#In my official beliefs I am still very much so a Christian

[thefaestolemyname]

I've always hated existentialism - coping with a meaningless world by creating your own meaning would mean the world wasn't meaningless in the first place.

But I get it now.

Not just because I realize now that's a gross oversimplification and have a bit more understanding on what existentialism really professes,

But I understand.

The fear of death and the acute sense of a lack of purpose or value in life.

And in that paradoxical, crushing, empty feeling, realising that in the face of such a callous and tragic existence, love is as real as ever, and so worth doing.

[blackswaneuroparedux]

Anonymous asked: I don’t know if you caught King Charles III’s Christmas speech to the British nation but what did you think of it? I am a royalist but I always had my doubts about Charles and his championing of multi-faith harmony over his lack of Christian convictions (as opposed to the late Queen Elizabeth was a staunch Christian). Isn’t Charles just hastening the continued decline of the Christian heritage of Britain?

As it happens I did catch his Christmas broadcast as it’s very much part of the Christmas ritual in our home, like many other homes across Britain. This year it was very strange not to see the regal face of the late Queen. Her presence on television was very much part of the Christmas furniture as was the obligatory James Bond movie that often followed the broadcast. But there King Charles III was addressing the nation. It was perhaps the first time I truly realised that he was our king now - and I mean that as a compliment.  

I’m afraid I’m not one of those who is convinced that Britain’s slide into Christian decline is perpetuated by King Charles III’s religious beliefs. When he delivered his Christmas speech to the nation, some were eager to read this into his words, just because he referenced other faiths other than Christianity. I understand the philosophical nonsense of squaring the multi-faith circle and worse how it can even dilute and undermine the distinctive and absolutist claims of non-relative religious movements so that they can be rendered increasingly irrelevant by an uncompromising secular rationalism. I understand all that. I just don’t buy it when it comes to King Charles III and his religious beliefs.

Of course before he became King, Charles’ view on religion, especially multi-faith beliefs, were always a source of alarm for some. He was accused of essentially showing sympathy for Perennialism  - a school of thought which holds that there is some degree of truth in all the world’s traditional belief systems  - and in doing so, Charles is guilty of undermining the exclusivity of Christianity and succumbing to a post-modern paradigm of cultural relativism. In holding this view he was seen by critics as heralding a world in which even the monarchy is too scared to defend its own values in the face of multiculturalism.

But listen carefully to the speech again and I struck by the reverence with which he spoke of his Christian faith. His emotive account of his visit to Bethlehem, where he “stood in silent reverence by the silver star that is inlaid on the floor and marks the place of our Lord Jesus Christ’s birth” is surely a welcome surprise in 2022, the first year in history where Christians are officially a minority in England and Wales. It is certainly not something one would expect from an apparently post-modern monarch indifferent towards the disenchantment of the country.

Still, instead of celebrating this, some remain cynical - the reason being that Charles, as well as praising the social and charitable contributions of the church, also praised those of synagogues, mosques, temples, and gurdwaras. This isn’t a slide into 21st Century relativism and simultaneously a compromise of his own Christian convictions, but a recognition of people of strong faith being good citizens in a country they love.

I think many critics underestimate King Charles’ own Christian convictions. I think he sincerely believes that there is one Light and one Truth in Christ. But it also dovetails with his soft Perennialist worldview in recognising the possibility for other faith traditions to also participate in that light and, perhaps, help to overcome the greater threat of secular modernity.

I’ve heard the argument from others that in fact Charles’ views on religion are remarkably similar to those of European Renaissance thinkers, who defended their appreciation of other faiths on traditional theological grounds. The 15th Century Italian Catholic priest Marsilio Ficino, for example, upheld the primacy of Christianity while also believing that other religions contained within them a glimmer of truth, the prisca theologia, and should be respected on this basis. For Ficino, this did not compromise his Catholicism; it simply showed that the love of God was universal, if perfected through Christ and Christ alone.

As it happens, other Renaissance thinkers saw this to be the ideal position for a monarch. For the 16th Century French political theorist Jean Bodin, the King should be the One above the Many, whose duty is to uphold the universal values shared by all people; to be the unity that transcends the multiplicity of sectarian difference. This entailed representing not only Christians of all denominations, but also Jews and Muslims. As an absolute monarchist, Bodin was deeply conservative by today’s standards, but even he saw it as perfectly acceptable for a King to honour subjects from religions other than his own.

So, as the argument goes, in living up to the ideals of Ficino and Bodin then Charles is some kind of Renaissance king. I’m not sure I completely convinced by that. But he is most certainly not a post-modern king. In many ways Charles is like his late mother in that he has a Christian faith - how strong is something I can’t determine, unlike the late Queen who was very devout and saw herself as a servant Queen serving her heavenly King. I am convinced Charles has Christian convictions and beliefs that are married to rituals of his royal identity.

In 1994, Charles triggered controversy when he said he would be defender of faith rather than Defender of the Faith, in a desire to reflect Britain’s religious diversity. There were suggestions that the coronation oath might be altered. In 2015, he clarified his position in an interview with BBC Radio 2, saying his views had been misinterpreted. He said: “As I tried to describe, I mind about the inclusion of other people’s faiths and their freedom to worship in this country. And it’s always seemed to me that, while at the same time being Defender of the Faith, you can also be protector of faiths.”

He pointed out that the Queen had said her role was “not to defend Anglicanism to the exclusion of other religions. Instead, the Church [of England] has a duty to protect the free practice of all faiths in this country. I think in that sense she was confirming what I was really trying to say - perhaps not very well - all those years ago.”

Now, as he formally ascends the throne at his coronation almost three decades after that controversy, most people would agree that Charles should champion the right to religious belief and practice of all his subjects, not just that of the dwindling number of people in the pews of Anglican churches.

G.K. Chesterton wrote that “the opponents of ritual attack it on the ground that it becomes formal and hollow. So it does. But ritual only becomes formal and hollow where men are not sufficiently ritualistic.” I think Charles is deeply steeped into royal rituals and traditions which are strongly rooted in the Christian history of these British isles. I’m sure you will see this at his coronation which will amplify his Christian convictions.

What do I mean by that?

In 1820, The Black Book, a radical critique of the corruption and power of the English Establishment, made this comment on royal ritual: “Pageantry and show, the parade of crowns and coronets, of gold keys, sticks, white wands and black rods; of ermine and lawn, maces and wigs, are ridiculous when men become enlightened, when they have learned that the real object of government is to confer the greatest happiness on the people at the least expense.” Forty years later, Lord Robert Cecil, the future third marquess of Salisbury, having watched Queen Victoria open parliament, wrote with scarcely more approval: Some nations have a gift for ceremonial. No poverty of means or absence of splendour inhibits them from making any pageant in which they take part both real and impressive. Everybody falls naturally into his proper place, throws himself without effort into the spirit of the little drama he is enacting, and instinctively represses all appearance of constraint or distracted attention.

As Sir David Cannadine, the great British historian, suggests, the elite's desire to temper the radical consequences of democracy was a crucial reason for their invention of so many royal rituals since the later nineteenth century. Indeed, for Cannadine, it is precisely the 'invention' and performance of royal rituals and Christian traditions, perfected at the end of the nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth century, which prevented the British monarchy from suffering the same fate as its Austrian, Prussian and German equivalents.

The Queen's coronation in 1953 was the first major international event to be broadcast on television, with an estimated 20.4 million viewers in the UK alone, 56% of the adult population. The coronation was the first media event seen by the majority of the population, and was for many their first experience of 'watching the box'. What people saw or were presented in the case of the British monarchy, were many references to its past by pointing out similarities between Elizabeth II and her famous predecessor Queen Victoria, by highlighting the longevity of rituals, or by implementing (seemingly old, but often invented) traditions in royal events like jubilees. In all of these cases, a diachronic genealogical link to the past is established in order to point to the institution's continuity, stability and anchorage in British history.

But Chesterton is onto something that has never really been talked about when we look what is behind the Christian symbology of rituals (real or invented).

Britain’s monarchy stands as the world’s only remaining state religious institution. The coronation is more than mainly a religious ceremony, as if that remaindered it for everyone not religious. It is a symbol among much else of the world’s oldest and only global narrative: God’s story. It goes all the way back to the crowning of Edgar by St. Dunstan in AD 973, drawing, it is said, an on even older Frankish ceremony. It takes place in Westminster Abbey, the national shrine. The oath is administered by the highest clergyman in the land. His office takes precedence even over the monarch himself. There is not just the formula “So help me God” repeated as does the U.S. president at the end of every secular statement; there is not simply an oath “upon my honour and integrity,” as in Turkey, or upon the honour of the nation, as in Ukraine.

The new queen in 1953 was asked, “Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the laws of God and the true profession of the gospel?” And she, and now as Charles will, pledged to do this, kneeling at the altar of the greatest temple in the land, hand upon Bible; “the most valuable thing this world affords,” the priest intones. And of which the priest then adds:

Here is wisdom. This is the royal law. These are the lively oracles of God.

Then, in the even more amazing rite of unction that stretches in one unbroken line from the anointing of Solomon by Zadok the priest and Nathan the prophet in the Hebrew Bible, the king is anointed with oil under a gold awning in a ceremony of the utmost holiness. The archbishop hands him the symbols of his rule:

Receive this orb set under the cross, and remember that the whole world is subject to the power and empire of Christ our redeemer.

It is this that is the radioactive heart of Britain’s monarchy, and the secret of its strength. I think King Charles knows this. And so King Charles III will, I hope, defend faith in such a way that accounts for the universal and particular, all the while remaining committed to Christianity, the fabric of Britain’s history and heritage.

Both the monarchy and its rituals are together a protection against tyranny and a remedy for weakness. For, long forgotten by secular pundits, it models itself on the Christian belief that authority is what it is because it has been crucified; that only Christ the servant king is truly powerful, and because all are fallen, all can be restored only through him. King Charles III’s speech was a reminder of the eternal Light that will outlive the rise and fall of worldly civilisations; just what the nation needs to hear at Christmas.

Thanks for your question.

[yourgamemasterthewhiterabbit]

There is a level of 'anarchy' that crosses the line from being leftist RIGHT THE FUCK into a "survival of the fittest" [or socially fittest] that -sorry not sorry- is actually very 'right wing' in the core underlying beliefs that you aren't examining, very ableist in ideology, and I am very much starting to get the sense that a lot of you 'leftists' are way too sheltered to be able to tell where that line is, or tell one kind of anarchy from the other.

I don't want to have to be the guy to point this out, but the people in society who are currently cops, in a world with no government, no policing force, will not vanish, lose their social privilege, or change their ways. They will still be socially privileged men with guns and certain beliefs, and now with no governing body to answer to and no accountability except to people surrounding them who hold the same beliefs that they do now. And you certainly aren't going to rise up and overpower them any more than you are doing now.

So maybe you personally aren't benefiting from social services or a disability pension... But I am sure you can see how if we eliminate government altogether, instead of restructuring it, that removes social services, that eliminates pensions and welfare. That eliminates taxes and the potential of UBI. That eliminates my means of survival.

A government -should be- at it's core the elected management of shared infrastructure and publicly shared services. Laws should be a standard we all agree everyone should be held to equally for our collective safety. A policing force should only be responsible for stopping people with expressly malicious intent that cannot reasonably be dealt with by other means [aka not a tantruming autistic man but a school shooter, someone willfully raping people at knife point, stop making strawman arguments about this that willfully ignore that some people are bad on purpose]

There ARE examples where a trained social worker would be better, YES, I Agree! But to imagine we live in a world where bad actors with guns don't exist is a daydream, the problem is addressing how the public service -police in this instance- is allowed to operate, what is left up to them instead of alternative services, the issue is not that we shouldn't have police of any kind. The issue is what we allow the government to govern [ie: what we do with our bodies], not with having any form of government. The issue is with how we allow laws to be used [ie: to disenfranchise black voters], not with the very concept of having laws.

And -follow me on this- all the social issues making those things issues the way they stand now, make a lawless ungoverned alternative WORSE actually, because racism, sexism, ableism, christianity, and etc will not vanish once you abolish laws and government. People will not suddenly find the extra energy or social ability to strengthen community ties in a way they don't find manageable now to any notable degree, and being forced to, under the duress of "well otherwise who would defend me" is uh... Do I have to point out how that's a recipe to push a lot of people further into abusive circumstances?

What we need to do is dismantle the ASPECTS of the system that are allowing it to function as a POWER STRUCTURE, not eliminate having any means of systemically holding each other accountable, or eliminate the infrastructure and social services provided by having a council of elected officials.

