#i. need it. i need to talk about culture and religion and different concepts of love and courtship borne from said cultures

[loveoaths]

the desire to write din/a’sharad and din/cassian grows stronger with every passing day.

a father from a diasporic culture, a bastard with indigenous roots fucking up the empire, and a kick ass jedi from a villainized race with a lot to prove. like. this is the dream team. do you even understand.

[maniacwatchestheworld]

We Need To Talk About Danny's Power Level.

I was hesitant to make this post, but the more I think about it and the more I see... We really HAVE to discuss this. Generally speaking, I really don't want to be seen as someone who is trying to ruin people's fun within this fandom. I want to inform, and while I have issues with some of the very prevalent ideas in this fandom, I don't want to tell people what they should or should not be making! I want people to follow what they find fun to create! But this power level thing...? I think that it has some rather concerning implications to it that need to be examined and discussed! This is an actual, decently serious problem, and after considering it for a time, it occurs to me that I may be one of the few people in this community that recognizes this issue as an actual issue and has the authority to speak on it...

You NEED to stop making Danny so incredibly overpowered in the DPxDC space.

Now please don't misunderstand me. I understand the value of a good fun power fantasy and making Danny more powerful than God can be fun and cathartic if you have a negative history with the Christian faith. But this insistence on the Ghost Zone being The Most Important Thing Ever and Danny being The Most Powerful Entity Within It is actually actively warping how people interpret and think about DC canon as well as certain characters within its canon to the point of unrecognizability as well as robbing characters of what makes them interesting, the point of their stories, and their agency within it. But most importantly of all, all of this is just... Generally, genuinely dismissive and shitty towards most religions, cultures, beliefs, and faiths that people practice, ESPECIALLY the faiths of POC and other minorities. And this is specifically an issue that DC does not have and that people within this space are making an issue by refusing to let the Ghost Zone and Danny have some limitations.

So that you understand where I'm coming from, please understand that I'm a person of color (I'm half Filipino) and that I'm Buddhist (a religion that I decided to convert to and embrace after a lot of thought and soul-searching, even if I'm not very good at practicing it). It also needs to be stated that in the DC universe, all religions and faiths are true and real at the same time, and they all have more or less equal footing as any other faith or religion or mythology explored in this multiverse. Christian heaven and hell are real. Reincarnation is canonical to the DCU. The Greek Pantheon is real and they are just as real and powerful as the Norse Pantheon. (By the by, just to let you know, yes, people in the real life modern day do actually actively worship both of these pantheons today.) Different alien planets have different faiths, and there is precedent for them being real as well. (Hey! Fun fact! Kryptonians are polytheistic!) It does seem that some form of animism is real within the DCU (within concepts of The Red and The Green)! And there is even representation for indigenous African faiths and beliefs within this shared universe! One of the genuinely wonderful things about the DC universe is that all of these faiths are real, they're all valid, and they are all more or less on equal footing to one another! If all the religions and afterlives and gods of each pantheon went to war with one another, it would genuinely be difficult to know who would win, or who would even stand a chance of coming out of this conflict alive!

In fact, a lot of characters and storylines within the DC universe are actually DEPENDENT on all of these faiths existing and being equally valid at the same time. Do you know where Billy Batson gets his powers from? The phrase "SHAZAM," if you didn't know, is actually an acronym for the names of the gods and heroes that he derives his powers from. (Solomon, Heracles, Atlas, Zeus, Achilles, and Mercury.) And it's implied that each person with SHAZAM powers has different heroes and gods that they derive their power from! (Black Adam derives all of his powers from the Egyptian Pantheon. Mary Marvel derives all of her powers from female gods and heroic figures.) Many of Wonder Woman's stories involve her interacting with various different pantheons. Xanthe Zhou gets their powers from traditional Chinese folk ancestor-worshiping practices. Ragman is a Jewish character whose suit is a powerful Jewish artifact- a suit made out of the souls of sinners that was created to protect the Jewish community. Sun Wukong is an actual character in the DCU and he is JUST as overpowered and immortal ×500 as he should be! And there are like... At least 3 entirely different characters that either are iterations of, claim to be, or pull their powers/inspiration from Anansi! DC celebrates a lot of faiths and religions and are bringing in more beliefs and faiths into their universe all the time! TONS of characters derive their powers from their religions, faiths, and beliefs! And DC celebrates them all as being real and valid to all who practice them! ... And you want them all to be forced to be under the same umbrella and less important and powerful as Danny and the Ghost Zone...

Bringing up ideas of ghosts and afterlives are always going to be loaded subjects because they often inherently rub up against actual living people's practiced religions and beliefs. But a belief in ghosts and dimensions better suited for them is also a valid belief that real life people have. And there is precedent for these beliefs also being real within DC canon. But DC only manages to get away with crossing over as many faiths as it does by saying that they are all real, valid, and while you might see less of some pantheons and more of others, they all exist and are doing their own thing just like they do in real life, just off panel... Are you beginning to see what the problem is...?

In the DPxDC fandom's eagerness to incorporate Danny into the DC universe and to make him powerful enough to go toe to toe with the likes of Superman, it seems that most people immediately overcompensated and that no one has really thought to slow down, stop, and actually think about what they are implying. Because the most common headcanons that I have seen regarding the Ghost Zone and other afterlives and religions? It's that they are all parts of the Ghost Zone, but are all ultimately subordinate to it. And since Danny is the Most Powerful and Important Person in the Ghost Zone... This implies that all religions, faiths and beliefs are less important and are indeed subordinate to the Almighty Danny. That all deities and the people following them should just bow down to Danny's might. This is something that DC, in spite of all of its flaws, has managed to avoid. These religions are REAL religions! Actual faiths practiced by actual people! We are NOT talking about dead, irrelevant pantheons that no one alive worship anymore! We are talking about living, active faiths and religions, some of which colonizers have tried to eradicate from the world! Some of these faiths have been suppressed! Some of the people who practice these beliefs have faced genocide for them! And so saying that the Ghost Zone is bigger, better, and that Danny is more important than any single other faith and afterlife...? THAT'S A SHITTY THING TO DO! You are literally doing the shitty Christian missionary thing, but with a fictional afterlife that consists of fictional characters that you know are not actual religious beliefs! You're landing on the sandy polytheistic shores of the DCU and declaring that the Ghost Zone is actually vaster than every faith already in the DCU and that Danny is more powerful and has authority over your gods! That your beliefs and faith and religion should just take a backseat to the Danny power fantasy! That your real, lived religion is not more important nor should it be respected when Danny is in the room! Of course the Buddha should bow down to Danny! Of course the Jewish people should renounce their faith and worship Danny instead because he's better and more powerful than the Jewish God! Why should people pray to their ancestors when Danny ultimately gets to decide what happens to everyone's ancestors!? If they want good things to happen to their ancestors in the afterlife, they should pray to Danny instead! Not like any form of prayer works or matters in this universe anyway because Danny is Almighty! And he doesn't hear the prayers! By making all faiths subordinate to Danny within these stories, you are saying that anyone who practices these beliefs and faiths within these stories are not valid in their beliefs. The only belief that matters and is real in this universe is the Ghost Zone and whatever will appease Danny the most. And while the characters in these stories are not real, the religions, beliefs, and practices they engage in ARE. And so you are implying that real people's faiths and religions don't matter. You are just dismissing real faiths and beliefs as not something worth thinking about or respecting within your works! You are saying that this fictional American white teenage boy and his goopy green land is more important to you than just being respectful of real people's faiths, beliefs, and religions. That your power fantasy is more important than saying that a person is valid for holding on to their beliefs. That when it comes down to it, that you would rather people choose your Danny power fantasy over their religion being portrayed as important and valid. That is honestly insulting. And really alls that you've done is impose monotheism onto the DC universe. You're just enforcing monotheism on people with extra steps. But instead of it being the Christian God, you've put Danny in that position. THIS IS A SHITTY THING TO DO! THIS SHOULD NOT BE THE DEFAULT HEADCANON THAT PEOPLE HAVE IN THIS FANDOM! PLEASE STOP!

Please understand. I know that you didn't do this on purpose or mean to imply this intentionally. I know that you didn't realize that you were insulting and undermining actual faiths and religions by pushing these ideas on the fandom. If one or two people had these thoughts and headcanons and didn't think very much about what they are implying, this would not be a problem. But for this to be the default is VERY disconcerting! As a Buddhist, it does feel genuinely shitty and insulting to imply that Danny has authority over the Buddha and that he outranks and is more powerful than Sun Wukong. It's not fun to think that my beliefs matter to you less than continuing to play with your Danny power fantasy. That you don't think that the pursuit for enlightenment and inner peace is real or worthwhile. That you would find my pursuit of compassion over everything else to be silly, stupid, and laughable when stood next to Danny. I know that you don't mean it. I know that's not what you meant to imply. But it is what you imply by making every faith subordinate to the Ghost Zone. And as someone who has a faith that is so often seen as subordinate to others and just a silly little play fantasy that doesn't matter and isn't real, it's depressing and uncomfortable to see this community as a whole unknowingly echo these sentiments. People in real life don't think that my faith is valid. People don't believe me when I say that I'm Buddhist. And as someone who is Filipino on top of that, I can't help but to think about the utter tragedy of my ancestors being forced to convert to Christianity or die. To forget their beliefs, pretend they never mattered, and embrace Jesus. To be forced to believe that their indigenous beliefs didn't matter. And so many of those indigenous beliefs are now lost and forgotten to their living ancestors (including myself) for it because to the Christians, their belief in Jesus was ultimately more important to them than just letting the Filipino beliefs and religions peacefully exist as they were. It's uncomfortable to me that you would rather I just embrace this view of Danny and let him be more important than and be an authority over my religion. That I should just be comfortable in Danny being more important and better than every religion that people actually practice in real life. That I should just forget the insult to my and any other religion that you make by placing Danny as more important than, and to "just have fun." But I can't. And these ideas are everywhere in this fandom. Even in stories where it shouldn't matter or doesn't need to be present, it's there. This reminder that you don't take my faith seriously- these ideas that Danny is more important than my faith are ubiquitous to this community. An issue that wasn't present in either of the original source materials. Because they thought about it and so went out of their way to not imply it. But here, people are just not willing to make that courtesy for even a second.

But it doesn't have to be this way. You can do better! I know that you can do better. And it isn't even difficult to do! All that you need to do better is to simply... Just... Think about it. When you imply or say "all afterlives are part of the Ghost Zone" actually think about ALL afterlives! Christian and Atheist and Greek ones, yes. But also Asian and Native American and African and South American ones too! Is that kind of thought fair towards Native American faiths, Buddhists, Jews, Hindus, Palestinians, Hellenists, Animists, and every other person and group that practices a faith? Or does this have majorly fucked up implications towards some or all of these people? If the answer is yes, you can proceed, but you need to be mindful of that fact and just think about it, even if only a little. Even if it's just a small acknowledgement that you don't know what you're talking about or that you are choosing to ignore some of the fucked up implications you're making here for the sake of the story in the tags. I just want you to take a moment and think through the implications of what you are making, and to make a choice on whether you should proceed or reconsider things. If you choose to proceed with the fucked up implications, that's fine. It means that you can do so with other mindsets in mind and can possibly use these ideas in interesting ways! At least you made a stance to possibly be shitty towards some people for the sake of your fun. At least you made the choice to say that some people's beliefs just don't matter to your story. This is a neutral statement. Some works of art are just not made for some kinds of people. And that's fine. But it is always better to knowingly acknowledge and make that choice than to pretend that it isn't there. And if you didn't realize that's what you were doing? If you reconsider and choose to turn back on this idea? At least you made that choice and didn't just passively follow the rest of the crowd to get here. Hopefully, thinking about it will make you more mindful about your art in the future and therefore make it better! The only thing to do about it is to acknowledge that you weren't thinking about the implications, but that you changed your mind, and move forwards with your life.

Now just to be entirely clear, I'm not telling you that I want you to feel guilty about being inconsiderate towards other faiths. That doesn't really do anyone any good. I won't get any satisfaction from you feeling guilty about it or internally punishing yourself for it. Just actually give what you might be implying more thought in terms of religion next time and do better. It's alright to make mistakes. We are all just human and we all make mistakes. Sometimes we don't even realize when we've made a mistake. Just strive to do better next time, be more willing to let go of these ideas that you're so attached to, allow yourself to see things from another perspective, and move on. Sometimes, it's better to just leave things alone. Sometimes you shouldn't meddle and try to rework ideas that were perfectly good on their own to begin with. Sometimes nothing that you personally can add will be a positive contribution. Sometimes the only thing that interfering will do is over-complicate things and rob the idea of what made it so interesting and powerful in the first place. But it's okay to leave it alone. It's going to be okay. I'm not angry. Just disappointed and a little frustrated. But it's better if you are able to just drop these things and move forwards with mindfulness in the future.

