embrace--ruling authorities establish laws that must be followed at all costs, even when they risk the freedoms of individuals, because they ultimately (supposedly) support a greater good. A majority of society adheres to the laws handed down from on-high, and life functions relatively stably.

Yet this conception of "Order" is predicated on the idea that the course of people's lives is decided first and foremost by the people themselves--which is why they can make mistakes, go astray, and need to be shepherded in the first place.

Without imposing structure through authoritarian power, this type of "Order" will crumble away in an instant, because this view assumes that rightness can only created by humanity, and that chaos--not order--is the natural state of existence.

Ena, who holds worlds tidily contained in her hands, who is tangled in puppet strings, who wears a hood like a nun or the Virgin Mary, and who is haloed like a Christian angel, clearly represents this definition of "Order" to a T.

But... this is not how humanity has always defined "Order."

It was not always taken for granted that people had the power of self-determination, and in fact, for many centuries and across many cultures, the concept of "the order of the world" was tied directly to the concept of destiny. Whether a volcano would explode and destroy your entire civilization, whether floods would swallow your city, whether the crops would grow or fail all depended on the pre-made decisions of supernatural powers, who were in turn often personified concepts of the natural world itself. What happened to any given individual, what twists and turns their life would take, whether they would achieve their dreams or not--all these aspects were also predetermined, decided not by the actions of the individual but by fate itself.

Thus, the world and everything in it has a natural order. Things may seem chaotic, they may even seem unbelievably horrible, but all events in existence unfold as they should. We may not understand why, but everything occurs in due course, woven into an endlessly repeating pattern on the fates' loom--spring becomes summer, life becomes death, disasters happen and are healed from, children are born and grow old. If it is your fate to die, you will. If it is your fate to fight and live, you will. To reject this natural order would be as futile as telling the sun not to rise.

The words "order" and "ordained" have the same origin.

Enter Gaiathra. First of all, she is the Star Rail equivalent of a pagan goddess--her worship exists separate of the confirmed existence of aeons, by an uncontacted and non-space-faring race. Even her description, being triple-eyed, evokes other "triple goddess" figures across history, both in modern interpretations (the triple goddess of Neopaganism) and in ancient mythologies (the three fates of Greece, the Tridevi of Hindu culture, etc.).

She is strongly associated with the natural world: The planet of Sigonia is said to be a manifestation of her very body, the rain is her blessing and acknowledgment, and she goes through a yearly cycle of death and rebirth (calling the cycle of the seasons to mind). She is said to be a goddess of both fertility and travel (likely in the sense of nomadic wandering by the time Aventurine was born). Avgin worship of the goddess manifests in the form of sacrificial cyclic knots.

Which might call to mind another pagan culture well-known for their cyclic knots: the Celts, whose famous Celtic knots represent cycles of eternity, unity, and the interconnected nature of life itself.

The Avgin prayer to Gaiathra focuses on elements of a person's life that all might be determined by "fate"--will your blood keep flowing, will your journey be peaceful, will your schemes stay hidden? It hopes that things will be as they should, that the future ahead of you is predetermined to be a good one, and that the cycle of life decided by the goddess will be in one's favor.

But while the Avgin hope for good things, they also strongly espouse embracing the reality of one's life, with suffering and hardships seen as manifestations of fate that should be accepted as facts of life. It is said that any society blessed by the Order ultimately falls--is it not the natural fate of all societies to one day fall? For mankind to return to the dust and be reborn anew?

Whatever will be, will be.

There is a reason--a logic--an order--to everything that happens.

I hope you can see where I'm going with this: While Sunday and Ena represent the concept of "Order" as a result of self-determination, a power "the strong" can wield to overcome the inherent chaos of reality, Aventurine and Gaiathra represent a different, older concept of "Order" (I can't help but see the entirely separate eye lurking behind Ena?): existence is not inherently chaotic but instead is foreordained, following endless orderly cycles life and death, weal and woe, rise and fall.

PHEW! Okay, so all of that to say Aventurine and Sunday make perfect parallels through a mirror darkly, even when it comes to the blessings they've been granted: One imposes order from on high; one continually rolls the dice despite knowing the inevitable outcome.

Both of their stories are entirely intertwined with the concept of fate, whether by opposing it...

Or accepting it.

And even at the end of Penacony, we leave both Sunday and Aventurine in precarious positions. Aventurine, while ostensibly "victorious," faces another roll of the dice immediately after Penacony, when his future as a Stoneheart is called into question. Yet "fate" comes through for him again--his bet, as always, comes true. His future isn't in question--it is the question itself. What's next? He finally wants to live to find out.

Sunday, meanwhile, ends Penacony's arc in a truly difficult place. He's virtually exiled from the only home he's ever known, a flightless bird tossed out of his cage into cold hard reality. He has to find an entirely new way forward and may even be forced to reckon with an entirely new definition of "Order" itself.

The parallels between these two characters are entirely intentional and very, very blatant, and I am exceedingly interested in seeing whether their paths diverge or continue to reflect similar fates moving forward.

So uhhh... that's what I think of Sunday? 😂

[thorraborinn]

hello there! today i came across a claim that sort of baffled me. someone said that they believed the historical norse heathens viewed their own myths literally. i was under the impression that the vast majority of sources we have are christian sources, so it seems pretty hard to back that up. is there any actual basis for this claim? thanks in advance for your time!

Sorry for the delay, I've been real busy lately and haven't been home much. Even after making you wait I'm still going to give a copout answer.

I think the most basic actual answer is that it's doubtful that someone has a strong basis to make that claim, and the same would probably go for someone claiming they didn't take things literally. I think we just don't know, and most likely, it was mixed-up bits of both literal and non-literal belief, and which parts were literal and which parts weren't varied from person to person. We have no reason so suppose that there was any compulsion to believe things in any particular way.

About Christians being the interlocutors of a lot of mythology, this is really a whole separate question. On one hand there's the question of whether they took their myths literally, and on the other is entirely different question about whether or not we can know what those myths were. Source criticism in Norse mythology is a pretty complicated topic but the academic consensus is definitely that there are things we can know for sure about Norse myth, and a lot more that we can make arguments for. For instance the myth of Thor fishing for Miðgarðsormr is attested many times, not only by Snorri but by pagan skálds and in art. Myths of the Pagan North by Christopher Abram is a good work about source criticism in Norse mythology.

Though this raises another point, because the myth of Thor fishing is not always the same. Just like how we have a myth of Thor's hammer being made by dwarves, and a reference to a different myth where it came out of the sea. Most likely, medieval Norse people were encountering contradictory information in different performances of myth all the time. So while that leaves room for at least some literal belief, it couldn't be a rigid, all-encompassing systematic treatment of all myth as literal. We have good reason to believe they changed myths on purpose and that it wasn't just memory errors.

