#answer: i'm a christian

[cupcakegalaxia]

I'm not Conservative. I'm certainly not Liberal. I'm a not-so-secret third thing.

[ffcrazy15]

There's this way of doing female-ness in Christianity that I call "pastel flower journal Christianity." I've got nothing against pastel flower journals per se, but for some reason people believe it's the end all and be all of female spirituality, and I think it's a real disservice towards young Christian women.

One of these days I'd like to start a prayer-and-reading group or something for young women, but there would be no floral themes or over-focus on how "God thinks you're beautiful even if the world doesn't" (a true statement, but it's wayyyyy too often the focus in women's spiritual reading). Instead we would be reading:

Seneca's Letters from a Stoic

Frankl's Man's Search for Meaning

Sheed's A Map of Life

Portions of Pieper's book on leisure

Kreeft's Three Philosophies of Life

Guardini's The Lord (or something similar)

Therese's Story of a Soul

and some select portions of the Nicomachean Ethics.

(Also they're all getting the porn talk. I don't know why we give the porn talk to young men but not young women. There's this idea that women don't use porn and they only need the talk about "guarding their heart." Bullshit. There's porn on the YA shelves of Barnes and Nobles and before that there were bodice rippers. Young women need the porn talk too.)

Every young woman needs to be getting a basic grounding in virtue ethics, logic, natural law, scholastic philosophy and Biblical hermeneutics if they're going to get by in today's spiritual landscape. Enough faffery and emotionalism in young women's spiritual education! Give them real food to chew on, not pasty sentimentalism!

[oidheadh-con-culainn]

Hi, with the arthurian legenda being entirely christian, aren't there welsh legends believed to be where the arthurian legends were drived from? Sorry if i misunderstood your point but tmk the christian elements were added later. Not trying to start anything tbc i am honestly curious

the welsh material is also christian, hope this helps 💚

[fictionadventurer]

The Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes reviews I've seen fixate on the story's discussion of whether humans are inherently good or inherently evil as if one side or the other is the correct answer. Meanwhile the story itself is showing that individual choice in every action--choosing to act out of either love or self-interest--is what truly matters in shaping society. A free and stable society requires that people be taught to make selfless choices rather than act out of fear. Instead of oppressing people into fearful order, citizens need to have the freedom to choose the good, and be educated with the values that teach them what good is.

[canisalbus]

Imagine if Machete was Muslim instead of Catholic. His name would be something like Saif سيف, and Vasco would probably be something like Dhahabi ذَهَبِيّ

.

[fdelopera]

I’m Christian but want to challenge what I’ve been taught after seeing your posts about the Old Testament having cut up the Torah to fit a different narrative. Today I was taught that the Hebrew word Elohim is the noun for God as plural and therefore evidence of the holy Trinity and Jesus & Holy Spirit been there at creation. Is that what the word Elohim actually means? Because I don’t want to be party to the Jewish faith, language and culture being butchered by blindly trusting what I was told

Hi Anon.

NOPE! The reason G-d is sometimes called Elohim in the Tanakh is because during the First Temple period (circa 1000 – 587 BCE), many of the ancestors of the Jewish people in the Northern and Southern Kingdoms practiced polytheism.

(A reminder that the Tanakh is the Hebrew bible, and is NOT the same as the “Old Testament” in Christian bibles. Tanakh is an acronym, and stands for Torah [Instruction], Nevi’im [Prophets], Ketuvim [Writings].)

Elohim is the plural form of Eloah (G-d), and these are some of the names of G-d in Judaism. Elohim literally means “Gods” (plural).

El was the head G-d of the Northern Kingdom’s pantheon, and the Southern Kingdom of Judah incorporated El into their worship as one of the many names of G-d.

The name Elohim is a vestige of that polytheistic past.

Judaism transitioned from monolatry (worshiping one G-d without denying the existence of others) to true monotheism in the years during and directly after the Babylonian exile (597 – 538 BCE). That is largely when the Torah was edited into the form that we have today. In order to fight back against assimilation into polytheistic Babylonian society, the Jews who were held captive in Babylon consolidated all gods into one G-d. Shema Yisrael Adonai eloheinu Adonai ehad. “Hear O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is One.”

So Elohim being a plural word for “Gods” has absolutely nothing to do with the idea of the Holy Trinity in Christianity.

