#Specifically how it must feel for the ones condemned in the bible

[belanova]

Can I say Wolfy's drawings of christianity fascinate me so much

[katakaluptastrophy]

@greatandquestionablecontent noted that my discussion of Paul and St Paul didn't touch on the latter's awful views on women and sexuality.

And while I very much hope those aren't relevant for our new Lyctor-ish buddy Paul, they very much do haunt the narrative of The Locked Tomb.

We get one in-world bit of theology in Gideon the Ninth: the Sermon on Necromancers and Cavaliers, which talks about how the Houses understand the relationship between necromancer and cavalier and god. And it's pretty much St Paul's Letter to the Ephesians, ctrl + F'd for necromancy, with a few other infamous Pauline verses thrown in for good measure, especially from 1 Corinthians:

A necromancer who must leave her House and fight requires a swordswoman./For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they shall be two in one flesh. - Ephesians 5:31

Our necromantic characteristics make us more like the Emperor...the necromancer and the cavalier are no different./[A man] is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of the man. - 1 Cor 11:7

As [the Emperor] was once man, and became God...so were we dead and became alive./And as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive. - 1 Cor 15:22

Their love is the love that fears only for the other: the love of service on both sides. Some have tried to characterise this relationship as the cavalier’s obedience to the necromancer, but the necromancer must be in turn obedient to the needs of the cavalier without being asked or prompted: theirs is arguably the heavier burden./Loving one another with the charity of brotherhood, with honour preventing [anticipating] one another. - Romans 12:10 (I suspect this one is also meant to call to mind Ephesians 5's instructions for wives to submit to their husbands, while husbands are asked to love their wives like Christ loves the church - an instruction proponents of so-called Biblical gender roles will often describe in language similar to the Sermon as being the bigger ask.)

The love of the cavalier for the necromancer, and the necromancer for the cavalier...cannot be libidinous./But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity...because these are improper for God’s holy people. - Ephesians 5:3

So cavaliership very much reproduces the gendered asymmetries of power found in many traditional Pauline-flavoured interpretations of Christian marriage.

But when you look at some of the invective around a romantic or sexual necromancer/cavalier relationship, it's coded rather more as homophobia.

The Sermon on Necromancers and Cavaliers hedges around explicitly condemning necro/cav relationships as specifically against the will of god, but makes it clear that's very much a view held within the Houses:

"after a myriad of thought about the matter, marrying your cavalier remains taboo at best. There have been those who have argued eloquently that it is traitorous to the ideals of the Necrolord Prime."

While St Paul isn't the only source of egregiously homophobic Bible verses, he's responsible for a good chunk of them, and the idea of this specifically defying the designs of God is a recurring theme...

It's worth noting that not all of what's generally described as St Paul's writing likely actually is. And Ephesians, which features so strongly here, is one of those "pseudo-Pauline" letters - a sort of Pauline fanfiction written to fill in perceived gaps or deal with issues as they arose.

But it feels oddly appropriate that the Houses' theology of gender cavaliership, itself an imitation of St Paul, is so strongly inspired by an imitation of St Paul...

[chicken-wayng]

The line about realizing the rules are unjust but Alicent doubling down is so real in our modern world. There are women that justify their abuse, because the alternative is admitting it as what it is. These women have been brainwashed to think that being beaten down is better than death. That being abused by their husbands is just their love language and every bruise and scar is a mark of honor: 'look, I'm a good wife!' They have to believe they are in the right, because otherwise they have to admit it's not love but lust and a need for procreation that started their relationship. Which is totally valid and okay!!! As long as that lust isn't confused as love, which too many straight marriages (and 99.99% of Xtian marriages) are based on. If they admit to lust and abuse, then how can they condemn a same-sexed/gendered, non-traditional, relationship? They can't, so there needs to be a dissonance between their understanding of love to justify their actions. Which the Xtian bible helped make and understand, using moral high ground as an impregnable argument for hierarchy and subservience in order to be accepted into heaven.

In specifically southern women, where the idea of calling out the patriarchy makes you a bitch and/or annoying, admitting that your man only lusts after your vagina hurts and you are presented with a choice: Adhere, feel the "love" you were raised with and silence the voice screaming inside you or be a bitch.

Now I personally am one that fully stands by the statement that no one will ever beat me again, I would rather them kill me than go through that recovery again. I hate how Alicent grew into one of the women that denies feminism yet takes all that she can get while condemning the ones that fought for it, BUT I also think the same of Rhaenyra and I see them as two sides of the same coin. Alicent is an example of a Xtian, southern closeted woman and Rhaenyra is the closeted rich, Mean Girl that rides Daddy's coattail. They are both women that want power and to protect their families: which the modern woman also wants. In my opinion I think it's very symbolic of how they twisted modern feminism into, how both of them have more power than any other woman in this world, but still only use it for themselves. It shows humanity in a true light. Albeit one that's hard to look at but one that we must:

We are all hypocrites in the dark.

Anyways thanksya for coming to my TedTalk.

i find it funny how allicent says that viserys is "blind" when it comes to rhaenyra's sons and rhaenyra in general. of course he is not blind, he knows very well how his daughter is, he knows her son's aren't laenor's, he just doesn't want to punish her. does alicent really think that viserys would exile her, kill her for having bastard sons? what kind of father would do that? not one who loves his daughter like viserys does. and alicent doesn't understand being loved unconditionally, she doesn't understand how someone can just be loved for who they are, their flaws and mistakes combined. all her life, she did everything by the book, everything just right and that still didn't make anyone love her. and for her, it's rhaenyra's fault, because she is loved, even though she broke several of those "rules". and alicent, instead of realizing that maybe those rules are kind of stupid actually, just blames rhaenyra instead of admitting to herself that she is jealous. she envies rhaenyra for being free, and being loved even though she doesn't follow the stupid rules that alicent does.

alicent says that viserys is blind about rhaenyra but i actually think he is way more blind about her. she has been plotting treason (telling his children that aegon will be the king), spreading rumours about rhaenyra's sons, threatening rhaenyra and her sons with a knife???? and viserys never did anything substantial to make her stop.

the most ironic part of them all is that she complains about viserys being "blind" to criston cole of all people, who i have NO IDEA why was never punished. he KILLED a man in the royal wedding and nothing happened to him. and when harwin strong beat criston up, he was removed from his post as commander of the city watch, but criston beats a man to death in a royal wedding and nothing happens?? let's not forget that when the king explicitly forbade that luke's eyes be taken out after, criston still tried to do it, he only didn't do it because daemon stopped him.

viserys wasn't blind about rhaenyra. he just loved her the way that she was and wasn't going to do anything stupid to harm her. like a father who loves her daughter unconditionally would, but alicent wouldn't know anything about that, would she? and for her, it's rhaenyra's fault that she is loved unconditionally, not otto's fault for being a shitty father.

the irony is that i believe viserys was in fact blind about alicent. about her ambition for her sons and bitternes towards rhaenyra. he was also blind about criston cole, who murdered a man in her daughter's wedding and wanted to take his grandson's eye out, but didn't get punished for any of it.

[duhragonball]

🌻

So, full disclosure, I'm a Christian, and I'm frustrated with the way other Christians have turned a blind eye to social justice issues, even to the point of abandoning common sense and boilerplate scripture.

I've seen a lot of criticism of "white evangelicals" and every so often I remember "wait, I guess that's me," since I grew up in a Southern Baptist church. But I look around at what's going on in the world and I see me on one side of the issue and "white evangelicals" on the other. They're wrong, whoever they are.

I read an article that referred to "pillars" of Evangelism, and I had to look up what those were. Growing up, I never hear much talk about evangelism as a specific concept or an identifier. I've always found the term "Evangelical Christian" to be redundant. It sounded like someone was trying to top all the other, "lesser" Christians, which I find heretical.

Anyway, one of these pillars refers to a "transformative" experience, which I think I recognize as the notion that you have to experience some great joy when you get saved. I heard a lot about *that* over the years, so it feels like they changed the terminology somewhere or somewhen. But I've never cared much for this doctrine, because it felt like it was applied in reverse. That is, if you're not insanely happy--and you don't express that happiness-- then maybe your personal relationship with Christ is faulty.

In hindsight, I think that's always been my gripe with the SBC. I mean, there's a lot of bigger gripes to be had, but my *personal* gripe has always been this implication that if I'm not clapping my hands and doing cartwheels down the aisle, then there must be something wrong with me. It was never outright stated, but I always got that vibe.

There's sort of a conveyer belt mentality to evangelism, I think. I've seen all sorts of religious pamphlets that give step-by-step instructions on how to be saved. I don't think I've ever read on that I ddn't believe to be accurate. Like, there was never one that had "Step Six, now you want to grab a handful of snakes, and then..." I'm not disputing the text of the pamphlets, but it seemed like the goal was more about efficiency than true ministry. A lot of this literature feels like it was aimed at people who were already Christians and.... forgot, I guess? I don't know if the SBC just doesn't understand how to write for a nonbeliever audience, of if it's all *really* about nagging believers who aren't shouting "Amen" loud enough.

I've read the Bible all the way through, and there's no rule that says I gotta smile all the time or never get depressed, or otherwise my salvation didn't "take". That's horseshit. That's grade A horseshit, and I'll take that to my grave. The condemned man who was crucified next to Jesus was having a pretty shitty day by all standards. He recognized what Jesus was all about, and Jesus told him he, the condemned man would be in heaven. He didn't have to clap his hands, or stand in front of the congregation, or shake hands with everyone in the fellowship hall, or get dunked in cold water. That's all side stuff. Anyone who says it's required is trying to sell you something.

My point is that I'll see Christians wringing their hands over stupid shit that doesn't matter, like LilNasX making a video where he does a lapdance for the devil then usurps his throne in hell. I was explaining the other day how this red cartoon devil isn't even remotely connected to the Biblical Satan, but all these Christians, who ought to know better, get worked up about it anyway. They're just mad at LilNasX doing gay dance moves in a video. I know this because Megan Thee Stallion didn't have Satan in *her* music video and the same people got worked up at her the exact same way.

And that's bullshit, because they were wringing their hands over Madonna wearing a cone bra like 35 years ago. They get worked up over the Smurfs, Tabletop RPGs, Young Adult Fiction Wizards, the Ninja Turtles, the Power Rangers, etc., etc., etc. But Arkansas is trying to deny trans kids access to health care, and they can't find the devil in that? These Christians want to invent a boogeyman to be afraid of, and waste all their time worrying about a red goat-legged guy, instead of confronting the genuine evils in the world. It'd be like refusing to save a drowning man because you're too worried about Sonic the Hedgehog references in breakfast cereals.