I know you're really asking whether this one person has any grounds for their statement, and I've already answered that I don't think they do. But this is an interesting thought so I'm going to keep poking at it. I'm not sure that I'm really prepared to discuss this properly, but my feeling is that this is somehow the wrong question. I don't know how to explain this with reference to myth, so I'm going to make a digression, and hope that you get the vibe of what I'm getting at by analogy. Edward Burnett Tylor (1832–1917) described animism in terms of beliefs, "belief in spiritual beings," i.e. a belief that everything (or at least many things) has a soul or spirit. But this is entirely contradicted by later anthropology. Here's an except from Pantheologies by Mary Jane Rubenstein, p. 93:

their animacy is not a matter of belief but rather of relation; to affirm that this tree, that river, or the-bear-looking-at-me is a person is to affirm its capacity to interact with me—and mine with it. As Tim Ingold phrases the matter, “we are dealing here not with a way of believing about the world, but with a condition of living in it.”

In other words, "belief" doesn't even really play into it, whether or not you "believe" in the bear staring you down is nonsensical, and if you can be in relation with a tree then the same goes for that relationality; "believing" in it is totally irrelevant or at least secondary. Myths are of course very different and we can't do a direct comparison here, but I have a feeling that the discussion of literal versus nonliteral would be just as secondary to whatever kind of value the myths had.

One last thing I want to point out is that they obviously had the capacity to interpret things through allegory and metaphor because they did that frequently. This is most obvious in dream interpretations in the sagas. Those dreams usually convey true, prophetic information, but it has to be interpreted by wise people who are skilled at symbolic interpretation. I they ever did this with myths, I'm not aware of any trace they left of that, but we can at least be sure that there was nothing about the medieval Norse mind that confined it to literalism.

For multiple reasons this is not an actual answer but it's basically obligatory to mention that some sagas, especially legendary or chivalric sagas, were referred to in Old Norse as lygisögur, literally 'lie-sagas' (though not pejoratively and probably best translated just as 'fictional sagas'). We know this mostly because Sverrir Sigurðsson was a big fan of lygisögur. But this comes from way too late a date to be useful for your question.

[slavicafire]

I started doing some research on Slavic wedding and funeral rituals as well as other things, and I noticed that most sources are mainly about Russia? Sometimes they mention traditions coming from more western territories like Poland, but a lot of them seem to be focused on Russia. I began to wonder why. Do you perhaps have any thoughts or information about that?

the first question goes towards you: what sort of sources are you reading? where are you accessing them, and who are the authors? are you researching in multiple slavic languages or just one? some sources are more accessible and easier to obtain, yes, but at the end of the day what you read depends on your skill and patience in research itself, too.

when it comes to russian prevalence in certain sources, the size alone plays a part in it: with how big russia was and is - how it encroached on multiple territories and peoples throughout the centuries, simultaneously sucking up their traditions and snuffing them out, and oftentimes being their only chronicler - and how powerful and prominent it was. we have precious little sources regarding slavic beliefs across the ages - it is much easier for your documents, chronicles, and even oral histories to survive and be studied by new generations, including foreign scholars, when you are the winning party and the conqueror; when you have the resources to preserve them, and the numbers to fuel their study.

it is also important to understand that historical and ethnographic studies have been used since, well maybe not the dawn of time, but close to that, as tools for nation building. with enough money and human resources, and strong enough propaganda foundations, those tools aim to create and/or rewrite the common consciousness of people by the state that rules them with high degree of success - and russia has certainly never shied away from using them. these are nearly inherently political fields - it's building national foundation myths and establishing seemingly innate qualities linking people the state wants to govern, from small things like the songs children are singing in school and what the text boxes at the museums say to steer the explanation of a given exhibition in a certain direction, up to justifying martial conflicts and horrifying ideologies. if nationhood itself is not already a horrifying ideology, that is.

it might seem like a bad faith stretch to attribute the prevalence of russia and russian sources in many slavic-related studies, historical or religious or ethnograpic, simply to its size and power and degree of success of state propaganda, but the more you delve into this subject the more probable it seems. for example, many texts on slavic customs (pre-christian or not) in english, especially older ones, rely quite heavily on rybakov - the champion of anti-normanism and, nowadays, an author understood widely as very eager to build the nation-myth no matter the cost to actual historical accuracy. if "accuracy" is even a term that can be used while discussing history - but that's a whole different subject.

luckily, today we are getting more and more studies, more research, more researchers - and while it might seem naive, I do believe plenty of them are actively acting against pure nation myth-building, and are eager to focus on lands and peoples different than russia. accessing their works is, as I've said, a matter of one's personal skill and patience while looking for texts.

[galaxymagitech]

I hadn’t originally posted about the goblins in The Church on Ruby Road, because I felt like I might be overreacting. I couldn’t find anyone discussing it here, so I figured that maybe it was just me. But I recently did find a post on here about this issue, so I wanted to share my thoughts.

I was watching the episode and trying to get into it but it just felt like something was crawling under my skin. I liked certain parts of it—loved the 15th Doctor, thought Ruby was cool, liked the thing about the foster family making such a huge impact, etc. But the goblins made it hard to enjoy. It made it difficult for me to enjoy Christmas too. And I was watching this episode with my Jewish granny and I kept glancing at her, like “I’m sorry that this is my favorite show.”

Now, throughout history, the fear of someone stealing your baby has been a common one. It’s not necessarily antisemitic. Babies are so precious to societies and parents that of course people are terrified of them being stolen. But…

The baby-stealing was associated with a type of creature that has consistent antisemitic associations.

The goblins have a ritualistic and vicious ceremony to prepare the baby for eating, and they’re sacrificing the baby to a higher power (their king). Strong associations with blood libel here.

The goblins don’t have long noses (which I’m sure the people involved with making this absolutely specified and thought was enough) but they do have horns. It’s hard not to associate that with the myth that Jewish people have horns. I don’t know why they gave the goblins horns, it’s such a completely unnecessary detail.

This was on a Christmas episode, which really makes it worse.

Again, having a group steal babies is not inherently antisemitic—many cultures have myths about monsters who will steal your baby. But. Having horned goblins steal a baby to sacrifice in a vicious ceremony to a higher power on a Christian holiday…ugh.

Doctor Who has been putting in so much effort to be as sensitive as possible, recently. And that’s great. They didn’t want to portray characters with disabilities as evil, they wanted to portray a trans character well, etc. But because of that, the goblins stick out like a sore thumb.

I don’t want to ruin this episode for anyone who enjoyed it. I enjoyed many parts of it. But I’m just so confused how this happened, when the second they came up with “baby-stealing creatures” their immediate thought should’ve been “okay, but be very, very careful.” And instead they just went full speed ahead with the horned goblins committing blood libel.

[ceo-draiochta]

A review of:

The Origins of Ireland's Holy Wells by Celeste Ray

Celeste Ray, a professor of anthropology for the University of the South, USA wrote this book after extensive research, both desk and foot into Irelands Holy Wells. I would honestly recommend anyone with any interest in Irish religious practices, culture, paganism, or mythology to pick it up. An amazing book. I'll be giving my thoughts and what I liked and didn't like about it here.

What I liked:

A very well researched book that shows the authors dedication not just to anthropology but to the living practices she is documenting

The passion of the author is clear and they Mince no words when discussing other researchers and their work, pointing out the flaws, misconceptions and biases (some of which were wild I can't believe some of these people are taken as authorities on the subject when their conclusion was that wells are a toilet metaphor?)

