#Anyways I also think maybe every religion is true?

[mikewheelerfan2022]

believing in ghosts is stupid but believing a man walked on water, rose from the dead, turned water into wine, and cured fucking blindness with a single touch is smart and logical to you? 💀

Yes, it is. Although I don’t post about it often, I am a Christian, and I believe in the miracles of God. The paranormal is very different. In my opinion, most of the stuff that happens in the Bible is true. And paranormal stuff like ghosts isn’t. Now, there is the Holy Spirit, but that’s different because the Spirit is one of the three aspects of God.

I understand that not everybody is religious. And that’s fine. I respect Muslims, Hindus, Jews, Buddhists, Taoists, etc. I even respect Satanists, although that does make me fairly uncomfortable. And of course, I respect atheists. You don’t have to be religious. But can you not be so rude about it? I respect you, please do the same for me.

[leporellian]

How are we meant to look at operas, anyway? (and what are they?)

Operas are my favorite art form of them all. This is because I think they are "just really neato" and "the most interesting to study". However, if you were to go around and ask what Defines an opera? Nobody would have a concrete and true answer to the question. They aren’t ‘sung through stage works’ because many operas aren’t sung through and non-operas that are. They have no specific orchestra or singing requirements. Even determining them on a cultural basis doesn’t entirely fit. I actually think ‘art’ is too loose and philosophical a term for what they are either. (I mean, yes, they are art. But how are they so?)  

I think that while there’s no concrete definition for what an opera actually is, there ARE certain sets of… rules (for lack of a better word) that dictate how operas Are and what we should do when Seeing them. Funnily enough, the most complete rules I’ve seen for operas I found in an essay that has nothing to do with operas at all- “Monster Culture: Seven Theses” by Jeffrey Jerome Cohen. My rules for How To Look At Operas are heavily derived from that essay, interpreted in ways to best fit the art form. 

My Rules of Opera (with apologies to Mr. Cohen):

1. The Opera’s Body is a Cultural Body.

Operas are sociological and anthropological records that entail a gap in time between their composition and their performance. They contain as many perspectives as there are people aware of them. Every time you watch an opera, you are negotiating with something or someone else. And these records are always being added onto- no opera is ever truly ‘complete’. 

Operas cannot truly be escapist entertainment because they directly reflect societal problems in both the composer’s time and ours. La Traviata’s main conflict- the way sex workers are demonized and unsupported among ‘polite society’ and how societal expectations and the pressure to conform destroys lives- is something that existed in Verdi’s time, and our own. La Traviata is about the sex workers of today who can’t find work anywhere. It is also about how Giuseppe Verdi’s wife was poorly-treated by the people around her for having been sexually active before their marriage. It is also about the gap between these two events, and how one thing became (or still is) another. 

An opera production is not a recreation. No matter how ‘original production accurate’ they claim to be, they are always a negotiation. There is no such thing as accuracy, as civic law. Once one is freed of the expectation of ‘canon’ or ‘what ought to be’ in an opera, one can deal with these creatures more handily. 

2. The Opera Always Escapes.

No matter how many times Don Giovanni is dragged off to hell at the end of Mozart’s opera of the same name, he always reappears again in a fresh new staging. He never stays down there. Maybe the gates to Hell are looser than we imagine- or, more likely, this is because he represents something that cannot be defeated. What does the character represent? Abuse, sexual violence, power (with class, with gender, with religion); grief, loss, death. None of these things will go away in our lifetimes or the next, and so Don Giovanni as an opera remains relevant. 

In fact, there are no ‘irrelevant’ operas in the standard canon as we know them. Any irrelevant operas that did exist are long gone because there would be no reason to revive them. Even operas that have ‘aged poorly’, like Turandot, confront us with why they’ve poorly aged and force us to reckon with some part of our current world. We react to them in some way and therefore they are worth further looking into.

I call this the “All Dogs go to Heaven” theorem because it doesn’t argue that all operas adhere to the same standard of quality, or are even written with good intentions in mind- but it does argue that they all are worth studying and experiencing. And any opera, as long as a copy of its score and libretto exists, can come back from the dead. So just like the movie, not all of them stay there.

3. The Opera is the Harbinger of Category Crisis.

One of the most common ways to explain away what an opera is, against a musical or a straight play, is to claim that operas are sung through while musicals feature spoken dialogue. Respectfully, this is wrong and insane. Two of the most famous operas of all- Carmen and The Magic Flute- feature extensive spoken dialogue, while Hamilton and Cats (both sung through) are musicals. The notion of operas having specific orchestral or voice requirements isn’t quite true, either- each era of opera, and each opera, is a separate animal.

Is Porgy and Bess an opera, or is it a musical? It features many musical qualities with the latter, and was written by musical-writers - yet it is referred to as an opera. Sometimes it is both. Maybe at some point it could also be neither. Operas do not participate in the general categorization of their Western theatrical siblings. Musical, straight play, ballet- these art forms are immediately distinguishable as themselves. (Note that musicals, despite having a lot of variety, do not have as wild a diversity as operas do owing to their relative youth as an artform.) But an opera can be all three of these and still be an opera. Not only that but there’s so many ways for operas to be- chamber opera, verismo, singspiel, music drama, opera-in-jazz. The opera may borrow from any art, at any time. Its incorporeal form grants it the ability to shift. This is both opera’s great weakness and its greatest boon of all, maybe its most defining operative feature of them all- it can be anything you want it to be.

4. The Opera Dwells at the Gates of Difference.

With their characteristic exaggeration and other oddities, operas are immediately recognized as depicting a world that isn’t quite our own. It’s a world rooted in our own (see point 1) but it isn’t our world. We don’t sing, or gesticulate to that degree, or stab people at the drop of a hat to solve a problem. As much as opera tries to be ‘like us’, it never is entirely so, in a sort of Frankenstein way. 

In this way it is no wonder that all operas focus around difference- from each other, from society, from ourselves. Sometimes this difference is explicit- the ‘othered’, shunned main characters characteristic of the Verdi operas, as in Rigoletto and La Forza del Destino- and sometimes it is more implicit (Tamino and Calaf being strangers to the people around them, Figaro’s position of a lowly barber among Counts and Dons, even Orpheus out of place in the Underworld). The opera seeks to represent the Other. Oftentimes the opera itself is the other. We are all made to learn a new set of social rules when we come to the opera- this equalizes us as an audience, and paradoxically renders us the Other. Opera is about othering and being othered. This is not necessarily good, or bad- it is just a neutral feature. 

5. The Opera Polices the Borders of the Possible.

Every opera begins with- and then revolves around- some kind of transgression. Moral (Don Giovanni slays the Commendatore), cultural (Pinkerton marries Cio-Cio San), societal (Alfredo falls for the courtesan Violetta). The way the opera’s narrative body reacts to this transgression is what will come to define that opera’s theme and what it stands for. Even in the most comic operas, the inciting incident is always a transgression; it is up to the interpreter to detect what the transgression actually is, and from this point the opera emerges all at once like a cracked egg.

Die Meistersinger Von Nurnberg is an interesting case study in transgression. The initial transgression may be seen as Walther joining the Meistersinger contest to win the hand of Eva- he is, after all, not initially a singer, and an intruder on the world of the (educated, cliquey) Meistersingers. But this is not true. Walther initially disrupts status quo when he boldly joins them but he doesn’t stay that way- he is a literal knight in shining armor; masculine and chivalrous, the exact image of how men ‘ought’ to be. Beckmesser, the clerk of the Meistersingers, is consistently depicted as an Other, the nitwit among geniuses; he is effeminate and overconfident, we laugh at his attempts at music making. It is Beckmesser entering the contest himself as a competitor to Walther that is the true transgression in the opera, and the opera surmises this as a bad thing that must be punished through public humiliation and further exclusion. While there is no proof that Wagner wrote Beckmesser to be explicitly antisemitic, the character appears to subconsciously reflect many of Wagner’s antisemitic talking points, adding a particularly cruel underbelly to the way the opera sees the transgression of Beckmesser’s inclusion.

6. Fear of the Opera is Really a Kind of Desire.

Operas are marked by multiple features: Their otherness, their transgressions, their propensity to shift. These all give operas a certain other quality: They are a vehicle for catharsis. The fact that opera is so physically demanding adds to this- an opera is a workout in which emotions about a certain endless topic can be expressed. Salome is terrifying, but through her we can express rage and pure obsession that otherwise would have no place in society. This is also where the falsehood of opera as escapism takes root: When the opera is not given the space to threaten, its catharsis is cauterized into fantasy.

Opera is a space where we can play- already something rare in adulthood- and through the opera we are allowed to play with terror (something even rarer). It is an abstract liminal location only maybe rivaled by a rollercoaster, a playroom, or a shrink’s couch. This sheer radical expression of emotion makes it also easily-mocked by a popular culture unfamiliar with it. I suspect this is because, really deep down, operas are envied. They are so upfront, so passionate, so heartbreakingly sincere that they make those who laugh at art seem small, laughable. But the art form carries on, being unapologetically itself because it cannot be anything else. 

