#I mean for me personally as an orthodox Christian it’s more like Christ on a bread cube -> Christ is the bread cube and the wine

[agentsofoakenshiield]

thought this was about Jesus being white and I was so ready to fight but nah this is a great post

"Christ on a cracker" well actually I think you'll find Christ is the cracker. And also the wine. But you wouldn't know that you fucking protestant heathen

[religious-extremist]

Please pray for me, I have been a catechumen for almost 2 years but the more time the passes the more uncertain I become about joining any church. Recently another person I know left orthodoxy for catholicism and explained all their reasonings for why and I just feel inner turmoil about my choices. I do find my church to be very beautiful but at the same time I just dont fit in with the people there and always feel like an outsider even though they have been very welcoming and that also makes it hard for me...I just dont know...

I’ll be praying for you dear anon! You’re welcome to send me a pm if you want to talk more about it.

Church isn’t really about socializing, I’m sure you’ve figured that out. The main objective of the spiritual life isn’t just to improve this temporal life by making friends or adopting a Christian culture or having a third-space (Church).

St. Seraphim of Sarov, a most wise Orthodox saint, exhorted us, Acquiring the Spirit of God is the true aim of our Christian life, while prayer, fasting, almsgiving and other good works done for Christ's sake are merely means for acquiring the Spirit of God.

The word of God does not say in vain: The Kingdom of God is within you (Luke 17:21), and it suffers violence, and the violent take it by force (Matt. 11:12). That means that people who, in spite of the bonds of sin which fetter them and (by their violence and by inciting them to new sins) prevent them from coming to Him, our Savior, with perfect repentance for reckoning with Him. They force themselves to break their bonds, despising all the strength of the fetters of sin—such people at last actually appear before the face of God made whiter than snow by His grace. Come, says the Lord: Though your sins be as purple, I will make you white as snow (Is. 1:18).

God has given us all the weapons we need to acquire the Holy Spirit: He has given it to us through the one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church! From the first martyr Stephen until this day, Orthodox Christians are dying at the hands of barbarians, choosing to preserve their faith from heresies, atheism, and all manner of demonic forces. We must force ourselves to break the fetters of lethargy, to rise from the drowsiness of sin, to be warm in the coldness of the modern age. We must hold fast to the Ark of Salvation, the Church that has not changed since the time of its creation on Pentecost, lest we capsize amidst the tumultuous waves of the age and perish.

Someday, God willing, you will receive an Orthodox baptism; your soul will receive a spotless wedding garment, and when you approach the chalice, you will recite the prayer of preparation for Holy Communion:

“It is good for me to cleave unto God and to place in Him the hope of my salvation.”

[mask131]

While I'm at it, because I just had a little beef with a fanatical Christian who couldn't believe I was born in a Christian setting because I had a pentagram as an icon (you see the kind of person)... [Edit: For more details they were a clearly antisemitic Orthodox person who, after refusing to believe I was anything else than Jew, atheist or a devil-worshiper, starting lashing out at me when I said I had a Catholic upbringing saying I was the cause of the crusades and the reason Hitler was alive, yada yada, you know the kind of crazy religious person]

So I decided to have a brief Christianity talk. Not much but just this:

If you ask me, yes, there is a Christian mythology, even though people do not like this term - because there is a bunch of Christian legends and Christian myths that form a Christian folklore and a set of Christian tales with distant, weak or inexistant links to ACTUAL Christian teachings, rites and the actual Christian religion.

And I do believe that folk-Christianity is a fascinating thing that deserves to exist alongside official, actual Christianity. Santa Muerte, and the local saint celebrations, and strange Christmas and Epiphany beliefs, and this story about God and Saint Peter getting drunk at a farmer's house, and the fairytale about Jesus and the Virgin Mary throwing the devil and his wife in an oven to save the girls they wanted to eat... Anyway, no matter how much one can try to destroy folk-Christianity it will always survive because it was centuries and centuries of rites and beliefs spread across several continents, and you can't destroy that easily.

The thing that many people do not get is that a lot of what is Christianity today was completely made up. There's not a lot of Christianity today that was originally in the Bible. There's a lot of Christianity as practiced by the first Christians that was lost. The dates and meanings of celebrations like Easter, All Hallows Day or Christmas kept changing all year long. Lots of saints were completely invented. Don't even get me started on the apocryphal Gospels!

This is why studying and understanding the history and evolution of a religion always allow one to be more understanding of what the religion currently is and what is actually an "option" in it. Religions never stayed the same thanks to times changing, scholarly debates, schisms dividing it into various branches, political and economical forces being at play, translations from one country to the next - and that's not just true for Christianity, but also for all other religions. Islam, Judaism, Buddhism... They all had their own evolution, they all are today very different from what they started as, and to better understand them one needs to learn of their past, what they were, what they still are, what they're not anymore. Heck, today there are talks in India of kicking out and banishing all Buddhists when the religion started there! But now, Buddhism's main nations are China and Japan, and its Indian roots almost entirely forgotten...

Fanatics usually fail to do this study of their own religion's history and evolution, because they imagine that the past was just always a carbon-copy of the present, and that their beliefs stayed unmovable monolith coming straight from God (or whatever principle they follow) instead of something that went through centuries of men and women and governments.

Just look at why and how Protestantism came to be. People realized the Church had added a lot of stuff that wasn't there when Christians first appeared, and decided to return to the "original" Christianity, rejecting all the added, invented stuff. Like the celibacy of priests: Christians priests married and had children in the first centuries following the Christ's death. And the only reason Catholic priests took a vow of celibacy and virginity was because of economic concerns with inheritance matters. Jesus never asked those that followed him to never have children or never marry or never have sex.

Or take the existence of Purgatory! Completely invented by the Church around the Middle-Ages, never spoke about by the Christ or part of the original Christian religion, then quickly removed a few centuries later as a non-existent, borderline heretical superstition, and that yet survived in folk-Christianity, and then in popular culture.

In conclusion, I would have to say that there is one book that made me realize a lot of things about religion as a whole, and that convinced me to go from Catholic-Christian to simply deist. Terry Pratchett's book "Small Gods", which exactly put into words my feelings about the world: there is a difference between religion and organized religion. There is a difference between belief and the organizations built around this belief, between faith and the hierarchy created around this faith. The Church is like a shell that was built around the turtle that is the faith/belief/god - and sometimes, when the shell becomes too big and too heavy or too unfit for the creature it hosts, it smothers, hurts and kills the faith/belief/god, until there is only the shell. And people stop referring to the turtle, and only speak and interact with the shell.

This is the perfect explanation of how Jesus only preached peace and love and friendship and forgiveness, and its priests later invented the Inquisition and caused the witch-hunts.

[gladiusveritatis]

I was raised by an orthodox dad and a jewish mom so I do know a fair bit about this matter, actually 👀 and jesus-ified is not the right word, what i meant is that he's treated as a bit of a messianic figure by albert in part 1, and the main messianic figure in christianity is obviously none other than jesus, who was jewish! And william's "plan" to create a "better world" did sound like tikkun olam taken to extremes. As i said it's just a theory in reference to the post you made because I liked some of the points you made and wanted to engage in conversation with you. Don't take it too seriously :)

I see… It’s probably because of the moments where I spoke about Albert and William and how the two of them perceive faith. This is a very intriguing topic for me, and I plan to write about it in detail.

To begin, I want to say that I draw a clear distinction between Faith and Religion because I disagree with many teachings in religious texts. To me, these texts represent a deliberate lie, created to control the masses. For me, God is the Absolute, present everywhere. God has no gender, no name, and no religion—because humans are incapable of adequately describing the Absolute. Each person, including yourself, should adhere to the golden rule of sola scriptura—only you can interpret the Bible and the divine for yourself, not someone else.

So why did I say that William carries within him a faith in the human mind? Because through his actions, he forces people around him to reflect on what’s happening. To think about their lives, their deeds, and their decisions.