As an alternative, I think that it would generally be better for the Ghost Zone to just be its own thing separate from the other afterlives. Equal to other afterlives and not all-encompassing of them. It can be connected or related to other afterlives, but being greater than them as a whole is just a very uncomfortable and cruel implication. You don't need the Ghost Zone to be the most important thing in the multiverse. And Danny does not need to be the most powerful thing in existence. Please. It's okay to have power fantasies. But the invincible overpowered stronger than all Gods Danny should not be the overwhelming norm here to the detriment of everything else. It's only when you let go of Danny NEEDING to be the MOST important thing in the multiverse can you start to really dive into some of the more interesting sides of characters on their own terms and not on yours! Like... Did you know that there is one ghost character in DC called The Spectre and that he's the literal personification of the wrath of God? Did you know that Xanthe Zhou as a spirit envoy is actually half dead and half alive? Did you know that The Wizard Shazam is actually, secretly an aboriginal god? Did you know that in the DC universe that Judas Iscariot still walks the Earth to this day, doing vigilante work to atone for his betrayal of Jesus? Did you know that Ra's Al Ghul's mom has met and hung out with some of the demons that Sun Wukong fought against in Journey to the West? Hell, did you know that Damian is Buddhist!? Imagine that. Danny coming in and telling Damian that he's more important and more powerful than Damian's entire religion. That the Buddha is just a lackey of his and that he rules over all afterlives, including nirvana and cycles of reincarnation. I'm certain that Damian would take that very well and accept it wholeheartedly! Don't you agree with me?!!?!???!

I personally think that all of this is better and more interesting if characters, their religions, and ideas in general are able to interact with Danny's world on their own terms without being forced to fit within Danny's box! You don't need to try to force everything within DC's universe to fit inside Danny's. DC wouldn't ask for Danny's universe to conform to theirs! They would just add everything that Danny's universe has to offer on top of everything else they already have! And trying to fit the entire DC multiverse within the scope of Danny's universe... It's too small a box for too large of a universe! Sometimes you can just let things not be deeply connected. And sometimes things don't need a complicated explanation and it can literally just be magic. There's nothing wrong with trying to tie everything together in a neat and succinct way. But sometimes you need to pull your view out a little and look at what you're doing and genuinely ask yourself if what you're doing actually adds depth, or if it does more harm than good and makes everything worse, make less sense, and more complicated or not. It's okay to fall down the rabbit hole sometimes. I completely understand that happening and do it all the time! Just remember to be mindful about it!

Either way, if you're going to insist on desperately clinging onto these ideas of Danny being the Most Important and Powerful Thing in the Multiverse to the detriment of literally everything else, that's fine. But just be honest with what you're doing and why. This isn't a Ghost King Danny AU. Kingdoms don't have unequivocal power over other and all kingdoms. It's a God Emperor over all Gods Danny AU. Nothing wrong with that concept in of itself. Just tag it properly as something like "God King Danny" so that I don't have to deal with it and the implications you're making about my religion with it. That would be enough! I would be happy with that! Just make your choice. Think about what you're doing, why you're doing it and choose. If you choose to keep going, that's fine! All the more power to you! Have fun! But be honest about what you're making. I may not like it and think that it's an overdone, overplayed idea at this point, but you're free to do it! So go forwards and make what will bring you joy! But now that you've thought about it a little, hopefully you'll continue with a little more knowledge and foresight. And hopefully that will make your work even more interesting and better for it! And if you decide to change course, I'm glad that I was able to sway you and get you to see things from my perspective and come to my side on this. At the very least, hopefully this will help to vary up ideas within the fandom a bit and you won't just take ideas that are happening in this space entirely for granted and as givens! I have so many ideas on interesting ways that these intersections can go and characters that you can use, and ways to look at this community that offer so so SO many interesting story directions! I'm so happy that you've decided to come with me on this journey! You're going to make something great, I'm certain of it! So let's make something wonderful together! I believe in you! There's a lot of fun to be had! ^.^

[jedi-enthusiast]

Genuine question as to why you feel so passionate about being pro-jedi? I definitely wouldn't say I'm anti-jedi, but I think there are some decent criticisms that can be made about them. But overall I'm just interested to understand the dedication to being pro-jedi, cause it is a fictional organisation at the end of the day. Isn't it more fulfilling to look at them from different perspectives so we can get the most out of the story as possible?

Before I answer, I'm going to ask you a question in turn, would you ever ask this question to someone who was anti-Jedi? Would you ever imply that they need to change their view on the Jedi because they're "not getting the most out of the story?"

Now, I'm going to preface this answer by saying that I'm not angry with you, I'm just very passionate about this topic---so don't take any of this personally. You seem like you're genuinely asking, and I appreciate that.

----------

Personally, for me, there aren't really any criticisms that can be made about the Jedi- (keep in mind, I primarily adhere to Lucas Canon, everything else is just an add on depending whether I like it or not). Everything that people criticize the Jedi for or accuse them of falls into one of three categories:

Not true- (the Jedi are a cult, the Jedi repress their emotions, the Jedi were mean to Anakin, etc.)

Done for a reason because the other option would be worse/it was their only real option in a bad situation- (the Jedi shouldn't have fought in the war, the Jedi should've defended Ahsoka, the Jedi are slavers because of the clones, etc.)

Or it's something that's an Eastern concept/practice but people refuse to look at it as such and instead project their Western viewpoint/religious trauma onto them- (literally the entire thing about attachment)

I've never seen any criticism of the Jedi that doesn't fall into one of these categories, so why should I be inclined to "hear people out" or "look at the Jedi from other perspectives" when there's...really nothing else to look at?

----------

Another thing to consider is that, while the Jedi are fictional characters, George Lucas based them heavily on very real religions and groups---particularly Jews and Buddhists.

So when people say things like- "the Jedi weren't allowed to care/love/have emotions because of Attachment™️" -they're spreading harmful misinformation and basically saying that Buddhists can't love/care/have emotions because of their rule against attachment, since the philosophy of non-attachment is literally taken verbatim from Buddhism.

And when people usually pair the above rhetoric with- "-and that's why the Jedi deserved what they got/caused their own downfall" -it's...a very concerning mindset for people to perpetuate---especially when George Lucas based the genocide of the Jedi and the rise of the Empire off of the Holocaust and Nazi Germany.

When you strip away the fictional aspects of it, a lot of what people say about the Jedi is literally Nazi/antisemitic/Holocaust denial rhetoric. To take an example of something that has actually been said on one of my posts:

"The destruction of the Jedi Order was less a genocide and more of a religious conflict that the Jedi lost. The Jedi Order is a sect of the collective religious culture of 'Force Users,' and their destruction cannot really be considered genocide as the cultural group of 'Force Users' still exists albeit heavily restricted and controlled by the Sith during the Empire Era." - @/ironwoodarl01

And, as @zarohk pointed out:

It’s depressing how so many “Jedi critical” talking points are pretty much antisemitism and Holocaust denial/justification: The destruction of the Jedi Order was less a genocide and more of a religious conflict that the Jedi lost. "The Jedi Order religion of Judaism is a sect of the collective religious culture of 'Force Users Abrahamic faiths, and their destruction cannot really be considered genocide as the cultural group of Force Users Abrahamic faiths still exists…" Similar thinly-veiled antisemitism in the Star Wars fandom also frequently includes supersessionism, the Christian idea that during the (Roman) Republic era, the Jedi Jews had become corrupt and lost their way, and and so finally a divinely created person was sent to show them new path. This is why attempts to read Star Wars where Anakin is a Christ figure or correct where the Jedi have failed (ignoring the fact that he wrecked the lives of most people he was involved with, including himself, and the Darth Vader was never happy) are not just incorrect, but generally have a thick underlayer of antisemitism.

So, while Star Wars is fictional, it's important for people to analyze why they feel the way they do about the Jedi and be critical of the ways in which they talk about/criticize the Jedi---because, like it or not, the Jedi and their genocide are based on real people/things and so your reaction to them/what happened to them can be very telling.

----------

Finally, being critical of the good guys or trying to view everything through a morally grey lens doesn't make the story inherently more interesting, nor does it inherently add anything to the story---so I'm not "missing" anything.

If believing that no one can actually just be good, and everyone has to have some agenda, and "the good guys were the REAL bad guys all along" adds something to Star Wars for you...by all means, go ahead and believe what you want.

But my view of Star Wars isn't "lesser" or "missing something" just because I don't share that view and actually like the good guys and believe in what they taught/did.

----------

I'm passionate about being pro-Jedi because of everything I outlined above and because they were truly good people who tried their best to help the galaxy---they were brought down, not because of anything they did, but because of one man's selfish stupid actions.

There might've been a time when I was willing to hear people out when they criticized the Jedi---because hey! maybe I was wrong---but that time has long passed because nothing anyone has ever criticized the Jedi for has held up to scrutiny, and anti-Jedi people won't just keep the fuck off my page and leave me alone.

So, frankly, this is my blog and I'm allowed to be as passionate as I want to be---and I'm not gonna stop, or start viewing the Jedi as "wrong" or "bad" or whatever, just because you- (and other people, I'm sure) -think I'm missing something by being strictly pro-Jedi

[traegorn]

Hey-o! Tis the season for people to talk about how the holidays were "actually pagan" and I'm on the hunt for sources about how that's really not the case, if you have any you'd recommend!

Okay, so the problem is there are so many weird "Christmas is stolen!" bullshit memes going around, it's so hard to just give you a comprehensive list of sources. Christmas celebrations have evolved as the religion has spread, and different things come from different times...

The key here is to go for academic sources. This is a question of history, and a well supported historical research is going to tell you whether they're operating from primary, secondary or tertiary sources.

So while I can't give you a simple list, let me give you a couple of examples off the top of my head and give you tips on how to investigate any the dumb claims that get passed around.

Christmas being in December: So a lot of people go for the "Christmas is in December so it can steal from [INSERT SOLSTICE CELBRATION]" is ahistorical... because we know exactly why Christmas is in December. Because the guys who made the decision argued with each other and left behind written documentation. The two big names you need to look up are  Clement of Alexandria (who pitched January 6th) and Hippolytus of Rome (who proposed December 25th). This is around the turn of the third century, and you can find both of their writings. Some folks have questioned the authenticity of some of Hippolytus of Rome's writings, but Clement of Alexandria's seem well supported. These were internal arguments about when the birth of Christ took place within the early church, and when they settled on late December. There are reasons for this, and you can read their arguments (it largely has to do with the importance of when Jesus was conceived -- they wanted that to be an important date and then added nine months to it). Importantly though, because linear time is a thing, this means Christmas was set in December before the Christianization of the Germanic and Norse tribes... so anyone who says Christmas was set to December to correspond with Yule doesn't understand the concept of "coincidences."

The Christmas Tree: The Christmas tree was invented in 16th century Germany. That's... that's just written down all over the place. Now, there are legends about Martin Luther being the first who did it -- but I'm pretty certain that's just an embellishment that got added on. There are preceding traditions where part of an evergreen was brought into the home as a part of solstice traditions (though some will claim the Egyptians did this? Which is wild -- likely misinterpreting their use of palm fronds as the same thing), but the act of taking a whole ass tree, cutting it down, putting it in your house, and decorating it? That's 16th century Germany all the way. You can rabbit hole so many sources on that one, but honestly just pick apart the citations on the Wikipedia page. Putting a branch in your house and dragging a whole tree in are very different acts.

Jesus's story is copied from [INSERT RANDOM GOD]: There are so many of these, and some are just downright disrespectful to major world religions (the Krishna version of the meme especially). The answer is... just see if what the meme is saying about the god is supported by the mythology. Like I've seen ones that says Dionysus was "born of a virgin." If you know anything about the Greek gods, you're probably already laughing on the floor. Horus gets dragged into this too, because Gerald Massey was trying to pull a "White Goddess but with Dudes." But any serious research on Horus will tell you the supposed parallels aren't supported by the mythology.

