#I'm not even Christian but if that's not divine intervention I don't know what is

[artablooo]

Y'all I was praying a handsome, dark haired, swol, bisexual man would come into my life and god really said "🥺 sorry we had other plans".

[utilitycaster]

if you're up to elaborating, i would love to hear more about your complicated feelings on Taliesin's reads of this campaign, because that's something that's been itching my brain but I'd been having a hard time pinpointing why and I'm interested to hear your thoughts!

So I think it's best summarized in part as a combination of what was said in this post I just reblogged and these tags from @kerosene-in-a-blender on this post:

#yeeeaaaahhhh#ngl it seems like the characters and parts of the cast got so caught up in the potential moral dilemma of interventionist gods#that they forgot the gods of exandria aren't particularly interventionist#critical role#critical role spoilers#cr spoilers

Ashton feels like they learned something about their own arrogance and assumptions with Shardgate...and then it just vanished. And the fact that Taliesin genuinely read that as what was supposed to happen when like 3-4 authority figures, some of whom (Allura) have existed since Campaign 1 as People To Listen To had said "This is a bad idea" in plain language does give me pause because like...with all due respect, I get why Ashton would do this anyway! But come on, man, how do you hear that and not go "oh maybe it's a bad idea."

I don't want to read in too much to cooldown and 4SD either but I really do just feel that like...some of the cast, and Taliesin isn't alone in this but definitely seems to be using it the most in-game, have come under the impression that the purpose of this campaign is specifically to upend everything we knew...but that idea is just an assumption that is not supported, and as I've said repeatedly, there is no situation in which the world is not drastically changed - there's going to be either a hostile alien invasion, or a friendly alien migration, but either one will be monumental within Exandrian history, and that's not counting the establishment of the Accord/the collapse of local institutions in both the Dwendalian Empire and Bassuras/ If one cannot see any possibility for vast change within the world other than killing/driving out the gods, I don't know how to address this nicely. This is an uncreative and stupid position that I can't engage with because it's so stupid. It's like saying World War II didn't change anything in our world because at the end of it the US and USSR both still existed largely intact. So the over-focus on only one means of change in a way that feels based on an interpretation of this campaign's purpose that isn't even stated anywhere is telling and deeply frustrating.

As the second post indicates, it feels like some of the cast, Taliesin especially, got caught up in a theological argument of divine intervention that personally I had a great time debating in Hebrew school when I was 13, but is not ultimately true in Exandria (or reality, for that matter). On some level it's like maybe read some Harold Kushner and you'll calm down; it feels like you're arguing against like, some very real religious tenets (that are not exclusively Christian for once) but in a story where that's not actually a problem.

I'd throw in that Bells Hells sit in this awkward place of not being nobodies (or Nobodies) anymore but many are still acting like it and Ashton is at the forefront. Indeed, look at the name "the Nobodies." The problem is that Ashton is a Somebody now. He's not like, the ruler of a city, or an ancient dragon, or a god. But they're someone who has the personal raw power and the connections to survive an ill-considered second shard absorption. They're someone who is easily going to survive a fall out of a window, and who can't be bound into service. They are someone who has been entrusted by the world to assist in saving it, and they're too fixated on the gods not personally saving them to consider the vast potential harm to others, and I think it's not inherently out of callousness but rather that they've rather abruptly risen from "orphan criminal who expected to be dead by 30" to "guy tasked to save the world" but they have no option but to rise to the occasion, as the Raven Queen said. To change the world, he must change himself, and I feel like Taliesin, who often enjoys the idea of characters who don't change, is perhaps too wed to that concept for this particular narrative. And, for what it's worth: I've said it before that my personal preference is to keep the gods in place...but I would genuinely be MILES happier with a party that decisively had decided to kill the gods. I would not agree with their decision, but anything is better than this indecision. And since Ashton is pretty staunchly in favor of killing the gods and the rest of the party is varying degrees of strongly against (Orym, Braius), weakly against (Chetney, Fearne, Imogen, increasingly Laudna) and unsure but worried specifically about the mortal impact (Dorian) at some point it's like. Either say "I don't like this, but this is the party's plan" or leave. The decisiveness matters on an individual level too; because Bells Hells does not have good internal methods of resolving conflict for reasons stated above and below, at some point it's like. You have to give it up because no one will make you. If Ashton genuinely cannot or will not yield on this, either commit to betraying the party (totally valid, could be a great story) or have them leave; if Ashton does trust the party, have them reluctantly give in. A party-wide choice must be made and fast. The party is aimless because they are all pulling in different directions and it all cancels out, but Ashton is definitely contributing extensively to that agonizing stasis.