Jesus, to me, is the Perfect Man—a representation of what the Son of God should be. Therefore, William cannot, by default, fully embody his symbolism. The words Albert described, "He did not fear his words before the eyes of God," reflect the power of William's speech and Albert's faith. Jesus never stayed in a temple and condemned such practices; there is no divine presence in any house built by man—God resides solely in the soul. William understood that people always need something to follow. For William, it was about igniting awareness in their minds first, and only then purifying their hearts. At first, they reject absurdity, but later, they’re willing to follow someone whose words carry the same absurdity. William understood this perfectly—how easily human consciousness can be overturned.

He was a man respected since childhood, yet he turned to crime to demonstrate how quickly the image of someone people deeply believe in can be destroyed before their eyes: a professor, a young genius, a kind, responsive, and charming young man, proclaimed a murderer. Before embodying something divine, he represents humanity’s need to label everything as something extraordinary. It’s no coincidence that William is branded a "genius!" from the very beginning of the story, even though he himself understood that he was merely a well-read and thoughtful person. People constantly seek confirmation that the exceptional figure before them is not an ordinary human like themselves.

As for Albert, at that moment, all his thoughts about William aligned. In William, he found his own courage because Albert reflected his fear of action. Even the mere thought of such things consumed him from within—until William freed him from those shackles.

Regarding Judaism, it is more than just a religion; it represents the root of all European culture. Without Kabbalah, there would have been no medieval witchcraft, as pagan sorcery was somewhat different.

To begin with, let’s discuss Yahweh – an ancient Hebrew term meaning "Lord" or "Eternity." As Jews are forbidden to pronounce the name of God, they replaced it in their texts with the word "Adonai," which now means "Lord." Now regarding the name of Jesus – his actual name was "Yeshua," meaning "Yahweh speaks." The term "Christ" is a Greek word meaning "Messiah," which was added to his name after his death. The real name of Mary was "Miryam," though in the region where they lived, it was pronounced as "Mariam." The popular word "Hallelujah" means "Praise Yahweh," as "Halle" means to exalt, and "Yah" refers to Yahweh.

The name Yahweh originates from the Book of Exodus, the second book of the Old Testament. In our traditional translation, we find the part where Moses says, "I will go to the children of Israel and tell them that the God of your fathers has sent me, and they will ask me, ‘What is his name?’" But is this logical, given that we are not permitted to utter his name? And why give a name to God, if the world is ruled by one single, nameless God? Later in the book, God replies to Moses, "I am who I am," though in ancient Hebrew, it translates to "I will be who I will be." Translations differ from this point, but it marks the birth of the word "Yahweh." Some continued to call him Elohim, others El. I should add that the word "Elohim" means "mighty ones" – it is plural! "El," meaning "we," leads to Yahweh speaking of himself in the plural form numerous times. This suggests that Yahweh is not a god but a multitude, while God is singular and unique. The only figure who consistently speaks of himself in the plural is Satan. In ancient times, Yahweh was depicted as a bull. This leads to a contradiction – Yahweh himself created the Devil. There are four female demonic figures, one of whom is Lilith. At this point, two demonic figures are mentioned, who imparted their knowledge to Solomon. According to Ugaritic legends of Yama, Yahweh had a brother named Baal. Both were sons of El, and Baal later became a common noun denoting entities.

That’s precisely why, based on all of this, it’s easy to conclude that people often struggle to accept the humanity within another human being. Thus, William, who didn’t truly die but simply continued to live while enduring the torment of his soul, embodies the duality of human nature. He represents both an attempt by people to justify their fear of taking action and an excuse for their inaction.

[adventism-atheism-orthodoxy-me]

Proving God, or Not.

It's somewhat odd to be making this post, given that my starting point was a series of first principles - posits.

My first was that there is more to the universe then what I can see, smell, taste, hear and touch.

The second was that what I can't interact with is just as varied as what I can.

My last was, that for the sake of argument, what I could interact with is a subtotal of the entire universe, arranged in a hierarchy with something at the top.

This brings us to the idea of God.

He is therefore not a proof, but a definition. Much like in geometry - a point must be defined before anything else happens. Based upon that point, a whole host of further postulates and theorems can be generated, ending with the totality of Euclidean Geometry.

I see the work of God in the Unified Field Theory, The Grand Unified Theory, and in any study which seeks to understand the world around us as systems, such as the water cycle, and processes such as economics, rather than as discrete objects unrelated to one another. I am especially excited when I see things that were once considered separate, joined together in a larger context. In my mind, That larger context gets us closer to God. (John 12:32, Ephesians 1:10)

Let's talk Schrodinger's cat. Only by cat, I mean God. We've all heard Pascals wager, the one about living ones life as if God existed. Here's the thing, the proof of God will be revealed one way or another, I just don't think it will be during our lives or in this earthly realm. I think we'll have to die ourselves before we are able to open the box. By then, having the proof will be too late. Germs existed long before viruses and bacteria were discovered. The Atomic Bomb started as a postulate before it became a reality. I think of God in the same terms.

I read the Bible. I go to a protestant Church. But most Christians would probably call me a heretic. Even though Christ himself understood the difficulty of belief in things unseen. (John 20:29, Luke 16:27-31) He did give himself as a referent to God the father (John 14:9)

It is clear that I'm writing to people who aren't really interested with what I'm saying in that I've written several years of posts covering this stuff. I've highlighted my disdain for certain Christian tropes that I think are distortions of what we are called to be as Christians.

I take my regular readership to be a handful of hodgepodge Chistians covering a host of denominations, and possibly one political philosopher.

My goal isn't to engage in apologetics, I'm not trying to get anyone to believe in a God they don't want to believe in. Atheists want me to prove God, when all I care about is, assuming God exists, what might he be like, and how would he want me to live my best life in harmony with everyone else's best life (I'm including naked mole rats, rubber boas, and really anything else that has a claim to life here on earth).

I look to native concepts of "the all father" to see how they implemented the concept of God into their praxis and liturgies.

My personal belief is that the Eastern Orthodox Churches by-and-large come the closest to my idea of God within the Christian world.

And while Rationalist Atheists scoff at miracles, The Eastern Churches still have them, though you won't hear them publicized (Per Luke 16, among other verses). I've also been told that Eastern Orthodoxy respects and integrates Native American experience and traditions in a way other Churches don't. I don't know how true that is, but it's the report I've heard.

[uncloseted]

hi! i read one of your past posts and you mentioned that you think everyone is redeemable and i want to hear more thoughts on it, i feel like a lot of beliefs like Karma and Hell really push the idea that once someone does a bad thing or is a bad person, they deserve to suffer the consequences of those actions forever bc they are a bad person forever, what are your thoughts? does it relate to your views on the law and prisons? what about people who are not remorseful or love to hurt others?

I really love this question so thank you for asking it! The first thing I should say here is that I grew up Eastern Orthodox Christian, which isn't really a tradition that has hell or karma as part of their theology. I'm sure over the years, Orthodox churches have adopted the fire-and-brimstone version of hell, but the way I was raised viewed hell as a spiritual separation from God as opposed to a literally place where your body is tortured. I think this may be an extension of the Jewish concept of Gehinnom, where a person has deviated so far from the will of God that they're emotionally tortured by intense shame, but I don't know that for sure. I'm not active in the church or anything anymore, but I think the fact that I didn't grow up in a "your actions on earth will doom you for all eternity" faith tradition is probably part of the reason that I think redemption is possible and that a belief in redemption is necessary. I think it's also worth noting that in a lot of Christian theology, it's not actually your actions that send you to hell- it's not accepting Jesus Christ as your savior. In a lot of Christian traditions, you can be a serial killer as long as you repent and accept Jesus on your deathbed, and people like the Dalai Lama will be sent to hell by virtue of the fact that they're not Christians.

