#do you understand how these posts come across to people who reject the gender construct

[butch-reidentified]

nobody has ever been forced to stay in a menstrual hut because they had a cramp and got moody.

do you hear yourself when you threaten to violently torture and murder people (women, mainly feminists, let's be honest - those are often the people telling you "transfem periods" aren't a thing) in order to silence them about having a biological function they're violently oppressed for appropriated by the oppressor class? women and girls all over the world face horrors beyond your privileged imagination because the bleeding is seen as unclean.

women and girls who don't menstruate, such as my adoptive mother who was born without a uterus, don't pretend to have periods. so why do you? why is it that women and girls like my mother are able to comprehend that no uterus = no period, and able to recognize that those who DO have a uterus often face acts of violent oppression over the shedding of its lining, but you do not share that understanding? why is it only "transfems" who need to make this about themselves and silence women who object to the absurd audacity of appropriating sex-based oppression? if you are indeed a woman with no uterus, like my mother, where does this entitlement and violence come from?

you post depraved, graphically violent threats - the sort that have never crossed my mind even at my most furious - designed to silence an oppressed group (female human beings) about an aspect of their oppression, and then wonder why feminists are increasingly butting heads with your ideology? you can't show a modicum of understanding of the issues we face, but we are expected to cater to your feelings at every turn. and this is different from traditional sexism how?

I am asking genuinely and in good faith, despite the unsettling vitriol of your original post, why you think this is an acceptable and not wildly misogynistic thing to say. why does it warrant fantasies/threats of brutal homicide to state that a period requires a uterus from which to shed the lining? how is it hateful or bigoted to recognize the life-or-death consequences of ignoring this fact when it's still a massive aspect of female oppression globally?

hey, whoever tells you transfem periods aren't a thing is a dirty liar and i'll gut them and feed them their own intestines

[aflamethatneverdies]

@coelenterata replied to your post “oh I wanna do any of those fandom asks things if...”:

I've also been fairly absent hi I'm glad to see (?) you!! Don't know what's happening either except the 2023 LM emails readalong thing. I do not have asks posts at hand but you have been reblogging blorbos I don't know and now I'm Curious, so that is my asks post unaffiliated ask

​*waves* Hi!! Good to see (?) you too!!! I hope you'll be around for a while at least now? Ahh! I forgot the Les Mis emails were starting. I might sign up--I need to get back to reading fiction again-- I miss reading books. ;_;

ohhh-- where to even begin about blorbos lol!! I've been having a lot of discussions about the space pirate blorbos with @midautumnnightdream and working on a fic for them-- because what else do you do with feels, but I still don't really know how to describe them lol.

They're from a Super Sentai show called Kaizoku Sentai Gokaiger, and they're space pirates with an 18th Century Galleon in space (I don't know how it works and I have a lot of questions, but also I love it) and they are in opposition to the Empire called Zangyack, with a really spoiled aristocrat as well as his dad leading the Empire. Our story starts when the space pirates come to Earth to look for the greatest treasure in the Universe, and face the Zangyack who are also invading this backwater planet, lol, after having invaded most of the Universe.

From left to right: Luka, Ahim, Gai, Marvelous, Joe and Doc (and also Navi who is very much not a bird)

(Minor spoilers as well some of my general headcanons for them below)

The blorbos themselves all come from different planets that have been destroyed or colonised by the Zangyack Empire (except for Gai who is from Earth). We get traumatic backstories for all of them which made me love them even more. They have lived through so much before we meet them, but they get to be heroes and finally they accept the magicalness of the barricades in their final fight and become larger than life themselves, part of the Super Sentai-- while rejecting the label of heroes for themselves. As a result, they come across as very mature and understanding of what it takes to be a resistance group against a colonial Empire, and how difficult it is to promise anything like they can win.

Marvelous is the captain of the Gokaigers and also dresses extremely in an pirate aesthetic which I love and want so badly-- Autumn and I talk about pirate!gender to refer to whatever gender shenanigans are happening, because so much of all of them and especially Marvelous' entire aesthetic feels personally to me, like not fully fitting in gender binaries, someone once made art of a girl!Marvelous dressed exactly the same and it worked so well.

Since they are aliens and also outside society, there is no reason why they should follow the binary construct. Pirates do what they want. And they also reject gender roles to a great extent, Doc and Gai love to cook, so they cook but it's their thing, and no one is made fun of for that or belittled. Ahim has a cute feminine fashion sense but she everyone respects her as an important member of the team and a rebel/fighter in her own right, and this is especially true when her family's and her planet's murderer/destroyer appears in front of them-- she gets to go apeshit feral and seek revenge.

And so much of, because none of them have planets or families to go back to, they are all each other's most important people as well as a found family with really close bonds and it shows, they give each other space to do things, they know when something is wrong with one of them. They also don't seem to have any hierarchy on the ship as such that I can see in the series, and rely on consensus based decisions and listening to each other-- very anarchist pirates, lol!

I ship them in a polycule because they work so well in it, but they work so well as capital R Romantic friends too, especially because their whole deal is to make everything really showy and over the top.

Also, Marvelous and Joe get extremely flirty lines in the series as well as the ten year after film and even the actors in interviews were going, yeah, they are like that. And Ahim and Luka feel so close in ways that well, it's not not shippy. I like when the series gives us something but leaves a lot of it unspoken, so there are all these different ways that they can work if you want to ship them but they very much feel queer even without the shipping aspect. They constantly reject social norms and conventions.

They are all rebels who have come together to fight a colonising Empire, which also gives me soo many feels and the Empire is bad, and no one gives justifications for it, which feels soo cathartic honestly. It's also such prime material for worldbuilding of their home planets and to attach worlds I am already familiar with and give blorbos all of that to deal with. I have a lot of headcanons about their worlds too but this is already super long, lol.

I'm always willing to talk more about them though. Thank you so much for asking!! <3

[jenetica]

A Brief Note from Our Sponsors: Us.

Greetings! If you’re here, it’s likely that you have questions or complaints about our decisions regarding the Calendar Girls series. An ominous start to this discussion, but truly, we welcome you! If you’re here, it means you have been emotionally impacted by our work and, even though this context isn’t the cheeriest, we are so, so grateful you (1) enjoyed our work enough to care about it, and (2) want to develop a better understanding of our process so that you can engage with Calendar Girl more.

First of all, we understand why you’d be upset with us! The cliffhanger at the end of AotM was a DOOZY and leaves a LOT of important questions unanswered, and we left you readers hanging for a LONG time. This post will, hopefully, assuage the worst of your fears without giving away too many plot points.

That being said, please note that there WILL be spoilers ahead. If you want to see the story unfold as we intended, do NOT read this post further. We will tell you now that the post addresses the Deadpool’s identity, our decisions regarding the construction of AotM and the final cliffhanger, our decisions regarding developing the sequel as a prequel, and our plans for future installments. And, naturally, the accusations of “queerbaiting.”

Let’s get started.

QUEERBAITING

It makes sense to open with the most serious issue, so let’s talk about queerbaiting. For anyone here who doesn’t know, queerbaiting is defined as the purposeful insinuation of a homosexual/queer relationship, only to backtrack/subvert that insinuation to avoid the queer relationship. For an example, see: Supernatural from Season 4 and on. 

We have received accusations of queerbaiting for about four years, based exclusively on the reveal at the end of the final chapter. Similarly, we have received complaints that we duped readers into reading hetfic. So, to get things out of the way, yes, Deadpool is Gwen. No, it’s not a trick of the light, or a mistake, or some odd resemblance. They are one and the same. HOWEVER, that does NOT mean that we have queerbaited anyone.

First of all, the tags of the story are honest, and they always have been. AotM is tagged as a “Multi” fic, meaning that there are relationships of multiple orientations involved, and it is tagged with Peter/Gwen as well as Peter/Wade. Careless Whisper is tagged as F/M. We have never suggested or implied that the story would exclusively be slash fiction. We actually left multiple hints that Wade enjoyed femininity, at least as a practice, if not an identity. iFlail and I discussed this issue at length as we wrote/edited AotM and carefully crafted the story with queerbaiting in mind. 

Peter is an unreliable narrator, he always has been, and he always will be. In AotM, Peter assumes Wade is a man and thus, for the purposes of the narrative, Wade is one. The truth, however, is less clean than that. We won’t get into the details here, but safe to say, gender is not binary, it is not permanent, and it is not inexorably linked to one’s biology. Wade has a complicated history and a complicated/unique sense of identity. We have always intended for him to be that way, just as we always intended for him to be notably, pointedly smaller than Peter. 

The accusations of queerbaiting and/or conning readers into reading “het” fic are exclusionary of the greater conversation of gender identity. It was, frankly, disheartening to see so many people assume heterosexuality based exclusively on the last word of AotM. We hope that our work will challenge readers to be more mindful of the expansive world of gender, and to avoid assuming that a specific kind of pairing might involve specific kinds of body parts.

If you have any questions or reservations about our queerbaiting at this point, you are either welcome to keep reading future installments of this work to learn more, or you are welcome to stop altogether. The choice is yours. 

CONSTRUCTING THE STORY ARC - PRESENT, PAST, AND FUTURE

With that hot-button topic out of the way, let’s talk about the greater concept of ending a story of a cliffhanger, our thoughts behind building this series, and our goals for future installments. 

The second part of the Calendar Girl series, Careless Whisper, was written first, and it comes first chronologically. I (Jenetica) initially worked on the story by myself, as an exploration into the concept of “Gwen becoming Deadpool” to see how it might play out. I ended up writing a story I loved, so I moved onto the next part of the story, set four years later. This ended up becoming Angel of the Morning. 

@iflailfic, a good IRL friend of mine from college, came onboard (after I wooed her with several stories worth of porn, as you can see through a jaunt through my posted works) to help me edit. She fell in love with AotM and, as we worked on first draft edits, she floated the idea of AotM coming before Careless Whisper. Honestly, I rejected the idea at first (not sure if she actually knows/remembers that part, lol), because I couldn’t fathom how we would be able to link the parts of the story together. But, eventually, I began to realize her point: AotM introduces our protagonists, develops the “current” world for the series, and has a more dynamic/engaging plot. 

The cliffhanger was a joke at first. My idea. I think my exact words were something like, “LOLOL what if we just ended on ‘GWEN?’ OMG IMAGINE hahahahaha.” But, as we continued to edit… it became the perfect way to end things. Anything that came after that point felt like trash. If we’d expanded any further, we ran the risk of falling headfirst into Part 3 and doubling the size of AotM. Let’s be real, the ending is, all waiting aside, an absolute nuclear bomb on the rest of the story. 

We talked about the likelihood of enraged readers. But we rationalized it by telling each other/ourselves that we had Careless Whisper written, so the wait wouldn’t be too killer.

Best laid plans.

I (Jenetica) take full responsibility for the time it took to start posting again. Over the last four years, I have gone through a number of experiences that challenged my sense of self and pushed me to become a different person, including moving halfway across the country, attending a relatively prestigious law school where I was no longer “the smart kid in the room,” and losing the relationship that I later learned was toxic and abusive. I lost my confidence in a number of ways, including my confidence as a writer. I became terrified that I would never produce anything that lived up to AotM, and that I would disappoint the many (many!) readers demanding answers. Luckily for me, through that adversity I found rewarding friendships, a beautiful partner who treats me the way I’d always fantasized/written about people like me getting treated, and an engaging career that leaves me with enough energy to write. My experiences are mirrored by iFlail, who went through a different, but similarly life-changing, series of events. But through this all, we never lost hope in this story, and we always planned to complete the series. We are wiser, stronger people now, and we both believe that the story will be richer for it. 

Which brings us to now, and our plans for the future. We do NOT intend to wait another four years to post X Gon’ Give It To Ya, the third and final installment of the series. We have spent countless hours brainstorming the plot, and all that’s really left to do is put it to paper. But, for people who are afraid of being burned twice, we will warn you now that Careless Whisper is JUST a prequel. If you want to know what happens after the “Gwen?” reveal, you will not get any answers until XGGITY (which I have, as of just now, decided to pronounce as “Ziggity”). We hope you stick around to watch Careless Whisper unfold, but we will understand if you want to wait until XGGITY to start reading again.

IN CONCLUSION - FINAL THOUGHTS

The Calendar Girl series has received more attention than we’d ever dreamed, and regardless of whether you liked or disliked our work, we want to thank you for taking the time to read it. If you made it to the end of AotM, we did something right, and again, we are so grateful that so many people have stuck with us this far.

We encourage everyone, moving forward, to keep a close eye on the tags that we use for our stories. We may not tag everything relevant, for the sake of preserving mystery about the plot, but we will be sure to tag everything that may be triggering or concerning, like self-harm, violence, or expected brand of romantic/sexual interactions. We will be adding this warning to the beginning of each story in the series.

Additionally, we want to acknowledge that there is a stark difference between legitimate concerns about the story and unfounded attacks on our character. Our decision to make this post is our attempt to dissuade the latter: We are not queerbaiting, and we have no interest in “forcing” people to read content that is not to their taste. However, that doesn’t mean that our execution of AotM, Careless Whisper, and/or XGGITY will be beyond reproach. The conversation on gender politics has evolved tremendously over the years that we’ve been working on this series, and it will undoubtedly continue to evolve as we progress into the future. We encourage constructive (!!!) criticism and open conversation on ways that we can improve our story, even if it involves tweaking published work to avoid mishandling deeply personal issues.

That said, if, after reading this post, you are still upset and/or unconvinced about our intentions for this series, we encourage you to stop reading it. We are not compensated for this work, and we have spent hundreds (probably thousands, by now) of hours striving to make the Calendar Girl series the best that it can be, for our own benefit. We believe that it may be the best fanfiction we will ever produce, and our satisfaction with our work is our priority. We will continue to post with that priority at the forefront, and with the demands of our reader base playing second fiddle. Similarly, we expect our readers to prioritize their needs above all others. We ask for your patience and your kindness moving forward and, if you cannot give us that, you are welcome to close the tab and move on with your life to other ventures that suit your interests better.

For those of you that choose to stay: You are in for a hell of a ride. We are both anxious to get through Careless Whisper, because we are both SO excited to share XGGITY with you. We believe it’s going to knock your socks off. We hope to see you there. 

Thanks, everyone, and happy reading!

[sworntoprotect]

THE MEGA RP PLOTTING SHEET / MEME.

First and foremost, recall that no one is perfect, we all had witnessed some plotting once which did not went too well, be it because of us or our partner. So here have this, which may help for future plotting. It’s a lot! Yes, but perhaps give your partners some insight? Anyway BOLD what fully applies, italicize if only somewhat. Long post!

MUN NAME: Pie     AGE: +25       CONTACT: IM, Ask, Discord (mutuals only, by request)

CHARACTER(S): Cullen

CURRENT FANDOM(S): Dragon Age

FANDOM(S) YOU HAVE AN AU FOR:  I have a modern verse for everything not Dragon Age, but I might add some actual alt verses for other fandoms

MY LANGUAGE(S): English (native), Spanish (intermediate), Korean (baby lol beginner), bits and bobs of other languages (namely French and French Patois)

THEMES I’M INTERESTED IN FOR RP: FANTASY / SCIENCE FICTION / HORROR / WESTERN / ROMANCE / THRILLER / MYSTERY / DYSTOPIA / ADVENTURE / MODERN / EROTIC / CRIME / MYTHOLOGY / CLASSIC / HISTORY / RENAISSANCE / MEDIEVAL / ANCIENT / WAR / FAMILY / POLITICS / RELIGION / SCHOOL / ADULTHOOD / CHILDHOOD / APOCALYPTIC / GODS / SPORT / MUSIC / SCIENCE / FIGHTS / ANGST / SMUT / DRAMA / ETC. (I started this and realised I’d be bolding almost everything, so: EVERYTHING)

PREFERRED THREAD LENGTH: ONE-LINER / 1 PARA / 2 PARA / 3+ PARA / NOVELLA. / ALL

ASKS CAN BE SEND BY: MUTUALS / NON-MUTUALS / PERSONALS / ANONS.

CAN ASKS BE CONTINUED?: YES / NO / OCCASIONALLY   - only by Mutuals?:  YES / NO

PREFERRED THREAD TYPE: CRACK / CASUAL / SERIOUS / DEEP AS HECK. / ALL

IS REALISM / RESEARCH IMPORTANT FOR YOU IN CERTAIN THEMES?:   YES / NO.