7. The Opera Stands At The Threshold… of Becoming.

What Cohen writes here in the original essay is maybe my favorite paragraph about literary analysis ever written so I’m just going to leave it here in its entirety:

Why do we love opera? What are we meant to do with them, and why are they the way they are? We come to the opera to find ourselves. The rest is just postscript.

[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?".

[alicelufenia]

Thinking about my last reblog and how Baldur's Gate 3 character creation kinda fucked with my perception of paladins in the bg3 setting (it's specific version of the Forgotten Realms at least)

Since paladins don't get to select a deity at CC, I got the impression that paladins who's oath was not sworn before any particular god were more common than they really are.

There's technically a "Paladin of X" tag in game for dialogue, but the ONLY way to get it without mods is to also take a level of cleric and select a deity that way.

So when I made Alice as essentially a renegade paladin whose oath was sworn before no one except through her own conviction and fervor to self-actualize (she's Oath of Glory in canon) and that manifested divine power anyway, turns out that's really weird and uncommon in setting where most paladins swear an oath before a deity, and thus presumably are bound to tenets dictated by said deity (or the order of paladins they belong to, whether that reflects the true will of the god or not)

This is, in my defense, NOT how it works in tabletop 5e, where paladins select an oath but are not required to pick a deity (they still can pick one like many characters do, even those with no levels in divine casters). Giving a paladin a deity is more a nod to tradition, but RAW you're free to hold an oath without following a faith, just like you can be any alignment regardless of your oath (except maybe oathbreaker. BG3 even turns that on it's head by making it possible to be 'Good' as an oathbreaker, even restoring your oath, which isn't a thing in tabletop unless it's to repent for breaking it but without going full oathbreaker subclass)

Enter the most prominent paladin in Baldur's Gate 3, Minthara

Don't have any art saved to my phone so enjoy plushthara instead

She originally swore her oath of vengeance while in service to Lolth, to seek out and eliminate the enemies of the faith in Menzoberranzan (essentially part of the Lolthite Inquisition). This, by the way, is why she's so insightful when it comes to the other companions; it was literally her job to get good at reading people to find out what their deal was.

Her crusade against the enemies of Lolth led her and an army of House Baenre soldiers to Moonrise Towers, but instead of putting an end to the Absolute cult, she was captured, tortured for days, her soldiers killed or enthralled, and finally tadpoled and made to turn all that religious ferver and devotion towards serving the Absolute.

For this failure, Lolth abandoned her. As a Lolth-sworn drow (a problematic term basically made up for bg3 but works here) losing Lolth's favor is the most devastating thing possible, and there's almost no chance of going back. After being released from command of the Absolute by the Prism, she was, spiritually, alone for probably the first time in 250+ years of memory. Unless you come from a religious background only to lose faith later in life, you can't imagine what that's like (I don't ftr, but this is how I have come to understand it based on @spiderwarden's analysis)

And yet, despite this severing from a god that works Her way into every facet of Udadrow life, her oath endures. She remains a faithless (really faith-orphaned), but still undeniably spiritual paladin, bound to an oath that, for now, has her carrying out the same objective that sent her out of the Underdark before—destroy the cult of the Absolute, and seize that godlike power from those who control it.

When you rescue Minthara after romancing her in act 1, she says "You came. I prayed that you would, but there are no gods left for me." That raw-as-fuck line also spells out her current relationship to religion; IF a god would have her, she would be devoted. She even calls out to Lolth who, if the Spider Queen were to somehow take her back, she would in a heartbeat. With none answering her, she has no one but her savior, Tav/Durge, and their companions (whom she is now oath-bound to help whether she likes them or not)

And her natural inclination is to channel all that hurt, all that resentment and humiliation at being left with no divinity to know and to be known, into abject RAGE. Though she doesn't show it, I believe she is angrier and meaner NOW than she's ever been in life. That's why she talks about spitting on a shrine to Lolth, why she disapproves of offering tithe to any god at the Stormshore Tabernacle. Why she wants to BECOME a god, to become Absolute.

Hate is love betrayed. And I believe she had a LOT of love for Lolth.

Anyway this started as me musing on the spiritual nature of 5e paladin oaths in bg3, and kinda turned into character analysis for Minthara. Still, as the game's biggest example of a paladin who no longer serves any god but still commands divine powers to ⚔️SMITE Evil⚔️ by her oath, I think it came around in the end.

[jo-harrington]

Gratia. (An As Above, So Below Story)

Gratia. Charitas. Solamen. Grace. Charity. Peace. The oath of the Knights of the Holy Order.

Summary: You and Eddie-- separated by time and endless suffering--don't realize how many strings keep you connected on the web of fate. What players are there trying to cut those strings? And when will you both find out that they are unbreakable?

Word Count: 2.1k

Pairing: Eddie Munson/Fem!OC (The Knight - Written in 2nd Person POV - You/Your - No Use of Names of Physical Descriptors)

Warnings/Themes: Soulmates, Kas!Eddie, Angst, Fluff, Hurt/Comfort, Grief, Minor Character Deaths, Manipulation, Transformation, Corruption, Supernatural Encounters, Religious Elements, Criticism of Religion, Biblical and Other Literary and Pop Culture References

Note: So...originally this was going to be one long thing. A tale about the Knight and Eddie and their unbreakable bond. And I wavered about how relevant it would be to the larger story. How relevant are any of these blurbs to the larger story? But if there's anything I've learned writing AASB, it's that I'm really writing the whole thing for myself. And after finding myself in an odd state of grief that kind of just keeps getting worse over the weekend, I know that this little fic...and the two that follow...really are only going to just be for me to help me get through it, so I need to be true to myself and write them anyway. **So if you do read this, please know it can be read in tandem with As Above, So Below. And you should have at least read the Prequels, with maybe some bonus points for Genesis. Iif you've read the Hymns, this is set before Nachzehrer.**

You can find my masterlist here.

Please do not interact if you are not 18+.

“God is a comedian playing to an audience that is too afraid to laugh.” ― Voltaire

November 10, 1986

"I'm sorry for your loss."

"Thank you."

"She's not suffering anymore. Tranquilla."

"Thank you, I know. She's been sick for a long time. She's at rest now."

"Mom brought mostaccioli. And chicken cutlets. She's setting it up in the other room then she'll be over. You should get some, you need to eat."

"I'll be alright, thank you for coming."

Today was the final day that you would spend with your Nonna.

Well, a more accurate description was that they let you have it.

Let you.

Let you have one day to sit on that stiff funeral home sofa. To stare at her, unrecognizably still in her casket, as friends and neighbors swarmed to offer their condolences. To mourn with you.

But somehow also separately from you.

And tomorrow, after she was behind a cold slab of marble, you'd be off again. Creeping closer to your own death until one day you might be placed in a plot adjacent to her.

Together.

But not really.

If there was anything left of you.

It wouldn't do to think of that today though.

Today, you would sit here. Enjoy your break and bask in the remnants of her soul that still lingered in and around her body.

It brought you some comfort to feel it move the way she did.

It danced like she danced around the kitchen, the boundaries of it crinkling like the wrinkles at the corners of her eyes and mouth. A phantasmic remnant of her lovingly worried gaze was on you every now and again, creating the urge to say "I'm ok Nonnie." To lie to her, like you always did. And whenever one of her friends knelt their own aging bodies to pray at her side, you could practically see the softness of her cushion their jagged edges, comforting them.

You didn’t dare go up yourself though.

Not yet.

Not unless you wanted the Funeral Director to haul you out of the casket because somewhere deep down you just wanted to crawl into it with her and scream,

“Take me with you. Don’t leave me like I left you.”

Because you were not ok.

You closed your eyes as a phantom hand touched your shoulder, as it attempted to soothe the pain deep inside you but only managed to stir up another kind of pain. Another kind of mourning.

If only he was really there, you could ask him to take you with him too. Take you away from here to wherever he and Nonna would wait for you.

An impossible request.

The weight of the sofa shifted beside you and you opened your eyes. You expected to find Fortunata or Antoinette—two of Nonna’s closest friends who could claim a spot beside you if they truly wanted—but instead you found Gabriel’s stiff inhuman posture and expressionless face staring ahead of him at the casket.

“You could have helped her,” you said instead of a greeting. What good would a greeting do? “Healed her.”

You briefly wondered if you'd imagined the corner of his mouth quirking before he spoke.

“And if I told you I had? If I spared her a worse fate? Lessened her pain? Lessened yours?”

“I wouldn’t believe you.”

“Then I won’t tell you.”

You turned back to watch the casket with an unsatisfied hum.

