#also you're a presbyterian

[apilgrimpassingby]

Yes, the "Jesus was Palestinian" stuff is dumb and people should stop saying it. I'll grant you that much.

What I do not grant is that the Jews are eternally or unconditionally God's people. Christ told their leaders that "your house is left to you desolate" (Matthew 23:38) and that "the Kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people producing its fruits" (Matthew 21:43). In the Old Testament, God told Israel that "you are not My people, and I am not your God" (Hosea 1:9) and that "I have forsaken My house; I have abandoned My heritage" (Jeremiah 12:7). Lamentations seriously countenances that God "ha[s] utterly rejected us, and ... remain[s] exceedingly angry with us" (Lamentations 5:22). Deuteronomy 28:15-68 is a very long, very graphic passage describing curses upon Israel if they disobey God, including being given over to foreign gods (v.36) and returned to Egypt (v.68). St. Paul tells us that neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but keeping the commandments of God (1 Corinthians 7:18-19) and that Jews and Gentiles are unified in Christ (Ephesians 2:12-16).

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.

[hawkinshistoricalsociety]

ST5 Approximate Timeline - part 2!

See part 1 here!

Once again, if you're avoiding spoilers do not read any further. Go in peace!

(ep 7 / 8 after this point, probably. since it's all Duffers directing and we have much less from official channels here, pinpointing which ep gets much harder/impossible. also naturally we just currently have seen a lot less from this point on)

Lab

Vickie, Erica, Robin, Murray, Mike, Lucas, Max, Hopper, “cast,” “cast”, pink chair we can’t read (El or Holly?) are at the Lab (either in the UD or Right-Side Up but viney bc the UD is "bleeding into" regular Hawkins atp). Maybe daytime (Netflix Stranger Things Day BTS photo)

*This has me totally confused. Hopper seems to join up with most of the farm group while Will, Joyce, and possibly El (*unless the pink chair that we can’t read is hers, IDK) are absent. Plus Max’s presence - maybe she is Mindscaping in, I just can’t imagine she wakes up from her coma and is ready for action. It does make sense she would spend some time at the Lab in the Mindscape for Vecna flashbacks Also don’t get where the Steve car group is at this point. They may not leave the UD Church with El and Hopper even if they do indeed meet up there. So I don’t really know where to place this, I think it has to be after ep 6 if Hopper is there at the same time as so many of the Mike Robin Lucas etc group but ?????? Final speculative thought: maybe Steve's car group is in the UD Lab UD WHILE this group is topside? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Could be the place our two UD expeditions cross back into regular Hawkins, maybe Hopper makes the jump and El stays behind initially. That also might place this in ep 6, which could make some sense...for various reasons I've been wanting to put the UD Church after the Lab but this grouping has prevented me from doing so. Anyways now I'm just writing fanfic but basically this one is a puzzle

During the day, Robin and Mike are outside the Lab (covered by vines - so same deal), looking worse for wear. Will and El also reported at this set, but we don't have pics. Cars present: WSQK van (no antenna), Joyce’s car, and a hearse (pap photos, pap video)

Downtown Hawkins

Vecna walks out of the gate in the downtown Hawkins military compound, appears to wreak some soldier carnage, things are on fire (leaked set photos)

Mayhem at the downtown Hawkins military compound at night. Lights are flashing (Ross Instagram weeks 25-27), Will filmed at this set (Noah Instagram story)

Linda Hamilton + the military drive towards the WSQK van at Hawkins Presbyterian at night (pap photos/video)

Steve and Robin, in new military-style outfits, drive the Bradley’s truck downtown at night. There is a bullet hole in the windshield (pap photos/reports)

At night, Murray drives the stolen military humvee, Hopper is maybe with him. (pap reports)

Derek is with the kids in downtown Hawkins, Will (outfit #3), and El (maybe finally outfit #2 for her because she never seems to change this season, looks like it could be a wetsuit) (pap photos)

More filming at the downtown Hawkins military compound: Joyce (outfit #3), Robin (outfit #3), Will (outfit #3), Dustin (outfit #2), Nancy (outfit #2), Jonathan (outfit #3?), Mike (outfit unclear to me? looks #2ish), maybe Lucas in a totally new outfit but IDK if that's him (pap photos). Notable that Dustin and Nancy (and maybe Mike, I really don't know about him) do not seem to have final outfit changes when everyone else does.

