#Biblically accurate war and peace

[pyladessdrunk]

He thinks he's Napoleon!

I am the #1 Pierre is the mulch dog believer this is government propaganda in the form of a shit post

Basically Hélène and Anna Pavlovna shit talking Pierre after he threw a chair at Hélène..

[lalaboy]

woahh i never posted these? crazy. Anyways continuation for the wap polls I held a little bit ago!

[teddydrawshockey]

Biblically Red Rising accurate Auston and Mitch

“I would have lived in peace, but my enemies brought me war.” - Darrow Of Lykos

“I’m Gold bitch. What’d you expect? Warm milk and cookies just because I’m pocket-sized?” Sevro au Barca

@trevzeags11

[idkanametoputhere]

angel from above

character: lilia vanrouge

type: angst-ish ig

pronouns: they/them

tw: mentions of war, angel inspired by biblically accurate angels, mentions of death (duh), slight rigion themes?(it's Easter week, I've been affected)

a/n: I want to make this into a series! this has been sitting in my drafts for MONTHS and I have started working on a part for smn else👀

masterlist<3

lilia vanrouge was no stranger to death

in fact, he could recall more moments in which he almost saw the pearly gates than times he truely felt his heart beating behind his ribs

the first time was a bit into his life. during the war

he got hit by a very powerful spell, falling back as a dark abyss took over everything in his sight. "sevens" he said with as much strength as he could muster up "take care of my country for me" and then there was just darkness

until there was a light. he had heard old tales from older fae in the army, fae with more experience. "if you think everything is gone and you see a light" said a specific one. an older fae, her long hair pulled in a braid, clearing her face and putting her scars on display. "run towards it. chase it. run until your legs are bleeding and your lungs can't bring you enough oxygen to fuel your body. if you can't run, crawl, struggle, do anything to reach the light"

and run he did

he ran, ran faster than he ever had. ran for so long, or maybe for such a shirt time. it felt like an eternity, maybe it was, there was no such thing as time when you're running to escape death, is there?

it always felt so far away, so close but so far away. but he kept on running, and soon enough he was closer and closer until he realised it was a door. he opened it and got inside, closing it behind him as it disappeared

he didn't know what he was expecting to see, but he wasn't expecting to see an angelic being sitting in a table, peacefully reading a brown book with gold details

an angel. a tall figure, taller than most humans and fae, with long white wings were spread behind them, an extra two pairs of hands floating behind them in a praying position. around their head there were two halos, one created from yellow light, the other from eyes. their own eyes had no irises, they were fully white. a gold tear was staining their cheek, as if connected to their skin and their lips were rosy, in a straight line

"oh you have arrived" they exclaimed, quickly closing their book and passing it on their top set of hands "great sevn, you look horrible " they said as they approached him, grabbing his face and wiping small trails of blood that were staining his forehead

the poor fae was too weak to comprehend what was happening, instead just leaning in the hands of the angel, the warmth from them making his pain less noticeable. he didn't know what was happening and he didn't care enough, but where he was was peace and quiet, no sounds of swords and spells being casted

he couldn't see them, he had closed his eyes after all, but he could hear them. he heard them closing a book heavier than the first one and sigh

"it's not your time yet" they whispered as they softly pressed a kiss on his forehead

next thing he knew he was awake in the infirmary, once again at the war. he quickly sat up, causing a stinging pain to run through his head. he looked down on his arms seeing his scars being almost healed

"general!" said frantically another fae as they walked into the infirmary. "you're alive" they said as they rushed to his side, handing him his magic gemstone again

free of blot

when he last saw it, it was filled with blot from all the spells he had used, now it was clear of any black clouds

was that the angel's doing? and the scars? was it their doing as well?

he didn't know, and frankly, he was too exhausted to think about it

he wanted to stand up and go into the battlefield again, but he wasn't allowed until his recovery was done

and so he drew them. he drew the figure that had saved him, that had helped him. he drew the figure that held him and gave him a sense of quiet during the worst part of his long life. he drew them again and again, his hands moving as if puppeteered by someone to keep on drawing it

pages after pages, as if they'd disappear from his memories if he couldn't see them

"you saw them too huh?" asked someone from the next bed to him. it was the older fae who gave him the advise to run. the one who led him to the angel

"I saw them again earlier today. I think I can faintly hear them now, dear general" they continued. their limbs were bandaged, blood seeping through the fabric, painting it a deathly crimson colour. "may you not see them soon, vanrouge" they said as they slowly closed their eyes

they never opened them again

years later, the angel became a piece of folklore in briar valley's history. soldiers who had fought in the war told the tales of the sweet angelic being who helped them when they thought they were about to meet their creator

.

"lilia, are you scared of death?" asked the young prince, closing the heavy book he had been previously reading

"I've met death malleus"

"they really are lovely"

a/n: I'm back bitches B)

[whereareroo]

WAR

WF THOUGHTS (10/12/23).

I’ve been struggling to find something brilliant to say about the atrocity that just happened in Israel. I have failed. There’s nothing brilliant to say. The whole situation is so confusing. It’s impossible to condense everything into a short analysis that is fair and accurate.

Whether we like it our not, war is a fact of life. Humans have been fighting with each other since Adam and Eve. During and after every war, people give speeches about the senselessness of war and the wisdom of avoiding war at all costs. Soon thereafter, the next war begins. History tells us that war will never stop.

Ever since the biblical kingdoms of Israel and Judah (approximately 1000 B.C.), war has been a fact of life in the Middle East. For a long time, it was part of the blood thirsty Roman Empire. Later, from around 1300 A.D. until the end of WWI in 1918, the Middle East was controlled by the Ottoman Empire. War was a tool that was regularly used by the Ottomans. In the aftermath of WWI, by international agreement, the Middle East was governed by British Authorities. When the British took control, the region was predominantly Muslim. There was only a small Jewish population. (Except for Israel, the region is still almost exclusively Muslim.) The British relinquished control in 1948, which gave rise to the birth of Israel as a homeland for the Jewish people. Sadly but not surprisingly, that transition involved war and the warfare has never ended. There has been war in the region in 1948, 1953, 1955, 1956, 1959, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1978, 1982, 1985, 1987, 1990, 1993, 2000, 2004, 2006, 2007 and 2014. The latest round of war has just commenced. There have been so many wars in the region that it’s nearly impossible to keep track of the issues in dispute and the positions of the various combatants. It’s all extremely complex and confusing.

Do you see my point? The fighting never stops in the Middle East. There is constant conflict regarding religion, geography, culture, old grudges, and other issues. Do you think the repetitive wars will ever stop? I’m doubtful. This latest flare up will probably put peace prospects on the back burner for at least 50 years. It will be a very long time before the Israelis and Palestinians can restore even a few ounces of trust.

As we look at the Middle East from a distance, Americans shouldn’t be too quick to criticize the use of war as a means to achieve an objective. We used war to achieve our independence from England. We used war, a war that killed more than 600,000 Americans, to keep America from dividing itself into two different countries. We’ve been involved in many other wars too. Please don’t presume that America is a totally peaceful nation. That’s not true. I’m sorry to say that we’ve played the war game too.

