#also you're a presbyterian

[zatdummesmadchen]

Careful with the tags. If the kids could read they would be very upset !!! 😡/jk

Jesus was a Judean Jew, and that matters theologically. You can’t ignore how important that is for your own salvation just because it fills you with satisfaction to say he was a Palestinian Christian when He factually wasn’t.

[batmanisagatewaydrug]

if I can be totally honest with you guys when I see people squinting distrustfully at masturbation on the grounds that it makes them feel good I do feel like I'm speaking with the ghost of 19th century Presbyterian minister Samuel Graham, who warned his followers against sexual stimulation, warm baths, and flavorful foods on the grounds that such things would corrupt the soul and body and bring about the ruination of society. like that's what we're working with here, you're serving 19th century minister.

also before anyone brings it up no, Graham did not invent graham crackers himself, but they were created by followers of his teachings, much of which revolved around eating plain, course bread. Graham baked a progenitor of the modern graham cracker, a sort of sugarless flour biscuit.

[creatingblackcharacters]

Hello! I'm wondering if you have any resources on being Black and Christian as I'm writing two characters of this experience. One of them is a Black woman, and it isn't a central part of her character arc or a major source of conflict for her, but it does inform her experience, routines, and beliefs. She goes to church, prays before bed, etc. Her love interest also grew up Black and Christian but is now somewhat less spiritual and leans agnostic. They're part of an ensemble cast that differs a lot in race, gender expression, belief, and sexuality. While the story is a comedy I won't be making any big commentary on wether Christianity is good or bad or anything like that.

Thanks so much for the time you put into this blog!

I feel like you gotta commit a little more here. The intersection of her Blackness and Christianity- especially if she is of the cultural background where the introduction of Christianity was colonial in nature- does matter! Especially if we're comparing different groups and beliefs.

I'm my experience, many Black Americans hold tight to Christianity- and everything it entails, good or bad- because it has long been a source of community and empowerment, where none else existed. Others reject it, for numerous reasons. I myself am Christian, but currently do not believe in the concept of "the church". Thus your agnostic Black character- what sort of environment and denomination were they in that made them lean away? Were they Baptist? Holiness? Presbyterian? Jehovah's Witness? Methodist? "Christian" itself is a bit too vague to write a thorough experience on!

I also want to ask- what's comedic about it? What is it that you're trying to say?

[everybuddiewantssome]

you're the lighthouse at the edge of the sea

Buddie, 911, Rated T, 4.9k

Additional Tags: Car Accidents, Rain, Angst, Feelings Realization, Evan "Buck" Buckley is Christopher Diaz's Parent, Original Character(s), Angst with a Happy Ending, First Kiss

“Evan, I need you to listen to me. I found a friend of yours. Eddie. He slid off the road in the storm.”

“No.” She could practically hear his heart sink into his stomach on the other end.

“He’s ok. Seriously banged up, passed out in my passenger seat, but he’ll live. Emergency crews couldn’t get anywhere near us for an hour, so I’m bringing him to First Presbyterian. Should be there in 15 minutes.”

Eddie crashes his truck shortly into his drive to Texas. Buck steps in, calls Chris and reunites his boys, all while trying to avoid his feelings for his best friend. And also the fact that Eddie's good Samaritan is someone from his own past.

[joyfulexchristian]

Thank you for your blog! It’s exactly what I need right now.

I’m currently trying to construct my beliefs after a lifetime raised in the PCA (Presbyterian Church of America). It’s such a mindfuck because I can see how hateful a lot of PCA beliefs are and how when their theology is applied consistently it inevitably leads to abuse. It seems like the only ppl not fostering abuse in the system have twisted the words of the Bible to mean the opposite (ex: “this verse sounds like it’s saying x but if you go to the Greek blah blah it’s actually saying y.” Or “yes that verse does say that but obviously they’re applying it wrong. It was never meant to be taken that far” etc)

But even seeing all of this my coping mechanisms under stress are all still based in God. He was supposed to be the one constant thing and i don’t know what to do with that gone.

I feel like my beliefs are currently so fucked up. Trying to write down everything I feel is true and it’s ludicrously contradictory:

- there is no God

- Jesus is God

- after we did nothing happens. It’s the same as the space before we were born

- God has a plan to redeem suffering. All the pain in the world can’t be for nothing. People who live their whole lives in extreme duress and then die must get a chance after death to live prosperous lives. I don’t need eternal life but I need to know others will have it.

- hell is ridiculous and not real. I don’t want ppl to suffer like that no matter what they’ve done so a perfect God can’t be more petty than me. All I truly want from ppl who abused me is for them to never speak to me again. The only “punishment” I might want for them is for them to realize the damage they did and that I only want so they don’t do it again to others. I’m not talking to them so I don’t care.

I’m sure there are more but that’s all I can think of right now. It’s so confusing and messy! Does it ever settle a bit? Will I ever have a set of consistent beliefs again?

The short answer is yes and yes. Things also felt messy for me at first, but I did eventually reach a point of stability.

Congrats on being open to investigating and improving your worldview! That's such a cool and kind thing to do for yourself that many people never manage. I'm sure there's a lot to unpack, so I want to encourage you to treat yourself well while you're challenging your beliefs. Take breaks, seek support, and be patient.

Early in my deconstruction, I craved certainty because I believed that that's what truth felt like. I thought I would investigate my beliefs until I had a new and better set of beliefs on the other side of the process. But along the way I figured out that stability and consistency don't need to come from having an unchanging set of beliefs.

What I found was that having a good set of tools for seeking, analyzing, and integrating information into my life was more stable than having a static set of beliefs.

My beliefs used to be precious and protected, like trophies in a glass case, high up and out of reach. When I started deconstructing, that case came crashing down.

I felt ashamed that Christianity wasn't the only tool I needed to build a stable set of beliefs. For so many people around me, that seemed to be all they needed.

I began to question why I thought Christianity was true: love, belonging, fear, authority, loyalty, and stability were the main ones. But my beliefs didn't account for empathy, ethics, or epistemology and many other things. Heck, I didn't even know the word epistemology when I started this journey. I didn't know how to seek knowledge without running it through a Christian filter first.

I'd been told that CHRISTIANITY = TRUTH, so I hadn't considered that there were other methods to seeking, analyzing, and integrating new knowledge into my life.

But then I started exploring logic, philosophy, psychology, history, biology, and other subjects I'd been afraid would challenge my Christian beliefs. I started reading about other religions and comparing them to Christianity. And, most importantly, I started going to trauma-informed therapy. All of those things helped me break out of old patterns, learn how to update my beliefs based on new information, and how not to be afraid of that whole process.

Focusing on the tools I used to build my beliefs instead of the beliefs themselves, I was able to put together my own toolbox that helped me establish a more stable system of belief. I still go by my belief-shelf every once in a while, dust things off, admire beliefs that stood up to testing, and reevaluate beliefs that didn't. But that last part got rarer and rarer and no longer feels like the end of the world. Because ultimately, I'm still working with the same toolbox.

