#I'm not actually a christian

[poor-boy-orpheus]

Do you ever think about how without Judas there is no Christ story? The man whose name becomes a byword as a symbol for betrayal was playing his role in the Divine Epic.

"Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then would the scriptures be fulfilled, which say it must happen in this way?" -Matthew 26:53-54 (NRSV)

Idk man, it sucks to be the villain in a story where without you playing your role humanity cannot be saved.

[kanskje-kaffe]

Silco was born in the dark. Home to him is the greasy green of oil-lamps and the buzz of the electrics, powered with bunched cables that trailed overhead and fanned out at the tunnel junctions. It's the smell of coal and tallow, stone dust and diesel backwash. It's the crunch of grit between his teeth. It's thirst. The fissure folk were always wary of miners, said they could see in the dark. It's true. Silco can. --- Silco endures wounds upon wounds, and still he doesn't die—but he's not the only one. Don't all monsters come from the dark? Tell me about Zaun again, Vander.

Howl Right Back on AO3

Pairing: Silco/Warwick, Silco/Vander Rating: Explicit Chapters: 1/3

---

This is a gift for the amazing @wishfulsketching and their bomb ass Silco-meets-Warwick fanart. I was sooososo inspired by the image of Silco screaming the fuck back into Warwick's face! That's a love language babey! I think Silco deserves a werewolf boyfriend who eats people!

(Thank you to @withercrown and @spicedrobot for the beta and edits! Mwah mwah!)

[vulpixelates]

i know it will never happen but i so desperately desire an origins-type playable backstory thing in all games but especially veilguard. i feel like it added so much depth to origins and made you feel instantly connected to your character in a way that gets lost in games like inquisition where you fill in the blanks as you go except for the bare basics. like, i do enjoy the freedom to willy nilly decide where a character was before the events of the story from a creative perspective, but the playable origins were just so good! especially when you go back to where your warden is from and can engage differently with the arcs there

[ghostlyarchaeologist]

Leverage S05E09 The Rundown Job.

[xmiricarox]

My cat's been missing for two days. He's old. There are bad dogs around. He didn't answer our calls in the streets.

I had never loved an animal as much as I've loved him, and I shouldn't be speaking like this but I'm just afraid he's gone. He's not immortal after all.

If that's what happened, I don't know how will I recover. No more fish shaped biscuits in his bowl. No more making a space for him in my big bed. No more talking to him, being stared at by his pretty yellow eyes, playing with him.

I know that he doesn't love like us (or at all), but I do. I just hope he's ok and comes back to us soon.

I'm sorry, I just needed to take this out of my chest. Prayers would be very appreciated. Whatever God allows, it's for a greater good.

[dolphelecat]

I Will Follow - Chris Tomlin

Wonderhole Edition

[aquareegia]

Not a guy from the CHRISTIAN party saying that refugees should be excluded from soup kitchens!?!?!?!! 💀

[binarisunset]

judas, gabriel max // damned for all time/blood money, jesus christ superstar // kiss of judas, guiseppe diotti // Matthew 26:50 // the carnivorous lamb, agustin gomez-arcos, translated by william rodarmor // deadangelo // Judas's kiss, gustave doré // the arrest, jesus christ superstar // deadangelo // judas, ilia efimovich // lostcap

[cecoeur]

How do you sleep at night? No one to hide behind Betrayed every alibi you had You had every chance to make amends instead you got drunk on bitterness And you still claim that you're innocent, it's sad

[maximura]

[johnnyshrine]

★ 100 // “The Holy Bible”

[msburgundy]

if you claim to be Christian and trigger tag things about God and religion, i am blocking. your identity is not in Christ if you think your faith is something that you can separate out to make yourself more palatable to the world. i pray you do not hear those words, "depart from me, i never knew you"

[butchhamlet]

Inviting you to go off about Hamlet not dithering for no reason. I agree completely but I love to hear your thoughts always

in my recent dive back through my hamlet tag, i found this post, which makes this answer kind of redundant. but being me i am going to say it anyway. tl;dr: hamlet's Big Mistake* is not delaying; it's doubt; it's his total inability to be certain he's doing the right thing. which i think under the circumstances of "there is a ghost" is pretty reasonable, actually.

*obligatory "trying to apply hamartia/fatal flaws to shakespearean tragic characters is kind of a crapshoot because shakespeare rarely creates a guy with Just One Fatal Flaw" but also, even if you WERE going to assign hamlet a fatal flaw, it should still be doubting and not delaying.

let us remember the circumstances:

>ghost appears, claims to be my dad dropping in from purgatory, tells me to literally murder a man

literally not at all the wrong move to take a second to breathe here. whomst among us is getting this information and immediately going to kill 1. a living breathing human being 2. who is part of our immediate family and probably someone we know very well 3. and who is also THE MONARCH IN CHARGE OF THE STATE WHO HAS CAPITAL PUNISHMENT POWERS. as K @stripedroseandsketchpads said in the linked post, it's very easy for the audience--who in shakespeare's day would have been familiar with revenge tragedy's generic tropes, and who in our era knows that hamlet is a play about killing your evil uncle--to think, "is he fucking stupid? isn't it obvious?" but however knowledgeable about theater hamlet is (very), he's not waking up in the morning with the assumption that he's living Inside Tropes. (i do think he's aware he's in a revenge tragedy by the middle/end of the play, but that's another post for another day.)