Especially because Christians are monotheists. My understanding of the Holy Trinity (please forgive me if this is incorrect) is that Christians believe that the Holy Trinity is three persons in one Godhead. Certainly, the Holy Trinity is not “three Gods” — that would be blasphemy.

(My sincere apologies to the Catholics who just read this last sentence and involuntarily cringed about the Protestants who’ve said this. I’m so sorry! I’m just trying to show that it’s a fallacy to say that the Holy Trinity somehow comes from “Elohim.”)

But there's something else here, too. Something that as a Jew, makes me uneasy about the people who are telling you these things about Elohim and the Holy Trinity.

Suggesting that Christian beliefs like the Holy Trinity can somehow be "found" in the Tanakh is antisemitic.

This is part of “supersession theory.” This antisemitic theory suggests that Christianity is somehow the "true successor" to Second Temple Judaism, which is false.

Modern Rabbinic Judaism is the true successor to Second Temple Judaism. Period.

Christianity began as an apocalyptic Jewish mystery cult in the 1st century CE, in reaction to Roman rule. One of the tactics that the Romans used to subdue the people they ruled over was a “divide and conquer” strategy, which sowed division and factionalization in the population. The Romans knew that it was easier to control a country from the outside if the people inside were at each other’s throats.

Jesus led one of many breakaway Jewish sects at the time. The Jewish people of Qumran (possibly Essenes), whose Tanakh was the “Dead Sea Scrolls,” were another sect.

Please remember that the Tanakh was compiled in the form that we have today over 500 years before Jesus lived. Some of the texts in the Tanakh were passed down orally for maybe a thousand years before that, and texts like the Song of Deborah in the Book of Judges (in the Tanakh, that’s in the Nevi’im) were first written down in Archaic Biblical Hebrew during the First Temple Period.

There is absolutely nothing of Jesus or Christianity in the Tanakh, and there is nothing in the Tanakh that in any way predicts Christianity.

Also, Christians shouldn’t use Judaism in any way to try to “legitimize” Christianity. Christianity was an offshoot of 1st century Judaism, which then incorporated a lot of Roman Pagan influence. It is its own valid religion, in all its forms and denominations.

But trying to use the Hebrew bible to give extra credence to ideas like the Holy Trinity is antisemitic.

It is a tactic used by Christian sects that want to delegitimize Judaism as a religion by claiming that Christianity was somehow “planted” in the Tanakh over 2500 years ago.

This line of thinking has led Christians to mass murder Jews in wave after wave of antisemitic violence over the last nearly 2000 years, because our continued existence as Jews challenges the notion that Christians are the “true” successors of Temple Judaism.

Again, the only successor of Temple Judaism is Rabbinic Judaism, aka Modern Judaism.

This line of thinking has also gotten Christians to force Jews to convert en masse throughout the ages. If Christians can get Jews to all convert to Christianity, then they don’t have to deal with the existential challenge to this core misapprehension about the “true” successor to Temple Judaism.

And even today, many Christians still believe that they should try to force Jews to “bend the knee” to Jesus. When I was a young teenager, a preacher who was a parent at the school I went to got me and two other Jewish students to get in his car after a field trip. After he had trapped us in his car, he spent the next two hours trying to get us to convert to Christianity. It was later explained to me that some Christians believe they get extra “points” for converting Jews. And I’m sure he viewed this act of religious and spiritual violence as something he could brag about to his congregation on Sunday.

Trying to get Jews to convert is antisemitic and misguided, and it ignores all the rich and beautiful history of Jewish practice.

We Jews in diaspora in America and Europe have a forced immersion in Christian culture. It is everywhere around us, so we learn a lot about Christianity through osmosis. Many Jews also study early Christianity because Christianity exists as a separate religion within our Jewish history.

But I don’t see a lot of Christians studying Jewish history. Even though studying Jewish history would give you a wealth of understanding and context for your own religious traditions.

So, all of this is to say, I encourage you to study Jewish history and Jewish religious practice. Without an understanding of the thousands of years of Jewish history, it is easy to completely misinterpret the Christian bible, not to mention the Hebrew bible as well.

[saintmachina]

One million dollar question: is it true that the Bible condems homosexuality? I had a discussion with two conservatives who sent me some verses that seem to confirm that but i don't know much about the context although i know this is important too

Let’s start here: why is this the million dollar question? Why does it matter what the Bible has to say about sex, or love, or human relationships? At the end of the day, it’s just a book, right?

