#started talking about Sodom and Gomorrah

[ladyfarona]

Inside me are two wolves. One wants me to live quietly in my conservative hometown and keep to myself. The other wants me to parade my witchy, homosexual ass by the bigots to annoy them every chance I get. The wolves are now kissing HELP-

[dr-lizortecho]

okay, so this is getting soooo long and I’m realizing that just addressing verses used against queerness creates an impression of weak scriptural legs- because it appears as hedging around the intentions of the passages to prop up sinful lusts/desires, meaning I have to make it even longer by grabbing out and weighing scriptural evidence in support of queerness which is a decidedly more difficult task

because there isn’t an inherent strength in “the Holy Spirit imparted to me that God loves me and thinks it’s chill if I snog a woman”

[480pfootage]

Something I haven't seen talked about a lot in CRP or Slenderverse spaces was the prevalence of fire in relation to the Slenderman (who, for brevity sake, will be referred to as the Operator in this post)..

What really made it click in my head was finally playing the extra level, Nightmare, in Slender: The Arrival (and also my gorgeous @pechadream pointing out the specifics to me ehe..)

Under cut will be a sort of analysis moreso long winded talk on fire in the story of Marble Hornets, JTK, STA, and Toby's...

It is to be noted that Joseph, Troy, and Tim S. all worked on STA -- not sure to what extent, but they are credited. This is important as there are two instances in MH wherein a fire happened. Linking that with the whole "Cleanse with fire" message that STA was going for, it could explain why people like Alex, CR, Toby, or perhaps Tim W. chose the option of burning in an attempt to kill/cover up tracks instead of anything easier.

Talks of purification are laden in this level of STA which reminds me of the biblical motifs of Marble Hornets. The major cleanses with fire in the Bible (Sodom and Gomorrah, Revelations) all refer to God using fire to cleanse a place of its sinners. Alex himself is often seen with stigmata's and imagery of Christ, of a savior; therefore he sees himself doing a favor by not merely attempting to kill Tim (at first at least lol), the root of it all, by typical means, but to purify him in a sense by letting him die by flame. (CR's plan is similar -- basically the same -- to Alex's so I won't talk about him and Kate ;()

Now it's not really confirmed how Tim's psychiatric institute burnt down, but I think it started in his hospital room? Either way, I think it's an interesting link if it was kid Tim who started it: trying to cleanse himself and everyone he affected, but in turn not doing anything useful.

Creepypasta-wise I think it is extra interesting as we never got a reason as to why Toby would choose to light his entire neighborhood on fire. @pechadream pointed it out that the Operator's influence could play into why Toby would do that.. Whether it be as a last ditch effort to cover up his tracks or deluded empathy trying to free everyone (especially his mother) from the Operator's influence.

Now Jeff (talking about Woods here) is a bit more.. farfetched. This is also if he was in the same universe as the Operator. Story goes that he gets set on fire and he comes out fucked up, why the bullies burnt him? Could be related to the Operator could not be. ANYWAYS. Purifying in the Bible is not only limited to fires, of course. I'd like to think of Woods's burning as a sort of baptism for him.. He was born anew and all that and come to think of it this could refer to Toby too

I think what m trying to say is that cleansing with fire should be explored more when talking about slender.. okay thanks

[realitythroughthelensoffiction]

Parallels: Hastur and Sandalphon

I know the Good Omens fandom loves parallels, so I wanted to add a further parallel that I noticed: one between Hastur and Sandalphon.

Hastur is cruel even in the book. His evil deeds extend far beyond the requirements of his job as a demon. Crowley thinks that both Hastur and Ligur take "such a dark delight in unpleasantness you might even have mistaken them for human" (Pratchett/Gaiman, p. 257; cited below). But the series made an outright sadist of Hastur.

Now, the scene were he turns into a bunch of maggots that eat the call centre employees alive came from the book. His behaviour was explained by his frustration about being stuck in the answering machine. Moreover, "if he were going to have to face the possible wrath of the Dark Council, at least it wouldn't be on an empty stomach" (Pratchett/Gaiman, p. 310; cited below).

However, the series added many additional scenes that show how Hastur (and to a lesser extent, Ligur) clearly takes pleasure in torturing people. He pushes Eric into the cell with the hellhound to test if it's hungry - probably just for amusement. In Megiddo, he discorporates all of the three Erics for annoying him with minor things.

He is also the one who announces Crowley that he will be punished for losing the Antichrist. In the book, it is not clear which demon is speaking to Crowley; the fact that he receives a second message shortly after trapping Hastur in the answering machine suggests that it was not Hastur whom he had been communicating with (cf. Pratchett/Gaiman, p. 254f, 284; cited below).

Furthermore, the scene were Hastur burns down the convent of the satanic nuns was altered. In the book, he does not talk to the nuns before doing it, but "[n]o one was badly hurt by the fire" (Pratchett/Gaiman, p. 52; cited below). He sets the building on fire to destroy all records and thereby all evidence of the baby swap.

In the series, of course, this plays out differently. Here the nuns believe that they will be rewarded for their help and that their order will continue to exist. When Sister Theresa protests against its dissolution, Hastur kills her with a single wave of his hand. The camera shows her dead eyes. Hastur then recommends the abbess to inform the other nuns about the dissolution of their order unless she wants that "they all perish in the fire". The convent then bursts into flames, with the nuns screaming and running for their lifes while Hastur is laughing maniacally.

These changes from the book to the series clearly show that the creators wanted to give Hastur's character even more shape.

Sandalphon is a sadist, too. Aziraphale remembers him for his crucial role in the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, an event Sandalphon has very fond memories of, as his expression implies. In the scene were he, Michael and Uriel corner Aziraphale, he punches him in the gut without necessity (Aziraphale wasn't trying to flee or to physically defend himself) and without preemptive warning. He's also eager for the war between heaven and hell to start.

You get the impression that Sandalphon will take any possible pretext for himself to use violence. Under the guise of enacting God's will, he acts out his sadistic desires. That's why I've always perceived him as the angelic counterpart of Hastur who also takes advantage of the fact that as a demon, he is expected to do evil, when he would even enjoy it if it wasn't required.