I suppose I should wrap up with what I've been saying a lot but should probably go on this post which is that a lot of the flaws in this campaign are not any singular person's fault. I really do feel like they began with the fact that Matt was clearly building to this specific story, and Bells Hells were not a party terribly suited to it in the first place and then were given an earlier narrative that, because it was heavily on rails to get them to the solstice setpiece, failed to give them the tools to become people who would be prepared for this endgame. I think Matt really wanted the cast to make the decisions here, and did not have a specific decision in mind, and now they're all finding that they're playing characters who can't make that decision. It's a culmination of a lot of smaller out-of-game choices that have failed to gel into a coherent whole. When I say the Raven Queen was right, and if they are not ready for this, to go home, I don't think the party should be tpk-ed or anything, but yeah, if they can't decide what to do when they are essentially tasked with killing the BBEG and diffusing the universe-shattering bomb, they should abdicate. I don't think a story in which the heroes fail is a bad one. I know Call of the Netherdeep has been a touchstone in the fandom throughout this campaign and there's one possible ending to that that's sort of unsatisfying, but the unsatisfying nature itself makes it an interesting story to me. I think this campaign ending with the party saying "we can't do this" is vanishingly unlikely, and complaints aside I think they will probably make a decision now but it all feels exceedingly doylist - Bells Hells are the characters the cast happens to be playing for this climactic final moment so I guess they will play those characters, and those characters will have to make a choice so that the final moment happens, but it doesn't feel terribly organic.

[papatundespainknife]

based on the backstory and personalities of the Mikalesons, do you have any headcannons about Mikaelsons + religion?

oh HECKIE YEAH

i think it's honestly SUCH an interesting topic and concept seeing as how their all you know immortals n shit and magics real and etc etc. unlike say, btvs where Willow literally invokes Osiris, tvd doesn't really make any solid references or claims about the whole Deity Situation until apparently legacies but I haven't watched it yet and sounds Kinda Dumb so I'm ignoring that lol. But the rule of thumb with shows like these seems to be that once you say draculas and witches are Super Real then it's open season for Zeus enter stage right like it's an episode of Xena. Which when you look at the Mikaelsons....... Wild.

I think that Freya, Finn and Rebekah are the most unironically straight-forwardly religious and I think they've stuck to the norse/scandinavian beliefs they grew up with. Freya both because of the 1,000 years of Napping Nonsense but also because she's a witch and that's the school she was taught in so she's sticking with it. Finn for similar naptime reasons and also because he doesn't see a reason to change and didn't even when they were in France and hanging out with christians. For Rebekah it's like pure sentimentality. She likes a lot of the aesthetics of mainly catholicism (the swagiest of sects) but at the end of the day she's still out here making offerings to Freya (the goddess not the sister fdjkgdfsdfs) because she's a sappy little sentimental bitch and that's what brings her comfort. I don't think she's particularly religious which I think Freya and Finn are but she enjoys the celebrations and finds comfort in the actions/words/rituals/prayers/etc.

Kol and Elijah are more wiggly in their beliefs. Kol still calls back to his roots a LOT but he's also expanded out over the years since he's still a witch at heart and a curious cat. He's less interested in following any one religion and more in what resonates with him. So his believe system is very eclectic. What he believes in he believes in 10000% and is dead serious about. He's also experimented and educated himself about world religions the most out of all of them. Dude could probably teach a clss tbh.

Elijah is the one who's actually been the closest you can be to an atheist in a world like this. He's had periods of like, religious nihilism and periods were he's a little more hopeful about it. He's just spent so much of his life trying to be the Good Reliable Son and like Niklaus praying for divine intervention both with their father and with Niklaus only to get shit in return that it broke him and he just stopped and abandoned all religion/spirituality and focused only on the tangible. Hope's birth fucking shakes him to the core lol. Generally tho even after her he's still more in the like, "not my scene but i do love a good festivity" camp.