Oceans of ink (and blood) have been spilled over not only what the Bible says, but what it does, how it functions. The course of empires, nations, and families have been shaped by the contents of this book, and from a historical and cultural perspective, it holds a lot of weight. But you didn’t ask about the sociological, you asked about the theological, so let’s explore. 

Different Christian traditions vary in their approach to scripture. For example: some Protestant denominations believe that the Bible is inspired, inerrant, and infallible. In this paradigm, God is the ultimate author of scripture working through human hands, and the resulting text is both without error and in no way deceptive or mistaken. Similarly, The Second Vatican Council decreed that “the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation.” When a member of the clergy is ordained into the Episcopal Church they swear that they “do believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God, and to contain all things necessary to salvation.”

Can you see how many of these points of doctrine overlap yet seek to distinguish themselves from one another? Theologians have spent lifetimes arguing over definitions, and even when they manage to settle on solid teachings, the way that the teaching is interpreted by the clergy and incorporated into the lives of the laity varies WIDELY. As much as systematic theology may try, humans aren’t systematic beings. We’re highly contextual: we only exist in relation to others, to history, to circumstance, and to the divine. We simply cannot call up God to confirm church teaching, and I think a lot of people cling excessively to the Bible as a result of the ache (dare I even say trauma) of being separated from God via space and time in the way we currently are.

God is here, but God is not here. God is within us, God is within the beloved, God is within the sea and sky and land, and yet we cannot grasp God to our bodies in the way we long to. In this earthly lifetime, we are forever enmeshed in God, yet forever distinct, and that is our great joy and our great tragedy.

So barring a direct spiritual experience or the actual second coming, we're left to sort through these things ourselves. And because humans are flawed, our interpretations will always be flawed. Even with the presence of the Holy Spirit in our lives guiding us.

When engaging with any sort of Biblical debate, it is essential that you have a strong understanding of what the Bible means to you, an an embodied individual living a brief little awful and wonderful life on Earth. Otherwise it's easy to get pushed around by other people’s convincing-sounding arguments and sound bites.

Here’s where I show my hand. As a confirmed Episcopalian I believe that reason, tradition, and scripture form the “three-legged stool” upon which the church stands, interdependent and interrelational to each other, but I’ve also like, lived a life outside of books. I’ve met God in grimy alleyways and frigid ocean waters and in bed with my lovers. So my stool is actually four-legged, because I think it’s essential to incorporate one’s personal experience of God into the mix as well. (I did not invent this: it’s called the Wesleyan quadrilateral, but the official Wesleyan quadrilateral insists that scripture must trump all other legs of the table in the case of a conflict which...*cynical noises*)

Please do not interpret this answer as me doing a hand-wavey "it's all vibes, man, we're all equally right and equally wrong", but I do absolutely think we have a responsibility as creatures to weigh the suffering and/or flourishing of our fellow creatures against teachings handed down through oral tradition, schisms, imperial takeover of faith, and translation and mistranslation. Do I believe the Bible is sacred, supernatural even, and that it contains all things necessary to find one's way to God, if that is the way God chooses to manifest to an individual in a given lifetime? Absolutely. Do I believe it is a priceless work of art and human achievement that captures ancient truths and the hopes of a people (as well as a record of their atrocities) through symbols, stories, and signs? Unto my death, I do.

However, I am wary of making an object of human creation, God-breathed though it may be, into an idol, and trapping God in its pages like God is some sort of exotic bug we can pin down with a sewing needle.

Finally, we have reached the homosexuality debate. One of my favorite sayings of Jesus is Matthew 5: 15-17: "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? In the same way, every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit." In other words: look at what religious teachings have wrought in the world. When I look at homophobic interpretations of the Bible, I see destruction, abuse, suffering, neglect, alienation, spiritual decay, and death. When I look at theology that affirms the holiness of LGBTQ+ relationships, I see joy, laughter, community building, thoughtful care, blooming families, creativity, resilience, and compassion. I see the love of Christ at work in the world. I see the hands of a God who chose under no duress to take up residence in a human body, to drink wine with tax collectors and break bread with sex workers and carry urchin children around on his shoulders. That's my limited little pet interpretation, but hey, that's all any of us really have, at the end of the day.