ARE YOU ATM OPEN FOR NEW PLOTS?:  YES / NO / DEPENDS. (after my paper is submitted, yeah sure)

DO YOU HANDLE YOUR DRAFT / ASK - COUNT WELL?:  YES / NO / SOMEWHAT. (irl makes coping difficult sometimes)

HOW LONG DO YOU USUALLY TAKE TO REPLY?: 24H / 1 WEEK / 2 WEEKS / 3+ WEEKS / MONTHS / YEARS. / DEPENDS ON MOOD AND INSPIRATION, AND IF I’M BUSY 

I’M OKAY INTERACTING WITH: ORIGINAL CHARACTERS / A RELATIVE OF MY CHARACTER (AN OC) / DUPLICATES / CROSSOVERS / MULTI-MUSES / SELF-INSERTS / PEOPLE WITH NO AU VERSE FOR MY FANDOM / CANON-DIVERGENT PORTRAYALS / AU-VERSIONS.

DO YOU POST MORE IC OR OOC?: IC / OOC. (I strive for more IC over OOC, but my queue does a lot of work too)

ARE YOU SELECTIVE WITH FOLLOWING OTHERS?: YES / NO / DEPENDS.  

BEST WAYS TO APPROACH YOU FOR RP/PLOTTING:  Talk with me over IM, asks, or Disco. I’m down for almost anything as long as I see it’s feasible.

WHAT EXPECTATIONS DO YOU HOLD TOWARDS YOUR PLOTTING PARTNER:  Transparency. If you have an idea, let me know! If you’re stuck, let me know! If you want to start something new or scrap something or whatever...LET ME KNOW! I promise I don’t bite and I understand.

WHEN YOU NOTICE THE PLOTTING IS RATHER ONE-SIDED, WHAT DO YOU DO?:  I’m not very good with coming up with plots myself, so I’m typically the weak link when it comes to that. Sorry! But you bet I’ll pull up a plot generator and start throwing things down to see what sticks haha.

HOW DO YOU USUALLY PLOT WITH OTHERS, DO YOU GIVE INPUT OR LEAVE MOST WORK TOWARDS YOUR PARTNER?:  I’m all about equal opportunity, so I try not to leave the plotting work to my partner. Let’s negotiate and find something that makes both of us happy. That’s the point after all.

WHEN A PARTNER DROPS THE THREAD, DO YOU WISH TO KNOW?:   YES / NO / DEPENDS. - AND WHY?: If you want to drop a thread, I’m completely fine with it. I want to know so that I don’t end up replying to something you have no interest in anymore. Saves both of us the time.

WHAT COULD POSSIBLY LEAD YOU TO DROP A THREAD?:  If drafts eat it (as they are wont to do these days) or if I feel it has reached a natural conclusion. I rarely, if ever, drop a thread in the middle. I’ll just let you know I’m going to finish it on my side and allow you a chance to finish on yours if you’d like.

WILL YOU TELL YOUR PARTNER?:   YES / NO / DEPENDS.

IS COMMUNICATION IN THE RPC IMPORTANT TO YOU? YES / NO. - AND WHY?: You don’t need to chat with me every minute of every day, but I like knowing the people I’m writing with. Discerning your personality and your approach to your muse gives me a much stronger understanding of how to write with you, and what vibes between us. Plus, it’s easier to remember different people’s boundaries if I talk with them a lot, too.

ARE YOU OKAY WITH ABSOLUTE HONESTY, EVEN IF IT MAY MEANS HEARING SOMETHING NEGATIVE ABOUT YOU AND/OR PORTRAYAL?: I am all for constructive criticism. Even if you think it’s nitpicky, it’s going to be a great help. Good crit allows us grow as writers and as people in general. However, I am not for baseless accusations, childish name-calling, or outright insults under the name of “constructive crit”. Remember the “constructive” part: we need to build each other up. 

DO YOU THINK YOU CAN HANDLE SUCH SITUATION IN A MATURE WAY? YES / NO.

WHY DO YOU RP AGAIN, IS THERE A GOAL?: I love a good story. While I don’t agree with everything Cullen does (and no one should, for anyone real or imagined), his story is intriguing. He’s a deeply flawed, deeply broken man. I love to take on a character, toss them in every situation I can think of, and watch them evolve and grow.

WISHLIST, BE IT PLOTS OR SCENARIOS:  A real redemption arc, for one. A realistic struggle with substance abuse and recovery. A future of happiness.

THEMES I WON’T EVER RP / EXPLORE:   Rape or sexual assault, unless being spoken about as a past event (as I truly believe that Cullen was sexually assaulted at Kinloch along with the other psychological and physical torture he endured). In-game racism is baked in, unfortunately, but it’s not something I seek out to roleplay as a PoC myself. Finally, while I play Cullen as canon-straight, I will not play out homophobia and most definitely not transphobia. If he rejects your muse for hitting on him, it’s not because he’s being homophobic: he’s just not interested. That also doesn’t mean he’ll never be interested; people can and do change, and I ship chemistry overall. He doesn’t hate your muse for their gender, orientation, or sexual preferences. I feel like I really have to spell this out for people who don’t understand. If you feel personally insulted by this somehow, feel free to address me directly, off anon. It’s probably an issue of fuzzy wording that I’m 500% willing to fix and talk about.

WHAT TYPE OF STARTERS DO YOU PREFER / DISLIKE, CAN’T WORK WITH?: I love starters that set the scene and provide plenty to work with, be it in terms of interacting with the environment or with the other person. If your muse shows immediate disinterest in communicating (and I don’t mean argumentative, which is perfectly fine), I am not going to respond. I might politely ask for more if I feel like it’s a salvageable interaction.

WHAT TYPE OF CHARACTERS CATCH YOUR INTEREST THE MOST?:  Stoic soldier types, bubbly short girls, and semi-mad scientists.

WHAT TYPE OF CHARACTERS CATCH YOUR INTEREST THE LEAST?:  Characters that come across as Mary-Sue / Gary-Stu types. No flaws and barely any room to grow. 

WHAT ARE YOUR STRONG ASPECTS AS RP PARTNER?: I'm very easy-going and I have an unearthly level of tolerance for almost everything. I try to provide partners with as much to work with as possible IC, and will pretty much support your very existence OOC. I believe in open communication so you’ll know what’s going on with me and/or our threads. Also, I typically reply within a week or two. Currently I’m tethered to finishing a big paper so I’m not a good example of that right now.

WHAT ARE YOUR WEAK ASPECTS AS RP PARTNER?: I can get overwhelmed by too much which slows my pace down considerably. I’m also a bit distant and do shut down on occasion; that’s usually no fault of my partners, though. Just my brain being a dick.

DO YOU RP SMUT?:  YES / NO / DEPENDS. (the closer we are OOC, the easier getting here will be)

DO YOU PREFER TO GO INTO DETAIL?: YES / NO / DEPENDS. (it’s not going to be XXX but it will be descriptive)

ARE YOU OKAY WITH BLACK CURTAIN, FADE TO BLACK?: YES / NO.

WHEN DO YOU RP SMUT? MORE OUT OF FUN OR CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT?: I prefer to write smut for character development and to mark a progression in a relationship. Plus Cullen is not a “one and done” guy so getting to the smut stage will take a bit of build-up.

ANYTHING YOU WOULD NOT WANT TO RP THERE?:  Hmmm things that he personally wouldn’t go for I guess? Honestly I don’t know. And obviously, no rape/animal abuse/predator nonsense.

ARE SHIPS IMPORTANT TO YOU?:   YES / NO Ships are a great way to further explore a character and their motivations. People do not exist in pure isolation, so I don’t believe characters should, either.

WOULD YOU SAY YOUR BLOG IS SHIP-FOCUSED?: YES / NO. I bolded both because the focus of the blog isn’t ships, but this thirst trap guy is really easy to ship with other people I tell ya hwat. I am severely picky with romantic ships for Reasons, but I don’t eschew any other types of ships. I encourage them!

DO YOU USE READ MORE?:  YES / NO / SOMETIMES WHEN I WRITE LONG STUFF.

ARE YOU:  MULTI-SHIP / SINGLE-SHIP / DUAL-SHIP  —  MULTIVERSE / SINGLEVERSE.

WHAT DO YOU LOVE TO EXPLORE THE MOST IN YOUR SHIPS?: Characters who challenge Cullen into revising his point of view and force him to be a better person. Also, characters who understand his past and they are in no ways obligated to forgive it, but do recognise that he’s struggling very hard to mend whatever mistakes he can and is willing to pay the price for his decisions.

ARE YOU OKAY WITH PRE-ESTABLISHED RELATIONSHIPS?: YES / NO / DEPENDS.  - Be a good salesperson and I might buy it.

► SECTION ABOUT YOUR MUSE.

- WHAT COULD POSSIBLY MAKE YOUR MUSE INTERESTING TOWARDS OTHERS, WHY SHOULD THEY RP WITH THIS PARTICULAR CHARACTER OF YOURS NOW, WHAT POSSIBLE PLOTS DO THEY OFFER?: Cullen is a massive stick in the mud, which means it’s incredibly easy to taunt him and get him flustered all at the same time. He’s loyal, he’s intelligent, and he’s largely self-aware. He likes swords and using them. Anything your character hates about him, he most likely hates about himself 100 times more.

WITH WHAT TYPE OF MUSES DO YOU USUALLY STRUGGLE TO RP WITH?:  Those from the start that show absolutely no interest in speaking with/interacting with him. Mun and muse are going to struggle to stick around. I’m not going to fight for attention and neither is he.

WHAT DO THEY DESIRE, WHAT IS THEIR GOAL?:  Redemption. He wants to be a better person and make up for the past as much as he can.

WHAT CATCHES THEIR INTEREST FIRST WHEN MEETING SOMEONE NEW?:  He can sniff out a fellow Templar a mile away (or several miles, in the case of Samson). 

WHAT DO THEY VALUE IN A PERSON?:  Honesty, a strong will, devotion (not necessarily to the Maker or the Chantry, but to a just cause that focuses on protecting others).

WHAT THEMES DO THEY LIKE TALKING ABOUT?:  War stuff, chess, books, trebuchets, dogs.

WHICH THEMES BORE THEM?:  Lectures about anything. He did his time in Azkaban in the Circles. No more. Please no more.

DID THEY EVER WENT THROUGH SOMETHING TRAUMATIC?:  His parents died trying to escape the Blight, he was tortured for weeks/months on end by blood mages, almost all of his friends died because of it, he was manipulated and brainwashed by his superior, he was forced into a near-debilitating substance addiction by his workplace... yeah just a few things.

WHAT COULD LEAD TO AN INSTANT KILL?:  Darkspawn and abominations. 

IS THERE SOMEONE /-THING THEY HATE?:  Darkspawn and abominations. Blood mages on principle. Regular mages (but he’s working hard to remedy this extremely bad and prejudiced thinking). Himself.

IS YOUR MUSE EASY TO APPROACH?: YES / NO.    - BEST WAY TO APPROACH THEM?:  Just be polite and he won’t turn you away. He’s guarded, yes, but not impossible to talk to.

SOMETHING YOU MAY STILL WANT TO POINT OUT ABOUT YOUR MUSE?: You’ll find out by writing together! ;D

CONGRATS!!! You managed it, now tag your mutuals! ♥

tagged by: pirated tagging: anyone who actually read this

[marylovettpostgradblog]

1. IS IT BECAUSE I AM A GIRL?

Too Few Women in Audio 

My work to date has been weighted more towards working with people in a therapeutic way rather than music technology. I have a ”Freelance portfolio career” which loosely translated means juggling different projects simultaneously to pay the rent. Most of which have been in community music and theatre. The work consists of, performance, commissions for music for immersive site specific theatre and directing community choirs.

My rationale for choosing to study Creative Music Production is to develop the technical skills be able to produce my own music to an industry standard. (whatever that means) To to accurately translate compositional ideas and in turn do justice to them. Despite having used Logic as my preferred DAW for over twelve years, I still feel like I have only just dipped my toe into the program, and its capabilities.  I enjoy working in my own small home studio and the security it provides.  I am currently confronting my feelings of overwhelm with the studio desk at the University.

During my experience of music technology education over the last 16 years, women have definitely been in the minority.  Reflecting on my own feelings embarking on Masters study, I really notice how a lack of self confidence rises within me particularly around technology.

For years I have been more interested in the process of composition rather than  mixing and production. Preferring to leave this to other more technically skilled people.  This has often resulted in being unsatisfied with the end result. 

I thought that being able to speak the language of the studio and understanding what things did would help in communicating ideas about the mix. While this certainly helps, I have come to the conclusion that there is no substitute for learning to do this my self. Having to overcome this reluctance was something I wanted to investigate.  Why the reluctance? What is the difficulty? Surely it's not because I am a girl?

fig 1: Leslie Gaston-Bird

I began to look at texts about women in the music industry and in particular production and engineering. My interest was piqued when looking into gender within the music industry as a whole and examining the technical roles of women. Exploring this opens a whole world of historical, sociological, systemic, and complex reasons as to why this has been the case and remains present today.  

Women in Early Audio

Fig 2: Ada Lovelace 1840

Ada’s place in history was not only for her outstanding work but also assisted by her lineage. Her Father being Lord Byron, the famous poet and politician and her Mother, Annabella Milbanke, ensuring that she was tutored in Mathematics, logic and science. She worked alongside Charles Babbage who was developing a machine called the “Analytical Engine.” James Essinger in his book “Ada’s Algorithm” says that  “With her definition of the word “operation,” she is giving birth to the science of computing and computer programming and is in fact now regarded to be the inventor of computer programming. (Gaston Bird 2020)

In relation to music Ada wrote, “Supposing, for instance, that the fundamental relations of pitched sounds in the science of harmony and of musical composition were susceptible of such expression and adaptations, the engine might compose elaborate and scientific pieces of music of any degree of complexity or extent” (Essinger, 2014).

Sophie Germain a French Mathematician. Answering an “open call” call in 1808 from the Academy of Science for Mathematicians, (A place where girls were not allowed to study) to build on the work of Ernest Chladni. He had described the resonant frequencies of vibration with the patterns made from sand on a metal plate. Germain’s work was to develop the formulae to mathematically predict what the resonances would be. This was not acknowledged at the time. Even when she had won the grand prize at the Institute of Science in France (on her third attempt.) She was not invited to the Grand Prix ceremony and not allowed to publish her work. She self-published in 1821. 

Fig 3: Patterns of sand on a metal plate with the vibration from a violin bow

Historically Women’s achievements in STEM subjects (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) have been hampered by not being able to access this type of education.  Those that have broken through are have been uncredited and their work not recognised, or excluded. Sophie Germain's formula was used in architecture to measure that stresses on metal. This contributed to the building of the Eiffel Tower. “However, you will not find Germain’s name on any of the four sides of the Tower, which was built between 1887 and 1889 and upon which are inscribed the names of 72 scientists who contributed their intellect to its construction.” (Mozans 1913)

Woman were actively excluded from education and  professions deemed (by men) to be unfit for Women. Today, the door is not so blatantly closed as it was for Sophie Germain back in 1802.  

Perhaps more subtle barriers are at play? Audio Engineering is a profession open to all genders, yet we never hear the term “Male audio engineer.” When women in the same profession, they are described with her gender as the prefix. 

“Gender-based designations such as these have been the case throughout history; perhaps more so in science, technology, engineering, and math, where women are underrepresented. In contemporary discussions in the media, we hear the phrases “women in medicine” or “women in physics.”(Gaston-Bird 2020)

 The ratio of male to female producers is estimated to be 47-1 (Smith et al 2020) 

The question of why this might be continues to be asked. Singer songwriter and producer Rosina Ncube says that her experience at school could be described as “character building”, being the only female in the music technology class.  Not being chosen to collaborate in group work, and having to speak louder to be heard. She also recollects, being crowded away from the mixing desk whenever there was a demonstration. “Suggesting an idea, having it rejected, then when a guy suggests exactly the same thing 20 minutes later, everyone loves it. Frustrating? You bet, and it's just one in a string of similar experiences that I have had as a woman starting out in the world of music production.” (Ncube R 2013)

fig 4: Rosina Ncube 

The comedy sketch from the “Fast Show”posted beautifully illustrates what Rosina Ncube was saying. See fig 9 below

In 2004 I accidentally discovered Imogen Heap when she was playing solo supporting Rufus Wainwright. This was inspiring and influential to me to have a female role model using tech and playing live. She wrote, recorded and engineered her music. Winning a Grammy for best Engineered non classical album in 2009. What is it that young women and girls need to be encouraged into audio? Female role models to aspire to? Women teaching and leading workshops in music technology in schools and colleges? Programs specifically for girls and women? I began to look at how these questions are being addressed. 

Organisations across the world have developed specifically to encourage women into the industry. The Yorkshire Sound Women Network is one of these, founded in 2015 by Dr Liz Dobson. 