Unlike the warring nations in the Middle East, America has been able to achieve peace with former enemies. Great Britain, our enemy in the Revolutionary War, is now our best international friend. Here at home, The North and The South have reconciled. Even though we dropped atomic bombs on Japan after Pearl Harbor, the USA and Japan are close allies today. We’re also close allies with Germany, the formerly evil country that we defeated in WWII. Despite our history with war and peace in America, peace seems to be impossible in the Middle East. The war never ends.

Because war has such a long history in the world, accepted norms have developed for fighting during wartime. Yes, there are essentially “Rules of War.” Even in the context of a war, certain actions are not permitted. Certain lines cannot be crossed. You probably know what I’m talking about.

We all need to be very, very clear about what happened in Israel this week. The attack on Israel by Hamas was not like all of the other fighting that has occurred. The attack was not consistent with the ordinary rules of war. The attack was pure, unadulterated, barbaric, terrorism. It’s terrorism to attack a crowd at a music festival that is filled with young unarmed civilians. It’s terrorism to beat and slaughter civilians, including women and children. It’s terrorism to capture civilians as hostages and to use them as human shields for protection. It’s terrorism to rape women, to kill babies, and to abuse the elderly. Please stay focused on the fact that Hamas launched a terrorist attack.

Make sure that you’re thinking very clearly about what happened this week in Israel. This wasn’t normal warfare perpetrated by a country that is seeking to protect itself or to advance its own agenda. Hamas is a terrorist group. For years, the U.S. government has designated Hamas as a “Foreign Terrorist Organization.” Hamas is on the same list as Al Queda, ISIS, and Bolo Haram. Hamas isn’t a military organization that has been authorized by a country to engage in standard warfare. Hamas is a terrorist organization that has committed acts of terrorism. They’re a group of thugs that have committed brutal atrocities. The world will be a better place if Hamas is eliminated from the face of the earth.

Israel has every right to hunt down the members of Hamas and to take whatever action is necessary to keep these thugs from committing additional acts of terrorism. It will be a tough challenge. Israel believes that the terrorism wing of Hamas includes approximately 20,000 terrorists. America should fully support Israel in that effort.

At some later date, we can have an intellectual discussion about the longstanding conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. You must fight the urge to link this attack with that conflict. This attack has nothing to do with two countries trying to resolve their differences. The terrorists in Hamas do not represent the people of Palestine. Today is not the day to discuss the bigger picture in the Middle East. Right now we need to stand with Israel and hope for the speedy elimination of the Hamas terrorists.

We all need to pray that Israel can find a way to eliminate Hamas without causing the conflict to escalate and drag in other countries. The Gaza Strip, only the size of Philadelphia, sits at the southwestern edge of Israel along the Mediterranean Sea. The West Bank, another troublesome area the size of Delaware, sits on the eastern edge of Israel along the Jordan River. Inasmuch as Israel is only the size of New Jersey, the troublesome areas are not far apart. Isn’t it sickening that all of this grief relates to such small pieces of land? Hezbollah, another terrorist group that’s loosely affiliated with Hamas, operates in the West Bank. Hezbollah, with a force of approximately 40,000 terrorists, is much bigger and stronger than Hamas. If Hezbollah decides to act opportunistically and enter this new war, the battle could soon include nearby countries like Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, or Egypt. The nightmare scenario would be the direct involvement of Iran, which is already indirectly involved because it funds and otherwise supports both Hamas and Hezbollah. We need to hope that Israel can “thread the needle” and find a way to eliminate Hamas without precipitating a much wider war.

We live in very dangerous times. War is always at the doorstep. At times like these, we all should be thankful that we’re Americans. In every way possible, we must support Israel in her quest to put an end to the terrorists in Hamas.

[minusgangtime]

You thought you could declare war on our family and not expect us to notice? Nah! When you mess with one of us..you mess with ALL of us!~

(All the humanized kitties aside from midnight lined up right beside the pink destructive women-)

-pinkie

"You might end our peace... But you cannot end family!"

Blue's eyes started glowing and he transformed into his biblically accurate form...

"If it is to be...!"

[caterjunes]

quick ideasdump under the cut.

these won't be coherent or organized yet. thoughts subject to change before finalization

first things first i am not catholic anymore but i WAS raised catholic so. we've got some stuff to draw from there.

to become a magical girl, you are visited by an angel in a vision. it takes you to the Garden (of Eden) and gives you the option to eat a fruit from the Tree of Life, granting you power and increasing the presence of your Divine Spark

you are tasked with aiding God in her war against the Serpent/Dragon by fighting demons. these demons squirm through cracks in reality and attempt to seize the Divine Spark from people/meaningful things. you send them to Hell and return the Divine Spark to its holder, setting up a nice monster-of-the-week format (classic sailor moon shit! lull 'em into a false sense of security)

we get to have some fun with a demon or three. you get familiar with your magical girl form, complete w/ Holy Weapon & miracles. if you die you get another vision of the Garden and can choose to eat of the fruit of the Tree of Life to return to the battle

at some point the Serpent appears and offers a fruit from the Tree of Knowledge. not sure what this would do yet. maybe grant a new miracle in exchange for a permanent stat debuff (symbolizing the strain on your relationship with God)

eventually you defeat the Serpent herself and cast her into Hell as well

bc this is anime bullshit we HAVE to have a twist that leaves you reassessing the foundational assumptions you made of the world & the story. AND we have to attack & dethrone God.

you learn (somehow?) the God of this world is a false god (demiurge) of an imperfect universe, cradled within a much vaster Divinity

she is engaged in a battle against the forces of the True God (the Monad 🔘) acting through the Serpent (aka Sophia/Wisdom), and is trying to keep to herself the Divine Spark she stole & infused her creation with, like a petulant child.

this is based on some sort of gnosticism-adjacent cosmogony/metaphysical structure. as far as i can tell the irl gnostic movement (from the 1st & 2nd centuries) was Real jesus-y and antisemitic so. we're making up some alternate theology. don't worry about it.

the "demons squirming through cracks in reality" were in fact divine beings entering the demiurge's universe from the Monad's realm. it was fucked up that they were like. unmaking ppl tho. hmm.

oh i think probs you defeat the Serpent and then the demiurge casts YOU into Hell as well, bc you've served your purpose

anyways then you have to i think lead a jailbreak out of Hell, freeing the Serpent and also engaging in a christ-like harrowing of hell -> anastasis (resurrection)

and now you get to fight & dethrone god! and also maybe broker a peace treaty w/ the Monad through Sophia, hopefully??

some other thoughts:

i think the demiurge appears as a magical girl in a dress that appears white but is in fact scintillating of every color (like saruman's), while the Monad is a single sphere of True White Light. i'll give someone a prism and note that the demiurge's white light breaks into a rainbow but the Monad's does not

this has many simultaneous purposes: a hint that the demiurge, like saruman, is Maybe Not A Good Guy; a sign that the Monad is pure, indivisible, incorruptible; a hint that the Monad is, due to Its nature 🔘, incapable or unwilling to see shades and hues of morality; a reminder that the trope of White Is Good is a complicated one, hopefully

obvs the angels need to be Biblically Accurate (tm) - wheels & faces & eyes & lions & wings & flames & hands

for the Serpent, the demiurge, and other cosmic beings, i think there should be a vibe of the witches in pmmm - like this is something that doesn't Belong in this universe, and your perception of it is warped & unreal

possessed by the urge to run a magical girls ttrpg campaign

[washingtondaily]

Day #5

Song of the day: Stalkers Tango by Autoheart

I woke up early again, but we just hung around the house for the majority of the morning. I got ready to go to town, but we ended up going up to the mountains.