So, I am absolutely happy to do a play-by-play breakdown of why those passages you were given (we queer Christians often call them "clobber passages" or "texts of terror") don't hold water in a theological, historical, and cultural context. We can talk about Jesus blessing the eunuch and the institution of Greek pederasty and Levitical purity laws and Paul because I've done that reading. I've spent my nights crying in self-hatred and leafing through doctrine books and arguing with my pastors and writing long grad school essays on the subjects. Send me the verses, if you can remember them, and I'll take a look. But it's worth noting that out of the entire Bible, I believe there are only six that explicitly condemn homosexuality AND I'm being generous and including Sodom and Gommorah here, which is a willful and ignorant misreading if I've ever seen one.

In the meantime, I recommend books by people smarter than me! Try Outside The Lines: How Embracing Queerness Will Transform Your Faith by Mihee Kim-Kort, or Does Jesus Really Love Me by Jeff Chu, or Transforming: The Bible and the Lives of Transgender Christians by Austen Hartke!

And take a breath, dear one. Breathe in God, in the droplets of water in the air and in the wind from the south. Breathe in the gift of life, and know that you are loved, now and unto the end of the age and even beyond then.

[sergle]

lollll stevens insta post is so tone def too like uhh u can smell the privilege coming off this 🧍

ohhhh... I think I'm going to hurt him

[musings-of-a-prodigal]

Anyone have the experience of going from a tradition that didn't venerate Mary/the saints to one that did? I'm kind of exploring if that's something I want to incorporate into my practice right now. It's just hard to separate out the kneejerk reaction I was taught to have so I can figure out if it's something that could be right for me.

Also for any of you that venerate Mary/the saints, how do you like to do so? What about your interactions with them is different from your interactions with God? I know the theological difference (asking them to speak to God on your behalf, basically), but, practically speaking, what do you do/say differently? How do you balance out asking Mary/the saints to pray for you with praying to God directly? Do you ask your dead loved ones to pray for you as well, or just "official" saints?

I'm sorry in advance if any of these questions are inappropriately worded. This is an area of Christian practice that I am only beginning to really learn about (and that I was taught misinformation about when I was growing up evangelical). I'm not asking any of this with any sort of agenda-- I just want to understand.

[danthropologie]

Christian Horner about Daniel Ricciardo's return to F1 | ESPN F1 Unlapped, August 3, 2023

[majestico59]

Can any Hazbin hotel fans come here? I have genuine questions about the setting of the show.

1: Why Adam is even the leader of these demon slayer angels? Why him being the first man makes him qualified for this kind of postion?

2: Talking of Adam, how is he the first person to go to heaven? No matter which testament you base the show on it should've been Abel the first murdered person to be the first human in heaven (also if they never show Cain and Abel it'd be a huge missed potential)

3: Does god exist? Helluva boss makes it seem like he does but in Hazbin hotel the show implies high ranking angels created the universe.

4: Where are the rest of the biblical figures? No other prophets, no saints (except that horrible rendition of Saint Peter) no mention of archangels considering being the first man made Adam a celebrity and head of the exorcist angels they should be even more popular than him.

4: Talking of prophets biblical imagery is everywhere, Saint Peter is here so Jesus also must exist in this universe, yet show never mentions him once, I think the story is missing a huge potential by not making any use of these religious figures.

5: Vaggie says she never knew angelic weapons could hurt angels, and well... Her back story is literally her being harmed by an angelic weapon.

6: Power scaling is so weird, so this entire time Lucifer could take on Adam but didn't do anything about it? Did he just not give a shit about these exterminations?

7: So for the entire history of humanity not even one person has risen from hell to heaven? These angels are probably billions of years old, if they didn't make the rules who the fuck did?

There's just so many holes in this setting it drives me crazy.

[outlying-hyppocrate]

i have officially returned. ask me anything.

[cheesecakeyuri]

May Allah Bless and care for those caught in the Gaza conflict. May YHWH Curse those who carry out and support the genocide May God Guide the protesters to achieve justice for those hurt and already lost.

From the river to the sea, Gaza will be free.

[imissthembutitwasntadisaster]

.

[not-poignant]

Some ppl want a UtB Temsen x Gwyn fic but all I want is a oneshot of Temsen hunting down and decimating Christian and putting him "in his place" lmao. I'd enjoy reading that so much.

Question: peak alphas can get away with committing pretty much any crime right so why doesn't Temsen or the other peak alphas at Hillview just kill abusive alphas? I'm pretty sure Temsen could get away with murdering Christian and it would save future omegas from what Nate went thru.