For a long time now, my view has been that there are no inherently "bad people" in the world. Our genes, epigenetics, womb environment, unbringing, experiences, cultural context, socioeconomic status and a million other things all come together to inform all of the decisions we make from one moment to the next. And because of that, I just don't think it's fair to treat people as lost causes. Some people get dealt a really difficult hand and deal with it the only ways that they know how, but that doesn't mean they can't improve with the right kind of support. It's like that quote from The Good Place - "people improve when they get external love and support. How can we hold it against them when they don't?" I believe nobody is beyond rehabilitation because what's the alternative? That we just accept that some people are just born evil and deserve to have their rights taken away because of it? And even if we did accept that people could just be "born evil", that doesn't really seem like their fault, does it? And so I think in this hypothetical scenario, we can try to mitigate the harm that kind of person could do, but it just doesn't feel fair to punish them for something that's out of their control.

If you don't believe me about the idea that there are no inherently bad people, look at the biggest determinants for whether someone will be incarcerated at some point in their lives: having been in out of foster care, receiving a poor school education, having early contact with police, having unsupported mental health and cognitive disability, problematic alcohol and other drug use, experiencing homelessness or unstable housing, and coming from or living in a disadvantaged location. The more of those factors a person experienced, the more likely they are to be incarcerated. There's also a link between adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) and incarceration later in life. To me, that just doesn't seem like people who are incarcerated have some sort of propensity towards evil- it seems like people who are incarcerated are a result of a system that failed them.

And if you look at the types of people who are incarcerated, that's basically what you see. About 58% of all incarcerated people either do not have a high school diploma or only have a GED. About 66% of people incarcerated in the US had annual incomes under $12,000 prior to their arrest. 75% of incarcerated adults in the US are functionally illiterate, and 85% of all juveniles who interface with the juvenile court system are functionally low-literate. 44% of those in jail and 37% of those in prison have a diagnosed mental illness, and about 26.7% have ADHD. 58% of people in prison have a substance use disorder. Around 10% of those coming in and out of prisons and jails are homeless in the months before their arrest, and I couldn't find a number, but I imagine significantly more of the current prison population has been homeless at least once in their lives. Some sources suggest that children of incarcerated parents are six to seven times more likely to become incarcerated at some point in their lives, and 68% of men who are incarcerated reported experiencing some form of abuse before age 12.

We also know from other countries that having a strong social safety net and a focus on rehabilitation works. Per capita, Norway, a country with a strong social safety net and a policy focus on the well-being of its citizens, has a homicide rate of 0.552 per 100,000 inhabitants. The US, with its "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" mentality, has a homicide rate of 6.383 - just fewer than Zimbabwe and just more than Grenada. By taking a rehabilitation-focused approach to imprisonment, Norway has reduced its recidivism rate to 25% after five years, and it has one of the lowest crime rates on Earth. In the US, 76.6% of prisoners are rearrested within five years, and in some parts of the country, that number is even higher.

All of this brings me back to my larger point, which is that... I just don't know if I believe that there are people out there who don't have the capacity to be remorseful or who love to hurt others (in like a violent crime kind of way and not in a masochistic kind of way). Looking at Norway again, only 3,687 people were imprisoned there as of 2022 (roughly 0.07% of their population, compared to the US' 0.7%). Of those, only 1,172 were violence or maltreatment (0.02% of their population), and 796 were sexual offenses (0.01% of their population). Of all those people, only 76 are considered to be there for "preventative detention", meaning that Norway doesn't trust that it's safe to release them (0.001% of their total population). If we extrapolate that number to a global scale, that's 82,000 people in the entire world who aren't safe to be around others- way less than the 10.35 million people who are currently incarcerated.

But even then, I just don't believe that those 76 people are in some way defective or irredeemable. Certainly, many of them have done horrible things (although not all of them- two are actually in their for their involvement in a heist, one for armed robbery that didn't kill anyone, and one person seems to be imprisoned primarily for making death threats to the prime minister), but I think most of them are probably just deeply damaged people. I want to be clear that I don't say that to excuse their actions or to spare them from accountability. Rather, it's to say that I think given the right support, some of that damage can be repaired, and maybe, eventually, they'll be safe to release. But even if they never reach the point where they can go out in public again, I still think it's our moral duty to try and help them get to a place where that's possible. I think to not offer them help is to reject their humanity, and that's just not something I can support in good conscience.

[khalixvitae]

STOP AGDHHS i forgot i had that fic idea stuffed up the ass of my archives but i thought you might have some more ideas to embellish it, since you have an art history degree (which is pretty fucking neat!), especially about the details of the art they'd produce and just how it influences multiple cultures; kind of a way to show just how adamant they are on having the memory of their lost love live on. my senior year means i won't get to work on it at all but if i do id definitely funnel my attention towards getting the rook cunt hunting scene down good because by god. that man drives me nuts. does he hunt an animal down? does he hunt yuu down? does yuu hunt rook down?? who fucking knows man. all of the above and more.

I am currently chewing the carpet HELLO!!!!

Also before we dive into this: good luck w senior year ::D !!! The last year of any type of schooling is rough, HS or Uni, but I applaud you and know you will do well !!!

So, as for artworks: if RookVil are commissioning, collecting, and creating works from all over the world, I have some suggestions.

1: A MOSAIC FOR THE LOVE OF CHRIST AVHHHGHG THEY ARE SO TIME CONSUMING AND ORNATE AND OFTEN MASSIVE, THEY ARE SUCH A COMMITMENT!!! I cannot stress this enough- it is individual pieces of colorful glass arranged PAINSTAKINGLY to create their subject. Historically mosaics have been used for lots of different reasons, but often to showcase wealth and (frequently) religious or sacred subject matter. Mosaics are a SUPER old art form, like dating back to Mesopotamia. But they’ve been found/utilized all over the world, especially in the Mediterranean and Northern Africa. The Romans rlly liked mosaics, and the Byzantines were well known for their super ornate and massive mosaic works.

2: woodblock prints. They’re incredibly beautiful, but also showcase understanding of color and line weight. You have to carve/copper each stamp so the images line up on top of one another to create the correct overall look. Block printing can also be done on textiles like silk, which leaves me with the mental image of silk brocades with multiple block prints/a pattern of either their lost love or one large print of the three of them. Block printing has origins/prominent ties in South and East Asia

3: I fucking love textiles so TAPESTRIES. I genuinely. Need I say more? You get the idea qslsjsodjdu <33 they’re a relatively global art

4: still an art object but more of me being weird, reliquaries. Basically they’re ornate containers meant to hold the relics of (typically) religious figures. Many religions practice the keeping of/pilgrimage to holy relics contained in reliquaries. They were mega popular with Christians for a hot minute, originally in Eastern Christian denominations (Eastern Orthodox and the like) before moving into western Christian churches. France had a lot of them if I’m not mistaken??? Ik that even some of their non religious dignitaries/royalty requested to have reliquaries made from some of their remains. Anyway reliquaries can contain anything affiliated with the person they’re devoted to- hair, teeth, bones, personal belongings, etc. they’re meant to be sacred and often time supremely beautiful. I think it would be especially painful if RookVil had created some kind of reliquary for their lover out of whatever personal items they’d left behind when they vanished.

Those are just some ideas !!!! Now. As for Rook and the hunting.

Thinking about Yuu watching him prepare for a hunt from the upper floors of the castle. The window of their makeshift studio overlooks the wooded area Rook so frequently disappears into. He’s in more casual clothing than they’re used to, so that’s already kind of eye catching. They watch as he sits by the tree line and waxes his bow string, carefully examining all of his equipment with practiced ease and a steady hand. They don’t even realize theyre staring until he looks up, meets their gaze, and waves. Of course Yuu looks away- that’s so embarrassing! Staring at their mysterious new benefactor and getting caught? Watching him from his own home? And of course it had to be Rook, who would be so kind and chatty about the ordeal without fail. When they finally risk a peek, he’s no longer by the tree line. Instead he’s standing on the lawn beneath the window, waving again. It then becomes clear he’s asking them to come down and join him. Can they really say no? Do they want to say no?(Absolutely not).

