#and a Bruce understander can crucify me for it

[twistpixel]

regarding the difference in jason's actions towards two-face when he learns of willis's murder vs. his desire for bruce to have avenged his own death: rather than a change in morals or caring more abt bruce than willis this case shows jason's own hypocrisy. jason forgives and pities harvey bc hes a deeply empathetic person. i personally think that contrary to what he may say if bruce had died in jason's place, jason would've reacted very similarly to how he did in willis's case. after his resurrection jason latches on to the specifics of joker's continued existence, but inwardly what he's really feeling is a deep sense of his own worthlessness. he sees that bruce has moved on as though nothing happened, as though he never mattered; this triggers a deep sense of insecurity in him because he cannot so easily move on. he's stuck in the moment of his death, 15, waiting for someone to prove to him that they love him as much as he loves them. this discrepancy he feels between himself and bruce leaves him unbearably vulnerable. to assuage his own humiliation and feelings of inferiority he fixes on a problem which rapidly becomes black and white before his eyes: heres what bruce should have done if he actually loved me. id have done the same had it been him. however, as with almost anything jason says or thinks after his resurrection you have to ask yourself is he really being truthful to himself, consciously or unconsciously? when jason encounters earth-51's batman in countdown who did kill joker in response to jay's death, he seems instinctively to find this version of bruce lesser. he says to him 'we're both dead "batman." any fool could see you've been dead inside for years.' jason can't reconcile the caring person he had known with someone who would have become what that bruce did.

i think the reality of the situation is that jason would likely have reacted badly even (or perhaps especially) if bruce had killed the joker because the situation is just so fucked. bruce can't react in any way that jason isn't able to twist inwards into self-loathing. jason is simply unable to admit to himself that what he really wants is not for bruce to have killed the joker, but for his life, his death, his tenure as robin, to have been meaningful; for bruce to have unconditionally loved him as jason loved him in turn; for bruce to continue to love him, in fact to continue to need jason; more than anything though--he wishes he hadn't died, because ultimately he wishes desperately for things to be as they were -- but neither of them can ever go back to being those people.

... the tldr jason thought process is essentially -> bruce doesnt love me bruce never cared about me at all or not in any way that mattered i loved him wholly i would have done anything for him i would have died for him i would have killed for him. but LOL he would not have done that!

I love that you brought up earth 51 Batman because i think about him a lot and I think I’ve said it before how they’re both just hanging out with shuffling corpses BUT ☝️ I would attribute Jason calling this Bruce dead more to how he keeps calling Jason “Jason” and ignoring and not addressing Jason’s attempts to distinguish himself from dead-Jason. I think it’s very palpable to Jason the uncanny valley and horror of the situation because when Jason talks about dead-Jason bruce says “you” for both of them. And yet in the end bruce dives in to help when that Bruce is in trouble even tho he’s sooooo doomed. (Funny as hell for Donna and Kyle to just give Jason space to do that like in context it’s a sad moment but “we’ll just be over here”. )

I do think Jason has hypocrisy ngl but I will also but you here- I think it’s what you’re saying about the desire for proof of love but also with a combo of a change in morals. The difference could lie quality of the bad guy. I mean we get that out of Jason’s mouth, “I’m not taking about X Y and Z” but you’re right that you know, we can’t always take Jason’s word for it. But the other half of that line “doing it because he took me away from you” I think Jason thinks killing people is okay. It’s how the world works to him.

Tbh preface that I don’t think modern Jason feels this way about Bruce anymore, but the joker thing specifically was UtH Jason feeling Bruce was living in naïveté and that Jason’s death would be the thing that took him by the shoulders and forced him to confront that it’s okay to kill people sometimes. It wasn’t, because I don’t think anything is, although I see people saying he would if it were a different character and I get a little :(

Thanks for the ask, sorry I only talked about where I disagreed with you

[confusedhummingbird]

It is very funny when people accuse anyone of disliking batgirl just because of "Dickkory" tho it would be a good reason DC making little of one of their best couples is bad enough but as someone who loves Star, Dinah and Huntress isn't that just normal to dislike a cheap written character like barbara that only way to "be seen" is putting other characters down? I honestly think she is the worst dc character, people can blame writers or whatever but for me this character has no redeem qualities

Yeah this is a subject I try not to breach because i know it's a sensitive issue but I honestly don't like Barbara Gordon at all. And it honestly has nothing to do with me being a Dickkory fan. To me Dick and Kory are always meant to be together but I do enjoy other relationships such as Clancy, Shawn, and Bea. But Barbara is just an unpleasant person. She's honestly got a lot of the same traits as Bruce, but where Bruce is crucified for these, Barbara is considered "Badass" and "girl boss".

Like she threw out Dick who just had his house blown up and is now homeless, because they just broke up and it's "too painful for her". Like what a fucking bitch.

Not to mention installing cameras in his home, without his knowledge or consent. Again something if Bruce would do would rightfully be called out on but for Barbara it's played off like a joke.

She also victim blames him with Tarantula comes to where they were having a date, and Tarantula kisses Dick without his consent and kicks him in the crotch. But Dick is the one in the wrong 😒

Also not to mention this shit after Dick just got his memories back from being shot in the fucking head. She was so desperate to have him back but the second he's back, she's an absolute bitch to him.

And it's not even limited to Dick, she's been an absolutely horrible person to Kory,Helena, Steph, and even Cassandra.

I understand that Barbara especially as Oracle means a lot especially for disabled people and if you find strength in her I'm glad.

But to me she's just an unpleasant person who keeps me from being able to enjoy comics she's in.

[the-firebird69]

We don't advertise it as his but you can go to the Getty images online and it's very clear but it looks like and handlebars are the same everything looks like this it's really not a bad bike it's kind of cool and he's upset of course and he's trying to go to court but he can't figure out how to

Thor Freya

Court with who China perhaps and he doesn't want to do it but he might have to he says

Hera

I just want to make money so they're making tons of money

Tommy f

It's merchandising and we're using it for real

Wie Chan lin

You're asking for everybody and I don't care if you're Bruce Lee I'm going to bust your chops

Tommy f aka John cena

You and let me send my bikes to anyone else anyone buying any. So ridiculous your like one of these fat cows

Wie

I don't care what you say that's stupid I want my own bikes to be mine

Tommy f

In that case you build your own YouTube s*** you don't hook up with a major corporation to sit there and fart around all day and piss everybody off that's ridiculous I don't see you taking over anything cuz you don't know what other people's perspective is and you're missing the whole thing on this ship stuff they're going to crucify you

Zues Hera

I guess I have a temper but really you're out of line this is what it is though I told people and it's stupid so like that kind of store don't care what I will and it's going to hurt it's my fault I see you in a little while you're right they're hiding it this is not if I had a little bikey, it does reveal it now is wrong you're wrong to say stuff to you that way but here it goes I have to fight and yeah of course you'll stay there was stupid to the storm everyone's kicking my ass because of it. Are you a lot more valuable than that but this is going to suck

John cena

You suck really bad back then you suck now but really you suck worse than ever you made some really big mistakes having a ride out the hurricane that's asinine we're going to get you for it ruining our stuff and mess around with us as part of the game but holy s*** you an a****** to him you told him off so many times he had to spike me now you're screwed

Hulk Hogan

He learned about a culture from you too now you're eating it you did a little a******

Mac

I'm going to say this he's a genius is wiping you out because you won't let him live a normal life which is what we should be doing and you're being an ass and that's asinine

Billium

He has to learn but I guess he's learning he's learning about Max too so I'm an educator it's in my own detriment so coolest thing to do and it's ruining me and it should not have done it but here it goes I'm doing it so I have to fight and I understand enforce myself to fight but he's a fighter he's going to kick my ass and he's going to be big and he's going to challenge me and I'm going to get my ass kicked so it's only John revolored and I'm talking and he says he just think you're ducking you're asking it right on the chin, that was starting to see something I'm going around doing that and I'm not really aware of it but this is awful he's too tired of me making fun of him and harassing him and belittling him and shortly and making noises and saying things after a child around him trying to take his pennies screwing up simple things in his life messing his family up by killing them I'm taking everything away from except a room and food so I sort of see something we added in the rest but that's what I'm doing and he's going to screw me over and now I'm going to fight China and they're going to kick my ass he says and I'll get him involved when I need them to be he says it's selling so many bikes that I should know him out of line and it's doing that I was doing the job it Wentworth and now I can't figure out what it is. That's kind of bad because I sort of get it it's saying it over and over and over into this don't do that and I'm doing it and I'm saying it the song One headlight it means all I have to do is go over to do that and see these idiots influencing me at this point he has to try and defend himself and I actually see you last night the flipping little s**** these little assholes are very asinine about it even this John reward guy they're driving around me the chopper at times not directly but we're on the block a little in the same things like this airhead next door on his mini bike and dirt bike and usually it doesn't make sense and even after it's kind of like stupid but they keep doing it and won't stop I see his point they berated me into it and it's horrible he loves you this attack and it's massive he says sales are way up someone said a million and that's enough for the word to reach everywhere and I do see that it's necessitated by what I'm doing but no sat there and forced it like this idiot next door did so it's not going to be a good time and I'm accident influence it he says it's not that much they're busy being yacking assholes from DC I'm supposed to crawl to because they're pissing me off like that this bum next door like I turned into this is crap what we're doing and we don't know cuz he's living in the Life forcing to live I went out of this he's going to kill everybody and it's too late it says people are buying this chopper motorcycle that I can't make a dime off. So I'm laughing about that it is really to my decorate because everyone's going to buy them now

John cena

What an ass and I mean it he acts like these people he's just not saying it but our friend is right he's doing the job back east but Matt was having him do it and now he has his power and he's using his power inappropriately and doesn't know it is inappropriate and he brings through the candy shit says he's ruining everybody

Hulk Hogan

I have heard them say that and I've heard him say it too a lot he's doing a force majeure and I don't understand it and said that he's not savvy and it's kind of hard to explain from my point of view like I don't want to be treated badly but when I kind of get treated with that stuff I sort of not off a little and I can't afford to do that either so he doesn't understand that I don't want to be his first major and I understand the difference so you just continues

Zues Hera

[dontbesoweirdkira]

Dating Jason Todd would include

-YOU ARE LITTLE PRECIOUS BUNNY I SWEAR YOU BRING OUT THE SOFTEST PART OF THIS BROKEN MAN

-like this dude will literally let you get away with ANYTHING and no one better stop you

-“Hey Jay I just robbed a bank and took a lollipop from that kid next door.”

-“Aww you’re so cute, Doll. Let me put out this cigarette and I’ll help you count the money, okay?”

-“Jay, Dick said I can’t have anymore ice pops!!! I really want some, it’s not fair!!”

-“ He said what?! hOld On iM gEtTinG mY Gun nO OnE TelLs mY lItTle Babe sHe caNt haVe anY iCe popS.”

-wearing his thick leather jackets that smell like cigarettes and expensive scotch 

-Stealing his 1/16263819827 Red hoods and waddling around the house while he’s out on patrol

-“Hey I’m RedHood and I have DaDdY IssUes, prepare to diEee!!! *pew pew*”

-“is that how I sound to you?! Because I don’t *pew pew* I *brrraaatratratatataaa* get it correct Y/N”

-Your tough edgy boyfriend 

-If he has an off day, he’ll take you on a ride on his motorcycle to wherever you want to go. If it’d make you happy, he’d drive to Paris for you if he could.

-You guys usually end up drifting by the waterside, taking in the longing smell of the sea, feeling the subtle warmth of the setting sun and melting into the welcoming breeze

-There’s this really good Sandwich stand by the oceanfront and you guys always get a large one, and share it with a nice cold bottle of Coke. There’s also this really nice private beach that you two have no business being on, you guys would sometimes just sit on one of the lifeguards stands for a while and just enjoy each other 

-“Hey Jay Jay?”

-“What’s up, Love bug?

-“Your eyes have a hint of Aqua Green in them. It’s the prettiest thing I’ve ever seen. I just wanted you to know that, that’s all.”

-IN HOME CONCERTS EVERY SATURDAY AND OR FRIDAY. 

-every week you guys make a list of your favorite classics and you build a Spotify playlist and dance around the house screaming *cough* I-i mean singing on the top of yalls lungs.

-weird adventures around the city! Like you guys sometimes go to weird parts of the city to see some weird crap to laugh about later on. 

-“Why is he wearing a tutu and dirty socks-“

-“keep walking baby girl don’t question it.”

-monthly movie nights where you guys watch a movie that has crappy 1 star reviews while eating a bunch of unhealthy garbage all night.

-“but why did he do that?”

-“according to ‘moviecridictbooiiii12’, he’s an uncultured swine who has no Character development, 1/10 trash person totally.”

-If you guys are just sitting in a comfortable silence, just cuddling, he might open up a bit about his childhood or maybe talk a bit about how he’s feeling. But that’s a rare rare occasion he doesn’t like talking much about it.

-This sometimes can cause a bit of a rift because it almost feels as if there’s a lack of trust but you understand he’s been through a whole lot and if it were you, you’d probably be the same way

-he does not like pills in the house but if you have health issues and have to take them, he won't crucify you because of it, but he will monitor you and make sure there is no drug abuse. He wants to make sure history doesn’t repeat itself. He doesn't wanna lose you that way.

-He’s a depressed crackhead 

-“Hey Y/N, can you tell me what’s in the drawer in the kitchen. The one next to the sink”

 -“Hmm? There’s nothing in here Jason.”

-“Nothing you say? Just like my relationship with Bruce haha.”

-“Are you okay?”

-“No I am not and neither is my sleep schedule.”

-Oh yeah this Poor boy barely sleeps. Mainly because he’s out on patrol all night and when he finally gets home, he’s being called back out. Or sometimes he’s just so restless thinking about everything he needs to do. Other times he’s just scared to sleep.

-Yeah he’s pretty reluctant to go to sleep. He’s scared to have a bad dream and wake up in a vulnerable state. Or to accidentally wake you up from tossing and turning and wails of agony.

-You lost a lot of hours of sleep already do to comforting him at night so as much as he can function without a nights rest, he’ll do it to spare you

-You hate when he does this because you actually don’t mind comforting him, it makes you feel like he trusts and can rely on you.

-nightmares about the joker or the pit. Cryinggg this boy is really traumatized

-“Shhh, Jason it’ll be alright. I’m right here love.”

-Even though he avoids sleep at all costs, this doesn’t stop him from napping on the recliner or at the kitchen table from time to time.

-He’s a bit self destructive with drinking, smoking, betting himself up, not sleeping or eating properly. You really have to help him and work with him. Be patient and kind pLz.

-He doesn’t like exposing you to the stuff he does, he doesn’t like you seeing all the gore or what not so he doesn’t try to come home bloody much actually. He might stop at dicks house or some other friend’s house to clean up a bit before coming to you

-Todd doesn’t like you to see and be around all that. He wants to keep that life very very separate, he even tries to keep the news off and away from you. Although you already know and if it bothers you it not, it’s not much you can do to stop him.

-The only time you might see him bloody or hurt is when he can’t make it to a friends house and he needs you to patch him up and put him to bed quickly.

-argurmentssss

-Yeah you guys do little annoying antics back and forth but it’s not something super crucial. The only time where it heats up is like if something he’s doing really really bothers you, like his killings or if he does something super reckless. The arguments usually end up with

- “I’m sorry Doll, I’ll do better for you.”

- “Sorry JayBird, I wasn’t being fair” 

-The worst an argument had ever gotten was when he didn’t come home for weeks without telling you he was out on a mission and you were scared out of your mind and ended up cursing him out for scaring you. 

-You didn’t talk to him for about a week and he was a wreck

-“JASON DONT YOU DARE TRY TO KISS ME OR HUG ME I THOUGHT YOU WERE F*CKING DEAD OR WORSE! YOU COULD'VE TOLD ME SOMETHING LIKE I LITERALLY HATE YOU RIGHT NOW I COULDN'T SLEEP FOR WEEEKS JASON I WAS WORRIED SICK-“

-“Hey, it’s okay Y/n- I’m here no-“

-“NO IT'S NOT LITERAL I DON'T WANT TO TALK TO YOU ANYMORE, GET AWAY FROM ME.”

-He cannot stand when he breaks your heart or makes you upset like he beats himself up a whole lot. He will apologize to you and do anything to make it up.

-“Stupid Todd? How can you upset the one person that seems to be so patient and loving to you? Ugh you idiot.”

-yeah he literally kissed up to you for months he felt so bad even after you apologized for overreacting and told him he didn’t need to do anything 

-Yeah speaking of kissing up to you, he Buys you anything you want just ask. Looking at that super nice outfit in the mall? Check your room, it’s on your bed with a cute little note. Want an ice cream sundae? Yeah he got extra fudge/caramel for his princess. 

-He just loves you like so so much he doesn’t care what you look like, how big or how skinny, how light or how dark you are. He literally adores you and wants to protect you with all his heart. He’d buy the whole world for you.

-“Jason, literal listen to me. 600 dollars for a charm bracelet I liked in the mall is too much, go return it”

-he’s a bit overprotective with you. Not in a “HEKDJEHEHEHINEEDTOKNOWWHEREYOUAREATALLTIMESSENPAI.”  Kind of way but in a like “Check in every once in a while will ya babe? I wanna make sure you’re okay.”

-He doesn’t let you go outside after a certain time for ANYTHING unless it’s an emergency. It’s too dangerous in Gotham for you to be out scrolling going to a convenience store at 10pm at night. So if you need something from the store he’ll go get it for you or already have it in the house.

-Will 100 throw hands for you

-actually makes sure you can defend yourself and trains you a bit every month to make sure if trouble comes and he’s not there, you can protect yourself

-Intimacy

-Honhonhon. Although what many believe Jason has a high sex drive and wants it a lot or what not. I don’t think it’s 100% true

-I believe that like if his partner wasn’t the type of person who wanted it, or didn’t feel comfortable with it, he’d be okay with it. Like he doesn’t need it to survive although you look hecking good in that outfit today

-I feel like he’d be more kissy and rough touching than the full 100 yards with a more soft/standoffish sexually significant other. 

-Yeah if he gets from a stressful mission or just needs to feel you, he’s gonna wanna kiss and touch on you but if you’re not into all that then like he’d back off because he respects you enough 

-neck kisses and thigh kisses 

-“jaybirdy I wanted to wear that new skirt I got yesterday, now I got your bites all over my legs.”

-he's a totally Dom and that’s on that period boo

-dAdDy KiNk I’m sorry

-His voice somehow becomes super raspy when he’s aroused?!?!

-He will tease you to a point you moan out his name and then turn around and act innocent 

-“let’s watch Frozen! What’s with that face dear? You didn’t think I’d let you have it that easily now did you?”