We played in the snow, I made biblically accurate snow angels, a snowman named Patricia, (she has a fatty), and I saved a small bug named Xavier from freezing to death. Or, as we all pretended, from the raging war and the bombs being thrown by my brother and dad. Xavier made it home to his family, his wife, two kids, and his sick mother. I lost my legs and my dignity.

It was so much fun in the snow, I love it so much, although my legs were numb by the time we left. We also saw dead elk carcasses, and I took one of the skulls for myself.

We got desks today but I didn't put them in my room yet. Anyways, it was a pretty fun day, I didnt write much because it was pretty busy. Anyways, I'm out. Peace peace.

Word of the day: implicit

adjective

implied though not plainly expressed.

"comments seen as implicit criticism of the policies"

End of day room photos:

[clarktooncrossing]

Giraffe's Eye View | The Ten Commandments (1956) REVIEW

Hello there people of today and robots of tomorrow! It is I, Clark, exhausted after four months of Holiday preparations. Between getting ready for Halloween and Christmas can take a lot out of a guy, especially for someone as meticulous and festive as I am. Sure, I could take the time to actually relax and rest, but there are cookies to bake, presents to wrap, and monsters to expel from my house, spam it! Especially werewolves, those hairy douchebags track their hair all over the place whenever they don't floor-scoot. Along with all that comes the annual movie marathons. For September and October it's non-stop monster movies like Little Shop of Horrors, the 90s Scooby-Doo saga, and the classic Universal Monsters. You haven't lived until you see a six-foot fishman try to woo a human woman. Gillman was robbed! Meanwhile, November and December brings forth festive flicks like Miracle on 34th Street, Hogfather, Batman Returns, and The Star Wars Holiday Special. The world won't know peace until everyone hears Carrie Fisher high off her ass giving lyrics to John William's iconic score. Disney, stop cowardly denying the world this amazing milestone of television!

That said, it also denies me the chance to watch anything new that's coming out around the time, resulting in my pile of things to watch backing up. As such, the first few weeks of January are designated as Binge Week, a time for me to catch up on anything I've missed. Since I've a massive windbag with a blog, why not share my thoughts on what I'm watching with all you weirdos? With no further ado, let's begin our binging with the movies.

This first video was gifted to me by my friend Alec in the form of his old VHS copy. For all you young wiper-snappers out there wondering what the heck a VHS is, I pity you. You'll never know the satisfaction of rewinding a tape. Netflix has robbed you of that joy! Then again it's also robbed you of having to stop the movie halfway through to put in the next tape or setting up your VCR to work with your modern day television, something I had to do to watch the cinematic classic The Ten Commandments (1956). That was a biblical effort on par with parting the Red Sea. Well, maybe not, but it was certainly a pain in my spotted butt! Complaining aside, what did I think of the picture overall?

It starts with a short, old man appearing behind a set of lavish curtains to speak directly to the audience. Hoo boy, I've seen Frankenstein, I know where this is going! Is he going to warn us about the frights that await us? Actually no, he says this picture depicts the birth of freedom, our more accurately the story of Moses, played iconically by Charlton Heston. No doubt this was helping him prepare for Planet of the Apes, for trying to escape the wrath of the Egyptians turns out to be equally as exhausting. It doesn't help this his brother Ramses (Yul Brynner) is Pharaoh. Eesh, talk about your family squabbles.

Really, is there any point to me recapping the plot? Hebrew kid gets sent up the river in a basket, gets adopted by the Royal family, finds out he's Hebrew, sees a vision of a burning bush, returns to Egypt to free the slaves, yadda yadda yadda. Why repeat all of this when chances are you all know this story thanks to its cartoon counterpart, The Prince of Egypt. Comparing and contrasting the two would prove just as pointless, both having released over four decades apart from each other, both telling their stories in different mediums, and both being impressive showcases of what Hollywood was capable of at the time. Both are equally epic, but when all's said and done I prefer Prince of Egypt. Why? Let me count the ways!

Firstly, there's the aforementioned personal turmoil between Moses and Ramses. As apposed to his somewhat sympathetic two-dimensional doppelganger, Brynner's interpretation of the character is a bastard and a half, a two-headed snake that ends up eating his own tail. Not to say this is necessarily bad. After all, why feel any pity for an Egyptian monarch who is pro-slavery? Especially when Yul delivers a powerful performance that rivals Heston's, crafting one of cinema's greatest scoundrels. It's because the fractured brotherly relationship between Val Kilmer's Moses and Ralph Fiennes's Ramses is more interesting and impactful. Seeing how much the two cared about each other before Moses is sent back by God makes what happens next so much more of a gut-punch.

Speaking of emotional gut punches, there's the songs. I know this especially isn't fair considering this movie was never meant to be a musical, but all during the opening scene I kept hearing this in my head:

More accurately the Jonathan Young and Caleb Hyles cover, but you get my point.

Which brings me to my third point; the length. This film is almost four fours long, nearly rivaling Zack Snyder's Justice League runtime minus all the unnecessary slow-mo. For crying out loud, the opening includes an introduction by the film's director Cecil B. DeMille, then a quote from old scripture, followed by the Pharoh plotting to slaughter all the Hebrew firstborns, only then cutting to Moses's birth mother sending him away in a desperate bid to save his life. All of that eats up a good chunk of the movie's runtime, as apposed to the short but effective musical number DreamWorks made. I mean, do we really need to see the Pharoh's logic behind butchering a bunch of babies? The act is freak'n messed up regardless!

That said, the film at least uses its lengthy runtime wisely. We get plenty of development for Moses's adoptive mother Bithiah (Nina Foch), his treacherous ex-lover and wife of Ramses Nefertiti (Anne Baxter), more time to see what agony the Hebrews are living with under the Egyptian rule, all good stuff. Still, the movie could've cut out the last few scenes, such as God's writing of the commandments while everyone at the base of the mountain throws the world's first kegger. Really, the commandments barely played a role now and they'll continue to do so immediately after they're introduced, so why even bother? It's almost like Shang Chi and the Ten Rings, naming your movie after a magical maguffin that's just barely explained. The only difference being the rings are at least used throughout their movie!

