#but that's not just progressive christians doing that?

[lsunstreakerl]

(DarkBull)

I absolutely love the extra info given from these last 2 ficlets and I have thoughts opinions and praise to give

Carlos and Max!! The comfort Max gets from being in Carlos' presence. How he worries about his boys but doesn't understand the implication (said like Always Sunny in Philadelphia) of his actions and what that can mean for others! The gun! How many are just hidden around Redbull and Max's own apartment? When did Carlos become involved enough with crime part of rb that he has access to a gun and takes note of where it is?

More info on the trackers! I love the idea of the placement being the spine ( can't remove it without permanent damage to Max ) and the ankle ( Probably won't be able to walk normally if removed, can't run )

The list that Daniel and Carlos have and share about what makes Max happy, sad, etc. Their job is reliant on this mans emotions, they are learning everything they can.

I love timelines and im asking more for the vibe of where different fictlets fit compared to each other? Are they most chronological to posting unless placement is share (ex. pre kidnapping)? If you don't really know don't worry about it, I just like dates and numbers.

The jewelry! I loved the fact that Christian zoned so far into the bracelet being on Max's skin. In my mind, Christian and GP co-design the bangles and there was a heated discussion, so seeing that in person, on his pet's driver's wrist was worth the argument with GP. I like how Daniel and Carlos got him his collar necklace to symbolize their mark on him (Charles is furious when he sees it for the first time, Pierre did not have a good time).

Did Carlos have to get Christian's and GP's approval before he started the romantic/sexual part of his relationship with Max? If so how did that go? When did Daniel get added to the dynamic? You mention how Carlos just started to lead Max around and finally led him to the kiss which turned to more.

Carlos and Daniel just being in his place ready to catch him when he wants to rest. I loved the both touching part of "they care about me" and "If he breaks down in the wrong place people will die"

In one of your responses you mentioned "discipline". Can you show/explain some examples of what they are or when they were used (On any of the 3 rb drivers because while I think rb wants Daniel and Carlos to be disposable, Max likes them too much for them to be able to get rid of them in the way they did for that one employee you mentioned in 2nd ficlet)

Anyways, I love Dark RedBull and the way your mind has been coming up with progressions because I would never of thought of some of the plot points you give us! Make sure you rest and eat, college students unite!

carlos and max!! the way max really does deeply care for both of them, and in a semi-twisted way they do actually love him back- it just also happens that their jobs depend on it.

carlos was brought into the crime side as soon as his relationship with max moved into a romantic/sexual aspect. redbull pulled him aside after they saw the way max was using him as emotional support/an emotional safe space, and they basically told him "you can take that further, but if you fuck it up we're going to kill you", and also "if you're going to be around him like that you need to be able to defend him".

daniel got the same kind of speech. there are many guns scattered across the factory, and more than a few in max's "flat".

I use flat loosely because you'll notice in the max pov, he says his room at the factory. that's because max has his own space, literally within the factory on one of the higher floors. it's basically a fully kitted out apartment, except he uses his employee badge to get in.

the trackers!! so happy you picked up on the placement there, it was very intentional. the one in his spine is hard to get to without a dedicated surgical team who knows exactly where they're looking- otherwise the damage would be immense.

same with the ankle. if it was removed, he definitely wouldn't be able to drive anymore. couldn't run, couldn't really walk without a slight limp and a lot of PT.

if anyone ever tried to steal max so he could drive for them, they wouldn't be able to remove the trackers without max also becoming unable to drive.

it's by far the most permanent claim redbull has on him- they can't be removed without permanent damage.

daniel and carlos's list is the golden egg of rbr tbh. it's come in handy many, many times.