So sorry, this wasn't so much sources you can use as it is how to look for them to begin with. Because there's just so, so much. This isn't even covering cases of syncretism, where pre-existing cultural traditions got continued post-Christianization. Because it's almost always the case that if a pre-Christian practice endured post Christianization, it's because people decided to keep doing it -- not because the church was trying to "steal" it. The latter means there was some mustache twirling plan behind it, when the former means (usually) the church went "Well, they're paying their tithes and saying it's for Jesus, so who gives a shit?"

I'm just going to finish this off with linking to my podcast episode on this, along with Ocean Keltoi's great Yule video on the topic. Hopefully that helps.

[m3r1m4r5u333]

I'm getting a bit tired of the fandom's overwhelming consensus that Eddie is surely gay even thought there are plenty reasons why his relationships with women would not have worked out.

Personally bisexuality makes more sense to me, and I feel like that's what the show is trying to show, too. And since the show already had "closeted gay man in a "straight" marriage, I think it would make more sense to go for Bi Eddie.

Because Eddie is different from Buck even if he's also bi. Religion. His family's expectations. Marriage. Parenthood. And I also think - earlier realization of sexuality even though he remains closeted. Fun fact: that's what bisexuals do! Even in supportive environments, we stay in the closet the most and the longest.

I'd really like for Eddie to be bi.

Eddie's the type of bi in disguise that the world is full of and nobody notices because the marriage with a woman would be a true one.

This matters because it seems like there's this odd idea that these bisexuals are doing fine in the closet. Why talk about them?

The reality is actually that according to just about every study, bisexuals are distinctly not fine.

The biphobia and erasure comes from all directions. People expect and understand the concept of heterosexuality and homosexuality well enough. Bisexuals...?

It's called the Double Closet. Expectation to either be straight, or gay, and if you're anything else you're just confused.

Also, bisexuals may not just have shitty parents. They also end up falling in love and marrying people who are biphobic. Fun times.

Anyway, I'm listing my reasons why Eddie being into women and men would make the most sense to me:

He agreed with Shannon that sex was never the issue for them.

His marriage to Shannon failing? He was young, the pregnancy was unplanned, he was pushed to marry a high-school sweetheart at young age and then facing the stress of trying to figure out how to raise a special needs child with her.

He went to a war, and returned traumatized. Trauma tends to make everything even harder.

Their mutual lack of trust and communication.

Meddling parents.

Perhaps... Being a closeted bisexual dating a woman who does not know.

Because that's one way to keep a partner at a distance - by hiding a part of yourself.

Losing a loved one, being afraid to love again.

Being pushed to date too soon after grief and trauma.

Falling for a male friend who he thinks is straight.

Being pushed to date someone else.

Oh and the panic attacks - Learning that his friends have died,

being shot by a sniper and thinking Buck was hurt,

ending up in a rapidly developing relationship with someone who is falling in love with him...

When he just likes her... but feels pressured to keep the relationship going anyway.

Because his son loves that person, and Eddie is programmed to go for marriage in every relationship he ends up in. Catholic guilt... They love marriage.

Family expecting him to be straight. Family pushing him to date despite him saying he isn't ready.

Being totally new in the dating world. No wonder he talks about performance anxiety and feeling like he needs to perform - his heart isn't in it.

Also he's probably never even been on dates. How to act on dates? He's not a teenager anymore, it's embarrassing and awkward to fumble and not know the dating culture.

Also when we first meet Eddie he's only been with one woman. Women aren't carbon copies. Sex can be intimate and awkward with someone new. Of course he'd be nervous.

Then finding out that his girlfriend was almost a nun... and being closeted bisexual!

And so on. Nothing actually says the man MUST be gay, and I feel weirded out by the insistence that he surely is gay.

I feel like... Maybe the show expected this, that people would dismiss his interest towards women, and wanted to make the queer community check their prejudice?

Because that episode which focuses on Eddie's fight club and has that super queer coded ice skating scene??

It's Hansel pushing Gretel away... How gay! Expect then we find out that Hansel was only scared that she would miss out an huge opportunity by staying with her. A role in the big leagues.

And that joke about Bobby being a hockey player and a figure skater??? And saying

"Who says you can't do both?" while a piece composed by Paganini - also famous for mastering both guitar and violin, plays.

The shot shows Buck AND Eddie, and Hen with Chimney looking and pointing at them in amazement.

Saying "We'll google for photos later!"

Maybe the implication of

"Who says you can't do both" being referred to isn't just

"Who says you can't do both women and men?"

.... but ALSO "Who says you can't write both of these characters to be bi?".

[thrashkink-coven]

Okay I’m going to say it because I’ve seen like 10 posts about this in the last week and it’s kind of aggravating.

Before you start practicing paganism or dual faith or anything of any kind PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE learn the meaning and history of Syncretism. PLEASE.

Please stop saying that Christmas is only a Christian holiday, please stop saying that Christmas was stollen from the pagans. Please stop insisting that Yule and Christmas are the same holiday! Please stop saying that pagans cannot celebrate Christmas or that Christians shouldn’t celebrate Christmas! Christmas is many things to many different groups of people and ideas and customs evolve through time!!! There is NUANCE to these very complex ideas!!! Christmas does not need to be reclaimed, please stop.

Please stop saying that it belongs or doesn’t belong to any given group especially when humanity is so prone to spread messages and customs amongst eachother!!! “Similar” does not equal “the same” and different does not equal “the enemy”. Please stop trying to create these illogical divisions where they do not exist!!! Please read about the history of faith !!!! I beg of you!!!!

So often we see the blending and unity of concepts as “appropriation” and I’m sick of it. Our beliefs connect us so much more than they divide us. We learn so much about the world from each other and our different interpretations.

Likewise, just to touch base- nearly every single mythology or faith in the entire world takes its inspirations from somewhere. You are no superior to a Christian because you think your faith and customs are “older”.

We live in a paradoxical universe where multiple things can be true at once. You DO NOT get the authority to tell a Christian that their God is XYZ just because you’re a pagan. You do not get the authority to redefine how a group of people sees and interacts with their personal name of God. And you by no means get to claim credit for how different cultures interpret the natural world.

Yes, Christians obviously have a lot of practices that mirror pagan ones, they are not pagan, do not call them pagan. I don’t care how you feel about the Abrahamic God. So many of us hold a deep resentment towards Christianity because of religious trauma and I completely understand that, but when you try to massively oversimplify such complex topics like religion and faith, you not only risk sounding like an asshole but you make yourself look straight up stupid because you’re just wrong.

I am a devotee of Lucifer and I believe him to be the divine masculine aspect of mother Venus. I still need to understand and respect that for Christians, Lucifer represents something entirely different and that’s okay. They’re not necessarily wrong even if I fundamentally disagree. I disagree with what Lucifer is among other Luciferians and Satanists. That’s OKAY.

We have GOT to stop talking about mythology and folklore so literally. It leads us to have this “one or the other” mentality when more than one thing can be true at once! These myths are flexible and meant to change with culture. We can have respectful debates and conversations but holy moly please stop insisting that Christianity has “stollen” from you, and please for the love of God please stop trying to ruin a day that is significant to them by telling every Christian you see that Christmas is actually a pagan holiday.

(- and when I say this I am not referring to the atrocities of assimilation and slavery that forced pagan cultures to become Christian/catholic due to racism and xenophobia, that’s obviously very bad. My argument is simply that the entire Christian/Jewish/ Muslim faith cannot be discounted simply because historically, bad people used it to do bad things).

Thank you. 🙏

[regulusrules]

Yo, I saw your post about orientalism in relation to the "hollywood middle-east" tiktok!

How can a rando and university dropout get into and learn more about? Any literature or other content to recommend?

Hi!! Wow, you have no idea how you just pressed a button. I'll unleash 5+ years on you. And I'll even add for you open-sourced works that you can access as much as I can!

1. Videos

I often find this is the best medium nowadays to learn anything! I'll share with you some of the best that deal with the topic in different frames

• This is a video of Edward Said talking about his book, Orientalism. Said is the Palestinian- American critic who first introduced the term Orientalism, and is the father of postcolonial studies as a critical literary theory. In this book, you’ll find an in-depth analysis of the concept and a deconstruction of western stereotypes. It’s very simple and he explains everything in a very easy manner.

• How Islam Saved Western Civilization. A more than brilliant lecture by Professor Roy Casagranda. This, in my opinion, is one of the best lectures that gives credit to this great civilization, and takes you on a journey to understand where did it all start from.

• What’s better than a well-researched, general overview Crash Course about Islam by John Green? This is not necessarily on orientalism but for people to know more about the fundamental basis of Islam and its pillars. I love the whole playlist that they have done about the religion, so definitely refer to it if you're looking to understand more about the historical background! Also, I can’t possibly mention this Crash Course series without mentioning ... ↓

• The Medieval Islamicate World. Arguably my favourite CC video of all times. Hank Green gives you a great thorough depiction of the Islamic civilization when it rose. He also discusses the scientific and literary advancements that happened in that age, which most people have no clue about! And honestly, just his excitement while explaining the astrolabe. These two truly enlightened so many people with the videos they've made. Thanks, @sizzlingsandwichperfection-blog

2. Documentaries

• This is an AMAZING documentary called Reel Bad Arabs: How Hollywood Villifies A People by the genius American media critic Jack Shaheen. He literally analysed more than 1000 movies and handpicked some to showcase the terribly false stereotypes in western depiction of Arab/Muslim cultures. It's the best way to go into the subject, because you'll find him analysing works you're familiar with like Aladdin and all sorts.

• Spain’s Islamic Legacy. I cannot let this opportunity go to waste since one of my main scopes is studying feminist Andalusian history. There are literal gems to be known about this period of time, when religious coexistence is documented to have actually existed. This documentary offers a needed break from eurocentric perspectives, a great bird-view of the Islamic civilization in Europe and its remaining legacy (that western history tries so hard to erase).

• When the Moors Ruled in Europe. This is one of the richest documentaries that covers most of the veiled history of Al-Andalus (Muslim Spain). Bettany Hughes discusses some of the prominent rulers, the brilliance of architecture in the Arab Muslim world, their originality and contributions to poetry and music, their innovative inventions and scientific development, and lastly, La Reconquista; the eventual fall and erasure of this grand civilization by western rulers.

3. Books

• Rethinking Orientalism by Reina Lewis. Lewis brilliantly breaks the prevailing stereotype of the “Harem”, yk, this stupid thought westerns projected about arab women being shut inside one room, not allowed to go anywhere from it, enslaved and without liberty, just left there for the sexual desires of the male figures, subjugated and silenced. It's a great read because it also takes the account of five different women living in the middle east.

• Nocturnal Poetics by Ferial Ghazoul. A great comparative text to understand the influence and outreach of The Thousand and One Nights. She applies a modern critical methodology to explore this classic literary masterpiece.

• The Question of Palestine by Edward Said. Since it's absolutely relevant, this is a great book if you're looking to understand more about the Palestinian situation and a great way to actually see the perspective of Palestinians themselves, not what we think they think.

• Arab-American Women's Writing and Performance by S.S. Sabry. One of my favourite feminist dealings with the idea of the orient and how western depictions demeaned arab women by objectifying them and degrading them to objects of sexual desire, like Scheherazade's characterization: how she was made into a sensual seducer, but not the literate, brilliantly smart woman of wisdom she was in the eastern retellings. The book also discusses the idea of identity and people who live on the hyphen (between two cultures), which is a very crucial aspect to understand arabs who are born/living in western countries.

• The Story of the Moors in Spain by Stanley Lane-Poole. This is a great book if you're trying to understand the influence of Islamic culture on Europe. It debunks this idea that Muslims are senseless, barbaric people who needed "civilizing" and instead showcases their brilliant civilization that was much advanced than any of Europe in the time Europe was labelled by the Dark Ages. (btw, did you know that arabic was the language of knowledge at that time? Because anyone who was looking to study advanced sciences, maths, philosophy, astronomy etc, had to know arabic because arabic-speaking countries were the center of knowledge and scientific advancements. Insane, right!)

• Convivencia and Medieval Spain. This is a collection of essays that delve further into the idea of “Convivencia”, which is what we call for religious coexistence. There's one essay in particular that's great called Were Women Part of Convivencia? which debunks all false western stereotypical images of women being less in Islamic belief. It also highlights how arab women have always been extremely cultured and literate. (They practiced medicine, studied their desired subjects, were writers of poetry and prose when women in Europe couldn't even keep their surnames when they married.)