All that said, The Ten Commandments more than earns it's spot as a gold standard of film. The acting if wonderful, the writing is witty, and the sets are a sight to behold. According to Alec, this was made back when Hollywood felt threatened by television, resulting in lavish backdrops like this that couldn't be replicated on a small screen or budget. Wow have times changed. Now we have equally detailed and lengthy movies on streaming services like HBO Max, now with the ability to pause so we can actually go the bathroom without waiting for an intermission. Trust me folks, you're gonna wanna pee before you commit to this movie. Otherwise the Parting of the Red Sea will be torturous for you. Otherwise, I say check this movie out, it's a masterpiece of biblical proportions.

Circling back to the subject of Rings though, this brings me to the other VHS my friend sent me...

CURIOUS WHAT HAPPENS NEXT? CLICK HERE FOR MY THOUGHTS ON 1977'S THE HOBBIT! MAY THE GLASSES BE WITH YOU!

[holdonendure]

Brothers and Sisters

The concept of Follower of the Way has degenerated in these days, to a simple matter of choice or mental exercise. Liberal theologians focusing on unity for church growth and mammon have neutralized Biblical doctrines outlining the tenants of the new–birth, because they are divisive. Yahusha said…

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. He that loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. MATTITHYAHU (MATTHEW) 10:34-37

The popular concept being: Just make a decision for “YAHUSHA,” and you will go to Heaven; no repentance or change required. Wow! No wonder the claim is that 80% of the country say they are “Believers” Say this prayer and you will be “saved!” From what..death..sin...eternal damnation? (Good luck with that) Furthermore, televangelists and Self proclaimed “Apostles”, “Bishops”and even “Prophetesses“suggest followers can develop plans and make decisions, and then demand their want in the name of Mashiach Yahusha and have the gall to label it a blessing. (Living Your Best Life) They aren’t fooling anyone but the spiritually immature. If that offends you, it was for you. There is absolutely no Scriptural support for this bold and blasphemous hypothesis. Salvation is a summons to die; die to self, temporal pursuits and ANYTHING else that would draw your attention from the following and serving of our example, Yahusha. Focus with me on the Our Saviors words…

And there went great multitudes with him: and he turned, and said unto them, If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and woman, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my Talmidiy (disciple). And whosoever does not take up his cross, and come after me, cannot be my Talmidiy. (disciple) For which of you, intending to build a tower, sits not down first, and counts the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it? Lest haply, after he has laid the foundation, and is not able to finish it, all that behold it begin to mock him, Saying, This man began to build, and was not able to finish. Or what king, going to make war against another king, sits not down first, and consults whether he be able with ten thousand to meet him that comes against him with twenty thousand? Or else, while the other is yet a great way off, he sends an ambassage, and desires conditions of peace. So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsakes not all that he has, he cannot be my Talmidiy.

LUQAS (LUKE) 14:25-33את

The Scriptural teaching on what it means to be a disciple of Adonai Yahusha isn’t popular. This just happens to be one of multiple unpopular accounts of true conversion. There is absolutely no reason this message would appeal to the lost, unless the Spirit of the ELOHIYM drew him or her to Ha’Mashiach first (Titus 3:5). Following this transforming work, the believer is suddenly confronted with established loyalties, spiritual crosses, spiritual assignments and spiritual battles. The Savior’s instruction to hate family in verse twenty–six is an eye opening charge or better yet, a commandment, (not a suggestion) to set spiritual priorities ahead of not only family but everything else as well, including personal wellbeing. According to Yahusha Ha’Mashiach, unforsaken loyalties don’t simply reduce your performance as His disciple; they disqualify you. He next mentions un-carried crosses as disqualifiers from His discipleship (verse twenty–seven). Modernism tends to categorize any discomfort such as physical, economic, social or geopolitical, as a cross. This is simply not accurate. These and others may be closely akin to your cross, (in your own summation) but they do not even come close qualifying as the cross itself.

Dietrich Bonhoffer is but one case in point. Bonhoffer was a Lutheran pastor and theologian who was executed for conspiring against Adolph Hitler. He recognized the hatred manifest in Nazi propaganda, and stood against it. This was a career–limiting move that first cost Bonhoffer his freedom and then his life. But Nazism was not Bonhoffer’s cross. He could have capitulated, as did other German pastors of the day, and been just fine. In simple terms, your cross is ANY opposition to your flesh: deny yourself.

The third area of discipleship disqualification Messiah dealt with is unkept promises (verses twenty–eight – thirty). He spoke as in a parable and used the analogy of someone planning a building, who projects the cost before undertaking the project. Many people have no desire to end up in hell, but neither do they intend to follow the Yahusha Ha’Mashiach, whatever the cost. According to Yahusha , your lack of commitment disqualifies you from being His disciple.

The fourth and final qualification mentioned in this passage deals with unfought battles (verses thirty–one – thirty–two). Anytime you compromise with your flesh or peer pressure, you have failed to fight a spiritual battle, which again disqualifies you from being a Talmidiy (disciple. )

James wrote…(brother of Messiah James...yeah I think he knew him)

Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with YAH? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of YAH.

James 4:4

Compromise with the world does not in any way draw you to the Savior , but conversely, draws you into sin. There is no neutral track in the Messiah’s economy,

He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathers not with me scatters abroad. MATTITHYAHU (MATTHEW) 12:30.

Or...

No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and את eth love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve YAH and mammon. MATTITHYAHU (MATTHEW) 6:24

The new–birth is a summons to suit–up in the whole armor of YAH (Ephesians 6:10–18), because you are now in a spiritual battle, most often fought on the field of your mind. No Believer ever reaches sinless perfection on this side of eternity, but you do make the decision to sin long before the opportunity ever presents itself.

The most ignored and understated part of our personal accountability as true converts comes in verse thirty–three when The Son Of the Most High said, “So likewise, whoever of you does not forsake all that he has cannot be My disciple”, which flies in the face of the prosperity gospel and false doctrine taught ☀️SUNday mornings from coast to coast. Based on Yahusha’s stated qualifications for discipleship, are you His disciple? Or have you been DISQUALIFIED in your own deception?

[pyladessdrunk]

Biblically accurate Anatole love letters

This is all the fault of war and yuri, guys. Anyways this is my bbiblically accurate war and peace fanart

[boneasin]

Pure Vanilla would look like a biblically accurate angel, based on his enemy in the guild arena. Hollyberry would be a Dionysus type with a mix of war, a god of protecting the peace.

She would probably like, be open-ish about it, she wouldn't be afraid to show it but she (and by extension the others) would lie about it just being magic. it is magic but ya know GOD magic.

White Lily would be a "came too close to the sun" type, she had power but her soul jam went against her when she started acting out of line, trying to prevent what she was doing because the soul jam knew but she did not. in turn, she merged with her soul jam making her magic more easily excusable and much more unstable, unlike the other soul jams which greatly reduced her ability to think clearly.

Idk I’m actually wondering how the god thing works exactly, since Pure Vanilla has a whole damn church and Affogato is canonically a priest of some sorts.

Not sure about Hollyberry, maybe she is a god just only powered by the ideals of her people and then Golden Cheese is just an Egyptian god that’s actually publicly a god.

White Lily is something we need to work on though-

@boneasin

[96thdayofrage]

What is Critical Race Theory?

