#because for some reason the idea that 17 hates him or something is still prevalent

[theultradork]

Your periodic reminder that 17 openly refers to Krillin as his brother.

[didanawisgi]

written by Terry Newman

“Remember when the scariest kid in your neighborhood was the football jock who terrorized the high school with his minions in tow, and got bailed out by his rich parents when he went too far? Or it was the gothic malcontent with the switchblade and the swagger. Either way, what made these high-status alphas so terrifying was that they came at you in numbers. They travelled in packs. This has been our narrative, in the stories we tell—from Henry Bowers in Stephen King’s It, to Biff Tannen in Back to the Future, to Billy Hargrove in Stranger Things, central-casting bullies attracted followers. They belonged.

As any grade eight schoolgirl who’s been bullied off Instagram can attest, this stereotype still holds. But when it comes to the most dangerous and sociopathic actors, the opposite is true. All three of the young mass shooters who terrorized the United States in recent nationally reported scenes of carnage—Connor Betts in Dayton, Ohio; Patrick Crusius in El Paso, Texas; and Santino William Legan in Gilroy, California—acted alone. The old image of the bully as locker-room alpha or goth leader now seems passé. Often, it is the kid who used to be the fictional protagonist, the social outcast, the member of the Losers Club from It, whose face now appears on our screens with a nightmarish empty stare.

These recent shooters fit a similar profile. They were outsiders, all seemingly socially awkward, who became emboldened through fringe online communities that act as mutual-support societies for violent malcontents. This phenomenon is fuelled by hate, guns, mental illness and ideological extremism. But there is another factor at play here, too. Before a youth makes the decision to murder, before the gun is stashed in his backpack, before his state of mental health is so deteriorated that he commits the unthinkable, what has happened to him? It’s important to remember that these murders are also, in most cases, suicides.

In his 2008 article School Shooting as a Culturally Enforced Way of Expressing Suicidal Hostile Intentions, psychiatrist Antonio Preti summarized existing research on school shootings to the effect that “suicidal intent was found in most cases for which there was detailed information on the assailants.” The research also indicated that “among students, homicide perpetrators were more than twice as likely as their victims to have been bullied by their peers, and also were described as loners and poorly integrated into school activities…In most of the ascertained cases, perpetrators prepared a well-organized plan, and often communicated details about it to acquaintances or friends, who failed to report threats because they did not consider them serious or were embarrassed or ignorant of where to go for help. The most antisocial peers sometimes approved the plan, sharing the same anger against the stated target of violence.”

Preti’s article predated the rise of some of the most notorious web sites—including 8chan, which was shut down this week after several mass shootings were linked to its users. But the nihilistic phenomenon these killers represent predates modern social-media culture. Indeed, it predates digital communication, and even broadcast media more generally.

In 1897, French sociologist Émile Durkheim noted that suicides overall were increasing in society. But there were differences among the affected populations, he noticed. Men were more likely than women to commit suicide—though the chances decreased if the man was married and had children. Durkheim observed that social groups that were more religious exhibited lower suicide rates. (Catholics were less likely to commit suicide than Protestants, for instance.) Durkheim also noted that many people who killed themselves were young, and that the prevalence of such suicides was linked to their level of social integration: When a person felt little sense of connection or belonging, he could be led to question the value of his existence and end his life.

Durkheim labelled this form of suicide as “anomic” (others being “egoistic,” “altruistic” and “fatalistic”). Durkheim believed that these feelings of anomie assert themselves with special force at moments when society is undergoing social, political or economic upheaval—especially if such upheavals result in immediate and severe changes to everyday life.

Durkheim came from a long line of devout Jews. His father, grandfather and great grandfather had all been rabbis. And so even though he chose to pursue an academic career, his experiences taught him to respect the mental and psychological support that religious communities supplied to their members, as well as the role that ritual plays in the regulation of social behavior. In the absence of such regulation, he believed, individuals and even whole societies were at risk of falling into a state of anomie, whereby common values and meanings fall by the wayside. The resulting void doesn’t provide people with a sense of freedom, but rather rootlessness and despair.

Durkheim’s thesis has largely stood the test of time, though other scholars have reformulated it for modern audiences. In his 1955 book The Sane Society, for instance, Erich Fromm wrote that, “in the nineteenth century, the problem was that God is dead. In the twentieth century, the problem is that man is dead.” He described the twentieth century as a period of “schizoid-self alienation,” and worried that men would destroy “their world and themselves because they cannot stand any longer the boredom of a meaningless life.”

In her 2004 book Rampage: The Social Roots of School Shootings, Katherine Newman described findings gleaned from over 100 interviews in Arkansas and Kentucky. The male adolescent shooters at the center of her study, she concluded, “shared a belief that demonstrating strength by planned attacks on their respective institutions with (too) easily available guns would somehow mitigate their unbearable feelings of inadequacy as males and bring longed-for respect from peers.” Ten years later, in a 2014 article titled The Socioemotional Foundations of Suicide: A Microsociological View of Durkheim’s Suicide, sociologists Seth Abrutyn and Anna Mueller set out to update Durkheim’s theory about how social integration and moral regulation affect suicidality. “The greater degree to which individuals feel they have failed to meet expectations and others fail to ‘reintegrate’ them, the greater the feelings of shame and, therefore, anomie,” they concluded. “The risk of suicidal thoughts, attempts, and completions, in addition to violent aggression toward specific or random others, is a positive function of the intensity, persistence, and pervasiveness of identity, role, or status-based shame and anomie.”

Writing in the 1890s, Durkheim was highly conscious of all the ways that industrial capitalism corroded traditional forms of social regulation in society, often at the expense of religious—and even governmental—authorities. (“Depuis un siècle, en effet, le progrès économique a principalement consisté à affranchir les relations industrielles de toute réglementation. Jusqu’à des temps récents, tout un système de pouvoirs moraux avait pour fonction de les discipliner…En effet, la religion a perdu la plus grande partie de son Empire. Le pouvoir gouvernemental, au lieu d’être le régulateur de la vie économique, en est devenu l’instrument et le serviteur.”) But if he were to visit us in 2019, Durkheim would be surprised at the extent to which once-dominant ideas with no connection to economics have been marginalized as regressive and hateful—such as nationalism, patriotism and even masculinity.

This is one reason why so many people now feel unmoored. As Canadian science fiction writer Donald Kingsbury eloquently put it in his novel Courtship Rite, “Tradition is a set of solutions for which we have forgotten the problems. Throw away the solution and you get the problem back.” Faith in god, country and manhood might be seen as regressive by modern lights. But insofar as they were holding back male anomie, we perhaps neglected to consider what damage would be done if we discredited those ideas before finding replacements.

In the history of our species, there has never been (to the knowledge of modern scholars) a human society that did not express belief in some sort of supernatural force—which suggests that we are programmed by a need to believe in something bigger than ourselves. Sociologist Max Weber warned in 1919 that “science deals with facts. It can’t tell us what to do or what’s important.” This is to say that while the scientific revolution did a good job of helping us explain and harness the natural world, it did nothing to fill the god-shaped hole that Blaise Pascal identified in the 17th-century: “What else does this craving, and this helplessness, proclaim but that there was once in man a true happiness, of which all that now remains is the empty print and trace? This he tries in vain to fill with everything around him, seeking in things that are not there the help he cannot find in those that are, though none can help, since this infinite abyss can be filled only with an infinite and immutable object; in other words by God himself.”

If we are to resign ourselves to the fact that “God himself” isn’t going to intercede any time soon, then we are left with the ordinary tools of policy, such as Robert Putnam outlined in his famous 2000 book, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of the American Community, in which he pointed to the value of “the connections among individuals’ social networks and the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from them.” These connections could be strengthened, Putnam argued, through improved civics education, more extra-curricular activities for youth, smaller schools, family-oriented workplaces, a more enlightened approach to urbanism, technology that reinforces rather than replaces face-to-face interaction, as well as a decentralization of political power. These recommendations were written 19 years ago, before Facebook, Twitter or 4chan existed. It would be interesting to know how he would revise his recommendations now that we have a better appreciation for the massive effects of digital culture on our social dynamics.

In a 2017 article I wrote, titled Towards a Theory of Virtual Sentiments, I argued that real-time empathy generation often requires some degree of eye contact—which is hard to generate through online interaction. Moreover, it is shockingly easy to get worked up into a rage when you are interacting with an online avatar of a person you have never met. Simply put, the more we physically see each other, the less likely we are to be awful to each other. As Louis CK said in an interview about youth and technology, “They don’t look at people when they talk to them and they don’t build empathy. You know, kids are mean, and it’s cause they’re trying it out. They look at a kid and they go, ‘You’re fat,’ and then they see the kid’s face scrunch up and they go, ‘Oh, that doesn’t feel good to make a person do that.’ But when they write ‘You’re fat’ [online] then they just go, ‘Mmm, that was fun, I like that.’” Even putting aside the extreme cases of forums that cater to homicidal shooters, I remain unconvinced that any community that exists primarily in online form can be a force for long-term good. Perhaps more time offline is a good start for anyone seeking to enhance “the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness.”

Do we need a new nationalism? A new religion? What common human project can we collectively embrace that gives a sense of mission to everyone, regardless of skin color, religion, economic class or ideology? It would be presumptuous for me to suggest I have the answers. All I know is that men who see human life as meaningless are symptoms of a larger sense of anomie that, in less dramatic and destructive form, increasingly grips us all.”

Terry Newman is currently an MA student in the Sociology Department at Concordia University in Montreal. Her SSHRC-funded research is on the candidate controversies that took place during the 2015 Canadian federal election. She is also a Teaching Assistant in Concordia’s Engineering Department. She tweets from @tlnewmanmtl. She is the author of the Quillette article Through the Looking Glass at Concordia University.

[sage-nebula]

pick any or all? undertale, yugioh, mystic messenger and if you feel like It's Time.txt, voltron?

I’ll do all of them because I love you.

Let’s do it. (Under a cut, though, since it’s a lot.)

Undertale:

This is a minor thing, but I’d change the story so that it doesn’t take place over the course of one day. It just . . . doesn’t make very much sense to me that Frisk can traverse the entirety of the underground in one day, particularly on genocide runs where they’re taking the time to meticulously slaughter everyone in a given area before moving on. So I’d probably take out references to the fact that it takes place over the course of one day, simply because it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense, even if you consider the idea that there are far fewer monsters than you’d expect.

I’d really, really like to know more about W.D. Gaster. It’s clear that Toby has a clear idea of who Gaster was, but there is not nearly enough in the game itself to tell us what that idea actually is. There’s enough to give us a taste, what with the Gaster followers, True Lab Entry #17, and the Mystery Man, but there’s not enough to actually put the pieces together. So I’d really like to know what was going on with Gaster. I’d like that to be accessible information even if it’s not directly relevant to the main plot.

On that note, I’d like to know more about the history of Sans and Papyrus. Where did they originally come from? What’s that strange machine in Sans’ lab? What are the blueprints for? And so on and so forth. There’s enough to get us interested, but not enough for us to figure it out, and I’m frustrated.

LET! US! SAVE! ASRIEL!!! It’s really frustrating, because one of the primary motivators for going after the True Pacifist ending is that, supposedly, the player is chasing the happiest ending, the best ending. This is a specific motivation as given to us by Flowey when he suggests, on certain Neutral runs, that the player can still get a better ending if they fulfill certain criteria. But the thing is, as happy as the True Pacifist ending is, it’s not the happiest ending since Asriel is still going to be damned to life as Flowey sometime after the game ends. And that’s so sad, it’s so unfair, because he was only ever turned into Flowey in the first place because Chara emotionally abused him to push him into the buttercup suicide plot, and then Alphys unwittingly carried out those experiments. It’s not right, man. I know he has been long dead, but it still kills me that there’s not a way to really save him. I want to save him. Let us save Asriel.

And I . . . actually can’t think of a final thing, haha, so I’ll leave Undertale there for now.

Yu-Gi-Oh!:

First of all, and before anything else, let’s just take out all the sexual harassment / assault “jokes” that are especially prevalent in the early manga. They’re not funny. They’re not even a little funny. They’re wholly unnecessary and gross, and while it’s not a bad thing for our heroes to have flaws, when those flaws are sexually harassing others, yeah, that’s not acceptable, it’s not good, and it has no business being there. So rip that out, please. Gut it altogether. Chuck that nonsense in the trash where it belongs. (This especially applies to Jouji, because he was the one bad part of Death-T. First of all, why can Jouji talk? Second, why is he such a gross little pervert? He’s LITERALLY A BABY, it’s so unnecessary and just . . . gross and nasty. Make him an ordinary baby, cut out the perversion, it’s not funny, thanks, Takahashi.)

My god the entire Kisara subplot was just atrocious. I’m sorry, but I find it really insulting that the woman who carries the spirit of the Blue-Eyes motherfuckin’ White Dragon was nothing more than just a timid, passive vessel waiting to be fridged so Priest Seto could lose his shit and Modern Seto could have an obsession. That’s ridiculous. It would be hard to fix this in a way that would be satisfactory given that Kisara was created just to be a plot device for Seto, but I think that a good start would be just giving her more agency, and more control over her own life. Instead of having her there to be rescued, experimented upon, obsessed over, have her actively be trying to cause insurrection. Hell, that’s exactly it: The Blue-Eyes White Dragon is known in the modern day as one of the most destructive of all Duel Monsters. It’s true that we already had Thief King Bakura (and Zorc) as antagonists / villains in the Ancient Egypt arc, but there’s no reason why Kisara couldn’t have been another antagonist. Instead of having people wanting to kill her because of her strange appearance, have them drawn to her instead. She’s alluring; she can get people to listen to her rather easily, and what she wants them to listen to is her calls for destruction against the elite (but also against any other who would seek to use them, such as the Thief King Zorc, and hell, maybe anyone else as well). She appears calm and beautiful on the surface, but that destructive dragon is still within her---that is her soul---and so she acts on it. Priest Seto’s storyline converges with hers both because he, like others, is drawn to her, but also because he’s specifically ordered to stop her from rousing up insurrection and wreaking havoc and destruction. Unfortunately, burst streams of destruction are her specialty, so . . .Basically, just let Kisara have agency and be something other than a fridged love interest. Of all the mistreated ladies in this series, Kisara is perhaps the most mistreated of them all.

Speaking of dragons, I would want Jounouchi’s connection to the Red-Eyes Black Dragon to actually have follow through. I’m not saying that he needs an Ancient Egypt equivalent, because I actually quite like that he doesn’t, but I am saying that it was made pretty clear that Red-Eyes was Jounouchi’s soul card just as much as Blue-Eyes was Seto’s and Dark Magician was Atem’s . . . and yet this is never followed up on, it’s never explained. Never mind that Red-Eyes was shown to obey Jounouchi’s command during the pier duel even though the duel was over and Red-Eyes was not his monster; never mind that it was Red-Eyes being summoned that was seemingly the final link to Jounouchi willing himself back to life after he literally died in the Battle City finals. These things seem to indicate that there is something more going with Jounouchi than meets the eye, particularly since he resists dark magic despite not having a Millennium Item of his own, and yet we’re never given any explanation for it. Explain, Takahashi, explain!!

This is really petty af, but I’m sorry, I hate that yo-yos were used in Hirutani’s last appearance. I mean, it’s funny . . . but Hirutani and his gang were set up as serious threats in their first appearance (200,000 volt stun guns used as instruments of torture and execution), and while the yo-yos were treated seriously, they . . . we all know that yo-yos can’t actually cause harm. I’m sure it was some form of executive meddling that forced Takahashi to censor his own story like that, but good lord, it . . . bums me out a lot that Hirutani’s last appearance has fucking yo-yos as the weapon of choice. (Also, just, in general, we’ve seen what I’ve done with Hirutani. I’d do more of that.)

And lastly . . . I’d bring the romance subplot to its logical conclusion. So much was already done to set up the fact that Anzu is in love with Atem, and that she’s not in love with Yuugi, even and especially at the end of the series, where it’s clear that Atem is the one she is rooting for, and the one that she wants to stick around during the Ceremonial Duel. (Not that Yuugi would go anywhere either way, but it’s clear that she’s choosing Atem. It was never even really a choice for her; he was always the one she wanted.) Moreover, it honestly seems as though Yuugi is moving on from his crush on her as the series progresses; he doesn’t feel any jealousy or any dilemma over sending Atem on a date with her, nor does he pursue her at any point throughout Battle City or even the small bit leading up to the Ceremonial Duel. We did get that little bit in Duelist Kingdom where he showed that he was hurt by the fact that she prefers Atem over him, as well as where he said that he wanted to get stronger so that he could help her as well, but Anzu’s assurance that he and Atem are the same to her---while it was intended to comfort him---might have been the little push he needed to realize that, yeah, this isn’t going anywhere, and wanting to help her the same way she helps him doesn’t have to be romantic. Thus, I’d want to make all of this very clear. The pieces are already there if you’re paying attention, but since it’s not explicit, it can still get lost in translation. (And I mean, as a side note, being more clear about the fact that Atem is starting to return her feelings by the end of the series---which he may or may not have been, but he does confide in her even before he confides in Yuugi, which is a really big deal imo---would be helpful as well.)Additionally, well . . . as I’ve talked about at length before, there is plenty of set-up for Yuugi to not only be moving on from Anzu, but to develop feelings for Jounouchi as well, and that “I love you” at the pier can easily be read as romantic (especially since he wanted that to be his last words, before he sacrificed himself to save Jounouchi’s life, ffs). In carrying the romance arc to its logical conclusion, having Yuugi and Jounouchi starting to realize their feelings for each other by the end fo the series (or at least Yuugi realizing and admitting his own at the pier, even if Jounouchi remains oblivious, god bless his fucking heart) would be something I would do as well. Again, the pieces are right there. It would take very, very little to connect them.

Mystic Messenger:

Get rid of the homophobia that some of the characters (namely Zen and Yoosung) spout at various times. It’s wholly unnecessary. We don’t need Zen grossed out at the mere suggestion that he or the others could be involved in a relationship with a man, especially since Saeyoung is canonically bisexual, which just makes the entire thing weird. It’s really unnecessary and has no reason to be there. (Additionally, there’s a part in Deep Story where you have to comment on a poster of Zen’s. Your choices are to either gush like an embarrassing nitwit (it’s like, “OMG OMG ZEN OMG!!1!11″), or to use the word “gay” as an insult when describing it. This happens twice, and those are your only options, and it’s really gross, uncomfortable, and unnecessary. So yeah, that would need a change, big time.)

Get rid of Another Story altogether. Seriously, just the whole thing. At first I was going to be like, “Get rid of the DID aspect of Saeran’s Another Story characterization,” but then I realized that his route would be a good thing to lose as well, and then I remembered all the awful things in V’s Route as well, and you know what? The whole thing is just trash. Get rid of it. Throw it in the dumpster where it belongs, and then set it on fire. Good riddance, Another Story. Goodbye and good riddance.

Have MC be a less clingy, needy, selfish bint during Saeyoung’s Route. Have her good answer choices be ones that respect his boundaries, but also want to offer him support. Instead of having her whine about him not spending time with her, have her instead asking him to please eat or get enough rest. Instead of having her go through his stuff, have her instead bringing him food so that she can encourage him to eat with even more vehemence. Have it be made clear that MC actually cares about Saeyoung rather than only caring about having a romance with Saeyoung. And more to the point, give her an active role in the Secret Endings. Have her floor it when she’s the driver and they need to escape. Let her worry about and take care of his injury. Let her fight Rika when the time comes. This isn’t asking for a lot, these shouldn’t be hard changes to make.

It’s ridiculous that it took all the way until Saeran’s Route in Another Story for the Choi twins’ father to be a prominent threat when that was set up in Saeyoung’s Route. Put the prime minister in Original Story---in the Secret Endings, even. Saeran being taken to the hospital for treatment could have been leaked despite Jumin’s best efforts. The prime minister comes to the hospital to try to retrieve his sons so he can kill them. That, more than Saeran being threatened with more permanent hospitalization, is what prompts Saeyoung to cut and run, kidnapping Saeran from the hospital to take him back to the bunker. Things spiral out from there. Again, it’s not hard, this could have easily been done, and the fact that it wasn’t is frustrating.

MAKE. THE TIMELINE. GODDAMN. COHERENT. It is ridiculous how awful Cheritz is at keeping a coherent timeline. Flashbacks vary wildly; you have ones that say they took place two years in the past, but then a flashback later on that takes place in the same season will say that it was eight years ago. Just ??? Cheritz should have drawn up a timeline from the get-go in order to avoid this mess, because honestly, it’s ridiculous. I would definitely fix this nonsense if given half the chance.

Voltron:

Oh boy . . . the biggest one of them all. For anyone who reads this: if discussion about how alteans are people who shouldn’t be deified beings who could never do wrong and never did do wrong, and if similar discussion about how galra are people who shouldn’t be treated as soulless monsters even though THE EMPIRE, as an institution, is evil, is something that makes you very, very angry, then you might not want to read what I have to say here. I talk a lot about how treating the alteans (as a race) as the Big Good and galra (as a race) as the Big Bad is an issue for a lot of reasons (e.g. declaring an entire race of people as all-this or all-that is never a good thing, it removes complexity from the war narrative, et cetera), and if you can’t handle that, if you can’t handle discussion of nuance between the alteans and the galra (as I know many in this fandom cannot), then you should turn back now, because fighting with me over it won’t help anyone at all.

