#God and sacrifice and the nature of such things etc etc

[raspberryzingaaa]

I need a "less intense about Bible studies" mode.

I gotta feel uncomfortable in a "still attempting to make a good impression" sort of held together way.

[ubeb0nes]

Things Sevika says as your lover…

❧ ❧ ❧

Let me do it. / I'll handle it. / Don't worry, I'll take care of it.

She wants to take care of you so, so bad. Whether that's opening every door and pulling out every chair for you, or wiping someone off the face of the earth in your name.

She's in her element when she's of service. Deep down, she thinks that as long as she proves useful then your continued affection is almost guaranteed.

Can't do that anymore, my woman/partner said so. / Wrap this up. I gotta get home to them.

She is yours, no ifs or buts about it. And she makes sure everyone knows how fiercely loyal she is, she will not be doing anything to disrespect your boundaries or your relationship.

Obviously her work and her abrasive nature will put a natural strain on some parts of your relationship, but she's never intentionally causing you distress. Loyalty's her most important personal value, and you have the most of hers.

No, get behind me! / I said stay here. / I need you safe, understand?

You're a culmination of everything she's fighting for. All the beauty of Zaun, her reason for sticking her heart in this city, you are all of that personified. So you can't die. You can't get hurt.

If she has to lock you in the house to keep you from following her into a death mission, she will. You'll understand. She's always taken a beating for the ones she loves, the role thrust upon her that she now clings to like a hardy mask.

Stand down. / Down, baby. / I don't care if you don't like it, follow orders.

If you follow her into combat, good luck with getting bossed around like crazy. She always keeps you in her line of sight, preferably also within three feet of you so she can jump in front of you to sacrifice another limb if need be.

She's also absolutely zero nonense while working. She isn't flirting with you or showing vulnerability in front of her crew, but she is relishing in getting to tell you what to do (and she expects you to heed immediately).

'S all for you, doll… / Mm-mm, you're not getting up… / Pretty thing… so warm… love you so much…

She only ever talks like this when she's sleepy, or just waking up. She doesn't say I love you much (outside of when she's leaving for work), as to her, it takes away from the weight of it (WRONG imo, but in character i think lol).

The sweetest sweetheart ever when she's all wrapped up in your arms. Her voice is even lower in the mornings, with a distinct gravel to her tone. She uses it to her advantage, whispering such sweet things in your ear as she "subtly" traps you in her arms to keep you in bed.

She keeps repeating the same things over and over again, praising you and professing her love like there's no tomorrow. Her favorite love language switches to words of affirmation while she's drowsy lol.

So good to me, god you keep me sane. / I'm gonna fuckin' give you everything… / You smell so good, I could eat you (she then does actually try to bite you and you scream and push her off the bed)

Nsfw under the cuttt~

Uh uh, don't run from me. / Stop moving. / You're gonna take it either way, don't whine.

One of your favorite games is to see how long you can hold out being a brat (i.e., closing your legs every time she spreads them, shifting your hips away, etc.) before you make her snap and she just manhandles you.

Her displays of strength are usually subtle, like lifting you steadily off the floor and laying you down slowly on the bed without struggle. But when you do finally get her to snap, she's flipping you over on the bed like a pancake, and holding you up against the wall with just her human arm as she fucks you. She barely breaks a sweat holding you down on the bed, no matter how strong or how determined your bratty ass may be.

I'm never fuckin' sharing you, baby. / Look at me. Don't look away, those are *my* pretty eyes, I wanna see them. / Is that good, doll? Whose making you feel good? Mhm, and don't forget it…

Chances are that you end up being the jealous one in your relationship rather than her. But she is extremely possessive. When she gets especially in a mood, she's intent upon fucking you until your brain melts and you're nothing but putty in her hands, obsessed with her.

She reminds you how good she makes you feel, and how she's the only one that can fuck you that way. You're always extra cuddly and touchy in the days following, and she loves it because she knows it means she's stuck on your mind.

[undeadmagick]

Broke Boy Guide to Altar Offerings

Hey! Are you broke but still wanna offer something up to the gods? Don't worry! (So am i) So here's a guide of things that are either free, low cost or that you probably already own to slap onto those altars. Mind you: These are mainly modern offerings that I attribute to these different classification of gods. I'll likely update as time goes on with other classifications :)

General Offerings to Deities:

random flowers from outside

random sticks from outside

hand written letters/prayers

plushies of the animals they're connected to

raw/cooked meats as "sacrifices"

drawn symbols

Art/Creative Deities:

symbol painted bottle caps

pens/pencils/markers

old sketchbooks

stickers/prints

origami

comic books

figurines

Death Deities:

bones or meat from your meals

dirt from a dead plant

dying flowers

skull imagery

coins or other gifts for those passing

photo/belongings of your late loved ones

Familial/Household/Protector of Children Deities:

photobooth photos

jewelry gifted from family

baby teeth from your children

breast milk

old baby shoes

framed photo of family

cookies/bread

homecooked meals

Fire Deities:

birthday candles

charcoal discs

burnt herbs

alcohol

incense

tobacco

matchbox/lighter

Healing Deities:

your current medications

bandaids

water

skincare

vitamin gummies

spell jar in an empty pill bottle

Knowledge/Wisdom Deities:

old books & textbooks

pens/pencils

mini chess pieces

written down philosophical quotes

good test scores/report cards/degrees

Love/Lust Deities:

origami 3D hearts

chapsticks

unused makeup

love letters to deities

love letters about S/O or crush

current perfume/cologne

current lotions

apples

Nature Deities:

plants dedicated to them

herbal tea packets

feathers

milk

fruits/vegetables

spells using recycled materials (toilet paper rolls, etc.)

bread

acorns

Sea Deities:

beach sand

shells

sea water

tiny sea animal figurines

shared fish dinners

makeshift spell jar using a shell

Trickster Deities:

laffy taffy joke wrappers

cards against humanity packs

other comedy card games

[weirdoldmanhoho]

I know it's kind of exaggerated as a joke to say that FMA ends with Ed "punching God" but it's actually really thematically important that Father is not, actually, a God

for all his power, for all of the souls he sacrifices to create Philosopher's Stones, he can never actually achieve Godhood and that's the point

in fact one of the BIGGEST themes in FMA is how ultimately impossible and also disastrous it is for mortal beings to play God, whether that comes in the form of trying to reverse death, using alchemy to experiment with and twist human beings, or seeking immortality

Ed and Al trying to reverse the natural process of death, Father Cornello making himself a god in the eyes of his followers, Shou Tucker playing with his daughter's life in the name of creating a new creature, the attempt to create life leads to the main villains of the series, the king of Xerxes's search for immortality leading to the destruction of his nation, Father's plan to create more Philsopher's stones leading to constant bloodshed, the implication that the emperor of Xing's search for immortality could do the same to Xing, etc. etc. etc.

every single character that tries to play God faces consequences - either for themselves or for others - and Ed is only able to reverse his and Al's consequences because he finally recognizes that alchemy can't ever make him more than human. "Well done, Edward Elric," Truth says after he expresses this - as a direct opposition to his introduction in the Cornello arc, in which he claims that alchemists are the closest thing there is to God

and Father goes through the exact opposite. Father ultimately doesn't fall to Ed but to Truth, because he NEVER gives up his arrogance, and Truth punishes him for it.

[cozymochi]

Coziiii I gotta know, if Nyoka were to ever have a lover how would he be around them? What’s his love language, how attentive to them is he, does he communicate well with them, etc?

Hmm. Normally, I swerve this sorta thing due to the genre of the series I shoved him in being so lover-phobic (half joking). But, lately, I’ve been having a change of heart in terms of just letting hypotheticals roll. (That, and I finally have an answer to toy with.)

Disclaimer: Solely about an established relationship, no courting mention, no mention of the type of person this hypothetical “lover” is since it’s mostly irrelevant to the question.

Nyoka is the kind of person who is awkward about communicating any feelings outright. He wants to be taken seriously, so using flowery words of love are not exactly in his vocabulary. So, no words of affirmation here, that would have to be displayed through what he does for them instead.

His love language is a mix of quality time and acts of service. He would give undivided attention; actively listen and engage in meaningful conversations.

He’s one to plan out activities without distraction and create special moments. It’s hard to pin if he would even bother being traditionally “romantic” considering he rarely, if ever, would want to stray away from being taken seriously.

At most, giving undivided attention and allowing this person to be in his shared presence for as long as they would like is perfectly acceptable.

In an established relationship, Nyoka would already consider this person as a prospective member of his clan and as such, he would like them to act befitting of the family name. Mind, this is something he values highly for himself and takes pride in, so he considers valuing something similar for this person to be also of upmost importance.

Nyoka would probably try to have this person to shape up and exhibit more dignity and stronger manners to his level, however, would not want this person to be meek or weak-willed either if in an established relationship.

If this was pre-established relationship or from anybody else, a cold correction or scathing investigative question would happen at any faux pas. He’s too serious and is naturally skeptical of people and always would want to investigate their intent. However, since this person is in a different status in his mind now, he would not be as inclined to do so. If there is an established relationship at all that means all the barriers got broken down already, so there’s really no reason to get into it.

He would do unspoken tasks, like go out of his way to make sure they wake up on time, eat when they are supposed to, or make sure they are doing their own obligations in a timely fashion. Nyoka can be rather butler-like at the end of the day. He will act on his own accord but just as easily do what he’s asked to at this person’s request.