Mindscape

Holly + kids at the Creel House

A large number of kids play on the fully intact Creel House playground (pap photos)

Holly, in her outfit #1) takes a purple box with 80s-esque branding (a toy?) out of the mailbox in front of the freshly painted, in good repair Creel House. She talks to Henry in human form wearing period clothing and does not seem afraid (pap photos)

Holly wears an Alice in Wonderland-esque outfit (pap photos)

Other Mindscape (Max + Vecna?)

We return to Vecna’s lair in ep 6 (Shawn Levy Instagram)

We flashback to the Massacre at Hawkins Lab at some point, based on a “blood references” image for the Rainbow Room on set (Ross Instagram)

When? (Haven't managed to place these)

El uses her powers in the UD forest (July BTS video)

Vecna walks toward camera through UD forest (July BTS video)

In the UD near the Turnbow Realty billboard, a soldier is flung through the air (July BTS video)

At an unidentified location, a map of Hawkins marks “H” with an index card north of Lover’s Lake (Ross Instagram)

There’s a teacher at the downtown Hawkins military compound with the kids (extras casting call)

A nurse or nurses perform someone/someone’s bloodwork (extra casting calls)

Day: Bradley’s truck tips over in a field near the military checkpoint, there are scratches and a hole in the top (no bullet hole in the windshield yet) (pap photos)

Will gets completely drenched (Noah Instagram)

Mike and Lucas ride their bikes at night, probably in their second outfits (pap photo)

Wheeler station wagon, Bradley’s truck (scratched up), and WSQK van at vine-covered Radio Station (pap photos)

Steve is outside the Radio Station in his first outfit at night, the WSQK van has an antenna. Maybe early and late season scenes were both being filmed? (Ross Instagram)

El is at the lab (?) at night (?), maybe in her wetsuit (Ross Instagram)

Flyer for “Jimmy Fasthands” Lee’s show on WSQK pinned to a bulletin board (Ross Instagram)

Dustin sits in the WSQK van passenger seat, and a yellow WSQK T-shirt is stretched across the back (Ross Instagram Weeks 28-30)

Linda Hamilton + the military drives to Radio Station at dusk, meets maybe Vickie (candy striper outfit) (pap video), how many times does the military show up at the Radio Station my god. maybe this happens while the crew is at the Mansion? but IDK, that doesn't really add up for me

Derek is downtown standing next to maybe Holly in a flannel (too blurry to be conclusive imo. but I hope so since it means she is alive, involved, and gets some clean clothes) (pap photos)

*I'm not bothering with the epilogue bc focusing on the "main" season plot is long enough. also I find it so hard to pay attention to the military and Murray but I'm doing my best 🫡

[aftgficrec]

Some fic with andreil kids, i need that to survive

Our most recent ask for this has all of our previous recs. Enjoy! -A

latest ask:

Andreil & kids here

Kevin and his dads by Monsterputt03 [Not Rated, 646 Words, Complete, 2023]

Kevin's life with Andreil as his parents. 

Want by TheBreadWinner [Rated G, 19938 Words, Incomplete, Updated May 2024]

Andrew and Neil are finally in a position without worries. They have a nice home, money, and dream jobs. What more could they want? Their closest friends and family are raising kids and experiencing something Andrew never pictured wanting. Now, in his thirties, he sees families everywhere: in the stands during games, at the park during his runs with Neil, and in the lobby of New York Presbyterian. Andrew knows what he wants, and he wants it with Neil.

tw: implied/referenced child abuse and neglect, tw: implied/referenced torture

you got the heart without the ache. by PatientIsTheNight [Rated G, 2483 Words, Complete, 2024]