-*wears anything short*

-”WOOOOO DAMMNNNN Y/NNNNNN LOOKING FOINE TODAY I SEE YOU! CAN I GET YOUR NUMBER?!?! YOU GOT A BOYFRIEND BECAUSE I KNOW HE'S DAMN LUCKYYY!”

-Highkey finds it so hot when you sit on his lap like damn it feels so nice to him like you know you’re his and that’s like arousing to him. Will play with the hem of your skirt if your wearing them and your thighs aren’t safe

(Anyways I ain’t trynna make this NSFW but I might do a little something for my 200 follower special)

-On a softer purer note, you guys are like the roasters of the fam, okay! Like no one is safe, especially Damian.

-“Tch- Todd and his little pet.”

-“Dami, didn’t know you’d be here, and apparently your hairline didn’t know either.”

-*Jason, Tim and Dick were dying*

-“Hey you little accident, why you standing like that, you look like you’re bout to enlist in the army.” 

-“shut up Todd, at least I have good posture unlike you.”

-“Hey leave Damian alone, Jason. Dami just has a pole in his ass that makes him stand in first position all the time. It’s a serious condition, y’all need to stop laughing.”

-“Hey Selina! Your Sugar Daddy is in the kitchen, try not to steal anything though because he might cut down your weekly allowance.”

-“Haha Y/N and yours is in the living room getting drunk, careful he might end up with me tonight.”

-“Hmm, a gold digger and a cougar? Wow you got your careers set don’t ya! Ooops you should check in the mirror tho! I think your Botox is drooping.”

-yAlL CAnT sTop ROaStinG PeOpLe anD it’S wOrse When yaLls DruNk

-You’re actually pretty close to The BatFam and like Bruce Adores you he thinks you’re a wonderful influence on Jason like you changed him a lot. Dick sees you as a baby sister and like he literally baby’s you so much it’s sad. Tim and you like to joke around a bit and talk you guys get along decently. Although Damian would NEVER admit it, he actually is kinda fond of you even though you guys insult each other. He might stab someone for like hurting you or something. But watch your back because he might stab you as well.

-going to Bruce’s Galas and charity events like by force. 

-“yYyyYYyyY/NnnNnNnNiEeeeEEee PLEaSE COmeEeeee sO iWOnT DrInk MySelF ouT oF tHeRe!!!”

-“Jason let go of my leg.”

-You don’t actually mind it too much, you’ve made some nice connections and plus it’s a little date night with Jason so Win Win!!

-He actually wears a nice Tux and styles his hair real nicely. Might even be wearing that nice watch Bruce gave him a long time ago on his birthday.

-*sniff sniff* is that Cologne? *sniiiiiiffffffff* *HIGHLY* Expensive cologne he’s wearing?! And *pat pat* HAIR GEL OH BOIIII

-He actually picks out a dress for you to wear. One he’s been dying to see you in. The super expensive one he found while shopping with Dick and Bruce one day.

-If some rich guy try’s flirting with you, it’s over for them. Jealous Todd Mode activated!

-“Doll Face, I found you. Love wandering off don’t you babe? When we get home, I’ll make sure you won’t want to wander off again,” He kisses into your ear hungrily “wHo’s tHiS, Y/N? Is he bothEriNg yOu?” He asks like he didn’t see him there

-“No but Jason you are.“

-“:o”

*later*

-“I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT I DID WRONG Y/N!! HE WAS FLIRTING WITH YOU AND I HAD TO INSERT MY DOMINANCE.”

-“JAY HE WAS A BUSINESSMAN LOOKING TO INDORSE ME AND MY WORK! YOU JUST EMBARRASSED ME AND MADE HIM FEEL UNCOMFORTABLE!! LITERALLY NOW HE THINKS I HAVE AN OVER POSSESSIVE BOYFRIEND.”

-“oh-“

“YEAH ‘oH’! serIouslY I CanT stAnd yoU.”

-Jason’s drinking and smoking. Let’s just say you’re not the biggest fan of it because of his health, you’re so worried about it. He’s already taking shots and stabs but like the drinking and smoking on top of that? You’re worried about him

-You always voice your concern and he’s never too phased and he’s always like 

-“Don’t worry L/N, I’ll be okay. If this kills me, don’t let Dick take my meat stash in the freezer. Tell him I’m coming back to life in like 3 months give or take and I’ll be hungry for steak.”

-Actual best boyfriend! Like if you’re insecure about anything he’ll make you feel so much better, in every way possible. He makes it so know how much he loves you it’s so sweet and super cute like I’m crying.

-makes weird faces at you randomly and it somehow gets you to laugh?!?! 

-cooks breakfast or dinner for you every once in a while but messes up a few times 

-“sorry y/n I accidentally burnt the cookies I was trying to make for you. I-I can go run and ask Alfred to make some? I know how long you’ve been waiting to have some.”

- Did I mention he’s best boi? Like ugggghhhh he’s so blind to all that superficial mess people get caught up in. You talk down about yourself and he’ll like attack you in love I swear he will. He doesn’t like the self deprecation you do. He completely detests it.

-“Say you’re ugly one more time I’ll slap you with this heart of mine. Don’t make me do it Y/N. I’ll give you so much love, the only thing you’ll be able to say is “Omg I love myself so much like damn I’m so sexy and so fine and my personality? Perfect! thanks  to my totally handsome boyfriend, I see myself so clearly now.”

-You guys Also like spend his birthday with just each other. But it’s really special to him and he always looks forward to the small marble cake you make, that has strawberries on top. He loves when you sit on his lap with your face in the crook of his neck, whispering into his skin ever so gently telling him to ‘make a wish old man’

-something about the birthdays you spend with him, brings him back to a happy place he once felt as a child. Or wanted to feel. He always wishing for the same thing…..to always see you happy

-“Jay I love you.”

-“I love you too Y/N. Remember that okay?”

(Request open)

[eli-kittim]

How Can Good Exegesis Make Bad Theology?

By Author Eli Kittim

——-

The Canonical Context

This principle suggests that we should read the Books of the Bible not as distinct, individual compositions but rather as parts of a larger *canonical context*, that is, as part of the “canon” of Scripture. In other words, instead of evaluating each book separately in terms of its particular historical, literary, and editorial development, this principle focuses instead on its final canonical format that was legitimized by the various communities of faith. The idea is that since the redacted version or “final cut,” as it were, is considered “authoritative” by the different communities of faith, then this format should hold precedence over all previous versions or drafts.

Moreover, this concept holds that despite the fact that the Biblical Books were written by a number of different authors, at different times, in different places, using different languages, nevertheless the “canonical context” emphasizes the need to read these Books in dialogue with one another, as if they are part of a larger whole. So, the hermeneutical focus is not on the historical but rather on the canonical context. The hermeneutical guidelines of the canon therefore suggest that we might gain a better understanding of the larger message of Scripture by reading these Books as if they were interrelated with all the others, rather than as separate, diverse, and distinct sources. The premise is that the use of this type of context leads to sound Biblical theology.

——-

Theology

Theology is primarily concerned with the synthesis of the diverse voices within Scripture in order to grasp the overarching message of the complete Biblical revelation. It deals with Biblical epistemology and belief, either through systematic analysis and development of passages (systematic theology) or through the running themes of the entire Bible (Biblical theology). It addresses eternity and the transcendent, metaphysical or supernatural world. And it balances individual Scriptural interpretations by placing them within a larger theoretical framework. The premise is that there is a broader theological context in which each and every detailed exegesis coalesces to form a coherent whole! It’s as if the Bible is a single Book that contains a complete and wide-ranging revelation! It is under the auspices of theology, then, that the canonical context comes into play.

——-

Exegesis

The critical interpretation of Scriptural texts is known as “exegesis.” Its task is to use various methods of interpretation so as to arrive at a definitive explanation of Scripture! Exegesis provides the temporal, linguistic, grammatical, and syntactic context, analysis, and meaning of a text. It furnishes us with a critical understanding of the authorial intent, but only in relation to the specific and limited context of the particular text in question. It is the task of theology to further assess it in terms of its relation and compatibility to the overall Biblical revelation! One of the things that exegesis tries to establish is the composition’s historical setting or context, also known as “historical criticism.” This approach inquires about the author and his audience, the occasion and dating of the composition, the unique terms and concepts therein, the meaning of the overall message, and, last but not least, the *style* in which the message is written, otherwise known as the “genre.” While the author’s other writings on the topic are pivotal to understanding what he means, nothing is more important than the *genre* or the form in which his writing is presented.

——-

The Analogy of Scripture

One of the most important hermeneutical principles of exegesis is called “the analogy of Scripture” (Lat. ‘analogia Scripturae’). In short, it means that Scripture should interpret Scripture. This principle requires that the implicit must be explained by the explicit. In other words, the exegesis of unclear or ambiguous parts of Scripture must be explained by clear and didactic ones that address the exact same topic. That means that one Biblical Book could very well explain another. For example, the New Testament (NT) Book of Ephesians 1.9-10 seems to demystify Galatians 4.4. This principle is based on the “revealed” inspiration (Gk. θεόπνευστος) of Scripture:

All scripture is inspired by God and is useful

for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and

for training in righteousness (2 Tim. 3.16

NRSV).

As for those scholars who refuse to take the NT’s alleged “pseudepigrapha” seriously because of their *apparent* false attribution, let me remind them that the most renowned textual scholars of the 20th century, Bruce M. Metzger and Bart D. Ehrman, acknowledged that even alleged “forged” works could still be “inspired!” It’s important to realize that just because these works may be written by unknown authors who may have attempted to gain a readership by tacking on the name of famous Biblical characters doesn’t mean that the subject-matter is equally false. The addition of amanuenses (secretaries) further complicates the issue.

So, returning to our subject, the analogy of Scripture allows the Bible to define its own terms, symbols, and phrases. It is via the analogy of Scripture, which defines the many and varied parts, that the broader canonical context is established, namely, the principle that the various Biblical Books form a coherent whole from which a larger theological system can emerge.

And, of course, interdisciplinary studies——such as archaeology, anthropology, psychology, sociology, epistemology, and philosophy——contribute to both systematic and Biblical theology by presenting their particular findings, concepts, and theoretical ideas.

——-

Testing the Legitimacy of these Principles

In explaining how these principles work in tandem, I’d like to put my personal and unique theology to the test. I have raised the following question: “What if the crucifixion of Christ is a future event?” The immediate reaction of Christian apologetics or heresiology would be to revert to “dogmatic theology” (i.e., the dogmas or articles of faith) and the scholarly consensus, which state that Jesus of Nazareth was crucified under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius. Really? Let’s consider some historical facts. There are no eyewitnesses! And there are no first-hand accounts! Although the following references were once thought to be multiple attestations or proofs of Jesus’ existence, nevertheless both the Tacitus and Josephus accounts are now considered to be either complete or partial forgeries, and therefore do not shed any light on Jesus’ historicity. One of the staunch proponents of the historical Jesus position is the textual scholar Bart Ehrman, who, surprisingly, said this on his blog:

. . . Paul says almost *NOTHING* about the

events of Jesus’ lifetime. That seems weird

to people, but just read all of his letters.,

Paul never mentions Jesus healing anyone,

casting out a demon, doing any other

miracle, arguing with Pharisees or other

leaders, teaching the multitudes, even

speaking a parable, being baptized, being

transfigured, going to Jerusalem, being

arrested, put on trial, found guilty of

blasphemy, appearing before Pontius Pilate

on charges of calling himself the King of the

Jews, being flogged, etc. etc. etc. It’s a

very, very long list of what he doesn’t tell us

about.

Therefore, there appears to be a literary discrepancy regarding the historicity of Jesus in the canonical context between the gospels and the epistles. And, as I will show in due time, there are many, many passages in the epistles that seem to contradict dogmatic theology’s belief in the historiographical nature of the gospels. So, if they want to have a sound theology, exegetes should give equal attention to the epistles. Why?

First, the epistles precede the gospels by several decades. In fact, they comprise the earliest recorded writings of the NT that circulated among the Christian churches (cf. Col. 4.16).

Second, unlike the gospels——which are essentially *theological* narratives that are largely borrowed from the Old Testament (OT)——the epistles are *expositional* writings that offer real, didactic and practical solutions and discuss spiritual principles and applications within an actual, historical, or eschatological context.

Third, according to Biblical scholarship, the gospels are not historiographical accounts or biographies, even though historical places and figures are sometimes mentioned. That is to say, the gospels are not giving us history proper. For example, the feeding of the 5,000 is a narrative that is borrowed from 2 Kings 4.40-44. The parallels and verbal agreements are virtually identical. And this is a typical example of the rest of the narratives. For instance, when Jesus speaks of the damned and says that “their worm never dies, and the fire is never quenched” (Mark 9.48), few people know that this saying is actually derived from Isaiah 66.24. In other words, the gospels demonstrate a literary dependence on the OT that is called, “intertextuality.”

Fourth, the gospels are like watching a Broadway play. They are full of plots, subplots, theatrical devices (e.g. Aristotelian rhetoric; Homeric parallels), literary embellishments, dialogues, characters, and the like. Conversely, the epistles have none of these elements. They are straightforward and matter of fact. That’s why Biblical interpreters are expected to interpret the implicit by the explicit and the narrative by the didactic. In practical terms, the NT epistles——which are the more explicit and didactic portions of Scripture——must clarify the implicit meaning of the gospel literature. As you will see, the epistles are the primary keys to unlocking the actual timeline of Christ’s *one-and-only* visitation!

Fifth, whereas the gospels’ literary genre is mainly •theological•——that is to say, “pseudo-historical”——the genre of the epistolary literature of the NT is chiefly •expositional.• So, the question arises, which of the two genres is giving us the real deal: is it the “theological narrative” or the “expository writing”?

In order to answer this question, we first need to consider some of the differences in both genres. For example, although equally “inspired,” the gospels include certain narratives that are unanimously rejected as “unhistorical” by both Biblical scholars and historians alike. Stories like the slaughter of the innocents, the Magi, the Star of Bethlehem, and so on, are not considered to be historical. By contrast, the epistles never once mention the aforesaid stories, nor is there any mention of the Nativity, the virgin birth, the flight to Egypt, and the like. Why? Because the Epistles are NOT “theological.” They’re expository writings whose intention is to give us the “facts” as they really are!

Bottom line, the epistles give us a far more accurate picture of Jesus’ *visitation* than the gospels.

In conclusion, it appears that the gospels conceal Jesus far more effectively than they reveal him.

——-

Proof-text and Coherence Fallacies

The “proof-text fallacy” comprises the idea of putting together a number of out-of-context passages in order to validate a particular theological point that’s often disparagingly called “a private interpretation.” But, for argument’s sake, let’s turn these principles on their head. Classical Christianity typically determines heresy by assessing the latter’s overall view. If it doesn’t fit within the existing theological schema it is said to be heretical. Thus, dogmatic theology sets the theological standard against which all other theories are measured. They would argue that good exegesis doesn’t necessarily guarantee good theology, and can lead to a “coherence fallacy.” In other words, even if the exegesis of a string of proof-texts is accurate, the conclusion may not be compatible with the overall existing theology. This would be equivalent to a coherence fallacy, that is to say, the illusion of Biblical coherence.

By the same token, I can argue that traditional, historical-Jesus exegesis of certain proof-texts might be accurate but it may not fit the theology of an eschatological Christ, as we find in the epistles (e.g., Heb. 9.26b; 1 Pet. 1.20; Rev. 12.5). That would equally constitute a coherence fallacy. So, these guidelines tend to discourage independent proof-texting apart from a systematic coherency of Scripture. But what if the supposed canonical context is wrong? What if the underlying theological assumption is off? What then? So, the $64,000 question is, who can accurately determine the big picture? And who gets to decide?

For example, I think that we have confused Biblical literature with history, and turned prophecy into biography. In my view, the theological purpose of the gospels is to provide a fitting introduction to the messianic story *beforehand* so that it can be passed down from generation to generation until the time of its fulfillment. It is as though NT history is *written in advance* (cf. מַגִּ֤יד מֵֽרֵאשִׁית֙ אַחֲרִ֔ית [declaring the end from the beginning], Isa. 46.9-10; προεπηγγείλατο [promised beforehand], Rom. 1.2; προγνώσει [foreknowledge], Acts 2.22-23; προκεχειροτονημένοις [to appoint beforehand], Acts 10.40-41; ερχόμενα [things to come], Jn 16.13)!

So, if we exchange the theology of the gospels for that of the epistles we’ll find a completely different theology altogether, one in which the coherence of Scripture revolves around the *end-times*! For example, in 2 Pet. 1.16–21, all the explanations in vv. 16-18 are referring to the future. That’s why verse 19 concludes: “So we have the prophetic message more fully confirmed” (cf. 1 Pet. 1.10-11; 1 Jn 2.28).

In response, Dogmatic Theology would probably say that such a conclusion is at odds with the canonical context and that it seems to be based on autonomous proof-texting that is obviously out of touch with the broader theological teaching of Scripture. Really? So the so-called “teaching” of Scripture that Jesus died in Antiquity is a nonnegotiable, foregone conclusion? What if the basis upon which this gospel teaching rests is itself a proof-text fallacy that is out of touch with the teaching of the *epistles*? For example, there are numerous passages in the epistles that place the timeline of Jesus’ life (i.e., his birth, death, and resurrection) in *eschatological* categories (e.g., 2 Thess. 2.1-3; Heb. 1.1-2; 9.26b; 1 Pet. 1.10-11, 20; Rev. 12.5; 19.10d; 22.7). The epistolary authors deviate from the gospel writers in their understanding of the overall importance of •eschatology• in the chronology of Jesus. For them, Scripture comprises revelations and “prophetic writings” (see Rom. 16.25-26; 2 Pet. 1.19-21; Rev. 22.18-19). Therefore, according to the *epistolary literature*, Jesus is not a historical but rather an “eschatological” figure! Given that the NT epistles are part of the Biblical *canon,* their overall message holds equal value with that of the NT gospels, since they, too, are an integral part of the canonical context! To that extent, even the gospels concede that the Son of Man has not yet been revealed (see Lk. 17.30; cf. 1 Cor. 1.7; 1 Pet. 1.7)!

What is more, if the canonical context demands that we coalesce the different Biblical texts as if we’re reading a single Book, then the overall “prophetic” message of Revelation must certainly play an important role therein. The Book of Revelation places not only the timeline (12.5) but also the testimony to Jesus (19.10b) in “prophetic” categories:

I warn everyone who hears the words of the

prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to

them, God will add to that person the

plagues described in this book; if anyone

takes away from the words of the book of

this prophecy, God will take away that

person’s share in the tree of life and in the

holy city, which are described in this book

(Rev. 22.18-19 NRSV).