“We have to be in an environment which is lower risk, which – in this case – means not being the only woman in a world which associates masculinity and technology; to remove that risk to be in a community of peers; and to have a chance to put your hands on and use equipment. To make mistakes and learn from that” (Dobson 2019).

fig 5 Yorkshire Sound Women Network

fig 6 Yorkshire Sound Women Network Workshop Video 

Thoughts and Musings:

Digging in to gender disparity has the potential to enrage, dishearten and become a cul-de-sac that could distract from my main objective of being better at production! Heartening though, are initiatives like the YSWN. Watching the video and seeing the excitement and enthusiasm of the girls taking part in the workshop was an absolute joy. It seems that throughout my studies gender and audio are intrinsically entwined. This topic once explored, impossible to ignore and yet I’d like to be able to ignore it and get on with being a creative music producer. Much like Leslie Gaston Bird would rather just be called an audio engineer, but that’s not how she is represented.

“I am not a woman in audio. I am an audio engineer. Nor am I a “Black woman audio engineer.” I am an audio engineer who happens to be a Black woman.” (Gaston-Bird 2019)

fig 7 The Incredible Invisible woman

References:

https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/herts/detail.action?docID=5988228

https://www.soundonsound.com/people/sounding-why-so-few-women-audio

https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/herts/detail.action?docID=5988228

http://researchonline.rcm.ac.uk/id/eprint/334/1/SaltMusic-Research-Report.pdf 

Images: 

Fig1: https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/herts/detail.action?docID=5988228

Fig 2:https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/herts/detail.action?docID=5988228

Fig 3:https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/herts/detail.action?docID=5988228

Fig 4:www.soundonsound.com/people/sounding-why-so-few-women-audio 

Fig 5: https://yorkshiresoundwomen.com/

Fig 6: https://yorkshiresoundwomen.com/

Fig 7:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DE3r_CgScms&ab_channel=Lizallinos

[rainbowamory]

Not My Narrative (on extremist feminism)

This is the reason that when people start talking about feminism, I feel the urge to get up and leave the room. I don’t have a problem with feminism itself. What I DO have a problem with is when feminism pretends to be everything for everyone.

I want to try and put words to something��that I have an intense amount of anger about and which I want to get out on a page as a means of unpacking.

If you’re LGBT and you’ve watched stuff on YouTube, you will have come across at least a handful of incredibly ignorant homophobic or transphobic comments. Sometimes these are violent in tone, but other times they are more subtle... condescending. It’s that later kind I want to talk about because sometimes that kind makes me more disgusted than the outright hate.  

This post is about a specific comment that I saw one day under a video made by a lesbian woman. The comment was a response to something I said under the video in defense of trans guys. I was trying to make a distinction between butch lesbians and trans guys, because it is obvious that some people still can’t tell the difference.

The woman’s comment did not in any way or form acknowledge what I was saying. In fact, it didn’t even acknowledge that I even had a voice. Basically, she was saying that transgender people were people with “internalized sexism” or “internalized homophobia” and that this was the reason they go for medical transition. She said that she works with women who have regretted transitioning and that there always seemed to be “internalized sexism” going on.

I responded to her back and fourth a couple of times. But after a certain point, I had to tear myself away from the conversation because it was so one-sided that I might as well have been talking to a stone wall. I don’t believe in one-way discussions, and I don’t believe that matters of personal Identity are up for debate. So I stopped responding. 

This incident stayed with me and even years later it occasionally plays back in my head. I wish I never saw her comment because it’s the kind of thing that makes a person hate humanity. It makes me wonder how many more people walk around the world thinking that transgenderism is “self-hate” or medical transition is “mutilation”. Nowhere in this “conversation” did she even recognize that I have my own perspective; it was calm, self-assured condescension from start to finish.

I stopped responding because I’m smart enough to know that the person who gets the last word is not always right. She got the last word, but I didn’t bother reading her last reply because I didn’t want to continue that loop of bullshit. The incident left me with an unpleasant memory that plays back like a trauma in my head at random times, simply because people don’t forget the feeling of being belittled easily.

Cis female experience is NOT my narrative. My dreams and fantasies have been consistently and even stereotypically “hetero male” since I was a kid. What I’m attracted to and what I identity with have always existed in two separate boxes in my head.

I read this line in a book once:

“Models of understanding are ways of seeing a thing--not the thing itself”

Extremist feminism doesn’t seem to get this.                                                      

Do those who de-transition exist? Yes. Are there people who have internalized sexism? Yes. Are there people who transition purely for privilege? Yes. That still doesn’t mean that all who say they are Trans are like this.  

My narrative was NEVER the cis female narrative.

How do I put this simply? When I was a kid, I wanted to grow a penis. When I was a teenager, I wanted to grow a penis. When I was in my early 20s, I wanted to grow a penis. Even now, in my late 20s, I still want a penis. And even on my deathbed someday, I will hope that in the afterlife I will finally be a guy.

That’s not confusion. That’s called consistency. It’s called knowing what I want.

That was the way it always was—long before I knew the words “queer” or “trans” or “cis” or “feminism”—long before I knew my sexual orientation even.  It was my #1 dream as a kid and always will be, regardless of whether I can ever make it come true or not. As I said before, the only thing that holds me back is the lack of a magical and painless way to make that dream come true.

Seeing that kind of transphobic garbage that is so wholly disconnected from my actual experience… I don’t even have the words for the disgust I felt. And it was even more traumatic because this was at a time when I was getting ready for top surgery.

This kind of extremist feminism damages the psyche of those who are not cis. It is a true abuse of power when one person feels they can silence another person in full confidence that society will back them up in their oppressive behaviour. It’s a sign not only of the power-hungry nature of some individuals, but also of the corruption in a society… the fact that society hasn’t developed enough to protect the rights of an Individual because they cause an inconvenient disturbance in the neatly constructed dominant narratives. It’s a sign that some people are being given undue power over others’ lives and bodies.

I definitely don’t have “internalized homophobia” because for a time I was perfectly willing to use the label for queer female, even if I didn't feel any resonance with it. 

 As for “internalized sexism,” it’s complicated. It’s very hard to talk about something like gender dysphoria with full honesty without coming off like I have some kind of sexism going on. But the word that I wholeheartedly reject is the word “internalized." That word starts with the assumption that my true self is Cis. It’s not. It never has been. It’s one thing for someone to claim that trans people have some level of sexism but to claim it is “internalized” is yet another kind of invalidation.

You can’t have “internalized” hate about something you never identified with      IN THE FIRST PLACE.

I wondered for the longest time why my journey didn’t feel like it ended when I came out as bi and then gay and then non-binary. It was only after watching (binary) trans men talk about their experiences that I really TRULY felt I understood myself. Even when I came out as “gay” it was reluctantly and I never thought to myself “I want to be someone’s “girlfriend.” When people looked at my relationship, I wanted it to be obvious that I was the guy in the relationship. I still remember looking for a lesbian couple that actually reflected what I wanted (to be the GUY in the relationship) and I saw a couple online that I identified with because one of them behaved more like the masculine one. Fast-forward several years, and that same person came out as TRANS male! It didn’t surprise me at all.

People can talk down to me, they can talk around me, they can talk about me but one thing I will never allow them to do—and which they can never do—is talk FOR me.

That’s what that woman in the YouTube comment was trying to do in that moment. She was trying to talk FOR me. And that’s why I felt such strong emotions and that’s why that interaction still makes me want to punch someone. Nothing in the world feels more dehumanizing that the feeling of someone taking an eraser and erasing your whole life just so they can make sense out of you for their own purposes.

I felt erased in that moment. How do you tell a condescending, arrogant stranger that when you were a kid you used to watch TV shows and wish with pained longing that you were the male characters, every time? That you felt extreme discomfort when being around girls your age because the stuff they talked about didn’t make any sense to you? And you didn’t care because you wanted to be with the guys instead… not in a sexual way, but in a “bro” way.  How do you convey that for the longest time, you were a loner because you didn’t fit anywhere and that even years after coming out these scars still haunt you?

The ridiculous accusation of wanting privilege only makes me roll my eyes. Of course a cis woman wouldn’t possibly be able to understand why else someone would want to BE a guy! Their very brains are different. If you can’t see the worth of basic male experiences (brotherhood, fatherhood, boyfriend, husband, etc) then your head doesn’t work like a guy’s head. If “want of privilege” is the only reason you can imagine wanting to be a guy, you are not a guy on the inside.  You are not binary transgender and you are likely to regret medical transition. But don’t ever apply that to me. I’m not the same.

Do these people think that cis straight women know how cis lesbian minds work? No. They don’t. And yet, they accept lesbian women all the same. There should be NO reason why lesbian women or straight women can’t do the same for trans guys.

When someone feels the need to overwrite another person’s identity, it’s usually because of some kind of deep insecurity of their own. If people really believed in gender equality, then it shouldn’t matter if someone wanted to jump from one gender group into the other. It would not affect anything. Obsessing over other people’s gender transitions is what true obsession with privilege looks like. That’s what socially sanctioned narcissism looks like.  

The only surgery I had was top surgery. It’s been about 3 years since then, and I can tell anyone with full confidence that “Regret” is not a word that would even be in the vocabulary I would use to describe the good it did for my mental health. It was like something extinguished a deep rage that was centered on my chest area. Eternal Gratitude is the only thing I feel, towards the surgeon that gave me that release and empowerment.

I had to force myself to write this post because it meant reliving a memory I'd rather throw into the trash. I just hope that someday there will be cis people out there that can see that kind of interaction clearly for what it was: one person abusing their social privilege and power over another. I hope that someday society will develop enough to look at that kind of abusive person with the same disgust that I feel, and to see that some models of understanding are flawed and only serve one group.

It’s incredibly easy to pick on minorities and to make up all kinds of fictions about them, because in a society full of ignorance, whose is going to stop you? All throughout history minorities have been considered mentally ill for being different, and each time society developed enough to see how wrong their assumptions were. What’s sick and sad is that even after all that, people are still doing this in one form or other. That’s what makes it unforgivable. With that much history to look back on and learn from, to do it again in another form is unforgivable.

As for accusations of “self-hate,” there’s nothing more self-loving than standing up against a whole group of self-entitled people and rejecting their assumptions in defense of one’s truth.

The “Realness” of my experience is something only I and others like me can know. Whatever fiction someone tries to put on top of my reality ultimately does not erase that reality. Transphobic people and the fictions they make up to make sense out of something they don’t even seem to want to understand—those fictions are not my narrative.

[swamppolitics]

Phil Arena explains

Arena: ...my sense is that the left won an incomplete victory in the culture wars of the 90s. That is, the vast majority of people now accept that racism and sexism are bad things, which wasn't always true, but they haven't actually rejected white supremacy or male dominance. They think that it's wrong to hate people for being different but genuinely believe essentialist claims about race and gender.

...an "essentialist" claim is one that connects an attribute of a person or group to their very nature - to their "essence". In other words, if you think that the patterns of inequality that we see today, in terms of incarceration and home ownership, representation at the highest levels of corporate and political governance, and so forth, would exist in a purely meritocratic society (and have somehow convinced yourself that we live in such a society), that white men rose to the top of the socioeconomic ladder simply because they are, on average, smarter, harder-working, or otherwise meritorious, and that that would remain true no matter how many programs the left implemented to try and address it, then you believe essentialist claims about race and gender.

There's not necessarily anything wrong with that, in a vacuum. I'll happily acknowledge that there's a difference between holding such views and being hateful. One could argue that the plausibility of these claims is at least worth investigating. The thing is, though, they HAVE been investigated. Countless times. And while there's some debate about some of the minor details, the preponderance of the evidence, across several fields of social science, indicates that essentialism is bunk. 

We do not have a meritocratic society and at least SOME of the disparities between white men and other demographic groups are attributable to societal factors. Exactly how much is a little unclear, but if your position is that there's no injustice in our society, that any difference in treatment is purely reflective of innate and immutable differences in capabilities, you're wrong. I'm sorry, but it's that simple. That position is no longer tenable. And the longer you cling to it as evidence piles up against it, the harder it is to believe that the only thing you're guilty of is ignorance. If you refuse to accept that white men would not occupy the position of privilege that they currently do if everyone was given a fair chance from birth, then you hold essentialist views; and holding unflattering views about entire groups of people that cannot be supported by the best available evidence is worthy of condemnation.

Moreover, no one believes that your opposition to all attempts at moving towards true equality of opportunity is motivated by nothing more than a belief that we're already as close as we can get. If I point to a door and ask what lies beyond it, a door which you believe to be locked, you shouldn't object to me trying the handle. If you do, I have to assume that you don't really think it's locked but are afraid of what will happen when I open it. Similarly, if you believe there was once a time when "men were allowed to be men", that feminism has made Millennial males "soft" and "effeminate", then you've tacitly admitted that you share the left's belief that gender is a social construct - you just happen to want it to be constructed in a less egalitarian way. You're already taking issue with that claim, I'm sure, but consider this - if all the crap that you claim was hardwired into men really was HARDWIRED into men, then why would there be any need for such complaints? Lions don't go on Reddit to argue with other lions about how to be lions. The sheer amount of time men (and, let's be honest, some women) spend policing masculinity is evidence that no one believes it's all biology.

So what do you call someone who is opposed to the very idea of promoting racial and gender equality, ostensibly because they believe that no further progress can be made, that racial minorities and women are already held back by nothing more than their own limitations? Racist and sexist.

I sometimes wonder what our discourse would look like if the left used those terms differently, though. If everyone agreed that anything short of violence and vitriol could not, by definition, qualify as racism or sexism, where would we be? 

The left would still be accusing the right of holding indefensible views about race and gender, but rather than getting offended at the supposed implication that they are full of hate, the right would simply acknowledge that they do indeed hold those views and claim that there is nothing wrong with them. I don't know if that would be an improvement or not, but I want my conservative friends to know that, 9 times out of 10, this is what the left is saying when they throw those terms around. (Or at least it was, prior to Trump. He's brought the sort of racism and sexism that meets every definition out into the open. But let's set that aside for now.) The claim isn't that you (or the cops, or that-guy-that-said-that-thing-he-apparently-shouldn't-have-though-you're-not-quite-sure-why, or whomever) is full of hate. The accusation concerns bias against women and/or minorities that is unjustifiable; a lack of empathy and a refusal to address inequalities that we have no reason to believe are "entirely natural". We realize you're not a hateful person. We really do. But that's not enough. 

If it sounds like we're judging you, we are, but not because we think you're likely to engage in violence against those whom you deem inferior so much as the fact that you don't seem to care when others do so. Nor do you care about the many non-violent ways that women and minorities are mistreated.

What about the claim that Trump won because people are tired of being called sexist and racist?

Well, I have three things to say to that. (I know, this post is already too long; please bear with me.)

First, this election was really close. Not in terms of the popular vote (in case you weren't aware, Clinton won that http://time.com/4608555/hillary-clinton-popular-vote-final/), but the electoral college, which came down to <80,000 votes spread across three states (http://www.weeklystandard.com/the-election-came-d…/…/2005323). In elections this close, an almost infinite number of things can be described as "the" reason Trump won, since it probably is true that if you changed that one thing and nothing else, the result would have been different. So without diving into the data, I'll provisionally accept your claim that one of the many reasons he won is that people who "know" that "they don't have a racist bone in their body" (there's that essentialism again - who said racism comes from your BONES?) were tired of being scolded. I hope you are wiling to admit, however, that we can construct countless hypotheticals where Clinton would have won even if the left had behaved exactly the same way. That is, even if I accept your claim that this was one of the many factors at play, I need not (and do not) accept the implication that Democrats won't win next time either unless they learn to stop talking about race and gender.

Second, even if I granted that THE PROBABILITY of a Democratic victory in 2020 would be higher if the left dropped all discussion of race and gender, I would still say that sometimes it's worth lowering your chance of winning to ensure that any victory isn't hollow. If you just scoffed at that because "victory at any price" is the only motto you know, or thought to yourself "he probably thinks we shouldn't have nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki either...stupid America-hating libtards", that's fine. But don't expect to convince me that the left should stop making the right feel bad by arguing that Democrats might lose some votes otherwise. That's not going to get you anywhere. Some of us aren't willing to jettison everything we ever claimed to stand for in hopes of winning the White House.

Third, I'm sorry that people who "know" that they're good and decent don't like being judged unfairly. Believe me, that's not a new concept on the left. However wrong it might have been before Trump to assume that a Republican was sexist and racist, though, things have changed. 

I myself used to be a Republican! I wanted McCain to win in '08 and Romney in '12. 