I used think that Christianity was a universal set of tools that worked for anyone in any situation, but now I see it as one very old tool that doesn't work for everybody. And, despite what I'd been told again and again as a Christian, the Bible is not a truth-seeking tool. It's a set of stories that can tell us about what the authors thought about themselves and the world. And, don't get me wrong, I love storytelling. I think it's very important. We can learn a lot about other people, their perspectives, and their philosophies. The problem comes in when people take their specific interpretation of stories in Christianity and try to apply them universally.

But we don't have to rely on the same old tools forever. We can try out new tools and figure out what will help us build the life that we want to have. Equipped with a variety of tools instead of one dusty one, we are more prepared to live and thrive in this constantly changing world.

Looking back, I'm glad my shaky shelf of beliefs fell apart. Because it gave me the opportunity to take responsibility for my beliefs instead of just protecting them.

I want to touch on one more point that you raised before I close, and that is the unbearable weight of suffering in the world. I struggled with this a lot during my deconstruction. It's a tough thing, to come from a worldview that has simple answers and adjust to the reality that reducing suffering is much harder than "let go and let God." My advice is to seek out good news, because it won't show up in social media feeds as much as bad news does. Find the people who are helping others, solving problems, and actively building community. Also, try to find some small way to do good, lessen suffering, or prevent harm if you have the ability and resources to do so.

That's part of why I run this blog, to try to help other people let go of harmful Christian beliefs with more joy and less suffering.

Thank you for sending me this ask. Messages like these inspire me. I see the effort and empathy behind your words and it gives me more hope than I had before!

[feastingonchrist]

Progressive "Christianity" is nothing but Marxism, weaponizing empathy and love, while not even understanding what true love is (ONLY found through the Gospel),watering down the gospel and only preaching half of it, making God into your own image, denying biblical truth and authority along with God's authority, denying Jesus' identity while not being grounded in the one and only identity only found in Jesus Christ - but finding their identity in the world/sin, straight up blaspheming God in some circumstances, not taking sin seriously and even encouraging it (otherwise you're a bigoted, homophobic, transphobe, etc.) and only using scripture when it's convenient to furthering the political agenda which is constantly being updated because it's not rooted in truth; only lies, bullying and manipulation. They have traded THE ONE TRUE GOD for the god of politics, social justice and god of self. I could probably say more but this wasn't scripted and it has been on my mind for a little while today after seeing that straight up joke of a bishop "preaching" in that church while the Trump and Vance families were in attendance.

These are the wolves in sheep's clothing we have been warned about in scripture. It grieves me that these people have invaded and taken over the Church so rapidly and have caused many denominations to split. Look at what they have done to the United Methodist Church... it has split apart because of this. I'm in a Methodist church that used to be UMC until the church split int the GMC because people are fed up with the nonsense. They have also invaded the Presbyterian, Lutheran, Episcopal and Anglican churches, too. They take over our long standing, historical churches that are full of beauty, richness and tradition and make faithful Christ followers want to leave, while force feeding a bunch of political ideology into the ears of the attendants. They still find some sort of value in liturgy and tradition, though, but i do not think they are doing it in any sense of reverence toward God. It seems as though they are only doing it because it looks "nice" and "religious". I mean for goodness sakes, they take COMMUNION in these services... that is a serious offense to Christ. They have no business leading our churches or a new and vulnerable congregation of people who seem to be wanting to come to Christ who are led astray from Him right in the same buildings that we are to be learning about Him and gathering together to worship Him. This is why i say they weaponize empathy and love in the name of tolerance because they bully and manipulate people into bowing down to their god of politics and keep the law of social justice and political correctness and are putting so much confidence in themselves to change the world, which is nothing but idolatry and self glorification. If you go against their beliefs you are a heretical blasphemer who will be sentenced to being canceled and possibly even doxxed. That is not pleasing to God, only their flesh. They are their own gods and they think they can control people and have the authority to tell others what to do and punish them when they don't comply. So whatever they say, think, feel and do is perfectly okay in their eyes and that is why they are so offended when people are pro-life because it challenges their excess needs for control and pleasure. These people are like the blind leading the blind and their souls are headed towards destruction. It really just makes me sick and angry and i really do grieve for these people. They do not take any of this stuff seriously. We have a lot of praying to do for these people and for our Churches. This needs to stop.

So: at what point do we stop calling progressive "Christianity"; "Christianity" and their services "church"? Because at this point it really is just a social and political club. Go find your OWN buildings and leave ours alone. Notice how none of their behavior is bearing any good fruit or Christ-like behavior and attitudes? It's because it's NOT OF GOD. They may read from the Bible and praise His name in service, but it is all empty and meaningless. I really am so fed up over all of it. I pray we can take our churches back and get back to upholding and defending biblical truths and traditions. You cannot rewrite Christianity or change who God is or what the gospel is in the same way that politics keep evolving and expanding because God doesn't change and neither does the truth of His word. Stop calling progressive "Christianity" TRUE CHRISTIANITY because it's NOT AND NEVER WILL BE. Leftist ideology and Christianity will never mix so stop trying to make it happen.

[crooked-wasteland]

re: Predestination, that is a very interesting angle, but from what I've seen and read it's never told within the story or worldbuilding right? is it a case of a creator thinking their religious upbringing is somewhat universal and therefor never explored in depth within the shows?

The idea of predestination is never explicit in the show, but very passively referenced as if it were a fact of reality. And that either comes from an insular view of religion and thinking her beliefs are, if not universal, at least common enough to be easily identified. Or, what I believe is more likely, it's selfish content of a selfish creator.

Predestination is a debatable topic in Christianity about how common a belief it is. From some search results claiming it is one of the most prevalent cornerstones of Christian belief to being one of the rarest. At the very least, Calvinist doctrine is extremely rare in the modern landscape, almost exclusive to Presbyterianism. Though I should also specify that Presbyterian doctrine is not a united belief. Many who identify under this religion can have widely varied beliefs, but the story of Hazbin Hotel places Medrano's understandings quite heavily in predestination.

One of my biggest critiques on Hazbin's themes was that the idea of "Christian Hypocrisy" was just not there. The whole episode of Welcome to Heaven didn't determine anything aside from "we don't have proof of it being possible". Not that Sera or anyone actually had control over that fact and were somehow keeping sinners out. There isn't even true hypocrisy in Adam and Lute being angels, because while they aren't holy people, the selection of salvation is not up to anyone. The whole point to predestination in Presbyterianism is that it is more fair that way. People are chosen to heaven before they even begin their lives and everything they do in life, God was aware they would do them when he chose them regardless. No one, then, is being hypocritical, and Medrano seems to know this in how she calls human angels "Winners" like of a lottery. And lotteries are considered the most unbiased means of selecting people for anything. It isn't based on you being a good person, or a bad one. The system itself is merely uncaring, and in that apathy levies justice and salvation in equal measure.

