#cruel to the former and unkind to the latter
Explore tagged Tumblr posts
engagemythrusters · 4 months ago
Text
Absolute shitshow of an Olympics fr
2 notes · View notes
ptn-imagines · 9 months ago
Note
Can I request hcs for Garofano with a F!Chief who has very soft spot for her? Normally Chief is pretty strict and don't really bend the rules but she developed deep feelings for her and it shows as she sometimes pretends not to see her breaking the rules. Thank you!!!
Ah, Garofano. Like all the adult members of the Garden, I'm besotted with her -- and I also happen to think she looks really good with her hair down and covered in blood. Needless to say, I liked her interrogation. Enjoy your headcanons!
Strict F!Chief who has a soft spot for Garofano
While Chief is still known for her kindness, she is also known for her strictness. She’s far from cruel, but she doesn’t really tolerate breaches of the rules or pointless messing about.
It doesn’t matter who you are – B-Ranks and S-Ranks are treated the same. There is no difference between a Sinner who has been at the Bureau for years versus one who was detained yesterday, save for some official lifting of sanctions the former might have acquired through being on their best behavior.
Even someone like Hella has to be very careful with what boundaries she pushes. Chief isn’t afraid to discipline her Sinners, though not in an unkind or disproportionate way. She’s just… stern. Some of the Sinners find it endearing.
Of course, this strictness just makes it more obvious when the Chief allows one particular Sinner to bend the rules – Garofano.
Though her interactions with the assassin seem quite ordinary, closer scrutiny will reveal that it’s not what she does, but what she doesn’t do. Garofano seems to be able to break the rules with impunity (as long as it concerns Chief; Nightingale still has no problems with disciplining her).
The tailor isn’t a particularly disorderly sort, which probably helps the Chief with overlooking her transgressions. For Garofano, “rule-breaking” mostly consists of being in out-of-bounds areas, or lingering out past curfew on a dispatch mission.
Not so long ago, a simple dispatch mission that Garofano, Coquelic and Sumire had been sent on due to their relevant skills had lasted until well after midnight. Such an incident should’ve warranted thorough questioning about their whereabouts if not stricter punishment, and indeed, when she looked at Sumire and Coquelic, the Chief was frowning. Then, her eyes fell upon Garofano, and her stern expression melted. She didn’t question them at all, simply muttering that it was late and they should get to bed right away with no detours if they weren’t hurt.
Garofano herself doesn’t have much of a proclivity for mischief, but she’s able to bargain for some protection for the more troublemaking members of her family – mostly Coquelic and Gekkabijin. It’s common custom for a Garden member to recruit Garofano into their hijinks if they’re planning on getting into trouble, since even if all she does is smile and sweet talk the Chief a little, it can protect them from all but the most serious of transgressions.
A lot of Sinners are envious of Garofano, and a lot of staff are exasperated by how soft the Chief is on her. However, pretty much everyone who isn’t aggressively territorial over the Chief agrees that they hope something comes of the likely-mutual feelings between Garofano and the Chief. The latter is always so tense all the time; surely having a girlfriend would be good for her to relax. And as far as Sinners go, Garofano was one of the less out-there choices, as long as you were willing to overlook her profession… and Chief clearly was.
68 notes · View notes
cyarsk52-20 · 1 year ago
Text
How Tom Sandoval Weaponized The Body Insecurity Of Women Everywhere To Shame Ariana Madix On National Television
‘She Kept Her T-Shirt On, It Was Really Hot’
John Sundholm
Tumblr media
Imagine you're the villain in a nationally televised cheating scandal in which your wrongdoing is devoid of any moral gray area. You're a pariah, a laughingstock, and even your mustache and nail polish have become national news. 
Now imagine you have to go on television and discuss your wrongdoing. Would you be contrite, or would you sit there and make vile, misogynistic, intentionally cruel remarks mocking the person you hurt?
Most of us would choose the former — or at least be quiet entirely — but if you're "Vanderpump Rules" star Tom Sandoval, you choose the latter.
Tom Sandoval mocked his ex Ariana Madix for being insecure about her body, making a disgusting comment during the 'Vanderpump Rules' reunion.
RELATED: Tom Sandoval Allegedly Has A New Girlfriend & Fans Have Found Out Who She Is
Sandoval's comments on the third part of the "Vanderpump Rules" reunion to his now ex-girlfriend Ariana Madix reveal his lack of even the most basic common decency, but they also reveal something deeper: the depths of his narcissism.
Nearly everyone who's ever dated has had the misfortune of crossing paths with a someone like Sandoval at one time or another — someone totally devoid of empathy and so thoroughly convinced of his own perfection that he can't even compute the cruelty of his actions, let alone that others won't high-five him for committing them.
Sandoval made fun of Madix for wearing a t-shirt during sex while he was cheating on her with her best friend Raquel Leviss.
There were tons of bombshells in the "Vanderpump Rules" reunion's final installment, but none of them had quite the impact of Sandoval's one-sentence comment about a t-shirt. The comment came during a discussion of whether Sandoval had been intimate with anyone else during his affair with co-star Raquel Leviss, the best friend of his now ex-girlfriend of nine years, Ariana Madix. 
When Madix pointed out that Sandoval was, in fact, sleeping with someone else in addition to Leviss — Madix herself — Sandoval viciously mocked her.
"Yeah, she kept her t-shirt on, it was really hot," Sandoval said, blowing the minds of everyone onstage beside him, even the cast mates who were once his allies.
Sandoval's t-shirt insult to Ariana is more than just unkind. It's vicious in a way that just about every woman—and a lot of men— has experienced at one time or another.
Having sex with someone is inherently vulnerable — that's part of what makes it exciting in the first place. But sex also feeds into insecurities that are nearly universal—almost all of us, at one time or another, have felt insecure about our bodies.
RELATED: Man Shares The Email He Sent His Boss To Get Off Work For The 'Vanderpump Rules' Finale
Few of us have bodies that are acceptable by the "standards" of our culture. For the vast majority of us, the kind of physical perfection idealized in everything from media to people's dating profiles is unattainable, even for TV stars like Ariana Madix whose appearance adheres to generally accepted beauty standards.
Because that's the thing about beauty standards, isn't it? No matter how good you look, there's always someone who looks better, who's considered more perfect and more acceptable. Nobody evades this situation, but given the ways women's bodies and sexualities are commodified in our society, culture, and media, this nightmare is on a whole other level for women.
So it's not at all surprising that even someone like Madix would feel vulnerable enough in her own skin from time to time that she'd want to have sex with a shirt on. Nor is it surprising that women all over the internet have expressed similar experiences, and have been outraged and revolted by Sandoval's comments on her behalf.