The fact that they both wear long beige coats even intensified this impression for me. I don't know whether this was a conscious choice by the costume designer, but I thought it was an interesting parallel.

That being said, I'm curious whether these two will return in the finale. I think Hastur's character was explored well enough in season 1, so if he makes an appearance, I believe it will rather be in the background. But there have been rumors that Sandalphon, who was originally supposed to be in season 2, but was replaced by Saraqael due to the actor being involved in a different project by the time, will make a comeback for the movie.

If so, I hope they will make an effective use of his sadistic nature. He may not be as appealing as the other angels, but I think he's interesting enough to dive a little deeper into his character and thereby to expose the hypocrisy of heaven, who call themselves the good guys while committing the same atrocities as hell. It could also tie nicely into the "heaven and hell against humanity" theme if Sandalphon came to the conclusion that he does identify himself more with demons like Hastur than with heaven's values, and decided to join forces with them in order to destroy the earth and all living beings on it.

Do you think that Hastur and Sandalphon will return? And what will their roles be?

Work cited:

Pratchett, Terry and Gaiman, Neil: Good Omens. The Nice and Accurate Prophecies of Agnes Nutter, Witch. London 2011.

[radvimes]

A response to the LDS Church's new Anti-Trans Policies

I just sent the following email to lgbt@churchofjesuschrist.org, and thought it would be worth sharing here, as well:

To whom it may concern, assuming it concerns anyone in HQ-

This email may not be perfectly worded, but I felt it was more important to voice my concerns now than to wait to word them perfectly. I may send more emails in the future.

As far as I can tell, I am exactly the sort of person you want to remain in the church: lifelong member, returned missionary, temple recommend holder, temple worker, sealed in the temple, 3 kids, upper middle class educated Millennial straight white male Melchizidek priesthood holder with nonmember friends that I talk religion with on occasion. However, you're losing me and people like me. I listened to what the church has taught me all my life. I served a mission and went to a non-church college with an institute program and met all sorts of new people from all sorts of backgrounds. I learned that my mission president was secretly gay, and had been repressing it all his life due to harmful church teachings and cultural pressure. I sat with these experiences. When we started the Come, Follow Me program, I faithfully studied all 4 books of scripture in a way I never had before. As I did so, I recognized that the messages I saw taught over and over and over were ones of love and grace. I learned that Sodom and Gomorrah's sin wasn't homosexuality, like I'd heard all my life. It was pride and a refusal to care for the poor and needy. Jesus didn't call people to repentance for being lax in their temple worship or observance of church law; he called them to love one another, pray for one another, be humble, and actually feed and care for one another, especially those we deem unclean, unworthy, or the "least" of us. He showed over and over that his good news is often a kind word, a loving hug, and an invitation to share a meal and a table.

Today, as is poignantly demonstrated by remarks by leaders like Elder Holland and President Oaks, and by relevant church handbook policies over the last decade and the last month, it is easy to conclude that in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, our LGBTQIA2S+ siblings are considered the least of us, even unclean, unworthy, and unwelcome. I had a Jewish friend ask me to tell him about the recent policy changes re: how the church treats trans members, and I had gotten maybe halfway through the changes when he simply said, with a sober expression "so the church has made it clear they aren't welcome, then?" Whether that was the intention or not, that is the message we are sending, loud and clear. That simply cannot be the message our loving Heavenly Parents and loving Savior have for us and our queer siblings. If the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is meant to share the good news of Christ with all of God's children, then we need to actually figure out what good news we have to share with God's children who are queer, or who are like me and care about those that are, and we need to do it quickly, because right now, the only news we have is that they aren't welcome, that we don't particularly have a place for them, and that we don't especially care to. We can do better. We must do better. Right now, we are failing far too many, and it breaks my heart, and the hearts of so many who want to heed Jesus' good news and the 2 great commands to love. We went through a very similar struggle with regards to our black siblings, and did at least 1 right thing in 1978. We can do more right things again.

Regards,

[radvimes]

[eresia-catara]

Okay let's consider this sonnet once more

Guido is listing a bunch of beautiful and pleasant things in the first eight lines, then in the last six he says that all of them are surpassed by his beloved who's even more beautiful to the point that in comparison they all look like vile things.

Now. Let's go straight to the point with line 6

"and white snow falling without wind"

this image is used by Dante in Inferno XIV, 30

"Above the sand, with a slow fall,/ were raining large firey rocks,/ like snow on mountains with no wind."

We're in the company of the violent against God (blashphemous), Nature (sodomites) and Art (usurers). The rain of fire falls on top of everyone, but each has to do diffferent things. Sodomites, in particular, have to run costantly and if they stop they have to spend 100 years lying down under the rain without being able to shield themselves with their body.

The fire of course references the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, however Dante decides to add this new detail, this fact that the fire falls slowly...like snow without wind. It is a clear reference to this sonnet and even the footnotes in the book say so. You already see my premise: Dante had Guido in mind when he wrote about these sinners.

If we consider the image, however, the most obvious difference we can point out is that while Guido is talking of actual snow, Dante is talking about fire; and also while Guido is listing pleasant, beautiful things, Dante is describing anguish and bodies uglied by burn scars (let's remember he then describes Brunetto Latini's face as "abbrusciato", "burnt up", "roasted" lmao). It is a quote and a full reversal of it at the same time.

Now, this gets very interesting as soon as we realize the whole sonnet is reversed.

Let's start from the ambience. While Guido mentions serene skies at dawn, we know full well that Hell is dark and it surely isn't serene. While Guido talks about a nice river, Dante says there's a river of blood, the Phlegethon. While Guido talks about a field full of colourful flowers, Dante says that there's a desert, the only vegetation is the surrounding wood made of the souls of those who killed themselves (which is where he and Virgil are walking so as not to get burnt, and it's also where the canto begins), so it's a grotesque, twisted kind of nature. Guido talks about the song of birds, Dante talks about the laments of the damned but we can also mention the harpies in the woods that lacerate the trees/souls and that he must be hearing too.