And because she never explicitly acknowledged her beliefs of predestination, Sir Pentious becoming an angel at the end is the closest to criticism of religion that we get. Basically, "I think people who aren't chosen should have the opportunity to work for it." Which is ironically less fair when analyzed objectively. Some people get in no matter what, while others have to essentially slave away to receive the same thing.

Most religions have an emphasis on redemption through life. Calvinism itself was designed with the goal in mind that people didn't focus their lives on their deaths, but on the actual gift of living. If you're chosen you have faith, it's the chicken and the egg scenario. Most religions put faith as the act that saves, whereas Presbyterianism says that having faith is the sign that you are saved.

In the one way she adds a layer of depth to her series, Medrano simply reinvents the Catholic doctrine of Purgatory.

[synthetic-ultramarine]

Without further ado, here is my post discussing the books I read in 2024, a full three months late. Click on the readmore to see my opinions about 28 books.

Books I Read and Liked in 2024

Tomie and Uzumaki by Junji Ito I read these along with Shelved by Genre, which was fun. I never really "get" slasher stories, I have a hard time figuring out the slasher's motivation as a character, but Tomie makes sense - she's like a fungus. She's a weird decomposer organism. There are some really captivating illustrations in both of these.

It's clear Junji Ito's work has been influential. He definitely has an influence on early SCP, which gives me an odd insight into the carceral elements of those stories that bother me so much. Notably, Ito doesn't include an institutional force that can defeat his monsters. The guys who wrote the early SCP stories would probably have presented themselves as epic hardcore horror fans who never get scared of anything, but I think they were scared of Tomie. They included the "police keep us safe" elements in their own stories not just because that's a common cultural narrative but because they believed it; because "the monster is still out there" scared them in ways they would never admit to, but "the police catch bad guys and keep the public safe" felt real and comforting to them in the face of that fear. This is the kind of insight you can get when you go back and read the classics.

To Say Nothing of the Dog by Connie Willis "A Delightful Romp," is, I believe, the formal literary term.

The Last Unicorn by Peter S. Beagle I should have read this years and years ago.

Last Night at the Telegraph Club by Malinda Lo I was very touched by this portrayal of a teenage lesbian science fiction reader.

The Other Wind by Ursula K. LeGuin A lovely conclusion to the Earthsea series.

The Conquest of Bread by Peter Kropotkin Life-changing.

Entangled Life by Merlin Shelldrake Very good.

Braiding Sweetgrass by Robin Wall Kimmerer Life-changing.

I'm giving you a homework assignment: read Braiding Sweetgrass, and then Entangled Life, and then Bread, in that order.

Moby Dick by Herman Melville I think this book is good specifically because it is so slow and full of tangents. Nice to see some representation for the unnamed mental illness you get from being raised Presbyterian in Massachusetts. Also nice to see some representation for when you're talking to a sea captain and you can't tell whether the old bastard is serious or just fucking with you. Apparently that experience has not changed since the 1850s. This is the kind of insight you can get when you go back and read the classics.

Frankenstein by Mary Shelley I was in a fugue state after finishing this book. I asked a sculptor what she would do if her sculpture demanded she build a second one so it wouldn't be lonely.

Wuthering Heights by Emily Bronte The most profoundly misunderstood of the Gothic novels.

The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald Incredible how you can recognize the terrible rich people of today in this depiction of the terrible rich people of 100 years ago.

Light From Uncommon Stars by Ryka Aoki A fascinating platonic queer My Fair Lady story; notably, it's not just the the proletarian student learning to appear classy and respectable from the high-class teacher, there's also a significant element of the teacher learning to appreciate and respect the tastes and perspectives of the student. Undertale is a plot point. And there's aliens as well. There are a lot of fun genre elements in this book, but it also touches on heavier aspects of poverty, abuse, and transmisogyny. I thought it was a substantial and ultimately hopeful story.

I, Robot by Isaac Asimov There is a moment in this book where the characters are trying to determine if a popular young politician is secretly a robot. Somebody turns to the roboticist Dr. Susan Calvin and says, "Susan - you're a woman." Jesus fucking christ, I say. here we go. "Surely you must have something to eat in your handbag." he continues. She has an apple. The politician is able to eat the apple, which suggests but does not conclusively prove that he isn't a robot. I can't argue with this. I do in fact put an apple in my bag every time I leave the house to do science.

Anyway can you fucking imagine if "don't build machines that kill people" was considered one of the most sacrosanct laws of engineering?

Slaughterhouse Five by Kurt Vonnegut I think this is a good book. Its central metaphor is very potent. I do have to say that the portrayal of women was not great, and this would have bothered me more if it was an assigned reading rather than something I was free to put down.

Anyway can you fucking imagine if "don't build machines that kill people" was considered one of the most sacrosanct laws of engineering?

The Silver Metal Lover by Tanith Lee Reading an early scene where the main character's best friend tries to dump his boyfriend via fake seance, I realized what this book really is - it's a pre-code screwball comedy. For obvious reasons, my rule for male love interests is that they must still be interesting to people who are not attracted to them. I don't read a lot of romance because a lot of male leads fail this test, but the guy in this book passes. It's fascinating to try to figure out what he's really thinking. I wish the ending was different. Provenance by Ann Leckie I had a good time with this book - I especially liked the aliens.

Speaker For The Dead by Orson Scott Card Beautiful, powerful story about accepting other ways of life, from an author who famously does not do that in real life.

Raw Dog by Jamie Loftus This book has too many bodily fluid similes. Also, this book made me cry. It's nonfiction about hot dogs.

Chain Gang All Stars by Nana Kwame Adjei-Brenyah A devastating story. Incredibly good production and performances on the audiobook. Absolutely on another level when it come to "problematic characters".

Gathering Moss by Robin Wall Kimmerer Rotifera mentioned! A close friend of mine is a rotifer biologist, so they're like friends-of-a-friend to me. Quotes from the chapter about the wealthy man's garden circulate on tumblr - if you find those quotes interesting you should definitely read the whole chapter.

Babel-17 by Samuel R. Delany The queerness of this story - a hugo winner from 1967 - is bold and unselfconscious. This a world where spaceships are crewed by polyamorous throuples, transgender-allegory animal people, and ghosts. The protagonist is an openly bisexual psychic poet spaceship captain. When she gets intimate with a beefy space pirate, I feel like a new release would have stopped to pat itself on the back and say "I just want to point out one thing here: When was the last time the girl kissed the boy in a space opera?". This book does not do that, it just proceeds with a scene where a psychic mind-meld is quite directly compared to pegging. I have to read more of Samuel Delany's work. What a breath of fresh air.

Books I Read and Did Not Like in 2024

Legends and Lattes by Travis Baldree As I have previously discussed, I did not like this book. There is one thing I will say for it though: it's full of phrases that sound good when read aloud. "Here and there, copper-clad steeples..." is one I wrote down. Makes sense for something written by an audiobook reader. I think when people do like this book, that is probably what they see in it.

