#I want to believe people are inherently good and I still do really but holy fucking hell

[runawaymun]

Man what a horrible way to wake up.

[daemonmage]

I keep thinking about this AU where Bruce just stays in college and becomes a doctor but still gets dragged into the superhero world.

Ok so Bruce is a doctor and is known for never turning down a patient because he’s still Bruce and he just doesn’t want anyone to die. He still lives in Gotham which is still a horrible place. He still tries to help Gotham by donating and creating his Wayne foundation but it’s hard because the inherent corruption in Gotham hinders anything he does this way.

The mob is still super active in Gotham and a lot of Batman’s rogues still happen because a lot of his rogues just happen with or without Batman. Poison Ivy still becomes an ecoterrorist. Penguin still becomes a powerful mob boss. Mad Hatter is still just the worst. Tommy probably still tries to kill Bruce. Just so many of Gotham’s rogues still exist, except there is no hero to stop them in Gotham. People try, but Gotham is never kind to any hero. Bruce is immensely frustrated by all this but he can’t really do anything. Hell sometimes Lesly’s clinic (cause I feel like he would work there) gets harassed and extorted to help heal mob members and crime wars. He hates this a lot but he’s trapped. He doesn’t have Batman training or gear, the best he can do is help where he can.

However there are still other heroes in this world and Superman is literally just a quick flight away. The JL forms without a Batman and they see Gotham as a powder keg. So they try to help when they can and sometimes they get injured. It comes to a head when a Metropolis (Lex Luthor specifically) and some Gotham rogues team up to get rid of the main hero pain in their necks. Lex creates kryptonite bullets and disperses them to the Gotham rogues to use. Lex sees this as a win because he can get Superman killed without doing much and the Gotham rogues see this as a win cause they have a big weapon against Superman.

So Superman gets shot at with kryptonite bullets. They aren’t the best so they hurt him but only one really makes it through and hits his skin. He has to call in back up and the JL comes to help. I can image Wonder Woman or Flash getting there first. They have no idea what to do because holy shit Superman was shot. That shouldn’t happen! But they’ve heard of this doctor in Gotham that’s supposed to be really good. Maybe Oliver or Dinah suggest Bruce idk. So they take Superman to Dr. Bruce Wayne.

Dr. Bruce Wayne is at his manor with Alfred and a young Dick Grayson (because I firmly believe Bruce would still adopt the kids) and then there is a knock on the door. Alfred goes to answer and in barges the Justice League with a bleeding Superman. Bruce is immediately on his feet barking orders to the JL to get equipment he can use and telling Dick and Alfred to stay back. He doesn’t know what’s going on or how freaking Superman is bleeding out in front of him but he doesn’t care. Bruce realizes quickly that the bullet is cause Clark more pain so it can’t be a leave the bullet in there scenario. He gets the bullet out and asks the JL how to help Clark heal. They say sunlight helps but this is Gotham! It’s polluted and over cast all the time, he won’t be able to get enough sunlight. Bruce remembers a sunlamp they have from a science experiment for Dick. He tells Dick to go get it and they pray that it works. It does by some miracle, though it’s no substitute for actual sunlight.

The League is grateful for Bruce and Clark is also immensely grateful cause holy shit he got shot. The Justice League has to now figure out how these bullets got out in the first place and well Bruce can’t help but be nosy so he mentions that a few of his patients, the mob ones, let it slip that the higher ups got into contact with someone in metropolis and Bruce knows Lex hates Superman. So he helps them out a bit too.

And after that any time they need help with some medical issue they go to super doctor Bruce. He’s also still Bruce and can’t ignore his detective brain so he helps them with mysteries too from time to time. Idk I feel like this still needs more fleshing out but I think it could be funny. Or sad. Or both.

[myfairkatiecat]

So a lot of people on this site seem convinced that Coriolanus Snow was an inherently bad person from the beginning, and y’all are MISSING THE POINT.

Yes he goes nuts. Yes he’s in the wrong. Yes, from the beginning, there are portions of his internal monologue that we are NOT supposed to agree with. That doesn’t mean he wasn’t a good person.

First of all, one of the main things that comes up in the novel (and in the movie which I just saw and loved and HOLY COW do I have thoughts but that’s for another post) is that Coriolanus has some inherent beliefs of Capitol superiority and anti-district thoughts coming both from having seen their dehumanization so often and also hating the rebels for starting the war. Now obviously they rebelled for a reason, but all Coriolanus can see is that his father is dead and his family is starving and they started it. So while it isn’t RIGHT for him to think that way, it’s not a personality flaw. It’s what he has been fed, and he has no reason not to believe it, other than the natural human instinct to care for other humans which obviously shows when he does genuinely want to care for Lucy Gray in the arena.

So yes, he is prejudiced. Yes, he’s a really bad friend to Sejanus. And yes, that’s wrong. But those aren’t INHERENT things, those are EXTERNAL INFLUENCES.

Next is his opinion on the Hunger Games and how quickly he’s able to believe Dr. Gaul just by having gone into the arena and fought for his life. He begins to have this idea that yes, humanity in its most natural form is fighting and killing, when this isn’t even true. Again, these thoughts are caused by circumstance.

So what WAS a personality flaw? Well he has plenty of them. Even from the beginning, where I am still arguing he wasn’t inherently bad. One is his ambition and his willingness to say just about anything to make himself stand out, look better, or in some way further his own goals. But this isn’t what makes him evil. EVERYONE has weaknesses. Everyone has bad personality traits. There are plenty of good people in the world with an inclination towards getting what it is that they want. But most people aren’t put in circumstances that bring this trait out so much that is causes the actions that Coriolanus will ultimately commit. A personality flaw that rightfully rubs you the wrong way is not a sign that the villain was evil from the time he was eighteen and just trying to get into university.

I’m not saying President Snow wasn’t evil, and I’m not saying that Coriolanus hasn’t gone bad by the ending of the book, especially since he sees plenty of poverty and he understands it and all he can think of by the last few pages is himself. (That particular trait comes out more and more as the book goes on and Collins KNEW what she was doing with that. If he were a tragic hero, which, ehh, not really, but if he were I’d say that was his tragic flaw that was exploited to make him who he becomes.) But for heaven’s sake people, the eighteen year old kid who thought of little else but getting into college was not the villain!!! The man who turns in Sejanus is getting there. The man who decides to continue the Hunger Games and everything he does after that is the villain. That’s evil.

Coriolanus Snow was NOT INHERENTLY EVIL. He is a good person at the beginning of that book and that’s why the story is even compelling. (And no, since someone’s gonna say it, I’m not saying this cause he was hot in the movie!!!)

[snootlestheangel]

I love the reaper au so far!

You said it was fantasy so will there be any magic or supernatural elements? Like can only certain people become reapers, what are the requirements? Did Roba do something to Ghost that made him eligible or was it taking out his BOA?

Gaz is the best and I love how you write him, he’s ntegral to any good 141 fic.

Could Laswell be a retired reaper?

Is Ghost Call to cheesy a name suggestion?

I love your writing and am excited to see what you come up with wherever it is it’ll be sure to be good! And good luck with work it sounds like your going through the wringer.

I'm so glad you love this au so far!! I'm really enjoying it, and it seems quite a few are as well. I'm thinking about starting a tag list for when I manage to write stuff for it, if anyone wants added to that!

Anyways let's get into it!

Magic is definitely a thing, and certain people are inherently prone to magic abilities and stuff than others. Magic is something that has to be worked on, and those born with a gift are able to do base level spells without any education or training. For example, conjuring a flame on their fingertip cokes naturally to gifted individuals.

There will definitely be some magic used by Reapers to help them do their job. A lot of the really good ones are advanced spell casters. Requirements to be a Reaper are: mastery of all types of weapon, base level magic abilities, and large knowledge criteria of the current political climate. However, Reapers with higher magic abilities and fluency in several languages are more likely to be inducted faster.

There's a theory/rumor that most Reapers skipped the induction process by selling their souls to Death itself. It isn't confirmed by any means, but it seems to hold some ground when applied to the more notorious Reapers. It's believed that during Roba, Ghost's soul was offered to Death and that he accepted. However, it's more like Roba offered Ghost as a service to some more experienced Reapers, who quickly proved he was an inherently adept magic user.

Gaz is the best and he is integral! I really hope to be able to showcase his loyalty and intelligence in this, and I just love writing him!

Anon this was not something I considered at first but holy fuck it's such a good idea!! Laswell is indeed a retired Reaper. Price definitely questions how she's able to get her hands on some of the information she does simply because it's so difficult to obtain unless you're a Reaper.

So making her a retired Reaper spawned another horrible, beautiful idea.

Instead of like a contract, when Reapers are paid to do work for someone, it's called a bid. I talked a bit about this in the last post about the au, but basically if someone needs a Reaper, they publicly announce they are "auctioning off" whatever their target is. Reapers then bid on who gets the job, and sometimes these bidding processes can get ugly. Thus, Reapers call each "assignment" or "mission" a Bid.

Laswell's last Bid as a Reaper was to kill Nik.