Cue Rook and his typically chatty disposition, guiding them across the crunching leaves that cover the lawn and towards the edge of the woods (it is autumn in my mind idk why but that makes me even crazier about this scenario). He doesn’t seem to have taken offense to them staring, instead asking if they’re curious about what he’s doing. He seems to think their interest was in his hobby rather than him, which is a relief. The conversation is easy- he seems genuinely excited to talk to someone about his passion. It’s easy to see that this is a longtime practice of his- he has the build for it for sure, which they’re certain of now that they’re up close. They are not sure how it happens, but before they know it he’s offering to teach them how to shoot. Something in them replies affirmatively before their brain can really catch up. And so there they are, caged in between his arms, his hands guiding theirs over the bow. He speaks softly and he smells like the outdoors, and between gentle instructions he makes a joke about how Vil will have his head if he gets their precious artist covered in “forest muck” before dinner. Yuu can practically hear Vil’s voice chiding Rook with that very phrase, and it does make them laugh a little. The huntsman seems pleased that they relax at that- he doesn’t want to scare them off, after all. Even if he could always bring them back (in theory, maybe not in practice) the prospect is vaguely terrifying to him. And so they fire the arrow under Rook’s careful guidance, which he seems absolutely thrilled to pieces about. He’s quick to guide them into the forest then, as if completely forgetting Vil’s imminent displeasure at their little adventure. In that ever jovial tone of his, he says something that almost sounds reverent- that he can’t wait to make them into the hunter they were always born to be.

SORRY I WENT BONKERS BALLS TO THE WALL ALSOSHDUDJ THESE ARE. MY FAVORITE TOPICS ANON. ANYWHO. AFFHHHGGGVHHHH!!!!

[sailing-ever-west]

WRIT200 Blog Post #3 - The Enforcement of Secular Femininity in Christian Circles

A while ago I (Christian) was talking with my dad (also Christian) about the double standards I experience as a woman as far as how I'm supposed to dress. I explained how comfortable and utilitarian clothing like loose shirts, sweatpants, and cargo shorts seemed to be considered gender-neutral or masculine, and if I wanted to be seen as feminine I would often have to give up comfort or practicality. I don't personally feel the need to be seen as feminine all the time–people can see me how they like and that doesn't mean it's the truth–but it's especially difficult in Christian circles where adherence to the traditional gender binary is seen as a sign of orthodox faith, and divergence from it is seen as inching into sin. The problem is that the gender standards being enforced are often not Biblical but cultural, which makes them fallible to going against other values of the Faith such as modesty or even simple mercy (if you don't understand the latter, know that I once did a full stage play in heels that I had to run in at one point and a dress that didn't allow me to lift my arms above my head or easily expand my middle to breathe).

I think the rest of the conversation I had with my father illuminates my point rather well. When I complained that many useful and comfortable things weren't seen as feminine, he pointed out that you can get feminine cuts of many different clothing items without having to be seen as masculine or remove them entirely from your wardrobe. This is true, but then I asked him to think about what makes something a feminine cut. At that, he understood. 

With the exception of some long skirts which don't need a feminine cut since they are seen as feminine inherently, a feminine cut is almost always one that simply shows more of someone's body. Pants that are skinnier to show the shape of a leg, shirts that taper in at the waist, lower necklines, shorter shorts, thinner material, see-through lace. 

And people in the church, bless their hearts, see this simultaneously as fundamentally feminine (certainly a man couldn't wear them) and as immodest, creating both a deep association between the two things and a nearly impossible standard for women to reach. Show off too much of your body, and you're asking for men's attention. Show off too little of your body, and you're trying to be a man. Unless you dress like a 19th century prairie woman (and even then, watch the cleavage), you are constantly on the edge of being perceived as sinful. 

The most interesting part is that most people enforcing these standards don't even realize that they're still telling women to dress for the pleasure of men; in fact, saying that phrase would often go directly against their professed beliefs. "Women should dress to honor God," they would say. But when did God ask us to adhere to the ever-changing standards of fashion? And what if those standards are set by people with non-Christian and furthermore dehumanizing values?

People seem willing enough to recognize this when it comes to significantly revealing outfits or fashions associated with the LGBTQIA+ community, but mainstream feminine fashion is treated as though it's somehow inherent to womanly nature. It leaves women with a narrow range of options and the constant threat of being shamed. If we as Christians claim to love women and men equally, we need to have the humility to understand that our subjective cultural standards for gender were not directly dictated by God, and that we can and will be wrong about them.

So, fellow Christ-followers, the next time you see a woman in baggy cargo shorts or anything else you instinctively deem unfeminine, consider why you label it that way, and whether you actually believe that femininity is dependent on the standard you are drawing from.

[feedingtheflockministry]

Traveling 3,000 miles to meet the Messiah

The year was 1970, and the post-Woodstock hippie movement swept America. Searching for meaning in his life, a young hippie named Mitch Glaser, along with a friend, dropped out of college in Connecticut and hitchhiked across the country to San Francisco.

Their journey was about more than just a change of venue. Mitch, only 17 years old at the time, sought answers he wasn’t finding in his Jewish roots.

Growing up in a traditional Jewish home in New York City, he regularly attended synagogue and observed traditional holidays like Yom Kippur and Passover. Mitch was proud of his heritage, but something was missing.

He was entrenched in religion, but never felt connected to God. Questions surfaced like, “What is the meaning of life?” So the scraggly bearded youth headed west, bringing only what he could carry on his back, in hopes of finding answers.

In California, Mitch and a few other friends built a houseboat, living for free by “borrowing” utilities from their neighbors, and delved into the hippie lifestyle. Meanwhile, Mitch still strongly identified himself as a Jew. Today, about 5 million Jews live in the United States. Less than 20 percent regularly attend synagogue.

Eventually, a building inspector condemned the houseboat. Shortly after, a Jewish friend named Joan visited. After spending time with some Christians, Joan had come to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, and couldn’t wait to share her discovery.

“She preached heavily to us about the end times,” Mitch says. “I thought she was absolutely nuts.”

It was as if Joan were turning her back on her roots.

“I said, ‘Of course I’m not a Christian. I’m Jewish,’” he remembers.

As a Jew, Mitch’s attitudes toward Christianity were largely shaped by his grandparents’ history in Europe. To them, Christianity was a foreign and hostile religion responsible for horrific events like the Holocaust and the Crusades.

“I was raised to believe Jesus was not only not Jewish, but anti-Jewish,” he said.

Yet Mitch’s friends were drawn by Joan’s personal experience. She made Jesus sound hip – after all, He was a revolutionary. So they decided to visit her Christian friends in Oregon to hear more. Mitch tagged along suspiciously.

“Mitch probably thought we were involved in something dangerous,” Joan remembers.

That night at dinner with the group of Christians, Mitch had an encounter with God. While the owner of the house prayed, Mitch sat with his eyes open. It was strange to him; the man talked out loud to God, as if he knew Him. Mitch could sense a strong presence in the room. He knew it was God.

From then on, Mitch was determined to know this God. So he began reading the Old Testament, something few Jews do outside of the synagogue. He yearned to connect with God like Abraham and Moses did.

At one point, Mitch approached some young, ultra-Orthodox rabbis for help. The spiritual leaders disdained his questions.

“I tried giving traditional Judaism a chance to talk me out of accepting Jesus,” he says. “Instead, by cutting me off, it made me think they were trying to hide something.”

A little while later, Mitch took a job as a counselor at an ecology camp in the Redwood Forest. As he approached a phone booth one night, the moon illuminated something on the ledge where a phone book should have been. It was a copy of the New Testament, which Mitch began reading regularly.

Through his reading he discovered that Jesus was actually Jewish. He celebrated Passover. He fit the descriptions in the Old Testament prophecies. And although Christ’s claims were beginning to make sense to Mitch, believing in Jesus felt like an act of betrayal of his heritage and family. While hiking in the forest one evening, Mitch wrestled with God.

“You don’t understand,” Mitch prayed. “You don’t have a Jewish mother.”

But Jesus did have a Jewish mother, he realized. God understood, and could help him in his new faith. From then on, Mitch’s beliefs solidified. Today he serves as president for Chosen People Ministries, an international Christian outreach to Jewish people.

Jews doubt that Jesus was the Messiah because He wasn’t a military leader, like their tradition expected. Yet Scripture is clear. More than 300 Old Testament references prophesying details about the Messiah were all fulfilled by Jesus.