All of that said, let’s see if I can stick to just five things. In no particular order besides the order which they come to me:

The pacing on this show is a huge issue. Sometimes it feels like the writers are honestly unable to tell what is or isn’t important / relevant to their story, or when they should introduce certain concepts, or how to handle certain concepts when they are introduced. A good example of this is the first two episodes of season two. Due to the events at the end of season one, Team Voltron was split up and thrown across the universe to different planets (or, in the case of Allura and Coran, trapped in a time stream). This resulted in several different little stories:- Keith rescuing Shiro and being accepted by the Black Lion for the first time;- Pidge making trash statues of her friends and befriending little aliens;- Allura and Coran being trapped in the time stream while Coran de-aged a bunch;- Lance and Hunk meeting and befriending mermaidsNow, even acknowledging my own personal bias for Keith, from an objective standpoint, the importance of each of these story segments to the overall narrative (and to the characters involved) is, in order from most important to least important:- Keith rescuing Shiro and being accepted by the Black Lion for the first time;- Allura and Coran being trapped in the time stream while Coran de-aged a bunch;- Pidge + trash / Lance and Hunk + mermaidsKeep in mind that while I listed Allura and Coran as being the second most important, they’re still quite a bit less important than the Keith and Shiro story segment in this particular instance, because the only real thing of value that we gained from that segment was Allura admitting that she sees Coran as a secondary father-figure. That’s it, and it’s something that we honestly could have pieced together ourselves given other interactions they’ve had / will have later on. Overall, the repeated trips back to Allura and Coran didn’t advance the narrative or their characters in a meaningful way. It didn’t tell us anything new. The same thing goes for Pidge, Lance, and Hunk.On the other hand, not only did we see the Black Lion accept Keith as a worthy Paladin / pilot, but we also got tendrils of backstory from Keith and Shiro. We learned that Shiro changed Keith’s life, and we also know that Shiro trusts Keith to pilot the Black Lion in his absence. But because that episode kept moving away from Shiro and Keith to instead focus on Pidge’s adventures in trash land and the same de-aging jokes with Coran and Allura time and again, we didn’t get any more than that. To make matters worse, Lance and Hunk’s mermaid adventures got an entire bloody episode to themselves, when neither of their characters gained anything meaningful from that experience (Hunk was brainwashed or whatever for most of it!), and the mermaids have had absolutely no relevance since then.So with all of that said, it would have made far more sense to have episode one to be split into the following three parts:- Allura and Coran- Pidge and the trash- Lance, Hunk, and the mermaidsEpisode two then could have been solely about Shiro and Keith, and since they would have had the entire episode to themselves, their backstory could have been given right then and there. We could have had actual flashbacks, rather than just hints, pokes, and prods. For those who don’t understand why Shiro believes in Keith, we could have seen how he mentored Keith at the Garrison, could have seen exactly what kind of background he’s coming from. Likewise, we could have seen exactly why Shiro is so important to Keith---we could have seen, rather than being told later, how Shiro was the only one who never gave up on him. Having that context given in 2x01 would have done a lot to shut down the people who cry favoritism, and it also, I feel, would have done a lot to eliminate the perpetual Discourse™ surrounding this subject, too.But no, instead the VLD showrunners felt it more appropriate to dedicate an entire episode to goddamn fucking mermaid adventures that have no relevance to literally anything. Again, I’m not saying the mermaid thing had to be cut altogether, but put it in the same episode with the other two silly subplots, rather than sacrificing something that would have given characters meaningful development, context, and helped further the narrative later on down the line. It should be a no-brainer for anyone who has even a shred of writing background, and yet . . .And this isn’t the only time that the VLD showrunners have done this. This is merely one example. Keith has been insinuated since 1x01 to have a quintessence sensitivity, yet literally nothing has been done with this, it hasn’t had any follow-through whatsoever. The Sincline ships and trans-reality comet were made to be a big deal in S3 and S4, yet they were dropped entirely in S5 for whatever godforsaken reason. The Blade of Marmora were introduced as allies who have been leading a resistance movement for thousands of years, and yet we still know hardly anything about them, despite the fact that Keith has been with them since season four. Subplots and instances of worldbuilding are introduced and then quickly dropped, and part of the reason seems to be that the writers don’t seem to have any grasp on what is or isn’t important for their audience to see or know. It’s extremely frustrating.So yes, I would definitely fix the pacing, which includes not having new elements, characters, or subplots introduced before dropping them entirely for whatever goddamn reason the writers have. That would be the first thing.(Oh, and it also includes not showing the Voltron transformation sequence so many goddamn times ffs. It’s stock footage! We know what it looks like! You’re wasting valuable screentime!! The only time we need to see it is in instances like the first two episodes where the team is struggling to form it for the first couple of times, and in 3x03 when Keith’s team forms it for the first time. That’s it. Otherwise? It’s not necessary, and it’s not cool. Knock that shit off istfg.)

The second thing would be actually allowing emotionally deep moments to happen, since the writers seem to be allergic to this. I talked about this in another recent post, but there are so many instances in which an audience would logically expect to see something play out, only for it to not be delivered at all. As a few examples:- Keith learns that he is part-galra, something he has been hardcore stressing about for several episodes. The rest of the team finds this out off-screen. We don’t see their immediate reactions, and in fact, we never get to see how Lance, Pidge, or Coran feel about it. - Related, but Keith spent two straight days having the living hell beat out of him, to the point where he nearly died. Yet after the Trials, we see him standing there, somehow perfectly fine. No healing pod for Keith? No panic from the rest of the team because Shiro brings him back half dead? No demands from them as to what the hell was going on that caused the Red Lion to freak out like that? Okay.- Shiro was missing and presumed dead for months. They find him (well, “him,” but since they think this is the real Shiro that’s the name I’ll use) nearly dead in space. We don’t actually get to see the team’s reactions to this, though, because apparently, despite caring about Shiro, their emotional reactions to discovering that he’s not dead and is instead alive isn’t important in the eyes of the VLD writers. (They also never express any conflict over who they should follow---over whether they should stick with Keith, who has been leading them just fine, or instead just listen to Shiro. They immediately take Shiro’s side instead, but that’s another issue.)- Lotor approaches the coalition seeking an alliance. He has been seen as an enemy prior to this point, yet he just saved all of their lives (and most immediately Keith’s life), and now he wants a truce, or at least a conversation. Do we get to see this conversation? Nope. Instead we jump straight to him being a prisoner of war in confinement. Lovely.- Likewise, Keith spent seasons three and four adamant about tracking down Lotor to see what he was planning. Yet despite this, the two aren’t allowed to exchange words even when they’re right next to each other. There was literally no emotional follow-through. (And this isn’t even getting into how Lotor was stated to have empathy and special interest in part-Galra like himself. We were made to expect that these two would have an important relationship and then we were denied.) And so on and so forth, it happens all the damn time. The Holts are yet another example: Sam Holt was a prisoner for at least over one year, if not two, and yet he showed hardly any emotions at all whatsoever once he was rescued. He embraced his children so calmly that it almost looked as though he was just getting home from a day of work. (And hell, he didn’t even look at Matt when he hugged him; it was like Matt was an afterthought.) This was supposed to be emotional, but it wasn’t, even if you separate it from all the nonsense with how badly Team Voltron treated Lotor in that episode. The VLD staff creates these scenarios in which you would expect some meaningful emotional follow-through, and then they completely fail to capitalize on it and . . . well, follow through. And it’s honestly detrimental to them, because it makes moments that should be emotional feel really ineffectual as a result. (The fact that they allow people to routinely spoil things doesn’t help, either. There was no reason for us to feel even a shred of sadness over Pidge at Matt’s grave because we all knew, thanks to that screencap of Shiro and Matt fighting side-by-side that was leaked, that Matt was alive.) So yeah, if I was in charge, I would change so much of this. Let the characters actually have these emotional moments. Let them have deep conversations. Let them have introspection. Because so far, that’s not a thing that really happens on this show, and it really lessens the impact of scenes to the point where you can tell that the writers want you to be sad, but you can’t really muster up the sadness because they haven’t given you enough reason to care.

There needs to be more depth and complexity given to this war as well. The fact that the galra are painted as the Big Bad while the alteans are painted as the Big Good is a huge issue, because both the galra and the alteans are races of people and, as such, neither should be vilified or deified. Before anyone gets it twisted, obviously the EMPIRE is evil and needs to be defeated, but there is a big difference between the Empire, as an institution, being evil and needing to be taken down, and an entire race of people being treated as evil, violent killing machines. We know that the galra aren’t evil as a race. The Blade of Marmora are good, and even setting aside active resistance like them, characters like Varkon are neutral parties just trying to live their lives. Vilifying an entire race of people and treating them as demons is wrong. It’s the exact sort of mentality that gives rise to fascist empires in the first place. When an entire race of people is dehumanized and branded as “the enemy,” it makes it easier for others to slaughter and kill them, because they don’t see it as murder, they don’t see it as something bad, they see it as something good and just. Yes, the Empire is evil. The Empire needs to be defeated. But galra, as a race, are not evil and do not need to be killed, and it’s important that that distinction be made.And you may argue, but they have made that distinction! The Blade of Marmora, Keith, and Varkon are that distinction! But the problem is that they haven’t made it clear enough, because the characters in the show still routinely say that the galra are their enemies. Allura, in season five, says that she doesn’t feel happy about a possible alliance with the galra, despite the fact that she has been working with the Blade of Marmora since season two. And we know, too, that she’s not just talking about the Empire here, because Lotor himself points it out by indicating that her problem stems from “preconceptions of [his] race,” and Lance and Pidge see absolutely nothing wrong with sending him off to be executed by Zarkon despite all of the help he’s given them. (And this is another issue in the “complexities of war” segment, but more on that in a second.) You could argue that Lance and Pidge had no qualms about doing this given that he was once their enemy, but given that they’re constantly labeling the galra as their enemy, how can we really say that his race doesn’t play a part in it? How can we say that when we know that Hunk, at the very least, does carry active prejudice against galra, as we saw in his treatment of Keith (which he never apologized for and was treated as a joke) in 2x09? (He complained about being sent on a solo mission with “the only galra team member,” and leveled racist microaggressions such as “what, do you all know each other or something?” for the duration of the episode. He also wanted to leave Acxa for dead purely because she is galra, which Keith had to remind him was not okay. So yeah, Hunk carries active prejudice against galra, despite standing up for Keith for all of one line in 2x11, so it’s safe to say that Lance and Pidge, his closest friends, probably do as well.)So no, the distinction is not being made clear enough. The protagonists of the show still very clearly view “the galra” as “the enemy” despite the fact that vilifying an entire race and civilization of people is problematic af, which means that this is the narrative that the show is pushing as well. In addition, as mentioned, the alteans are pretty much deified; the main perspective we get on the alteans comes from Allura and Coran, the former of whom conveniently has hazy memories of the war, and the latter of whom has shown prejudice toward other races before (e.g. calling human brains “primitive” in 1x01). Even if they aren’t intentionally painting the alteans as a race of perfect beings who can do no wrong, it doesn’t mean that they aren’t doing just that. History differs depending on who tells it, after all. Moreover, the only time alteans are painted in a light that is anything less than holy is in 3x04, and that’s in an alternate reality. While logic should follow that the lesson here is that empires are bad no matter who runs them, the fact remains that it can be dismissed with, “Oh, well, but those aren’t REAL alteans,” as Allura herself does once she learns of Hira’s true plans. Season five only made this worse; Lotor has taken to deifying the alteans in his mind as a way to cope with the trauma and abuse his father has put him through, Allura is only going to encourage this because she sees her people in a similarly idealized light, and Oriande was made up to be some kind of heavenly, mystical place, where only pure and worthy alteans can tread. Compare and contrast the location of the Kral Zera to Oriande, and you have one painted as clearly Dark and Evil while the other is Light and Good, and when you’re talking about races of people, this is really just . . . bad. (To say nothing of the fact that Lotor uses his idealizing of the alteans as a way to cope with the trauma the galra half of his heritage has inflicted on him, which is really going to fuck him up when he is finally forced to admit that, yes, Haggar is Honerva. It’d be nice for him to get a more nuanced picture of the alteans before it’s too late, but alas.)And setting aside all those bad stereotypes and how it hardly lets these two races of people be treated as races of people with respect in the narrative, it also really waters down and removes a lot of complexity from the history of the war---complexity that is right there, but once again, isn’t capitalized upon. Namely, while the Empire is clearly a terrifying force of evil that must be stopped now, the picture (heavily biased though it is) that we’re given of the past suggests (however briefly, and however tiny those suggestions are) this wasn’t always the case, that Alfor also made some really bad choices and did some shady things, and that the galra might have actually been at a disadvantage prior to the uprising which allowed them to rise into the formidable Empire we see today. Namely:- Lotor tells us that it was thanks to Honerva’s research that allowed galra civilization to prosper. He flat out tells us that the alteans were far more technologically advanced than the galra. This tells us that, had the galra and alteans gone to war before Honerva’s experiments on the rift, the galra would have probably gotten their asses kicked, because the alteans were not only also a race of warriors (Allura says that altean children passed the training simulations in 1x02, meaning that they trained their children to fight), but they woul dhave had more advanced weaponry and technology to work with. It was thanks to an altean that the galra reached a level where they could stand evenly. While it’s not spelled out, I feel that this is confirmation that the alteans were a more prosperous civilization than the galra were.- Honerva was experimenting on the rift because she wanted to learn more about harvesting and using quintessence. Alfor went to Oriande and gained the secrets of the White Lion. So then why, oh why did he not share this with his royal alchemist / the galra empress, hm? Particularly when he was oh so scared of further experiments on the rift? Alfor knew what Honerva was doing, and he knew why she was doing it. Had he shared what he learned at Oriande, perhaps she would have stopped. Hell, maybe she would have even been worthy enough to go there herself! But he kept this to himself because . . . because. Because he was selfish? Because maybe some part of him wanted Daibazaal to fall? I mean, that latter part seems inconsistent with his character, but remember that the only perspective on Alfor that we’ve been given comes from Allura and Coran, both of whom would be heavily biased in his favor, so who the fuck knows.- Alfor destroyed Daibazaal after Zarkon and Honerva died. Now, think about this. Imagine that you are a galra civilian. You’re living your life, having a nice time, when all of a sudden the news reaches you that your emperor and his wife (along with their unborn child, if the pregnancy had been announced) have died. Moreover, the altean king is telling you that you must evacuate, because Daibazaal is going to be destroyed because of the rift, something you might not even be that familiar with, given that you are a civilian. You don’t want to be blown up with your planet, so you take your family and you move off-planet. Your home, and your ancestors’ home, is then destroyed. You, and the rest of your people, are now refugees. You have no home, you have nowhere to go except for where the alteans tell you to go, and you have to take King Alfor’s word for it that this was for the best, that this needed to happen, because your leader is now dead, and so is his wife, and you might not even fully understand why. Keep in mind that this was also after tensions had begun to rise between the galra and alteans again; for all the galra know, considering the fact that Zarkon and Honerva’s deaths were announced after Voltron got together again, maybe Alfor planned this. Maybe this wasn’t an accidental death, maybe this was on purpose. You, as a galra civilian, have no reason to know otherwise except for Alfor’s word, and of course he’s not going to admit to doing anything nefarious. And then Zarkon comes back to life. It feels like a miracle, he literally rose from the dead. And he tells you, and the rest of the galran refugees, that he was murdered. And he tells you that Alfor was at fault. And he points out that Alfor destroyed your home, that Alfor left you as refugees with nothing, and that it is the right of all galra to get vengeance. And maybe you, as a civilian, don’t want to go off and fight, but there are plenty who do, because they have lost everything and their emperor, who miraculously came back from the dead (and who will also execute any who disagree with him) is saying to.Now, doesn’t that put the history from 10,000 years ago in a different light? And doesn’t that show the galra as being, you know . . . people rather than cold, soulless villains that are expendable and easy to kill? Keep in mind that I’m not saying that the alteans should be vilified, because that would also be bad. Like I said before, no race should ever be vilified OR deified. I’m saying that wars are complex. I’m saying that even when it’s clear that there is one side that is definitely wrong (the Empire, in this case), wars are not something that should be celebrated. There is no such thing as a good war, and while of course all of the innocent altean civilians who were swept up in this were victims, there were plenty of innocent galra victims as well. It’s pretty goddamn obvious that even today, in the modern era, galra aren’t sitting pretty. If they were, the Blade of Marmora would have no reason to exist. Part-galra, such as Lotor, Ezor, Acxa, Zethrid, Narti, and Keith, wouldn’t face the discrimination that they do. Showing that this war is an ugly, complex mess, and that things aren’t nearly as black-and-white or simple as they appeared at first, would do a lot to adding depth and complexity to this story, as well as showing the truth of war (that it is ugly and awful, always). It could be that deep, and yet it refuses.AND SPEAKING OF . . .

The protagonists are allowed to make morally grey (or even morally dark) choices with impunity. They’re never made to face consequences, nor are they made to even acknowledge that what they’re doing is wrong, which again, waters down the entire narrative and strips it of complexity, as well as prevents the characters from truly growing or being affected by this war in a way that soldiers fighting a war should grow and be affected.Take, for example, 5x02. In 5x02, Zarkon approaches Team Voltron with a deal: He will give them Sam Holt if they hand over Lotor so that Zarkon can kill him. They know, without a doubt, that Zarkon will execute Lotor. And we know that they know this, because:- In 4x03, they saw Lotor’s ships being attacked by Empire’s ships, and they overheard a broadcast given by Zarkon declaring Lotor as an enemy of the state who was to be killed on sight.- Lotor approached them at the end of 4x06, seeking both an alliance and asylum.- Pidge points out, before anyone else, that Lotor didn’t want to be handed over to Zarkon because he would be put to death. (“He’s just trying to save his own skin,” she says, as if that’s a bad, shameful thing?)- Lotor agrees with her that, yes, Zarkon will kill him.At this point, the issue at hand for Team Voltron is that they’re being asked to hand over a peacefully surrendered prisoner of war who has been actively providing them with assistance in the war effort. Lotor may have been their enemy at one time (but he never did lasting damage to them, even in situations where he could have, and stopped initiating interactions with them at all after 3x04), but he isn’t now. He poses literally no threat to them. Even if he wanted to hurt them, he has been stripped of his weapons and is in a confinement cell. He literally cannot harm them in any way, shape, or form, and is completely at their mercy. Moreover, again, he came to them seeking asylum, which they gave him (even if it’s the bare minimum). He came to them for aid, and when he wouldn’t be given that aid freely, surrendered himself as their prisoner. He’s done nothing to warrant being put to death; actually, he has done the opposite. So Team Voltron holds a man’s life in their hands. He is at their mercy. And do they discuss this? Do they discuss whether it would be acceptable, morally, for them to send him to his death---for them to play judge and jury to Zarkon’s executioner---in order to get what they want?No. They don’t.Pidge immediately calls for Lotor to be handed over, and uses every justification she can think of to argue her case. She argues that they have Voltron, so they can just beat down Zarkon if he’s lying (because that worked so well before). She argues that they have Voltron, so they don’t need an alliance with the Empire. She argues that Lotor is lying. She argues that Allura should think of Sam Holt’s life before she thinks of the lives of millions in the universe, and so on and so forth. But for all her tantrum throwing, Pidge is never once forced to acknowledge the fact that she is arguing in favor of someone at her mercy to be put to death for her own personal gain. No one points out that trading a man’s life for personal gain is something that an Empire soldier would do. Many in the fandom have pointed out that what Pidge was arguing for was dark, yes, but no one in the show itself pointed out to her that she was arguing for someone to die for her own benefit, or for the benefit of her father. That Pidge did this morally questionable (or morally wrong, depending on your view) thing has no bearing on her as a character, and does nothing for her growth, because she was never forced to confront it. (Nor was she forced to admit whether she was arguing for this because it was Lotor, or if she would have similarly been gung-ho about the trade had Zarkon demanded someone else, such as Kolivan, Rolo, or even Keith. We don’t know how far Pidge would have gone, because Pidge was never confronted with that.)Likewise, Lance, too, argues for Lotor’s death, and he does so out of jealousy. But does anyone call him on this? Does anyone point out to him that he is apparently okay with sending a man to his death because he sees said man as a romantic rival? No. Lance is not forced to confront this part of himself. He’s not forced to realize that he very suddenly wants a man to die, and wants to be the reason why that man is being sent to die, because of jealousy. Jealousy is a really ugly thing. It’s a flaw. And when it gets so bad that you’re willing to send someone to their death, that you’re willing to have their blood on your hands, that’s something you should have to confront and think about. That’s a part of yourself you need to examine. But Lance isn’t made to examine it, because none of the rest of the team confronts him over it. No one points out how fucked up it is that he’s willing to send Lotor to die over petty jealousy.And it’s not as if the rest of the team is much better. Again, no one questions whether they’ll be able to live with themselves knowing that they sent a man who was at their mercy off to die at the hands of his abusive, genocidal tyrant of a father for personal gain. Instead, what they actually discuss is:- Whether Zarkon is lying;- Whether Lotor will be more useful aliveIn that scene, they’re viewing Lotor as an object, pretty much. He’s either something they can trade to get what they want, or he’s something they can use later for their own benefit. Whether he, as a person, has a right to life (even if it’s life as a prisoner) never once crosses their minds. They’re fine with him dying. The only conflict they have is whether they’ll actually get what they want, or whether he’d be more useful to them alive. And that makes them look horrible, it makes them look like terrible people. It’d be one thing if they had this discussion and said, okay, we’re not really comfortable with this, we don’t like this, but we have no other choice, this is the best option available to us. They’re still doing something morally questionable / wrong then, but they’ve acknowledged it, they can learn and grow from it, they’re accepting that what they’re doing isn’t pretty, but it’s a reality of war. But to not discuss it at all means that they’re barely even considering Lotor as a person. His life doesn’t factor into it. All they’re concerned with is their own personal gain. They’re supposed to be the heroes, but a person’s life means nothing to them, apparently. That’s extremely messed up, and again, it strips complexity from the narrative and prevents the characters from growing and changing. They don’t have to deal with the fact that they did a really horrible thing because they never acknowledged that it was horrible to begin with. And we don’t know how far any of them, Pidge especially, would have gone, because they’re never asked.War does horrible things to people. As I said above, there’s no such thing as a good war. War is a horrible, terrible, awful thing, even when it’s necessary (and this war is a necessary one). But VLD is not acknowledging this by not letting its characters own up to when they do awful things. The fact that this is a kid’s show is no excuse. Animorphs was a kid’s book series, and yet it routinely made its characters have conversations about the moral dilemmas they found themselves in, and the moral sacrifices and morally dark choices they increasingly made as the series continued. If Animorphs showed its protagonists, who were thirteen when the series started, severely affected by war---and if it made them, when they were no older than sixteen when the series ended, acknowledge when they were doing things that were wrong (and acknowledge when they were toeing the line between being good and becoming their enemy)---then there is no reason why VLD can’t or shouldn’t do the same. Once again, it could be that deep. It just refuses. And the fact that it refuses is incredibly, unbelievably disappointing. Having your protagonists make morally grey decisions is all well and good, but it means nothing if they’re not forced to confront the fact that they have, learn, and grow from it. 

And lastly . . . goddamn, justice for Keith. Justice for Keith for being sidelined for the entirety of the first season, with various subplots he could have had (e.g. his quintessence sensitivity) being dropped altogether. Justice for Keith for no one, not even Shiro, doing anything to stand up for him when he was being mistreated by the rest of the team for being part-galra. Yes, Shiro hugged him, but Shiro didn’t speak a word when anyone (and particularly Allura) was treating him coldly because of his race. Justice for Keith for having a plot leading up to him becoming the Black Paladin, only to have that ripped away from him three episodes later. Justice for Keith for being treated as selfish when he leaves on approved missions for the Blade of Marmora that actively help the war effort, yet Pidge is allowed to go off to find her brother with no repercussions whatsoever. Justice for Keith for being out of focus while he’s with the Blade of Marmora---And actually, on that note, let’s start getting some justice for the Blade of Marmora, too. Justice for the Blade of Marmora for most of them being unable to ever show their faces, because the animators apparently can’t be fussed to come up with unique designs for them. Justice for the Blade of Marmora for being killed off at a rapid pace, because they’re viewed as expendable (probably because they’re galra) by the showrunners, and because Allura railed off against Kolivan and Antok and accused them of being the reason why Zarkon was still in power, because they were cautious with their agents’ lives. Justice for the Blade of Marmora for the fandom treating them as if they’re reckless automatons who don’t care about survival (Kolivan in particular being demonized and painted as heartless) when, again, it was Princess Allura of Altea who demanded that they proceed with compromised suicide missions because she’s impatient to deal blows against the Empire. Justice for the Blade of Marmora for being introduced in season two as important allies, yet still not having their history fleshed out, yet still not being given meaningful development as individuals or a team.Justice for Keith, and justice for the Blade. I definitely wish I could change that. And because I talked about important things all this time, one small, self-indulgent change I would make?