Niklaus is an evangelical's idea of an atheist where it's not "i don't believe in god" but instead "i feel god personally slighted me at my bday party so now i'll hurl rocks at him for the rest of my life out of pure spite". his sense of abandonment, unwantedness and paranoia doesn't stop at the threshold of religion. Ofc, he's old as dirt and literally has his own coven that bitches KEEP FORGETTING HE HAS so he's not in doubt that the divine exists. But Thor didn't protect him from his father's abuse so fuck that guy and jesus didn't fix SHIT for him so equally fuck him.

Wouldn't be shocked tho to see him "ironically" do rites/sacrifices to Odin via shit like the death of an enemy/creatively using old school practices for physical/psychological torture bc he's Like That. Does he also end up carving a mjolnir into Hope's crib and giving her a little one on a necklace? yes but this ain't about that hush.

Kol and Niklaus are also the most likely to have an affinity for gods like Loki and his children for reasons I feel are obvious lol. The holiday arguments this creates between them and Finn are unhinged.

[apenitentialprayer]

hi! i have been, in light of the recent us news, been seeing a lot of posts that argue that christianity is not pro life, and then they site mostly the old testament as evidence of this. this strikes me as not only ignorant, but perhaps anti semitic? i would love to hear your response to this type of uninformed statement. i have also seen people argue that it is prochoice because of john 3:16, and the idea of jesus as a human sacrifice. with the divinity of christ aside (as it evidently would not carry much weight in an argument with a nonbeliever) is there a way to communicate the sheer difference between a sacrifice of a consenting grown man for all of humanity versus a sacrifice of an infant for one woman's comfort? (im not even entirely prolife, i just feel uneasy with the comparison and dont know how to address it)

Okay. I have already talked about Numbers 5 here.

____________________________________________________________

Next argument I see is usually based on the fact that God kills all the firstborn in Egypt, or drowns the world in the early part of Genesis, or when David's firstborn son dies as a result of his sin. But, honestly, we don't even need these examples to show that God causes or allows the deaths of children; pick up a newspaper. Children die all the time. The Biblical examples I listed may be particularly striking, but they're essentially of the same kind of phenomenon that we see every day.

We need to remember that God is the Author of life and Creator of everything; He is not one cause among many, but the ultimate Cause of everything. And because of this, He is held to a different standard than we are. When grandma dies, it is in some sense His fault. But because God can strike grandma down in old age doesn't mean we get to strike grandmas down in old age. And any sane human being would be mad to discover that another human being has put down grandma because she was inconvenient or a burden to the rest of us.

One can get mad when someone we love dies; one can even get mad at God. But the rules of the universe we live in, no matter how callous or cruel or incomprehensible they seem to be, are not analogous with moral behavior expected of human beings. God may have a lot of explaining to do on Judgment Day. Or maybe He won't. But we're not God, and the reality of death does not in itself give us permission to kill.

______________________________________________________

I'm going to ignore Psalm 137 for reasons stated here.

But what might be the strongest "God is not pro-life" argument may be the fact that God orders the wars against the Canaanites. This is no longer miraculous intervention or ordinary consequences of nature (of which God is author of both), but permission given by God to the Israelites to kill and conquer.

War does represent a fundamentally exaggerated set of circumstances, but I don't think that I can in good faith formulate an argument where the taking of a life is always wrong, and that we somehow misunderstand these stories. We can maybe mitigate the influence of these stories by remembering that the Bronze Age is a particularly brutal time in human history, and that a time of war would elevate levels of brutality even further - but I'll concede this one.

________________________________________________________

As far as John 3:16 is concerned? Honestly, I wouldn't even bother addressing this one, anon. I think that only the most ideologically motivated would even think that the consenting self-sacrifice of a grown man is in some way equivalent to an abortion. It's a stretch, and if they don't see it, if they genuinely somehow think this is a good argument, you're probably better off not engaging anyway.

________________________________________________________

One final thing, anon? I know you probably didn't mean to come off like it, because you yourself said that you're not entirely pro-life (and I'm sorry for sounding like the tone police here), but if I were you, I probably wouldn't frame abortion as something "for one woman's comfort." Abortion is a huge decision often borne of awful circumstances, and to play that down (even unintentionally) may just cause more hurt and suffering and the further breakdown of communication. You know?

[urfavmurtad]

hey i really like reading your posts even though i don't follow you or interact with your posts at all because i don't want any of my tumblr friends to know i'm not religious lol. my question is this, as someone who has also left islam and its bull shit behind: how did you arrive at atheism instead of another religion or general spirituality? what was the process of that? i still don't know what i believe, even though i know that i don't believe in islam.