He is NOT one for spoiling nor coddling despite all of the above, however.

All that being said, he probably would not want that person to change drastically for his sake at all.

Nyoka would still have his own habits, and he might not voice it, but he would want that person to know that he does care immensely. He ultimately wouldn’t want them to feel any kinds of the same pressure and burdens that he imposes on himself all the time as a result of his upbringing.

He probably would sacrifice his own pride and values for that person if it came down to it. Which is probably pretty important of a demonstration of how serious he is if words aren’t substantial.

…

Not that it matters, none of this is going to occur anyway amirite lol

Well this was only really about communication and love language so I guess I’ll stop here prematurely. It’s a read more cut anyway.

[To be continued if prompted by somebody else cuz god knows I have issues about being shameless at all 👍 Assuming any of this was read. Probably not. Who knows. This ask showed up months ago.]

P.S said person would be allowed to do this to him.

[athenaeum-of-the-herald]

• Between Cross and Laurel •

𝐂𝐡𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐲’𝐬 𝐄𝐧𝐝𝐮𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐈𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐜𝐭 𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐆𝐨𝐝𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐆𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐜𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐌𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐧 𝐑𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐯𝐚𝐥

Over a month later because this took... a while (plus some personal life stuff happened teehee ♡)

An ENORMOUS thank you to my humanities and theology professors for reviewing, revising, and editing my horrible spelling ♡

I want it to be first and foremost known that this is in no way an attack on monotheism/Christianity. I'm simply discussing history, academic research, personal and collected life experiences, etc. Additionally, I was GOING to make this a very long essay format post but remembered this is Tumblr and who wants to read that?? So I've for the most part broken things down into bullet points. I think it makes things easier to digest and read through (as someone with crazy ADHD).

As always, I'm just one girl on the internet. Please ensure you always do your own research and look into these topics yourself for clarity ♡

• 𝐇𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐒𝐮𝐩𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐃𝐞𝐜𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐞 •

It should first be known that the decline of Hellenic polytheism was not a natural, gradual shift in belief systems but a deliberate and often violent process, driven largely by the rise of Christianity as both a religious and political force within the Roman Empire. This suppression unfolded over several centuries, culminating in the near-total eradication of public pagan worship by the end of Late Antiquity.

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐒𝐡𝐢𝐟𝐭 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐓𝐨𝐥𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐈𝐧𝐭𝐨𝐥𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞

In the early centuries of the Common Era, paganism remained the dominant religious system across the Hellenic world. Even as Christianity began to spread, it was initially one of many minority sects within a pluralistic religious landscape. This changed dramatically in the 4th century CE:

Constantine the Great (r. 306–337 CE) legalized Christianity through the Edict of Milan (313 CE), granting it equal status with other religions. While Constantine did not outlaw paganism, he favored Christianity through imperial patronage, tax exemptions for churches, and the construction of basilicas.

The symbolic turning point came with Theodosius I (r. 379–395 CE), who issued a series of edicts banning pagan rituals and festivals, including the famed Olympic Games in 393 CE. These measures culminated in the Theodosian Decrees, which criminalized sacrifices, temple rites, and the maintenance of sacred sites.

The state, once the protector of the cults of the gods, became an agent of their destruction.

𝐈𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐏𝐡𝐲𝐬𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐄𝐫𝐚𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐞

The suppression was not merely ideological but physically manifest in the dismantling of religious infrastructure:

Temples were closed, looted, or converted into churches, often without regard to their architectural or artistic value. For example, the Parthenon in Athens was repurposed as a Christian church dedicated to the Virgin Mary.

Statues of gods and heroes were defaced or destroyed, sometimes reinterpreted as saints or demons in Christian iconography.

Sacred groves, altars, and oracle sites- long-venerated centers of Hellenic worship- were desecrated or rendered inaccessible under threat of persecution.

The Library of Alexandria and other repositories of religious and philosophical texts were casualties of this cultural purge, whether by accident, neglect, or intentional destruction. As repositories of pagan knowledge, they were seen by some as threats to the emerging Christian orthodoxy.

𝐃𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐧𝐢𝐳𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐑𝐞𝐟𝐫𝐚𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐠

In tandem with political suppression, Christian theologians undertook a systematic reframing of Hellenic mythology and divinity:

Figures such as Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Eusebius recast the gods of Olympus as morally corrupt, deceitful, or demonic entities. What had once been seen as archetypes of beauty, wisdom, and divine force were now construed as agents of Satan.

The theological concept of daimones- originally meaning spirits or lesser divinities- was inverted. Daimons became demons: malicious, supernatural enemies of God. Pan, the rustic god of nature, became a template for the Devil in medieval imagery, with horns, cloven hooves, and a wild demeanor.

This demonization served a dual purpose: to sever emotional ties to the old gods and to justify the violence enacted upon their worshippers.

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐃𝐞𝐜𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐂𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐜 𝐏𝐚𝐠𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐦

Unlike many tribal or folk religions, Hellenic polytheism was deeply integrated into civic life. Temples were not merely places of worship but centers of law, governance, and education. Their suppression marked not only a religious shift but a profound rupture in the cultural identity of the Greek people:

Oracles such as Delphi and Dodona, which had guided political and military decisions for centuries, were silenced by decree. The last recorded prophecy from the Oracle of Delphi is apocryphally said to have been delivered to the emperor Julian the Apostate, warning that Apollo’s sanctuary was no longer home to prophecy.

Festivals, theater, and sacred games- core expressions of collective devotion- were outlawed or rebranded in Christian terms, severing the continuity of tradition.

The result was a religion not only suppressed but strategically unremembered, its living memory fragmented by centuries of legal, ideological, and spiritual hostility.

��� 𝐂𝐮𝐥𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐒𝐲𝐧𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐭𝐢𝐬𝐦 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐒𝐮𝐫𝐯𝐢𝐯𝐚𝐥 •

While Christianity sought to extinguish Hellenic polytheism, it did not wholly succeed. Instead, the old gods and their rituals underwent a process of transformation, concealment, and cultural diffusion. Elements of ancient Greek religion survived- albeit in altered forms- through folk traditions, Christian syncretism, and the preservation of classical learning. These subtle survivals served as seeds for modern revivalist movements, even if they were often buried under centuries of theological suppression.

𝐒𝐲𝐧𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐭𝐢𝐬𝐦 𝐢𝐧 𝐅𝐨𝐥𝐤 𝐂𝐡𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐲

Following the Christianization of the Greek world, many aspects of pre-Christian belief quietly merged with Christian practice. This syncretism allowed for the continuity of certain rituals, archetypes, and sacred sites, even as their overt associations with the Olympian gods were erased or reinterpreted.

Saints as Reframed Deities: In rural areas especially, local saints absorbed the characteristics and cultic functions of older gods:

Archangel Michael inherited traits from Hermes, particularly in his role as psychopomp- guide of souls to the underworld.

Saint George, a popular warrior-saint, took on aspects of Perseus or Bellerophon, known for slaying monsters.

The Virgin Mary (Panagia) became associated with older goddesses such as Artemis (protector of women and childbirth) or Demeter (motherly nurturer).

Holy wells, sacred groves, and healing springs continued to be venerated, now under Christian auspices. Pilgrimages and votive offerings remained common, even if the prayers were addressed to saints instead of gods.

This blending was often unconscious. For many, Christianity became a new skin for old devotions, a spiritual continuity clothed in new names.

𝐒𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐅𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐚𝐥𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐑𝐢𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐥 𝐄𝐜𝐡𝐨𝐞𝐬

Traditional festivals tied to agricultural cycles or mythic events were likewise absorbed into the Christian calendar:

Easter (Pascha) often overlapped with spring fertility rites formerly associated with Persephone’s return and the Eleusinian Mysteries.

Christmas coincided with Saturnalia and the winter solstice, times linked to rebirth, divine children, and light returning to the world.

Rural festivals honoring Dionysus- with their ecstatic dances, phallic processions, and wine rituals- persisted in disguised forms through Christian feast days, especially in the countryside.

These practices endured because they were embedded in the rhythms of daily life, linked to the land and the survival of communities. Even as the theological framing changed, the embodied and communal nature of ritual allowed many traditions to persist beneath the surface.

𝐌𝐲𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐲 𝐚𝐬 𝐋𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞, 𝐍𝐨𝐭 𝐋𝐢𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐠𝐲

With the decline of ritual worship, Greek mythology was preserved primarily through education and literature:

During the Byzantine period, classical texts by Homer, Hesiod, Euripides, Plato, and others were copied, studied, and referenced, albeit often within a Christian moralizing context.

The myths were treated as allegorical or moral parables, not as living religious truths. For example, Zeus might be interpreted as a symbol of divine order rather than an actual god.

This literary survival created a divide: the gods lived on in books but not in hearts. The sacred was aestheticized, detached from ritual context, and filtered through Christian or philosophical frameworks.

Nevertheless, the preservation of these myths meant that the names, deeds, and characters of the gods were never entirely forgotten. They remained dormant, awaiting reinterpretation and reclamation.

𝐑𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐮𝐚𝐥 𝐋𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐮𝐚𝐠𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐂𝐮𝐥𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐌𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐲

The Greek language itself preserved traces of polytheistic belief:

Expressions like “by the gods” (μα τους θεούς) or references to fate (μοίρα) and hubris (ὕβρις) retained their ancient meanings even as Christianity rose.

Folk sayings, oral traditions, and nursery tales carried echoes of older cosmologies, even if their mythic origins were obscured.