Uses a wider pre roman European context for the evidence. As we are so often reminded, to treat Ireland as some how separate from Western Europe is ridiculous and is a disservice to the interconnection of the people of old.

The reframing of this idea, which is normally used as a strong force against nativist views into a supportive one was quite interesting.

Examines roman writings in a very balanced way that acknowledges the inherent propaganda but does not dismiss it outright.

There's a whole section of people including academics who seems desperate for a roman invasion of ireland, despite there being basically no evidence of it. Like people are fully making things up to try and force one, the author gives these people a sound dismissal in their restating of the evidence of raiding and trade over large-scale roman conquest. (Genuine question can someone explain why people are so mad for Romans in ireland?)

I thus learned more about pre roman Western European practices and archeology than I ever really had the desire to. I am now much more educated on the subject.

The framing of sites as important locations adopted and readopted based on shifting circumstances of the time rather than a "secret unbroken line" which is much more realistic.

The explanation of Holy Wells as archaeologically challenging sites was well explained.

Using etymology in the connection of wells to supernatural beings. Love etymology so this was amazing

The use of early irish literature to support existing claims. Which I know claiming that there are pagan elements in the literature basically gets you spat and jeered at but nevertheless is really compelling.

While this blog has been thoroughly against the lumping together of celtic cultures, this book makes a great case as to when it is appropriate to use the term celtic and that the rush to replace this term has very much resulted in the baby being thrown out with the bath water.

Actually engages with living culture and treats folklore and living sources/practices as evidence to be considered rather than "silly little irish peasants" but also does not take every tale as completely accurate literal history.

Plenty of examples and pictures of well in practice today.

Supports a general pre Christian, pre roman use of wells and springs as sacred sites but also acknowledges the influence of both (especially Christian) on the practice.

Acknowledges the diverse origins of holy wells, from one's that have have votive offerings since the bronze age to ones that were made sacred in the modern age.

Does not buy into any sort of "Christians are thieves" narrative.

Honestly this seems like the definitive book on irish holy wells.

What I didn't like:

While I loved the book there was definitely things I took issue with.

The assertive nature of the tone was entertaining, it did sort of feel like the author was this close to calling other researchers "fucking idiots", though humanities papers seem to have a much more aggressive tone than I am used to from my field of study.

The author makes many an interesting and compelling hypothesis in the book, but they are just that. These theories are then presented as the fact of the matter when really they are no more or less substantiated than the other theories.

Could have done without some of the "identity politics" on the celtic question section. Like I get that's a huge part of this authors work but I didn't feel it was all necessary to include.

Some of the mythological comparisons seem like a little bit of a stretch Low-key.

Either way this is a fantastic work and I urge everyone even remotely interested to buy it, it's a little pricey but well worth it. It can be purchased online on Google books(link). Now obviously this is all from my lay perspective, if anyone with actual qualifications wants to correct or argue feel free. This is just my perspective.

[bestworstcase]

I think your point about fanon Salem and Grimm interpretations only really reinforces just how easily people will swallow propagandistic thinking and rhetoric if they think it sounds right, and never give prior information any serious thought.

uh. no

fanon tends toward superficial and simplified readings because fandom at its core is about transformative rather than analytical engagement with the text and fandom culture is often actively hostile to the idea that the text matters. which is something i’ve discussed at length before so i won’t belabor the point but to use an example:

salem describes humanity as “strong, wise, and resourceful,” as having “passion and ingenuity,” as being capable of surviving and thriving in an “unforgiving world.” the ability to draw strength from hope is “undoubtedly mankind’s greatest asset” and “when banded together, unified by a common enemy, they are a noticeable threat.” these are all things that we have heard her directly state in soliloquies, a narrative device for conveying the internal thoughts and beliefs of a character. the story opens with salem waxing poetic about humanity’s virtues.

and yet if you suggest that salem thinks highly of humans, that she admires their passion and wisdom and ingenuity and her destructive war is undergirded by absolute faith that humanity will survive it, people get confused. because the fandom is largely uninterested in what salem actually believes—something that, again, the story has not only explicitly conveyed to us but led with—and has instead constructed an alternate characterization out of stock tropes (e.g. ‘evil cannot comprehend good’) and anti-themes (e.g. a major narrative theme is the importance of moving forward despite grief, and salem is the villain, therefore salem refuses to move on and is obsessed with getting ozma back)

likewise the story doesn’t say grimm are mindless: the characters describe them as “manifestations of anonymity,” lacking a soul, that “not every grimm is mindless,” that “although the creatures of grimm appear mindless, more delicate observation has proven contradictory,” that younger grimm “tend to be more reckless” while older grimm “learn from their experience” and “exercise caution”—all of this in combination with grimm behaving in ways that suggest intelligence and social cooperation.

the text itself is not unclear or remotely subtle about what it’s doing. the problem is that fandom is—by nature of being a community oriented around transformative engagement—not interested in the text except as raw material to mine and ‘refine’ and thus quite a lot of textual material gets dumped as slag. that’s not “propagandistic thinking,” that’s just what happens when you get a lot of people picking over a story for creative inspiration.

there IS a degree of Christian Behavior TM involved in shaping the fanon vis-a-vis salem and the grimm, but even that largely follows from the huge influence christianity has had on the development of western storytelling; this is very evident in the fanon treatment of the brothers both prior to V9 (with light cast as the benevolent God and dark as his malevolent inferior) and after (with the blacksmith cast as the benevolent God and the brothers as corrupt pretenders) but it does also play a role in the resistance to the ideas that grimm are not mindlessly evil hordes or salem is capable of genuine love and compassion.

which again is not “propagandistic thinking,” it’s people interacting with a story through a culturally christian lens because they are culturally christian.

[clownrecess]

As an autistic individual myself, I am interested in the intersection of neurodiversity and various identities.

You've mentioned that you identify as a Norse Pagan. I'm curious about how your spiritual beliefs intersect with your neurodivergent experience. Do you find that your autistic identity informs or impacts your spiritual practice in any way?

(Tw for discussions of trauma, religion, etc.)

Sorry for the late-ish response! I've been working on this post a little everyday to make sure I write it how I want it.

I dont think that my autism has impacted my religion or spirtual experiences/beliefs, but my brain as a whole does. (Update: It actually did influence it quite a bit. I'm realizing this after writing this post. So, uh, thank you for helping me realize something that I find quite interesting!)

When I was a kid, I was raised in christianity. I was very religious. I prayed everyday, I had a cross in my room, etc.

But heres the thing: I have OCD. A few different types, but out of those, one of them is religious OCD.

Most of my praying ages late 8-12 was done purely out of fear. At that point I wasnt even really a Christian, I was just really afraid, which really impacted how I viewed religion. I HATED conversation about it because it felt scary and icky to me.

I didn't understand why people would ever want to talk about it. It felt like a very private topic for me, so I figured people who go out of their way to talk about it must be trying to get extra "good points" with god (maybe that bit was caused by autism, actually.).