Time passed and you sat silently together as you fought to keep your emotions in check with Gabriel's presence. You weren't nervous, per se; more annoyed. Angry, even. Questioning why he was here on this day out of all days.

All your life, you explained away his presence as a guardian. Unseen and unknown to everyone but you. He used to protect you or so you could recall, but as you got older that seemed to stop.

And he was more of a harbinger of doom than a deterrent of it.

Well, not doom.

Fate.

Or God's will or some shit like that. You didn't know anymore. Didn't care. You only cared about getting to the finish line. Freeing your soul of this curse. Getting your prize.

Heaven. Home. Peace with the ones you loved.

With Nonna.

With Eddie.

So if Gabriel was here, it meant something was about to happen. Something unsavory. Something...

You blinked and he disappeared from your peripheral vision suddenly, and just beyond the space he had previously occupied, stood a man in a black cassock.

Jinette approached you but you didn't give him the satisfaction of your attention until he said your name and offered his condolences.

"May I sit?" he gestured beside you.

"Seat's taken," you responded coldly.

"Ah, your mother, yes," he nodded in realization, and you watched him pull a chair up from one of the rows behind you.

You wouldn't be the one to tell him that your mother hadn't shown her face since you arrived back in Chicago late last night. She had done her duty, arranged the funeral and called you home. Beyond that her obligation was almost over; she could be free.

There had been a brief moment between the two of you when you let yourself into Nonna's flat and found her at the table surrounded by paperwork and old pictures, and you thought for the briefest second that this might be a turning point. That she might exhume whatever love she used to have for you, buried so deep in her heart, so you wouldn't have to mourn alone.

Instead she said she was sorry, then kissed your cheek and left.

And really you only had yourself to blame at the disappointment that punctuated the interaction. How could you have expected anything more than that when the bar was already set so low?

"California is a long way to come just for funeral rites," you said once Jinette was settled.

"I'm afraid that's not what I'm here for."

"Then to attend a funeral of a very devout woman," you amended.

"I'm not here for that either." You would give it to him, the remorse plastered on his features almost looked sincere. "Unfortunately, there is a very dire situation and the Order is in need of your experti--"

"No," you cut him off swiftly. "Tomorrow. You can ask me to go tomorrow. Not today."

The usual coldness of his gaze returned and he addressed you stiffly.

"You cannot refuse. Must not. This is your duty."

You turned to him, hand shooting from your lap of its own volition to grab his robe and pull him close enough that your noses practically touched.

The funeral goers around you began to murmur--your Nonna's friends whispering in fear and shame, saying a prayer to spare them of whatever wrath would befall you for defying and possibly harming his eminence--but you ignored them.

You knew you might pay for it later, but for now your rage was warranted.

"Don't lecture me about duty," you hissed at Jinette. "My entire life has been about duty. Her life too. If you want me to go? You'll beg me. Not guilt me. But I promise that the answer will still be no."

Something wicked flickered inside of you, and you wondered if you could smite Jinette. Just a little bit. If you could channel the deep-rooted grudge against your plight and let him feel the consequences that waited to befall someone who had nurtured it.

Then you felt a slight disturbance in the room.

The calm of Nonna's soul was shaken from its bliss, and you could practically hear the sharp, punishing clicks of her tongue as you fisted Jinette's robe tighter and tighter. The flame of the candles beside her casket flickered, the leaves on the flower arrangements that filled the room began to wilt, and the whispers around you got louder until they roared in your ears.

Your eyes burned with unshed tears as the feeling of Nonna's disappointment surrounded you--filled you--and you fought it for as long as you could.

But if anyone here was going to reprimand you in this room, in this world, it would be her.

You let Jinette go and fell back into the couch with your arms crossed tightly over your chest. He heaved several heavy breaths and patted his chest pathetically.

"Tomorrow," you told him as Nonna's soul and the murmurs of the people around you settled back down into a serene silence.

The tears finally fell after he left, and you closed your eyes as Eddie's ghostly touch softly wiped them away.

"Tomorrow..."

November 6, 1983

Twang.

He enjoyed it.

Twang.

Enjoyed plucking the guitar strings and letting the reverberation travel along his fingertips and into the very core of him.

Twang.

Deep down in that dark pit where you seemed to hide, every note was like a starburst of brightness and good feelings. Things so foreign and forgotten to him now, yet still so integral to Eddie Munson.

He wasn't Eddie anymore though.

So he resented the fact that he enjoyed it so much.

"Play something," you would whisper in those hidden depths, like a devil on his shoulder, and he constantly fought the temptation to follow that urge. "Play me a song, I know you know how."

He never gave in though.

Could never give in.

It was bad enough that he hid you from Henry, that he even listened to you at all. But feeling something--doing something--was better than feeling nothing in the boring, timeless eternal void of the Upside Down. So he would allow himself these brief visits to the trailer, he would tolerate your soft words and the ever-present softness of the ghost that seemed to haunt him here, so he could pluck a few twangs of the guitar strings and bask in the sparks of euphoria they would bring.

And it was enough. It had to be enough.

Then, when he got bored or hungry or irritated by you, away he would go again.

"I would argue that me being annoying is the reason you still keep me around."

He hissed at you and pulled his hands away from the guitar spitefully.

Twang.

He watched as one of the strings seemed to pluck itself and debated whether he could reach out and take a swipe at you, but there was a sudden pain beneath his sternum. Odd, seeing as he barely felt pain in this body now. He clicked his claws together contemplatively, then hesitantly rubbed at it to soothe the ache, and as he did, he felt the echoes of your soft sigh somewhere deep inside him.

He faltered for a moment, unsure if he should feel some sort of satisfaction that he had comforted you, or resentment that he had fallen for it.

He hated you. Hated your presence there. Hated that you were somehow here when you left him to this fate. Hated that you made him weak again when Henry had remade him to be strong. Infallible.

You might very well be his downfall one day.

And still he couldn't fathom being without you again.

He growled deeply and, unexpectedly, the trailer shook around him, walls clattering, remnants of knick knacks falling.

For a moment, he watched it in awe. Believed that he was the cause of it. That the power Henry had helped him unlock had been activated with his spite.

Until everything started to shake.

The Upside Down became unsettled, the very ground beneath him shifting with some seismic agitation. Roiling and churning, changing.

There was a cacophony of restlessness through the collective consciousness as all of the creatures of the Upside Down felt the disturbance. As Henry felt the disturbance and questioned its origin, because it had not been of his design.

Almost immediately, he was singled out amongst the masses, ordered to his Master's side.

Who else could find the cause of this turmoil than Henry's right hand? His loyal servant? The Beast he created to strike on his behalf, to herald in the end?

Eddie didn't hesitate.

He left the trailer and took flight swiftly and dutifully, beating his wings powerfully to get to Henry as quickly as he could.

To get away from you as quickly as he could.

You and your comfortable constant presence in the respite of the trailer.

“Do not be afraid. Our fate cannot be taken from us; it is a gift.” ― Dante Alighieri, Inferno

[here-there-be-drag0ns]

I just realised ive never actually talked about my thoughts on religious chip even though i think about it constantly ever since he mentioned having a holy symbol and holy water and going out of his way to replace those after he lost them to the electrodon and also i fucking love making up fantasy religions and pantheons because its soooo fun

ANYWAY

onto my thoughts on what god chip follows and how he got there:

basically Chip follows a god much, much older than Aster or Lundadaeyis, and far more distant. this god is nearly forgotten, followed and worshiped by very few people. this god does not care whether or not people follow him, of course, because it changes nothing in his domain either way. technically, this god could even be considered one of the Great Old Ones, a god whose true name was forgotten centuries upon centuries ago and whose legend is passed on only by word of mouth from follower to follower. those who know of him call him The Narrator.

The Narrator is the god of all stories told throughout the world. He is the god of chance meetings and fated encounters, of accidental occurrences and inevitable events, of the roll of the dice and pre-written prophecies.

(its dm grizzly. chips god is straight up literally just dm grizzly. i made dm grizzly a god.)

As a kid, Chip was never all that into the religions of mana. He found the concept of fate too restricting and the idea of total free will terrifying. He didn't like the idea that every bad thing that ever happened to him was always going to happen no matter what nor did he like the idea that it was the result of his choices, and therefore his fault. So he didnt pay much attention to any talk of Aster and Lunadeyis on the small island he grew up on.

But he was approached one day, when he was maybe 14, by someone very plain, but weathered and with eyes that had seen much. The person offered him a pendant shaped like a quill with a twenty-sided die dangling below it, and said he "looked like a young man with a story to tell". He told chip about The Narrator, a god who simply observes and chronicles and changes the story only to make it more interesting, and even then leaves it up to chance. And something about it called to chip. Maybe it was the lack of pressure. the idea that maybe the bad things werent always going to happen, but that they also weren't anyone's fault, really. or that if more bad things happened, even if it was his fault it wasn't for nothing - it'd be a good story to tell, and at least someone would get something out of it.