Incidentally, the Book of Revelation is considered to be an epistle. Thus, it represents, confirms, and validates the overarching *prophetic theme* or eschatological “theology” of the epistolary literature. That is not to say that the •theology• of the epistles stands alone and apart from that of the OT canon. Far from it! Even the *theology* of the OT confirms the earthy, end-time Messiah of the epistles (cf. Job 19.25; Isa. 2.19; Dan. 12.1-2; Zeph. 1.7-9, 15-18; Zech. 12.9-10)! As a matter of fact, mine is the *only* view that appropriately combines the end-time messianic expectations of the Jews with Christian Scripture!

Does this sound like a proof-text or coherence fallacy? If it does, it’s because you’re evaluating it from the theology of the gospels. If, on the other hand, you assess it using the theology of the epistles, it will seem to be in-context or in-sync with it. So, the theological focus and coherency of Scripture will change depending on which angle you view it from.

——-

Visions of the Resurrection

There are quite a few scholars that view the so-called resurrection of Christ not as a historical phenomenon but rather as a visionary experience. And this seems to be the theological message of the NT as well (cf. 2 Tim. 2.17-18; 2 Thess. 2.1-3). For example, Lk. 24.23 explicitly states that the women “had indeed seen a vision.” Lk. 24.31 reads: “he [Jesus] vanished from their sight.” And Lk. 24.37 admits they “thought that they were seeing a ghost.” Here are some of the statements that scholars have made about the resurrection, which do not necessarily disqualify them as believers:

The resurrection itself is not an event of

past history. All that historical criticism can

establish is that the first disciples came to

believe the resurrection (Rudolph

Bultmann, ‘The New Testament and

Mythology,’ in Kerygma and Myth: A

Theological Debate, ed. Hans Werner

Bartsch, trans. Reginald H. Fuller [London:

S.P.C.K, 1953-62], 38, 42).

When the evangelists spoke about the

resurrection of Jesus, they told stories

about apparitions or visions (John Dominic

Crossan, ‘A Long Way from Tipperary: A

Memoir’ [San Francisco:

HarperSanFransisco, 2000], 164-165).

At the heart of the Christian religion lies a

vision described in Greek by Paul as

ophehe—-“he was seen.” And Paul himself,

who claims to have witnessed an

appearance asserted repeatedly “I have

seen the Lord.” So Paul is the main source

of the thesis that a vision is the origin of the

belief in resurrection ... (Gerd Lüdemann,

‘The Resurrection of Jesus: History,

Experience, Theology.’ Translated by John

Bowden. [London: SCM, 1994], 97,

100).

It is undisputable that some of the followers

of Jesus came to think that he had been

raised from the dead, and that something

had to have happened to make them think

so. Our earliest records are consistent on

this point, and I think they provide us with

the historically reliable information in one

key aspect: the disciples’ belief in the

resurrection was based on visionary

experiences. I should stress it was visions,

and nothing else, that led to the first

disciples to believe in the resurrection (Bart

D. Ehrman, ‘How Jesus Became God: The

Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from

Galilee’ [New York: Harper One, 2014],

183-184).

Ehrman sides with the *visionary language* that Luke, Bultmann, Crossan, and Lüdemann use. In the words of NT textual critic Kurt Aland:

It almost then appears as if Jesus were a

mere PHANTOM . . .

——-

Exegetical Application

I deliberately stay away from theology when I exegete Scripture precisely because it will taint the evidence with presuppositions, assumptions, and speculations that are not in the text. Thus, instead of focusing on the authorial intent hermeneutic, it will inevitably superimpose out-of-context meanings and create an eisegesis. All this, of course, is courtesy of confirmation bias.

So, I think one of the reasons why we’ve done so poorly in understanding, for example, the story of Jesus is because we have mixed-up exegesis with theology. When theology drives the exegesis, then the exegesis becomes blind and erroneous.

My method of exegesis is very simple. I see EXACTLY what the text *says,* EXACTLY *how* it says it. I don’t add or subtract anything, and I don’t speculate, guess, or theorize based on existing philosophies or theologies. The minute we go outside *the analogy of scripture,* that’s when we start to speculate. And that’s how we err. In short, let the Scriptures tell you what it means. Thus, the best interpretation is no interpretation at all!

——-

Conclusion

To find the truth, we must consider all the evidence objectively. Evangelicals, for instance, would be biased if they didn’t consider the academic standpoint even if, at times, it seems to be guided by liberal theology. In this way, they will be in a better position to consider objectively all the possibilities and probabilities regarding the correct interpretation of Scripture. That’s because the truth usually touches all points of view . . .

One of the exegetical stumbling blocks is our inability to view the gospels as “inspired metaphors.” Given their literary dependence on the OT, it appears as if the gospels themselves are “inspired parables.”

So, if the epistolary literature, which is both expositional and explicit, seems to contradict these so-called “theological parables,” then it becomes quite obvious that the “theology” of the gospels fails to meet scholarly and academic parameters. And, therefore, the epistolary literature must be given more serious attention and consideration!

Our exegetical shortcomings often stem from forced or anachronistic interpretations that are based on *theological speculation* and conjecture rather than on detailed exegesis. Even the Biblical translations themselves are not immune to the interpretative process, whether they be of dynamic or formal equivalence.

That’s why I have developed an exegetical system and have demonstrated the effectiveness of its approach to the study of the Biblical Christ. Accordingly, I argue that the epistles are the primary *keys* to unlocking the future timeline of Christ’s ***ONLY*** visitation! Hence, I leave you with one final rhetorical question:

What if the crucifixion of Christ is a future

event?

[tessatechaitea]

Teen Titans Spotlight #14: Nightwing

So that's why I finally dropped this series: they dropped the "on:".

You might have forgotten that the biggest gang in Gotham in 1987 were the Jewish Surrealists.

I don't even care how many people don't know what the fuck I'm on about. Did you know this world is on fire? Batman is busting a cocaine shipment into Gotham in the prologue of this comic book. According to the cover, he's about to be crucified. I guess the Jewish Surrealists are still micro-managed by Caesar's Hand. Speaking of unbelievable things in comics (this segue works because I believe I was speaking about it fifteen hundred commentaries ago when Nightwing drove a motorcycle up the wall of a building), how does Batman always wind up unconscious and in some form of complicated trap and yet, in all the time it takes to put him there, nobody ever takes the mask off. Not one henchman is curious? Not one henchman binding Batman to the cross ever thinks, "If I knew Batman's identity, I could quit this henchman gig, sell the information, and retire"? I don't believe it. My theory is that thousands of henchmen have tried this plan but Alfred intercepted all of the blackmail notices, hired Jason Bard to find who sent them, and then hired Tommy Monaghan to kill them. I would just like it on the record that I spelled Tommy's last name correctly before looking it up. The Jewish Surrealists capture Batman because they had a sniper with a tranquilizer gun on overwatch during the deal. Batman gets drugged, blackjacked, and spit upon before nobody thinks to take off his mask.

At least I hope that's spit.

I guess if that isn't spit, I now understand why nobody took his mask off.

"Are ya kiddin' me, Rudy?! Put yer fuckin' dick away and help me schlep this bastard into tha van! The boss can take tha fuckin' mask off. Ugh."

Alfred calls up Dick Grayson when Bruce doesn't show up for morning stitches. Dick sighs, hangs up the phone, and goes off to do a literally thankless job because Batman thinks expecting people to be there for him is the same thing as gratitude. I hate complaining about the art because I never complain about the art. So when I finally complain about the art, that means I really fucking think the art sucks. And, well, I'm complaining about the art now.

"Fuck dinosaur references! I got this!" -- Stan Woch

This is some of Woch's earliest work with DC so I shouldn't be too hard on him. Plus he's still alive and he might read this. Although wouldn't it be worse if I were criticizing the work of a dead man? Also, he draws a pretty decent studio apartment and jizz dribble. Nightwing heads off to save Batman even though he knows Batman doesn't need saving. If Batman seems to need saving, it's only because Batman misses Nightwing and this is the only way he can see him without admitting that he misses him. "Oh no!" says Batman as he tries to remember what it's like to feel sleepy from tranquilizers or to feel concussed from a blackjack to the back of the head. "My legs are all, um, wobbly? I'm, um, falling now, right? OH! I'm helpless! I just peed a little too!" Then he lets the bad guys kidnap him and waits for Alfred to worry way too soon and call for backup. And of course Batman would choose a night when Jason Todd is off in California and Superman is off on Oa and Wonder Woman has her anniversary dinner with Steve Trevor.

Oh, just because he's suddenly half-robot, I'm supposed to believe some high school football star can now design high tech contact lenses?! Fuck you, comic books.

Dick finds a vial of acid left behind as Batman as a clue to who murdered him. I mean kidnapped him, probably! Who would kill Batman when they had the chance? I mean if they actually had a chance and Batman wasn't completely faking and ready to start breaking kneecaps the second somebody tugs at his cowl or tries to put a bullet in his brain. Anyway, the acid vial reminds Dick of that one case which was the only one ever in which Batman used a vial of acid which leads him to Drakkar, a Gotham drug lord. This is less evidence that Batman was in trouble and realized Nightwing would come looking for him and more evidence that Batman wasn't in trouble at all and was expecting Nightwing to come looking for him because Batman misses him.

With all the Batman themed stuff in this picture, that marquee obviously says Debbie Does Batman.

Nightwing threatens to beat up some cowardly punk named Skates who Batman apparently beats up every time he needs information. And even though Skates always gives up the information, he somehow hasn't been killed by any other Gotham criminal. Skates tells Nightwing that Batman is going to be killed at midnight in the graveyard. It's going to be a huge party. But instead of thinking, "I'll go to the graveyard and stop this!", Dick wastes precious time tailing Skates hoping he'll lead him to Batman or Drakkar. When Nightwing loses him due to Nightwing's fandom crowding around him, Nightwing thinks, "Wait. What did Skates say? Oh yeah! He gave me everything I needed to know! But now it's so close to midnight, I might not make it in time! Shoot!" Drakkar's plan is to auction off the right to unmask Batman and put a bullet in his brain. So, you know, almost the plan I proposed when they first knocked him unconscious! Stupid greedy thugs! Now Drakkar won't be rid of Batman or rich because Nightwing has found him! And he saves Batman in the nick of time! Time for hugs and demonstrations of familial love and intimacy!

Oh Batman!

Nightwing should know Batman cares because he didn't disappear the instant Nightwing looked away. Batman does smile at the end but not until Dick leaves. Only the reader gets to know Batman is capable of the tiniest bit of joy! And that joy probably wasn't due to Nightwing telling Batman that he's proud to have been Robin. The joy was probably in getting away with not thanking somebody for saving him yet again. Teen Titans Spotlight #14: Nightwing Rating: C+. If I had written this issue, it would have been from Batman's point of view. And all along the way, Batman would be thinking things like, "I'll drop this acid vial which will remind Dick of the Great Dragon caper which will lead him to Drakkar and the subway graveyard where I'm certain Drakkar will take me to kill me!" Then Batman will think, "I bet Dick and Alfred are brainstorming how to find me right now!" And later, as the gun is being put to Batman's head, he'd be all, "The lights should go out just about now! Dick will save me in the nick of time which I'll totally razz him over. Should I say, 'Cutting it pretty close, Boy Wonder' or 'Jason would have been here five minutes sooner'?" Then the final panel of Batman's life will be a bullet passing through his head as he's unmasked. The final page would show Dick Grayson sitting in his apartment listening to Cat's in the Cradle with the phone off the hook.

[desertbroad]

kaj + (inverted) tropes: part two! * * i don’t know all the actual Official TM names for these tropes, so most are made up. also, you might notice the regular trope list (part 1 of this headcanon) is significantly longer. this is because kaj has a few main inverted tropes but tons more regular ones, since tropes are like atoms: they make up everything. i just wanted to focus on the few inversions that created her character and let the rest come naturally! under a read more for length. ** also as of 7/6/19 part one isn’t done yet. yes i know please don’t shame me ok IM GETTING TO IT

fridged woman (aka back from the dead)—

for this one i took inspiration from laura moon from american gods, with a few tweaks (love neil gaiman, but some of the things about her character are...a bit squicky). unlike a good number of women in media, kaj isn’t shoved over gently and pronounced dead so that a man can grow from her pain. in fact, she’s shot in the head twice, pronounced dead, & buried. while her “death” means more pain and character development for the characters surrounding her, it means pain and character development for her, too. truth be told, she survives a hell of a lot more than any average person should, especially one with her low luck stat. half of this is the fun and wacky way new vegas’ world works (obviously, no real person could survive all this), but also because of her good ol’ courier determination. things that should’ve fridged kaj but haven’t include: two shots to the head, numerous combat scrapes, being stabbed, having her brain/heart/spine removed, having a bomb collar attached to her neck, killing an entire fortification of trained legionnaires, stepping on landmines, etc etc. the courier is pretty much the bruce willis of fallout.

world ending vengeance—

specifically applies to certain characters. while most others who piss kaj off get the full brunt of her wrath (see: caesar, mr. house, elijah, general oliver, ulysses), benny, along with dr. mobius & the think tank & mcnamara*, get a pass. in fact, she lets him go not once or twice, but on three separate occasions, even knowing he’s likely to betray her again. the reason why? not even kaj knows. some people speculate it’s because she likes him / slept with him (incorrect; she liked house to a degree, and slept with caesar); others speculate it’s because they’re so similar (also incorrect; she shared an alarming number of similarities with ulysses & elijah). the theory that comes closest to the truth is that she pities him. it fits in line her past behavior with mobius & the think tank, who were physically unable to see the effects of their actions and thus were spared a horrible fate. likewise, kaj seems to have judged benny to be innocent in her own personal court, and though he continues to be a thorn in her side again and again, she refuses to “sentence” him for anything. it helps his cause that his plan helped her take over vegas, and he created yes man, one of the only living beings she’s ever fully trusted. also a slight inversion of kaj’s maneater / black widow trope; the one person she truly should seduce and kill, she doesn’t.

that said, benny doesn’t get away from their encounters without any punishment—after narrowly escaping being crucified, both kaj and benny have matching rope burns around their wrists. it’s her morbid idea of a joke.

*mcnamara doesn’t fit within this trope, but kaj spares the bos for veronica & christine’s sake, despite yes man’s warnings. also for the off chance that they might convert to being her allies (they don’t, and this choice helps lend itself to more BOS trouble all over the wasteland).

white man cowboy—

kind of a simple inversion that’s been done before, but an important one and one that i like a lot. for starters, the “john wayne” cowboy is a bastardization of a history that was made up of ethnic minorities and whitewashed for hollywood aesthetic (also fuck you john wayne). while none of my research has come up with anything about women of color or nonbinary people in the western scene, only moc (whether this is intentional or not, i���m not sure), i still wanted to write kaj as non-male. frankly, this is because i wanted her to be an inversion of tired tropes, and that included being a debonair, byronic woman / non gender conforming hero (think gentleman jack) instead of a debonair, byronic white dude. we’ve got 20 of those for every fleshed out woman/enby on screen, lbr. kaj is also a femme fatale, but only by coincidence; she’s more of a wandering heart breaker than a necessarily dangerous woman, much like many of the heroes on screen.

i also find that non-men of color are one of the most underrepresented minorities in fiction—even media that celebrates diversity simplifies them down (hamilton), or centers their narrative and entire purpose around a man (hamilton, again). nevermind nonbinary people / trans folk. for that reason, i wanted kaj’s story to be about a woman of color / someone who doesn’t conform to expectations and doesn’t allow herself to be put in the sidelines for a white person or a male to lead her life. and regardless of whether a woman filling this swaggering, womanizing cowboy role is accurate to history or not, fallout’s setting lends itself an air of exaggeration, so i felt it was appropriate to include her here, instead of arguing with people over whether someone like her existed in actual history (my suspicions say yes, and that these people have simply been erased from the narrative for the convenience of certain people’s feelings, but still).

smarter than you look / deadly doctor (this one actually has a tvtropes page! look it up!)—

from the deadly doctor page : ‘ surely the ultimate example of the morally ambiguous doctorate. one reason for this is due to all his/her training : while having advanced knowledge on the human body can be used to save people, it also gives all the knowledge on how to injure and kill people with minimal effort by knowing all the body's weak points. some more sympathetic examples equate to the medical version of a well-intentioned extremist, who may certainly have good (or at least sympathetic/understandable) intentions but ruthless medical ethics. ’

one of the most important things kaj took from her thorough education is medical training—unable to depend on anyone after being traumatized, trusting any doctor who happened along to treat her illnesses was out of the question. she was also smart enough to know the original kaj wouldn’t be around to heal her up forever. thus, she began her training as a self preservation instinct; but over time, as she grew and relearned how to be compassionate and empathetic, she decided to use healing for good, too. trained as a young girl by the original kaj, and then later trained officially as a combat medic by the ncr, kaj has spent a countless amount of hours inside army tents, healing wounds and assisting doctors with tough cases. she even keeps a medical bag on her person for exactly that sort of situation (especially since supplies in the mojave aren’t exactly easy to dig up). though she’s a big scientist in general (the big mt saw to that), medicine is her specialty. she’s even stitched up her own wounds, though it’s not something she particularly enjoys (it takes a lot of whiskey and something for her to bite down on).

for reference, consider this scene of anton from no country for old men (TW: he’s performing self surgery, so it’s pretty gruesome). though both anton and kaj’s lifestyles are rough and even sadistic at times, they both still have medical training—if not to protect others, then to at least protect themselves. and like anton, it shows kaj’s inability to trust anyone with her most important commodity: herself. this makes her surgery in the big empty doubly as horrifying, given she took specific pains for something like this to not happen. it’s why she refuses to leave without all of her organs (also, stubbornness). all of this is just one of the ways kaj is way more ... well, everything than she looks. which leads into...

underestimate me if you dare, aka femme fatale (sort of?)—

though fallout prides itself on being a soft reset on the world, people’s perceptions of minorities are still ... iffy, due to real world influences by the creators. thus, the people around kaj often jump to assumptions about her based on her identity—mostly, that she’s weak. once, it offended her, but now it’s a perception that she encourages. after all, she’s not flat out strong like your usual hero, but is more of a hamlet-type; smart, perceptive, fast, and willing to strike from the shadows. it’s hard to do any of that if you’re putting on a big performance about your power (though admittedly, she’s been known to go big or go home if she’s planning on killing everyone; if she’s not faking nice and telling you what you wanna hear, trouble’s ahead).

of course, the reality is that kaj is a powerhouse. but these perceptions about her supposed weakness are why posing as a legion member is so easy—those who think she’s weak underestimate her or keep their distance, which gives her leave to do what she wants. she’s viewed more like a pet than a person by most, and though it frustrates her at times to pretend, it also gives her leave to do more, than if she were to simply pose as a man.

all that said, kaj doesn’t exactly qualify as a femme fatale. most of her lovers are just information givers, and they escape from their interaction unharmed. kaj killing her bed mates is actually less likely than her just sparing them and letting them go, none the wiser. of course, you kill one tyrant (maybe two or three) and suddenly you’re a black widow—

[theabominableblogger]

My Reaction to “Gotham” S5E1

LADIES AND GENTLE-PEOPLE, IT HAS ARRIVED!