Thank you anon, and huh! I don’t think anyone’s asked me that before. I dunno, it just kind of… happened, tbh. Like I feel no need to believe in any sort of higher power or deity, there’s nothing about theism in general that appeals to me. I’ve read a lot about other religions since I left Islam and I can certainly appreciate many things about them. But none of the actual theology grabs me. Not to sound like an edgelord, but I can’t convince myself that miracles from 3000 years ago were real events. They make nice stories and I’ll always enjoy reading the history behind them (and The Prince of Egypt had some fantastic animation), but there is a 0% chance of me believing these things actually happened. If a god wants me to believe in him, his ass can send someone who can make miracles now. There are zero convincing reasons that any miracle-based religion offers for why their god of choice can’t send someone to perform miracles in the age of, you know, cameras.

In addition to that, while Islam has its own unique awfulness related to a very wide range of topics, it shares some problems with a lot of other religions. I hate the whole concept of disbelievers being hellbound, I think it’s genuinely cruel and awful, and I would never follow any religion that advocated for similar ideas. There is no way to reconcile “merciful god who cares about humanity” and “god who sends kind people to hell if they refuse to worship him”. And combining that with the concept of an all-knowing god who knows who will go to heaven or hell before they’re even born is extra shitty. Muslims and members of similar faiths can justify it to themselves all they want, but it will always be fucked up to me. Anything based on something like “follow my rules or suffer eternally” is a manipulative ideology imo.

As for a general belief in a higher power, my personal feeling is that any belief in a god who cares about humans at all does not make sense.

For example, say I make dua for passing a math test and then I get a good grade on it. A lady makes dua for her sick child and the child dies. I could attribute my success in passing the test to divine intervention (instead of the facts that I studied hard and the test wasn’t as bad as I thought it’d be). But if that’s the case… why’d Allah answer my prayer while refusing to answer the mother’s? Why’d he care more about me getting an A- in calculus than a child living to see another day? There is no religion, as far as I’m concerned, that has a good answer for this. (Except for our wise polytheistic forefathers, who said “fate is cruel and inescapable death comes for all when we least expect it, LOL!”)

In Islam, we’re always told some variant of “stop asking questions” as the standard response to this issue. There’s always an implication that Allah knows better than you do, so there’s no way your puny human mind can comprehend why these things happen. That’s not satisfactory. If the mother of the deceased child is more pious than I am and a better person than I am and in a more serious situation than I am, but he still refuses to answer her pleas because they’re not part of The Plan, what’s even the value of prayer? It’s just a crapshoot as to whether your dua ends up in Allah’s spam folder or not because “Allah’s mind is unknowable” or “what is meant to happen will happen”.

To me, that just rules out the existence of a god who answers prayers (at least on any sort of logical basis). So I see no value in prayer tbh, or any value in doing anything to worship any higher power that might or might not exist, cuz the bitch clearly don’t care bout us. I’m just gonna live my life and not worry about it. Hopefully if she/he/it does exist, they are at least more chill than Allah’s needy, narcissistic ass.

The tragic “counterarguments” that religious people always make to points like this are all the same. “What if you’re wrong? Are you willing to bet your soul on it?” Yes, I am willing to “bet my soul” that Mr. Flying Donkey Man was a bullshitter, thanks. “But isn’t life meaningless if there’s no afterlife?” I would love to believe in a heaven where everyone lives on forever, even though I don’t believe in it. But no, the lack of an afterlife doesn’t make me feel like the life I’m living right now has any less meaning. “But how could all of this have come from nothing?!?!?!” I don’t know how the universe was created. We could all be living in a giant sim like that one shitty Star Ocean game. But I do know that the creation stories religious people believe in are myths, so they’ve got nothing to offer me.

I hope this doesn’t come across as like… atheist dawah, because I genuinely don’t mind or care if people have some vague spirituality or belief in a higher power. I’ve talked to people here who have left Islam for Judaism, Christianity, and even one who is now a follower of Bahai. In addition to several tumblr witches who do tarot readings and stuff. If any of that calms people and gives them a sense of peace, that’s great and y’all are valid, but it’s just not something I personally get anything out of. So… that’s where my mind is at anon. Take your time figuring your own mind out, there’s no need to rush something like this.