RELATED: All The 'Proof' The Scandoval Affair May Have Been Staged To Boost 'Vanderpump Rules' Ratings
Tom Sandoval's t-shirt insult made the backlash against him worse, and reveals who he really is.
There are few of us who have never, at one time or another, found ourselves in an intimate situation feeling nervous about how we look. To mock someone for this near-universal experience is cruel on its face, and you don't need to be a woman to understand that — you just need to be a human being with a functioning brain and heart.
But to do so in the context of having cheated on your partner with her best friend is vicious on a whole other level.
Is it really surprising that Madix wouldn't feel comfortable bearing all to Sandoval given the total disregard he has shown for her dignity and feelings? If anything, her reluctance to be naked in front of a man she's been with for nine years reveals how little she trusted him — an instinct we now know was absolutely correct.
And yet, Sandoval's takeaway from this is that she should feel shame for having sex with her shirt on. His response is to go on national television and imply that she's so boring, she drove him to cheat on her with her best friend after nine years?
Forgive me, but there is simply no way to get to the point without dispensing with professionalism entirely: What an a-hole.
Related Stories From YourTango:
Sandoval seemed to be caught by surprise that the entire rest of the cast was nauseated and infuriated by his comments instead of cheering him. And it shows the depths of his narcissism and how little he grasps the concepts of compassion.
Maybe that's part of why, even after all the drama she was willing to endure to be with him, Raquel Leviss, who has been receiving mental health treatment at an inpatient facility, has allegedly broken up with Sandoval in recent weeks. It may have just been the smartest decision Leviss has made since the "Scandoval" affair started. 
As for Ariana Madix, she is capitalizing on the repulsive comment with new merch: A $34.99 t-shirt of her own sold in her and co-star Katie Maloney's Something About Her Shop featuring an illustrated version of herself ripping apart a grilled cheese sandwich. The words on the shirt say "F--- Me in This Shirt." 
RELATED: The Timeline Of Raquel Leviss & Tom Sandoval's Affair — Everything Fans Of 'Vanderpump Rules' Didn't See
John Sundholm is a news and entertainment writer who covers pop culture, social justice and human interest topics.
Sent from my iPhone
0 notes
sacarvos · 3 years ago
Text
I know I shouldn’t still be bemoaning about the allegations but one of the things that still kinda bothers me is that as far as I’m aware, there’s still uncertainty on whether or not Vinny’s email was actually moderated all this time. If it was, that would mean that he was sexting people while others were witnessing and fully aware of it, in which nobody among the latter chose to say anything earlier, and worse, exposing intimate conversations and possibly photos of the people Vinny was sexting without their knowledge or consent.
If it wasn’t, I don’t feel that it’s any better. There was a post on Twitter wherein a former mod or other claimed that the moderation thing was actually just a ruse to prevent spam and weird messages, and that they have apparently been collectively begging Vinny to have his email monitored “for years” for said reasons. And, personally, having his streaming email not monitored kinda leaves me to lean more to the notion that the allegations are true.
There’s also the possibility that the email was fabricated by the accuser(s) but from what I’ve seen, there’s a considerable amount of evidence that suggests otherwise.
I know it seems I’m making it out to utterly demonize Vinny, but I truly, sincerely don’t want to... I’ve been watching Vinesauce for ~6 years; I still think Vinny is a funny, down-to-earth, talented, chill, and cool dude whom I would be ecstatic to meet in person one day. I just think it’d be beneficial to him and honestly, personally reassuring for myself and others if he were to explain his side of the story and maybe clear up some of the still-present inconsistencies, but he hasn’t yet nor seems to intend to.
I don’t want to “go full detective” or anything, I just want closure on if it’s morally okay to still support him when or if he’s done shitty things to people without any act of apology and, if applicable, due retribution.
These words are going to sound really cruel and unkind-- I don’t want to think of Vinny as a womanizing asshole who throws people away and harbors total disregard for their feelings or emotional pain when he’s done with them.
I know he’s not perfect, but I don’t want him to seem utterly evil in my perception either.
4 notes · View notes
violetstarr24 · 4 years ago
Text
Aro Visions and Hopes: AroWriMo Week 3
I meant to do AroWriMo these past few weeks, I just kinda... forgot to. But now is better late than never, right? I guess I’ll start with talking about hope. Hope is one of those things that’s abstract and concrete, complicated and simple, and most importantly, easier to write about than mirrors. I might find a way to weave it in somehow, we’ll just have to see. I hope that in the future, my heart won’t sink the moment somebody mentions a boyfriend or a girlfriend. I hope I won’t have to scroll pass flowery romantic poems that mean nothing to me and everything to everyone else. I hope that I won’t have to lie awake at night, wondering what happens to me when the people I care about find their “other half.” I hope I won’t have to worry about others dating and getting engaged and getting married and starting a family together, leaving me behind. I hope I’ll look in the mirror and see a bright and happy me, surrounded by people who love and cherish me in the same way they do their romantic partners. I hope I won’t live the opposite— a dreary and depressed life, lived alone, walked alone, scrolled through the Instagram feeds of friends with people who mean more to them then I could ever be alone. For some reason, the latter is more tangible, more concrete than the former will ever be. Being aro is kinda like looking through a glass wall. On the other side, you can see people talking and laughing and walking about like people do. Sometimes you forget about the wall entirely. Sometimes you can trick yourself into pretending it doesn’t exist. Sometimes it’s almost like there’s no wall at all. Sometimes you can talk and laugh and walk with the people on the other side like you’re one of them. Sometimes you act like one of them, become like of them, but then...
It doesn’t take much for the wall to appear. All it needs is one offhand comment, one tiny snippet of a conversation that most would ignore to send you flying back, back behind the glass wall, forever drawing a line between you and the whole world. You can slam your fists against it all you want, screaming and crying and begging, but the wall still stands, unchanging.