We have waited almost 2/3 of a year for the final season to start airing.  Cue a sigh of relief from the eager audience.

I was a lucky son of a duck and managed to get this reaction while the episode was airing live on FOX.  This will hopefully also happen for the next episode but for episodes 3-12, I will be waiting for Hulu to receive because of an upcoming spring semester at college.  So for episodes 3-12, I will be in the dark until Friday or Saturday (so no spoilers from y’all).

AN:  I managed to record my reactions to this episode and hopefully I can transcribe what I said into this post.   Also my youngest brother stepped in for a spell, so some of his comments are included.

Oooohhhhh, here we go.

*jaw utterly drops at the time card showing up*

*claps excitedly and snaps fingers toward my sister when “We’ll Meet Again” by Vera Lynn starts playing*

391?  Wait, is this a flash forward?!?

*crosses arms in anticipation*

*Oswald’s men give him his red sunglasses*  Yesss!!

*chuckles*  Harvey!  Choose your best beer to go to battle with.  Yes!

*Jim suits up*  Yee-eesss!

*leans forward and covers mouth in shock when Jim, Harvey, Oswald, and Ed walk to battle together*

Oh my God...

“For Gotham.”  :O

*puts hands on head in shock*  Oh my God, we’re opening with that-

*Opening title*  OH MY GOD!

*jaw drops in shock when Oswald tests one of the guns from the factory*

*Scarecrow and his men crucify a man*  :O

“And to date, there have no confirmed sightings of Jeremiah Valeska.”  *smiles*

“No one is allowed in or out of Gotham.”  My brother, who has never seen this show before:  Wait, so if all power is down and no one can leave... so like, how do they go pee?

Me:  Outside?  Yeah, that’s a good question.  They probably just revert back to the 1920s:  they just pee or whatever and throw it outside.

My brother:  (whispers) OMINOUS RADIO STATIC

Me:  *cackles*

*Jim Gordon appears*  My brother:  Look, it’s Batman.

Me:  He [Ben McKenzie] did play Batman in one movie.

“Say it walking, putz.”  *chuckles*

“What did the Department of Douchebaggery say?”  *snorts*

*chuckles when we first meet Ed, who is sleeping on a couch*

Oh, I want that dog.

He [Ed] looks terrible.  That’s like if Count Olaf dyed his hair black and just wet it down.

 “What is he [Ed] doing?”  What’s your hair doing?

My brother:  Dye-ing inside?

“[Jim] You know you can get someone else to turn on the spotlight?”  “I like doing it.”  *smiles*

“The doctors say Selina’s situation is getting worse.”  *covers mouth*

“Are you [Bruce] sorry you stayed?” No.

“No.  You [Jim]?”  “Hell no.”  *grins*

“Tabby’s still --- after Penguin murdered Butch right in front of her, so it’ll have to be two thousands rounds.”  *grins*

*smiles when Barbara calls Tabitha “honey”*

“He’s [Oswald] gonna regret giving me [Tabitha] this [bullet].”  *silently*  Ooohhh...

*One of the officers at the border sees a shadow*  Man-Bat?

*gets spooked by Scarecrow’s jump scare*

*jaw drops in horror when the fear toxin starts working on the officer*

“See?  Ship shape and in Bristol fashion.”  *smiles*

“Lucius gave me [Bruce] something better.”  Night vision goggles?

*gasps when Scarecrow goes after Jim in the basement*

*laughing*  He’s [Jim] gonna beat him [Scarecrow] with a rod?!?

“Fear lives in darkness.”  My brother:  Apparently, he’s [Scarecrow] never seen Bird Box.

*jaw drops when Jim and Scarecrow fight*

*gasps when one of the gas pipes burst*

Oh that was cool.

“...they got the beans.”  *chuckles*

The one thing he’s [Harvey] upset about:  they got his beans.

*Bruce starts taking down Scarecrow’s goons one by one*  Oooohhhhhh hooooo....

“Scag?”  Scag?!?

HOW IS HE [Bruce] UP THERE?!?!?

*jaw drops when the lights abruptly turn back on*

My brother:  You have to understand, that dude’s [Bruce] blind now.  If he has true night vision goggles and the lights come on, you’re blind for at least like an hour now.

I forget that Jonathan’s a teenager in this show...

The cinematography so far is... awesome.

*during the commercials*  Oh my gosh, for the next ten episodes after this, I won’t be able to breathe like this.

“Tell them help is coming.  I’ll [Bruce] fly in supplies.”  Wha-

I like that they’ve already just acknowledged the fact that Bruce just does all these Stealth Hi-Byes whenever.

Even Lucius is like “Oh, helloooo...”

God, Bruce, oh my God... everyone’s just been through [the banger]...

“Doc says the surgery was a success.”  Yay!

“My [Selina’s] spine’s not gonna turn into jelly.”  *lifts hands in air and sighs in relief*  Yes!

“Still will never be able to walk again so-”  No.

“You know what’s funny?  Jeremiah shot me [Selina] to get to you [Bruce].”  *rolls eyes in frustration*

“After all the things I’ve done, what took me in was being your friend.”  We’re not doing this.

“I just wish Jeremiah killed me.”  We’re not doing this.  John Stephens, how dare you.

“Doctors can’t help her [Selina].  She needs the witch.”  Who the hell are you?!?

Who’s that lady?!?

Oh my God, are Oswald’s men gonna shoot down the chopper?

*One of the factory workers helps Oswald adjust his leg brace*  There we go.

*Oswald starts eating a fancy dinner at his desk*  Oh my God.

“OVERCOOKED!”  *just hopelessly shrugs*

[Edward the Bulldog] *gasps loudly and puts hands on head*  OH MY GODD!!

OH MY GOD!  DOG!  DOG DOG DOG!

*Oswald’s gun misfires*  Wha-

*Oswald hears the chopper*  Oh my God, he’s gonna shoot down the chopper!

Selina’s gonna end up like Tabitha once we get into the Batman era.

“Is that a chopper?”  Oh my God, everybody’s gonna be clamoring for that!

*The chopper gets shot down*  Called it!

Lo Boyz?  Wait, so if there’s like a Day of the Dead area, is there a Chinatown in Gotham?

AN:  Yes there is.

Alfred!

“Just keep an eye on things while I’m [Jim] gone.”  You’re gonna leave Alfred in charge of the GCPD?  The AU that could’ve been!

*A car comes into the wreck zone*  Oh no, it’s Oswald.

*gasps when Oswald’s men shoot the Lo Boyz at the crashed chopper*

“It is so good to see you, old friend [Jim].”  Why do you [Oswald] keep calling him that?!?

Who shot down the chopper?  Oh my God, did Tabitha shoot down the chopper?

Oh my God, Tabitha shot down the chopper to get to Oswald.  WHY?!?

*Tabitha holds Oswald in a choke hold*  Oh my God!

“I [Oswald] may have pulled the trigger, but you [Tabitha] killed Butch.”  *WTF*

*jaw drops in shock when Tabitha’s gun misfires*

*reels back in horror when Oswald stabs Tabitha to death*

*covers mouth in shock*

*keels over when commercials roll*

*to my dad, who just strolled in*  Congratulations Dad, you just witnessed a major character death!

My dad:  But is she really dead though?

Me:  Don’t do this to me.

*Camera focuses on dead Tabitha*  Oh my God...

*jaw drops when Barbara starts a shootout*

“Uh-oh, it sounds a little quiet over there!”  *laughs*

*utterly elated when Bruce fights his way to Oswald’s ammunition van*

*gasps when Oswald tags Barbara in the shoulder*

“I [Harvey] could kiss you, kid [Bruce].”  *chuckles*

“I WILL RIP OUT YOUR HEART!”  :O

“Can we [Oswald and Barbara] move past this?”  No!

*gasps in horror when Oswald pistol whips Barbara across the face*

*jaw drops and covers mouth in shock when Jim shoots Oswald’s bad leg*

I was a big time crime lord, and then I took a bullet to the knee.

*gasps and reels back*  THAT’S ECCO!

Oh, her jacket’s awesome!

“We want you to know that you have allies across the river.  We will find a way to help you.”  “Who are you?”  Who the frick are you?

*gasps very softly when Jim finds his map of No Man’s Land covered in the cult graffiti*

Also, come on, Jeremiah, (claps with each word) do something original!  Why are we reusing the cult imagery?

Oh my God, please don’t tell me that was the end of the episode.

Also, holy crap, Ecco grew out her hair in 87 days!  No wonder she’s able to get it all poofy and everything.

Yeah, if Season 5 is gonna do what I think it’s gonna do and just have back-to-back plot threads/events, this might be my favorite season.

Oh wait, that wasn’t the end?!?

Please tell it’s Ed in the dumpster, please tell me it’s Ed in the dumpster.

*lifts hands in air when Ed wakes up in his dumpster*  Yeesss!!

At least he has his hat...

Ooooohhh the Riddler theme kicking in...

“What is happening to me [Ed]?”  Amnesia?  Narcolepsy?

*Barbara gives Tabitha one final kiss*  I am actually... sad.

*reels back in shock when the workers try to get the bullets out of Oswald’s leg*

Oh my God, they don’t have anesthesia!  Because of provisions!

Seriously, who is this lady [the nurse in the clinic]?  Is she an agent?

*Selina eyes the scalpel on the cart*  Selina, you cannot get up.

*jaw drops in horror when the doctors have to knock out Selina*

Oh my God...

“She was trying to kill herself.”  *sits back and puts hands on head*

“I [the nurse] told you [Bruce], if you wanna cure her [Selina] , you have to go to the witch.”  Who is this lady?

AN:  If she’s the “real Harleen Quinzel,” Imma fight some writers.

“Where do I find this witch?”  It’s Ivy!

*gasps when one of the officers brings a battered kid to Gordon*

Whaaa...

*laughs and reels back*  Oh my- that’s the end of the episode!

I love this ending logo!

*pretty much freaking loses it at the season promo during the credits*

*has to walk around room to calm down*  Well that happened.

[her-hell]

“Slurred words” for both or either gals pls

Errybody In The Club Gettin’ Tipsy ( Meme ) || Accepting !!! 

( Feat. Carmilla & Bruce ) 

“ Carol, please - - - it’s not like my opinion matters. I know the man, not his soul. “ 

She’d long since given up on pouring glasses of Rosé for herself, and the bottle currently resided in her firm grasp. She’d learned this trick from Rennie on one of her rare visits to the hell house. The pale pink bottle had been drawn halfway to her lips before Carol’s frantic interjection had given her pause. 

“ You act like he’s the reason you don’t, er, can’t trust people anymore. That isn’t Mr. Swift’s fault & you know it. I just don’t see why you’re so damned mean to us !!! We aren’t like Da - - - him. “

Carol’s cheeks had begun to show the flush of an intoxicated stupor. Her eyes almost dewy with the next round of unshed emotion. Their hosts, Carmilla & Bruce, carefully coaxed the younger journalist away from her elder & toward the table laden with an assortment of food. 

 “ Carol, love - - - I think you need to have something on your stomach. You’re getting a bit out of hand now. “ Carmilla’s hand was firmly planted around the girl’s waist to guide her away from the situation … a de-escalation no one knew they needed. She hadn’t realized she and Bruce’s detective had been such a source of contention between the two reporters. 

Carol craned her neck to see Bruce, the silent figure by her other side - until he stopped abruptly. 

“ She’s so damned stubborn !!! He isn’t so bad … is he, Lord Foxley ??? “

The vampire shrugged non-committally as if he could not take a stance for sure: 

“ He’s an acquired taste … that’s for sure, Ms. Wyatt. Off with you now, go eat. You need it. “ 

Kate watched the scene unfold with a scowl. She herself did not particularly care for Carol’s brand of confrontation, but she could respect the way she stood her ground. She shrugs to herself and goes to take a sip - the bottle drained. In only a second, a pale hand offers her a fresh one - this she takes gratefully. 

“ Thank you, Bruce. I don’t see why my opinion matters to her so much. She’s always on my case about Swift. I can’t get through to her, can’t make her understand my … “ 

“ … Apprehension for the unknown ??? I understand that you can’t read him like the guests on your show … ( smashing exposé on the recent rise in drug crime, by the way !!! ) At any rate, Mrs. Reynolds - You can’t explain Mr. Swift & it gets to you. I can respect that after your … ordeal, but the girl is right. At least a little. “ 

Kate could not stop her eyes from rolling or the scoff in her voice: 

“ Carol clearly has a case of ‘ daddy issues ‘ she thinks he could work out for her. She isn’t capable of making a solid & stable judgement !!! I won’t be talked down too by the likes of an intern !!! “ 

Bruce had taken the pipe from his pocket, and was in the final stages of puffing it to life when her aggression took him by surprise. He thought for a moment before shrugging: 

“ Does slandering a kind & fragile heart make you the better person, Mrs. Reynolds ??? … and does crucifying a decent man’s character on your unique bias make you feel as omnipotent as God ??? “ 

She had not meant to come across so abrasively & physically bristles at her host’s gentle reprimand. Maybe, silently - she could conceded that on some level, perhaps U. X. Swift was not as awful as she had worked herself into believing, but even she had to admit the fear of not knowing his real intentions terrified her. Letting her guard down would be a mistake, but maybe not giving him a chance to prove her wrong would be the more serious error ???

“ … I just don’t think we can get along. More over, I think we both like it that way. ”

She turns in time to see the empty space the vampire had once occupied. Of course he would not care about her unspoken motives … 

Grudgingly she takes another sip of the wine & watches the other attendees of the party having fun. ( Even Carol had settled into a groove, dancing first with Bruce, then a blonde gentleman, then Carmilla - only to shift between dance partners with ease … oblivious to Kate’s misery.

She might as well do something to ease her mind a little.

                                           ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Constantine [ Text ]: You aren’t so bad, okay. I just wanted to remind you that I do, in fact, like you as another human living on this festering shithole we call a planet. Thanks for that - it means a lot to me & Carol. Mostly Carol. 

[klauswildgarden]

Tantra Meditation Nights Wednesdays 7:00 p.m. The rabbit hole 4230 Bruce Street Blue House Meditation means returning back to self returning to what you have always been, you are not this body and you are not the mind you are the one inside witnessing and experiencing, you have existed forever, the knowledge of that is inside of you. Tantra is your energy it is chi, Life energy, Shakti, God energy, lifeforce,sacred feminine, it is all the same energy it has many names, it is the energy that flows up into you that energizes you inspires you heels you creates life in you, even now you can feel it stirring bubbling in you They say the world is Awakening if you were Awakening you would know who you are, the meditations are non-duality meditations which turn you back into you, as you begin to turn from the outer world back into yourself tears will fall,behind the tears love guidance knowledge in the form of knowing ideas concepts and understanding will emerge out of You, we call it the Flow you will know and understand things without being taught, because all the knowledge is inside of you, meditation cannot be taught it is experienced, the greatest discovery you will ever make is inside of you it is You!, as you look back into yourself more and deeper, She,The Flow, The Unifying Field, God, it is She that you will look through your eyes and when She does the Beauty,the compassion you will see through Her eyes is beyond mental and verbal comprehension, As you sit with me the vibration will build inside of you, your chakras will open, energy will pour in, your tears will roll, your heart will pound your emotions and feelings we'll go ballistic, your body will be vibrating from inside out, anything that is blocking the energy mostly your pain will be pushed out and if you let GO! it will be taken from you, for thousands of years you have been crucified raped beaten, told your feelings which are the language of the soul are worthless, you are the firstborn you are the mothers of this world, time to remember who you are. Klaus Joehle https://www.instagram.com/p/Cb7336GLqB-/?utm_medium=tumblr

[ohmy7hearts]

Being the daughter of Diana Prince and Damian Wayne’s significant other includes; pt. 3:

A/N: I love breaking my own heart. Please enjoy this part. I don't actually know if you'd need tissues

prev   //   next

Drabble based on this.

When Jon finally joined the two of you, Damian was 16 and Aphrodite must have blessed him because he was growing up to be so fine

He was taller than Jon, which was not something to be proud of considering Jon was younger, and his frame was getting bulkier which you soon realised he took after his father. He was not as adorable, though you beg to differ, more charming and a mysterious and dangerous vibe could be received from him

You, too, were getting more charming as you grew up which did not escape the eyes of Damian or any other male superheroes or villains for that matter

He sometimes wondered since when was the armour you were wearing became so short or became more of a fashion statement than a functional wear to battle

As you grew up, Diana gave you more freedom which meant later curfew so sometimes, you would drop by Gotham while Damian was on patrol

During these nights, Bruce would trust you two to cover an area of the city together leading to him leaving you two alone

Of course, he reminded you two to stay focus before flying off

And, without a doubt, on these nights, the Batsiblings took it upon themselves to personally check on you two

Meaning you two had personal stalkers and they had years worth of blackmail to hang over Damian’s head

When you two were on patrol, Jon would sometimes join in and these times were very rare considering how strict Lois was

But when you three were together, Gotham was in for a night full of danger and fun

Dangerous for the criminals lurking in the shadows but fun for the citizens watching the three of you bicker and make a ruckus

The three of you even made it to Twitter's most tweeted tweet (is that what it's called) at #minitrinity

Gotham citizens loved and adored all three of you. Even the superheroes.

Barry, Hal and Ollie would always gush to one another whenever a picture of you three was tweeted. They were the biggest fan of the Trinity

And even bigger fans of you and Damian

The criminals despised it when you three were together. Begging for mercy would be a waste of breath

Of course, you being raised by Diana, would give them a chance to surrender. Being as diplomatic as possible was quite hard for you when Damian and Jon were around. They could be quite persuasive when talking you into just beating them up, mostly Damian's fault but Jon helped

Whenever patrols were over, Damian would bring you to get ice cream. Of course, this only applies when Jon was not around. Damian would prefer it if it was just the two of you

The workers at the ice cream shop downtown would always whisper to one another about how cute you two were sitting at the booth while you giggle and sometimes Damian would let out a chuckle

Once, you had a craving to get every flavour of ice cream available and you had a stomach ache

Damian had to carry you all the way back to the manor while you cuddle into his back groaning and moaning

Imagine the pictures that took the world by storm the morning after. Your three hardcore shippers almost fainted. Dinah swore she almost became deaf from how much the three were shrieking

Diana was kind of sad when she found out that you had a new ice cream buddy. She would always recall how you would always beg to get the sweet treat even before battles

Then, she realised how fast you were growing up and had to get a lunch date with Bruce to let it all out. Bruce merely hummed, nodded and slid in one-liner whenever needed

There was a dangerous mission a year later that tilt everything. Everything you once knew and destroyed it. Just a mission they said

You were in hysterics when Damian was still in the building but the bomb was about to explode in seconds

Jon and the rest of the Titans had to hold you back because you were that determined to go search for him even if it meant going against your leader's orders and putting your life on the line

You threatened each and every one of them and they were all terrified that they wanted to just let you go but they were more afraid of losing two members instead of only one. Yes, you were indestructible to a large extent but not immortal to life-threatening dangers and they would not take any chances

When the bomb went off, your voice echoed for several miles. It was heartbreaking and guilt pooled in their stomachs seeing tears streaking down your face. Your face contorted one of that you're actually in crucifying pain.