During that time, I would go through little phases of a month or so at a time in which I would try to "swing the opposite direction". This was around age 10-11. I was developing an intense anger toward the church, and I just wanted to be the opposite of they were, whatever that meant. Because I didn't want to think about religion (due to anxiety around it), I really didn't know what many religious labels actually meant because researching them made me very uncomfortable, so I briefly identified as a satanist (this would be on and off during ages 10-11.) despite really not knowing what that meant. I think I just wanted a way to separate myself from the church as much as possible.

A few months after I turned 12, I felt a really strong urge to research paganism out of nowhere (I didnt even know what "pagan" meant, I just suddenly felt the need to know things about it. It was very random.). It started sort of as a special interest (Maybe autism did influence me more than I thought! Interesting.), and so I would look into a lot of different branches of paganism, focusing most of my research around hellenistic paganism.

A few weeks after this, I had a very interesting experience which I now believe to have been a sign from Freyja (I dont want to go into specifics. It was personal and I want to keep that special to me. I might later, but for now it's just mine. Just know it was a very beautiful thing from her.). DIRECTLY following this event (Maybe an hour or two later), I felt another urge to research things, but this time to be looking into the Norse Gods/Goddesses (which I'd never even heard of at that point.).

At that point I ended up converting to paganism. It was an extremely sudden decision, but it made sense to me.

No matter what religion I had been apart of before, I always felt anxiety and guilt, causing me to try and fix things by becoming excessively religious again in a Christian way. But from the moment I became pagan, I just never had that ever again. It's been the only religion I've ever felt fully safe in.

It's obviously been quite a while since then, and I'm obviously still a Norse Pagan.

Whilst I now love all the gods and goddesses, Freyja will always be especially special to me.

At this point I have worked with: Freyja, Loki, Odin, Beyla, and Njord.

Now, I also think its important to mention another part of my brain that impacts my religious experience: I am in a system.

Nearly all of us identify as Norse Pagans, but we have a few Agnostics as well, a few Eclectic Pagans, an Atheistic Satanist, and a Theistic Satanist.

The primary religious identity within our system is Norse Paganism, with the majority of individuals identifying as followers of this belief system. Due to this, we say we are a Norse Pagan! We are also okay with just being called "Pagan" on it's own, though.

[maxemilianverstappen]

as a max Stan( but you also seem like a very objective also), you thoughts about CL in RBR? I know it’s probably the most common discussion on twitter but I don’t remember your take on it.

Okay. I am completely leaving aside how Max said it would be a disservice to Charles' talent and how Charles always says he wants his WDC to be in Ferrari.

I am not y'alls favourite dilf Christian Horner, but let's think from a TP's point of view:

Having two equally talented guys in the team seems like a great idea, right? You have the two alpha wolves of the pack and your car suits to both their driving styles and you expect all the p1-p2s there can ever be, yes? Everything will be great, because your drivers won't have to adapt themselves to the car, since both Max and Charles seem to prefer a pointy front and a looser/flexible rear..... Until you find yourself with a civil war and a hellish amd toxic work environment for everyone involved, a divided garage and political shit which will tear up the morale and the motivation day by day.

There is a reason why you don't get two top dogs of similar age. Toto experienced it first hand. The current demographic of the fans is very young, so they possibly haven't witnessed how Nico and Lewis literally tore each other a new one every race weekend both in front of the cameras and behind closed doors. Even to the point of Lewis blaming the engineers at the factory with developing the car more towards to Nico's liking and insuniating that they sabotaged his car somehow.

Would Christian want to deal with shit like this every day? Of course, he wouldn't. Why should a team lose precious time and energy on intra team shenanigans (and also fight other teams in the meanwhile, thus dividing all resources and patience and morale) instead of standing united and fighting against other teams?

I am a shipper, but I am not stupid. I have watched both their career for a long time and I know how they treat their team mates. In the first wiff of blood, I am pretty sure Charles will turn cold and political while maintaining a PR look. Max is more open and gets going by seeing good faith in people, but if you play dirty with him, I doubt even Charles can take it. Max has a cruel and merciless side that he chooses to not show much, which is very clinical and unfeeling. He also has the psychological edge of having multiple WDCs and also knowing the car and the team much more intimately. Charles can be quite detached and cold, too, when he wants and also can be very sassy with a forked tongue. But he has a lot to prove and is also getting very desperate as years go by and has to sway the team to his favor. He is much more mistake prone and he will be measured up against a 3x WDC even if he jumps ship next year. It is a lot to shoulder. It is a huge task. And RedBull will not politically sway to his side in the way he'd want until he'd beat Max tooth and nail and within an inch of his life. Which will also be within an inch of his own life, too.

And this process.... It is ugly to watch and manage for both the TP and all the team from the mechanics to the media personnel to the pitwall.

Nobody would want to deal with it.

Getting a strong and consistent second driver who will accept their role and be there when the first driver can't deliver for whatever reason and can get all the points they can for the WCC is much more manageable, peaceful, and ideal.

I can completely understand Charles fans wanting to see their boy in the top team, but that's neither feasible nor possible. What we should all need to understand is how the team mentalities should change, not just the car.

2022 Ferrari challenger seriously could have been a WDC car. But we all saw how having a good car doesn't mean shit when you aren't a team that has cleared its head about what it wants in what way and how. Indecisiveness, being divided, saying you don't have a 1st/2nd driver, saying the team is over everyone (Ferrari should really think of their priorities they aren't a football team) and team success is much more important than a driver's and thus you can sacrifice your wdc contenders race just because otherwise you can get more points as a team.....

Michael, Seb, Lewis, Max all had their teams wholly supporting and accommodating them. Sure they all had problems with their 2nd drivers, but it was all managable. Unless Charles feels like they did/do, unless the team takes its head out of its ass and starts to act more rationally, Charles won't win for them ever. I don't think anyone can, tbh. Because this team literally fears another Michael level ownage. Michael had them by the throat and no matter how much glory songs they sing about him, I think the top brass fears giving up the reins to a driver to that extent again. Shit always has to be done their way. I remember reading an article about how Seb seemed to be disillusioned by the way the team and development kept him at bay from involving himself too much into how shit was done unlike the way he was accustomed to in Redbull. A driver is just an instrument for this team, not a focus. I wonder if Charles understands this.

Realistically speaking, he doesn't have anywhere else to go. But continuing like this also seems like a career ending choice. Man, I wouldn't want to be in his shoes.

[psifitopia]

my two cents

So, some discussion of Christianity and homosexuality is going down in the salt and light tag. I'm going to give my thoughts. This post is going to be part confession, part comfort, and part exhortation.

This is a hard subject. There are a lot of personal feelings involved, as will be true, when humans are involved. This is going to be a very personal post. I'm not going to use philosophical language. I'm going to start this with three assertions. This is not an outline of what I'm going to say. I just want these three things in your minds, while you're reading this.

I do believe homosexuality is a sin. 2. Homophobia is a real thing and it, too, is a sin. 3. If we want to obey God, we have to give homosexuals the same unconditional love that we give anyone else. We are all sinners, who have fallen short.

I'm fifty years old and my family, both sides, is from Missouri, a very conservative state. I was raised attending Baptist churches. Homosexuality was almost never discussed...and never with anything approaching Christian love. It's important that you understand that.