4. Novels / Epistolaries

• Granada by Radwa Ashour. This is one of my favourite novels of all time, because Ashour brilliantly showcases Andalusian history and documents the injustices and massacres that happened to Muslims then. It covers the cultural erasure of Granada, and is also a story of human connection and beautiful family dynamics that utterly touches your soul.

• Dreams of Trespass by Fatema Mernissi. This is wonderful short read written in autobiographical form. It deconstructs the idea of the Harem in a postcolonial feminist lens of the French colonization of Morocco.

• Scheherazade Goes West by Mernissi. Mernissi brilliantly showcases the sexualisation of female figures by western depictions. It's very telling, really, and a very important reference to understand how the west often depicts middle-eastern women by boxing them into either the erotic, sensual beings or the oppressed, black-veiled beings. It helps you understand the actual real image of arab women out there (who are not just muslims btw; christian, jew, atheist, etc women do exist, and they do count).

• Letters of Lady Mary Wortley Montagu. This is a feminist travel epistolary of a British woman which covers the misconceptions that western people, (specifically male travelers) had recorded and transmitted about the religion, traditions and treatment of women in Constantinople, Turkey. It is also a very insightful sapphic text that explores her own engagement with women there, which debunks the idea that there are no queer people in the middle east.

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

With all of these, you'll get an insight about the real arab / islamic world. Not the one of fanaticism and barbarity that is often mediated, but the actual one that is based on the fundamental essences of peace, love, and acceptance.

[skaldish]

Could you expand upon your ideas around how Venerating a Deity doesn’t mean trying to embody what they represent? I was raised in a church that literally said the word “worship” meant “to try to become like”. So I’m fascinated by how you could worship a deity of a thing and not want to make more of that thing out in the world. I want to learn a new paradigm

Happy to! I love talking about paradigms.

Firstly…

Different religions and denominations conceptualize "worship" differently.

This includes "what you do to worship" but also includes ideas around "what gives worship its value."

"Trying to become like a deity" is something I've seen specifically associated with Evangelism and Fundamentalism (perhaps others, but this is what I know). It's derived from the idea that Christians are warriors of god and that it's their duty to act as his voice and hands on Earth. This is derivative of their doctrinal idea that they need to "save" people by any means necessary. (Teaching people to define who they are through God makes people dependent on God for a core sense of self, which is a huge reason why it's so psychologically awful to leave these denominations. It robs you of everything you are and leaves you with no way of creating yourself anew.

It's one thing to admire a deity and aspire to adopt some of their attributes as a point of personal growth; it's another altogether to teach people that they need to replace their inherent personality with a prescribed ideological construct. I loathe it entirely.)

Now, Catholics don't tend to interpret worship as the act of "trying to be like God." Given what I've observed and what I know of their ideology, worship for them is largely a function of sacrifice. You sacrifice your time, skills, wealth, etc. to God, because giving up things that are difficult to give up is how you show you really mean your devotion.

(I've seen this behavior in Heathens, actually, when they do things like buy top-shelf mead only to pour every last drop of it out on the ground for Odin or similar.)

I also take a lot of issues with this form of worship because I know why it exists: Extortion. The Church learned hundreds of years ago that guilt-tripping people out of their money (in exchange for salvation, an unfalsifiable concept that they neither had to prove nor procure) was an excellent way to get rich and powerful with impunity.

Clearly you caught me on a day I'm feeling extra-spicy towards Christianity. But I bring those two up in detail because I know a lot of my followers come from these backgrounds, and having more points of differentiation is important.

See, the real pitfall here lies in thinking that Christianity represents the "default" for how religions work, when in reality it's the grand exception, given all of human history.

The other religions I know about (with the exception of Judaism) are distinctly polytheistic: Shinto, Hinduism, Buddhism, and various flavors of Paganism. These all have different models of worship because they all have different, culturally-informed philosophies about how divinity works. Religions are inseparable from the cultures that create them for this reason, and why switching religions is a function of adopting a completely new mindset, not just a new set of gods to venerate.

Norse Heathen Worship

Since this is a Heathen blog I'm obligated to talk a bit about this.

How we worship as Norse Heathens is still a matter of debate, but that's because we're still figuring out how to define "worship" within the context of how it operates as a spirituality.

At no point did Norse Heathenry have a governing body, a religious figure, or a holy book to guide practice. Things developed organically, unique to their time-period and location, and stories were (and are) passed down via oral tradition rather than written down.

Many Heathens mistakenly think we're missing religious mandates, hence why they're so bent on trying to find them or devise them. I think this is a mistake.

A religion's architecture derives from the values, worldviews, and agendas of the culture/people behind it. The reason why a Christian's relationship with God looks like a Lord/servant dynamic is because the religion was shaped by lawmakers, and "loyalty towards the law" was a value they wanted to instill in the general population. Christianity was used to shape politics, so politics in turn shaped Christianity.

Norse Heathenry didn't have this function, so rather than reflecting political values, it reflects cultural ones. The stories are allegorical representations of cultural ideas, which themselves are based in the context of animism—the idea that everything operates as an ecosystem, and divinity is inseparable from that ecosystem.

This is all to say that the way Heathens worship is largely a byproduct of how they interface with that ecosystem. How this looks is something we choose based on what we find connection with, as opposed to mandates given to us.

Some people might find this kind of answer unsatisfying because it doesn't lead to any directive on "how to worship," but that might be because we're used to thinking of worship as a "duty," as opposed to what is actually, anthropologically is: A type of enrichment.

How I Worship

The way I go about worship is the same way I go about any kind of social bonding; through collaboration. In my mind, venerating deities is functionally identical to socializing with them, and like any socialization, how that's done varies from deity to deity. Anything I do in my practice—offerings, devotional art, etc—is informed by what I perceive them liking.

(Keep in mind I'm a hard polytheist, and I'm a hard polytheist because it's the only descriptor that could describe how I experience deities; as beings with autonomy divorced from my own will. A soft polytheist would conceptualize this entire thing differently.)

I also personally conceptualize "veneration" "devotion" and "worship" all differently, which is why you'll see me use the word "veneration" to describe what most people call "worship:"

Veneration is the general state of reverence or respect for something we hold spiritually important, such as a spirit, deity, or ancestor.

Devotion is a kind of enthusiastic dedication that emerges from love.

Worship is a ritual activity done as a gift for a god.

But this is just how I understand things for myself. They're not a reflection of how these things are thought of in Norse Heathenry. (In fact, they're mostly a product of the fact I initially learned about worship through observation, rather than experience. But I figured I'd bring it up anyway to provide an additional dimension to your paradigm explorations.)

I'm not sure what else to say so, uh…feel free to follow up with questions in case you want me to dive more into something.

[alpaca-clouds]

Let's talk about the whole "natural order" thing

Something I have realized is that a ton of people are not quite aware of the context of the one idea that the bad guys within Castlevania: Nocturne keep bringing up again and again: The natural order.

If you watch the show you will find that no episode goes by without a bad guy bringing up that idea every other scene, so let this history nerd quickly explain that concept.

So, this entire idea came from two sources: Enlightenment, and the pre-capitalist, colonialist system.

You need to understand that from the 4th century till the 16th century usually most stuff got explained to people with "because it is God's will". Why is that person poor, and that person rich? Because it is God's will. Why is that guy the king? Because God had made him. Why do we have this war? Because God wants us to.

That does not mean that the people in power actually believed that, but they could get away with everything by having some arch bishop or even the pope agree with them. (I mean, just look at the crusades.)

But then things happened. Gutenberg invented the printing press. Folks read the bible for themselves. People started to get more literate in general. Information about science got wider spread. There was splintering within the church. And people were just not as willing to accept "because God" anymore.

At the same time we had just as bad (if not at times worse) differences in quality of life between rich and poor than in the middle ages. And of course we had the entire colonialism happening, that also included genocide and slavery. And this needed justification. Que: The natural order.

This was just the umbrella under which so much pseudo-science would pressed underneath at the time. A pseudo-scientific explanation for everything that was happening.

Why are some people richer than other? Because they are just naturally more suited to be rich. That is the natural order.

Why do we have a king? Because it is a human need to have one central leader. And that family were always kings. It simply is the natural order of things.

Why do we subjugate the people in America? Because it is just natural for advanced civilizations to subjugate other civilizations. It is actually good for them. It is the natural order.

Why do we enslave Black people? Because they were actually born to be servants. That is their natural state. It is the natural order.

The entire stuff with phrenology and eugenics and all of that came from this specific idea. Of a natural order. Like, racism and all that came from that. Manifest destiny. All of that was connected to this idea of a natural order.

Ironically, while this sprang from the need to take the religion out of the stuff, they then just fitted religion right back in. Making the "church being excempt from everything" also as part of "natural order".

And yes, this is still very much the idea that a lot of conservatism is build around. That there is this pseudo-scientific idea of "this has proofen to work this way before, so it should work like that forever, that is only natural".

Funnily enough those new atheist scientist dudes also LOVE to appeal to the natural order. At times literally. Because they are also really big at conservatism when it comes to women, and keeping cultures apart, and anti-queerness and all of that. And yes, they are gonna appeal to the natural order and it being natural. Somethin that has only been brought up and seen critically recently.

But of course religious conservatives also love to use that, too. Because not all of them have the guts to just keep saying "but God" to defend their position (and sometimes they even know that their stuff directly contradicts the bible). And then they will also go: "But it is natural!"

It is a shitty idea. That is where it came from. It was what a lot of people used to argue against a lot of change that was happening in the 18th and 19th century.

[ddarker-dreams]

Hellooooo I have been DYING to know this from you 👉👈. You know how there's a lot of tips for writing stuff? Well do you happen to have any tips for reading stuff? I want to read the books you recommend but I fear I'm just too dumb 😭 and won't understand what is going on let alone the themes and philosophies discussed. I feel like I would be insulting Dostoevsky by reading his work looool. We were never taught this stuff in schools ;O

I'm talking about critical thinking and analysis skills, media literacy, being able to picture and visualise sceneries; characters' voices/appearances etc., and just overall being able to comprehend one sentence that doesn't use the most basic active voice structure 😭 thank you if you choose to answer!!!!

SWEET ANON !!!! YOU ARE NOT DUMB !!!!

this is coming from a survivor of the american education system, so it might not be universal, but my experiences in middle/high school made me dislike reading books. no joke. i didn't see the point and thought reading the classics was a waste of time. i'm sure that's partially teenager arrogance, but from the conversations i've had with others, reading was rarely framed in a way that stoked intrigue. we're not given the tools to engage with the text so i'm rarely surprised when i see the worst takes imaginable on a piece of media i enjoy from a 14 year old.

i'm still learning myself when it comes to media literacy, it's an ongoing journey. when i read notes from underground for the first time last year i was literally so confused. i can normally read anywhere from 80k-100k words in one day if i'm motivated enough, but NFU, a novella at around 43k words, took me over a week.

i say all this to reassure you that you're not alone!

some advice that comes to mind when reading a dense work:

do some background research on the author. i know teachers hiss at wikipedia for some reason but reading a few paragraphs about the person's life, beliefs, politics, etc really helps put their writing into perspective.

look into the time period it was written. what were the pressing social issues at the time? who was in charge? what conflicts were ongoing/just ended? what was the predominant religion? books don't exist in a vacuum, a lot of the classics are filled with jabs at ideologies the author doesn't like (i'm looking at you, dante).

if the author's from a different country than you, getting a basic grasp on the culture helps a lot. with reading dostoevsky specifically, historical events like the emancipation of the serfs was an entirely new concept to my american brain.

not everything is going to make sense. sometimes the cultural/historical layers go so deep you'd need to have been alive at the time to immediately get it. fortunately, there are nerds with degrees in book who do extensive research and can give insight. i'll think i maybe understand a book okay, go to read a journal article on it, and go ??????? wat???? page 632 paragraph 3 references euclid's optics?? how was i supposed to know that.

finally, you're not going to like every book you read, even if it's well written. there's a difference between persevering and actively torturing yourself with words. if you dread picking it up again, there are other books to check out instead. there are some classics that i don't care for much (some of edgar allen poe's short stories, the fall by albert camus, no longer human by dazai osamu, to name a few).

ask yourself questions while reading. why did this character do that? is there a reoccurring motif throughout the work, and if so, why might the author be trying to highlight that? what perspective is the work from? is the protagonist lucid, are they an unreliable narrator? what themes are being explored here?

i hope some of this helps dsfhgkdjshgks there's a lot to be said on the subject but i didn't want this post to be miles long.