Now the people. Guido talks the beauty of a woman and her wisdom, Dante describes ugly bodies and talks with the blasphemous who despise God due to their pride that makes them averse to the truth (so the opposite of wisdom). Guido writes "gold, silver, lazuli", Dante throws usurers in the circle. Guido writes about armed knights who are courteous, Dante throws amongst the sodomites people of high prestige and respect (politicians, knights, intellectuals, clergy). Also who are sodomites if not those who turned to sin the act of "reasoning of love" that Guido mentions?

Amongst the sodomites, Dante says in canto XV, there are mostly writers and members of the clergy, so we essentially have intellectuals, cultured people, towards whom Dante shows pity and reverence (he addresses them with formal you aka voi and even expresses the desire to hug them, if it weren't for the fire). But there's a dichotomy of morals: character-Dante shows pity, God's justice shows disapproval, so we could say those who in life were highly esteemed for their intellect are now shown for their vileness like....like the list of pleasant things that compared to Guido's beloved become vile. And yet Dante still doesn't have it in him to condemn them. God did, he did not. We already know that when Dante shows pity towards a soul's sin it's because he felt guilty too, remember? But again, God said: they operated violence against nature thus nature is sterile and twisted, they were noble now they are vile. They had "wisdom/ as much as the sky is greater than the earth" (Guido, lines 12-13)? Now they are buried in the earth.

Also another similarity that I found, though it's a little less solid, is the last line in the sonnet that goes "from such a creature no virtue ever stays away" where 'to stay away' is expressed through a word that literally means 'delay'. And delay is exactly what sodomites cannot do, they have to keep running even when they talk to Dante. When Brunetto Latini leaves Dante after they talk, he runs away and is described like a runner who's winning the race, his virtues are being displayed but because he's forced to do so, which feels like an ironic and bitter parody.

Dante constructed this circle of Hell as the exact opposite of this sonnet, by which on the one hand he distanced himself from its contents (through the point of view of God), on the other he welcomed them once more (through character-Dante). From this we can hypothesize that maybe Guido's sonnet actually talked about a man à la shepherd(ess) poem, making Dante see it fit to reference in this circle, or that Dante chose to reverse this sonnet simply because it was Guido's and Guido maybe (probably) was involved in sodomy, or that they were involved with each other and Dante is the addressee of the sonnet, or maybe I'm just seeing things and none of this was coherent! Who knows.

[momentsbeforemass]

Stuck

“Remember Lot’s wife.”

Jesus drops this in the middle of today’s Gospel.

It sounds random. But it’s actually the whole point.

Because whether we’re looking at how it all ends (which is what Jesus is talking about) or how things are going on a Friday in November, there’s something you and I need to know. And it starts with Lot’s wife.

“Remember Lot’s wife.”

It’s a callback to Genesis, to the only thing we know about Lot’s wife,

“But Lot’s wife looked back, and she became a pillar of salt.”

Lot and his family are fleeing the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. The Angel of the Lord tells them,

“Don’t look back! Don’t stop anywhere on the way!”

Don’t look back at what’s burning down. Don’t look back at what God is finished with. Don’t look back at what God is delivering you from.

Look to where God is taking you. Don’t stop until you get there.

But Lot’s wife stopped. She looked back. And she became a pillar of salt.

No, this isn’t the arbitrary punishment of a petty God.

It’s just the natural consequence of stopping and staying – in a place you were only meant to pass through.

Lot’s wife stopped and stayed. In a place she was only meant to pass through.

Because she stopped and stayed – in a place where she was never meant to stay – she got stuck. She calcified.

It’s the same for you and me.

No matter what’s going on in our lives right now. Whether we’re in one of the hardest moments of our lives or things are okay right now, we’re just passing through.

You and I were not meant to stop and stay here.

God has so much more in store for us.

But if we stop and stay here – in a place where we were never meant to stay – we will get stuck here. We’ll calcify.

And we’ll miss out on God’s best, on all that God has planned for us.

Today’s Readings

[drconstellation]

More Half-and-Half-A-Miracle Thoughts

Part 3: The Third Archangel

Updated 10 Nov 2023

Part 1: Miracle Power Ranking is here Part 2: The Dark side of Aziraphale is here.

Before I try to put the full picture of the mighty miracle together, there is one other Archangel I want to talk about first, because yeah, if the "little" miracle had an Archangel x an Archangel x (ex-)Archangel in the equation, all working in synergy, that's some pretty serious potential power right there.

S2 has given us much to discuss about Crowley and his past. We know he is different in that he has an imagination. We know he is the only ethereal entity, angelic or demonic, who can stop time, which is no mean feat. I have a list of at least nine, possibly thirteen clues (it keeps growing! 21 clues And yes, I'm counting,) that he was once a

senior Archangel, one of the seraphim, before his Fall (but not which one in particular, for sure, alas. We can debate that later, its not important here. Really. Don't @ me about it, I'm not going to engage in this post.) They (updated link to a new discussion: the idea of Crowley previously being a very powerful angel) have all been mentioned already, none of them are new. This implies there is a huge amount of potential power that Crowley could pull upon to put into the miracle performed on Gabriel. So he is our obvious ex-Archangel in the equation.

And we already have Gabriel, in the middle.

Which just leaves us with Aziraphale, and his green-paneled waistcoat...

I've led you all on thinking he's somehow connected to Hell? Or been associating too long with Crowley? No. (Or maybe, yes? To hanging around a demon, I mean.) On one hand it does show us he is not like the other angels. On the other, it tells us something else altogether.

For all that I've been recently rabbiting on about dark horses pointing mainly to Crowley and Saraqael, we have perhaps been deftly misdirected from the biggest dark horse of all: Aziraphale as our 'missing" seraphim, Archangel Raphael, incognito.

Now, I'm certainly not the first person to suggest this at all. There have been multiple metas about it, even way back from S1. I agree with them, fwiw.

Why am I saying this now? I think this recent post about Aziraphale being present at Sodom and Gomorrah sealed it for me, especially since I had made a recent note about Raphael being the one to be assigned to escort Lot from Gomorrah. And for all that I've just discussed how dark Aziraphale can be, he is still clearly affected by what he witnessed that night, so long, long ago.

"Oh Lord, heal this bike."