I have heard family and friends of the family talk casually about violence towards homosexuals, up to and including talk about murder. Mind you, this was never carried out. (They aren't brainiacs and would have been caught). But the violent rhetoric was still there. And, most of these people were bigoted in other ways, too.

In my late teens/early twenties, I became convinced that homosexuality was not a sin. I saw the bigotry around me and couldn't reconcile that with what I knew, or thought I knew, of God. I honestly thought they were using the Bible to justify their bigotry. And, you know? They still might have been. You can use true things to justify garbage behavior.

Now, this conviction was not entirely other people's fault. Part of it was my own sinful desire to engage in fandoms with slash pairings. It excited me, for various reasons. Also, my dearest friend, one I will always love as a sister, came out as bisexual. I didn't want to believe she was sinning. She had always been a strong Christian and I couldn't imagine her going astray.

I spent twenty-plus years writing m/m slash fiction, including erotica.

Then, I got back into church. I found myself surrounded by loving, Godly people. I started not just reading the Bible, but studying it. I spent time with other Christians in small groups. And, I listened and learned.

One time, an elder of our church told a story about an interaction he had with a homosexual friend of his. The friend asked my elder what he thought of homosexuality and was told, "I love you as a brother, but I think it's wrong."

I can't emphasize enough how that hit me. I can not begin to imagine anyone I grew up around, not parents or grandparents, saying that. I can't imagine any homosexual trusting them enough to even ask. Well, no. I can imagine one person in my family being that kind...my late aunt Kelva. My elder's comment helped plant the seed for my repentance and he has no idea. One day, I'll have to tell him.

In June 2021, I decided to stop writing slash. I had already stopped writing porn and using profanity. I wasn't yet convinced homosexuality is sin, but, well. Here's a link to my post at that time, where I explained myself:

I honestly don't know, why God rejects homosexuality. I can make some decent guesses, but I don't claim to know. I don't need to know. I just trust God and submit to His will. But, here's the thing. If you go through your entire Christian walk and never have a moment where you're like "whoa, God, I don't agree with that" or "um, God, really? That doesn't seem fair" or something of that nature? If getting to know God doesn't challenge you? If everything God commands and says leaves you feeling warm and comfortable? You're probably not worshipping the real, living God. You're probably worshipping an image of God that you've tried to remake in your own image. Your understanding is human and limited. That's why the Bible warns us to not lean on our own understanding.

So, yes, homosexuality is a sin. But, we who know the truth have to be careful how we dispense that truth. We have to give love. No one is going to respond well to violence. No one is going to respond well to having abomination screeched in their faces...and these are all things the homosexual community has faced from a Christian community that sometimes has a bad case of i'm-right-itis. Being correct on a point does not justify any and all behavior and we have to stop pretending that behavior doesn't exist.

Here's the exhortation, put plainly. Homosexuals have to admit that same-sex physical relationships are sin. Submit to God. Is refraining from your body's urges really so much for God to ask from you? He's given you everything, including his life. On the other hand, Christians have to start showing homosexuals love and follow the Bible's commands on how to deal with persistent sinners, which is basically leave them alone. Peter and the other apostles were told to shake the dust off their feet and walk away, if a household wouldn't listen to them. Paul told congregations to send members away. Laws were not passed. Politics didn't enter into it. It's only by showing radical love for God and each other that we can shine as lights. And, I know the internet is fairly tone deaf, though entirely, but c'mon. Read your words before posting them. Would you want someone to talk like that to you, even if you were wrong? Well, then.

Now, for the comfort. This is for anyone in the LGBTQ+ community reading this. I love you. God loves you. Your attraction to other people is temptation, but temptation is not sin. Acting on the temptation is sin. You deserve to be as safe in this world as anyone else. You are just as valuable. I'm a sinner by nature, too. Heaven knows, I need a savior and praise Jesus for his forgiveness and love. Don't take our rejection of your sexuality as rejection of you. You are far more than who you enjoy sleeping with. We want you reconciled to us. We just need it to be on God's terms.

[occultboyscout]

hello hello~ i just found your blog just now and after some scrolling i can tell i will really enjoy following you.

this actually woke up within me an interesting thought and i thought maybe you wouldnt mind if i shared it? i find myself very inspired by christian/jewish mystics and hermeticists that i know due to the amount of academic,philosophical and mystical knowledge involved in those practices, and i find myself being drawn to traditional magic but (classic story nothing unique) oh gosh the heebie jebies over any mention of „the one god” are strong and not lessening. i know mysticism is all about gaining gnosis over what god means to you but born in poland = religious ickeys. i have slowly started incorporating deities into my work, and im starting to feel pleasure venerating hermes and apollo but those are productive connections with specific purposes so its not what i imagine when i think of worship.

have you known people in this situation who have eventually figured out a way to interact with this sphere of esotericism? of course i understand if my question is sudden and overtly personal for a first message haha. let me know if thats the case, otherwise im curious to hear from you!

I'm glad for the question. I think these sorts of conversations (despite how personal they can be) are incredibly important to have and discuss. I can't offer you a clear answer, but hopefully I can add a little bit to your process.

I talk a little bit about this on an upcoming episode of Luxoccult, so if you're a podcast fan keep an eye on that feed. It might be better to hear me say some of this stuff out loud. In the same breath I apologize if I repeat myself.

I went through a very similar thing. When I started to feel a pull towards the grimoires and the history of western magic I felt an incredible amount of fear. I had done so much to distance myself from that world. I had so much suffering inflicted upon me as a queer man in America by Christians and in the name of Christ. I was also someone who had worked for the church, had done ecclesiastical work. Someone who thought I had done a lot of good through that. I turned to Chaos Magic and, through that to Heathenry, to give myself an escape from that confusion. An escape from the dissonance I felt between my work and the people around me.

What purpose could there be for me, someone who was wildly queer and polyamorous and loving it, to engage with the work of dead guys whose perception of good was fundamentally tied with the virginal?

My salvation was philosophy. The realization that our ontologies are not set in stone, and that we have always found some way to disagree. That in disagreeing, in building my own framework for how this operates, I was contributing more to the tradition of western magic and the future of it than by blindly subscribing to the ontologies of my forbears.

The grimoires are prescriptive. They offer us names and seals and modes to operate. And they work as intended. They should be engaged with on their own terms and using their own methods. As best as we have the capability to. None of that means that we are the same as the people who wrote them, or have the same perspectives.

On one hand it is our obligation to know the traditions we pull from, to respect them. We have to put in the work. On the other, it is not our obligation to remain unchanging. To conservatively rest on the laurels of our predecessors.

Read up on some philosophy. Some *weird* philosophy. Check out some Neoplatonists and some Pythagoreans and some "Gnostics" (quotations for how academically fraught that word is). See their perceptions of God or the Monad and what that actually meant to them. See if the idea of God you come out the other end with is something that evens negates the ideas you had already. Sometimes the problem is semantic more than anything else.

I highly recommend the podcast The Secret History of Western Esotericism as a jumping off point for some of these philosophies. The way Eric condenses some of these ideas it can be a great jumping off point for "oh hey actually I kinda like that".