You look into the mirror. You’re sad, angry, and most devastatingly, alone.  I wish I could say those fears don’t have any power over me, but that would be a lie. I don’t like to lie. Saying “but I still love!!111!1!” would be smooshing myself against the glass barrier pretending it doesn’t exist. Saying “love doesn’t have to be romantic!11!1!!!” would be throwing myself over the top. Both are true, but both only please the figures of judgement beyond the glass wall. They do nothing to dismantle it.  Speaking of figures of judgement, there are few kind ones beyond the glass wall. Few understand more than the basics. A few recognize us, trapped beyond the glass wall, others offer shallow gifts. I’ve never met one who understands the wall itself in the same way we do. Worse, there are the unkind ones, the cruel ones. The ones who tell us we haven’t found the right person, that the wall will disappear one day, that the wall is a construction of our minds and not them. They say we’re faking it, that we’ve snuck behind their defenses only to stab them in the back. They mock us, taunt us, hate us and there’s nothing we can do. Nothing but stare into the mirror at our empty eyes and empty faces, and sigh. It’s easy to feel alone. It’s easy to be isolated, especially when there are so few of us, but they’re out there. There are other people who look through the same glass wall every day. I should know, I’ve met them. I don’t know their real names or their real faces, but I can talk to them. I can laugh at the jokes they send. Maybe one day, I can sit and talk and laugh and walk with them the way I do with others beyond the wall. Maybe, one day, I’ll look at myself in the mirror and it’ll resemble the first vision. But for now, I can only hope.
10 notes · View notes
duskforged · 2 years ago
Note
Happy WBW! What is the most ruthless aspect of any of your worlds? @writingonesdreams
Thanks for the ask, Dreams.
I won't lie - I had some trouble coming up with these. I don't want a world that is inherently cruel or unkind, especially to those who are already on the fringes.
But let's take Sanctuary. Alessa was the youngest in the modern world to ever be knighted, at about sixteen. Ludhos joined the Movement at fourteen. Vazya was abandoned (?) at a young age, as was Dherán, though where the former was adopted, the latter was not. The regimes that have come and gone have not done many kindnesses toward the young and the inexperienced, the orphaned and the abandoned. Yes, they have come far from the wars of the ancient past, but there is still work to be done.
The elves (especially the nobles) tend to be cutthroat - all for the Family, and all the Family must give in order to be favored by the Queen. Ėmoya used to be an empire, with all the suffering that came with it. Emyr was, at one point, a great place of knowledge and history, but many of their libraries were destroyed during the fall of the Ėmoyan Empire. N'adros is arguably the most peaceful and egalitarian, but they also have rather strict castes that are very hard to move within.
1 note · View note
titoist · 2 years ago
Text
two nominally unrelated anecdotes that i've decided to put together in one post, as they feel... unrelated & dissonant, in a way that will maybe become accentuated if they are two separate posts - evoking a bit of bathos? - but will perhaps be less so if placed together, like a compilatory album that is purposefully atonal; Some time ago, i managed to cut my cheek very horribly - having been healing for some days now. its positioning is...i suppose not strictly on my cheek, per se, but, rather, right next to my lip. thus, it's been a gruelling affair, as a sharp pain of the scar is reignited each time i open my mouth to eat, serving to 'stretch' the wound in a very uniquely discomforting way. as a side-effect, i believe i'm beginning to strongly associate the taste of potassium with pain. For a long, long while now - perhaps far longer than even i can recall - i've had a certain fixation on the idea and experience of love, what it constitutes, what it means, its significance. this type of ruminant action has been equal amounts frustrating and self-affirming, as there is always something new to think about and turn over & over. i think that "love" is too important to my construction, refinement, and fulfilment as a person to be put cleanly into words. i think that "love" is probably that important to everyone - or, at least, should be - and in those who have resigned themselves from love, the absence is important as a mirror image of its presence. and most of my internal processes concern trying to prove to myself that i am capable of love in a holistic capacity, as a large part of my adolescent period was spent attempting to suffocate all the love within me, & i barely escaped with even a basal sense of self. it's as if... i view my soul, the very most foundational element of my being, as being incredibly sincerely good and benevolent & kind, and it is simply waiting to be able to be expressed in a thorough and unfiltered manner. but my brain, my mind, has autodidactically evolved into something i view as very acidic, cruel, narcissistic & demonstrably unkind. the latter is kind of inadvertently suffocating the former just on account of the way it's been conditioned, constantly in conflict, a consistent roadblock. but, obviously, i don't really have a soul, that's just sort of purposefully histrionic wording. these are just different layers of my brain which contain heavy internal contradictions with one another & are thus in conflict with regards to thought, rather than there being friction with any innate essence. and yet, phrasing it like that feels like it...leaves something out, in some way. it's likely that i find emotional value in the framing of "my soul", because it implicitly invites the thought that... the good in me is what is the true part of myself, the most basal essence of my being, and which is secluded and protected from all of the contaminatory badness of the rest of my body - and simply, kind of... observing it from afar, detachedly. voyeuristic tendencies make themselves apparent throughout my entire life. clears throat, kicks dirt. my relation to love is something i will most likely spend the rest of my life attempting to unpack.
0 notes
womanwarrior-rp · 7 years ago
Text
Sif Drabble
[Angst below the cut.]
Sif did not sleep the night of Frigga’s death, but Valhalla knew how much she wanted to. 
There were only two ways to escape the constant agony, the tightness in her chest, the self-deprecating thoughts: slumber or death. She preferred the former to the latter, but fate was unkind. She would experience neither, one by the Norn’s decree and the other by her own. 
So she lay in the darkness of her room, begging for unconsciousness, crying for her queen. While she waited for sleep, she waited to wake from this nightmare, find that it was just her mind playing cruel, horrible tricks, as it liked to do when she closed her eyes. She waited for the true reality, that no one had died this day, but how long could one be patient?
For as long as someone could be foolish.
And she was a fool. 
A sob passed her lips, an ugly, pitiful sound that echoed in her empty chamber. She wanted to scream.
She didn’t like to be alone. But who could she go to? Her usual choice no longer lived. Her friends returned home. The eldest prince had a Midgardian to comfort him, and she would not dare approach her king.
There was only one she could go to, but in addition to that being forbidden, he despised her. Grief would not be enough to heal the damage that had been done or bridge the wide chasm between them.
That was her fault.
Everything was.
1 note · View note
ricorper-tow-blog · 7 years ago
Text
Japan, 1984.