[theneighborhoodwatch]

I've been thinking a lot about the houses, specifically how they might correlate with WH's theme of religion. The parts in the livestream trivia where Clown talked about the houses is really interesting, how Home is the only "alive" house but all the neighbors believe their houses are alive to some capacity. And the fact that the holidays are to celebrate their houses, where human holidays are usually to celebrate deities/religions.

The only thing on the website that still has this religious theme is the So Below page of Wally (possibly) worshipping Home. Perhaps Clown removed the cross cufflinks and Baphomet imagery so WH could be an allegory about religion instead of straight up about Christianity. The houses/Home could be metaphors for deities and the neighbors are their followers, even if their perception of religion and what it means is probably very different than humans'.

i was wondering why i had a hard time answering this message yesterday, and i think it's because i never really saw welcome home as a story about christianity or even religion as a whole, in either its current iteration or its earlier drafts. i think there is a very good chance that it's one aspect of welcome home, but... how do i say this.

when i see posts from clown talking about what he feels welcome home is about, i get the impression that at its core, welcome home is a story about alienation - from society, from one's environment, from one's peers, even from one's own self - and Specifically about alienation that comes as a result of changing (or at least desiring change) in an environment that upholds stagnation/the status quo/etc. as The Ideal. not Quite the same as but very similar to nostalgia poisoning, two peas in a pod. and i don't think it's a coincidence that this can be used as a criticism of the practices of Many christian denominations in the usa, a country in which christian hegemony is still very strongly felt in many aspects of daily life (let alone back when welcome home was airing in-universe or when its supposed creator, ronald dorelaine, was growing up.) i suspect that part of the reason the christian symbolism seems to have been reworked into something more subtle between welcome home's 2019/2020 concept and what we have now is because:

A.) it would have been rather on the nose, even hokey, to have the world of welcome home (the in-universe show) be a textually christian one when you don't really Need welcome home to be an explicitly religious production to demonstrate the idea that art is shaped by the culture/society in which it exists and/or its creator(s) hail from.

B.) it was originally less ... nuanced? idk if that's the word i'm looking for, but - i do not think it is a coincidence that wally's old cross cufflinks were a holdover from a time between the version of welcome home we are familiar with now and a draft in which wally seemed to be much more overtly, Aggressively antagonistic in his status as the center of attention, and was pitted against a much more straightforwardly heroic character who was on more equal footing with the rest of the neighbors. i Suspect that if any of what i just said comes into play, then perhaps the current iteration of welcome home is the way it is because it leaves room to acknowledge that even people who are hurt by this upholding of stagnation as the ideal willingly perpetuate it anyway, for a number of reasons.

BUT to get back to the actual ask: since we have no idea what's actually gonna happen in welcome home at this point in time, let's say that none of what i just talked about comes up even once and that the concept of The Home is really what we should be focusing on here wrt the religious symbolism, or at least that the two are not mutually exclusive. in this case, i think it's less that the houses themselves are metaphors for deities and more that, like - the importance of homes in the world the neighbors live in is so great that the only way it can be expressed in terms that a human could understand would be through the lens of religious/spiritual beliefs. i am intrigued by the idea that each neighbor has their own relationship to this belief though, and how that may effect their environment in the future. Much To Think About.

[greatqueenanna]

GreatQueenAnna Tid-Bits # 8

Why Anna is the Fifth Spirit with Elsa

Wanted to make a quick Tid-Bit analysis on why it makes perfect sense that Anna was also written to be the Fifth Spirit.

In Frozen 2, there was this concept of Elsa taming the spirits to prove to them that either she was the magical person that they were waiting for, or possibly that she was worthy of their respect. We see her tame the Water, Fire, and Wind Spirits - all of which make sense to her character. Ice basically comes from both wind and water, and can overpower fire (not to mention that Bruni's fire is a bit more purple than red or orange, which is Elsa's color). I could go on as to why Elsa connects more deeply to these elements, but I want to focus on Anna.

If we take this idea and apply it to Anna, we see that she does the same things with different elements.

Anna in F1 -

Tames Elsa Herself - By fighting the elements, pushing to reconnect with Elsa, and sacrificing herself for her, Anna pretty much proves to Elsa that she loves and accepts her. Love and acceptance, regardless of differences and alliances, is a huge deal to Ahtohallan.

F2 -

Anna Tames the Earth Spirits - Anna challenges the Earth Giants and is able to use their powers to destroy the dam. This makes sense, since as the human aspect of the Fifth Spirit, Anna is more grounded, or coming from the Earth (many myths/religions connect humanity to dirt, dust, clay, etc.) You can also see this within her costume designs (she always wears Earthy tones, Green, Yellow, Black, etc.)

Anna Destroys the Dam - In line with her fairy tale role, Anna proves herself as the utmost example of humanity by sacrificing herself (she almost falls to her death) and her human-authority (the castle) in order to right the wrongs of the past. She humbles herself and puts the needs of everyone as a priority.

Now, let’s get into the Judaeo-Christian themes a bit. This seems a bit left-field, however, there’s actually this article that relates Elsa and Frozen 2 to having a biblical themes. The author has written a few articles on this subject. The article does mention Anna and adds her to the theme of the Fifth Spirit, but since the article focuses specifically on Elsa, I wanted to add on this other element that wasn't brought up.

There's a famous act within the Gospels, The Cleansing of the Temple. Within this story, Jesus expels, in a famously grand and angry way, the merchants and businesses from the holy Temple in Jerusalem. He then accuses the Temple authorities for stealing and causing the death of many people because they were taking resources away from the poor to sell them - going against the morals of God and his people. He then confidently states that he can destroy this Temple that took 46 years to built, and build it back up in 3 days.

Does this kind of sound familiar?

Anna does the same thing. Runeard and his dam were going against the morals of Arendelle - causing the pain and genocide of a group of people for power and authority.

Anna: That's my grandfather, attacking the Northuldra leader who wields no weapon. The Dam wasn't a gift of peace. It was a trick. Olaf: But that goes against everything Arendelle stands for. Anna: It does, doesn't it? I know how to free the forest. I know what we have to do. To set things right. Olaf: Why do you say that so sadly? Anna: We have to break the Dam. Olaf: But Arendelle will be flooded. Anna: That's why everyone was forced out. To protect them from what has to be done.

Here, we see Anna and Olaf talking about Arendelle's morals and what they need to do. Anna needs to 'cleanse the temple' and build it back up again. While in the movie Arendelle doesn't actually fall, there is a thematic change that happens when Anna is willing to do it, and then represents this cultural change when she has the statue of her parents built. She is willing to cleanse Arendelle and bring it back to its morals and beliefs and peace and the good for all.

We'll always live in a kingdom of plenty, that stands for the good of the many.

In this deleted scene, with the concept of Anna actually succeeding in destroying the castle, Anna also proclaims confidently that she can rebuilt the castle to be a better version of itself.

"We'll rebuilt the castle. New. No secrets. No deceit. New rules even." - Anna, deleted Frozen 2 Scene.

TLDR: Anna being the Fifth Spirit as well makes sense within the narrative, thematically, and shows how Elsa and Anna are connected and their roles are important to the balance of human and nature. They are both the bridge.

[wof-reworked]

dragon religion is an idea i think that is rlly awesome. i hope tui goes over it in the guide, anyway. if u have any specific religion ideas / hcs for dragons.. would they have jobs ?? like dragon priests orrrr idk tbh. sorry if this question is annoying im obsessed w the idea of dragons having religion and religion-based jobs

Originally I had like. a whole "series" of like. ideas for each tribe's religion and mythology, but in the interest of actually replying I'll do like. quick bullet points here and I'll try to fill in more later on ^^;;.

I have like. a lot of abstract feelings n concepts because I've always found it interesting how,,, little religion there is in wof at all. There's barely even really "magic", with only really animuses. wof's characters are occasionally superstitious, but all their superstition is based in like- historical events, like Darkstalker or Queen Oasis's murder, and not like. magic. so I want to keep some of that true because I think it's really fitting for a setting of dragons (who have historically usually *been* the gods, rather than the worshippers !!!) and it's also a rare opportunity to like. get into society without religion (this is a hostile zone for the great ice dragon, I'm sorry I Do Not Care About You and your One Off Mention, God Bless)

ANYWAY. Posting this under the cut bc it's kind of massive, read at ur own risk lol (cw for talk of death/funeral rites but that's really it)

Skywings:

Skywings for me have always been the clearest as like. focusing on historic figures as "saints" (though ik that's a pretty christian concept and word, just hang in there I prommy it goes places)

Point being- I've written about it before here, but for Skywings, the sky is alive and holy in its own right. They view it as the foundation of life and believe themselves (and all dragons, though the other tribes abandoned their way of living) as children of it, originally like birds.

It has some slight. monarchist overtures to it with how the sky itself is like an omnipresent parent, and its moods and shifting currents can be seen as a reflection of Skywing culture. When the sky is angry and casting out its children, there is a lesson that needs to be learned, and it is the collective punishment of all Skywings until the problem is fixed.

But past that, Skywings who achieve remarkable things can be recognized as local guardians and figures of protection- when Skywings die, they return to the sky in the form of clouds. Some Skywings also believe birds to be reincarnated Skywings, especially the spirits of those who rebuke the sky and strike off on their own (which is not an inherently bad thing, but a symbol of independence in its most neutral)

Some Skywing patrons I was thinking of were: the patron of duty- the first Skywing soldier, the patron of children/joy- the first kitemaker, the patron of guardians/parents- the lamplighter, and the patron of Skywing excellence/patriotism- the stormchaser.

Miners who die in Skywing tunnels also achieve something akin to a martyr status- spirits of those who bravely sacrificed their time in the sky to keep the caverns safe and protect those who would follow them. Not one patron, but the collective protection of spirits trapped underneath the ground

Sandwings

Sandwings are similar, but different: where Skywings have patrons who have been given a certain holy power, Sandwings have two kinds of spirits: the family spirits and folk heroes

I swear to god I wrote a Sandwing headcanon post, but I genuinely can't find it at all I don't know where it went. FOUND IT WHILE LOOKING FOR MY ICEWINGS POSTS. READ IT HERE. anyway tho starting with house/family spirits: Sandwings tend towards multigenerational homes, moreso than many other tribes, and remembering your family becomes increasingly important when there's so many of you

Most Sandwing houses keep a small shrine or altar for their dead relatives and their family history- some households have patron animals or spirits that they invoke for a little extra boost of fortune but these aren't like family crests as much as your family's,,, collective mythos

The Sandwing creation myth involves the First Sandwing tricking each animal into giving them a piece of themselves- the stinger and venom from scorpions, the quickness and wit of jackals, the resilience and scales of the lizards, and finally just snatching the wings and size from dragonbite vipers who used to rule the desert, who were reduced to their small snake status and have hated every Sandwing since. So if you want to pay special homage to your family being intelligent, the jackal might be your patron

This creation myth varies WILDLY- it can include many different animals or different exact retellings on what the original Sandwing tricked the animals into giving them, so patrons can vary and can be very house-specific

(I have a little draft, somewhere, of Thorn teaching Qibli her family history post-adoption/rescue and it being one of the moments that Qibli really starts to view her as family and not just the next Cobra)

Sandwing folk heroes are also super varied- I subscribe to Sandwings having a heavy oral storytelling tradition and general,,, art culture, so I'm not gonna write every single possible story you could tell with Sandwing folk heroes, but most of them embody those original Sandwing virtues- resilience, intelligence, and quick adaptability to come out on top

Mudwings

Mudwings already have their own dedicated post !!! yippeeeeee !!!! you can read it right over here :>

Mudwings are also big big oral storytellers but unlike Sandwings the gods are a more active part of these stories and the focus is rarely on individual Mudwings as much as the dynamics of the gods' dynamic as a sibling troupe.

Rarely,,, "worshipped" in the way Skywings will venerate their patrons or Sandwings will maintain their shrines, but passively appealed to and celebrated as like. the broadest encapsulation of what it is to be a Mudwing- the way they're moved by the seasons and their families moreso than anything else

Icewings

I wrote more lists originally about Icewing superstitions, which are right here, and I stand by basically all of that. I don't really know how to incorporate gods into that but I think a lot of Icewing superstition is just. vague cultural paranoia about Things Out There

Icewings have the strongest death beliefs/rituals out of any of the tribes imo- Icewing bodies need to be properly buried or the souls don't get to return to the soil, and become stuck on the ice.