Most importantly however, break your brain a bit before you start getting hard ideas. I'm recommending starting with the philosophy NOT because I want you to have a hard ontology before diving into western magic. I want you to instead have a broader understanding of the many ways people have done and thought about this stuff. That there's no one mode of thought for approaching it.

Finally, you don't have to do any of this. Yes the story of western magic is wrapped up in the grimoires, and it will in some way inform a ton of what any of us in the west find ourselves doing anyway. And I find it, for that reason and others, important to be well-read in. But you are in no obligation to do fucking anything, for any reason. And you are under no obligation to do magic in any way other than the way you want to do it. If that ends up putting theurgy off the table? Fine, that's great. You'll be better for having tried, and for being willing to expand in the first place.

Fair warning, I went on this journey and found myself a Christian again (of a sort). I'm not upset by that. But to some of my friends who broke hard from the church that change in me was confusing and strange. We run the risk of changing no matter what we choose to engage with. As a magician, that's a risk I'm willing to take.

[gacmediadaily]

For King + Country’s Joel and Luke Smallbone recently sat down with Mike Huckabee to share the origins of their new movie UNSUNG HERO and discuss Joel’s “expensive therapy session” of playing the role of his dad. 

“Soon after we arrived in Nashville, my dad lost the job opportunity that he had here,” Luke recalled. “And so we were stranded; No friends, no family, sleeping on beds made out of clothes and having to wait for a little sister to be born in a hospital and weren’t always quite sure where the next meal was going to come.” 

“I’ve told that story for quite a number of years at our concerts and had a lot of people come up and say, ‘Man, look, you should write a book,’” he added. 

Luke joked that as he and Joel were homeschooled, they were not able to “read or write very well,” so they decided to make a movie instead. 

The movie portrays the Smallbone family’s trials and miracles as they left Australia to rebuild their lives in America. 

“The heartbeat behind the movie is this: I believe in the power of family. I think family is more important today than it ever has been in the history of the world,” Luke went on to say. 

While each of the seven Smallbone children appears in the movie, Joel made his directorial and screenwriting debut with UNSUNG HERO and played his father, David, in the movie.  

“I’ve dubbed it a very expensive therapy session,” Joel said. “It was interesting. We’ve been doing a lot of reflection lately just because we’re right on the precipice of it being released into theaters, and I did not anticipate writing or even co-directing.”  

“I just sort of stepped into these roles incidentally. But from the beginning, I had always felt inclined to play Dad,” Joel went on to say. 

He points out that he was roughly around the same age as his father when the events of the movie take place, and playing David helped to take him out of the “childlike perspective” he always had and see it through his father’s eyes. 

“[T]o literally enact the story and put on my shoulders…all of the strain and the stress and the pride and the insecurity and the protectiveness that he felt over the family and really dive deep into his shoes…it has changed the way I see him,” he said. “There’s a stake in the ground of empathy.” 

Helen Smallbone, the mother of the Smallbone clan, told Huckabee that her and David’s faith carried them through this challenging season of their lives. 

“I think when each of us faces a crisis in our lives, it shows us where our foundation is. What’s our strength and where does it come from?” Helen said. “And we were very fortunate both David and I to grow up in Christian homes. We had great role modeling from our parents. We had a strong foundation of faith.” 

Helen recalls her children were unaware of how poor they were at the time when they moved into a rental with no furniture or beds. 

“They thought it was grand because they could actually play…cricket in the living room. I mean, kids are so adaptable,” she said. “I mean, I think they’re looking at parents to see. ‘Okay, how are you coping with this?’And when we thought it was a bit of an adventure, then they followed suit.” 

Daisy Betts, who plays Helen, said that, as a mother of four, the part “resonated” with her. 

“When I read the script, I called my agent, and I said, I think this is the one. Yeah, I need to do this film,” Betts told Movieguide®’s Dr. Ted Baehr at the premiere. “I am a mom. It spoke to mothers. It’s like, ‘Hey, moms, we see you, and we appreciate you.’ And even though it’s subtle. You do so much to be the glue that holds the family together, and I loved that about this film.” 

Betts said that the movie is an ode to fathers as well. 

“It’s not just the mothers…David Smallbone’s struggle is going to pull the heartstrings of dads who are trying to keep it together, even if they hit hard times,” she said. 

On their for King + Country Instagram page, Luke and Joel posted in preparation for the movie’s premiere: 

“If there’s one thing we’ve learned from our dear @anniefdowns (who’s so kindly one of our red carpet livestream hosts tonight!), it’s that you celebrate hard work, before you know the outcome. So tonight, before opening weekend occurs, we’re celebrating at the @UnsungHeroMovie WORLD PREMIERE!”  

[deuterosapiens]

It is 12:46 in the morning. I should be asleep; I have work in a few hours. I've just finished Philip K. Dick's Valis.

It's been a bit since I've done one of these long-form novel posts. Mainly because the books I've read this year have been good, but not strictly things I want to talk about in depth.

Scratch that, I had strong opinions about Children of Dune, which I neglected to post about, but that's not relevant here.

I'm not sure what the best way to talk about Valis is. It's such a strange book. To be clear, I did sort of seek it out deliberately as a matter of academic curiosity. Having obviously read a bit of PKD's other works (A Scanner Darkly which, as I've posted about previously, depressed the hell out of me; and Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, which was entertainingly weird), I had a faint idea of what to expect when you combine psych-trips with Gnostic imagery.

I want to touch on that statement, as it relates a bit to why I went for this Dick novel specifically, rather than Ubik, or any of his other works. Basically, if you do a quick search for "Gnostic fiction," this tiny little thing (my edition clocks in at a whopping 270 pages) is one of the top results, next to The Matrix and Evangelion. TVTropes refers to it as "practically a novelization" under the Gnosticism heading.

I have no desire to discuss my own personal beliefs, however, it is worth noting that purely from the perspective of a media consumer, I find works which feature the core tropes of traditional Gnostic belief (I am aware of the inherent falsity of that statement) interesting.

Dick does a thorough job of explaining his interpretations of Gnostic Christianity here. That's under-selling it a bit. I should write that word properly.

Thorough

There, much better.

Let's remove the in-depth discussion about the nature of the Universe, God, and the human condition. The resulting fifteen-page short-story is as follows: Horselover Fat is depressed because the women he falls in love with have this distressingly rude tendency to be dying, or suicidal. Fat attaches himself to these woman out of an addictive need to help troubled people, though their deaths tend to lead him towards self-destructive habits. After an encounter that's very much like John Travolta in Phenomenon (busting out the odd references, aren't I?), he becomes obsessed with making sense of reality and spends his nights writing an extended rambling codification of his thoughts.

Coincidentally, there's a new sci-fi film playing which lines up quite heavily with Horselover Fat's experience, and explores themes remarkably in line with Fat's research. The film is called VALIS, and it's freaking weird. Fat meets up with film's director, who seems completely crazy, but surprisingly, they've just sort of got Christ's reincarnated (sort-of, not really, kind-of) form in their commune (you see, Fat had this notion, before becoming obsessed with the VALIS-film, that he was going to go out into the world i.s.o the new Savior).