In this way, Hellenic polytheism persisted as cultural memory, a subtle and often subconscious undercurrent that continued to shape Greek identity, storytelling, and spirituality- despite centuries of doctrinal opposition.

• 𝐌𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐧 𝐑𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐯𝐚𝐥: 𝐂𝐡𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐧𝐠𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐑𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐞 •

The 20th and 21st centuries witnessed a resurgence of interest in Hellenic polytheism, driven by nationalism, spiritual dissatisfaction with monotheism, and a broader neopagan revival in the West. Yet this revival has not occurred in a vacuum- it has been shaped by resistance from the Orthodox Church, legal hurdles, and the difficulty of reconstructing a faith system after centuries of suppression and fragmentation.

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐑𝐢𝐬𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐇𝐞𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐧𝐢𝐜 𝐑𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐦

Modern Hellenic polytheism, often referred to as Hellenismos (incorrectly) or Dodekatheism (worship of the Twelve Olympians), began to emerge as a visible religious identity in the late 20th century:

Reconstructionist groups formed in Greece and abroad, seeking to revive ancient practices based on historical evidence, archaeological research, and surviving texts.

One of the most prominent groups, the Supreme Council of Ethnic Hellenes (YSEE), was founded in 1997. It advocates for the restoration of the Hellenic ethnic religion as a living, national tradition, and promotes religious freedom for practitioners.

[Note: It should he known that I do NOT support the YSEE nor do I believe anyone else should. Please see yhe note at the bottom of this section for more information.]

These communities emphasize orthopraxy- correct practice- over belief, in keeping with ancient norms. Rituals, offerings, hymns, and festivals are central.

This revival was fueled by a desire not only to reconnect with ancestral heritage but to reclaim a spiritual framework free from the dogma and hierarchy of Christianity.

𝐎𝐩𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐆𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐤 𝐎𝐫𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐝𝐨𝐱 𝐂𝐡𝐮𝐫𝐜𝐡

Despite the democratic and pluralist claims of modern Greece, the Greek Orthodox Church remains a powerful institution, both culturally and politically. It exerts significant influence over:

Public education, where Orthodox doctrine is taught as part of the national curriculum.

Civil institutions, including marriage, funerals, and the registration of religious groups.

National identity, with Greekness historically framed as synonymous with Orthodoxy since the Byzantine and Ottoman periods.

In this climate, Hellenic polytheism is often framed as:

Heretical or satanic- an association rooted in centuries of theological demonization.

Nationally subversive, especially by those who view Orthodox Christianity as integral to Greek cultural continuity.

Frivolous or invented, sometimes dismissed by media and public officials as a form of cosplay or historical reenactment rather than a legitimate faith.

Practitioners have faced both legal obstructions and social discrimination, including restricted access to sacred sites and ridicule in public discourse.

𝐋𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐥 𝐑𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐠𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐑𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐠𝐢𝐨𝐮𝐬 𝐅𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐝𝐨𝐦

For many years, Hellenic polytheist groups operated in a legal grey zone:

Until 2006, the Greek government refused to officially recognize polytheistic religious organizations, citing outdated laws that privileged “known religions”, a status granted only to faiths with institutional continuity and state-sanctioned legitimacy.

Activists and scholars challenged this interpretation, arguing that the Constitution guarantees freedom of religion regardless of historical suppression.

Since then, some legal victories have been won, including:

Recognition of certain Hellenic religious organizations.

The legal right to hold ceremonies and weddings.

Limited access to ancient temples for ritual use (e.g., at Cape Sounion or the Temple of Zeus at Nemea).

Still, many practitioners continue to face bureaucratic resistance, and public ceremonies are often surveilled, restricted, or moved to unofficial locations.

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐈𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐒𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐠𝐠𝐥𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐑𝐞𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧

Rebuilding a living religion from fragments is not only a historical challenge but a psychological and spiritual one. Modern practitioners must confront:

Centuries of Christian moral frameworks, including guilt-based theology, dualistic thinking (good vs. evil), and internalized beliefs about “paganism��� as idolatrous or primitive.

The loss of oral tradition: Unlike polytheist religions with continuous lineages (e.g., Hinduism, Shinto), Hellenic religion was decapitated at the institutional level, leaving no priestly caste, temple rites, or living mentorship.

The tension between historical fidelity and modern adaptability: Some followers advocate for strict adherence to ancient sources, while others embrace personal gnosis, eclecticism, or mystical experience.

This internal diversity can be both a strength and a source of division. Still, it reflects the dynamic and evolving nature of the revival- a faith being reborn through choice, research, and desire, rather than inheritance or coercion.

⚠️ Note: On the YSEE and Institutional Representation ⚠️

While the Supreme Council of Ethnic Hellenes (YSEE) has played a significant role in the modern visibility and legal recognition of Hellenic polytheism, it is important to acknowledge the complex and often exclusionary nature of its practices and rhetoric. Critics- both within and outside the tradition- have raised concerns about the organization’s:

• Nationalist leanings: an emphasis on Greek ethnic purity that can alienate non-Greek practitioners or those of mixed heritage;

• Gatekeeping attitudes: delegitimize personal gnosis, eclectic spiritual practice, or queer-inclusive interpretations of the gods;

• Anti-Christian rhetoric: while understandable in light of historical trauma, can alienate practitioners seeking spiritual reconciliation or religious plurality.

It is essential to recognize that no single group speaks for all of Hellenic Polytheism, and the tradition today includes a wide spectrum of practitioners- academic and intuitive, solitary and communal, Greek and non-Greek, traditionalist and progressive. The gods, as ever, remain larger than any institution.

Basically, this group sucks and I highly suggest researching their problematic behavior personally.

• 𝐂𝐡𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐲’𝐬 𝐏𝐬𝐲𝐜𝐡𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐋𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐜𝐲 •

Even after centuries of theological opposition and cultural dominance, Christianity continues to shape how many individuals- both within and outside Greece- approach the revival of Hellenic polytheism. Its influence extends beyond institutional power or doctrinal pressure. It seeps into moral expectations, cosmological assumptions, and psychological responses to the sacred. For many modern practitioners, the task of revival includes not only rebuilding rituals, but unlearning inherited worldviews.

𝐈𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐳𝐞𝐝 𝐌𝐨𝐧𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐬𝐦 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 “𝐎𝐧𝐞 𝐓𝐫𝐮𝐞 𝐏𝐚𝐭𝐡”

Centuries of Christian dominance have normalized certain theological assumptions that are often at odds with polytheistic frameworks:

The idea of a singular, omnipotent deity is so culturally embedded that many newcomers to Hellenic Polytheism unconsciously seek a “king” of the gods or look to Zeus as a monotheistic supreme being- an approach inconsistent with traditional Hellenic theology, which emphasized divine plurality, specialization, and relational reciprocity.

The binary of "truth" vs. "falsehood" in religious belief, inherited from Christian exclusivism, can create pressure to regard the gods as either literally real or entirely metaphorical, rather than embracing the ambiguous and experiential nature of ancient theism.

Some practitioners carry a deep-seated fear that honoring other gods might be blasphemous or dangerous- residual effects of teachings that labeled polytheism as demonic or idolatrous.

Even when rejected consciously, these ingrained frameworks can shape emotional reactions, language choices, and spiritual expectations.

𝐌𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲, 𝐒𝐢𝐧, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐒𝐚𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐁𝐨𝐝𝐲

Christian teachings introduced moral concepts that sharply contrast with ancient Greek religious ethics:

Sin, as understood in Christianity- a transgression against divine law requiring repentance- is largely alien to Hellenic religious systems. Ancient religion focused on ritual purity, social obligation, and miasma (pollution) rather than moral guilt or eternal damnation.

The body, especially in Christian thought, was often seen as fallen, lustful, or a site of temptation. In contrast, Hellenic religion celebrated the body in its athleticism, beauty, sensuality, and sacred function- seen in rites dedicated to Aphrodite, Dionysus, and Artemis.

Emotional repression, sexual guilt, and the prioritization of celibacy as virtue are Christian legacies many Hellenists must unlearn to fully embrace the vital, earthy, and embodied nature of their deities.

This tension is especially present in the revival of ecstatic rites, nudity in ritual, or sensual devotion- often viewed through a Christian lens as “profane,” when they were once understood as deeply sacred.

𝐑𝐞𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐃𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐞 𝐅𝐞𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐞

Christianity’s patriarchal structure- both theological and institutional- marginalized the divine feminine:

The Olympian goddesses, once powerful and multifaceted, were either demonized (as temptresses, witches, or monstrous women) or reduced to symbols of virtue (as with the Virgin Mary replacing Artemis or Hestia).

Concepts like eros, sacred sexuality, and female autonomy were suppressed or reinterpreted as dangerous, especially in the Byzantine and medieval eras.

Modern Hellenic polytheism offers a radical reclamation of divine femininity:

Aphrodite is not merely a goddess of beauty but a force of binding, desire, and the generative mysteries of the cosmos.

Artemis defies domestication, representing sovereignty, wildness, and youthful strength.

Hekate stands at the crossroads, governing liminal spaces, transformation, and divine agency outside male-centered frameworks.

The process of reintegrating goddess worship is deeply healing for many practitioners, particularly women and queer individuals, who find in these deities a mirror of strength, wisdom, and wholeness.