I am on board with releasing all non-violent offenders over night, tonight, the stats on recidivism are clear and more robust social services are the answer... But I am sick of the straw-man arguments some people are making where i am somehow only arguing against releasing violent offenders over night because I "imagine my opposition in the debate doesn't know what it's like to experience violent crime u.u". I only know that you don't know what it's like to be ME in MY POSITION experiencing a violent crime, which is a very different thing, and the reason I know you don't understand my position, is that all of your assumed solutions DO NOT APPLY to me in my life, and your proposed alternatives leave me to suffer and die. The thing is, you need to have a replacement system in position before abolishing prison entirely for those people, because just handing them back open access to their victim pool because "incarcerating people is bad actually" isn't the acceptable solution. What you are arguing for will get society's most vulnerable raped and murdered in an awful hurry. If you don't think that's going to blow back on every vulnerable group you claim to be protecting first and foremost, you aren't thinking rationally.

Societal biases, racism, sexism, transphobia, ableism, homophobia, antisemitism, etc all may be a part of the system as it is, encoded in it, but they all exist without that system. Without government, laws, prisons and police of any kind, you are still at the mercy of the same people with the same biases and the same intentions. The goal should be to remove those biases from the system, not take any system away from a society that will still have those biases. Groups like the proud boys, the kkk etc... Will still all exist as organized groups without government.

The goal should be removing unfair power structures, or any power structures, without removing accountability. We need MORE accountability, actually, and that doesn't happen en-mass without a system of enforcement. The 'system' is needed for accountability. This idea you have where everyone deserving can somehow appeal to their community and be treated fairly is uh... delusion. My lived experiences tell me this is very much delusion, and with the use of no straw-man arguments whatsoever, just talking about my own life, I can tell you exactly how/why if you stopped avoiding the direct conversation and making separate vague posts about people like me, and started actually directly answering to the protests of the people you claim to be helping.

This goes for pretty much everything. The path to a better way of doing things isn't to remove all restrictions and systems with the faith that people will 'sort themselves out somehow', accepting that society's most vulnerable are just acceptable sacrifices. The path to a better way of doing things is to make policy changes and replacement systems until we get to what cooperative society should ideally look like. And I will gave you a hint, making people rely on their personal social connections in order to have any recourse against abuse AIN'T FUCKING IT.

And yes, that means FUCKING VOTING.

That means voting as far left as you can, not criticizing the leftiest candidate during election season, and then holding them accountable the rest of the 4 year term, or whatever your country does.

There are a lot of government systems or interference in our lives I think should be abolished or completely overhauled, but if your brand of 'leftism' or anarchy leaves me to be raped to death unless I can "appeal to my 'community' for help U.U", because you can't be bothered to examine or care about the real world implications of what you are arguing for, fuck your entire self.

Because I can tell you EXACTLY how your vision for my future will work out for me, and you haven't been listening.

When I make a post about how I am unsafe in my surroundings, or the ways in which I cannot access help from the system as it is, I DO NOT need to be told "Oh in anarchy we have a solution to that U.U It's called, 'get to know your neighbours better' u.u" Only to have people rage-quit being my friend when I want them to engage with the reasons I gave for that not being an accessible solution for me. Or gods forbid, ask them to only reblog the version of my post with MY ANSWER on it, instead of the one where someone is glazing me out of my own picture.

For me this isn't just a social performance and a debate about theory, this is about my life and my right to safety.

Believe it or not I understand anarchy, and many of the different types of it, and also what people actually seem to mean by it when they make arguments online... And I do already get along with a lot of anarchists, actually. I understand that a lot of this is why people found bodies of political thought that incorporate communism and anarchy together. I do not need this shit 'explained' to me. The point of contention is that the particular blanket arguments you are making are completely ignoring that people like me exist and also deserve safety, not that I am just not understanding you. The issue is I am trying to discuss specifics and you are trying to hand me blanket placations for social clout instead of actually engaging with any practical question of how we can get from here to a better world without throwing people like me under the buss in the process.

Understanding broad strokes anarchist theory isn't ENOUGH actually, you have to have down to earth conversations with real people, who are actually the most impacted, about how to actually -apply- that theory in a way that doesn't FUCK THEM [unsexily].

I shouldn't HAVE TO have friends, or appeal to my birth family, or make niceys with my neighbours in order to afford the right to basic safety and survival. Some people aren't found to be likeable people, Karen, and the punishment for that shouldn't be rape and death.

And my tone shouldn't have to be apologetic and soft in order to be dignified with a response. Even with my friends. Especially with my friends.

What the fuck ever happened to "any system that doesn't protect the most unpleasant, inconvenient and unconnected person, is a failure of a system and we should do something else."? It stops applying the moment I am an inconvenient person and things start requiring more thought from you than just shouting about 'anarchy'... IG.

Idk how to tell you this, but a stubborn and willful lack of officially coded system for doing things is still a system actually, and can be critiqued by the same measures.

All arguments of "we should eliminate the system instead of trying to work with it" are literally just "we should burn down the current system before replacing it with anything and if people die in that harsh transition then that's an acceptable cost to me".

If you want 'anarchy' whatever that means to you, the way to get there is through consistent policy changes until the government and police etc... is backed out of anything you don't want them in. That IS social revolution. It's just done in a way that's sustainable and actually gives people like me a shot at surviving it. It isn't glorious and violent, or fast, it is slow, hard work. It is voting, discussing things in detail, hashing out a firm plan and organizing to stick to it. It is paying attention to little policy decisions and doing the work of designing the new systems to take the burden off the ones we have, in specific details, and implementing changes.

Not hammering on about broad strokes ideology to talk over anyone raising concerns, for clout, and then refusing to vote.

And yeah, it's going to require listening to people with perspectives outside your own instead of stubbornly refusing to engage with potential allies and friends because they don't believe in the exact same pure thing as you. It's going to require setting your feelings aside sometimes when people don't grovel while telling you why they have a problem with what you just said. It is going to require actually understanding other people.

Because this violent or sudden over night revolution you think needs to happen instead will make sacrifices of all the most vulnerable. All the minorities, everyone you claim to be protecting or fighting for. The groups of men with guns will still be groups of men with guns. Your violent anarchist revolution is a pipe dream, a child's daydream with a bunch of willfully ignored skeletons collecting at the bottom.

Laws, administrative bodies, enforcement, accountability, a system of justice and, yes, currency, unfortunately are all actually necessary for society to function well with this many people and are not -inherently- evils, and the things that can turn them into evils are there regardless.

The fact that so many people see 'government' as somehow being opposite of collective cooperation is uh... A symptom of having a lot of bad policies. And maybe we should collectively agree to change those policies. Maybe.

[asherlockstudy]

their religion wasn’t “cult-like”, they were just regular southern baptists using church programs as an outlet for their creative endeavors. They do kind of lay it on a little thick when they talk about it but I think they’re just overcompensating for how weirdly ashamed they feel about their origins. They do the same thing with being southern even though they aren’t from the Deep South, they’re just from a rural white town, and they’re like apologetic over it. And it DOES stand in stark contrast to life in LA but so do most American upbringings, and their kids certainly didn’t have the same upbringing as LA transplants that LA natives had. Their relationship with Christianity is an awkward mixture of cultural heritage and white guilt atm. They were still Christians by the time they decided to never bring it up again (citation: Rhett’s komm post in 2007) but they were hiding from debatebro atheists, and the embarrassment of being goodie goodies on the 2000s internet.

That wasn’t me - that was Rhett verbatim. He said in a recent GMM episode that their background was “semi-cult”.

On one hand I totally agree that they are too ashamed of certain aspects of their background. Sometimes the way Rhett beats himself up can get annoying. I agree there is a lot of white guilt involved and I am not entirely sure it is 100% sincere. I believe it comes down to their obsession with their conviction that they must stay relevant at any cost plus the fact that they really are very impressionable people. There was no case LA and its money wouldn’t get to their heads.

On the other hand, I kinda take their word for it. I am not in a position to have good knowledge of what could make it qualify as semi-cult and how much. I am from a country which… does not officially have a state religion but it looks exactly like it has one and that religion is Christian Orthodox. Atheists aside, this means it is easier to find a non-Christian religious person here than a Christian who’s not an Orthodox. I have only known one Evangelist ever and heard about one Jehovah’s witness becoming friends with my grandma, though the ulterior motive was to convert her I assume. And these denominations are the only ones I have heard existing at all here alongside very few Catholics. So, I don’t know, Protestants and their denominations especially in America practice Christianity very differently than what I am aware of here but, with my non-existent exposure, the way Rhett and Link have been describing some things sound to me like cult-like indeed. I mean, to us, again, from the perspective of living somewhere where 98% belong to the same denomination (though atheists are included in this percentage too, very long story!) , anyone who knocks doors trying to talk you on changing your denomination or something earns cult-status automatically. But it is not just about Orthodoxy being an overwhelming omnipotent power here because I believe even Orthodox church in America also doesn’t knock doors (could be wrong, very sorry if I am). It claims to view it as a huge no no and so such practices are definitely viewed as cults. Then there are other things, like nearby churches of the same denominations having different views and beliefs on certain things and then regular people being funded by other regular people to spread the faith. Taking a bunch of kids and teenagers and talking to them about (not having) sex over and over again until you drive them crazy for it. There’s still one teaching they revealed that gives me nightmares to this day. There’s a lot of things Rhett and Link have mentioned that made me uncomfortable, I just can’t remember them all one by one right now. They definitely used the funding mostly (but Rhett not exclusively) to fuel their creative dreams but it doesn’t change the fact that young randomers knowing nothing about life and the world were funded by other randomers to make their denomination appear “cool” and draw people into it. That is a cult-like situation in my book that has too little to do with practicing a faith. They weren’t just people honouring their faith in their households and living by their beliefs - they went beyond that.

Again this was from my perspective which is fundamentally different - I do not know how they compared to the average practicing Baptist or Evangelist or what. Obviously, there are all sorts of Orthodox as well, from open-minded to oppressive, except door-knockers. But it’s all in a kinda different way so I mostly take their word for it.

[chaoticcatmoon]

Happy Tears

Hi everyone! It’s been a really long time since I posted.

Here is what has happened. My last post I actually drafted in fear. I was paranoid someone in my family would find it. Firstly in that post I talked about how rough the distance was with my relationship. Us being long distance was rough. We were cherishing our times together when we could travel back and fourth, but not long after I typed that up we started to realize it wasn’t going to be financially viable for us to keep going. I broke it off. I started dating someone new, who was local, that my family approved of.

I was trapped in this sort of weird mental space. I felt like I HAD to garner the approval of my family in all of my actions or they would abandon me and I’d have no one. I was terrified. I started going back to church and pulling away from the craft that had drawn me in and given me the comfort I sought so desperately because I just wanted to please them.

I was renting a space from a family member who would just let themselves in whenever they wanted. No notice, home or not it didn’t matter. They were going through my belongings and throwing away anything that looked ‘witchy.’ My family is VERY Christian. I actually have over the last year completely denounced my religious beliefs. I am now an atheist, but I am open to the powers of nature and the energy the earth provides through witchcraft. So I suppose in some aspects I’m sort of agnostic. I’m still exploring really.

In that space I was trying to hide things to continue practicing when I could, but even my jar candles from stores were being thrown away and suddenly I wasn’t allowed to burn candles anymore. It was so toxic I reached a really dark place. My relationship was extremely unhealthy and he made me feel like I wasn’t myself anymore. Forcing me into this culty religious routine that sucked all of my self out.

Then July came and everything changed. I’d saved up to go on vacation by myself to just escape everything. Being completely alone on a vacation was something I’d never done, but I reached this really hopeless place of just wanting to be alone. It wasn’t a happy freeing alone it was a sad dark alone. I went to a nice hotel, with a spa in a very large city. I even had a thought that maybe that would be the end for me. I don’t feel comfortable divulging much because again, there is always a paranoia that someone in my family will follow the trail of bread crumbs if they find this somehow and put two and two together.

While I was there though it was like everything in the universe aligned for me. There is no way it was a coincidence it was strictly a sign. He was there. I’d told no one I was going to be there. Not a soul. It wasn’t near where he was, but he was there on vacation. It was like everything fell into place. I missed him so much and I didn’t realize the freedom I felt whenever we were together. I didn’t realize how much I’d missed it until that very moment. The space helped me realize how much I could do this on my own. How much I needed to just cut the ties from my toxic family and boldly go out on my own. 

So in November I found an apartment, signed a lease and I packed everything I could. I woke up early one morning, rented a small Uhaul with a tow for my car, put everything I could possibly stuff inside of it and just drove until I reached my destination. I got on my own phone plan and changed my number. There are a few family members who I still have on social media, but I don’t post anymore. I just have them because they are ones who escaped like myself or I didn’t have bad blood with. I keep them to keep an eye on what is happening within the family. We’re in the same city now. I wanted my own space to start, a space that TRULY is mine. No one can come in without my say. No family can just walk in and throw my belongings away. I can decorate how I want, I can leave whatever I want out without having to be secretive and I can dress how I want.