I'll make a timeline post when I compile stuff for the eventual ao3 post, but until then it's mostly vibes unless I specify lol

the bracelets and the necklace. oh man. christian and GP do spend a lot of time getting it just right, and then the actual screw is customized, so it's different from any of the other love lock bracelets. christian has the tool to open it, and max doesn't, so they're permanent.

the bracelet he gets from daniel and carlos is also permanent. it's not that the clasp is weird and he can't figure it out- it's that it's a permanent locking mechanism, and isn't designed to be removable.

it's so complicated with the three of them. daniel and carlos really do want to take care of max, and they really do love him, but there's also the metaphorical guillotine over their heads. they're both very aware that max being upset at the wrong time or the wrong place could end up with problems, so they have the responsibility of trying to keep him emotionally regulated. they take it very seriously.

ficlets I will be writing: adding daniel to the dynamic, discipline, max redbull reunion

thank you!! once again, thrilled that people are enjoying darkbull as I try and get the brainworm out lol. college students on top raaaahhhh 🦅

[blade-liger-4ever]

First and foremost, congratulations. You just picked a fight with a Muslim woman. Very progressive of you.

Second of all, she's my best friend. And I'm a hotblooded Catholic.

Now, about the utter and complete BS you just dropped.

Hell is indeed mentioned multiple times in the Bible, sometimes even under different synonyms, i.e. "Gehenna", "Tartarus", etc that were common in that day (especially since the Gentiles were either other Asiatics or, more commonly, Greeks and Romans, thus necessitating usage of words that would get the message across to them.) Furthermore, something Jesus often did was speak in parables to convey the message He was preaching. Do you recall the "wailing and gnashing of teeth" He would mention often in the parables, especially the ones where the servants who failed in their tasks/were ill-prepared for the feast, and thus were thrown outside as punishment and not allowed inside? Newsflash genius, that was a direct analogy to Hell. It's right there, clear as day, in the Bible. Hell was not a "concept" that was introduced in the 4th century A.D. (Anno Domini, "The Year of Our Lord", for your edification.) Additionally, Jesus literally says in the Bible that He "has come to fulfill the Law" - which, surprise, includes keeping the law against ALL gay intimacies/sex!

Also, Japan's definition of "demons" is radically different than ours. In Japan, they technically fall under the category of fae/monster, though no less dangerous. As for the polytheism of Digimon, guess what? Japan is a pagan society! Of course they're gonna have a pantheon!

But wait! There's more!

Generally, when Japan introduces a pantheon of deities, they have limits in their power, and thus are finite. God Is infinitely existing in and of Himself; no one and nothing came before Him, nor will anyone or anything come after Him. All of creation - even fictional "deities" that, logically speaking, would have had life breathed into them like He breathed life into Man, often appear in such stories as guardians of a sort for the fictional world the author has created - owes their existence to God.

As for "making life/man is god" - do you not recall Frankenstein? Stories like this are about the hubris of man and how pride causes our downfall. Turn on Fullmetal Alchemist sometime; you might actually learn something from it.

You wanna bring religion into this? Then actually study the Faith - and I mean the real one: the Catholic Faith.

Don't come at me parroting what your sex ed teachers screamed religion/Christianity was about, or anything those backwards Protestants rave to the skies claiming as the truth.

Remember, my Faith stretches back two thousand years to Jesus' birth and ministry onward, with the Jewish religion being my religious inheritance as well. Everyone else in the West can only trace their religious heritage to the fat alcoholic that was Martin Luthor from five centuries ago.

I'm done with you and after this. You're not worth my time.

Digimon fans, where you at?

Hey Digimon fans, where are you all at? I feel our fandom has died - especially with fanfic writers and readers and even people who want to discuss it anymore. Like I'm a fanfic writer who knows her writing is not terrible, it's good enough that when I wrote a Harry Potter fanfic, people are constantly reviewing and favouriting it. I've already got 5 reviews on a single chapter.

So Digimon fans, why have you let our fandom die? Our show is so well written for its time.

Where are you guys?

Whether you ship Taiora and Takari or Sorato and Daikari, it doesn't matter because at the end of the day, we both love Digimon. If you agree and wish to connect or if you just agree with this post, send through some likes so I know you lot are alive out there.