For a Jewish person to develop faith in Jesus, they need to see Christ as the completion of their roots, says Mitch, not a step away from those roots. Believing in Jesus doesn’t mean you stop being Jewish. In fact, it completes the tradition.

“The irony is that people say you cannot believe in Jesus and be Jewish,” says Joan, who moved to Israel 21 years ago to reconnect with her Jewish heritage. “We have found pertinence to Jewish festivals that we never found before.”

Jews who believe Jesus is the Messiah are called Messianic Jews, or Jewish believers. But terminology can sometimes mislead. “I don’t like labels,” says Joan. “But know two things about me: I am a Jew, and I believe in Yeshua as the Messiah of Israel.”

It was enough for a searching hippie to understand 30 years ago. He found meaning in the Messiah and still serves Him today.

[tumble-d-wumble-phd]

So I was talking to a friend today who is sort of fond of AI features. He’s a tech guy, loves the latest trends, and is a very receptive and kind-hearted person who does photography but cannot draw. We were discussing pornography of Clippy the Microsoft officesona, which he immediately assumed had been created by AI. I had seen this particular art piece at around the age of 16, so I told him that was impossible and that, anyway, AI cannot make art because it does not have a soul. It can make images, but it cannot make art.

He balked at this and suggested we debate it, which I don’t think personal opinion with zero impact on the other party needst be debated but off we go because it’s fun. His argument was that art is defined by having a passionate reaction: love, hate, fear, disgust. Therefore, if you hate AI art, that makes it art. We were chatting over pizza in a loud bar, so he didn’t get to elaborate much between slices. However, I think following this line of logic is interesting. It makes me think of urinals in museum displays and swastika graffiti. Do we preserve that which we hate, despise, find generally offputting?

When?

Why?

Recently, I saw images of a sculptural set here on Hellsite. They were made to look like litter in a big stark-white modern museum, scattered haphazardly. One piece got thrown away: a dented soda can.

It was relocated and got a clearer label.

The soda can does not make me disgusted, angry, or insulted. Moreover, it does not summon any sort of passion I can name.

Why do I think it’s art?

My first prong of the argument back was on that very question. I pointed to cathedrals first as I struggled to conjure a better point: they weren’t meant to stir passion, but devotion. Here was something big and vast that had to depict its major facets in pictures because the holy men spoke a weird language you didn’t necessarily grasp called “Latin” and sometimes they couldn’t speak it either and a guy got so mad about it he made a whole other religion. I think I choked something out about brutalist architecture too, more art made to make you feel humble and collective. Therefore, art does not have to stir a passionate reaction in order to be classified as art.

There’s obvious problems with this, namely that we can slightly shift his argument to encapsulate any sort of emotional reaction whatsoever. In this case, the discovery of a spider web by walking face-first in and screaming is art. Maybe it is, to God.

Via the water slide that is ADHD, I found myself discussing artistic depictions of Muhammad (a subject I do not feel qualified enough to explain on the internet) before cascading into Christianity. I told him about how Eastern Orthodox produced depictions of Jesus and co. in what some might find a more “medieval” or “unrefined” style well past the renaissance. They knew about the trends and the gay Italians. However, to them, holy art had to summon up to otherworldliness, sanctity. The face of God cannot cast shadows. Even in Italy itself, the brief rise of Dominican friar Girolama Savonarola (whose name I butchered horribly) in Florence allegedly had even Botticelli torch some of his paintings. To Savonarola, it was to combat the heresy of vanity. All these works cared about was the beauty of delicately rendered bodies, not Christ himself!

The Catholic Church had him executed.

Jesus HAD to stay sexy.

They really needed this at the time.

The second point I was trying to make with this, before I got distracted misnaming dead Italians, was that what ACTUALLY makes art is the meaning behind it. The bit of our soul we mix in is how much fun we’re having with this new brush, or that we really hate our stepdad, or that I need something to cheer me up after school. The soda can is art because the artist meant to make it. They meant to make it SO close to the original that someone could easily be mistaken, which I’m sure took weeks of hard work. They succeeded.

AI cannot make art because it doesn’t mean anything to the machine.

God did mean for me to run into that spider web though. The bastard.

[frankhwood]

Walking the Talk by Frank Wood

Like the rest of you, I try to live out my beliefs: to 'walk my talk.' I am a disappointed idealist, a worried utopian – sometimes full of delight with ~what is~ but often painfully aware of the mess we make of things. The kingdom of heaven is all around us – but there seems to be so much different from what I expected. Vegetarian friends of my aunt and uncle who had made Schweitzer's concept of reverence for life a central theme in their world view were horrified, when visiting him at Lambarene, to find that he kept a shotgun with which he and others at the jungle hospital killed monkeys and other animals to supplement the meager amount of protein available to them from other sources. Schweitzer wrote, "My knowledge is pessimistic, but my willing and hoping are optimistic." The good news of the Gospel is that when we fall, which we do, we should get back up and go on with God's work as well as we are able rather than brooding over our sin. As friend Walt Taylor says, "Optimism is essential for life even when it may not seem to be justified by the available evidence."

I often recall a phrase Elizabeth Watson used when speaking to [Northern] Yearly Meeting several years ago: "Love is the binding force in the universe." Poetry or metaphor, that phrase captures as well as words can a truth that I feel. Likewise, the radiant experientially-based faith of Julian of Norwich, a 14th Century Benedictine nun, reaches out to me across 600 years when she reports from one of her visions:

God showed me in my palm a little thing round as a ball about the size of a hazelnut. I looked at it with the eye of my understanding and asked myself: What is this thing? And I was answered: It is everything that is created. I wondered how it could survive, since it seemed so little it could suddenly disintegrate into nothing. The answer came: It endures and ever will endure, because God loves it. And so everything has being because of God's love.

As Friends, we try to help each other discover this experientially. I see engaging in this shared task as part of my walk.

Part of my walk involves time spent reading and reflecting. Among the helps to which I turn most frequently I will mention the Judeo-Christian scriptures; the writings of the Celtic Christians sharing their vision of the divine immanent in nature; Julian of Norwich, from whose account of her visions I have already quoted; and Sebastian Franck, a scholar and man of faith who lived and wrote in Basle in the early 1500s. I also sense kindred spirits among the writers of the Chinese classics, the Tao Te Ching, the Chuang Tze, and the I Ching.

You can see by the sources of support I have already cited that I am universalistic, or eclectic, rather than orthodox in my faith and practice. To be orthodox in the negative sense that I have just used it means to believe that there is one *right* way of thinking and acting–mine–accompanied by my withdrawing of respect and support from those who believe otherwise. The tendency toward orthodox thinking lurks everywhere: in scholarship, in science, in art, in the Society of Friends, and yes, in me. But I hope most of the time to be more generous, more universalistic in spirit. I want to reach out, beyond the community of those who are near and dear to me, to the faith community whom Sebastian Franck envisioned when he wrote the following in 1539.

The true Church is not a separate mass of people, not a particular sect to be pointed out with the finger, not confined to one time or one place; it is rather a spiritual and invisible body of all the members of Christ, born of God, of one mind, spirit, and faith, but not gathered in any one external city or place … It is a Fellowship … and communion of all truly God-fearing, good-hearted, new-born persons in all the world, bound together by the Holy Spirit in the peace of God and the bonds of love …. I belong to this Fellowship …. I love any man whom I can help, and call him brother whether he be Jew or Samaritan …. I cannot belong to any separate sect, but I believe in a holy, Christ-like Church, a fellowship of saints, and I hold as my brother, my neighbor, my flesh and blood, all men who belong to Christ among the sects, faiths, and peoples scattered throughout the whole world.

Franck lived just as new developments in printing provided an opportunity for knowledge of other peoples and cultures beyond the imagination of previous generations of Europeans. Today, because of further advances in world communication, we are amazed by our knowledge and at the same time humbled by our ignorance. With Franck, I aspire to belong to this invisible church-- not confined to one time or place-- that includes all good-hearted, new-born persons … bound together by the Holy Spirit in the peace of God and the bonds of love who share with each other through music, art, and the printed word. I do not really care by what names the world may call them.