And if you complain about the hypocrisy of this, oh, well you must have renounced your religion, right? Oh, I guess Mike's an atheist now because he's too pissed off about transphobia to be afraid of the cartoon on the Tobasco sauce bottle. Well, one, I don't have to prove my faith to anyone, and two, even if I did, it's just a distraction from the things that really matter. I'd rather watch a thousand gay lapdances than hear about another mass shooting, or another voting rights restriction, or another lawmaker who wraps his hatred in a thin veneer of piety. I mean, seriously, that video sounds awesome, and "Old Town Road" was catchy. I should check that out sometime.

[k-she-rambles]

everyone's already done this, I'm sure, but here! have another analysis of Rose by the Oh Hellos, one of their most overtly religious songs...

Okay, so:

"Wars are raising for her Crusades to adore her The light of your afterword"

This one gives us who we are talking about, by context: Popularly, the Crusades were fought for the honor of the Church. (It's not exactly true, but that's the trope you think of.) Today, lots of little fights are still started over her honor (it's traditional to talk about the Church as a Lady --a mother, or a bride, or a much-loved child)

"The light of your afterword" is a little trickier, and there are multiple things this could bring up: the future promises of Revelation --the end of all corruption and empire, etc. More likely, though, we're still talking about the Church --not as the entity, but the people which comprise it. The full name of the book of Acts is "The Continuing Acts of the Disciples," and it's more or less the afterword of the gospels: Luke wrote Luke and Acts to the same person, they're a set. The acts of the Church (of the people who make up the Church) are the afterword of the Bible.

Are you losing her true nature When you loosen nomenclature When you gift another moniker?

I don't know what's going on here. I'm SURE there's some drama that I don't know about. But the question stands on it's own: If you're changing the name of what the Church or Christianity is, does it change the nature?

(This was the bit, honestly, that made me think that maybe the song was NOT religiously themed, and they were thinking of changing the band's name at one point.)

What's true is like a sickle It'll cut you to the middle Your rose is without a thorn But no, my mouth don't taste of metal From the pot here to the kettle I think we got a lot we gotta learn

OUCH, okay, honestly that is blistering condemnation of the modern Church and Maggie's sweet voice and trying to temper it with the "we" at the end makes it worse.

What's true is like a sickle It'll cut you to the middle Your rose is without a thorn

So this seems like a pretty clear reference to Hb 4:12-13 ("For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. And no creature is hidden from his sight, but all are naked and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we must give account.")

The rose being without a thorn is a BAD thing. If we take the rose as the Church (or as the Gospel, the central message of the faith, which I think is more likely) the singers are saying that the Church is fighting wars over a Gospel that is DEAD. It is NOT sharp, NOT living and active, CAN'T cut to the heart of things. If every rose has it's thorn, is this even a rose at all?

The context of the referenced verse is important too. (Quoting Hebrews is difficult. It's a sermon, so each thought leads to another fairly interlockingly. And you know ancient languages. ALL the run-on sentences. ALL of them.) It's in the middle of a section encouraging the listeners to avoid the pitfall of a gospel of works: running themselves ragged trying to be a good enough person to please God, when the real method of doing so is to rest from trying; let someone else do the work, set the pattern for them to follow. If they keep striving, keep fighting in the pattern of wars and Crusades they have now, they WILL fail...and be blind to the ways they have failed. But no, my mouth don't taste of metal From the pot here to the kettle I think we got a lot we gotta learn

The singers identify themselves with the people they are excoriating. They are not pots calling the kettle black, they realize that they are the same. In tvtropes lingo it's "HEY! I resemble that remark!"

And even though by any other name Her scent would linger sweetly, all the same Call her briar long enough And you'll tangle up the true and the fable

So the singers maintain that whatever is being done to the name of the Church/the Gospel can't change it's essence (this is v. important in Christianity and I could go on about how Christianity has a scripture but NOT a sacred text.) But! They can't kill the message with their mincing language but they can mix it up. Tangle the true and the fable, make it unclear, and inaccessible. which is um. a thing that tends to piss Christians off. See: the Reformation, the Counter-Reformation, the previous verse...

Your dowry isn't fooling The pyrite is showing through It won't buy you that empty tomb

So here's were I got the idea that the entire section of Hebrews was being referenced. The people who are causing this trouble "renaming" the Church, muddying their language, removing the truth from their gospel...they're trying to buy something, some kind of reward. Specifically, Jesus' empty tomb...i.e. salvation and eternal reward. But what have they saved to buy it with?

The Church is often described as a Lady. A bride. What is the dowry the Bride is bringing to the marriage? What have they saved to buy salvation? Pyrite. Fool's Gold. The wages of their works, the afterword of their gospel of works, it has all been Fool's Gold.

And no alchemic incantation For a counterfeit salvation Can appease your leviathan groom

No alchemy can turn it into real gold. They're still buying their "fable." Their groom is not the Christ, it's Leviathan (real Exeunt, Pale White Horse/Where is Your Rider vibes here). And they may not even know it.

No, love'll get you slaughtered Like a ram at the altar What is safe ain't the same as what is good

The rose still needs its thorns to be true to itself. And what is that truth? That love can be a violent, sacrificial thing. That doing good isn't safe. That truth isn't safe. It lays you bare.

I'm having a hard time saying words about this one. Love can feel like dying. You dying. Your pride dying. The call the singers are getting at is following the pattern laid down by Jesus, whose love did get him killed. The people being spoken about are not following this pattern, but they are called to.

(also, scope the Narnia reference! "Safe? Who said anything about safe. But he's good. He's the king, I tell you.")

So lay compress to the aching Of your body made for breaking When we've got a lot of breaking left to do

Following the thread of the previous verse, being part of the Church is to be "made for breaking," which the people making up the Church need to get better at.

Um. 'scuze me while I go a little feral here.

Along with being a Lady the Church is also described as being "the Body of Christ." You speak of a church congregation sometimes as a "Church body." Part of the idea is (among other, cooler things I am not qualified to explain but fully willing to keysmash about (the theological concept is "mystical union")) that Jesus identifies so closely with humanity as a head does to a body. Heaven meets earth in a Person, not a temple anymore...and then, when that Person is away, heaven meets earth in people by union with Christ.

But also, the symbol of the new covenant (which God swears by himself, making it unbreakable.): take, eat, this is my body broken for you. His body made for breaking. Church body made for breaking, for being given to feed others.

And again the singers join hands with the people they are scolding --it's their body too. They all need to love better, break better, not be afraid of finding the truth even if the truth will hurt.

'Cause even under any other creed The crucifix and the hangman, they both agree Change comes so cheaply For those of us already at the table

Pulling back, the singers say "even under any other creed." That is, what they're about to say is something they consider a universal statement, regardless of faith. Then they repeat this idea of a universal statement: the "crucifix" and the "hangman" are two ways of dying --a death that has come to represent life for some and a death that has come to represent judgment of the law for some.

And that universal statement? "Change comes so cheaply for those of us already at the table."

Some people have already been breaking. Some people have already been feeding others. To the ones already giving and sharing and breaking and healing, being forced to buck up and do so? It does not cost as much to them as it does to the people who have been convinced that their Fool's Gold was worth something.

It's a somewhat unfinished ending. I think this is the turn of the album, if you treat it like a sonnet. After Smoke Rising Like Lifted Hands it's just Boreas and Glowing as the final couplet.

[malaierba]

Hi, @abyssalwyrm0 thanks for interacting with my post.

Regarding the "Abel being the bastard" thing you mentioned. We agree on all points (actually not sure why you summarised them to me?) but that one, and it happens to be one I enjoyed talking about.

SHazbin is rewrite/alternative telling of catholic lore (in general, like, there's no specific text it is subverting, not even of the Bible. We all assume this but it's never said anywhere explicitly). This means that although we can take inspiration from it, it's no guarantee that what's mentioned on it will show up on the show, let alone play out as it does in canon religious texts. Case in point, the retelling of the Creationist Myth. There's no religion where it happens as it does in Hazbin that is where Lilith is mentioned as playing a part in the apple story, and we have contextual narrative reasons (aka: it's a children's book) to believe that the story in it it's narrated unreliably.

You need to keep this in mind when you read my answer. I'm assuming that absolutely everything can be retold and subverted. The bible is baseline inaccurate in Hazbin, and I'm playing around with elements in it to find likely and/or interesting justifications to hypothetical scenarios.

So, to the points you bring up:

Point zero is that I think it's stupid to attribute innate goodness/sinfulness to either of the brothers on account of who their father is, beyond the canonical "the apple opened humans to sin". They both get sin from Eve, and you could make an argument for either likely parent being innately more corrupt/flawed than the other. Ie: "Adam is only human and bit the apple so it makes sense that Cain is his son" vs. "Cain's sin was jealousy/pride and he broke a rule that no one expected to be broken, which is very Lucifer-like. If we assume he didn't know he could kill, that on itself is reminiscent of the accidental creation of Hell".

But I think that's Genetic Reductionism (a theory that should never be taken and law and argued for in a vacuum imo) and it takes from the idea of Free Will. Both twins acting freely and without influence is consistent with the theme of Free Will. That said, having both characters act as their own person, making decisions based on their own perceptions and goals, yet having them be judged amongst other things on who their parents were... I don't think it's something that should have metanarrative validity, but I think that as a driver of plot it COULD be executed interestingly, which is what inspired my post.

So. "Abel being the bastard wouldn't make sense because he was the favourite child". Allegedly, according to biblical texts he was the one regarded most positively, that's true. You already see where this can go: Maybe he wasn't actually that good and he's just remembered as better than he was because that's how his parents spoke of him but he's in hell isn't he; Maybe he WAS that good but then why isn't he in heaven? As I said, may be that Heaven realised that he had angelic blood aka ties to Lucifer, and that alone condemned him. Unfair, but Heaven is rather hypocritical in Hazbin.

All of Eve's kids were condemned to hell: idk Rick, if the Angels noticed this pattern since generation one, and we already know they think of sinners as disposable, why didn't they just nuke all humans and start over? Evil, yes, would've had to be kept hidden from most of heaven, yyyyes I guess kinda. Depends on how the Locus Plague, the Flood etc are handled in Hazbin. But there MUST have been some good apples here and there, since humans were allowed to keep existing and since we do see human souls in heaven. Agaim, the corruption theory contradicts the Free Will one.

Hell wasn't well established when Abel died: The show says that when Lucifer and Lilith were banished from Eden they fell down. Hell must have been established when Lucifer was sent there to look over. Feels very unlikely to me, and if this was the explanation it would confirm to me that Adam being the first human in hell was a plot hole.