But obviously that didn't work so well and they became friends, her career in the CIA advanced, and she left Reaping behind.

Nik himself has earned a name in the Reaper world. He's known as "The Most Un-Killable Man". He's had over a hundred bids to kill him, and clearly not a single one has been successful. Turns out, he's just a really powerful sorcerer who refuses to die. Ghost once took a Bid on him, and decided to play fate and kill him by damaging the plane Nik was gonna fly. Turns out, Nik has so many protection spells on all of his vehicles that they very well could still function without their engines. Ghost was honestly so impressed by this and so humored that he went back to the people who auctioned it and said "lmao good luck ever killing him"

As for the title "Ghost Calls", it is cheesy but it might work. The one I had in mind was "Oh Death, Who Art Thou?" But I'm not sure. Still undecided on a title

[blessedarethebinarybreakers]

(I’m popping a extra disclaimer here because I don’t know if I worded this very well, and I understand if this isnt the kind if question you feel comfortable answering, but this is a genuine question made in good faith. I also apologise if this sounds really stupid)

I read one of your recent asks about inclusivism and it reminded me of something that always sat in the back of my mind with this train of thought.

If we say that everyone regardless of religion, or absence of it, gets into heaven, doesn’t that seem disrespectful to their faith. By saying that people of other religions get into christian heaven, is that not inadvertently telling them that their religion or their gods are fake, and that when they die it’ll be okay because they’ll learn the real truth? I hope this doesn’t come across as blunt or disrespectful to anyone, I’ve just never be able to come to a conclusion that isn’t exclusive (which is kind of a depressing thought), but is also respectful. Because it’s a beautiful idea that god loves us all regardless of who we are or what we believe, but what about people who have the kind of faith we do in a completely different god, or multiple gods, do they have the same thoughts about us? that their god loves us even though we dont believe?

I feel like I’m asking questions I’m not supposed to but I’m just really curious about your perspective if this is something you’re comfortable answering.

Hey anon, this is an important question, so thanks for asking it! You don't sound "stupid"; you're thinking like a theologian :) I'm probably not going to do it justice, I'm afraid, but maybe folks will hop on with more ideas or resources?

This got really long, so the TL;DR: I agree with you, and so do a lot of theologians and other thinkers!

In a religiously diverse world, it makes sense that people of various religions ponder where people outside their religions "fit" in their understanding of both the present world and whatever form of afterlife they have.

If someone has a firm personal belief in certain things taking place after death (from heaven to reincarnation), I don't think it's inherently wrong to imagine all kinds of people joining them in that experience, when it points to how that person recognizes the inherent holiness and value of all kinds of people, and shows that they long for continued community with & flourishing for those people.

However, this contemplation should be done with great care — especially when your religion is the dominant one in your culture; especially if your religion has a long history (and/or present) of colonialism and coerced conversions.

Ultimately, humility and openness are key! It's fine to have your own beliefs about humanity's place in this life and after death, but make yourself mindful of your own limited perspective. Accept you might be wrong in part or in whole! And be open to learning from others' ideas, and truly listening to them if they say something in your ideas has caused them or their community tangible harm.

In the rest of this post, I'll focus on a Christian perspective and keep grappling with how to consider these questions while honoring both one's personal faith and people all religions...without coming to any solid conclusions (sorry, but I don't think there's any one-size-fits-all or fully satisfying answer!).

I'll talk a bit about inclusivism and how it fails pretty miserably in this regard, and point towards religious pluralism as a possibly better (tho still imperfect) option.

And as usual I'll say I highly recommend Barbara Brown Taylor's book Holy Envy: Finding God in the Faith of Others to any Christians / cultural Christians who want to learn more about entering into mutual relationship with people of other religions.

In previous posts, I brought up the concepts of exclusivism, inclusivism, and religious pluralism without digging into their academic definitions and histories — partially because it's A Lot for a tumblr post, but also because it's by no means in my sphere of expertise. I worried about misrepresenting any viewpoint if I tried to get all academic, so I just stuck to my own personal opinions instead — but looking back at some posts, I see I didn't do a great job of clarifying that's what I was doing!

So now I'll go into what scholars mean when talking about these different viewpoints, with a huge caveat that I'm not an expert; I'm just drawing from notes and foggy memories from old seminary classes + this article from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (IEP), and anyone interested in learning more should find scholarly articles or books rather than relying on some guy on tumblr!

Defining exclusivism, inclusivism, & religious pluralism

When we encounter traditions that offer differing and often conflicting "accounts of the nature of both mundane and supramundane reality, of the ultimate ends of human beings, and of the ways to achieve those ends" (IEP), how do we respond? Do we focus on difference and reject any truth in their views that conflicts with our views? Do we avoid looking too closely at the places we differ? try to find common ground? try to make their views fit ours?

Exclusivism, inclusivism, and religious pluralism are three categories into which we can place various responses to the reality of religious diversity.

It's important to note that this is only one categorization system one can use, and that these categories were developed within a Western, Christian context (by a guy named Alan Race in 1983). They are meant to be usable by persons of any religion — all sorts of people ask these questions about how their beliefs relate to others' beliefs — but largely do skew towards a Western, Christian way of understanding religion. (For one thing, there's a strong focus on salvation / afterlife and not all religions emphasize that stuff very much, if at all!)

Drawing primarily from this article on the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (IEP), here are basic definitions of each:

Exclusivist positions maintain that "only one set of belief claims or practices can ultimately be true or correct (in most cases, those of the one holding the position). A Christian exclusivist would therefore hold that the beliefs of non-Christians (and perhaps even Christians of other denominations) are in some way flawed, if not wholly false..." . (From my old class notes — Exclusivist Christians believe 3 things are non-negotiable: the unique authority of Jesus Christ as the apex of revelation; Jesus as normative; salvation exclusively through repentance and faith in Christ's work on the cross. Some will allow that God does provide some truths about Godself and humanity through general revelation, including truths found in other religious traditions, but the Biggest most Important revelation is still Jesus.) .

Inclusivist positions "recognize the possibility that more than one religious tradition can contain elements that are true or efficacious, while at the same time hold that only one tradition expresses ultimate religious truth most completely." . Christian inclusivists tend to focus on salvation, claiming that non-Christians can still achieve salvation — still through Jesus Christ. Sometimes they hold that any non-Christian whose life happens to fit Jesus's call to love God and neighbor, etc., will be saved. Other times they hold that only non-Christians who never had the chance to learn about Jesus can be saved; if you know about Christianity and reject it, it doesn't matter how "good"you are, you're doomed. .

Pluralist positions hold that "more than one set of beliefs or practices can be, at least partially and perhaps wholly, true or correct simultaneously." For Christian pluralists, that means believing that Jesus is not the one Way to God / to heaven/salvation; Christianity is one way of many, usually conceived of as all being on equal footing, to connect to the Divine. .

(These three categories are not all encompassing; the IEP article also brings up relativism and skepticism.)

Issues with Exclusivism & Inclusivism

I hope the issues with exclusivism are clear, but to name a few:

Christians who are taught that all non-Christians (or even the "wrong kind" of Christians) are doomed to hell are taught to see those people as Projects more than people — there's a perceived urgent need to convert them asap in order to "save them." The only kind of relationship you'd form with one of them is centered in efforts to convert them, rather than to live and learn alongside them as they are.

Doesn't matter if they are already happily committed to a different religion. In your eyes, they're wrong about feeling fulfilled and connected to the Divine.

Doesn't matter if you have to resort to violent and coercive practices like wiping out all signs of non-Christian culture or kidnapping non-Christian children to raise Christian — the ends justify the means because you're looking out for their "immortal souls."

...But what about inclusivism? If you're a Christian inclusivist, you aren't forcing anyone to convert to Christianity right now! You acknowledge that non-Christians can live holy and fulfilling lives! You even acknowledge that there's scraps of value in their valid-but-not-as-valid-as-Christianity religions! So what's the problem?

Turns out that this is a major case of one's good intentions not being nearly as important as one's impact.

You may be pushing back against exclusivism's outright refusal that non-Christians have any connection to the divine at all, which is nice and all — but by saying that non-Christians will basically become Christian after they die, you are still perpetuating our long history of coercive conversions.

There's a reason some scholars argue that inclusivism isn't actually a separate category from, but a sub-category of, exclusivism: you're still saying everyone has to be Christian, "so luckily you'll See The Light and become Christian after you die :)"

This is very reasonably offensive to many non-Christians. If nothing else, it's ludicrously smug and paternalistic! I won't get into it here but it only gets worse when some inclusivist positions try to get all Darwinian and start arranging religions from lower to higher, with Christianity as the "evolutionary" apex of religion ://

For now, I'll only go into detail about Catholic Jesuit theologian Karl Rahner's particular version of inclusivism, because it's quite common and really highlights the paternalism:

Rahner's Anonymous Christians:

A question that Catholics and other Christians struggled with in the 20th century was this: If non-Christians cannot be saved (because they held firm in believing that salvation must be in and through Christ), what happens if someone never even had the chance to learn about Christianity? Surely a loving God wouldn't write them an automatic ticket to hell when they're non-Christian through no fault of their own, right?