Hi anon!

I mean the main reason is that killing in cold blood is still frowned on, and peak alphas exist in all levels of government, and would likely be like 'hey, cut that out, you're making it hard for the rest of us to kill people sometimes and get away with it.'

A peak alpha killing someone due to ardolphogen rage or similar is not against the law, but like, it has to be demonstrable that they're in this state, it can't be them plotting in advance to murder people, because that is against the law. And there comes a point where everyone stops wanting to have anything to do with you and other peak alphas will be like '...that is a crazy out-of-control problem over there.'

Nothing is more dangerous to a peak alpha than another peak alpha, after all.

But yeah, that's why. Societal policing, even if it can't come in the form of some levels of society, still exists! They can't just go commit whatever crimes they want free from consequence. But they can do some crime relatively free from consequence. They're still expected to cooperate with the law, make a statement, a report is filed etc. Like, they get a record.

I'm pretty sure Temsen could get away with murdering Christian and it would save future omegas from what Nate went thru.

Okay, but that's not his job, or his function, or his purpose in life. Like, just because he can, doesn't mean he a) should, or b) that this would be healthy for him or c) that it actually even solves the problem systemically at all.

Temsen's work is broader than that. He tries to change education so alphas grow up respecting omegas more, he tries to change attitudes through activism so omegas feel better insisting on respect from alphas in the first place. It's a lot easier to stop the abusers when you stop all the people who enable the abusers.

Like, how many people is Temsen supposed to kill? It's not just Christian who's awful, but all of Christian's friends. It's not just all of them who are awful, but nearly every alpha that sends an omega to Hillview, it's not just all of those alphas, but it's often their alpha family members who encouraged and enabled them in the first place, and it's not just those alphas, but also the ones they encounter out in life who act like this is permissible. And if that was something Temsen felt impassioned to do, I'm sure he would a) end up with a death count of thousands and b) still not actually have done as much to stop abuse as what he's literally doing by trying to change the systems that enable abuse re: education (like the education modules that Efnisien is reading) or helping facilitate the global introduction of laws that protect omegas (because for those laws to be passed, you have to convince the governments that those omegas have a right to be protected. It's more than just the law itself.)

It's tempting to be like 'he should just kill the bad people we don't like' but it's never just one bad person. Hillview has around 30 omegas on site at any time, that's a lot of abusive alphas you want Temsen to be killing on a regular basis.

That does negatively affect someone's psyche? To just...repeatedly murder people in cold blood. Also we have a show about it (Dexter) and it's not like it really solves the problem. Also it tends to create an issue, it's not like people who murder all the time out of a sense of righteousness stay like...good, compassionate, empathetic people. The black and white thinking you need to justify those actions means that you stop considering whether an alpha has been abused, or whether they have a potential for redemption, etc.

That isn't to say Temsen won't kill people again, just that if he does, it will be in the heat of the moment and not because he thinks 'well that guy was abusive so I should.'

I mean, as far as we know, Christian's never killed anyone. So ending his life, while Nate gets to recover, is...not even something we do in places where we have the death penalty. Christians actions are reprehensible, but we do not become a better society by also committing reprehensible actions just because we can.

Temsen could not stay "Temsen" if that was something he believed was right to do.

It's a fun revenge fantasy, and that's where it stays, I'm afraid!

Finally, Christian does have PTSD from being abused in the past. More abuse isn't going to stop him or make him recognise what he's doing. His PTSD and his trauma is legitimate, even if the way he weaponises it isn't. Much like Efnisien in Falling Falling Stars, wanting to hurt someone who is abusive who has also been an abuse victim rarely solves anything at all. It just makes the person doing the hurting feel some righteous, sadistic pleasure in the moment, which when you think about it, actually isn't justice at all.

[elephantlovemedleys]

satine/christian for the fandom asks?

buckle up and get ready cause this is gonna be a long way down 😎

• when I started shipping it if I did: i insantly felt their chemistry the moment they started dancing together at the rouge, and clearly she thought he was the duke at first because of some misunderstanding that she saw with tolouse when zidler was talking to her about it. and obviously when we first see christian at the elephant and satine thinks he’s up there to go sleep with her, their banter from the getgo is really hilarious too cause christian is sort of clueless and awkward at first and she's just doing her job and tries to get off at his "poetry" but then he starts to belt into song, his voice and his words light up the city, and her world too.

the elephant love medley is definitely when i think i truly started to feel their connection, it's literally a conversation told through song about their own perceptions of love and what they think could become of them once they give in, and when they finally kiss, it's one that sparks up and sends fireworks blasting up the night sky (i mean literally speaking! lol) .