Snow Crash by Neal Stevenson This is where the word "metaverse" came from. Many of the most powerful men in the world love this book, and have sought Mr. Stevenson's counsel as a "Futurist" because of it.

Alarmingly, it is an intensely xenophobic text. This is the kind of insight you can get when you go back and read the classics. Between Two Fires by Christopher Buehlman I don't like how this book did gender. The threat of sexual violence is omnipresent, in a way that came across to me as empty sensationalism. The central relationship in this book is the bond between a Grizzled Thirty-Something Brown-Haired White Male Alcoholic and an orphan girl representing Innocence, complete with Mysterious Ability. This is a recognizable TvTrope, and I can't think of a single pre-modern example of it. It's Joel and Ellie, it's Booker and Elizabeth, it's a million shitty action movies. This relationship forms the emotional core of the book, drives the plot, and defines the gender dynamics of the story, and it's Conspicuously Modern. I picked this book up because I've seen a couple recommendations for it based on its historical accuracy; indeed, there is a lot of thought put toward what vegetables people would have eaten. However, in addition to the story being built around a modern action trope which expresses modern gender role anxieties, there are also a couple very significant inaccuracies near the end. There is a plot thread where the pope calls for a crusade and pogrom; this is immediately revealed to be a demon impersonating the pope, and the real human pope rescinds this decree as soon as the main characters restore him to power. There is a strong implication that a real official of the catholic church would never be an antisemite or an imperialist, only an external interloper could do that. This is of course absurd. This is followed up by a chapter that depicts hell as real, which was also not true during the 14th century, or at any other time. All the accurate details merely prop up these great inaccuracies.

So because of this book's depictions of gender and Catholicism I didn't like it and I think it is probably not worth your time. That said, the gay priest was the best part. If the traveling party had been just him and the little girl that would have been a significant improvement.

Books I Read and Had Miscellaneous Reactions to in 2024

Exordia by Seth Dickinson Man, that was fucked up. I wish it hadn't asked me to spend so much time caring about army men, but I found the high-concept concepts to be very conceptual. The first 10 percent of this book feels like its own entirely different story, and that's the part I really liked. There's a point where it rapidly shifts into the apocalyptic mode and stays there for the next 24 audiobook hours (not an exaggeration.) It's kind of exhausting. Familiarity with the original short story probably would have better prepared me for this; perhaps Tor's tumblr ads could have focused more on that, and less on a really inappropriate Marvel movie comparison.

Witchmark by C.L. Polk At first I really liked this, but the finale was surprisingly derivative of Fullmetal Alchemist, so I don't know, your mileage may vary.

[blessedarethebinarybreakers]

What does it mean that you're a catholic presbyterian? What are your views on Church authority and predestination?

I like to imagine myself as a tree with Irish Catholic roots, a Presbyterian/Protestant trunk, and agnostic/ecumenical/interfaith-reaching branches.

I need all parts to be whole. All parts rely on Divine warmth, water, breath for life. All parts depend on a rich soil of scripture, story, and the wisdom of those who've come before me for nourishment and grounding.

___

The roots:

I was baptized and raised Roman Catholic. My family (and a large number of families in the area I grew up) has a proud history of Irish Catholicism in particular. My childhood church was Catholic, and I was passionate about participating in that community's life all through grade school.

Some of my earliest religion-related memories are of reading Saints' stories, establishing relationships with those who most spoke to me. Mother Mary has had my heart as far back as my memories go.

As I discovered my queerness in college and gradually realized the need to seek fully welcoming community, I did not leave behind those things I held most dear from Catholic spirituality.

Over the years, my connection to the Roman Catholic Church as an institution has fractured more and more; last May it splintered entirely. But I refuse to let Rome have a monopoly on Catholic faith, or on Mary and the Saints.

...Especially because Mary and the Saints were my greatest spiritual supports in college: with delighted wonder, I came to recognize how very queer my closest Saints were! They helped me embrace my queerness as a holy gift; I carried them with me into a little PC(USA) church that my then-girlfriend, now-wife found near our college campus.

The trunk:

The Presbyterian Church (USA) denomination holds me up in sturdy community: this is the denomination I'm currently "officially" part of — got my Masters of Divinity at a PCUSA seminary, got married in a PCUSA church, am on this denomination's ordination path.

This doesn't mean I think the PCUSA is the best religion or even the best form of mainline Protestantism. They all have their strengths and their flaws. But the PCUSA was the one that first came into my path, and I'm currently satisfied with my decision to commit myself to it — so long as it continues to make plenty of room for my Catholic roots and ecumenical branches.

The branches:

Though Louisville Seminary is a Presbyterian institution, when I attended from 2016-2019 at least 40% of my classmates and some of the staff there belonged to other denominations (or in a few cases, aren't Christian at all).

The opportunity to learn alongside folks from a variety of traditions was invaluable to my continued spiritual growth. I learned so much from them! I grew into my sense that all individuals and faith communities have something to teach us the Divine and about what it means to be human in relationship to Divinity and to Creation.

Then there's the agnostic part of the "branches":

Over the years I've also experienced more and more seasons where I'm just not sure that the Trinity, the Incarnation and Resurrection, and all that Christian-specific stuff is "real." But whether or not it is, I choose to remain committed to this path I'm on — with openness to fresh insights — because I do draw spiritual nourishment here. I do believe that the story of the Trinity and the Incarnation can guide us into living for Goodness, Justice, abundant life for all beings.

...Basically, I don't know whether it's all "true," but I do believe it holds powerful Truth; I remain committed to the Story.

(Also the bible has been my main special interest since i was like 6 so it's one of the main lenses through which i view the world so i'm stuck here for better or worse lfadfjalfjdalk;j! )

I believe it's imperative for Christians living in Christian supremacist cultures to practice humility above all else — to accept the fact that we don't have all the answers, that we're not the Most Right, that we don't enjoy unique favor with God. For me, identifying as agnostic reminds me that I don't know everything about God by any means, and may actually know very little at all. It reminds me to remain humble, open, and curious.

The fruit:

My hope is that this little tree that is me yields good fruit. I don't care if I have all the right answers, so long as I'm glorifying the Divine in some small way; easing suffering in some small way; bringing joy into this world in some small way. That's what matters to me.

________

I imagine the above implies my views on Church authority. If it doesn't, well, I'll just say I'm kind of an anarchist about church as much as anything else! The Church should never have come to wield as much power as it has. And whatever the "role" of the Church is in the Divine Story, I remember learning somewhere in seminary that the ultimate future of Church is to dissolve — that when we've experienced the full in-breaking of God's Kin-dom, there will be no more need for Church.

________

Not all Presbyterians hold to predestination — and for most I know who do, it's not really a central part of their faith life.