Tumblr media Tumblr media
"There won't be a third time," his brother warned him. Hermes, still brokenly trying to claw his way into a bomber jacket three times his size, didn't answer. But he clocked what Apollo meant, through the heroin had and incense clogging the room. The first time Hermes surrendered his immortality, it was for a slave boy in Syracuse who found his face on a temple wall and kissed it, begging for freedom. A war criminal, allegedly, hadn't a hope of release in any form. He would work until he was dead, and that was the mortal world. Hermes retrieved him from darkness without his caduceus and raised him to walk on green fields to envy Elysium. His repayment was a destruction of his temples, and a laying to waste of his offerings by a man who boasted of fooling the gods. Hermes had wandered, a broken amnesiac who was nothing without his worship. Afraid and reduced to a shell of his former self, Apollo found his brother crouched in a cavern in Crete, screaming hoarsely in their ancient tongue of love lost and betrayal's sting. Until Apollo, all Hermes could remember were the eyes of his betrayer, and the scars he left oh his skin with mockeries of burnt offerings and thrown stones from demolished places of worship. Of love. Apollo filled him once more with the flaming power of the gods, and the younger, more naive God became just a bit bitterer. It didn't stop the second time from happening, though. He locked eyes with his brother in the crooked mirror. It was 1984, a decade after the second disaster and two or so before he'd meet Rowan of Only One Name. In the tense electricity of the room, Apollo silently judged him, a figure of black, white, copper, and gold - surveying one of tin, rust, neon, and garbage. The myriad of colors smeared across Hermes' form suggested joy but inferred worse. Nagasaki had been unkind. Most cities were, especially in this particular decade. It had taken Apollo almost four years to find him again. "If you came to berate me-" Hermes was cut off as Apollo raised a hand, the gesture eerily similar to the one he used to conduct his power. Dark fingers curled and the sun god sighed, clove smoke blowing into tepid air. "I came to remind you. To warn you. To not love again." His voice hardened with warning on the final words. Hermes scoffed, then coughed, rummaging around in the costume trunks nearby - the old stage was his hiding place, his life a comedy of errors. It seemed only fitting. Dionysus would've been proud. Or laughed. More likely the latter. 
“Who the fuck are you to tell me about love? Your idea of love is to chase girls till they turn into monsters and to love men until they burn or bleed out.” The words were venomous, but spoken lowly. Apollo cocked his head with a vague hint of warning, and Hermes instead focused on finding something in the backstage drawers once more.
The stage also reminded him of her. His dancer. The second coming; as it were - how he had tried to breathe life into cells corroded by cancer and caught hell for it instead. How he had to watch her waste away, how he gave whatever he could to her who made him feel alive again. How she wanted freedom; too, and he, a thief to his porcelain bones, tried to steal it for her. Even if it meant freedom from her own mangled and decaying body. He'd give her that, give her all, and still he was not enough. Apollo found him curled on her grave still wet with fresh earth, howling drunk and shuddering apart. The sky had opened and lightning struck, and Hermes was himself again - but worse. And here they now stood, watching one another in a mirror, each thinking he was in the right. Or more likely, one right, and the other bluffing. So were the chess matches between the gods. And, as always, between the brothers. "You can't just throw your immortality around like a fucking boomerang, man, because I'm sick of fetching it back for you," Apollo said abruptly. Black eyes burned in the dark, filled with sparking scorn as Apollo spoke again. "That ain't my job, and neither are you." There was a beat, then, more urgently, Apollo said, "I can't keep aiding in your gods-damned self-destruction, Hermes. I won't do it." "I got it," snapped Hermes, temper rising as he finally wrenched the jacket into place over his bony shoulders. "Where the fuck're my sandals?" Apollo raised his eyebrows, then Laughed. A soft, ugly sound. Three syllables worth. Hermes froze in front of the mirror, glancing back at his brother with doubt in his eyes. Apollo's smile was cruel as the midday desert sun. "How fucked up were you that you don't remember?" Hermes' stomach dropped to his shoes. Apollo shrugged with his brows and tapped his cigarette, getting to his feet. Golden brown skin shimmered with power as he adjusted his cuff links, each a golden wink in the gloom. "Apollo, please." Hermes' sharp tone faded away to almost nothing. Apollo looked at him with a blank face, eyes flickering over the thin frame and stuck-out bones defiantly trying to make an exit from paper thin skin. The cigarette found his lips again, and the smoke found Hermes' eyes. "Pathetic," breathed Apollo. When the smog cleared, he had vanished, leaving his half sibling behind in his ruin. He was true to his word. Mostly. When Hermes fell in love a third time, Apollo came back - If only to watch the inevitable unfolding of the play, and one last curtain fall.
5 notes · View notes
darlinthistooshallpass · 7 years ago
Text
On being told that someone loves you but is not in love with you
I don’t feel like I have the vocabulary to put how I feel about this loss into words. Every time I try to clarify my feelings in my head I either can’t do it, or it ends up sounding horribly cliched, but either way it in no way manages to approach the reality of what the sensation of living in my body is like right now.
Yet, despite the futility of it, I can’t help but hope that by writing it down might allow me to understand it better. Or perhaps I’m just hoping that taking some action is better than taking none, even if it’s just logging in here for the first time in over a year and writing this.
I don’t think I’ve ever felt real loss before. Certainly, I’ve felt loss - when Rosie and I went to shit, when Seraphina was hit by a car - but not real loss. Of course, perhaps it’s just that memory numbs the feeling, but I think it was different in both of those cases. With Rosie there was too much anger mixed in for it to be real loss, and while I think with Seraphina it came closer to the real thing, it was impossible for it to be true grief because your relationship with a cat can never have the depth of one with a human, let alone someone that you had envisioned yourself spending the rest of your life with.
I feel strange. I think I’m still in shock. I don’t think enough time has passed for me to really process the enormity of the loss. After all, I saw her 71 hours and 33 minutes ago at the time of writing this sentence. I’m not obsessively counting the time that’s passed by the way. It’s just that she left on a train, which makes it remarkably easy to know how long ago we said goodbye. And we spoke on Sunday too. If someone has only been absent for such a short period, then it seems like of course you can’t comprehend what their absence will be like in the longer term. You know that there’s a space in your life that wasn’t there before, but you can’t really appreciate how large that space is until you’ve lived with its presence for longer.
I don’t mean to belittle the loss of others. I know that many of your reading this have had relatives die, and I have too. But for me this is greater than those losses. My aunt dying was sad, but she was not a part of my life in the way that Alexa has been these last two years. I am lost with regard to many things in life: mostly where I want to be, and what I want to do. But the constant for a long time has been that whatever I ended up doing and wherever I ended up being based, I thought I would be with her. I envisioned a house, and a dog, and children. And now I am utterly lost. There is nothing anchoring me to anything. In some strange sense, this is liberating, but not in the positive way that word is often used. Imagine you are sailing, and have no destination mind other than that you are heading West, using the stars as your guide. And then the clouds form overhead out of nowhere, and the sea grows rough and throws your ship around, and you know that while you can head anywhere, you no longer have any point of reference to guide you in your journey.