[hadesoftheladies]

I'm gonna speedrun here:

Christus Victor and Penal Substitutionary Atonement are not exclusive. Both are needed to make sense of the Biblical narrative. Sin costs death, God is holy, humans aren't. The belief in Christ is only necessary because of this divide between God's holiness and our sin. Christus Victor still begs the question of how God reconciled humans to himself by sending his son to die (and why there was a need to reconcile in the first place).

Even if it was Christus Victor alone, I fail to see how that remedies anything in the world or solves any metaphysical problem. Injustice done is still done. Forgiving my aggressor on my behalf or for their own sake is still not justice. God taking responsibility for his creation is "not a greater justice." It can only be called mercy. My mother taking the blame for the sins of her son isn't justice. If her son wronged someone and she "reconciled him to herself" that doesn't fix or even address what he did to his victim.

"But Divine Intervention is supernatural and miraculous, and normally in the Old Testament especially, it's to the end of an entire people's salvation . . ." Women are an entire people.

"It's another agree/disagree thing, ought God have done more than He did. I ultimately toss it at the feet of my limited range of knowledge and perspective against the infinite knowledge of a God who is infinitely good." This is precisely what I find so dangerous about Christianity. When faced with the most important questions, your ultimate response is to take these conflicting accounts for granted. I think it's irresponsible with both the material and the minds and livelihoods of others to take these discrepancies for granted and forcefully assume God's benevolence when there are multiple, useful explanations as to why these discrepancies exist (e.g. these stories were from the ANE, from a patriarchal culture, in a time where humans abstracted time and life in certain ways, in context to the surrounding kingdoms and civilizations, in context of the Neolithic agricultural revolution and the rise of the archaic king state). There are perfectly reasonable answers as to why God does what he does in the Biblical narrative when you respect literary criticism instead of usurping it for cosmic validation or personal spirituality. To ignore the history, context and nature of the Bible is to weaponize it.

"I'm able to trust that in His providence, He had a good reason." Women were slaughtered and raped and sold for centuries because God just kinda forgot to establish they were human beings to his chosen people. Woops. I can't help but think men's goals and YHWH's "omissions" seem to coincide a lot. I wonder if there's any possible explanation as to why that is?

"I will say, absolutely yes, Scripture (as well as Christian teaching or actions in general) are often twisted to empower power imbalances, which is not good." Scripture commands power imbalances in different areas (I mean, how can we forget the Epistles of Paul or the letters of Peter?). It does not merely twist them. Neither does it often subvert them. And I know Christians like to quote Galatians 3:28-29 as "proof" that God was all for equality, but it was deliberately about who got to be a believer (in a chapter focusing on what made one a believer in the first place). Please note, no religion of that time was closed to anyone because of their class or sex. Some roles may have been limited to specific people, but no one was ever excluded from worshipping a deity because of their sex, ethnicity or class. So Christianity doing this was not unique. The focus is not "you are all equals" but that "you are all Christians so act like it." This verse is not itself a critique of the hierarchies present in that society. I hate how common it is for Christians to gaslight women about this.

I've heard good things about Dominion and still plan to read it. I just don't find the idea that Christianity is the basis for modern society's morals. I think it's the work of everyday human beings. Which explains why modern society is improved in some aspects and sadistic in others. If Christianity is to blame for a lot of our moral sense, then it is also to blame for a lot of our modern prejudice and judicial failures (i.e. the oppression and terrorization of LGB people). Or, we could factor it in as one influence among many rather than a cause. Humans throughout time advance in knowledge and intellectual thought. It makes sense that our moral knowledge expands as well. Atheism is also not the opposite of religion, and atheists do not all share the same worldview or values. This is also from a Western and probably masculinist perspective.

"I also don't necessarily see patriarchy as equivalent to male supremacy." And here we come full circle. You just admitted to being a complementarian. To say that one sex should have authority over another because they are that sex, is to also say that there is something innate about that sex that makes it superior/worthy of that position. That is what male supremacy is in a nutshell, and religion has clearly effectively desensitized you to how dangerous, damaging and dehumanizing that rhetoric is. Soft patriarchy is still patriarchy. No amount of it is moral or tolerable. Also, religious celibacy is a very common in a myriad of religions across cultures and throughout history. Not to mention, Paul stated that such an idea was more of his opinion than God's revelation. It isn't really a doctrine or command. Also, also, in that same chapter, Paul mandates marital rape. I don't find that very "inspired" at all.