Green is also the color primarily associated with Raphael, the healer. I've seen a few other colors mentioned as well (in fact, the more you search, the more confusing it gets) but mostly the color you'll see mentioned is green. And its the color Aziraphale conceals on the back side of his waistcoat. Plus he did heal Anathema (and her velocipede) back in S1 after they collided with the Bentley.

Finally, in the Islamic tradition, Raphael is known as Israfil, and he is essential to announcing the Day of Judgement, with a trumpet constantly poised at his lips, ready to blown when God so orders.

Guess who just got taken back to Heaven to start the Second Coming?

Edit: Since I first posted this, some additional information has come along to add to this. I finally bumped into a post about the wonderful golden collars in the Job minisode (It's so, so important to put at least one or two relevant tags for meta-writers like me to help find your posts readers! Then you can shit-talk in the tags all you like.) and that lead me to a webpage on basic angel symbology and the major angels, which helped to firm up a few things I'd been wondering about. One observation is angels usually go about bare-footed, but Raphael wears sandals when on Earth, as he is chief of the guarding angels, and is the guardian of the young, and watches over pilgrims and travelers. And who was wearing golden sandals during the Job minisode?

Doing some guarding of the young as well...

And Raphael is assigned to the direction of the East.

Now we have three Archangels, three seraphim, no less, side by side.

That's a mighty shitload of potential miracle power, whichever way you want to look at it. No wonder the ol' Metatrash got a bit nervous about what happened and decided to take a personal hand in things.

If your sitting there going "'Hang on, op, hang on just a darned minute - Aziraphale hasn't even been promoted to Supreme Archangel yet and Crowley could just be a Dominion, you don't know, and Gabriel's a drooling idiot, how could he contribute to it - " Just stop. Take a breath. Go back to Part 1 where I discuss the problems with our knowledge about miracle powers and their potential. Their potential. And its frustrating that in the end we just don't have enough knowledge to be certain.

So take this as my personal head-canon. I may not have really answered why the miracle was so strong. But as I said at the start, I don't think we can. Too many factors involved, too many unknowns. Too much hidden.

Bring on S3, I say!

[paradoxcase]

John 5:4

THE TOWER HAS BEEN REACTIVATED

So I guess that is for "Earth" and then "Alecto" and then "Harrow". It's interesting that this little secondary story does not actually tell us anything about where the name "Alecto" came from. Was it a name that John gave to her? Or one that she gave herself? Given John's obsession with the name Gaia, I would have thought he'd pick that

You've proven over and over again that no one should trust you with anything, dude

Harrow mentions "waking up" as being a separate thing from resurrection again later, but it's not clear what this means at either point

Are you telling me that John made them forget everything just by doing something physical to their brains and Mercy the anatomy expert who definitely figured out what Harrow did to her brain after only a few months never figured this out in 10,000 years? I cannot believe that

This makes it sound like the other planets were already populated before John destroyed everything. So how did those people die? Did just killing the planets cause that to happen? Did John kill all the people on the planets in addition to the planets? I figured that at least the technology to make the other planets habitable had come from after the start of the 10,000 years, but apparently not even that was invented during John's regime, the whole society has just been completely static the whole time. This is straining suspension of disbelief here

There's no way they decided they wanted to do whatever John did with Alecto, because until the end of Harrow the Ninth, all of the Lyctors thought Alecto was just someone that John resurrected who came back wrong, they didn't realize she was Earth, and they definitely didn't realize she was John's cavalier, that was the whole point of the reveal at the end of the last book

So confirmed that John only created the Lyctors so that they would be roped into fighting the resurrection beasts for him. And then he talks about ripping his fingers from his hands and throwing them to the resurrection beasts, but what he really means is sacrificing his friends so that he can continue on

Oh my god, I don't think I've ever been this mad about someone misinterpreting a bible story before. The whole point of the flood story was that God said, oh, no, this was a terrible mistake, I'm so sorry, I promise I will never destroy the world again no matter how bad it gets. The point was not that the world was evil and needed a "fresh start", the point of the story was that destroying the world just because there are some evil people there is wrong. And like, this isn't a one-time lesson in the OT, either, it comes back again in the Sodom and Gomorrah story when God wants to destroy the cities because there are some bad people there and Abraham has a big argument with him and argues him down to agreeing to spare the cities if there is even one good person there other than Lot and his family. This was like, character development for God, he went from someone who destroyed the whole world because of some bad people and he is learning and relenting and getting some perspective from Abraham. And then later you have the story of Jonah, where now it's Jonah who wants the city destroyed, and God is lecturing him about why that's not right. Like, to the extent that the OT, which was written by like four or five different people with very different ideas of who God was and then frankensteined together by an editor hundreds of years later actually has a coherent narrative and consistent themes, this is pretty consistent. How does someone who grows up with these stories fail at understanding them so badly? How is it possible for someone who probably has advanced degrees to have such shit reading comprehension? This is the most infuriating thing John has ever said in these entire last two books

So this is what she meant by "where did you put the people" at the end of the last John chapter. I would guess the answer is either that he actually consumed all of their souls for power somehow, or that their souls are somewhere generating power in some way. I guess this probably won't be answered until the fourth book

The "tower" that's been menitoned... but it doesn't seem like this is meant to be Canaan House, as people have indicated on previous posts, and at least in this case it seems to be something that's in the River, or maybe she is just travelling through the River to get there?

Also, since this is the last John chapter, I have to ask, for poll-making purposes: Is it ever clarified in this book or elsewhere which country was the one that hired John to puppet around their dead head of state?

[sgiandubh]

No Liberace's smile

Warning: this will take forever to read. It didn't take forever to write or research, though. But since I will be gone tomorrow and back well, next Saturday, let it be done with a bang.

S the Actor. S the Entrepreneur. S the NYT (3x!) best-seller Writer. Coach S. S the Lover. S the Womanizer. S the Husband. S the Father.

Is something missing, in this deck of Happy Families?

S the (closeted) Gay, of course.

It doesn't really matter the man himself took the time to deny it loud and clear. Twice. This avatar, fueled by idiocy, hatred and ignorance, makes regularly the rounds, each and every time we dare to celebrate something, anything really. It serves three tribes and serves them well: the Congregation of Domestic Bliss (aka Taiters). The Data Lounge crowd. And the Disgruntled Harpies, who once were some of the most fervent Ginger Jesus worshippers, but whose hopes, dreams and trust wrecked on the shores of Quarantein Ha-wa-wee.