BUT i will say, it was this moment right here that i felt something in my heart twinged in what i think i can describe as a state of melting away, cause gosh just look at them...........

AND THIS OTHER TINY MOMENT LIKE THAT FOREHEAD KISS IS EVERYTHING TO ME

• my thoughts: honest to god i am being real when i say the very last time i found myself feeling this certain level AMOUNT OF CRAZY towards a ship was eight years ago, and it was with mulder/scully (the x files). admittedly i haven't been too shippy with things in recent times unless they're one of my older recurring fixations that i love going back to, and before i got totally into christian/satine, it was jamie & claire (outlander) when i watched the show two years ago that started bringing back this kind of energy in which i realised i can definitely still find and enjoy certain pairings that definitely meet my own personal preferences of what i consider are OTP levels of qualifications to me. and good lord don't even get me started on how fantastic, unbeatable, and palpable the chemistry is between nicole kidman and ewan mcgregor, it's through their performances and how they deliver it that makes you feel all sorts of emotions from the giddiest of them all to the most heartwrenching.

• What makes me happy about them: the fact that for both christian and satine, it's actually the first time they've both fallen in love. christian early in the movie says he's never been in love, despite wanting to write about it, and for satine, she admits that she can't fall in love and it's due to the means of what she does with her job, but eventually she breaks this rule, and ultimately finds herself caught and drowning in a love she never knew she could ever experience and for christian, he gets the sense that wow this is how loving someone and being in love is like. he is incredibly enamoured by her, and we see satine at one of her most vulnerable instances when she's with him, they enjoy being in each other's company, and they see the good in each other. satine knew what christian's talents were capable of, and christian saw how satine was worthy of shining in the spotlight and her dreams of wanting to be an actress. with him writing the play and her being the lead, it gives them both chances to show what they're great at as individuals too!

and from what i know, there's a part where christian has a poem for satine that didn't make it to the movie's final cut and it goes something like "my heart aches every hour of every day / and only when i'm with you does the pain go away" ❤️

• What makes me sad about them: it's how they almost had it all. they were very close, towards the end when the duke was finally out of the picture, and they were able to reconcile and proclaim their undying love for one another despite what they had to put themselves under because of things that were getting in the way, the show was successful and it did so well and they were happy about it, until one inevitable force (her illness) destroyed any hope of finally running away and spending the rest of their lives together.

• things done in fanfic that annoys me: i think the only thing that annoys me pertaining to this is how you can no longer view or access a lot of the fics about them that were written during the early 2000's cause i know there were definitely some gems written that time especially when the movie had just come out and i would have loved to see what these people wrote before!

• things I look for in fanfic: anything that depicts them in domestic bliss (i am a sucker for these things), or situations where they comfort one another. literally anything that shows how they are so utterly filled with love and the happiness that surrounds them both because it's genuinely what they deserved.

• Who l'd be comfortable them ending up with, if not each: NO ONE IT WILL ALWAYS BE THEM IN THE END ONLY EACH OTHER !!!!

• My happily ever after for them: satine is completely cured from consumption, she's able to fly away, and makes it big time as an actress and christian is a successful playwright. they both end up married, living in london and through the course of several years have three daughters and two cats (girldad! christian is something so personal to me, he'd be the dad who'd tell endless bedtime stories and satine would be the mom who loves dressing her girls up and taking them to parks), and the greatest thing about this is their children would grow up in a household that's filled with many music, laughs, kindness, and most importantly love.

• who is the big spoon/little spoon: christian is definitely a hugger, they're just so comfortable around each other that she can slip into his arms during a lazy afternoon or he can wrap her around his waist whilst joking around during a walk. plus whenever he's got something to write on his typewriter he doesn't mind when she wants to sit in his lap and they'd squeeze in whatever space they have in a chair.

• what is their favorite non-sexual activity: singing and dancing together (obviously) <3 practicing and reciting lines from plays, leaving each other notes when one has to go somewhere or gets up earlier than the other but also cuddling by the balcony.