Suffice to say, this last response really just proves my initial post right. You have become desensitized, dare I say even dismissive, to the subjugation of women by men, because religion frequently makes this issue seem illegitimate and reinforces it far more than it subverts it.

both islam and christianity are colonial and misogynistic religions. like you don't have to venerate either one. they're both terrible. no woman who follows these religions wins.

[autisticrosewilson]

OP here! I'm actually ex-Catholic! So I think it's really common to get the morality of similar characters like Helena, who is a very devout Catholic devoted to her faith, and the way that she feels killing is necessary but feels immense guilt for it, confused with the fandom interpretation of Jason. Put that against a character like Jean-Paul Valley who is literally named after the angel of death, who believes that it's divine duty to get rid of sinners so they can be judged by God. He was born and raised to see himself and his actions as an extension of God's will, and in a universe like DC where we know that the existence of God, Heaven, Hells, angels, and demons are all canon and real aceta of everyday life. Already the landscape of the Christian faith is different, because demons and possessions and acts of God are regular and proven occurrences. What's more is that the Christian god is not the other god that is proven to exist, so the concept of only one true God would be very hard to uphold.

So we're already taking some big steps from reality before we even get to Jason. His morality definitely falls on the more villainous side of things in that he is willing to kill "good guys" if they obstruct his ability to create progress, as seen in UTRH. This stems from the core of his philosophy, that it's not just a cross to bear or a responsibility to kill, but a moral failing if you don't. If there's one thing the final confrontation tells us about Jason, it's that his ultimate stance is that if you can stop a killer permanently and you choose not to then you are equally responsible for all the harm they cause. Bruce putting all his villains in the same institution filled with corruption that has never actually succeeded in reforming anyone, an institution known for being stupidly easy to escape, is itself an act of brutality. It's not only a get out of jail free card, it's practically giving them government assisted plotting and scheming time.

And I would agree that this is antithetical to the concept of redemption and repentance present in the Bible! Our version of it, at least. But Jason also isn't your ordinary church-goer. For one, he canonically went to heaven, was resurrected by means that no one around him knows the source of, was healed by the LAZARUS pit, and then got magical flaming soul swords that can kill demons and hunger for the blood of sinners. Even if you weren't a brain damaged teenager that would probably have some abnormal effects on your morality and your faith. If you're already hurt and angry that you weren't avenged, if you've already lost faith in Bruce's brand of non lethal punitive Justice, if you have been first and foremost a victim of oppressive and corrupt systems, it would be very hard NOT to see your thoughts and actions as some kind of divine intervention. To not think that YOU, actually literally canonically The Chosen One, were put here to deal out God's will is kind of a reasonable assumption under those circumstances.

So it is a complicated matter, but one that's very interesting to think about regardless. Personally, I'm an ex-Catholic Jason/Devout Catholic Catherine believer because I grew up in a very similar way to Jason and that is a natural progression to me. But I think stories about his relationship to religion can be very impactful, even if not necessarily grounded in reality.

You're all fucking wrong about Catholic Jason he wouldn't feel guilt about Jack shit, ESPECIALLY not killing. He would get the All-Blades and be convinced that this is God's go ahead and divine confirmation that he's right about everything and all of his opinions are valid and everyone who opposes his worldview is a moron blinded by idealism and naivete.

[marscats37]

okay let me back my opinions (and this movie) a bit more. (spoilers, obviously, if u care...)

In my tags I said I was happy this movie was short. And I *don't* have anything against long movies, I love long movies, but I really do think if this movie was any longer it would have ruined it.

I went into this without trailers. I just knew 'catholic horror' and that pregnancy played a part. and like, yeah it is that. It's a simple concept like "what if the church tried to recreate the virgin mary" (but also I couldn't help but think another idea is "what if the original virgin mary didn't want any of this." I don't think that's what the movie was going for, but I couldn't help but think that)

I also saw that a lot of the advertising had to do with "ohhhh this is gonna piss off the conservatives" or "the catholics hate this !!" but I guess I didn't really get why until I watched it. because I was still convinced this was a demonic possession movie. Which, in case you didn't know, a lot of christians actually really like demonic possession movies ?