So chip became a follower of The Narrator. his belief is a quiet one. hes not the praying type, and The Narrator isnt the kind to demand prayers. perhaps if you toss one up to him, offering to change the story in a way that interests him, he may roll the dice for you, but otherwise he just Is. and that's all chip needs. he just needs something to point to and say "this isn't for nothing", he needs a reason why the bad things that happen are worth it, he needs a reason to believe his story isnt over yet. so he wears that holy symbol with the quill and the die and he believes quietly and he hopes it suits the narrative for him to keep his friends and find his crew.

[nickssidewitch]

What do you think is Matt and Chris's type based on their charts?

Good question! They all have very similar charts since they’re triplets! Every placement is important to take note of when it comes to love and relationships, since you usually give your all in a relationship. The planets I magnify the most, however, are their Moon, Mercury, Venus, and Mars. I look at the 7th house when it comes to partnerships as well. I could look at their asteroid placements, but I’m not super confident about their birth times.

These are their placements in those planets & houses:

Moon: Virgo

Mercury: Virgo

Venus: Leo

Mars: Pisces

7th house ≈ Aries (could be one up or down since I’m not quite sure of all of their times of birth)

They would do well with someone with Virgo, Gemini, Pisces, Aquarius, and Leo placements, or at least placements that can reflect the qualities of those signs. They would want a “ride or die”: someone who will support them through anything good, bad, or ugly. They would want someone who can put them on a pedestal in a way (praise-kink maybe?). I feel that they do have specific types appearance-wise, but I can’t know about that and will also not be sharing those details anyway because that’s super invasive and not for anyone to really know without their permission.

They also like someone who’s a bit mysterious. Someone who you constantly have to converse with in order to learn something new about them every day. It intrigues them to know that this is someone who isn’t a super open book when it comes to personal details.

They want someone who can keep up with their banter and who they can hold seamless conversations with. This can also hold true when it comes to conversations of their emotions, as they really need to trust you to communicate those with you. They can get deep about their feelings, however they really have to trust you and you have to promise not to judge them or betray them. They have a tendency to bottle things up inside, so being with someone who seems receptive to hearing them out would be helpful to them.

They would hate being with someone who pushes them too hard in an argument. They’re truly not argumentative people, so if they’re pushed too hard to react all the time, everything will bubble up inside of them and then they might spill out everything explosively, and that argument can really be hurtful and won’t help the relationship move forward. And if you’re the type to want them to “yell more” or “stand their ground more”, they’ll immediately be disgusted by that. They’re natural pacifists who would much rather use logic and patience to diffuse a situation because they know that if they don’t think things through, they would explode. They are the type to rather daydream about how an argument could go than actually go through with those thoughts unless they are pushed to do so. They’d rather be with someone who can sit down and talk them through conflict , patiently hearing their side, and vice versa. They’re not the type to necessarily solve the problems and conflicts immediately, so they’re attracted to people who can solve problems and conflicts with ease.

They love someone who can appreciate art. I truly have a feeling that music is one of their love languages, so someone sharing their favorite songs at the time can really be a turn-on for them. Liking the same type of music or even putting them onto newer artists they know they would like is also attractive. They would love to go to museums, movies, plays, or things of that nature to really appreciate the beauties of their world, and to learn what the other person values and finds beautiful as well. If they’re religious or spiritual, they would be attracted to someone who has the same religion or spiritual perspective as them. That doesn’t mean they’re not open to new ideals, they would just feel so comfortable with someone who shares those perspectives with them. They want to have those late-night conversations with someone who can really understand what they’re talking about, and who they can build their ideas off of and vice versa.

✨ All in all, they love someone who is:

a pacifist

logical and problem-solving

patient with them

witty

open about emotions and conflicts

allows them to be open

not afraid to praise them

independent and allows them their own independence

Same/Similar spiritual values

Please let me know if you have any more questions! ✨🤍

[monstersinthecosmos]

i feel like slightly younger than marius mael is the best just for flavor reasons lol. reeaally curious to know what you think

I think I usually land on slightly younger but not like a baby. Like early 30s maybe. BUT I'LL TELL YOU SOME THOUGHTS OF WHY I LIKE EACH OR WHY EACH COULD WORK:

Under 30: First of all because of Jesse's chapter in QOTD--Maharet was turned around age 20 I think? And for Jesse, I'm sure there's that sort of uncanny thing where your mind fills in blanks and makes excuses, like, her "aunt" has been around her whole life so like gee golly I guess she just looks young for her age! Except that there's like the vampire uncanniness too, so whatever you judge as an age doesn't super matter. So like, Mael blending in as one of her guy friends in his early 20s would make sense. Jesse DOES also clock him as not being human, so again I think the uncanniness might not make her peg either of them as a certain age.

I do worry if this clashes with the idea that he could properly be a priest? Caesar said that it takes 20 years to train a priest, but A) A lot of what Caesar said is like anti-Keltoi propaganda and might not be accurate since the Druids famously never left anything in writing, so there's very little first hand information about them. B) MAYBE IT'S OKAY BECUASE IN VC-VERSE TESKHAMEN IS REAL AND MAEL WAS REALLY COMMUNING WITH HIM SO IF THERE WAS LIKE MAGIC AFOOT IN THE COMMUNITY MAYBE HE GOT FAST TRACKED OR RESPECTED AS BEING SPECIAL IDK. I can work with it and make excuses lol.

I LOVE the idea of him being like a young man because of how much madder that would make Marius, plus the way he likes to mentor young blonde men lol. But it might like hurt him even worse if the author of all his misfortunate is like SOME KID.

In his 30s: Personally I usually land here because I DO wonder how long it takes him to gain status in his community and become a priest (in his 30s is still fast tracking it but maybe feels more plausible LOL) and I enjoy the idea of he and Marius being sort of similar to each other. Like, Marius often gets used as the example of Turning an Older Guy and what it means for his temperament and the way it translates to his immortality. I like imagining Mael as around Marius's age for that reason, like I want to remove all his excuses why Mael is a young stupid kid or even an old salty jerk--it forces Marius to confront that Mael is ALSO someone who is chill and smart and has had enough life experience. BUT WHILE THERE'S A WINDOW WHERE THEY COULD BE SIMILAR IN AGE, OR MAEL COULD BE A TAD OLDER, I ALSO STILL ENJOY MARIUS BEING LIKE "HE'S YOUNGER THAN ME I HATE THIS!" BECAUSE HIS AGE AND SELF-PERCEIVED WISDOM & EXPERIENCE ARE IMPORTANT TO HIS IDENTITY AND HE FEELS BELITTED LOL.

In his 40s: Makes sense for the above reason! But I like to skew younger personally just for the Marius ageism dynamic lol. Also there's something about him being a foil to Marius where like, if they're very similar in other ways it can kind of emphasize how their atheism/religion contrasts each other and affects them as people.

Over 50: ALSO POSSIBLE and it's hilarious bc in the audiobook the narrator reads him like such a grouchy old man lmao. I could see this causing a lot of resentment because Marius likes to be the oldest and wisest in the room. I could see him also being younger because Marius insults him every chance he gets and I just think he would've told us that Mael is like an old hag if it were true lol. Anyway wondering how this effects Marius's barbarian kink and how he submits to men.

[queerprayers]

hello, i hope you are having a lovely day! thanks for having this blog! 💖 my exposure to faith has mostly been through mainstream doubt-unfriendly environments so it felt eye-opening to follow your blog and a few others that are quite welcoming to it!

do you possibly have any recommendations for nurturing faith when one has so many doubts, including the existence of God or belief in the events of the Bible? or possibly even reading recs?

i was raised agnostic in a Muslim-majority country and i have a diverse friend group with Muslims, Christians, Pagans and agnostic friends so whenever i wish to believe i find myself both doubting and also not knowing how anyone chooses any religion or denomination to follow, but i like to think everyone's faith/religion is valid and connects them to God. anyway that was a bit long, thanks for the blog and answering asks again! :)

Welcome, beloved! I'm so glad you're here and it brings me so much joy to know that people can be honest about their doubt here—it's an integral part of so many people's experience and to repress it or pretend it doesn't exist is misleading and painful.

I'm currently reading A History of God by Karen Armstrong (which I'll probably quote from a couple times) and thinking a lot about how conceptions of God have changed over time, and therefore how doubt has changed—we can only doubt when we have something to doubt! For some people, this book would probably increase their doubt (just a fact, not a bad thing), but for me, learning about how culturally-specific and constructed and interconnected religion deepens my faith in a God watching over it all.