Fleeing the director's commune, Fat acquires news that the Savior he'd found has died due to a freak laser accident. It happens, what can you do? Instead of going crazy again, Horselover Fat goes off on a quest to seek out all Pokémon find the fifth Savior. Roll credits.

What I've politely omitted from this summary is how incredibly insane everyone and everything is. First, I lied when I described Horselover Fat because he just so happens to be the Narrator and a third person character removed from the Narrator. As in, he is referred to from both an internal first-person perspective, and from a third-person bring observed by himself. Himself who is Philip, who is obviously Philip K Dick himself. The two are both the same person, and not. No, Fat is not a dissociative alter; other characters interact with him separate from Narrator-Phil who, towards the end, engages in experiences which physically must occur as simultaneous events to events Fat experiences.

This is never cleared up. It simply is.

Okay, so this novel is very much a character study in madness (from a Philip K Dick novel? Surely, I jest!). It also looks in-depth into theological conundra from this same maddened perspective. Everyone who's anyone has a background in history, language, anthropology and theology. Hell, Fat is released from his time in a psych-ward by discussing religion with his doctor. His therapist exists almost entirely to give Fat a chance to explain the concept of Yaldabaoth (ha-ha, Persona 5 fans, weep you must at learning that the Holy Grail of Human Desire, Yaldabaoth, existed in literary form long before SMT became popular; I play, I'm aware that the concept is a hell of a lot older than this novel).

I'm unsure of precisely what the take-away from this novel should be, which is very much for the best. I think of it as containing the sort of insight a theologian might have after trying LSD for the first time. You cannot take a single thing at face value here: to say the Narrator is unreliable would be like saying the Sun is a bit hot. True, but that so under-values the reality.

On one hand, I want to read it as a sci-fi narrative, but it's so steeped in reality (every single fictional, or at least, non-realistic, element can be explained as the direct result of following a character who's been so drugged-up, and emotionally screwed-up, that you could reasonably interpret it as being hallucination, or other brain-fuckery), that there's not much science fiction actually happening. I want to read it as biographical, but very little of Dick's life here lines-up with any actual events in the real-world. I guess you could call it a biographical fiction of a hypothetical Philip K Dick, from a universe where he's more cracked-out than he truly was. I'll coin the term "meta-biographical fiction," as a way to cope with how much thinking about the Narrator stresses my brain.

There's a very popular Dishwalla song "Counting Blue Cars". There's a chorus line which goes: "Tell me all your thoughts on God". Dick has done that quite extensively here. I can imagine it would have been extraordinarily interesting to hear him speak about these interests in person.

For today's lucky Ten Thousand.

This novel will definitely require a second read to get the full picture, I suspect. But that's later me's problem. The now-self is a bit too exhausted to have any thoughts on this novel.

I think I should sleep. Hopefully I don't dream of pink light.

[andswarwrites]

Day 4

"Make the truth your own"; I sang those lyrics as a child.  They are derived from 2 Corinthians 4:2, "But we have renounced the shameful, underhanded things, not walking with cunning or adulterating the word of God; but by making the truth manifest, we recommend ourselves to every human conscience in the sight of God".  I'd like to share the journey of how I made the truth my own.  And how appropriate that I write on this topic today.  My family does not celebrate many occasions.  But today is an occasion, most certainly.

I'll get into that, but first, a little background.  My parents were raised in Christian households.  My mother is an honest person with a strong sense of justice.  My dad was not impressed with religion.  In her twenties, my mom befriended two women who studied the Bible with her.  She simply devoured the information.  Several years later my father studied the Bible too, and he accepted what he learned as the truth.  So now Mom and Dad were united in their worship of God, and raised all three of their children to be God-fearing too.

Here are some snapshots of my upbringing.  Bedtime was a peaceful time of day.  My dad would read to me from a book of Bible Stories, with colorful illustrations, and then he would listen to my prayer.  He would kiss me goodnight and turn out the light.  If my Mom was putting me to bed, she would sing me at least one lullaby, and she would tell me to "dream of Paradise".  There were pictures of Paradise in the book my dad read to me, so I would think about them in an effort to fall asleep and dream about it.

From a young age I accompanied my parents door to door as part of our worship.  Jesus says in Matthew 10:7: "As you go, preach, saying: ‘The Kingdom of the heavens has drawn near.’"  The most formal way to follow this instruction is by door to door canvassing.  But all my life, I have enjoyed discussing the Bible as well as my faith in it, with anyone and everyone. I know some children are shy and nervous about talking to strangers.  That was never the case with me.  I greeted people with a big smile everywhere I went.

Now, I was pretty young when my mother suggested I memorize a scripture.  It became my favorite for a long time: Revelation 21:4.  "And he will wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore. The former things have passed away.”  The very same week I learned to recite this scripture by heart, just a few days later, I knocked on the door of an older lady.  She told me that her husband had just died.

I asked her if I could show her a verse from the Bible, and when I read her the one scripture I knew, I looked up and she had tears in her eyes.  I impulsively gave her a hug.  From that moment, I loved the "door-to-door ministry" in my own right.  And I was motivated to get to know my Bible more intimately.  There are 31 102 scriptures in the Bible, and it is divided into a total of 66 books.  To get an overall idea of its message, you have to read the whole book.  It took me a while.  And you know what I did when I completed it?  I re-read it.

Some books speak to you differently, depending on where you are at in your life.  What you understand as a child, you understand differently as a youth, what touches your heart as a young adult touches that same heart in a different way as a wife and mother.  That is why I keep re-reading the Bible.  One example, as a child I loved the story of Ruth because of her loyalty and because I thought the story of how she and Boaz got married was exciting.  As an adult, I read about her tender care of Naomi and it brings tears to my eyes.

Twenty-five years ago in November, when I was ten, I symbolized my dedication to God by water baptism, and vowed to live my life a certain way.  Just like in a marriage vow, you promise love and loyalty to your mate for the rest of your life, I vowed loyalty and love to God.  It only took me ten years of life to build a fire in my heart, a combination of faith, love and awe, and I have been stoking that fire ever since.  At times that fire has gone down to the coals, but it has never been extinguished, and I pray it never will.

This evening we will celebrate the Lord's Evening Meal.  In some churches it is called Mass.  It coincides with Passover.  Rather than explain it myself, I'll let the Apostle Paul do so: "For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night on which he was going to be betrayed took a loaf, and after giving thanks, he broke it and said: “This means my body, which is in your behalf. Keep doing this in remembrance of me.” He did the same with the cup also, after they had the evening meal, saying: “This cup means the new covenant by virtue of my blood. Keep doing this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me."" (1 Corinthians 1:23-25)

So now you know why I'm writing about this topic today.  The world is becoming more and more secularized, and faith is unpopular, religion even more so.  I don't shy away from discussing my beliefs, even if they may anger some.  I'm going to say right here right now that I will always treat anyone who talks to me with respect, I will protect their dignity, and their right to choose their own way of life.  If someone presses me to show support for a concept or idea that goes against Scripture, however, I will politely but firmly refuse. 