The thing is, just saying "Abel wasn't the first soul in heaven" and using any of the popular explanations doesn't really make the story relevant to the overarching plot of Hazbin, which is what inspired my post. I was trying to come up with a meta-relevant reason that would justify going over the Cain and Abel story on Hazbin. I mean, didn't go to heaven bcs Abel was actually a sinner? Okay, so the system is working as designed. Adam died first? Same.

Afterlife destinies weren't set up yet? I guess that could be a little bit more interesting if we assume that Heaven always thought that all human souls would go to heaven, prior to the apple? Feels so convoluted though. If everyone was meant to go to heaven, there were no filters. Abel either arrived to heaven corrupted and was cast down and only then was a system that judged souls put in place, or the system DID HAVE some undisclosed rules (that were created right after Eve bit the apple I guess?) which then begs the question. Are these selection criteria innate to the realms, is that why no soul knows what gets people in heaven? And if that's the case, how can either side (Heaven and Hell) influence the system to redeem people?

It's interesting, you can take that idea many places, only problem is that at this point there's not many actual hints in the show that support this. After all, Lucifer was cast down by Angels (so it's not like the weight of his sin dragged him down or anything), and Adam was able to kill indiscriminately without Heaven rejecting him à la The Realm Is Alive trope.

I'm not saying that Cain killing Abel because Heaven/Roo told him to is like, a LIKELY theory, I'll agree that if we get any explanation at all it'd be along the lines of "here's how the system was set up to work", where Abel will be just a footnote, like "we didn't notice we had to rework the system/the system has adjusted itself until that soul died and (whatever) happened to it". It's just a different take, another theory, and most importantly one that would actually justify giving the twins screentime.

Like, really, the reason why I thought of that it's because: 1. I haven't seen anything like that proposed before, 2. Makes the story actually relevant to viewers and in-universe characters trying to understand how the system works. Where do you start deconstructing and analysis systems? From the start of course.

After all you can't talk about Heaven finding loopholes in its own laws and going against its own back, Fake-Utopia-Authoritariam-Government-with-Paramilitary-like-organisms, without explaining WHY they singled out one guy, WHO they made get his hands dirty and WHY. Orrrr, in the case that it was Roo trying to damn human souls, how she played everyone.

Roo is her own whole thing but I like the Heaven angle better. Roo... Is not very interesting thematically to me, at least not yet. Wouldn't like to see her used to take away from Heaven's imperfect ways. Heaven is corrupt and ignorant and has been hypocritical in the way it tries to fix what it doesn't like about human souls. So having Heaven be behind a few sinful actions across realms is consistent with what we've been shown of them so far, and gives Charlie and Emily grounds to question them.

SIGH tfw you make a declaration like "I don't think Hazbin should touch the Cain or Abel are Lucifer's spawn thing" then a bit later you are like. Well if execution is everything why not try to think of a reason why it'd be plot relevant.

So, Adam was the first human soul in heaven, implying that Abel went to hell (assuming it wasn't a plot hole, or that it won't be fixed in an easy way like "oh actually Cain killed Abel after Adam's death" or something like that).

Would be plot-relevant if it was revealed that Cain HAD to kill Abel, as in, was instructed by some other being, under the argument that Abel was a human/angel hybrid and that, for whatever reason, could become a huge problem for Heaven later on. May have something to do with not wanting to give divine strength to corruptible beings who had true free will? Meaning, Subject Zero 4B3L had to be taken out of the gene pool.

In that context, Cain's curse was really a blessing of divine protection, and could even lead to him being in Heaven. Like wow imagine the nepotism of it all.

[sadsongsandwaltzes]

Hi! How do we know that God wants us to confess to him alone? I agree with it and it makes more sense to me, but I really want to know for sure. Catholics don’t believe God “needs” priests but that he chose to do it this way by instituting confession as a sacrament. Do you know of any good points or resources on this topic? Thanks in advance either way!

I’m finding this question difficult to answer in a concise, comprehensive manner. The problem with “Protestant” Christians and Catholics discussing these matters is that we often talk past each other. For Catholics, their doctrines around prayer, justification, apostolic succession... so much all plays into the catholic doctrine surrounding confession. I think I’d practically have to dismantle the entirety of Catholicism for this to fully resonate. (I mean, I can if you want me to, but that’s not the point of this lol)

Perhaps I’m overthinking it by diving that deep into the systematic theology of the Catholic Church, but I don’t think so. I think it matters. Because it’s the lens through which you view scripture. Through catholic doctrine, there is a preconceived understanding of what the Bible is supposed to say according to the Catholic Church, rather than what it is actually saying. We want to make sure we are practicing proper biblical exegesis.

The truth of the matter is that the sacrament of confession is not implemented anywhere in the Bible. This is why I struggle to answer this properly without going too deep into theology. You are asking me to prove a negative. It simply doesn’t exist anywhere in scripture.

Confession is a part of catholic soteriology. That’s the crux of the issue. We don’t have the same understanding of Christ and the true gospel. The true gospel according to the Bible is that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory (Romans 3:23). But God loves us so much that He sent Christ to die for us to save us. Christ took our punishment for sins (John 3:16). We rightly deserve Hell, but we are washed clean from the stain of sin in Christ. All we need to do is repent and put our trust in Him (Acts 3:19) (1 John 1:9). There is no condemnation for those who are in Christ (Romans 8:1). And it is not a salvation of works so that no one can boast (Ephesians 2:9). That is the good news! The gospel is transactional. Because God is just, He must punish sin. But Christ took the punishment on our behalf. If our works play any part in our salvation, then we are all damned to Hell. Our “good” works are the bare minimum that’s expected of us. And they do not cancel out our bad works. Volunteering at the homeless shelter doesn’t cancel out ever having looked at another with lust (adultery in the heart). We are all still guilty of our own sins. But we are redeemed in Christ.

When we repent, we repent to God. There’s no command to find a priest and confess to him. None. Nowhere. The Bible does tell us to confess our sins to each other (James 5:16) and to forgive our brothers and sisters when they do so (Ephesians 4:32). But that in no way implies the sacrament of confession. That’s part of the beauty of the gospel: it not only reconciles us to God, but also to each other. If I have sinned against another and become aware of it, I will confess my sins to them and seek forgiveness. I will also still repent of that sin to God. If another sins against me and asks forgiveness, I will grant them forgiveness. We forgive because we are forgiven by God (Colossians 3:13). We are able to be reconciled to each other because we are reconciled to God. We are all one in Christ (Galatians 3:26-28).

I hope this helped, but if you have specific questions or verses you’re wondering about, feel free to message me and have a conversation! Or you can send another ask!

[artekai]

For Day 2 of @personararepairweek, I was planning on writing a Coffee Shop AU fic, but it’s not done yet, so I thought I could share an excerpt of my Adaruki Angel/Demon AU in the meantime. This is an excerpt from a WIP; I’ll post the entire fic on AO3 once it’s finished :)

Hope you enjoy!

#

Maruki heaved a sigh, basking in the warmth of the last ray of light as the sun sunk in the horizon. He really wished Adachi could be by his side to experience it with him…

As of today, it had been seventy years since Adachi left.

It had been seventy years since Adachi suddenly up and left, without a warning, without an explanation, and without saying goodbye, leaving Maruki all on his own.

Maruki hadn’t been there when it happened. He had been away on a solo assignment that required his full, undivided attention. It was only when he got back when he was informed that Adachi had been expelled from Heaven, much to his shock, so he had to put the pieces of the story together by himself to try to find out what had happened to the loyal, well-intentioned Adachi he thought he knew.

The other angels warned him that Adachi was a lost cause, that any attempt to reason with him now was a fruitless pursuit, and that he had strutted out of Heaven, with a smirk on his face, without any regard for anyone else’s feelings. He had quickly built a successful “career” as a demon -- way more successful than his “career” as a guardian angel ever was -- and he had even amassed a reputation for being ruthless, having a short temper, and doing whatever he wanted, whenever he wanted. Lust, wrath, pride, sloth, gluttony, greed… you name it. If it was condemned in the Bible, Adachi was probably guilty of it.

Most said that it had been lust that had finally made Adachi snap, since it had been an act of lust that got him officially barred out of Heaven.

Some argued that what, from an outsider’s perspective, seemed like raw lust was, in fact, Adachi acting out of wrath in a way that could be misconstrued as sexual desire.

Others said that it was a combination of the two. Narukami, for one, was convinced that the act of lust that got Adachi banned from Heaven had been but the culmination of the wrath, sloth, and pride that had been festering under the surface for a much longer time.

Maruki didn’t know for sure. Maruki had never noticed any of that.

And he was supposed to be Adachi’s right hand man.

How pathetic.

To be fair, though, Maruki wasn’t sure who to blame for this turn of events. Should he blame Adachi, for giving in to temptation? Or should he blame himself, for failing to notice that something was wrong with his longtime partner and not doing anything to help him?

In any case, Maruki was determined to find out. He had been dutifully showing up at the Samegawa day after day ever since he learned of Adachi’s departure, hoping to run into him again and get some kind of closure. Of course, he wasn’t eager to see him, not after he had basically spat on everything Maruki believed in and then proceeded to ruin the life of countless innocent mortals for fun, but he needed to know where he had gone wrong. Was there anything he could’ve done to save Adachi from the path he’d chosen? Or was it completely out of his hands?

Maruki wanted to think that it wasn’t. He wanted to believe that he could’ve helped Adachi in some way or another, because he would much prefer to be careless rather than useless.

A swooshing sound jolted Maruki out of his thoughts. A sudden gust of wind ruffled his hair and feathers, sending a chill down his spine, and a pull of negative energy made the hairs on the back of his neck stand on edge.

Every fiber in this body screamed at him to run away. He could sense the danger right behind him, but he fought his instincts and looked over his shoulder to locate the source of the disruption.

It was a demon.

More specifically, it was Adachi. As a demon.

Maruki stared in shock, blinking in quick succession, convinced that this must be a trick or some sort of hallucination.

This couldn’t be real. This couldn’t be Adachi. It was impossible.

He just…

He couldn’t believe what he was seeing.

Black, skin-tight pants.

A bloodied jacket that reached Adachi’s knees.

His wings, once white and pristine like pearls, were now charcoal black.

A pair of horns protruded from Adachi’s messy brown hair, curling into themselves on either side of his head. They were pitch black, darker than his wings, and they contrasted with his hair in a way that made it look a shade lighter than it actually was.

A tail. Adachi had a tail. Long, smooth, and black, with a pointy end. It gracefully swung from left to right while he walked, just like a cat’s tail. The movement looked natural, almost involuntary. It was hard to tell, but Maruki reckoned that, if held upright, it’d probably be long enough to reach Adachi’s head.