Even Superman who wasn't there felt a piece of him broke and all he could do was urge Bruce and Diana to follow him

When the dust settled and everything was in plain view, all you could see was debris and your crying turned to wailing.

You uncovered each and every rubble, throwing and kicking them to the side while a sob could be heard every now and then

The other Titans could not help but watch in silence and they held onto one another as they weep. As much as an arse Damian was, he was a good friend, a better teammate and the best leader that led their team shaped by his mistakes.

Jon was in no better state than you. He was wrecked yet he was still on the ground staring, waiting, listening for something. Maybe he was too hopeful but he did stand for hope right?

A minuscule movement had you halting your movements. Breath hitched, you prayed that it was not your imagination

Another rock falling from the top had you launching yourself from where it was. Movements faster than ever and hands becoming numb from the rough treatment yet you paid no attention to them

Your teammates watched in pity and they all glanced at Jon in hopes of him trying to tell you to give up but he was not paying attention at all. His mind had deserted his body

You wanted to scream at them to help you but it all came out raw and rasped and it hurt. It hurts to talk as much as your heart was hurting

Something moved from the corner of your eyes and you wasted no time in setting aside the debris and there you found him, battered and bruised but still the Damian you fell in love with

His breathing was shallow and his uniform was tattered but nothing else mattered as you lifted him out of the pile and set him on the ground

You hugged him and you cradled him and you brushed away the hair from his forehead and the dust from his eyes

You choked back a sob before begging and pleading for something no one could hear or understand

When Diana, Bruce and Clark arrived with some of the other League members, their heart shattered at the scene

Diana tried approaching you to tell you to leave him to the League members so they could bring Damian to the medical ward but she could not because all she can head was you mumbling in Greek. Praying to the Gods, any Gods, all the Gods to not take away his life. She had lived through hundreds of years but nothing hurt more than seeing you so broken

Bruce was the one who took you away from him. And you couldn't say no because he looked so ridden with sorrow and you didn't blame him

When he was recovering in his ward, you were always there. No one saw you leave or enter. It became a common sight to find you sleeping at his side and no one dared to tell you otherwise

Once Diana was bringing you dinner and she thought it could not get worse: "αγάπη μου, come back to me. I lost you once and it would be another lifetime until I would give you up to death once again. Stay by my side, please. I will make a deal with Hades to give my life up if it means you get to feel the sun on your skin a second longer. Please, don't leave me.”

Diana did not have the heart to tell you that human, men as fragile as Damian Al Ghul-Wayne, would not live as long as you. Because you, you were Daughter of Wonder Woman, Princess of Themyscira, Amazon Warrior and you were immortal until the day you die on the battlefield

[confusedhummingbird]

can I be a little nasty? The more I try to like batgirl the more i dislike her it is insane i actively tried to but i can't sweetie is not pretty sorry like i know she is a comic character but she always looks bad specially compared to the other batgirls Cass and Steph hello? and basically all other dc women anyway and no its not because she is just human there is MJ and Dinah two of the biggest bombshells on comic universe who are just human no special alien no goddes etc worse than her lackluster design? Her personality she is JUST LIKE Bruce but her actions are always excused or just a "oopsie" I will never consider her Dinah bff I think Huntress is her real bff speaking of Huntress how come she is always a poopyhead with her? Gosh I wonder if batgirl shouldn't just be paired with Bruce and each other could just spy and say shitty things to each other and try to be controling of their "friends" and the robins lol... But I like catwoman even if batcat is a mess, i think batgirl doesn't go well with no character at all maybe she just need a type of male!catwoman to go well with her because she is literally just bruce girl bossified and with a worse design, i am sorry for the lowkey batcat agenda I can't ignore the few good on them, to think DC trashes Starfire to make that little miss thing look better... Not even in a thousand years, DC can keep giving Starfire goresome death on animation, funny thats inspired me to try to understand batgirl more... it will never fly

Yeah I'm not a fan of her either. Always just rubs me the wrong way. She just feels like she can get away with the same shit the fandom crucifies Bruce for. There are plenty of other heroines who I'll always love more than her. Cass and Steph are much better characters and heroes than her just in the Batfam alone. If others like her I'm glad you can but I never will.

[idonotknowhowtoo-blog]

How to make hard conversations easy

Somebody is screaming in your face at the top of their lungs. Or ranting angrily and you can't get a word in edgewise. Or possibly they're sobbing so hard you can barely understand what they're saying.

We have actually all existed. These situations do not occur a lot (thank god) but all of us feel powerless when they do. And because they're unusual we do not ever appear to get much better at handling them.

Issue is, these moments are frequently crucial since they're typically with individuals we care about.

What's the very best way to handle these difficult conversations? What works?

I called someone who understands: Dr. Albert J. Bernstein. He's a clinical psychologist with over 40 years of experience and the author of a number of excellent books on handling individuals problems:

Here's what you'll discover in this post:

The magic phrase that gets people to stop screaming.

How to stop making the most common mistake in these sort of discussions.

How to switch individuals from being psychological to being reasonable.

The mindset that makes dealing with hysterical people simple.

And a lot more.

Okay, time to wage war with the crazy. Here we go ...

1) Initially, You Need To Keep Calm

You already have a single person overreacting. The worst thing would be to have 2people overreacting.If you Hulk Out, it's little bit more than a yelling match and nothing gets achieved.

Al calls the emotional side of our mind the "dinosaur brain." It's millions of years old and just comprehends "fight" or "escape."

If you stay calm, you can help someone leave its grip. If you fall victim to it too, it results in what he likes to call the "Godzilla meets Rodan" impact: lots of shouting, structures get knocked down however nothing constructive gets accomplished. Here's Al:

... the fundamental concept is that in many circumstances, you're reacting with instincts configured into your dinosaur brain, instead of believing through a scenario. If you're in your dinosaur brain, you're going to play out a 6 million-year-old program, and nothing great is going to take place. Because case, the dinosaur brain of the other individual is going to comprehend that they are being assaulted, and then you're responding with battling back or escaping, and either one is going to escalate the scenario into what I like to call the "Godzilla fulfills Rodan" result. There's a great deal of shrieking and shouting, and structures drop, however not much is achieved.

What to do here? Screen your stimulation levels and do your best to stay calm. He stated the exact same feature of handling tension that Harvard scientist Shawn Achor did: see issues as difficulties rather of crises.

(To find out how Samurai and Navy SEALs keep one's cool in tight spots, click here.)Okay, you're cool as Fonzie. They're still acting insane. What's the very best technique here? 2) Deal with Them Like A Child No, I don't imply be condescending. you would not attempt to rationalize with a shouting child. And you wouldn't snap with them for screaming. You 'd just dismiss the hysterics and handle the underlying problem.

Adults aren't any different. (Yes, this is both really insightful and extremely dismaying. Invite to Earth.)

Trying to realistically describe why shouting isn't assisting doesn't work with three-year-olds and it won't deal with grown-ups either. Overlook the drama.

If you're a parent, you understand precisely what I'm speaking about. Shift into dealing-with-your-kidmode and watch magic take place. Al actually states "If you feel like a preschool instructor, you're probably doing it right." Here's Al:

Individuals say to me all the time, "You suggest I have to deal with a grown-up like a three-year-old?" I say, "Yes, definitely." If you're a parent, what do you finish with a tantrum? You disregard it, or at least you try to overlook it. But with an adult you attempt and talk them out of it, and it never works.

(To discover the 10 guidelines to communicating better, click here. )You're calm and you're not letting them get to you since you see them like a big kid. However how do you stop the screaming

, sobbing or yelling? Anything that slows the situation down benefits you.

Among Al's very first jobs was dealing with strongly psychotic individuals in an institution. He rapidly realized that slow means calm and calm means thinking vs responding.

(What's intriguing is my good friend Chris, who was the Lead International Hostage Arbitrator for the FBI, frequently suggests the very same thing: slow the conversation down. )How do you get someone to stop screaming? Your natural reaction is actually the worst thing to do. Saying, "Stop yelling"will be viewed as informing them what

to do. Nobody likes to be informed what to do, particularly mad individuals. Instead, Al says try a variation of:"Please speak more gradually. I

'd like to help."Why does this work? It breaks the pattern in their head. They're expecting you to resist them but you're not. You're asking to clarify. You're interested. This makes them shift more out of "dinosaur brain" and into thinking. Which's good.

(And have you ever attempted yelling gradually? Great luck with that.)

The exact same principle works on the phone too: you wish to snap them out of that pattern without being seen as resisting. Al calls it the "uh-huh guideline."

When they pause to take a breath on the phone, do not say anything. After adequate silence, they'll most likely respond with, "Are you there?"

That speedbump pulls them out of the upset momentum for a 2nd and makes them think virtually. Here's Al:

When someone is speaking to you on the phone and they stop to take a breath, your natural reaction is to say, "uh-huh." It's kind of a universal thing. We do not realize that we're doing it. But if you go 3 breaths without saying "uh-huh", the other individual will stop and state, "Are you there?" We attempted that many times, and it was simply remarkable how well it worked. What I have actually simply given you there is a method to interrupt somebody who's chewing out you on the phone without saying a word. Simply do not say "uh-huh."

(For pointers from an FBI behavioral expert on how to make individuals like you, click here.)They're not screaming anymore. But that doesn't mean they're not upset and it does not indicate you're making any real development. What turns raving insane individuals into logical grownups you can talk with?

4) Ask "What Would You Like Me To Do?"

Slowing it down is great. Therefore is seeing them as a child. What's the next huge method? You need to get them believing.

Anything that moves them from mentally reacting to consciously thinking is great. Here's Al:

When people are upset at you or attacking you, it's really simple to eliminate back or flee, but what you really require to do is something that engages their brain.

And that isn't too hard, actually. Ask them, "What would you like me to do?"

They require to create a response. That makes them believe-- even for a 2nd-- and you're on your method to turning the Hulk back into Bruce Banner. Here's Al:

Once you get the person to stop screaming, you say, "What would you like me to do?" The person has to stop and think at that point. What you desire is to move an upset circumstance toward the possibility of negotiating. You can do that by merely asking, "What would you like me to do?" It moves them from their dinosaur brain to their cortex, and after that working out is possible.

(For more on dealing with illogical, upset or just plain crazy people, click here.)You're calm. They're not shouting and they're starting to think rather of just acting like a psychological grenade. How do you keep things moving in the ideal instructions?

5) Do Not Make Statements. Ask Concerns.

Another substantial, big mistake we all make: we describe. Don't explain.Why?

The other individual will analyze it as a veiled type of resisting. You understand why? Due to the fact that it is a veiled type of fighting back.

It's the respectful method of stating, "Here's why I'm ideal and you're incorrect." And everybody sees it for what it is. Cut it out. Here's Al:

Describing is often a disguised type of combating back. Many descriptions will be heard as, "See here, if you actually comprehend the scenario, you will see that I am ideal and you are wrong." That is an attack, and it's also among the methods we attain supremacy over other individuals. We act as if we just discuss our position actually plainly, then the other person will comprehend and concur with us. I've never ever actually seen that work.

What do you do? Ask questions. Here's Al:

One of the main guidelines that I state to people is if you want to get along with people, ask don't tell.

He also suggests another technique that comes directly out of the captive negotiator playbook: Active Listening. Here's Al: What I normally make with individuals is show back the feeling that they're feeling. If they're saying something like, "I'm Jesus Christ, and they're attempting to crucify me," rather of saying, "No, you're not Jesus Christ," you say, "That must be pretty frightening." They'll say, "Yeah!" The act of listening is reflecting back the individual's emotional state, not necessarily the content of what they're stating.

(For more on how hostage mediators utilize active listening and how you can improve at it, click here.)They're calm now. So how do you make sure you don't blow it and end up back where you

were? 6 )Start Sentences With "I 'd Like ..." Not "You Are ... "

Now that they're being rational, the last thing you desire to do is state anything that sounds like an accusation. And they're going to be additional conscious this because they just boiled down from feeling assaulted.

In his excellent book Dinosaur Brains, Al states: Any sentence that starts with "you are" and does not end with" terrific "will be experienced as name-calling.

What you're doing now is basically working out so start your sentences with "I 'd like ..." Simply keep away from the word "you" as much as possible. (Relationship professional Dr. John Gottman suggests the exact same thing when romantic couples argue.)

(For more on settlement from FBI captive mediators, click here.) You're practically out of the woods. There's one last thing individuals often do that screws up everything and puts them back at square one ... 7) Let Them Have The Last Word

Requiring to have the last word is like stopping at mile 26 of the marathon. You've done everything right up until now. Do not let your ego screw up whatever at the last minute.

Just like explaining is in fact an effort at supremacy, so is needing to have latest thing. You're shifting your objective from "relaxing this situation" to "showing them who is right." Here's Al:

The last word is generally an effort to be right. You can reverse any favorable thing you have actually done by stating one word that sends them back into attack mode.

Don't take the bait. Let them have latest thing. Let them feel "ideal" if it lets you accomplish your real goal.

(For more on how to win every argument, click here.) This is a fantastic system for handling challenging conversations. Let's round it up and get Al's thoughts on the single most important thing to do when having any kind of discussion with individuals.

Sum up

Here are Al's suggestions for turning tough conversations into easy ones:

Treat 'em like a kid. You can't talk them out of emotional outbursts and snapping over it does absolutely nothing great.

Say "Please speak more gradually. I 'd like to assist."Slow it down. Do not come off like you're resisting.

Ask "What would you like me to do?"You got ta make'em start believing in order turn off the rage device.

Don't make declarations. Ask questions.Discussing is veiled supremacy. Questions get them believing.

Start sentences with "I 'd like ..." not "You are ..."If you begin with "I" it's difficult to be seen as attacking.

Let them have the last word.Do not let your ego blow it at the last minute.

So what does Al state is the single essential thing to do when dealing with people?

When they speak, ask yourself why they're stating what they're saying. Think of what's going on in their head, not yours. This leads away from evaluating and towards understanding and empathy.

Here's Al:

If you want to get along well with individuals and comprehend what's going on in circumstances, whenever somebody states something to you, ask yourself, "Why is he saying this to me? What's happening with him?" That is a doorway to understanding, an entrance to getting what you desire, and likewise a doorway to empathy. Rather than evaluating the person, try and understand them.

Leave "Godzilla Meets Rodan" for the motion pictures. Our lives require more compassion and less of anything that levels Tokyo.

Join over 320,000 readers. Get a complimentary weekly update via e-mail here. This post Appeared on Barking Up The Wrong Tree.

[wisdomfish]

What's the best evidence for Jesus? Many Christian apologists and Jesus scholars make a case for the historical Jesus.

~ Triablogue

I. Preliminaries

1. The historical Jesus

The "historical Jesus" is often a downsized Jesus or even a naturalized Jesus. What's left over after the NT is filtered through the sieve of standard criteria. A historical reconstruction of the

real

Jesus, once we peel back the layers. However, the scope of my post isn't the "historical Jesus" in that residual sense, not about a reconstructed Jesus, hidden behind the NT record, but about the NT Jesus in toto.

Of course, there is a Jesus who stands behind the NT record, independent of the NT record. A Jesus who is, in a sense, bigger than the NT. But for me, the real Jesus corresponds to the NT Jesus. While Jesus is ontologically prior to the record, yet our knowledge of Jesus is epistemologically dependent on the NT record.

2. "Bias"

A stock objection to using the Gospels is the allegation that the Gospels are partisan sources since their writers are Christian. But that's a confused objection:

i) The fact that an author has a viewpoint doesn't mean he's biased. The real question is the source of his viewpoint. Suppose a kid who grew up in the tropics moves to Canada, and sees his first snowman. He excitedly tells his parents about the snowman sighting. Should his discount be reported because he's now a believer in snowmen? But his newfound belief in snowmen isn't a reflection of bias. Prior to his encounter with the snowman, he had no  predisposition to believe in snowmen. Indeed, his default plausibility structure might be skeptical of reports about the existence of snowmen. His viewpoint is due to a formative experience rather than a prior belief.

ii) But even in the case of viewpoints that do reflect bias, that doesn't automatically discredit the report. I sometimes see moving objects in the sky. They may be too small or distant for me to clearly make them out. But if the motion is geometric, I assume that's an airplane, and if the motion is erratic, I assume that's a bird. My identification is "biased" because I know about planes and birds, so I use that background knowledge as an interpretive frame of reference. But my predilection doesn't discredit my observation.

iii) If traditional NT authorship is correct, then all the NT writers were converts to Christianity. Nearly all of them were Jewish converts to Christianity, while one (Luke) was a gentile convert to Christianity, although he was probably an intellectual convert to Judaism (Godfearer) prior to his Christian conversion. So all of them came to believe in Jesus.

And, once again, if traditional NT authorship is correct, then all of them came to believe in Jesus by knowing Jesus or knowing people who knew Jesus. That's not bias any more than coming to believe in something generally based on eyewitness experience or eyewitness testimony is bias.

Of course, critics who complain about the Gospels as "biased" sources usually deny that they are based on firsthand knowledge of Jesus. But that needs to be separated from the allegation of bias. Those are distinct issues.  

3. Eyewitness memory

i) Another stock objection is the alleged unreliability of eyewitness memory. In particular, people remember events better than words. So how can the Gospels be an accurate record of what Jesus said?

ii) A similar objection is that the phenomenon of the omniscient narrator. Gospels writers sometimes relate incidents which they wouldn't ordinarily be privy to.

Many Christian apologists and evangelical scholars offer naturalistic explanations. And sometimes those make sense. However, treating the Gospels as naturalistic records of supernatural agents and events erects a false dichotomy. The Gospels aren't merely reports about a world containing miracles, revelations, angels and demons–detached from the world they narrate, for the Gospels are products of the same kind of world. So it's artificial to bifurcate the nature of the Gospels from the nature of the world they recount, as if the writers had to be limited to natural means of knowledge. As if fallible, unaided memory, direct observation, or informants was necessarily all they had to go by. For instance, consider Elisha's clairvoyance (2 Kgs 6). It's a philosophical and theological mistake for apologists and evangelical scholars to eliminate inspiration from consideration. Inspiration and revelation are no more or less credible than what the Gospels report.

iii) A related objection is whether "peasants" and fishermen like James, John, and Jude could write good Greek. Now, there are plausible naturalistic explanations, but over an above that, xenoglossy is a gift of the Spirit (according to Acts). So if it came to that, it would be possible for James, John, and Jude to be supernaturally enabled. For that matter, verbal inspiration might do the trick.