Only don't send me a like if you ship gay. Digimon is my childhood and I don't want that tainted like everything else is nowadays. I've seen every season but Ghost Game and the 2020 reboot (because 01 was better and didn't need a reboot) but I'm happy if you would like to ramble about it. I'm also not a huge fan of Tri.

[glacierruler]

:/

...

I really need to find a better church...

I just don't know if there are any

[not-so-superheroine]

Jesus is my older brother, not my dad.

other christians don't seem to feel the same?

am i missing something where he insists on such a thing except perhaps with actual little children?

[toubledrouble]

You know what we should bring back?

Older christianity. I mean the anti government, anti military, community based christianity. The one that cared the most about peace, equality, mercy, kindness, and radical love. The one with shared property. The one that didn't conform to society but instead existed mostly outside of it. The one where noone considered one sin worse than another because in the end, we are all sinners trying our best to be better.

[sapphosremains]

Okay, so firstly I think I ought to clarify some terms a little because they overlap. So if I assume that you're responding to my post in the way I meant it, you would be suggesting that non-Christian theologians couldn't publish things because they didn't believe them religiously, and I'll assume that's not what you meant and there's just been overlap of terms, as you seem like a nice person and I've followed you for a while. I believe it academically, as I'm sure all theologians who publish work believe academically in their work, but I think it's wrong to expect people to believe things religiously.

Secondly, of course what you write and publish matters and affects people. I hope that very few people think they can publish what they want with no effects. However, at the end of the day, these people exist, and, also, people publish bad theology. It happens. I won't make a judgement on what's bad theology, as no one can do that objectively, and I'm sure many people think my theology is bad theology, but you get my point. However, as far as academics should be responsible for what they put out in print, pastors who, as you were saying, are trained in theology, have the responsibility to choose what they preach from the pulpit. If they do not think critically enough to believe everything that is published and think that all of it is suitable for a congregation (especially when much of academic theology is so incredibly different to preaching material), that's on them. It is not a theologian's job to anticipate that a pastor may preach their research, because research is precisely what it is.

Following on from that - your point on why people do theology. And again I think our different experiences with academic theology (yours in seminary, mine in university) play into this. I can understand your perspective on not understanding seminarians publishing work they don't believe in, but again, this strictly academic theology is a completely different field. In my course, we learn about, think critically about, and write critically about, the theology of a variety of religions, despite not believing them. So what is the point of doing theology? I think a number of different things:

Yes, actually, to further the academic field. In the same way historians research and write and publish and work together to get a more accurate view of history, and chemists research and write and publish to further the field of chemistry, I write and publish theology to further the field of theology. To contribute to a better understanding in different aspects of the field.

Also, because we do care about the effects and the real people involved. There's an excellent bit in Phyllis Trible's foreword to Terror in the Bible where she explains how researching and presenting bits of the Bible that were painful, and sexist, and traumatic actually really spoke to victims of similar things. My Cozbi essay was really important to me and others as it examined where common translations obscured the true violence and sexism of the event, and how her race and gender play into it. I think that's important. I wrote my icons essay because I wanted to combat the idea that icons are forbidden in the Church of England, thereby providing support for people that find them useful.

And yes, for the sake of it. Because it's interesting, and exciting, and academically rigorous. Because it's challenging. Because we love doing theology, whatever that means.

If we only do theology because we believe it, we miss out incredible opportunities to engage with people we disagree with (which is really, really important), and to understand other religions. If we only do theology because we believe it, if believing something is our starting point for doing theology, I think we'd see very little progress in both theology and religion. It also makes us incredibly biased, and makes it difficult to engage with people who disagree with us. I don't think not believing religiously in something you write makes it pointless, I think it makes it personally challenging, which is a good thing.

Should we all publish the most ridiculous things possible to prove a point? No, absolutely not, and I seriously hope no one is suggesting this. But you do not have to believe something religiously to believe it or support it academically.

Also, I think the distinction between liberal and progressive is really important here - it's on my page somewhere.