It is the proper of calumny to leave a pungent, persistent trail wherever it fumbles around. Calomniez, calomniez, il en restera toujours quelque chose, Beaumarchais once wrote. Calumny, calumny, something's gonna stick - in a very lazy, but dependable translation. This one is particularly vicious, because it sounds coherent: he trades in make-believe, lots of actors are, precedents exist. And my favorite: it explains everything (fun fact: it doesn't even start to cover the shitshow).

Four exhibits should put us out of this dumpster. Chronologically and comparatively:

Exhibit A: Rough Beginnings (2009)

This one is the most touted on Tumblr, by that horrible woman Queen Puff thought was the same person as Paul C. (and was probably wrong). In a nutshell, she was in London then, she often went to the theatre, she was in the know, fuck knows what else, but she has SOURCES, too: there is nothing straight about his bat.

I suppose this person must have watched Nicholas de Jongh's Plague Over England, a play essentially narrating a scandalous episode of John Gielgud's biography, with a heavy-handed focus on homophobia in Britain during the 50's.

He got naked on stage! He kissed a man! Oh, oh, oh... the rumor! the scandal! (insert domestic fire shrieks) My eyes! Quick, let's fetch the smelling salts! And chlorine! I need a good rinse!

You would imagine Sodom & Gomorrah Ltd on that stage, eh?

Tumblrettes United of the disgruntled sort, did your talkative friend ever show you this devastating Guardian chronicle, signed by their in-house critic, John M. Morrison on February 27th 2009 (https://www.theguardian.com/stage/theatreblog/2009/feb/26/de-jongh-plague-over-england) ?

Should I sign it or use a pistol flare? It wasn't exactly scandalous, the only thing is the text was really, really piss poor. S is only gracing the above picture, hovering over the article: no mention of him whatsoever. Unlike Somerset 2019, a most Unremarkable Performance.

And S himself was very interested to explore precisely this kind of progressive-ish acting, as he clearly writes in Waypoints. This sounds legit - this is business, baby:

Exhibit B: Know your Classics, bi@ tches (2010)

*channeling Tears for Fears* Data Lounge, I am talking to you/[something, something]/These are the things I could do without...

Aside the already very, very tired stock stories purporting that "my dog's aunt knew Heughan and yeah, he was so, so, so gay I could cry", all you have (I checked!) is 1 (one) absolutely dubious BTS pic taken on the set of that terrible dud, Young Alexander, shot in Egypt, circa 2010. Prominently featuring S's waxed calves (see? gay AF!), an unbecoming, supremely effeminate white tunic and *gasp* a bong (no comments were made on that one, a pity). Yeah, you got it: I am writing and I am laughing at the same time. Freak.

How the hell do you want him to look but, pardon my French, queer as a three-dollar bill? You clearly have no idea about sexual ambiguity as social norm in Ancient Greece and also no clue about that fascinating Alexander himself, his life and his yeah, blatant, documented bisexuality.

Take one of the most interesting sources (yeah, only serious ones, with FACTS) of the Late Antiquity, a guy named Athenaeus of Naucratis. He left us The Banquet of the Learned, a fifteen-volume encyclopedic compilation on the pleasures of eating and drinking and doing it in style, along with some juicy gossip. For example, this (open in separate tab, it's worth it):

What do we read? Alexander's mom, dad and tutor (Aristotle, my favorite Greek philosopher, along with Diogenes) are worried he finally might not really be into women, after all. The future of the Macedonian Kingdom itself is at stake (that watery semen made me choke on my Coke) and this is a very serious affair of the state. The most cost-effective and discreet solution is to handsomely pay that Callixeina courtesan from (famous for pin-ups) Thessaly and be done with it.

Apparently, it worked, not without some resistance. If you ever have the curiosity to go on that (in)famous Wikipedia, you will find a whole page dedicated to Alexander the Great's personal life. It reads exactly like the ABC, do-re-mi summer soccer mercato, feat. the Fitness Harem. One of the major joys of Classical studies is to realize we really didn't invent anything new.

But I digress again, so onwards to ...

Exhibit C: Jobbing Actor on the Road, nothing straight about his Bat (2011-2013)

Once the Batman show is on world tour, things are looking a bit better and it is time to try and lockpick America. Still, the struggle is real:

Also, this:

This is something no one noticed. And this is very clear: how on Earth do you expect to commit to a relationship, any relationship, when your basic needs, according to Maslow's Pyramid (a roof, a job, a steady paycheck, etc), are not satisfied? What would you offer your woman? Your precarity? Your insecurity? Your fear and shame of the bailiffs? A pint of cheap Polish beer? A futon in Golders Green?

But let's conveniently not answer these questions. Let's pretend that poverty has no impact on one's sexual life or dating history. Let's just endlessly cackle and blather on a drunk tweet stating candidly - and perfectly truly - "there's nothing straight about my Bat". I hate to quote myself - for any good speaker, this is a defeat- but, LOUDER FOR THE PEOPLE OF MORDOR:

Exhibit D: A French example - the case of Michel Serrault

The 1979 comedy La Cage aux Folles, later adapted for the US public under the name of Birds of a Feather (that Robin Williams/Nathan Lane forgettable gay movie) is absolutely representative for the live and let live French approach to homosexuality, ever since it was decriminalized by the revolutionary Penal Code of 1791. This is why I chose Michel Serrault, one of its two leads, to illustrate my Gay Anon post. Not to mention Serrault was a genius who could play absolutely anyone, from a retired hitman in Matthieu Kassowitz' Assassin(s) to Zaza Napoli.

This balding, ageing, cantankerous drag queen (sound is horrific, but you've got English subtitles - granted, you lose about 30% of the hysterical hilarity in translation, but it is what it is), as seen here in a domestic scene opposite her partner, played by notorious womanizer Ugo Tognazzi:

By the limp standards of Mordor, Serrault must have been a French LGBTQ+ institution, given his stellar, flawless acting, isn't it?