We are not officially back together, but we are trying to take things slow. We both very much want to be in a relationship, but I have a lot of healing I need to do on my own and he understands and respects that. I want to feel the independence I need to feel and I am finally able to do that.

Just thinking and talking about it here has caused me to cry with relief a few times.

I’ll be posting back here again as I get back into my craft now that I am settled into my space and feeling a happy, free comfort again.

[sixth-light]

The Crusades: A Fandom Primer

Like many of you, I am very excited to see a whole lot of fic about everybody’s favourite new Crusades-era Muslim/Christian immortal warrior husbands! However, a preliminary reading indicates that fandom is a bit hazy on what actually happened during the Crusades. Or where. Or why. They’re a much-mythologised piece of history so this isn’t surprising, but at popular request – ok like five people that counts – I’m here with a fandom-oriented Crusades primer.

Please bear in mind that I’m not a historian and this primer is largely based on my notes and recollections from several undergraduate history courses I took in the mid ‘00s. I expect the field has moved on somewhat, and I welcome corrections from people with more up-to-date knowledge! There’s also this very good post by someone who is a lot less lazy about links than I am.

Where did they take place?

The Crusades, broadly, describe a series of invasions of the Eastern Mediterranean (modern Israel, Syria, Lebanon, Beirut, Jordan, Cyprus, and parts of Turkey and Greece) by (mostly) Western European armies, religiously justified by their belief that the city of Jerusalem should be part of ‘Christendom’, i.e. ruled by a Christian monarch. In the first expression of European settler colonialism, nobles from the area of modern France and Germany founded four Crusader Kingdoms (aka ‘Outremer’, ‘overseas’) – the County of Edessa, the Principality of Antioch, the Kingdom of Jerusalem, and County of Tripoli.

  After a first unexpected wave of success in the First Crusade (1096-1099), which surprised everybody including the participants by conquering Jerusalem, the Crusaders were gradually driven and the last part of Outremer was lost to European control with the fall of the city of Acre in 1291. Crusades after that still nominally aimed to take Jerusalem but rarely got very far, with the Fourth Crusade famously sacking the city of Byzantium, their nominal Christian allies, in 1204. During this whole period activity that can be considered part of the ‘Crusades’ took place around the Eastern Mediterranean.

The most important thing to remember is that modern national boundaries didn’t exist in the same way; Italy, Germany, France, Spain, and the UK were not unified nations. Most of the southern Iberian peninsula (modern Spain) was ‘al-Andalus’, Muslim kingdoms ruled by nobility originally from North Africa. Sicily had been an Emirate up until very recently, when it had been conquered by Normans (Vikings with a one-century stopover in France). Italy and Germany in particular were a series of city-states and small duchies; Genoa, if you’re curious about it for some reason, ;), was a maritime power with more or less a distinct language, Genoese Ligurian (their dialect had enough of a navy to qualify). England had recently become part of the Anglo-Norman Empire, which ruled most of England (but not Wales or Scotland) and also large parts of modern France, particularly Normandy.

The Muslim world was similarly fragmented in ways that don’t correspond to modern national boundaries - there were multiple taifa states in Iberia, the Almoravid Caliphate in Morocco, the Fatimid Caliphate in Egypt, and (nominally) the Abbasid Caliphate in Baghdad, one of the great cities of the era, although the Seljuq Turks were the major power in Anatolia (modern Turkey) and what we describe as the ‘Middle East’. 

The largest Christian unified power in the wider European/Mediterranean region was the Byzantine Empire, centered on the city of Constantinople (modern Istanbul), which quite fairly considered itself the direct continuation of the Roman Empire, the capital having been moved there by the Emperor Constantine in 323. In fact, the really big political and religious question of the time for Christians was who got to be considered the centre of Christendom (there was no real concept of ‘Europe’ at this point) – the Orthodox Church, the Byzantine Emperor, and the Patriarch of Constantinople in Constantinople, or the Holy Roman Emperor (er…dude in nominal charge of a lot of German and Italian principalities) and the Roman Catholic Church led by the Pope in Rome. The Orthodox Church in Constantinople and the Roman Catholic Church had agreed to disagree in 1054 in the Great Schism, so in 1096 this issue was still what you’d call fresh.

Onto this stage of East-West disagreement and the heritage of Rome crashed the Seljuq Turks, a Muslim group from Central Asia who swept through Anatolia (modern Turkey), Byzantium’s richest province, culminating in the Battle of Manzikert in 1071 which wiped out Byzantium as an independent military force. The southern provinces had fallen under Muslim rule long ago, during the era of the first Umayyad Caliphate – including Jerusalem, famous as the birthplace of Christianity and a holy site for Judaism and Islam as well, but also a fairly uninteresting provincial town. Until...

Until…what?

Here’s why all the geography matters: It is generally accepted that the First Crusade kicked off largely because Alexios I Comnenus, the then-current Byzantine Emperor, requested aid from Western Europe against the Muslim Seljuq Turks. Byzantium often recruited mercenaries from Western Europe; the Normans (aka the Vikings), who had settled Normandy and southern Italy in the past century were frequent hires. Hence those runes in the Hagia Sophia.

Meanwhile in Western Europe, the Pope – Urban II – was having difficulty with the current Emperor, and was eager to heal the Schism and establish the primacy of the Roman church. He declared that an expedition to aid the Byzantines would have the blessing of the church, and that a new kind of pilgrimage – an armed pilgrimage – was religiously acceptable, if aimed against the enemies of Christendom.

Pilgrimages (travelling to holy sites, such as churches that held saints’ relics) were a major part of European Christianity at the time and many people went on pilgrimage in their lives, so this was a familiar concept. Western Europe was also somewhat overpopulated with knights – don’t think plate armour, this is 1096, think very murderous rich men with good swords – who could always use forgiveness, on account of all the murder. The Roman Catholic church, unlike the Eastern Orthodox church, also subscribed to the concept of ‘just war’, that war could be acceptable for the right reasons. And so a whole lot of nobles from the area of modern France, Belgium, England, Germany, and Italy decided that this new Crusade thing was something they wanted in on – and they took several armies with them.

I’m going to skip over a bunch of stuff involving the People’s Crusade (a popular movement of poorer people, got literally slaughtered in Anatolia), the massacres of Jews in Eastern Europe, and a lot of battles, but the takeaway is this: Alexios probably thought he was getting mercenaries. He got a popular religious movement that, somewhat unfortunately, actually achieved its goal (Jerusalem), did next to nothing to solve his Anatolia problem, and gave a succession of Popes a convenient outlet for errant knights, nobles, and rulers: going on Crusade.  

How many were there?

Official Crusades that anybody cares about: Nine, technically. Crusade-like military events that immortal soldiers might have got involved with, plus local stoushes in Outremer: way more. WAY more.

The First Crusade (1096-1099): First and original, set a frankly (heh) terrible precedent, founded the Crusader States and captured Jerusalem. Only regarded as a clash of civilisations by the Western Christians involved. For the local Muslims it was just another day at the ‘Byzantium hires Frankish mercenaries to make our lives difficult’ office.

The Crusade of 1101: Everybody who peaced out on the First Crusade hurried to prove they were actually up for it, once the remaining First Crusaders took Jerusalem. Didn’t do much.

The Second Crusade (1147-1150): The County of Edessa falls, Eleanor of Aquitaine happens (my fave), the only winners are the people who semi-accidentally conquer Lisbon (in Portugal) (but from Muslim rulers so that…counts?).

The Third Crusade (1189-1192): You all know this one because it has RICHARD THE LIONHEART and SALADIN. Much Clash of Civilisations, very Noble, did enough to keep the remaining Crusader kingdoms going but access to Jerusalem for Christian pilgrims was obtained by treaty, not conquest. Indirectly responsible for the Robin Hood mythos when Richard gets banged up in prison on the way home and is away from England for ages.

The Fourth Crusade (1202-1204): Aims for Jerusalem, ends up sacking the Eastern Orthodox city of Constantinople, just not a great time for anybody, more or less the eventual cause of the fall of Constantinople to the Ottomans in 1453.  

The Fifth Crusade (1217-1221): Still going for Jerusalem, starts with Cairo instead, does not get anywhere it wants to even after allying with the Anatolian Sultanate of Rum, making the whole ‘Christians vs Muslims’ thing even murkier than it already was post the Fourth Crusade.

The Sixth Crusade (1228-1229): Somehow these things are still going. Nobody even does very much fighting. Access to Jerusalem is negotiated by treaty, yet again.

The Seventh, Eight, and Ninth Crusades: Seriously nobody cares anymore and also nobody is trying very hard. Kings have better things to do, mostly. People end up in Egypt a lot. We covered these in one lecture and I have forgotten all of it.

The Albigensian Crusade (1209-1229): Why take a three-year trip to the Holy Land to fight pagans when you can fight the ones in your own backyard (southern France), AND take their stuff? Famously the source of the probably apocryphal ‘Kill them all, God will know His own’ quote, regarding the massacre of most of a city harbouring Cathars (a Christian sect deemed heretical).

Can we circle back to that ‘massacres of Jews’ bit? WTF?

Crusades, historically, were Not A Good Time for Jewish communities in Europe; when Christians were riled up to go and Fight The Infidel, it was a lot quicker to massacre local Jews than travel to the Holy Land. Also, then you could take their stuff. I will note here that it is VERY TACKY to use historical pogroms as backdrops for your non-Jewish main characters so keep this in mind but, like, use with extreme caution in fanfic, okay? Generally life was a lot easier for Jewish communities in Muslim-ruled states in this period, which is why so many Hispanic Jews ended up in Turkey after they were expelled from Spain. 

What were they really about, then?

Historians still Have Opinions about this. Genuine religious fervour was absolutely a key motivator, especially of the First Crusade. The ability to wage war sanctioned by the Church, or to redeem your local sins by going and fighting against the pagans, was part of that, too. Control of key trade routes to the East was probably not not a part of it. The Crusader States were definitely Baby’s First Experiment With Settler Colonialism, and paved the theological and rhetorical ground for the colonisation of the Americas. But many individuals on the Christian side would absolutely have believed they were doing God’s work. The various Muslim rulers and certainly the local Christian, Jewish, and Muslim inhabitants of the Holy Land itself were mostly just getting invaded by Franks. As time wound on the Crusades became more and more political (frequently featuring intra-religious violence and inter-religious alliances) and less and less about their forever nominal goal, control of Jerusalem.

How’s Wikipedia on this?

Basically not too bad but I’m not totally confident on some of the bits about motivation (see: white supremacists love this period, ugh.)

Why did they stop?

The prospect of re-taking Jerusalem vanished entirely as the Ottoman Empire centralised and took a firm hold over most of the Levant (and made inroads into Europe, as far as Austria, taking Constantinople in 1453 and finally ending the continuous Roman Empire), the Spanish Reconquista and various intra-European conflicts (the Hundred Years’ War, for example) absorbed military attention, and then the Reformation happened and half of Europe stopped listening to the Pope and started stabbing each other over who was the right kind of Christian. But the concept lingered; white supremacists love the Crusades. Which is why it is a very good idea to be sparing with Crusader imagery around Niccolò in fanfic set in the modern era, and please for fuck’s sake stop with the ‘crugayders’ tag, Yusuf wasn’t a Crusader.  

What other fun facts should I keep in mind re: Nicky | Nicolò and Joe | Yusuf?

·        Genoa is not the same as Italy; Nicolò is Nicolò di Genova and would have spoken Genoese (Ligurian) and considered himself to be Genoese. Italian as a language didn’t really exist yet. The language he and Yusuf would most likely have had in common was the ‘lingua franca’ (Frankish language, literally) of the Mediterranean trading region, a pidgin based heavily on maritime Italian languages. Yusuf 300% would have thought of him as a ‘Frank’ (the generic term for Western Christians) and probably annoyed him by calling him that until at least 1200 or so.

·        Yusuf is apparently from ‘Maghrib’, which I assume means al-Maghrib/the Maghreb (as his actor is IIRC of Tunisian descent), i.e. North Africa. He could have had relatives in al-Andalus (southern modern Spain), he may have spoken languages other than Arabic natively (Mozarabic or Berber), his native area had universities before Europe did. Basically: this is as useful as saying he’s ‘from Europe’, do better backstory writers.

·        Taking the whole ‘Nicky used to be a priest’ backstory at face value: being a priest in 1096 looked pretty different to how it did even 200 years later. They were still working on the celibacy thing. The famous monastic orders were still forming. Some priests could and did hold lands and go to war (this wasn’t common but it happened, especially if they were nobles by birth). Nicolò di Genova would not necessarily have seen a conflict between going on Crusade and being a priest, is what I’m getting at. If he was ALSO trained as a knight, he was from a wealthy family; it took the equivalent several villages to support a knight.