"Anyway. I just wanted to add in the perspective of someone who genuinely agrees with what I write, because I believe that my work matters. Especially as a queer person doing queer theology, I need to be up front and genuine about my sincere belief in what I write. It's important. The work of theology is important to me, and I (and many other theologians) believe that it is my duty to perform that work responsibly."

I don't like the implication here that I, and other academics, don't believe our work matters, or that we don't think theology is important, or we aren't responsible.

Maybe there are some. I don't know. But I know that I personally, and all other academics I have engaged with, believe our work matters and has an impact, and theology is important. Theology has been a driving factor in fighting against slavery, subordination of women, racism, sexism, homophobia, and a whole list of other injustices. I will always, always argue that theology is important. You won't catch me agreeing with Richard Dawkins on this!! I do feel responsible for my work. But some really incredible Christian theologians have been non-Christian, and I'm sure the same is true of other religions.

Some theology is religious. Some is as objective as it can be. Most is probably a mix of both. And, I think some theology is pretty much impossible to religiously believe. For example, Harriet Lutzky's work analysing the name of Cozbi (https://www.jstor.org/stable/1535280) is so interesting, and academically compelling, and I believe it academically, but it is not something to be religiously believed or not believed. How would I go about incorporating that into my religious beliefs? This is what makes me think that we're not discussing the same theology, or the same type of belief, so I hope we've just misinterpreted each other!

Anyway, hope this makes sense and best wishes to you and your seminary work :)

“i love it theologically but in my personal religion idk how it makes me feel. this is actually a super common phenomenon - christian theologians are often very liberal in their theology and more conservative in their own religion.” Can you please please please talk more about this distinction????

Of COURSE! I’m still trying to find where I got this fact but I always have like 10 books on the go not including journal articles etc so I have a lot to dig through! So firstly, it’s quite an important distinction. There is a massive overlap between theology and religion, and exploring theology naturally impacts one’s own religious beliefs, and vice versa, therefore it’s not a hard line per say. However, it is crucial that theologians can have some separation. For example, one of the first questions they asked me in a certain unnamed university interview that you’re not meant to give any details about picked up on this. I was given a few passages taken from different religious traditions, and we discussed their similarities and differences. A little into the conversation, they told me that the passages had been written sequentially, with each a few hundred years after another, and asked “Could the later ones possibly have been inspired by the earlier one?” One of the later passages was taken from the New Testament, with this question carrying the suggestion that an author in the NT had been inspired by Ancient Greek mythology. If you’re answering that from a religious perspective, no, absolutely not! This is where they start to separate. 

A good part of theology requires looking at religious texts as a piece of literature. In my Extended Essay for IB I wrote about Cozbi, and a significant chunk of my work looked at word choice in a variety of translations, including the original Hebrew. This meant looking at how she had been named (Cozbi was probably not her real name - it means ‘to lie’ and ‘lies’, and the Akkadian equivalent of her name, ‘kuzbu’, means ‘voluptuousness’, ‘sexually vigorous’, and is a euphemism for genitals) to convey a message, and the use of grammar and vocabulary in order to pin the blame on her as opposed to the Israelite man Zimri. So in this, I’m looking at the Bible as literature, and making arguments which are quite tricky to make from a Christian standpoint - to look at my religious text and say ‘The author of this text has chosen these words to manipulate the reader’, when in my Christian head, the author of the text is God (as discussed in earlier posts, expressed by humans). So, I think that interview question aimed to very quickly sort out those who are not able to have that distinction. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, but it would make it very difficult to study Theology, and be taught Theology, I think.