I wasn't devastated by Obama's victory, by any means, and grew to respect him in ways you'll never understand over the course of his presidency, but I was right there with you not so long ago. I was afraid to admit to being a Republican in grad school for fear of people thinking I was a racist, sexist xenophobe, because I "knew" I wasn't. (I did believe some shameful shit, though. Everyone does, including women and minorities, unless they make a concerted effort to unlearn it. That's the nature of our society.) 

When Trump became the standard-bearer of the party, though, I lost any attachment I once had to it. I still have a lot of respect for McCain and Romney (while understanding why a lot of people on the left think they get too much credit for simply not being Trump); I just happen to have a serious problem with the overt sexism and racism that lies at the very core of Trump's political vision (to the extent that he has one). If you don't, you've told me something about yourself. I'm not going to argue with you about Clinton, even if I do think most of your opposition to her is irrational, because abstention is an option. I have a few conservative friends who refused to vote for either, and I retain the utmost respect for them. 

You may not be full of hate, but if you can't see that Trump IS, or do see that and simply don't care, you've surrendered the right to portray yourself as an innocent victim of bullying from the left. I won't claim that every accusation of sexism and racism is justified, even by the standard I laid out above, but if you have a bigger problem with that than with Trump and the hate groups he's enabling, I've got a problem with you.

Source: https://www.facebook.com/philip.arena/posts/10114729321533464

[thebrewstorian]

Feminism and the Beer Industry Pt. 1: History and Representation

A month or two ago, Tiah and I sat down in the library cafe to discuss women in the brewing industry. Tiah was getting ready to do her presentation(s) at the Pop Culture convention on the topic, and it was good timing since I had already been trying to collect data on women brewers and brewery owners in Oregon. The mission was this: to read the current online literature on sexism, racism and feminism in the brewing industry and to clarify common themes within that lens. The need for feminism is so imminent now with all of the turmoil in American politics, and finding ways to make inclusive change in our communities and our economy are essential going forward. The craft brewing industry provides a unique opportunity to challenge discrimination because it’s still new and growing in many areas, allowing us to blur traditional social norms. However, reading the current literature has been a challenge because so many different writers often harken back to the same ideas, and it’s hard to find some original clarity in all the repetition. It can also be emotionally challenging to read because while progress is being made at an increasing rate, it can be disappointing to see that we haven’t come further. From continually sexist or misguided marketing in macro breweries to the small numbers of women head brewers and people of color in craft beer, it can be tough to find a good place to start. Still, it’s a fascinating story because the  culture of beer reflects the historical context it was built in, and understanding that context can allow us to move forward.

One of the first things many historians, beer journalists and craft beer nerds will tell you is that beer is ancient, and so is the presence of women in beer. The oldest documented recipe for beer is from the Sumerian Hymn to Ninkasi, describing how the goddess of fermentation made her own brew about 4000-6000 years ago. This goddess is so prominent in brewing history that she’s even got a craft brewery named after her and she’s cited by numerous brewers in their knowledge or influences. The presence of women in brewing was reflected in the populations who worked in it, with women known as “alewives” dominating the craft. Fermentation was a primary method of food preservation at the time, and beer was commonly more safe to drink than water, so brewing easily fit into the cult of domesticity and everyone was drinking beer. Not only did women make beer in the home, they also sold it in their communities. Even into the 19th century, women were owning breweries (see Oregon BrewLab’s blog post), and it was a nun who discovered the value of hops in beer. It was only when brewing became a commercial industry did men take over brewing and shut women out until the mid-20th century. This takeover was maintained for so long that brewers even prohibited women from entering the brewery floor, saying they were bad luck.

These historical facts have been cited in droves by articles on sexism in the brewing industry, and the acknowledgement of male-domination in beer makes it more surprising that women were actually the founders of the craft. But as many writers note how men gained control when brewing became a commercial process, I’m left with a question: Why and how? Why is the link between sexism and capitalism so strong, and where did it come from? In feminist theory, plenty of research has been done on the clash between ecofeminism (a philosophy that combines environmentalist concerns with feminist ones) and capitalist systems, inspired by capitalist greed and the will to marginalize smaller portions of the economy. This ability to monopolize economic power has been constant through history, and brewing is no exception. The key has been to use current media to villainize any competition in the market, including the use of stereotypes about various identities. In medieval times, this was done to alewives through the use of churches as a space for economic propaganda (among other media like poems and mystery plays). One author from Women in Theology notes that men’s guilds were major players in the economic field, and they used this power to fund the construction and decoration of churches in their community with the intent of demonizing alewives. This tactic worked in that most people of the time were illiterate and gained information through visual art. Women were often resigned to domestic and supportive activities, and alewives violated this through being involved in the local economy. Alewives were also hypersexualized, considered bad because of their connections to taverns, which were considered taboo places (this is similar to how POC were marginalized from brewing prior to Prohibition), and rumors were spread that their ales were unsafe.

This image of alewives as bad brewers can be tied to the accessibility to ingredients that is still present now. Brewing is an expensive craft to get involved with, and in Medieval times, this was no different. The inclusion of hops into beer made it more challenging to brew because hops were also very expensive, and beers that went unhopped could spoil sooner. As a result, unhopped ales were considered bad for you, adding another layer to the dismissal of the alewives’ work.  This connection between limited resource access and economic power dynamics is common, and is still seen in brewing today (it’s suggested as one reason behind the lack of people of color in brewing).

As mentioned above, the connection between economic power and moral symbolism runs deep and both sides worked together in bringing the decline of women brewers to the point where they only were involved as replacements for their deceased spouses. Among academics, the symbolism is rooted in how alewives juxtaposed the traditional role of women in medieval society. At that time (as well as in many other periods), women were supposed to play supportive roles to their husbands and male family, maintaining the home and providing sustenance. If women got jobs in the local economy, they were usually low paying and low status. The woman brewer or tapster contradicted this role because she held high status through providing sustenance to the community and making decent income independently. Interestingly, the art that villainizes these brewers was more common in urban settings than in rural ones. This says something about the level of professionalization of brewing in different economies, where women brewers were more accepted in rural or poor communities because everyone had to pitch in on communal tasks. In urban areas, though, jobs were more tied to social rank and professional guilds, which were male-dominated and set on removing female competition. Still, the overall point was that these women were breaking social norms, and were therefore bad. Some scholars are even researching the link between brewsters and an antithesis, the Virgin Mary. Mary provides wholesome sustenance and is completely desexualized as the ideal of motherhood, while brewsters were suspect of selling unsafe products and being sexually promiscuous. In summary, they’re seen as what can go wrong in a woman’s role as provider. As Roxane Gay notes in her Bad Feminist essays, society and literature also generally idealize women in a pure, one-dimensional way, while women with flaws or complexity like brewsters are seen as bad or unpopular. This idea of symbolism even connects to the women involved in temperance movements several centuries later, who were rejected by male temperance leaders but accepted by the public across genders for their non-aggressive approach to seeking change. It seems that the success of these women in gaining political solvency in a male-dominated field is based in how we perceive identity, and the manner in which we challenge stereotypes of gender and other identities. 

So what does this history mean in terms of bringing women membership back into brewing? As Lee Hedgmon discusses in her oral history, seeing women in brewing roles and getting recognition for their work is key to inspiring others to join. In total, representation is key. Representation in our media and our communities helps us decide what is socially normal, and it shifts our attitudes towards different issues. If we see women in brewing working hard as professionals, artists and scientists like anyone else, then we begin to accept them as such. To quote iO Tillett Wright from his TEDx talk Fifty Shades of Gay, “Familiarity really is the gateway drug to empathy.” When we see women brewers for their work and their humanity, we can discard our ideas of brewing as a gendered trade and appreciate them for what craft beer is all about: the shared love of producing and exploring beers in all their complexity. But how do we increase visibility in a practical sense? Women beer and brewing organizations like the Pink Boots Society, Barley’s Angels and Girls Pint Out do a great job making spaces for women to enjoy beer and get professional help without being intimidated by their male counterparts. This work is important, and I commend them for all they’ve achieved. On a broader scale, though, what can we do to normalize seeing women in brewing so that the connection between beer and gender (and all its stereotypes) falls away? In the world of beer journalism, one thing that could be done (or continued) is showing women brewers or their breweries in articles about places to check out alongside their male counterparts. There are many articles about great women brewers breaking the glass ceiling of the industry, and while it does introduce us to them, it still treats women as tokens of the industry. Seeing women recognized for their good work among their male colleagues, without making a spectacle of them in such articles, does what Hedgmon suggested: it inspires us to see women as equals in brewing, and it inspires others to join the community, Sexism in brewing is about as old as the craft itself, so it will take time to rewrite the habits we have a society, but it is a good thing for all of us and for the diversity of beers we hope to keep seeing going forward.

Many questions remain, however. This topic of women, feminism and beer spans all of history, within cultural, moral, religious and economic lenses. It’s an extensive rabbit hole that I’m just starting to delve into more deeply (and I’ll admit that I’m not versed in the feminist theory that relates to these discussions). Here are some of my continuing questions and thoughts below. If you have any insight on them, or clarification on any of the points I’ve discussed above, please feel free to comment on them:

How were alewives treated among different countries in Europe during the Medieval period, and how did different religious contexts contribute to such treatment? Were some religions more lenient than others

Where did the idea of taverns as sketchy places arise? Did it relate to higher crime rates in urban areas, or was it more about symbolism of getting companionship and nourishment outside the family home?

Where does this opposition between capitalism and feminism stem from? How is it different from interactions between feminism and other economic systems?

How does social class fit into the dismissal of alewives? It’s mentioned that they were persecuted more in urban areas than in rural ones, which is tied to the localization of powerful guilds. How was brewing transformed into a high status profession, and what does high v. low status work mean?

Where did the negative rhetoric surrounding alewives start? In the home, in guilds, in the church or some combination of all three?

How did the negative treatment of alewives relate to the overall disdain against alcohol over time? (Judith Bennett notes that male brewers of the time were also criticized for their profession, if only gently)

Women in brewing during medieval times is seen as a way of economic defiance of patriarchy during the time, and women in temperance during the 19th and 20th centuries seem to have moral independence (producing and opposing alcohol both taken as forms of women’s rights)

During the rise of the temperance movement in the mid-19th century, many of the women involved in these groups were also suffragettes or women’s rights activists. Their ideas about temperance were accepted by both men and women because they used familiar language and were non-aggressive in their presentation. Given this, how does the way that feminism and female empowerment is presented impact the way it is received? How do we challenge oppressive systems in a way that is more easily accepted but isn’t complicit to the system itself?

~Gillian

For more information on the history of alewives, check out these sources:

Vaughan, Theresa A. "The Alewife: Changing images and bad brews." Medieval Science, Technology and Art Avista Forum Journal, vol. 21, no. 1-2, 2011, pp. 34--41. www.academia.edu/3428837/The_Alewife_Changing_Images_and_Bad_Brews. 

Bennett, Judith M. "Misogyny, Popular Culture, and Women's Work." History Workshop Journal, vol. 31, 1991, pp. 166-183. www.24grammata.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/misogyny-Bennett-24grammata.pdf.

Garves, Dana. "OREGON’S FIRST WOMEN BREWERS [1879-1908]." Oregon BrewLab blog, 7 May 2015, www.oregonbrewlab.com/oregons-first-women-brewers-1879-1908/.

Mattingly, Carol. Well Tempered Women: Nineteenth-Century Temperance Rhetoric. Southern Illinois University Press, 1998.

[aftermyshahada-blog]

Tolerance and Respect is Key for ALL Muslims

I do not like to associate with conservative, judgmental, hateful, and pompous people, Muslims included. Instead, I want to always be kind, compassionate, understanding, and open-minded. I apologize if this blog post comes across more like a rant, but recent events have cause me to feel quite irritated and I have a strong message to share with you all.

Sister Sarah: Leading by Force

I am a new Muslim (click here for my story), but I will admit very honestly that I am not perfect; no one is perfect except Allah. A Muslim sister of mine (for sake of anonymity, I will call her Sarah) who reverted about 4 years ago and who is about 4 years younger than me, adamantly began to spew the requirements and rules of Muslims according to Islam. Convinced that there is only one "right" way to be Muslim, she began lecturing about wearing a full hijab (abaya and headscarf) at all times. (In a previous blog post, I explained when I cover, how I cover, and my view on covering-click here).

In addition, I am Muslim and I live with my non-Muslim boyfriend, and Sarah sternly told me that I was living in sin and that Allah is angry with me. She told me that I must learn to pronounce Arabic prayers correctly, otherwise they do not mean anything. When I joked about getting together for cupcakes on my half birthday, I was sternly told that celebrating birthdays or half birthdays is completely haram (sinful/forbidden). If I had to list all of the lectures Sarah gave me, the list would extend from here to the moon and back.

She told me that hadiths and Quran give very strict and clear guidelines about living and Sharia law needs to be followed. Sarah told me that Muslims must guide one another and by not lecturing me and telling me what is right or wrong, then she is not doing her job as a Muslim. Because she became Muslim a few years before me and is dedicated to studying Islam, she feels like she has the right to tell other people what to do and how to do it.

Oh. My. Goodness. This irritates me so much!

Follow the Prophet's Example

Some people gain a little bit of knowledge and they want to run around with a baseball bat and beat people over the head with religion. That is not ok! Prophet Muhammed's whole life was about leading by encouragement, not pressure or judgment. Invite others to sit and talk with you; embrace your brothers and sisters with love. Don't immediately start thinking about what you can criticize about them. The prophet never once used "vigilantes" to impose religious requirements.

There is a clear contrast between the attitudes of some well-intentioned Muslims who want to correct the wrong immediately and by any means, and the approach of the Prophet which was of kindness, gentleness, persuasion, and wisdom. I have met many kind Muslims who guide others gently and who are so sweet and encouraging. These are the types of people I love to have in my life. I am so appreciative of their loving approach.

The Way I See Things

Islam is peaceable, positive, sensible, elegant, civilized, constructive, hopeful, problem-solving, balanced, just, fair, compassionate, truthful, fun, global, divine, authentic, original, and free!

As a Muslim revert, I like to look at the allegorical interpretations of the Quran; the hidden, inner meaning. As a liberal Muslim, I do not reject hadiths completely, but I consider them carefully. In addition, I look at the Quran very critically and I promote complete gender equality in all aspects, including ritual prayer and observance. I am more open to modern culture in relation to dress, customs, and common practices. I promote the individual use of ijtihad (interpretation) and fitrah (natural sense of right and wrong).

I believe that Islam promotes the notion of absolute equality of all humanity. And as a feminist, I believe that Islam promotes feminism. Islam teaches us that women deserve full equality under the law in personal and public arenas. In addition, I support LGBTQIA+ rights.

Sometimes You Have to Create Boundaries

Supportive Muslim brothers and sisters will not make me feel bad about myself or tell me that they are right and I am wrong. They will not cause me to feel bad about myself and insist that there is only one right way. They will not judge me or embarrass me or rise up against me. True Muslims brothers and sisters will stand beside me, support me, and look out for my well-being in a compassionate way. They will not cause anxiety, hate, judgment, or embarrassment.

There are toxic people out there, even people who are Muslims. Though most people mean well, it might become necessary to create boundaries. Those boundaries will vary depending on the person and situation. But all boundaries are fair, just, reasonable, meaningful, necessary, and must be clearly defined. If boundaries meet these criteria, then they will protect, enhance, and enrich your life, reduce anxiety, and optimize the experience of a tranquil, peaceful, and truly meaningful life for you. I had to create some boundaries with Sarah. It wasn't easy, but it was necessary.

Yes, you want to love and accept everyone, especially when you know that they mean well, but you have to be very careful. You need to set up boundaries out of concern for yourself. It is necessary to protect ourselves from people or things that will harm us or diminish the experience of life for us.

You and Allah

It is important to not surround yourself with judgmental people who make you feel bad. It is important to love yourself and know that your religion is between you and God. Know that God loves you. God will guide you. Know that you will be ok. Do not let anyone tell you otherwise. All you need is Allah. The support of the Ummah (Muslim community) can be wonderful and beneficial. In fact, I love having more experienced sisters to guide me. But again, you must always look out for yourself. The most important relationship you will ever have is between you and Allah. Do not let anything get in the way of that or diminish that. Allah is all you need. Trust Him.

THANK YOU

This is my 23rd blog post that I have written here on Tumblr; I do my best to post something each and every day. It has been about 3 weeks and I have about 300 followers! Thank you so much for reading, liking, and reblogging my content. I appreciate it. 

[glitteryruinsnerds-blog]

Has social media worsened the Beyhive?

GET INTO FORMATION ELSE I COULD MAKE YOUR LIFE VERY HORRIBLE

NOBODY HAS THE CHANCE TO ACTUALLY CRITICISE BEYONCE WITHOUT BEING STUNG BY THE WHOLE BEYHIVE.