Incorrect, dolls. In his real, personal life Serrault was a devout Catholic, an exemplary father of two and a one-woman man. His wife, Nita Serrault, whom he met in drama school and never looked back.

It almost sounds like... but no, this cannot be..

The hard, gruesome life of shippers.

[technicallyonappleduty]

Aziraphale and Crowley Timeline

I made a timeline of the Aziraphale and Crowley relationship based on the TV show, book, stage directions, and Neil Gaiman’s blog. It was designed to track negative space and off-screen interactions for the purposes of fic writing, so maybe other fic writers would enjoy it. Please add anything I missed. I’ll edit as necessary.

Before the Beginning — Nebula rollout

Aziraphale shares his name with a heavy implication that they have not met before.

Crowley tells Nina and Maggie, “We’ve been talking for millions of years,” implying some sort of relationship before Crowley’s fall.

Sunday, October 21, 4004 B.C. at 9:13 a.m. — The creation of the universe

4004 B.C., "just after the beginning" — The Garden of Eden

Crowley (Crawly) tells Aziraphale his new name, which implies minimal interaction since Crowley’s fall. They were aware of each other’s presence in the garden as evidenced by Crowley having noticed the flaming sword.

3004 B.C., Mesopotamia — Noah’s Ark

Crowley follows up on the flaming sword, which implies but does not confirm that they haven’t interacted since Eden.

[3004 BC - 2500 BC: NO INTERACTION as evidenced by Aziraphale’s comment, “I haven’t seen you since the flood.”

2500 B.C., Land of Uz — Job

2000 B.C., Sodom and Gomorrah

It’s confirmed from the TV show that Aziraphale was present (as evidenced by their comment about Sandalphon’s participation)

It’s confirmed from the book that Crowley was not present and did not visit afterwards.

[800 BC - 200 BC: Deleted scene from TV show, Arabian Nights-inspired]

33 A.D., Golgotha — The crucifixion

41 A.D., Rome — Aziraphale runs into Crowley

537 A.D., Kingdom of West Essex — Crowley suggests they stop working just to cancel each other out

[1020 A.D. (BOOK CANON) — Arrangement (non-interference) is established. Then, they extend the arrangement to “hold the fort” for one another.]

[1023 A.D. (BOOK CANON) — Crowley comes back to argue that you need to start people off equal in order to let them choose between good and evil, equivalent of The Resurrectionists in the TV series.]

[1400s: “Papal” scene, cut from TV show]

[1567 A.D. — Mary Queen of Scots dies, this scene was cut and converted to The Resurrectionists]

[1556 AD - 1598 AD (BOOK CANON): Crowley is in Spain when he receives a commendation for the Spanish Inquisition. He checks it out then comes back and gets drunk for a week. Time range is evidenced by the line, “That Hieronymus Bosch,” who is a painter who inspired King Phillip II.]

1601, Globe Theatre, London — Hamlet

CONFIRMED: Multiple interactions between Wessex (537 AD) and now as evidenced by Crowley’s statement that they’ve covered for each other “dozens of times now.”

1650, Unknown — First “I Was Wrong” dance (performed by Aziraphale)

[1600 - 1800, United States: A scene set during the Wild West, cut from TV show]

1793, Paris — The French Revolution

A recent interaction is implied by Crowley saying, “I thought you were opening a bookshop.”

1800, London — The bookshop opens (confirmed that it opened “a couple years” after Mr. Hatchard in Piccadilly, founded 1797)

[Book — Crowley is asleep through most of the 19th century, gets up in 1832 for bathroom]

1820s, U.K. — Aziraphale’s diary excerpt, in which he mentions that he told Crowley the story “afterwards” (although “afterwards” can be a very long time for two immortal beings so it doesn’t confirm much)

1827, Edinburgh  — The Resurrectionists

[Confirmed: “It was the last I was to see of Crowley for quite some time.”]

1862, St. James Park, London — Crowley requests holy water

Their understanding of the agreement is, “Stay out of each other’s way. Lend a hand when needed.”

[1862 - 1941: NO INTERACTION as evidenced by the stage directions that Aziraphale has not seen Crowley in a hundred years.]

1941, London

[1960s: cut scene set in America, note: both female-presenting]

1967, Soho — Aziraphale gets holy water for Crowley

2008, U.K. — Antichrist is born

2013, U.S. — Crowley and Aziraphale both begin work for the Dowlings

[“The story starts, as it will end, in a garden” — although technically garden is no longer where it started]

[kunareads]

Are you religious by any means?

so the short answer is no

the long answer is under the cut if you’re interested (i have a lot to say about this and if you ARE religious you might be offended and I JUST WANNA SAY THIS IS MY EXPERIENCE NOT EVERYONE’S EXPERIENCE!!! it’s also a trauma dump in some ways so read at ur own risk):

i grew up with a very (very!) pentecostal christian mother whose congregation i often liken to a cult for many reasons. from the day i was born i was in church four times a week and being taught about things like purity and the rapture which i think are… questionable teachings for a five year old.

i was also a *gifted* kid (academically) and was sort of used as the poster child for what the rest of the kids should act like — reading the bible to 100+ person congregations at 4 years old and pushed to preach beliefs i hadn’t yet had the chance to form at like 9.

so naturally when i came into my preteen years and it was time for me to start really understanding the world around me and my place in it, i realized i didn’t exactly fit. first and foremost, i was depressed. it runs in my family, mine started around 12/13? and this was widely considered side effect of the demons in me or an consequence of my own wrongdoings, which i couldn’t yet understand because at the time i was still doing everything i could to be perfect.

when i was 13 it became time to take baptism classes (presented to me as a choice, but not really) and midway through i finally came to terms with my sexuality (im bisexual). and literally the same week, the lesson was about sodom and gomorrah (and why attraction to the opposite sex is one of the most egregious sins a person can commit). the pastor’s wife, who was the teacher of the classes, noticed my conflict and asked if i actually wanted to be baptized and i said no. my mother didn’t acknowledge my existence for three weeks (see if i believe you chapter five lmao).

and as if that wasn’t enough, the pastor of the church took it upon himself the following sunday to inform everyone that i had dropped out of baptism classes, but that it was okay, because i would try again next year.