Maruki could barely recognize him in his current state. But, really, what surprised him the most wasn’t how much Adachi had changed, but how much it seemed to fit him. In a way, Adachi played the textbook demon much better than he ever played the part of the flawless angel. His white robes had always seemed three sizes too big, the color palette didn’t match his dark hair and eyes, and the overly bright halo never seemed to want to stay in place, like it was never meant to be worn on Adachi’s head to begin with.

It was obvious, in hindsight. As an angel, Adachi had never been comfortable in his own skin. 

But, as a demon…

A smirk creeped onto Adachi’s face. “Like what you see?”

Maruki swallowed around the lump in his throat. Adachi was here, Adachi was truly here, so close to him that he could reach out to touch him, and all he could manage was a choked mumble of “A-Adachi…?”

He slowly stood from the ground, trying to resist the urge to run towards Adachi and wrap his arms around him, while, at the same time, fighting the urge to escape while he could. He gave the demon a once-over, but no matter how much he told himself that this couldn’t be happening, he knew that it was all as real as it could be.

“Yup! It’s the same old Adachi!” He grinned. “Did ya miss me?”

“What…?” Maruki averted his eyes, ashamed of himself but unable to lie. “Of course I missed you. I’ve been waiting for you, as a matter of fact.”

“I know. Why else would you be wandering around this shithole?”

Adachi sauntered past Maruki and towards the riverbank, slipping his hands into his jacket pockets without a care in the world. His glowing golden eyes scanned his surroundings, with a condescending expression, as if revisiting a stage in his life that he’d gotten over a long time ago, looking down on anyone who was still stuck there. It was clear that he didn’t see Inaba with the same nostalgia-tinted lenses as Maruki.

Maruki stared at the demon, unsure of where to start. There were hundreds of things he wanted to tell Adachi, thousands of questions he needed to ask him, and a myriad of emotions that clouded his judgement every time he took a peek at Adachi’s face. Nostalgia, heartbreak, betrayal... emotions that he had barely ever felt before and which he couldn’t even begin to understand, all meshed into a single ache on his chest that hit harder when he saw how lightly Adachi was taking this whole situation. The most prominent feeling was probably anger, but he couldn’t dwell on it too long in fear of giving in to wrath.

Maruki breathed in sharply, even though he didn’t need to breathe at all, and swallowed his raging emotions.

All feelings other than happiness were dangerous. He had to keep that in mind.

“Adachi. I…” He paused, trying to make sense of the jumble of words inside his head. “I’ll be upfront with you. I’ve already been informed of the things you did while I was gone, and I’ve come to some conclusions of my own, but I am willing to give you a chance to explain yourself.”

Adachi scoffed wryly. “What’s there to explain? I made one tiny mistake, everyone got up in arms, and the man upstairs kicked me out of Heaven as punishment. It’s that simple.”

“What you did was no tiny mistake. Your actions were absolutely repulsive!”

“Geez…” Adachi stared at Maruki, weirded out by his uncharacteristically stern expression. “What crawled up your ass and died? It’s not like I caused a genocide or anything.”

Maruki bit his lip to stop himself from saying something he would regret. He really needed to calm down… He had to remember that he was walking on eggshells, trying to communicate with a demon who might fly off the handle at any given moment. Even though he really wanted to give Adachi a piece of his mind, he couldn’t afford to do anything that would upset him and cause him to turn away from him, not after he had waited so long for an opportunity like this.

“Maybe not,” He said, “But what you did was still unforgivable.” 

[night-dragon937]

I need to share my experience from a few hours ago (writing this at 2 am aug 24 2020) yesterday but first I'm going to slap a huge tw: abuse, Christianity/gay stuff, anxiety attacks, and yelling/screaming, transphobia/homophobia, self harm/cutting and a lot of cussing/swearing onto this. Like this is deeply religious and I'd rather not have discourse on my beliefs.

That should cover it...

Okay so it started out fine, my mom and i were just talking. She was drunk, and attempting to convince me that my asexuality meant that i was straight... But since she was drunk, I'mma give her that. There was a lot of aphobia but that's not what this is about She started telling me about her experience, and best i can describe it, she's a closeted demisexual biromantic lady with a preference for girls and a shit ton of internalized homophobia ("being sexually attracted to women's bodies more than men's doesn't make me lesbian, I'm still straight")

It was a mostly civil conversation, but it was adding onto my bad feelings from my dad the past several weeks making snide hurtful remarks about our religion and my sexuality and gender. Also using the f-slur against me when i had explained to him in the past how badly that word hurts me, to which he apologized profusely and said he'd never have used that word if he knew how it affected me. Obviously a lie, because he's still using it with full knowledge of the effects.

Back to my mom. She started getting into the religious side of it, but we managed to keep it civil, until the very end when she said she'd be praying for me and i said I'd be praying to help figure out who exactly i am, and she remarked "make sure you're praying to the right person" with a really threatening tone to her voice. At that point, i lost it, let her know that her saying that made me want to go back to cutting (in case she wasn't aware) and said that i needed a moment alone (or something along those lines, i was thrown head first into an anxiety attack and can't quite remember very well).

I ran upstairs as she tried to grab me and pull me back, but i managed to make it to my room. I went into a fetal position, because safe, but she came in and all i remember is her screaming repeating some question, i think, at me, me not being able to breathe, her hands squeezing my wrists way too tight, my wrist pinned to the carpet with her knee, the other with her hand as she tried to grab my jaw and force me to look at her.

Her touching me made the attack worse (hours later i still have marks and scratches) and i couldn't talk, think, or breathe. Somehow i was able to choke out repeated pleas for her to stop touching me because it was making everything worse. I don't know how long that lasted. But at some point she stopped grabbing me and just placed her hands on me and started praying in tongues. Like i was fucking demon possessed. Because i had an anxiety attack. Which my parents have been triggering in me for as long as i can remember.

I managed to sit up and get her to stop touching me, but she refused to be less than a foot away from me, even though i was going through a sensory overload and needed personal space. She finally trapped me into a corner of my room and put her arms on either side of me, one of them holding the door closed. She was screaming in my face and i was yelling over her, asking her to give me personal space and stop being so loud so that i could calm down, which she refused. I ended up very trapped and very uncomfortable and doing my best to not have another anxiety attack while replying to the most outlandish of her accusations, but mostly keeping my mouth shut in an attempt to get her to do the same.

She kept using my deadname, like usual, but it was worse for me for some reason at this point. I mentioned that and got yelled at more. I mentioned her pinning my wrists to the ground and got called a liar and she tried to make it so that i couldn't leave and grab a Kleenex until i admitted she was right and that i pinned myself to the ground (???). So i just started describing what i remembered until she got sick of it and let me go wipe my nose. She must have closed my door when she first came in. My dad (stepdad) was standing outside the door, eavesdropping, apparently.

I got a Kleenex but then my mom started yelling at me again, but i mostly just pretended to listen because i didn't want to have another anxiety attack. My dad started piping in and making me feel so much worse. He ended with saying "you're not a Christian. You don't believe in God. Even the devil believes in God." (Implying that I'm worse than the devil). At which point i started breaking down crying. And then i ran outside to have another anxiety attack but this time my mom just stood on the porch because the grass was wet and she was barefoot, but i curled up under the stars for who knows how long as i forced myself to do breathing techniques, and stim by rubbing the wet grass, which really helped ground me.

I went back inside when i was feeling better and got a drink of water and a Kleenex. And they started telling me how much they loved me and that i might not see it, but they were doing this out of love, because they were concerned for my eternity. I kept pointing out things they were doing that hurt me and better ways to do it (constructive criticism, so they know what's bad for me) and they repeatedly told me how much worse they could make it for me and that i should be glad they didn't make it worse. I pointed out that this didn't make their actions better and they said "doesn't make them wrong, either." Which ????? Victim blaming, abuse, what?

I brought up the times I've cried out to God for answers and the few times He's responded, (refusing my request for Him to kill me, telling me I'm not going to Hell for being gay/queer) bc they kept bringing up a few dubiously translated verses of the Bible and they told me that i was listening to the wrong person. That i was worshipping the wrong one. They heavily implied that i pray and worship the devil (disclaimer: i don't judge those who do, that's your life, I'm not gonna try and decide it for you, also i can admit that the church of Satan makes valid points and treats people right, from what I've seen, this is just a huge insult for them to throw at me specifically because of what I've been taught my whole life). Also invalidating my whole experience just because they don't like it.

They keep bringing up me being involved in the community (following queer people on social media, having one queer shirt, going to gsa-which they told me I'm not allowed to be a part of anymore-, having queer friends) as me seeking validation and attention, and that i shouldn't need validation and it shouldn't be about validation if I really think that this is who i am. Aka, because i am human and seek human things, i must be a total fake and fraud about all I've told them (very little). Meanwhile they do the exact same thing with their friends and social media and each other and everything.

My dad kept piping up with totally unrelated, totally unhelpful comments and tangents while my mom recited the same 5 min spiel for at least half an hour. My dad was saying how my grandparents aren't actually Christians because they agree with me that the world isn't black and white and there are some shades of gray, and because they believe once saved, always saved. That there is nothing you can do, as an imperfect human, to remove yourself from the infinite and unconscious love of God. (... I can't believe he fucking believes that humans have the ability to overrule God because it makes it easier for him to blame and condemn people he sees...)

These are the grandparents who have loved me regardless of my sexuality and gender, even tho they don't agree, and made me feel loved and gave me a place to go when i need to escape from my parents. They're the reason I'm keeping my mom's maiden name (since it hasn't been legally changed) because it's their last name, and it's them i want to honor, not my abusive shitty hateful stepdad. Unfortunately they are moving into assisted living because my papa is in a wheelchair, so i can't move in with them.

He ended that tangent with repeatedly telling me that i was not saved. That i was not a Christian. That i didn't believe in God. And that i was going to Hell. Repeatedly.

My mom made me hug her and made me tell her i love her. I ended up exercising to stop myself from becoming suicidal. I don't know if I'll tell anyone irl apart from the one irl friend i have on here. I'm not sure if I'm going to tell my therapist or not. I reached out to two of my christian friends after everything but they were both asleep. I needed to write this all down and put it somewhere public, just to be safe. I'm not safe in my own home and i can't move out because I'm a. Under 18 and b. Broke as hell

There was a lot more that happened, this lasted several hours, but i honestly can't remember all of the details besides what i typed out. Anyway so yeah i kinda wish i were dead but i also wanna stay alive for spite and show them that i can be a fabulous queer Christian and that the world is colorful, and you can't reduce that to monochrome and expect to have an even partially accurate view of the world. I want to help others like me, and help them feel better about myself.