𝐑𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚 𝐏𝐨𝐥𝐲𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐬𝐭 𝐄𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐬

Christianity encourages a universal moral law, rooted in obedience, salvation, and hierarchical judgment. Hellenic polytheism, by contrast, is local, relational, and negotiated:

Moral behavior is not dictated by a divine code but by one's relationships with the gods, family, community, and ancestors.

The ethical core of Hellenic practice is found in concepts like:

Xenia (hospitality)

Arete (excellence or virtue)

Sophron (temperance or self-control)

Eusebeia (piety or right reverence).

Reviving these principles means disentangling them from Christianized interpretations and rediscovering their meaning in a polytheist, reciprocal, and pluralistic context.

• 𝐆𝐥𝐨𝐛𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐳𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐃𝐢𝐚𝐬𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐚 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐱𝐭𝐬 •

In the 21st century, Hellenic polytheism is no longer confined to the geographic boundaries of Greece. As a living, growing spiritual movement, it has taken root in diasporic communities and among practitioners around the world- each engaging with the tradition through their own cultural lenses. While Christianity once silenced Hellenic Polytheism within its homeland, globalization has ironically helped revive and disseminate it far beyond.

𝐏𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐞 𝐁𝐞𝐲𝐨𝐧𝐝 𝐁𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬

The internet, academic access, and global interest in classical antiquity have allowed people outside Greece to engage with Hellenic polytheism in new ways:

American, European, and Australian practitioners often discover the gods through literature, philosophy, or neopagan networks.

In these contexts, there is often greater freedom of expression, fewer legal restrictions, and less cultural opposition compared to Greece, where Orthodox Christianity remains dominant.

The diversity of practitioners leads to varied expressions of the religion: some highly academic and reconstructionist, others intuitive, devotional, and experiential.

This internationalization has allowed Hellenic Polytheism to evolve as a pluralistic and decentralized tradition, not bound to national identity or ethnic lineage.

𝐃𝐢𝐠𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐥 𝐑𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐯𝐚𝐥 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐎𝐩𝐞𝐧 𝐀𝐜𝐜𝐞𝐬𝐬

Unlike the fragmented manuscript traditions of the past, modern revivalists benefit from an explosion of open-access materials:

Online archives host free versions of Hesiod, Homer, the Homeric Hymns, Orphic fragments, and philosophical texts.

Platforms like YouTube, Discord, Reddit, and podcasts host active communities discussing ritual structure, altar-building, festivals, and theology.

Academic research once locked behind universities is increasingly being integrated into layperson-friendly publications and social media.

These tools allow practitioners to educate themselves, build community, and participate in rituals, even when physically isolated or living under religious restrictions.

𝐃𝐢𝐚𝐬𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐜 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐈𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐚𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐀𝐝𝐚𝐩𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧

For those in diaspora or raised outside Greek culture, engaging with Hellenic polytheism often requires navigating multiple spiritual identities:

Some practitioners combine Hellenic Polytheism with other polytheistic or earth-based traditions, such as Wicca, Celtic polytheism, or African Traditional Religions, in an eclectic but reverent synthesis.

Others feel tension reconciling their upbringing- often Christian, agnostic, or mixed-faith- with their current spiritual calling. This can create:

Guilt, stemming from past indoctrination.

Cultural anxiety, especially among non-Greeks who worry about appropriation or legitimacy.

Creative flexibility, in how ancient concepts are interpreted for modern lives.

In many cases, practitioners form blended households, where different family members follow different religions. Hellenic polytheism, lacking proselytism or exclusivism, is often well-suited to coexist in such environments.

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐑𝐨𝐥𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐂𝐡𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐢𝐧 𝐃𝐢𝐚𝐬𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐚 𝐄𝐱𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞

Outside of Greece, Christianity’s influence is both diffused and internalized:

Many Western countries are post-Christian in structure but still carry lingering Christian assumptions- about sin, divinity, hierarchy, and the "truth" of monotheism.

Christian holidays, symbols, and narratives permeate education, media, and cultural rituals, making polytheism feel either subversive or invisible.

For diasporic practitioners, particularly in Christian-majority nations, Hellenic Polytheism becomes not just a spiritual path but an act of reclamation and visibility.

It is a way of asserting identity in the face of erasure- a conscious revival of that which was once made taboo, heretical, or foolish. It is also, increasingly, a global religious phenomenon: rooted in ancient soil, but flowering across continents.

• 𝐂𝐡𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐲: 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐎𝐛𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐜𝐥𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐚𝐭𝐚𝐥𝐲𝐬𝐭 •

The relationship between Christianity and Hellenic polytheism is one marked by violence, appropriation, survival, and ultimately, resurgence. Christianity arrived not as a parallel system, but as a replacement ideology, one that sought to overwrite the polytheistic past with a singular, salvific future. For centuries, this mission succeeded in dismantling temples, silencing oracles, and recasting gods as demons. And yet, the old ways did not die.

They lived on in rural customs, in the names of stars and flowers, in the rhythms of the seasons and the turns of phrase passed down through generations. They slept beneath Christian holidays, behind saintly icons, within language and memory. They were not always seen, but they were never fully gone.

In the modern era, Christianity’s long shadow has cast both harm and possibility. As an obstacle, it erected barriers of stigma, theological distortion, and institutional suppression. As a catalyst, it compelled modern seekers to dig deeper, ask harder questions, and rebuild not only ritual but meaning itself. In a way, the force that once sought to extinguish the old gods has become the whetstone on which a new generation of devotees hones its devotion.

To revive Hellenic polytheism in the 21st century is not simply to repeat the past. It is to reclaim a silenced voice, to challenge inherited assumptions, and to forge new relationships with ancient powers. It is to remember, not as a nostalgic escape, but as a radical, spiritual act of resistance and re-enchantment.

The gods have not died, they've adapted.

• 𝐒𝐡𝐞𝐝𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐒𝐤𝐢𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐫𝐨𝐬𝐬: 𝐃𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐌𝐨𝐧𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐬𝐭 𝐌𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐬𝐞𝐭 •

For many who come to Hellenic polytheism from Christian or other monotheistic backgrounds, the journey is not simply one of adoption, it is one of unlearning.

While initiates may eagerly embrace the names of the gods, build altars, and study myths, they often carry with them the invisible architecture of the worldview they were raised in. This architecture, shaped by centuries of Christian doctrine, can create quiet distortions in how the gods are approached, honored, and understood.

𝐈𝐧𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐅𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐬: 𝐒𝐢𝐧, 𝐉𝐮𝐝𝐠𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐃𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐞 𝐖𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐡

One of the most persistent psychological remnants is the idea of sin as a moral offense against a god, deserving of punishment or wrath. In Christianity, sin is framed as:

A universal condition inherited by all

A breach of divine law requiring. repentance and often suffering.

The root of human suffering and the barrier to salvation.

By contrast, in Hellenic polytheism:

There is no concept of original sin or permanent moral stain.

Ethical missteps are understood through miasma (ritual pollution), hubris (overstepping one's bounds), or failure to uphold reciprocity, all of which are situational and can be cleansed through right action or reparation.

The gods do not demand blind obedience but expect mutual respect. They are powerful, yes- but not omnipotent judges demanding constant self-denial.

Still, many new practitioners instinctively fear angering the gods by doing something “wrong.” They may experience guilt over forgetting offerings, anxiety about “dishonoring” a deity, or a lingering belief that they are unworthy to approach the sacred at all. These fears are not part of Hellenic Polytheism- they are echoes of older dogmas still embedded in the bones.

𝐒𝐮𝐛𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐯𝐬. 𝐑𝐞𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩

Monotheism often teaches a hierarchical submission to a divine authority- one god, one truth, one path. Hellenic polytheism, in contrast, encourages a relational theology:

The gods are not masters; they are patrons, guardians, muses, teachers.

Worship is not about worthiness. It is about engagement, reciprocity, and reverence.

There is no single path. Different deities call different people. The pantheon is a cosmos of divine plurality, where diversity is not division, but balance.

Those from monotheistic systems often struggle with this shift. They may search for a "highest god," a moral code, or fear “doing polytheism wrong.” But to embrace Hellenic Polytheism fully is to let go of the need for absolute order, and instead enter into relationship with mystery, multiplicity, and context.

𝐃𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐀𝐫𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐇𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠

The work of deconstructing a monotheistic mindset is not immediate. It unfolds over time, through ritual, study, and embodied experience. It may include:

Reclaiming the body as sacred, rather than shameful.

Exploring desire, sensuality, and joy without guilt.

Learning to listen to the gods, not for commandments, but for conversation.

Letting go of religious fear, and embracing a sacred world where beauty and power flow through all things.

For many, this process is not just theological, it is deeply personal. It is a healing, a return, a reconnection with the ancestral bones and sacred soil that Christian hegemony once tried to erase.

To enter Hellenic Polytheism is not simply to believe, it is to remember. And in that remembrance, we become whole again.

“𝐄𝐯𝐞𝐧 𝐢𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐠𝐨𝐝𝐬 𝐝𝐨 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐰𝐞𝐫, 𝐰𝐞 𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦. 𝐅𝐨𝐫 𝐢𝐧 𝐡𝐨𝐧𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦, 𝐰𝐞 𝐦𝐚𝐤𝐞 𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐯𝐞𝐬 𝐝𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐞.”

— Fragment attributed to Euripides

• 𝐂𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐁𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐈 𝐅𝐞𝐞𝐥 𝐥𝐢𝐤𝐞 𝐢𝐭'𝐬 𝐍𝐞𝐜𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐇𝐞𝐫𝐞•

MacMullen, Ramsay. Christianizing the Roman Empire (A.D. 100–400). Yale University Press, 1984.