truly a fall from grace moment for me.

over the years i also just witnessed a lot of things that were so deeply traumatic in the church that i can’t in good conscience allow myself to be part of it. i’m talking exorcisms (it sounds ridiculous but im being so serious), “healing” the sick (im already a skeptic by nature and witnessing a paraplegic walk for the first time was a bit much for my 8 year old brain to handle), and my favorite, public slut shaming and victim blaming!

religious psychosis (i don’t want to offend anyone with this but it’s the only way i can describe it) is also something i’ve witnessed take over people’s lives with terrifying totality and it’s just… not for me (i could say more about this but it would become a book).

and there is so much more i could say and so many more experiences i could share about this, but i do think that some things are better l ft forgotten and unsaid because they’re just that egregious.

so like, i don’t know. i’m sure not every church is like this and what not but i fear the damage is done for me.

long story short, i’m not religious and don’t consider myself christian. but the reason for it is my very deep and intimate understanding of the bible and the way that it’s been taught and manipulated for favorable outcomes and control (on both small and large scales).

[pinkishflowersilverycoin]

Ok, I want to share my own theological theory regardless of why Judas Iscariot was (even now) reviled by humanity.

One could think that's because he sold Jesus out for thirty silver coins, and that's unforgivable. But friendly reminder that Jesus could be along with thieves and prostitutes, and still forgiving them.

Then why Judas could be any different?

Two reasons I could think of:

First is the possibility that Judas Iscariot was romantically in love for Jesus Christ.

Why such thing could be a big deal? We're talking about people living in the 1st century in the Middle East, Jewish people who follows the God's law eagerly and devotedly. We know about the mess it was the Old Testament, who God was rageful and giving harsh and destructive punishment upon humankind for one reason or another.

One of his crimes were the genocide of the twin cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. Maybe the people there weren't all bad but of course evil people could still exist. And as mentioned in Lots' story, when God send the angels to check on the local population to see if there's good people living there, they were attacked by a mob. The men wanted to force the angels. The crime here is men forcing intimate activities with other men. And the religious didn't saw those activities as it should be, violence against others who couldn't defend themselves. Instead, they see the whole homosexual relationship as a sin and the only reason why the cities were destroyed at the end. In their thoughts, both cities were doomed because homosexual relationship were a thing, instead of seeing such forced acts as violent action like a murder.

We could see that the Jewish condemns homosexually heavily at the implications of the cities' destruction. How a gay man could live in such oppressive environment? Judged and losing the grace of God by loving in a way the law condemns?

If Judas felt romantic love towards Jesus, certainly it could had frightened him to his core, knowing the cities' tragic fate and reason behind it. Maybe he also followed Jesus in order to fix himself and been more closer to God.

Instead, he fell in love for his Lord.

It could had been excruciating. Even more if Jesus is all loving and forgiving.

And even if Judas could had tried his best to hide his feelings, three years in the group could had alerted the others that Judas is acting differently towards Jesus. They could had suspected that Judas had a secret? Not about been a thief, but something else.

Something more... Sinful.

Maybe when Judas kissed Jesus in the arrest, confirmed their suspicion. And even if Jesus tried to preach about forgiveness and love, the idea of Judas having homosexual feelings for their Lord, their Messiah, was beyond been blasphemous for them. They could had been disgusted by Iscariot, and then (surely behind Jesus' back), they started to spit venom about Judas to their own followers the next years. Of course they couldn't say that Judas was in love for their Savior, could had give them an awful image. That's why they created the whole conception of Judas been a thief and a greedy betrayer. Easier than admitting they had a homosexual apostle among them, and certainly the one Jesus loved the most.

The Beloved Disciple.

They felt special for been chosen by the Messiah himself, unable to accept one of them had some special privileges, and more in that nature (you could see they weren't happy that Mary Magdalene was cared by Jesus, thinking of themselves the only ones worthy of his attention).

The others "reviled" the idea, so convinced that any homosexual man is by default unforgivable by God's law, only because of the story and Sodom and Gomorrah. They hated Judas Iscariot the following decades, then centuries. Portrait him as a greedy betrayer who loved money more than God, and we never argued against that.

And sadly, even in the Bible, Jesus is been among the sinful and welcoming them with open arms and a smile. All kind of sinful people, but you know which group wasn't seen there? The homosexual.

The thieves, prostitutes, tax collectors, even Roman guards and soldiers. Jesus still welcomed and prayed for them. But the homosexual? No sights.

So if Judas Iscariot was a closeted gay man who had to hide his identity for the majority of his life out of fear, suddenly met Jesus of Nazareth, welcomed him on his group, loves him openly and Judas inevitably feel in love for him. And maybe Jesus loved him too in that way, but it had to be a secret.

It could make sense that the other apostles' repulsion towards him make them to portrait Judas as the worst of the worst. And humanity believed them.

It is very tragic and unfair, since Judas had to sacrifice his beloved and their mutual love for humanity's sake.

And the second reason, to make short: to distance themselves from the Jewish who condemns Jesus. And that leads to make the Christians to believe that Judas Iscariot is the perfect example of a betraying and greedy Jewish, leading the antisemitism to rage on for generations.

[wreckitremy]

What would I even say?

That I'm sorry your mom died?

That I'm sorry I can't decide if I'm sad about it?

That I'm sorry I never really knew her, or why we didn't spend much time with her?

As if I didn't know that the monster you married pulled you away from her?

As if I didn't know that the way your aunt treated you, meant that it wasn't hard to pull you away in the first place?

It doesn't change the fact that the monster you married used me as bait to trap you

It doesn't change the fact that you never accepted that she was a monster even after she abandoned you the second the nest was empty.

It doesn't change the fact that we can't talk about her without getting upset bc I can't talk nice about her and you can't talk bad about her

It doesn't change the fact that I don't know if it was her or you that started the homophobic crusade in our house.

Is it cruel that I never said goodbye this time?

Maybe.

Is it cruel that I never got an apology for all the times I got Sodom and Gomorrah preached at me for defending my gay friends when i was in high school, years later when i came out?

Probably.

It's true that you were the dad you didn't have to be.