German Jesuit Karl Rahner's response was to conceive of a sort of abstract version of Christianity for non-Christians who lived good, faithful lives outside of official (what he called "constituted") Christianity:

"Anonymous Christianity means that a person lives in the grace of God and attains salvation outside of explicitly constituted Christianity. ...Let us say, a Buddhist monk…who, because he follows his conscience, attains salvation and lives in the grace of God; of him I must say that he is an anonymous Christian; if not, I would have to presuppose that there is a genuine path to salvation that really attains that goal, but that simply has nothing to do with Jesus Christ. But I cannot do that. And so, if I hold if everyone depends upon Jesus Christ for salvation, and if at the same time I hold that many live in the world who have not expressly recognized Jesus Christ, then there remains in my opinion nothing else but to take up this postulate of an anonymous Christianity." - Karl Rahner in Dialogue (1986), p. 135.

So someone who has intentionally devoted themselves to another religion, someone who does good work in that religion's name, is...secretly, unbeknownst to them, actually Christian?

I hope the offensiveness of that is clear — the condescension in implying these people are ignorant of what religion they "really" belong to! the assumption that Good deeds & virtues are always inherently Christian deeds & virtues! the arrogance of being so sure your own religion is The One Right Way that you have to construct a "back door" (as Hans Küng describes it) into it to shove in all these poor people who for whatever reason can't or don't choose to join it!

One theologian who criticized the paternalism of "anonymous Christianity" is John Hick, who was one of the big advocates for religious pluralism as a more respectful way of understanding non-Christian religions. So let's finally talk some more about pluralism!

Religious Pluralism!

As defined earlier, religious pluralist positions hold that there are many paths to the divine, and that all religions have access to some truths about the divine.

For Christians, this means rejecting those 3 non-negotiables of exclusionists about Christianity being the one true religion and Jesus being the one path to salvation. Instead of claiming that Christianity is the "most advanced" religion, pluralism claims that Christianity is just one religion among many, with no unique claim on the truth.

Some other pluralist points:

Pluralism resists antisemitic claims that Christianity is the "fulfillment" of (or that it "supercedes") Judaism.

Various religions provide independent access to salvation rather than everyone's salvation relying on Christ. (Note the still very Christian-skewed lens here in emphasizing salvation at all though!)

When we notice how different religions' truth claims conflict with one another, pluralists reconcile this by talking about how one's experience of truth is subjective.

Pluralism tends to give more authority to human experience than sacred texts

John Hicks' pluralist position

I mentioned before that Hicks is one of the big names in the religious pluralism scene. The IEP article I drew from earlier goes into much greater detail about his views and responses to it in the section titled "c. John Hick: the Pluralistic Hypothesis," but for a brief overview:

His central claim is that "diverse religious traditions have emerged as various finite, historical responses to a single transcendent, ultimate, divine reality. The diversity of traditions (and the belief claims they contain) is a product of the diversity of religious experiences among individuals and groups throughout history, and the various interpretations given to these experiences."

"As for the content of particular belief claims, Hick understands the personal deities of those traditions that posit them...as personae of the Real, explicitly invoking the connotation of a theatrical mask in the Latin word persona."

"Hick claims that all religious understandings of the Real are on equal footing insofar as they can only offer limited, phenomenal representations of transcendent truth."

We must accept that world religions are fundamentally different from each other, rather than falling into platitudes about how "we're all the same deep down"

Each religion has its own particular and comprehensive framework for understanding the world and human experience (i.e. we shouldn't use the normative Christian framework to describe other faiths)

Another angle: hospitality

As various philosophers and theologians have responded to and expanded upon pluralist frameworks, one big concept that some emphasize is hospitality: that all of us regardless of religion have an obligation to welcome others to all that is ours, if and when they have need of it — especially when they are of different cultures or religions from us.

Hospitality requires respect for those under our care, honoring and protecting their differences.

When we are the ones in need of hospitality, we should be able to expect the same.

Hospitality implies being able to anticipate our guest's needs, but we need to accept the impossibility of being able to guess every need, so communication is key!

Liberation theology & Pluralism

I also appreciate what liberation theologians have brought into the discussion. Here's from the IEP article:

"Liberation theology, which advocates a religious duty to aid those who are poor or suffering other forms of inequality and oppression, has had a significant influence on recent discussions of pluralism. The struggle against oppression can be seen as providing an enterprise in which members of diverse religious traditions can come together in solidarity.

"Paul F. Knitter, whose work serves as a prominent theological synthesis of liberation and pluralist perspectives, argues that engaging in interreligious dialogue is part and parcel of the ethical responsibility at the heart of liberation theology. He maintains not only that any liberation theology ought to be pluralistic, but also that any adequate theory of religious pluralism ought to include an ethical dimension oriented toward the goal of resisting injustice and oppression.

"Knitter claims that, if members of diverse religions are interested (as they should be) in encountering each other in dialogue and resolving their conflicts, this can only be done on the basis of some common ground. ..."

Knitter sees suffering as that common ground: "Suffering provides a common cause with which diverse religious traditions are concerned and towards which they can come together to craft a common agenda. Particular instances of suffering will, of course, differ from each other in their causes and effects; likewise, the practical details of work to alleviate suffering will almost necessarily be fleshed out differently by different religions, at different times and in different places. Nevertheless, Knitter maintains that suffering itself is a cross-cultural and universal phenomenon and should thus serve as the reference point for a practical religious pluralism. Confronting suffering will naturally give rise to solidarity, and pluralist respect and understanding can emerge from there."

Knitter also sees the planet as a source of literal common ground for us all: "Earth not only serves as a common physical location for all religious traditions, but it also provides these traditions with what Knitter calls a 'common cosmological story' (1995, p. 119). ...Knitter makes a case that different religious traditions share an ecological responsibility and that awareness of this shared responsibility, as it continues to emerge, can also serve as a basis for mutual understanding."

When Knitter and other liberation theologians speak of suffering or earth care as rallying points for interreligious solidarity, it's important to point out that such solidarity doesn't happen automatically: it is something we have to choose to commit to. We have to be courageous about challenging those who would pin suffering on another religious or cultural group. We have to be courageous about having difficult conversations, again and again. We have to learn how to work together for common goals even while accepting where we differ.

How to end this long ass post?

My hope is that as you read (or skimmed) all this, you were thinking about your own personal beliefs: where, if anywhere, do they fit among all these ideas? where would you like them to fit?

And, in the end, did I really address anon's question about whether it's disrespectful to people of other religions to assert that everyone is loved by God, or gets into heaven? Not really, because I don't know. I think it probably depends on context, and how one puts it, and how certain one acts about their ideas about God and heaven.

For me, it always comes down to humility about my own limited perspective, even while asserting that we all have a right to our personal beliefs, including ideas about what comes after this life.

When I imagine all human beings together in whatever comes next, I hope I do so not out of a desire for assimilation into my religion, but a desire to continue to learn from and alongside all kinds of people and beliefs. I hope I remain open to learning about how other people envision both what comes after death, and more importantly, what they think about life here and now. What can I learn from them about truth, kindness, justice? How can we work together to achieve those things for all creation, despite and in and through our differences?

I'll end with Eboo Patel's description of religious pluralism, which sums up much of how I feel, from his memoir Acts of Faith: The Story of an American Muslim:

"Religious pluralism is neither mere coexistence nor forced consensus. It is a form of proactive cooperation that affirms the identities of the constituent communities while emphasizing that the wellbeing of each and all depends on the health of the whole. It is the belief that the common good is best served when each community has a chance to make its unique contribution."

___

Further resources:

Explore my #religious pluralism tag for more thoughts and quotes

You might also enjoy wandering through my #interfaith tag

Two podcast episodes that draw from Eboo Patel, Barbara Brown Taylor, and other wonderful people: "No One Owns God: Readying yourself for respectful interfaith encounters" and "It's good to have wings, but you have to have roots too: Cultivating your own faith while embracing religious pluralism"

My tag with excerpts from Holy Envy

Post that includes links to various questions about heaven

Here’s a post where I talk about why I don’t believe in hell

My evangelism tag (tl;dr: I’m staunchly against prosletyzing to anyone who doesn’t explicitly request more info about Christianity)

[mx-ryder]

Some thoughts on Hazbin Hotel

I literally just watched HH this week, followed by binging Helluva Boss on YouTube right after. And my Dash is full of HH and HB stuff now. And the other day I saw someone posted their thoughts on the show, including one specific take that it falls right back under the typical "Sinners are bad but hey, we can fix them!" sort of trope. (I really don't know if I'll be able to find the post again, if I do, I'll reblog/link it here or something).

And hey, I'm not gonna argue that it doesn't, per se. I just think there's a bit more to it than that.

c.w for general religious trauma talk, SA mentions, drug use/abuse, alcohol use, addiction, gambling, probably other things I'm not thinking of

(Also please don't feel like you have to read this. It's literally just me rambling because I haven't been able to stop thinking about this topic all fucking day, so I wrote it down to get it out of my head. Obviously if you read it and want to comment/continue the discussion, feel free. Just please. Be respectful.)