Icewing funerals depend on if you live inland or on the coast- burials at sea are common for Icewings on the coast to allow the body to be taken by the water and allowed to disperse that way (though only when the ice isn't frozen over, as otherwise it may become trapped), and Icewings inland prefer open-air/sky burials that allow the body to decompose in nature.

Winter deaths are seen as bad luck, and are given extra caution and work (which also ties into Winter's role as a black sheep in the family- it's a bit of a dark name to give your child, especially as the youngest/least wanted heir of the family)

Great Ice Dragon,,,, I have no ideas for, I imagine just the source of all Icewings and their father who ensures that, despite it all, they can survive.

Seawings

least religious lets goooooooo

Seawings are just. straight up vibing. They're the most down to earth about being alive in the sense they're just animals like everything else (though they still have their own mixed feelings about dolphins from canon)

Seawings do put a lot of stock into destiny and fate though- almost as much as Nightwings, and they have a healthy stargazing culture and track the changing of seasons and time through the stars more than anything else.

Some Seawings think of themselves as fallen stars- scales still glowing from their core of starlight. Seawings who die return to the sky and come back in the form of comets, it's especially good luck to be born under a meteor shower.

Another common superstition is a Seawing's personal star- this can be as serious as knowing exactly where it is in the sky, or as lax as pointing to one and declaring it yours. This is the star that determins your destiny and is your personal guardian, you can look to it for good luck (plus if you pick right it can be a neat way to teach your children how to navigate).

Seawings LOVE tall-tales though. Almost everyone has a story of the time they 10000% saw A Sea Monster or a dolphin spoke to them in riddles, etc etc. Half the words out of a Seawing sailor's mouth are lies, and the other half are exagerrated beyond all reason (except of course,,, for the ones that are true)

This drives other tribes insane btw, especially the more devout ones like Skywings and Icewings. How are you going to make that shit up every time pls be serious for one moment (never)

Nightwings

The other least religious, but this time for complicated cultural reasons of. well. volcano.

Nightwings love science until they don't, essentially. Everything has a reason except the things we don't understand which are mysteries from beyond the pale that we just have to hope will one day become clear.

TL;DR: SO MANY GHOSTS. EVERYTHING IS HAUNTED.

Nightwings are like the closest to a lot of real world agnosticism- it could be real, but we just don't know yet. Lots of ghost sightings though and subtle signals from the universe. It's a bit of a collective coping mechanism for the loss of their powers + the amount of dragons, like Fatespeaker, who were born under the full moons but without a clear sky and thus only left with confusing powers.

(slaps the side of the canon Nightwing art) These bad boys can fit so much victorian ghost fear in them <3

Mastermind has and 100% would again drink absinthe to perform a seance to Nightwing seers of the past, prove me wrong

I think in older Nightwing mythology, there would have been lots of smaller gods and domains- complicated webs of connected esoteric spirits who each vied for power over the material world through their domains and contact with dragons.

The heart of it all is the Moons though- the three sisters of chance/luck, destiny/death, and soul. Something akin to the three fates but each in collaboration with each other over life.

In ye really olden days, some sects thought these spirits worked through scavengers. These guys are pretty broadly considered a strange cult though, and the history is scant at best.

Clearsight and Darkstalker would've grown up aware of these gods but given special privilege due to their powers- mostly as people exempt from the gods due to their connection to the moons as something surpassing the petty whims of spirits. Priests and priestesses would be preferred as powerless, as a clear head is needed to communicate with the gods fully.

Rainwings

Souls !! lots of souls !! Rainwings believe everything has a beating pulse and could be slash is alive in their own unique way.

The Rainwing gods are serpents- wingless but capable of moving through the trees as though they were flying, their scales a constant mass of brilliant colors. Names and identities are a WIP for me, bear with me as I flesh out these guys ;U;

Rainwings are big storytellers as well, and tend to create their own ideas and religions, in a sense. Being a puppeteer and performer especially is the closest to being a priest that a Rainwing can get- by embodying other things you are essentially changing your soul to align with them

Rainwings also aren't. super religious as much as just committed each to their own truth over a collective myth or story. Each Rainwing builds their own unique sense of mythology from the rainforest.

No gods no masters only fruit >:3c

I have some wips for each of these, some of them fics, some of them elaborations and continued myths, but I hope y'all enjoy them !!! All feedback welcome, as always.

[xerxeswitch]

My Unpopular Opinion about 'Deities' (mini vent:)

I strongly believe not all "gods" are healthy, infinite, benevolent, selfless, flawless, or all powerful who deserve special treatment just because of a human constructed status.

I treat anyone accordingly upon how they treat me, and you don't get respect unless you respect my space.

...

This is coming from someone who respects Anubis as a 'person' I connected with because he was respectful and mindful, and we just got along.

That being said, I don't believe in worship or even the concept of a "god" but just the status of celebrities.

From the ask box here and in metaphysical groups, I had too many people insisting to me that I should just bow down to them just because they're "gods." If I don't agree with them, a few tried to send these "gods" to smite me because I'm a non-believer.

You believing in a deity doesn't automatically make you better or special than other witches whom might be secular.

It makes me roll my eyes when I hear, "Gods are gods! You don't get to talk about them that way!"

The way I work, I need to get up and personal and not greet them ONLY because they're "gods/goddesses. But as people I just get along with.

I can understand some 'deities' are important in certain cultures that built it in the first place, but I just then see it as that -- culture/religion. Since I don't believe in the concept a 'god/goddess' I don't have to believe in their 'god/goddess', but I can still acknowledge what they got for it as strictly their culture.

...

I'm glad you adore what you do, and keep doing it if it gives you meaning and happiness. I respect what you're into at a healthy balance, as long as you respect mine. Please, everyone is different.

You wouldn't be any better as a proclaimed, radical Christian tried to shame you for not submitting to the Lord.

...

--

Edit:

I received a couple of threats just from this post alone in my ask box.

(One said she'll send Aphrodite to give me nightmares and sickness, while the other got really upset and threatened me with actual violence to change my mind)

If you are representing your "gods/goddesses" through how you're acting like a derelict -- I'm glad you have so much faith in your 'gods' to protect you, but nothing will shield you from the consequences of being an intolerant, toxic person. I'm sure they'll step aside and let things slip...unless the "god/goddess" is toxic themselves.

[avelera]

Hi! Sorry for a long ask, but my head has been filled with Hob thoughts lately and I had to vent it somewhere

One of the reasons our fandom treats Hob as "just some guy" is because the rest of the characters in the series include: personifications of fundamental concepts governing a good chunk of the universe making sure the reality as we now it stays intact, the literal Satan, several angels, demons, gods and goddesses from different cultures and religions and many other ridiculously overpowered beings. After all that immortal being who has been alive for six centuries and who has lived through one of the biggest wars in humanities history pales in comparison.

Do you think Hob finds it refreshing to be the "normal one" in a relationship for once? Before Dream whenever he got on with someone he always had to be careful to keep his immortality a secret. He had to remember the details of his fake past, had to make sure he always talked age-appropriate or didnt mention some kind of historic fact no one else could now, keep his Intensity in check, stuff like that. But now he's dating Dream of the Endless and suddenly he's no longer the strangest person in the room. Do you think that after being with Dream for a very long time he forgets to put on his Absolutely-Normal-and-Ordinary Humansona and his mortal friends go "wtf, were you always this fucked up?"

(Absolutely adore your fics btw)

Thank you! And thank you for this ask!

One of my first bits of Hob meta was talking about how Hob is only "Just a Guy" when compared to the Endless. By any other measure, in any other story, he'd be the most powerful individual you'd ever encounter. True immortality that isn't a prison because you can die when you choose? I've said it before, but if Hob ever went full persistence hunter, he'd be one of the most unstoppably powerful forces in the world.

Now, to your question, I think the answer could be complex?

- I think on some level it could be strange in not a good way to be the normal one in the relationship for Hob. I only say this from a pride perspective. I do think that for the most part, Hob's reaction would be positive, but I want to first carve out a nod to how it might also be a bit... humbling or even irritating, for example if Dream or others discounted him as beneath notice because of it. 600 years is still a lot, Hob is by most standards the most supernatural thing anyone would ever meet. I could see him thinking he's chill with being the less interesting one in the relationship but having moments of like, "Whoa, hey, wait a minute, just because I'm only an indestructible human who has lived over 600 years doesn't mean I'm boring for fuck's sake."

- I think it would be a much bigger deal for Hob-with-Dream to not need to lie anymore all of the time. With each lifetime Hob lives, he has to remember to cut away or gloss over or alter more of his life and achievements. It must be second nature but still painful at times to have to switch over from, "I achieved this," to, "My "father" achieved this and I just inherited it."

- Suddenly with Dream, he doesn't have to do that all the time. He can just casually mention things like the late 1300s in the first person, or his marriage to Lady Eleanor, or the fact that Robyn died when he was 20 (most likely as someone who looks mid-30s, Hob can only talk about Robyn or his death by making it sound like he died as a child, given how young Hob looks, especially in modern times, he'd get odd looks appearing 35-ish and saying he had a son die at age 20). Not needing to filter his personal experiences through historical anecdotes he'd "read" or altering the details to fit would be I think, strange, refreshing, perhaps deeply emotional, and very rare for him. Not because he'd never been able to be candid with others (like other immortals, or perhaps people he was close to that he opened up with) but Dream was actually there. He actually walked the streets of Tudor England, he actually knew Hob in 1389. I think it would be an aspect of being with Dream Hob would, y'know, "know" would be an aspect he looked forward to, only to be truly blown away by the reality of being able to openly, without thinking, talk about himself in a way he hasn't been able to do... possibly ever, with anyone.

[mineofilms]

Kuron sakusei ni tsuite wa dodesu ka?

The concept of the human soul is deep, rooted in philosophy, religion, and spirituality. Its definition varies across different cultural and philosophical ideas. A textbook definition of the human soul might be considered as: “An immaterial, eternal, and indivisible essence that embodies the unique identity, consciousness, and spiritual nature of an individual human being. It is believed to transcend the physical body and is often associated with qualities such as morality, emotions, intellect, and the capacity for free will. In many religious and philosophical concepts, the soul is considered the core of human consciousness, the source, the locus of personal identity beyond the physical plain of death.” ~ChatGPT In this talk we will expand upon the human soul’s root in philosophy, religion, and spirituality. We are going to add physics, binary information systems, robotics, biomechanical, sociology, quantum mechanics, gravity and other technologies to this talk about the human soul. We will repeat ourselves often here. Be ready… 1) Is the human soul, a piece of quantifiable data?

In 1901, Duncan McDougall, a physician in Haverhill, Massachusetts attempted an experiment to determine whether the human soul has physical weight or not at the exact moment of death. The experiment was to use a very sensitive weight scale of the time period to weigh the body at the moment of death to test whether or not substantial mass leaves the body at the moment of death. The experiment did have results but could not be collaborated by other experiments, often the results were inconclusive, and the scientific community as a whole would later recognize McDougall’s experiments as unreliable. However, despite this, the experiment popularized the urban legend that the human soul weighs 21.3 grams. The question of whether the human soul can be measured or quantified gets into some pretty deep, critical thinking and problem solving thought experiments about what makes us, well, us… The soul is like the core of our identity, consciousness, and people have been talking about it since the first humans looked up at the sky and asked; “Each of us at some time in our lives, turns to someone - a father, a brother, a God... and asks...” “Why am I here? What was I meant to be?” “Is this all that I am? Is there nothing more?” ~Kirk/Spock talking about V’ger, “Star Trek: The Motion Picture” (1979).