So many voices. I like to think that our lives make music. In a talk broadcast last fall, Ray Bradbury, the author, said something like 'We are here to witness and celebrate the Divine Energy's marvelous creation.' I agree. I think all good-hearted, new-born persons make up a great choir, each of us with our own quality of voice and our own part to sing. Our task is to sing out–from our hearts–from our souls–from our centers–in celebration. When I am in an orthodox mental set, I have as much trouble appreciating the noise of this incredible chorus as I have appreciating some musical groups I hear on my radio. Like our great composers, the Divine Spirit likes to experiment with dissonance.

What else can I say about my walk and my talk? I seek to base my actions on an assumption that the quality of our individual actions toward others has unknowable effects that extend throughout the universe. That is a big statement, but I don't know how else to say it. From my perspective, since ends are unknowable, choice of means is of first importance. In my heart I believe with the compilers of the Tao Te Ching that good ends can only follow from good means. My working hypothesis is that the quality of my actions towards others, my means, depends on the quality of my inner relationship with the Divine. Hold fast to the great thought and all the world will come to you, harmless, peaceable, serene.

The world will come to you, harmless, peaceable, serene. Will this happen if enough of us are able to reach and act from that deep center? We do not seem much closer to generating this kind of inner power at a sufficient level than the Taoists of 2,500 years ago. In one place they say sadly, 'Everybody knows this, nobody uses the knowledge.' I know they mean to inspire rather than discourage each other–and us. They remained optimistic even when optimism–during a period of dreadful civil war in China–hardly seemed justified by the available evidence.

Besides reading and thinking, what do I do? I have spent seventy years working to do better, to live up to the expectations of myself and others. When I compare myself to some, I do not seem to be doing very much that is worth mentioning. When I compare myself to others, I seem to be doing more. I sometimes find it hard to resist saying, or at least thinking, I don't like your walk or your talk. Why don't you walk my walk and talk my talk? You don't appreciate my walk and my talk. As soon as I begin judging others, I find my critical eye turned back on myself. I find a need to keep working on myself. This is healthy. Our real challenge is to contribute as we individually are called to contribute to God's work.

Besides working on the fixer-upper project that is me, I seem to use a lot of my energy observing others; listening to others; supporting or assisting others in acting as they are led; sometimes trying to teach them what I consider better ways to act, or in some cases, occasionally acting for them, dealing with all the mental and emotional garbage that gets stirred up in the process–this is very difficult. Many of the tasks are not grand in conception or execution. A Catholic Worker told me that Dorothy Day once said to her, 'If I could figure out the toilet paper problem'–the homeless people they welcomed to the House of Charity carried off the toilet paper for use in blowing their noses – 'world peace would be a snap.' As Lao Tze's friends said, "Not that, but this." This is where it's at.

You and I have places in a great choir, brought into being to witness to the world and to celebrate a marvelous divine creation. Sometimes we sing Hallelujah! Sometimes we sing the blues. This seems to be what we are meant to do, and what a grand effect we achieve together. Keep singing, Friends.

[adventism-atheism-orthodoxy-me]

As much as I appreciate Abbot Tryphon - we've never met - I worry about advice like this.

I mean, if you treat the servers as servants, act entitled throughout your interaction with service staff, praying publicly afterword smacks of Phariseeism. People will be pushed away.

I am constantly amazed by people who I interact with who recognize me as a Christian. I try not to advertise the fact, because I am a craven sinner with no right to claim the virtue of a true Christian. I swear. I drink. I am a terrible husband, father, and overall a terrible person. And yet, many people, after a little while will ask me if I'm a Christian, or more so, will just assume it.

Through a lot of stutters about Adventism, and Eastern Orthodox Christianity; I end up with my only answer - I try to be. (Matthew 7:21)

I once had a luncheon with a member of the The Church of Christ - he was really vocal about professing his faith in the public sphere. I expressed my reservations in such proselytizing. We didn't have any luncheons afterwards.

My point is this; If you are not an Icon of Christ as you work and move and breathe throughout everything you do, it is my opinion that you shame Christ with your hypocrisy. You puff your chest, go through the motions but have no real grace, no life in your person. You are a fraud, and draw shame upon everything that you proclaim you honor. You, my friend, are a "Whitewashed Tomb" (Matthew 23:27-28)

STOP.

Show grace. Show love. People will know - or they wont. It doesn't matter. It's not about you or me anyway.

Glory to God.

Lord Jesus Christ, Have mercy upon me.

Your Sinner.

[exit-babylon]

You've made post against the doctrines of Roman Catholic Christians and Mormon Christians, what do you think about the Eastern Orthodox Christians like Jay Dyer who debate Protestants and Catholics?

Hi, first; take care cause English is not my native leanguage. To be brief I never had much thoughts about Eastern Orthodox Christianity, except that I do believe that the Bible states that Jesus by his blood sacrifice overruled the OT law of the first covenant, and left us with the introduction of just 2 rituals: Baptism (by immersion) and the Holy Supper (I consider oil annointing as a secondary sacrament). In my opnion God didn't left the NT believers with much ritualistic stuff. I don't condemn any church for sacraments but I think that they can be harmul by leading people astray from a personal relationship with God. In some cases they might include (charismatic) wichcraft.

What I mean is that any Christian group making their own traditions, doctrines, sacraments etc more important than God ( Yahweh, Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit) and the Scriptures as a whole, is going astray. That"s my humble opinion.

We personally need to read the whole Bible and pray so God's Spirit can work out the Scriptures in our lives. It's a matter of being obedient to God, not people. God comes first, anyone and anything else second. Christian faith is being fruitful for God, not clinging to a (uni)form. therefore true faith brings freedom.

I don't know Jay Dyer but I agree with this part of a comment someone posted under this topic: "Why Sola Scriptura honestly scares me" where Jay said: "I much prefer Scripture and Tradition," to "Scripture and me." It said: This is nothing more than opinion to which, the author is entitled, but the Holy Bible makes it clear that interpretation is of the Spirit - for true believers who have the Holy Spirit as sent by the Father and the Living Word makes it clear that "He performs what is appointed for me."

In conclusion: I believe what scripture says about Jesus, and what Jesus says in the Scriptures leaves us with one interpretation:

 Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have live (John 5:12)

“Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters." (Luke 11:23)

I hope this made a little sense. I truly believe that Christianity is about a personal walk with God, following Jesus, preferably without any rimram. I believe in the sincerity of most people seeking the truth, be it Protestants, Catholics, Eastern Orthodox or any other.

Jesus said:

I AM the Truth.

Therfore the truth is a Person, not merely a doctrine.

[creature-wizard]

He claims that his journey to Jesus started when his girlfriend became deathly ill with food poisoning. He says that she was in "what the Bible describes as the Valley of the Shadow of Death."

My guy, what?

"The Valley of the Shadow of Death" comes from certain English translations of Psalm 23, and there's nothing in the rest of it to suggest it has anything to do with being literally near death. Some translations mention nothing about a "shadow of death" at all. (Example 1, example 2.)

Anyway, he says New Age spirituality had him so self-absorbed that he couldn't be there for his girlfriend, which does sound about right. It's not that New Age is going to make each and every person a total dick, but like... it really doesn't do much foster a sense of communal or interpersonal responsibility. For all it talks about community-building, it's still highly individualistic.

He says that his girlfriend experienced her alien spirit guides laughing at her and mocking her, and this totally proves that they were demons all along. He claims that she "intuitively knew that her soul was being claimed for Hell."

Meanwhile, I know a Christian guy who had the experience of God telling him all kinds of horrible things when he was in a bad state of health. He was absolutely convinced that he was an irredeemable sinner. Does this prove that God is actually demonic? Or does it just mean that you can have all kinds of terrible experiences when you're unwell?

His girlfriend who supposedly knew nothing substantial about Jesus essentially prayed for help and Jesus answered. Look, we live in a Christianized culture, this stuff is on billboards and pamphlets and everything, most people know more about it than they realize.