I'm setting this as a queue so that if my parents take my phone away, they can't stop me from posting it (they have no clue how to look at queued posts) and also so that i can go to bed now and look at it again later and edit it

[some-jw-things]

Jehovah’s Witnesses in the Holocaust

Hey so I don’t know what went so horribly wrong with the formatting of that last post-- I’ve seen a version of it without the ask and first like four replies, a version where the long part is repeated twice, and for some reason two paragraphs I wrote up at the beginning went missing. Anyway here is an attempt to make a cleaner, understandable version of it, let’s hope it works

In the 1870s Charles Taze Russell founded the Bible Student movement that later became Jehovah’s Witnesses, and he was a Zionist, which idk what that means but ultimately it doesn’t matter because when he died the leadership was inherited by Joseph Rutherford who was just a regular old antisemitic bigot.

One of the main things that Jehovah’s Witnesses are known for in their literature is shitting on every other religion. They believe that they have the one true religion, and all the others are false and worthless in God’s eyes. Apparently in the 1920′s and 30′s this really got whipped into a frenzy-- even worse than it is now.

https://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/hitler-nazi.php

Jehovah’s Witnesses had already been under heat in Germany. They refuse all military service, don’t vote, and avoid all forms of nationalism and national allegiance as a part of their religion. It is very common for governments to take issue with that-- there’s a handful of countries out there now where some of those things are illegal and JWs just go straight to jail. I think it’s the main issue behind the current Russia thing but that’s unrelated. Anyway, there is a certain type of government that gets more up in arms than most when you say you don’t give a shit about them and feel no allegiance whatsoever. The Witnesses were in an increasingly hostile environment and they knew it.

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jehovah-s-witnesses-in-the-holocaust

https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/nazi-persecution-of-jehovahs-witnesses

Jehovah’s Witnesses had a convention on June 25, 1933 in Berlin. The convention hall was covered in swastika flags. The program opened with Song 64, which had previously not been sung in years due to having the exact same melody as the German national anthem.

There’s an account of that in the book Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Third Reich, but it’s behind a paywall on JSTOR so I can’t really link it. The relevant quote is from Konrad Franke, who was the former branch overseer from Germany’s Bethel and was horrified by what he saw.

This was extremely weird for all of the obvious reasons but also because Jehovah’s Witnesses consider flag worship and all other nationalism to be a form of idolatry. It’s why they refuse to say the Pledge of Allegiance in the US, there’s been several lawsuits over the issue in the past.

The convention was used to issue the Declaration of Facts. It addresses a conspiracy theory that claimed Jehovah’s Witnesses were being secretly paid for their preaching work by Jewish people— by saying that Satan must have started that “malicious” rumor. It immediately jumps to this quote:

“The greatest and the most oppressive empire on earth is the Anglo-American empire. By that is meant the British Empire, of which the United States of America forms a part. It has been the commercial Jews of the British-American empire that have built up and carried on Big Business as a means of exploiting and oppressing the peoples of many nations.”

It also says that JWs do not oppose the German government’s principles, but “stand squarely” for them. And also: “A careful examination of our books and literature will disclose the fact that the very high ideals held and promulgated by the present national government are set forth in and endorsed and strongly emphasized in our publications and show that Jehovah God will see to it that these high ideals in due time will be attained by all persons who love righteousness.”

Link to English translation: https://www.jwfacts.com/pdf/declaration-of-facts.pdf

It was reprinted in the JW 1934 yearbook pages 134-138. https://archive.org/details/1934-JwYearbook/page/n1/mode/2up

According to the 1974 yearbook p. 111, JWs were given 2,100,000 copies of the Declaration to give out to as many people as possible after the convention. https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/301974004#h=239

The one that went to Hitler came with a personal letter from Rutherford attached.

It’s in German. Here is an English translation:

https://www.jwfacts.com/pdf/letter-to-hitler.pdf

It describes Jehovah’s Witnesses as “standing on the foundation of positive Christianity.” Positive Christianity is the actively antisemitic form of Christianity pushed by Hitler and the Nazi regime. It’s mainly about depicting Jesus as white and his main goal in life to have been fighting Jewish people, who then killed him. Here’s the wiki article on it:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_Christianity

Rutherford’s letter also claims the Watchtower Society has been staunchly pro-German for years and that that’s why the entire Governing Body was thrown in jail in the US in 1918. The Watchtower did condemn the war effort and all JW leaders were charged and found guilty under the Espionage and Sedition Act, but it was for 20 years, not 80 like the letter says, and the decision was almost immediately reversed and the charges dropped.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Jehovah%27s_Witnesses_in_the_United_States

https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/watchtower-study-october-2018/1918-one-hundred-years-ago/

The letter blames Jewish businessmen and Catholics for leading a propaganda campaign against Jehovah’s Witnesses and persecuting them. Rutherford then says that JWs “are fighting for the very same high ethical goals and ideals” as the national government. Also “referring to the purely religious and unpolitical goals and efforts of the Bible Researchers, it can be said that these are in full agreement with the identical goals of the national government of the German Reich.”

Rutherford spends a good chunk of the letter denying allegations of communism and begging Hitler to lift the bans on the religion.

In modern contexts, the Society brags about this. This whole story has been respun as thousands of Jehovah’s Witnesses sending Hitler personal letters imploring to his humanity and asking for an end to Nazi persecution for everyone. A good specific example is from a 2011 Watchtower. It says “Did Hitler receive letters of protest from church officials concerning the outrages perpetrated by the National Socialists, or Nazis? There were some, but such letters were few and far between. In the Moscow archives, however, Eberle found a file containing a number of letters sent to Hitler by Jehovah’s Witnesses from different parts of Germany, protesting against the conduct of the Nazis. In fact, Witnesses from about 50 countries sent Hitler some 20,000 letters and telegrams protesting the mistreatment of Jehovah’s Witnesses. (...) [This] testifies to an act of collective and uncompromising defiance that commands respect.”

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2011731#h=4

The letter and Declaration did not give Hitler a change of heart. In March 1935, he reintroduced compulsory military service. All Jehovah’s Witnesses refused to comply. On April 1, the religion was placed under full ban.

There had been between 25,000-30,000 JWs in pre-Nazi Germany, and 20,000 stayed active through that era. About 6000 were placed in concentration camps or prisons.

https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/nazi-persecution-of-jehovahs-witnesses

Jehovah’s Witnesses— unlike other groups— were allowed to walk out of the camps at any time if they signed a paper renouncing their faith first. I don’t have any hard numbers, but every source just says that very few did. Approximately 1200 died. They wore a purple triangle, and for a while, purple was like the JW color, if that makes sense, but nowadays there’s an official Org logo and it’s blue

Culturally, Jehovah’s Witnesses paint themselves as the shining beacon of spiritual resistance to the Nazis while simultaneously throwing every other group that was there under the bus. They say they’re the only ones who went into the camps and came out spiritually stronger, the only ones who made it out with their faith intact, and the only ones who supported each other as an internal community. Since the internet became popular, they’ve gotten more careful about what is printed outright in publications, but old yearbooks are really bad. They’ll draw parallels to Witnesses thrown into Soviet era gulags and talk about how they’re the only clean and righteous people in there, and everyone admired them and had to admit that, even the guards

Also this might be really shitty of me to say but I don’t think anything about JWs’ behavior in the Holocaust is inspiring or uplifting. I don’t think choosing to stay in the camps is so amazing of them. I think that’s what I would have done if I had lived in that era. I think it’s perverse to tell people— especially children— that God demands proof of their faith in the form of their blood spilled out on the ground

[thisbibliomaniac]

I’m scared I’ll go to hell if I die from the coronavirus. Ima. Christian but I’m scared if I liked games or tv or stuff and don’t know the whole bible or always be doing something scripture related I’ll be damned that’s what I see so many saying. “ Christians should never do anything with tv and games and they will damn everyone, lukewarm Christians play games and watch tv! “

They're wrong. It's that simple. The Bible never says you're not allowed to participate in fun things. You'll notice the people saying these things are nearly always anonymous. That's because they're trolls trying to spread uncertainty amongst believers who are vulnerable to it. Let's ignore what trolls are saying a focus instead on what Jesus says.

Throughout the Bible, old testament and new, God has set up a standard of perfection among believers. It's literally impossible for any fallen human to follow the entire Law set up by God through Moses in the old testament. The only person in all of history who has followed the Law perfectly is Jesus Christ himself. There's a reason for this! There's a reason the Law is impossible to keep! Theres a reason it's impossible for man to follow the commands of Jesus 100%!

Paul often talks about how the law is used to illuminate how impossible it is for us to reach God's standard of perfection, and that's why we need Jesus to cover us.

"What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, "You shall not covet." "

Romans 7:7 ESV

"And behold, a man came up to him, saying, "Teacher, what good deed must I do to have eternal life?" And he said to him, "Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments." He said to him, "Which ones?" And Jesus said, "You shall not murder, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness, Honor your father and mother, and, You shall love your neighbor as yourself." The young man said to him, "All these I have kept. What do I still lack?" Jesus said to him, "If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me." When the young man heard this he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions."

Matthew 19:16‭-‬22 ESV

Jesus knows this man's weakness, and highlights where he is deficient. The disciples respond;

"When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished, saying, "Who then can be saved?" But Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.""

Matthew 19:25‭-‬26 ESV

You're not good enough anon. You can't be good enough. You won't be good enough. That's why you have a Savior!

Hebrews 11 is often referred to as the Hall of Faith, but if you're familiar with the stories of any of the people mentioned there, you know the list is full of liars, murderers, adulterers, and drunkards. That's because it was grace through faith that redeemed them, not their own righteousness.

If there are specific things that you think perhaps the Holy Spirit has been convicting you of (a particular show, or game, or music), pray on those things. But I don't think we have any reason to think there's condemnation for enjoying fiction as a rule.

If you think the Holy Spirit might be convicting you of spending your time on those things rather than the things of God, then you may have made an idol out of those things, and you definitely need to pray and meditate on that.

Finally, one can never spend too much time meditating on the things of God. Have a set Bible reading time everyday if you don't already. If you need a schedule (I did) I have one posted at @livingandactive which won't link, but you can search the name. Dedicate a certain amount of time a day to prayer, at least until you get in the habit of "praying without ceasing". Find some theology to read. Grace To You is always giving away free books. I posted a link to one a couple days ago on @thisbibliophiile .

Take some time to think about how much of what you're feeling is actually conviction from the Holy Spirit versus guilt and fear heaped on by the world.

Sorry this turned into a novel, but I hope it makes sense and answers your question!

[n1ghtcrwler]

It seems like you are supporting lgbtq people. How does that square with your Christian values?

I’d be curious to know how sending vague, cowardly accusations from behind a gray face squares with your values, but I suspect that will be a mystery that remains unanswered. But it would be rude of me to end the answer there.