·        ‘Period-typical homophobia’ is going to look very different for this period. They are NOT getting beaten up for holding hands. Or sharing a bed! Or even kissing, depending on the circumstances! I am not an expert on Islamic sexual mores of the era but Christian ones were heavily on the side of ‘unsanctioned sex is bad, sanctioned (marital) sex is slightly less bad’, and there was no concept of ‘being gay’. An interfaith relationship would be in some ways more of a problem for them than the same-sex one (and in some ways less difficult to navigate than a heterosexual interfaith relationship.) The past is another country.

·        Look just no more fanfics where Yusuf is trying to learn ‘Italian’ in the early twelfth century I am BEGGING you all

[queerprayers]

Hello, Johanna! Like many young queer folk, I felt pushed away by the church, and I have only recently reconnected with it. I'm really struggling, however, after so much time away, to understand things like the denominations, or how priesthood operates, and was wondering if you could answer for me the differences between Catholicism and Protestantism? Truthfully, I am more drawn to Catholicism, except that the Catholic Church seems to reject me. I still want a relationship with God, but I don't understand how to worship "properly" and really like the ritual of Catholics. I attend a United Church, but mostly because they are Affirming (though I love them as a community and a family). I want to know if I would be welcome as a queer person into Catholicism or other branches of the Christian faith at all. Basically; how do I be a loving Christian in practice and worship? Where can I go, which denominations accept me and people like me?

Beloved! Hello! It makes me so happy that you're reconnecting with faith, and I hope I can help.

Disclaimer: My knowledge/experience of denominations is in the USA, so just keep that in mind while reading, especially if you're not American. Also, I'm not a historian/theologian. I assume if you wanted one of those you would have gone to one, though.

The main difference in my experience between Catholicism & Protestantism is the hierarchy—Roman Catholics are in communion in Rome and while it differs based on the tradition/person, officially believe in the supremacy of the pope and the Catholic catechism. There's a strict order of priests, bishops, etc., who all answer to their higher-ups.

Catholic priests are required to be men and must take a vow of celibacy. They're held in a higher theological position than most Protestant leaders, and are thought of as Christ's representatives for the congregation. (x)

Fun fact: My grandfather is a (retired) Catholic priest! There are special exceptions made :) (He was married and ordained prior to his conversion to Catholicism.)

Protestantism, in comparison, is generally more disorganized and less hierarchical. Catholics all answer to the same place and keep the same official beliefs. (Obviously, individuals differ in their faiths, but officially, the faith they profess is one.) In contrast, there are countless different Protestant denominations/organizations who don't answer to each other and have various to no hierarchies.

I go to a Lutheran church, with a pastor who leads us but isn't in charge of our beliefs. We have state bishops, and we're officially part of the ELCA organization, which has a head bishop, but we make our own decisions about leadership, liturgy, and teachings within our community.

Because of this general lack of hierarchy/patriarchy, Protestant churches are more likely to be LGBTQ-affirming—each community/organization can often decide for themselves, as oppose to Roman Catholic churches, who have to abide by the official Roman teachings. Protestant churches also have less ancient traditions, especially in the US, and can be more easily updated/progressive.

There are of course many theological differences between different denominations, and I honestly don't have the time or knowledge to go into all of them. If you're really interested in a specific one, you can look into their catechism or website and find out more. Wikipedia pages are often very useful. Here are some general articles:

https://derekdemars.com/2018/09/06/a-handy-dandy-breakdown-of-different-christian-denominations/

https://voice.dts.edu/article/7-key-differences-between-protestant-and-catholic-doctrine-del-rosario-mikel/

https://www.exploregod.com/articles/the-difference-between-protestantism-and-catholicism

https://www.learnreligions.com/comparing-christian-denominations-beliefs-part-1-700537

Note: I'm not ignoring the existence of Eastern Orthodoxy in this answer—you didn't mention it and I don't know enough about it to feel comfortable speaking on it. I'd encourage you to research Orthodox traditions if you're interested. Many of the points I make about Catholicism here (hierarchy/patriarchy, officially unaffirming) are also true for Orthodoxy. (This goes for the many non-Western/European/American traditions that I haven't mentioned—not out of forgetfulness/not caring, but out of unfamiliarity.)

Church Clarity is a great resource to identify local affirming/in-between/unaffirming churches. Here's a list of officially affirming denominations, and here are some official faith positions.

A few things about a church being affirming: there is a difference between an officially affirming denomination and an affirming local church/community. There are also many people within officially unaffirming communities who are affirming themselves (and vice versa). A lot of Protestant denominations are purposefully vague about their beliefs and let churches/individuals decide for themselves.

The definition of affirming is also up for debate—there are Christians who respect and accept queer people into their organizations, but think they should be celibate, for instance. (See: Side A/Side B debate.) A church may say they're affirming, but then get uncomfortable when you ask if they would marry a queer couple or ordain a queer person, or they might accept gay people but not trans people.

Your personal comfort levels come into play here. Are you comfortable worshipping with unaffirming people? Are you comfortable being part of a vague or unaffirming organization but in a local community who is? What are you willing to sacrifice to join a denomination that you feel drawn to? There aren't right or wrong answers here, but it can be a long journey to investigate where you can find a home.

The ELCA and my local church are both pretty vague when it comes to LGBTQ issues, and I know there are both affirming and unaffirming people who attend my church. In the future, especially if I get married, I'm interested in finding a more affirming home, but right now I'm content to be myself in a mixed community. This may not be true for you, though!

I'm so glad that you've found a community with the United Church! That's really important—and it's also important to identify what you feel called to, and find a place to practice your faith authentically. Many queer people have to compromise between comfort/acceptance and theology, sadly. I dearly hope and pray that you will have more luck.

Here's the truth: I cannot promise you will be welcomed/affirmed in Roman Catholic communities. There are many queer Catholics, and there are places/organizations where you could find affirmation, but officially the Church isn't affirming. Most Catholic churches in my experience welcome queer people to worship with them and treat them with respect, but maintain that their marriage or transition is sinful and that they should remain repentant and celibate.

Here are some LGBTQ Catholic organizations that I found! They do exist, and people are working hard to reform and make change. A denomination with such rich history and theology shouldn't be abandoned, and if you feel called to participate in that work, God bless you.

New Ways Ministry

Vine & Fig

Dignity USA

I'll let you in on a secret—there is no "proper" way to worship. Some people believe that, and I respect that, but I've found God in church and community and music and poetry and nature. If you're desiring a relationship with God, and approach your practice with love and humility, you aren't doing it wrong.

Another secret: you can participate in Catholic practices (intercession of saints, rosary, etc.) without being Catholic/going to a Catholic church. Your personal faith practice can incorporate whatever you'd like/what you're drawn to! If you have any friends/people in your community who are interested in similar practices, you could reach out to them and perhaps pray the rosary together/something similar! Religion is meant to be communal, but doesn't have to be organized.

If it's the liturgy you're drawn to, I'd encourage you to explore the Lutheran and Episcopal churches, who have similar services to Catholics but tend to be more affirming. I acknowledge they don't match the aesthetics, and obviously have different traditions/theology, but are more formal and ritualized, which may be what you're looking for.

Another possibility: visit a Catholic church every now and then to get the experience, but continue being active in a church that fully supports you! You don't have to join to attend a service, and enjoying/participating in the liturgy can be so healing even if you're not comfortable enough to make a home there. (A note: if you're not a baptized Catholic, you won't be able to receive Holy Communion there. Different denominations have different policies on this, but keep that in mind if the sacrament is important to you. You obviously can still attend the service regardless.)

I'm so sorry that I cannot guarantee that you will be accepted. It's a very hard truth, and it's not something I can fix for you. I wish I could hug every queer person and tell them I had a home for them, but I can't.

Your question of how to be a loving Christian in practice and worship is one that I've devoted my life to, and I don't really have a definitive answer. But the fact that you're thinking about it and consciously working toward it is a sign in itself that you're doing it, in my opinion. That you're listening to what you feel drawn to, that you're being faithful to your identity and community, that you've identified worship as important, that you desire a relationship with God, that you're asking these questions—that is how to be a Christian. You already are a loving Christian in practice and worship—not a perfect one, none of us are—but you're putting in the work and participating in the struggle and I can tell you care about it.

You will change and grow in your faith, like all of us, but don't hold up some distant day where you will be a loving Christian—you are, right now, and you will be as long as you keep caring.

Thanks for reading this far! As always, if you took even one little good thing from my words, that makes it worth it.

If there are any queer Catholics who would like to share their experience/advice in the notes, feel free!

<3 Johanna

[hatchetfieldtheories]

Religion in Black Friday - Part 1: Christology

So a while back I received this ask regarding Wiggly stating he was being “born” at Christmas, which is a neat little story element in itself, but it did get me thinking more about the way religion is used in Black Friday. This is an unfortunate side effect from having a degree in Religions and Theology that never gets used.

Though I’ll admit while other people on my course did their essays on considerably more serious topics, such as Sacred Spaces, or religion and gender, I did a lot of assignments on religion in popular culture, Harry Potter as a Christian allegory, religion in Doctor Who, using an episode of the Monkees as a comparison to evolving Catholic values in the UK... you know... the usual!

“And we all know, that God, is a...”

Starkid shows have always been very blatant about making fun of the concept of god or religion in their shows. In the AVPM series, referring to the Wizard God; in Starship referring to Dead God, and in The Trail to Oregon - “Oh, so this is God’s fault!” But it does go a bit further in BF. Not only do they refer to Wiggly as “a god”, we see the use of other, notably Christian themes running throughout.

This post isn’t to share anything new or revolutionary about Hatchetfield or Wiggly, this is not a theory, nor a commentary on Starkid’s relationship with religion. This is just a self-indulgent analysis of just how theological Black Friday gets, that I know a few people were keen on.

Disclaimer 1: It’s been quite a while since I have written anything like this, so I hope this at least ends up interesting and legible!

Disclaimer 2: As much as I would love it that this was all in Starkid's heads as they wrote Black Friday, I can't really imagine it is, they're not writing an allegory of any kind. They certainly did use a lot of theological imagery, but there will be cases where I am probably pushing the boat out a little. I hope that while it may not all be an accurate reading of what Starkid intended, it is still interesting!

Christology

Wiggly exists in a void, outside of our reality, and is able to influence and interact with the people of Hatchetfield. Whilst he himself is in the Black and White, he uses his effigy to create chaos around the world. Though we learn from Xander that the Wiggly doll isn’t merely a tool of communication, nor a minion like the Sniggles. No, the doll is Wiggly himself.

Now, I know when I initially posted my idea of doing a “religion in Black Friday” post, I was told there was interest especially from those who don’t really have a background in religion. Because of this, I am going to do a bit of explaining of some key concepts in Christian theology, so if you already know these - please bear with.

Not all Christian faiths see Jesus the same way, and while this isn’t the space to go into all of them (there are many), I am going to focus on probably the oldest debate amongst Christian theologians, is Jesus and God one and the same?

A long time ago, Constantine the First decided that there needed to be an official consensus on whether Jesus was God, and so the First Council of Nicea was born. This is Christology, and is one of the beliefs that became representative of the differences in Christian denominations.

The crux of it came down to two arguments:

1 - Jesus is divine in the same way God is, and is in essence God himself, co-eternal. (Alexander’s argument)

2 - God’s divinity is of a superior nature, as Jesus has a beginning, and is granted Godship. (Arius’s argument)

The outcome of the Council was that Jesus is co-eternal and divine, one with the Father. Of the same substance, or “consubstantial”.

There was also a third side to the debate which would involve looking deeper at old greek words that were difficult to determine even then, but can very generally be described as “Jesus is of a similar substance to God.”

Back to Black Friday, and it is evident through some of the language used in the show, that if we were to have a “Council of Hatchetfield” the outcome would likely be the same. Linda refers to the Wiggly doll as a vessel of wiggly’s essence, so that which is inside the dolls is made of the same substance. Xander takes this further as we saw above, and outright says the Father is of the Son and the Son is of the Father. They are one and the same, the Wiggly Doll is consubstantial with Wiggly.

Equally, when they discuss the use of the dolls for bringing about ‘his reign of terror’, two important phrases are used:

“Stop the birth of a god”

“When Wiggly comes”

Whatever is coming through the portal is not a being of merely similar substance to Wiggly, nor is it one that has a beginning, granted his divine favour. No, it is Wiggly. Linda Monroe and her new exciting religion she just started definitely subscribe to the Alexandrian school of thought regarding Wiggly’s essence.