We broke up on Saturday morning. Today was the first day that I didn’t cry in the shower since it happened. I’ve cried more than I ever have before, these last three days. It’s like I’m numb until something happens that rouses an emotional response, and then the tears start flowing. On Saturday I asked my mother to come downstairs with me right after it happened, planning to tell her, and I started crying the moment I turned around in the kitchen. On Sunday it was the first time I was alone after the wedding reception the night before and I stayed at a friend’s house, so it all hit me once I got home and into the shower. Yesterday, I thought of the line from Neruda right before I got in (”To think that I do not have her. To feel that I have lost her.”), and it brought everything rushing home.
It’s strange how people feel a need to speak when you tell them about this sort of thing. There’s nothing to really say, after all. A couple of people have tried to comfort me. You know the sort of thing. “She’s crazy if she can’t see how great you are.” “Maybe in a few months you’ll feel like this was for the best.” I think people don’t like silence. When you tell them that your girlfriend told you that she’s not in love with you anymore, they don’t want to stand there with those words being the last ones to float in the air, so they try to fill the space with platitudes. It’s okay, though. I know that they’re just trying to help, even though they’re not.
Have you ever been through this, reader? Have you heard the words before? “I love you, but I’m not in love with you.” I’ve heard the words, “I never loved you” before. You can’t really compare the two, I’ve decided. I think the latter were probably a lie, an attempt to give some closure to the whole thing. I think that there was some malice in them, even if it wasn’t known to Rosie when she spoke them. That makes it better, a little bit, even if the words themselves were unkinder. They had a point to them, some sort of purpose interfering with the facts of the matter, which made them less wounding.
But the former were said by someone who I think had no desire to cause harm. or pain. I believe that she did this because of the reasons she professed. I don’t think she’s a cruel person. I don’t think that she’s ever done something with the intention of hurting me, even though she has hurt me on a number of occasions. That’s also better than I can say I’ve done. I’m the kind of person who has an inclination to lash out when upset, just to get a response. I try to restrain the impulse, but I’m not perfect, and sometimes I slip. That perhaps makes me sound a little worse than I am. What I mean to say is that while I don’t want to cause hurt, when I’m upset I sometimes cannot stop myself from using cutting words, ones that go beyond simply describing how I’m feeling into trying to create some mirrored pain in the other person. But I never set out with the intention of doing this, and I think she knows that, and forgives me for it in the same way that I forgive her for hurting me at times through things that she cannot help doing, despite knowing the pain that they cause in me.
Part of what makes this worse is the care with which it’s been done, although of course that also makes it better. By this I mean that we were both gentle with each other while talking about this. I believe her when she says that she made the choice to break up because she thought it would be unfair to me to make me wait for her to feel better, without knowing when or if that would happen, and whether that happening would even lead to her feelings towards me returning. I truly believe that she wants me to be happy. I want the same for her, although of course I want her to be happy with me, and I feel jealousy and anger stirring under the surface when I consider the idea of her meeting someone new. I think I’m worried this will happen soon. After all, we met within two months of the last time she split up with someone. I don’t think she’s planning to look for anyone, but I’m worried that now she won’t be saying “sorry, I have a boyfriend” someone will successfully pursue her. I don’t think she realises how desirable she is. And, of course, there’s the fact that Rosie said she wasn’t planning to be with anyone else for a while after things ended between us, and she met her new boyfriend in the very near future too. I guess maybe I’m just generally sceptical of people saying they have no plans to get into a relationship, because I’ve seen such people end up in relationships right after saying that too many times.
It’s why I asked her not to tell me if she does meet someone new, at least not for a while. Perhaps I’ll go back on this and end up begging her to tell me if there is someone else because not knowing will prove too hard, but I know that’s only going to decrease the chances of her and I ever ending up together, so hopefully that knowledge will let me restrain the urge.
There’s still a vague hope. I asked her to consider us going on a ‘break’ - I hate the term, but that’s what it is - where we remain together but don’t see each other, for however long she needs. That’s what I’m waiting to hear back about at the moment. I told her to think about it really carefully, so I don’t know when she’ll get back to me. She said one of the problems was that she was finding seeing me stressful, or even the thought of seeing me. I hope that giving her control over the rate and extent of communication might help. Whether I’ll be able to live with such a situation, I don’t know. But I do know that I wouldn’t be able to forgive myself for not trying everything in my power to make this relationship work.
She said something, when we communicated on Sunday. I know I said ‘spoke’ earlier, but that’s somewhat misleading. We exchanged messages. She left me voice messages. The first one was 50 seconds, and the second 55. It was in the latter that she said that maybe we are meant to be together, but not right now. I know that one’s a cliche too. I know that perhaps you’re pitying me right now. “Poor James, that’s what they say when it’s over but they can’t bear to crush all your hope, and he doesn’t realise.” Perhaps you’re right. But then again, you don’t know her, do you? I do. And I know that out of context, those words sound like an attempt to comfort someone you know you’re never going back to, but given the specifics, I think they ring true. I think that her emotional state, the hormones from the implant, her general situation with her family, all have a massive impact on how she feels both generally and about me. So if those things change, which I can only hope they will, I think it’s entirely possible that her feelings for me could return. And she’s not dumb. She knows how those words sound, and she said that she didn’t want to say them, but I think she felt compelled to. I do truly believe that if it was her choice, she would still have feelings for me as strong as ever, and that this is maybe just as hard for her as it is for me.
It’s made me think about the universe, all this, and God. We went to a wedding together on Saturday, after we’d broken up. I told her that we had to go so as not to spoil the day for the couple getting married. It was hard, but I think it was the right thing to do. And at the wedding, the priest said that he believed that it was God’s plan for the couple to get married. That it was destiny.
I’ve always resisted such beliefs. I’ve always thought that they were for the weak, unable to accept that the universe has no need for rhyme or reason, and that sometimes awful things happen without a good explanation. But equally, this does feel simply wrong. That our story, mine and Alexa’s, should end in this way. And so when she says that maybe we are meant to be together but not right now, I wonder if she’s right. Because it seems mad for this to be the end of our tale. I have no way to justify this feeling. The most rational explanation is that it’s blind hope being conjured by my brain to prevent things from being more painful than they already are. But who’s to say? We both still care for each other, deeply. And I think we both would still like to be together, it’s just that she feels it’s not possible - and I agree that being together in the way we were for the last couple of months was unsustainable.
Maybe this will be it. Maybe we will go our separate ways, meet other people, end up with them. Maybe we’ll find other people for now and then find each other again in the future. Maybe we won’t meet other people, and end up back together after a period of separation. Maybe she’ll accept my proposal of going on a break, and we’ll have some time where we are apart but together, and recover after that. I think that I will always love her, even if the feeling of being in love with her does fade, and we each follow a different path without the other in it. But I think that at heart I am an optimist. So I hope that fate does exist, and that we have a different ending waiting for us.