Technology and new media has led to a new public sphere that rejects space and time completely. (Guschwan, 2015) It allows people from all across the world to interact and communicate via these platforms about any interests, criticisms or similarities. This shows that fandom and the connecting of communities has become that much more effective. This post will discuss how fandom has become a toxic phenomenon in itself through social media, specifically looking at the Beyhive i.e Beyonce fans. With the help of excessive love and obsession for the Queen, trolling, the representation of Beyonce in the greater scheme of things and her intimate connection with the Hive through social media, the Beyhive has become the fandom that is not to be messed with.

A fan is an “enthusiastic devotee usually as a spectator” or “an ardent admirer or enthusiast” according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary. (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fan ) This term arises from the word “fanatic” which has negative stereotypes associated with it such as crazy or obsessed. (Jenkins, 1992) Jenkins refers to fans as “frighteningly out of control, undisciplined and unrepentant, rogue readers” of texts. (Jenkins, 1992) Social media seems to have worsened the passion of the fandom to the extent that these super fans would harass and troll others in order to defend their ‘queen.’

Every member of the Beyhive is a worker Bee that is submissive to their Highness and whose job it is to sing the praises of Beyonce. A little excessive for somebody that you do not know personally? Apparently not.

The use of social media allows for an “ordinary” individual to have an idealized relationship with their role model as it appears as if the relationship is more personal through such platforms.

With the expansion of social media, groups of fans can come together due to a common interest that allow for them to relate to one another and feel equal within this community. (Ted Talk, 2010) This gives fans a sense of belonging as if they have become a vital component of society (Jenkins III, 1988) This sense of belonging is why they “construct their own cultures and subcultures from popular culture” such as Beyonce fans have created a community celebrating the ‘Queen Bee’ herself. (Jenkins III, 1988) 

Trolling due to toxic fandom

Online trolling is the term used when somebody brings criticism, ridicule and negativity to a specific piece of text online. “Trolling is the deliberate (perceived) use of impoliteness/ aggression, deception and/ or manipulation in CMC to create a context conducive to triggering or antagonizing conflict, typically for amusement’s sake.” (Hardaker, 2013. P79) This notion of trolling is created from the idea of us versus them. If they are not a part of our community, then we must either bring them in or slash them because they do not belong or understand. This social identity theory of psychology is that there is an in-group favouritism, meaning that one will be negative towards the out-group. Therefore, one will criticize and swarm any member of the “out-group”. (Lonsdale, North. 2009) The problem with online fan communities and the ability to access and involve oneself at any time brings about a greater platform for trolling. Fan culture brings forth continuous ridiculing and other negative forms of representation, especially if another is not part of such a fan community. (Gray et al, 2017) This ridicule is often associated along the lines of “gender, ethnicity, class and age” as that is what the media form represents. (Gray et al, 2017) When any member of society is to “diss” or criticize Beyonce, the Beyhive gets into formation and spams any online account with Bee emojis.

 Some motives behind online trolling include: “Malevolence or deviant impulses, enjoyment, activism or ideology, social status negotiations, psychological factors and technological motivations” (Fichman et al, 2016)

Also, by engaging in such discussions causes the inexperienced or naïve users/ outcasts of the community from posting non-controversial and clearly opinionated messages. (Fichman et al, 2016)

Why is the Beyhive’s pride so massive? 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gM89Q5Eng_M&list=PLHFeMk_LSwG4BGn8F5MlOZWYyLWzLCvSe

Historically, black women in particular have been made to appear lesser than their white counterparts. They deal with double standards, discrimination and stereotypes. Therefore, Desiree Jackson (2016) explains black feminism as in the:

“Present day there is still a need to “protect Black women and girls from the constant waves of oppression, discrimination, and prevalence of destructive images of Black womanhood.” Black feminism is a combination of third wave feminism and pride in blackness; it represents ownership in one’s body, equality sexually, socially, and economically while simultaneously being prideful and representing black culture.”

There is a strong feminist discourse as well as race discourse associated with this fandom which makes it even more powerful. This power may even be of a toxic nature whereby anything that is not in favor of Beyonce, harassment and trolling will take place. The concept of black feminist discourse within the Beyhive exaggerates the strength and power that Beyonce holds within the society; that has the odds stacked against her. As a black woman in a white, male dominated society, her success and strength means all that more. She is also the face of black female power, so especially for those that can relate within the community, they will defend her even more. The evolution of black feminism and the Beyhive at the front of it, has created somewhat of a toxic fandom as social media has no control over the trolling that happens in the name of “passion”, “love” and “protection” of Beyoncé and the ideologies that she represents. It creates a sense of empowerment through community. (Collins, 2015) The album Lemonade also brings female sexuality into the light of mainstream culture. It is seen to be normal for boys to express their sexuality and not women, therefore Beyonce gives us music from the “oppositional gaze” which takes a lot of strength in this dominated white male society. That is what makes her more of a queen. (Jackson, 2016)

“The entirety of the album has a dual purpose to own your blackness confidently as a black individual and to own your femininity as a woman.” – Desiree Jackson (2016)

Beyhive attack 

When coming to the artist’s defense, the Beyhive does not go lightly. They swarm in and attack anybody that proves to be a threat of sorts to Queen Bey. This was seen when Beyoncé dropped her Lemonade album in 2015. In her track, “Sorry”, Beyoncé mentions “Becky with the good hair” which follows Jay-Z’s cheating rumors. The Beyhive attacked fashion designer, Rachel Roy, who was suspected to be the girl that Jay-Z cheated with. This information was never confirmed but the Beyhive made it their mission to find out who this “Becky” was after suspecting several other artists including Rita Ora. Roy’s Instagram account was overtaken with bee emoji’s to signify the Beyhive’s virtual attack on her. Some members went as far as mocking Roy’s children. Some say that this toxicity of the fandom shows how the internet has allowed for such obsession to go too far.

The power of the Beyhive...

Beyonce’s intimate connection with the Hive

The online world provides copious amounts of information for these followers which can then be created into new material or leverage to get closer to the star. (Guschwan, 2015) This interaction between the fans and the star is made possible through social media. On Beyonce’s 37th birthday, she wrote a heartfelt letter to the Beyhive thanking them for their support. She finished her Instagram posts with “I love you, Hive. B.” (@beyonce) This personal connection exaggerates the companionship between fandom and the star and therefore, could cause further obsession and toxicity. 

Therefore, one can say that with the effectiveness and accessibility that is made available through social media platforms, fandoms can become that much stronger and more dominant. They can even become toxic. Social media defies any time or space barriers and so there is always a platform for the Beyhive to congregate towards a common cause. Whether this cause be defending Bey against haters or anybody that threatens Beyonce’s power and status in society. There is never escaping the Beyhive, they will sting you if you are not a worker Bee. 

After I say that Beyonce is losing her touch and suddenly I have no friends:

Other news:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff-nation/assignments/share-your-news-and-views/14628356/Obsessive-fandoms-frightening-result-of-intense-celebrity-culture-we-live-in

https://www.eonline.com/news/866060/the-fiery-side-of-celebrity-fandom-why-the-beyhive-and-little-monsters-really-attack

https://beardedgentlemenmusic.com/2018/07/06/toxic-fandom-cult-of-identity/

Sources: 

Fichman, P., & Sanfilippo, M. R. (2016). Online trolling and its perpetrators: Under the cyberbridge. Rowman & Littlefield.

 Gray, J., Sandvoss, C., & Harrington, C. L. (Eds.). (2017). Fandom: Identities and communities in a mediated world. NYU Press.

Jackson, D. (November 3, 2016). Beyoncé, BEYONCÉ, Lemonade: Symbols of Black Feminism. Medium. Retrieved from: https://medium.com/@Destinee_Jackson/beyoncé-beyoncé-lemonade-symbols-of-black-feminism-a4dc4b4d97eb

Jenkins, Henry (1992). ‘“Get a life!”:Fans, Poachers, Nomads’.Textual Poachers: Television Fans and Participatory Culture. New York & London: Routledge

Jenkins III, H, (1988). Star Trek rerun, reread, rewritten: Fan writing as textual poaching. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, Volume 5, Issue 2, 85-107.

Lonsdale, A, and North , A (2009). Musical Taste and Ingroup Favouritism. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, Vol 12, Issue 3, 319 - 327. http://0-journals.sagepub.com.innopac.wits.ac.za/doi/pdf/10.1177/1368430209102842

Online Dictioary: Merriam Webster - “Fan” https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fan [Accessed: 07 September 2018)

Stanfill, Mel (2013). ‘“They’re Losers, but I Know Better”: Intra-Fandom Stereotyping and the Normalisation of the Fan Subject.’ Critical Studies in Media Communication. 30. Issue 2. (http://0-www.tandfonline.com.innopac.wits.ac.za/doi/full/10.1080/15295036.2012.755053)

Tedx Talks. (2010). TEDxNYED - Henry Jenkins - 03/06/10. [Online Video]. 13 April 2010. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFCLKa0XRlw&t=171s. [Accessed: 07 September 2018].

December 2013, Social Media and Fandom. Modern Fandom – a counter culture becomes a culture. Retrieved from: https://sih17.wordpress.com

[republicstandard]

The Right-Wing Starter Pack

We often discuss the best ways to try and “red pill” individuals who have not necessarily become aware of the forces that imperil our civilization, or who have been deceived into believing in the post-national, post-racial, gender-neutral vision of “equality.” Maybe they have some awareness that things are bad and that the races and sexes are fundamentally different, but they don’t quite have all of the pieces of the puzzle. Jumping into the JQ with someone who doesn’t realize that Islam is not a religion of peace is a recipe for disaster; think about how you came to the conclusions that you ultimately did. Or, if you came to this site knowing in your bones something in today’s world is off, that what you are told and what you see in the media is not the reality you live and observe but you can’t quite put your finger on it, or perhaps the picture looks a little fuzzy but you can make out the general shape of what ails our society, the following are great books that will hopefully bring that picture into focus and allow you to “zoom out” in order to see the big picture.

(function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:10817585113717094,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-7788-6480"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="//cdn2.lockerdomecdn.com/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");

If you are looking for a handy reading list to red-pill friends, partners, or relatives, this is a good one (obviously!) that will ideally “prime” the individual for eventually accepting the whole truth. They may reject the reality—recall that only the young and receptive were taken out of the Matrix in the film for others’ minds were too entwined with the simulated reality and they could not accept what they were seeing and experiencing. Obviously “red pilling” isn’t only for the young, but there are many people who are closed to understanding the real truth of what’s going on and would reject these premises and findings, despite their factual reality, as “hate.” Also remember, even though Neo took the red pill, it took time for him to grasp not only what was outside The Matrix in reality (spoiler alert: or, ultimately, not…), but for him to realize the extent of his true capabilities. With that in mind, I recommend these texts in this order (the list is based loosely on both my own “red-pilling” experience and having successfully “red pilled” several others roughly following this progression):

STOP if you haven’t read the Constitution, and then come back when you have.

Peter Brimelow-Alien Nation (1996)

Written during the mid-90s “thaw” on political correctness, Brimelow’s excellent work catalogues immigration’s true cost to the Republic from all angles—from social cohesion to economic expenditure. He addresses and adroitly refutes all of the common pro-immigration arguments in convincing fashion. Though some of the numbers are dated, all one need do is extrapolate (which shows the urgency of getting the immigration situation under control all the more).

Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein-The Bell Curve (1996)

Another “thaw” book, the exhaustive research of Murray and Herrnstein definitively proves that group differences are real, and that “cognitive stratification” is a far more compelling explanation for disparate outcomes in America than the bogeymen of “racism” and “discrimination.” Despite the “outcry,” does not dwell much on IQ disparities between the races, but is indispensable in proving the heritability of intelligence and its being the primary cause of social stratification and the achievement gap in an increasingly cognitively-intensive economy. If people can’t accept that different groups will necessarily have different outcomes, they will forever remain stunted and the world will appear much more conspiratorial than it actually is (with a couple of key exceptions).

Jim Goad-The Redneck Manifesto (1998)

A brilliant, funny, and often savage de-construction of the liberal “blind-spot” of poor and working-class “white trash.” It seems their compassion knows no bounds unless it is the brick-and-mortar of America. Major red pills regarding white slavery/indentured servitude, as well as some prescient thoughts on “hate speech.” Illustrates that the present struggle is as much class-based as it is race- or sex-based. Tonally shows you don’t have to be stodgy and uptight if you are “right wing.”

Ilana Mercer-Into the Cannibal’s Pot (2011)

Detonates the myth of South Africa as a “Rainbow Nation”; from racial hiring quotas to economic sanctions and land expropriations that target whites to sky-high murder rates, Mercer offers her homeland as a case study on what the United States will become if it continues on its present trajectory—and it is grim.

Dr. Bill Warner’s The Foundations of Islam and Political Islam Self-Study Courses

If you really want to know what Islam is all about, I recommend these titles as highly as possible. They lay everything about the foundations of the religion out in clear, concise detail, and make clear that Islam is—and has always been since Muhammad’s exile from Mecca—a religion of violence, not peace. Also crucially addresses the Islamic practice of taqiyah, which is a divinely-sanctioned deception of non-believers in order to advance the goals of Islam, which, ultimately, are to conquer and subjugate the entire planet. Women and kafir (non-believers, who are scripturally analogous to feces) are to be second-class citizens, and where necessary, the kafir are to be exterminated. Finally, Warner has structured his self-study course by levels, one through four, which is helpful and allows you to build on the material from introductory to advanced (and now you know where I got the idea for this article from!)

Douglas Murray-The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam (2017)

Explains in great detail not only the historical context for Europe’s “migrant crisis”—as well as outlines the principle actors and the ramifications of the “crisis”—but gets into the philosophical realm by questioning what existential malaise plagues (Western) Europe to the point where it appears to be committing a slow suicide.

Laura Kipnis-Unwanted Advances: Sexual Paranoia Comes to Campus (2017)

Yes, she’s a feminist, but that is irrelevant; this book chronicles the descent into madness on college campuses regarding neo-Victorianism and the prudish, witch-hunt climate brought about by an over-weaning administration and un-checked Cultural Marxism in the bloated bureaucracies of the universities across the country which have essentially robbed women of all agency and created a situation where simply an accusation of sexual assault is enough to ruin a man’s life. It is a tale of the abuses of Title IX, of speech and behavior commissars, and of the paranoia and fear that now govern both the on-campus environment in general, and male-female relations both on and off-campus.

Ashley McGuire-Sex Scandal: The Drive to Abolish Male and Female (2017)

McGuire addresses all of the areas adversely affected by the quixotic quest to attain the often-conflicting goals of “gender parity” and “gender neutrality” from the military to sports, and underscores the ramifications of the implementation of an ideology utterly divorced from biological reality, highlighting the negative consequences on every major facet of our lives. Indeed, as with selection #10, there are a great many unintended consequences that are readily apparent to those who understand the inherent differences. As stated, gender equity and neutrality are often at odds with each other, and inevitably lead to convolution then destruction. Finally, McGuire presaged the #MeToo hysteria in her chapter on Hollywood hypocrisy.

Chris Buskirk and Seth Leibsohn-American Greatness (2017)

Very Tucker Carlson-esque; through the prism of the 2016 presidential election, the authors take a macro view on how the so-called “elites” missed the Trump Phenomenon, so divorced are they from both what the American people in general believe, and the founding principles of the United States as a nation and what it truly represents. They address current issues, especially issues of citizenship and immigration, from a Constitutionally-oriented perspective, which is what we as Americans are supposed to do, and provide a blueprint for the way forward for the GOP as an explicitly pro-American party.

Jean Raspail-The Camp of the Saints (1973)

This is the novel that most fully encapsulates the ennui engulfing our civilization, and it offers a harrowing view of a future (or, indeed, present) where the West, unwilling and/or unable to defend itself, is led to the precipice of oblivion. Extremely disconcerting in its accuracy. This haunting novel will stick with you long after you’ve finished. That said, it is only a black pill if you let it be a black pill.

Michael Levin-Why Race Matters (1997)

Addresses the biological basis of racial differences and what the ramifications of ignoring the fundamental realities of these differences are for society at large, particularly our present multi-cultural one. From IQ to criminality, it’s here.

Richard Lynn-Race Differences in Intelligence: Second Edition (2015)

Another empirically-based, detailed, well-researched, and comprehensive text regarding the fundamental differences between the races with, as the title explains, a particular emphasis on differences in cognitive ability.