HAVE LOTOR JOIN THE BLADE OF MARMORA IN SEASON FIVE INSTEAD OF BEING A PRISONER OF WAR FOR TEAM VOLTRON WHEN ALL THEY WANTED TO DO WAS SEND HIM TO HIS DEATH ANYWAY, FFS, WE COULD HAVE HAD MEANINGFUL BONDING BETWEEN LOTOR AND KEITH, AS WELL AS LOTOR AND KOLIVAN, BUT NO, WE WERE DENIED THAT SO TEAM VOLTRON COULD BE AWFUL PEOPLE WITH IMPUNITY INSTEAD, GODDAMN IT.

Okay. Now I’m done.

[ice-the-creator-destroyer]

My Minecraft experience: Week 3

Days 1-3

Days 4-7

Week 2

Day 15:

Due to personal reasons, I didn’t spend much time in my world today. I went out exploring, and still haven’t found a village, but I did find a flower biome, filled with beautiful flowers. I harvested some, but left some too so as not to deplete the natural population, and brought them home, planting them in Arnold’s Enclosure to fill the enclosure with beautiful flowers.

Day 16:

Yesterday I made plans with my friend, the same one that’s been giving me advice this entire time, to play on my world with them Monday (day 18), so I’ve been prepping for that most of the day.

I went mining, and when I got back, I couldn’t find Lemlé. I looked all throughout the enclosure and in the house but they were gone. There was another sheep in the enclosure and another cow, so obviously spawning had occurred while I was away; I hypothesize that a wolf spawned in the enclosure, killed Lemlé, and then despawned. I exited without saving, giving up the 14 diamonds and over two stacks of iron I had acquired.

I went mining again, and came back after a short while to make sure nothing had happened and to clear my inventory, making my own exit from the caves, and as I was reaching the surface I heard the sounds of my animals; I thought ‘surely not’ but yes; I exited not far the outside of Arnold’s Enclosure, giving me a entrance to the middle of the caves not far from my house. All my companions were still alive including Lemlé who had climbed the vines of one of the trees and got stuck, so I saved. I went back into the mines and when I returned there was a wolf in the enclosure. The wolf begun to attack Chocolate Milk, and I was able to shoot and kill them in time before they killed Chocolate Milk. I looked throughout the rest of the enclosure, and found a block of white wool and mutton on the ground, and when I couldn’t find Half-and-Half, I exited without saving and gave up for the night.

Day 17:

I went mining again today, coming in with 20 iron for tool replacement, and resolved to leave for home once I got 64 iron total, (total as in ores and ingots) to make sure I could get home frequently to make sure nothing happened and that I wouldn’t lose too much progress if something did happen.

I made my own exit and as I was coming back I saw a pig in Arnold’s Enclosure. A pig was one of the few species of animals I had not yet had, and I quite liked this pig, and so I decided to keep him. I put him in my room until I acquired a Name Tag to name him, then promptly let him back into the enclosure. Welcome to the family, Ben.

I decided to part ways with Whole Milk. The decision wasn’t due to the fact that it was crowded, though that was a small factor, it was due to the fact that despite my efforts I could not make an emotional connection with Whole Milk; I had no fondness for them. I considered killing them, but abolished that idea almost immediately; a lack of emotional connection is no basis for murder; I would simply disband from them, remove them from the enclosure and send them on their way. I put Whole Milk on a lead, broke the fence, led Whole Milk out, closed the fence, and let Whole Milk off the lead. I told them that it would be ok, that although they were not in the safety of the enclosure anymore, they would be ok, and left them. I did the same with the other unnamed animals that had spawned in the enclosure.

I built an Iron Golem! I thought of it last night, as I had sufficient iron and two carved pumpkins that I had found relatively close to the well not too far from my home. I crafted the iron blocks and got the carved pumpkins from the nature chest and walked around to several places before deciding to build them by the front of my house. I placed the iron in a shape of a T and switched to the carved pumpkin. The iron T was so tall I had to jump to place the carved pumpkin atop it, but when I did, there was no delay, as soon as I placed the carved pumpkin atop the iron T, an Iron Golem flared to life in front of me. I was torn between the names Carl and Shila, but settled on Carl. Welcome to the family, Carl.

I looked up the Iron Golem on the Minecraft wiki and- it won’t patrol my home as I had thought, the wiki said that instead it would wander around and gravitate to the nearest village?! I haven’t even found a village buddy, good luck.

But seriously, I’m a little ticked that it won’t be my little body-guard/home patrol as I had thought, and dangit I’m a little attached to them so I swear if they run off...

So I went exploring again, and with a map! I soon discovered that my Minecraft World is... incredibly small. I looked it up and apparently PS3 generates Classic Sized worlds, which are 863 blocks by 863 blocks in 2D. This might just ruin the entire game for me; hopefully I can manage to transfer my world to a PC... if I ever get one.

Day 18:

I spent most of the morning farming and cooking food. I had made my friend an enchanted bow, and realized too late that it was better than Sky Piercer, the same as Sky Piercer but with one less level in Puch, but with the Flame I enchantment. I had a Flame I book from fishing, but it would take 33 levels to add it to Sky Piercer, so I had to level up. I went to the Nether to get a bucket of lava and to farm exp from killing Blazes in the Nether Fortress. After gaining enough levels and even some Blaze Rods, I returned to my own world and added the Flame I enchantment to my bow. The Nether actually didn’t provide too many problems this time, even the ghasts were less prevalent.

Carl wandered off. I have no idea where they went. Dammit.

So my friend didn’t show up. At first I thought they blew me off, but later discovered that they did try to call me and then even texted but Discord just did not give me a notification at all. It didn’t matter anyway, because apparently the PS3 version of Minecraft stopped receiving updates and we couldn’t play together after all even if things had worked out. I’m hating consoles more and more.

Day 19:

Today is the first time since I got Minecraft that I didn’t play it at all. If and until I get a computer that I can transfer my world to this will be the last update I post on my progress. Continued research into PS3 Minecraft has delivered disappointment after disappointment. No villages, no temples, no Nether Update, everything that delivered renewed excitement and adventure; my world probably spawned without an End Portal. At 863x863 my world’s resources are incredibly limited, and my companions are really the only things that give me any incentive to play at all. The developers just- gave up- on the older consoles and as a result cut off a large chunk of their demographic, showing them that they no longer care. I didn't want to end this series on a low note, but I guess I have to. I don’t find any joy in this anymore; all the joy has been ripped from me and I can't bring myself to even start up the game. Congratulations Mojang, you failed.

[adamkadabra]

Me, Myself, and I || Self-Para

Tagging→  ADAM CRAWFORD, mentions of Rachel Berry, Tina Cohen-Chang, Sam Evans, Blaine Anderson, and Elliott Gilbert. Where→  Adam’s dorm. When→ 8/1/17, somewhere around 2am and 3am Warnings→ spoilers for recent chatzy, some minor violence..ish?

Adam opted to stay in his room last night. Alone. With Puck now gone and him without a roommate it made things...a little more eerie. He certainly did not miss Puck but maybe he missed the presence of another person. Typically, Adam would sleep with Elliott in his room and wake up beside him. After the events at the carnival though, he got the idea that perhaps Elliott needed some time to himself. He stayed the night immediately following the events, Adam was certain they both needed a little bit of comfort or reassurance that the other was still there, but the second night Adam went back to his room.

He left Fenn in his Grimoire, not in the mood to deal with any of the questions that his familiar might have in mind. It was a difficult to sleep alone at least with the memories of what had happened that night running around in his head. Adam hadn’t checked on his friends yet to see how they were fairing after the ordeal. He assumed not much better than he or Elliott. It wasn’t often that you came across the part of yourself that you either hated or feared, least wise in physical form staring back at you.

Adam closed his eyes and thought about each of his friends. He had been very distant lately with everything going on with his dad. Adam hadn’t wanted to involve anyone else in his family drama. The fear that Peter might use them against him at one point was too prevalent. It was bad enough he knew about and met Elliott.

Rachel. Aether if she encountered something similar he hoped she was alright. He couldn’t imagine what she or the others might have seen.

“Who cares about her?”

A voice rang out in the otherwise empty bedroom. Adam sat up and looked around. There was no one there.

“Hello?” Adam called out. He knew that voice.

It was his voice.

“Someone there?” It was a ridiculous question. Theroom was dark but Adam could see with the moonlight shining through the window. There was no physical person in the room aside from Adam himself. Adam frowned and scooted back down in his bed.

“She’s just an ambitious twit.” The voice said again.

Adam threw his covers off himself and kicked his feet over the bed. He switched on his light. “Alright, I know someone is there. Where are you? This isn’t funny.” Adam said. He dropped down to the floor and checked under the bed.

“Try the mirror you dolt.” 

Adam looked over to the mirror above his dresser. Even before he approached it square on he could see something or someone being reflected in it. As he approached Adam’s breath caught in his chest. It was his other self from the carnival. The one that had the facial features that resembled more of his dad instead of his mum, the shoulder broad like his dad and those eyes that sent a shiver down Adam’s spine.

“Wha...how are you..” Adam was at a loss for words.

His reflection crossed his arms over his chest and shrugged. “She probably lost fighting herself, just like she lost fighting you. Pathetic can’t even defeat herself.”

Adam came out of his surprised state and glared at the reflection. “Shut up!” He said venomously. “Rachel isn’t like that! She’s one of the strongest witches I’ve ever met. She had a lot going on in her personal life during Midnight Madness and her head wasn’t in it. I didn’t win because my skill and...she probably would win against me if we fought again. And so what, being ambitious isn’t a terrible thing. She’s going to accomplish so much in her life, don’t you dare talk about her like that!”

“She’s not as bad as that other New Age girl you hang around with. What is it...Tina? What a sad excuse for a witch. Talk about wasted magic.”

Adam clenched his hands into fists. “Tina is brilliant! I could never learn her type of magic. She’s more powerful and skillful than I think she’d ever give herself credit for. And she’s the kindest person I’ve ever met but also the fiercest. Both of them are, she and Rachel!”

“Why are you defending them?”

“Because they’re my friends and you don’t know anything about that.” Adam was practically shaking now he was so angry.

“Who needs friends when you can have power?”

“Is that a serious question?” Adam asked arching a brow.

“I’m just saying. This lot is holding you back. Don’t even get me started on Sam. Talk about a poor excuse for a Bloodline.” His reflection whistled and made a face.

“SHUT UP!” Adam picked up his chair at the desk aside from his dresser and slammed it into the mirror. The mirror shattered and sent shards flying. Adam ducked and backed away, breathing heavily and looking at the damage he caused.

“That’ll be seven years bad luck mate.” The voice said again. Adam whipped around searching for it.  “And with your track record you need all the luck you can get.”

“Where are you?” Adam called out.

“Yoo-hoo over here Blondie.”

Adam turned and saw the face smiling from the reflective glass of his alarm clock. He bounded across the room and lifted the clock.

“Time you chose better mates, right? Ones that won’t slow you down.” His reflection laughed. “Like that other Bloodline, Blaine. What a loser! That monster should have finished him on Halloween.”

“They do NOT slow me down! They are everything I want to be!” Adam chucked the clock across the room and is broke into dozens of pieces as it hit the wall.

“You can’t actually tell me you want to be like them?”

Adam searched for the next reflective surface and found his reflection in his phone this time. He picked it up and held the phone tightly.

“Of course I do!” Adam said. “They’re everything I want to be. I don’t want to be like you.”

“Want to be like me or not I’m part of you. Don’t you remember accepting that?”

“I don’t care. I’m not going to become cruel and hateful like you.” Adam said. “And Blaine isn’t a loser. He’s one of my best mates.”

“A best mate who hasn’t spoken to you in months. Not since someone stuck a knife in him.”

“He’s...I’ve been...it’s been a rough time for both of us. I expect he had to heal and...he has a reason. I know he does. I didn’t make contact with him either, I’m probably more to blame..”

“Look at you making excuses for him and blaming yourself. Aether you’re exhausting. Face it. He doesn’t care about you, neither do the others. You care too much for them and they couldn’t give a shit about you in return. And why is that? Because you’re-too-weak.”

Adam’s anger started to fade and he felt that same hopelessness come back around from the other night at the carnival. He tried to remember what he said the first time to defeat himself. This was a part of him and he was stronger for having to deal with it. But it didn’t feel that way. Not now.

“He cares.” Adam said, his voice breaking. “They all care..I’ve been disconnected from them because of my own problems. I’ve been..I’ve been selfish and I don’t blame them for being angry with me..but it doesn’t mean they stop caring and it doesn’t mean I stopped..”

His reflection rolled his eyes. “All this self pity aether is it annoying. You are the literal worst. Just a big ball of sadness that no one seems to care about. That Lusus boyfriend of yours is probably sick to death of hearing it.”

Adam flinched at hearing his own voice say the word ‘Lusus’. He glared at his reflection in the phone. “Don’t call him that!”

“Oh? Have I hit another nerve? Fun.” His reflection laughed again. “Elliott just tolerates you. He feels sorry for you, actually and that’s the only reason he’s still with you.”

“Stop it.”

“That’s probably why any of them are still hanging around you. They feel sorry for the poor kitchen witch. Couldn’t even pick a decent form of magic. Just like your mum.”

“SHUT UP!” The scream ripped from the inside of Adam’s chest and burned his throat  as he tossed the phone at the window the window and listened at the maniacal laughter disappeared into the darkness of the night. And the room was silent once more.

He fell to his knees sobbing and holding his head trying to get rid of all of the things he just heard.

You can’t get rid of me Adam. I’m inside of you. I am you! The disembodied voice echoed in his ears and the laughter began again.

“NO!” Adam woke with a jolt, hair plastered to his forehead soaked in sweat.

His pajamas clung to him in spots where he had been sweating. He sat up and removed the covers welcoming the cool breeze from the open window. Adam looked around. Everything was silent and still. The mirror hung on the wall reflecting only the objects in its view and in one piece. Next to him on the table was his phone, the screen dark and the alarm clock ticking away and showing the time at six past three in the morning. Adam took a deep breath and exhaled slowly. That had been one of the most vivid and coherent dreams Adam had had in a long time. He stared at the ceiling almost afraid to go to sleep. Maybe being alone wasn’t the best idea for him right now..

[lukearmitage]

Alec Rodriguez

You can learn a lot about someone by where they are from and where they have chosen to be. Some people never leave their hometown, some people leave as soon as they can, but every once in a while someone will stay and develop their existing community into something beautifully distinguished.

Born and raised in Orange County, Alec Rodriguez grew up with a big family surrounded by nice weather, cars, and tattoos. Due to his love for art, his desire to leave a mark, and the culture he grew up in, it was only a matter of time before he fell into the career he is now fully immersed in. Alec specializes in a popular style of tattooing called ‘Black and Gray realism’ which has it’s roots in East LA’s Chicano culture.

In the 1960’s many people had to get their tattoos done behind closed doors because it was mainly seen as taboo and illegal in some parts of the world. This form of self expression was mainly reserved for outlaw bikers, sailors, and lifers in prison.

Around this time, various groups of Mexican Americans created their own street culture which developed into what was known as the ‘Pachuco lifestyle’. This eventually evolved into the ‘Cholo’ culture where they began drawing and tattooing various images that pulled from a rich Latino catalogue of symbols, designs, and script lettering.

Tattoo art flourished in prison because there was so much time to share ideas and innovate. Prison officials found that they could reduce conflict by allowing inmates to have cassette players. With the motor from a cassette player, pen shaft, and the E string of a guitar, rotary tattoo guns were more prevalent than ever. The inks were made from the ash of burned magazines mixed with water to create different shades of ink. This evolved black and gray realism due to the enhanced quality and dimension of the art.

In those days, a majority of individuals would get their stuff done at the Pike in Long Beach where ‘traditional’ tattoos were popularized by sailors and rebels. However, in 1975 Charlie Cartwright and Jack Rudy opened a shop in East LA called Good Time Charlies where they popularized the distinguishable black and gray style with the help of Freddy Negrete that had started in prison. The shop was eventually sold to Ed Hardy who helped them grow the business and evolve tattooing as whole.

What was once a sign of rebellion has morphed into something that is beyond just another way of self expression.

Alec is the product of that evolution in the flesh. Behind his glistening rolex, wide frame, and intimidating tattoos is a hardworking artist who is both humble and grateful for the opportunities he has. I spent some time with Alec at his studio, along with a couple homies (Joe and Gordo), his two dogs (Chubbs and Ruca a.ka. Sad Girl), and his 64’ Chevy Impala convertible (8-Ball).

His friend Joe casually mentions “we would always just be hanging at his house.” Alec chimes in “This was before cellphones too so you would have to cruise by and see who’s bike was out front. My spot had no rules too.” Joe jokes about Alec having 20 dogs and 20 cats. Alec interrupts him with “naw, 3 dogs and 2 cats” with laughs. “I had a big family. Four siblings. There was always someone else living with us. Always had to take care of somebody else’s kids too. I’ve always been around people, so now when I’m alone, it’s nice, but at the same time its somewhat strange to me.” Which is somewhat ironic because he grew up down the street. All his friends live down the street as well. And when they get off work, they stop by. It has a similar vibe to a club house at times. Even though everyone seems to have a rough exterior, everyone is kind and respectful, which makes for a nice environment to spend time.

So you were born and raised here correct?

Yea, born and raised here. I grew up like right down the street. My mom still lives there.

Has it changed a lot since then?

It’s changed a lot. Definitely not the same as when I was growing up.

Do you miss those times?

Well yea, everybody misses the good old days you know?

In one of your interviews, you mentioned how your pops brought you into a shop and at the time you weren’t really interested, but eventually you came around. Can you talk a little about that?

Yea, when my pops took me into the shop to try and get me into it, I remember watching the whole process. There was puddles of ink, couldn’t see anything, perfectly straight lines, and it just looked like too hard. At that time I was pretty convinced that I couldn’t tattoo. But then a short time after that, I had some friends that I had grown up doing graffiti with, They had bought some tattoo guns and started tattooing out of their garage. And I thought to myself, well, if they can do it, I can do it.

Did your pops always have a lot of tattoos?

Yeah, he has been getting tattoo’d since he was like 14.

Did most people around you and in your family have tattoos growing up?

On my dad’s side, yeah for sure. On my mom’s side, not so much.

When did you start getting into the car culture stuff?

Ever since I was a little kid. My dad had a Cadillac growing up and I just always liked cruising in it. I would always bug him because I wanted to hop in a take a ride somewhere. This is when I was like 10 or 11. I never really thought I’d own one, but I always liked classic cars.

Do you enjoy being involved with it? Can you talk a little about it?

Yea definitely, It’s huge you know? But like anything it’s so political you know? It can be kinda controversial. So I dunno, I just kinda wanna drive my car. I don’t give a fuck about this and that. Don’t really want to get too involved. Like politics and stuff.

Like street politics?

Yeah, street politics and all that. Everyone wants you to get their approval.

Growing up, was it hard to stay out of trouble at all?

I mean, it’s never hard to stay out of trouble, just like it’s never hard to not party, you know what I mean? And then shit gets real and you end up in a place where you’re saying to yourself “aww, I shouldn’t have done that”.

Did tattooing help you stay away from all the bullshit?

Yea definitely, when I was about 18, I was fresh out of high school, my mom was like, “you have to get a job”, and I was “but I have a job” and she was like “I don’t really care, you have to go to school”. But I was frustrated because I had just graduated, I didn’t want to go to school. So I ended up taking a bunch of art classes because I liked it and just needed to meet the minimum requirement for my financial aid. So I was doing that, taking a bunch of bullshit classes, didn’t really know what the fuck I wanted to do. And then came the story with my pops and he took me to the shop. That was all during that whole process.

And at this time you were 19?

18. I got my apprenticeship with Goodfellas when I was 19. I was just a little-ass kid right there at Goodfellas Tattoo Shop with the big dogs. 19 Year old kid spending time with grown-ass men.

How did that make you feel?

It was intimidating as fuck. I was super intimidated. Especially because I knew who Steve Soto was and I looked up to him. And then to like be working for him it was just some starstruck type shit.

You seem like someone who really cares about the art, based on your stuff and your skill level. How were you able to learn so fast?

I get asked that a lot and some people say to me “oh you’re just naturally talented”. I feel like it isn’t so much talent as much as it is trial and error, practice. I always just enjoyed it and wanted to get better at it on my own. I was never really in competition with anyone or anything, it was more for myself. I just wanted to be a great artist.

What do you think was the driving force behind that?

As a kid, I just always loved art. It was just for myself. I wasn’t getting paid for it. I just genuinely enjoyed it. Then I got into graffiti from like 14-17 and I thought I was gonna do that as a career. Got arrested a few times and kinda realized that it probably wasn’t gonna work out.

How did you develop your style and technique? I feel like graffiti is way different than your aesthetic?

Total opposite right? Total opposite. I tell a lot of people, to this day, that I love abstract art and people don’t believe me because of the style that I do. I’m a big fan of it because my roots are from graffiti. But when I was taking all my art classes I was taking life drawing, the teacher was teaching us how to draw the models face, and I started becoming obsessed with making shit look real as fuck. And it just kinda snowballed from there.

You mentioned Steve Soto, are there some other tattoo artists or just artists in general that inspire you?

There were some local big graffiti crews that I was into MSK …CBS. Those guys were the shit.

What inspires you to wake up, do your thing and keep coming to work everyday?

I mean besides all my bills telling me “you gotta get the fuck up and go to work homie,” um, I dunno, I just enjoy what I do. If I sleep in and I’m running late, I just text myself that I’m gonna be late.  

You feel like you’re doing what you’re supposed to do. Like being an artist is your purpose in life?

I think so yea. I sometimes have feelings of wanting to do something else inside the art realm. I just love what I do and I have been drawing since I was a little kid. I love leaving my mark on things. I used to do that. I used to carve “Alec was here” on stuff and my mom would beat my ass. She would be like “Alec, did you do this?” and I would be like “no” and she would just sit there like… “it’s your name dumbass…. what do you mean you didn’t write it?” But I just love leaving my mark on stuff. Which is funny because now I do it with tattooing everyday.