1 note · View note
yellow-constellations · 8 years ago
Text
On The Name "Albus Severus"
It’s a pretty common target of criticism amongst HP fans—the criticisms are reasonable, seeing as the name is ridiculous as well as a mouthful—as well as being a forced way of showing Harry’s forgiveness to one of his most consistent tormentors: Severus Snape.
Ultimately, despite Snape being a “good guy” in the end, his actions towards Harry and other students are cruel and unjustifiable. The idea that Harry comes out of an abusive home and an abusive learning environment like that without any sort of trauma is super questionable on J.K.’s part but that’s not the point.
What Snape did to Harry was unkind and cruel, but also served to hide his role in keeping Harry safe. So hiding something ‘nice’ (beneficial might be a more apt description for it, but we’ll use nice here) under a thick layer of ugly.
Now, all of that might read as being irrelevant to Harry’s naming choices, but it sets the background for it entirely.
When choosing to name his child “Albus Severus”, he did it out of the slickest kind of pettiness possible, especially once you consider that Harry’s eldest son is named after the two biggest antagonists in Severus Snape’s formative years. Snape had an animosity and hatred for Sirius and James that sustained him for years after the former’s incarceration and the latter’s death.
You could argue the case that Harry could have also achieved this by naming “James Sirius” something like “James Remus” instead, but Snape had somewhat more tolerance for Remus than he did for the other two.
This idea can be based off interactions from Prisoner of Azkaban and onward. Sirius and Remus are first properly introduced to the reader in Prisoner of Azkaban and Snape’s reactions towards them are different in severity and aggressiveness. During Remus’ stint as a professor as Hogwarts, Snape provided Wolfsbane for him, and despite trying to ousts him as a werewolf, did it in quite the covert way. When faced with a newly escaped Sirius—who he would clearly know was not a Death Eater or allowed Voldemort to enter Lily Potter’s home—he’s far more openly angry.
This behavior also continues on during the time where all three are members of the Order of the Phoenix. It’s clear that he holds a stronger grudge against Sirius than Remus.
Now that we’ve established why Sirius was a better choice than Remus, the James aspect must also be examined. James was the other half of the duo responsible for a lot of the bullying that Snape experienced as a student, but he also a much more hated and conflicting figure for Snape. Not only did James bully him, he also went on to “get” the girl that Snape desperately pined for: Lily Evans. Where ever Snape “lost”, James “gained”. Which is why it was almost poison to Snape that James was the one that saved him during the werewolf incident.
This leaves James as Snape’s greatest antagonist, while also being his hero; this character/role conflict would only drive someone as bitter as Snape to hate him.
Albus Dumbledore, the other person that Albus Severus is named after, also played a role in the werewolf incident and in many other conflicts that Snape was in. In the case of the Werewolf incident, instead of addressing how dangerous the event was for Snape and properly punishing those involved, he pushed to keep the incident quiet; in that way, he leaves Snape to wallow in self-pity after having two great injustices committed against him. After the death of Lily Potter, and the technical death of his master, he left directly under the claws and manipulations of Albus Dumbledore. Albus in particular, uses Snape’s borderline religious devotion to Lily Potter to turn him against his master, make Snape into one of his underlings and to put Snape into the position of “protecting” the child of the man he most hated and the woman he most loved.
Now, this all ties up into the fact that James Sirius and Albus Severus are Potter children. Severus Snape’s name is now forever associated with the Potter family itself, with the added on tack that his name is also associated with Albus, Sirius and James through those names being bestowed on his namesake and his namesake’s brother.
Harry also goes on to name his youngest daughter “Lily”, which is another unfortunate association with considerations to the real Severus’ feelings towards the first Lily. It’s an absurdly effective way of snubbing the possibility of them ever having been anything but good friends, by literally making those the names of siblings. Seeing as the Potter family is a old wizard family and a famous one at that, this family tree will serve to immortalize all 5 of them, and keep Snape’s name close to that of his greatest regret, his two tormentors and the man who helped decimate his life.
And so, under a veneer of kindness and forgiveness that naming his son after Snape would suggest, Harry has quite effectively committed the greatest petty act of revenge against Snape. The pettiest part of all is that Snape is far too dead to ever be enraged by it.
“Albus Severus”: the greatest sub of all time.
4 notes · View notes
automatismoateo · 4 years ago
Text
The Bible's claim that "God is love" is false by the Bible's very own definition of what love actually is, and his "Mercy" is infinitely lower than all humans possess naturally. Animals aren't even this cruel. This God's claim that he is "Light, having in him no darkness" is false on its face. via /r/atheism
Submitted September 15, 2020 at 12:03AM by MelodicEarth2 (Via reddit https://ift.tt/33x3yk0) The Bible's claim that "God is love" is false by the Bible's very own definition of what love actually is, and his "Mercy" is infinitely lower than all humans possess naturally. Animals aren't even this cruel. This God's claim that he is "Light, having in him no darkness" is false on its face.
Point 1: God is love
1 John 4:8
Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love.
It's a famous verse, and very clear and simple: God is love, John says.
Had John read Paul's words in 1st Corinthians? Paul lays out a complete definition of what Biblical love actually is:
1 Corinthians 13:4
4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
So how does God (that is, the same god who is described as love itself ) measure up to the description of love presented in (what is supposed to be) his own word?
Let's see:
Love is patient...
God continually lost his patience, especially with his own people. Some might say that Israel repeatedly tested God's patience and got what was coming to them, but how can the very God of the universe be provoked so easily? Even the Bible says "a day With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day." This would suggest that 40 years in the desert or a few centuries of evil kings are barely a blip on the timeline for the eternal God. Yet even during this minute time period, God loses his patience constantly and lets puny man get under his skin.
Deuteronomy 9:7a - Remember, do not forget how you provoked the Lord your God to wrath in the wilderness
Deuteronomy 31:29 - For I know that after my death you will act corruptly and turn from the way which I have commanded you; and evil will befall you in the latter days, for you will do that which is evil in the sight of the Lord, provoking Him to anger with the work of your hands
2 Kings 22:17 - Because they have forsaken Me and have burned incense to other gods that they might provoke Me to anger with all the work of their hands, therefore My wrath burns against this place, and it shall not be quenched.
I don't feel the need to post every instance of God being provoked, but he is provoked constantly.
Love is kind...
Jesus spoke often spoke insultingly to those closest to him.
Mark 4:39 - He got up, rebuked the wind and said to the waves, “Quiet! Be still!” Then the wind died down and it was completely calm. He said to his disciples, “Why are you so afraid? Do you still have no faith?