But sure, you could say I believe in predestination: I believe we are all predestined for participation in God's Kin-dom! :)

________

Further reading:

My tag of LGBTA patron Saints <3

My first podcast ep explores some of my spiritual journey

My queer and Catholic tag

Some other semi-related tags — good fruit tag; religious pluralism tag; evangelism tag; church hurt tag

My PCUSA tag, which includes a post with some old class notes about predestination

OH ALSO there's a podcast called "Called to Be Multiple" that interviews folks who draw from multiple faith sources. Cool stuff!

[httyddragonfox]

Hazbin Hotel: Christianity slams vs My Defense

Let's get one thing straight first: I'm a fan of the show. It has an awesome person with my own sexuality in the cast (Alastor). It's not a constant string of dark humor and cussing and actually has a well concocted story with well built characters, unlike south park and family guy.

Of course...I am a christian. I've seen so people react to this that say "This is why Christianity is awful!" Ah ha ha...

I feel like I need to defend myself.

Yes, some branches of Christianity are very bigoted, strict, bias, and just horrible. I don't like associating with those people.

First of all: I'm protestant.

There's catholic and protestant.

Catholic believe in the trinity, and strict following of the bible and church going, of course they also believe the pope is someone who's word is god send, and do whatever their priests say will absolve them of their sins and get them and get them into heaven.

Protestants formed because they believed that people don't have the right to judge or absolve us, only god has that power. They are more believers of following religion and being devout on your own terms, that's why everyone has their own bible to read. Praying is more select and can be done whenever, anything to connect us to god.

Now for the sub branch, as some sub-branches of Protestantism are still pretty strict (I'm looking at you, 'god-fearing baptists')

My branch is called 'the United,' formed when several branches merged into one church. It's mainly Presbyterianism with some stuff added on, I still think Presbyterianism can be a bit strict, that's why I like my branch so much.

My branch considers you apart of the community even if you don't go to church all the time. They won't be mad at you if you don't go to sermons. You're allowed to pray at your own leisure and your own preference, I usually just give a dinner prayer every night.

They like it when you ask questions, because our main teaching is that the bible is interpretive. It was written a long time ago by people who had different views than we do today.

Our branch is super accepting of others, we don't even discuss the prospect of going to hell, so I'm starting to think we don't believe in it. If one is suffering, we don't blame them for their own suffering, we teach them god will still be there for them in their darkest moments.

Yes, my church is called the trinity, but I'm not sure how much we believe in it as we don't talk about it much. I grew up thinking Jesus was just God's son, like a demigod. Yeah, Jesus saved us, but we were taught he saved us from the strict society at the time who would kill people for the slightest moral wrong.

I grew up thinking the devil had nothing to do with the fall of man and it was just a snake being a jerk. I grew up thinking the devil and Satan worked for god to test people's faith and thus were not bad.

We don't uphold all the sacraments, just the bread and "wine" and Communion, not to mention baptism (it's not to save us from sin, it's to welcome us into the church. We don't believe in original sin).

My branch is about unconditional love and acceptance, taking religion in your own stride. We are taught to be a good person, that's all that matters. The commandments are an important lesson, (i.e. don't kill, don't steal, no adultery, don't lie, respect your parents and authority, ex).

Yeah my church upheld COVID laws, but that's because they didn't want their congregation getting sick. My mom and dad are pissy about it because they're anti government. I still have faith in them though.

TL;DR, People in the Hazbin hotel community say Christianity is the worst and full of bigoted, bias hypocrites. Don't hate on me please, because my church does preach unconditional love and acceptance.

[tomorrowusa]

Anti-vaxxer and conspiracy nut RFK Jr. claims there's a dead worm in his brain. His views tend to make it sound like that worm is still alive. 🤯

Robert F Kennedy Jr, the third-party candidate for US president, said a health problem he experienced in 2010 “was caused by a worm that got into my brain and ate a portion of it and then died”, the New York Times reported.

Yeah, the worm died after eating part of RFK Jr's brain. That should tell you something about the composition of his brain. So much for "purebloods" – as anti-vaxxers call themselves.

Neurologists who treated Kennedy’s uncle, the Massachusetts senator Ted Kennedy, before his death aged 77 from brain cancer in 2009, told the younger man he had a dark spot on his brain scans, and concluded he too had a tumour. But, Kennedy reportedly said, a doctor at New York-Presbyterian hospital posited another explanation: a parasite in Kennedy’s brain. Speaking this winter, the paper said, Kennedy told the Times that at around the same time he learned of the parasite in his brain he was also found to have mercury poisoning, which can cause neurological problems, probably due to eating a lot of fish. In the 2012 deposition, Kennedy reportedly said: “I have cognitive problems, clearly. I have short-term memory loss, and I have longer-term memory loss that affects me.”

You're more likely to get parasites from eating animals. There goes the veggie vote for RFK Jr.

Now 70, Kennedy has suffered other issues including a heart problem for which he has been repeatedly hospitalised and spasmodic dysphonia, a neurological condition that affects his voice.

Despite the age difference, Biden is in better health than RFK Jr.

Doctors eventually concurred that the spot on Kennedy’s brain was the result of a parasite, Kennedy said, according to the Times. Kennedy reportedly said he thought he might have contracted the parasite in southern Asia. The Times said experts who did not treat Kennedy thought the parasite “was likely a pork tapeworm larva”. [ ... ] Kennedy’s deposition also included discussion of his heart problems, which he said began in college, the Times reported. Saying the condition was triggered by stress, caffeine and sleep deprivation, Kennedy reportedly said: “It feels like there’s a bag of worms in my chest.”

No Bobby, those worms are in your head – not your chest. Have you tried taking Ivermectin? 🪱

[tonydaddingham]

LWA: Just some random stuff on a Sunday morning!

Missing scenes: Furfur's book of angels includes "bishop" as one of Aziraphale's jobs, and as we've already seen all the others on the list, even if only in deleted lines (the music tutor was originally in the Rome scene), I would guess we'd see that one as well. Not necessarily a good fit for 1650, though, although since Gaiman has done things like have the Bastille still standing in 1793, anything's possible.

Assumptions about character progression: I think there's a tendency to assume that Crowley and Aziraphale develop or ought to develop towards something "better" as the series progresses, but that's not quite right. They become more /complicated/, which is a neutral--dare I say grey?--concept. The novel and series both deny that good and evil are steady-state aspects of character: you /aren't/ good or evil (or something in-between), you /do/ good or evil (or something in-between). S1 Crowley, as both Gaiman and Tennant have said, has no real character arc, but one of the reasons I think the fandom needs to pay attention to my favorite bugbear, the child murder manipulation subplot, is that it is also about moral complexity. Flood-era Crowley offers the moral absolute "you can't kill kids." Armageddon-era Crowley runs Aziraphale over with a trolley problem in order to duck the more unpleasant reality that if you're fine with someone killing a kid for you, you're fine with killing kids. (I have to say that the sentimental "Crowley wuvs Warlock" headcanon is one of those instances where supposedly-positive fanon constitutes outright character assassination, right up there with "Aziraphale had an affair with Oscar Wilde" [oh, do /not/ get me started on why that's horrifying].) The series is on the side of Flood-era Crowley and Madame Tracy, not the "developed" Crowley. Meanwhile, Aziraphale learns how to lie, which is a skill that can be put to different moral purposes in different contexts. Sometimes it's unambiguously good, like saving Job's children; sometimes it's ambiguous-to-evil, like concealing the Antichrist's whereabouts from Crowley (revealing this knowledge to Crowley would mean more pressure to murder the child, but his rehearsed speech suggests that he's willing to let Heaven handle it, perhaps, which is not a viable moral alternative).