But supernatural explanations aren't considered, even by scholars who believe in NT miracles. It illustrates the default secular paradigm that unconsciously conditions so much NT scholarship, even among evangelicals or apologists.

4. Tradition

"Traditions" about Jesus uses the word "tradition" loosely and misleadingly. For instance, Eusebius has a number of historically useful anecdotes about the apostles. By the time that gets down to him, those are traditions.

By contrast, it's misleading to classify 1 Cor 15:3-8 or Heb 2:4 as "traditions". Rather, those are examples of living memory. While tradition can preserve living memory, tradition is one or more steps removed from living memory.

5. As is often noted, the documentary evidence for Jesus satisfies standard criteria like multiple attestation and the criterion of embarrassment.

II. Non-Christian sources

Christian apologists appeal to non-Christian sources as part of their cumulative case for the historical Jesus, viz. Tacitus, Josephus. You can find this reproduced in many print and online resources. One classic monograph is F. F. Bruce's

Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament.

A more recent example is Peter Williams, Can We Trust the Gospels?, chap. 1.

While this is useful corroborative material, that doesn't mean non-Christian sources are preferable to the NT. Apologists sometimes reach for non-Christian sources to deflect the claim that the NT is a biased source, but that's an ill-conceived objection (see above), and we shouldn't back away from using the NT as our major source.

1. Hostile sources

A subset of non-Christian sources are hostile sources. These have particular apologetic value since a hostile witness is making concessions despite his bias to the contrary. Some pagan critics of Christianity unwittingly corroborate Christianity. Jason Engwer has done a number of posts on that topic. For now I'd like to focus on two interesting examples:

i) The Talmud

Jesus was hanged on Passover Eve. Forty days previously the herald had cried, “He is being led out for stoning, because he has practiced sorcery and led Israel astray and enticed them into apostasy. Whosoever has anything to say in his defense, let him come and declare it.” As nothing was brought forward in his defense, he was hanged on Passover Eve. Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin 43a. One day Yehoshua ben Peraḥya was reciting Shema and Jesus came before him with the same request. Yehoshua ben Peraḥya intended to accept his request, and signaled him with his hand to wait until he completed his prayer. Jesus did not understand the signal and thought: He is driving me away. He went and stood a brick upright to serve as an idol and he bowed to it. Yehoshua ben Peraḥya then said to Jesus: Repent. Jesus said to him: This is the tradition that I received from you: Whoever sins and causes the masses to sin is not given the opportunity to repent. And the Master says: Jesus performed sorcery, incited Jews to engage in idolatry, and led Israel astray. Had Yehoshua ben Peraḥya not caused him to despair of atonement, he would not have taken the path of evil. Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin 107b.

Although the second anecdote is garbled and polemical, it's striking how these Talmudic anecdotes correspond to the allegations of Christ's enemies in the Gospels. Notice how they grant the supernatural abilities of Jesus, but chalks that up to witchcraft. For detailed analysis:

http://legacy.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Tyndale/staff/Instone-Brewer/prepub/07_Instone_Brewer.pdf

ii) Pliny

In his letter to Emperor Trajan (c. 111 AD), Pliny recounts information from Christians he interrogated. It documents Christian worship extending back to the 1C. Among other things, it mentions that Christians worshipped Jesus as God (or a god, the Latin is ambiguous). These were Christians who refuse to honor Roman civic religion, on pain of death and torture. So for them, the one God was inclusive of Jesus.

iii) Alexamenos graffito

A c. 200 AD graffito from the Roman Palatine depicting a worshiper standing before a crucified man with a donkey head, with the caption "Alexamenos worships his god":

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/encyclopaedia_Romana/gladiators/graffito.html

Cf. G. M. A. Hanfmann, “The Crucified Donkey Man: Achaios and Jesus,” Günter Kopke & Mary B. Moore, eds.

Studies in Classical Art and Archaeology:

A Tribute to Peter Heinrich von Blanckenhagen (Locust Valley, NY 1979), 206-7; Felicity Harley-McGowan, ‘The Alexamenos Graffito’, in Chris Keith, Helen Bond & Jens Schröter (eds),

The Reception of Jesus in the First Three Centuries

(Bloomsbury T&T Clark, expected 2019).

Although the Alexamenos graffito is fairly late, it predates the Council of Nicea by a wide margin, and so it's a useful witness to early Christian belief in the crucified God.

III. The Gospel titles

1. It's often alleged that the Gospels are anonymous. Even if the Gospels were formally anonymous, each Gospel has internal evidence consistent with traditional attributions.

2. But to my knowledge, there are no anonymous Greek manuscripts of the Gospels. All our extant manuscripts of the Gospels have named authors. And there's uniformity to the titles. The same Gospels are always attributed to the same authors.

3. Some scholars think the titles are editorial additions. But that's a postulate that raises further questions:

i) Christians scribal activity wasn't centralized. There was no command-and-control to coordinate the activity of scribes. They acted independently of each other. So it's very hard to explain the uniformity of attribution if all four Gospels originally circulated anonymously.

As I understand the process, a scribe copies a preexisting copy. Either that's read aloud, and he copies what he hears, or else he has a copy in front of him which he transcribes. He copies what he sees or hears. If our extant manuscripts have titles, that's because because the copies they copied also had titles. So the process is regressive. Our extant copies bear witness to earlier copies that no longer exist. Earlier copies that also had titles. That process repeats until it terminates in the Ur-text or autograph. Either the Ur-text was anonymous or entitled. If it was anonymous, then the title had to be added by scribes later in the transmission process. But since we have multiple streams of transmission, and scribes worked independently of each other, it's hard to explain the uniformity if the titles are editorial additions. If the Gospels were originally anonymous, and titles were only introduced later into the process of transmission, surely there'd be considerable diversity in the authorial attributions. Scribes wouldn't know what other scribes did. Scribes wouldn't be aware of most other copies in circulation. So they couldn't imitate each other even if they wanted to.

Theoretically, all our manuscripts could go back to four individual copies that had titles, even though the autographs were anonymous. But isn't that antecedently quite unlikely?  What's the likelihood that all our surviving manuscripts of Matthew to back to a single copy, all our surviving manuscripts of Mark go back to a single copy, as well as Luke and John? So the simplest, most plausible explanation is that our extant manuscripts have uniform authorship because scribed copied earlier manuscripts with the same titles, in a repeated process that traces all the way back to the autographs.

ii) But let's assume for argument's sake that Mark originally circulated anonymously. Yet after Matthew, Luke, and John were written, it would be necessary for them to have names, to differentiate one Gospel from another. So even if (ex hypothesi) the autograph of Mark was originally anonymous, we'd expect the autographs of Matthew, Luke, and John to be entitled.

For more on (i-ii), cf. M. Hengel,

The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ

(Trinity 2000), 48-56.

iii) It was, moreover, customary for ancient historians to entitle their writings. Cf. B. Pitre,

The Case for Jesus

(Image 2016), 207-8n10. As one scholar notes:

The clearest case is Luke because of the dedication of the work to Theophilus (1:3), probably a patron. It is inconceivable that a work with a named dedicatee should have been anonymous. The author's name may have featured in an original title, but in any case would have been known to the dedicatee and other first readers because the a author would have presented the book to the dedicatee. R. Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses (Eerdmans, rev. ed, 2017), 301.

iv) In addition to the titles, the authorship of the Gospels is multiply-attested in other Christian sources (e.g. church fathers, Muratorian canon).

Assuming that traditional authorship is correct, what does that tell us about Gospels individually?

IV. Mark

i) Mark's family hailed from the Greek-speaking Jewish Diaspora (

Acts 4:36

), so he might well be a native Greek speaker. Probably bilingual.

ii) He lived in Jerusalem (

Acts 12:12

), which was a very literate community. So he might well have been able to read and write. And the Gospel of Mark is written in rustic Greek.

iii) According to

Acts 12:12

, his mother's home was in Jerusalem. Her home was one of the founding house-churches. That would give Mark access to many eyewitnesses to the ministry of Christ, including apostles residing in Jerusalem. So he had a wide range of informants at his disposal.

iv) Given that he was an early Christian disciple living in Jerusalem, I think it's quite likely that he himself was an eyewitness to the public ministry of Christ. This is a neglected argument in Christian apologetics.

v) Here's a defense of Mark's geography:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4THNI0CxbE

V. Matthew

1. Assuming traditional authorship, this Gospel was written by one of the twelve disciples. He had extensive firsthand knowledge of Christ's public ministry, both in and outside Jerusalem. All the stuff about the Sadducees and halakhah make sense if Matthew was written in the 50s-60s, but little sense after the fall of Jerusalem, when the Sadducees lost their power base, when Judaism had to reinvent itself in the wake of the temple's destruction, making the priesthood irrelevant, when the headquarters of Christianity shifted from Jerusalem to gentile urban centers throughout the Roman Empire.

2. As a tax collector, he'd have to speak Greek with his Roman employers and be able to write tax receipts. As one scholar notes:

The Roman administrators of the province and their Roman and Jewish subordinates on the local level are likely to have made ample use of writing, both in the form of documents and letters…It almost goes without saying that the Jews who collaborated with the Romans in the administrative realm had to be loyal supporters of the foreign government and knowledgeable of Greek, that is, they must have belonged to the most assimilated circles of the Jewish population. C. Hezser, Jewish Literacy in Roman Palestine (Mohr Siebeck 2001), 489-90.

In addition, what you do for a living may simply reflect the job market. It's not uncommon for people to be overqualified for the work they do. They take whatever is available.

3. A stock objection to traditional authorship is that Matthew appears to use Mark as a source. There are, however, some problems with that objection:

i) A person can be a source as well as a book. The Apostle Matthew would be one of Mark's sources while the Gospel of Mark is one of Matthew's sources. If Mark quoted the Apostle Matthew, and the Gospel of Matthew quotes the Gospel of Mark, in a sense Matthew is quoting himself.

ii) In addition, Mark might have sources of information Matthew didn't have. As one scholar notes:

Even more important, history gives us other examples of eyewitnesses who relied on other people's testimony when composing biographies of their own teachers. For example, when writing his account of the death of Socrates, the ancient Greek writer Xenophon (who was a disciple of Socrates) used the "reports" (Greek exengeile) of another disciple named Hermogenes (see Xenophon, Apology; 1.2,10). The reason was that Xenophon was not present at the trial and death of Socrates, whereas Hermogenes was. In the same way, it is entirely possible that the apostle Matthew could have relied on the Gospel of Mark's record of Peter's testimony, especially for any events at which Matthew himself was not present–such as the early days of Jesus's ministry (see Matthew 3-8), or the events of Jesus's passion and death, which Matthew did not witness because he had fled the scene (see Matthew 26-28). It is not as if all the apostles were witnesses to everything that happened in the life of Jesus. Brant Pitre, The Case for Jesus (Image 2016), 29.

iii) To take another comparison, Matthew wasn't an eyewitness to the events in Mt 1-2, so he had to rely on other sources of information–presumably, members of Christ's family, like Mary, James, and Jude.

VI. Luke

1. The Gospel was written by a Gentile convert to Christianity. Probably a Godfearer.

2. Sources:

i) The Gospel of Mark is apparently one source. However, since Mark and Luke were both members of the Pauline circle, Luke was probably in a position to get information from Mark in person (cf.

Col 4:10

,

14

; Phlm 24;

2 Tim 4:11

).

ii) Luke had contact with Mnason (

Acts 21:16

), an early disciple.

iii) Luke had contact with James (brother of Jesus) and other Christians in Jerusalem (

Acts 21:17-18

).

iv) Many scholars have noted intriguing parallels between Luke's Gospel and John's Gospel, which would make sense if Luke knew the Apostle John.

v) In addition:

Luke apparently had up to two years for any interviews with Judeans in Judea (Acts 21:15; 24:27; 27:1), C. Keener, Acts (Baker 2012), 1:180.

That would give Luke access to potentially hundreds (or thousands) of eyewitnesses, including relatives of Jesus.

vi) Furthermore:

The genealogy Luke provides (Lk 3:23-38) has the marks of an authentic traditional genealogy that was probably preserved by Jesus's family. Matthew supplies a different genealogy (Mt 1:1-16) which may represent something more like an official list of the heads of the clan of David, the heirs apparent to David's throne. R. Bauckham, "The Family of Jesus," C. Keith & L. Hurtato, eds. Jesus Among Friends and Enemies (Baker 2011), 104. Cf. R. Bauckham, Jude and the Relatives of Jesus in the Early Church (T&T Clark, chap. 7).

vii) One commentator has argued that Luke had access to a Hebrew Gospel: J. Edwards,

The Gospel According to Luke

(Eerdmans 2015), 14-18;

The Hebrew Gospel and the Development of the Synoptic Tradition

(Eerdmans 2009).

viii) Finally:

These sources point to a cooperative relationship between Luke, the Jacobean mission based on Jerusalem; with the Petrine mission, which was active in Caesarea and with which Mark was associated, and with the Johannine mission, which before AD 66, was also active in Judea. E. E. Ellis, The Making of the New Testament Documents (Brill 1999), 401-2.

So Luke had a wide range of informants with firsthand knowledge of Jesus to draw upon in writing his Gospel.

VII. John

1. Assuming traditional authorship, the Gospel of John and 1 John are a witness to the historical Jesus by the inmost member of his apostolic circle.

2. It's often alleged that an Aramaic-speaking fisherman couldn't write the Gospel of John (or 1 John). But there are several problems with that objection:

i) John's Gospel is probably a transcription of oral history. John dictated his Gospel to a scribe. If the scribe was bilingual, John could speak in Aramaic while the scribe translated his statements into Greek.

ii) John's Gospel is written in very simple Greek–simpler than Matthew and much simpler than Luke.

iii) Galilee was a bilingual region. Take a Roman colony like Tiberias, located on the shore of the Sea of Galilee. So John might well know street Greek to conduct business with gentiles living around the Sea of Galilee. Likewise, the hellenized, cosmopolitan community of Sepphoris is about 10 miles north of Nazareth.

iv) However, there's some evidence that John had a priestly bloodline. Take the intriguing passage in

Jn 18:15-17

. If John was a relative of the high priest, that would explain his entree to the palace of the high priest, as well as his discriminating knowledge of the personnel:

It seems to me that the evangelist himself already wanted to give the impression–he is in fact sometimes fond of ambivalent statements–that this is the beloved disciple, but omitted the epithet because in this context the predicates "on friendly terms with the high priest" and "whom Jesus loved" did not go well together". Finally, mention should be made here of the mysterious "other disciple" who gains direct access to the palace of Annas, at that time the most influential man in Jerusalem, because he was well acquainted with him or a friend of his (18:15f.). He can therefore introduce Peter into the palace. We should have no doubt that the beloved disciple is meant here. We could also go on to ask–as was often done earlier–whether the report of Polycrates of Ephesus in his letter to Victor of Rome about John "who was a priest and wore the high-priestly plate on his forehead" is connected with Jn 18:16, "he was known (or related) to the high priest", indeed whether Polycrates, who was born about 125 AD and bound to earlier Asian Christianity by many ties of family relationships, and of course knew very much more than he writes in the letter, wanted in this way to indicate that the disciple "who reclined on the Lord's breast was, like John the Baptist, of priestly descent. Even if we doubt John of Ephesus's direct authorship of the Apocalypse in the time of Domitian, the report of his stay on Patmos is to be taken seriously in historical terms. It is surely no legendary fiction. How otherwise would one arrive at this very small unknown island in the Aegean about forty miles west of Miletus? Insignificant provincials were not banished to islands; even among Roman citizens that was reserved for members of the upper class. For serious crimes–and banishment was a possibility only in such cases–ordinary people were either executed or deported to the mines as state slaves. Two high priests, Ishmael and Helkias, were kept in Rome as hostages in 61/62, and Ishmael was subsequently banished to Cyrene, where he was later beheaded. For John to be banished to Patmos indicates that he had high social status. M. Hengel, The Johannine Question (SCM/Trinity Press 1996), 79,125-126. John alone mentions the name of the high priest's servant, Malchus (18:10)…and later one of the high priest's servants (whom John alone among the evangelist clearly distinguishes from the temple constables (18:18) is known to be a relative of the one whose ear Peter cut off (18:26). So if Mary and her sister came from such stock (and it is difficult to see what motive there would have been for inventing this connection in such a defamatory context) it could help to explain the family's high-priestly contacts (Jn 18:15f.) and even the curious statement by Polycrates… There is little doubt that John is historically accurate in depicting Annas thus as very much the power behind the throne and one who still enjoyed the courtesy title of "high priest"…Only John informs us that Caiaphas was Annas' son-in-law… J. Robinson, The Priority of John (Meyer-Stone 1987), 64,122,246.

If some of John's relatives were priests, reaching, on occasion, even into the high priesthood, he might well have some formal education in literate, polyglot Jerusalem.

v) So why was he a fisherman? To my knowledge, because there was a glut of priests, they worked on a rotating basis (cf.

Lk 1:8-9

). So what did you do for a living when it wasn't your shift? What about helping out with the family fishing business? And once he became a Christian, that ousted him from the Jewish establishment.

3. Even if the Fourth Gospel wasn't written by the Apostle John, so long as the narrator was an eyewitness, it's still historically valuable. In addition, I incline to the view of scholars like Robinson and Morris that the epilogue was occasioned by the death of Peter rather than John. So I date the Fourth Gospel to the 60s.

VIII. Undesigned coincidences

Drs. Timothy and Lydia McGrew have rehabilitated, expanded, and refined a neglected argument for the historicity of the Gospels. For an overview:

http://whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2017/01/classifications_of_undesigned.html

https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2017/august-web-only/defending-accuracy-of-scripture-one-coincidence-at-time.html

https://seanmcdowell.org/blog/unique-evidence-for-the-new-testament-interview-with-lydia-mcgrew-about-unintended-coincidences-1

https://apologetics315.com/2018/03/book-review-hidden-in-plain-view-undesigned-coincidences-in-the-gospels-acts-by-lydia-mcgrew/

https://www.biblegateway.com/blog/2017/10/how-the-bibles-obscure-coincidences-demonstrate-its-reliability-an-interview-with-lydia-mcgrew/

For a detailed popular exposition:

Lydia McGrew,

Hidden in Plain View

(2017)

For a technical philosophical defense:

https://philpapers.org/rec/MCGUCA

IX. Archeology

1. In

Can We Trust the Gospels?

(Crossway 2018), Peter Williams marshals a battery of evidence to demonstrate that the canonical Gospels reflect intimate knowledge of the time and place of Jesus, based on place names, proper names, bodies of water, roads, gardens, botanical terms, finance, local languages, Jewishness, and usual customs (chap. 3).