One way that I see people talk about doubt (and I've definitely done it myself) is address it as if it were a stumbling block on the road to faith. That it's something we get over. That there's a linear path to certainty. Even when people praise doubt and call it holy, sometimes they imply that that's only because it strengthens the faith that always comes afterward. Doubting Thomas was the first person to name Jesus as God—we know this, this is all true and is very meaningful to so many. But I've learned to accept other ways that doubt exists, because not everyone has this experience. Doubt is a companion sometimes, not a temporary roadblock. Sometimes it's an inherent part of faith, and sometimes it doesn't lead to religious faith at all. In case you need to hear this: don't create some imaginary end of the road where you'll be certain! Maybe you will, but don't expect that of yourself. Your doubt is your questions and your desires, your creative thinking and your love for your friends, it's you caring about finding something meaningful. It's proof that this matters to you, and even if someday doubt is no longer a major part of your religious experience, don't lose it all. Doubt does not need to be cured—it needs to be listened to.

I'm thinking a lot about the existence of God while reading Armstrong's book—how she presents a constructed God, used as a tool for good and evil, and how beautiful and terrible ideas of God can be. While talking about medieval Islam, she tells us this:

. . . [T]he Arabic word for existence (wujud) derives from the root wajada: "he found." Literally, therefore, wujud means "that which is findable" . . . An Arabic-speaking philosopher who attempted to prove that God existed did not have to produce God as another object among many. He simply had to prove that he could be found. . . . [T]he word wajd was a technical term for [Sufi mystics'] ecstatic apprehension of God which gave them complete certainty (yaqin) that it was a reality, not just a fantasy. . . . Sufis thus found the essential truths of Islam for themselves by reliving its central experience."

What if God is more than existence? What if God is more than we could ever believe in—and so instead of believing in Them, we seek to find Them, see Them a little bit more clearly every day? There's such a Christian emphasis on believing the right thing, and I do think it matters what we believe. But there's more than that—there's how we believe, and what we do about it.

C.S. Lewis believed that the fact that we desire something this world can't satisfy is itself proof that we were made for and by something more. I can't talk you into believing in God, and I don't want to. But the desire for more is a space where God can reside, if you let Them. The desire to believe is a kind of belief. Wanting to believe in God is wanting God, and I'm not claiming proof of anything, but I am saying if you connect with that desire, God is already a part of your life, whether because They're there, or because you can't find Them. The lack of God is still a relation to God. Doubt in a god existing is still a relation to God. God exists in relation to you, in you. If we can only doubt when we have something to doubt, if we can only disbelieve when there's something to disbelieve in, that means we have something.

The Bible is more specific than God's existence, and for some this makes it harder to relate to. It is a more clear presence for many people, though—it's something we can hold, memorize, study. Every person of faith relates to their scriptures differently, and I can't tell you exactly how to do so, or which way is "right." But I will say it is not a thing to believe in—"it" is a living, breathing library of transcribed, collected, translated, loved (and hated) books. We could talk about taking the Bible literally vs. metaphorically, or whether it's "historically accurate," or whether God wrote it or told others to write it or had nothing to do with it. Ultimately where I am, the foundation I come back to, no matter how my beliefs change, is that I believe God wanted us to have it. I believe it matters. Once someone asked me whether a psalm was "theologically accurate" and while that's an interesting conversation, my first instinct when reading a poem written thousands of years ago by someone I've never met is not to theologically analyze it but to say, "Yes! I've felt that way too! I hear you! And God hears both of us!" I don't think you believe or disbelieve in myth or poetry or oral history or prophecy or personal letters—I think you listen to them. Before asking yourself whether these things happened, or if we can prove certain figures existed, or anything else super useful but very overwhelming, especially without a history degree, first ask yourself what they would mean if they mattered. What would change about how you move in the world if these books were close to your heart? If you listened across centuries to find people also believing and doubting and searching and finding?

While recommending the Bible (as well as the other books closest to his heart) in Letters to a Young Poet, Rainer Maria Rilke tells his student, "A whole world will envelop you, the happiness, the abundance, the inconceivable vastness of a world. Live for a while in these books, learn from them what you feel is worth learning, but most of all love them. This love will be returned to you thousands upon thousands of times, whatever your life may become—it will, I am sure, go through the whole fabric of your becoming, as one of the most important threads among all the threads of your experiences, disappointments, and joys." Don't believe in a book—live in it, love it, let it weave you together.

Reading A History of God, I'm being reminded how much dialogue there has always been between religions, especially Judaism/Christianity/Islam, and how so much of the Bible is built on traditions outside of it. The writers of the Bible were also living in diverse communities, interacting with and reacting to other faiths, sometimes with hostility but also with synthesis—so much of all three of these religions is built on the local pagan traditions of where they evolved, and all three incorporated Greek philosophy in various ways. None of the major religions of the world are solitary faiths that sprang up out of nowhere—we have always lived with each other, and we've been alternately mad about it and inspired by it.

Having relationships with many kinds of people is beautiful and fulfilling, but it also inevitably brings up questions! I've found myself saying, "I love this person, I think they're intelligent and well-meaning, and they genuinely believe in something I do not. What does this mean for me? Am I doing something wrong?" Embracing others' faiths is, to me, a really important part of loving them, but it's also often a challenge to work through. It has ultimately been beneficial to my faith for me to work through this, but sometimes it just feels hard, and that's okay.

Although I never really questioned the existence of a god, there have been moments in my life where I had no particular conviction that Christianity was true or especially holy. I've been captivated by Jewish and Muslim traditions/beliefs/scriptures, and admired countless philosophies and practices. Christianity has hurt me and so many others—does that mean it's inherently wrong? But in every season of my life, I've said a Christian prayer every night. Everyone experiences religion differently, but for me? I am not a Christian because I think it's better than all other religions, or because I reasoned my way into it, but because it's where I'm from, where I live, where God meets me.

Your statement that everyone's faith is valid and connects them to God—it's a beautiful belief and it opens us to explore and love what we might not be able to otherwise. Reading A History of God—I do believe it's all God. If God cannot hold contradiction, why would I honor Them? How could I believe They encompass the (paradoxical, contradiction-filled) world if They can't exist fully in paradox and contradiction? This Sunday is the Feast of the Holy Trinity for me, and I love its mystery and its acknowledgement that God is always past our understanding, that God has more than one face, that God comes to us in more than one way, can never be pinned down. I and Christians throughout history encounter God as Trinity, but the day that I limit God is the day I have thrown away everything I've worked to build in myself.

The good news for you is if you believe all religions connect to God in some way, then you also believe that you will always be connected to God—no matter how your beliefs change, no matter where you call home, no matter what your practice looks like. We can't let ourselves believe one thing for others and another thing for ourselves—I did this all the time, believing I could never be forgiven but never dreaming of saying that about someone else. Give yourself the same grace and openness and hope you give your friends. You know they are valid, you know you love them—what can that help you learn about yourself? your own validity, your own ability to be loved?

I'll let you in on a secret (in case you didn't already know): the majority of people do not sit and look without bias at the major world religions and decide which one is "true" and convert to it. I'm sure people have done that, and maybe that's what you want to do (I won't stop you). I don't even know to what extent we can "choose" a religion—I think often one (or many) finds us—but for me and so many others, religion is a culture and a practice as much as, if not more than, a belief. And often it's wholly or mostly inherited—I don't know if I would be Christian if my parents and grandparents and ancestors weren't. I don't know exactly what you've inherited, but we all inherit beliefs (even if the belief is not believing in something), and yours are also built on tradition and ideas throughout the centuries.

This all means that doubt is part of any inherited culture and practice. It means that doubt and participating in a religion have always gone together. If religion is action and community and music, you don't have to believe anything in particular to live in it. My Jewish friends have shown me this most clearly—I know of many Jewish people who don't especially believe in the existence of a god, but eat kosher and observe holidays and say prayers. If you ask them why, they say it's because they're Jewish, because it makes them a more fulfilled person, because they're connecting with their ancestors. If religion is connection to God, as you've said (and I agree), then you don't have to have belief to connect with God.

I am absolutely not saying that we should never question the traditions passed down to us, or that conversion is not a valid choice, or that if you weren't raised religious you can't have religion. I just wish to point out that many people do not first believe in a system and then join a faith practice, but the other way around. They practice their way into faith. So often we cannot know what a belief means unless we first do it. Unless it first has meaning to us. From A History of God:

[Anselm of Canterbury, the 11th century theologian] insisted that God could only be known in faith. This is not as paradoxical as it might appear. In his famous prayer, Anselm reflected on the words of Isaiah: "Unless you have faith, you will not understand":

"I yearn to understand some measure of thy truth which my heart believes and loves. For I do not seek to understand in order to have faith but I have faith in order to understand (credo ut intellegam). For I believe even this: I shall understand unless I have faith."

The oft-quoted credo ut intellegam is not an intellectual abdication. Anselm was not claiming to embrace the creed blindly in the hope of its making sense some day. His assertion should really be translated: "I commit myself in order that I may understand." At this time, the word credo still did not have the intellectual bias of the word "belief" today but meant an attitude of trust and loyalty.