Given that I don’t know what activity in specific you’re referring to, I’ll just have to be equally vague. The nature of your question, that you want to know why I support people when I have done very little that could be even broadly considered support of their lifestyles, suggests that your big issue is that you think the only appropriate Christian response to the LGBT+ community is to distance myself from them entirely. Have no engagement, condemn the sexuality every time it is mentioned, repeatedly tell them that judgement rests upon them. But I would argue that that would be far harder to square with Christian values than anything I have done on this matter. See, I believe that Christians, as not only image-bearers of God (as all humans are) but also as commissioned representatives of Him (in accordance with Christ’s sending), have a duty to show the world around us who God is and how He loves in a robust and consistent way. Assuming even the most harsh view of homosexuality-as-sin, this forbids us from such distant and unloving behavior. Tell me, what do you think it looks like to live out the claim that Christ came to us while we were yet sinners? That God poured out His love on us while we were still His enemies? Because I believe that no one can see God’s love in us if all we pour out on them is hate. No one can hear the Savior calling out to welcome them if the only words we shout are condemnation. We cannot claim we are carrying Christ with us if all we lug around is law and death.

See, it seems to be that people have taken the command to tell the truth in love and twisted it to where they believe telling the truth is love, no matter how it is delivered. That if I care enough about a person to tell them something I believe to be true, that is in itself an act of love and must be taken as such. That if I believe homosexuality is a sin, than any act of condemning that sin must be seen as loving because it is truth; and that anyone who feels unloved by it is being too demanding. But scripture presents love as a qualifier for how we carry the gospel, which means there must be ways we can tell the truth that are not in love. We have to ask ourselves if the way we present truth makes people aware that we love them, not simply because we are present, but how we are present. Now as it happens, I do believe the Bible holds homosexuality as a sin--I hold much more firmly that basing one’s identity on anything but God is, in fact, idolatry, whether it is sexual orientation or Christian denomination--and only my newest followers would have grounds to be surprised to see me say that as I have had this discussion many times before. And yet I still have friends who live such a lifestyle, who know both that I believe there is sin in their lives and that I love them as people and as friends.

I also hold that there is no hierarchy of sins, so it is no worse a sin than, say, using the name of Christ to prop up the hateful actions of an angry man in the pursuit of political power. I also believe it is my responsibility as a Christian to invite people to know Christ and grow in relationship with Him, whether or not they ultimately agree with me about specific things being sinful, and I can’t do that if I’m pushing everyone away. I hold that if condemning a specific sin is more important than showing people the love of Christ, then we have lost sight of our actual mission. If it is more important to be seen as right than to be a lens reflecting Christ, then we are seeking after an idol of self. If berating people about their life until they resent you is a higher goal than treating them as fellow image-bearers of God in the manner Christ would, then I submit you have far more to square with Christian values than I do.

I do not stay within my limited religious bubble. I walk with people who have known only rejection from the religious leaders of their day, make no secret about my relationship to God and my understanding of sin, and take every opportunity to point to Christ who saved me. I love and value every person I meet as someone who Christ was sent to save. I call out religious hypocrisy where I see it, and urge all people, saved or not, to refocus their lives on God Incarnate. I’m not perfect, but that is the path I aim to walk. And as long as I keep seeing in the gospels a Jesus who did the same, I will feel no need to apologize to you for it.

[bananonbinary]

if anyone’s curious, here’s my very lengthy and disorganized notes + scriptures on the bible and polyamory. (i didnt include any specific references to biblical polyam relationships, just because everyone knows everyone was polyam and i dont feel the need to source that. this is mostly focusing on The Law. and polyam’s status as a “sin.”)

my conclusion: 1) “marriage” in the bible is defined by man + God, not the state. it’s just being in a committed relationship with someone (and doing sexytimes). 2) the bible describes polyamorous relationships as “marriage,” even the ones it’s condemning for being incest or w/e. 3) therefor, polyamory can NOT be judged differently than monoamory on grounds of adultery or fornication, and while there is greater discussion to be had about these things (i dont think they are sins either), it’s bigoted to presume those topics are somehow inherent to polyam and not just relevant to all sexual relationships. there is NO biblical evidence that polyamorous “marriage” should be treated any different than monoamorous “marriage.”

define marriage

the Big One, genesis 2:23-25


“The man said,
“This is now bone of my bones
    and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called ‘woman,’
    for she was taken out of man.”
24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.
25 Adam and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.”



there’s no legal status here, nor even a particular ceremony. Adam and Eve are “married” just by being in a committed relationship before God.


1 Corinthians 6:12
12

“I have the right to do anything,” you say—but not everything is beneficial. “I have the right to do anything”—but I will not be mastered by anything. 13 You say, “Food for the stomach and the stomach for food, and God will destroy them both.” The body, however, is not meant for sexual immorality but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. 14 By his power God raised the Lord from the dead, and he will raise us also. 15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never! 16 Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.”[b] 17 But whoever is united with the Lord is one with him in spirit.



there’s a lot in here worth talking about in regards to queer relationships and the questionable universal applicability of paul’s letters, but a)sin is specifically alluded to as “not beneficial” (which means stfu “oh it was accepted back then but we know better now.” if ur gonna consider it sinful WITHOUT scripture backing u up you better have a damn good reason.) and b) “one flesh” is used just to refer to the act of sex. so if we’re defining marriage with the genisis passage, all it is is leaving your family, living with someone, and having sex with them. no pastor or county judge required.

are we really willing to say Morality is decided by something as fickle and bigoted as legal status?

matthew 19:4
4

“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’[b]? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”



marriage isn’t defined as something the state decides, but by the action of choosing to be with someone and “becoming one flesh.” defining marriage based on what the state says rather than God is borderline heresy.


define adultery

the too-many-words one, leviticus 20:10-22


“‘If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death.
11 “‘If a man has sexual relations with his father’s wife, he has dishonored his father. Both the man and the woman are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
12 “‘If a man has sexual relations with his daughter-in-law, both of them are to be put to death. What they have done is a perversion; their blood will be on their own heads.
13 “‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
14 “‘If a man marries both a woman and her mother, it is wicked. Both he and they must be burned in the fire, so that no wickedness will be among you.
15 “‘If a man has sexual relations with an animal, he is to be put to death, and you must kill the animal.
16 “‘If a woman approaches an animal to have sexual relations with it, kill both the woman and the animal. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
17 “‘If a man marries his sister, the daughter of either his father or his mother, and they have sexual relations, it is a disgrace. They are to be publicly removed from their people. He has dishonored his sister and will be held responsible.
18 “‘If a man has sexual relations with a woman during her monthly period, he has exposed the source of her flow, and she has also uncovered it. Both of them are to be cut off from their people.
19 “‘Do not have sexual relations with the sister of either your mother or your father, for that would dishonor a close relative; both of you would be held responsible.
20 “‘If a man has sexual relations with his aunt, he has dishonored his uncle. They will be held responsible; they will die childless.
21 “‘If a man marries his brother’s wife, it is an act of impurity; he has dishonored his brother. They will be childless.
22 “‘Keep all my decrees and laws and follow them, so that the land where I am bringing you to live may not vomit you out. 23 You must not live according to the customs of the nations I am going to drive out before you. Because they did all these things, I abhorred them. 24 But I said to you, “You will possess their land; I will give it to you as an inheritance, a land flowing with milk and honey.” I am the Lord your God, who has set you apart from the nations.



only ONE thing is referred to as “adultery” in this list, sleeping with another man’s wife. not marrying a mother and her daughter, not marrying your brother’s wife. those are listed as completely different crimes. adultery isn’t marriage, by definition. but having multiple spouses still counts as marriage. God just says dont be fucking gross about it.
 also. i saw some arguments like “they were just poly cause it was cultural osmosis, not cause it was holy, but verse 22 clearly says these laws are NOT the laws of the land. the people of God were to keep away from incest and adultery, but NOT polyam. inch resting. 


jeremiah 23:10,14


The land is full of adulterers;
because of the curse the land lies parched 
and the pastures in the wilderness are withered.
 The prophets follow an evil course
and use their power unjustly.


And among the prophets of Jerusalem 
I have seen something horrible:
 They commit adultery and live a lie.
 They strengthen the hands of evildoers, 
so that not one of them turns from their wickedness.
 They are all like Sodom to me;
 the people of Jerusalem are like Gomorrah.”



The key component of the adultery metaphor here is deceit. The passage is even titled “the lying prophets.” there’s no evidence that consensual, non-deceitful polyamory is even remotely similar to what constitutes “adultery.”

deuteronomy 22: 22, 30


22 If a man is found sleeping with another man’s wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die. You must purge the evil from Israel.


30 A man is not to marry his father’s wife; he must not dishonor his father’s bed.



again, you *sleep with* another man’s wife and it’s adultery (not marriage), but you *marry* your father’s wife and it’s just gross.

proverbs 5: 20, 6:24, 26


Why, my son, be intoxicated with another man’s wife?
 Why embrace the bosom of a wayward woman?



keeping you from your neighbor’s wife,
 from the smooth talk of a wayward woman

For a prostitute can be had for a loaf of bread,
 but another man’s wife preys on your very life.



it’s literally always “another man’s wife.” not “anyone but your one and only wife.” a prostitute isn’t even “adultery,” which is p sus and gross tbh but not really the point at this exact moment. find me a single passage in the bible that condemns adultery as anything other than having sex with someone whose partner is unaware.

non-scripture sources:

https://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/adultery/

Adultery: conjugal infidelity. An adulterer was a man who had illicit intercourse with a married or a betrothed woman, and such a woman was an adulteress. Intercourse between a married man and an unmarried woman was fornication. Adultery was regarded as a great social wrong, as well as a great sin.


https://www.queertheology.com/bible-polyamory/

Scripture doesn’t just describe these relationships, it seems to condone them. Exodus 21:10* sets out some guidelines for how to treat your wives if you have more than one. Deuteronomy 21:15–17 governs inheritance amongst children in polygamous marriages. If authors of these passages thought polygamy was wrong, their advice would have been “don’t do it!” not “here’s how you should do it.”

When you’re born, you are literally made from the body of your parents… but if they have a second child, that child is just as loved, important, and from the body. From God to our parents to our children, we understand love to be abundant. The same is true with romantic and sexual love. 

*the verse is: “If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.
 And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.” (its a lot of fucked up shit about slavery actually, but the POINT is there’s no BIBLICAL basis to condemn polyam. if u want to still call it a sin u need to find a reason it’s not BENEFICIAL, as paul said earlier.)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gG9-bgnVc1c&feature=youtu.be


if u think jesus/the church is the model of perfect marriage, that’s poly my dude. also that video describes jesus as a “relationship-slut” which is great.