Mark 7:17-18a - And when he had entered the house and left the people, his disciples asked him about the parable. "Are you so dull?" he asked.
Matthew 16:21-23 - From that time Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised. And Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him, saying, “Far be it from you, Lord! This shall never happen to you.” But he turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me!"
Christ's snarky comments aside, the very act of bringing man into existence was unkind. According to the Bible, God has created a scenario where most of his image bearers will burn forever in eternal fire. He made finding Heaven impossibly hard and going to Hell easy. God planned from the beginning everything that would happen - and his plan was that most people Go to hell.
Matthew 7:14-15 - Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it
It does not envy...
God is bothered by any affection, praise or attention not directed toward him.
Exodus 34:11-14 - Do not worship any other god, for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.
Exodus 20:5 - I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation…
Matthew 10:27 - Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
Mat. 10:34-36 - Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn "'a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. A man's enemies will be the members of his own household.'
"God hates laughter and despises mirth. To feel free, untrammeled, irresponsible, joyous,—to forget care and death—to be flooded with sunshine without a fear of night—to forget the past, to have no thought of the future, no dream of God, or heaven, or hell—to be intoxicated with the present—to be conscious only of the clasp and kiss of the one you love—this is the sin against the Holy Ghost." --Robert G. Ingersoll
It does not boast, it is not proud.
God boasts about his own greatness continually.
Exodus 9:14 - For this time I will send all My plagues on you and your servants and your people, so that you may know that there is no one like Me in all the earth.
Isaiah 46:9 - Remember the former things long past,For I am God, and there is no other;I am God, and there is no one like Me.
Isaiah 45:12 - It is I who made the earth, and created man upon it. I stretched out the heavens with My hands And I ordained all their host.
1 Chronicles 19:11 - Yours, O Lord, is the greatness and the power and the glory and the victory and the majesty, indeed everything that is in the heavens and the earth; Yours is the dominion, O Lord, and You exalt Yourself as head over all.
It does not dishonor others,
God continually feels the need to belittle man and reiterate how puny, insufficient and disappointing he is.
Isaiah 64:6 - But we are all like an unclean thing, And all our righteousnesses are like filthy rags; We all fade as a leaf, And our iniquities, like the wind, Have taken us away.
Jeremiah 17:9 - The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?
Psalm 51:5 - Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.
Job 38:16-19 - Have you journeyed to the springs of the sea or walked in the recesses of the deep? Have you journeyed to the springs of the sea or walked in the recesses of the deep? Have you comprehended the vast expanses of the earth? Tell me, if you know all this.
It is not self-seeking
The Bible says that God does whatever he wants, and does it for his own glory. He demands others do everything for his glory too.
1 Corinthians 10:31 - So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.
Psalm 115:3 - Our God is in the heavens; he does all that he pleases.
Isaiah 49:3 - And he said to me, “You are my servant, Israel, in whom I will be glorified.”
Acts 12:23 - Immediately an angel of the Lord struck him down, because he did not give God the glory, and he was eaten by worms and breathed his last.
Even when God acts in a way that initially seems self-sacrificial, the Bible is clear that he ultimately only does so for his own Glory.
Ephesians 1:12 - so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory.
Romans 3:25 - God put [Christ] forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins.
it is not easily angered
God is angered constantly, by infractions big and small.
2 Samuel 6:6-7 - But when they came to the threshing floor of Nacon, Uzzah reached out toward the ark of God and took hold of it, for the oxen nearly upset it. And the anger of the Lord burned against Uzzah, and God struck him down there for his irreverence; and he died there by the ark of God.
Numbers 12:9 - And the anger of the LORD was kindled against them, and he departed.
Deuteronomy 9:8 - Even at Horeb you provoked the Lord to wrath, and the Lord was so angry with you that He would have destroyed you.
Exodus 32:10 - Now then let Me alone, that My anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them; and I will make of you a great nation.
2 Samuel 24:1 - Again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, “Go, number Israel and Judah.”
Deuteronomy 9:22 - You also made the LORD angry at Taberah, at Massah and at Kibroth Hattaavah.
Psalm 7:11b - God is angry with the wicked every day
It keeps no record of wrongs
God keeps a total and complete record of every wrong ever committed.
2 Corinthians 5:10 - For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may be recompensed for his deeds in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad.
Colossians 3:25 - For he who does wrong will receive the consequences of the wrong which he has done, and that without partiality.
Matthew 12:36 - I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak
Luke 8:17 - For nothing is hidden that will not be made manifest, nor is anything secret that will not be known and come to light.
Love does not delight in evil
We've already established God does everything he wants to do and does it for his own glory. Take note of the below events God decreed - for his own glory:
Isaiah 13:15-18 - Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword. Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes. Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes. For I will stir up the Medes against Babylon, and no amount of silver or gold will buy them off. The attacking armies will shoot down the young people with arrows. They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the children.
Isaiah 45:7 - I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
Leviticus 26:29 - then I will walk contrary to you in fury, and I myself will discipline you sevenfold for your sins. You shall eat the flesh of your sons, and you shall eat the flesh of your daughters.
It always protects...
God does not always protect. God withdrew his protection many times from his own people to make a point.
Jeremiah 15:4 - I will enslave you to your enemies in a land you do not know, for my anger will kindle a fire that will burn against you."
Jeremiah 16:13 - Therefore I will hurl you out of this land into a land that neither you nor your fathers have known, and there you shall serve other gods day and night, for I will show you no favor.
Deuteronomy 4:26-17 - I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you this day that you will quickly perish from the land you are crossing the Jordan to possess. You will not live long upon it, but will be utterly destroyed. Then the LORD will scatter you among the peoples, and only a few of you will survive among the nations to which the LORD will drive you.
Jeremiah 14:12 - Though they fast, I will not hear their cry, and though they offer burnt offering and grain offering, I will not accept them. But I will consume them by the sword, by famine, and by pestilence
Jeremiah 15:8 - Their widows will be increased to Me more than the sand of the seas; I will bring against them, Against the mother of the young men, A plunderer at noonday; I will cause anguish and terror to fall on them suddenly.
These are only a handful of examples that prove God's character is often shown to be in complete opposition to Paul's description of love.
To describe God as love itself is incorrect - not by my standard - but by the standard of the Bible itself.
Point 2: God is merciful
The Biblical God is the least merciful being in the cosmos
“But You, O Lord, are a God full of compassion, and gracious, longsuffering and abundant in mercy and truth.” Psalm 86:15.