[Andrew] cannot kill every abuser in the world, though it would be nice. More importantly, he knows that he cannot allow himself to be visibly angry, or upset - it would give the wrong idea. He isn’t angry at Kylie, after all, and refuses to give her even half of an inkling of that idea. But he is still angry, in the way a wounded animal is. It takes more than he thought it would to keep himself from hiding in corners and lashing out. - Andrew and Neil foster their first kid, and face how hard it is. It’s a kidfic, you know what you’re getting.

tw: implied/referenced rape/noncon, tw: implied/referenced child abuse

Whose Your Daddy Series by chaoticas_hell [Not Rated, Collection, Incomplete, Updated June 2024]

Part 1: Whose Your Daddy [47865 Words, Complete] Andrew Joseph Minyard didn't do regrets. But letting Neil in, allowing himself to want, for letting Neil slip through his fingertips- it was the closest he would get to feeling regret. It had been fourteen years since he last saw Neil, since Neil was taken right from under his grasp by his psycho-killer father and lost forever and Andrew had to make peace with that, had to stop expecting Neil to walk through his front door like he had never left. Except, one day, it all but happened. One day, a small kid with horribly cut short platinum blonde hair, striking blue eyes that plagued Andrew's dreams and nightmares, freckles and an achingly familiar horrible fashion sense showed up at his office door with the strangest question. "Are you Andrew Joseph Minyard, yes or no?" The kid asked in a British accent. Andrew could only nod. "Oh good." The kid said, suddenly unsure of themself. "Cause I think you're my dad." What the fuck?

tw: assumed major character death, tw: implied/referenced torture

Part 2: The Before [11385 Words, Incomplete, Updated June 2024] basically a sequel to my fic Whose Your Daddy taking a look at how Neil dealt with single parenthood, how Andrew faired after Neil's faked death, Jo's abysmal childhood, and judgmental family members

tw: assumed major character death, tw: implied/referenced torture, tw: violence, tw: choking, tw: unplanned pregnancy, tw: transphobia, tw: gender dysphoria 

Fragments of Light series by DarkD [Rated G/T, Collection, 2 complete works, Updated Jan 2023]

Part 1: Baby mine [T, 18609 Words, Complete, 2022] Andrew could practically see the image of Neil sleeping on his chest, one of the pairs of shoes he'd bought still lying there in bed with them. Neil looked so peaceful, Andrew couldn't stop looking at him. His hand was right on Neil's belly, he could almost imagine what the girls' heartbeats were like there. Neil had sung a song that night, and Andrew memorized every note because, someday, he would also sing that same song for Neil and his daughters. (They couldn't) be more wanted, they've probably never wanted anything more in their life. “You won't touch any of them again.” Andrew said. His voice was low and his throat hurt. “You're not getting anywhere near my fucking family.”

tw: gun violence, tw: attempted murder, tw: major character injury, tw: blood, tw: unplanned pregnancy, tw: transphobia, tw: self harm, tw: implied/referenced rape/noncon, tw: destructive thoughts, tw: vomit

Part 2: My dear Nebula [G, 10086 Words, Complete, 2023] “Andrew, Andrew.” Neil whispered in his ear, the warm air against his skin making him shiver. “It's time for our nebula.” ... Neil then asked what a nebula was and he replied: Nebulae were nurseries for stars. Birth of stars. Birth… “Fuck”

tw: unplanned pregnancy, tw: implied/referenced child abuse, tw: implied/referenced murder

Retired by IKnowWhoYouAre_Damianos [Rated G, 1855 Words, Complete, AFTG Summer Exchange 2022]

Neil turned 35 two months ago and was finally ready to retire. A vacay will be just the right thing for his restless mind.