The Next Step:

Jared Taylor-White Identity: Racial Consciousness in the 21st Century (2011)

Ricardo Duchesne-Faustian Man in a Multicultural Age (2017)

Sam Francis-Essential Writings on Race (2007)

Kevin MacDonald-The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements (Revised Edition, 2002)

Robert Heinlein-Starship Troopers (1959)

Randy Roach-Muscle, Smoke, and Mirrors (2008)

Michael Hart-Restoring America (2015)

Thomas Goodrich-Hellstorm: The Death of Nazi Germany, 1944-1947 (2014)

Alison Weir-Against Our Better Judgement: The Hidden History of How the US was Used to Create Israel (2014)

Michael Hoffman-They Were White and They Were Slaves: The Untold History of the Enslavement of Whites in Early America (1993)

(function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:10817587730962790,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-5979-7226"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="//cdn2.lockerdomecdn.com/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");

Advanced:

Revilo P. Oliver-The Jewish Strategy (2001)

William Gayley Simpson-Which Way Western Man? (1978)

Maurice Samuel-You Gentiles (1924)

Lothrop Stoddard-The Revolt Against Civilization: The Menace of the Under-Man (1922)

Stephen Mitford Goodson-A History of Central Banking and the Enslavement of Mankind (2017)

Henry Ford-The International Jew (1920-21)

Michael Hoffman-Judaism’s Strange Gods:Revised and Expanded (2011)

Richard E. Harwood-Did Six Million Really Die? (1974)

Hilaire Belloc-The Jews (1922)

Oswald Spengler-The Decline of the West (1918)

from Republic Standard | Conservative Thought & Culture Magazine https://ift.tt/2M25er8 via IFTTT

[phaylenfairchild]

Do You Know What A MAP Is? I Just Found Out And Now I’m Warning Friends

It’s not a geographical survey, it’s something much more sinister.

Imagine me, your friendly neighborhood Trans Cat Lady as I sip my tea browsing Facebook, as one does on a warm, summer Friday night, and suddenly discover a plethora of posts across my feed referencing MAPs.

Just when you think you’re an enlightened, modern individual with your finger on the pulse of social matters, something comes out of left field and reminds you that you’re not running in mainstream anymore. I had to look deeper, realizing the context of a MAP was not by any means indicating navigation or a request for directions.

No, it’s something much more horrific than I ever anticipated. MAP is an initialism, self-created by the proud individuals it references, as “Minor Attracted Persons.”

Pedophiles. Adults sexually attracted to and aroused by minor children. This is their self identifier. MAP.

This had to sink in. It wasn’t just one post, but several, in fact, many being shared by people far more alert (Thanks Ambien) than I am to developing news and trends.

Sitka Falardeau

MAP’s have been using social media under this self-identifier for some time, sprouting up and organizing mostly from the blogging site, Tumblr. Currently, there is a petition to have openly expressing MAPs removed from the site.

In one facebook post, a user shared a status of collected photos of the Men and Women who were proudly identifying as MAPs. This is where I learned that a sect of the MAP community also identify as NOMAPs– or, “Non-offending Minor Attracted Persons.” That’s their way of stating that they keep their hands to themselves despite their sexual desires directed at children. Support systems have popped up for MAPs and NOMAPs, seemingly established with the intent of intervening before they can harm an innocent child and there have even been writers who had come to their defense and claimed themselves as allies to the MAP community. They want you to believe it is a mental illness.

Mental illness never has a targeted victim. Mental illness is an affliction of the sufferer wherein we do ourselves great harm. Those will mental illness do not typically seek out specifically defenseless people to harm. Do not let these sympathizers equate mental illness with child rapists- or any violent act that robs a victim of agency. Child molesters actively and covertly plot and design their heinous acts of attack. That is cunning, not mentally ill.

What absolutely blew my mind is that they were sharing their photos and discussing their fears at “outing” themselves as if they were victims of social oppression or religiously motivated constructs of unprovoked fear and hatred. I was startled at how they postured themselves in much the same way the LGBT community had as we squared off with politics and religion to earn acknowledgement, equality and pride. I was overwhelmed by a sense of indescribable dread. Here’s why…

Since the burgeoning of my own self awareness and subsequently imposed shame regarding my gender as a result of seeing anti-LGBT evangelists and politicians behind their podiums using fear tactics to influence their audiences against me, I have lived in fear of this false equivalency. They would typically say things like; “This LGBT community is the downfall of civilized society, soon they’ll be adding a ‘P’ to include and protect child rapists and other atrocious acts like bestiality!”

I remember how scared I was that anyone would ever presume I was, or would advocate for those who victimized children and animals. Still, these influencers with platforms were forming the opinions of millions that I was no different than a pedophile or a person who was sexually drawn to animals. As a Trans woman, this is ongoing, as politicians have been declaring us a threat to their wives and daughters if we want to use a public bathroom. One propaganda film from the hate group Nation For Marriage used the act of implied pedophilia to promote anti-transgender legislation.

I’ve been warning Parents I know about the uprising of MAPs, so that they can both protect their children from predators and prepare themselves for the inevitable onslaught of comparisons that will be made to the LGBT community in November by conservatives looking to be elected and the evangelists lobbying for them.

Let’s simply make this clear now. It is embarrassing that we live in an era where I must differentiate these things.

Pedophilia is NOT a sexual preference. It is not a consensual act with a mutually informed adult. Children cannot consent. Pedophiles are child rapists, full stop.

There is no such thing as a MAP. Do not normalize or sanitize child predation by allowing them the dignity of identifying themselves as anything but a sexual threat to children. They are pedophiles. Child sex offenders. There is no pathway to acceptance by using confusing/deceiving identifiers or disarming the public perception by legitimizing their crimes.

There is no relationship at all between pedophilia and gender identity or sexual orientation. Pedophilia is not a sexual orientation, despite how anti-LGBT activists will push this misleading narrative until it fits their agenda. It is a sickness that manipulates and abuses power over vulnerable children and young people who don’t understand what is happening and causes them long-term emotional distress and psychological damage.

Watch how quickly anti-LGBT lobbyists and politicians forget that the biggest pedophilia scandal came right out of the Catholic church wherein thousands of young boys were groomed, not by gay men or transgender women, but by heterosexual religious leaders who they, and their families, trusted.

Here is the bottom line, folks. In the act of sex, there should never be a victim. There should never be engagement with an entity who cannot give- regardless of reason- permission or who inherently cannot understand via means of rationale or awareness the concepts or consequences of sexual activity.

Watching self-described MAP’s discuss the day they can be “Out of the closet” has been one of the most audacious and disturbing things I have ever seen- and I’ve seen a lot. Part of me reacted impulsively, with disgust and disbelief as I flipped through their photos- some of them young, some of them old. Men and women. They looked like typical college students and every day senior citizens you might see sitting on a park bench reading a book. That alarmed me the most. We have this mythology in our minds of what a child sexual predator looks like… it wasn’t any of these people. Then it occurred to me how comfortable they’ve gotten, clearly, in order to have the confidence to share their own photos with each other so casually fearing no judgement or persecution. Utterly enabled. Making their own representative flag.

Yet, LGBT people who harm no one are trying to thrive under this oppressive administration wherein we’re thrust constantly under the foot of moral and religious justice. We transwomen are being persecuted and declared dangerous to women and young girls while these individuals who actually prey upon children with sexual intent are developing active communities and supportive encouragement?

How long before someone declares me intolerant for rejecting criminal behavior or child rapists- active or inactive. How many times have we stood to fight hate and been told “Don’t fight hate with hate” as if defending ourselves against a bile-spewing opposition is the the same thing as inciting hatred toward innocent people. I won’t allow a gaslighting here. I won’t be told that defending marginalized or voiceless communities who stand under assault and terror is reverse-hate. Children have no voice against the pedophiles who place them in their crosshairs.

Showing no tolerance for those who intend to harm children is not hateful- if that is your reaction, you need to deprogram. Your concern shouldn’t be resting on predators; Your concern should be firmly on the children whom it is our duty to protect from them.

A shocking development recently came to my attention via an investigative journalist who shared with me some of her own discoveries. She states that most self described MAPs aren’t, in fact, MAPs at all, but members of a nefarious organization of trolls from the website 4Chan who have, in the past, created and distributed fake posters targeting Oregon Pride by advertising that the organizers of the annual event were suddenly inclusive of NAMBLA- a controversial group of male pedophiles that, in reality, the LGBT community patently rejects. The goal of creating such false and misleading advertisements was specifically to discredit, or call into question the alignment of LGBT Oregonians by deceiving the general public regarding its activities and intentions.

Fake Poster created by anti-LGBT members of 4Chan implying the inclusion of pedophiles at Oregon gay pride

There is no question that it is entirely plausible that MAPs- at least the ones campaigning for visibility and inclusion so vocally online- could be shill groups intent on targeting and damaging the reputations, calling into question the ethics, and creating diversions with the goal of derailing the progressive mission of the LGBT community by feigning inclusivity beneath our umbrella. That would of course, be an ingenious way to mold external perceptions of us, even of our most staunch supporters, by slipping deceptive, toxic propaganda into the mainstream and branding it with our “Pride” message.

body[data-twttr-rendered="true"] {background-color: transparent;}.twitter-tweet {margin: auto !important;}

@CandyArachnid very close to literally everything involving “MAPs” is a psyop

 — @Novoselician

function notifyResize(height) {height = height ? height : document.documentElement.offsetHeight; var resized = false; if (window.donkey && donkey.resize) {donkey.resize(height); resized = true;}if (parent && parent._resizeIframe) {var obj = {iframe: window.frameElement, height: height}; parent._resizeIframe(obj); resized = true;}if (window.location && window.location.hash === "#amp=1" && window.parent && window.parent.postMessage) {window.parent.postMessage({sentinel: "amp", type: "embed-size", height: height}, "*");}if (window.webkit && window.webkit.messageHandlers && window.webkit.messageHandlers.resize) {window.webkit.messageHandlers.resize.postMessage(height); resized = true;}return resized;}twttr.events.bind('rendered', function (event) {notifyResize();}); twttr.events.bind('resize', function (event) {notifyResize();});if (parent && parent._resizeIframe) {var maxWidth = parseInt(window.frameElement.getAttribute("width")); if ( 500 < maxWidth) {window.frameElement.setAttribute("width", "500");}}

body[data-twttr-rendered="true"] {background-color: transparent;}.twitter-tweet {margin: auto !important;}

hey yall stop spreading this MAP thing, screenshots from /p ol / have indicated it's a FUD campaign to encourage harassment/violence against trans people due to similar flag colors and fake accounts. sharing callout posts about it is helping that tactic work.

 — @MaxKriegerVG

function notifyResize(height) {height = height ? height : document.documentElement.offsetHeight; var resized = false; if (window.donkey && donkey.resize) {donkey.resize(height); resized = true;}if (parent && parent._resizeIframe) {var obj = {iframe: window.frameElement, height: height}; parent._resizeIframe(obj); resized = true;}if (window.location && window.location.hash === "#amp=1" && window.parent && window.parent.postMessage) {window.parent.postMessage({sentinel: "amp", type: "embed-size", height: height}, "*");}if (window.webkit && window.webkit.messageHandlers && window.webkit.messageHandlers.resize) {window.webkit.messageHandlers.resize.postMessage(height); resized = true;}return resized;}twttr.events.bind('rendered', function (event) {notifyResize();}); twttr.events.bind('resize', function (event) {notifyResize();});if (parent && parent._resizeIframe) {var maxWidth = parseInt(window.frameElement.getAttribute("width")); if ( 500 < maxWidth) {window.frameElement.setAttribute("width", "500");}}

Yes, it’s getting more and more challenging, as LGBT people, to filter what is real and what is not. Not only are we under a barrage of attacks daily from political activists, now there are shill organizations pretending to be supporters or members of the community who are intent on maligning us from the inside with the deliberate intention of, not just discrediting LGBT people and advocacy groups, but demonizing transgender people specifically by means of association with pedophiles.

In any case, be aware that MAPs are out there, some fake with an anti-LGBT political agenda, but some, unquestionably, very, very real. 1 in 5 girls and 1 in 20 boys is a victim of child sexual abuse. The best course of action for all of us is to continue unanimously rejecting it, because those who put children in danger do exist, whether “Out” or not… and that is a fact we cannot tread lightly on, but instead come down upon with a heavy fist.

Powered by WPeMatico

from WordPress https://ift.tt/2MMPaKE via IFTTT

[afterthineownheart-blog]

The Grafted Church: The Deity of Yeshua

This is a big one to tackle at the start. I’ve been following Lex for about a year and have a lot of respect for him as a teacher. We are all on our own journeys of faith, and he’s been very honest about that in a lot of his videos. If he comes across my response, I hope he will not take my words as a personal attack. I hope that instead my words are constructive and help along in his own walk.

Who do you say that I am?

I affirm with Peter, “You are the Messiah, the son of the living God.” I know you agree, but do you know what that means?

Note that unless I otherwise specify, I will be using the ESV translation of the Bible. I don’t believe it is necessarily the best translation out there, but it is probably the most popular in evangelical circles apart from the KJV, so I don’t want to be accused of cherry-picking.

Also, after posting this, I realized that all the fancy hyperlinks I added to every verse reference and a few external sources is gone in the published version, even though they’re here in the body when I edit it. I’ll try to fix that.

They’re losing faith in Yeshua. They’re saying he’s not God. Or maybe he’s not the Messiah. Or maybe the whole thing was fake and he didn’t even exist.

Starting your message with the logical fallacy of false equivocation is not a great way to begin. Maybe you are not aware, but the nature of God has been hotly contested for two thousand years. Thousands or millions of believers throughout that time have embraced Yeshua as the Messiah without claiming he is the Creator God. If you operate off this premise throughout your sermon, you will only betray your apparent ignorance of historical Christianity and even what the concept of “messiah” actually means.

Someone will say he’s not God, but he’s still the Messiah.

Oh good, I’m glad you admit this is an option. If you can’t tell, I haven’t listened to this all the way through yet, so everything I type is my initial reaction after hearing what you have to say.

If he’s just a man, then how did he save us?

That’s a great question, and I’m sure we’ll get into it in more detail later on in this video. But I’ll give a short explanation now. Yeshua didn’t save us. Yehovah, the God of Abraham, saved us. He did so through his servant, Yeshua. Yeshua is God’s chosen means of salvation, not the initiator of it.

Next you bring up the Muslims who claim that Yeshua was only a prophet. Well as I’m sure you know, the first explicit Messianic prophecy given to Israel was that of the Prophet who would be greater than Moses and speak directly on behalf of Yehovah (Deut. 18:15-19).

You bring up the tragedy that is Scott Shoob (without mentioning his name, though I feel no such reservations). Scott had problems even before rejecting the Besech. [1] He often called into question the authenticity of the writings of Paul, relying on human reasoning to deduce that Paul must have been compromised, rather than simply realizing his own intellect was insufficient to answer all the supposed objections. He made empirically falsifiable claims about the start of the year being based on the vernal equinox (which would make this upcoming Passover an entire month late). It was certainly a shock when I first heard about his rejection of Yeshua as the Messiah, but it makes perfect sense after reflecting on how shoddy his exposition of the Bible was even before coming out as an antimissionary.

I can hear the heartfelt concern in your voice, and I don’t doubt your sincerity. The point of this response is not to lambaste you for being factually wrong. That would prove nothing, and I would be the ultimate hypocrite because of how wrong I’ve been on various things throughout my life. We’re all still growing.

The reason why I want to respond is to call to attention the damage you may unintentionally be doing yourself. The Besech nowhere states that belief in the deity of Yeshua is necessary for eternal life. Trust me, I’ve looked. I knew this to be true long before ever seriously studying the Trinity doctrine, and it confused me a great deal back then to think that such a seemingly foundational issue would be held in such low regard by the Scriptures themselves. Since it is not a salvation issue, you by your teaching are playing into the hands of the Roman Catholic Church by reinforcing this “us versus them” mentality.

AND THE WORD WAS GOD – John 1:1-5,10,14

There are a number of unitarian interpretations of these verses which you likely haven’t examined. Of course I don’t want to assume anything, but you are running with the mainstream Christian translation of this passage without the slightest bit of scrutiny.

The fact is, capitalizing “Word” is an editorial choice influenced exclusively by translator bias. The same is true of the use of masculine pronouns, which was introduced with the King James Bible. There is nothing in the Greek text to warrant rendering the various pronouns here in the masculine gender, especially since logos is a neuter word.