When did you open your private studio up?

Just hit a year.

What was the reasoning for wanting to do that?

I get asked that a lot actually, but I dunno, it was just like an inner feeling that I was just ready to do my own thing. I always have to be close to work. I hate commuting. I was there seven years, so I was just kinda ready to have my own space. Spread my wings.

What was the inspiration for the interior design?

If you were in here the day I opened the doors, it is not the same. I change shit up consistently over here. But I dunno, I just always liked a lot of artwork on the walls. Just a lot of stuff to keep the people entertained while they are here. I always liked the super clean look, just very minimal. Not too cluttered.

A lot of people get tattoos after significant events in their life? Do you feel like a therapist sometimes having to talk to people during the tattoo process?

You know what, I call that ink therapy. I go through those phases myself. It really is therapeutic getting tattooed. I tell these guys here all the time, I joke around like “yea I’m a tattoo artist and a part-time therapist”. Just cause you know, I’m sitting next to the client for like 10 hours. That’s just one session. You get to know someone pretty well, especially after a few sessions. You’re literally sitting there touching their skin. I am helping them tell their story through their skin. I interpret it through my artwork.

The view on tattoo culture is more mainstream now?

Yeah most definitely. And it’s good for me, but everything has its pros and cons. Since it’s more acceptable, I have people with 9-5 jobs coming in here and getting tattoos which is great. But you also have kids going and getting tattoo’s on their face looking like a kindergartners sketch book. I’m glad it’s more acceptable, but some people take things too far.

Do you feel like you’ve changed a lot since you started?

When I was 19... I mean, shit, every 18/19 year old thinks they know everything, but I started working at a shop with grown-ass men with kids and families… and they kinda let me know how things are. They shaped me in a good way you know what I mean? I grew up real quick, just being around them.

Did they humble you?

Yea, most definitely. That’s why I was so grateful you know? Like a lot of people at that age don’t have influences like that. A lot of people have parents who say things like, “don’t do that shit, you’re gonna get arrested”. But you kinda just disregard their opinion. But when it’s somebody you look up to or respect in a different way, you tend to listen a different way. We all have love and respect for our parents obviously. I was just more keen on what the fuck the guys at the shop had to say. Even though it was the same shit my mom used to say. With your parents, sometimes you think they are just trying to control you, but with a friend and a coworker, they are really just looking out for you.

In one of your prior interviews you mentioned the word respect quite a bit. Can you talk a little bit about that and how it applies to you?

Respect is a huge fuckin’ thing you know? If you can’t go into somebodies house and respect it, that just says a lot about your character you know what I mean? If I was to go up in your house and I was to put my feet up on your couch and shit, you’re gonna be like “what are you doing?” Like respect my house, you wouldn’t do that at your mom’s house you know? Your mom would slap the shit out of you. Respect, you know what I mean?

You know what it comes down to? I got it tatt’d right here. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Treat other motherfuckers how you would want to be treated.

Last time I got one of my tattoos from you, your brother was starting to apprentice with you? But now it looks like he’s tattooing full-time and doing his own thing?

Yea yea, he works here with me. He’s still here.

Have you been able to take him under your wing and kinda show him what’s up?

Yea yea, I let him do his own thing. I’m here for him, I try to help him develop his craft as well. But at the end of the day it is up to someone personally to take the initiative and develop their skill, technique, and overall craft. I can only say so much. You know what I mean? I tell him like, “you literally have to get up and do the work. But if you have any questions along the way, I gotchu”.

Were there some struggles and difficulties you had to overcome to get to where you were? Or did everything flow pretty smooth for you because you feel like you took the right path?

I mean everything flowed pretty nicely for me and I am grateful for that, but of course there was trial & error periods and hardships. Just like everything, it has its politics. You are looked down upon at first because you have to start somewhere, you’re not good, or you’re not qualified. So you have to pay your dues for a little while.

Would you change anything?

Naw, I wouldn’t change shit. I’ve been so blessed to be where I’m at and to have gone through what I’ve gone through and still be here.

If you weren’t tattooing what do you think you would be doing?

*Deep exhale…. Stares off in the distance…  Honestly, I don’t really know. I don’t even really want to know. I’d hate to see an alternate reality where I could see myself without tattooing. Before tattooing I was just working at Stater Brothers and shit… you know? Just going nowhere fast.

What’s your future looking like? What are your plans? What do you have lined up? Traveling?

You know what, I used to travel so much. Honestly it’s really nice to not have any travel plans coming up. Knowing that I am just going to be home. I love traveling, I love all the places I’ve been to, I’m blessed to have been able to go there, but traveling is just so stressful. It’s a bitch and a half. So I’m content right now with just being here and doing my thing.

As far as like the long run, the future, I don’t really know. Where do I see myself in five years type thing, I don’t really know, I’d like to eventually have a more walk in type of shop environment instead of a private studio, hopefully, but only time will tell.

I imagine a lot people come from out of town to get work done from you?

Yea, the guy I tattoo’d yesterday was from Australia. People come from everywhere you know, Canada, Germany, Wherever you know? I had a guy come from Japan.

If they want to book an appointment, what’s the best way?

Just email me or go through the website.

alecrodrigueztattoo.com alecrodrigueztat2@gmail.com @alecrodrigueztattoo

Sources: Schwartz, E. (Director). (2013). Tattoo Nation [Video file]. United States: Visions Verite. Retrieved April 24, 2019, from https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2207870/

[allhailqueenmaas]

ACOWAR Predictions

Rights to the lovely @abookandacoffee for all of these awesome questions. 

I’m just going to answer all of these bc I need to get it out of my system and I’m about to EXPLODE WITH ALL OF THE FEELINGS I HAVE ABOUT THIS. Also this is going to be fucking long and foul language will occur. And spoilers (duh)

1) Do you want any other POVs besides Rhys or Feyre? Which?

Can I have all of them??? Ummm... I really want all of the Inner Court, Feyre’s sisters, Lucien, and Tamlin (only bc I want to see what the fuck he’s up to). SOOOOOOO basically all of them. 

2) If you could only pick one ship, elucien, nessian, or moriel, to officially become canon (IE declaration of love or, ahem, physical consummation), which would it be?

The thing about Elucien is that it came out of FUCKING NOWHERE, but I know that Queen Maas does everything for a reason and Elucien will come into the light and be important in the plot and be THE MOST adorable couple in ACOWAR. 

Nessian is just all of the angst and hate/love tension and I love it. I love it so much and I don’t know why, but I love it. 

Moriel seems like the most likely one to happen, just based on the fact that they’ve known each other for A CENTURY or some crazy amount of time like that. But they’ve also known each other FOR A CENTURY AND HAVEN’T DONE ANYTHING WITH THEIR FEELINGS. THEY TREAD THE LINE BETWEEN FRIENDSHIP AND LOVERS BUT DON’T CROSS IT AND IT PLAYS WITH MY FEELINGS.

I’m torn between Nessian and Moriel, but Moriel feels the most tangible for some reason, so I’ll go with them. 

3) Do you have any theories about what will happen with the war? 

SOMEONE IS GOING TO DIE SARAH SAID IT HERSELF AND I THINK IT’S GOING TO BE MOR AND FUUUUCCCKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK. My baby Az will not be okay and Cassian’s gonna loose his shit and Rhys will be heartbroken bc they’re close and Feyre will be heartbroken bc Mor was her first girlfriend. AND IM GOING TO BE HEARTBROKEN BECAUSE MORRIGAN WAS GOING TO BE THE QUEEN OF THE COURT OF NIGHTMARES AND SHE WAS GOING TO BE THE GREATEST QUEEN EVER. AHHHHHHHHHHHHH

4) Cassian’s wings. Go.

OKAY. I have to be optimistic bc I have no other option. I am going to assume that the frame of his wings will be okay and hopefully there’s some kind of version of that spider-silk shit from TOG (that saved Abraxos’s wings) and that shit will save his wings. MY BBY WILL HAVE HIS WINGS AND HE WILL LIVE HAPPILY WITH NESTA AND EVERYTHING WILL BE OKAY. OKAY? OKAY

5) Do you think we will see Miryam and Drakon? Do you want to?

I do think that Rhysand is going to get as many allies as he can against Hybern (while Feyre is kicking ass and taking names in the Spring Court!!!) and that will include Miryam and Drakon. I wasn’t really interested in them until I read this fanfiction about Miryam being Rowan’s daughter (credit to the author, I’m so sorry i don’t remember your name) and that got me interested in them, so I do want to see them. 

6) Which character (outside of Rhys and Feyre) do you want to see getting the most developement?

Nesta. She needs to redeem herself and apologize to all the people she has given shit to.

And Azriel. He needs to figure out that HE IS WORTHY OF LOVE AND HAPPINESS. ESPECIALLY WITH MORRIGAN. 

7) Tamlin: redemption or death?

Can’t he have both? I want him to redeem himself by switching sides at the last minute and apologizing for everything. And then he dies during battle, but no one is with him when he dies and no one notices until later when Lucien’s like “where’s Tam?” They find his cold body on the battlefield and Lucien broken-hearted and Elain’s comforting him and everyone else is either sad or angry. 

8) Do you think anyone will die in ACOWAR (that we care about, that is)? Who?

LIKE I SAID EARLIER I HAVE A FEELING THAT MOR I GOING TO DIE AND I HATE IT BUT IT’S THERE. 

9) What role do you think the other courts will play in the war?

I want all of the other courts to join the Night Court. I think if that does happen, then the Summer and Spring Court will be the most resistant. OR MAYBE one of the courts will be a DOUBLE SPY!!!! Who knows?

10) Are there any minor characters (e.g. the Bone Carver, the Weaver) that you’d like to see again?

SURI!!! And I want to see Lucien’s brothers and the Court of NIghtmares so justice will be served accordingly.

11) How effective of a spy do you think Feyre will be, really?

Hopefully, her eavesdropping techniques will have improved from when she did it in ACOTAR...

12) Which court do you most want to see in ACOWAR?

DAWN COURT. OH MY GISH I NEED TO KNOW MORE ABOUT IT. 

13) Lesser fae - do you want to see more of them?

YES!!! I want to learn whether or not there are different types of species of fae or of it’s like humans, where they just have different characteristics but they’re the same species. 

14) How do you think Elain will react to the mating bond with Lucien?

I think at first she’ll be like, “The frick frack diddly dack does that mean?” and someone will have to explain mates to her, but they explain it wrong bc then she’s like, “Oh. It’s like a lifetime best friend. I’ve always wanted one of those.” And then her and Fox Boy will become besties, but she’s still with her hubby who hates fae, so Lucien is like a little secret. ANd he lets her stay with the fae-hater bc he wants her to be happy (and he’s not a fucktard like Tam) And then one day she’s talking to someone (probs Nesta) about Lucien and Nesta’s like, “sounds like your in love...” ANd Elain’s like “Whaaaaaaaaa??.....” But then she thinks about it and she’s like, “oh crapdoodle, I am in love with him.” So she confronts Lucien about this revelation and he’s like, “I’ve always loved you, my daisy.” (he gives her flower related nicknames and it’s the cutest thing ever). And they live happily ever after bc Tam’s dead (see #7) and they rule the Spring Court. 

15) Would you rather Nesta train as a warrior, or more of a strategist? Do you think she’ll actually be willing to help out the Night Court?

Both, but she’s a better strategist than warrior. I think that eventually she’ll trust the entirety of the Inner Circle, prob after one of them saves her life from a training thing or whatever. 

16) Mor’s power - what would you like it to be?

I HAVE NO IDEA BUT SHE’S GOTTA BE POWERFUL AS SHIT BC SHES THIRD IN COMMAND, MORE POWERFUL THAN CASS AND AZ. And we know she has healing powers (from the end of ACOMAF) but isn’t that common?... 

WAIT WHAT IF IT’S LIKE MANON AND ASTERIN AND SORREL WHERE THEY BALANCE EACH OTHER OUT 

Rhys = darkness  Amren = badass monster thing  Mor = light??? 

Light power (like alina!!!) makes sense bc she’s upbeat and cheery most of the time. idk

17) What do you think the dynamic between Lucien and Feyre will be like in the Spring Court?

I feel like Feyre will use Elain against Lucien to get info or to keep him from telling Tam about her spying (that’s terrible, but...) 

Or maybe Lucien will stop being so gray and he’ll side with Feyre bc they’re besties and so he can be with Elain and then he’ll be a spy alongside Feyre and he can get info that Feyre can’t. 

18) How do you think the Cauldron might come into play in the war?

One of the sides is going to use it to win the war with the immense power it has. I saw something in a post by someone who caught this thing they saw in a book: apparently Cerridwen (one of the twins in the NIght Court) means “keeper of the cauldron” or something like that. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! So hopefully that’s prevalent. 

19) The mortal queens: do you think they all survived taking a Cauldron bath? What would you like to see happen with them?

Nope. I would like to see them die (except for the lion one) NEXT

20) Amren: what is she, really? Would you be ok if she got to go home?

SHE IS A BADASS MOTHERFUCKER AND IM SO EXCITED TO FIND OUT HER OTHER SELF. If she’s happy going home, then I’m happy; but she will be missed *insert sad face*

21) Jurian or the King of Hybern or Ianthe: who needs to die more?

Jurian is a jealous bitch and the King of Hybern is your typical dramatic evil dude but IANTHE NEEDS TO DIE THAT MOTHERFUCKER NEEDS TO DIE A TERRIBLE DEATH BY THE HANDS OF FEYRE. Just... WHAT A BITCH!!!!

22) What smut scenes would you like to see in the book?

ALL OF THEM???? Mostly Moriel (around the middle of the book, after Azriel comes to his senses) and Nessian (not until the very end, before the war, when she has apologized for all of her horribleness)

23) Babies - yea or nay? If you had to pick one couple to have a mini, who would it be?

None of the Inner Court bc none of them are stable enough to have a child. Also Feysand themselves said that they wanted to wait A WHILE before they did (ACOMAF, end of Chap 55). Not Elucien bc they’ve only met once and that would be messy. 

I think it would be hilarious if Tamlin and Ianthe had a one-night-stand baby. OOOHHHHH and then Elucien would adopt the bby (bc those other bitches are dead) and he grows up all good and pure and he’s a part of the whole big family. 

24) How do you think Nesta and Elain will react to being thrust into the Night Court after going for a swim in the Cauldron?

Sidenote: I love how this question is worded.

Nesta will, of course, resist it with every fiber in her being and then, with convincing, slowly accept it. 

Elain will be uncomfortable with it, but she’s an optimist, so she’ll come round a lot faster than Nesta will. 

25) How quickly are you going to read this book, exactly? Do you want spoilers? Or are you going to avoid tumblr like the plague?

Okay. My friend, who is also an avid fan of ACOTAR, and I have agreed that we will wait until the summer to read ACOWAR, so one of us doesn’t finish before the other and psych the other out, which is what happened with ACOMAF. So from May 2nd until after we finish Lord of Shadows, my friend and I will be avoiding social media like the plague. My friend doesn’t do social media, so she’ll be fine be fine with this. I, however, have a sort of relationship with Tumblr darling. so this adjustment will be.....interesting. 

26) What are three things you do NOT want from ACOWAR?

In no particular order: babies, death of the Good Peeps, and Feylin sex scene (won’t Calamai happen while Feyre is in the Spring Court?)

27) What are your top three wishes for ACOWAR that you would metaphorically (or literally) kill for?

Also in no particular order, CASSIAN’S WINGS TO BE SAVED, MOR’S POWER (WTF IS IT), THE INNER CIRCLE BEING BADASS MOTHERFUCKERS KICKING HYBERN ASS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[pixelonline]

(I am so sorry, mobile users. This is really long.)

My Mass Effect Andromeda thoughts:

1. I was gonna stream the trial, but proceeded to use almost all 10 hours at once because I couldn’t stop playing. I suppose this is a good thing. I’m definitely streaming it once it’s actually out.

2. I hate the character customization. Mass Effect has always been ugly as fuck when it comes to making characters, but my dudes it is 2017 what is going on here.

2a. Side note but I laughed for like 15 minutes that there is only one “White People” face and it is honestly the ugliest thing. Cool feature (sorta not but I’m viewing it as a positive) is that there are designated skin tones with each face set. Speaking of sets, all facial features are stuck to a specific preset face. You can slightly move them, but there’s no changing. I’m hoping this is just for the trial, as other things in the game were locked off until it’s official release.

2b. so many pony tails. no undercut. despite reports saying that hairstyles would be less militaristic as you’re not a soldier, they’re more or less the same. let me be the woman i want to be dammit. There were braids, but only one style. Still double the representation compared to previously I guess? I have very much so white people hair so I don’t feel comfortable having an opinion on that subject. I will say that the braids are exclusive to fem!Ryder and m!Ryder gets 2 different textured styles. I, personally, cannot wait for the beautiful mod community to fix this hair travesty, both with representation variation and all these fucking ponytails. Maybe they can make something happen with the faces, but I hold little hope. They had “alt” hair colors, so it’s already way better than ME Original Trilogy. My Ryder has blue hair, because of course she does. There’s not much shade difference in the colors available, and some of the unnatural colors were, in fact, so unnatural looking that it was hard to accept as a hair color. dyed hair doesn’t reflect light the way it did in game and it didn’t look like much shade variation between the strands so it occasionally looked like the hair hadn’t actually finished rendering. The color selection suggested a more soft ombre look than was actually present.

3. I like that you can customize your twin also, but limits on the CC still drives me crazy. Male hair diversity isn’t super, like I said before, but it just felt like more than the female counterpart. I just really, really hate ponytails you guys.

3a. In your CC options, you can pick story bits. The only options that connect to the previous games is a selection between your Shepard having been male or female. I suppose that’s so pronouns are correct later on.

4. Prologue: I feel it takes too long, the tutorial is honestly not that great. SAM, your AI, is down for most of it, so you have no idea what anything is. It was fine at first, adding to the worldbuilding and urgency and whatnot but it got irritating by the 30th “unknown” enemy.

5. The Omni-Scanner is a neat addition, but it felt sort of...forced at times. More on that later.

6. The prologue story is okay. The ending of it, and the beginning of the actual game, was actually pretty dramatic and I didn’t expect it given the hype around certain characters that Bioware has tried to generate.

6a. Dad Ryder seemed really one dimensional with his kid. Like, never referred to them affectionately even at the last bit. This is sort of explained when you go to his room later, but it felt really hollow to me as a whole. Cool dad fact: CC of your Ryder and their twin decides what Dad looks like. Mine had obscenely blue eyes but grey hair.

6b. Evil dude looked really sad during his introduction and I wanted to be friends with him. This feels like a failed attempt at showing off the ominous silent bad guy, as I immediately started rooting for him. You go, evil dude, touch the stuff and let your dreams be true.

7. I hate the weapon interface. Inventory functions like ME1, allowing you to see the items you’ve picked up (both upgrades and actual weapons) but you cannot equip them. I couldn’t until the first mission after getting my ship. Which is terrible, as I got a sniper rifle I wanted to use and couldn’t for the prologue portion.

8. The Hyperion’s travel system is awful. There’s very little instruction about it. The tram looks as if it’s a one way thing, from the ark to the new citadel-like port, but in actuality you use it to travel around the ark itself too. Didn’t notice until my camera turned slightly to the right and another thing on the board was selectable.

8a. Not travel related, but you do get more info about the ending of the prologue and a new ongoing mission on the Hyperion. It felt like a bit of a slap. It’s all “Here’s this cool new power and a friend BUT ALSO FUCK YOU JON SNOW YOU KNOW NOTHING and you’ll never find out until you go look for these things randomly around. But not around here! Fuck you twice!” It was clearly created to push the story more later on, which is all fine and good, it just ticked me off at this moment.

9. The new Citadel is a goddamn mess. I’m not a huge fan of it right now, though what I’m 100% sure will happen is that as you make more homesteads, the place gets nicer until you’re at endgame and have a fully functional hub. I’ll like it more once it starts changing. It looks like it has really good potential. I hope it functions more than the keep in DA:I, and your choices really DO have an effect on what is opened up and how the society there builds itself.

9a. The Original Trilogy made each race very distinct, with their own speech patterns and everything. I didn’t really get that from this game’s other races. The Salarians didn’t speak in fast bursts with lots of words jammed together, and the Turians more often than not didn’t have that robotic twinge to their speech, and weren’t all that hostile. It seems unlikely to me that there wouldn’t be any left over anger as they left for Andromeda seeing as it’s possible some actually fought in the first contact war. It is about 30 years apart. It was something constantly prevalent in the previous trilogy, which every NPC lived during (at least ME1)

9b. I do, however, love super not Krogan Krogan lady. She’s perfect and I wish I could romance her. You do talk about the genophage. Sucks that she and her clan have no idea that there’s been a cure for over 500 years now.

10. The ship, Tempest, is really nice. I always felt like Normandy was very irritating to navigate around. ME1 especially, but 3 wasn’t so hot either. This one isn’t as large, but it has a really nice flow that I liked. Pathfinder quarters were way better than Shepard’s.

10a. It has a system like the Dragon Age: Inquisition war table where you have timed missions that NPC complete for materials, items, and intel. Seems interesting, but I didn’t see one to completion. They’re still running.

10b. the R&D table is interesting, and I like the separation between the two, but it didn’t feel like a huge asset so early in the game.

11. The traveling system is beautiful. Visually it gets 100% approval. However, it’s extremely slow paced. any selection of a new planet or system takes you back to where you were originally, lets you stare at it a moment, then flies you to the next place where you zoom in for another moment before zooming out and then FINALLY getting information about it. It’s nice, but by the 12th time I was incredibly tired of it.

12. Your Salarian pilot is cool. Not especially Salarian-like, but still I liked him. Cannot kiss. I tried.

13. Material gathering is kind of limited. You scan a whole system, and you have the option to scan planets, but there’s not much point to it as SAM tells you if there’s something worth scanning there. Usually it’s a single deposit of a mineral.

14. I hated the MAKO in ME1, but this one isn’t so bad. I think it helps knowing that I can customize it later.

15. Speaking of customization, you can change the colors of your casual clothes and your armor. It’s the same color selection tool as in CC, so it’s awful. The dial to change the color overlaps with the bubble to select the actual shade so there’s a lot of trial and error involved. Once again, no indication that [SPACE] is necessary to confirm your color choices. I hate the whole design of it.

16. You do meet some companions that you’ll pick up, but you barely interact with them. Good intros though. Really gave them personality right off the bat.

17. ROMANCE: Being fem!Ryder is rough at the start.

17a. Gil is one of the ship’s crew. He’s one of the few genuinely attractive males in all of Mass Effect’s history. As a woman, you can flirt with him, but he turns you down solidly. He’s kind, but firm. He states that he’s interested in men. Which is awesome, because now I have a reason to play a male Ryder after my first play through is done. Female Ryder apologizes, nothing is weird (unlike other interactions) and it actually made me like him more as a character.