Veyne, Paul. When Our World Became Christian (312–394). Polity Press, 2010.

Brown, Peter. The Rise of Western Christendom. Wiley-Blackwell, 2013.

Trombley, Frank R. Hellenic Religion and Christianization, c. 370–529. Brill, 1994.

Eusebius of Caesarea. Life of Constantine. Trans. Averil Cameron and Stuart G. Hall. Oxford University Press, 1999.

Cameron, Averil. The Mediterranean World in Late Antiquity: AD 395–600. Routledge, 2011.

Nilsson, Martin P. A History of Greek Religion. Oxford University Press, 1949.

Garland, Robert. Introducing New Gods: The Politics of Athenian Religion. Cornell University Press, 1992.

Stewart, Charles. Demons and the Devil: Moral Imagination in Modern Greek Culture. Princeton University Press, 1991.

Ware, Kallistos. The Orthodox Church. Penguin Books, 1997.

Hall, Jonathan. Hellenicity: Between Ethnicity and Culture. University of Chicago Press, 2002.

Versnel, H. S. “What Did Ancient Man See When He Saw a God?” in Effigies Dei, Brill, 2011.

Larue, Gerald A. Religion in Ancient History. Wadsworth, 1975.

Sotiropoulos, Dimitris. "Religion and National Identity in Modern Greece." South European Society and Politics, vol. 10, no. 1, 2005, pp. 55–70.

Saloustros, Spyros. “Minority Religions in Greece: State, Church, and Religious Freedom.” Religion, State and Society, vol. 43, no. 4, 2015, pp. 364–381.

Pike, Sarah M. New Age and Neopagan Religions in America. Columbia University Press, 2004.

Magliocco, Sabina. Witching Culture: Folklore and Neo-Paganism in America. University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004.

Pagels, Elaine. The Gnostic Gospels. Vintage, 1989.

Clark, Elizabeth A. The Origenist Controversy: The Cultural Construction of an Early Christian Debate. Princeton University Press, 1992.

Budin, Stephanie Lynn. The Myth of Sacred Prostitution in Antiquity. Cambridge University Press, 2008.

Downing, F. Gerald. Gods, Men, and Heroes: Understanding Greek Religion. Oxford University Press, 1994.

Laird, Andrew. Powers of Expression, Expressions of Power: Speech Presentation and Latin Literature. Oxford University Press, 1999 (for rhetoric and religious framing).

Detienne, Marcel and Jean-Pierre Vernant. The Cuisine of Sacrifice among the Greeks. University of Chicago Press, 1989.

Chryssides, George D. Exploring New Religions. Continuum, 2001.

Hutton, Ronald. The Triumph of the Moon: A History of Modern Pagan Witchcraft. Oxford University Press, 1999.

Scarpi, Paolo. “The Rebirth of Ancient Greek Religion in Modern Greece.” in Modern Pagan and Native Faith Movements in Central and Eastern Europe, edited by Kaarina Aitamurto and Scott Simpson, Routledge, 2013.

Berger, Helen A., and Douglas Ezzy. Teenage Witches: Magical Youth and the Search for the Self. Rutgers University Press, 2007.

Adler, Margot. Drawing Down the Moon: Witches, Druids, Goddess-Worshippers, and Other Pagans in America Today. Penguin Books, 2006.

This was... a long one. And took a long time to do and even then I don't think I've done the topic justice. But regardless, I hope this was at least an interesting read on top of being informative! It was definitely a hard one and I questioned whether or not to actually make this post because of how thick it is and I'm truly missing so much.

But! Xaire the Herald, who I dedicated all my research and studying to ♡

Safe travels ♡

[asmimir]

Your art reminded of how the Unholy Alliance update made me go from very on the vence about Narinder to biggest Narinder defender will die in the trenches for my wife /hj

Like personally, them finally giving us the reasoning behind the Bishops attack on Narinder beyond vague prophecy changed a lot of the context behind the situation

And while, yes, the intentions behind his actions of resurrecting followers and his opinion on his new find extreme popularity were left quite vague (and why I don't if someone still interprets Narinder as the one mainly/equally at fault). It still doesn't change how it was a betrayal out of the Bishops fear of a possible betrayal. He wasn't conquering and overtaking them, he wasn't actively starving them, they just feared that possibility that he would.

It gets even more fucked up when you remember that all the Bishops ran their faiths by gifting and blessings their followers with the opposite of their domains (food, heath, etc) so Narinder actions where probably completely normal thing to do as a god of death in his mind, like.

In my fucked up fantasies (aka my interpretations of the canon), Narinder was only truly in the wrong when they asked the Lamb to sacrifice themselves. But getting into even more personal headcanons territory, for him it was likely just the natural/necessary think to do. He's a god of death that gave this little mortal life so they could do his bitting (that included them doing their own sacrifices, depending on your own gameplay), them sacrificing themselves was likely a given for him. Probably didn't consider that the Lamb would mind it, like, sacrificing yourself for your god just another tuesday in the life of a follower of death aint I right

So in conclusion, narilamb before post-game was a classic case of doomed yaoi/hurt people hurt people. Narinder asked the sacrifice-survivor to be sacrificed once again and the Lamb betrayed the one who was betrayed in return (pun half-intended)

(Really sorry for the ramble, it's almost midnight in my country and your art plagued me with thoughts. Hope you at least liked reading my deranged screams, I mean, my interpretations of the story. If you didn't, again, Im truly sorry. But Im still interested in your own thoughts regardless, so yeah... feel free to share??? I don't know how to phrase that in a good way, again, its almost midnigh)

no truer words have been said

[khaire-traveler]

I don't know about asking this, but you seemed like someone I could ask. Do I, like, NEED to make altars and do devotional stuff all the time? This is a genuine question. I believe in the gods, I really do, but the more I study it, the less this feels neccasary. Are altars a requirement or does running through a field wearing a necklace of a lyre do the same thing? I'm just kind of worried because my altars have started taking quite noticeable chunks out of my fund.

I'm literally losing money and time off these, and in my mind, they seem so materialistic. Do I actually have to do all this? I feel like altars are just another object to me. The only helpol OBJECTS I take seriously are statues, paintings, and jewelry. No shade to using altars, of course, but do I HAVE to?

Khaire!

Firstly, I want to say that your religious practice should never endanger your well-being. In this capitalistic Hellscape we live in (specifically in the US, anyway), money has become part of well-being, especially in this economy. It feels gross to say that, but it's unfortunately true. Never feel the need to put something vital to your survival/well-being/etc. at risk solely to give praise to the gods; that's my personal opinion.

Secondly, you do not need an altar to praise the gods. Some people are seriously going to hate this opinion, but I've met people with practices that differ significantly from my own, yet they experience the same success and connection within their own practices. I've met someone who believed that any god worth worshipping wouldn't require altars OR offerings from worshippers in order to form a connection with them. As much as people want to claim that you MUST do things a certain way or else, it's honestly not required. I've also read somewhere (can't find it, but it was a great post by someone) that the way many modern polytheists and pagans create altars is extremely influenced by Catholic practices. When looking into it, I noticed this to be very true, actually, and it really changed my perspective on some things. I also realized how intensely modern the idea of some altars is after reading Greek Religion by Walter Burkert; highly recommend that book for this topic (you can easily find a free PDF of it by searching the book title and "free PDF"). Altars aren't required for worship. Nature itself could be your altar, your offering, your devotional act.

Thirdly, your offerings don't need to be extremely elaborate or expensive. There is no requirement to pour a ton of money into an altar; what matters - really truly - is the intention of your offering and what you're giving (in regards to "sacrifice"). I've been giving food and drink offerings super often lately, and they seem to be accepted happily. I've decorated my altar with seemingly random items that hold a personal value to me. On Hermes' altar, I literally have a paper cut-out of a phallus; I promise your altar doesn't need to be this insanely organized, picturesque thing filled with expensive offerings that cost an arm and a leg to put together. Allow yourself to have silly offerings and decorations! Allow yourself to have items that you made, even if they aren't "perfect"! It's ok for our altars to be more casual; they don't have to replicate the massive temples erected for the gods in the past.

I hope you found this response helpful! Try not to worry too much about having an altar; it shouldn't be a source of significant stress. If anything, an altar should be something you enjoy and feel comfortable spending time at. If it's not doing either of those things for you, then maybe it's time to try something else. You can connect with the gods in endless ways, and altars aren't required for most of them. Take care, and best of luck! 🧡

[pubbamoon]

03. KRITTIKA NAKSHATRA (26°40' ARIES - 10°00' TAURUS)

Krittika is the third nakshatra in Vedic astrology. It starts at the late degrees of Aries sign, while it continues and ends in Taurus sign. This nakshatra is ruled by the Sun, the planet which represents the father, authority, norms, light and illumination. The combination of the Sun and Mars (Aries' side) shows boldness and initiation, while the combination of the Sun and Venus (Taurus' side) shows more nurturing and stable side of this nakshatra. If you have Sun, Moon, Ascendant, chart ruler or Atmakaraka in this nakshatra, then we can say that you have prominent Krittika nakshatra in your chart.

The meaning of Krittika is the one who cuts. The symbols of this nakshatra are sharp objects, such as knife and axe. So, Krittika relates to cutting through illusions, seeing things as they really are and criticizing. People with prominent Krittika nakshatra in their chart might be direct, sharp, bold, courageous and ready to criticize, whether themself or someone/something else. These people can be very judgmental by nature.