Now.

All my thoughts on HH are very much colored by my past experiences with religion, US christianity, specifically. More specifically still, the sort of christianity that makes people believe that "home schooling" their kids, isolating and indoctrinating them away from anyone who might make them question it all, is the best course of action. I grew up bouncing from church to church, from home schooling co-op to co-op, all so my bio-mom could find the exact group to echo her own sentiments back at her.

Among the things I grew up believing were great ideas such as:

Sexuality is inherently disgusting, and something you should always be forcing down/avoiding/punishing yourself about. Masturbation, porn, sex before marriage, dressing "immodestly", and any sexuality outside of heterosexual were inherently evil and worthy of punishment. Sometimes that punishment was being assaulted, because really, she should've covered up, right? Girls, sometimes girls as young as 12-13 (if not younger) were villainized for wearing tank-tops and shorts, because they were causing the boys to stumble and immodesty was a moral failing on their part.

Drugs, alcohol, substances in general, are bad and wrong and using them, or heaven forbid becoming addicted, is a moral failing on your part. You are a bad person for consuming a drug, and therefore deserve to fall into addiction, houselessness, starvation, and/or abuse.

Poor people deserve it. Accepting help of any kind is leeching off good, hard-working people. Your worth as a person is directly tied to your ability to be a "productive member of society."

Any mental health issues are your fault, and are either because you don't believe in jesus hard enough, or because you're inherently broken and sinful and therefore unsaveable. There is no room for sympathy or empathy for anyone struggling.

There's a reason these are the same stereotypical archetypes you see in this sort of show. The queer sex-addict. The gambler. The "weirdo" who isn't like other people and enjoys "weird" things, or enjoys things "too much". Even just the party-girl character. Because these aren't just stereotypes. These are actual entire groups of people who are ostracized and vilified just for being who they were born to be, for making choices christians don't like, or for being sick.

And that brings me to Angel Dust. Who, by the way, I wish I could've been given a content warning about, because holy shit Ep 4 and Addict hit me really fucking hard. My friend recommended the show to me without having watched it, so I went in not expecting that sort of storyline to punch me in the gut out of nowhere.

Anyway! Angel Dust! Literally named after a drug. A gay porn star who flirts shamelessly with anyone and everyone, who proudly shows off his best films to his friends, who secretly hates his job, not because of the sex, as we come to find out, but because he's under the thumb of a fucking psycho who treats him like shit and actively physically, sexually, and mentally/emotionally abuses him. He's basically been trafficked, and hates that he doesn't have any say in what happens to him in front of the camera. It's a horrifying position to be in, and one that left me a little shaken up, tbf.

The take I'm mostly writing this based on is that Hazbin Hotel falls into the trite tropes of "rich white girl attempts to fix people who are below her" and specifically mentioned disappointment in how Charlie didn't try to argue that Angel Dust didn't deserve hell based only on his addiction or sexual past, but that she instead claimed that she could "fix him."

And I just . . . think that's a little bit of a black/white take.

For the first part, what would people rather she do? Put all her time, effort, influence, and power into trying her damnedest to help her people, who are being slaughtered by the thousands every year just because Adam is bored? Or sit at home and use all that time, effort, influence, and power to make rubber duckies like her father? She could just ignore everything going on, call it hopeless, give up, and ignore the suffering of her people. Would that be better? Would that satisfy this weird little "she's just a rich white girl with privilege" gripe?

Charlie is a rich girl. A princess. Someone with huge amounts of privilege, power, influence, etc. But you know what? She's also stuck in hell. She was born there, through no fault or choice of her own, and because of who her parents are, she is trapped in literal hell, with no hope of ever, ever ascending to heaven. She does not get a chance at redemption, because she was born to the wrong people. She is a young woman who was born into horrifying circumstances, living in a world that she frequently expresses disgust for (her frequent discomfort with sexuality, her disgust toward the cannibals, her dislike of violence, even necessary self-defense).

And she still loves her people and wants to see the best in them.

She would be completely justified in hating everything about hell, her life, the people around her, her parents, heaven, everything, really. She has every right to hate her entire existence, but she puts all that hatred for the system into her efforts to fucking do something about it. Why is that a bad thing, just because she was born into a position of power and authority??

And now on to Angel Dust.

Charlie never once makes a judgement call about Angel or his habits, his work, or his personality. She expresses discomfort with the sexual nature of his work (tbh wouldn't be surprised if she's a sex-repulsed ace), but she does not think he's a bad person because of his work. Nor does she think that he needs to stop doing his work in order to become a better/good person. When she tries to get him some time off, she's explicitly doing it because she wants him to have time to decompress and participate in activities at the hotel, not because she wants him doing less of his specific kind of work.

She never condemns his partying, either. She has a bar in her hotel! She defends him partying, right to heaven's face, because she knows everyone present has partied, everyone has enjoyed a drink with friends. There is no condemnation of his partying activities, and I don't think she ever makes it seem as though Angel needs fixing.

What I got out of that episode, watching Charlie passionately defending her friend in front of the worst fucking person in the universe, was that people do not need to be fixed, but some love and support can help them make better choices for themselves. Angel still has a good time. He still has his job (contract, y'know, but would probably be in the industry regardless). The only thing different about that particular night of partying is that he's out with people who care about him, and who he cares about.

Even Cherri, though she expresses some joking disappointment that he's spending so much time worrying about Nifty, doesn't actually seem that put out by it. She teases him a little, but leaves him to do his thing. And his thing is making sure his friend, who is less experienced at partying (and who is significantly smaller/more vulnerable than most other people), is safe and okay. His thing is defending his friends from an extremely dangerous person, at massive risk to his own personal safety.

And he didn't do any of this because he'd been "fixed" or because he'd "changed." He did it because, for possibly the first time ever, he has people around him who love and care for him, and who want the best for him. And who he loves and wants the best for in return. He said himself that he stays out of his mind on substances, allows himself to be drugged and assaulted, puts on this persona of care-free-crack-whore-who-only-thinks-about-sex, because he is trying everything in his power to dull the pain he's in. Because he doesn't believe he deserves any better.

And this, this is what Charlie is trying to show Heaven. She is trying to show them that there is nothing morally damning about alcohol consumption, or even drug use, sex work, or anything that makes Angel who he is. She's trying to show them that, with some love, care, and support, with a safe place to call home, with their base physical and emotional needs being met, people don't need to resort to the sort of destructive behavior heaven/Adam is condemning! People can choose to engage in these behaviors safely, consciously, and with people around them who want them to be safe and have a good time.

Then we get on to the idea that this entire episode ends on. Heaven doesn't know how people get there. They don't know what it takes to be "good enough" for heaven. Sera herself admits that Adam was just "the first soul in heaven," all but admitting that he's just there because he defaulted into it. (Though that does make me wonder, what about Abel? He would have died long before Adam, and considering how long Adam lived, and that there were plenty of other people around by the time he would have died, where were all those souls going??).

And Adam is the fucking worst! He is literally the worst, most selfish, violent, vulgar soul in the entire show, but he is allowed in heaven, for reasons no one even understands.

You know what the difference is between Adam and Angel?

Adam can't be fixed.

His behaviors are all destructive, not to himself, but to others. He insults, abuses, hurts, and kills with abandon. He made this weird, shitty deal with Hell and Lucifer because he wanted to murder innocent souls, because he was bored, and the rest of heaven doesn't even know about it. He has free reign to be an absolute piece of shit to everyone around him, damaging people left and right, and he will never face any sort of justice for it, because hey, he's already in heaven!

But Angel? Angel's behavior is all self-destructive. Again. He gets fucked up to dull his immense pain. He allows himself to be drugged and assaulted because he believes he deserves it. Because he's been told, for who knows how many thousands of years, that he's a whore anyway, so why shouldn't he be free to use for anyone who wants to take him? He has been beaten down, physically, emotionally, sexually, until he's a shell of a person who is struggling to find any reason to continue his shitty existence.

And he hurts only himself.

I mean, okay, he does piss off Husk sometimes, crosses boundaries/etc. But he and Husk pretty clearly fix that between themselves. There's no lasting damage there, and idk if anyone else noticed, but he stops that behavior pretty much entirely after that ep.

Angel is hurting. He is hollow, and hopeless, and trapped. And he does not need to be fixed, nor does Charlie ever attempt to do so.

All she does is reach out a hand, and say, "Hey, I see that you're struggling. This place is fucked up, isn't it? Maybe I can help."

Charlie is a flawed person. She takes her privilege for granted. She feels the immense weight of her choices, and the pressure of having taken responsibility for a people who may never want her help. She messes up, because somehow, she's endlessly cheerful and optimistic, despite her upbringing and the world she grew up in.

Charlie is flawed. But she's trying her fucking best. She isn't trying to fix. She's trying to help.

We all need some help, every now and then, don't we?