If you haven't already, ask to go to a religious service/event with a friend, read/listen/experience the faiths of others. When you encounter things you're not sure if you believe, ask yourself what it would mean for you if you encountered it as truth. If God exists, if God is [insert attribute here], if God commanded [insert commandment here], if this or that book is something God wants us to have—how would that change your life? My belief in a loving God transforms my world. My prayer practice orders my days and centers my emotions. I am living (or attempting to live) my beliefs, not just thinking them. What can you trust, what can you be loyal to, what can you live, even if you don't believe it right now? "Lord I believe; help my unbelief!" (Mark 9:24)

You can live as if something were true, even if you have no proof, even if you're not sure about it. I live as if there is a loving God—I have no scientific proof of this, I have not always been sure of it. But I live as if there is one, and there is more love in the universe because of it. I have only experienced a loving God when I was living in relation to one. You can go to a church without reading its whole catechism, without knowing all the words, without being sure. My pastor once told me he likes the Nicene Creed more than the Apostles' because it says "We believe" instead of "I believe." A creed not as a personal certainty, but as a communal agreement. I don't always know what I believe, but this is what we believe. I can leave it behind, but I cannot pretend it does not exist. It is my inheritance.

My advice for nurturing faith? Be willing to be wrong. Any god I've heard described is outside of our powers of description. It's dangerously presumptuous to think we can be right about God. Once I let go of the pressure to be right, once I accepted that I could be wrong about everything—that's the only way I got to faith. And the worst thing I can think of is coming to a belief through fear (of hell, of being wrong, of uncertainty, of spiritual homelessness). Fear is sometimes present, but come to it because you want it, because it fills your days with life and love. I'm obviously not a scientist or a philosopher—I've never really searched for capital-T Truth, and maybe it sounds like giving up to say all this, to think that I can never be right. But I have only truly come to Christianity when I've accepted that, as Rachel Held Evans said, it's the story I'm willing to be wrong about.

While it's definitely from a Christian perspective (I'm not sure how relatable that will be to you), the book that's calling to me right now for you is Holy Envy: Finding God in the Faith of Others by Barbara Brown Taylor. It's incredibly honest and interested in the experience of exploring envy in a religious context. It completely changed how I approach finding meaning in others' beliefs, and gave me so much peace in my own. And if you do ever begin to follow a religion/denomination, you might need a reminder that you are not abandoning everything else. You may be choosing a home, but you are not locking yourself inside it. We don't look for a home to denounce everyone else's—we look for a place we can live. Taylor says:

I asked God for religious certainty, and God gave me relationships instead. I asked for solid ground, and God gave me human beings instead—strange, funny, compelling, complicated human beings—who keep puncturing my stereotypes, challenging my ideas, and upsetting my ideas about God, so that they are always under construction. I may yet find the answer to all my questions in a church, a book, a theology, or a practice of prayer, but I hope not. I hope God is going to keep coming to me in authentically human beings who shake my foundations, freeing me to go deeper into the mystery of why we are all here.

What are you willing to be wrong about? What do you want to hold close even when you doubt it? What do you want to do, even if you don't believe in it? What brings you closer to the life you know exists for you, the one that fulfills that desire for God? There might not be one religion that is all this for you. Whether or not you ever create/join a concrete belief system, whether or not you're ever sure about any of it, God is with you. Many people live fulfilling lives outside of institutionalized religion; not all who wander are lost; your existence in a diverse community will serve you so well on this journey, which doesn't have an end and always includes doubt, and from which we can always find a new path, and is all encompassed by a many-faced Universe of Love.

And, as I find myself doing so often, here's some more Rilke to his student, which we can receive whether or not we're young or a Sir:

You are so young, so much before all beginning, and I would like to beg you, dear Sir, as well as I can, to have patience with everything unresolved in your heart and to try to love the questions themselves as if they were locked rooms or books written in a very foreign language. Don't search for the answers, which could not be given to you now, because you would not be able to live them. And the point is, to live everything. Live the questions now. Perhaps then, someday far in the future, you will gradually, without even noticing it, live your way into the answer.

<3 Johanna

P.S.—As well as the things I've quoted from, I would also recommend Not All Who Wander Are (Spiritually) Lost: A Story of Church by Traci Rhoades and all of Rachel Held Evans' books.

P.P.S.—People quote this last Rilke passage a lot, but I'm not sure how many have read the full context? He's mostly giving advice regarding sex anxiety in that letter, which I think is great. It's relevant to most journeys in life, but in case you were wondering what journey it's originally about, there you go.

[anakinh]

I think my problem with the moral greyification of the prime deities is that, for the last two campaigns, the two exandria unlimited campaigns, and tlovm, critical role portrayed the prime deities as benevolent and actively helpful, at the very least willing to fight for and protect mortal beings. Every time someone in C3 asks “what have the gods done for us?” we, the fans, are going to remember stuff like Melora shielding Fjord from Uk’otoa under the Arbor Exemplar, or Pike and her relationship to Sarenrae, or Vex shooting an arrow created by a cleric while radiating sunlight from her blessing from Pelor. We, the fans, have pretty good reason to like the gods. Hell, the last time we had a “the prime deities are bad actually” argument it was from Asmodeus, lord of the hells, prince of lies, and he later subverted his sympathy for the devil shtick in a scene that would go down in history as one of the best in Critical Role. I think now we’re looking at people complaining about the gods and it’s jarring because to us it seems like it came out of nowhere with a lot of evidence against it. “What have the gods done for us?” Fucking a lot.

(Also, it’s true that the C3 characters haven’t seen what we have, but Laudna was brought back by a cleric of Sarenrae and Orym has a literal sword blessed by the Wildmother. The gods actually have done things for them)

Another, smaller thing is that the Prime Deities in Critical Role aren’t associated with the hate and oppression and violence that is tied to modern religious institutions (which was something I thought was to CR’s detriment given the existence of Vasselheim, and I actually do like them showing the dark side of Vasselheim now). We haven’t been given a reason to hate religion beforehand, and even now that we do, we can argue that the actions taken by mortals in the name of their god does not justify the eradication of said god. Anyway, I think this just goes back into the “it’s jarring, it seemed to have come out of left field” concept. 

The last thing is I’m honestly sick of hearing the players and NPCs debating why we should help the Prime Deities since they’re #problematic. Who gives a fuck. Imagine if an old man was sick of the king so he decided to release a rabid bear in the king’s castle, and you’re like “okay but I live in the castle too though?” and he’s like “Don’t worry, it won’t harm you.” Would you follow this man? No! Imagine knowing this old man who was involved in the murders of so many people, including your friends and family, in cold blood to achieve his godless world, and someone says “actually I don’t like the gods” and you’re like “oh damn, maybe this old man has a point.” Who cares if he has a point! He’s murdering entire villages of innocents! The ends don’t actually justify the means! I’m glad Orym and Ashton and Laudna are at least on board with that part, but I’m worried their resolve is weakening. Also I wish the god debate would just shut down when one of them points that out instead of continuing on.

[patrickerville]

how do you feel when (or i guess if, because i don’t know how much fan content you see) people describe feeling vaguely religious towards s11? i think it’s in a similar way to how you’ve described dr. eleven’s story as being godlike, in the way that religion is just a guide on how to live better. i think it’s so cool how, in the show, kirsten and tyler interpret the graphic novel as a kind of religious text, and viewers feel the same way about the show itself. in a normal and not-insane way. (although i definitely did feel insane for a while there until i read what you’ve written about the show, which proves to me that obsession about threads and parallels and metaphors is just a byproduct of how good the story is.) anyway. this is kind of an abstract question but i’m curious!

Any way I answer this is gonna make me sound crazy, so I’ll just try to answer 🤣.

My experience of making this show did not feel like “authoring”; it consistently felt like discovering something that was already there.

My own personal level of obsession went to a place that I think seemed and felt like a kind of madness— and this was true even for the people deeply buried on the creative alongside me, who themselves were all a bit mad, too.

Because of the absolutely bananas way we ended up crossboarded and shooting out of order, as well as shooting in two different cities, as well as shooting DURING a real pandemic (but starting before one)… well, I think there was a period of time where my own brain disconnected from linear time, and I was existing in a fractured and totally alien state. Kind of me, but not me. I would talk for a long time and then realize everyone I was talking to had no idea what I was saying— I was leaping around between multiple episodes and switching from theme to character. It was… a lot.

I didn’t go crazy, but I went half-crazy, maybe, and the help and understanding of many beloved collaborators kept me tethered to the ground, too. So did the actors, who by nature just can’t exist in an abstract or nonlinear space while working on a specific scene. Thank god for the actors.

Finally, without getting too into the details, I also suffered what I would call a sudden collection of traumas— a number of bad things, but all of them largely centered around my sister being diagnosed with cancer— right before we started shooting. I started Day 1 of shooting having slept only a couple hours in the week leading up to that day, and I didn’t see my sister again, or know she was going to survive, for a full year after that day.