Krittika nakshatra is the Star of Fire and the deity of this nakshatra is Agni, the Hindu god of fire. By saying that, Krittika nakshatra is associated with purification, cooking and intense drinks, such as alcohol and coffee. Prominent Krittika natives may be coffee lovers or work as the cook, commentator, entrepreneur, owner of a coffee shop etc. Also, there's an exaltation point of the planet Moon in this nakshatra, specifically at 3° of Taurus. In order for the planet Moon to function optimally, it needs warmth, purification and stability, which Krittika nakshatra is all about.

The power of Krittika nakshatra is to burn, associating with the explosiveness, forcefulness, independence and will power. Prominent Krittika natives might be independent, bright and masculine, since Krittika nakshatra relates to Yang, which is the masculine energy. In order to see things as they really are, represented by the planet Sun, the ruler of this nakshatra, it's crucial to burn away or to separate negative things which bring confusion and illusions. The yoni/animal of this nakshatra is a female goat/sheep, representing spiritual purity and sacrifice. With the female goat as the Krittika's yoni and with the exaltation point of the Moon in this nakshatra, there's also a sense of nourishment in this fiery nakshatra.

Padas of Krittika nakshatra:

Pada 1 (26°40' Aries - 0°00 Taurus) - Sagittarius

Pada 2 (0°00' Taurus - 3°20' Taurus) - Capricorn

Pada 3 (3°20' Taurus - 6°40' Taurus) - Aquarius

Pada 4 (6°40' Taurus - 10°00' Taurus) - Pisces

For example, if you have Ascendant in the 1st pada of Krittika nakshatra in your birth chart (D1), you have Ascendant in Sagittarius in your Navamsa (D9) chart. If you have Mercury in the 2nd pada of Krittika nakshatra in you D1 chart, then you have Mercury in Capricorn in your D9 chart. If you have Jupiter in the 3rd pada of Krittika nakshatra in your D1 chart, then you have Jupiter in Aquarius in your D9 chart. Finally, if you have Saturn in the 4th pada of Krittika nakshatra in your D1 chart, you have Saturn in Pisces in your D9 chart.

Celebrities with a prominent Krittika nakshatra in their chart:

Megan Fox - Krittika Sun in Taurus

Emma Chamberlain - Krittika Sun in Taurus

Jojo Siwa - Krittika Sun in Taurus

Miley Cyrus - Krittika Ascendant in Taurus

Bob Dylan - Krittika Moon in Aries

Bill Clinton - Krittika Moon in Aries

Frida Kahlo - Krittika Moon in Taurus

Mick Jagger - Krittika Moon in Taurus

David Beckham - Krittika Ascendant in Taurus

Jaret Leto - Krittika Ascendant in Taurus

Halle Berry - Krittika Ascendant in Aries

Taylor Lautner - Krittika Ascendant in Taurus

Kate Moss - Krittika Ascendant in Aries

Robert Pattinson - Krittika Sun in Aries

Mark Zuckerberg - Krittika Sun in Taurus

Cate Blanchett - Krittika Sun in Aries

Best regards,

Paky McGee

[kivaember]

arthur nightingale character rambling

my favourite thing when it comes to fic writing is really getting into the guts of a character and figuring out how they tick or react to certain situations based on what info you have about them from canon

anyway under the cut is my self-indulgent ramble about my thoughts (which are probably disorganised sorry) on arthur nightingale

okay, first off, let's get to the basics:

he's your knight in sour armour, to break him down into the very basic of tropes. he's difficult to get close to because he's so standoffish with strangers and resistant to showing vulnerability, but he's also genuinely a good guy beneath the gruff who wants to help people just because it's the right thing and because he's naturally a very empathetic guy.

as eleanor pointed out, arthur had dreams of being a hero ever since he was leaping on pine cone grenades as a child. i wouldn't be surprised if as a kid he even fantasied about doing some heroic sacrifice that has everyone like "oh wow he was a true hero!" like you see in movies dfhddh since from what i've gleaned from 1999 they do idolise people being sent to the "hall of heroes" upon death. but i think his friend's death also compounded in arthur a sense of: if someone has to be sacrificed, it has to be him because...

well being the one left behind hurts. it's awful. you have to live with it, while the dead get to die with the satisfaction of doing a good thing. it's a complicated emotion that arthur has 99.9% likely not processed or even thought about too deeply, but i do feel that arthur has a fear of being the one left behind. he doesn't want other people dying for him, and god i bet the shitshow of a mission on new years eve had been the most horrific scenario for him:

Everyone dying before him, leaving him the last one standing, alive just long enough to know he got everyone killed for nothing. awful.

anyway, moving onto his initial curt personality. we always knew he was driven based on aoi's KIM convos where she explains their break-up. arthur's very blinkered and a big picture kind of guy, i feel, where because he's good at setting aside his personal feelings in favour of the "greater good", he forgets that not everyone else functions like that. i think this is also compounded by the whole entrati fiasco, where lettie explains that initially the hex loyally followed entrati against their higher ups' orders, distributing his medicines and encouraging people to take up his vaccines, etc.

and you know, burned once, shame on you, burned twice, shame on me. entrati and drifter are similar in that they're strange people who popped up literally out of nowhere claiming they have the magical solution to your problems if you just trusted them. entrati strung the hex along with promises of a cure for the techrot, and initiatially it seemed like he was telling the truth: his vaccine did stop people getting sick - it just turned them into asymptomatic carriers instead, which the hex didn't immediately clock onto, and when they started to have suspicions, well they really didn't want to believe they'd made the wrong choice. they must be mistaken, right? entrati kept his promise to make a cure so... there's probably a reason why other people are getting sick, right?

it's why they took the second vaccine he offered which turned them into protoframes: because they were desperate and, despite it all, they trusted entrati.

whiiiiiiiich kinda fucks over drifter from the outset, i feel. the whole fiasco with entrati is very likely lurking in the forefront of arthur's mind when it comes to drifter in the initial few months. drifter arriving from the future and locking them all into a time loop, saying "don't worry, i can help you with means you don't understand, you just have to trust me".

so with arthur, i really feel like the entire year of the first loop is drifter overcoming that initial (and understandable) mistrust. arthur was probably waiting for the other shoe to drop with drifter - like, he had no idea how this was going to turn out to be a scam, but he was probably waiting for something to happen... but no, drifter is genuine, they're not playing with the hex or trying to trick them into anything.

the KIM convos probably helped with that, honestly. entrati likely maintained an authorative distance with the hex, whereas drifter was, well, drifter: clearly traumatised and socially awkward, if emotionally intelligent, but genuinely trying to connect and make friends with the hex - wanting to help them but also get to know them.

and that kind of quality i think would draw arthur in. yeah, drifter has no filter when it comes to talking about their fucked up past (ngl its funny that you can practically hear the "jesus christ" reverbing through arthur's brain whenever drifter casually reveals yet another traumatising event from their past like it's no big deal), but they're kinda stupidly committed to doing the right thing no matter how crazy and hard it is. arthur is also stupidly committed to doing the right thing no matter how crazy and hard it is! they have something in common in that!

also drives them both insane because i can just imagine drifter and arthur being in a state of "no i will sacrifice myself for YOU" to each other bc both refuse to be the one left behind. they'd be insufferable on a dangerous mission together. i think eleanor would strangle them both.

this really is a disorganised ramble. but anyways, arthur's fun to write about bc this guy really wants to do the right thing, but he's made a terrible decision in trusting the wrong person which landed him and his comrades in a situation where they get to enjoy the body horror that is being turned into protoframes against their will with a potential future of having their minds consumed by the techrot eventually, where there is no easy route to doing the "right thing", where their future is uncertain and where they have living evidence of someone from the future being all like "yeah so the infestation still exists thousands of years from now and the future is fucked up to hell and back but... well, we're alive!" and they're also stuck in a time loop for who knows how long.

anyway this is why i love drifter/arthur bc i feel like they're both on the same wavelength of "heroically deranged" and they give each other enrichment that others would find diabolically annoying. they know how to respect each other's boundaries but also when to push, and they have that insane quality where they want to hope for a better future, think they can make a better future, if they just keep forging towards doing the right thing no matter how disgustingly hard and painful it is.

this is why aoi and arthur broke up, i feel. they both had different priorities, which is fine! honestly i'm so glad DE had them both be extremely mature about the whole thing, because sometimes relationships do end bc both parties realise that they're better as friends than romantic partners and it doesnt have to result in them being bitter or angry at each other. aoi was justified in wanting to break up bc she wanted someone who prioritised the relationship just as much as she did, whereas arthur kinda needs someone who's willing to butt heads with him when he's being a bit of an ass but also understand that he's not naturally a super romantic or emotional kind of person.

anyway tl;dr i love arthur bc he's a wet cat kind of guy who's trying his best and that's just endearing. thank you for listening to my disjointed rambling lmao

[spectrumos]

I have to say I love miquella. I adore his aspirations and desire to relieve the suffering of others.

but he has suicide bomb soldiers in the Haligtree!

I aint TRUSTING someone who can charm people and has fucking SUICIDE BOMBERS. No matter what justification you have for that! Whether they figured out how to do that on their own, or Miquella just intended to give them a blessing, or whatever you can think of.