17b. Liam kind of blows off your advances but it definitely felt like a rejection. As he wasn’t very clear, I don’t know if he’s a bi character that you have to develop a friendship with first, or if he’s gay and just doesn’t want to come out to your Ryder. I didn’t like the wishy-washiness of the interaction but we’ll just have to see what’s what when the full game is out.

17c. Doc. I forgot her name, so now she’s Doc. I knew this interaction wouldn’t go well, as I’ve read articles about it. She definitely turns you down because you’re a patient. I’ve read that she has a crush on the Krogan that joins you, so is he not a patient too? Either way, she’s very professional about it and as with Gil it made me appreciate her character. Knowing that it’s Natalie Dormer and I’ll never hear her tell me she loves me hurts me deep in my soul though. Why does the world hate me like this???

17d. Blonde biotic woman with the goddamn hair that I want on my Ryder. Cora. I don’t like her. You have the option to hit on her early on, and her reaction felt really awful to me. She gets kind of hostile and all “I already told [person you never met] that I’m not interested in women and I’m telling you too.” Like, ok. Damn. You aren’t my type anyways. I just wanted to see the option play out. 0/10 poor way to handle the interaction. I’m not super fond of the Asari commando thing either. Jack was a kickass biotic too and she was treated like a monster. This woman gets to take part in something very culturally specific like it’s nbd? jnasdlfknasdivhbna, not a fan of her. She looks somewhere between confused and murderous all the time. Also, she walks like Stretch Armstrong. It makes me laugh.

17e. Vetra. The only individual that actually reacts positively to fem!Ryder flirting with her. Even then she really only takes it like a compliment. But, as I love Vetra and much like Garrus I would die for her from first glance, I’ll take it. I think it’ll be a beautiful relationship. She’s also really tall. And pretty. One thing I thought was strange with her is that it always looks like she’s posing when she’s just standing around. One hip is thrust out and her arms are crossed. If I didn’t know any better, I’d think they rigged her to always be in mysterious seductress pose.

17f. I couldn’t flirt with the pilot. Let me kiss the Salarian, damn you Bioware. Also, our nice Scottish friend Suvi can’t be flirted with, but she sounds really soothing to talk to. I’m def a fan of all these non-American, thicker than previously heard, accents on the ship. The Original Trilogy was full of light British accents or full on American. Sort of hard to believe the Alliance was multinational when everyone spoke like they were from the US.

18. Combat: I mostly use the sniper rifle and the pistol. Pistol was nice. I love the sniper rifle in this game. Other ME games it was hard for me to confirm headshots but this one was a clean and clear animation. Very nice. The companion AI was strange at times, as they’d just use their abilities but in odd places so the skills would get stuck in corners or just go off to nowhere. There was combat stutter on the first planet you can visit but I think that’s more my graphics card. The update refuses to finish so I’m stuck 2 updates behind where I should be.

I have, like, an hour I think left so I’m gonna try to rush through a male Ryder play and see how companion reactions differ. I’m really only in this for the romance, you know.

[perfectackeracy]

considering what you've already written on the topic of eren's behavior during chapter 84 up until recently; what do you think of him as a character in general?

Eh, I’ll give my judgement when the story will be over. He is the main character after all and I feel like giving a judgement now would be too premature, despite us nearing the end of the manga. I’ve got the beginning but the end is absolutely necessary for me to answer your question properly.

Still, if you want something partial, but still long, follow me under the cut (too bad for mobile users because screw the interface right).

It truly depends of how Isayama writes him at the end, if he really intended him to be some normie who tried to be a hero and change things, but failed, or… something else. Indeed, the end heavily relies of what’s presented to us at the beginning:

“No… But I feel like I just had the longest dream.. What was it? Now I can’t remember…” - Ch.1

Flashback? Future vision? We all thought till chapter 89 came that future vision was bull. It took a whole chapter to suddenly invert the perspective. While there isn’t many chapters left, there’s still facts that are going to pop up that might suddenly change our perception of the characters forever.

…Just like mine with Eren in chapter 84.

I’d actually like the normie one because it would fit what Eren did at the beginning: joining the Survey Corps on a whim because he hates being confined and ended up inheriting a power considered absolute, realizing he made a huge mistake from the start.

It seems Isayama, who previously had a vague idea of what he wanted to do with him, found something more defined. If I recall correctly he felt inspired by Yuki Kaiji, the voice actor from Eren. He even told Araki to make him more pathetic than in the original manga, implying Eren was never meant to be the literal version of a hero, a character with admirable traits.

Usually, the typical shônen protagonist is a character who has a dream, since they were little and do almost anything in order to accomplish it, whether it is becoming the strongest, becoming somebody important, solving a mystery, finding somebody from your life who has gone missing, etc… Their personality vary from manga to manga, but it’s often the cheerful teenager, naive or hot-blooded, capable of being a simpleton due to his lack of experience but also the one who motivates people, is surrounded by his nakama and clashes with rivals and enemies.

The vengeful protagonist also exists, but they’re mostly present in dark shônen or shônen trying to deal with more mature themes without being labeled as a seinen. Eren registers in this category, while building the development of a typical shônen protagonist without exhibiting its qualities: he’s not full of dream and ambition, something a shônen MC should inspire in the heart of young boys. Instead, he’s described as being selfish, having a complex or no ambition at all.

As extra evidence, his highschool AU describes him as the frustrated normie who’s annoyed “in one way or another”. The fake preview from volume 22 describes him as neither belonging to the nerds or the jocks nor having any dreams or interests (it’s interesting how the formulation here ends in “もない” on the three sentences of the description, almost as if Eren meant nothing), despite the wannabe’s reputation being neutral. That’s kinda sad when you think about it actually, because at his core, he really needs to fuel his blank state.

Still, Isayama doesn’t make him wander around aimlessly in the canon storyline and managed to give him a purpose. He strangely carries themes like the Chosen One because people, specifically Grisha imposed that on him. Carla called her son special for the sole reason he was born into this world, that every human who sees the light of the day is considered special. 

Because he was frustrated about “Humanity’s submission against the titans”, that’s what prompted him to step out and defy the “imposed slavery” on him. He wasn’t always like that, though. Meeting and knowing Armin triggered that complex about him lacking ambition.

Eren and Armin meeting for the first time - Ch. 83

When he first met Armin, he befriended him fairly quickly because of their status as outcasts. Eren already showed signs of not belonging to the other kids, probably because he had trouble sharing the same interests as them and also because he gets irritated quickly and gets into fights to shut them up. Funnily enough, those panels show the first signs of Eren’s prevalent traits: fighting back and beating them or else you’re a loser.

“I had never thought about what was beyond the walls until then… I’d only spent my days looking at the clouds in the sky. Not that it’s anything strange for a kid eight or nine years old to not be thinking about anything… but then you came running to me with a book. Both of us were outcasts, not able to get along with the other kids in town. That’s all we were back then. But when I heard you telling me those things… and I saw the look in your eyes. That’s when I knew for the first time. I wasn’t free. I noticed that I had been living in a birdcage for all this time. And that these freakish things had taken my freedom. The world was so big, but they’d forced me into a tiny cage. And when I realized that… I knew I could never forgive them.” - Ch.73

It wasn’t so much about the ocean or the contents of the outside world Eren was motivated for. Because he was aimlessly starting at the sky, he couldn’t believe someone like Armin could conceive something like… ambition. That’s why Eren was intrigued by the look in his eyes. And because the titans were actually obstacles to his personal space, he held a grudge against them. They were in the way, they were giant-sized bullies, they have to be removed.

Eren’s character song actually fist up nicely with his character: “男はロマンだぜ！たけだ君っ“ by Shinsei Kamattechan (lyrics and translation here) illustrates somebody talking to a certain Takeda, who prompts him to disobey his parents and do whatever they want because they’re free, despite them being children (the song talks about spending money carelessly and buying cigarettes). Eren being either one of the kids, wants his taste of freedom without having any authority telling him not to do it.

“From the day we’re born, there was something special about all of us: we’re free” - Ch. 73

Needless to say, I think that attitude and that grudge against the titans pushed him to idolize the Survey Corps and eventually join them. Because they went as far as destroying his district, making him swear extermination on every person responsible.

Then there was his meeting with Mikasa.

“You see Eren, that attitude is why you only have one friend.” - Ch. 5

Here we have yet Eren’s “normie” attitude demonstrated when it comes to Grisha asking him to get familiar with Mikasa. But then, he certainly wans’t expecting corpses.

Eren ready to begin the chase - Ch. 5

I tend to see this chapter as Eren being triggered by seeing dead bodies on the floor. Him seeing Mikasa’s parents being brutally murdered tingled his sense of justice and frustration: “How dare they kill people? This if worthy of the death penalty and I’m going to inflict that to them!”. The way he got close to these bandits is almost as scary as what they were planning to do with Mikasa: he’s approaching the first one by acting like an innocent child with clear murder intent (He’s supposed to be 9!!!). He then proceeds to pin down the second one before repeatedly stabbing himself over and over.

“I stopped dangerous beasts!! They only happened to resemble humans!! If you hadn’t come here, they would have been gone by the time the military police brigade had arrived!! The MPs wouldn’t have made it in time!!” - Ch. 5

Notice how the justification he brings to kill them is because they reduced themselves to low beasts who kill people, and as beasts, it’s “only natural” they deserve a death penalty. Besides, Eren is motivating Mikasa using the same logic he used for Armin: fight or you’re a complete loser.

Eren “teaching” Mikasa - Ch. 5

Needless to say that Eren wasn’t opposed to let Mikasa live in his house. He came to realize years later his attitude towards the bandits was pure impulse, as he gets lectured by Reiner about the meaning of being a soldier in chapter 17.

In the very first chapter of the series, every trait I’ve mentioned till there transpires into his motivation into joining the Survey Corps, so he wouldn’t live as a “caged animal” any longer. He gets upset when people are talking trash about them because he truly believed they were doing it for great justice. And that day, when the wall has been breached, it just so happens that Eren had a weird dream when he was crying and it was finally the day where Grisha showed him the basement. That day truly changed his life, for the best or the worst.

“I hate the idea of spending my whole life… inside the wall, ignorant of what’s happening in the world outside!!” - Ch. 1

But of course, this “outside” serves mostly as an excuse to give him more space. As he declared later: “They’re our lives! we can do whatever we want with them, right?”

When Shiganshina fell, Eren made his vow to kill every single titan left. During that time, he punched Hannes for preventing him from saving his mom. What was interesting is that piece of flashback before scrolling back to present.

“I’ll never be able… to go home again. Up to the end, all I could do was argue and be stubborn! Mom’s gone!! I’m never gonna see her again… Why is this happening to us? Is it because humans are weak? Is crying the only thing the weak can do?! I’m gonna destroy them!! Every last one… of those animals… that’s on this Earth!” - Ch. 2

The night when Shiganshina has fallen was the night where Grisha passed his titan power to Eren. The part where Grisha stated two contradictory statements in relation with chapter 89.

“Eren, get revenge for your mother. You can do it.” - Ch. 71

“Eren… never let this key… out of your sight. And everytime you look at it… remember… that you have to go to the basement room. The injection will cause damage to your memory… That’s why I can’t explain this to you now… but when you go to the basement room someday, you’ll learn the truth… it will be a hard and merciless road… but you have to recapture Wall Maria and get to that room. The power I’m giving you will be useful then. Their memories will teach you how to use it… if you want to save Mikasa… Armin… and everyone else… you’ll have to… control this power!” - Ch. 10

“Dad… Stop it! Dad! What are you doing?! You’ve been acting crazy since mom died!!”, “Eren!! Hold out your arm!” - Ch. 3

“You will be the one… to avenge your mother!!”, “Okay“ - Ch. 63

This moment was really hard to piece out together because what was thought as a contradiction became a succession of events where Grisha scared his son with the shifter power talk, but riled back him for a short while by settling him as one one who will avenge his mom. Earlier, Grisha made his mind and picked him as the legitimate successor of the Attack Titan. Thanks to chapter 89, it may have been inevitable. In this scene, he went from a sorrowful expression to an angry one, almost swapping memories for a brief instant like what happened with Kruger. In any case he burdened Eren with his shifter power and the Coordinate, thus making him bare probably the biggest sin going by Ymir’s curse. 

Because of that, his whole life changed. So did Eldians’.

The next segment is about Eren joining the military, two years after working in a settlement. This is the time where his attitude sort of... changed.

Eren trying to let his will of dominance pushing him forward - Ch. 15

Chronologically, starting from that point, Eren uses “we” when talking about Humanity. Mostly because, as stated by his dialogue in chapter, he believes in unity against a common enemy. He settled the titans as the enemy “humanity” was supposed to defeat, despite him quickly meeting, and clashing with people who didn’t agree with that notion: it started with Hannes not taking his job seriously, then Jean who outright admitted he’d rather live a comfy life inside the walls. Even much later in chapter 72, when Eren mentions that spirit of unity, Armin internally disagrees by thinking about his bullies. 

Eren’s world was mostly an ideal one, where you loop the first opening of the anime and have humanity fighting against the titans, forgetting not every single human is motivated by rage: Mikasa is fine with living with Eren in a quaint place, Levi “the hero” is mostly motivated by Erwin, Jean wanted and comfy life among the MP, people have a very negative opinion of the SC in general, Ymir doesn’t mind living her life for herself despite knowing much more about what’s happening than Eren does...

His biggest obstacle was the first step for 3DMG training, where Keith sabotaged the equipment on purpose. For the first time, Eren felt like his goal just evaporated in the air, with everybody mocking him for it, followed by an argument with Mikasa, who’s trying to dissuade him:

“You shouldn’t set your sights on that anyway. If you’re not cut for it, what can you do? Because at this rate, you’re just going to die in vain. And all your dreams and efforts will be for nothing. I’m saying you shouldn’t aim to be a soldier. You can always support the human race by being a producer. Laying down your life isn’t the only way to fight. [...] ...Your resolve has nothing to do with it. It’s not your decision whether you get to be a soldier, Eren...” - Ch. 16

Eventually, nothing worked. Eren still wants to pass the 3DMG exam. While talking to Reiner and Bertolt, he declares his will to kill the titans is a need he personally feels: becoming a soldier is a way to achieve this. I’m sure he’d find another way out if he can’t pass the exams, mostly because he has nothing left to make him move.

Parts of his personality have been shaped later by Reiner and Annie: Reiner about the solider mumbo-jumbo, Annie because of her techniques aiming to defeat people quickly. He demonstrated these two aspects during his fight with Jean (with Annie and Reiner even looking!). 

“...I see... he was... just venting his feelings. Like I did before... but I’m different now... I’m... a soldier! [...] I’ll use my skills to finish this.” - Ch. 17

The most important part of his training is reserved for hand-to-hand techniques, skills proving themselves to be really useful once Eren shifts to a titan. Seems Annie was really insistent on teaching Eren these techniques as soon as he reminded her of her father, because Eren’s reality was just as misplaced as his. You can see that insistence if you connect chapter 17 and chapter 44 together.

I think I’d rather break this analysis into several parts because it’s getting way too long. Eren faced different trials in Trost, during the FT arc and so on, where he had to deal with huge losses, traitors, the hard truth and eventually, the coordinate settling in.

[cumstricbusrie-blog]

Best online dating questions to ask a girl

100 Questions To Ask A Girl Online dating is actually really hard and can be super awkward, let's be totally honest! Are you an adventurous person? Let her unload on you and take it on the chin, showing her that you are a real man who can enjoy a laugh at your own expense.  Show her your sensitive and childish side with this question.  Ask her about the country, the place and the environment she wants to be in.  Did it hurt when you fell out of heaven? At any stage of life, dreams should be nurtured, cultivated, and acted on.  Words, actions, gifts or touch? Here are 10 of the best questions to ask a girl you like to get to know her: 102.

17 Essential Questions You Must Ask Your Online Match Before Meeting Them IRL However, to be fair, I have met some wonderful guys online and wasn't completely creeped out by them.  If your life had a theme song, what would it be? Whatever the reason it may be, this helps you to kind of see what helps that make big decisions.  Which will give you a chance to share about your own most fascinating work experience.  I've seen myself make a twat out of myself on many an occasion by.  That was the moment when I decided that it was time to go on the run.  If tomorrow you woke up with a new quality, talent or ability, what would you like it to be? What kinds of things do you like to do for fun? Due to the fact that destiny or Mother Google motivated you to click on this website, I assume that improving yourself is also a very important part of your life, or at least an aspect that you plan to work on.  To enjoy a harmonic relationship with a girl you need to have similar passions.

100+ Funny Questions to Ask a Girl And don't forget to use fractionation on her.  Sometimes you get knocked down and sometimes you have days where you just want to give up.  I group is an invite-only networking group for men with the aim of improving the love and relationship skills of its members and contributing to the society as a whole.  I had a relationship end because of this one.  Sometimes you need to get your hands dirty to learn.  Look for a girl who has at least a loving relationship with her mother or father.  The following article has been transcribed from a talk given by Patrick Forest to Baltimore Seduction Lair in March.

100 Questions To Ask A Girl Listed below are some questions that get you going, but it is up to you to figure out the right time to ask them.  It sounds cheesy, but it is so incredibly helpful to find out if a girl is a perfect fit, or absolutely not your type.  You can do that by asking pointed questions to reveal compatibility.  Does she always order the same drink? I'm not saying morning people should only date morning people, but morning people should only date morning people.  Aging is a natural and unavoidable part of life.  You might be able to give her the attention that she needs for a certain amount of time, but the day will come when you are home alone, while she is in the club and some guy gives her compliments and one drink after another.

97 Online Dating Questions to Get the Conversation Started Memories of the past are always a great way to get to know a person.  These are the feelings that you want her to feel when she is together with you.  What celebrity would you switch lives with? Do you really want to date her? Keep it light, flirty and fun.  In case you are familiar with my writing you know that I absolutely hate materialistic women who define themselves through brands and superficial stuff that nobody needs.  This question starts conversations about those that you want to forget, but you can still laugh about.  What skill would you most like to master? If you were forced to relive one 10-minute block of your life again and again for all eternity, what 10 minutes of your life would you choose? What bridges do you not regret burning? Will they always be prevalent, or will they fade as time goes on? Like one of those movie moments? What do you like to questions to ask a girl your dating do in your free time? In the meantime, here is something to get you started.  Is she an intellectual or someone who despises hitting the books? If you were the ruler of a small island nation, what would you do? Use these when you want to keep the back-and-forth going.

100 Questions To Ask A Girl The first step is just talking about anything.  If you had a clock that would countdown to any one event of your choosing, what event would you want it to countdown to? After asking this question, challenge her to an arm wrestling match and let her win but put up a fight! Question Number Three: Do you enjoy online dating? With so many deep questions, a girl will never be bored with your conversation.  Some people think it's great, but it's okay if they skip a couple nights.  What thought makes her brain explode? What is your most bizarre talent or quirk? But we've seemed to have adapted to this online dating culture and I don't see it going away any time soon.  When in doubt, approach with caution.  What toppings are needed to create the perfect burger? Having similar schedules or ideas for how to spend a weekend is a good indicator of your compatibility with an online date.  Knowing how questions to ask a girl your dating to text a girl.

Questions to ask a girl your dating Among your friends or family, what are you known for? Talking to girls is also a great way to get some new perspectives and.  If you were president, what is the first thing you would do? Who was the lucky guy and are you still in touch with him? The best way to reward me for the hours I spent writing it is to ask the next girl you go on a date with at least one of the questions I mentioned.  Doing things out of spite is a very aggressive and forward part of someone's personality How frequently do you bathe or shower? It is okay to let someone brag about themselves.  Now that you have a good idea telegraph singles on some dirty questions to ask a girl, Dating.  And of course if you share any of the answers in common, even better! Is there something you stopped doing, even though you love it? If you ask her in a romantic atmosphere, she will tell you everything you want to know.  Nevertheless, I always try to stay in contact with them and I try to visit them whenever I am on German territory.

97 Online Dating Questions to Get the Conversation Started After all, sometimes girls just want to be treated like one of the guys.  This question is a little bit flirty without being too pushy.  Naturally, you will also need to keep in mind that the ultimate key to succeeding in online dating is to create attraction with a girl as soon as possible.  Plus, the stories are often hilarious.  You know the kind of thing: how do you like your eggs in the morning? If you could go back in time and delete the internet from existence, would you? How often do you do things out of spite? Here are 17 of the best deep questions to ask a girl you like: 132.

[itsiotrecords-blog]

http://ift.tt/2qD203f

Ah, millennials… a generation that was raised on participation trophies, coddling and the constant reinforcement that they were special. Add this to the flourishing of the internet and social media, and the end result: the social justice warrior. There is great incentive to join the cult of social justice warriors. You get to express your ill-informed opinion and make a difference in the world at the click of a mouse with little to no risk. Thanks to the combination of your clever screen name and your anonymity software that diverts your Internet connection through 17 countries on three continents, no one will ever know who you really are. In the end, you will be able to fill that void and find real meaning in life. You will feel satisfied in the knowledge that you took up arms in the fight for a better world, something you’ll be able to tell your grandchildren about. In decades past, college students protested meaningful issues such as the Civil Rights Movement, the Vietnam War, and the proliferation of nuclear weapons, but over time, our country has become the safest and most prosperous as any point in history. Great progress in civil rights has led to a playing field so balanced that we were able to elect our first black president, we have finally pulled our troops from foreign battlefields, and our chief nuclear instigator, the Soviet Union, was dissolved decades ago. Millennials on college campuses are currently without a “Boogeyman” so they have turned to whatever is left to be offended about which brings us to our list of 15 of the Social Justice Warriors Most Cringe-worthy Moments.

#1 Social Justice Warriors Got This Man Elected President There were many reasons as to why Donald Trump was elected to the highest office of the land. The country was clamoring for a change from the establishment, Hillary Clinton was a flawed candidate who constantly played fast and loose with the facts and proved herself to be every part of that establishment that the country so disdained, and Trump spoke to a section of America that was simply fed up with the political correctness, identity politics, and liberal rhetoric that has engulfed the nation as a whole. Perhaps there is no group that encompasses said political correctness and identity politics more than social justice warriors. While these self-appointed saviors of our country flocked to YouTube to post endless videos that labeled anyone on the right who disagreed with them as nothing more than racist bigots, the right flocked to the voting booths, resulting in four years of a narcissistic, hate-mongering fascist otherwise known as “The Donald.”