Dustin Smith, a translator working on the Revised English Version, argues on his blog that John’s usage of logos is actually consistent with Jewish poetic personifications of Wisdom in both the Tanakh and Deuterocanonical literature, such as “Lady Wisdom” in the Book of Proverbs or the high priest Simon in the Wisdom of Jesus ben Sirach. This seems to be the most logical and straightforward understanding of John’s usage of logos. Yeshua repeatedly says throughout his ministry that he only speaks and does that which the Father instructs (cf. John 8:28). As the embodiment of God’s wisdom and instruction, he does nothing apart from the will of God. Furthermore, he is the culmination of all prophecy, as it is through him that God has deemed to bring about his kingdom on Earth.

Perhaps the greatest point of confusion in John’s prologue is 1:14, when he says, “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only [begotten] Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.” This verse is made complicated by the capital w in “Word.” As I said, this is merely evidence of a Trinitarian bias in translation. God’s word—his thoughts, plans, reason—was embodied in this one man, Yeshua. It does not imply a pre-existent entity called the logos (which would be, at best, a second god). Now in the Aramaic Targumim, Yehovah’s word is often personified and revealed to be a stand-in for Yehovah himself. This had me captivated for a time as I wrestled with this issue of the nature of Yeshua, but I ultimately abandoned the notion thanks to Hebrews 1:1-2. If Yeshua in any form were present in the Tanakh, it would be fallacious to claim that only in these latter days that God chose to speak to us through his son.

Yeshua being the personified word of God does not make him God. I suggest the REV’s translation of John 1:1-5 to be closer to the intended meaning John desired. “In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and what God was, the word was. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made through it, and without it was not anything made that has been made. In it was life and the life was the light of mankind. And the light shines in the darkness and the darkness did not overcome it.”

Immanuel… GOD WITH US. – Matthew 1:18,21-23

I shouldn’t have to point out that theophoric names do not imply the bearer of such name is God in the flesh. As an example, the name Tobias (Heb: Toviyah) means “Goodness of Yehovah.” Are we to assume that individuals with this name were God himself, or the embodiment of his goodness? No, theophoric names are nothing more or less than a statement about God. Note that Hebrew does not employ being verbs. So Immanuel could just as well be translated to mean “God is with us.” In this sense, it is not saying that Yeshua is God, but that God is with his people through his servant Yeshua. In Genesis 21:22, we see Abimelech pronounce that God is with Abraham. Does this mean that Abraham was God incarnate? Or that he was in the presence of a human God? No, it means nothing more or less than that the Spirit of God is with the person. (If it is relevant later on, I will elaborate on the Spirit of God, since it is another element of the Scriptures horribly abused by Trinitarianism.)

MIGHTY GOD EVERLASTING FATHER – Isaiah 9:6

I hope you will provide some commentary later on. To make this a statement of the deity of Yeshua, you would have to embrace Modalism. Otherwise, calling Yeshua the “Everlasting Father” refutes the idea that he is the son of God.

I do not take the stance of the antimissionaries who claim this is only referring to Hezekiah. It probably was referring to him in a limited sense, but as with most prophecies in the Bible, it has a greater meaning in reference to the Messiah. But calling him El Gadol is not necessarily an assertion of deity. Please see the REV’s commentary on this verse.

IMAGE OF THE INVISIBLE GOD, BY HIM ALL THINGS WERE CREATED, ALL THE FULLNESS OF THE GODHEAD BODILY – Colossians 1:15-19, 2:9

This passage was the first one that I really struggled over. I don’t believe it is necessary to interpret it in a Trinitarian fashion—or in any way that necessitates making Yeshua in any way a god or the God. Let’s crack open this passage and actually examine what it says, instead of just take a few phrases and assume they speak for themselves apart from any interpretation.

He is the image of the invisible God,

We are told several places throughout the Bible that God is invisible. Verses such as 1 Timothy 1:17 and Hebrews 11:27 show that God cannot be seen. John 4:24 says that God is a spirit. Exodus 33:20 says that no one can see God’s face and live. So if Yeshua is God, then how could those in his life see him and live?

There’s another element to this that clears up any confusion with this phrase.

Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. – Genesis 1:26-27

As you can see, being the image of God does not mean that one is God. All of mankind was meant to be the image of Yehovah, but due to sin, we are at best a disgracefully marred and broken form of that image. Yeshua, the only man completely without sin (Hebrews 4:15), is the perfect image and likeness of God that he intended for Adam from the beginning.

the firstborn of all creation.

I know the Trinitarian arguments that this refers to Yeshua’s status in creation, not his literal origin. And I can see that argument to some degree. Yet there are other ways of stating that that do not imply that he had a beginning if Paul were not trying to imply that Yeshua, in fact, had a beginning. Being firstborn is something more profound than simply being preeminent or superior to all creation.

As Paul says in verse 18, Yeshua is the firstborn of the dead. I think that is how we must understand his earlier statement. While it is not expressly stated here, I believe this is speaking of the new creation that began in the Messiah’s resurrection. Hebrews 1:1-2:5 ascribes creation language to Yeshua, but in the final verse, the author specifies that he’s speaking of the new creation. While I don’t think Paul wrote the Book of Hebrews, the idea is still there. Since Scripture interprets Scripture, if one passage claims that Yeshua is involved in the creation of the world to come, then it stands to reason that that is the intended meaning of another passage that doesn’t explicitly state it. Of course, that isn’t a rule, but I am merely offering another interpretation.

For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.

Here Paul clarifies what he means by “all things”: “whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities”. I have heard many interpret these things as references to angelic or demonic powers, but does that make sense? It’s possible that’s at least part of what Paul intends, since he says “visible and invisible”, but I don’t think that covers everything.

Paul tells Timothy that we will reign with the Messiah if we endure (2 Timothy 2:12). Yeshua himself said that the faithful servant will be placed in a position of authority (Matthew 24:45-47). He revealed through John on Patmos that those saints who conquer and keep his works (the Torah) until the end will rule with rods of iron (Revelation 2:26-27). And the saints will judge the world (1 Corinthians 6:2-3). So perhaps these “thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities” are referring to the various positions of authority delivered through the saints in his future kingdom. In that case, this truly would be speaking in terms of the new creation.

Also, it must be pointed out that if Yeshua is the firstborn of all creation, he cannot also be the Creator.

And he is before all things,

Self-explanatory, and I doubt we would have any debate over this phrase.

and in him all things hold together.

I used to think that Paul was talking about the nuclear forces holding together the elements. As an ardent young-earth creationist, I held this verse up as proof that Jesus was the glue that held all the universe together. But that makes absolutely no sense in the context of what Paul is saying.

Let’s jump back two verses from where you started to quote. “He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins” (1:13-14). First, the “he” of this verse is Yehovah, God the Father. The agent through which he delivers us and transfers us is his son, Yeshua. Yeshua didn’t do this on his own (John 5:30); rather, he was the means by which God did this. But with the context of verses 13 and 14 in mind, we see that everything Paul says in 15-19 is referring to “the kingdom of his beloved Son.”

And he is the head of the body, the church.

Nothing to dispute here, although I have a major pet peeve with the word “church”. This is beside any point of your video, but it is a dirty habit I am trying to break, because it implies that there is some sort of inherent difference between Israel and the assembly of God.

He is the beginning,

Understood in terms of the new creation, this statement makes complete sense.

the firstborn from the dead,

Perfectly clear.

that in everything he might be preeminent.

This statement would be easy to gloss over, but let’s take a look at it for a moment. It is contingent upon the previous phrase, “firstborn from the dead”. In order to be preeminent over everything, he must first be the firstborn from the dead. The understanding I take from this verse is that his preeminence is something yet to happen, and something that is necessarily predicated by his resurrection from the dead.

For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell,

If the “fullness of God” was pleased to dwell in him, then he himself is not God. God doesn’t dwell within himself. He isn’t pleased to inhabit himself. That kind of language is just silly. No, God indwells those whom he chooses among those who walk in covenant with him. His spirit indwelt various people throughout the Tanakh, and in the Besech we see the same thing happening—first with Yeshua, and then with all believers (1 Corinthians 6:19-20).

and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.

Let me ask you, if Yeshua were God, then how could it be right to say, “For in Yeshua all the fullness of Yeshua was pleased to dwell, and through Yeshua to reconcile to Yeshua all things”? Now I get that Trinitarians have ridiculously detailed rules over when “God” means the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit, or any combination thereof. But with a straightforward reading of the text, if Yeshua were God, then how could Paul say that he chose to reconcile to himself all things through himself—all the while using language that strongly implies two separate individuals? Surely you can see the illogicality of it.

For in him the fullness of deity dwells bodily,

I think I have already answered this point sufficiently a few paragraphs up. But let’s take a look at the previous verse: “See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ” (2:8) This is the epitome of Trinitarianism. It is nothing but Greek philosophy. The origins of Trinitarianism and the deity of Jesus come from the pagan Greek concepts of the Logos and the Demiurge. I would betray my ignorance of Greek philosophy to try to explain these concepts, but it is not hard to guess that Yeshua was likened to the Logos based on John’s rather unfortunate usage of that word to describe a patently Jewish concept that he wished to convey, so Yehovah was considered the Demiurge. It needs not be stated that using Greek philosophy to understand the God of Israel is fallacious.

Likewise, the Trinity qualifies as human tradition more than just about any doctrine taught by Christianity today. It has a bloody history and was reinforced through sometimes brutal means. It also cannot be explained or comprehended—by design—with theologians claiming it is some ineffable mystery too lofty for our finite minds to grasp. I’m fine with Yehovah being infinite and far beyond my ability to understand, but to claim that he is a logical contradiction is a bold claim indeed.

Regarding your verses from Colossians, I think I have made my point clear. While that passage can be interpreted to support your viewpoint, it certainly doesn’t have to be understood in that way.

GOD WAS MANIFESTED IN THE FLESH – 1 Timothy 3:16

What translation are you using, Lex? My ESV says that “he” was manifested in the flesh, not “God”. Because of the discrepancy, I turned to my faithful friend, BibleHub.com. Comparing parallel translations, it appears that we’re dealing with a textual variant. That’s shaky ground for a doctrinal position as groundbreaking as declaring Yeshua to be God. When I took a look at the Greek (in which I can’t even call myself a novice), I found something intriguing. Let’s take a look.

kai homologoumenōs mega estin to tēs eusebeias mystērion hos ephanerōthē en sarki edikaiōthē en  pneumati ōphthē angelois ekērychthē en ethnesin episteuthē en kosmō anelēmphthē en doxē

and admittedly great is the mystery [of] the holiness which was revealed in flesh, was justified in [the] spirit, was seen by messengers, was proclaimed in [the] nations, was believed on in [the] world, was raised up in honor

That is my rudimentary translation, but it seems to be valid per Strong’s. God’s holiness was revealed in human flesh in the man Yeshua. He was justified in the spirit (probably referring to his mikveh), etc. To say that God’s holiness was revealed in the flesh is not the same as saying that God became flesh. And furthermore, it seems quite problematic to say that God was justified in the spirit! In what sense does God need to be justified?

OUR GREAT GOD AND SAVIOR YESHUA – Titus 2:11-14

This is another controversial verse that comes down to a dispute over the English rendering. I think the King James Version actually does a better job of 2:13 in this instance. “Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.” I won’t go into detail here, but there is a principle in Greek interpretation called the Granville Sharp Rule.

When the copulative kai connects two nouns of the same case, if the article ho, or any of its cases, precedes the first of the said nouns or participles, and is not repeated before the second noun or participle, the latter always relates to the same person that is expressed or described by the first noun or participle… (Source)

This rule is hotly contended by Greek scholars, since grammar can only be descriptive, not prescriptive. In other words, his statement is true if that’s what the author intended, but false if that is not the intention of the author. In this case, the KJV translators did not believe the possessive “our” meant to imply that Yeshua is both our great God and Savior, but that it should be thought of “our great God and our Savior Yeshua the Messiah”. In this case, we cannot be certain either way, but the interpretation is a matter of translator interpretation. While it could be calling Yeshua the great God, that is by no means the only way to understand this phrase, thus making it a paltry support for his unquestionable status as the Creator.

Let me ask you, did the Father give himself for us? or only the Son? Because unless you are a Modalist or a polytheist, then you cannot logically interpret this verse the way you did without claiming that the Father gave himself for us. “Our God”, I’m sure you would argue, is the Trinity. When Paul refers to “our God and Savior”, he doesn’t qualify by saying “God the Son”, or anything to that effect. So unless you’re willing to commit serious eisegesis, you must admit that this verse says that all the Godhead gave itself up for us.

GOD… PURCHASED WITH HIS OWN BLOOD – Acts 20:28

Whether it be from the lateness of the hour or the amount of time I’ve spent working on my reply this evening, I’ve decided to take the easy road on this one and refer to biblicalunitarian.com’s article on this verse. I’ve done my best up to this point to answer all of these Trinitarian claims on my own, but my rudimentary comprehension of Greek failed me at this point. Hopefully you will find their answer quite satisfactory.

AT THE NAME OF YESHUA EVERY KNEE SHOULD BOW – Philippians 2:6-11

I’m so glad I got to this verse before calling it quits tonight. This has become one of my favorite verses of late precisely because of its unitarian theology. As I addressed earlier in the passage from Colossians, being in the image (or in this case, form) of God does not equal being God himself. Adam was created in the image and likeness of God, but he grasped at the perceived equality that would come from knowing good and evil (Genesis 3:5). Therefore Yehovah humbled him, cursing him with death.

Then Yeshua comes along. Like Adam, he is the form and image of Yehovah. Like Adam, he has the choice of either submitting to God or grasping at perceived equality. But unlike Adam, he emptied himself of his pride and took on the form of a servant, since he was born in the likeness of men. Adam was created in the likeness of God, but Yeshua was born in the likeness of Adam—the fallen man. Adam could have been immortal and lived forever with Yehovah, but he chose to grasp at equality with God, so he was humbled. Yeshua was born in humility and chose to serve, so he was exalted and given immortality.

And because of Yeshua’s humility and obedience to the Father, Yehovah exalted him and gave him the name above every name. I do believe that this is referring to the name Yehovah. I believe that Yeshua, for all intents and purposes, is Yehovah in a representational sense. God created Adam to rule over creation in his name, and now Yeshua, the second Adam, rules over creation in his name. That does not make Yeshua the Creator himself, but he occupies the highest position in the universe apart from God himself.

There really is no way to read this passage in a Trinitarian sense. How does God the Son (a phrase found nowhere in Scripture) empty himself of his own nature while still being God in order to be glorified and given the name of Yehovah? That implies that he never possessed the name before that time. It’s a logically untenable position.

In Daniel 7:9-14, the prophet sees a vision of Yehovah seated on his throne. Then he sees a son of Adam who is given “dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed.” This was God’s plan from the beginning—to turn over the rulership of his creation to human beings. Yeshua is the tangible means by which he is accomplishing this. Yeshua cannot be God for his plan to succeed, because it means nothing for God to give his authority to himself. Genesis 1:26 is God’s plan for the creation, and Daniel 7:13-14 is how he will accomplish it. Yeshua is that son of Adam described by Daniel, and God will bring all these things to pass through him when he comes in glory.

HONOR THE SON JUST AS THEY HONOR THE FATHER – John 5:23

There is nothing Trinitarian about this verse unless you read it with the loaded presupposition that “the son” is “God the Son”. We should honor the son of God in the same way that we honor God himself, for all the reasons I just finished saying in my response to Philippians 2.

THE EXPRESS IMAGE OF HIS PERSON – Hebrews 1:1-4

***SIGH*** Being the image of God is not the same as being God. Also, when you read this passage, you ought to read it in connection with Matthew 21:33-44. The author of this letter is essentially explaining this parable. In the parable, there is a clear and unambiguous distinction between the master of the house and his son—just as the words “father” and “son” imply in non-Trinitarian English. Anyway, the author of the letter to the Hebrews is trying to argue that Yeshua was not an angel—not that he was God. If Yeshua were God, the author could’ve simply stated that and moved on. There would be no need to describe how God has magnified Yeshua above the angels.

MESSIAH… THE ETERNALLY BLESSED GOD – Romans 9:5

I said up-front that I am using the ESV in order to not appear to cherry-pick translations. I pointed out a couple of instances where another translation, such as the REV or KJV, renders a verse more clearly (in my opinion) than the ESV. But you, Les, have not been so honest. It would’ve behooved you to share with your congregation several variant readings on this verse. In this case, the majority of the most common translations render this verse to the effect of, “Christ… who is over all, God blessed for ever” (English Revised Version). While I suppose this isn’t conclusive, it is once again a case of a complicated Greek phrase being used to support the most important doctrine in Catholicism—under whose theological domain you fall due to your belief in their god.

Everything I just read comes straight out of the Bible. Everything I just read is Scripture.

That’s true. But the interpretive biases that I’ve spent hours over several days elaborating upon to this point (less than 10 minutes into your sermon) are purely the product of human tradition. The Pharisees invented encyclopedias worth of human tradition to add to or replace God’s word. Don’t be a Pharisee.