“The Lord is gracious and full of compassion, slow to anger and great in mercy. The Lord is good to all, and His tender mercies are over all His works.” Psalm 145:8-9.
“For judgment is without mercy to the one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment.” James 2:13.
We hear constantly about how merciful the Biblical God is supposed to be, yet we witness elsewhere in the Bible and the rest of the world much evidence to the contrary.
God is not merciful to his creation. His creation is in pain constantly. All of his creation experiences misery. All of his creation suffers hunger, sadness, disaster, failing health, grief. All of his creation inevitably experiences death (even the species that didn't sin!) None of these concepts - pain, death, misery - had to exist at all, but God decided to create a cosmos that contained them all in abundance. The world, with its rape, death, torture, hunger, pain, stepping on Lego, etc. - this was the world that the richly compassionate and merciful God chose to speak into existence for his honor and glory. He could have created a world entirely of puppies and marshmallows. Heck, he could have created the exact same world we have now except without child pornography - but no; God didn't feel those worlds would give him glory quite like the child pornography containing world we have now.
God is particularly unmerciful toward his image bearers; to you and me. He seems to love pointing out that he has no reason to show us mercy at all, and that when he does show some mercy, we should tell him how great he is for it. Oh, but we're all dirty, rotten sinners after all, right? We are owed no mercy, right? In the words of R.C. Sproul, "These creatures from the dirt have no right to tell a God he's too harsh. What's wrong with you people!"
Well, what's "wrong" with us is that God wanted us to be wrong.
God created his image bearers specifically to fail. The fall did not take God by surprise. Unless God's plans can be thwarted (they can’t), man could only have fallen into sin because God specifically planned they would. We were "brought forth in iniquity" before we had any say in the matter. Are we depraved because we chose to be? Because we were given the choice not to be conceived in sin?
No.
We are fallen, sinful, creatures destined to eternal punishment because that's how the God who is "rich in mercy" created us. He wanted the vast majority of us to fail, die, and burn in terrible pain forever and ever. We know this because God's plans always come to fruition, and the Bible tells us that most men will die and go to hell. This is the merciful God's plan.
Of all the realities God could have created, He created the one where men were automatically imbued with a faulty, sin-prone nature they could never resist, and he set up a law under which they would never succeed. It pleased God to place his creation in unavoidable danger of fiery torture forever, so that he could arbitrarily create a small few who would escape for no other reason than to tell him how great he is for it.
Matthew 7:14-15 - Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it
Well, that mercy is not impressive. That is an infinitely lower level of mercy and compassion than all humans possess naturally. Animals aren't even that cruel. Animals don't torture their prey forever. Animals don't bring things to life specifically to torture them for their "glory" or "good pleasure." To deliberately create a world where all of your creation inevitably experiences terrible pain - some temporarily, most eternally - is the least merciful thing imaginable. What could be less merciful?
Point 3: There is no darkness in God
1 John 1:5 -- "This is the message we heard from Jesus and now declare to you: God is light, and in him there is no darkness at all."
Darkness as in evil and falsehood.
Yet in the Bible God has women raped, children sacrificed alive in fire, half a hundred people slaughtered by bears for making a joke, punishes parents by brainwashing them into murdering then cannibalizing the flesh of their own children, slices open the stomachs of pregnant mothers -- yanking out and then dashing their babies to pieces, the list goes on. All ordained directly by the Lord. Satan never does these things in scripture, but God does. What is all this except the pitch black darkness of death and evil?
Those 42 people that God had slaughtered with 2 she-bears for making a joke about Elisha's bald spot, do you think God extended this same mercy toward them?
"He said unto them, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you."
The Bible constantly reminds us of the importance of self control, and to not give way to anger. It's interesting, the Bible says of God, "He is not a man" that he should act like we human beings do, that is, in a hypocritical manner in Numbers 23:19. Well he could have fooled me, he sure does give a convincing performance. You would think that the only being capable of total self control would show more self control. It is as God himself said, "For they do not practice what they themselves preach" (Matthew 23:3). While at the same time demanding others to obey.
0 notes
xkawaiixdollx-blog · 6 years ago
Text
november 12, 2018
Hi friends, stopping by to offer my two cents in a safe space where I don’t expect to be heard, but have the urge to share! One thing that has come to my attention recently is the American Ideal that each and every one of us has something important to say, and by the grace of God and our constitution we should fucking say it! Right? Erm. It makes me uncomfortable to write it like that because another thing that I’ve been pondering lately is the idea of consent. These instances we see such as the Me, Too movement reinforce both ideas: 1. every individual has the right to consent and 2. say or do everything they want to say or do. As a woman, which I identify as, I think it’s important to remember that people out there have different triggers than you. I think its unkind and cruel to share your opinion outright because you may have just caused a ripple effect of pain and traumatizing flashbacks on someone who’s life and experience you don’t even understand. The little saying, “Don’t say anything if you don’t have anything nice to say” pops into my head, although I don’t find it quite appropriate. For the betterment of everyone, yes, say what you want to say ----- in a public format. You probably only need to “say” it once, and I don’t see the point in being a constant intangible “voice of change” if you are also a sensitive and empathetic person. You’ll kill yourself draining all your energy on mostly turned ears, anyway. Don’t waste your heart. We know it means well.
Consent is the idea that you must ask a person permission before taking any action that may affect them, whether it be something you say or do. Our culture likes to idealize the latter, and pretty much disregards the former. Why, in a place where we have the Righttm to say anything we want to without persecution from our government, should we ask consent before opening our mouths? Maybe because as people we make the society what it is, and if we want to be less like our faulty government and predecessors, maybe we should be the ones holding that standard and helping others’ do the same. If our government gives us the privilege to say what we want to say, yet they also misrepresent us as voters at the polls (so long:  democracy - hello: fascism (we’ll save that)) does it make sense that we would exercise our freedom of speech, considering this? WHY? I choose not to in full knowledge because if on a consistent basis I had the spoons to make this “right” I WOULD GET MY ASS OUT THERE AND DO IT (invite me to your next local protest supporting equal wages, LGBTQ+, Black Lives Matter, etc, please!) Its nonsensical to subject any and everyone to any and everyone’s personal views and it’s HELL trying to navigate unscathed in the midst of stubborn – especially if they’re right – individuals. Stepping all over others is a fast-track to becoming their enemy. Consent goes out the window if you have no intention of ever getting off your soapbox. If you want to be a walking billboard for all your opinions and ideas, you kill the thing you created.  My only urge is that all the people not present at rallies and protests, stop fronting. Do something. Be compassionate. We need only hear from the change-makers.
0 notes