Basically, Critical Race Theory is a way of using race as a lens through which one can critically examine social structures. While initially used to study law, like most critical theory, it emerged as a lens through which one could understand and change politics, economics and society as a whole. Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic’s book, Critical Race Theory: An Introduction, describes the movement as: “a collection of activists and scholars engaged in studying and transforming the relationship among race, racism, and power.”

Kimberlé Crenshaw, one of the founding members of the movement, says Critical Race Theory is more than just a collective group. She calls it: “a practice—a way of seeing how the fiction of race has been transformed into concrete racial inequities.”

It’s much more complex than that, which is why there’s an entire book about it.

Can you put it in layman’s terms?

Sure.

Former economics professor (he prefers the term “wypipologist”) Michael Harriot, who used Critical Race Theory to teach “Race as an Economic Construct,” explained it this way:

Race is just some shit white people made up.

Nearly all biologists, geneticists and social scientists agree that there is no biological, genetic or scientific foundation for race. But, just because we recognize the lack of a scientific basis for race doesn’t mean that it is not real. Most societies are organized around agreed-upon principles and values that smart people call “social constructs.” It’s why Queen Elizabeth gets to live in a castle and why gold is more valuable than iron pyrite. Constitutions, laws, political parties, and even the value of currency are all real and they’re shit people made up.

To effectively understand anything we have to understand its history and what necessitated its existence. Becoming a lawyer requires learning about legal theory and “Constitutional Law.” A complete understanding of economics include the laws of supply and demand, why certain metals are considered “precious,” or why paper money has value. But we can’t do that without critically interrogating who made these constructs and who benefitted from them.

One can’t understand the political, economic and social structure of America without understanding the Constitution. And it is impossible to understand the Constitution without acknowledging that it was devised by 39 white men, 25 of whom were slave owners. Therefore, any reasonable understanding of America begins with the critical examination of the impact of race and slavery on the political, economic and social structure of this country.

That’s what Critical Race Theory does.

How does CRT do that?

It begins with the acknowledgment that the American society’s foundational structure serves the needs of the dominant society. Because this structure benefits the members of the dominant society, they are resistant to eradicating or changing it, and this resistance makes this structural inequality.

Critical Race Theory also insists that a neutral, “color-blind” policy is not the way to eliminate America’s racial caste system. And, unlike many other social theories, CRT is an activist movement, which means it doesn’t just seek to understand racial hierarchies, it also seeks to eliminate them.

How would CRT eliminate that? By blaming white people?

This is the crazy part. It’s not about blaming anyone.

Instead of the idiotic concept of colorblindness, CRT says that a comprehensive understanding of any aspect of American society requires an appreciation of the complex and intricate consequences of systemic inequality. And, according to CRT, this approach should inform policy decisions, legislation and every other element in society.

Take something as simple as college admission, for instance. People who “don’t see color” insist that we should only use neutral, merit-based metrics such as SAT scores and grades. However, Critical Race Theory acknowledges that SAT scores are influenced by socioeconomic status, access to resources and school quality. It suggests that colleges can’t accurately judge a student’s ability to succeed unless they consider the effects of the racial wealth gap, redlining, and race-based school inequality. Without this kind of holistic approach, admissions assessments will always favor white people.

CRT doesn’t just say this is racist, it explains why these kinds of race-neutral assessments are bad at assessing things.

What’s wrong with that?

Remember all that stuff I said the “material needs of the dominant society?” Well, “dominant society” means “white people.” And when I talked about “racial hierarchies,” that meant “racism.” So, according to Critical Race Theory, not only is racism an ordinary social construct that benefits white people, but it is so ordinary that white people can easily pretend it doesn’t exist. Furthermore, white people who refuse to acknowledge and dismantle this unremarkable, racist status quo are complicit in racism because, again, they are the beneficiaries of racism.

But, because white people believe racism means screaming the n-word or burning crosses on lawns, the idea that someone can be racist by doing absolutely nothing is very triggering. Let’s use our previous example of the college admissions system.

White people’s kids are more likely to get into college using a racist admissions system. But the system has been around so long that it has become ordinary. So ordinary, in fact, that we actually think SAT scores mean shit. And white people uphold the racist college admissions system—not because they don’t want Black kids to go to college—because they don’t want to change admission policies that benefit white kids.

Is that why they hate Critical Race Theory?

Nah. They don’t know what it is.

Whenever words “white people” or “racism” are even whispered, Caucasian Americans lose their ability to hear anything else. If America is indeed the greatest country in the world, then any criticism of their beloved nation is considered a personal attack—especially if the criticism comes from someone who is not white.

They are fine with moving toward a “more perfect union” or the charge to “make America great again.” But an entire field of Black scholarship based on the idea that their sweet land of liberty is inherently racist is too much for them to handle.

However, if someone is complicit in upholding a racist policy—for whatever reason—then they are complicit in racism. And if an entire country’s resistance to change—for whatever reason —creates more racism, then “racist” is the only way to accurately describe that society.

If they don’t know what it is, then how can they criticize it?

Have you met white people?

When has not knowing stuff ever stopped them from criticizing anything? They still think Colin Kaepernick was protesting the anthem, the military and the flag. They believe Black Lives Matter means white lives don’t. There aren’t any relevant criticisms other than they don’t like the word “racism” and “white people” anywhere near each other.

People like Ron DeSantis and Tom Cotton call it “cultural Marxism,” which is a historical dog whistle thrown at the civil rights movement, the Black Power movement and even the anti-lynching movement after World War I. They also criticize CRT’s basic use of personal narratives, insisting that a real academic analysis can’t be based on individually subjective stories.

Why wouldn’t that be a valid criticism?

Well, aren’t most social constructs centered in narrative structures? In law school, they refer to these individual stories as “legal precedent.” In psychology, examining a personal story is called “psychoanalysis.” In history, they call it...well, history. Narratives are the basis for every religious, political or social institution.

I wish there was a better example of an institution or document built around a singular narrative. It would change the entire constitution of this argument—but sadly, I can’t do it.

Jesus Christ, I wish I could think of one! That would be biblical!

Why do they say Critical Race Theory is not what Martin Luther King Jr. would have wanted?

You mean the Martin Luther King Jr. who conservatives also called divisive, race-baiting, anti-American and Marxist? The one whose work CRT is partially built upon? The King whose words the founders of Critical Race Theory warned would be “co-opted by rampant, in-your-face conservatism?” The MLK whose “content of their character” white people love to quote?

Martin Luther King Jr. literally encapsulated CRT by saying:

In their relations with Negroes, white people discovered that they had rejected the very center of their own ethical professions. They could not face the triumph of their lesser instincts and simultaneously have peace within. And so, to gain it, they rationalized—insisting that the unfortunate Negro, being less than human, deserved and even enjoyed second class status.

They argued that his inferior social, economic and political position was good for him. He was incapable of advancing beyond a fixed position and would therefore be happier if encouraged not to attempt the impossible. He is subjugated by a superior people with an advanced way of life. The “master race” will be able to civilize him to a limited degree, if only he will be true to his inferior nature and stay in his place.