AWCW and being "impressionable": one of the funniest things about Crowley is that in some respects, he's every bit as conformist as Aziraphale is, and sometimes more so. His unreliable narration about the Fall hints very strongly that, as you say, he just went along with the "cool kids"--which, despite his protestations to the contrary, /is/ a moral failure on the terms set out by the novel and series. Even later, both Crowley and Aziraphale rebel in ways that maintain the fiction of the overarching system (the Arrangement) rather than dismantling it entirely. Crowley also enjoys his job, especially in the novel. Which, to be clear, is also a moral failure: slacking off is, hilariously, the most moral choice he and Aziraphale can make. FWIW, for me, neither the novel nor the series are "burn it all down" narratives, in part because they both advance a theory of humanity that suggests burning it all down just gets you the same thing from a different direction. The most radical political ideas are given to a conspiracy theorist and to children, and the Antichrist concludes by rejecting all of them and hitting a literal reset button. Pratchett may have co-written the book from a place of "anger," but anger can lead to a lot of different political practices. Obviously, YMMV.

LWA✨ woke up today and chose analytical violence, what a legend

1. see, i feel like 1650 could work for aziraphale's bishop occupation, even if only mentioned retrospectively. theoretically, he could well have been a bishop before the abolishment in 1646, and exploring the episcopalian polity vs presbyterianism argument of the time could be really interesting narratively (especially if handled somewhat like the resurrectionist episode)... but detail aside, even if by the time we see him in 1650 it's only mentioned casually that he was a bishop "a few years back", i don't think it would be entirely out of field. we don't necessarily need to have everything played out on screen!

2. okay, a lot to unpack here, but essentially i agree. the issue it seems to me is to posit moral absolutes in the first place; there will almost always be a contextual 'except'/'but' clause that comes along with it that turns it on its head.

it's bad to kill children, except when they are the antichrist and could bring about the apocalypse.

it's bad to lie, except when it would prevent unimaginable cruelty and grief being wrought on those that don't objectively deserve it.

it's bad to manipulate and brainwash a group of people, except when there's no lasting harm done, and you were only trying to demonstrate to someone that you love them.

it's good to try to further human medicine and prevent needless suffering, except when doing so puts the desperate as the first to fall in the figurative battlefield.

it's good to forgive a huge debt when you don't have any necessity of it being paid, except when it's primarily borne out of materialistic selfishness.

neither character does anything so completely reprehensible, or alternatively so inarguably irreproachable, that someone, somewhere, can't or won't argue a justification for their actions. we individually, according to our own moral compasses borne of our experiences, may justify or condemn what they've done in the narrative - objectively, the morality behind their actions as we've seen them so far is never absolute.

eg. for me, crowley's plan on killing the antichrist, a child, in the specific context of GO is not the condemnable action here; its the manipulation of getting aziraphale to do it because he, personally, will not do it himself. i understand why, but the thing that i personally consider to be unambiguously bad is not killing the antichrist itself, but instead the fact that crowley considers that the only solution to the hellhound being named - ignoring the 'running away' that crops up later, for a moment - is to underhandedly manipulate someone he cares about into doing it instead of him. however, others may see it differently.

who is to say what is 'better', anyway? what even is 'better'? is 'better' to do things only when it's for the benefit of other people? is doing 'better' for your own self not also worthy of consideration? is 'better' wholly only when doing something that is kind or generous to others, rather than being kind or generous to yourself?

whilst crowley hits certain moral epiphanal milestones before aziraphale does, neither have the full right of it - aziraphale should not hold morality to being plainly black or white, dictated to by a set of absolutes that are so basic and lacking in complexity that they are by all accounts redundant. and crowley should not dismiss alternative choices or solutions just because they do not fit his perspective or reasoning, nor hold that his understanding of morality is the only viable one or is the only one with any weight or validity. ep6 imo succinctly demonstrated this.

both of them are still so young at the flood. aziraphale holds that whatever has been decreed by the source 'of all that is good' must therefore be good (and choosing to not see beyond it) and crowley acts so incredulous that something he sees as being absolutely bad would ever be entertained (despite, you know, having been cast out of heaven for 'just asking questions'....). both of them by the time of job have had a pretty seismic shift in that respective naivety - aziraphale begins to question what god actually intends, and crowley acts stoutly bitter and unsurprised by the assignment. neither reactions are compatible still, they constantly circle each other, and literally indicate that some level of understanding (of god, of her will, of morality 'in the real world' itself - take your pick) is still lacking.

re: Oscar Wilde and warlock hcs (i couldn't let these stroll by without comment)... god, where to start. re: warlock, i never begrudge any hc where it's borne out of a developed fanon background. that's arguably one of the main benefits of having the fanon side of things: to develop a point/event/gap in the story for yours and others' amusement - that's cool! for this example, any fic that gives more insight into their years in warlock's life, and therefore gives legitimacy to crowley having a fondness for warlock - yep, i like that! that's awesome, i could see it as an unrealised narrative, but that's where it firmly stays, for me - in fanon.

but i do get frustrated when certain narrative points are pointedly ignored in order to establish a character trait that would otherwise not exist. crowley in canon does not - to me - demonstrate any fondness towards warlock. he literally proposes the option of his murder! i don't think him refusing to entertain killing warlock himself indicates any sentimentality towards the kid - thats a bit of a stretch, imo - but instead it reflects on his character being, put reductively, a bit of a knob sometimes.

as for aziraphale and oscar wilde... yeeaaah. i think anyone that holds that hc seriously needs to reevaluate the implications of it, and whether or not beyond professional (?) respect for his work aziraphale would willingly want to associate with him... ultimately, i refer back to my above point about "...anything so completely reprehensible...". and, respectfully, perhaps there needs to be a little more separation between michael sheen's filmography and aziraphale's narrative - whether in hc or canon.