Amidst all this— every day I’d go watch something astounding happen, on camera. Every day felt like the world just kept showing me it’s most beautiful things. I think THAT kept me sane and okay, actually.

All in all, it was a holy and formative time for me, personally, and so the experience fans are talking about, when they talk about that feeling, is (I think) one I know, too. Not because I created it, but because the show made me feel it, too. I was looking for a reason to love life, whenever I was at work. First it was because my sister was going to die, and then… well, during the pandemic, it felt like everyone was going to die.

I loved it.

[briefcasejuice]

It's not that I necessarily want Matt to be Catholic. (I am not religious.) It's just that he is, and ignoring character traits for personal preference (to the point of complete disownment) has always been weird to me. Understandable (we want a character to be who we want them to be), just odd. I mean, there are traits I hate on certain characters and I'll ignore them, but I know they're still there in canon. That's why I said it's cool if you like atheist Matt, but that doesn't mean Matt is atheist.

I actually don't have a bias towards live-action.* I love the comics very dearly. But it's been nearly 60 years of comics, so that's quite a lot to look through for specific examples to support what I said. That's my fault though. I was being lazy.

You seem to have contradictory stances on Matt's comic religion across different posts, so it's hard for me to keep a consistent reply. Sometimes, you mention a compulsory faith for the time period. But then in post 746073669336498176, you say, "matt was never catholic before that." I can't get a read on your exact position.

But anyway…

Yes, Smith's run in 1998 can be considered an outlier. Some of its Catholic elements are as heavy-handed as the current run. And some actions (like trying to murder a baby for being the anti-Christ) are too distorted by Mysterio's gas to get the most accurate read on Matt's belief system throughout. But that arc still begins and ends with a not-gassed Matt in confession with a priest. Wearing a crucifix necklace while he is. Iterating his childhood spent studying in church. And the final words of #8 being, "To do my father's work," referencing God. The story is an outlier for its severe piety, sure, but… the whole thing is still canon. Still Matt being Catholic, for better or worse.

More religion and confession in #267... More in #348... But I hesitate to get nitpicky on every. single. instance. of Matt showing any signs. I'd have to comb through the whole catalogue.

Also with Nocenti, any time Mephisto comes up, you run the risk of one reference or another. #266 is one. #280-#281 is another-- in which Matt believes he's in a frozen Hell. Comes upon a church confessional he thinks will provide relief. He "prayed" (his word) he could make fire out of a cross, and does. It ends up being part of what saves him. Meanwhile, narration compares his journey to something like The Divine Comedy, with him traveling Heaven and Hell. (The symbolism alone is good. The accompanying religious belief is not absent.)

This is long enough, and I don't want to keep poring over the source material. I can if you want?

It's not that Matt isn't religious. It's just that religion doesn't come up often. (Good, this is about a superhero.) But when it does, all signs point to him being a believer. If you want to say, "Comic Matt isn't Catholic… as soon as I exclude this instance, this one, and this one," that's fine for your personal headcanons. But you are… ignoring the fact that Matt is Catholic. You're trimming off parts of canon so he fits in the box.

He's not devout. That is true. Matt's religion comes up so infrequently (excluding recent writing), it clearly isn't a large aspect of his personhood. But it still comes up. So… with his foundational youth in the church, occasional references he still believes in God/religious symbols, and no evidence he ever actually turned away from those beliefs, I still consider "lapsed Catholic" to be the best label for Matt. It's not like I'm trying to convert him for my own ends (I have no bias one way or the other), but I am plugging comic canon into Occam's Razor to arrive at the conclusion Matt Murdock is Catholic. The greater burden of proof is on the position he's atheist, and I can't think of any.

Maybe Matt being Catholic is boring for you personally, and that's fine.

*(My mention of the 2003 movie wasn't anything other than a reference to the reply where you said there was no evidence of him being Catholic prior to the tv series. But the movie is one really obvious one. I wanted to point out a too quick conclusion that the 2015 adaptation didn't come up with the concept first. Again, I was lazy and that's my fault.)

"He's not devout. That is true. Matt's religion comes up so infrequently (excluding recent writing), it clearly isn't a large aspect of his personhood." yeah okay. all that just to prove my point man

[badsalmonella]

My hottest Camelot revival take is actually that when it comes to magic in the show I'm running on death of the author rules. Like I actually don't think Aaron Sorkin should have gone around saying magic is 1000% axed gone completely from the show and it's world, because when you actually watch the show I feel like it exists more ambiguously, and it's a belief that multiple characters hold to varying degrees. And I think the clashing of beliefs is interesting actually especially because how it slots into changes in the show. This is why I do not hate these changes and like idk maybeee you should HEAR ME OUTTTT

How going in with this sexy, sexy reading benefits me and might even benefit YOU. TODAY. RIGHT NOW:

-Any mean spirited jokes about the magic system feel a lot more like character moments. Important to note that Guinevere is the character who tends to go hardest on these types of comments, whereas Lancelot is completely devoid of them.

-Genny being the most cynical is a fun lil nod to her now cut line from Simple Joys of Maidenhood where she so easily ditches St. Genevieve when she doesn't feel like her prayers are being answered.

-Even more interesting is how Arthur seems to be somewhere in the middle on this. He thinks legends abt him slaying dragons, and this idea that Lancelot revived him from the dead is ridiculous because these are his lived experiences he knows that's not what happened. But he believes Merlin whom he holds in high regards could see the future. And he is constantly debating on what made the sword come out of the stone when he pulled on it. It's like he needs a reason. What can he say about him and his reign if it was completely random?

-Am I being cheesy if I say I think the conclusion he comes to at the end issss kind of sweet and feels like ohhh the magic??? Of humanity??? Yeah probably.

-Also as much as Arthur and Genny insist that Lancelot did zero resurrecting can we trust them??? It's played off as a joke but Pelly's got a point he WAS UNCONSCIOUS! HOW COULD HE 100% KNOW??? Perhapssss the truthhh is whatever the individual believes now!!! 🤔🤔🤔 perhapssss it's MYTHOLOGY BEING FORMED IN REALLL TIMEEE BABYYYY. ARTHUR CAN SAY WHAT HE WANTS THAT STORY IS LOW KEY OUT OF HIS HANDS NOW! Which looms over his whoooleee legacy

-Lancelot believes his virginity is tied to his miracle work and strength I just think you should put THAT in the toaster of your brain while watching ILYOIS

-this has ALWAYS existed in every version of Camelot but it feels really at home in this version where Lancelot still manages to fight off unreasonable amounts of men post Genny hook up, which now puts all his beliefs up for debate.

-side note when my friend pointed out that his miraculous acts of strength come out It's tied to a love for Genny (rescuing her) or love for Arthur (reviving him) I needed 10 business days to recover. Sequel post Camelot is bisexual you CANNOT CONVINCE ME OTHER WI

-sorry staying on topic

-Anyways important to note all these characters and their varying beliefs rarely have clear cut answers who's right and who's wrong

-except maybe Lancelot in that top point

-but is that due to lack of magic or just not knowing where it comes from???? 👀

-Guys is magic and religion and mythology true or real??? Or is it what we put in it??? Do we give it power when we believe it???? WAS THE ROUND TABLE AND CAMELOT EVER TRULY AS PERFECT AS THE TALES SAY OR IS THAT JUST SOMETHING WE HAVE TO TELL OURSELVES SO WE HAVE THE WANT TO STRIVE FOR GOOD??? IT'S WHAT WE TELL THE KIDDOS WHO WILL BE OUR FUTURE

-Guys Jordan Donica low key agrees with me. He's never had a bad take about Camelot ever. So like trust me fam.

-or maybe there's like a line or plot point I completely forgot about and someone will point it out in the replies and this whole house of cards will fall apart 😔 IDK thoughts??? Feelings???? Guys plz send food through the bars of my enclosure I need it I'm sooooo mentally stable I prommyyy 🥰

[moliathh]

Idk if you’ve thought this much about it but I keep thinking about your reverse au,,,,, how did the groups come together in this universe? Were the members of Iscariot still raised together, or are they more of a hodgepodge of mercenaries who met through work? Has Hellsing taken on that roll of a ‘family’ in the church?

Yes I mostly want to know how Yumikel met MEUXBEKZHEBE

Thank you so much for your interest i am still working on the AU but here are some basic information i kind of sketched out about the Iscariot (i also love yumikel yess i am working on how they meet),

The initial idea (might change) i had for the Iscariot is that Yumiko, Heinkel and Enrico are all from the same orphanage and they sticked together, because Iscariot in this is neutral alignment, and i intended to fix Enrico. He's still hungry for power and control, like in canon, but more grounded because his relationship with Yumiko and Heinkel is closer and they're his found family that keep him from straying too deep into madness (btw spoiler that Millenium is good aligned and Hellsing is bad aligned, it is "reversed" from the og hellsing anyway). In this, Enrico is an occultist, and Anderson is a demon he conjured (to contrast Anderson in canon that served his Christian religion).