#2 Thomas Jefferson Was A Racist Slave Owner Immediately after the Donald Trump presidential win, many of the liberal leaning college student bodies and faculties were in turmoil and disbelief that such a man could pull out the election. To help ease the pain, the president of the University of Virginia, Teresa Sullivan, used a quote from the principal author of the Declaration of Independence (and the founder of UVA), Thomas Jefferson that referenced the UVA student’s responsibility to “succeed to the government of our country, and to rule its future enmities, its friendships and fortunes.” But rather than the expected result of a calmer and more at peace UVA community, Sullivan was met with outrage for quoting Jefferson by the Social Justice Warrior students and professors who demanded that she refrain from quoting Jefferson because he was a racist slave owner.

#3 SJWs Attack Gay Director Of Boys Don’t Cry For the ultimate in irony, we arrive at the group of social justice warriors who attacked a director over her film, Boys Don’t Cry. This 1999 movie about a transgender teenager who was viciously murdered was ahead of its time in covering such a controversial subject matter. However, the social justice warriors of today still found a way to attack this groundbreaking effort by complaining that the film’s star, Hilary Swank, was not an actual transgender person. In a Q&A that took place after the screening, the Social Justice Warriors took aim at the project’s director Kimberly Peirce, who also happens to be gay, with insults such as “f*ck your transphobia” and “you don’t f*cking get it!” One enlightened SJWs even hung a sign at the director’s podium which read, “F*ck this cis white bitch.”

#4 University Of Chicago Shows Some Cajones For those of you who have lost sleep at night over this social justice warrior conundrum on college campuses, the University of Chicago sent out a letter to its incoming freshman that may be the first step in waking these delusional/entitled students the hell up. According to the Washington Post, the letter expressed the school’s commitment to freedom of expression and inquiry as well as encouraging its students to “speak, write, listen, challenge, and learn, without fear of censorship.” The message states, “Our commitment to academic freedom means that we do not support so called ‘trigger warnings,’ we do not cancel invited speakers because their topics might prove controversial, and we do not condone the creation of intellectual ‘safe spaces’ where individuals can retreat from ideas and perspectives at odds with their own.” There may be a light at the end of this cringe worthy social justice warrior tunnel after all.

#5 Hampshire College Removing The American Flag A group of Social Justice Warriors at Hampshire College in Massachusetts made the decision to burn the American flag two days after Trump won the election. While this act appears reprehensible, they were well within their right to do so. However, what got both military veterans and red-blooded Americans hot under the collar was the school’s decision to refuse to fly a new flag in its place. According to the college, they wanted to “facilitate much-needed dialogue on our campus about how to dismantle the bigotry that is prevalent in our society.” However, many felt that it was actually done as a protest of Trump’s election victory. In true social justice warrior fashion, the college stated that it did not “intend to cause offence to veterans, military families, or others for whom the flag represents service and sacrifice. We acted solely to facilitate much-needed dialogue on our campus about how to dismantle the bigotry that is prevalent in our society.” After failing miserably in their intended goal, Hampshire replaced the flag to its rightful place within a week.

#6 Melissa Click Screaming For Muscle There may not be a more perfect example of the social justice left losing touch with any sense of reality and fairness than Melissa Click’s infamous “scream for muscle.” During a protest against racial inequality by a social justice warrior group at the University of Missouri, Click confronted a video journalist who was filming the event, ordering him out of the area and screaming out for “muscle” to physically remove him. According to the New York Times, the professor was then joined by a group of students who proceeded to physically push the journalist while chanting, “Hey hey, ho ho, reporters have got to go.” Their actions showed the glaring hypocrisy of the social justice creed which argues for an all-inclusive society, as long as you are agree with them. Click was eventually fired over the incident.

#7 Yale And Halloween Costumes While I am not an expert on Halloween costumes, it is my understanding that they are supposed to be scary and a bit offensive. What is more fun than bumping around the neighborhood dressed as witches and vampires on the hunt for candy with your friends? As kids, we loved the idea of cowboys and Indians battling in the backyard, and it was just as cool to be the Indian as it was to be the cowboy. However, in the name of offence and cultural appropriation, today’s SJW is not having any of this, something that a couple of Yale university professors found out the hard way. Back in October of 2015, professors Erika Christakis and her husband, Nicholas Christakis drafted an email drafted to the student body where they expressed support for freedom of expression and a desire to have an open exchange of ideas about the issue of Halloween costumes. The response was both reprehensible and predictable as they were mercilessly attacked by the SJW crowd who demanded that they “resign or the university remove them from their positions.” They resigned a few months later.

#8 Alumni Cancel Donations Over Social Justice Warrior Protests The social justice warrior craze hasn’t gone unnoticed by the alumni of these universities who have figured out that the best way to handle the lack of an administrative backbone is to hit em where it hurts: the wallet. Alumni of many of the country’s top schools have been either withholding or outright refusing to make donations to their alma matters. Scott MacConnell, a graduate of the 1960 class at Amherst College, summed things up well with a letter to his alma matter accompanied by a generous $5.00 donation. According to the New York Times, he wrote, “As an alumnus of the college, I feel that I have been lied to, patronized and basically dismissed as an old, white bigot who is insensitive to the needs and feelings of the current college community.”

#9 Milo Yiannopoulos At DePaul University There is no greater firebrand against the SJW movement than the ultimate antagonizer and king of anti-political correctness, Milo Yiannopoulos. Milo has made a generous living traversing the sea of liberal college campuses with his alt-right message of conservative values and freedom of speech. He has been banned from a litany of institutions for his rhetoric by social justice warriors who spew rhetorical insults which include accusations of homophobia  (Milo is openly gay by the way), bigotry, and racism. Things came to a head for Yiannopoulos during a May 2016 engagement at DePaul University. As he began his presentation, a pair of social justice warriors rushed the stage and began to verbally berate and physically intimidate him. At one point, one of the SJWs threw a punch that stopped a few inches from the Brit’s face. The speech was cut short and Milo was forced to flee the building. To add insult to injury, the president of DePaul, Dennis H. Holtschneider, was forced to resign his post for allowing Yiannopoulos to come to the college in the first place.

#10 Suey Park And Her Painful #CancelColbert Campaign No SJW list is complete without the mention of one of the movement’s earliest trailblazers, Suey Park. Park went after the Colbert Report for what she believed to be offensive language by host Stephen Colbert. She tweeted, “The Ching-Chong Ding-Dong Foundation for Sensitivity to Orientals has decided to call for #CancelColbert. Trend it.” Unfortunately for the confused Park, she misunderstood that Colbert’s words were said in the realm of sarcasm. In a subsequent television interview about this incident, Park doubled down with a litany of racist, sexist, and elitist remarks which put her in the crosshairs of her own social justice warrior society. After being doxxed, stalked, and receiving numerous death threats, Suey Park sheepishly disappeared from the social media world never to be seen or heard from again.

#11 NYU Professor Suspended Over Anti-PC Tweets In this current social justice warrior climate, no one should be more afraid than the very people charged with the daunting task of helping these sensitive little snowflakes develop the knowledge, and dare I say cajones, to succeed in the real world. Unfortunately, one New York University professor had to find this out the hard way. Under the Twitter handle “Deplorable NYU Professor,” Michael Rictenwald rallied against the SJW climate that was taking over the university with its safe spaces and trigger warnings. According to the Daily Caller, Rictenwald stated, “This stuff is producing a culture of hyper-vigilance, self-surveillance and panopticism … Identity politics on campus have made an infirmary of the whole, damn campus.” It didn’t take long for faculty and students to out Rictenwald as the “Deplorable NYU Professor” and in great SJW style, complain to the university and have him suspended. However, once the news broke and the university took heat on a national level, Rictenwald was quickly reinstated and promoted.

#12 Freedom Of Speech Is Important, As Long As It Is My Speech And No One Else’s One of the rather convenient aspects of the social justice warrior code is that free speech is important as long as it is SJW speech and no one else’s. If you are a twenty-something who is looking to make a difference in the world by pushing an identity politics agenda, for example, it is so much easier to do so by simply berating your opponent with hate speech and accusations of racism, sexism, homophobia, or any of the ever-increasing list of character assassination labels approved by the SJW community. It’s a simple premise really, as the minute that you tag your opponent with one of the above labels, you have successfully reduced him or her to an amoeba that you can have complete and utter control over. From that moment on, you can successfully retort any response with the claim,”that’s exactly what a racist would say” and your opponent is screwed…

#13 It’s Not He Or She, It’s “They” It appears that Amherst College just can’t get out of its own way in regards to its social justice warrior agenda. If burning the school’s American flag and then refusing to replace it wasn’t enough for this elitist, lefty institution, a member of their pedagogical staff stirred further controversy with the demand that she not be referred to as “she” but rather that she be referred to as “they.” Not wanting to state the obvious here that “she” is a singular person, and that “they” is a collective pronoun representing two or more people. The new director of the Women’s and Gender Centre who is making this outrageous demand is not only a woman, but “she” is also a singular person. What is also obvious is that “she” needs to learn the difference between singular and collective pronouns.

#14 Correcting Grammar Is Racist And Elitist Mona Chalabi, a writer for The Guardian, recently put out a video critical of “Grammar Snobs.” Taken at face value, the title elicits the idea that she will be discussing the people who go around correcting others who misuse the proper rules of grammar, and in the early parts of the video she is making a strong case that we shouldn’t be so concerned with the older grammar rules because, just like language, grammar is changing as we go along. However, Chalabi then goes full SJW when she states, “It doesn’t take much to see the power imbalance when it comes to grammar snobbery. The people pointing out the mistakes are more likely to be older, wealthier, whiter, or just plain academic than the people they’re treating with condescension. All too often, it’s a way to silence people, and that’s particularly offensive when it’s someone who might already be struggling to speak up.” Well done Ms. Chalabi.

#15 Ohio State Boots SJWs In April of this year, a group of social justice warriors stormed Ohio State University’s administration building demanding a meeting with the school’s president, Michael V. Drake. They wanted immediate access to the school’s budget and ordered that the university pull its financial investments from both Caterpillar and Hewlett Packard in response to the conflict between Israel and Palestine. However, rather than follow in the footsteps of other university presidents who immediately cowered to SJW demands, the president took a different approach. Drake sent someone from his staff to deliver the message that he will not be meeting with them, and that they were to leave the building within the hour or face arrest and possible expulsion from the university. When the SJW’s demanded an explanation, the staff member borrowed from the SJW playbook. He explained that the protesters were making the working staff of the building feel uncomfortable and threatened by the occupation, and because of this they were unable to do their jobs. The SJWs then slunk their way out of the facility.

Source: TheRichest

[johnchiarello]

Homeless friends

HOMELESS FRIENDS-

Revelation 20:14

And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

https://youtu.be/l9WEwx5eEq8  Homeless friends

https://ccoutreach87.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/4-17-17-homeless-friends.zip

https://ccoutreach87.com/4-17-17-homeless-friends/

 ON VIDEO-

.Crow- Claire- George- Albert- Bobby

.5 fold

.I never took the walk

.Predestination discussion

.Not fatalism

.Sovereignty

.Universalism

.Annihilationism

.Origen

.Catholic- Methodist

.Wesley- Whitefield

.Story at the end [Pearly Gates]

Revelation 21:21

And the twelve gates were twelve pearls: every several gate was of one pearl: and the street of the city was pure gold, as it were transparent glass.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

 NEW- [Past teaching- verses below]

Today I spent the whole day with my friends- I decided to turn on the video for a little bit.

But it actually turned out to be an in depth discussion about Predestination.

It was interesting to see how Crow watched some of my past teaching videos [good thing by the way] and had very insightful questions.

So I shared some of the history of the church- and the different views some hold to.

We actually got into an in depth talk about Universal-ism [the view that all get saved at the end- even satan]!

And what the historic church teaches about these different views.

Most of all you get to see my friends- and truly they live on the streets- all of them.

Some of the guys go to work- they come ‘home’ and are back out- like Claire likes to say ‘children who live under the stars’.

I found it interesting how Allen and Charlie both brought up a subject earlier in the day- yet neither of them realized they brought up the same thing- while the other was not there.

To me that's confirmation of how God speaks.

I actually was going to just let my friends talk a little- and was going to do my walk and teach something else [Zechariah].

But it worked out better this way.

The things I brought up- sometimes are considered taboo to even speak about.

But over the years as I have studied lots of church history its important- at least in my mind- to see how different churches have had different views about things.

That does not mean we should all change our views- but to try and understand how sincere Christians- thru their reading of the scriptures- have come to see things in different ways.

I also noticed thru my years of studying church history- that often times we are too quick to label others a cult- or not even saved.

Yes- there are important doctrines that one must believe in order to be a true Christian.

But there are many other doctrines we find in the bible- that are not fundamental to being saved.

When believers disagree on these- it’s better to have grace with one another- and not cut people off because their views are different than ours.

Ok- that's it for today- hopefully the discussion might peak your interest into studying some of what we talked about on your own.

God bless all-

John- and his friends.

NOTE- Right after I shut the video off- Bobby told me Danny died on Good Friday- not Easter.

 PAST POSTS- [below are parts of past teaching I did that relate to today’s video- ‘Homeless friends ’- and complete studies I did on the bible that relate to today’s post]

https://ccoutreach87.com/protestant-reformation-luther/

https://ccoutreach87.com/romans-updated-2015/

  I mentioned Origen on today’s video- below are my past teachings where I spoke about him-

 (958)1ST CORINTHIANS 6: 1-7 Paul rebukes them for taking each other to court. He tells them ‘don’t you have any wise people among you who could handle this? Why go before unbelievers!’ he also tells them ‘plus, why even fight for your rights, if you think you have been wronged in some way by your brother, then simply see it as part of the cost of carrying your cross’. Paul contradicts the prevalent mindset in much of Christianity today. He doesn’t teach ‘get what’s yours, know your rights!’ he teaches the ethos of self denial, of living with the expectation of giving up your rights and dreams. Of taking loss, if it glorifies the Father. Now we get into some ‘stuff’. Paul appeals to them by saying ‘don’t you realize that we shall judge angels some day, we shall judge the world’. A few years back there was a debate going on in theological circles. Some theologians popularized a new way to look at God’s sovereignty. This new system was called ‘Open Theism’. Scholars like Clark Pinnock and others held out the possibility that God doesn’t foreordain all future events, they actually went further and said ‘he doesn’t know all future events’. Well of course this sparked off a firestorm among the Calvinists. Does scripture teach that God is sovereign and does know all that will happen? To be honest about it, yes. But the idea of open theism was saying ‘because God has chosen to give man free will, he, by his own design, has chosen to limit his knowledge in the area of knowing all of mans future choices’. In essence that God purposely ‘does not know’ the future outcomes of decisions that have not been made by humans. If free will is real [of course the Calvinists say no] then God must limit himself to knowledge in these areas. I personally do not believe this, but I think I needed to share it to explain this section of scripture. Paul does tell them they will judge the world and angels. In second Peter 2, the apostle says the fallen angels are being held for a future day of judgment. In Matthew [19-?] Jesus says those who follow him will play a part in a future ruling over human government. These scriptures do indicate that believers will play a role in future judgment scenarios. So if we ‘judge angels and the world’ we should be able to arbitrate between ourselves! Now, in the world of theology you have sincere questions on ‘is it fair for God to judge people who have never heard the gospel’ or ‘if God is truly sovereign in all things, even in predestinating certain people to salvation, then this is unfair’. Many have turned to universalism, or a belief in ‘no hell’ in order to quell these questions. I want to simply float a scenario to you. Jesus says ‘whosoever sins you remit [forgive] they are forgiven. Those you retain [not forgive] will be retained’ while there are differing views on these verses, I want you to see how these scriptures, in keeping with all that I just showed you, might leave us room for another possible way out of all the so called questions on Gods ‘fairness’. Say if at the judgment, we are all gathered [Calvinists, Arminians, Catholics,…] and say if we are all waiting to see who’s right ‘I’ll show that Arminian…I’ll show that Catholic…’ and we are at the day where the future destinies of millions are at stake. What will God do? It’s possible that much of the final decision will rest in the hands of the church. I know it sounds heretical, but keep in mind all the verses I just quoted to you. Say if all of our pompous pontificating [wow!] amongst varying theories of the atonement and universalism and all the other stuff. Say if Jesus turns to us and says ‘You are now going to make the most important judgment of your lives, you shall judge the world and angels’ and all of a sudden all of our scrutiny of God’s fairness turns on us. We see in the crowd of masses, faces of people who we hate. People who have been demonized by history [Darwin, Hitler]. Those we always wondered about [eastern religions] and now much of their final destiny rides on us. Even the possibility of fallen angels being forgiven! [Hey, maybe Origen was right?] The whole point of this scenario is to simply say we might have been asking the wrong questions all along. Now for sure, no one gets in without Jesus and his blood! But there are also a few other verses [Peter] that seem to indicate a second hearing [or first!] of the gospel before the final day. The point being how willing are you to really carry out something like this? Are you really ready for the great responsibility of having someone’s destiny depend on how forgiving you are? I really don’t believe 100 % in this scenario I just floated. But Jesus does put us in positions of responsibility all thru out our lives. He does say ‘whoever’s sins we don’t forgive, these sins will be held against them by your own choice’ we keep people in ‘chains of bondage’ today! Never mind the future. God has committed to us great responsibility as believers, if we are still fighting each other over insignificant things [taking our brothers to court, if you will] then we are truly not ready to ‘Judge the world’.

[parts](1227) 2ND CORITNHIANS 5- Paul speaks of the Christian hope- resurrection! This chapter can be confusing if not taken in context. You could think that Paul is saying when we die we have a house/room in heaven ‘waiting for us’ and this seems true enough. But he is really saying something more along the lines of ‘in heaven [Gods realm] we have a promise of a new body. The Spirit in us is the down payment, but full redemption will be complete when we are raised from the dead’ the hope is a new body, not our souls living some type of disembodied existence in a heavenly mansion. Now, Paul teaches us that this new covenant [last chapter] is one of reconciliation, not condemnation. That because of the work of the Cross, all men have been reconciled to God! It is therefore our job to tell them. In the field of Christian thought there have been thinkers [Origen, Carlton Pearson, etc.] who have dabbled with the doctrine of universalism. They believe that ultimately all people will be saved. I do not believe in this doctrine myself [though I wished it were true- I mean wouldn’t you want everyone forgiven and with God?] but those who embrace it find there reasoning in these types of verses. The New Testament teaches a theme of redemption that says ‘all men have been reconciled to God; Jesus has died for all men. God wills for all to be saved’ and it is because of this theme that some have held to universalism. The point I do want to make to all my orthodox friends is the New Testament message is one of total acceptance based on Christ’s death for us. Sometimes Christians ‘make it hard’ for people to ‘get saved’. The bible doesn’t make it hard, it says it’s a free gift that anyone can have [I know my Calvinist friends are upset right now, but heck I cant please all the people all of the time]. We want the world to know that ‘God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself’. These major themes need to be engrained into the mind of the church and the world. I am not talking ‘easy believism’ in the sense that God requires no repentance, but I am talking the reality of the free gift based upon what Jesus has done. There are so many people struggling with so many things, many have prayed and pleaded with God for change. Many have given up; they see God as a demanding judge whom they could never please. The message of the Cross is ‘you can’t please God, make up for your own sins. God placed those sins on Jesus, that’s why you can be accepted’. He was made sin for us, who knew no sin. That we might be made the righteousness of God in him. Once you see this truth, God will set you free. You will change, you will become ‘righteous’ but it’s a result of the Cross, not your own efforts.

[parts]

[1568] ALEXANDRIA- EGYPT. Last night I was watching the news coverage of the demonstators in the streets of Egypt- they were protesting the government’s response [or lack] to the bombing of the church in Alexandria, the second largest city in Egypt [around 4 million people live in the city]. As I watched the sad story- in my mind I recalled all the times I have run across Alexandria in my studies of history. The city was founded by Alexander the great in the 4th century b.c.e. It had the largest library of the ancient world and was Egypt's capitol for around 900 years. When the Muslims took over in the 7th century Cairo became the new capitol [under another name at the time]. Alexandria was one of the great centers of Christian learning during the first few centuries of the 1st millennium of Christianity. I remember reading about the great church father Origen- he lived in the 3rd century and eventually would head up the school out of Alexandria- one of the first Christian schools of the day. The famous philosopher Plotinus also had a lot of influence in the city. It was sad to see the destruction on the news- so many years later. This morning I read Revelation chapter 13. The apostle John writes about the persecution of ‘the beast’ against the Christians- the apostle says he makes war against Gods people and overcomes them. We often neglect to see this aspect of scripture- I mean how many songs have you heard that say ‘the beast overcame us and killed us’. We like to sing stuff like ‘we overcome by the Blood of the Lamb’ [another verse from Revelation]. Yet the apostle foresees a time of persecution of the church that will include the deaths of many believers. Those who think the book of Revelation was written early [before a.d. 70] see Nero as the one who bares the mark of the beast- yes the popular 666 is in this chapter. Others who date the book later [around a.d. 90] see the emperor Domitian as the beast- either way John was speaking about a future ruler who would severely persecute the saints [and of course the most popular view today among evangelicals is the anti Christ is yet to come]. In verse 10 of the chapter John says those who kill with the sword, must die the same way- this is the patience of the saints. John is communicating to the 7 churches that he is writing to that they should not retaliate against their oppressors- they should patiently endure- knowing that the persecutors will eventually ‘hang themselves’ with their own rope. Of course the great empire of Rome would finally fall- and for those who see Nero as the 666 guy [my view] he eventually dies a shameful death as well [he killed himself].