point being: jumping straight to murder is a CRAZY ask. even from your shitty ghost dad who you address as king more than dad. plus, if ghosts are real, it does stand to reason that they might be evil/trying to get hamlet to damn his soul, because clearly supernatural and satanic things are not off the table. the ghost might be dad, but it might also be the devil, or maybe even a hallucination caused by a fit of grief. so the first step here is not "murder right away," it's "get some proof more substantial than a Maybe Ghost."

so:

>pretend to be crazy >get some proof

and, okay, fine. the pretending to be crazy is... a decision. based off the amleth story, we can infer the rationale is "keep claudius from realizing i've figured out the murder, because if he knows that, he will kill me." re: the monarch who can KILL PEOPLE WHENEVER HE WANTS because he HAS SOLE POWER. but hamlet, perhaps All That was a little bit much.

nevertheless: hamlet starts being crazy at the top of act two. he sets the mousetrap scheme in motion in the second scene of act two. that's not that much of a delay, dude. that is one (1) scene of arguable "dithering," and he's not doing NOTHING, he's establishing his antic-disposition cover. you could argue that a lot of time has passed, but the timeline of hamlet is so blurry. we do not know that. he's covering his bases, okay?

and then he gets down to business! he has to yap about it first, but he surveils claudius during the play! and THIS is where the problem arises--he doesn't put off investigating; rather, he can't STOP investigating. because no amount of evidence is actually able to convince him to Do It. this isn't procrastination; this is a deep inability to be certain that he's on the right path. and this is a case where certainty matters, because if he's wrong, murder is a mortal sin. and also regicide. people get killed for that. like badly killed

2.2 is hamlet setting up the mousetrap thing. 3.1 (to be or not to be) occurs in the time before the players set their shit up, a delay that is not his fault. 3.2 is the mousetrap. 3.3 is claudius in the church, and then--

>talk to my mom >impulsively and paranoidly murder the royal advisor > > >oh jesus fucking christ i murdered the royal advisor

"hamlet's flaw is inaction" okay. well. i would say manslaughter is an action. in fact it is Such an action that it gets him banished for an entire act of the play. and thus we cannot really call anything after 3.4 a delay, either, because he's not sitting around twiddling his thumbs, he KILLED A MAN AND GOT EXILED TO ENGLAND.

the one place you can argue for hamlet dithering here is 3.3, with claudius in the church. hamlet claims he doesn't do it then because he doesn't want claudius to go to heaven for Died While Praying Virtuously. if you believe him, fine. if you think this is kind of a load of bullshit to cover that he doesn't want to do it--sure, okay. if he doesn't want to do it, it's because he still doesn't feel like he has enough evidence to justify it. the evidence he has--the evidence he thought would make him certain--is claudius freaking out during the play. but let us remember that the murderer in the mousetrap is the player king's NEPHEW. for all hamlet knows, it's actually entirely possible that claudius is freaking out because he thinks this is a threat from hamlet, not a staged callout post.

"but we know claudius killed king hamlet because--" because he says so. in his soliloquy. to the audience. which we can hear because of the structure of theater. which WE can hear. which hamlet CANNOT! and so hamlet has set up this elaborate rube goldberg machine to allow himself to Attain Certainty that he's doing the right thing. and yet no matter what happens, he can't reach that certainty for real.

and he never does, actually. in the last scene of the play, watching his mother die after drinking poison, he'll still demand everyone bar the doors to seek out the treachery--he's still leaving open the possibility that claudius might have nothing to do with this (as if claudius doesn't spend acts 3-5 way past jean ralphio levels of suspicious). and yet hamlet still doesn't seize on the obvious, because no amount of proof can be enough for him, because fundamnetally he doesn't trust himself. he doesn't trust his perception. he doesn't trust his judgment. in the end, he doesn't even kill claudius for killing hamlet senior. he kills claudius because claudius has poisoned HIM (and laertes and gertrude). arguably, he dies without ever being fully certain claudius actually killed his father.

now, we can all come up with our own interpretations of WHY hamlet doesn't trust himself (because nobody else seems to? because everyone thinks he's crazy? because he's worried he might be crazy? because he's religiously conflicted?). i think most of you can guess my answer. but we don't get an explicit why and that's not the point of this post. the point of this post is that however you read it, hamlet's not procrastinating. he is trying, desperately, from a place of intense political and emotional duress, to grasp any amount of empirical evidence before he kills another person with his own hands. and he can't.

anyway! anybody here take the yale-brown scale lately?

[ghostlyarchaeologist]

"Gentlemen, I'm asking on one of your colleagues, somebody who rolled a priest. Who was it?"

Leverage S01E06 The Miracle Job.

[stuff-plus-textposts]

Moana 2 is on Disney+ so here's some Moana 1

[fictionadventurer]

The Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes reviews I've seen fixate on the story's discussion of whether humans are inherently good or inherently evil as if one side or the other is the correct answer. Meanwhile the story itself is showing that individual choice in every action--choosing to act out of either love or self-interest--is what truly matters in shaping society. A free and stable society requires that people be taught to make selfless choices rather than act out of fear. Instead of oppressing people into fearful order, citizens need to have the freedom to choose the good, and be educated with the values that teach them what good is.