[novelmonger]

I've recently come across some posts in the chrumblr world expressing viewpoints that I find...disturbing. I'm vagueposting about it partly because I don't know these people personally, and also because I think it has a wider application than this one instance.

While reading posts about people from a certain faith background, I came across multiple instances of people saying (literally) "I hate them" and (paraphrase) "They're all liars."

This kind of talk needs to stop immediately.

Just imagine for a second that the conversation was about people from a certain country or ethnic background, rather than a religion. I hope we would all recognize it and denounce it for the gross racism it would be.

How can you think it's okay to talk about anyone like that? How is that pleasing to God, or helpful to anyone?

Even if their religion is false, they're still human beings. Even if their doctrines are heretical and blasphemous, they are still made in God's image. Even if it's true that it's a cult in every sense of the word, the people involved in it are still worthy of respect, love, and understanding. (And whether they're following a cult leader or a demon or just a really charismatic speaker who pretends to know the truth, they are being deceived. They're not inherently, irredeemably evil!)

Besides, as Christians, when we see people who are mired in a world of false teachings, following a false god, held captive by leaders' manipulative tactics and a works-based salvation...shouldn't that move us to compassion? Rather than saying things like "I hate them" and dismissing them as though they're hopeless causes or worthy of ridicule, shouldn't we be reaching out to them with the truth that will set them free? At the very least, shouldn't we be praying for God to extend mercy to them, rather than tearing them down?

But for the grace of God, we Christians are no better off than these people following a false religion. If the Holy Spirit hadn't worked in our hearts, we would be just as lost as they are, and we weren't saved because we were somehow better, more righteous, more truthful, less prone to being deceived. We have no high ground from which to look down on them.

So yes, point out the problematic aspects of their teachings and history. Make it clear that we do not worship the same God, no matter what they may claim to the contrary. But don't hate them. Don't laugh at them behind their backs. What kind of witness to the truth will that make you? Rather than convincing them of the true gospel, all it will do is confirm their suspicions of how horrible non-believers are, and leave them thinking, "If that's what Christianity is like, I don't want anything to do with it!"

... to speak evil of no one, to avoid quarreling, to be gentle, and to show perfect courtesy toward all people. For we ourselves were once foolish, disobedient, led astray, slaves to various passions and pleasures, passing our days in malice and envy, hated by others and hating one another. But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

Titus 3:2-7

[yardsards]

can i ask about your experience as a quaker (or growing up as one? i just saw you mention bein one in some tags)

i jus don't know much about them

so i was not raised quaker, i was raised baptist. which was. 0/10, do not recommend. all the guilt of catholicism with none of the stained glass lmaooo

like, i did resinate with the idea of there being some sort of higher power and i liked the idea of getting together with other believers to discuss spiritual matters but as i got older and started thinking for myself i realized i really didn't like a lot of things about the church. i hated the bigoted beliefs of its members. i hated the emphasis on blind obedience to authority. i didn't believe that the whole literal truth could be found within one book, specifically one group's interpretation of said book. and the idea that people were born inherently bad and sinful and that a supposedly kind and just god would condemn people to eternal suffering just for not believing the "right" things just did not sit well with me at all

when i went off to college i decided to try out a few different churches around town. i ended up settling on a progressive presbyterian church. the community was great and very accepting of queer people. i had some minor qualms with the theology but it wasn't like with my parents' church where every sermon made me feel increasingly nauseous, and i generally felt *good* during and after the services

and then covid hit and while they did stream their sermons, i lost that sense of community and just kinda... fell away

throughout all this i was researching different faiths online, both christian and non-christian. and one faith that kept popping up a lot that i liked the sound of was quakerism. like at one point i remember taking some online quiz of like "what religion do your values most align with" and quakerism was very in the lead. (before this, i'd only really been exposed to quakerism in history textbooks and assumed the religion died out alongside puritanism)

in the end what got me really interested was actually a video by a youtuber i liked, a queer/disability advocate and historical fashion enjoyer who also happened to be quaker

and after looking more into it, i decided to try attending a quaker meeting. which was easier due to covid cuz i could find a church online (located physically hundreds of miles from me) that did their sunday services over zoom

and so i attended and the people there were great and were doing actual good in their communities. and the way services were run, and their beliefs about what god *was* and all of that just hit me with an intense feeling of like. holy shit this is what i've always wanted from religion.

the video explains the sort of core beliefs and practices of quakerism better than i can but the main belief is that like. every person is godly. as such, it's our job to treat all living people as equally and kindly as possible. additionally, since we all have god inside of us, we need to look inwards and come to our own conclusions about our own religious beliefs and practices (and generally respect other people's religious beliefs even if they differ from our own, so long as they're not causing real tangible harm)

i haven't attended any meetings in a while, due to that group going back to semi in person (they still stream it out but it feels more like being a spectator than a member) and there being no quaker meetinghouses in the tiny town i currently live in, coinciding with me being too depressed to regularly attend anything. but i'm planning to start attending quaker meetings again once i move to a real city

[unbidden-yidden-deactivated20240]

Archive Masterpost

Since tumblr refuses to fix its search function and/or make its tagging system reliable, to keep things tidy around here I am going to start a masterlist of posts that I think are helpful, funny, or that I am likely to want to reference again for some reason.

(If I've spent more than a couple minutes searching for a post ever, it's going on this list so I don't have to waste my time again)

This is primarily for my own reference (so I will not be taking requests or unsolicited advice) but feel free to use it if you're looking for something of mine.

Religion/Theology (typically tagged with "every hour is theology hour around here apparently")

Extremely long post explaining differences between Xtianity and Judaism

Trinity post

This extremely excellent post by @/a-queer-seminarian about why the Tables Flipping Incident isn't what a lot of lefty Xtians like to say it was

Jumblr takes on the Tables Flipping Incident

A good test of the value of any given religious belief

Progressive Xtians need to step up, Now

Religion doesn't change my morals; it enhances them

Why are so many Xtians so insecure about their religion in how they relate to Jews?

Shituf (wrt Xtianity)

Culturally Xtian atheist discourse #1

Culturally Xtian atheist discourse #2

Culturally Xtian atheist discourse #3

Why I say 'Xtian'

Questions for converts of any type

Spicy theology question

Questions I regret asking about biblical literalism

Holy Envy quote: Rabia of Basra

Things I don't understand about the Xtian Sabbath

Hey what happens if you reject your baptism according to inclusive Xtians?

Do you ever feel crazy for believing in God?

Xtians should be Xtians by Choice:

Judaism: Religion & Conversion

What to expect at your first Shabbat (@/bneiruth)

First-timer tips for shul: [1], [2]

What you might be asked your first time talking to a rabbi about conversion (@/bneiruth)

Conversion resources (by @/keshetchai)

Do NOT convert to Judaism if your intent is to syncretize it with anything else, and especially don't convert for Lillith of all things.

Trust me, no you didn't embarrass yourself too much to go back to shul

No, really

Having a lot of thoughts about what genuine, compassionate kiruv might look like to interfaith couples

Judaism: Jewish culture & politics

On the diversity of what people mean by "Zionism" and "Anti-Zionism" by @/3tznius5this

On Jewish music vs. Xtian music (pt. 1, pt. 2)

Times of Israel article re: Israel's court reform

Israel is more similar to Liberia

Chelm stories?

Judaism: personal experiences

Eretz Yisrael post

Conversion journey

The music of our prayers

An Ode to the Holy Dark

Hashem, the soul you have placed in me is pure

Singing Hallel for Av

Messianic mishegas:

Why messianics aren't valid (long post by @/sorekbekarmi)

Why messianics are antisemitic (also by @/sorekbekarmi)

Interview by @/sorekbekarmi about his experiences being raised messianic

Conversion requires a lot of unlearning

Yoshke is probably a mamzer

Messianics still aren't valid, pt.2

Antisemitism: (more generally)

@/schraubd article about Jews being caught in the middle between Right and Left talking over Jews on antisemitism

@/schraubd post about a possible art simulation of Jewish experience

Dara Horn post

"But... but... Jews are disproportionately wealthy!"

Post about Jewish regeneration through large families; discussion on names

It's not the 1940s anymore, but in the 1940s it wasn't the 1890s anymore...

If I find this massive antisemitism write-up by (I believe) @/penrosesun I will lose it in a good way because it was so good [Edit: I finally saw it on my dash again!!]

Compilation of important dog whistles to know & avoid (by @/dzamie)

Antisemitism inherent to Xtianity?

Khazer theory debunking

No means no applies to proselytizing

Missionizing is awful and Jews should not have to become experts in Xtianity to fend it off

"Diaspora" doesn't even really cover it

Tentatively adding "attributes every failure of institutions and systems to intentional malice rather than ignorance or incompetence" to my List Of Conspiracy Theory Red Flags

Desecrating a sefer Torah is NOT the same as desecrating a printed bible

Jumblr: (mostly memes and other more lighthearted or inspirational Jewish posts)

Pesach tinfoil post

Apparently "fucking" is transliterated exactly into Hebrew

Subarot

Why the Jews are Better Off Without Xmas Trees

You wouldn't drive in your house

"Dual loyalty"

Goyische chol hamoed

The prettiest, most aesthetic sukkah I've seen

Mezuzah friend

A cruel God

Who's ready for Yom Kippur?