Neil Loves Dinosaurs series by infernalstars [Rated G/T, 32616 words, 17 Complete Works, Updated 2020]

Part 1 recced here

Part 4: Asking For Help [1501 Words] In which Kevin Day has to shift his perspective on things and he seeks out Neil for help.

tw: ableism, tw: implied/referenced abuse

Part 5: Babysitting and the Conditions of Love [1492 Words] Neil and Andrew babysit for Matt and Dan

tw: transphobia, tw: self harm

Part 6: To Live in Peace [908 Words] Meet Henry!

tw: homophobia, tw: implied/referenced child abuse

Part 7: Nightmare [2149 Words] Andrew bonds with his foster kid. 

tw: graphic nightmares, tw: implied/referenced murder

Part 8: Family [1491 Words] Henry comes home to Neil having a breakdown.

tw: homophobia, tw: ableism

Part 9: Again (Family pt. 2) [2034 Words] in which Neil has a chance to bond with his kid

tw: implied/referenced rape/noncon, tw: nonconsensual kissing

Part 10: Again (Family pt. 3) [1604 Words] The Resolution

tw: implied/referenced rape/noncon, tw: implied/referenced csa, tw: implied/referenced nonconsensual kissing, tw: implied/referenced nonconsensual drug use

Part 11: Ruby Red [1910 Words] Adopting one kid was always apart of the plan, but another kid...? Unplanned.

Part 12: Second Chances [3329 Words] in which Neil tells Ruby how him and Andrew met

Part 13: Roses and Thorns [1943 Words] Andrew is happy ft. some twinyards, catching up with Kevin and his daughter and a lil snippet of Liam!!

tw: implied/referenced self harm

Part 14: Something Real [3140 Words] How Andrew finds out Neil's Autistic. 

tw: nonconsensual drug use, tw: nonconsensual kissing, tw: implied/referenced child abuse

Part 15: Conditions of Love [2104 Words] A mini series that explores Liam Wilds (Matt and Dans kid), his life and his relationship with Henry Josten-Minyard.

tw: implied/referenced child abuse, tw: transphobia

Part 16: Anniversary [1180 Words]  The anniversary of the death of Neil's mom brings up some unpleasant memories and Andrew bring him to the museum to comfort him.

The Josten-Twinyards hc by @detectivebambam [Tumblr, 2024]

Andreil daughter and the word “please” by @starrycassi [Tumblr fic, 2024]

the monsters having kids with cool uncles andreil hc by @the-inner-musings-of-a-worm [Tumblr, 2024]

Miles Minyard-Josten age 7 fandom fun post by @andrews-jort-loving-pipe-dream [Tumblr, 2020]

Art

Minyard-Josten siblings also here art by @allfortheslay25

Nicky meeting Asher Minyard-Josten comic by @riceballannie

Andreil with Michael art by @dshr-art, hc here

fanart by @bluetheking for ‘Noah Minyard-Josten,’ fic recced here

[joyfulapostate]

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!

[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.

[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...?).

[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.

[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.

[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

[queenlucythevaliant]

Saw your post about the church hunt and, not to be proselytizing on tumblr dot com, but...possibly you could consider giving a Catholic church a try? Like we've got the beautiful aesthetics you're looking for, and also our theology is rigorous. Obviously we do get unorthodox priests from time to time like any denomination, but they're the exception not the rule.

(I get I'm trying to pitch Catholicism to a reformed presbyterian here, but it does sort of sound like we would tick all the boxes you're looking for... anyway, you can't blame a girl for trying right?)

Either way, best of luck in your hunt and I truly hope you find a church that meets all your spiritual needs. :)

I do get where you're coming from, friend, and I definitely respect the hustle! But, in the nicest way possible: no.

When I talk about rigorous theology, I do mean "well-developed, comprehensive, firm, clearly informs the preaching and the way the church is run" and Catholic theology is certainly that. But I also want theology that accords with my convictions regarding Biblical truth, and for that reason I just can't get down with the Catholic church.

I do love a good Catholic choir, though! And just generally, I love the feeling of reverence that I get when I enter a Catholic church. There's a long history of worshipping through art and architecture that really makes you feel like you're entering into a space set aside as the House of God. I think a lot of Protestant churches forget that churches are supposed to be special and precious, you know? The focus on austerity comes from a worthwhile place, but not for nothing did God tell the Israelites to build the Ark out of gold.

[bowtomycoolscissors]

A Fanfic Idea That I Never Wrote

Ok, so I had an awesome fanfic idea: to focus on two random people from the Wizarding World. Ellen Cracknell & Robert McGonagall Sr.