White men soon came to forget that the Southern social culture and all its institutions had been organized to perpetuate this rationalization. They observed a caste system and quickly were conditioned to believe that its social results, which they had created, actually reflected the Negro’s innate and true nature.

That guy?

I have no idea.

Will white people ever accept Critical Race Theory?

Yes, one day I hope that Critical Race Theory will be totally disproven.

Wait...why?

Well, history cannot be erased. Truth can never become fiction. But there is a way for white people to disprove this notion.

Derrick Bell, who is considered to be the father of Critical Race Theory, notes that the people who benefit from racism have little incentive to eradicate it. Or, as Martin Luther King Jr. said: “We must also realize that privileged groups never give up their privileges voluntarily.”

So, if white people stopped being racist, then the whole thing falls apart!

From your lips to God’s ears.

[themadauthorshatter]

More Ineffable Husbands Headcanons! Because I love these guys

Due to his immunity to and ability to breathe fire, Aziraphale once referred to Crowley as a dragon. Crowley was not amused.

Crowley hated Hell because it was hot, everyone was too close, and, only being the guy that caused his own misery than others', people always openly asked why he was still around or when Hastur and Ligur would just MAKE him be more useful for the powers of evil, so it quickly became a thing of 'everyone's too close to me and wants me dead. HELP.' He cannot stand being shoulder to shoulder with someone while walking, like walking close enough to everyone's close enough to touch each other and breathing on each other's necks. Even sneaking around as a snake and going in small places freaks him out. He can stand being in Aziraphale's place, but still looks over his shoulder, just in case.

On the other end, Aziraphale DETESTED Heaven with a passion. It was cold, no one talked, it smelled like cold, stale air all the time, and people were more concerned about themselves, the war, and the archangels than anything else. He grew to resent the cold, the silence, the echo of his own voice, and all the open space. There weren't any books, either. He has been to Crowley's place and he doesn't mind it, but he stays close to Crowley because he doesn't want to be alone in a large space again.

So yeah, Crowley's personal hell is a very, VERY small hot room, like a closet or a pantry and Aziraphale's personal hell is a a cold, empty building with no carpet, all windows, and no furniture, except for a few metal folding chairs.

Crowley has balance issues, even after all his time on Earth. He also has a bit of numbness in his arms and legs. (Snek)

Don't take a picture of Aziraphale and Crowley. Aziraphale just doesn't like it(look up biblically accurate angels and look at the principalities), and Crowley looks freaky as hell. Like he looks like a man-serpent thing. And the sound bothers him.

Crowley does not shed his skin... in front of Aziraphale.

Ways the two playfully annoy each other: Crowley adds too much pepper to his drink and says he's having and wonderful meal, Aziraphale purposely gets plant names wrong, Crowley reads AND ANNOTATES a book IN RED INK, Aziraphale walks around barefoot, Crowley asks what Aziraphale is doing when they're just chilling, and Aziraphale will wear all tartan clothing.

Aziraphale once did the 'What the fluff' challenge with a sleepy Crowley and it scared him witless.

This is based off of the fact, I think, that Crowley does have a sweet tooth and off a deleted scene in Good Omens, so Crowley indeed invented chocolate for Aziraphale, but whenever he failed he was sure to clean the mess. It gave him a sugar high for 42 hours straight and the resulting hangover knocked him out for a week.

Aziraphale isn't good with alcohol, but the man can hold his spices like a champ.

Crowley cannot handle salt. At all. Kind of like Holy water, it burns him, except it's a burn that he can heal from.

Aziraphale prefers showers because it reminds him of rain, while Crowley takes baths because it's quiet amd he can calm down.

Hastur and Ligur have 'confronted' Crowley on his job performance. He doesn't like talking about it and often says he only remembers leaving the room with a broken arm and being unable to walk because his back- from his neck to his waist- hurt like a son of a bitch. Yes, he has scars.

Aziraphale saw the Spanish Enquisition. He hated it.

During a war, while in bad spirits and ready to go sleep through the year, Crowley stumbled upon Aziraphale as he pretended to be dead, as a way to 'play his part' on Earth. It wasn’t cowardice, as he did some fighting, but Crowley was still surprised to see him. The two left and went somewhere that was as peaceful as possible to wait out the rest of the war. Worth it.

The two take turns preening each other's wings.

Want to know why Crowley wasn't around for a while after Bastille? Well, Hastur and Ligur got a hold of him and... well, let's just say they taught him to (A) be a faster runner and (B) not kept too comfortable around humans or being a human because, inhabiting the form of one, that means he can be broken very, VERY easily until there's nothing to fix.

I will make an analysis post on the relationship between Crowley and Hastur and Ligur, like his connection to them.

Back on track, Aziraphale and Crowley have shared a bed from time to time, like a sleepover, and it's usually the same: the two are back to back for a while before falling asleep and awaking in each other's arms. In variation, Aziraphale will stay up to read a little and catch Crowley having a bad dream(because he used to sleep in Hell) and has to ruffle his hair or do the forehead to nose rub/tuckle to calm him back down. In another variation, Aziraphale will dose off only to wake up and find Crowley watching him or guarding the room because he used to sleep in Hell, and because he wants to keep Aziraphale safe. And he just likes seeing his angel sleep; is not a creepy thing, it just reminds him that he's not alone in enjoying 'human' things.

Crowley is not a fan of dogs. One chased him while he was in snake form.

Aziraphale doesn't hate technology by any means. He just prefers talking to people face to face(specifically Crowley).

Don't ask about the snake marks on the sides of Crowley's head. Just don't.

You know how cats and dogs have that thing where in certain light their pupils change color and they see in the dark? Crowley does the exact same thing and it has woken up Aziraphale so many times. It never scared him, it just made him literally pull Crowley into bed so he could sleep.

Crowley hates the horsemen because he lost a bet to all of them.

You know the Squid Game version of Red Light, Green Light? Aziraphale would win by only stopping at 'Red light,' and Crowley would win by staying low and creeping.

Of all the archangels, Crowley actually liked Michael best. They got along well, but that was before the Fall.

[dwellordream]

“Entertainment held an important place at the English royal court under Eleanor and Henry II, in contrast to Louis VII’s court, known for its sobriety and solemnity. Eleanor’s second husband invited jongleurs and performers of all sorts to his court, doubtless encouraged by her. English moralists, much like critics of the court of Eleanor’s grandfather at Poitiers, condemned the Plantagenet court for immorality, complaining of actors, mimes, and dancers who fostered debauched conduct among the courtiers.

Just as with other princes new to power, Henry Plantagenet, after winning the English Crown, attracted to his court singers and writers to compose poems and songs, glorifying him and his lineage. Among the crowd of courtiers were serious writers in Latin and in the Anglo-Norman vernacular, and during Eleanor’s years as English queen, troubadour lyric poetry, courtly love, and courtly romances spread to the Anglo-Norman world. A former poet turned monk at Eleanor and Henry’s court noted ruefully, “When I frequented the court with the courtiers, I made sirventes, chansons, rimes and saluts [types of secular lyrics], among the lovers and their mistresses.”