After this incident, he says Jesus started "speaking to him" through all of these billboards (I literally wrote the paragraph above before he mentioned this, lol) he saw by the road. (Are you sure you've gotten over your self-centeredness? Thinking that an advertisement is a personal message to you, really?)

Later he has this "prophetic dream" where he visits the New Heaven and the New Earth and receives his glorified body. He describes it as being unlike a psychedelic trip, being "hyper realistic." I think it's worth pointing out here that the reality shifters who visit Hogwarts often describe their experiences as "hyper realistic."

After that he has this dream where he's trying to get some Orthodox Jewish people to convert and suddenly he sees himself as Jesus and experiences Jesus's whole life or something.

Then after awhile he experiences Jesus telling him "It's time to get to know Me" and Jesus boops him on the head (okay, technically touches him with two fingers - y'know, the benediction hand pose that's everywhere in art) and he feels his "inner man" light up.

And later he gets this vision of the Resurrection of the Dead.

Then he finally reads the Bible, which he claims Satan was preventing him from reading, and never made sense to him before. He claims that it was like he was "in the mind of Christ" and realized everything in it was the literal Truth and realized that all of the world's problems is because we aren't following God's laws. Oh, and supposedly the Bible made perfect sense to him now because he had the Holy Spirit.

I'm sorry, but if the Bible suddenly all makes perfect sense to you and feels totally coherent, what you're on isn't some access to objective truth, because the Bible is a collection of books and letters written from many different perspectives, some of which blatantly contradict each other. What's going on in your head is simply not what's going on in the actual text. Whether you admit it or not, you're applying some kind of personal filter.

And I know damn well just from looking at you that you haven't "fully read" the Bible. If you had, you wouldn't have that bun on your head, because Paul basically said "long hair on men bad."

Then he acts like you can instantly cure whatever's wrong with you (including addiction) by casting out the demons in the name of Jesus, and my dude, I promise you, better Christians than you have struggled with addiction more than you'll ever comprehend.

Then he ends the video claiming that we're getting close to the End Times, and the world's governments are trying to distract people from Christianity with alien hoaxes. So, he's basically exchanged one ridiculous conspiratorial worldview for another.

This next guy is interesting, he's a former New Age alien channeler. And he's obviously the real deal; he's got the New Age spiritual leader "look," he is clearly literate in the beliefs and metaphysics of New Age, and he admits that some New Age practices are helpful.

Also I can find videos of him from before his conversion.

He describes how he met these aliens; he'd have terrifying sleep paralysis experiences where he met these alleged alien beings. Other New Agers would tell him that his fear was from his own perception. He claims that this fear came from his "own compass" telling him that they were actually demonic beings.

My dude. My guy. There is just one little problem with your logic here, which you would know about if you'd properly read the New Testament.

And I bet many of my readers can figure it out.

How many of you remember that famous line uttered by the Archangel Gabriel in the Gospel of Luke? The one also uttered by the nameless angel at the tomb in the Gospel of Matthew?

You know...

"FEAR NOT!"

Was the Archangel Gabriel actually a demon? Was Jesus, in fact, the spawn of Satan? Because that's what you're implying here, my dude.

He also says that these demonic entities can trick you by giving you good feelings, which doesn't exactly make it sound less likely that Jesus is demonic, either.

[immerlein]

I see that some Christian women like to cover their hair, particularly the Orthodox women on your page, what is the significance of this? I find it beautiful and I’m thinking of wearing my headscarves like that as well.

Hi there! Thank you very much for this question; this is probably my favourite thing to talk about (if my #headscarf tag didn’t give that away, haha).  Wearing a headscarf/headcovering in church and in prayer is an ancient and traditional Christian practice. It is mentioned throughout the Bible:

1.) The priest shall stand the woman before the Lord, uncover the woman’s head, and put the offering for remembering in her hands (Numbers 5:18)  (her head must have been covered for this to make sense) 2.) Then Rebekah lifted her eyes, and when she saw Isaac she dismounted from her camel; for she had said to the servant, “Who is this man walking in the field to meet us?” The servant said, “It is my master.” So she took a veil and covered herself. (Genesis 24:64-65) 3.)  Now Susanna was exceeding delicate, and beautiful to behold. But those wicked men commanded that her face should be uncovered, (for she was covered,) that so at least they might be satisfied with her beauty. Therefore her friends and all her acquaintance wept. (The Story of Susanna / Daniel 13:31-33)

And, most famously:

4.) Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you. But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head. But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved. For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered. For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man is not from woman, but woman from man. Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man. For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord. For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God. (1 Corinthians 11)

Our Church Fathers write of headcovering, saying: “The angels are present here... Open the eyes of faith and look upon this sight. For if the very air is filled with angels, how much more so the Church! ...Hear the Apostle teaching this, when he bids the women to cover their heads with a veil because of the presence of the angels.” - St John Chrysostom, referring to St Paul’s writing in Corinthians.  Origen said, “There are angels in the midst of our assembly...we have here a twofold Church, one of men, the other of angels...And since there are angels present...women, when they pray, are ordered to have a covering upon their heads because of those angels. They assist the saints and rejoice in the Church.” Instructions for catechumens in The Apostolic Tradition, by St. Hippolytus of Rome, include this: “Moreover, let all the women have their heads veiled with a scarf...” And St. Cyril of Alexandria, commenting on I Corinthians, wrote: “The angels find it extremely hard to bear if this law [that women cover their heads] is disregarded.”

I should probably mention now how this passage in Corinthians can be taken to mean that women are ‘inferior’ to men in some way, and that is what the covering represents. I won’t pretend that there aren’t people who might think this is the case, however, if we look at the Greek translation of “for this reason, the woman should have a symbol of authority of her head, because of the angels” we find the word “exousia”, which means “right/power/authority”. “Exousia” is also used in John 1:12: “As many as received Him, to them He gave exousia to become children of God, to those who believe in His name.” The headcovering is not a sign of a man’s authority over the woman, rather it is an outward sign of her own authority/right/power as a woman.  Another question you might be asking yourself is “why would angels care???”  To borrow from orthodoxinfo.com: “In her book, The Holy Angels, Mother Alexandra writes: “The Celestial hierarchies are the spiritual reality of ordered creation, the stable patterns in which disruption is unknown...” Obedience is characteristic of the angelic realm.”

In Orthodoxy we recognise nine orders/ hierarchies of celestial beings, arranged in three choirs. 

“Seraphim and cherubim are in the first, archangels and angels in the third choir, closest to us. Without obedience there is chaos and disorder. St. John Chrysostom, in a sermon on I Corinthians, speaks of how distinction in male and female dress—and particularly the veiling of women—“ministers effectively to good order among mankind.” Taking off the veil was “no small error,” said St. John; ”...it is disobedience.” It “disturbs all things and betrays the gifts of God, and casts to the ground the honor bestowed...For to [the woman] it is the greatest of honor to preserve her own rank.” To some who argued that a woman, by taking off her covering, “mounts up to the glory of man,” Chrysostom answers: “She doth not mount up, but rather falls from her own proper honor...Since not to abide within our own limits and the laws of God, but to go beyond, is not an addition, but a diminution...” Always emphasizing the equality between man and woman, Chrysostom admonishes the man “not to dishonor her who governs next to thyself.” The issue was order, not superiority or inferiority. At Matins for Orthodoxy Sunday, we sing, “Come and let us celebrate a day of joy: Now heaven makes glad! Earth with all the hosts of angels and the companies of mortal men, each in their varied order, keeps the feast.” “ - from orthodoxinfo.com

Fr. Basil Rhodes wrote in his Master of Divinity thesis in 1977 on the veiling of women in I Cor. 11 “Man is the head of the woman, according to Genesis and to St. Paul who compares the relationship of man and woman with that of the Son to the Father: ‘And the head of Christ is God’ (I Cor. 2:3). It would be a grave error to say that Christ is inferior to His Father.”  (it would be heresy!) 