Next time - on Tazzy’s Tin Foil Hat Hour: Religion edition - Linda Monroe’s motherhood and visitation from a frightening messenger!

[filipinoizukuu]

Pls share about the Gospel of Judas 👀

, im SO glad someone asked because this topic is nigh always pingponging around in my head and the fact i get to ramble about it means the WORLD to me. TW ahead for canon-typical violence, gore, and other such discussions of all that fun heretical stuff!

 Now, to preface this, I just wanted to say that I’m not a licensed professional in anything related to theology nor religion nor historical artifacts. I am. as we all are deep down inside, a simple teenager with ridiculous hyper-fixations and a vast ocean of random information that will not be of any importance to my career or home life whatsoever. Easily, many of the things I talk about could either be wrong or debunked, but I will try my best to explain the Book of Judas as I understood it.

Among the many books that make up what we know as the Bible today, there were various seemingly ‘missing perspectives’ and inconsistencies that existed between gospels. One of the reasons for this was the fact that the Bible in and of itself was a compiled work that was originally recorded years after the oral tradition had passed. What is or isn’t ‘canon’ often depended on the rulings of past Popes who worked with historians to determine the authenticity of ancient artifacts that either proved or contested the canonical teachings of the Bible--one of the more popular debunked samples being The Shroud of Turin, which while being ruled as a fake by Pope Clement the VII a long time ago, still has its authenticity being debated until today.

It’s important to remember that the canon status of ancient artifacts. while somewhat reliant on Papal confirmation, can sometimes be contested and interpreted to each individual’s discretion.

And among all of these artifacts, there is my favorite one of all--The Book of Judas. Now, factually speaking, the Gospel of Judas was written in (somewhere between 2 to) 5 A.D., not actually that farfetched considering that only in 1 A.D. was the first version of the Bible we know today written. It was found somewhere in Ancient Egypt but was declared as fiction at some point in 180 A.D. by St. Iranaeus of Lyon. To understand the impact that The Book of Judas would have on the Bible (which, to put it simply, was revolutionary), you’d first have to have a quick review and understanding of who Judas Iscariot was in the gospels that we know today. 

Judas was a disciple.

He was one of the 12 disciples that were closest to Jesus and a disciple that most accounts of the story would say actually truly deeply loved him at some point. Judas was, as all memes about Christianity are fond of reminding, also the traitor that eventually chose money and greed over his love for God’s son and turned him in with a kiss in a garden that led to Jesus Christ’s death at the cross.

That is until you read the translations of the Book of Judas.

In the original books--whether it was because he was possessed by the Devil or simply a man who had fallen into greed--Judas was portrayed to be a sinner and a horrible traitor. After his betrayal and Jesus’ eventual death, Judas had then become guilt-ridden and anguished, choosing to end his own life in the Gospel of Matthew and even tarnishing a field with his blood and sins according to St. Luke in Acts. 

The Book of Judas, however, CHALLENGES these motives. Instead, it takes what brought all past Christian texts together by changing the portrayal of Judas on its head and putting the previous ‘traitor’ under the light of something else entirely.

According to the Book of Judas, Jesus had asked Judas to betray him.

The 26-page manuscript was a brief retelling of the dynamics we were lead to believe in the story told by the main four books. In the Book of Judas, we were told that the original other 12 disciples were actually quite... foolish. They were described to be sort of arrogant and clueless, constantly misinterpreting and forgetting Jesus’ words because while he was teaching them to be better and to spread the words of God, the disciples were still, at their core, human sinners. The manuscript was believed to have reported that of the disciples that were closest, or at least best tolerated by Jesus--Judas was by far the most understanding of His words.

Judas, in accordance with his book, was the only one who could understand the significance and cryptic lessons behind Jesus’ teachings. Because of this, Jesus knew he was the only capable one to serve him in what was to come.

You see, part of the prophecy was that Jesus had to die. He had to suffer and fall for humanity’s sake so that we would be able to be forgiven. As much as it sucks to even think about it, Jesus had come to expect that someone would need to cause his death and hurt him all so that he could fulfill his purpose.

In the end, he thought that death by the hand of an enemy was far worse than a death at the hands of a friend.

During the Last Supper, Jesus approached Judas and placed him into a vision. He placed Judas in a fantastical, wonderful dream where Judas sat facing the house of heaven and saw Jesus. Jesus, who looked at his beloved friend and said: “you will exceed all of them. For you will sacrifice the man that clothes me.” Judas will exceed all of them. And he will sacrifice the man that clothed Jesus.

In this interpretation, Judas was essentially told that he was the one who would finally free Jesus from his physical form. Judas, the supposed traitor disciple, would be the one to fulfill Jesus’ prophecy and thus sacrificed his beloved friend to bring about forgiveness for humanity.

And he understands.

In this manuscript, Judas Iscariot understands the will of God and what he has to do. He understands the weight of his betrayal and what he has to do in order to obey Jesus--so then it isn’t money or fear or anger or evil that motivates him to surrender Jesus to the soldiers but utter obedience and adoration for the Son of God. Judas gives his ‘yes’, knowing that for years and years he will be slandered and labeled as a traitor but at his core, Judas knows that it was not a betrayal to begin with.

So he led the soldiers to Jesus in the garden. He kissed him and let him be taken away and let him die.

-

This was the official translation approved by BBC and National Geographic according to the original translations done by Stephen Emmel, a Coptic studies professional.

Later on, this interpretation would be challenged by Dr. April DeConick, who claims that the mistreatment and mistranslation of the paper actually told the complete opposite, in the way that the revelation in the Last Supper was not created by Jesus but, in fact, by Judas, who had revealed himself to be the 13th demon of hell. This interpretation, while less popular, served as a direct challenge to the recharacterization BBC and NatGeo had approved of. I don’t really know too much about this debate, but I do know that this second interpretation does exist.

Of course, the original Judas text itself is currently impossible to truly translate to be sure. It was torn and shuffled, put into a freezer, and possibly even missing a few pages (which you can blame Bruce Ferinni for), ultimately making the authentic manuscript really difficult to properly restore.

The takeaway from this whole Book though--whether you accept it as canon or not--is that there were many interpretations and beliefs early Christians and Gnostics had that the time that criticized the way the four main gospels had passed down God’s teachings. People believed what they thought supported their own beliefs and at the end of the day. it's all still just a matter of who we choose to credit.

The real author to the Book of Judas remains anonymous to this day, but I am very glad to have been able to share this with you all :) 

not proofread since i did this at like 4 am    |    x   x   x

[wamulu-gorillaz]

Hi :D

Can I get a match-up for one of the gorillaz members please? Nothing romantic tho because I'm 17 and idk thanks ^^ I'm thinking more of like a friendship dynamic thing you probably know what I mean :)) Would be very very nice ^^

My appearance:

- brown hair with a blonde strand on the right (my hair like medium long idk it's usually a bit over my shoulders)

- glasses lol

- blue eyes but there's like a green ring inside?? idk lol blue-green??

My personality:

- ENFP 7w8

- bisexual she/her

- i don't really believe in zodiac signs but I'm a Capricorn

- i highly (!) suspect that I am neurodivergent (i think I have adhd but i didn't see a therapist yet)

- my favourite color is black 🖤

- i love love love music, it's just amazing when you can listen to a song and imagine different movie scenes or something like that you know? ^^

- i speak English, German and a tinyy bit of French

- whenever I'm home alone i physically CANNOT shut up, I always talk to myself

- crackhead energy i guess

- chaotic

- sometimes can't emotionally distance myself from others

- depends on the person and really got better over the years, but I was, and kinda still am, a people pleaser that has a hard time talking about my feelings when I'm sad or angry

- tough love?? but also soft love?? both??

Hobbies and similar stuff:

- some of my favourite genres are Rock, Alternative/Indie stuff, Punk, Metal and also some pop songs, it really depends on the song itself tho

- started playing bass after discovering Gorillaz

- surfing the web yk

- memes are funny

- videogames 👍

- reading psychological thrillers

- i love psychology, especially criminal psychology 🧠

- watching true crime stuff while eating or working (or doing anything really)

- sometimes I obsess over games, shows or bands so my personality kinda varies sometimes lol but deep down I'm the same

- I joke a lot lot lot, and I always try to cheer people up by being optimistic and making jokes but I can also be serious about stuff

- don't know what to believe in, I was baptised and am officially catholic buuut idk i wanna leave church, I actually feel pretty negatively about being a christian, it's way to conservative for me and other reasons

- my beliefs basically are: do whatever you wanna do, have fun and don't hurt yourself or others, like if you want to, then be in a relationship with 100 people or none at all, be you ^^

- joking around and laughing loudly and a lot, not giving a sh*t about life in the moment and making everybody around you think you've officially gone insane

My style:

- I usually wear black pants and black shirts with a grey-black flannel or something similar

- i love alternative/gothic/punk styles but I am too shy to wear them at school 😅

What I like:

- when people have good humour

- when people are understanding

- when people aren't too sensitive like boundaries are very important and have to be respected but a little bit of teasing under friends just has to be there yk

- onion chicken 🤤

- sleeping, daydreaming, interviewing myself

- when people get what they deserve 😩

- doing risky stuff. You need somebody to try and get over the fence of this abandoned building? I'm in.

What I hate:

- people that truly (and I mean like really truly) believe that they are always right

- wet food

- not being taken seriously when I am truly serious and need somebody to listen

- injustice.

- insects.

Some of my favorite Gorillaz songs:

- Tranz, M1A1, Punk, 5/4, Spitting Out The Demons, Murdoc Is God, Kids With Guns, Clint Eastwood...

I hope this isn't too much, if yes I'm sorry 😅

Thank you so much!!

2D!

- Being besties with 2D would be both a gift and a small burden. For example - both of you talking to yourselves could turn out to be a nightmare. You might end up having four conversations at once; one with yourself, and one with 2D who's actually talking to himself, one with 2D talking to himself, and then one with you who's actually talking to yourself. It's a muddled mess! When you realise the chaos, you both burst out laughing!

- Hello sorry but both of you freaking out over insects and Noodle has to come rescue you? This is a common occurence

- Late night video game marathons involve all the snacks and all your favourite games, too! Both of you will disappear together and might not ever resurface until someone comes to fetch you

[hellpark]

GREGORY: I don’t quite like the wording of these questions I’m reading in Craig’s little virtual post box.

GREGORY: But lest he tries to foolishly answer questions not best suited for him, I will step in I suppose.

GREGORY: It’s clear he’s made a fine job of telling you all about my friends and I.

GREGORY: Or, quite possibly the very narrow light of which he’s seen us in at least.

GREGORY: Which is to say, he’s probably described us all rather poorly.

GREGORY: It is true, both Pip and Thomas both are nothing but kindhearted individuals.

GREGORY: Both have had their share of bullying, misfortune, and untimely deaths.

GREGORY: I’d say Pip’s I can relate to more, but Thomas’ just upsets me a great deal.

GREGORY: Not to rank either of their tribulations, I just believe I have a better grasp of exactly why Pip didn’t end up in heaven.

GREGORY: He’s had eight years to explain it to me, after all.

GREGORY: And so I will attempt to explain it to you all though what he has told me over the years.

GREGORY: They both deserve to have their stories told the correct way, and not however it would have been explained by the doltish owner of this weblog.

GREGORY: To start, I believe Pip started up in heaven.

GREGORY: Though, he never made it through the pearly gates, which is what truly grants you a pleasant and bright eternal afterlife.

GREGORY: Once you make it through that barrier, the only way you’re doomed is if you cause religious mishap, or truly gain some sort of evil intent.

GREGORY: Of course, this is only the Christian afterlife we’re speaking of.

GREGORY: And seeing that I’m possibly talking to possibly a baker’s dozen of strangers over the internet right now, I’d like to state that I have no outer knowledge of the afterlives of any religion other than my own.

GREGORY: I can say with certainty that a Christian hell is not the greatest source of outside knowledge, as much as it has progressed down there.

GREGORY: I feel as though these stories would be entirely different if the two had been risen under different minded households, so please spare some judgement on my part if this seems rather one sided of me to speak of.

GREGORY: So again, I am sharing only what I’ve been told of, and under a Christian mindset.

GREGORY: My intent is not to nullify any other afterlife, only to elaborate on my friends and I’s.

GREGORY: ...

GREGORY: I honestly forgot where I was.

GREGORY: ...Ah, yes.

GREGORY: Pip’s hellish status.

GREGORY: As I stated, once you make it through those heavenly gates, you’re officially a resident of the eternal life in the sky.

GREGORY: Normally, unless you are turned away for sneaky wrongdoings not seen through the watchful eyes of heaven, there is no issue getting in.

GREGORY: And for someone like Pip, the prior shouldn’t ever have been an issue.

GREGORY: All the time I’ve ever known of him-- through life and death-- is that he is kind, generous, and rarely wears a frown.