But this distinction is where the liberal theology vs conservative religion comes in. My argument in my Cozbi essay, that the Bible deliberately uses women as plot devices and scapegoats, is liberal, and, honestly, not something I really want to believe! And arguing something academically, especially in the field of Theology, doesn’t necessarily mean you have to believe it. If you’re arguing something in Chemistry, that’s a bit different! Do I think my Cozbi essay is academically compelling? Yes. I am academically persuaded by it. Do I believe it religiously? Do I think that’s what God’s word is really trying to say? No. Do I think my icons essay is academically compelling? Yes. Do I think it justifies the use of icons in the Church of England? Yes. Would I have icons without it? Also yes. Writing that essay, although informative, did not alter my personal religious beliefs.

I think there’s also this weird overlap in the Tumblr-Christian-Theology little niche that you and I like to sit in. You do it much better than me. Your theological arguments persuade me, and I do think I often believe them religiously. However, my theological arguments aren’t meant to do that. Mine are often purely academic. This also links back to a post you made a few months ago that I wanted to talk about but didn’t have the words for. You talked about not liking people distinguishing between ‘theologies’ ie ‘feminist theology’ ‘liberation theology’ etc etc. And I agree and disagree, once more based on this distinction. If ‘theology’ is your personal theology, what you believe about God and religion, then yes, this idea of ‘feminist theology’ is really weird. However, when I say I’m a ‘feminist theologian’ or I’m interested in ‘liberation theology’, I mean I am interested in the niche in the academic subject Theology that belongs to ‘feminist theology’ or ‘liberation theology’.

So, why are Christian theologians often more liberal in their academic theology and more conservative in their personal religion? I think because we’re not compelled to believe it. You can try out ideas, and argue for them, and find evidence to support them, but none of this means you have to believe it. This gives Christians the space to figure out ideas that they may not agree with religiously, or might get push back from their religious community, in an academic sphere.

[Throwback to this great conversation with my (LDS) coursework supervisor:

Her: *finishes reading coursework* Oh no, you can’t submit this. I hate it, I really disagree.

Me: Oh gosh, sorry! Which arguments are the weakest?

Her: Huh? Oh, no, all your arguments are really strong. I can’t pick holes in them.

Me: Oh, that’s good. How can I improve it then? What’s wrong with it?

Her: I really disagree with it.

Me: That’s… that’s fine… You don’t need to agree with it.]

Also, I think it’s a lot easier to be liberal hypothetically! And academics can argue whatever they want. You could put a claim I hated in front of me and I could still defend and support it just as strongly as something I agreed with. Also, there’s less responsibility. If you’re consciously publishing a religious opinion in a religious space, that’s something people might take away and believe, which comes with an element of danger! Obviously you don’t have control over how people use your academic work, they might well go away and incorporate it into their religious beliefs, but that likelihood is lower, so this throwing out of ideas and ‘what if God meant this’ and ‘what if Paul meant this’ is a little safer, and comes with the understanding that it’s not necessarily your belief or a belief you endorse! 

Anyway yes this was actually a very difficult question to answer and, despite it being true of me, I don’t really know! But this is an attempt for now, and I’ll come back to it after I’ve done some more Theology!! Definitely next academic year after I’ve done some uni :))

[nobodysdaydreams]

One of my favorite things about being Christian is being able to say joyfully, genuinely, and hopefully to all my enemies “See you in heaven!” because in a world of “see you in hell” and “kys” and “the world would be better without you” I’d choose “never give up on yourself, this world is better with you in it, it is never too late for you to embrace the God-given goodness inside you, and I would be so excited to discover I was spending eternity with you” every single time.

[psalms-and-spells]

My friends at church joke with me that I want to “Become Catholic for the vibes” but like y’all I’m so close. Forget theology for a moment.

I have been craving a more purposeful way to practice Christianity which is why I have started to dabble in witchcraft but also like… I want a community of people to fast with and be purposeful with and you just aren’t really gonna get that from a non-denominational church ya know.