Yes and back to the trio, they were seperated and taken in by different organisations and got turned. I am still working on this btw, so the reasons are still unclear whether they were used as bloodbag (yumi) or maybe military purposes idk i need to think harder on it, but one thing is definite is that in this au there are more monsters, real one not artificial, than in og Hellsing, so each group have their own autonomy. Yumie and Heinkel are both true vampire and werewolf btw, not artificial. Anyway, Enrico made a pact with Anderson for power to find Yumie and Heinkel. And they started growing up together, making money by working as hired mercenaries. That's why their alignment is neutral, because they work for the organisation that pays them.

During that time, they helped each other work on the newfound power. Heinkel can't control the wolf shapeshift yet she is working on it and she still wolf out when she's excited. While Yumiko sometimes go bloodlust and delirious, after she drank a lot of people that she assassinated, and her alter ego is Yumie (almost similar mechanism like Alucard's variations in the og hellsing). Enrico binded her with black magic demon power something something idk, almost similar to the Hellsing binding in og Hellsing, but not to bound her to him but to restrict her powers so Yumiko don't just comes out randomly. (I will work on creating a mechanism on her restraint that makes sense, this is still missing a lot of informations).

And to Hellsing, well Hellsing doesn't exactly act like a family, well they almost, kind of, but not exactly. In this, Integra is probably the closest to "family" to Seras while Alucard acted more like a teacher than a family member to Seras. And to recap, Integra is supposed to be Seras' guardian angel (long story btw), but she failed to save Seras in time so she gave Seras' angel blood so Seras became a nephilim, half human half angel.

Okay, let me start from the beginning, everything process like in og Hellsing, Vlad got dragged to public execution and prayed to heaven but G didnt ascend on him. So in this au, i made Integra an archangel who pitied Alucard so she think a little bit of divine revelation to a dead man is probably not too much of a transgression, but when she appeared before him (only he can see and no one else can so they thought he was tripping when he started talking to himself), he assumed that G sent her as a prize for his sacrifice so he just assumed that he rightfully owned her (inspirations from stories of selkies or mermaids that were caught by men because those fishermen just ASSUMED he owned her what a crazy man, but that is what Vlad would do i think) so he cursed her to be bound to him and every of his reincarnations (it's a blood curse, and if you want to know how he did it, he kissed her with his own blood and blood he licked off the stage, and she became an outcast angel like Eve because she ate food from humans, and that was blood too so it was extremely sacrilegious, im drawing inspiration from Eve AND Persephone). Yeah well anyway, Integra still had some celestial power left like understanding Angel's languages and shapeshifting, immortality, demon repelling, exorcism etc etc yeah all the classic one and she can return to her angel form but only PARTLY, not entirely and also she is not allowed back to heaven (she can fly tho but she have her limits when it comes to flying). And then, Vlad reincarnate and everytime he did, he started wrecking havoc, each reincarnations of him doesnt exactly remembered his past lives but he is always born into someone with Dracula blood, descendants of the family. And because Vlad left records, other reincarnation of him also contribute their own record of encounters with Integra. Integra on another hand was stuck with humans, she have her limits and no longer as omnipresence as she was. And each angel in this au is asigned a list of humans to guard over, and Integra failed her task because she no longer capable to guard all over them, however she did have the list and she tried to find her human to protect but most of the time they're already dead by the time she arrived. And she tried to do good things to ammend her sins, but Vlad everytime he was reborn will start conflicts and war to draw Integra out because she is a repenting angel she is very drawn towards places of great suffering, and she tried to hide from Vlad's reincarnations because he have authority over her and she can't kill him, both not capable and not allowed to (as a repenting angel, remember? not allowed to harm anyone). Okay okay fast forward, in the au i am working on, this time the reincarnation of Vlad is called Alucard, and spoiler alert, this time, hes a human but with celestial powers, almost like Integra. Because the soul of Vlad made a deal with Lucifer so when he reincarnated as Alucard, he maintain all of his memories and Integra in this au agreed to side with Alucard because she sensed celestial energy from him so she thought he was blessed or chosen to become an exorcist. And as to why he became an exorcist, he doesn't really care about exorcising, he was just messing around with Integra. In some cases, he himself was the one that conjure demons up (Hellsing is bad aligned in this but Integra and Seras didn't know it yet). And as an exorcist he is invited to crime scenes of demon activities to clean up. One of the crime scenes was Seras's family and Integra finally came across someone on her list that is still at least breathing so she tried ressurecting Seras with her blood. Yeah that's how we got Seras Victoria an orphan that was adopted by the church. Integra cared a lot about Seras, while Alucard intended to use Seras to use Integra. Oh and, Alucard in this au is still obsessive as ever to Integra, he's very close to losing his shits. Alucard and Integra acted like an exorcist duo, with Seras as their protege exorcist.

(The background of Integra and Alucard is lowkey inspired from buddhism's concept of reincarnation and fate and karma something something btw)

If you have any suggestion please do inform me I would love to hear it and thank you for listening to my yappings.

[qprstobin]

oh ur tags about how ppl deal with steve being a little slutty lol i see it sooo muchhh like they love it when he has wild freaky sex but only when it’s with one person like pls relax about casual sex pls! the energy given towards casual sex reminds me so much of what my old religion teacher used to say about it which essentially boils down to every sexual partner takes half ur soul like some sort of weird horcrux situation. and like there’s always this energy of a one true love “saving” steve from the horrors of casual sex. like he’s having fun sucking and fucking he’s fine lol maybe they need to do some soup searching tho

IT REALLY IS like I think if you are genuinely trying to explore different options for his sexuality (specially him being gay or on the ace spectrum) it’s one thing, but like, the amount of fics that act like all the rumors are a lie for no discernable reason 

idk maybe its a way to like purify steve somehow? The same way fics go out of their way to talk about how sweet and kind and helpful steve was before big mean tommy and carol came and forced him to start being a huge bully!! I mentioned this in your tags but i’ve legit seen more than one fic where he loses his virginity to nancy that night in s1 and im just like??? Whats the point of this what does this do for the character lol. People hate on stancy bc of how it ended but his relationship with her was significant to his character growth for more reasons than the Jonathan fight, and him having his first like actually serious relationship after a bunch of not serious ones i feel like is a big thing?

Then the other half is them doing the thing where they want to make sex with your “soulmate” or something the most important sex you will ever have!! And the best sex you will ever have the first time you ever have sex with that person!! (which is a whole other issue - it’s okay to have embarrassing or just mid sex with your partner esp for the first time it doesn’t need to be perfect and amazing the first time) like casual sex and intimate relationship sex are different things often but that doesn’t mean one is automatically bad….

YOURE SO RIGHT ABOUT THE RELIGION TEACHER THING THO like it feels very purity culture-esque the way people talk about it. Its okay for steve to have sex and like having sex! I get that he makes a comment about wanting a lasting relationship which is fine but he doesn’t need to actually be “saved” in anyway from fucking around he can choose to stop doing that himself anytime he wants and he doesn’t! Bc casual sex is fun and is obviously something he enjoys it just isn’t filling all of his emotional needs which is also fine!!

But yeah I really wish fandom realized how much they CONSTANTLY sound like they are repeating or perpetuating purity culture. Fandom will have Steve fall in love in 2 days to the point he will abandon his friends/found family for them but god forbid he casually gets his dick wet outside of their otp and actually enjoys it

[high-queen-of-the-court]

Jean Moreau and Religion

If anyone asked me, I would bet that Jean grew up religious. I can feel it in my BONES (also research shows that ~73.5% of people in France identify with a religion so it’s pretty likely)

ANYWAYS, his journey with his Faith would definitely be rocky, due to obvious reasons. As a religious person myself, I always hear stories from heavily trauma-seasoned people talking about how they stopped believing in God during rocky times and how it took them a second after they found peace again to realize that wasn’t the case. These people typically say that they remembered the true way of the Bible and they say that losing all hope isn’t really losing your Faith. I feel like Jean would have something similar happen to him.

I know a lot of people will be ready to argue with me, but hear me out!

Per headcanon, in almost every fic Alvarez or Laila is depicted as being Muslim. Therefore, I think Jean would see them so happy in their religion and how they love it. It definitely wouldn’t be a quick process, but maybe Jean starts to look back on someone in France like a grandmother who was religious and he looked up to. Maybe he started recalling good memories he has from church as a child. Once he gets this realization, maybe he barely goes to church but he starts believing again. Maybe he doesn’t frequent church once a week and instead studies his own Bible in solitude at home.

Idk I just love Jean Moreau too much