GREGORY: He gives his pleases and thanks, and he rarely acts unjust.

GREGORY: From the times he’s told me that he has, even those instances sound rather just.

GREGORY: My time knowing him alive wasn’t all too long, but a year or so before he had gone missing, never to be seen again.

GREGORY: He doesn’t like to talk about his own death very much, but from what I can tell it was certainly during a time of travesty.

GREGORY: And during such times, the gates can get overwhelmed and swollen with other unfortunate cases.

GREGORY: Certainly, everybody at their untimely death could not wait to see their afterlife.

GREGORY: Some sorrowful, some full of hope that the worst of it all was over.

GREGORY: From how he described it, Pip was more on the latter side of the crowd.

GREGORY: And so imagine...

GREGORY: When you think it’s all over.

GREGORY: When you think life has finally given you a break, and you’re able to move onto a better one...

GREGORY: That even up in heaven, there’s still nobody that cares enough about you.

GREGORY: A simple break in the clouds due to deceased overpopulation.

GREGORY: Nobody turns their heads.

GREGORY: Nobody thinks to look behind them and see what they’ve been ever so gently pushing back over their greed of a happy afterlife.

GREGORY: And greed is a sin, mind you.

GREGORY: So they just continue to shuffle their feet and wait for their now undeserved turn into heaven.

GREGORY: And the wings you sprout after death are there for your tiring travel upwards.

GREGORY: It’s an exhausting journey to heaven, your new wings wont fly you a second time until you’ve reached your destination completely.

GREGORY: So if you’re denied entry before you can make it through, there’s no real way to fly back up until it’s far too late.

GREGORY: In life, Pip was never destined to go to hell.

GREGORY: In death, he still was not destined to go to hell.

GREGORY: But look at where the carelessness of others have brought him.

GREGORY: Where life can be cruel, death can be just as much so.

GREGORY: ...Though...

GREGORY: Sometimes, while life and death may both sow their unjust seeds... a lot of what normally decides where you end up is your own actions in life, of course.

GREGORY: Thomas of course was nothing but a sweetheart.

GREGORY: From what he’s told me, though he couldn’t go to a church publicly due to his developed anxiety over his Tourette’s, he always made up for it by watching church service with his mother at home. 

GREGORY: Every single Sunday, he told me.

GREGORY: Though like some people, especially in more depressing periods of their life, he began to question his faith.

GREGORY: There came a point where he didn’t know what he should truly believe in.

GREGORY: He never did anything wrong, as he always listened and obeyed the strict followings of Catholicism.

GREGORY: And though he was many things most extreme Christians would call sinful, he still would choose to believe, all that time.

GREGORY: In the end, none of what he was would have ever sent him to hell.

GREGORY: He truly is just too innocent and nice of a person.

GREGORY: Though sometimes, after traumatic experiences in life, it can kick your belief system like a switch.

GREGORY: After loss, it can be hard to believe.

GREGORY: And apparently loss for Thomas meant cutting out an entire part of his life that he had believed for fifteen years beforehand.

GREGORY: “How can you believe in a god if it feels like you’re only on Earth to suffer?”

GREGORY: It truly hurt my heart to hear him tell me the way he felt.

GREGORY: But in the end, it made sense why he was in hell.

GREGORY: Attaching yourself to faith for so long, believing in a god, then ditching a life worth’s of devotion in an instant.

GREGORY: That’s what truly damned him to hell.

GREGORY: In the end it was only that loss of faith that flipped his destiny upside down.

GREGORY: For a while, he was in such a state of grieving, you knew you were still in hell.

GREGORY: Hell isn’t what he believed it to be anymore, of course.

GREGORY: Most of us had grown used to it, and even enjoyed the new era we were living in.

GREGORY: But it still stung for him.

GREGORY: Only in hell could you still hear the wallowing of the afterlife.

GREGORY: And of course, he only blamed himself.

GREGORY: He did two things that society said would damn him to hell.

GREGORY: But only one of them was what really did it.

GREGORY: Of course he didn’t realise this.

GREGORY: He sobbed for what felt like weeks, because he thought that the way he died... was what sent him here.

GREGORY: We would constantly reassure him that the means of his death did not attribute to his afterlife.

GREGORY: We even had him talk to the Devil himself-- of which we’re fortunate friends of.

GREGORY: He, too, could only assure Thomas that it was not the way he died, but the way he chose to squander his faith.

GREGORY: It’s a harsh reality, and it’s unclear if he grasps it fully, even after a full year and a half.

GREGORY: I’ve always thought that if he had someone in life to help steer him in a better direction, he wouldn’t have gone out the way he did, nor would he have been sent to hell.

GREGORY: His ex certainly never did any good for him.

GREGORY: Even if Thomas claims his ex was the best thing in his life.

GREGORY: How could someone like that be the best thing in your life if they let you fall this far down a rabbit hole?

GREGORY: Thomas truly is as ignorant as he is pitiful.

GREGORY: We’re full of experiences that Stan and his friends would never, ever grasp.

GREGORY: I can’t believe this is a question that needed to be elaborated upon.

GREGORY: But if I’m not answering them, that fool of a man Craig would be instead.

GREGORY: I’m sure he’d paint Pip and Thomas both as monsters here.

GREGORY: But I’ll make sure that doesn’t happen.

[messymonologues]

𝐀𝐋𝐋 𝐀𝐁𝐎𝐔𝐓 𝐌𝐄 & 𝐌𝐘 𝐀𝐃𝐇𝐃 ✿❁✾❀

—

the basics (name, age, etc.):

-> maggie; 19; she/her; february pisces. raised in the american south but currently attending college in new jersey; pursuing a degree in diplomacy + international relations, on track for a 5 yr masters :)

-> i am christian and therefore have a very strong tie to my religion/ faith. i will not shame anyone for having different beliefs and have no desire to pressure anybody with my own religious beliefs in any way; however, you may see these beliefs reflected in some of the posts i make on this blog. my dedication to my faith has made a huge impact on how i have handled having adhd throughout my life, and it has helped me to personally cope over the years in much more healthy ways than if i had not had the stability & security of these core beliefs. that being said, read on for more facts about me & adhd!

some infodumping w/ more fun facts about me:

-> i’m a freshman in college and mentioned my major above, but i’m also hoping to go for a minor in east asian studies. i’m american so english is 1st but in total i speak 4 languages: english, fluent spanish, conversationally fluent korean, and basic japanese; i’m planning to learn mandarin chinese soon too :)

-> my mbti type is enfp (“campaigner”) !!

-> my favorite color is mint green & i love winter ❄️

-> unlike a lot of adhd-ers, i actually suck at art lol; however i write fiction on the side every now & then.

-> i love to travel and have visited 5 countries so far!

-> i don’t plan on putting any pics of myself on here but for curiosity purposes, i’m pale, short, + brunette.

-> that’s enough info dumping for now hehe but feel free to send more questions to my inbox <3 <3 <3

*all about my experience with adhd: (below the cut)*

my official adhd diagnosis:

-> i was diagnosed by an adhd specialist at around 6 years old with combined-type adhd (meaning i showed a combination of having both inattentive and hyperactive types present on my chart), and quite honestly i was told that my adhd levels were highly active and more elevated than a good amount of others with the same diagnosis. so basically, my adhd is fairly severe without being totally crippling. (in case you’re wondering how i treat my adhd: i tried various treatment options throughout elementary school and found that taking a prescription medication for it was the solution that helped me function the most; the dosage of the pill has fluctuated as needed over the years but i still take it every day as it does exactly what it should do inside my brain and makes my life a bit easier. however, i want to put in a disclaimer here to make it known that medication is not the only answer + doesn’t work for everyone the same way.) also, my adhd is genetic on my dad’s side!!

my most prominent symptoms & how my adhd typically presents itself:

-> my most common visible symptom is tics (aka fidgeting in ways that mimic a psych phenomenon called stimming, which describes physical motions that seem random but inexplicably provide release of stress from symptoms for neurodivergent ppl: i.e cracking knuckles, picking at nails or skin, playing with hair, etc.) but the rest of them are internal.

-> my other most common symptoms include: executive dysfunction, emotional dysregulation, rsd (rejection-sensitive dysphoria), decision paralysis, time blindness, object impermanence (“out of sight out of mind” except about pretty much everything not just material things), hyperfixation as well as hyperactivity, distractability, sensory sensitivity issues (specifically i just have an aversion to sudden loud noises like fireworks), and there’s no medical term for it but lastly, burnout/fatigue both physically and mentally.

nobody asked for this but anyways,, here’s some stuff that has helped me cope over the years:

-> reading books was my own personal escape mechanism as a kid. i’d get lost in a book whenever i felt like i was being too much, and then get so absorbed in reading that i’d tune out the world. it was very soothing for my hyperactivity and helped me establish a healthy outlet for my creative energy.

-> i’m not sure if all adhd-ers have this issue, but for me, caffeine has absolutely no effect on me. i can drink a monster/ red bull at bedtime and still get a full night of sleep; also, it doesn’t help me wake up in the mornings either. i cope with this by substituting the caffeine cravings with tea- all kinds- and tbh, tea has a whole lot of benefits that coffee does not! :)

-> you may have noticed that i didn’t include “impulsivity” as one of my symptoms above. this is because i learned at a young age how to curb my impulsiveness through playing a sport (which is one of the top recommendations for adhd-ers actually!), and i played volleyball for many many years. sports helped me control my impulsivity by giving me a place to exert all my quick bursts of energy and also taught me various kinds of self-discipline. it helps!!

-> adhd often (but not always) comes with the challenge of having an addictive personality due to the urge to access dopamine through means that aren’t always healthy, i.e substance abuse or repetitive bad habits. what worked well for me was to combat this dilemma by putting more time into hobbies and habits that make me feel in control of my energy whenever i find myself becoming addicted to or obsessed with a bad habit. this manifested over the years in the forms of: releasing pent-up energy by joining club sports, picking up a new book series to distract myself from the urge to cope with adhd in less healthy ways, writing as much as i want to & about whatever i want to in order to shift my focus from addictive coping habits to creative habits, and surrounding myself with friends whom i feel safe sharing my thoughts and emotions with (although they don’t always understand, they still lend me an ear & it really does help). of course, practicing mindfulness has also decreased how easily i get tangled up in a bad or addictive habit, since reflecting on those habits takes away the desire to obsess over them in a destructive manner.

-> it took me a very long time to realize that my intense emotions were not my fault and that what i was feeling was sometimes all due to rsd- i didn’t figure out how to handle them until late into my high school years. now that i know that my emotions are much deeper than those of the ppl around me, i’m learning to cope in much healthier ways instead of self-destructing/ shaming myself for my reactions. these coping skills include: distracting myself from situations where my emotion or reaction is caused only by rsd and not by an external factor by focusing my energy in a creative way that soothes the pain; using poetry or writing letters to myself to better process the emotions i am feeling and reflect on them in an observational- not judgmental- way; allowing myself to feel whatever i feel in the moment without letting myself be ashamed of the emotions or viewing them negatively; and (if my emotions are caused by another person) having an open-minded and honest conversation with whoever i feel has caused these emotions, where i gently express to them how i perceived whatever happened and inform them of the consequential emotions i reacted towards them with- this includes both good emotions and negative ones, as i am often overwhelmed by either of them. i still struggle with regulating them, so check out my navigation tag for rsd on my homepage for more!!

-> feel free to use any of these skills if you find that they help you overcome your own adhd roadblocks!

— back to navi

[tlatollotl]

As told to Scientific American

When a family member dies, we the Diné, whom Spanish conquistadors named the Navajo, send a notice to our local radio station so that everyone in the community can know. Usually the reading of the death notices—the names of those who have passed on, their ages, where they lived and the names of their matrilineal and patrilineal clans—takes no more than five minutes. It used to be very rare to hear about young people dying. But this past week, I listened to 45 minutes of death notices on KGAK Radio AM 1330. The ages ranged from 26 to 89, with most of the dead having been in their 30s, 40s or 50s.

I am in shock. The virus entered our community in March, through a Nazarene Christian revival in Arizona. They brought in vanloads and busloads of people from across the Navajo Nation for the gathering; then all those vans and buses returned them to their respective communities, along with the virus. There were immediate deaths because the medical facilities were not ready for it. More than 300 Navajos have already died of COVID-19, and the disease is still spreading.

I am a Diné storyteller and keeper of traditions. I live alone in a hogan, a traditional octagonal log house, in Chi Chil Tah, meaning “Where the Oaks Grow,” after the Gambel oaks indigenous to this region. Officially known as Vanderwagen, the community lies 23 miles south of Gallup, N.M.. The pandemic reached the area in late April. On May 1, the governor of New Mexico evoked the riot act to block off all exits into Gallup to stop the spread of the virus, and only residents could get in. The lockdown extended to May 11. It was not so bad the first week, but then we started to run out of food and water.