But it's also true that I was the child and you were the parent.

Its true that you were the best parent I had.

But it's also true that the bar is in hell.

[naomilibicki]

Okay so here's the thing. I have not seen Downfall yet and I do not know what Brennan Lee Mulligan's intentions are, but I do have a pretty good familiarity with the Tanakh

And if we are talking about a situation where divine beings heard bad things about a certain city and took mortal form in order to see for themselves what was up and whether the city was worthy of destruction, that's not a Jesus situation, that's a Sodom situation

Here we are in the book of Genesis chapter 18 (using the King James version just because that's the most culturally resonant English version)

20 And the Lord said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous; 21 I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know. 22 And the men* turned their faces from thence, and went toward Sodom: but Abraham stood yet before the Lord.

*the "men" here are generally understood in the Jewish tradition to be angels; they have already delivered messages from God to Abraham and Sarah

Anyway, after this there's some back and forth between Abraham and God about whether or not God should destroy the righteous with the wicked, and God agrees not to destroy the cities if He can find ten righteous people in them, which concludes with

33 And the Lord went his way, as soon as he had left communing with Abraham: and Abraham returned unto his place.

and then the next chapter starts

1 And there came two angels to Sodom at even

and then you know how it ends, with brimstone and a pillar of salt and all that.

So anyway I don't know what Brennan Lee Mulligan and the players are doing with Downfall but if it's something from Abrahamic lore that's what it sounds like to me.

Wait is this like... a Jesus situation. Did the gods straight up become mortals for a while to get past Aeor's wards to figure out what the fuck was happening in there. If so that's incredible, I am obsessed with that as a choice.

[wolint]

PIDGIN THE NEGOTIATOR

PIDGIN THE NEGOTIATOR 

Genesis 18:22–33 “Den di men leave Abraham kon waka dey go Sodom, but Abraham stay with Oga God. 23Abraham go meet Oga God kon ask, “Yu won really distroy doz wey nor do bad with doz wey do bad? 24Wot of if pipol wey dey fear Yu rish fifty for dat town? Yu go distroy di whole town? Yu nor go bikos of di fifty pipol leave di town? 25I know sey Yu nor go do dat kind tin. Yu nor go kill pipol wey dey good with di bad ones.”

26God ansa, “If I si fifty pipol for Sodom wey dey fear mi, I go bikos of dem nor distroy di town.”

27Den Abraham ask, “My Oga God! Abeg nor vex sey I too tok (even doh I just bi ordinary dust), 28wot of if na five nor make am rish fifty? Yu go distroy di town, bikos five nor make am rish fifty?”

Oga God ansa, “I nor go distroy di town if I si forty-five pipol for der wey dey fear mi.”

29Abraham ask am again, “Wot if na forty?”

God ansa, “I nor go distroy am, bikos of dat forty.”

30Den Abraham sey, “God, make Yu nor vex o-o, bikos I still won tok! Wot of if dem bi thirty for der.”

God ansa, “I nor go do am if I si thirty for der.”

31Abraham kon sey, “Since I fit tok to Yu my Oga God, wot of if dem bi only twenty for der?”

God ansa, “I nor go distroy di town bikos of dem.”

32Abraham sey, “My Oga God! Abeg make Yu nor vex for yor savant. Wot of if dem bi ten wey dey fear Yu for di town?”

God ansa, “I nor go distroy di town bikos of dat ten.”

33Afta God tok to Abraham finish, God kon go leave am. Den Abraham go en house.

 

 

The Negotiator na one 1998 American film wey Samuel L. Jackson and Kevin Spacey act as police negotiators for Chicago. But dem no reach Father Abraham level at all.

We dey live for times wey danger full ground, but opportunity still dey. We get plenty enjoyment and modern things, but the world still dey resemble Sodom and Gomorrah with all the bad things wey dey happen (Ezekiel 16:46–49). Many people dey benefit from wickedness, but dem still dey wait make person stand gap for dem—will you be that person?

Abraham the Negotiator! 

You dey negotiate with God?

Abraham show us wetin James 5:16 talk—say the prayer of person wey dey live right with God dey powerful. He beg God well-well because of Lot. Abraham believe say prayer fit change things. God talk say Him go check Sodom first (verse 21), and Abraham use that chance to pray make God spare the city if Him see righteous people there.

All of us dey negotiate one way or the other—even if we no call am that. I dey like think say I sabi negotiate—my pikin dem go say I too like bargain! But truth be say, we all dey negotiate, especially with God.

Abraham start by telling God say he no even deserve to talk to am (verse 27), but he still beg because he get relationship with God.

How about you? You fit negotiate with God for your family or friend?

For the movie, dem dey fight to save lives. But as God’s negotiators, our own na to save souls.

Moses too be negotiator—when God wan destroy Israel because of the golden calf, Moses beg am (Exodus 32:9–14), and God spare dem.

Another name for this kind negotiation na intercessory prayer. You fit imagine say you go bold reach to negotiate with God? With trader, both of una want something. But with God, na Him get everything—yet He still invite us to come reason with am (Isaiah 1:18–20; Isaiah 41:21). God say, “Bring your strong reasons.” That means make you talk your matter well.

Na for prayer God dey show us Him plan and covenant (Psalm 25:14). E sweet to know say God dey listen when we pray for others.

If you look well, e go be like say na Abraham start the talk. But na God first talk (verses 17–21), then wait make Abraham respond (verse 22). Abraham start from 50 people reach 10, and na God end the talk (verse 33).

Bible negotiator no dey try change God mind, but dey respond to God invitation to care for others and pray with boldness. God dey welcome us to stand gap and beg for mercy for others.

Who Be Biblical Negotiator? Na person wey dey pray with boldness and faith for others. Abraham show us say we fit pray with love, humility, and trust say God go answer.

Just like Abraham, make we remember say God merciful—He fit spare even wicked people because of few righteous ones. But He go still judge sin. Abraham beg for Lot. You go fit stand as negotiator for person today?

PRAYER: Papa God, give me the boldness and zeal to speak up when I need to save life and soul. In Jesus’ name, amen.*

Shalom 

Women of Light Int’l Prayer Ministry