 [parts]

(1335) GALATIANS 5- Paul’s main theme is if we possess the Spirit as believers [being indwelt by God’s Spirit] then let us also walk in/by the Spirit, as opposed to trying to please God by the law and being circumcised. Paul will use the somewhat controversial term ‘ye are fallen from grace’ which simply means that these Gentile believers started by faith and went back to the old Jewish system, much like the themes in the book of Hebrews. Paul says when you go back to the law you have left grace. Christ has ‘become of no effect to you, you who are justified by the law’. This is a good example of how words and certain phrases can develop over the centuries of church history and develop a different meaning over time. In essence the bible does teach that a person can ‘fall from grace’ but this does not describe what the modern reader might think. The first church father who attempted to formulate the Christian doctrine of the Trinity was a man named Tertullian, he lived in the second century and was what theologians refer to as one of the Latin fathers [as opposed to the Greek ones- Origen, etc.] Tertullian was famous for the sayings ‘what does Jerusalem have to do with Athens’ and ‘I believe because it is absurd’ he was resisting the influence of Greek philosophy on the church, he felt that Greek wisdom was influencing the church too much. He was trained in law before becoming a theologian [like Luther and Calvin of 16th century Reformation fame] and he used the words ‘God is one substance/essence and also three persons’ later church councils would agree with this language. But the word ‘person’ at Tertullian’s time was the Latin word ‘personi’ which was taken from the theater and meant a person/actor who would put on different masks during the play; the word had a little different meaning then what we think of today as ‘person’. Later centuries would come to condemn certain Christian groups who seem to have formulated language on the Trinity that expresses the same thing as what the original developer of the doctrine meant to say, but because words and their meanings change over time we get ourselves into disputes that might be getting us off track. Paul also tells the Galatians that if they become circumcised that they are obligating themselves to keep all the law. Of course the medical procedure that many have done in our day is not what he is speaking about, but in Paul’s day getting circumcised was the religious rite that placed you into the religion of Judaism, and this is what Paul is refuting among the Galatians, he tells them not to go down that road. This chapter has lots of good ‘memory verses’, the famous lists of the works of the flesh versus the fruit of the Spirit are found here, and it seems pretty clear to me that Paul identified circumcision with the moral law of the 10 commandments, that is he saw being circumcised as an act that obligated you to ‘keep all the law’ some theologians are discussing whether or not Paul meant the law of Moses when speaking about going ‘back under the law’ some think Paul was speaking only of the ceremonial law and the system of animal sacrifices when he was telling the gentiles that they should not go under the law, I believe if you read Paul in context both in this letter and the book of Romans, that he is speaking of the moral law too, not just the ceremonial law. All in all Paul exhorts these believers to fight for their right to be free from the past restraints of religion and bondage, he tells them to not desire to go back under a system of bondage, that Christ has made us free from that legalistic way of life and he has liberated us by giving us the Holy Spirit- if we ‘walk in the Spirit we will not fulfill the lusts of the flesh, for the flesh lusts against the Spirit and the Spirit against the flesh, and these two are contrary one to the other, so that you cannot do the things that you would’ amen to that.

(1336) [parts]

[1770] TREASURY OF MERIT

 Let’s pick up where we left off 2 posts back. We were talking about Martin Luther and the events that led up to the Protestant Reformation.

 In order to understand the key act that caused the protest- we will have to teach some Catholic history/doctrine.

 In the 16th century Pope Julius began the effort to build St. Peters basilica in Rome. He got as far as laying the foundation and died. Pope Leo the 10th would pick up after him.

 The church needed to raise money for the project- and the German prince- Albert- would play a major role.

 It should be noted that both Catholic and Protestant scholars agree that the Popes of the day were pretty corrupt. They came from what we call the Medici line of Popes.

 If you remember last month I wrote a post on the Renaissance- I talked about the Medici family and how they played a major role in supporting the Renaissance that took place in the 13th century in Florence Italy that would spread to the region.

 Well this very influential family also played a big role in who would get top positions in the church.

 At the time of Luther and prince Albert- if you had the right connections and the money- you could literally buy a position in the church.

 Albert already held 2 Bishop seats- and there was an opening for an Archbishops seat in Mainz [Germany] and he wanted that one too.

 It should be noted that official Canon law [church law] said you could only hold one seat at a time- Albert was bidding on his 3rd one! And he was too young for all of them.

 So even the Pope and the officials held little respect for what the church actually taught at the time.

 So Albert opens up negotiations with Leo- and the bidding starts AT 12,000 Duckets [money] Albert counters with 7,000- and they agree on 10,000. How did they justify the numbers? 12- The number of Apostles. 7- The 7 deadly sins. 10- The 10 commandments.

 Yes- the church was pretty corrupt at the time.

 So Albert works out a plan with Leo- he will borrow the money from the German banks- and pay the banks off by the Pope giving Albert the right to sell Indulgences.

 What’s an Indulgence?

 Okay- this is where it gets tricky.

 The ancient church taught a system called The Treasury of Merit. This was a sort of spiritual bank account that ‘stored up’ the good deeds of others over the years.

 You had the good deeds of Jesus at the top- but you also had Mary and Joseph- the 12 Apostles- and other various saints thru out time.

 The way the ‘bank’ worked was you could tap into the account by getting a Papal indulgence- a sort of I.O.U. that had the Popes guarantee that it would get so much time out of Purgatory for a loved one.

 The actual sacrament that accesses the account is called Penance [confession].

 When a penitent does penance- he confesses his sin to the priest- and he is absolved by the authority of the church that the priest has. The priest usually tells the person ‘say so many Hail Mary’s- Our Father’s’ and that’s a form of penance.

 One of the other things the church practiced was called Alms Deeds. This term is found in the bible and it means giving your money to the poor- it is a noble act that Jesus himself taught.

 In theory- part of the sacrament of penance was tied into Alms Deeds- you can access the account thru the practice of giving to the poor- which also meant giving to the church that helps the poor- and in the hands of the Medici line of Popes- meant outright giving money to the Pope.

 So now you see how the abuse worked its way into the pockets of the faithful.

 Albert now had the permission from Leo to sell these indulgences in Germany- and he would pick a certain corrupt priest to sell them in a place called Saxony- the region where Luther operated out of.

 It should be noted that the Catholic Church never taught the crass act of ‘buying your way out of Purgatory’. The practice of including giving money as a part of the sacrament of penance was tied into the biblical principle of giving to the poor- a good thing.

 But Tetzel and others abused the official meaning of the indulgence- and did make it sound like you could by your way out of Purgatory [in theory- a loved one might be in Purgatory for so many years- and through the indulgence you are actually getting time off for them- because the good deeds of others are now applied to the account].

 The money Albert would raise- half would go to Rome for the building of St. peters- and half would go to pay off the banks in Germany- it was a sad system- and a sad time for the church as a whole.

 It would be wrong to judge the entire church at the time as being corrupt- you did have many sincere Priests and Catholic men and women who saw the abuses and did not take part in them.

 But there was corruption at the top- and this would eventually lead to the breakup of the church- and the launching of what we now call the Protestant Movement.

 As a side note- it should be said that many Catholics and Protestants are not aware of the whole treasury of merit system- and the church never officially changed her position on the doctrine.

 There were 3 Church councils since the time [Trent- 1500’s, Vatican 1- 1800’s and Vatican 2- 1962-65]. The Treasury of Merit never came up for change.

 Obviously Protestants don’t believe in Purgatory- and it’s not my purpose in these posts to change Catholics into Protestants or vice versa- but to give all sides a clear view of the issues that divided us- and to try and be honest- and respectful during the process.

 Does the bible teach anything like a Treasury of Merit? Well actually it does. The bible teaches that the righteousness of Christ is the treasury that people can access- by faith- and become righteous in the sight if God.

 The idea- applied to Christ- is good.

 But in the hands of the Medici Popes- and the ambitious prince of Germany- it would lead to disaster.

[parts]

(955)1st CORINTHIANS 5:6-8 Okay, lets get back to Corinthians. ‘Your glorying is not good, get rid of the old leaven. Don’t you know that a little yeast can affect the whole lump? Get rid of it, you are all unleavened, Christ is our new Passover Lamb who has been sacrificed for us. Therefore let us keep the feast, not with the old leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth’ [my own paraphrasing]. A few things. I want you to see something here, over the years I have read and studied lots of great theologians. It is common for these brothers to go back to the reality of the early church fathers belief in the ‘Real Presence’ of Christ in the Eucharist [Lords supper]. It is also becoming less common [in theological circles!] to defend the symbolic view of the Lords Supper. I believe Paul is presenting the idea of all believers spiritually sitting at the ‘table of life’ on a daily basis and receiving from Christ’s new life in a spiritual/symbolic way. He clearly says ‘let us keep the feast with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth’ [clearly symbolic!] Peter writes of the new sacrifices of praise and thanksgiving. Jesus speaks in an interesting way about this in John chapter 6. The Jews ask him ‘show us a sign, Moses gave us bread to eat from heaven. If you’re from God then prove it like Moses’. I find it interesting that in the key chapter of Jesus being the bread that comes down from heaven, the conversation turns to Moses. The beginning of the chapter does say the Passover feast was getting close, but the imagery is Moses and Manna. Moses represented the Old system of law and works, John’s gospel tells us that ‘the law came from Moses, but grace and truth from Jesus’. Jesus contrasts himself with Moses. He says ‘I am the real bread that has come down from heaven, if men eat my flesh and drink my blood they will live’. Now we must understand the tremendous offence this statement caused. The Jewish people had Levitical laws [commands in their law] that forbid the drinking of any type of blood, never mind the blood of a person! But yet Jesus would speak this way to them. In the conversation the hearers acknowledge the difficulty of the saying, Jesus will say ‘the flesh profits nothing, it is the Spirit that gives you life. The words I am speaking to you are Spirit and life’. At the last supper [which was the symbolic end of the Passover and the beginning of a new celebratory meal centered on the final sacrifice of Jesus, the Lamb of God] Jesus seems to be saying ‘from now on, as long as you do this, you are showing my death until I come again’ [we get this from Paul later on in Corinthians]. As you put all of this imagery together, you get the sense of the New Covenant being one of an ongoing continual New Covenant meal from which all believers daily eat from and ‘keep the feast with the new leaven of truth and sincerity, not the old leaven of sin and wickedness’. You clearly see a symbolic element in this language. Now, I do not discount the importance of the actual ordinance of the Lords Table. I recently defended the Catholic idea to an ex Catholic who is now Protestant. They said ‘how can people believe something so silly’ I had to say that many serious intellectual believers accept the Real Presence doctrine by faith in the literal reading of Jesus words. Luther himself believed it, he made no bones about it when he slammed his fist on the table in his dispute with Zwingli and said ‘this IS MY BODY!’ [I think he slammed his fist, he might have carved it in the table?] Standing for the literal interpretation of the sacrament. John Wesley, the founder of the great Methodist movement, wrote many hymns speaking of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. So make no mistake about it, many good believers hold to the literal belief. I just wanted you to see that it is also in keeping with the scripture to see the entire Christian walk as one huge ongoing ‘feast’ that is kept with spiritual sacrifices and symbolic language. Jesus is the bead that came down from heaven, those who would stay with ‘Moses bread’ [law] would die, those who would eat from this new table would live forever.

[parts]

(1076) Being we are in between studies I thought I might talk a little on the books I recently read. One was an older scholarly work on revivals and ‘revivalism’. It covered the history of the great awakenings [18th-19th century America], while I am familiar with this period and have read on it before, the interesting thing I learned was the intense disagreement between the Arminians [those who reject the classic doctrines of Predestination] and the Calvinists. The degree of anti-Calvinism was surprising. Many average readers of church history do not realize the role that Calvinism played in the beliefs of many of the famous reformers [Spurgeon, Edwards, Whitefield]. Also the intense disagreement between the ‘new measures’ [altar call] and the more reserved churches. I must admit I personally came to distrust the amount of weight that is put on the evangelical ‘altar call’. I remember as a new believer, being excited about the things of the Lord, I was working for a construction crew and worked with a bunch of good old boys. They were around my age [19-20] and were local Texans. I was this Yankee from New Jersey, but I liked the brothers. I remember how after witnessing to them non stop for a period of around a year, one of them sincerely tells me ‘Oh, we are all saved, we all got saved as kids in our churches’. I realized the popular terminology of ‘getting saved’ and associating that with the evangelical altar call, was just as legalistic as some of our Catholic brother’s trust in infant baptism and the sacraments. That is the Protestants would criticize the Catholics for ‘trusting in tradition’ while they were just as bad! So in the recent book they showed the intense disagreements over this, many reformed brothers felt that telling people to raise their hands ‘in church’ and come to the altar to ‘get saved’ was simply giving false hope to many people who clearly had no real understanding of the gospel. But the other extreme was the strong Calvinists who seemed to indicate that total passivity was the way to go. Some got the impression that you could not make ‘a choice’ to follow the Lord, so they didn’t. For the most part I recognize that it is possible to have gone thru all the motions [whether Protestant or Catholic] and to lack a real trust and faith in Christ, but some carry this too far and judge others as ‘not being saved’ because they did not say ‘the sinners prayer’ or ‘accept Jesus into their heart’. The scriptures clearly teach that those who believe in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ, that they are children of God. Now, I realize this is not speaking of simple American ‘I believe in God’ type faith, where people have no real walk with the Lord. But we also don’t want to reduce salvation to an evangelical [or Catholic] technique that you blindly follow in order to ‘get saved’. My well meaning friend who told me ‘we are all saved’ was simply viewing ‘being saved’ from a religious lens, just like a cradle Catholic might view the sacraments. I believe we should encourage people to have a strong commitment to the faith, trusting and relying on Christ’s work for our redemption, but we need to be careful that we are not viewing ‘being saved’ only thru our own religious paradigm.

  [parts]

  (846)ROMANS 8:29-30 ‘for whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed into the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: whom he justified, them he also glorified’. Let’s talk a little. When I first became a Christian I began a lifelong study of scripture, where I continually read a certain amount of scripture every day for many years. Over the years I have varied on how fast I should read [that is how many chapters per day and so forth]. But during the early stages I always took these verses to teach predestination in the classical sense. Simply put, that God ‘pre chose’ me [and all whom come to him] before we ‘chose him’. The Fundamental Baptist church I began to attend [a great church with great people!] taught that ‘classic Calvinism’ [predestination] was false doctrine, and they labeled it ‘Hyper Calvinism’. I simply accepted this as fact. But I never forgot the early understanding that I first gleaned thru my own study. I also was very limited in my other readings outside of the scripture. I did study the Great awakenings and Charles Finney. I read some biographies on John Wesley and other great men of God. These men were not Calvinistic in their doctrine [which is fine], as a matter of fact Wesley would eventually disassociate from George Whitefield over this issue. Whitefield was a staunch Calvinist! Over time I came to believe the doctrine again, simply as I focused on the scriptures that teach it. Eventually I picked up some books on church history and realized that Calvinism was [and is] a mainstream belief among many great believers. I personally believe that most of the great theologians in history have accepted this doctrine. Now, for those who reject it, they honestly struggle with these portions of scripture. Just like there are portions of scripture that Calvinists struggle with. To deny this is to be less than honest. The Arminians [Those who deny classic predestination- the term comes from Jacob Arminias, a Calvinist who was writing and studying on the ‘errors’ of ‘arminianism’ and came to embrace the doctrine of free will/choice] usually approach the verses that say ‘he predestined us’ by teaching that Gods predestination speaks only of his foreknowledge of those who would choose him. This is an honest effort to come to terms with the doctrine. To be ‘more honest’ I think this doesn’t adequately deal with the issue. In the above text, as well as many other places in scripture, the idea of ‘Gods foreknowledge and pre choosing’ speak specifically about Gods choice to save us, as opposed to him simply knowing that we would ‘choose right’. The texts that teach predestination teach it in this context. Now the passage above does say ‘those whom he foreknew, he also did predestinate to be conformed into the image of Christ’ here this passage actually does say ‘God predestinated us to be like his Son’. If you left the ‘foreknowledge’ part out, you could read this passage in an Arminian way. But we do have the ‘foreknowledge’ part. So I believe Paul is saying ‘God chose us before we were born, he ‘knew’ ahead of time that he would bring us into his Kingdom. Those whom he foreknew he also predestinated to become like his Son.’ Why? So his Son would be the firstborn among many. God wanted a whole new race of ‘children of God’. Those he predestinated he ‘called’. He drew them to himself. Jesus said ‘all that the Father give to me will come to me, and him that cometh to me I will in no way cast out’. Those who ‘come’ are justified, those who are justified are [present tense] glorified. Gods design and sovereignty speak of it as a ‘finished task’ like it already happened. God lives outside of the dimension of time. I believe in the doctrine of predestination. Many others do as well. You don’t have to believe it if you don’t want to, but I believe scripture teaches it.

 [parts]

ROMANS 8-10

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDqIktzp8Xc

https://ccoutreach87.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/2-24-15-romans-8-10.zip

 VIDEO- [I cover stuff on the videos that are not in the post- here are a few]

.Council of Trent- what did the Church say?

.Do we get the final say- at the Judgment?

.What are the Catholic virtues- did Paul teach them?

.Augustine, Calvin, Whitfield and Wesley.

.Infusion or Imputation? How bout both!

At the bottom I added some quotes from the Catechism of the Catholic church- to show that the official teaching of the church DOES NOT TEACH SALVATION BY THE LAW- BUT BY CHRIST.

 . REMINDER- This is a commentary I wrote years ago- the videos are new.

.CHAPTER 8- FEW POINTS;

1- Did God choose us to believe- or did we choose him?

2- When Paul says ‘he makes our bodies alive’ is he only speaking about resurrection?

3- Does God use difficulty- or is it to be rebuked?

4- Was Paul a ‘hyper- Calvinist’?

(839)ROMAN 8:1-4 ‘There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh [sinful nature] but after the Spirit [new nature]’. Now, having proved the reality of sin and guilt [chapter 7] Paul teaches that those who ‘are in Christ’ are free from condemnation. Why? Because they ‘walk according to the Spirit’ the ‘righteousness of the law is being fulfilled in them’. Having no condemnation isn’t simply a ‘legal function’ of declared righteousness, and Paul didn’t teach it that way! Paul is saying ‘all those who have believed in Jesus and have been legally justified [earlier arguments in chapters 3-4] are now walking [actually acting out] this new nature. Therefore [because you no longer walk according to the flesh] there is no condemnation’! This argument helps bridge the gap between Catholic and Protestant theology, part of the reason for the ongoing schism is over this understanding. After the Reformation the Catholic Church had a Counter Reformation council, the council of Trent. They dealt with a lot of the abuses of the Catholic Church, things that many Catholic leaders were complaining about before the Reformation. They did deal with some issues and reformed somewhat. To the dismay of the more ‘reform minded’ Catholics [with Protestant leanings] they still came down strong on most pre reform doctrines. This made it next to impossible for the schism to be healed. But one area of disagreement was over ‘legal’ versus ‘actual/experiential’ justification. The Catholic position was ‘God can’t declare/say a person is justified until they actually are’ [experientially]. The Protestant side [Luther] said ‘God does justify [legal declaration] a person by faith alone’. Like I taught before, both of these are true. The Catholic view of ‘justification’ is looking ahead towards a future reality [The same way James speaks of justification in a future sense- He uses the example from Genesis 22, when Abraham does a righteous act] while the Protestant view is focusing on the initial legal act of justification [Genesis 15]. Here Paul agrees with both views, he says ‘those who walk after the Spirit [actually living the changed life] have no condemnation’.

 (840)ROMANS 8:5-13 Paul will teach the impossibility of the ‘carnal minds’ ability to submit to Gods law. Those who are ‘in the flesh’ [the unregenerate nature- not simply ‘in the body’. We will get into these distinctions in a minute] can’t submit to God. Society spends so much time and effort trying to get the ‘lost man’ to do what's right. The prohibition movement [outlawing liquor], the increase in the severity of punishment for crimes dealing with drugs. Making the child kidnappers crime punishable by death. While all these laws are necessary and good [though some debate the wisdom of the kidnapper one, they think the kidnapper might just go ahead and kill the victim if the same punishment applies to both crimes] they have little effect on getting ‘the carnal man to submit’. Paul also says ‘if the Spirit of him who raised up Christ from the dead dwells in you, then he that raised up Christ from the dead shall quicken [make alive] your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwells in you’. Let’s do a little teaching here. Most commentators see this as speaking of the promise of the resurrection ‘your mortal bodies’. I see this more in line with the context of chapter 7. The discussion of ‘mortal bodies’ [your actual body, the flesh- which is different than ‘the fleshly nature’ which refers to the sinful nature] speaks of your actual life now ‘let not sin therefore reign in your mortal bodies’. Also in verse 13 of this chapter the same theme is seen ‘if ye thru the Spirit mortify the deeds of the body ye shall live’. I believe Paul is primarily saying ‘if you are in the Spirit [born of God] the Spirit of life will make alive your physical life in such a way that you will glorify God in your body and spirit, which are Gods’ [Corinthians]. Chapter 12 says your bodies are living sacrifices, holy and acceptable to God. Now later on in this chapter [8] we do see the resurrection, which is called ‘the redemption of the body’ [verse 23] so these two concepts work together. The fact that the believer is ‘training his mortal body’ for God [thru obedience] is sort of a precursor to the resurrection! Now, some believers confuse the resurrection of the body and the work of regeneration in ‘making you alive’ [Ephesians 2]. The work of regeneration brings your dead spirit back to life [born again] when you believe [which is a Divine imputation of faith at the moment of conversion, a sovereign act]. This ‘coming alive’ is purely spiritual. This qualifies you for the future physical resurrection of the body [Ephesians calls this the ‘down payment’, the ‘earnest of our inheritance, until the redemption of the purchased possession’. The word ‘earnest’ here is used in the same way as ‘earnest money’ in a real estate transaction. The fact that we have been ‘sealed’ with the Holy Spirit is our ‘guarantee of future bodily resurrection’]. Bishop N.T. Wright, the bishop of Durham [the church of England- Durham is the 3rd most influential post in the Church of England. Canterbury is at the top] has recently written on the truths of the resurrection of the body. He is an excellent scholar, way way above my league. He has been instrumental in ‘re introducing’ the reality of Christ’s resurrection as well as our future resurrection as a very real Christian belief [and historic truth as well]. I have read some of Wrights stuff and am a little surprised at some of the ideas on ‘soul sleep’ and the immortality of the soul. Bishop Wright seems to side with some of the ideas that certain restorationist groups [7th day Adventists] espouse, that the Catholic Church kind of corrupted the ideas of heaven and the soul by being overly influenced by Greek thought. While it is possible for Bishop Wright to have come to his understanding entirely thru scripture and history, yet I felt it a little strange to see him make these arguments. For the most part I like brother Wright and totally agree with his stance on the future ‘new heavens and new earth’ as the final place of rest [as opposed to dying and going to heaven now, which is a temporary place] but there is the biblical reality of a present ‘heaven’ and this doesn’t only come from Greek thought. I have often used the Christian doctrine of the new heavens and new earth while speaking with the Jehovah’s witnesses, I always agree on the reality of a future kingdom on earth. I simply steer the conversation back to ‘who qualifies for it’ and get straight to the gospel. Well anyway we have a promise of a future resurrection, and also a ‘quickening of the body now’ [God actually using our physical life to glorify him]. These are both great truths!

 (841)ROMANS 8: 14-18 ‘For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the Sons of God’. Many of us are familiar with this verse [I hope!]. We often see it as saying ‘Gods direction in our lives is proof that we are Christians’ true enough. But in context ‘being led by Gods Spirit’ means living the new life thru Christ. The putting to death of the old man and being ‘made alive’ thru Christ is what this is saying. Paul agrees with John [1st John] ‘those that do what is right [led by the Spirit] are of God’. Paul says ‘we have received the Spirit and a natural result of this is crying “Abba, Father”. I don’t want to do too much here, but Paul sees the ‘confession’ and heart cry of the believer as proof, a result of being ‘a habitation of the Spirit’. A sign, if you will, of being born of God is confessing/ praying to the Father. Paul quoted David in chapter 4 ‘for this shall every one that is godly pray unto thee in a time when thou mayest be found’ [Psalms 32- actually Paul quotes a different section from the Psalm, but this theme is consistent with Paul’s view]. Paul knew the reality of ‘the godly calling upon God’ they have an inner cry of ‘Abba, father’. ‘We are heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ’. For many years this has been a popular verse among many believers, often times it is used to say ‘God owns the cattle on a thousand hills’ [which he does] therefore if we are heirs ‘give me some cattle’! [stuff]. Here Paul uses this term in speaking of our identification with Christ’s sufferings. ‘If we suffer with him, we too shall share [joint heir!] in his glory’ [future glorification at the resurrection- we shall see him and be changed in a moment, at the twinkling of an eye. This mortal shall put on immortality]. It’s a symptom of modern American Christianity to view all these scriptures thru a materialistic lens, Paul held to the promise of a future reward [at the resurrection] that enabled him to go thru great difficulty and suffering in this present life. He counted the suffering as a privilege that he shared with Christ.

 (843)ROMANS 8: 19-25 ‘the sufferings of this present time [are you ‘presently’ suffering?] are not worthy to be compared with the glory that shall be revealed in us’. Paul compares the difficulty to the reward. The reward here is the future resurrection. Paul did not see suffering as ‘from the devil’ or the reward as something material [monetary stuff! The resurrection body will be ‘material’ - real]. Paul teaches that the whole creation is waiting for this day. Not only will we get a ‘makeover’ but there will be a new heaven and a new earth! The creation itself longs for this [almost as much as Al Gore!] This resurrection is called ‘the redemption of our body’. The next verse says ‘we are saved by hope’. John also says [1st John] that the future reality of the resurrection ‘causes us to be pure in this life’ [every one that has this hope in him purifies himself, even as he is pure]. Why? Because we know God has a purpose for our bodies as well as our spirits! The ‘getting saved by hope’ simply means the future hope of the resurrection ‘encourages’ us to live clean now. Once again ‘saved’ is a neutral term. In can apply to all sorts of things. I always found it funny how when you read certain commentaries, that you see the difficulty Christians have when coming across these types of verses. There’s a verse that says ‘the woman will be saved thru childbearing’ geez, you wouldn’t believe the difficulty some writers have when they come across this stuff. Some teach ‘she will be ‘saved’ thru the birth of a child [Jesus]’ and all sorts of stuff. I think if we simply changed the word ‘saved’ for ‘delivered’ [which are basically the same thing] that maybe this would help. But thank God that we have a future resurrection to look forward to, let this truth ‘deliver’ you from the temptation to think ‘what’s all this suffering worth, why even go thru it?’ Because we have a great promise at the other end!

 (845)ROMANS 8:26-28 ‘Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities’ why does Paul say ‘likewise’? He is saying ‘not only does the future hope of the resurrection sustain us, but also Gods Spirit helps us’! He knows how to make intercession for us in ways that we cannot. I just finished an hour prayer time, not an ‘official’ intercession time [which I do a few times a week now]. But an ‘unofficial’ time where I try and hear what the Spirit is speaking. When you are ‘praying in the Spirit’ [which can include the charismatic expression of tongues] you are depending upon the Spirit to transcend your limited ability to articulate what needs to be said. ‘All things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are ‘the called’ according to his purpose’. A very famous verse indeed. What does it mean? It means what it says! Over the years I have heard so many excuses for trying to get around difficult things. Why do the righteous suffer? Some taught it was because of their ignorance of scripture. Why did the things that happened to Job happen? Some said it was because he ‘feared’ that the things would happen [this group seems to miss the whole underlying reason for the book. Job’s friends are continually looking for a reason thru out the book. The point is, sometimes there is no reasonable explanation. I realize you can pick apart certain statements from Job and come up with ‘reasons’, but the meaning of the book is God is sovereign and we shouldn’t always think we can figure him out or ‘work the system’]. Here Paul says ‘whatever is happening to you right now [even very bad stuff!] will eventually work out for you benefit’. What about Hitler? Did he love God? I don’t believe so. This scripture says ‘to them that love God’. Your only responsibility thru the difficulty is to ‘love God’.

 (846)ROMANS 8:29-30 ‘for whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed into the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: whom he justified, them he also glorified’. Let’s talk a little. When I first became a Christian I began a lifelong study of scripture, where I continually read a certain amount of scripture every day for many years. Over the years I have varied on how fast I should read [that is how many chapters per day and so forth]. But during the early stages I always took these verses to teach predestination in the classical sense. Simply put, that God ‘pre chose’ me [and all whom come to him] before we ‘chose him’. The Fundamental Baptist church I began to attend [a great church with great people!] taught that ‘classic Calvinism’ [predestination] was false doctrine, and they labeled it ‘Hyper Calvinism’. I simply accepted this as fact. But I never forgot the early understanding that I first gleaned thru my own study. I also was very limited in my other readings outside of the scripture. I did study the Great awakenings and Charles Finney. I read some biographies on John Wesley and other great men of God. These men were not Calvinistic in their doctrine [which is fine], as a matter of fact Wesley would eventually disassociate from George Whitefield over this issue. Whitefield was a staunch Calvinist! Over time I came to believe the doctrine again, simply as I focused on the scriptures that teach it. Eventually I picked up some books on church history and realized that Calvinism was [and is] a mainstream belief among many great believers. I personally believe that most of the great theologians in history have accepted this doctrine. Now, for those who reject it, they honestly struggle with these portions of scripture. Just like there are portions of scripture that Calvinists struggle with. To deny this is to be less than honest. The Arminians [Those who deny classic predestination- the term comes from Jacob Arminias, a Calvinist who was writing and studying on the ‘errors’ of ‘arminianism’ and came to embrace the doctrine of free will/choice] usually approach the verses that say ‘he predestined us’ by teaching that Gods predestination speaks only of his foreknowledge of those who would choose him. This is an honest effort to come to terms with the doctrine. To be ‘more honest’ I think this doesn’t adequately deal with the issue. In the above text, as well as many other places in scripture, the idea of ‘Gods foreknowledge and pre choosing’ speak specifically about Gods choice to save us, as opposed to him simply knowing that we would ‘choose right’. The texts that teach predestination teach it in this context. Now the passage above does say ‘those whom he foreknew, he also did predestinate to be conformed into the image of Christ’ here this passage actually does say ‘God predestinated us to be like his Son’. If you left the ‘foreknowledge’ part out, you could read this passage in an Arminian way. But we do have the ‘foreknowledge’ part. So I believe Paul is saying ‘God chose us before we were born, he ‘knew’ ahead of time that he would bring us into his Kingdom. Those whom he foreknew he also predestinated to become like his Son.’ Why? So his Son would be the firstborn among many. God wanted a whole new race of ‘children of God’. Those he predestinated he ‘called’. He drew them to himself. Jesus said ‘all that the Father give to me will come to me, and him that cometh to me I will in no way cast out’. Those who ‘come’ are justified, those who are justified are [present tense] glorified. Gods design and sovereignty speak of it as a ‘finished task’ like it already happened. God lives outside of the dimension of time. I believe in the doctrine of predestination. Many others do as well. You don’t have to believe it if you don’t want to, but I believe scripture teaches it.

 (847)ROMANS 8: 31-39 ‘What shall we say then to these things? [what things? The fact that God predestined us and has guaranteed completion of the purpose he has designed us for!] If God be for us, who can be against us?’ Paul teaches that Christ is the only one with the ‘right’ or authority to pass judgment. If the only person in existence who can ‘officially’ condemn and pass legal judgment has actually died for us for the purpose of ‘freeing us from a state of condemnation’, then who ‘gives a rip’ about others opinions and views of us? Most of us struggle with how others view us. Paul did teach that Elders should have good character and a fine reputation in the community. But there is another type of ‘persona’ that preachers can fall into. A sort of ‘concern’ about what the critics are saying. In this context Paul says ‘If the opinion of the only person in existence whose opinion really matters, is one of “I accept you unconditionally, I declare you free from what others think, you are my beloved son in whom I am well pleased. Ever since I have known you, you have been pleasing in my sight” [all true scriptures by the way] Then who cares what others think! Paul also teaches that nothing can separate us from Christ’s love ‘not tribulation or distress or famine or persecution’ IN all these things we are more than conquerors thru him who loved us. Most times we view this passage from a ‘Calvinistic’ lens. I want you to see the impact of this statement thru a different lens. In the American church we have taught people ‘would a good father not pay the bills of his kids? Would a good father allow his kids to suffer? If you were really partaking of the New Covenant you would have it made’. While I do realize that many well meaning ministers have taught these viewpoints with honest and sincere hearts, I also have seen how this mindset accuses the saints. It basically tells the struggling believer ‘what kind of father do you have? If he really loved you would you be going thru these things’? In essence we are saying ‘tribulation and distress and persecution’ are all signs that ‘you have been separated from Gods love’! Paul blows this false [materialistic] mindset out of the water. He says it is thru these things that we are more than conquerors. It is the ability to look into the face of Pontius Pilate and say ‘you have no power over me, my father has permitted these things to take place. I am here to lay my life down for his glory’. Paul said all these things we are suffering are opportunities to glorify our father. To look into the face of society and say ‘nay, we are more than conqueror's thru him that loved us’. The early church set the world on fire when they were laying their lives down for the cause, refusing to deny their Lord even at the point of death. They were ‘more than conquerors’.

 ROMANS 9-

.PAUL- SPURGEON- AND DAVE HUNT- DID THEY BELIEVE IN PREDESTINATION?

.HOW DOES PAUL DEFEND AGAINST THE SEEMING ‘UNFAIRNESS’ OF IT?

.WHAT DID THAT RUSSIAN ATHIEST SAY?

 (848)ROMANS 9: 1-8 Paul returns to an earlier theme ‘Christ came, as pertaining to the flesh, in response to the covenants that God made with Israel’ [my paraphrase!] Paul says that natural Israel played a very important role in the coming of Messiah. He was [is] the fulfillment of the prophecies that came as a result of Gods interaction with ‘the commonwealth of Israel’. Now Paul again says ‘they are not all Israel, which are of Israel, but “in Isaac shall thy seed be called’”. Understand something here, Paul is not teaching ‘another’ natural lineage to Christ. The mistake of the worldwide church of God [Herbert Armstrong] which teaches British Israelism, trying to trace the natural lineage of Europeans and saying ‘these are the lost tribes’. Paul is simply saying ‘those who are of the Law, the natural tribe of Israel [Jews] are not automatically counted as ‘the seed’ [children] but those who ‘are of promise’. Paul also uses this in Galatians 3 and 4. ‘Of promise’ is simply saying ‘those who have been born of Gods Spirit [Jew or Gentile] are the children that God promised to Abraham’ he is the father of ‘many nations’. All who would believe. These themes are building upon Paul’s earlier theology in this letter. This letter [Romans] has a little more ‘weight’ than say a pastoral epistle [Timothy, Titus]. Now, I am not saying it is ‘more inspired’ but I want you to see that even in the book of Acts you see Paul place special emphasis on ‘I must make it to Rome’! Paul fully realizes that this letter will be read among the believers and Jews at Rome. Rome is the capitol city of the Empire. He wants the early believers to understand the role and purpose of God for Israel. Paul’s efforts are being seen by some Jewish believers [Jerusalem] as antagonistic. Paul wants to make it clear that he was not trying to start some type of movement that rejected natural Israel. At the same time he wants natural Israel ‘my kinsman according to the flesh’ to receive their Messiah! So in this context Romans is a theological treatise saying ‘God wants to bring both Jew and Gentile together as one new man in Christ [Ephesians]’. When he argues ‘they that are the children of the flesh ARE NOT THE CHILDREN OF GOD[verse 8] but the children of the promise are counted for the seed’ he is simply saying ‘all people, both Jews and Gentiles [which includes all races that are ‘non Jews’ even Arabs!] can partake of this free gift by grace’. The promise is to all who ‘will believe’.

 (849)ROMANS 9:9-23 now we get into predestination. Paul uses the example of Jacob and Esau [I spoke on this in the Genesis study, see chapter 25], he says God chose Jacob over Esau before they were born. He also uses the story of Pharaoh and says God was the one who hardened his heart. Paul says these things show us that God’s mercy and choice are a sovereign act. He specifically says ‘God chose Jacob, not on the basis of any thing he did [or would do!] but because of his own sovereign choice’. Now, this is another one of those arguments where Paul says ‘you will then say to me, how can God find fault? If everyone is simply doing the things he preordained, fulfilling destiny, then how can God justly hold people accountable’? First, I want you to see that this statement, that Paul is putting into the mouths of his opponents, only makes sense from the classic position of predestination. Second, if predestination only spoke of Gods foreknowledge of the choices that people were going to make [like asking Jesus into their heart!] then the obvious response to the argument would be ‘Oh, God chose Jacob because he knew what a good boy he was going to be’. Not only would this be wrong, Jacob [the supplanter] was not a ‘good boy’, but Paul does not use this defense in arguing his case. He simply says ‘who are we to question God? Can the thing formed say to him that formed it “why have you made me like this”? It seems as if Paul’s understanding of predestination was in the Augustinian/Calvinistic Tradition. A few years back a popular author on the west coast, Dave Hunt, wrote a book called ‘what kind of love is this’? He took on the Reformed Faiths understanding of predestination. Dave was a little out of his league in the book. He seemed to not fully grasp the historic understanding of the doctrine. He quoted some stuff from Charles Spurgeon that made it sound like he was not a believer in predestination. Spurgeon did make strong statements against certain ideas that were [are] prevalent in classic Calvinism. Some taught that Christ’s Blood was shed only for the elect. This is called ‘particular redemption’ or from the famous ‘Tulip’ example ‘limited atonement’. Spurgeon did not embrace the idea that Christ’s Blood was not sufficient to cover the sins of the whole world. The problem with Hunt using this true example from Spurgeon, is that he overlooked the other obvious statements from Spurgeon that place him squarely in the Calvinistic camp. Some refer to this as ‘4 point Calvinism’. I myself agree with Spurgeon on this point. The reason I mention this whole thing is to show you that major Christian figures have dealt with these texts and have struggled with the obvious difficulties involved. I think Paul does a little ‘speculative theology’ himself in this chapter. He says ‘what if God willing to show his mercy and wrath permitted certain things’. He gives possible reasons for the seeming ‘unfairness’ of this doctrine. The point I want to stress is Paul never tries to defend it from the classic Arminian understanding, that says ‘God knew the way people were going to choose, and he simply ‘foreordained’ those who would choose right’. To be honest, this argument does answer the question in the minds of many believers, I simply don’t see it to be accurate.

 (851)ROMANS 9:24-29 Paul quotes Hosea and Isaiah to show that God has a purpose for both Jew and Gentile. He uses a few verses from Isaiah 10 and 13 to say ‘except the lord had left us a remnant, no one would be left’. Now, once again we come up against the mindset of always reading ‘saved’ as meaning ‘born again’. In context, God ‘saving’ a remnant simply means ‘he spared them from ruin and total destruction’. There is a verse in Revelation that says ‘the nations of them which are saved shall enjoy the new heavens and earth’. Some commentators will show you how some versions leave out ‘which are saved’ which would leave the text as saying ‘the nations [that are left, remain!] shall walk in it’. This is the context here. Paul is saying God always had a few from Israel that remained, he didn’t utterly wipe them out. Now, this of course fits in with ‘having sins forgiven’, being ‘saved’ or redeemed. There are prophets who say ‘the Lord will turn away ungodliness from Jacob’ [delivered from sin] and ‘the lord comes to those who have turned away from their sin’ speaking of Israel. So I want you to grasp the biblical concept of God saving [sparing] a remnant. The word ‘remnant’ actually speaks of the part of cloth/ material that is ‘left over’ from the whole piece. Jesus also said ‘unless those days were shortened, their would no flesh “be saved”’. Once again meaning ‘no human would survive unless God cut short his wrath’. Paul also uses this language here ‘the lord will do a quick work on the earth and cut it short [shortened!] in righteousness’.

 (853)ROMANS 9: 30-33 ‘What shall we say then? That the Gentiles which followed not after the law of righteousness have attained it, even by faith’.  Paul concludes the chapter by summing up his ‘righteousness by faith’ argument. Natural Israel, who sought to become righteous by law, who were always striving for perfection thru the keeping of the law. They did not attain that which they sought after. Why? Because they sought it ‘not by faith, but by law’. No law could ever make a man righteous. The Gentiles, which were not even looking! They got it. Why? Because they simply believed in the Messiah, it was the best message they ever heard. They were told their whole lives ‘you are separated from Gods promises. You are not included in the commonwealth of Israel’. They never dreamed that the Jewish Messiah would say ‘neither do I condemn thee, go and sin no more’. They received Gods righteousness by faith. Israel ‘stumbled’ at the stumbling stone. Jesus is called a precious stone and also a rock of offence. To those who believe, he is great, precious. To those who don’t believe he is this tremendous obstacle. The unbelieving world doesn’t know what to do with him. I was watching Ravi Zacharias the other night. He is a good Christian apologist. He was telling the story of being in Russia and speaking to a large group of Atheists. During his talk they were really aggressive, making motions with their hands and all. He was told ahead of time to be prepared. At the question and answer time a Russian Atheist asked ‘what are you talking about when you say God? I have no idea what you mean by this false concept’. Ravi asked him ‘sir, are you an Atheist?’ He replied yes. ‘What is an Atheist’? Ravi asked. The man responded ‘someone who denies God’. Ravi said ‘what exactly is it that you are denying’? The unbeliever has come up against this ‘rock of offence’. He tries to get around it, to develop all types of systems and philosophies to deny it. The rock is there, you can either ‘fall on it’. That is admit he is who he claims to be. Submit and be ‘broken’. Or it will eventually ‘grind you to powder’. You will pass from the scene and the next crop of Atheists will rise and face the same dilemma. This rock ‘aint going away’.

[parts]

VERSES-

3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:

4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

Eph. 1

9 For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sarah shall have a son.

10 And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;

11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)

12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.

13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.

15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.

18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?

20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?

21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

Rom. 9

Ephesians 2:1 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;

Ephesians 2:2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:

Ephesians 2:3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

Ephesians 2:4 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,

Ephesians 2:5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)

Ephesians 2:6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:

Ephesians 2:7 That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

Ephesians 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Ephesians 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

Joshua 24:15

And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, chooseyou this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

23 And when he had sent the multitudes away, he went up into a mountain apart to pray: and when the evening was come, he was there alone.

24 But the ship was now in the midst of the sea, tossed with waves: for the wind was contrary.

25 And in the fourth watch of the night Jesus went unto them, walking on the sea.

26 And when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were troubled, saying, It is a spirit; and they cried out for fear.

27 But straightway Jesus spake unto them, saying, Be of good cheer; it is I; be not afraid.

28 And Peter answered him and said, Lord, if it be thou, bid me come unto thee on the water.

29 And he said, Come. And when Peter was come down out of the ship, he walked on the water, to go to Jesus.

30 But when he saw the wind boisterous, he was afraid; and beginning to sink, he cried, saying, Lord, save me.

31 And immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand, and caught him, and said unto him, O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?

32 And when they were come into the ship, the wind ceased.

33 Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God.

Matt. 14

2 Peter 3:9

The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Psalm 139:13 [Full Chapter]

For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb.

11 And there appeared unto him an angel of the Lord standing on the right side of the altar of incense.

12 And when Zacharias saw him, he was troubled, and fear fell upon him.

13 But the angel said unto him, Fear not, Zacharias: for thy prayer is heard; and thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John.

14 And thou shalt have joy and gladness; and many shall rejoice at his birth.

15 For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb.

Lk. 1

18 When Jesus had spoken these words, he went forth with his disciples over the brook Cedron, where was a garden, into the which he entered, and his disciples.

2 And Judas also, which betrayed him, knew the place: for Jesus ofttimes resorted thither with his disciples.

3 Judas then, having received a band of men and officers from the chief priests and Pharisees, cometh thither with lanterns and torches and weapons.

4 Jesus therefore, knowing all things that should come upon him, went forth, and said unto them, Whom seek ye?

5 They answered him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith unto them, I am he. And Judas also, which betrayed him, stood with them.

6 As soon then as he had said unto them, I am he, they went backward, and fell to the ground.

7 Then asked he them again, Whom seek ye? And they said, Jesus of Nazareth.

8 Jesus answered, I have told you that I am he: if therefore ye seek me, let these go their way:

9 That the saying might be fulfilled, which he spake, Of them which thou gavest me have I lost none.

10 Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest's servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant's name was Malchus.

11 Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?

Jn. 18

Luke 22:48 But Jesus said unto him, Judas, betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss?

Luke 22:49 When they which were about him saw what would follow, they said unto him, Lord, shall we smite with the sword?

Luke 22:50 And one of them smote the servant of the high priest, and cut off his right ear.

Luke 22:51 And Jesus answered and said, Suffer ye thus far. And he touched his ear, and healed him.

21 When Jesus had thus said, he was troubled in spirit, and testified, and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me.

22 Then the disciples looked one on another, doubting of whom he spake.

23 Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved.

24 Simon Peter therefore beckoned to him, that he should ask who it should be of whom he spake.

25 He then lying on Jesus' breast saith unto him, Lord, who is it?

26 Jesus answered, He it is, to whom I shall give a sop, when I have dipped it. And when he had dipped the sop, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon.

27 And after the sop Satan entered into him. Then said Jesus unto him, That thou doest, do quickly.

28 Now no man at the table knew for what intent he spake this unto him.

29 For some of them thought, because Judas had the bag, that Jesus had said unto him, Buy those things that we have need of against the feast; or, that he should give something to the poor.

30 He then having received the sop went immediately out: and it was night.

Mark 14:21

The Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written of him: but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! good were it for that man if he had never been born.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Psalm 109:8

Let his days be few; and let another take hisoffice.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Acts 1:15 And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,)

Acts 1:16 Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus.

Acts 1:17 For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry.

Acts 1:18 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.

Acts 1:19 And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.

Acts 1:20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.

Acts 1:21 Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,

Acts 1:22 Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.

Acts 1:23 And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.

Acts 1:24 And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen,

Acts 1:25 That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.

Acts 1:26 And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

 www.corpuschristioutreachministries.blogspot.com

https://www.facebook.com/john.chiarello.5?ref=bookmarks

https://ccoutreach87.wordpress.com/

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZ4GsqTEVWRm0HxQTLsifvg

https://twitter.com/ccoutreach87

https://plus.google.com/108013627259688810902/posts

https://vimeo.com/user37400385

https://www.pinterest.com/ccoutreach87/

https://www.linkedin.com/home?trk=hb_logo

http://johnchiarello.tumblr.com/

https://medium.com/@johnchiarello

http://ccoutreach.over-blog.com/

Note- Please do me a favor, those who read/like the posts- re-post them on other sites as well as the site you read them on- Thanks- John.#

             tainedObjec��3y�1