Goats have too many sins

First photo released from Mars

Rashi's big frog

What if we advertised Torah study like Bible study?

Don't walk in front of me I may not follow....

"Ruth was un-Jewish by birth. Moses was un-Jewish by upbringing..."

Gender garbage: (personal, often heavy, posts about my own experiences)

Convergent gender

"Indentifying as" language

Labels are for recycling bins

We pick one

Untitled

I don't have preferred pronouns really

Transandrophobia discussions

General trans- and queer-posting:

That one reblog about The Birdcage

Ways to improve discourse around gender wrt to understanding that all genders have the same needs regardless of what patriarchy has told us

Feminism & Reproductive Rights:

Uggghhh this post has too many notes

Conservatives are coming for no-fault divorce

If someone in tech designs this, it's not my fault

Memes and other lighthearted posts:

Why does everyone seem to reblog this one kinda throwaway comment directly from my blog?

Spouse and I are very silly about words sometimes

Boulevard of Broken Dreams

Hey if the diaper fits

Miscellaneous:

Be careful what you say, because I might remember it forever

The Sneeze (germ video)

Tech halp:

How to get rid of upload notifications

How to do the small text

Yes, you can actually have a comma in the tags

General/Housekeeping:

Original introduction pinned post (retired)

[givemearmstopraywith]

Hi! I hope you're doing well! I was wondering if I could ask something about religion since you know much more about it and you have your own relationship with God but if you don't want to answer it or can't that's completely okay too, no pressure <3 so I've been battling with my own belief in god for a while now and i still don't really know how to answer the "do you believe in god" question and I've come to terms with that. But whenever I think that it would be nice to convert to one of the Abraham religions, I always stop myself because I can't reconcile religion with my lesbianism. It feels like I'm not allowed to believe in god or to be a part of a religion bc of my sexuality and I'm afraid that when people say that queerness is a sin in the eyes of god, they're right. The holy texts after all are against homosexuality or at least against the homosexual acts. I don't know how else to interpret them. It feels like I'm a doomed case and I don't really know what to do with this. I'm sorry if this is a lot, you don't have to answer of course if you don't want to. Thank you anyway, I hope you have a nice day <3

my queerness (i am a lesbian as well) felt like a huge impediment to my finding a place for myself in theology. then i realized that god calld me to theology because my voice was needed there: because change for the community doesn't happen without risk to the self. islam, judaism, and christianity are all historically kinder to queerness than they initially appear, or at least than it appears their current adherents would make them out. for instance in classical arabic and islam there existed mukhannathun, gender-variant people, without shame or guilt, accepted as innately queer and made this way by god; and there are eight genders in the talmud, six in rabbinical literature, and halacha recognizes intersex and non-conforming genders. the long thread of homosexual condemnation in the hebrew bible is, in all actuality, a condemnation of rape and incest. the events at sodom involve the people of sodom desiring non-consensual sexual contact with angels. the word angels in genesis 19 is malak, a messenger: this would be an act of defilement which, in hebrew esoteric tradition, is akin to that which caused the fall of angels from heaven. similarly in the new testament allusions to homosexuality are made in the context of worshipping other gods, participating in temple prostitution, or incest; it is not the act itself which is condemned because it is inherently homosexual or deviant, but rather the intention behind the act that is wrong.

contemporary praxis has lost this ease with bodies, although contemporary theology struggles to retrieve it. if god is calling you to faith, he will not ask you to abandon your body- nor your desires, your love, your pleasure, your instinct, your intuition. these too are holy. misuse and abuse is not. god made you in his image. no person can truly deny the goodness of god that is present in you. they may attempt it but such is only words and inherently loveless. the apostle paul writes that if i speak in the tongues of men or of angels [if i now all the scriptures and they are inscribed on my heart] but have not love, i am only a resounding gong or a clanging symbol. if i have a faith that can move mountains but have not love, i am nothing. go where you see love reflected to you. god is there. if you see love in personal study and belief, god is there. i am not part of a formal religion for reasons other than my queerness, and i don't feel this inhibits my relationship with god; i know i will get there someday. but if organized religion is something to which you strongly feel god is calling you, trust him: in a very practical sense, there are lgbtq affirming churches, mosques, and synagogues that will identify themselves as such- i highly encourage you to see if anything like this exists in your area, or if there are any that offer online worship. reach out to religious leaders here and talk to them: they will always, always, be happy to speak to you. anyone who is without love does not know god.

[alto-tenure]

okay, i promptly passed out for several hours after writing my followup on that post, and then i had to go do the research to understand why you would make such a comparison. but now i'm back.

first of all: really cool musical! thanks for telling me about this album, i might have to download it and make a cd.

second of all: beside the main point here, but ahrima is so masked gentleman randall coded. i love it.

third of all: JESUS CHRIST HOW DARE--

ahem. once upon a time i was seated firmly in the camp that des is the one (1) eligible bachelor who wouldn't take any interest in claire, and the friendship and familial potential there is far more compelling than shoving another suitor in claire's face. alas, once upon a time i was also blissfully unaware of razia's shadow and the story of adakias and anhura.

the falling instantly and madly at first sight. the mutual ambition to break free from the chains of the past and achieve something greater than themselves. the scorn and concern of everyone else who doubts they're perfectly right for each other the way they think they are. the fact that staying together will probably kill them both, and they're too blinded by desire to care.

you're completely right about this comparison and it's so horrible. i still value their friendship a lot but i'm never going to be able to unthink how awful it can truly be now. (<- practically dancing with glee over the angst potential)

also i'm sorry if this means you need a desclaire tag now can we still be friends

you could have just ASKED me I would have been happy to tell you about the niche rock opera mostly well known among people who are either in pretty deep with alternative bands popular in the late 2000s or warrior cats fans of which I am both so

Ahrima and Randall are suuuuuuch Icarus figures and then you have the manipulation of that ambition...Descole as the spider on Randall's shoulder, tearing down what's been built in Randall's name...yeah!!

see, uh. it's been a while since I was taking in the narrative (I have the album saved in my likes and shuffle really likes Genesis and Holy the Sea in particular for whatever reason). I was thinking of Pallas (I mixed up their names) and how for me Claire and Des can only really interact if Hershel is out of the picture in some way. and like Hershel as the one who believes in the inherent goodness of humanity while Des is the one who wants to turn away from it and isolate...and him and Claire both having Hershel in common even though Hershel is gone...

[katyspersonal]

you‘ve probably discussed this, I might have missed it. what do you think laurence’s motivations/goals were for everything he did? would you say he’s morally grey? had good or bad intentions?

I would not be surprised if I already discussed it and forgot myself! I am talking about Bloodborne SO much that I end up not remembering what I've discussed already :') I do think that he is morally grey; his most prevalent intentions were good ones, but I think he had some "badness" about him, mostly in the form of wanting to become the new ruling power in Yharnam! Okay I'll go bit by bit.. or try to.

THE biggest clue I have towards his good intentions is the fact that the holy blood is... well, a thing that heals. Not only we can witness it in the game first by using blood vials, but people do address it, verbally! However, I think the evolution and protection bit is really important here, if not MORE important.

There is a large possibility that beasts started becoming a problem even without the scholars messing with the dungeons! Yharnam stands on the "tombs of gods" that are related to the civilizations that actually messed with the blood first, Suspicious Beggar being unlike any other beast but a Loran one could mean that he inherited beasthood rather than developed it... even the very first Caryll Rune was the howling of the beast, and it is paired with the rune that points out beasthood is inherent for humanity:

We are talking about the setting where magic and aliens are real and where there were "first people" (Pthumerians) who caused irrevercible damage on the mortals in general, so the concerns could be real! My personal headcanon is that concerns over beasthood started to come up because meanwhile Kos was washed on the shore, thus abandoning her own concealment of the Eldrich Horrors; she was like Rom, since Sea and Lake runes refer to the barrier both. 🤔

But, yes, notice that Clawmark refers to the inherent thirst for blood within human nature, whereas Simon sarcastically refers to Healing Church's ministration as "beast cleansing", and Amelia's prayer goes like this:

(Sorry for always ripping excerpts from retranslation document ( x ), I am just incapable of working without it after discovering plenty of mistranslations fsdjhfdhs)

We can get a picture that the point of blood ministration is basically, 'The beastly nature within humans craves blood so it is better to satisfy it with some, but if you are not careful about it, you will just keep wanting more and more blood uncontrollably and become a beast anyways'! That's why people should fear the blood... yet, at the same time, seek it. Just in moderation. I would not say that it is a bad plan, but believing that religious agenda and presenting what were the stakes would be enough to keep people's will power strong is... strangely optimistic? Again, Laurence was a smart person, but he had more faith in humanity than, say, Willem or Micolash.