God doesn’t ask us to do things for no reason. what is the reason polyamory would be considered harmful (“not beneficial”)?

(spoilers: its not. polyam folx can be just as healthy or just as toxic as monoam  folx. if ur willing to challenge homophobia why arent u willing to challenge anything else)

addendum: its really not good scientific method anyway to have to prove this ISN’T a sin. thats not how the burden of proof works. why don’t yall try proving it IS a sin first, instead of just assuming it is because some homophobes told u. just saying what’s the point of queer theology if we dont question EVERYTHING and just take some crusty old white guys’ interpretations as the only ones that matter.

addendum the second: paul was ace af and doesnt quite realize no one else is so his opinions on sex are a bit weird tbh. 1 corinthians 7 makes a LOT of sense if you read it from a “whats the big deal about sexual attraction” kinda way.

third adendum: this also sort of means chaste marriage isn’t considered biblical, but i dont really think thats a problem because it doesnt mean ur relationship isn’t valid, just like. it doesnt qualify as the Thing in the Bible that is cheat-on-able and needing to follow Marriage Laws. also as weve proven, that very specific definition of marriage isnt really relevant to relationship status or legal status today.

[mothric]

Hi, friend! This is kind of a weird question, but I know you deal with a lot of mental struggles specifically relating to Christianity, (If that makes sense,) and I have a Thing: I'm almost 21. I'm coming up on 16 years of being best friends with this girl, and in the past few months, ai've started to realize that the friendship is really toxic for me, so I've been trying to disentangle myself from her for the sake of my mental health. (1/2 hopefully)

My problem is, I keep feeling like that isn’t Scriptural. Like, nowhere in Scripture does it encourage you to walk away from toxic/abusive situations. You’re encouraged to love, to give without worrying about what you get in return, (Which sounds an awful lot like supporting them even when you know you can’t lean on them,) and to “value others as greater than yourself.” If your neighbor asks for your cloak, give them your coat, (visa versa?) Etc. (2/3)

So I feel guilty and selfish about trying to get out of the situation, like I’m not really showing God’s love. But it was affecting my mental health to the point where it was affecting my physical health. And she has depression, anxiety, etc. Which just makes me feel WORSE, because I don’t want to abandon her, but it also feels like she’s extremely manipulative. We haven’t spoken in over a week, but her birthday is coming up tomorrow. Part of me wants to message her happy birthday, (¾)

While the other part of me thinks that’ll just be opening the door for the cycle to start all over again. And part of me feels like I should LET it, because as a Christian, it’s my responsibility to show God’s love without putting myself first. It’s just got me very worried, so I wanted to message you. Sorry this is so long! (4/4) 

Hi there friend,

I apologize in advance, this is going to be a very long answer, as there is a lot to unpack. But I’ve been in similar situations so this hits close to home, and I really want to share what God has been teaching me in this area.

the tl;dr is, no, you are not in the wrong for walking away from an abusive relationship, even as a Christian. and there is Scripture to support it.

Firstly, I’m really sorry to hear your friend doesn’t treat you lovingly and that your relationship has deteriorated to this point. It is always a sad thing to lose someone we love, especially when that loss comes from the realization that they aren’t good for you or good to you. It is really difficult to see toxic behaviours for what they are when we love someone, because we want to believe the best of them. I’m proud of you for recognizing these things and acknowledging that you yourself have a limit.

You say that there is no Scripture that encourages walking away from, or breaking off, abusive situations. Allow me to provide some evidence to the contrary:

“Make no friendship with a man given to anger, nor go with a wrathful man, lest you learn his ways and entangle yourself in a snare.” (Prov. 22:24-25) 

“If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.” (Matt. 18:15-17)

“As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned.” (Titus 3:10-11)

“If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all.” (Rom. 12:18)

“A gentle tongue is a tree of life, but perverseness in it breaks the spirit.” (Prov. 15:4)

This is just scratching the surface, my friend. There are plenty more passages that address unhealthy relationships, condemn unloving behaviour, acknowledge the pain of being on the receiving end of harmful words and actions, and speak to the reciprocity of real love. The Bible may never outright say the words “emotional abuse” or “toxic relationship”, but you can see even from these few passages that there is meant to be a standard for the way Christians treat each other, and there is a limit on tolerating divisive, abusive behaviour. Especially from people who say they love Christ.

Let me ask you this: Did God command David, in the Old Testament, to just sit and accept the abuse he received from King Saul? Did God condemn David for fleeing for his life? Did God condemn Jonathan for standing up to his abusive father or for helping his best friend escape him? 

Let me also ask you this: Will an abusive person recognize their harmful behaviour if such behaviour is silently tolerated? Is it actually loving, on your end, to enable an abusive person to continue in the same cycles, again and again, never addressing it? Frankly put: is it loving to let someone continue in sin, especially when they are harming somebody else?

The love of Christ should shape the way we treat other people, and that includes the way your friend treats you. But what will she learn if a line is never drawn, if she is never told “this is unacceptable and I cannot tolerate it”? If your friend thinks it is okay to treat you this way, how many others will she treat this way? And how can you, with a spirit consistently crushed and poisoned by abuse and manipulation, drained of your resources, keep giving to others out of what you don’t have, when you are giving yourself no opportunity to rest?

Yes, the Scriptures demand that we forgive everyone who wrongs us. But please do not confuse forgiveness for enabling, or being a doormat. Your relationship, as it stands, is one-sided and unsustainable. Paul says to live peaceably with others as far as it depends on you, and your friend has not allowed there to be peace in your relationship. The last thing she needs is continued affirmation that treating you the way she does is okay. What she needs is somebody who is willing to tell her she needs help, professional help, more help than you can give her. What she needs is the truth. 

I’m not saying you should go in with a laundry list of every way she’s ever wronged you – that can stir up resentment and push her even farther away from seeking real help. It rarely helps to tell a toxic person they are toxic, they need to come to that realization themselves, in increments, with good counseling or therapy. But perhaps this realization, for your friend, must begin with you, lovingly and firmly drawing a line and saying, “no more of this.” 

It is very normal to feel guilty and selfish in a situation like this. This is especially true if your friend has made you feel like you’re responsible for her in some way. The truth is, you are not her doctor, therapist, or caretaker. And you are not God! You are not responsible for her health, her emotions, or her recovery. She is responsible for the body and mind God gave her, and you are responsible for yours. The Bible says to uphold one another in love. And sometimes, friend… love means saying no to someone else, for both their benefit and yours.

If you’re still feeling doubtful, this article puts it much more succinctly. Also, the book “Boundaries,” by Dr. Henry Cloud, helped me so much in this area. I highly, highly recommend it.He’s a licensed psychologist and a Christian, and he also addresses these “Christian” (but unbiblical) ideas that we tend to have about what unselfish love looks like. Setting boundaries is actually one of the most loving things you can do for others.

I’m sorry again that this was so long, but like I said, this really hit home for me. One of my parents is emotionally manipulative, and I have known more than a handful of people who were abusive to me. I have had to unlearn a lot of old ideas about what it means to love people like this, to take care of myself, and to properly steward my mind, my health, and my relationships.

I don’t know your face, friend, but I feel the love of God in my heart for you and I will be praying for you tonight. Know that you are truly loved by One who sees your pain and desires healing and wholeness for both you and your friend, and you are not in the wrong for separating from her. He will take care of her too.

Go in peace, beloved. 💜

[ruminativerabbi]

Seventy-Five Years In

I was very moved last Monday to take note of the seventy-fifty anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz by the Red Army in 1945. As all my readers must surely know by now, the Shoah is the backdrop against which I’ve lived out both my professional and spiritual lives for as long as I can remember. And although I could make some sort of semi-rational argument for not feeling personally involved to that degree—my own people, after all, came to these shores long before the First World War—that is not at all how things have played out. Nor is it at all difficult for me to explain why the Shoah looms so large in my thinking: surely no one who professes belief in a just, caring, God can just wave Auschwitz away as a mere aberration in a millennia-long narrative featuring God as the ever-watchful Guardian of Israel who neither slumbereth nor sleepeth. That thought, of course, comes directly from the Bible—from the 121st psalm, to be exact—and has been recited by so many rabbis (including myself) at so many funerals so as almost to sound more like a truism to be embraced than a challenge to be faced. And yet that is precisely not how it works—or has ever worked—for me: in those few words lies the weight that has been pressing down my shoulders from above for my entire adult life.

The summer after I defended my doctoral dissertation but before I began work in earnest on preparing my thesis for publication, I attempted to write a book of post-Holocaust theology. In retrospect, it feels like just so much youthful hubris to have allowed myself blithely to wander into a maze which even rabbis scores of years older than myself had failed successfully to negotiate. On the other hand, surely one of the great gifts of youth is the willingness to run a race merely because it exists and wholly without reference to other people’s successes or failures at running it! Nor was this just a gauntlet I wanted to take up as a way of measuring myself against others, but rather a real challenge that I needed to address for my own internal reasons and not simply to see if I could do better than others in addressing them.

As I’ve mentioned before in this space, the Jewish communities of my great-grandparents’ towns in Poland and Belarus were totally annihilated during the war, the only survivors at all being not “real” survivors at all but merely people like my great-grandparents and grandparents who left decades earlier. So perhaps it was that detail—combined, I admit, with the seminal experience of surreptitiously reading Ilya Ehrenburg and Vasily Grossman’s The Black Book of Soviet Jewry: The Ruthless Murder of Jews by German-Fascist Invaders Throughout the Temporarily-Occupied Regions of the Soviet Union and in the German Nazi Death Camps Established on Occupied Polish Soil During the War 1941–1945 as a boy of eleven or twelve, the single experience that, at least in retrospect, I think probably affected my adolescence more profoundly than any other—it was the contemplation of the fate of the Jews our “our” towns in Europe that created the context for me to feel called personally to attempt to create a plausible version of Jewish theology that specifically led through, not around, the gates of the camps.

I cast around for a long time trying to find a way in. I read all the standard books of post-Shoah theology and found most of them all to be wanting in some specific way. (And some I found wanting in every way.) The best of them, I noted, were predicated on the supposition that the Holocaust was basically a cosmic riddle in need of a solution. If God knew about Auschwitz as people were being murdered there in such unimaginable numbers, then either it either was or was not beyond the scope of divine power to save them. If it was within the scope of God’s might to save them, then either they were not saved for a real, cogent reason or they were left unrescued for no particular reason at all. But because both of the above apodoses—the “then” clauses—are fully inconsonant with traditional Jewish belief, most of the authors I read ended up proposing that the Jewish people in the post-war era simply make their peace with living on the horns of the terrible dilemma that requires supposing either that God could have saved the millions but didn’t (which effectively negates the notion of divine mercy enduring forever), or that God would have saved the millions but couldn’t (which negates the notion of divine omnipotence), or that God would have saved the millions and could have but was simply unaware that they needed saving (which effectively denies the notion of divine omniscience). There was, I admit, a certain wistful cogency to this line of reasoning. But the thought that Jews in the post-Shoah era are condemned by their own history—by our own history—to live forever balanced on the horns of an unresolvable dilemma did not sound like something I could imagine myself teaching others or, to speak frankly, embracing as my own theological stance either.