[trasnpanda]

First time posting here, despite lurking for years. Wanted to say thanks for the discussions and the links. Wanted to give some long overdue advice & thoughts after a brief story

I bought my first thigh highs 2 years ago from a link I got here and it felt great, euphoric. I bought some cute skirts online afterwards. It helped that I was buying my own (masculine but stylish) clothes beforehand so it helped with that. Online shopping is amazing! Practice being a disinterested boyfriend if you aren't comfortable being fem in public.

While I started here, I no longer identify as a femboy due to my egg cracking and finding out I'm trans. That being said, I don't think that ALL feminineboys are transwomen, or gay. Being cisgender male of any sexual orientation & a femboy doesn't have any contradictions. (I'm not sure if trans are since they're fundamentally women and idk if women can be femboys, but I'm not going to deny someone if they want it, i personally don't use it). While it might be more challenging finding love some women definitely love guys with a feminine side~ just like how guys think tomboys are cool. I'm so glad the awareness of femboys has increased, when I was younger I knew of tomboys but wish there was a feminine boy counterpart!

I'd still recommend checking out the gender dysphoria bible, because if you realize you're trans ("your egg cracks") you want to find out as soon as possible as it's a long process and many wish they knew sooner so they could take advantage of their youth for hormonal transitions. And work through the paperwork. So much paperwork. Like many things in life, there often isn't truly a "too late", but early is beneficial.

I do think that some femboys will be femboys (femmen?) truly are cisgender men, and will be until they die; so if that's you that's great and equally valid. If that's you and you read the GDB you've learned a lot about a group of people.

For drag queens and trans women (which are not the same!) have great resources if you want to control certain aspects of your appearance. It's a very feminine thing to do, but your validity doesn't depend on it, so any body type can be a femboy. I should know I have rather strong masculine features.

Couple thoughts:

- Be safe: I personally got a second reddit account. While I can take harassment some can't, so remember to protect yourself, set up boundaries and manage risk in advance so the wrong people don't find out and give you shit

- Read the room: if you're in an environment where it's not safe to be gender nonconforming I would try and not. I recognize some femboys can't, it's too much to keep down. Just be careful.

- You have a right to privacy. And the people you live with must respect that, especially your parents.

- Christians can be femboys. As in the theological and personal divine relationship it's fine. I wouldn't recommend being out about it in religious settings though. I don't know why but this question is one I've seen over the years here and I've always wanted to answer.

- You don't have to be out. For years I was I out as a femboy to myself exclusively. And I was perfectly comfortable with that. I felt cute and that was enough. I was privileged to have parents who respected my privacy, and a job to buy cute skirts & thigh highs.

- Be careful with pictures of yourself on the internet. ESPECIALLY YOUR FACE. Pictures aren't allowed here, but anywhere online be VERY careful with pictures of yourself, especially if you're posting it in a public place on the internet where a bunch of shitty people DM and harass you.

Will edit with more as I think of them. :)

[commontheory]

Why God Does Not Exist

Introduction

My entire speculation on the non-existence of god is purely a theory I have made to clarify my own thoughts and perhaps others. I speak here about God and his purpose from a practical standpoint, taking major elements of the world into consideration. Reasoning against with theories that go with the various aspects and factors of God. And I do not mean to offend any readers of this article , I am simply jotting down my thoughts and theories. I apologize if any content offends you.

Who and what is God?

To completely understand who is God we will first discuss the exact definition. God is a “supernatural being , who is divine.” Breaking it down further, supernatural is a way of saying more superior and divine is a more emphasizing way of saying great.

Now that the context has been set , let us go ahead with why God does not exist.

1.Absence of Enough Evidence

This is perhaps the most basic point to tackle the belief. Overtime , people’s theories and thoughts have given bedrock to the definition of god. But the faith in these theories and thoughts was so much so that it gave birth to the “existence” of God. When at a given point this happened , there was no other theory held valid in comparison to “God”. And since then , the gradual faith that people have put in God became permanent. No other different theory was as valid but however , the concept of God , slowly diverged into different versions of it. To understand this further, let us take Jesus , he is the incarnation of god and worshipped in Christianity. On the other hand , Brahma- the creator or god of the universe is worshipped in Hinduism. There are a lot more strings attached to the profile of both Jesus and Brahma , and what is connected to them. But the point I am trying to make is that there are different religions declaring different beings as gods. This goes to show that there is no validity of existence among the rest from the perspective of one religion. Only that specific religion’s god matters as per that same religion. So , the concept of “God” is simply converted into different beings based on similar beliefs all over the world. And as I mentioned earlier , the strong level of faith makes a religion sensitive to any insults on their God. That is why there is no clear evidence on the existence of “God” as more than just a concept universally.

2.How The World Functions

Now to simplify this to it’s core , the world functions due to 2 major factors. Time and Technology. Without them , we wouldn’t exist. I wouldn’t exist , you wouldn’t exist. Time-it’s functioning results in shaping the present by the events that occur due to technology. Now , when I say technology , it represents all the modified resources on this earth. Time helped us humans understand how to extract iron into iron ore. We did this using means of technology. Now directing this core function towards a very popular thing around God-“God , why does this happen to me?”. “Thank you , God!”.

These are two very common examples of what we say to God after something good or bad takes place in our everyday life. In short- we are exploiting God’s existence to vent everyday events onto him. Be it in a positive way or a negative way. We are doing it. Now this partially works on the belief that God is omnipresent , meaning everywhere. And when specific things happen to the people in the duration that they believe God is omnipresent is when their faith in the existence of God strengthens. Technically speaking ,  it’s just the result of what already exists on this earth. If something doesn’t go your way tomorrow , it’s because Time has allowed that technology or resource to act against it. If somebody dies due to organ failure tomorrow , it will be due to a dysfunction which got significant over Time. And to sum it up , life is full of annoying and happy surprises that just happened over the duration of what has existed , is existing , and is going to exist.

3.God’s Profile Just Doesn’t Add Up.

There is a lot , and I mean a lot of instances I could bring up here but I’ll discuss some more common ones.

Omnipresence- God is supposed to be omnipresent or in other words: everywhere. Now , pairing this up the belief that God gives up constant love and care doesn’t seem logical. Yes , there are a lot of if’s and but’s in this reasoning but bare with me. If God loves us and cares for us and is present everywhere , then why do bad things happen to us? Why not only good things? And this is beyond the factor of balance , plain bad that worsens our day or life over a period of time.

Omnipotent- Meaning maximal power or perfection. Another trait of God. Which again: does not settle with what this world is made of. Why would God create us as superior beings and not other organisms? This completely fills the human race with a superiority complex. This sickening complex just makes us blindly destroy and degrade everything around us.

Omniscient- God is all knowing or knows everything. He knows us better than we know ourselves. Yet we all face difficulties , yes sure. Life does need some tension to thrive. But yet he puts certain events in our lives that change its path a way beyond its recovery. Losing all sense of direction , guidance , motivation and hope without any comeback.

And at last , our session comes to an end. I am very happy if you read this entire article ,

and regardless if you agree with my views or not , I hope you have gotten some insight on how a regular atheist perceives the existence of God. But it makes you think , doesn’t it? Do we exist to exist or are we pawns in a bigger game?

I'm sorry if you got bored:D