And at the end, besides healing properties and protection from the curse of beasts (that, again, might be inflicted on humanity genetically in this setting all history concidered), there is evolution factor too! There is a very important bit about Sedative:

Byrgenwerth people started to investigate Eldrich Horrors as soon as they returned from Isz, and also after massacre of Fishing Hamlet! I already talked about how Frenzy is relevant to bloodlust, hunt and Oedon here ( x ) and here ( x ), so it is still tied to 'feed your inner beast some blood so it doesn't rip you from inside'! But also, what could be observed directly was, 'if you peer into cosmic horrors too much you go insane and fucking die'. And ALSO:

Willem, and Byrgenwerth in general, pursued the Insight / Eyes Inside and cosmos as the means to improve the humanity:

So, like... it became plain that whereas the researchers could go insane and die from witnessing too much, they could also... NOT do that, and simply study mysteries of the universe normally - all they needed to do is to sip some blood sometimes! I actually can envision Willem, as well as Choir and Mensis that continue his ideas (albeit twisted) to believe that the "weakest must go"! That if someone died during research - it is a tool for the scientists coming after them, and if someone could not handle it then maybe they were not worthy! Meanwhile, I think initially Laurence disagreed with that and thought it would be better to just sip some blood when it gets hard, and evolution without the blood would simple have too much of a body count, with the "survivors" having lost their humanity (figurally OR literally)!

+ This is also an important observation in my version of lore and timeline, in which Healing Church and Byrgenwerth were one at first and Willem was the 'pope', so they were doing both blood ministration and research for eyes (most notable in Adeline's arc), and later Laurence elbowed Willem away to have more control over his own thing 🤔 This is not the most popular theory but the one I am satisfied with the most, I explained it here: ( x )! (fun fact: creator of that one BB fan manga centered on Lady Maria had that interpretation too! xD I feel validated.)

So yeah, in the conclusion, Laurence had plenty of reasons to put his faith in the blood! Healing, protection and evolution. But whereas the next most influential person (Willem) insisted that it was the worst idea ever, other people who LIKED the blood (Cainhurst nobles) apparently were doing it "wrong". They reveled in blood thirst and curse, whether truthfully or that was the prejuduice. Knowing Soulsborne settings, it was both. There must be the reason Lady Maria distasted it, okay? Maybe Fauxsefka too, if you believe she was one of the OG ones and not taken from Cainhurst as a child. Laurence needed to assert the blood healing, but also to have it as the good thing! A thing that connects you with the gods, whereas protecting and advancing your humanity, not corrupting it!

So, he needed to replace the oligarchy (Cainhurst), but to also not let someone else rise instead! Though I still could write it down as good intentions too, albeit twisted - Laurence could not TRUST someone else to act for the betterment of humanity, as well as to have courage to do sacrifices and morally burdening decisions. He was somewhat arrogant but he had the reasons to be, as a genuinely smart person. In his eyes? Micolash and Rom maybe were "smarter", but at the same time so detached from humanity that he could tell in the end they'd forsaken it, by their own will or unintentionally. And wasn't he right? Well, wasn't he?? Micolash is "You are too stupid to make such decisions" (derogatory), but Laurence is "You are too stupid to make such decisions" (affectionate)! Caryll was his equal intellectually but Laurence could tell he lacked the 'courage' and risk-taking streak (by being unwilling to mess with the blood, first of all). Willem was certainly smart, but not only avoided the blood like Caryll, but Laurence could tell he was prone to "gatekeeping". In Laurence's eyes, the 'peasants' deserved a chance for evolution too (and this is some contrast with his teenage "Sorry hun, I don't speak poor uwu" years xD Character development!).

________________________

Anyways, thank you for this ask very much! I LOVE talking about Laurence, he raised in amongst my favourite characters since recent times.. and also discussing the depth and complexity of his character is just what I need x) Yeah, sadly enough, he was not much better in terms of great sacrifices for his goals and machiavelism than Willem or other scholars he looked down on. But, Laurence believed that when HE did that it was different, because at least his ways were 'productive' xd In his opinion, I mean.

The concept of Laurence who was just evil and selfish asshole that wanted power and religious-ish control over everything does nothing to me :pensive: But, I do think that whereas ensuring his power and theocratical control was a necessity, he could still enjoy what he got even a little! I don't see it as corruption arc from nice and good person to a deranged asshole, but rather from a person with clear ambitious goals and comprehension of what it will cost to... well, a person horrified of the cosmic insight and gods that once guided him and getting obsessed with blood in the exact same way he warned others not to.

[devout-of-the-elder-scrolls]

I kinda wanted to make a post about where I believe the gods come from, just to kinda make my beliefs more clear than a single bullet point on my pinned post can explain.

Before I begin, I really do think all takes on their origin is valid, because what actually matters is the Gods themselves, not where they came from or anything else. Whether or not you even center on the Gods, it's still a valid take.

Long explanation post so under a read more as most of my posts are. (I ramble a lot, lol)

So, as background, I believe in that multiple worlds exist, though pretty much all are only available to us through astral projection. This takes a part in my belief system and my belief that the "gods came first, not the fiction".

Essentially, in my belief system, Nirn exists out there. Not necessarily in the context that we could one day as humans travel there through light speed travel or whatever, but it's not something I've put that much thought into.

As because Nirn exists out there, so do the Gods and Saints of that world. The Nine Divines, the Daedric Princes, the Tribunal, etc.

But this also goes into how I don't view the fictional canon as infallible canon for worship / following a TES based religion. Both because in my experience the Gods sometimes taking difference from what the writers of TES wrote down, and because it's like... well, it seems a bit convenient to me in a way that the writers would get Every Single Detail correct.

Remember how in my bullet points I mentioned that sometimes when people write fiction using Abrahamic lore, they'll rewrite stuff to be more entertaining for the media? Like the Abrahamic God as actually "pure utter evil", when all of His worshipers and His holy books all say that He's not that. Yeah, I kinda put the same possibility (meaning it's not an always true thing or inherently true, I could be wrong!) onto the fictional canon.

While I still study the fictional canon for my worship and religion in all ways, I prioritize my personal experiences, what I've been told by my Gods, what's worked for me, etc above what the writers put into the games and extended universe. I believe that the fictional canon is very much important for building my worship and practice, because not all of it can be wrong either, especially because I believe the Gods had some hand to play in the creation of the games and etc.

The fictional canon does work as something akin to "canon" for worship, so that's what I wouldn't consider UPG, even though my UPG disagrees with some of it.

If I had to take a stance of "they exist from fiction", which I'm not opposed to it's just not what I believe, I'd take TES lore as mythology. Akin to how the Greek hymns aren't always representative of how Ancient Greeks actually worshiped and saw their Gods.

All those stories about the Daedra being pure evil? Sure, it's just fearmongering, it's only from an outsider POV. Some people have already made comparisons of likening Daedra worship to the demonization of pagan and non-Christian faiths, even if the "accepted" faith in Tamriel is polytheistic itself. ...Though, this can be debated how real this actually is because the Daedra are also the Original Spirits in Khajiiti myth but that's an aside...

Even then, mythology is often there to tell you some things, but isn't free of an authors bias. Much like when the Crusades came around to other faiths, they often tried to find one deity to be their "one good guy" and one deity to be their "one bad guy" - A God and Devil equivalent. Who is to say such a thing didn't happen within Tamriel with the Daedric Princes?

(As an aside here, sorry to keep ragging on Christians and what happened in the crusades. It's just the best I got. I love you cool and kind Christians!)

So anyways, that's my ramble. Believe what you wanna believe, because I think the opposite take of "they come from fiction" or any other take that exists doesn't change anything about us both worshiping the TES entities.

[silentmassacres]

mon, oct 28

bus ride rambles. sex, silence, and knee-jerk reactions

sometimes i still thinking about him. him being. me

i think it's silly to look back on the smaller things i used to get hurt over.

i wonder which is worse — not knowing, and having to unpack it all continuously later. or if i knew the words for it all, and stayed anyways. i probably would've. maybe. i don't really know anymore, and i never really knew him well anyways.

if i knew the words, i'd cling to them like they'd save me. like the ugly reality was anything worth saving.

i, he, one of us or maybe both. he would've wanted to make it beautiful. something holy, some divine punishment.

i could try to claw my chest open, like id escape through the gaping wound. i did try that. or he did. the scars have long faded. maybe i should stop separating me and. who i used to be.

i think talking like this makes me dissociate. i feel like him, in a sense. i am him.

through everything, i am still him

—

twitter has ruined me, i think. or the internet as a whole, really

was doing. stuff. the other night and went to say something and the way it came out of my mouth just made me immediately mentally recoil. something about the tone of it just reminded me of those hypersexualized porn audios for lonely men, with women playing into motherly roles for the sake of. attraction. i guess

and it's probably more of a knee jerk reaction on my part. but things like that and any sort of exaggeration of womanhood (think: fetish art in which womens chests and hips are drastically blown up in comparison to everything else) are extremely uncomfortable for me.

it's a mix of dehumanization and dysphoria. in reality, they tend to go together. when "woman and "sex object" get so easily intertwined to people, the combination of the two is just a recipe for disaster

not only do things like me make me feel feminine and Worse, in an exaggerated way but that mental association between the two makes me feel dehumanized. in the same way in which ill look myself in the mirror and see a feminine body shape and feel as though it inherently opens me up to sexualization. because it does, ultimately.

and that's not to say i'm trans because of that. it's far more than that. but the overlap in feeling like a woman being dysphoria inducing and womanhood including being dehumanized in a sexual manner being triggering is. awful for me.