Williams also draws attention to differences which reflect the different backgrounds of the Gospel writers, given traditional authorship. For instance:

Otherwise, it is simply "the sea". This is what we would expect if Mark's Gospel really were written by the fisherman Peter, for whom this would have been the sea par excellence. Luke is rather different. It uses the word sea only three times and never in reference to a particular body of water. If, as is traditionally thought, Luke came from Antioch on the Orontes, not far from the Mediterranean, he certainly would not have thought of the tiny Sea of Galilee as the sea. He just calls it "the lake" (58).

2. Unbelievers like Bart Ehrman and Richard Carrier allege that the Gospels were penned by authors far removed in time and place from Palestine. Yet that raises the question of how to account for their local knowledge (as documented by Williams). Carrier treats the Gospels as historical fiction, where the writers sprinkled the narratives with tidbits of authentic knowledge to creation the illusion of verisimilitude. But did 1C writers have access to an atlas, almanac, or encyclopedia of Palestine?

3. I'd also note in passing that it's useful to distinguish between native knowledge and acquired knowledge. For instance, when I see a picture with a number of cars in the picture, I can roughly date the picture because I know the difference between cars from the 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s, &c. For cars before I was born, that's based on the fact that, like many boys, I read books with pictures of classic cars. By contrast, cars from the 50s and 60s were part of my childhood, so I automatically recognize cars from that period.

Likewise, suppose you're visiting from out of town, or supposed you just moved to a new town, and you need to get directions. Would it be better to ask a native or ask someone who moved there, say, 5 years ago? On the other hand, a native knows where everything is and how to get there. But there's a catch. Although a native knows where your destination is and how to get there, that doesn't mean he can explain it to a visitor. Because he grew up there, he knows all the routes without necessarily knowing the names of streets and distances. Although he knows how to get there, he may not be able to tell you how to get there because his knowledge is based on experience rather than description. He drives places without having to think about the route. Although he has a mental map, it's not like a street map with all the street names and mileage. Rather, it's based on landmarks. Or what are landmarks to the natives.

4. Here's a useful perspective on the NT text:

http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2015/05/new-article-evans-on-books-autographs.html

X. Paul

1. Apologists typically cite

1 Cor 15:3-8

as primitive "tradition" (oral history) about the Resurrection. Paul got that from Christians in the know. And that is, indeed, a significant data point.

2. Prior to his conversion, Paul interrogated many 1C Christians, so he heard many repeated anecdotes about the life and teaching of Jesus from eyewitnesses.

3. In addition, it's quite likely that Paul and Jesus were sometimes in Jerusalem at the same time. Their lives overlap in time and place. Paul was a younger contemporary of Jesus who lived in Jerusalem at the same time Jesus blew into town as part of his public ministry. So Paul had many occasions to see and hear Jesus. Jesus was a major attraction. So it's dubious to assume that Paul's knowledge of Jesus was confined to the Damascus road vision or testimonial evidence. There's every reason to suppose he had firsthand knowledge of Jesus prior to the Resurrection. Cf. Stanley Porter,

When Paul Met Jesus: How an Idea Got Lost in History

(Cambridge 2015)

XI. Hebrews

By his own account, the author of Hebrews was a second-generation Christian who knew people who knew Jesus (

Heb 2:3

). In addition, he was a member of the Pauline circle (

Heb 13:23

). Ramsey Michaels identifies Timothy has the probable author:

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2010/05/authorship-of-hebrews.html

XII. James

1. According to traditional authorship, James was written by a brother of Jesus. As such, he'd know Jesus as well as anyone, and better than most.

I don't think there's a serious reason to doubt the attribution. Although it would be prestigious in the early to have dominical pedigree, James doesn't capitalize on that association in a way a forger would.

After mentioning the proximity of Nazareth to "the urban Hellenism of nearby Sepphoris," Bauckham goes on to say:

James lived for some thirty years in the cosmopolitan city of Jerusalem, where some 10-20% of the population were Jews whose vernacular or mother tongue was Greek. These were Jews from the Diaspora who settled permanently in Jerusalem. The so-called "Hellenists" in the Jerusalem church (Acts 6:1) were Christian converts from among these Greek-speaking Jews…Finally, in the composition of his letter he could easily have had the assistance of a more Hellenized Jews than himself, a native Greek speaker with a good Greek education, since there were certainly such people in the Jerusalem church. [Cf. Josephus (Contra Apionem 1.50)]. R. Bauckham, James (Routledge 1999), 24.

2. Although the letter doesn't contain much Christology, there's what it takes for granted. Would James even be in this position if his brother was dead? Died in ignominy?

3. In addition, there's the striking designation in

Jas 2:1

. Warfield takes this to mean James equates Jesus as Yahweh and the Shekinah. B. B. Warfield,

The Lord of Glory

(Guardian Press reprint), 265. Bauckham thinks the background derives from Christological exegesis of

Ps 24:7-10

. R. Bauckham,

James

(Routledge 1999), 139;

The Fate of the Dead

(SBL 1998), 243-44. That, too, equates Jesus with Yahweh. Cf. J. Goldingay,

Psalms 1–41

(Baker 2006), 361-64; A. Ross,

A Commentary on the Psalms: 1-41

(Kregel 2011), 583-88.    

XIII. 1-2 Peter

1. If the apostolic pedigree of one or both letters is authentic, they constitute a witness to the historical Jesus by a member of his inner circle. The traditional authorship of 1 Peter is sometimes challenged on the grounds that the Greek is too refined. For a linguistic defense of apostolic authorship:

https://www.ibr-bbr.org/files/bbr/BBR_2003b_01_Jobes_Syntax1Peter.pdf

2. The traditional authorship of 2 Peter is the most widely disputed of any NT book. That's in part because the style is so different from 1 Peter, and in part because the style is said to be incongruous for a fisherman. From my reading, the best defense of Petrine authorship is by Ellis, who argues that 2 Pet incorporates preexisting source material. By his reckoning, 55% of 2 Peter is composed for "preformed traditions". Cf. E. E. Ellis,

The Making of the New Testament Documents

(Brill 1999), 120-33. On that analysis, the style of 2 Peter reflects the style of whatever sources he edited into his letter. So we wouldn't expect a consistent style.

3. Moreover, is there such a thing as a Petrine style? He wasn't a rhetorician. He wasn't a professional essayist who carefully honed an unmistakable prose style.

4. Incidentally, we could say the same thing about Revelation. Although the style is different from John's Gospel and 1 John, Revelation quotes and paraphrases so many OT passages that the style mirrors the underlying source material.

XIV. Jude

1. If written by a brother of  Jesus, this is an important witness to the historical Jesus. I see no reason why a forger would write under the name of Jude. Although Jude, as a brother of Jesus, might have some prestige in the early church, he was in the shadow of his older brother James. If a forger is going to ride on the coattails of the dominical family, why not

The Gospel According Mary

or

The Acts of Mary?

Why settle for Jude?

2. There's some debate about whether the Greek is too good for a Jewish peasant. That invites the same explanations as Peter, James, and John (see above).

3. On the one hand, Jude reflects a 1C Palestinian Judeo-Christian provenance. Cf. R. Bauckham,

Jude and the Relatives of Jesus

(T&T Clark 1990), chap. 4. In addition, as another scholar notes:

While writing in Greek, Jude nevertheless used the Hebrew version of the Scriptures rather than one of the Greek translations. Furthermore, the quotation from 1 Enoch 9 shows the imprint of an Aramaic, not Greek source. K. Jobes, Letters to the Churches (Zondervan 2011), 241.

On the hand, if the recipients are Messianic Palestinian Jews, why was it written in Greek rather than Aramaic? Likewise, the opponents seem to have typical pagan vices rather than Jewish vices.

One explanation is that Jude is writing with a view to gentile mission in Roman Palestine. His writing naturally reflects the framework of his Palestinian Jewish background. But that's directed at gentiles in Palestine and thereabouts. However, that stream of Christianity dried up after the fall of Jerusalem. Cf. R. Bauckham, "James and the Jerusalem Church,"

The Book of Acts in Its Palestinian Setting

, R. Bauckham, ed. (Eerdmans 1995), 426-7.

4. In v5, identifies the Yahweh of the Exodus and wilderness wandering as a Christophany:

Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe.

On both internal and external grounds, "Jesus" (rather than "Lord") is most likely the original reading. On the one hand, it is "the best attested reading among Greek and versional witnesses". On the other hand, it's represents the harder reading (lectio difficilior). Cf. B. Metzger,

A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament

(UBS, 2nd ed., 1994), 657-8.

Some commentators balk at that identification. If, however, Jesus

is

God Incarnate, and if he said and did things to manifest his true identity to observers like his brother Jude, then it's not surprising that Jude says that.

XV. Revelation

See VII & XIII (above).

XVI. Argument from prophecy

The argument from prophecy is hard to summarize. There are roughly two kinds of argument from prophecy. One is focussed on a particular oracle. The other on tracing out an unfolding messianic motif across the OT.

T. D. Alexander,

The Servant King: The Bible's Portrait of the Messiah

(Regent College Publishing, 2003)

Herbert Bateman et al.

Jesus the Messiah: Tracing the Promises, Expectations, and Coming of Israel's King

(Kregel, 2012)

J. Alec Motyer,

Look to the Rock: An Old Testament Background to Our Understanding of Christ

(Kregel Academic & Professional; 1st ed., 2004)

O. Palmer Robertson,

The Christ of the Prophets

(P & R Publishing, 2008)

Michael Rydelnik’s

The Messianic Hope: Is the Hebrew Bible Really Messianic?

(B& H 2010)

John H. Sailhamer,

The Meaning of the Pentateuch: Revelation, Composition and Interpretation

(IVP, 2009)

XVII. Argument from miracles/religious experience

Many Christian apologists overemphasize the documentary evidence for Christianity. But the evidence for Christianity isn't confined to ancient documentary evidence. Christianity is a living religion of a living Savior God.

Craig Keener,

Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts,

2 vols. (Baker, 2011) Craig Keener, "The Historicity of Nature Miracles", Graham H. Twelftree, ed.  

The Nature Miracles of Jesus

(Wipf and Stock 2017), chap. 2.

Rex Gardner,

Healing Miracles: A Doctor Investigates

(Darton, Longman & Todd Ltd, 1986)

http://www.premierchristianity.com/Blog/Derren-Brown-wants-to-see-objective-evidence-for-miracles-Challenge-accepted

Robert Larmer,

The Legitimacy of Miracle

(Lexington Books, 2013), appendix.

Robert Larmer,

Dialogues on Miracle

(Wipf & Stock, 2015), appendix.

https://epistleofdude.wordpress.com/2017/11/07/visions-of-jesus/

Tom Doyle,

Dreams and Visions: Is Jesus Awakening the Muslim World?

(Thomas Nelson 2012)

David Garrison,

A Wind In The House Of Islam: How God Is Drawing Muslims Around The World To Faith In Jesus Christ

(Wigtake Resources LLC 2014)

[mayacatmaster]

From Non-Physical you began envisioning a place like this planet.

And now you are living that dream that you have imagined. ~Abraham

*** *** ***

This physical environment does not really exist.

It is interpreted through your perception into what you call reality.

For example, this vortex that we've been talking about is vivid and real.

It is vibration that contains what you will call future manifestations.

But it is vivid and real to us.

It is as real as the physical world that you look at and call real.

When you practice the vibration of the vortex, this reality, that right now you're taking on faith, will be as real to you as the reality that you can look at and see, because they come from the same basis.

They come from focused  thought that have been thought upon long enough that it comes into perceptual experience. ~Abraham *** *** ***

Scientists say now that energy and matter are one.  They must take the next full step to realize that consciousness and energy and matter are one. ~Seth *** *** *** Step1: undo or “Form is Empty!” Ego out = wisdom in;  So undo,  If you don’t want it… Use your heart like Mirror, witness, watchfully, and no identify with any kind of “I am this or that”! *** *** ***  Step2: redo or “Empty is Form!” If you want it, because it’s your wish, it’s your beautiful dream come true, then redo it by focus all your energy in your beautiful dream come true. *** *** *** And it must through your self-experiment, your self-understanding to pass through it! *** *** *** Because…: Word or so call “holy books”, even so call “great teachers” don’t teach. "Life"（Tao; True Self; Source）itself teach. *** *** *** If you discuss one topic only by so call “holy books” , your heart’s strength is very weak. If you discuss one topic is through your self-experiment, your self-understanding, your self-inner insight, your heart’s strength is very strong. *** *** *** Realized this…: You came to be focused with Source in this moment in Time. ~AH *** *** *** There is a focused version of you who knows your value and knows your Well-Being, and knows what you want and is focused upon it.  And whenever you feel less than good, less than really, really good, less than spectacularly good, it always means the same thing: you're focused in opposition to that which the larger part of "You"(Source; True Self; Tao; Brahma) is focused upon. ~Abraham *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Via and thanks “Abraham” *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** This physical environment does not really exist. It is interpreted through your perception into what you call reality. *** *** *** What is an injury anyways? What does it tell you? You've stepped into action without preparing the Grid. ~Abraham *** *** *** The biggest distinction between reality and vibrational reality is a lack of resistance. There's nothing holding it back. It's done. ~Abraham *** *** *** 99% of every creation is complete before there is any physical evidence of it. ~Abraham *** *** ***

You make it true by your attention to it.

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Via and thanks “Abraham & Seth” *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

The observer and his observation as well as the world observed, it’s all product by your belief ...what you think about who or what-you-really-are and what you think about world.  *** *** *** The observer and his observation as well as the world observed, it’s all product by you identify with it as “real; true” and “me; mine; myself”. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Via and thanks “John Richards” *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** M: There is the body. Inside the body appears to be an observer and outside -- a world under observation. The observer and his observation as well as the world observed all appear and disappear together. Beyond it all, there is “void”(Tao; True Self; Brahma). This “void”(Tao; True Self; Brahma) is one for all. *** *** ***  You are walking into the future of whatever you do with you mind. So where is your mind??? *** *** ***  Nothing will manifest in your experience without the imagination process happening first. ~Abraham *** *** *** The spirit of the individual is determined by his domination thought habits. ~Bruce Lee  *** *** *** You get what you expect, have you noticed that?  And so, how have you been programmed to expect?  *** *** ***

You must first realize the prison of your mind...

Before you can escape it.

*** *** ***

The most direct thing that I can say to you is to  not believe your mind. Shift your focus from the  mind to the Heart, which means affectionate  awareness and stillness.  Your mind may not like you doing this at first  but with some time and patience, and more  than a little love, your mind's reactions to the  old beliefs crumbling will become  less and less troubling.  Relax, breathe, and open. And all will be well. ~Adyashanti

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Thanks “Osho & Adyashanti & Nisargadatta Maharaj” *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

My definition of a religious mind is a mind free from all kinds of words, teachings and thoughts. ~Osho

*** *** ***

Ultimately all these concepts can and must be understood to be false, but the difficulty and the essential thing is to be convinced that original basic concept 'I am' itself is false. ~

*** *** ***

So...ask and self-inquiry yourself:”

This 'I am' to whom?;

It’s true or real?;

It’s me; mine or myself?;

And remember your “True Self”(Source; Tao; Brahma) not equal to any kind of “I am this or that”(no matter it thoughts, ideas, feeling, emotion, body-mind-energy-form, or your 3*D-material life-movie-world-energy form).

If you use your mind to study reality, you won't understand either your mind or reality. If you study reality without using your mind, you'll understand both. ~Bodhidharma

*** *** ***

Intelligence…:

Not because you think you know everything without questioning, but rather because you question everything you think you know.

*** *** ***

So….:

Question your thoughts.

Question your stories.

Question your assumptions.

Question your opinions.

Question your conclusions. Question them all into utter emptiness, stillness and joy. The keys to freedom are in your hands. Use them. ~ Adyashanti

*** *** ***

Be the Intelligence you wish to see in the world.

*** *** ***

Because…:

Most of our curses roll off our own tongue with negative self talk.

Words cast spells.

The words you speak become the house you live in.

*** *** ***

Know this…: Whatever happens around you, don't take it personally... *** *** *** *** *** *** so …: Step one: *** *** *** *** *** *** Watch Life, as if you are watching a movie! Watch your own 3D-life-movie, as if you are watching another peoples 3D-life-movie. Watch your own self, as if you are watching another people's self. Watch your own beliefs, as if you are watching another peoples’ beliefs.... inquiry and question it. *** *** *** Just like "Socrates" said: “To find yourself, question and think for yourself.” -Socrates *** *** *** Make sure your worst enemy is not living between your own two ears. *** *** *** Don't believe everything you think. *** *** *** Only believe what through your self-enquiry and verification to be true  Only believe what can help yourself get rid of painful and get sweet fruit…! *** *** *** And self-enquiry and verification these follow questions from our heart. *** *** *** Before you identify with it as “true, real, me, mine, myself”  Before you want speak it, activate it, acting it, becoming it…:  *** *** *** Let your "words"(thoughts) pass through these gates . At the first gate, ask yourself, " It is true?"; At the second ask, " It is necessary?"; At the third gate ask, " It is kind, wisdom, compassion?"; *** *** *** And most important question is ...: Are you feeling good when you identify with it as “true, real, me, mine, myself” ? *** *** *** Don't believe everything you think. *** *** *** Only believe what through your self-enquiry and verification to be true  Only believe what can help yourself to get rid of painful and get sweet fruit…! *** *** *** So before you identify with it as “true, real, me, mine, myself”  Before you want speak it, activate it, acting it, becoming it…:  ***  Let them pass through “The Four Agreements”: 1. Be impeccable with your word. 2. Don’t take anything personally. 3. Don’t make assumptions. 4. Always do your best.  ― Miguel Ruiz, The Four Agreements: A Practical Guide to Personal Freedom *** *** *** *** *** *** Step Two: *** *** *** *** *** *** Then, if this same thing happen in other people ,  if they tell you about the same story,  if they tell you about the same problem,  if they tell you about the same situation,  Between your heart and their heart,  how do you walks in their shoes,  how do you give wise advice ,  To help them to as a alignment-deliberate-creator,  To help them to get rid of painful and get sweet fruit. *** *** *** *** *** ***

The only suffering that takes place anywhere in the Universe, is in the human experience when you do not allow yourselves to be in alignment with Source. The only suffering that exists anywhere in the Universe is in this vibrational gap, where you have not allowed yourself to keep up with you. That's it. That's it. That's the extent of it. And when you croak, it'll be over. ~AH

*** *** *** *** *** ***

Because…:

Society is concerned with making a robot of you, not a revolutionary, because it is helpful. It is easy to dominate a robot; it is almost impossible to dominate a man of self-knowledge.

How can you dominate a Jesus?

How you can dominate a Buddha or a Heraclitus?

He will not yield, he will not follow dictates.