Traditional religious ideas say the soul is beyond what science can measure. That the soul is beyond human comprehension. They see it as something divine, connected to God, and lasting forever. In more recent times, with all our technological growth since 1901, science tries to look at the soul in a more practical and scientific way. Religion says the human soul and God is beyond science and that is correct, “from a certain point of view.” ~Obi-Wan Kenobi, “Star Wars: A New Hope” (1977). Right now, that is true. Our complete knowledge of science, specifically physics, is extremely incomplete. We are trying to solve a problem with only a fraction of the data and science we need to tackle the problem. The amount of science-things we did not know in 1901 is daunting. We didn’t know back in 1901 what the structure and function of DNA was. We didn’t know about the existence and properties of subatomic particles such as electrons, protons, and neutrons yet. We didn’t have the theory of relativity proposed by Albert Einstein. Any concept of quantum mechanics and its implications for understanding the behavior of particles on a very small scale. No knowledge on the extent of the universe and the nature of galaxies beyond our own Milky Way or the role of bacteria and viruses in causing diseases. We didn’t have the causes and mechanisms of genetic inheritance or the full extent of Earth's geological history, including plate tectonics and continental drift. We were only in the infancy stages of the complexities of human psychology and the workings of the brain. The potential for space exploration and travel beyond Earth's atmosphere wasn’t even known as science-fiction yet. They were still calling these stories ‘fantasy.’ Flash-forward 123 years to 2024 and science learned all those things above that we did not have in 1901. Science uses tools like brain scans to understand how our brains work and how they relate to our thoughts and feelings. They think that maybe the soul is just the result of all the complicated processes happening in our brains. This might sound like they're taking away the magic from the idea of the soul, but it's more about trying to understand it in a new light. Some even wonder if we could create a kind of digital version of ourselves, keeping our memories and personalities alive in computers. So, while old beliefs say the soul is beyond measurement, new science is pushing us to rethink that. It's a big question that mixes religion, science, and our own deep thoughts about who or what we are. The human soul is a big puzzle that we keep trying to solve. It is part of what makes us human, always curious about the mysteries of our own existence.

2) Does the soul have mass? If so it ‘must’ obey the laws of physics in the form of the conservation of mass and energy, respectfully.

When we talk about whether the soul has weight, we're really asking if it behaves according to the laws that govern our physical reality, which is physics. The conservation of mass and energy says that you cannot just magically have “stuff” pop in or out of existence from nothing—it can only change shape or form. The conservation of mass and energy in its infancy was theorized as far back as 520 BCE by the Jain philosophy, a non-creationist philosophy based on the teachings of Mahavira, stated that the universe and its constituents such as matter cannot be destroyed or created. It was later expanded upon through expression dating back to Hero of Alexandria’s time. The law can be seen in the works of Joseph Black, Henry Cavendish, and Jean Rey. One of the first to outline the principle was Mikhail Lomonosov in 1756. He may have demonstrated it by experiments and had discussed the principle in 1748 through correspondence with Leonhard Euler. The conservation of mass and energy was later heavily defined in science when experiments later carried out by Antoine Lavoisier; who expressed his conclusion in 1773, and was popularized as the principle of conservation of mass and energy.

A friend of yours comes up to you with one of those giant cookies. Your friend cannot just make the cookie disappear or create a new one out of thin air. Instead, they can change the cookie into something else, like crumbs or energy when one eats it. The total amount of cookie-stuff (mass) and the energy it contains stays the same, even if it changes form. So, it's like saying you can't make something out of nothing, but you can transform what you have into different things. This is a universal law and everything of EVERYTHING physical applies to it except for a universal law that would combine gravity of the macro reality with that of the quantum one. Most of this statement is true. There is a slight misconception though. The principle of conservation of mass and energy does indeed assert that you cannot create or destroy matter or energy; instead, they can only change forms. However, the part about exceptions related to gravity and quantum mechanics is not entirely accurate. Conservation laws, including the conservation of mass and energy, are fundamental principles that apply universally to all physical processes, including those involving gravity and quantum mechanics. There is no exception to these conservation laws. While our understanding of gravity and quantum mechanics may lead to complexities in certain situations, the conservation of mass and energy still holds true as a fundamental principle governing the behavior of ALL Matter and Energy in the UNIVERSE.

When we talk about whether the soul has mass, it's important to think about what the soul really is? In relation to the law of conservation of mass and energy, the soul is energy, yes, but it is in a form our current understanding of physics cannot yet define. Under these circumstances we cannot ‘force’ our understanding of this till the science catches up. Take this ‘thing’ called the ‘soul.’ It’s obviously a ‘thing.’ It is a form of energy, but since we cannot yet quantify it in physical terms does it have to obey the laws of physics? That is the question that if we can answer it, then we can do something about that, with that. Traditionally, people think of it as something separate from the body, like a spirit. So, saying it has weight might sound strange because weight usually goes with things that have physical mass. We can touch and measure it. If a thing can be measured then it must obey the laws of physics. It cannot outright break the laws of physics. The only thing we can sort of understand that does this is a black hole. Nothing else discovered fits this definition. If the soul does have attributes that make it a real and tangible thing, which it is, because we experience it, but we cannot properly define it in science terms, it would have mass which means it has weight, it would mean it follows the rules of physics. Like how matter and energy can't just appear or disappear—they can only change from one form to another. This idea makes us think that maybe the soul is a part of the physical reality and interacts with it. In the end, whether the soul has mass and follows the rules of physics is still something we're trying to figure out. It's a big question that makes us think hard and brings together different ideas from religion, science, and philosophy. The actual truth lies somewhere in between all of that; and as we know none of these things play very well together in the sandbox at the park, we call the UNIVERSE...

3) However, do we even have ‘that great an understanding’ of all of physics?

We know next to nothing about physics as a whole. In doing research for this blog I found a “List of unsolved problems in physics,” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_physics. Where I counted 121 separate subjected-areas of study that the human race cannot answer. There are loads more to discover and understand. As we make strides the answers and solutions tend to come in waves. We solve one problem it may shed light on others, opening up doors to all of the problems, all at once. Gradual improvements, adding new data, and solutions till the next discovery that opens the next door and the next. They can happen quickly or over long periods of time. Have no doubt though, there is a lot more to discover. When we put AI to these problems, this also may warrant some progress.

Our incomplete understanding of physics can be demonstrated in the 2014 Christopher Nolan film "Interstellar." That data from inside a black hole’s singularity can provide clarity on mastering energy, mass, and gravity into one grand unifying theory of everything. This premise touches upon several themes related to our lack of proper understanding of physics and the quest for knowledge that transcends current scientific boundaries. Black holes represent all the answers to all the questions we ever had about the universe and will ever have. The most extreme environments in the universe, where the laws of physics as we currently understand them literally break down into nonsense. This is the only thing in existence that has these attributes. Within a black hole's singularity, gravitational forces become infinitely strong, and space-time itself undergoes dramatic distortions warping the fabric of space-time onto itself. It is so heavy and the gravity is so strong it collapses onto itself where it pulls everything within its reach, into itself. The belief that accessing data from within a black hole could provide clarity on mastering energy, mass, and gravity stems from the notion that these extreme conditions may hold the key to unlocking new insights into fundamental physical phenomena of the universe. Humans seek this information in the quest for a unified theory of physics that reconciles quantum mechanics and general relativity. Current theories offer powerful explanations for phenomena at different scales, but they are not yet fully compatible or integrated into one another. The belief that data from within a black hole singularity could shed light on this unification reflects the desire to understand the underlying principles that govern the structure of the universe itself and at its most fundamental level.

Despite the progress made in the field of physics and technology, there are still many crazy things that elude explanation within the framework of quantum mechanics and general relativity. Dark matter, dark energy, and the nature of consciousness are just a few examples of mysteries that challenge our understanding of the universe on a daily basis. The belief that accessing data from within a black hole could save the human race stems from a recognition of the limitations of our current understanding of physics and a hope that new discoveries could provide solutions to pressing existential threats. It's important to note that "Interstellar" is a work of speculative fiction, and the concept of obtaining data from within a black hole singularity is a narrative device called a “macguffin,” main thing that is used to drive the plot and characters forward. While the film's premise is based on scientific principles, it takes liberties with current knowledge and concludes into the realm of speculative conjecture. Still, the film's exploration of these ideas sparks curiosity and imagination, prompting contemplation of these mysteries of the cosmos, the limits of human understanding and the imagination.

4) If the soul is quantifiable then how can it be described in binary?

The concept of translating the soul into binary code, a language of ones and zeros used in computers, is a thought-provoking idea that connects with many areas of study, like the brain, philosophy, and technology. While it opens up exciting possibilities for understanding consciousness, it also raises deep questions about who we are and the limits of our existence. Imagine if we could represent the soul, the essence of our consciousness, with just ones and zeros, like how computers store information. It suggests a way to simplify something complex into basic parts. But consciousness isn't like a simple computer program—it's a mix of thoughts, feelings, and experiences that can't easily be broken down into digital terms like binary code. Thinking about the soul in terms of binary also brings up big ethical questions. If we could copy someone's consciousness like we copy a computer file, what would that mean for our sense of self? Would we still be unique individuals, or just copies of each other? And should we even be messing with something as fundamental as our consciousness in that fashion? It is only now that we are gaining control over our genetics where we could, and probably will, alter our future evolutionary path. A few decades ago nature was in 100% control of future human iterations. Every couples of years now we gain more and more control over this process. It's not just about science and technology but also philosophy, ethics, and even our understanding of what it means to be human. If we ever figure out how to map the soul in binary, it would change everything we know about ourselves and our place in the world. But until then, it's a fascinating question that shows just how complex and mysterious the human mind really is. Just think of it though. Take your consciousness and put it into different bodies at will. Be an interesting dive.

5) Is it a clone of the body or the person itself? What if we make a bunch of Dwayne Johnson's (The Rock) but they only look, sound, identical and have individually different souls/minds?

Cloning brings up big questions about who we are and what makes us unique, especially when we think about whether we're cloning just the body or the individual- personality that also belongs to that original body. Imagine, making copies of Dwayne Johnson, also known as ‘The Rock.’ They might all look and sound exactly the same, but would they be the same person inside? Cloning technology can make genetically identical individuals, but it cannot copy everything that makes a person who they are. Things like memories, experiences, and personality are shaped by lots of different events, like how we're raised, where we grow up, and the people we interact with. So even if we made a bunch of Rock-clones and raised them all the same way, they'd probably end up being different people. Each clone would go through life in their own way, learning and growing based on their unique subjective experiences. This means they'd develop their own personalities and ways of thinking that are separate from each other. Even if they started out identical, they'd become individuals over time. When we talk about the soul, it adds another layer of complexity. Some people believe that there's something more to us than just our bodies and brains—that there's a soul or spirit that makes us who we are. Cloning might copy the body, but it can't copy whatever that ‘soul-stuff’ is. So, even if we could make a bunch of Dwayne Johnson clones, they wouldn't all be the same person. They'd each be their own individual with their own thoughts, feelings, and experiences. It's a reminder that even with all our technology, there's still a lot about being human that we don't fully understand. However, if we go back to mapping the entirety of one’s ‘soul’ into binary code? I mean, if we could actually do it and made it work. Now you could have a way to do it. Granted, we’d need one hell of a “macguffin.”

6) Can two identically copied consciousness’s coexist in the same space, time, and space/time simultaneously? Or would they cancel each other out if they came into direct physical contact with one another? From the science fiction film, “Timecop,” (1994), per the grandfather paradox.

The question of whether two identically copied consciousnesses could coexist in the same space, time, and space/time simultaneously delves into the realm of speculative science fiction and metaphysical philosophy. This concept raises profound questions about the nature of identity, the fabric of reality, and the potential consequences of encountering alternate versions of oneself by method of time travel. In popular science fiction scenarios like the grandfather paradox, time travel often serves as a narrative device to explore the complexities of causality and temporal dynamics. The paradox speculates a hypothetical scenario in which a time traveler goes back in time either accidently or purposefully to prevent their own grandfather from meeting their grandmother, thereby erasing their own existence. This scenario highlights the potential paradoxes and contradictions that arise when encountering alternate versions of oneself in the temporal continuum. In Peter Hyams 1994 film "Timecop," it is specifically stated that the same matter cannot occupy the same space at the same time. One cannot travel back in time and occupy the same exact space as their younger self. Coming into direct physical contact causes both pieces of matter, people, to annihilate themselves in a self-contained implosion of matter coming together and then vanishing from existence. In "Timecop," It's like trying to fit two puzzle pieces into the same spot—they just can't both be there at once. So, if someone from the future meets their younger self in the past, using this logic, and they touch each other or come into direct physical contact, it causes a kind of implosion. It's as if the matter from both versions of the person or object suddenly get squished together and then disappear in a few moments. Think of it like trying to shove two magnets with the same poles together—they repel each other so strongly that they can't stay in the same place. It's a unique way for the movie to show the consequences of creating a time paradox. The rule, ‘macguffin,’ that says two identical things cannot occupy the same space at the same time. Similarly, the idea of two identically copied consciousnesses coexisting in the same space/time raises intriguing philosophical dilemmas. Is the human soul, a piece of quantifiable data? Does the soul have mass? If so it would "have to obey the laws of physics” in the form of the conservation of mass and energy. Everything in the universe has to obey these laws. The only exception to the rule as of now is black holes. Do we even have ‘that great an understanding’ of all of physics? There are still many wonders that escape explanation within physics. The nature of consciousness is just one example of the mysteries that challenge our understanding of the universe. If the soul is quantifiable then how can it be described in binary, digital, terms or binary-code? Is it a clone of the body or the person itself? If consciousness is viewed as a fundamental aspect of individual identity, then encountering an identical copy of oneself could challenge one's sense of self, agency, God, creation and existence itself. Would the presence of another identical consciousness diminish or negate one's own sense of identity, leading to a cancellation of consciousnesses? Or would the two consciousnesses coexist harmoniously, each maintaining its unique perspective from the divergent point of view and agency within the shared reality? One possible interpretation is that the encounter between two identical consciousnesses could lead to a merging or integration of experiences and perspectives, resulting in a richer and more nuanced understanding of selfhood and existence. Alternatively, the encounter could give rise to existential conflicts and existential crises, as individuals grapple with the implications of encountering alternate versions of themselves that have different thoughts, feelings, perspectives and experiences from the observer’s point of view.