A leader who commands that level of belief and fanaticism, whether intentional or not, NEEDS to look in a fucking mirror.

LIKE, HOLY FUCK

Soldiers shouldn't WANT to sacrifice their lives! A kind leader would want them to try to fucking survive, yeah?

I know I couldn't stand the idea that someone, BECAUSE of their belief in our cause, or worse, their belief in ME!? would choose to MARTYR themselves rather than run!

Edit: I've taken a closer look at the haligtree soldier ashes and it says they only started exploding after he'd been gone for a long time.

But it still reflects on Miquella's existing pattern of leadership.

Idolatry.

I understand that he likely views this as completely normal, due to what culture he was raised in, but you shouldn't be a ruler and literally a subject of worship at the same time. If Miquella never came back, and his charm broke, the people there would still worship him.

Soldiers who decide to blow themselves up just to get you back home rather than organize and work together to improve their situation is highly reflective on you as a leader.

acting like Shadow of the Erdtree was a straight up lie, a retcon, and betrayal of the previous writing on Miquella is honestly very fucking irritating.

It's a consistent expansion on his character. Someone who's so desperate to do the right thing that they're utterly blind to the folly of the actions they've taken along the way, or FAR worse, rationalizes and justifies them?

Someone who's childhood taught him that nobody could be trusted to help him if they're not loyal to his cause. maybe too loyal.

Somebody who refuses to shed blood as sacrifice and instead sheds himself. But dooms the world in doing so (Were the tarnished not there to stop him) with the fucking strongest man in the world at the vanguard?

How is he going to spread his order? Hugs?

I find it disturbing he seems to accept the necessity of war but would rather sacrifice his own judgement than sacrifice lives for godhood.

I don't know of that's weird of me but whatever.

screaming

Additionally, the defense of Miquella's charm being "he used it in an ethical way" is fucking laughable and I utterly despise it.

That power is unethical.

Full. Stop.

Coercion is already evil. (Yes, our society does it all the time. It may effectively be a natural part of life, but it's still used to oppress.)

And directly influencing someone's mind in a way they literally cannot resist (the only person who could resist it was the tarnished because we got his great rune) is far worse!

No person, god, or BEING can just use a power like that ethically. The power to do that is a temptation in and of itself.

Try to look at things from an angle of power imbalance, will yah? There's a reason power corrupts etc. is a saying.

Whenever a person holds great power, no matter how pure their intentions, they will misuse it and cause suffering.

Which is why I could never willingly let Miquella become a god. I'd sooner see him dead than that, because there's no way he could possibly make himself "pure" enough by removing fucking pieces of his very self!

A god who never feels doubt, indecision, fear, and love?

That's just a tyrant with even more tyranny than before!

A leader HAS to doubt their actions! If they cannot doubt, there's no room for anyone to protest their decisions!

The options, given his powers, are coercion, literally either killing those who resist, or fucking brainwashing them!

in the end, this game, and this dlc, are

A FUCKING.

TRAGEDY.

ALWAYS HAS BEEN!

Rant over. Sorry if this hurt anyone's feelings, I'm just so irritated it's turned to anger, and I NEEDED to let it out.

[nynyhaha]

Spider Themes: The illusion of false gods or why the Spider is problematic regardless of morality

Can a cause be worth dying for? Or is it the sacrifice for the sake of something that proves the thing valuable?

There’s two ways to look at the members of the Phantom Troupe, by looking at the things they do to other people,and at the things they do to themselves and each other.

Seeing how much they identify with the Spider,we can throw the theory of them just being selfish psychopaths out of the windows. Neither do they seem manic or crazy,and yet..in a way they remind us of a cult. Besides that,I’ve also found them to have qualities or the following: rebels,revolutionaries,soldiers,robinhoods,martyrs.

Despite committing so much undeniable evil,and despite them never really saying it,there’s clearly a greater good involved. This idea of something bigger is exactly what the story is subverting,and seemingly critiquing. Or is it?

It might be what makes those characters so captivating and interesting-their unquestioning devotion to the entity that is more than just the sum of themselves,what they live trough and die for - The Spider. Why would the proof of criminals like them having principles and loyalty to something be a problem? In a weird way, the Spider has an almost redeeming function - after all it’s a reason and a potential excuse for all their horrible actions. At the same time,isn’t that what makes it a bad thing? If all those people are killing because of that one cause,isn’t it what turned them into who they are now? Isn’t it what makes them do all this evil? “I wouldn’t kill for something that requires murder.” typa issue is what we got here.

The Spider as The Cause

Whether the Spider’s existence itself is what’s most important or if it is still fulfilling a purpose like it did when it was created is up for debate,in fact it’s implied that this is exactly what causes Chrollo to feel lost and unable to understand his own motives. Another reason is that rather than standing for A cause,it merely stands for THE CAUSE,much like how “god” can stand for whatever a person cares about most.

We might wonder endlessly for what reasons exactly the Spiders are doing all of that,and while there are tangible reasons given in their backstory,they work just as well to represent people who are dedicating themselves to whatever,emphasis on dedication. Regardless of specific goals,there will be sacrifices,suffering and pain following whoever cares about anything too much.

The Spider as A Team

Besides loyalty to an idea or principle,there’s also one towards one’s group,regardless of that group’s purpose or function. Without knowing anything at all about motives,backstories,aims,etc we can still see how seriously the members take it. It’s definitely a friend group,one that can’t afford to be a found family,even if that’s what they might be naturally gravitating towards.

The group or team as the greater good is even more fundamental than any additional purpose of said group,as it stays even when the purpose changes. In that regard the Spider is like any other gang,it’s in- vs outrgoup,a small team of partners in crime vs the world.

This “one for all,all for one” dynamic could exist outside of any broader context,even if since the start the Spider was meant as an opportunity for personal fulfilment (as we know now,it was quite the opposite)

The issue comes up when seeing how much the Spider setup hurts its members (as I discussed in the post about their utilitarian approach)

Since the Spider is a villain group,it’s no wonder it’s damaging to the people involved - why would it even be good for their mental health to kill that many people? Of course they’d make enemies and eventually die because of their dangerous lifestyle. But what would really change if they never walked down the path of darkness?

Beyond Morality

Had the Troupe managed to end up as not villains but heroes,would they risk their lives any less? Could they make a bigger change? Would the dynamics within the Spider even change,if it was a more benevolent organisation? Probably not,as there would still be a goal to achieve at any cost and a collective that’s worth more than the individual. Given that it’s taken seriously enough,none of the members would avoid “giving up their lives” anyway. No,they have to give everything up for something,and there we go again.

It’s tragic that Chrollo deemed it necessary to become a villain of all things,but had he decided to protect Meter City in a less brutal way,he would’ve still lost himself in this mission and Pakunoda would’ve followed him,all while vowing to never touch him and never see inside his soul💔🥀

The other side of the coin

^from the 1999 version yorknew opening

Of course it’s the people closest to one that are meant here(I think the song is talking both to Kurapika and Chrollo telling them to value their friends over their cause)

This theme runs all through hxh,it’s present from the very start as characters on a dangerous journey have to constantly chose between reaching their goal or prioritising the safety of themselves and the people around them.

Gon and Killua’s friendship and the fun they have together >> finding Ging

Meruem spending time with Komugi >> grand plans of world domination

Bonds between individual Spiders >> The entity that is the Spider

It’s as if the series is saying “purpose and happiness lies in the here and now,not in what is grand and unreachable”

Another thing supporting this interpretation is this panel from the chimera ant arc:

The tragedy stems from human inability to “just live”,instead we require a greater narrative. It’s neither virtuous nor selfish to devote one’s life to some unreachable goal or mission, but it’s shown as irresistible,as the only way to cope with extreme circumstances.

I wouldn’t say that Togashi is outright condemning hunters,Spiders and assassins in their pursuit of meaning through extreme means, but there is shown to be great harm resulting from that.

Everyone is chasing something,and there’s really no other choice. As much as we want to determine whether the cause is worthy or not (yes because outsiders shouldn’t get away with kidnapping Meteor City’s children,no because it’s no longer about that) the actual reason the Troupe exists is because none of those kids could continue their normal life as voice actors,instead starting a life of a way different format.

There’s technically nothing stopping anyone from just “retiring” in favour of peace and quiet, but in the case of the Spiders especially that’s not even an option,it will never be enough for them.

Chrollo and his friends couldn’t have continued to live normally back then,let alone do that now,but wouldn’t it be nice?

[serpentface]

The Animal Sacrifice Petplay actually gets more directly at what I wanted to know, I don’t know why I was so coy about it. Are there contexts (I doubt ~socially accepted~, but cropping up either subculturally or repeatedly across given dynamics) in which non-standard pronouns are used?

The boring answer is that the inappropriate use of 'ouyii' on a human would mostly just crop up as an act of heavy sarcasm, like referring to someone you're characterizing as self-important like "O greatest of beings, o air that I breathe and ground beneath my feet, of course it is my natural duty that I should take great pains to increase the salt content of (ouyii) soup to (ouyii) exact liking. Should I also perform a full-body ablution before touching (ouyii) most sacred soup-bowl again? Shall I offer (ouyii) a hundred unyoked virgin cattle while I'm at it? Nah fuck off man salt it yourself." (ouyii works in 2nd and 3rd person). Though this would be less common than using exaggeratedly deferential pronouns/parts of speech appropriate for humans (which is something people tend to play with A LOT).