Timothy McFadden writes: “Members of the Godhead—and His image—are not interchangeable. As God Father and Son are equal and One in nature, so also they are unique and not interchangeable. Similarly, though equal in nature, man is not woman, woman is not man. They are distinguishable.” - from orthodoxinfo.com

I posted about it a little while ago, but I also heard another interpretation of “because of the angels” on the Ancient Faith radio podcast called The Lord of Spirits. They linked it back to sexual immortality between humanity and spiritual beings, so not only do you need to cover to be modest among human beings, you also need to because angels might, I don’t know, be tempted by you? (The context of the passage was essentially around pagan converts to Christianity and explaining how Christian worship was not sexual/did and does not contain ritualistic sex.) @hymnsofheresy added some additional commentary from her classes: “1 Corinthians 11:4 specifies that covering is especially required when a woman is prophesying. In Hellenistic temples, it was understood that prophecy could result in a sexual encounter with spiritual beings. Veiling in church while prophesying was a way of preventing women from having sexual intercourse with (or being raped by) an angel. Angel theology at the time was heavily influenced by the Book of Enoch, and it was likely that many people saw angels as sexually capable beings who desired human women.”  I have absolutely zero idea how much this (if at all) influenced the continued practice of Christian women covering their heads in church/during prayer, but it is certainly fascinating to think about nevertheless. 

For me, on a personal level, I wear a headscarf as an outward sign of respect for holy spaces and holy practices, to help myself focus on prayer, as an imitation of the Theotokos (and other women saints), for modesty, because I respect the tradition, and largely simply because I like them! At my parish, they’re required if you want to partake of the Holy Mysteries (communion, confession, etc) but I’ve also been in Orthodox parishes that don’t require it (though perhaps encourage it). An old friend of mine once told me how his priest said that women are lucky to have a covering/protection to be sheltered by as they approach the Holy Chalice for communion, because it is SO holy and men have no such shroud. I thought that was pretty interesting too! 

I hope this is helpful to you! Please feel free to ask more if you need to :) 

[queerprayers]

Hi Johanna! :) I'm currently (and have been on and off for a few months) struggling with my view of Jesus' divinity. I have Christian friends who think Jesus = God and friends who think He was just a normal human like us and that's it,, and somehow i feel as if I'm somewhere in between rn? Learning that titles such as "the son of God" were used for normal human leaders at that time really threw me, and also that Jews now and I guess in Jesus' time think the Messiah will just be a normal human, and the "I am" statements in John's gospel were probably not actually said by Jesus but were written by John to kind of describe Him but also John said Jesus was "the word made flesh" not "God made flesh" and like what even is the word exactly??? now I'm thinking there's really nowhere in the new testament that claims that Jesus is God, but then there are things like Collosians 1:15-17 which sounds like it's suggesting it but doesn't explicitly say that Jesus is God...?? So essentially I'm just v confused and was wondering what your beliefs about it all are and why you believe what you believe?? and just really any information or resources you have on the topic would be v much appreciated, thank you so much (also I love your blog!) :))

Hello! This is such a wonderful question that I don't know a ton about, but I love thinking about it and I hope I say/find something that's helpful to you!

I grew up and still identify as Lutheran, so that theology is what I'm familiar with and am influenced by. I and my Lutheran siblings, as well as many other Christians, believe that Jesus was/is fully God and fully Man. Your phrase that you're "somewhere in between right now" makes so much sense to me, although for me it's not so much in between as both! Jesus on earth was born physically, had a human body and genes, ate, laughed, pooped, and died. I believe that, simultaneously, Jesus was God, fully divine. I don't have the words or the knowledge to spout perfect Trinitarian teachings right now (and probably never will), but my favorite description/representation of the Trinity is that God is love, and love is an interpersonal action. So love made manifest cannot be a sole being: God as Lover, Jesus as Beloved, the Holy Spirit as Love. That's only one way to look at it, but even looking a tiny bit into this kind of Trinity theology, you'll learn that we see Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three representations of the same God, three in one. This is batshit crazy to many people, including many Christians, and I acknowledge and respect that! It is crazy! Anyway, all that to say that I do believe Jesus is a manifestation of God, but that God took human form and saw through our eyes.

A thought about Martin Luther's opinion: "Luther repeatedly argues that the basis for attributing divinity to Jesus is that the person of faith understands that Jesus Christ has done for humanity what only God can do" ("Martin Luther: A Pure Doctrine of Faith" by Micharl Stoltzfus, Journal of Lutheran Ethics, 2003).

Whether you think anything Jesus said was Him verbally claiming to be God, He, over and over, places himself in the role of God, forgiving people, healing people, and making promises/interpretations for them. I realized this while watching Jesus Christ Superstar (yeah, sue me)— whether or not you believe Jesus is God, Jesus obviously thought so, or at least thought himself at the same level as God. C. S. Lewis has a great point about this in Mere Christianity.

I think your statement that something was ". . . not actually said by Jesus but [was] written by John to . . . describe Him" is a good point about how we look at the Bible— if one believes that every word in the Bible comes directly from God, then that is God describing Themself as Jesus, so Jesus saying something and God dictating it to John would be the same thing! This isn't a criticism, I was just pointing out that what you believe about the Bible will definitely affect how you look at this— just something to think about! I'm not a Biblical literalist (or whatever you want to call it) by any means, but I do lean towards divine inspiration and the Spirit having a hand in the writing of the Bible, as well as acknowledging that the human writers' personal perspective and prejudices shine through.

Your question "What is "the Word" exactly?" is a great one! John uses the Greek word logos in John 1, ("word," "discourse," or "reason") as a title for Jesus, and it's absolutely beautiful. In the Bible, "the Word" is used to describe something that God has decreed, something that God has said when addressing humans, words that God spoke through the prophets, God's written Word (the Bible), and Jesus Christ Himself. Jesus is referred to as the Word in John 1 and Revelation 19. Jesus is these things! He's something God decreed, He is God addressing humans, He has spoken through the prophets— Jesus is the physical manifestation of God's Word.

Oh, one more thing! It's so interesting to talk about what the early Church believed, but I think it's funny when people use it as a "gotcha" when the early Church didn't believe something, and other people do. Like, was the early Church perfect and right all the time? Why can't the disciples and early saints get something wrong that later people got right? So obviously it's important to learn about early Christian theology, but it's not some pure teaching that we have to get back to— it's proof that we're constantly evolving!

Here are some sources/resources/thoughts on stuff I've talked about!

What are the strongest biblical arguments for the divinity of Christ? (Got Questions)

Was the divinity of Jesus a Late Invention of the Council of Nicea? (Canon Fodder)

The Divinity of Jesus: An Early Christian Debate (Cynthia Stewart, Saint Mary's Press)

The Divinity of Jesus & 5 Reasons it Matters (David Guzik, Calvary Chapel)

What the Early Church Believed: The Divinity of Christ (Catholic.com)

What Does the Phrase "the Word of God" Mean? (Don Stewart, Blue Letter Bible)

Logos (Christianity) (Wikipedia)

Scholastic Lutheran Christology (Wikipedia)

A Lutheran-Orthodox Common Statement on Faith in the Holy Trinity

Who is God—The Trinity? (Holy Cross Lutheran Church)

The mystery of the Trinity (Delmer Chilton, Living Lutheran)

The Moody Handbook of Messianic Prophecy: Studies and Expositions of the Messiah in the Old Testament by Michael Rydelnik & Edwni Blum

Christology: A Biblical, Historical, and Systematic Study of Jesus Christ by Gerald O'Collins

Is Jesus Truly God?: How the Bible Teaches the Divinity of Christ by Gregory R. Lanier

I'm not sure that I actually answered any questions— I may have just created more, but that is the nature of theology, I'm afraid. Good luck in your learning and thinking, and may you come to your own idea of how to think about and relate to Jesus— there isn't one right way, don't worry. I'm not even claiming that I or my denomination's beliefs are "right," although I do think they're true. (I like differentiating those.)

Thank you so much for your support of my blog, and I hope you have a lovely day/night!

<3 Johanna