The groundwater in parts of Vanderwagen is naturally contaminated with arsenic and uranium; in any case, few of us have the money to drill a well. Normally, my brothers and my nephew haul water in 250-gallon tanks that are in the back of a pickup truck. At Gallup they have a high-powered well; you pay $5 in coins, put the hose in your tank and fill it up. You haul that home, dump that into your cistern, and you have water in your house. Without access to Gallup, people began to run out of water—even as we were being told to wash our hands frequently.

My hogan has electricity but no running water. My brothers bring me water, and they put it in a 75-gallon barrel. I drink that water, and I wash with it, but I also buy five gallons of water for $5, in case I need extra. I typically use a gallon of water a day, for everything—cooking, drinking and washing up. My great-grandmother used to say, “Don’t get used to drinking water, because one of these days you’re going to be fighting for it.” I have learned to live on very little.

We have a lot of cancers in our community, perhaps because of the uranium. And we have many other health issues that I think makes this virus so viable among us. We have a lot of diabetes, because we do not eat well, and a lot of heart disease. We have alcoholism. We have high rates of suicide. We have every social ill you can think of, and COVID has made these vulnerabilities more apparent. I look at it as a monster that is feasting on us—because we have built the perfect human for it to invade.

Days after Gallup reopened, I drove there to mail a letter. Every fast-food establishment—McDonald’s, Kentucky Fried Chicken, Wendy’s, Burger King, Panda Express, Taco Bell, they’re all located on one strip—had long, long lines of cars waiting at their drive-throughs. This in a community with such high rates of diabetes. Perhaps there wasn’t any food available in the very small stores located in their communities, but I also think this pandemic has triggered a lot of emotional responses that are normally hidden. On the highway to Vanderwagen, there is a convenience store where they sell liquor. And the parking lot was completely full, everybody was just buying and buying liquor. There is a sense of anxiety and panic, but I also think that a lot of Navajo people don’t know how to be with themselves, because there isn’t a really good, rounded, spiritual practice of any sort to anchor them.

COVID is revealing what happens when you displace a people from their roots. Take a Diné teenager. She can dress Navajo, but she has no language or culture or belief system that tells her what it means to be Diné. Her grandmother was taken away at the age of five to a BIA (Bureau of Indian Affairs) boarding school and kept there until she was 18. At school, they taught her that her culture and her spiritual practice were of the devil and that she needed to completely deny them. Her language was not valid: “You have a Navajo accent; you must speak English more perfectly.” Same happened to her mother. Our languages were lost, the culture and traditional practices were gone. That was also when spankings and beatings entered Diné culture. Those kids endured those horrible ways of being disciplined in the BIA schools, and that became how they disciplined their own children.

I meet kids like this all the time—who don’t know who they are. For 35 years I have been trying to tell them, you come from a beautiful culture. You come from one of hundreds of tribes who were thriving in the Americas when Columbus arrived; we had a viable political and economic system that was based on spiritual practices tied to the land. Some 500 years ago, Spanish conquistadors came up the Rio Grande into North America in search of gold. They were armed with the Doctrine of Discovery, a fearful legal document issued by the Pope that sanctioned the colonization of non-Christian territories. Then in the mid-1800s, the pioneers came from the East Coast with their belief in Manifest Destiny, their moral right to colonize the land. As their wagons moved west, the Plains Indians were moved out and put on reservations. When your spiritual practice is based on the land you’re living on, and you’re being herded away from what somebody else would call her temple, or mosque, or church, or cathedral—that’s the first place your spirituality is attacked.

My great-great-great-great-grandfather on my father’s side was captured and taken on what we call the Long Walk to Fort Sumner. Initially about 10,000 Diné were rounded up, and many died on that walk, which took weeks or months, depending on the route on which they were taken. They were imprisoned for four years at Fort Sumner, and released in 1868, because of the Civil War. At about the same time, my great-great-great-great-grandfather on my mother’s side escaped from Colonel Kit Carson at Canyon de Chelly and traveled north with his goats. He came back down to this area at just about the time my great-great-great-great-grandmother escaped Spanish slavery. Slavery was introduced here by the Spanish—that’s never talked about. The children born at Fort Sumner were taken into Spanish families, to be slaves.

We had the Spanish flu in the 1920s, one of many viruses to invade our community. Then in the 1930s there was the Great Depression. We didn’t know that was happening: we did not have money, but we had wealth in the form of sheep. And the government came in and killed our sheep in the Stock Reduction Program. They said the sheep were eroding the land, but I think they did it because the sheep made us self-sufficient, and they couldn’t allow that. We had spiritual practices around our sheep. Every time we developed self-sufficiency and a viable spiritual practice, they destroyed it. My mother said they dug deep trenches, herded the sheep and massacred them.

A tuberculosis epidemic in the 1940s took away my mother's parents. My great-grandmother, a healer and herbalist, had hidden my mother from the government agents who snatched Diné kids to put them into BIA boarding schools. My mother became a rancher, a prolific weaver, a beautiful woman who spoke the language. She did not speak much English. She died at 96; my great-grandmother died at 104. Now, in our community in Chi Chil Tah, there are no more traditional healers; the oldest person is my great-grand-aunt, who is 78. I am the only traditional Diné storyteller.  

Now that we are talking about issues of race in America, we need to also talk about the Native American tribes that were displaced. There is a reservation in upstate New York of the Iroquois people—all of 21 square miles. How much land were the Iroquois originally living on? Who was living in what is now Massachusetts? What about Pennsylvania? What about all the states under the umbrella of the United States? Whose land are you occupying? Abraham Lincoln ordered the massacre of 38 Dakota men the day after Christmas, the same week he signed the Emancipation Proclamation; they call him Honest Abe. They don’t talk about the dark side of things, and I think that is what COVID has revealed—the dark side. We see a police officer putting his full body weight on the neck of a black man. And suddenly everybody goes, Wow! What have we evolved to?

It seems to me that COVID has revealed a lot of truths, everywhere in the world. If we were ignorant of the truth, it is now revealed; if we were ignoring the truth, it is now revealed. This truth is the disparity: of health, wellbeing and human value. And now that the truth has been revealed, what are we going to do about it?

[imagine-loki]

The Witch's Familiar

TITLE: The Witch’s Familiar CHAPTER NO./ONE SHOT: Chapter 73/? AUTHOR: nekoamamori ORIGINAL IMAGINE: Imagine getting so attached to Lokitty early on that you insist on carrying him just about everywhere.  RATING: T (so far) NOTES/WARNINGS: Also on AO3 Click here

You looked up into Loki’s eyes.  “Love?” You asked him gently.  You still didn’t quite understand what he meant.  “Haven’t you always had worshipers?” You asked.  He was a Norse god.  He’d been worshipped for centuries.  He, Thor, all of his family had been.  What was bothering him about it now?

Loki’s arms wrapped around Fenna and he blinked as he worked to focus on you again.  “I’ve had worshipers for centuries,” he started, his voice soft and distant.  He was trying to focus on you and the voices in his head at the same time.  You could see the strain it was taking on him.  

You reached up and cupped his cheek.  “Let Fenna help,” you reminded him gently.  “Let me help you,” you were both there for him and you’d help however you could.  “Let me in, Lokitty.  You’re not alone anymore,” you reminded him.  Sometimes he had a hard time remembering that he wasn’t alone.  He didn’t have to do everything by himself anymore.  He had you, he had Fenna, he’d rekindled his relationship with his brother, and he always had his beloved mother.  

Loki nodded and his eyes glazed for a moment before he relaxed.  Fenna’s eyes glowed a soft green and you smiled.  She was such a good familiar and so good for him.  Loki sighed in relief and scratched behind Fenna’s ears.  “Thank you, my dear,” he told her warmly.  He looked to you and leaned over to kiss you softly.  “And thank you, magelet,” he said with a seductive purr.  His voice always held a bit of that seduction, even when he wasn’t trying.  When he was trying…

Well, you’d think about that later.  

Right now, you had to find out what was going on with Loki.

“So… the worshipers?” You prompted when Loki was lost in your eyes instead of continuing the conversation.  

Loki chuckled.  “Yes, the worshipers,” he agreed.  He took a breath to clear his thoughts before he began to speak.  “Yes, I’ve had worshipers since I officially received my godhood when I came of age,” he explained.

You tilted your head.  “When you did what?” You asked.  You knew Loki was a god, of course, but you didn’t understand what he meant about receiving his godhead.  Wasn’t he born a god?

Loki smiled fondly at the memory.  He gestured and an illusion appeared before you, an image of a young Loki kneeling on one knee before the throne of Asgard, his golden horned helmet on the ground in front of him.  He looked to only be about 18 years old or so by Midgardian standards.  “When an Asgardian comes of age, they are eligible to receive a godhead.  The royal family always receives at least one,” he explained.  “There’s a big ceremony for those who are chosen for one,” his eyes flicked back to the illusion and he smiled fondly at it.  “I earned my godheads of mischief, chaos, and lies that day.  I didn’t earn the godhead of stories until much later.  Some godheads are earned, some are given, but they’re all based on the personality of the god or goddess in question,”

You nodded along.  “And you got your worshipers at the same time?” You asked.

Loki nodded. “It started slowly, only one or two requesting my help. It took years before I had a true following.  Then… once the Christians came and ruined everything, we all lost a lot of followers…” his eyes were sad and haunted.  He’d missed hearing from his followers, he’d missed all of it. 

The pieces were coming together then.  He wasn’t used to hearing so many people anymore.  Fewer and fewer people believed in the old gods, fewer and fewer worshiped him and his family.  

That had changed that day.  In seeing what Loki could really do, in seeing the god in action, that belief had come back to the world.  Loki, Thor, all the Asgardians, were getting followers again.

“And you can hear them all?” You asked him gently.  No wonder his head hurt.

Loki nodded.  “I used to have spells set up to… filter the calls.  I’ve slipped on keeping them up when the voices dwindled.  I’m going to have to renew them now.  And teach Thor how to do it as well…” he said with a groan.  

You laughed. “I’ll help you with the oaf.   And with your spells as well if you’d like me to,” 

Loki gave you a loving smile.  “I appreciate the offer, magelet, but it won’t take me much to get my spells back up and working.  I just…” he blushed a light purple.  “I wasn’t expecting to be so popular again, not after all the things I have done…” he looked down and picked at his hands.

You stroked his cheek with your thumb.  “Loki, it wasn’t your fault, it was mind control,”

Loki shook his head and looked up at you.  “No, magelet.  The Battle of New York may not have been my fault, but there are choices I’ve made through the centuries that I am not proud of,” he said softly, his eyes haunted with the ghosts of his past.

You leaned in to kiss him softly.  “Those choices are in the past, Lokitty.  You’ve been forgiven for them, you’ve more than made amends.  You’re a different person now than you were then,” you reminded him gently.  Loki had grown in just the time you’d known him.  You were sure he’d been growing and changing for centuries.  That was part of being the god of chaos.  He was always changing.  He welcomed change in his life, it was part of his very being. 

Loki leaned into your touch, then shifted to kiss your thumb.  “Thank you, magelet,” he said, grateful for your reassuring presence.  He hesitated a moment before he continued.  “Something else has changed…” he said and paused again.

“What has?” You asked him after a long pause.

He frowned as he tried to come up with the right words.  “I… praying to me seems to be more popular than it was before.  I had quite a few worshipers in the past, but things are different now.  It seems as if I have become the patron god for the outcasts, for those who are misunderstood, transgender, homosexual, teenagers, anyone who doesn’t fit in with society.  There are more than ever flocking to me…” he said, clearly at a loss as to why.  Sure, he was gender fluid, that part he understood.  He didn’t seem to get why all the other outcasts were praying to him now.

You smiled.  “Because they relate to you.  They know what you’ve been through,” the Avengers’ movies made sure of that.  The entire world knew Loki’s biology and Odin’s terrible parenting.  “They know that even through all of that, even through growing up in Thor’s shadow, of being misunderstood your entire life, you still persevered.  No matter what the nine realms threw at you, you overcame them and you’re thriving.  You’re an example to all of them,”

Loki’s eyes glistened with unshed tears.  “They… look up to me?” He asked in disbelief.

“Yes, Lokitty.  They look up to you.  They worship you because they think you’ll understand them and what they’re going through, what their needs are,”

Loki remained shocked and disbelieving for a moment.  Then you saw his expression change and the resolve come to his eyes. You saw the change in him, the responsibility in him.  He would be taking his new worshipers seriously.  You hadn’t doubted that he would, but there was a resolve there to take care of those who believed and trusted in him.  