Yet a cause and effect relationship between Eleanor’s arrival in England and the advent of courtly literature there is dubious. Certainly a uniquely productive literary culture flourished at the royal court under Eleanor and Henry, and learned men flocked there, as evidenced by an extraordinary flowering of literary works in several genres. The queen, of course, had grown up at a court where literature and learning were valued, as had Henry. A contemporary described his father Geoffrey le Bel as “most highly lettered, commanding eloquence which set him far above both clerics and laymen, replete with all good manners.” Even before Henry became king, writers were dedicating works to him. 

It is unlikely that the young duke of Normandy commissioned their works, however; they were dedicated to him in anticipation of his patronage once he took the English throne. Certainly, the court of Eleanor and Henry II earned a reputation as a beacon for courtly writers. As king of England, Henry was eager to encourage authors writing on varied subjects, no doubt expecting their works to reflect favorably on him as a powerful monarch. He sponsored both Latin language and Anglo-Norman vernacular works, among them historical works written in England and Normandy and also in Anjou that would give an illustrious past to both his Plantagenet predecessors as counts of Anjou and his Norman ancestors who had captured England’s royal Crown. 

He wished during his quarrel with his archbishop of Canterbury to shore up the English monarchy’s sacred character with writings pointing up the sanctity of his predecessors. In his competition with the Capetian kings he needed to claim as forebear some heroic figure equaling their prestigious predecessor Charlemagne, and King Arthur or Edward the Confessor could potentially fulfill that need. Both of Henry I’s wives had been known as patrons of literature, and Henry II, who modeled himself on his grandfather, associated his queen with him in extending patronage to writers, even if no explicit evidence for their commissions of works survives.

Yet dedications or eulogies inserted by authors into their works afford indirect evidence that they viewed their monarch or his queen as prospective if not actual sources of patronage. Not all clerics wrote in search of material gain, however; some were impelled to write in the hope of instructing and correcting their prince, and others simply sought to show themselves loyal subjects through passages praising their ruler. There is no evidence that the nun of Barking who translated a Latin life of Edward the Confessor into Anglo-Norman had a commission from Henry II or his queen, although she would have known of the king’s support for the Confessor’s canonization. Perhaps she hoped to win their favor for her convent through her work. She inserted into her translation a passage calling on God’s protection for the king, the queen, and their lineage, and their divine sustenance in sanctity, peace, joy, and plenty.

For clerical authors at court who often doubled as royal clerks, it is impossible to separate patronage of their literary activity from payment for their secretarial services. Their reward from Eleanor or Henry often came in indirect forms, as presentations to churches or to cathedral prebends, whether in return for activities as royal scribes or as authors. Best known are clerics writing in Latin at the court of Eleanor and Henry, such as Gerald of Wales, Peter of Blois, or Roger of Howden; but Wace, a writer of histories in Anglo-Norman, was awarded by the king with a prebend at Bayeux Cathedral in the 1160s.

Eleanor had grown up at the Poitevin court that gave birth to troubadour poetry, and she certainly heard, read, and encouraged courtly literature. The royal court of Henry II attracted singers of songs, viol players, pipers, and other musicians; and among these entertainers were poets and composers. No doubt scores of songs were commissioned as propaganda in praise of the monarch and his queen or to commemorate special events such as celebrations of victories or the births and marriages of royal offspring, and once sung were soon forgotten.

Occasionally a pipe roll entry records payments to a storyteller  (fabulator) or a harpist (citharidus). Although no documents survive to register Eleanor’s own commissions of literary works, handsome sums were regularly handed over to her from the royal treasury that could be used for distributing patronage to writers without leaving any trace in the exchequer accounts. The absence of documents recording Eleanor’s payments to writers does not preclude her showing favor to them with cash from her personal treasury or with gifts of precious objects. 

Royal reward to writers, like favors to other courtiers, could take the form of gifts of robes or other clothing, gold cups, or even horses and mules. A Catalan troubadour writing a decade or more after Henry II’s death wrote of hearing how “Sir Henry, a king of England, gave horses and mules as gifts.” A week spent entertaining a generous patron could win a singer or poet robes worth more than most peasants earned in a year. Lacking other documentation, however, the poems themselves must bear witness that their authors expected to win the English queen’s favor through their writings. 

…During Eleanor’s early years as English queen, she seems to have shared her husband’s taste for histories, especially those written in the Anglo-Norman vernacular. Henry II commissioned writers experienced at composing romances who could make historical writings available to a courtly audience not well educated in Latin. In about 1155 a royal clerk Wace won a commission to write the Roman de Brut, an Anglo-Norman adaptation of Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Latin history. Layamon, a priest who translated the Brut into English in the first decades of the thirteenth century, claims that Wace had dedicated it to Queen Eleanor and that he wrote of her, “Generous is Eleanor, gracious and wise.”

Possibly Layamon had seen a now lost presentation copy that contained a dedication to the queen. While his statement is no direct proof for Eleanor’s patronage, at least it indicates that she was thought to be a queen interested in literature and capable of offering favors to authors attracting her attention. Hardly accurate history, the Roman de Brut presents the story of the early Britons from the arrival of Brutus, a refugee from the Trojan War, to the Saxon invasions as if a translation of an ancient book in Breton (or Welsh). Although Wace incorporated oral traditions transmitted in minstrels’ songs, Geoffrey of Monmouth’s History of the Kings of Britain was his chief source. 

His vernacular reworking of legends of the ancient Britons, adding courtly elements, would play a pivotal part in medieval literature as the source for the “matter of Britain,” for it proved appealing to composers of later twelfth-century romances centering on King Arthur, Guinevere, and the knights of the Round Table. As a result, the legendary Arthur, his queen, and his knights became as much a part of history for twelfth-century readers as biblical personages or as heroes from the Latin classics, and Wace may have modeled his depiction of Arthur’s queen on Eleanor. 

Perhaps courtiers hearing or reading these romances were tempted to see Henry and Eleanor in the portraits of Arthur and Guinevere. If modern readers can see parallels between fictional characters and historical personalities in twelfth-century romances, then Eleanor and Henry’s contemporaries could have seen them even more clearly. Medieval readers expected to uncover more than one level of meaning during their reading, and they were attuned to the allegorical nature of poetry. 

Henry II, though materially more powerful than his rival Louis VII, felt himself “ideologically inferior” because of the Capetian king’s prestigious ancestry, traced back to Charlemagne. Arthurian material is sometimes said to have provided useful propaganda for Henry in his rivalry with Louis and later with his son Philip II, offering King Arthur as a prestigious royal predecessor from an even earlier time than the Capetians’ Frankish predecessors. Yet Henry made only fitful and desultory attempts at constructing an Arthurian ideology to counteract the Capetians’ use of Charlemagne. 