A maybe more interesting answer is that I could see it cropping up in humorous plays and poems, showing disliked foreigners referring to their kings with "ouyii" pronouns and other deified wordforms. Wardi culture has a pretty noted hostility towards deification of humans in Most forms. There are some legitimate philosophical differences between deified humans in Wardi religion and many other forms of god-kings (claiming descent from a god, claiming to Be a god in entirety, etc) but this hostility is largely a 'it's a different thing when WE do it because we're right' thing. There's a tendency for xenophobic depictions of foreign peoples to showcase them worshiping their kings or leaders as gods (and their gods are Wrong, either different/mis interpretations of the Real God or veneration of evil spirits or just imaginary). Showcasing this by having these characters use Wardi deity terms gets the message across and will strike most audiences as comedic.

But there's going to be a very narrow range of social dynamics in which it would otherwise crop up. The Wardi concept of deity is Relatively unique and not as hierarchical as some. If you gave people from this culture a comprehensive rundown of religions in which the human-deity relationship was described as 'worship', most of them would come to the conclusion that the definitions of the English words 'veneration' and perhaps 'duty' are more appropriate for them. The experience is having a sense of interconnection with the world, it sustains you and you sustain it in return. For many people there's a strong sense of love, awe and gratitude in this, for some it's just How Things Are and What You Have To Do, for most it's a little of both. This doesn't translate As easily and straightforwardly to D/S based kink or like, weird abusive relationships as more hierarchical god-as-king religions do.

The reason I keep coming back to the concept of ANIMAL SACRIFICE PETPLAY is it would be kinda conceptually fascinating in this cultural sphere. The 'animal' role is representing God, they're the subject of veneration in this dynamic and the one holding the power. Actual sacrifices involve the priest bowing in gratitude, hailing the animal as God or a part of God, and handling it as gently as possible (in most cases it's a bad sign if the animal is clearly distressed). But the 'sacrificer' role is mechanically dominant, they're the one that releases this power, the animal is restrained and under their physical control (and also like, gets its throat cut). There's no clear-cut hierarchy in the philosophy of this act or in theoretical sex reenactments of it, it's framed as ultimately a mutual exchange (animals that are sacrificed are Valued, they're being given up so that part of God can inhabit their body and give back in the act of death).

What I'm circling back to is legitimately whatever tiny fraction of the population happens to both develop a sexual fixation on the animal sacrifices that are part of religious practice AND finds someone else like this to mess around with would be a notably likely demographic to mess around with the 'ouyii' pronouns in contexts that aren't making fun of someone. Both because it would just naturally be part of the 'scene', and because it gets at a portion of what would likely attract them to the concept to begin with. You're not going to want to sexually roleplay animal sacrifice here for a petplay sorta dynamic where the sub gets fucking euthanized (you'd just roleplay as like, a horse going to slaughter if that's what you want). You're wanting a sense of profound interconnection and mutual dependence with something far bigger than yourself, a sense of such great love or necessity that you will die for it and it will die for you, a sense of paramount importance and honor, etc etc, as a sex thing. (And also you want to do some bondage and knifeplay type shit, perhaps with costumes?). If you want to call someone by 'ouyii' or be called this in a serious manner, you're probably chasing that underlying feeling.

To less dramatic extents I could see people occasionally Trying it as a romantic gesture, but few people would react positively to that. Some love poetry gets halfway there by metaphorically comparing human-human love and duty to the human-deity interaction, but it doesn't tend to go as far as using Specifically deified language. The average response to that would range from "too much, man" to "this is goofy as fuck" to "legitimately insulting" to at most "defiling an icon" (as written characters specific to deified words are treated as icons and have some restrictions to their use).

[a-god-in-ruins-rises]

In your opinion what is the best argument in favor of paganism and against christianity?

well for me personally the most compelling argument has always just been the fact that paganism seems naturally derivable. whereas christianity seems historically contingent and depends on imported concepts you can’t derive from nature itself.

i've always used the example of a child on a desert island, for example. i think all (at least most) children have some innate propensity for "paganism." i know i certainly did. the world felt alive and full of spirits. i believed every rock and tree and the wind and the sun all had souls and names and personalities. the tree in my front yard was one of my best friends growing up. i thought she was a person. i would talk to her and she would talk back and i'd leave her gifts (offerings) and so on. no one taught me to do this. it was just my instinct. and so i think a child born and raised on a desert island with no contact with any religion would naturally derive its own pagan religion where it would believe in a god or spirit of the sea, of the sun, of fire, of thunder, etc. maybe the child would have different names for them, but i think the same essence will be there. i think the fact that paganism has developed independently all over the world gives testament to this idea.

meanwhile, there's basically no way this child could have independently invented christianity. the only way the child could become christian is if it had access to the bible or access to someone who has read the bible. but it couldn't naturally derive the existence of jesus, his life, his teachings, his sacrifice, the trinity, sin, salvation, israel, king david, the covenants, etc just from nature alone. it asks you to believe a long list of abstract metaphysical claims that are only coherent if you accept a massive cultural and textual inheritance.

christianity hinges on propositional faith. it’s epistemically fragile. if you stop believing, the whole thing collapses. in that sense, it’s brittle. paganism doesn’t care what you believe. the sun still rises. paganism begins with what is. it arises from direct encounter: storms, blood, sunlight, hunger, fire, love, death, childbirth, cycles, etc. you don’t believe in the river spirit or the sun god. you experience it. you speak to it. you make offerings. you relate. belief is beside the point. it’s a practice, not a theology. you participate in it by living inside its world.

paganism roots the sacred in the world; christianity uproots it. it imposes a single abstract, universal god who exists outside the world and demands exclusive loyalty. it flattens the ontological landscape into a spiritual desert where gods and spirits are made into nothing but superstition or heresy, leaving behind a disenchanted cosmos where the divine is distant, and nature is just raw material. one invites you to live with the world; the other to escape it.

[persphones-hallow]

I’m one to stay out of tumblr and social media drama, it’s a waste of everybody’s time and energy. But over the span of couple of days there’s been so much discourse about offerings, sacrifices, etc so I’ll have my take. Offerings don’t have to be massive, that doesn’t mean offer something without considering the theoi first (half eaten Cheeto, dust, etc) but when we take a look in the historical context of offerings we see libations, milk, honey, and bread.

Does everyone have access to worship the gods historically? No. Do they have to do everything within the historical context? Now that is a tricky question, offerings were done to give thanks, ward off deities, and more.

You shouldn’t toss out everything within tradition especially worshipping any of the theoi ESPECIALLY King Zeus. I see so many people forget to pay respects to the theoi, but that is none of my business because I am not divinity and everyone’s relationship with said divinity is different. Respect is minimum and required, don’t just call to the theoi when you’re in need.

Call them for simple things as well, they’re all around you. Divine is nature and nature is humans. A big part of offerings is giving back, worship, and thanking.

Having discourse within your own community is so ignorant as we forget the basics of Hellenism. Xenia: hospitality, guest-friendship, or a ritualized form of friendship and khairs: reciprocal relationship of favor and grace between humans and the gods. Sacrifices were made to the divine and as times progressed we don’t use the same sacrifices as we once did but with some new aged things.

If you want to be in a community where Xenia is the foundation of the religion then preach and act of it. Be an example not someone who is ignorant or unkind to community members.

[martincrushcameback]

I know you said Martin’s true form would be a stag of some sort, but I was honestly imagining he would be a wendigo 😭

Also, what would he and Chris do that also wouldn’t be considered… human? And what was their reaction to Zach telling them that’s now what humans normally do (if something like that DOES happen at least)

The brothers don't eat with utensils and they don't generally cook their food. Raw is delicious but they are surprised at the smell of cooked food and how good it tastes. There is a ritual in a hunt where the first blood spilled from the neck of the beast must be spilled to the forest to sustain continued magic and power.

They bite. A Lot. It's part of being affectionate.

Also imagine that on your wedding night- you're kind of expecting to like be in a soft bed and consummate the marriage. Even if you're afraid, you have resigned yourself to this fate. You're not really expecting to be brought under the light of the full moon, buck naked, and decorated in animal blood and flowers that make your head dizzy and your senses funny. You're not expecting the sheer animalistic nature of this coming together in this way, adorned like a sacrifice to an old god you've never known the name of.

They also just don't do decorum or "proper" behaviour and for a stuffy kingdom like Zach's which is all strict religious rules and any deviations from those rules are blasphemy, the fae are shocking heathens to them. They like being naked, they like indulging in all kinds of pleasures of the flesh from delicious food and wines, to intercourse, music and dancing with swaying alluring motions, all forms of open displays of affection and reenactment of stories with animal bones. It would loud boisterous vocalizing, blunt discussions of any and all topics and enjoying things people would find taboo like.... sexuality is so open and free with the fae, there's no concept of "man and wife", it's "your mate/s is/are your mate/, we bite to show this, we decorate to show this, we scent mark, we do not need to heed the rules of one mate per person".

Chris is happy to have one singular mate because he likes devoting his attention in that way and being the sole receiver of the reciprocated devotion.

Martin though is very open and free with his love. He has plenty of mates in the forest (other fae, does when he's in stag form, humans, etc) and enjoys Donita's company too when she decides to come (as a witch she is not affected by silvertongue and he likes the challenge). He doesn't really like the idea of being Singular.

Polyamory is a normal Fae thing, bit for Zach's kingdom it's blasphemous.