7) Religious implications... Is cloning against the God of religion, all religions?

The religious implications of cloning are deeply subtle and vary significantly across different religious traditions. While some religious perspectives may view cloning as inherently incompatible or as a violation of the sanctity of life, playing GOD, others may adopt more refined positions that consider the ethical and moral dimensions of cloning within a broader theological basis. Improving the quality of life by curing diseases with cloning-type technologies. Whether cloning is against the God of all religions, it's essential to recognize the diversity of beliefs and interpretations within all the religious communities. While certain religious traditions may explicitly prohibit or condemn cloning based on theological principles, others may offer more delicate perspectives that take into account the complexities of modern science and technology. For example, within Christianity, interpretations of the Bible vary widely, leading to divergent views on cloning. Some Christian denominations may view cloning as opposing to the biblical concept of God as the ultimate creator of life, while others may emphasize human gatekeeping over creation and the responsible use of scientific knowledge for the betterment of all-mankind. Within Islam, there is a range of opinions on cloning, with some scholars arguing that it is permissible within certain ethical guidelines, while others may express concerns about the potential ethical implications of cloning human beings. Probably not the best option to go digging into Islam for anything permissible and/or ethical. Much of the world sees Islam as dangerous and radical, but not for the faith in a God but how they treat anything that does not believe in what they believe, which is fundamentally wrong to force any idea onto another person or group. In Judaism, views on cloning also vary, with some Jewish scholars drawing on traditional ethical principles such as the sanctity of life and the concept of "tikkun olam" (repairing the world) to inform their perspectives on cloning. In Hinduism and Buddhism, the concept of reincarnation and the interconnectedness of all life influence attitudes toward cloning, with some believers expressing concerns about the potential disruption of karmic cycles or the creation of beings without a predetermined destiny. The question of whether cloning is against the God of all religions isn’t a straightforward question to answer. It requires careful consideration of theological principles, ethical values, and scientific insights within the context of ‘each religious tradition.’ While some religious perspectives may oppose cloning, others may offer more focused and contextualized approaches that seek to balance theological concerns with considerations of human welfare, pursuit of knowledge, and improving the quality of life for all-mankind. It will always come down to; does one, some, many, all believe in the one-God creation myth and it is a myth.

8) Sociology implications... What is the purpose of the clone? The intention?

Cloning brings up a lot of questions about how it is used and what it's meant for. Looking at why we clone things and what we want to do with them can tell us a lot about how cloning affects society as a whole. One big thing to think about is why we're cloning stuff in the first place. It's not just about making copies—it's about what we want those copies to do. Cloning could be used for all kinds of things, like treating diseases by making personalized medical treatments or helping people have babies when they can't do it on their own. When we use cloning for medical stuff, the goal is to make people healthier, happier and to live longer, healthier and happier. There is always going to be questions about who gets access to these treatments and whether everyone can benefit from them equally. On the other hand, when we use cloning for making babies, things get a bit more complicated. Some folks might want to clone themselves to keep their family line going or to have a child who's genetically related to them. Others might want to pick and choose specific traits for their baby, like picking out clothes from a catalog. Drawn to the prospect of creating "designer offspring" with desired traits. This will bring up big ethical questions about whether we're treating people like products and whether everyone should have the same chance to have kids the way they want. Cloning also raises concerns about identity and how clones fit into society. If someone is cloned for a specific purpose, like being a soldier or a worker, do they have the same rights as everyone else? And what happens if they rebel against their creators? Understanding the motivations and/or perversions behind each of these purposes is essential for assessing their societal implications. What about abuse of this technology? Build a Clone Army like in “Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones” (2002). The Arnold Schwarzenegger led 2000 film "The 6th Day," a man discovers he's been illegally cloned and must fight to reclaim his identity in a world where cloning is a dangerous reality. "The Island" (2005) - Directed by Michael Bay, follows a group of clones who discover the truth about their existence and rebel against their creators. "Splice" (2009) - Tells the story of two scientists who create a human-animal hybrid, leading to disturbing consequences. "Moon" (2009) - Follows a man working alone on a lunar mining base who discovers a shocking truth about his identity and purpose.

It's not just about making copies—it's about what those copies mean for all of us. 9) Cloning just parts for medical purposes?

Imagine if science could grow new body parts, like fingers or hands, from your own cells to replace ones you've lost in an accident. It sounds like something out of a sci-fi movie, but it's a real possibility with cloning technology. This kind of medical cloning, called ‘regenerative medicine,’ has the potential to revolutionize healthcare, but it also brings up some big ethical questions. One of the main concerns is consent—making sure people have a say in what happens to their own genetic material. Even though growing replacement body parts could be a game-changer for people who need them, it's important to respect their right to choose whether or not to use this technology. You do not want your genetic material out there like some of your all’s personal data or signing it away to said company for them to allow you access like phone apps. They grow you a new leg and in-turn get to keep your genetic makeup for their own uses. I would think most would want control over those sorts of aspects. One can wonder though turning human tissue into a commodity. As cloning gets more advanced, there's a risk that body parts could be bought and sold like products on Amazon. To avoid this, we need strong, but very clear language, rules, and guidelines to make sure cloning is used responsibly and ethically in medicine and not for nefarious intentions. What must be understood are the complex context of cloning... Cloning for medical purposes and using it to make babies are not one in the same or even the same thing at all. The only thing they have in common is they use cloning technology to come their intentional outcome. Medical cloning here in this sub-point is all about making replacement tissues or organs to help people get better, while reproductive cloning is about making whole new organisms. Keeping these two things separate, we can focus on the medical benefits of cloning without getting caught up in ethical debates about creating life. There's still a lot we do not know about cloning, especially when it comes to just making parts instead of whole bodies. As previously stated we might not even be able to do this without the whole body. We have to be careful not to accidentally create conscious beings without realizing it. It's a tricky balance between using cloning to help people and making sure we're not doing anything unethical in the process. And therein lies the problem… By what specific criteria do humans judge a thing, anything, ethical and/or unethical? By what actual standard?

10) We can clone the body but, not the mind/spirit. Instead, science uses a way to create an image of a person's personality using their entire INTERNET history. See example “Caprica,” (2009) “Battlestar Galatica Re-imagined” (2004-2009) prequel series about how AI/Cylon is created in that fictionalized-Universe.

The concept of replicating a person's mind or personality using their internet history raises intriguing questions about the intersection of technology, ethics, and identity. While advancements in artificial intelligence and data analysis techniques have made it possible to analyze vast amounts of digital information, the idea of creating an accurate replica of a person's consciousness remains speculative and troubled in complexities. The ability to generate an image/copy of a person's personality based on their internet history opens up possibilities for understanding human behavior and understanding in unprecedented ways. By analyzing patterns in online activity, such as social media interactions, search queries, time eyes are tracked on specific things on your screen(s), comments you leave, notes you take and digitally save and browsing habits, researchers may gain insights into the details of individual personalities and decision-making processes. This could have applications in fields such as marketing, psychology, and personalized healthcare. However, privacy concerns loom large, as the collection and analysis of personal data from online sources raise questions about consent, autonomy, and the potential for surveillance and manipulation. The unauthorized use of individuals' digital footprints to create virtual replicas of their personalities without their explicit consent could violate their rights to privacy and self-determination. On the other side of this how accurate could this possibly be? There's the question of how well computers can really understand human stuff. Sure, they're good at crunching numbers and spotting patterns, but they're not so great at understanding emotions or social situations. So, even if they analyze all your internet history, they might miss out on the real you—the one with all the messy feelings and thoughts that don't always show up online. Or do they? Not everything you do online reflects who you are in real life. People don't always act the same way online as they do in person. Many don’t actually. So, even if they collect all this data about you, it might not paint an accurate picture. Not everyone or even most are verbatim who they are in real life using their computer. Much is lost in translation. An example would be do you post everything that comes into your mind as far judgements go on all your social media platforms? No of course not, most do not, while some actually do though. We see you Karen… What I am saying here is if one often thinks in those terms and then does not replicate that same logic, attitude, and behavior in the way they use a computer, smartphone or the internet. How accurate would that image be when compared to the real you? Much is lost in translation. AI would have to fill in the gaps with its own interpretation of that same logic. In order for a copy of something to be perfect it has to be perfectly copied. While artificial intelligence algorithms may excel at identifying patterns in data, they may struggle to capture the degrees of human consciousness and subjective experience. In most science fiction AI tends to struggle with understanding, conceptually, what the ‘human element’ actually is and how it functions. Factors such as context, emotion, and social dynamics are difficult to quantify and replicate accurately, raising doubts about the reliability of personality replicas generated from computer data and internet history alone. If we went by my own internet history I would appear to be a sci-fi nerd obsessed with cloning humans haha… While it's fascinating to think about recreating personalities from internet data, there's still a lot we don't know. It's like trying to copy a painting without knowing all the colors—it might look similar, but it won't be quite right. It would be something familiar but likely a hyper-radical of a portion of that person’s personality but not their personality verbatim.

Ok, see what I mean? I do not think I can just say “CLONING” in a simple way and it just be understood. In my defense, cloning isn't exactly a simple concept... It isn’t a MEME or TIKTOK—it's a complex subject that touches on various fields.

Science helps us understand the natural world, including our bodies and minds. It guides us in thinking about how cloning could work and what it might mean. Technology is key in making cloning happen. We must think about the ethics of using it to create and manipulate life. Robotics we are getting pretty good at in recent years. Making robots that act more-like humans. So, how close are we to making biological copies, too? Biomechanical looks at how living things interact with machines. It helps us think about creating biological beings that are part-human, part-machine. Medicine is all about health and healing, but when it comes to cloning, we have to consider the ethics of tinkering with our bodies. Sociology is about how we live together in society. So, we need to think about how cloning might change our social norms and values. Different religions have their own views on the soul and what makes us human. So, we have to think about how cloning fits into these beliefs as well. Spirituality explores beliefs about the soul and what lies beyond the physical world. It's important to consider how cloning might challenge and/or open up these beliefs. Philosophy dives into big questions about life, consciousness, and who we are. It helps us think about things like the soul, whether cloning is ethical, and what it means for our identity. The psychology of it digs into how our minds work. The psychological impact of cloning on people. Physics tells us about the rules that govern the universe. Understanding these helps us see how cloning fits into the bigger picture. While metaphysics looks at reality beyond what we can touch and see. It ponders how our souls fit into the physical world and then later into the spiritual one. Computers use binary code (ones and zeros) to do stuff. Can we really quantify and copy something as complex as human consciousness with it? Conservation of mass and energy are basic rules of the universe. Understanding how they apply to the soul and cloning helps us think about what's fathomable. Quantum mechanics explores the weird reality of tiny particles. Could quantum stuff affect consciousness and cloning? A complete understanding of gravity would be a big deal in how we understand how the universe works. The theory of everything, that grand theory that explains everything in the UNIVERSE. How might this tie into cloning and our understanding of the soul? What we are missing in physics is we do not know everything about how the universe works. So, there are still gaps in our understanding of consciousness, how cloning might affect it and basically most other subjects connected to it, which is EVERYTHING...

Cloning isn't just about making copies—it's a journey through science, ethics, philosophy, religion, and what it means to be a ‘THING,’ existing, at all. Being human…

Kuron sakusei ni tsuite wa dodesu ka? Japanese (What About Cloning?) by David-Angelo Mineo 4/13/2024 6,233 Words