He will move through his own Being.

He will like the wind, like the clouds; he will move like rivers.

He will be wild - of course beautiful, natural, but dangerous to false society.

He will not fit.

Unless we create a natural society in the world, a Buddha is going to remain always a misfit, a Jesus is bound to be crucified.

~Osho: The hidden Harmony

*** *** *** *** *** ***

And, unfortunately…:

99% of us are good-hearted people who respect others and want peace. The other 1% rule the world and tell us we're at war. ~Lee Camp

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

So…:

Always catch yourself thinking.

And ask yourself:” To whom do these thoughts come?” even if they’re “so call”  good or virtuous thoughts.

Because good or bad thoughts, who decide???

By their standard or by your “Source”(Tao; True Self; Logos; Ma at; Brahma);

Because virtuous or evil thoughts, who decide???;

By their standard or by your “Source”(Tao; True Self; Logos; Ma at; Brahma);

*** *** ***

You get what you expect, have you noticed that?  And so, how have you been programmed to expect?  *** *** *** No matter it’s use the name of “God”, Use the name of man-made-moral, Use the name of country,  Use the name of family,  Use the name of egoism,  *** *** *** Between your “God” and my “God”, kills each others,  Between your man-made-moral and my man-made-moral, kills each others,  Between your country and my country, kills each others,  Between your family and my family, kills each others,  Between your body and my body , kills each others,  *** *** *** And so, how have you been programmed to expect?  *** *** *** Because you already have been teach, …: Obey and you can't question it, self-inquiry it,...no matter what, just Kiss-any kind of Dark Tyranny Ruler’s-Ass. *** *** *** Humankind is the only virus cursed to live with the horrifying knowledge of its host's fragile mortality. *** *** *** And ~~~! The host kills the virus, or the virus kill the host. *** *** *** So, now you realized this…: Someone said:” Why just be a natural, real self became so difficult? Why is that so hard?”;  *** Someone said:” Why my fate and my life itself only meaning and highest value …: Are only built to Kiss-any kind of Dark Tyranny Ruler’s-Ass.  *** *** *** No matter it’s in a world, a country, a home, a mind-body. *** *** *** Because cultural-dogma-viral-infection-programmed-mind-system still running in your around… ><!!! *** *** *** So, now you realized this…: ***  Hey, no matter what country, religion, moral, education-system, parents, teachers, elders, TV, radios, newspaper, medias…: Every time you “teach”(brainwash; indoctrinate) you children, just obey and you can’t question & self-inquiry it, ….: No matter what, just obey in the ways you have been programmed, …: *** *** *** Obey, just as a good Sheep, a white sheep, in your country, your family, your school, your work…! *** ** And, Your fate and the only meaning and highest value of life …: Are only built to Kiss-dark tyranny rulers-Ass. *** *** *** Adolph, here, calling from the past, I just love the way you're promoting my ideas! *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Name a 3*D-Life-Movie that you have watched over hundreds or thousands of years,  You have watched over many, many lifetimes and still see the peoples entertained by kiss any kind of Dark-tyrant-ruler- ass. *** *** ***  Those who judge will never understand, and those who understand will never judge. *** *** ***  Care about what other people think and you will always be their prisoner. *** *** ***  We meet ourselves time and time, again and again, lifetime and lifetime, in a thousand disguises on the path of "LIFE"(Tao; True Self; Source). *** *** ** Excuse me, sir, do you know... What is the difference between the words and deeds of enlightenment man and the madness man? *** *** ***  Just like the story of "The Wizard of Oz" ...the little girl named Dorothy ask Tin Man: How can you talk if you haven't got a brain? Some people without brains do an awful lot of talking. *** *** ***  And in this world, so many “so call” teachers, gurus, masters, saints, or people without brains do an awful lot of talking,  Just like those madness man,  Just like the Tin Man ,  Just like parrot or  Just like a mind-computer-box keep pour out or keep running what their Pre-programmed code , those code that has already been written down, generation after generation, those belief-system-code continued for hundreds of years or thousands of years . *** *** ***  It is through watching the "Cycles" of Nature that we more fully understand the cycles of our own lives. *** *** *** Four things cannot be long hidden; the sun, the moon, the Big-Dipper and the “Truth”(True Self; Tao; Logos; Ma-at; Dharma; Source).  *** *** *** Because…: A lie doesn't become truth, wrong doesn't become right and evil doesn't become good, just because it's accepted by a majority. *** *** *** The truth is the truth even if no one believes it, and a lie is a lie even if everyone believes it. *** *** *** If not according to the “Help people as a Deliberate-Alignment-Creator”, To make their beautiful dream come true,  To get any kind of sweet-life-fruits, and…: To get rid of any kind of vicious circle,  To get rid of any kind of pain-and-bitter-life-fruits, …: *** *** Excuse me, sir, do you know... What is the difference between the words and deeds of enlightenment man and the madness man? *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** If not according to the "Help people to be natural, relax & be who-really-they-are, and alignment with their “Source”(True Self; Tao; Inner Being)”,  *** *** Excuse me, sir, do you know... What is the difference between the words and deeds of enlightenment man and the madness man? *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** People who are very knowledgeable…: *** *** *** The number is very, very, very much just like the stars in the sky. The number is very, very, very much just like the sand in the sea. The number is very, very, very much just like the cattle hairs of countless cattle body. *** *** *** And no matter past, future, now, every people his or her mind-box just like a computer,  Everyone speaking by his own way and style, just like the sea breeze passes through different caves have different voices. *** *** *** If we want use one’s speaking as mankind’s standard, then we want use who as mankind’s standard??? *** *** ***

Because, just like Gurdjieff said…:

“Men are machines and nothing but mechanical actions can be expected of machines. “~ George Gurdjieff Quotes *** *** *** When he begins to know himself a man sees that he has nothing that is his own... [and] all that he has regarded as his own, his views, thoughts, convictions, tastes, habits, even faults and vices, all these are not his own, but have been either formed through imitation or borrowed from somewhere ready-made. In feeling this a man may feel his nothingness. And in feeling his nothingness a man should see himself as he really is. ~ George Gurdjieff Quotes *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Via and thanks “George Gurdjieff” *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** The spirit of the individual is determined by his domination thought habits. ~Bruce Lee   *** *** *** And you give your heart and soul loyalty and serve with any kind of Dark Tyranny Ruler.  ***  No matter it’s in a world, a country, a home, a mind-body. *** *** *** And you don’t love and alignment with your “Source”(True Self; Tao; Brahma),  And as a deliberate-alignment-creator  To help yourself get rid of painful & misery-vicious circle-life fruits,  To help yourself beautiful-dream-come true…! *** *** *** Then you suffer & misery, and you think, wonder it is one kind of weird thing??? *** *** *** When You said:”  In the country, I am such an wonderful 【Loyalty & Obey Minister or servant】give my heart and soul loyalty and serve with any kind of Dark Tyranny Ruler.  ***  In the home, I am such an wonderful 【Dutiful & Obey son or daughter】give my heart and soul loyalty and serve with any kind of Dark Tyranny Ruler.  ***  In the home, I am such an wonderful 【Chastity & Dutiful & Obey wife or woman】give my heart and soul loyalty and serve with any kind of Dark Tyranny Ruler.  *** *** *** And you just don’t follow your heart, your soul, don’t love and alignment with your “Source”(True Self; Tao; Brahma),  And as a deliberate-alignment-creator …! *** *** *** Then you suffer & misery, and you think, wonder it is one kind of weird thing??? *** *** ***

You say…: You are such a humble human-being, you are such selfless, you are such no egoism. *** *** *** You say…: All my life, all my worship, all my scarify, all my live, all my died, all my soul, all my heart is not for my self, all for sever for another people, all for please another people. *** *** *** You say…: My fate and my life itself only meaning and highest value …: Are only built to Kiss-any kind of Dark Tyranny Ruler’s-Ass,  *** *** *** No matter it’s in a world, a country, a home, a mind-body. *** *** *** And you can not ego enough,  So that you can’t stop let people block you alignment with your “Source”(True Self; Tao). *** *** *** And you can not ego enough,  So that you can’t stop let people block you as an Deliberate-Alignment-Creator. And you use the desire please “another”(no matter your parents; government; guru; teachers; relative; lover) replace please your “Source”(True Self; Tao; Brahma). *** *** *** Then I say, …: your ego is bigger than you are please one, now. Because you use your egoism-standard instead of alignment with your “Source”(True Self; Tao; Brahma). *** *** *** The spirit of the individual is determined by his domination thought habits. ~Bruce Lee  *** *** *** And you give your heart and soul loyalty and serve with any kind of Dark Tyranny Ruler.  ***  No matter it’s in a world, a country, a home, a mind-body. *** *** *** And you don’t love and alignment with your “Source”(True Self; Tao; Brahma),  And as a deliberate-alignment-creator  To help yourself get rid of painful & misery-vicious circle-life fruits,  To help yourself beautiful-dream-come true…! *** *** *** Then you suffer & misery, and you think, wonder it is one kind of weird thing??? *** *** *** If your ego is not bigger than you are please one? Why your life are so suffer, misery, and unfortunate??? Why your life are so much bad-bitter-fruits continued produced day by day, month by month, year by year, generation after generation??? *** *** *** And...: You are walking into the future of whatever you do with you mind. So where is your mind??? *** *** ***  Nothing will manifest in your experience without the imagination process happening first. ~Abraham *** *** *** You get what you expect, have you noticed that?  And so, how have you been programmed to expect?  *** *** ***

You are walking into the future of whatever you do with you mind. So where is your mind??? *** *** ***  Nothing will manifest in your experience without the imagination process happening first. ~Abraham *** *** *** The spirit of the individual is determined by his domination thought habits. ~Bruce Lee  *** *** *** You get what you expect, have you noticed that?  And so, how have you been programmed to expect?  *** *** ***

Transitioning from social conditioning to self-awareness is your metamorphosis transcending to freedom and authenticity. ~Darlene A. Austiin

*** *** ***

"Don't try to please any other humans.

Find alignment with your Source and watch what happens... Those who are dependent on your empathy will drift away...If you want to play with me, come for the fun, come for the love..." ~Abraham Hicks

*** *** ***

Life is too short to waste time waiting for other people's approval on how you live it. ~Dr. Steve Maraboli

*** *** ***

Because…:

You can't  offer this life-price, waste your time waiting for other people's Approval on how you live it.

Because it never happen, every people agree on how you live it.

*** *** ***

Because…:

You will never be free till you replace your desire to please others and replace it with your powerful intention to align to who-you-really-are(to your source) by caring how you feel and choosing good feeling thoughts that let you know that you have found your alignment. *** *** ***

Because…: Sometimes the chains that prevent us from being free are more mental than physical. *** *** *** Too often we get caught up in how things "should be"(what parents, teachers, priests, kings, holy books said:"you should be~~~~!"),  and forget to live our lives,  and forget our "True Self"(Tao；God). *** *** *** Too often we let the most foolish things,  "what you should be"(what parents, teachers, priests, kings, holy books said:"you should be~~~~!"),  Tear us heart and soul apart. *** *** ***

[thecloudlight-blog]

New Post has been published on Cloudlight

New Post has been published on https://cloudlight.biz/a-history-of-politicians-getting-sports/

A history of politicians getting sports

White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus reportedly emerged from the GOP’s House health care victory last week with the aid of telling a reporter, “The president stepped up and helped punt the ball into the stop area,” a statement that assumes:

You can score touchdowns even as punting.

Punters have helpers, and . . .

Trump wanted to… thoroughly return the ball to the opposing group?

Whatever. We take Priebus’s which means, and it’s entirely feasible he mixed up metaphors within the giddy thrill of having an invoice a third of the manner too of the entirety. But he’s the brand new instance of why politicians sought to prevent with the bringing up of sports:

John Kerry: There are two belongings you don’t do in Michigan: Be in the Insane Clown Posse, and claim to be an Ohio State fan. Kerry did the second, and truly we’ve yet to peer evidence he hasn’t achieved the previous. Kerry also as soon as referred to as Lambeau Field “Lambert,” to be cool. Also once called Michael Jordan “Aunt Sally.” OK, that closing one didn’t manifest, but it’s not too a long way off.

Ted Cruz: Thick inside the midst of the GOP primary

Trump’s scow liest frenemy stepped to the stage in Indiana and — ignoring the silent pleas of all of Indiana who saw this about to unfold in terrible gradual movement — crucified Gene Hackman’s speech before the championship recreation at the stop of “Hoosiers:” “The first-rate factor is, that basketball ring here in Indiana is the equal height as it’s far in New York City and every different place in this use,” he stated, pointing to what is usually called a “rim” or a “hoop.” Somewhere Dennis Hopper changed into feverishly leaping up and down on a mattress, and by Dennis Hopper I simply me.

Acoustic Guitars Through History

You can play it along with your finger or a select. You can strum it quietly or you can extend it for maximum sound. What is it? It’s the acoustic guitar, something that, in one form or every other has been around for centuries. The major source of sound comes from the strings which vibrate at exceptional frequencies depending on their period, tension and mass. You sincerely pick the strings to create distinctive notes and tones and, when you placed it all collectively, you’re gambling music.

In the Middle Ages, those instruments have been called gitterns

And they gave the look of and had been played just like the late, they even had the rounded lower back like a lute. As we got into the Renaissance technology the dimensions of those units got large and the form changed into something we might don’t forget more current guitar like. They originated in Spain and had been referred to as vihuelas. This call was an extensive term given to many string contraptions so within the sixteenth century they have been divided into two categories: vihuela de arco which became like a present day violin and vihuela de Penola that changed into played both by way of hand or with a plectrum. If the tool became played by means of hand, the term vihuela de mano became used and this is what became the present day guitar because it used hand movements on the strings and had a valid hole to be able to create the music.

While Spain is the birthplace and hometown of the guitar, the actual production of them genuinely ramped up in France.

They were so popular that human beings commenced producing copies of the well-known fashions. Some even went to jail for stealing famous maker’s paintings. It turned into a father-son duo named Robert and Claude Denis even though who surely elevated the recognition of the instrument, as they produced masses of them during the period.

By the past due 1700’s simplest a six-course vihuela guitar turned into being made and offered in Spain. This has become the standard guitar and had seventeen frets and six guides with the primary two strings tuned in unison in order that the G turned into actual strings. This is while we subsequently see the shape and similarities to trendy gadgets. Of path now we have single strings in place of pairs, and by the nineteenth century, the instrument had completely advanced, except for size, to be the six single stringed guitars that we know today.

The Six-Year-Old Politicians

What is taking place with politics in the States and on a worldwide scale?

Imagine you’re a six-year-old in a schoolyard. Fenced in, contained, underneath the guideline of bullies and the authorities. Mull over the concept that the old patriarchal paradigm becomes put in location and is administered by means of six-year-olds. The truth is the government have grown-up bodies, however, their brains are nonetheless functioning as a six-yr-old. Let me give an explanation for.

Your Brain and the Old Paradigm

Neural programs are installed location by the time you are six-years-old and decide 95% of your movements. According to molecular biologist Dr. Bruce Lipton, you have got an aware mind and unconscious thoughts. The unconscious thoughts is a million instances extra effective in processing facts than the aware thoughts. In addition, the subconscious mind controls your behavior approximately ninety-five% of the time.

Your unconscious generates 40 million nerve impulses according to 2nd and operates during ninety-five% of the day, whilst your aware mind fires forty nerve impulses in keeping with 2nd and runs for only 5% of the day. Do the mathematics; your subconscious programming controls your life except you exchange it.

Everything you research within the first six years is absorbed and becomes your essential fact.

That method, whatever your circle of relatives, lifestyle, race and faith believed and practiced is neurologically stressed in your body.

When you understand that nearly each person is functioning from programs that have been set down by means of the age of six, you may begin to see the arena with a brand new perspective. As you comprehend that authorities, maximum agencies, and agencies are run via six-12 months-olds who’re basing their actions on worry, you have a first rate advantage. The implications this information is amazing.

Remember while you had been six, playing on the faculty playground? The six-12 months-vintage bullies within the schoolyard are going for walks the authorities and the economic system. Everyone is scared of them. The authorities businesses adjust their regulations to keep the bullies happy. The bullies are the large businesses, Wall Street, politicians, and the old patriarchal paradigm.

At the instant six-year-vintage, bullies are constantly stirring up the problem to overrun humanity. The overestimated bullies belittle others in order that they experience higher about themselves. Instead of facing internal disgrace and disrespect they take it out on all and sundry else. The huge bullies are honestly the cowards who do not have the courage to see what is lurking internal their frame and thoughts. It is much less complicated to spew rage, hatred, and anger than it’s miles to grow up.

Do you want a six-year-old walking your lifestyles?

Humanity is at a turning point. We can go away the six-yr-old bullies at the back of and pass onto a new playing discipline. The oppressors are currently getting more violent, abusive and controlling. Escape the cracked warm cement playground surrounded by chain hyperlink fences with a barbed cord on top. Leave the guards on the gate. What will show up when a critical mass of human beings graduate, and the best ones left on the old playground are the bullies?

Learning English Impacts Sports – Importance of Learning English For Athletes

You are watching tv. You see your preferred overseas boxer, Manny Pacquiao, who once more simply knocked out a title contender. With a bloodied face and a dislocated nostril, the opponent continues to be uncoordinated from the dizzying blows he obtained. You upward push out of your seat and shout in victory together with your idolized athlete. And then, after the initial victory cries and congratulations, it’s miles now time for the interview.

The interviewer asks, “So Manny, what can you tell us about your combat?”

Manny answers, “I umm.. Ahh.. Am glad about combat.”

Your favored champion stutters and speaks in an English you can not apprehend. You are disillusioned and your self-assurance and awe for him are faded. Indeed, in information, information, interviews, and write-ups – the English language dominates the sector of Sports.

Here are the reasons why studying English is crucial for the sports athlete:

As an athlete grows in achievements and reputation, he’s more exposed globally with fanatics that come from one of a kind international location and with unique nationalities as properly. With English as the most spoken language within the international, being able to express one’s self with an easy to apprehend English enables the athlete to talk extra efficaciously to lovers. Moreover, he can reach more people, explicit his passion, and even educate listeners through his reviews.

Having an amazing draw close of English we could an athlete talk higher with his group of workers and instruct.

It isn’t always unusual for athletes who are non-native English audio system to have coaches and managerial or promotional body of workers who have English as their native language. Learning English lets athletes have extra opportunities to make money thru classified ads. Most international groups like Nike use English as their medium for commercials. It is commonplace that they soak up international sports athletes for their commercials – once in a while requiring those non-local English speakers to utter some lines to promote their merchandise. Having a terrific draw close of English or at the least an acceptable accessory makes the athlete and the product he endorses greater saleable. It can be tough for human beings to buy sports drink from a sports activities parent who can’t even pronounce the product effectively.