Seeking ideological advantage from Arthurian material was not without risks, for King Arthur and Arthurian legends could serve better the purposes of rebellious English nobles, who found in Arthur and his faithful men gathered at the Round Table an idealized view of earlier kingship. Arthur was closely identified with the inhabitants of the Celtic fringes, people looked on by the English as savages, and Arthurian tales had an especially subversive effect on the Welsh and the Bretons. Henry II commissioned another book from Wace, the Roman de Rou, a history praising his Norman ducal ancestors from Rollo (or Rou), the Viking invader of Normandy, down to his grandfather Henry I; and the clerk prepared himself for the task by reading early Norman chronicles, listening to epic poetry, and even examining charters in Norman churches.

…Eleanor may have had some connection with another scientific work, a medical text in Latin brought from Sicily to England by Robert Cricklade, prior of Saint Fridewide’s, Oxford (d. c.1171). He was the compiler of a scientific text, an abridgement of Pliny’s natural history, that he had dedicated first to King Henry I, then later to Henry II. Like a number of English scholars, Robert traveled in Italy, going to Rome and Sicily in 1156 and returning in 1158. While in Sicily, he was given a copy of the Gynaecia Cleopatrae, originating in Constantinople, to take back to England to the queen. 

Eleanor would have learned of the reputation of Greek medical learning while in Constantinople during the Second Crusade. It is plausible that the English queen, anxious after the early death of her son William, had asked the prior to bring from Sicily medical books on childbirth, care of children, and female disorders. At the time of Robert’s departure, Eleanor was left with only one boy, Young Henry. Given her record of bearing only daughters in her first marriage, she may have had dynastic concerns about producing more sons. If so, her fears proved unrealistic, for she quickly produced two more sons in 1157 and 1158.”

- Ralph V. Turner, “ A Queen’s Work: Regent for an Absentee King, 1155–1168.” in Eleanor of Aquitaine: Queen of France, Queen of England

[hecallsmehischild]

Recent Media Consumed

Books

War Nerd by Gary Brecher. I have a lot of conflicting feelings about this book. First off, I had to try three times to read it, because the first two times I read it, I was in an emotionally unstable period, and this is NOT a book to read in emotionally unstable periods. On the third try, I blew right through it. Second thing is about the way it’s written. On the one hand, I wish all history texts were written with HALF the color and vigor and humor of this writer, because I would have retained way more information. On the other hand, it was incredibly difficult for me to come to terms with this style of angry, bitter humor combined with a worldview I can’t really understand. Which, I suppose, leads into some of my major take-aways from this book: human nature is not basically good (I already believed that, but this is a pretty good secular argument for it), human nature seems to crave war and peace is the exception, and there literally are people in the world who I will never understand no matter how hard I try because they want things that are antithetical to absolutely everything I deem important. I don’t mean minor things or even the things we all know come into conflict, like religion. I’m talking about things like peace. If you look at what peoples’ actions tell you over their words, it seems like some people (individuals AND nation groups) genuinely thrive on death and war, and that that was in fact the state of things for far longer than attempts at peace. It’s a difficult book on all fronts (except readability, it’s quite readable and certainly more enjoyable than most history texts as I’ve said), but it makes you think. I also can’t speak for how accurate this book is, but it is written by someone who clearly has a hyperfixation, so...

Inside The Robe by Katherine Mader. Judge Mader, a criminal court judge in LA County, kept a court diary throughout 2016. This book is the result of that diary, and is her attempt at giving an “insider’s view” on being a criminal court judge. She is a colorful writer with very clear descriptions and a distinctive voice. This book was a pleasure to read and gave me a better understanding of the incentives and constraints on judges through her daily vignettes.

Economic Facts and Fallacies by Thomas Sowell. I read this in the wake of my second reading of Basic Economics and thought this would be a good follow-up read. There’s a lot of overlap here, but this book delves more in-depth into some concepts that Sowell had to give less attention to in Basic Economics for the sake of providing a broader overview. As usual, there are some concepts that get a little too abstract for me to hang onto very well, but the majority of his work is very understandable and makes sense to me. I am grateful for the clarity with which he writes.

A Man of Letters by Thomas Sowell. This is actually a good accompaniment to his memoir, A Personal Odyssey. He collects several letters he wrote (and a few select ones addressed to him) to sketch his reactions to various events in his life. He has quite the dry wit. It was a treat to get a further glimpse into his life.

Books I had to drop and why

Battles of the Bible by Chaim Herzog and Mordechai Gichon. Sometimes I have to admit I made a mistake and not keep trying to force myself to spend time on a book I’m not enjoying. I thought perhaps this book would help me understand some context of the Biblical stories more, but really what this is is comprehensive step-by-step war strategy (complete with diagrams and TERRAIN MAPS) of each battle in the Old Testament. And… that’s not what I’m looking for.

The Road to Serfdom by Friedrich Hayek. I’m kind of sad about this one. Thomas Sowell has referenced Hayek reverently and I was told The Road to Serfdom would be a good read for me. Unfortunately what I’m coming to understand is that it’s very difficult for me to grasp ideas when talked about ONLY in the abstract. This is why Sowell is usually a much better read for me, because he tends toward giving concrete examples, so after about 3 chapters of barely getting what Hayek wanted to convey, I switched over to…

Marxism by Thomas Sowell. And I was also crestfallen here. From the fragments I gather, Marx (who Sowell studied extensively and followed wholeheartedly in his college days) broke things down almost exclusively to their most abstract concepts before building back toward concrete ideas and tended to look down on any economist who only examined things as they appeared. Prior to this I had some vague notion that maybe I could eventually read Marx and understand the root texts of socialism/communism, but according to Sowell, there’s a lot of pre-requisite reading involved in really understanding what Marx & Engels were talking about. He also criticized most interpreters of not bothering to do their homework on surrounding texts and that many have mangled some of Marx’s points. I was not able to make it past chapter two of this book because I was floundering pretty hard. It’s a little discouraging to feel the limits of my comprehension so sharply. I’m going to take a break with some fiction.

Video Games

Bendy and the Ink Machine. Want to talk about being late to the bandwagon? I mean, I got on the bandwagon when everyone was talking about it, but then I got through chapter 3 and there was a graphics reboot, so I started playing from the top and then kind of… dropped off? Never got past chapter 3. Finally, I felt like I was in a good place and could take the jump scares, so I blasted through the first three chapters in about a night. Then for the next couple days I played through the last two chapters. I have to say, chapter 4 is my favorite and has probably the most disturbing image that, while disturbing, was epic and fantastic in its own creepy way (merry-go-round-and-round, anybody?). I didn’t really understand the ending, but there were some interesting theories to be found on Youtube about what it all means. This was an enjoyable game for someone like me who can’t really handle high level horror and isn’t too adept with controls because it had simple controls and the horror was… toned down, I’d say. I played through Soma and I tried (and absolutely ditched) Amnesia, and Bendy is at about the level of horror I can deal with. Good game.

Confess My Love. Started and ditched it. I was very, very annoyed at the girl by five rejections. In the end, I rejected HER by uninstalling the game.

Movies

Wolfwalkers. *inarticulate noises* f-f-found family…. nnngh…. *gentle sobbing*