[howaminotinthestrokesyet]

Wherever They May Roam: Dave Mustaine

Dave Mustaine was born on September 13, 1961 in La Mesa, California. His heritage is that of German, Jewish, Irish, Finnish, and Scottish. His family also were practicing Jehovah’s Witnesses. His childhood growing up emerged as a very difficult one as his father embodied a violent alcoholic. His father and mother would divorce when he was only four years old. Mustaine had two sisters that were so much older than him that he thought of his siblings more as aunts. In high school, Mustaine began to use hard drugs very early, eventually working as a drug dealer. Through his customers, he began to learn about British metal bands like Judas Priest. He even had one client that would pay for his drugs with record albums. His first band emerged with Panic in the very early 1980’s. This was a very short lived group as the drummer and one of their sound techs died on the night of their second show. The band slowly started to disintegrate with the final straw being that the rhythm guitarist also died within a year. They never made any official recordings, nor a demo.

In 1981, Mustaine responded to an ad posted in a local newspaper The Recycler from Lars Ulrich seeking a lead guitarist for a new band. The guitarist recalls his first meeting with Ulrich and James Hetfield. "I was in the room warming up and I walked out and asked, 'Well, am I gonna audition or what?', and they said, 'No, you've got the job.' I couldn't believe how easy it had been and suggested that we get some beer to celebrate." They began to record their first album Kill ‘Em All in 1983, but problems had immediately come to the surface related to Mustaine’s membership in the band. Brian Slagel of Metal Blade Records recalls the recording of that album. “Dave was an incredibly talented guy but he also had an incredibly large problem with alcohol and drugs. He'd get wasted and become a real crazy person, a raging megalomaniac, and the other guys just couldn't deal with that after a while. I mean, they all drank of course, but Dave drank more… much more. I could see they were beginning to get fed up of seeing Dave drunk out of his mind all the time." The first time he was fired from the band came after he brought a dog to a recording. The dog jumped on the car of bassist Ron McGovney causing the paint job to be damaged. James Hetfield upon seeing this kicked the dog in a fit of anger, which led to a huge altercation with Mustaine. After the initial termination, he begged the other members to let him back into the group. They did grant him this request, so his firing was canceled. Another incident occurred when Mustaine poured beer into McGovney’s bass guitar, who was unaware when he began to plug it in. He then received a tremendous electric shock leading to him kicking both Mustaine and James Hetfield out of his house. The bass player would leave Metallica shortly after that. In April 1983, the group traveled to New York to record their debut album, but upon arrival they decided to officially fire Dave Mustaine from the group. They cited the reasons of alcohol and drug abuse, aggressive behavior, too many altercations. The band drove him to the Port Authority bus terminal and put the former Metalica guitarist on one back to California. The amount of collaboration Mustaine had with the band in those early days has always been a debate between the current Metalica and him. He would co-write four songs on Kill ‘Em All, as well as two more songs from Ride the Lightning. The songwriter has unsuccessfully contended that he also helped with “Leper Messiah” from Master of Puppets. Upon returning to San Francisco, he worked very briefly as a telemarketer, would leave this job upon earning enough money to get an apartment in Los Angeles. Mustaine would start a very short lived group called Fallen Angels with two of his coworkers from that telemarketing job. The group never played a live show or recorded anything as Mustaine later commented on the group. “We lacked the chemistry, the energy, the spark—or whatever you want to call it—that gives a band life in its infancy."

The guitarist would soon befriend a neighbor living a floor below his apartment that first began as a confrontation. His name was Dave Ellefson, who would soon join Mustaine‘s new lineup for what would become Megadeth. Originally, he was still utilizing the name from his previous effort, Fallen Angels. He had wanted any group that he played with now to present more thought provoking lyrics and a more precise, intense brand of metal music. A drummer Lee Rausch and guitarist Kerry King would join this initial lineup only to be replaced by Gar Samuelson and Chris Polish respectively. In the case of King, he went back to his original group, Slayer. Megadeth's debut album would be released in 1985 on Combat Records entitled Killing Is My Business. The group received a great amount of buzz that by the time they recorded the second album the band had signed to a major label, Capitol Records. The second album, Peace Sells, But Who’s Buying would go on to become a thrash metal classic earning gold record status. Throughout the 1980’s and early 1990’s, the only two members to be a constant with the band were Mustaine and Dave Ellefson. Other members of the group consistently changed from album to album as Mustaine’s addictions to drugs and alcohol only got worse. He would finally quit drugs and alcohol in the late 1990’s permanently. The amazing thing was despite these addictions, the band led by Mustaine in writing all the songs made mostly quality albums like 1992's Countdown to Extinction, 1994's Youthanasia, and 1997's Cryptic Writings. The only one that was really perceived as a mediocre effort came in 1988 with So Far So Good So What. This would be followed by Rust in Peace, which represented a record that made people think that Mustaine was finally clean and sober. Unfortunately, he would use the rest of the decade to struggle with those demons.

In 2002, the guitarist briefly disbanded Megadeth after a serious arm injury caused him to rethink how he would even be able to play in the future. He was able to successfully rehab from this injury, so the band went on, but with an entirely new lineup. This meant that long time collaborator Dave Ellefson was asked to leave the group. He would not return to Megadeth until 2010. Dave’s reasoning at the time was that he asked too much for his own songs to be played. “I hated being around these guys so when the arm injury happened, it was a welcome relief and an indication that I had to stop." In 2003, Mustaine also turned to Christianity. He began to look at other areas besides the beliefs held by Jehovah’s Witnesses. His description of this transformation was described in a way only Mustaine could possibly describe. “Looking up at the cross, I said six simple words, 'What have I got to lose?' Afterwards my whole life has changed. It's been hard, but I wouldn't change it for anything. Rather go my whole life believing that there is a God and find out there isn't than live my whole life thinking there isn't a God and then find out, when I die, that there is." As had always been the case with the band, Megadeth would release a new album every 2 to 3 years almost like clockwork. In 2010, Mustaine would release his autobiography entitled A Life in Metal. By this time, the war with former bandmates in Metallica began to thaw a bit. He would play five songs with the band at their 30th anniversary concert. A year later they would all tour together as part of the Big Four tour including Anthrax and Slayer as well. Surprisingly, the guitarist has been happily married since 1991 with a son and a daughter. More recently, health issues have come to the forefront including spinal stenosis which he claims was from years of headbanging. In 2019, Mustaine was diagnosed with throat cancer, but he says now that he is cancer free. One thing overall that has always concerned Mustaine is his legacy and place in the history of heavy metal guitarists. He has always been supremely confident in his ability as he noted in this interview. “To be the No. 1 rated guitar player in the world is a gift from God and I'm stoked about it…” In 2009, he gave an interview to Classic Rock Magazine that revealed this telling insight into the man. Mustaine was talking about learning he had been named the number one heavy metal guitarist ever in a book by Joel McIver. “It was especially sweet when I found out that Joel has written books on Metallica. Every page I turned, I became more excited. I get to Number 5 and it's Kirk Hammett, and I thought, 'Thank you, God'. At that point it didn't matter [which position I was]. To be better than both of them [James Hetfield and Hammett] meant so much – it's been one of the pet peeves of my career and I've never known how to deal with it. All I thought was – I win!" Upon reading this statement, one could partially see why Lars Ulrich and James Hetfield did not want him in the group.

[queerprayers]

Sorry if this is a little weird ask, but how do you know which church is the right one for you? The one i was brought up in kinda told me a lot of mean propaganda towards all others:(

Thanks for being patient! This is not weird at all and I think it’s something a lot of people struggle with. I grew up Lutheran, and currently I’m pretty comfortable in my denomination, so I don’t have too much experience with this query, but I’ll answer as best I can! Followers, feel free to reply to this with your own experiences/advice. This is a lot of text, so I apologize ahead of time.

normal disclaimer: I do not have a degree and I am not ordained. I’m young and I don’t know everything and I’m not right all the time. I do think about a lot of things and write about a lot of things and I like to help people, so that’s what I bring to the table. 

First of all, I’m so sorry that the church you were brought up in fostered negative feelings in you toward other Christian communities. It’s very common but, I believe, ultimately harmful. We all worship the same God and we have much more in common than we think. But still, it’s important to so many of us to have somewhere that feels like home. So here are some (a lot of) thoughts:

There are so many Christian denominations and so much history and tradition within each of them that it can get very confusing! It’s a journey, and there isn’t a right answer. It depends on who you are, but the journey can/should include research, reading, prayer, exploration, and trust in yourself and God.

On a very basic level, there’s the question of what each denomination believes specifically and whether you agree with them. This sounds simple on paper but gets complicated. There probably isn’t a denomination you 100% agree with on paper, and congregations and preachers within the denomination will vary in their beliefs and teachings. A denomination is more of an umbrella of beliefs with history and tradition than one specific teaching, in my experience. There’s a lot of internet quizzes about which denomination lines up with your beliefs (I enjoyed this one), but maybe think a little bit more than that :) Most people generally want to belong to the denomination that most closely aligns with their beliefs, which makes sense - but it’s not just about a checklist of beliefs, that’s just a place to start. 

Most denominations will have a website with descriptions of beliefs and traditions, and books of prayers/services that they traditionally use. I would suggest getting comfortable with a denomination’s organization and its prayers, history, services, and traditions. Read the Wikipedia page, at least! You’ll learn a lot about Christian history, as well. 

Do some introspective thinking on your own beliefs and ask God for guidance. Some denominations will believe things/agree with things that you may not have even heard of or ever thought about! The debate on infant baptism might be super important to you, or it might be the absolute last thing on your mind - and that’s okay! Think about what things are important to you - women in leadership positions? diversity? official LGBT+ acceptance? beliefs about communion? intercession of saints?

Besides beliefs, think about the other things that are associated with a denomination: music, art, liturgy, holidays, history, traditions. Is congregational singing important to you? Do you feel a connection to the music or art of a certain tradition? Do you feel a connection with the history/origin or leaders/figures of the denomination? Sometimes with these things you go with your gut more than your intellect and theology. 

My denominational experience is mostly with Catholic and Protestant churches, and this answer will be influenced by that, but some denominations/traditions are a completely different lifestyle/tradition than these. Obviously be wary of cults (and cult-ish denominations - I don’t want to offend anyone though...), but there are many communities/traditions that are more separate, strict, or specific that you could look into!

Speaking of cult-ish things, check out the tradition’s history with social issues, money, etc. I would stay away from any for-profit church and look into the organization’s past and present with racial issues and diversity.

Another option are non-denominational churches, which seem to be growing in popularity. They’re usually Protestant/evangelical-ish and very vague about their beliefs (on purpose, for better or worse). I’m not particularly a fan of them - I prefer a stronger connection to specific beliefs and traditions, but some people love them!

Here is an overview from the HRC (USA-centered) about different religious groups and their stances/history with LGBT+ rights, for consideration! I personally believe that you can belong to a church that doesn’t officially accept LGBT+ people and still be an ally, especially because individual congregations will always differ with that, but some people don’t and will never feel comfortable with that, and that’s okay! 

Besides theoretical research and prayer/thought, I would say an important part of this journey is to participate in worship with a congregation! Reading about a religious group on paper and worshipping with them are very different experiences, and the physical act of worship and community can matter most of all. I wrote a little bit here about being a Christian and not going to church/being part of a community.

Obviously, right now, because of the pandemic (depending on what country you’re in), many churches are closed and gatherings are discouraged. This is a hard time to be visiting churches and engaging with communities, but there are options. As I mentioned above, you can use prayers and practices associated with different traditions in your own life and see how they fit in. Are they comfortable/meaningful? What kind of emotions do they bring up? Follow faith leaders from different traditions online! (I would suggest doing this anyway, even if you’re not questioning your tradition - it’s just a good practice.) 

Besides that, you can definitely do some research and find online/recorded services from different churches and watch those. Of course it’s not the same, but it could still give you a feel for the church, and if it’s a local congregation, you could even visit them later if you’re interested. Especially when you can be in a physical church again, how does the space make you feel? Can you find beauty and holiness in it? Do you like the service? Do you connect with the faith leaders? Can you be yourself there? Obviously if you don’t like the congregation/service, that might be a problem with that specific place rather than the tradition, but it’s still something to consider.

Once you’re closer to finding a place for yourself in a community, look into conversion and baptism practices! Some are more complicated than others, and you should get to know what you might be getting into!

Ultimately, is what you’re participating in bringing you closer to God and other people and helping you exist through your life as a loving Christian? If the answer is no, I would say you’re not in the right place.

Listen to yourself and your emotions, open your heart, all that good stuff. I wish you all the best in your journey and I hope I said something at least a tiny bit helpful. Praying for you and everyone who’s looking for a home in a congregation or denomination. We have a home with God no matter what. 

- johanna