(It’s weird because theology wise I am like… the opposite of catholic. Then again that never stopped my Grandma who was one of the most catholic people I knew. I think I just inherited my Grandma’s belief system genuinely but she just kinda rolled with it and I’m not a ‘roll with it’ kind of person)

[idylls-of-the-divine-romance]

Hi, as a professed progressive Christian (I use that phrase even tho I do have problems with it), I think you’re ignoring the theology behind such claims and just making a blanket statement about people who disagree with you. The idea that one shouldn’t call themself by their sexual identity didn’t just come sola scriptura out of thin air: it takes a particularly Augustinian and reformed interpretation of sin, desire, concupiscence, and original sin. Meanwhile, the opposing argument (I’ll still with side b since side a is more complicated) comes from a Roman Catholic view of sin, desire, nature, and eroticism (Catholicism has a very deep and detailed view of eros that I am reading about right now). Not blaming you for not knowing this (I only know this because I’m doing lots of research into it atm) but you did tag this progressive Christianity and it bears saying. At it’s heart, this is the same debates and arguments that took place 400 years ago: the reformation vs catholic philosophy.

The progressive Christians who recite the mantra of “Be different! Be yourself! Don’t conform! God made you *insert sexual identity*” are the very ones refusing to own the fact that they are a new creation in Christ, different from the world, holy and set apart for God. Be different. Be yourself, that is, who you are in Christ, a child of God.

[francy-sketches]

hotd twitter is turning me into a reddit atheist istg

[mars-and-the-theoi]

God gives His toughest battles to His strongest soldiers (Being a Quaker who believes strongly in simplicity and simple living and no overconsumption in a Capitalist society)

[demonic-shadowlucifer]

by the way i kinda want to talk about the whole "christians arent oppressed" and "oooh christians wanna be oppressed so bad" stuff because i do feel strongly about it because of how much history it ignores lmfao ...because, yes. but actually no. Long ago, the Romans... actually did not like Christianity! Oh no. They despised them, especially Nero, who hated them so much he called for their execution. Eventually though Rome decided "actually yeah Christianity is cool". And that's not all!

Christians, especially Jehovah's Witnesses, weren't safe during WW2 neither! Oh no. Jehovah's Witnesses, while not persecuted as badly as Jewish folks, were still targeted and faced discrimination by the Nazis. And many were also unlucky enough to end up in concentration camps as well. Not to mention the fact that Christians are currently being targeted in other countries, such as North Korea. Oh yeah! Don't think America's getting out of this one neither! Black Christians especially aren't safe. In 2015, a black church in Charleston, South Carolina (particularly Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal) was shot up, killing 9 African Americans, including state senator Clementa C. Pinckney. And going further back in 1963, 15th Street Baptist Church, the first black church in Birmingham, Alabama, was bombed by members of the KKK, with four children, the youngest being 11, killed as a result.

So yes, Christians *have* been oppressed before. ...Just not in the way evangelicals want you to believe.

[writingraccoon]

Nearly every time I see Discourse™️ on tumblr I remember that so many leftists and queer people have Not deconstructed the idea that nakedness is inherently sexual, or that sex is inherently weird or inappropriate, or that crimes or abuse of a sexual nature is inherently worse and more traumatizing than being the victim of any other crime or abuse

But I don't think tumblr is ready for that conversation so whatever

[weirdopponent]

FRUITS THAT COULD HAVE BEEN GROWING ON THE TREE OF KNOWLEDGE

The apple, the classic, bright red like struck skin

fits firmly in your palm.

You crush it in your teeth and between your jaws, it snaps like broken bone.

Scavengers feast on what remains, what you leave behind.

The pomegranate, cut in half, bleeds like a heart

from four chambers, from its severed veins

which it doesn't need anymore, taken from its body like this

The peach falls to the ground and no one catches it in time

and it bruises readily, tenderly

martyred for the health of the earth

The cherry grows in pairs

One holds the other which holds the other back

When you split them apart, the ladder of your ribs aches in sympathy

The apricot shines golden from its perch in the golden sun

reminding you of the guardians blinding halo, its fierce flaming swords

Is it ever blinded? The fruit is sweet on the tongue

A banana?

That's just silly.

[toubledrouble]

"fuck the rich and the government" but like in a christian way yk