Now, if you don't know these people, this is how it is given in Pottermore:

Ellen Cracknell was the Muggle mother of Dolores Umbridge. She married the wizard Orford Umbridge and had two children: a daughter, Dolores, and a son born as a squib. Her marriage with Orford Umbridge was not a happy one. Orford blamed Ellen for the birth of their Squib son, and Dolores came to loathe her mother not only for her Muggle heritage but also for her flightiness and untidiness.

Reverend Robert McGonagall Senior was a Muggle and Presbyterian minister who lived in Caithness, Scotland, during the early twentieth century. He married Isobel Ross, and together they had three children: Minerva, Malcolm, and Robert Junior; all of them wizards.

"Now, I know what you're thinking:

wHy UmBRidge's mOm?

Because I feel like Ellen Cracknell and Robert McGonagall aren't talked about much and it would be really funny for Minerva to find out that her dad was best friends with Umbridge's mom.

Also, I IMAGINE ELLEN TO BE SCOTTISH SO IMAGINE HER GROWING UP IN CAITHNESS PEOPLE.

I also had a random headcanon that Ellen married Orford somewhere during the late 1950s and then had Dolores in 1961."

Imagine a young Ellen Cracknell meeting the Reverend Robert McGonagall Sr and developing friendships with both Robert as well as his young wife, Isobel. She invites Robert and Isobel to her wedding with Orford. Imagine Isobel getting the ✨wizard vibes✨ from Orford, who hasn't told his young bride that he is a wizard yet.

Imagine Minerva, years later, during OOTP, finding out that she knows Umbridge's mom.

I didn't write it for some reason though.

[ghostcheerio]

Tried to draw my 3 main OCs atm! Putting some brief descriptions of them under the cut

First off a bit of a "plot" summary (there's barely a plot but whatever): Samuel Brisbane is from northern Ireland and participated in the 1798 Rebellion there. He had to flee and accidentally ended up in the eastern part of the southernmost province of the Netherlands, Noord-Brabant (which is totally coincidentally where my dad is from — it doesn't really make sense that Sam would've ended up there but I just wanted to set a story there lmao). Adriaan van der Velden lets him stay in his parent's house. That's uhhh pretty much all the story I have, as I tend to focus on Sam's backstory/the 1798 rebellion part of it, but thats also a bit difficult because I need to read more books about 1798 first but I keep procrastinating on doing so :')

Sam: Around 23 years old, Ulster Scots, Presbyterian, middle class (the big house in the background of the drawing is definitley not his & is probably John's). Member of the United Irishmen & a big fan of the French Revolution.

Very idealistic, probably a bit of a fan of William Godwin & a believer in the perfectability of man. Unwarrantly idealizes & looks up to John (in a manner very reminicient of David Copperfield & James Steerforth). I feel like I need to do more research into late 18th century Belfast/the United Irishmen/the 1798 Rebellion before fleshing out his background a bit more (there are a ton of books that I want to read on this but I KEEP PROCRASTINATING ON IT AAAAGH plus there's so many other books I want to read D:)

After the 1798 Rebellion he is uh a little bit messed up from the violence that he saw (and sometimes comitted). Is now unfortunatley a bit misanthropic & keeps blaming himself for the things that happened. He is constantly beset by intrusive thoughts. Had to flee Ireland and due to his (& John's) ship being blown off course wound up in the south of the Netherlands.

John: Around 23, Anglo-Irish, Anglican, the son of a landowner. Kind of like a combination of Clive Durham and a less rakish James Steerforth. Flirts with radical-ish ideas right up until the implementation of them would impact him negatively; rather self-centered. A turncoat :(

Adriaan: 22 y/o farmer living in a village in northeastern Noord-Brabant. Very socially awkward and lonely — his singular friend moved away. Hates change and is rather conservative as a result.

can you tell which of these guys is my blorbo lmao

also if you're reading this and are thinking "what on earth does ulster scots mean?? what was the 1798 rebellion?!?!" I really encourage you to look it up on wikipedia because it's genuinely insanely interesting