I needed to take a different tack, therefore, one that would sidestep the Shoah-as-a-cosmic-puzzle motif entirely. For a while, I considered my options. And then, when I felt I had no real choice but to rise to my own challenge, I began to write about the Shoah as the shadow cast on the earth by the demonic realm.

When most moderns think about demons, they think about Halloween-style imps with pitchforks and devilish horns. But that is just the paper-thin veneer that somehow manages to obscure millennia of speculation about a demonic realm and the dangers too close proximity to its boundaries can pose to unwary travelers. It’s hard to think of another area of Jewish culture that has more totally been forgotten, however. The ignoramus who wrote that “Judaism does not have a demonology, or any set of doctrines about demons” in the Wikipedia article on demonology, for example, could not possibly have been more wrong. But he or she is in good company!

The Bible is full of demons who function as evil spirits sent from on high to tempt, to seduce, or to test the moral mettle of uncareful mortals. Some of their names are almost well known, while others are obscure. But Mavet, Lilith, Reshef, Azazel, and Dever—among many other unnamed sheidim of various sorts—are a real part of ancient Israelite heritage.  The Talmud is even more full of demons and malevolent sprites, but it is in kabbalistic literature that Jewish demonology reaches its fullest flower: entire works, some many hundreds of pages long, were composed to describe the world of demons, to speculate regarding the relationship of King Samael and Queen Lilith, and to muse about the plausible ways the demonic realm exists as the dark edge of all existence, as the shadow cast by life itself on the living, as the living embodiment of the evil inclination and the almost irresistible will to behave sinfully to which all but the greatest tzaddikim occasionally succumb. (Readers interested in learning more can profitably consult Joshua Trachtenberg’s Jewish Magic and Superstition, published in 1934 but still in print and still very readable and useful.)

So that was the vineyard in which I chose to labor. It allowed me to avoid the theology-as-unresolvable-paradox trap and instead to imagine the Nazi hordes as an army of unholy demons in the thrall of King Samael, as the embodiment not of German imperialist chauvinism or even of German anti-Semitism but of the dark forces of evil that only the moral force of those committed to the service of God can keep at bay…and that even so occasionally overwhelm their opponents just as the sea occasionally rises up over beach and sea wall to wreak havoc on those unfortunates who live too close to the sea always to escape its wrath. I imagined the Einsatzgruppen that travelled across Ukraine and other parts of Nazi-occupied Eastern Europe with the sole mission of murdering the entire Jewish population in whatever town or village they found traces of Jewish life—I imagined the members of those killing squads not as men or even as beasts, but as part of a demonic horde that exists in the first place to destroy any who serve God and who promulgate God’s word in the world.

I worked for almost a year on that book and eventually finished it. But I never published it, never felt confident enough to show it around to publishers or, even, to too many colleagues or friends. Eventually, I took one chapter, the one about King Samael, and published it in the margins of the Sabbath and Festivals volume of Siddur Tzur Yisrael. But I abandoned the rest of the project, uncertain of my own conclusions and yet unable seriously to come up with an alternate explanation of how men and women who in their “regular” lives were bakers, schoolteachers, and letter carriers could suddenly turn into the kind of people who could shoot babies in their mothers’ arms, who could murder entire villages of people, who could display a level of cold-hearted cruelty that cannot even be referenced as “bestial” since it is impossible to imagine actual animals displaying that level of callous brutality and heartless malice towards each other.

As I read about the symposium in Jerusalem that attracted so many international personalities and then about the parallel commemoration last week in Poland at Auschwitz itself, and I read the stories of survivors and their descendants in article after article on-line and in print—I was brought back to that project. I called the book then The Dark Lamp, a phrase used in the Zohar to denote energy that exists to obscure rather than to illuminate, to cast shadows rather than light. I even re-read a few chapters, curious to see how my prose would stand up after all these years. I haven’t ever shared the details of that project with anyone before. I’m not even sure that I’m doing the right thing by sharing them now. But I find myself more sure than ever that I was right, that the sole way to keep faith with traditional Jewish beliefs without feeling obliged to look away from the details surrounding the Nazi war against the Jews is to seek refuge in the realm of the demonic and to cultivate the sense that it surely must be as important to note that the forces of evil were eventually beaten back and defeated as it is that they surged forth in the first place, briefly—and unimaginably tragically—overwhelming the barriers erected in the first place to protect the world from their fury, from their rage. Should I publish my book now? I suppose I might! (But maybe not.)

[ramblingclandestinethoughts]

Update on the therapy stuff so far

So I had my fourth appointment a couple of days ago and I kind of want to make a post about each one but still haven’t actually done it, so...gonna just make a long-ass post now about what it’s been like so far and hopefully I’ll keep up with it in the future. Right now we’re meeting weekly, and I really like her so far! She seems super nice and I feel comfortable talking to her. She doesn’t use a bunch of therapy jargon, platitudes, etc., and something else I really like is that she’s never tries to tell me what/who I am or what I should do? Like, she seems less interested in trying to tell me exactly what my sexuality is and what I should and shouldn’t do, and more interested in helping me figure out what I genuinely want. I can’t remember if this was in the second or third appt, but at one point she said something about how people often talk about how we should take risks and stuff - but it’s also ok if taking risks isn’t what you want. She said you should take risks if that’s what’s best for you personally, but it doesn’t have to be the case for everyone. If I want to try working things out with my bf because of the security of being with someone who I’m compatible with and close to (as opposed to taking the risk of exploring things with women) there’s nothing wrong with that - what we need to do is figure out if that’s truly what will make me happy. Anyway, below are details on the four appointments I’ve had so far:

2/25/20 - The first appt was sort of just a foundational kind of thing - telling her why I’m seeking therapy, some basics about why I’m questioning my sexuality, stuff about leaving religion and when/if I should tell my family about that, etc. We talked a little about compulsory heterosexuality (which I’m familiar with) and she asked me to research it in the next week and see if anything about it applies to me. (She usually gives people “homework assignments” of things to do or think about until the next session).

3/3/20 - We talked about a conversation I had with my dad a few days before about queer people and the Bible. The short version is that he and I started talking about it, I mentioned some of the arguments I’ve heard about why the Bible might not actually condemn homosexuality (without necessarily saying if I agreed with them or not, and definitely not mentioning that I no longer give a fuck about what the Bible says), he basically just said that he doesn’t think those arguments hold up. However, he also doesn’t believe it’s his place to try to decide who’s going to hell and who isn’t, and also that he doesn’t think it makes sense to expect people who don’t believe the Bible is true to follow what it teaches. So in other words, queer Christians are living in sin but he doesn’t think they’re going to hell any more than Christians who struggle with other sins, and there’s no point in telling people to be celibate if they aren’t Christian. He says he wishes he could accept queer people but can’t do it in good conscience, and I believe him - tbh I’m 99% certain he'd be a great ally if not for the fucking Bible. Anyway, we also talked about comp het stuff - the main ones that seem apply to me are liking unattainable men (celebrities, fictional characters, boys who didn’t like me back), never liking the idea of marrying a man (assumed I’d want to eventually), generally liking men that are somewhat “feminine” from a traditional standpoint (long hair, no beards, etc.), and thinking that women are objectively more attractive then men in general. This one is really interesting to me because I feel like I have so few childhood signs of being queer, but I do actually remember thinking this as a teenager. I remember being frustrated that it seemed like there were so few attractive guys but lots of attractive girls, and it was kind of unfair that guys had so many more options. 

3/10/20 - Last week I was supposed to think about the different crushes I’ve had on boys in the past and try to figure out why I was drawn to them. I looked at some old journals to help me remember stuff, which was kind of fun. The first crush I can remember was when I was 9 (fun fact: that guy is apparently now in prison? so I think I dodged a bullet there). The last one was in 2015, possibly through early 2016...so it’s been a while. It was kind of hard to remember how it felt to have a crush on someone, but I do remember it wasn’t too hard to get over them. Like I know I was sad about it when I realized they’d never like me back or whatever, but unless I’m remembering wrong I don’t think I was ever upset for a really long time or anything? I never knew any of the guys very well, and I’m not sure what exactly drew me to them. Mostly just that I thought they were attractive and I just generally felt drawn to them for some reason, but I never had the chance to actually form any kind of emotional connection to them. Another thing we talked about was core values and how they play into making decisions. We tried to pinpoint my top four out of this huge list, which was...kind of difficult, but I ended up with Personal Fulfillment, Kindness, Honesty, and Nature. This week I’m supposed to think about how making different decisions might look based on these core values.  

3/17/20 - We talked about a few different things this time. We went over the core values and how they might work with relationship decisions. At one point I told her about this girl from church youth group at high school I potentially felt attraction to this one time? The problem is I can’t remember it very clearly, but I just remember liking the way she looked and it must have been similar to how I used to feel when looking at cute boys, bc I do remember thinking something along the lines of “well I probably just like her clothes/I’m comparing my body to hers and even if I was somehow a lesbian (which I’m not, lol can you imagine? crazy idea) I would never act on something like that, so it doesn’t matter anyway.” It stands out to me because I can’t remember any other times from when I was younger that I was specifically attracted to a girl - I can just remember a few vague instances with girls I passed by on the street or whatever where I was “comparing myself to another girl’s body.” I also told her about how I’m watching Ocean’s 8 mostly for the eye candy (I felt it was relevant lol). Also we discussed the way I’ve been sort of semi-identifying as lesbian in my head and how I sort of...do little secretive pride things? Like I have a couple of rainbow socks I’ll wear if I’m feeling especially gay one day, etc. Then at the end talked a bit about how, when I’m talking to her about how I feel and verbally processing things, I tend to kind of just barely mention the things I’m anxious about regarding exploring my sexuality and then move onto something else - so she wants me to think about that more this week and try to pinpoint the specific things I’m afraid of. 

Things to think about:

Week 1. Research compulsory heterosexuality and see which things might apply to me.

Week 2. Think about past crushes on guys - what things about them attracted me? How hard were they to get over? lol not very hard

Week 3. Think about core values and how they might play into future decisions, particularly about relationships.

Week 4 (current). Examine/let myself feel anxiety about exploring sexuality - what I am afraid of, specifically?