3. right, AWCW time. i agree re: his conformity to the 'cool kid group' being something that is deserving of scrutiny on his own morality, but i feel like this only is viable once that association goes beyond a certain point (and an arguably arbitrary one at that). essentially, i think it's possible to still see AWCW's decision to associate with the group as understandable and empathetic. we know from the narrative that a) AWCW starts hanging out with them at some point, and b) that lucifer et al. are in the end considered bad people. but were they actually bad at the time that AWCW comes across them? if they were, did AWCW himself know? we don't really have enough narrative to reliably confirm this.

but we do know that AWCW fell, and it's therefore rather likely that he continued associating with them past a point where he would have known that they were Bad News Bears. in the beginning, he may have just been glad that these people seemed to listen to him and make him feel valid for having questions - that's understandable. but as time goes on, as lucifer etc. hypothetically get more and more questionable in their actions and beliefs, AWCW presumably choosing to stick with them, possibly even defending them, confers the deserving of negative judgement onto AWCW in turn (presuming there's no element of coercion or blackmail involved, mind you).

i like the point you raise of aziraphale and crowley respectively not conforming to their inherent purposes (being an angel or demon respectively) when it benefits them personally, being an almost accidental 'good thing', especially when the story puts forward that, however you look at it (ie. whether bc they are lazy, or it poses more excuses to see each other - immaterial), the arrangement is entirely self-serving. 10/10 narrative irony. but this is kinda going back to one of our first asks, LWA - it is for me once again the key difference between rebellion, and revolution:

(never been more grateful for making the LWA masterpost, thank you past-me)

so whilst i agree to a certain point that the 'burn it all down' narrative may not be a viable option, or is at the very least a reductive one, i think that the question is what it is replaced with, if at all. adam hit the reset button and put earth back to how it was, because what humanity and earth was - by my interpretation - was just fine as it is. it's not perfect, but not worthy of being destroyed in totality.

so what can we say about heaven? is it a mirror to earth in this respect? i don't think it is. heaven may well have been intended originally as a neutral party with the best of intentions, and then pigeonholed into being the 'good side' following the fall, but it has been allowed to fester and corrupt. maybe we will see more in s3 that there are other angels that feel that heaven as a system is flawed (personally, i think we see this in saraqael's introduction to GO, but that's just my interpretation of the character so far), and maybe those angels will represent the part of heaven that is still redeemable.

so okay, yeah, maybe heaven shouldn't be completely gutted and dismantled, but it is not in the same place as earth is at the time of adam's reset. earth and humanity were arguably the innocent parties in their prospective destruction, whereas heaven has sown their own seeds for it. i don't think the two are entirely comparable. heaven does need a major realignment, and i personally don't think this can happen without some form of systematic reform, without revolution (especially if the wider fandom's evaluation of metatron is true come s3!). it needs reworking with an alternative system that works to be fairer, and removes any binary rhetoric of good vs. evil. don't ask me for the minutae of how this should happen, because i have zero idea (well, very little, anyhow), im not that clever.

but this is what i hope aziraphale will actually be successful in come s3. he can't just - in anger at the injustice of it all - set heaven on fire and walk away from the ashes; it will invite for the original regime to rebuild or something worse to take its place. that being said, it's not just him that needs to do it - to build an alternative to heaven in his own image is equally questionable. again, this is the suggestion that i liked in the armageddon 2.0 meeting in ep6; the idea of democracy in heaven, even if the current board is less than ideal (and the point could poetically hark back to the hypothetical 1650 flashback...?).

[joker4god]

Hello, are you out there? Exodus 9-14

If you're reading this, it is for you. Yes, you. My name is Olivia, and I am 24 years old. I am converting to Catholicism, and I was baptized Presbyterian. I come from a long line of Christian family in the American south-east. Right smack dab in the middle of the bible belt.

And, oh yeah, I'm a cis lesbian too. You read that right. I feel like I'm going to die alone because of it, but my faith is too strong to let me give up on what I'm doing. I ask St. Hildegard Von Bingen to pray for me every night that I might find a life partner whether it be celibate or not. These thoughts bring tears to my eyes.

So instead of a diary, I write here, so that you might see these open letters. So that you might see my pleas and at the very least gain some comfort and resonance. Message me, DM me, and speak to me. Please show me that I'm not alone in this. There is so much love in my heart, and it is blossoming and being stabbed at the same time.

There's a woman, I love her deeply, but she is a very angry homophobe. She is also an evangelical. We are close friends. I agreed with her about no sex before marriage and she went on and on about how sex becomes like a sacrament in marriage. And when I told her I would never be married (I did not tell her exactly why: gay) she gave me a horrible look of pity with no questions asked.

So, I read the bible, pray, laugh, and weep. Today was Exodus 9-14. Plagues and the Red Sea. Hyssop branches covered in the blood of lambs. The feeling of God slipping past you in the night and sparing you. I wonder, how many of the Israelites slept that night? Those who did sleep, did the wailing of the Egyptians wake them at midnight as firstborns began to be found cold?

Christ reminds me of how I have been spared, and I fear God, and I tremble. His will be done.

[historia-vitae-magistras]

"He's probably the best emotionally adjusted brother too."

You're making me fall for him even more

I mean the bar is on the floor here. Below the floor really. If Arthur is somewhere in the seventh circle of hell, Rhys and Brighid somewhere above that, Alasdair is in the top soil. He's a practical, ambitious bastard.

He's supremely flexible. His own original Celtic language of Pictish was supplanted by Gaelic originating in Scotland in his late teens. Scotland got fucked up by the Vikings but there's evidence that has been used to argue that the Gaelic-Norse fared better than the Anglo-Scandinavians and ties to Norway continued well into the medieval period and in other forms, into the modern day.

And while England and then Wales got brought under Norman rule fairly early on, Scotland repulsed them multiple times. Alasdair will find a way forward somehow. To many Scots, firmly Presbyterian by the end of the 17th century the acts of union in 1707 prevented a potentially absolutist catholic monarchy and contained a way to fill the ambition of an overseas empire. Though it must be said the Jacobean revolts show there certainly wasn't consensus.

But Arthur paid off the debt's remaining from nightmares such as the Darien Scheme and Alasdair took up something of the role of head of household. Power was always firmly vested in England. Do not mistake Alasdair's role as being that of the power-broker. He isn't but with their childhood birth order and the conventions of Georgian Britain it fits. While Arthur preferred the navy and the roving half wild across the ever expanding empire usually the role of a younger son in a human family, Alasdair was somewhat (emphasis on the somewhat) content to take interest in the financials and the running of things. As would happen in a human family. It's much more complicated than this, he and Arthur have gut each other plenty. But he's also fucked around and found out with Brighid and Rhys plenty too. Outside looking in, the arrangement suited him. He's detail and numerically oriented in that way. The Empire cost him dearly, but he also projected a lot of power across the world via that very same British empire. And I think that often limited but very real agency gave him a bit of a steadier head on his shoulders. The ability to look himself in the mirror and say he made the best of it while now looking back and trying as hard as his siblings to recover what he gave up is really important.

[lepistemologie]

hey... i really like ur blog. i was wondering if you have any advice or thoughts on how u reconcile your sexuality with your religion from one christian lesbian to another, if that's also what you'd call yourself.

Hey! I always like hearing that others enjoy my blog, so thank you. I apologize that I wasn’t able to get to answering this last night, and I hope you’re doing alright.