I'm not basing this on actual evidence, but my own opinion, but following my last point, christians seem to like demonic possession movies because they're all fear mongering. "Look how evil this person is acting !! Aren't you glad there's an exorcist to save the day ??" (my only "evidence" is that these movies make box office bank in a country where christianity is popular)

Idk I wasn't raised catholic, but I was raised christian, so some of the ideologies are familiar to me and I guess I liked that this movie rejected those rather than take comfort in them.

And I *guess* some christians can view this as "this congregation was evil for trying to 'play' god" but idk. I'd rather look at it from the movie's tagline, "not every intervention is divine" lmao.

I think it's fine they didn't get that gruesome or scary. I think people are right in being disappointed in the lack of scares, but personally I guess it feels like the horror came from the concept and they just stuck with that.

Anyway I think I'm done I'm not even arguing why this is an amazing movie or whatever I just wanted to back my opinions this time and i guess I was happy this movie was not what I thought it was going to be. Like, they let her kill the b-

Everyone thank immaculate (2024) for being catholic horror *without* relying on demonic possession

[adhd-hippie]

If anyone, ANYONE, is in a similar situation to this person let me offer the following.

1. There is nothing wrong with being queer. Queer people are wonderful and fantastic! If all you ever hear from the people in your life is that there's something wrong with queer people, then know that THEY'RE WRONG. You and all people in our beautiful LGBTQIA+ community are absolutely 100% NORMAL regarding their attractions or lack thereof. Are we generally speaking kinda weird, yeah, but being queer isn't why.

2. If you believe in divinity, and that divinity is infallible, then OBVIOUSLY you being queer is part of a divine plan so tell the evangelical bitches to shut the fuck up they're wrong. If they insist you're making a choice tell 'em they're wrong, cause they are. You were made this way. You are exactly how you're supposed to be, there's nothing wrong with being queer. Queerness, unlike scoliosis, doesn't need intervention.

3. You don't have to come out to your parents or ANYONE unless you want to. A lot of people have very freeing coming out stories, many have very scary coming out stories, some (the really lucky ones) have always been accepted, and coming out wasn't an issue one way or the other. Only you know which is most likely to be your situation with whomever you come out to. Do what you think is best.

4. Christianity generally speaking doesn't have a good track record with accepting queerness and for that I'm sorry. If you once were religious but you've left a toxic church and have NO intention of going back, GOOD! Be safe, protect your heart, mind, and emotions. You owe nothing to no one and while they're probably trying to drag you back YOU DO NOT NEED TO GO!

If however, you've left a toxic church but you're still religious and you'd like to return, there are spaces for you. As a queer Christian, trust me, there are churches out there that will accept and love you. The Unitarians, the Quakers (in the UK and the USA), The Community of Christ, the Episcopalians, and some others. Just be careful when looking for a new church because some pretend. The ones I've mentioned all have policies and histories of acceptance so look into them on your own.

As a queer MINISTER, I have no excuses for the way that some (many) Christians behave regarding queerness, it's wrong, inexcusable, and you shouldn't tolerate it. Honestly no one, and I mean NO ONE, has to forgive Christianity or Christians for all the bullshit we or our religion has perpetuated and you don't have to fuck with us if you don't want to. You deserve better than to have people using their religion to be hateful...it's 100% wrong!

All I can offer is my promise to do better, to avoid harming others with my faith, and to accept it when people have been hurt by my faith and want nothing to do with it or me.

5. If you have scoliosis...can I give you a twisty hug? You're amazing, love that back of yours for doing its best to support you, even though it's taken a detour. Seriously though, scoliosis is challenging, and scary, and sometimes debilitating, if you have scoliosis I can offer no platitudes or advice just my heartfelt care and support for all that you struggle with.

Anyone spewing homophobia on this post will be blocked

Anyone reciting anti queer discourse will be blocked

My parents say that lgbtqia+ people are unnatural and that we were created as God intended. I gave a counter point and said that I am unnatural: I had scoliosis surgery several years ago, which means a person went against how God created me to help prevent me from being paralyzed. My family then went to say that we have advanced enough to help me, completely ignoring my point, which just shows me that they believe we as humans play God only when they don't accept it, cause then it's wrong. They say that they are reasonable, but then turn around and say that there's something "not right" about me not being attracted to anyone. I love them, but I have officially decided that I am not coming out to them as aroace, cause whenever I try to talk to them about these things, they either don't listen to me, or ask me questions which make me scared that if I dont answer them how they want me to then they'll hate me for it. (I hope it's okay to ask this here)