—

i don't like to talk about it as something that. happened to me. unfortunately, trying to explain the layers of it all is exhausting. call it manipulation, call it coercion, and i'm still expected to have been some sort of brutal victim. that's not me and never has been. i'm good at being quiet — ive done that as long as i can remember. (i lay on the couch with my grandmother. she asks me if anything's bothering me. i hold back my tears, tell her no, and blankly stare off. maybe i truly believed it)

—

i find myself identifying with womanhood again and again. not in a. genuine way.

i strive for community and i tend to find it bundled in distaste. feeling othered due to being more emotionally mature is something i'll latch onto far too easily. unfortunately, it's not only maturity that sets me apart. i think my whole emotional process is different. or maybe they're right, maybe it's some sort weird socialization thing.

i don't. fully believe it. but i understand the contexts. i know that emotional maturity isn't biological. i also know that it's more excused for men to do. whatever. with their emotions. i find some sort of solace in watching women talk about feeling different for performing emotions logically, despite the fact that i'm an outsider looking in.

—

i understand these. knee-jerk feelings aren't good. not that i take them out on anybody, but the internet kind of pushes the idea that it's inherently awful. sure, thought crimes aren't real, unless you have a thought that i don't like

there's a general sense of apathy, i think, that's assumed to be. good. there's beauty in nothingness, a blank slate. indifference.

i find that most things fade to indifference. my upset matters until it doesn't. it doesn't when it inconveniences or upsets others. that's most times.

i find it easier to keep things to myself. i understand that much of what upsets me isn't the most logical. even if it is, it tends to be miniscule things or things that could be interpreted. it's not worth the bother, really

i try quite hard not to fall into learned helplessness, or just general unwillingness to get better, but that's hard when it feels like genuinely next to nobody understands what you're saying. you may hear the words, but you're not. receiving them

[e17omm]

Playing GI Natlan ACt 3, gonna put my thoughts down below. I write as I play so I dont forget things, but they're all in sequence.

animations are still incredibly stiff and robotic. Good to see that hasnt improved at all.

still a lot of chatter and filler and empty moments but its not that bad so far.

Granny Ive never met this Ororon kid, but I guess thats just her personality.

you know what's a forgotten thing? Elemental Sight.

What this? Am I getting my hopes up that anything different will happen this Archon Quest? Or will we completely antagonise the Fatui without hearing them out again?

"I will explain my goals and motivations to you. I dont believe you should blindly be helping the Pyro Archon" THANK YOU. We've been blindly helping people for so long while completely not listening to what the other side wants. The side that, you know, says they want to bring down Celestia, the place that has the Unknown God, the reason we are stuck in here? Similarly, isnt that also the Abyss Order's goal? The one our sibling seems to be leading? WHY ARE WE NOT EVEN TRYING TO LISTEN TO THEM?!

Well we told Paimon, there goes my hope of hearing the Traveler speaking...

We cant have a fucking conversation with the Fatui. No no, we gotta talk to the Archons! Why did I get my hopes up...

oh yeah pick what you want - the story to get interesting and progress and possibly have some uniqueness from the rest of the nations, or see granny get drunk. IM NOT DOING HER FUCKING CHARACTER QUEST.

I dont mind if we get to know characters in the main story, but why are we comforting granny and watching her ramble while drunk and all this when THERE ARE FAR MORE IMPORTANT THINGS TO DO. Oh and of course the classic "we dont know what the fatui want but instead of listening to them fully we go and spill to the archon!". I dont like this writing. Its been so similar for 4 years.

Thank god we learned some priority from the first act of Natlan.

holy fucking shit how did that stealth sequence make it into the script? Did we really need to see it step by step with all the waiting for the opertunity to move undetected? THAT DID NOT NEED TO BE FOUR MINUTES. ITS COMPLETELY SCRIPTED. I DIDNT MOVE AT ALL. ITS FOUR MINUTES OF "gotta sneak here, gotta wait here, gotta sneak now, gotta wait now" WHY WAS THIS FOUR MINUTES LONG?!?! It could have been 1 minute at most and still captured their teamwork! Oh and of course they cant animate her running up the trees so they just did it in first person before instant transmissioning into the premade animations. This shouldnt have taken up as much time as it did. In isolation, fine, whatever, but boy does Hoyo like taking their sweet time just panning and having silence and dragging things out.

.................................................................................................................................................................... That was just all setup.

The quest could have ended an hour sooner if granny didnt interupt our meeting with the Captain.

Is there more? did act 4 come with this?

OKAY ACT 4 DID SHIP WITH THIS.

Phew thank fucking god. I put my controller down as soon as "act 3 finished" popped up. That act spent so much time accomplishing nothing. That should have been a granny and chiha character quest, like back in Inazuma where you have to do character quests before continuing the archon quest.

That was the content of Natlan Act 3. Its 95% character quests that has to happen in this timeframe, and 5% actual plot progression.

Those character quests could have been in 5.0 and left us off with going to Mauvika to tell her about the Captain's plan.

Okay but, Act 3 was character quest filler, im gonna make another one of these for Act 4, and I am going to scream if the plot isnt moving forward after this.

... I should probably clarify that I didnt find act 3 inherently bad, its just character quests for the majority of it and I dont think it fits as an Archon Quest.

Also I enjoy the Captain's character a lot. Fucking finally the Fatui is potrayed as something other than scheming evil schemes and a threat to everyone and not to be trusted for a single word.

[through-hollows]

The Stream in the Hollow

My family lives on the edge of the mountains which is something I have not taken advantage of. Feeling inspired, I charged out my door into the woods in search for a stream that makes its way through an overgrown canyon of aspen, pine, and thorny undergrowth. After getting a little lost, making a guess to where I was, and being pleasantly surprised that was actually right, I continued my journey down a familiar trail. My trail came to a small clearing where it meets the stream and this is where I decided to stake my claim.

I began clearing clogs of pine needles in the stream and diverting it away from an old pipe that would swallow up one of the offshoots of water. I also started work on a line of stepping stones where the stream crosses the trail.

Though I took some selfish delight in the work I was doing, I felt the Lord nudge me in the process. He helped me realized that the work I was doing was actually helping any travelers that made their way through my little slice of stream. A greater joy in the work I was doing fell on me knowing that what I was doing was serving others. As I was sharpening a flat rock I was using as a shovel, I thought about the creation mandate.

“And God blessed them. And God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.’” Genesis 1:28

I realized that in my little bit of work by the stream I was actually living out an ancient command. God gave us this gift of dominion over the land and said “Go make something of this.” Not only was I doing that, but I was doing it in a way that served people. Now I didn’t just sit up this morning and think “huh, today I should go live out the creation mandate in a way that serves people.” I just stumbled upon it the more I thought about what I was doing. It was clear Jesus was trying to teach me something in the hollow with the stream. Then, he spoke:

“What if you stopped making things selfishly?”

For such a still, small, voice, the Holy Spirit sure is good at mic drops. I was immediately convicted and I still am while writing this. As creators, I believe the deep desire of my soul is to make things that bless people for the glory of God. I believe this is the only truly fulfilling way to create. I realize that the reason why I have been robbed of joy while creating something has been either:

A. I’m procrastinating something I should be doing instead. (Bad habit)

B. I am pouring hours and hours of effort into something that I can’t really bless people with.

I’m not at all saying making things for yourself is wrong, but this totally gave me a shift in focus.

When I got back from my time in the woods I was exhausted, covered in mud from head to toe, and a little bloody —It was absolutely wonderful. In light of all the joy I was experiencing I felt another question rise in my mind:

“What if I started making things more selflessly?”

This is not a ultra trendy idea. Much of what the world preaches in this area is, “Do something really cool so that you can make a name for yourself.” People will say, “go and change the world!” But I can’t help but notice selfish undertones in statements like that. It sounds more like “Be the person that changed the world.” It’s not hard to notice man is inherently selfish, we need a savior. When we make things that bless people and point them to Christ, it’s totally counter cultural.

“‘A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another.’” John 13:34

I want to live that out. I desperately do. The crazy thing is if you read the next verse is says that the love we have is evidence to the world that we belong to Christ. Christ-like love for one-another is like putting up a neon sign for the world that says “We love Jesus.” I believe this is the same principle for the things that we create in love. If Jesus is king, why would everything we create not seek to reflect his character?

I want to make creations of Christ-like hospitality.

I want world to look at the things I make and see written on every single thing the words “I love you, Father.”

I want my creations to be a love letter to my King and my neighbor (and that’s what this post is).