Firstly, yes, I'd characterize myself as a Christian lesbian, so you're right about that. I would like to say that I’m a Presbyterian, so that informs my theological framework. Everything I’ll write is just as I personally understand it, since I don’t have any meaningful formal training in religion. I'll do my best to be as thorough as I can be (so this will be long).

In looking to scripture, it's my understanding that nothing can separate us from the love of God (Romans 8:38-39). Nothing, no thing, which would include our sexuality. Romans 3:23-24 also states that we all fall short of God's expectations for us. None of us are perfect, and none of us are able to meet His asks. We must redeemed through Christ who died for us so that we might not be separated from Him by our sin.

In Christ's sacrifice, we are justified in God through our faith, and not the law (Galatians 2:16, Romans 5:1, Ephesians 2:8, John 8:24, Acts 26:18, etc.). In other words, our salvation comes through our acceptance of Jesus Christ's sacrifice on the cross for us, and not through any work of our own. Our works, no matter how good, would never be sufficient to earn His perfect love because we are inherently imperfect (although I don't believe in, then, going and sinning for no reason). Still, Jesus Christ has overcome sin, and in that, overcome death, and has offered us a gift of eternal life if we choose to take it, as seen in John 3:16. Although we are saved, the path to Heaven is narrow and the way is hard (Matthew 7:13-14); that is the case for everyone, lesbian and straight alike. Belief is no small feat, and being faithless is often easier.

So, with that being said if we're asking if being gay itself is a sin, then I think we're asking the wrong question. As written in 1 Peter 4:8 (and Romans 13:8-10), I think we should look at our actions and measure our relationships with others by whether or not we are acting in love. As someone who cares about philosophical thoroughness, it's easy to get wrapped up in the complexity of "LOVE" as an ideal. For now, I at least try to treat others as I would wish to be treated (Luke 6:31). I think that advice is pretty simple for anyone to understand. When it comes to sexuality specifically, although I have not always acted this way, I think treating others as ends in and of themselves and not as means is also a good starting point (yeah, Kant mentioned, moving on); and I work myself to do this, although I fall short, as anyone else would. Treating others in a loving way is most certainly available to us as lesbians, just as it would be available to any person of other sexual orientations.

Additionally, sexuality of any type, and therefore marriage, is a temporary condition, as seen in Matthew 22:30. No one, not even heterosexual couples, will be as though they are married in the kingdom of Heaven; and in Heaven, we are to experience something far greater than anything we could hope to comprehend. We are given the chance to enjoy our relationships on earth while we are here, but we must also still acknowledge that our highest purpose is to be with God, and for this purpose we were ultimately created. Our relationship with God should be our foremost consideration, lesbian and straight alike.

Ultimately, this sort of reasoning is what allows me to be "secure" in my sexuality (for lack of better phraseology, as to characterize anything earthly as "secure" would be a mischaracterization, especially given the former paragraph) while also maintaining my faith in Christ and membership in the church. It's my understanding that I can strive to live a Christian life while still being a lesbian, just as much as any straight person might strive to live a Christian life.

It's my hope that you can now at least have a path to feel more comfortable with the idea that homosexuality itself should be no greater a struggle than what any heterosexual people might experience in reconciling sexuality with their own faiths, and continue to pursue your relationship with Jesus Christ and God with confidence in His word and plan for you.

[tallmadgeandtea]

Turn Week 2023:

If I Could Change One Thing

Turn Week 2023 is already over! This week has flown by, and I hope everyone who participated had a wonderful time. I appreciate all the love on my first Dragoons post- and yes, I'm back with another one. This time, I am not sorry.

Tallmadge vs Tarleton

As I mentioned in my last post, after the Philadelphia Campaign ended, Major Benjamin Tallmadge and his 2nd Dragoons stayed up north, while other cavalry regiments went to fight in the Southern Campaign- where they arguably had most of their combat experience. Why did Tallmadge stay up north? Two reasons are that the dragoons were still needed for scouting and raiding the British forces in strongholds like New York- keeping the Hudson River in Patriot hands- and that by now, he was General Washington's spymaster for the Culper Ring in Long Island and New York City.

But that doesn't mean that Tallmadge didn't have his saber drawn in battles or skirmishes.

On July 2, 1779, Tallmadge and the 2nd Dragoons were camped in Pound Ridge, New York. They were suddenly ambushed by "two hundred British and loyalist cavalry." Although the 2nd Dragoons had strengthened forces thanks to Washington sending Moylan's 4th Dragoons, the British received a letter saying so. Leading the charge was Lieutenant-Colonel Banastre Tarleton, a British dragoon who would eventually become one of the most famous cavalrymen of the Revolution. Before 1779 and the Southern campaigns, one of his known escapades included being present at the capture of General Charles Lee.

Tallmadge and Tarleton's forces fought each other in front of the Presbyterian Meeting House during the Battle of Poundridge, going from on horseback to fighting on foot. When Tarleton's men and the 17th Dragoons entered the fray, it was clear that Tallmadge and Colonel Sheldon's 2nd Dragoons would not win the day. They retreated with the British pursuing them.

Along with his victory, Tarleton now had the 2nd Dragoon's regimental flag. But, especially unfortunate for Tallmadge, there were a "dozen causalities," and a dozen horses taken. One of these horses belonged to Tallmadge himself. Like any cavalryman, he kept his essentials in his saddlebags. Now they were in the enemy's hands. In those bags were, according to author Alexander Rose (doesn't that name sound familiar?) "twenty guineas" from Washington to Abe Woodhull as payment for his spying, and intelligence papers related to the ring.

How does this relate to Turn?

Season three of Turn takes place between 1778-1780. During this season, they did include the Battle of Stony Point- important in its own right- but why would they not include something that involves not only losing a battle, but information about the ring being stolen from Benjamin?

I think that instead of filling up screentime with the, frankly, at this point, ridiculous Robert Rogers and Abe doing what the hell they did plotline, they could've included the Battle of Poundridge. Could you imagine Benjamin's reaction to losing his horse and intelligence? And if they wanted to show Washington losing faith in the ring, wouldn't this be a good example? Instead, we had Robert Rogers and Abe running around in his little rat hole.

Also, if they wanted to use historical figures like Hamilton and Martha Washington to boost ratings and be like "please give us a fourth season," Banastre Tarleton is a pretty popular guy. Just saying.

And, lastly, you're probably like, "Amanda, are you saying that you, Benjamin Tallmadge's PR manager, want to see him get his ass beat?!" Yes. Yes, I do.

Further Reading:

Cavalry of the American Revolution - Jim Piecuch - Westholme Publishing (Cavlary Action at Poundridge, New York by John M. Hutchins.)

Tarleton: Before He Became "Bloody Ban" - Journal of the American Revolution (allthingsliberty.com)

Washington's Spies: The Story of America's First Spy Ring by Alexander Rose, Paperback | Barnes & Noble® (barnesandnoble.com)

Memoir of Col. Benjamin Tallmadge : Tallmadge, Benjamin, 1754-1835 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive