#because the bible is actually very clear on the subject

[spiegelgestalt]

Does the bible endorse slavery?

Soooo. A few weeks ago I watched the new video by Dan Olson. It’s about the futile quest to prove creationism is real by proving that dinosaurs and humans lived during the same period of time. It’s a good video. There was just one part that triggered me no offended me to my core and it was this one: the fundamentalist try so desperately to prove creationism because they want to keep the bible as unquestionable authority so they can continue their bigoted beliefs. And this angered me. I wasn’t angry at Dan. I’m pretty sure he’s right. There are Christians who think that the only thing standing between them and their ability to subjugate humans and treat others badly for their own personal gain is science, secularism and a critical read of the bible.

And as a Christian i just can't let this stand

This is me cleaning house (she said if anyone would read this and if she had any authority) Get your grabby fundamentalist prosperity gospel slavery apologist hands away from my holy scripture. We don’t want you here. Go away.

Does the bible think that slavery is okay?

Short answer: No.

Nuanced answer under the cut:

The bible has a harm reduction approach to a lot of social issues. A lot of rules and laws apply to concrete problems people had at the time. Some things were so far out of the realm of possibility no one thought of them yet. But the bible is very clear how all laws and rules should be applied:

They should protect those who can’t protect themselves – especially vulnerable people without a family unit: widows, orphans, poor people, foreigners, slaves because God is always on the side of those people

You can’t serve God properly if you are mistreating your fellow humans

Treating your fellow humans well is more important than the correct prayers/cult

One of the fundamental myths in the bible is getting freed from slavery. God is someone who saves you from slavery.

But and here comes the nuance: there was slavery in the bible. And it wasn’t abolished. here we get to the harm reduction approach. In the bible if you have slaves you should always remember that you (or your ancestors) used to be slaves themselves So you should treat them accordingly – one free day a week for everyone (BTW part of the ten commandments) , enough pay to have a decent life, and after seven years they should get the possibility to leave and be free but they could stay if they wanted to. Basically the enslaved person is a human like you.  This approach should make several things impossible which are usually highly connected to slavery: treating people as things/furniture (imo one of the biggest sins in the bible btw – you can always spot a godless person by the way they treat the people and animals around them), not paying them, destroying their families, beat them to death…

But what about Gen 9, Spiegel? What about Ham and this particular verse: “Cursed be Canaan;

a servant of servants shall he be to his brothers.“

Okay so you are saying that this one line makes chattel slavery acceptable, that makes it acceptable to breed people like animals, to break up their families, to rape and abuse them, to treat them like trash to this very day. This one line makes racism and slavery okay?  

This one line which is said by a Noah who drank so much that he lied around naked and was disrespected by his sons is enough evidence to make slavery okay? This one line which was clearly meant as jab at the neighbors of israel is enough evidence.

You know how you can also read this: You can read this as the Deluge not working. Because here’s the thing: There was a Deluge because conflict, evil and wars got so out of hands that God tried to switch creation on and of again. (lets not talk about the morality of this). God tried to switch creation on and of again and the people were still evil. That’s what they realized: People won’t change. People are evil. And so I won’t punish creation again just because people suck. – and how did God realize it – because even Noah wasn’t perfect. There’s a new dawn – new humanity and once again Noah’s putting brother against brothers – unlawful hierarchies appear and the whole cycle starts again.

But what about the slavery in the new testament, Spiegel? Paul said it was okay. Paul said slaves should remain with their masters. Huh! What do you say now?

Paul also made it abundantly clear that their was no significant difference between a slave and a lord. In the eyes of god they are all equally sinners and equally saved.

Paul honestly thought that the world wouldn’t exist much longer. It was very much: this is a temporary thing – tomorrow Jesus comes back and then all of this doesn’t matter anyway. So his drive to change the world/change the rules/ create a just society wasn’t really there. His stance was mostly: you got what you got so try to live the most god fearing live wherever you are. So as a slave with a unjust master that meant suffering but still trying you best – and know that you take part in jesus’ suffering. While as a master you should treat the people under you like Jesus treated them -> serve them, suffer under them, help them – the vibe was very much: if everyone acts well and decent we don’t even have to have a revolution. Is that realistic – no – but I don’t think Paul was big into structural criticism. The important thing is: would Jesus endorse chattel slavery? HELL NO!!What the fuck are you talking about??

Pauls stance on the whole unjust hierarchies thing is actually pretty interesting because it was basically an anarchistic stance. A Christian is completely free – they only serve God – but because serving God means serving your brothers and sisters they are a slave/servant to everyone at the same time. If you are a Christian there are no gender barriers, it doesn’t matter were you come from, it doesn’t matter if you are rich or if you are poor, your education doesn’t matter – you are free and out of that freedom you decide to serve other to the best of your abilities.

So TL/DR: Dear fundamentalist Christian: It’s not only science/secularism/liberalism which stands in the way of your selfish, ignorant, hateful ways it’s also the bible because Plot TWIST a lot of liberalism/secularism/socialism grew on top of or in conversation with Christian theology  and the first person who wrote about the Big Bang theory was a catholic priest. GTFOH

[snowleopardcrk]

more symbolism!!!

ah yes, more Midnight Lily, a silverbell cameo and two Moonflower doodles. AU by @cuppajj

For Moonflowers story, we have her main conflict with her father, Saint Vanilla Cookie. But what about Midnight Lily Cookie, her mother? To give a little context for whats coming up, Moonflowers story theming around the Saint where Moonflower symbolizes the Moon, which includes the Solar Eclipse to contrast the Saints light themed imagery. Plus Moonflowers additional and more religious theming being based on the Spirit of Apostasy.

It is abundantly clear that Midnight Lily is an enabler of the other Neo Beasts, while to some extent understandable as she is the weakest of the Neo Beasts (she has long crossed the line of it being acceptable).

To compliment well with the general religious theming, I did additional research into the role of a mother in the lens of the Bible. 'the mother is one who "binds" the family together, holding them together individually and collectively through her love and actions' Despite how broken the family is, the only remaining connection that Moonflower has with the Saint IS Midnight Lily. And in return, she does care for her daughter and the Saint at some level. Yet, she does nothing to genuinely mend what has been broken (no one is, Moonflower is afraid of her father and the Saint is so delusional that he believes that this is the best course of action to save everyone). This fits her pattern of enabling and being generally passive to the world around her, for the most part.

Another aspect that I have neglected to mention is her slow-burn of a plan, she seeks by the end to have the others at least playing by her rules, but also not liking when her children do things she does not like. This is now territory where I do a lot of guess work and personal thoughts n' research so this is very much subject to change if anymore gets revealed.

How I have understood the few tidbits we get about the Beast of Sovereignty, she is an enabler and insecure about being the weakest. And I think her insecurity in some way, even if unintentional may reflect on her relationships where she is the one in power. In general, she is fine with her kids, generally passive until they get too unruly. At that point, she will remind them with harsh words who the mother is. I'd like to note quickly, she will NEVER get physical. She only uses WORDS. It is also important to note that she does wish for her child to understand where she is coming from. She is an enabler because she holds little power over the beasts, but in dynamics where she is the one in power, this side vanishes for the most part. Despite valuing sovereignty I believe she still wants to retain some level of control so Cookies don't do things she does not like. This is generally in line with how leadership generally operate, they don't care when you're doing smth positive, but when it turns negative, that's when it starts turning sour.

As for the actual arc of Midnight Lily and Moonflower, I have a general framing but it is difficult to make something as substantial as the one she has with Saint Vanilla. Gotta wait until I get more lore and story for the gal. But in short, it is a conflict of the two trying to make each other understand their respective sides. With Moonflower trying to save her mother, her only remaining parental figure from being a beast- while Midnight Lily seeks to make Moonflower truly understand her side and hopefully have Moonflower join her permanently.

Heres other tidbits for Moonflower and her relationship with the Creme Republic. For her ventures to the Silver Kingdom are actually secret. She is a very powerful and talented magic user (similar to her parents), so her travelling long distances quickly is very possible. Moonflower is already an outcast in the Republic, it is well known who her parents are. And Cookies keep their distance, there are very few Cookies who come and check in her. Its mostly some scientists who are researching the neo beasts (espresso, maybe, depends on his condition in this au), Clotted Cream Cookie, GingerBrave, Financer (sort of, she tags along the Consul) and depending on the direction of the story, Madelaine Cookie(I will start really brewing something here once more stuff comes out~). She stays isolated in her lab in the undercity, she never comes out, and when she does, she hides her face and just retrieves things like food or research material. It is normal for her to not talk with anyone for well over a week with nothing but a single lost Raisin Crow to keep her company. I'd like to note that this raisin crow is now an albino, and Black Raisin tasked Moonflower to take care of it since it was bullied and ousted by the other raisin crows (I took inspo from the myth, but it is generally agreed that white color corvids are subordinate to the colored ones).

But she is also an outcast in the silver kingdom, despite being Midnight Lilys kid (its a well known fact), she has gotten into disagreements with their monarch and isn't the upmost loyal member- she has a strong stigma around her. Silverbell Cookie does take pity on Moonflower.

That's all for now. I'm gonna lay down, I've done so much research...I silently weep at the thought of fully showing the complexity of the three in full force.

[buggywiththefolkmagic]

Hello!! I was wondering if you have any book recommendations for Appalachian folk magic? Especially for a beginner, I’m familiar with our local “old wive’s tales” but I’d love to learn more!!

Hello there! I have answered this question before but I have some new resources so I'll list them here!

It really depends on which part of Appalachia you are looking at! And if you want to dig deeper the ancestral roots of the family you are looking at. For example my family has a lot of Welsh and British influence because that was our family source so a lot of those beliefs lingered and changed throughout the years!

Someone from Pennsylvania would likely have a lot more German roots for their practice. But despite the root differences for the folklore these practices stem from they do still share a lot of connecting points!

But having babbled all of that here are my favorite books on AFM specifically. (Mind you Christianity takes a super huge part in the practice so a lot of bible and doing things in threes for the Trinity is involved!)

Authors to check out:

H. Byron Ballard- A pagan who also practices AFM, from the NC side of Appalachia, a lot of people hate her writing style which is a bit ramble-y. I also dislike the term she uses for her own practice but that is a super simple and small complaint honestly. I own all of her books on the subject, which should say something.

A NOTE ON H. BYRON BALLARD: I no longer support her work after discovering she is a TERF. I will no longer be suggesting her as an author to follow.

Jake Richards - From Eastern TN like me! A lot of what he talks about are things I have seen before, and he breaks down complex concepts like burn blowing into something relatively easily understood. HOWEVER HAVING SAID THAT the author is partially Melungeon, so he does have some Hoodoo mixed in from his grandmother's side iirc? He does label these things in his works and explains that they are not for everyone which I do appreciate.

Rebecca Beyer - While vaguely Wiccan toned, which I attribute to her publishers/raising, she's a transplant to Appalachia and if you're looking for herbal information on Appalachia and to wax poetic about how even with a ton of people settling there SO MUCH of the natural herbs and plantlife still survive, read her work! Her work on foraging safely and environmentally is so SOOOOO good.

Brandon Weston - For Ozark Mountain range/German/Dutch Appalachian work! He has written quite a few books on the subject and all of them are a treat!

Roger J. Horne - For how to dig into folklore and apply it to your own practice! This author is pagan and does blend in some traditional work with the Appalachian but I do enjoy his work and how he applies folklore. This author is also FROM Appalachia which is nice to see.

INDIVIDUAL BOOKS TO READ:

Appalachian Folk Healing by Jake Richards - A republication of a very old book on remedies and 'spells', while kitschy and stupidly worded, after all it was a popular book created just for sales reasons, some of these remedies are things I remember having done to me! Good for both a giggle and actual information. TW for mentions of animal parts, hunting, illnesses, the G slur, period specific phobias and racism.

Albertus Magnus - These books all supposedly written by an ancient guy, were actually mildly common on traveling salesmen's trucks and wagons. So as a result a lot of people in Appalachia had access. Like the book above it is very stupidly worded and definitely of their time. Same TW as above.

Pow-Wows or Long Lost Friend - Another Pennsylvania Dutch book! Very good and very clear.

Southern Folk Medicine - A book that breaks down a lot of common medicinal beliefs in the South which does include Appalachia! Sadly not just Appalachia but a very good book regardless. THIS BOOK MADE ME UNDERSTAND THE THEORY BEHIND BLOOD ISSUES MORE THAN ANYTHING ELSE EVER HAS.

Moon Eyed People - A collection of Welsh folktales that brewed within Appalachia from Welsh immigrants. Very good book imo!

Granny Buck's Dibs and Dabs - This book is so worth the price tag! One of the more expensive books in my collection, but I'm fine with that. Granny Buck covers a lot of topics and I can feel the accent through the wording!

Signs, Cures, & Witchery - More German Appalachian stuff! This book and it's interviewees are from the Kentucky side of the mountains!

Witches, Ghost, and Signs - This book is based more in the Southern Appalachian area! Georgia, SC, NC, and TN specifically! Lots of folklore here, but does mention some not so great bits of the lore, but that is expected.

The Foxfire Books - What began as a school project exploded into a collection of true to life stories and idioms from Georgia elders within the mountains. SO SO GOOD OKAY? For everything. How to plant, hunt, make musical instruments, anything from the mountains? They cover.

[doodler16]

No same Anon about Lilith and Eve.

I agree that at this point, I don't expect anything from Vivzie's female characters. I know I'm going to be disappointed, I'll just take what I like and rewrite them.

Now, the fact that Anon threw out is wrong: Lilith does not belong to the Bible. It belongs to Jewish folklore (Torah) but more as a legend since its origin is Mesopotamian.

Thanks to a medieval satirical text, Lilith was considered the first woman and wife of Adam.

Of course, the second fact that I throw is true: Lilith in her myths is far from the feminist figure with which the image of Lilith is popular. Unlike "Lilith who does not let herself be bent" in the original myths, she is a demonic being who kidnaps babies and rapes men. She does this together with Naamah, Agrat bat Mahlat and Eisheth Zenunim (this is more from the Zohar).

The idea of Lilith as an "empowered figure" is thanks to the creator of Wicca, Gerald Gardner. A very controversial subject, very controversial. I will not go into the debate if the Wiccans are considered a kind of pagans or just imitators of paganism who want to feel special because of the esoteric of the whole thing, but it is due to them that the figure of Lilith was bleached to look like this "rebel" being. And recent popular culture pushed that narrative further.

The same example is HH: Lucifer and Lilith are in love, Adam is evil from minute 1. Lilith did not bow to Heaven and Adam, she rebelled with her love Lucifer and now she is the queen of Hell.

When in reality several myths tell us that the one who did not overcome her ex was Lilith:

In one version we are told that Lilith transforms into Eve and has relations with Adam.

In another we are told that one night she enters Eden and rapes him.

In another we are told that, after Cain and Abel, Adam and Eve separate for 140 years due to the horror of the affair. In this myth there are 2 versions: again, Lilith has relations without Adam's consent (here Naamah, Agrath and Eishet are included). And the other is much calmer where Adam accepts to be with Lilith during those years.

What is made clear is that in all versions they have descendants: the lilims, the succubi, some vampiric beings, and sometimes it is even said that Asmodeus is the son of these two.

(In other versions, Asmodeus is the son of a mortal and Naamah, in other versions he is simply the husband of Lilith).

So for the first time, if Vivziepop puts Lilith as an evil being, a bad mother and so on... well, she would be the only character that is close to the original source.

And don't get me wrong, I'm not against reinvention or looking for a different route to the established (I have Adam x Lilith as the endgame in my rewrite and of course I've had to tweak some things) but Vivzie is criminal to the point that I'd rather she didn't touch Lilith and Eve because they're going to be at the mercy of favoring Lucifer. Do I want to be wrong? Yes, I want the show to tell me "You know what? Actually the conflict of these two doesn't revolve around Lucifer or Adam, neither are they going to become lesbians, nor are they going to have that kind of "I'm better than you because..." fight; no, their conflict is going to make Lilith feel guilty because she realized that she ruined two people's lives by imposing herself before what she thought was right, becoming the very thing that she complained about Adam and Heaven. And that Eve's conflict is that for a long time she felt this complex of being the replacement, that she should imitate Lilith because she was "the original, what a woman should be" as well as sticking to what "a wife should be", even putting that Adam let her be her own person because he was worried about how bad Eve was getting because of her own existential crisis. He as Lilith can ask Eve for forgiveness, but Eve cannot accept it. Thank you for saying so, but Lilith and Lucifer's actions doomed many and in horrible ways."

Am I going to get it? No, but I have accepted that I will live with it. There will always be a fanfic, a video, a new series, something, that really wants to explore all these characters beyond the original versions or the cheap tropes surrounding them.

Sorry for the big text, I needed to get it out of my system.

Yeah, I don’t blame anyone for having super low expectations regarding the Hazbin Hotel women especially with Lilith and Eve. Since in Helluva Boss, the women are demonized, one-note, and super side-lined. The women in Hazbin Hotel so far are mediocre anyway.

You good, Anon. No need to apologize and thanks for the clarification regarding Lilith. The version you mentioned about Lilith transforms into Eve is interesting because Vivziepop is planning some big plot twist with Lilith, Eve, Rosie, and Roo. Something about one being the other.

[neplusultros]

vague theory on the MTEFIL demon lords.

spoilers through 83 below. not a theory so much as a collection of random thoughts linking them up with their sources in christian folk tradition (and sometimes the bible) and musing on what that all means.

tl;dr: not even really a theory so much as I'm just collating a lot of information about the demons (and angels) that might not be clear if you're not familiar with certain parts of the western canon. the seven demon lords consist of four definitely fallen angels, two angels with weird statuses (Satan and Lucifer, naturally), and one of God's creations which is not actually an angel at all (Leviathan). The angels likely fell as a result of their own efforts to rebel against heaven, as in Paradise Lost. Support for this is clear in the manga's imagery and the few hints we have about Lucifer and Satan. A lot of this is just basic "western ideas about Satan" stuff but I figure not everyone has that knowledge base to work from.

first off, their names. Beelzebub, Belphegor, and Asmodeus in the Judeo-Christian tradition are all explicitly based on or at least share names with gods or demons or spirits from other religions. Beelzebub (as Ba'al Zevuv) and Belphegor (as Ba'al-Peor) are both named as false gods of the Philistines and Moabites respectively in the Old Testament* and Asmodeus, though only named in nonbiblical sources, is likely derived from the Zoroastrian "Aesma-Daeva". Mammon arguably also belongs with this group; though usually taken just to mean wealth or money, plenty of later writers baselessly asserted that Mammon was a Syrian god, so he probably fits in this category.

Satan is the only actual arguable biblical angel on the list, with "satan" or "the satan" appearing most famously as one of the "sons of God" (generally agreed to be angels) in the book of Job, where his role appears to be to test and prosecute (in a partially legal/courtroom sense) the faithful. "Lucifer" is a name closely identified with angels and Satan because of a particular verse (Isaiah 14:12) that used to translate a particular phrase that way. Because the passage describes the subject of the phrase being cast down by God, the verse is closely linked to the idea of fallen angels, though most modern translations render the phrase as "morning star" and the whole thing is textually about a particular unnamed Babylonian king anyways.

*using catholic terms here because, well, it's a manga about catholicism. probably gonna get some stuff wrong though

Of course, the most famous instance of Satan/Lucifer has very little to do with the Bible, because it's Milton's Paradise Lost! Plenty to say about this later, but for now what's interesting is that Lucifer is what he is called in Heaven, prior to the Fall, as afterwards all the names of the fallen angels (a third of heaven!) are spoken no more. So they are one and the same person: depending on who you ask, a charismatic rebel or self-serving striver, widely regarded as one of western literature's archetypal anti-heroes.

Traditional Christian angelic hierachies list the angels as Seraphim, Cherubim, Thrones, Dominations or Dominions, Virtues, Powers, Principalities, Archangels, and Angels, descending in order of authority. Milton...doesn't really give a shit about any of this, and sets up a situation wherein Archangels are the highest, with Raphael, Michael, and Gabriel described as Archangels (and therefore among the most powerful), same with Lucifer. Cherubs are implied to be a lesser order (at one point Lucifer disguises himself as a "stripling cherub"), which seems to line up with MTEFIL/EkuOto's world, in which the ability of Mr. Priest and Leah to call upon the archangels' powers means they are able to call on the forces closest to god. Similarly, Beelzebub refers to the purified bit of Asmodeus as "cherub," suggesting she's of a lower order than the archangels prior to her fall (and in turn suggests whatever he is at this point, it's not, strictly speaking, an angel).

The real pattern-breaker is Leviathan. Derived from an Ugaritic mythical sea serpent, Leviathan is a tannin, or sea-monster. Tanninim appear several places in the Old Testament, most notably Genesis (where God creates them in the very first chapter), and are often translated into English as "great whales" or "sea creatures" but are in fact not quite 1:1 with any animal. Leviathan's most notable appearance is in Job 39 and 40, where as part of his defense against Job's accusations (the Book of Job is really a courtroom drama), God says, in essence, "you all won't even fight leviathan. wait do you not know leviathan? lmao you don't even know leviathan. leviathan is this CRAZY sea serpent that breathes fire and breaks iron like wood. anyways if you aren't even brave enough to fight leviathan you ABSOLUTELY are not a bad enough dude to question me."

What's most interesting is that this positions Leviathan firmly as one of God's creations! And in fact, when Leviathan references the command God gave her to be fruitful and multiply in the ocean, she is both quoting Genesis directly and giving us a very clear idea of her origin: she was made on the fourth day with the other tanninim and creatures of the water and air. which is to say, she precedes humans!

So we have four lesser demon lords based on other religious traditions, two angels of biblical extraction (but really mostly Miltonian), and one of God's creatures. And actually, the visuals we've given largely line up with that!

Early on, Mr. Priest gives us a glimpse of the demons. It's impressively consistent with what we've seen so far: Asmodeus has her tower of bodies, Mammon's rings show up, Gluttony has the same ink-silhouette-mouth thing going on, Leviathan's child form is visible within her monster form's mouth behind the speech bubble naming her, and Belphegor has the snail imagery!

but also helloooooo look at their fucking halos. Six halos for seven demon lords...because Leviathan doesn't have one because she was never an angel in the first place, just one of God's creations. four of the halos are black, because these are fallen angels, but two of them are white. Why are you white? Were Satan and Lucifer archangels, and therefore incorruptible on some essential ontological level? Have they somehow been re-purified since the fall?

And why is Lucifer depicted with a halo and six wings, exactly like a classical Christian Seraphim?

The Seraphim being the highest order of angels in Christian angelology, nearest to God and eternally singing His praises. They traditionally have six wings, exactly as Lucifer is depicted here.

The final interesting piece of evidence we have about the Seven Demon Lords comes from the end of Beelzebub's fight. He's recalling his final fight with Rosa and her last words to him: "Y'know, I don't wanna dump this on the next generation. But I believe their love will trump your evil. They'll support each other. Help each other. And someday you'll lose to their righteousness." And then Leah drops a sick fucking axe kick on his head and rocks his world.

this doesn't have any relevance to the theory post it's just spiritually healing to look at

And then Leah taunts him ("Time for dessert, Lord of the Flies! Have any room left?!") and it's at that moment, when he's getting his ass kicked, that he has an unexpected and thus far totally unexplained flashback to what's very obviously the seven demon lord's tragic backstory as angels:

These are obviously the seven demon lords, not just from the text and Mammon's rings, but because there's only six of them. Which makes perfect sense! There's only six angels in the group, Leviathan presumably was not a part of whatever the angel stuff was!

Of course, the volume extras already came out and said all of this, to some extent!

"a certain researcher's personal note (2)," file 63

At this point it seems pretty clear to me that Aruma Arima is drawing on Milton's Paradise Lost. Interestingly, early on there's a file (from the same researcher who wrote the above, in fact) debating whether the gates of hell for demon lords (rather than regular demons, who get Leviathan's jaws), which look like Rodin's sculpture "The Gates of Hell," look that way because the gate of hell has a perfect Platonic form which Hell uses and which Rodin approached through genius and mastery, or if demon lords just use it because they think it looks cool. I would not be surprised to eventually get a note asking whether Milton received the truth of Paradise Lost from a divine source or if he somehow just guessed it perfectly.

Anyways, Paradise Lost goes like this: Lucifer is among the first of the archangels and everything is vibing fine in heaven. These halcyon days are disrupted when God calls an all-hands and announces His Son is here now and to him shall bow all knees in Heaven (typical nepo baby shit). Lucifer objects to this, refusing to exalt the Son and seeing himself (and, according to his speeches, other angels) as native-born sons of Heaven who bow to none but God. A third of angels join him, there is epic war, they are cast down to the fiery lake, where they are transformed into devils and their angelic names are stripped from them and replaced with the names of demons. As a result, Satan (the artist formerly known as Lucifer) undertakes to tempt man and cause his fall, leading to the main matter of the poem, the events of the Garden of Eden.

Thus, in Paradise Lost's cosmology, all devils were once angels. And this seems to track with a lot of what we have seen so far of MTEFIL/EkuOto's demons! It suggests the Researcher's note is correct: This is, on some level, an enormous family argument, especially if things track closely enough that Hell's demons are really just a third of what Heaven once was. Lucifer once led a rebellion against god, with the other demon lords as his allies; whatever ambitious or noble goals they once had ("Here at least / We shall be free . . . Here we may reign secure, and in my choyce / To reign is worth ambition though in Hell: / Better to reign in Hell, then serve in Heav’n.") they seem to have fallen to fractious squabbling, with Lucifer now absent and Satan seeming to have only limited and minimal authority, if any, with respect to the others.

A few questions this brief review against the classic Western sources raises:

What's up with Satan and Lucifer? Are they indeed somehow split from the same identity, or will this version have them as distinct people? If so, does the fact that Lucifer led the rebellion but is now absent serve as basically the explanation for why the Seven Demon Lords are now so disorganized?

What's up with Satan's wife? Not something he generally has. Is it the notably absent Lilith (who comes from Jewish and Christian folk traditions and not any particular religious text or Paradise Lost)?

Where is Jesus? I mean I don't usually see an anime with Catholic elements and expect there to be any reference to Jesus ever. But Milton's Paradise Lost is very much a Christian text; it is About Jesus as much as it is about anything else. And if the Son of God will not be appearing in this shonen (which, y'know, fair), why did Lucifer rebel?

[comicaurora]

Have you ever notices the weird trait that a lot of the mytic Greek monsters are decendents, or otherwise related to posiden (all sea beasts, cyclops, medusa, minotaur ect) were mostly slain by children of zeus? The rest of the mytic Greek hero's mostly slayed children of typhon and echidna.

Do you think this is somthing to do with the fact that posiden used to the ruler of mychnain pantheon, and zuse took over, so the mytology reflected this by having posiden monster children slain by the heroic children of zeus?

Have you ever noticed any similar patters in mythology involving the chainge of the dominat god?

It's hard to say! The Mycenaean pantheon is very poorly understood since we don't have anything like the corpus of literature we have from Archaic Greece, and as far as I can tell it's mostly been reconstructed from ledgers and the equivalent of receipts - this many jars of stuff to the temple of this god in this region, etc etc. And the idea that Poseidon was central - while apparently widely accepted - doesn't really tell us how Poseidon was characterized back in those days, or how (or if) things shifted to be Zeus-centric later on.

And in the broad scale, it's hard to know for sure if a pantheon's myths reflect an actual shift in what the dominant/central god being worshipped was, or if something else was going on. Mythology rarely maps one-to-one to the historical events it was running in parallel to. There are lots of mythologies with god wars or former leaders of the gods being replaced - Tyr with Odin, Nuada with Lugh, Ra getting merged with a half-dozen different gods to give them his oomph and authority at various times - and it's not clear when a god conflict reflects a real religious shift in who's being worshipped and when it's something else. For instance, classical Greek mythology has loads of themes of sons usurping fathers, starting with Kronos usurping Ouranos and followed by Zeus usurping Kronos - but it doesn't seem like Kronos was historically worshipped in the time before Zeus or anything that simple and clean. Kronos doesn't seem to pre-exist that space of mythology at all.

However, there are tidbits in Greek mythology where a god kills a monster and takes up residence in their place of power, like Apollo killing Python - a monstrous child of Gaia that seems to have potentially been actually worshipped for oracular reasons before Apollo showed up and took over, which would make it a mythical parallel to a real shift in local religious practices. Although again, that is very hard to confirm (and some of the researchers who think that seem to wanna believe it because it very conveniently lets them tie it in with the bible)

this kind of thing is why the deep-dives are my favorite kind of nightmare to subject myself to

So it's hard to say if a myth of a conflict between gods reflects a real-world conflict between religious practices, but all that said, that is a very interesting pattern to note - that Poseidon is more consistently a father of monsters, while Zeus is almost universally a father of heroes.

[v0idund3rth3v3il]

https://www.reddit.com/r/progressive_islam/s/1401QvzC6v

These are not my words, please use the link if you want to see the author.

Explanation to verse 7:81 or the "Anti-gay" verse.

People often bring up verse 7:81 with out any context to show why the Quran forbids gay people and thinks that gay sex is haram, I'm here to give the full context and show why their wrong.

For those who don't know, verse 7:81 say's something like "Indeed, you approach men with desire, instead of women. Rather, you are a transgressing people." Which sounds bad alone until you actually take into full context what it means.

The verse is talking about the village of Lot who were actively RAPING men, not just having sex with them (a major problem in the world back then as both the Romans and Greeks were known to rape other males). As in their lust had become so overwhelming that women weren't enough anymore, they had to attack visitors (a big no no in Islamic culture) and rape them even though they where guys. The people of Lot where so depraved that they literally tried to rape angels before being wiped out so it's a warning against the depravity of rape instead of homosexuality in general as no where in the Quran, unlike the bible, does it say anything against gay sex.

The verse literally right before it say's something like (plenty of translations but roughly) "How do you commit such a horrible that NO ONE/THING BEFORE YOU HAVE COMMITTED". This can't mean homosexuality as we know homosexuality in animals does exist and homosexuality was very well known to just about every person on the planet as shocker, gay people have always existed. Historically speaking, the Code of Hammurabi , which ordered society in most of the Tigris-Euphrates Valley for more than a thousand years, has nothing to say about homosexuality. The laws of Eshunna and Egypt are also silent on the subject with us knowing that there were ancient Egyptian gay couples including a Pharaoh who was more then likely bi. The Hittites forbade father-son relations, but that was part of a general rule against incest. The Assyrians thought it shameful for a man to repeatedly offer himself to other men, and also prohibited men from raping males of the same social class, but all other male-male sexual relations were ignored. These are all states that were around centuries before Sodom and Gomorrah were apparently destroyed destroyed. The much more rational explanation would be they made an entire society based on rape of men and other "abominations" to a point where they would kick people out for wanting to stay "pure" (line 7:82), something that no group of people before them have done.

Now people will often say "if it's bad raping man then it's ok if we rape woman right?" well no. This is because when you take it with the previous verse and the verse after it, it's clear that these people wanted the pleasure of doing something that no other group of people had ever done which was the mass rape/normalization of rape of men. It's absolutely horrible but the rape of women was a lot more normalized back than and so wouldn't fit with the previous line of them doing something that no group of people/creatures had ever done before. That also explains why they didn't except Lot's daughter (which could be interpreted as him trying to save them because the angels didn't take to kindly to wanting to be raped) as they got their rocks off by doing what no other people had ever done which was to mass rape men, not women which again, is also disgusting but a lot more normal back then.

To go more into Islamic history courtesy of u/cold-blue, The grand mufti of the Abbasid caliphate in the mid-9th century, Yahya ibn Aktham, was a known homosexual, and viewed a few verses through the gender/sexuality lens.

One of them was the verse where Allah says He prepares males for some, females for others, and mixes the males and females. I’ve read that ibn Aktham once said that this verse confused people because it alludes to sexual preferences. He also said that the heavenly cupbearers mentioned in the Quran are sexual rewards like the houris. (Whether or not homosexuality is allowed in Jannah was debated, and some came to the conclusion that it is, and the only reason it isn’t in this life is because the rectum is dirty.)

The Ottoman empire, the last caliphate of the Muslim world, not only didn't care about gay people (unlike the Europeans) but actually had art depicting it.

Another is al-Razi. While he didn’t outright say that homosexuality is allowed, he allowed gay couples to be together sexually so long as they didn’t have anal sex. He was concerned with homosexual men committing suicide over their innate feelings and said that if there is risk of that, and the man cannot change himself from homosexual to heterosexual/survive in an opposite-sex marriage, he may be with his beloved (a man) so long as he does not transgress the limits (in his opinion, anal sex).

One of the transmitters of the Quranic variants we have today (of which Warsh and Hafs are two) was a man named al-Kisa’i, who was also a known homosexual. So one of the seven qira’ats came from a gay man.

There was another man ALSO named al-Kisa’i, who was a historian in 1100 CE, and he said in his Stories of the Prophets (Qiṣaṣ al-'Anbiyā') that the people of Lut were specifically MEN WITH WIVES who raped other men, not homosexual men, lining up with what we know historically.

And speaking even more so on the physical element, the male "gspot" is actual in the anus which even if you find gross, is a design of Allah and not a flaw. Why would he do that if homosexuality is a sin?

The reason homosexuality is so hated in the Islamic world is none other then the heretical Salafi and Wahhabi movements (actually considered heretics for most of the time they were around including their top scholars, not my opinion, and the only reason their not now is because of British) and because of Europeans as homosexual relationships were generally tolerated in pre-modern Islamic societies, and historical records suggest that these laws were invoked infrequently, mainly in cases of rape or other "exceptionally blatant infringement on public morals". Public attitudes toward homosexuality in the Muslim world underwent a marked negative change starting from the 19th century through the gradual spread of Islamic fundamentalist movements such as Salafism and Wahhabism, and the influence of the sexual notions and restrictive norms prevalent in Europe at the time: a number of Muslim-majority countries have retained criminal penalties for homosexual acts enacted under European colonial rule.

People often only bring up verse 7:81 and don't bring the verses directly previous or after it nor does it take into consideration the histography of their actions and the verse. It would be like me saying a book said "...kill all black people." but not elaborating and saying that the line previous to is says "These people were so horrible that they would regularly chant..." and the line after it is "I can't believe they would say/do something so disgusting." with the entire context of the book being that they would kick out anyone who didn't want to kill all black people. They only say's that the book said to kill all black people. It's very disingenuous to say the least.

To further prove my point, the word "sodomite" is often used to mean the rape of another person through the ass, not consensual sex between the two. If you google "sodomized" than you'll see rapists, not a loving consensual couple. Even the Arabic words for "sodomite" and a gay person is different as sodomite is literally translated into "lut" well a gay person is translated into "shakhs mithliu aljins".

To get more philosophical about it, sex is not some fetish which just develops in people, it is the most primal human desire that a person can have. So why would Allah make a group (there's homosexual animals as well) a certain way and then say not to follow the most basic desire they'll ever have right after wanting food and water but then say the rest of that group can follow that desire after they get married? People can control their desires until marriage as the Quran makes clear, they don't just never have sex. So why would it be any different for a gay couple? This is like saying that sex with it self is haram.

Finally, people often forget the fact that Allah is an all loving and all knowing being so why would he make certain people that he hates or want's other people to hate aka be "phobic" of when in the Quran it's made clear that we should be loving and affectionate? Now even if after all of this people still believe homosexuality is haram, Allah is said multiple time to be all loving, all understanding and all forgiving so as long they are good people and don't commit a truly horrible sin (shirk aka worship of other false gods, rape, murder, hurting others, you know, the classics) Allah will inevitably forgive them for giving into their most basic human desire especially if it's with a loving partner with in a marriage so why would anyone else have a problem with them?

I'm not gonna add a tl;dr because I worked waaay to hard on this for it be condensed into a few sentences and I really want people to read it and fully understand where it's coming from.

[girlactionfigure]

TALMUD LIES DEBUNKED

In our latest episode of “Google Talmudic scholar”, our totally unbiased friend makes some bold claims. let's break it down:

First off, his screenshot (featuring a bunch of fake Hebrew) refers to the Talmud as the "holy Bible of the Jewish religion."

Right there, he's exposing his ignorance. Jews don’t use the Talmud as their Bible—that's the Torah. The Talmud is a massive collection of legal debates and discussions, not a religious manifesto. The Talmud is not law. Period. If you want law, that’s the Shulkhan Arukh.

Now, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that he’s not just malicious, but genuinely clueless. Because understanding the Talmud requires, at the very least, a working knowledge of Hebrew and Aramaic. And no, you can’t just Google translate your way through it. Funny enough, this is a problem Islam faces too—people ripping Quranic verses out of context because they don't understand Arabic.

So, what actually *is* the Talmud? It’s a collection of legal arguments—also known as “the conversations of Abaye and Rava,” two of the greatest scholars in Jewish history. They ran rival schools and almost never agreed on anything. And they weren’t alone. Over 1,500 rabbis are quoted in the Talmud, and surprise, surprise—they didn’t all agree either.

The Talmud is not some monolithic belief system. It’s a complex web of ideas, questions, and hypotheses. It’s studied deeply, sifted through, and only when something aligns with the Torah itself does it become law. So no, just because something is in the Talmud doesn’t mean Jews believe it. In fact, for every opinion, there’s usually an opposing view right next to it.

Now, onto his favorite subject—how Jews supposedly view gentiles.

Here’s context: the Hebrew word for “gentile” (goy) simply means “nation.”

The Talmud’s references to gentiles usually concern ancient, pagan nations—people who actively sought to destroy morality and decency.

When you see negative references to “gentiles,” it's about those ancient, hedonistic, genocidal empires, not your average non Jew today.

And that is clarified time and time again.

For some real context, look at the intro to the Artscroll Talmud, the most widely used edition.

It cites the Noda BiYehudah, who writes:

“Wherever there is a derogatory statement about ‘idol worshipers’ or ‘gentiles,’ one should not mistakenly apply it to the peoples of our times. It was meant for those in earlier eras who worshipped the stars and constellations.”

Even Rebbe Nachman, a Jewish mystic, made it clear:

“The gentiles of the past were idol worshipers, far from monotheism. But the gentiles of today are different—they recognize the one true God. We should never apply the same judgments to them.” So if your grand revelation about the Talmud comes from a few screenshots you found online, congrats—you’ve successfully proven you’re an idiot.

@Haqiqatjou

Simcha Brodsky

@simchabrodsky

[artandthebible]

The Raising of Lazarus

Artist: Sebastiano del Piombo (Italian, 1485–1547)

Date: circa 1517–1519

Medium: Oil on Canvas

Collection: The National Gallery, London

Description

The Raising of Lazarus is a large altarpiece of 1517–1519 by the Italian High Renaissance artist Sebastiano del Piombo, for which Michelangelo supplied drawings for some figures. Intended for Narbonne Cathedral in France, it is now normally in Room 18 of the National Gallery in London, where it is "NG1", the first painting catalogued at the founding of the gallery in 1824.

The Raising of Lazarus

There are two men called Lazarus in the Bible. The first Lazarus is the subject of a story told by Jesus (Luke 16:19–31). Lazarus was very poor, probably homeless, and definitely a beggar (Luke 16:20). He often stayed at the gate of a rich man in hopes of getting scraps from his table. Both men died, and Jesus tells of how Lazarus was taken to “Abraham’s side,” a place of comfort and rest, while the rich man went to “Hades,” a place of conscious torment (Luke 16:22–23). Some Bible scholars believe that Jesus was telling a parable, that is, a fictional story not meant to be a literal account. However, Jesus uses actual names in the story, He does not interpret the story, and neither does He add a moral to the end. He lets the story stand for itself. Because of these details, the story of Lazarus and the rich man could be a true account, relating the actual fates of Lazarus and the unbelieving rich man. Either way, Jesus’ teaching on the reality of heaven and hell is clear. The Lazarus in Jesus’ story does not appear anywhere else in the Bible, and we do not know when in the timeline of history he may have lived, if he was a real person.

The entire episode of Lazarus’ sickness, death, and restoration to life worked toward giving glory to God and increasing the faith of Jesus’ followers, just as Jesus had said when He heard of Lazarus’ illness. Just before He raised Lazarus, Jesus prayed, “Father, I thank you that you have heard me. I knew that you always hear me, but I said this for the benefit of the people standing here, that they may believe that you sent me” (John 11:41–42). Jesus’ prayer was answered: Lazarus came back to life, and “many of the Jews who had come to visit Mary, and had seen what Jesus did, believed in him” (John 11:45).

[anamericangirl]

Slavery is wrong of course in my opinion but when I look at the Bible God doesn't really seem to condemn it now does he? That might have something to do with the culture that produced these stories. So where was God for tens of thousands of years and why didn't he send his son to other places around the world? Please tell us also how Noah managed to fit a pair of every animal on earth on his stone age vessel and where I can find evidence in the geological record of a worldwide flood. Or should I take the more fanciful stories as metaphor? Like the one where the son is coming back to life for instance, or being conceived 'immaculately'. No objective morality does not mean there is no such thing as truth and I am certainly not obsessed with your opinion, just interested in what you think about these things. Thanks!

If you say slavery is wrong in your opinion then you're saying it's not wrong because your opinion doesn't mean anything. You thinking it's wrong is irrelevant in a world where objective morality doesn't exist. Because if objective morality doesn't exist then slavery is not wrong. Because there's no such thing as wrong. You just don't like it. But you can't actually say slavery is wrong or condemn the practice of it because by admitting objective morality doesn't exist you are admitting there's nothing objectively wrong with slavery.

Actually, if you really looked at and studied the Bible it would be clear that God does not condone slavery as you understand it. And also, we know you have a tendency to read things and somehow come away thinking they say the exact opposite of what they actually say so your interpretation of what you've seen in the Bible just can't be trusted since you've shown you have very poor reading comprehension skills.

But also, if morality is subjective, why does it matter if God condemns slavery? Why should he? You've admitted there is nothing objectively wrong with it so God should condemn it because you consider your opinion more valuable than the opinions of people living in cultures where slavery is still practiced?

There's lots of evidence out there that you are free to look at. I'm not going to compile it all for you here because that's a lot of work for me to do for someone who just tries to mock me in comments all the time and doesn't really want to understand and have decided beforehand you are just going to reject and dismiss whatever I say before I even take the time to sit here and type it all out for you.

Like there's literally a bunch of literature out there discussing the evidence that exists of a worldwide flood and just because you haven't taken the time to look into it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Sometimes you have to do the research and not wait for someone to hand you the information.

And there's no "evidence" that can prove an immaculate conception. You scoff at the idea of God, clearly do not understand His nature and do not possess a mind open to what Christianity or the Bible actually teaches and then you expect to see evidence of a supernatural miracle.

Wondering what I think is one thing and that's fine, creeping in my notes to try and mock whatever I say as if your subjective moral opinion carries more weight than those of anyone else and ignorance of every worldview other than your own and your attempts to be condescending and insulting by using the term "sky daddy" when you don't know the first thing about Christianity is another.

[catholic-character-tournament]

Round 1 - Side B

John Gaius art cred @exmakina

Propaganda below ⬇️

book quote from the chapters where he's relating how he got necromantic powers and people freaked out!! this is pre-apocalypse and resurrection so it's implied he took a lot of inspiration from this incident . He said, Then we took off. Thread after thread on message board after message board. People wanting proof. People asking what the fuck it meant. People talking about the LUCIFER telescope and saying we were aliens. People calling me the Antichrist, which was a trip. People writing up these long posts on how the trick was done, how I got the meat into the pie. Was I fake? Was I real? If I was real, what did it mean? Suddenly there were hundreds of people, all there at our front door. They came in caravans, they were sleeping in their cars or putting up tents. A hell of a lot of them had flown out internationally. He said, Some of them wanted to see the miracle. Some of them wanted my help, like, Oh, you’re the magical death man, can you do something about my body? Can you fix my fibromyalgia? Thing was, I could. That surprised me. I could take out their tumours. I could fix their macular degeneration. Big damage was easy, unless they’d actually lost the limb or whatever. Couldn’t grow those back. But I spent hours and hours a day playing Jesus. That was nice, those were some of the nicest hours I got to spend. He said, But when you’re doing the whole Go, my child, your knee cartilage is fixed, you’re going to get a lot of visitors. I had to turn people away because I had to eat, I had to sleep, even though I didn’t want to. M— had brought in her best friend, the nun, and I was worried I was going to get the Antichrist bit from her too, but she was just like: stop doing this! Read your Bible! This was Christ’s whole problem! I was like, What are you talking about, Jesus cured the lepers and everyone was all, Hooray, thanks man. M—’s nun was all, Are you kidding, Christ never said no and never asked anyone to pay and got way too much attention and brought the heat down on everybody. Christ didn’t keep to office hours, she said. Don’t do that. He said, So we limited Jesus stuff to one hour a day, and I always had to eat breakfast. But by then the whole world was on our doorstep.

look this is kind of weird but he is the only survivor after nuclear bombs destroy the earth and he has weird necromancy powers so he revives his friends and a few other people to be his subjects and basically makes himself a god to them. there's a lot of layers since he's literally the only character in the entire series who remembers the world before and has a concept of the religion he's copying for his own. he treats the other characters like toys he can push around for his own amusement and everything is a joke but he does this world-weary act that somehow gets the reader to kind of feel for him even when he's being atrocious. and he's the only one who remembers memes. which is a torture all of its own.

I said "yes" but to be more clear: he was canonically Catholic when he was still mortal, but that was 10,000 years ago and he kind of killed everybody on the planet. Just slightly. Some of them got better. Now he's the Emperor Undying and his empire is very Catholic-coded.

Frank

He was in training to become a priest and! Fun fact! Is second generation immigrant!

[alistairian]

dumb ramblings about nuance as I procrastinate writing my philosophy quiz

There's definitely an issue in sorta leftists spaces (lbr, probably every social setting regardless of politics) where discussing nuances is considered taboo, which is irritating, because it totally shuts down conversations that would otherwise be very interesting and lead to better understanding. It's like the fear of being misunderstood/misinterpreted is a valid reason to make sure a particular topic is just never understood because it is too uncomfortable or controversial.

And like, obviously. duh. It's one thing to try and say something that goes against the general consensus and another when that general consensus is considered Good and Moral by your entire social circle.

One easy example that comes to mind (watching a video about it) like 10+ years ago there was a lot of talk online about whether or not the pyramids were built by slaves, or if ancient egypt even technically had a slave force, and the conversation seemed to end with this odd insistence that referring to these labourers as slaves was revisionist (they didn't refer to these people as slaves in their time, they weren't bought/bred and sold as property) or that the argument exists as a smear campaign against ancient egyptians (for instance, bible texts). It wasn't American chattel slavery so it wasn't slavery. Not a whole lot of discussion about how chattel slavery is only one kind of slavery and not even the most common one. If you insist egypt didn't have slave labourers, then you can't really support the argument that the US currently uses slave labour in their prisons. Is military conscription coercive labour? Foot soldiers are paid and fed but the alternative is prison or death. Is working to pay off debts slavery? Is it slavery if it's possible to earn your freedom at some point? If it's a contract? Are these the words of the labourers themselves talking about their willingness and pride in their work or the words of their bosses? There is no clear agreed upon definition for slavery in this context and the discussion is shut down, if you have more to say on the subject then you must have an agenda.

(I assume this isn't true in actual academic settings, I'm really only referring to pop culture/general discussions. That being said, even academia doesn't seem to have a straight answer for this one.)

Or as another example I've been thinking about but never seen discussed: the purpose of militaries and when organized violence is ok and when it isn't. A lot of the same people who condemn war outright are also super ok with others enacting violence when it suits their beliefs. I don't think you'll ever find a leftist that will argue that the allied invasion of France and Germany in the 1940s was unjustified, or that taking arms up against nazi germany and imperial japan was a bad call. We have hindsight to thank for that, but then the story very quickly changes when those same men were sent to korea and vietnam a decade or so later. The very same military went from a celebrated liberating force to a heavily criticized occupying force in less than a generation. Underground resistances use military tactics and commit guerrilla warfare against occupying forces or their own governments, and those actions are ok when it's a population attempting to liberate themselves, but bad when it's a population trying to subjugate others (and liberate themselves to carry out these beliefs). If they succeed and those resistance leaders are promoted to army generals, are they the bad kind of soldier now?

Not to mention that, quite frankly, the way people on this site talk about people in the military is pretty fucked up. I'm so used to it now it doesn't really phase me, and I get where they're coming from (a position of frustration and, yes, ignorance), but the second someone starts going on a rant about how you have to be an evil and soulless murderer or whatever to join a military I just can't take them seriously at all, especially when that same person goes on to celebrate assassinations and resistance fighters or specific hand-selected terrorist attacks. You don't have an issue with violence and murder or people who carry out violence and murder, you just want the violence and murder to support your own personal politics (which are Good and Moral). If you fell for the Other Side's propaganda then that is a personal failing and you deserve whatever harm comes your way. It's ok to join a military and carry out military acts if your hand was forced by some outside invader influence but if the influence comes from your own government or if it's economical then that is a personal failing. (Also, every single discussion about militaries is centred around The American Military. So much so that every instance of plural "militaries" written in this post is underlined with a red squiggly, because grammatically there is only One True Military, I guess?)

I don't know. I just think it's strange how unwilling most people are to engage with ideas/concepts that have been around for the entirety of human history (warfare is even recorded in other species), as if these are things that will go away the more we insist on ignoring them, if only for fear of strangers mislabelling you for wanting to talk about larger ideas/influences surrounding subjects considered controversial.

[themissingnumbers]

Hello again fellas :) It's about that time again. Just a heads up, I don't think this is going to be super long like all of my other yap sessions. This is just me rambling about that one riddle that Carrion made. (And dang are they good at what they do-)

So, imma just be upfront and say it—I'm bad at riddles and I'm stumped. I've been thinking about it, trying to pick it apart little by little whenever I've had some quiet/free time and I've got nothing. WELL- actually saying I have nothing would be a lie. I don't have anything concrete, but I do have a feeling. It makes me feel a feeling that I can't really put into words. Like, I THINK that I get what it's trying to say, but I'm not sure. It's the mental equivalent of having really bad eyesight and squinting to read a sign across the street, thinking you know what it says but not being sure because it's too blurry. (If that makes any sense at all-)

However! I can tell you guys about the vibes I get from it and what I've got so far! (I'm probably reading this riddle all wrong, but here goes-)

Now, it's probably just my brain being weird, but I get like... Religious vibes from this stuff. Like- Murder(Slaughtered), Betrayal(Poisoned), and Sanctification(Enshrined) are all things that happened in the Bible I think. I also kinda get Book of the Dead vibes from it a little bit. Okay, lemme explain this.

For that "Remember the thirds, all that went wrong" part of it just really made me think of the Egyptian Soul. Now, I'm not the most experienced or well-versed in this subject, but I will try my best to explain it in a way that makes sense. The Egyptian Soul is made up of three parts: the Ka (the life force/essence separated from the body at death), the Ba (the personality of the departed), and the Akh (the Immortal Spirit, reserved only for the few that were deserving of Maat Kheru). Maa/Maat Kheru is a phrase meaning "True of voice" or "Justified." It is involved in ancient Egyptian afterlife beliefs, according to which the souls of the dead had to be judged morally righteous. Once the soul had passed the test, the Weighing of the Heart (which was deeply rooted in the Egyptian belief in immortality), they were judged to be Maat Kheru and were allowed into the afterlife. The phrase Maat Kheru was often used to denote a person who had died and become a god, and the Akh being the "transfigured spirit that survived death and mingled with gods." (God, I hope that all makes sense-) As for what went wrong: what didn't? Everything has gone bad for this man. He's been out of control since the moment he was born. He's not living—just alive. (On top of that, I'm pretty sure Arceus messed with this man's soul so, that too I guess-)

Anywho, uhhhh... this got long. Whoops- This entire thing could very much be me being too focused on the fact that at one point in the last Starry said that Fire could be seen as a Jesus Figure and be the source of heavy-handed metaphors, but I digress. Those are my thoughts for now. Hopefully, there's something good in there.

(Okay, I don't like to do this, but am I allowed to ask for a hint? Like, I'm usually against anything my brain considers a "freebie" but I am well and truly stuck on this. Hints have been allowed for other mysteries, but you didn't say if I could get hints for this one, so I just figured I'd ask. Alright, that's all. Have a good day/night y'all! :])

Referring to This Riddle

{Since it's my riddle, I don't mind clearing things up a little.}

{While I'm certainly a fan of the esoteric, I think you've gotten a little too narrow in trying to unravel it ^^}

{It's not a riddle with a specific answer, but rather serves as a sort of clue in the larger picture of things. I think to unwrap it properly, you just need to step back- Fire might be the focal point of the image, but as you pointed out in your previous analysis, there are others there too- both people, and objects.}

{All that to be said, your hint.} {The riddle is for the victims, not their executioner.}

[roseverdict]

The Philestines were an ancient enemy of the Israelis who lived in the Mediterranean. Israel and Judea were renamed Palestine at different times by the Romans as a punishment meant to humiliate them following rebellions against Roman rule. Arabs didn't start living in Palestine until Ottoman rule. And Jews are actual people just like Israel is a nation state. Neither is dependent on what your Holy Books think should happen.

Oookay. It took me a second to remember that this is in reference to my half-asleep, already-known-to-be-probably-ill-informed ramblings, but lemme just make something clear:

We agree on that last bit.

Neither is dependent on anybody's holy books, mine or otherwise (because some branch-offs of Christianity have additional holy books I don't follow and I just wanna make it clear I'm talking about those too).

Unfortunately, the people in power over military superpowers sure seem to fucking think they are, and they are acting accordingly.

My brain was just making connections between similar-sounding words used to reference peoples who have called that stretch of the Mediterranean home during various points of human history. Part of why I posted about it instead of just letting it simmer silently in my head for who-knows-how-long; my memory is shit enough as it is, and I don't exactly want to be that person who convinces themself of something completely false, forgets that it's false, and then doubles down on it whenever someone points it out. ESPECIALLY not about something like this. I know a guy irl who pulls that bs constantly about all kinds of subjects, and it ranges from annoying to frustrating to downright infuriating, depending on the seriousness and impact of the subject he's spewing nonsense about at any given time. I've talked about him before- he donated half my DNA.

I don't exactly want to be a James Somerton or a Nick Hergott, who just sits there and thinks really hard about things and then says "okay, that's all my research done!" without so much as cracking open a search engine.

So thank you for pointing out that the history of that region has had more at play than just Today's Hot Topics over the past several thousand years. I didn't necessarily need a reminder that people who don't believe in the Bible don't believe in the Bible or what it says and shouldn't be held to the Bible's standards due to that, given that I've been trying to unlearn that very thing for the past decade or so and haven't colossally screwed up yet to my knowledge, but I appreciate it all the same. Keeps me humble. Clearly, though, I was correct in assuming I would need to do more research in order to figure out if the 2 AM thoughts of somebody with a special interest in linguistics had any basis in actual reality or not. I think I'll go do that.

[huntunderironskies]

Can I ask what 'premillenial dispensationalism' is ?

oh no i have to explain the scofield bible

Side note, I picked a bad time to finish this, I meant to have it done earlier but I've been super busy. Everything here is dead serious, sadly. If I get another follow-up to this, as a warning I will take forever to respond because I try to make these as informative and respectful as possible.

I'm going to put this below a cut. As a content warning, this talks about end-of-the-world stuff and touches on conspiracy theories and antisemitism, so take care if that's a touchy subject for you. It's impossible to talk about this in any depth without it leading into these topics. I'm going to try and keep to the things I know about so I don't make any missteps which is why I'm focusing more on the academic/scholarly aspects.

Alright, so. The idea of the apocalypse most people in America are familiar with is the one that starts with the Rapture. Unless you've been raised in certain groups or God zaps up all the good people to the sky and then there's a bunch of bad stuff that happens and then Jesus shows up to establish a Kingdom of God and after a thousand years of perfect rule and then there's one final battle against Satan and then the world gets destroyed, and everyone either goes to Hell forever or goes to Heaven.

Anyways, that's all about like, three hundred years old, tops AFAIK? More specifically just regarding the Rapture and what comes after it, the eternal misery thing is way older. To be clear, no serious religious scholar would think that this was what anyone who scribed early transcripts that would be compiled into the Bible saw as true, and most serious religious scholars aka people who didn't go to Liberty University or its copycats OHHHHHHHHHHH BURN sorry i'm bitter don't even think that this is close to what apocalypticism was preached by Jesus and those who came soon after him.

Now, I am not stupid enough to argue that apocalypticism isn't a core part of Christian texts (again, Jesus was definitively an apocalyptic preacher, there is zero doubt about that in any serious academic environment) but Revelations was a book added in by the Nicene Council three hundred years after the death of Jesus, and it was one of many apocalyptic texts. It just happens to be the one that made the cut, and it's one of the most metaphorical ones that has lent itself to people making some....very odd interpretations. Its writer also may have been tripping on cave shrooms but, while that does make a very fun story to tell at dinner to make religious studies sound less dry as a field, much like Satre and the mescaline crabs with philosophy, it's not a generally accepted theory.

But Satre really did take a bad hit of mescaline that made him hallucinate crabs for months, that actually happened.

Anyways. Highly metaphorical text. There's a case to be made that this was deliberate, because yelling "I HOPE GOD HITS NERO WITH A LIGHTNING BOLT" in a crowded forum will not end well. For example, you may or may not be familiar with the scholarly theory that the Number of the Beast is supposed to be a numerical cipher for Nero, and a lot of apocalyptic texts were just people saying "no guys, really, everyone who fucked us over is absolutely going to get smoted by God, because God told me so" as a morale boosting exercise. It's just that the Roman Empire happened to be most of the known world at the time, and it's not like even modern people have the best conceptualization of what a global society looks like anyway because our brains are mostly incapable of doing so. This isn't far off flood myths being based on catastrophic river flooding and then things getting embellished over time. Again, that little geographic reason was their world.

Though, I mean, if they were trying to say the fall of Rome would happen, they were right, it's just that the oppressive march of time would've ensured that happened eventually.

The problem is that you end up with morons a thousand and some spare change years down the line who decide to impose entirely different geopolitical standards onto it and that's where the Scofield Reference Bible comes in.

So the Scofield Reference Bible traces its origins to just before World War I, and the sharp among you in the crowd may begin to see where this is going. World War I was a brutal, horrific experience, and it was (probably, I've only taken 200 level history courses) the first global experience. And the Book of Revelation describes plagues (Spanish Flu), horrible afflictions (side effects of chemical warfare), and...well, yeah, war. While the Scofield Bible predates the war, it exploded in popularity because at the time it felt real.

Mister Scofield Reference Bible (Cyrus Scofield) was inspired by the preacher John Nelson Darby, with whom he was roughly contemporaneous with, and don't worry, you will never need to remember those names again because that's the only real contribution they've ever made to theology. Darby wouldn't have called himself a dispensationalist, the term was coined post-publication against his will after he died by someone who didn't like him, but that's the term we landed on.

To break down the name: dispensationalism refers to the idea that you can neatly divide up the history of the world into what amounts to theological epochs defined by a cycle of divine test > failure > judgement ending with the final dispensation, which will be Judgement Day itself. The "millennial" bit does not refer to an actual millennium but rather the Millennial Kingdom, which will be the actual-factual physical Kingdom of God.

This is the one thing that's probably kind of accurate to what pre-Nicene Christians would have believed, most people assumed that the Kingdom of God was just a restored version of Israel before all the invasions happened ruled by a divinely appointed prophet. No heavenly firmament or fluffy clouds or whatever.

The part where it's not accurate is the fluffy clouds Kingdom exists and that's where all the believers go to chill while the apocalypse is happening, though. That's a core concept of things, and that's the Rapture that pretty much any American would be familiar with

The modern version of this also includes some weirdly specific things like? For some reason it's generally accepted that people will go to Heaven naked and leave their clothes behind. I don't think this is in the Scofield Reference Bible, and I honestly don't know where this originated from. Could be as recent as Hal Lindsay for all I know. It was definitely in Left Behind, which was the other thing that caused a massive resurgence despite being probably one of the worst pieces of fiction ever published, theologian/blogger/fellow Gemini (<- most important quality) Slacktivist took like eight years to get through covering the first two books both in terms of how bad the theology is, the characters not acting like actual people, the plot not making sense, and how much the books reveal about the neuroses of both writers.

While that's fairly harmless, it's had some pretty sinister effects. Aside from the obvious, if you keep up with global politics at all, you're aware of the fact that America is extremely interested in keeping Israel in power as a state. I am very stupid except on very specific topics that are not this (and there is so much going on with colonialist interference in the Middle East to cover), not Palestinian or Israeli, and too tired to deal with attracting the bad kind of weirdoes to my blog so I'm going to put it this way. One, apartheid is bad, free Palestine. Two, and more within my wheelhouse so I can speak more in detail about this, the only reason that this is happening is because premillennial dispensationalist Christians think that Israel needs to exist as a geographical and political concept because the battle of Judgment Day is supposed to happen there, at which point the armies of God will defeat Satan and the world ends.

Not before all the surviving Jewish people convert to Christianity, the ~*~true religion~*~, though.

If it wasn't clear, the tildes and asterixes were a sarcasm tag, I just realized if you didn't spend an unfortunate amount of your life on Livejournal that might not be clear.

So, to be blunt, these people do not give a shit about actual Jewish people. Do not mistake this for anything other than a means to an end and they'll let anything happen to make sure that end comes about. Or actively help, for that matter. I said that I would get into conspiracy theories, the bit about needing Israel so the end of the world can happen is not a conspiracy theory. The saturation rate of evangelical dispensationalists in US government is incredibly high. Evangelicals actively drive public policy. When you know what to look for it's blatantly obvious I can get together a reading list at some point or another but it might take a while and this post is already very very long and meandering and sometimes barely on topic.

Anyways. The short of it is: From a sociology of religion perspective, it's accepted that Jesus was a Jewish apocalyptic preacher. Apocalypticism was very in vogue at the time and we can say with reasonable certainty (note: when a religious studies scholar uses the term, they mean "this definitely happened, it's just we can't perform necromancy to 100% confirm it") he was not the only one running around. He's addressed as "rabbi" by his disciples if that wasn't immediately clear. A refusal to acknowledge the realities of the world circa Jesus's life and treating the Bible as an unerring word of God (except when it's convenient to ignore certain bits) instead of a historical source, and all the issues that comes with it, has led to some extremely bad things. Ammon Hennacy was right, we are in Hell.

[papirouge]

I’m not sure why American evangelicals are obsessed with forcing girls out of schools and making them stay at home. I mean, have they looked at their current selection of males? Porn addicted, abusive, many just plain hate women,

Yet the same evangelical women promoting this are the same that went to college, have a career, their own money and aren’t even married with kids. This has to be a grift. In the Bible they claim to follow, women were business owners. They weren’t banned from schools or told to marry young and forget any career plans.

This whole movement feels like these women are also idolizing men, particularly mediocre men because it shows other women are happier being single. And I guess they wanna be pick mes. I know birth rates are a thing but it seems like Americans would rather kill themselves than look at socialist ideas

I can’t imagine telling girls to stop being lawyers, doctors, artists, etc. For me, I only go to female doctors. No way I’d go to a male obgyn or a male primary doctor. I don’t think the people promoting these ideas have any clear vision for the future they want. They just want to make as much money as possible until they can’t no matter how much harm it causes. Which tells me that they’re possessed by demons of greed

NLOG trad grifter on YouTube are definitely self contradictory because their whole existence on the platform is the definition of girl boss. Straight up developing production companies, LEADING coaching courses, etc.

Real tradfem aren't even online like that. My pet peeve are those "countryside tradfem" selling off their off the grid life when being off the grip is the antithesis of filming vlogs and managing a (successful) YouTube. As someone who's doing both vlogs and YouTube I can tell you it asks A LOT of logistics and all the people claiming to be removed from civilization while consistently updatingare LIARS 🥴

For example, I'm genuinely confused that some people really think Liziqi truly films everything herself and that she's really disconnected from civilization/electricity 💀 Homegirl has a 20" screen Mac in her house, and her videos are movie quality 😭 she DEFINITELY has a whole team!! (btw I need to know whether the rumors the Chinese government seized her channel is true and that's why she hasn't updated since a year 👀)

It's like those hypergamy coach screaming from the rooftop they are hypergamist and how to wife up a millionaire when the actual women who are married to millionaire aren't online and find self professed hypergamist embarrassing lol

but to come back to the subject of YouTube grifters, I find very interesting how these YouTube grifter brand themselves as feminity coach when most of their audience.....is a male💀 It should ring a bell but I guess they're too delusional for that