It’s not commentary, it’s not opinion, it’s Scripture.

It is very much opinion. Just because you apparently haven’t actually examined the issue critically yet doesn’t mean it isn’t your opinion. You haven’t been exposed to any other explanation of those verses (even ones that fit much better than the ones you’re teaching), so you think your words are fact when they are merely someone’s interpretive spin. And yes, I’ll concede that my views are also opinion. An opinion can be objectively right or wrong based on how it handles all the evidence on the table. I spent my entire life as a Trinitarian until this past year, so I’m not ill-informed of your position. But apart from a few verses that are a little complicated to understand, I am now convinced that there is no evidence for the Trinity in the Bible and very little evidence for the preexistence of Yeshua.

The writers of the New Testament believed Yeshua is God in the flesh.

Prove it. You have yet to provide a verse that says without ambiguity, “Yeshua is Yehovah the Creator who turned himself into a man.” You can’t provide such a verse because there is none. Yeshua is the image of God, but he is not God himself.

At this point, you started to go more in depth into Colossians 1:15-19. But prior to that, you went into some of the Church history concerning the issue of the deity of Yeshua. Now why do you think it took over 200 years for people to start fretting over “what to do” with Yeshua? Could it be that Greek paganism and philosophy had so infiltrated the Gentile Church that they lost all grasp with what the Scriptures actually said?

Why didn’t the apostles fret over this? Why did Peter use such deceptively unitarian language in places such as Acts 2:22-24, where he described Yeshua as “a man approved by God”? If Yeshua were God, this is practically blasphemy! Peter confessed that “God raised him up.” There is a clear distinction between God and “him”, that is, Yeshua. And lest we neglect the middle verse, Yeshua was “delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God.” If Yeshua were God, why wouldn’t Peter simply say, “he was delivered up according to his own definite plan and foreknowledge”?

You say that Yeshua is “God in the flesh, dwelling as a man.” How does that jive with places like Numbers 23:19, “God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind”? Or 1 Samuel 15:29, “And also the Glory of Israel will not lie or have regret, for he is not a man, that he should have regret”? Or Hosea 11:9, “I am God and not a man”? In other words, we could say that God != Man and Man != God.

Why don’t you want to get in and rehash all their arguments, Lex? Is it because you know they argued over pathetically minute points of doctrine that can only be extrapolated from Scripture by running it through a meat grinder with a grating as thin as a human hair? Is it because they argued over a span of many decades, often involving violence and excommunication for all those who held minority opinions? This grotesque history is the foundation of the Trinity. Imagine if Yeshua had preached the Gospel of the Kingdom in this manner! He’d be no better than Muhammad!! But that’s the legacy of the Trinity.

You’ve brought up the Apostle’s Creed a few times, but there is nothing in that creed that couldn’t be said by a unitarian.

I believe in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth:

And in Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, our Lord:

Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary:

Suffered under Pontius Pilate; was crucified, dead and buried: He descended into hell:

The third day he rose again from the dead:

He ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty:

From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead:

I believe in the Holy Ghost:

I believe in the holy catholic church: the communion of saints:

The forgiveness of sins:

The resurrection of the body:

And the life everlasting. Amen.

I take a few minor issues with it, but by and large it is a good creed. My objections of it would be more about what it doesn’t say than what it does.

You also keep saying that you don’t care about all of that, and you just want to go back to what the Bible says. I hope the hours I spent responding to each verse you splashed on the screen in the first nine minutes shows that the Bible doesn’t necessarily mean what you think it means. Despite your insistence on ignoring the councils and being sola Scriptura, you still rely heavily on the way the councils interpreted the Bible.

I’ve been there. I’ve been there for most of my life. Like I said, I’ve only been examining this stuff for about a year, maybe a little less. If I come across as arrogant or cocky, please forgive me. It’s hard for me to judge my perceived tone while I’m in the middle of writing something. My intention is not to ridicule or belittle you, but to hopefully lead you to open your eyes and really examine these matters for yourself. If the Trinity is a doctrine you are unwilling to test against Scripture, then you’ve identified your golden calf.

At this point, you jump over to Isaiah 43:3,10-11. I’m glad you didn’t go into Colossians 1 again because I spent so much time on that earlier in your video. You make a point of stressing that Yehovah alone is the Savior (which is classic Tovia Singer, by the way). But you jump from that to the line about the servant, which you try to tie to Yeshua becoming a servant in Philippians 2:6-11. There is no connection here. You are cherry-picking verses like there’s no mañana.

Let’s look at the context of the servant in Isaiah 43, which is explained in verses 8-13.

Bring out the people who are blind, yet have eyes, who are deaf, yet have ears! All the nations gather together, and the peoples assemble. Who among them can declare this, and show us the former things? Let them bring their witnesses to prove them right, and let them hear and say, It is true. “You are my witnesses,” declares Yehovah, “and my servant whom I have chosen, that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me. I, I am Yehovah, and besides me there is no savior. I declared and saved and proclaimed, when there was no strange god among you; and you are my witnesses,” declares Yehovah, “and I am God. Also henceforth I am he; there is none who can deliver from my hand; I work, and who can turn it back?”

Do you see what this passage is saying?? The “servant” whom Yehovah addresses are the “people who are blind, yet have eyes, who are deaf, yet have ears!” YOU ARE EQUATING YESHUA WITH THOSE WHO ARE BLIND AND DEAF!!! I hope you can see the EGREGIOUS ERROR in what you are saying. I wasn’t fired up until I took a few seconds to read the verses surrounding the ones you picked for your doctrine and realized the implications of what you’re saying. If you believe Yeshua is God, then using this verse to prove it is BLASPHEMY to the nth degree, since this verse calls the servant blind and deaf.

There are other people who are called God’s servants in the Bible, such as Isaiah (Isaiah 20:3), Eliakim (ibid. 22:20), David (ibid. 37:35), Jacob/Israel (ibid. 41:8), and the Messiah (ibid. 42:1)—and that’s just from one book. Regarding that last verse, it is clearly Messianic, and yet let’s examine it for a moment. “Behold my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen, in whom my soul delights; I have put my Spirit upon him; he will bring forth justice to the nations.” Why must God put God’s Spirit into God? Why, if Yeshua is God, would he need his own God’s Spirit? (Yes, the Father is Yeshua’s God; John 20:17.)

If you want to build some sort of flimsy connection between the Messianic servant and Philippians 2, you could’ve picked from a number of actual Messianic prophecies that refer to Yeshua, not the blind and deaf people of the world. I’m baffled as to why you chose the verse you did, but I hope it will give you cause to reexamine this entire false doctrine.

I started putting breakers in the text because this start-and-stop method of responding is difficult to track. I spent five paragraphs addressing something you said in the span of maybe a minute, so I want illustrate when I break from my response and move back to the next thing you have to say. As it stands, I’m at 13:56… out of 42:34. This is going to be fun.

So back in Isaiah 43, you quite incorrectly claim that the servant here is referring to Yeshua, and then you err even more by saying that “I am he” means “I am the servant”. That is not what this verse is saying at all. The phrase “I am he” is a reiteration of several other “I am ____” statements in this chapter.

I am Yehovah your God, the Holy One of Israel, your Savior (3)

I, I am Yehovah (11)

I am God. And henceforth I am he (12-13)

I am Yehovah, your Holy One, the Creator of Israel, your King (15)

I, I am he who blots out your transgressions for my own sake, and I will not remember your sins (25)

It sounds a lot like God is trying to assert his unity here. Tell me, when did Yeshua ever say, “I am Yehovah, your Holy One, the Creator of Israel, your King”? THAT would be an indisputable statement, and this discussion would be over.

You bring up that antimissionaries make the claim that verses 3 and 11 invalidates Yeshua as our savior. That is such a foolish claim on their part that I’m embarrassed they even say it. God used humans all the time to be his deliverers, Moses being the most obvious example. If God appoints a man to be the means of salvation, then God is still the Savior alone, even though his means of salvation was a man. Who saved Israel from Egypt? Moses or God? That’s a trick question, because the answer is both. But Moses wouldn’t have done it (or been successful) without God’s hand throughout the entire process. God was the Savior, and Moses was his servant.

Likewise, when a man whose very name is Salvation (yeshuah) is specially created by God for the purpose of saving the rest of humanity from their sins, we can rightly say that Yeshua saved us AND Yehovah is the only Savior. Might I remind you that Yeshua stated several times his utmost dependence upon God for all things (John 5:30). That sounds like something a servant might say regarding his Master. Hmmm… Moving on.

They have some pretty convincing arguments. And if you don’t know that Yeshua’s God, and you don’t believe that he’s God, you’re gonna be like, “Oh, man, I guess you’re right. There’s no Savior but God, and if Yeshua’s not God, then I guess there’s no Savior—I guess Yeshua’s not our Savior.

You are putty in the antimissionaries’ hands. They present a ridiculous argument that is an insult to the Tanakh, but YOU accept it at face value and assume the only answer is to call a man God.

You continue on to elaborate upon this false premise and say that if we deny Yeshua’s deity, we’ll eventually give him up as Messiah. As I think I said earlier, that is an insult to the thousands or millions of unitarian Christians over the past two millennia. This line of reasoning is nothing more than a scare tactic to keep your flock from being Bereans with this holy grail of false doctrines.

They don’t have a solid foundation on who Yeshua is.

I’d love to see you actually study the writings of unitarian Christians who have a very high Christology. In fact, unitarianism has a much higher Christology than Trinitarians. Let me explain.

Unitarian Christology says that God took a man and gave him his Spirit, so that this man was able to obey his Torah perfectly, despite the daily temptations that are common to man. Through this one man who was 100% sold out for God, Yehovah was able to accomplish what seemed impossible—he broke the curse of sin and death, so that anyone who has faith in the life, death, and resurrection of Yeshua can be restored to newness of life and the hope of the resurrection.

If Yeshua were God, his obedience would be utterly worthless. God can’t sin, or even be tempted to sin. So “God the Son” wasn’t tempted in anything whatsoever. And even if he were tempted, Trinitarian theologians debate whether he could’ve actually sinned even if he wanted to! Either James or Hebrews is wrong, according to Trinitarianism.

Next you recite John 1:1,14. I’m not going to rehash all of what I wrote above, but I’ll respond to any new points you bring up.

But let me ask you a question concerning these verses. Did Yeshua preexist as himself or as the Word? What does it mean to be “the Word”? Is that just a cool nickname like Jesus “The Word” Christ? The YouTube sidebar tells me that I should listen to your sermon “Who is [sic] The [sic] Word of the LORD” next, but I’m going to pass on that. This response has taken way too long as it is, and I have a few other sermons from other pastors lined up that I’d like to critique.

If you can quote John 1:1 in Greek, then surely you’ve mulled over the question of what John actually means in this verse, right?

en archē ēn ho logos kai ho logos ēn pros ton theon kai theos ēn ho logos

in beginning was the word and the word was with the god and god was the word

I can certainly sympathize with the Jehovah’s Witnesses for thinking that last phrase means “a god was the word”, since there is no definite article on “theos”. However, as I said before, I think the Revised English Version gets this verse right. They say that because both “theos” and “ho logos” are in the nominative case, that this phrase is actually comparing “theos” and “ho logos”, hence, “What God was, the word was.” This makes perfect sense, since God’s word is his self-expression. And since God is not a man, that he should lie, his word effectively is him. So when he puts his word into a man (Deuteronomy 18:18), that man effectively becomes God to the world. (”If you’ve seen me, you’ve seen the Father”; John 14:9). Note that I am not saying that Yeshua is God, but that Yeshua is so much a chip off the ole block that he can perfectly represent God—just as Adam was created to do.

Do we really comprehend what [this verse] is saying?

Not if we interpret it through Trinitarianism… sorry, that was a cheap shot.

You claim that this verse says that Yeshua is God. But it does not say that. It says (according to Trinitarians) that the word was God. There is a difference. You are reading into the text that Yeshua is a one-to-one replacement with “the word”. If that were John’s intent, he would’ve just said, “In the beginning was Yeshua, and Yeshua was with God, and Yeshua was God.” No ambiguity there. But John uses language that, like I said earlier, evokes Jewish poetic imagery of God’s wisdom being “with him” from the beginning (Proverbs 8:22). Should Lady Wisdom be considered the fourth Person of the Quadrinity? Why not? She was definitely there in the beginning alongside God the Father, God the Word/Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Why not have God the Wisdom as well?

He’s not just a man sent by God.

Um… yes he is (Acts 3:26). But let’s drop the “just a man” business. Yeshua isn’t “just a man”; he’s the man whom God chose to save humanity. He’s the second Adam who was uniquely capable of achieving what his ancestor and ours miserably failed to do. He’s the son of God by virtue of the virgin birth (Luke 1:35). There is no greater man than Yeshua. Nobody else even comes close—not even Abraham or Moses or David.

Did you know that, at the end of the Millennial Kingdom, Yeshua will hand over all his authority and dominion back to Yehovah (1 Corinthians 15:28)? Why would God need to surrender his kingdom back to God?

Like I said, I’m not going to rewrite everything I already said as you go through these verses again. If I jump ahead several minutes, I’m only skipping over information you (and I) already covered (and responded to).

If Yeshua walked in the room, would you bow down and worship him?

Amen, without hesitation. He is my Salvation, and we are told to “kiss the son” (Psalm 2:12) and “honor the son” (John 5:22-23). In fact, if we fail to honor Yeshua, we are actually refusing to honor Yehovah, since Yeshua is the man God chose to accomplish his plans.

God’s plan for creation from the get-go was to have humans rule over his creation on his behalf. Even though every man has failed that mission because we are all born in sin, one man accomplished that in the full power of God.

You bring up the “wise men” who came from the East to worship him. These were probably Jewish or Zoroastrian astronomers from Babylon who knew of Balaam’s and Daniel’s prophecies which pointed to a star (Numbers 24:17) and gave the approximate timing of his birth (Daniel 9:24-26). Neither of these prophecies say anything about Yehovah becoming a man. Balaam’s prophecy actually speaks about a king coming out of Jacob being heralded by a star, and this king will crush the enemies of Israel.

I can’t remember where I read this, but somewhere I came across the speculation that the gifts they brought actually came from Daniel himself. After all, he’d lived through seventy years in captivity as one of the most influential people in two empires, yet he was a eunuch. So the idea is that he set aside all his wealth to present to the Messiah. It’s likely that Daniel was quite familiar with the rest of the Scriptures that were written at that time, given how much he fretted over Jeremiah’s words (Daniel 9:2). But other than Isaiah 43 (haha), where in the Tanakh does it say that Yehovah himself will be the Messiah? I’ll further qualify that by restricting you to only texts written before Daniel’s time, but I don’t think it matters, because no explicit statement to that effect exists.

Matthew 14:33

I apologize that my use of headers and page breaks is really inconsistent. I don’t plan on editing this after I’m finished (although I have made a couple of tweaks here and there), so the headers and page breaks won’t be getting any better. Not that I have any delusions that you’ll actually read this. I mean I really hope you do, but I’m just a random blog on tumblr. It may surprise you that we’re friends on Facebook, and I’ve interacted with you a few times. But currently my account is deactivated, so you won’t be able to figure out who I am from that.

So you bring up this verse where the disciples worshiped Yeshua. That’s true, and there’s nothing wrong with that, but it doesn’t make him God.

Note that they call him the son of God, not God. There is a difference. No one would call me Roger; I am the son of Roger. And if my dad were the King of kings, and he sent me as his delegate into a foreign land you’d better believe the natives of that land would be right in honoring me as if I were my dad.

I won’t go into a lot of examples, but did you know that the expression “to bow down” is synonymous with “to worship”? I don’t know if that’s true 100% of the time, but if you see the words “bow down”, it is probably the same word in Hebrew or Greek as “worship”. See for yourself if bowing down always connotes religious worship.

Matthew 28:16-20

Yes, they worshiped him. That doesn’t make him God.

I love how you repeated verse 18 in such a weighty manner, stressing “all authority”. BUT DID YOU READ THE SECOND HALF OF YESHUA’S STATEMENT???

All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.

Who, pray tell, has more authority than God himself in order to be able to give God “all authority in heaven and on earth”? This verse alone ought to be enough to disprove any inkling that Yeshua is the Creator God.

Are you grasping the power of this statement?

Yes, Lex, I am. Are you? I think it’s lost on you. If you really understood it, you would realize the incomprehensible miracle that God has given all authority in heaven and on earth to a man. THAT is amazing! I can hardly come up with words to describe how amazing that is. (Of course, that might be due to the fact that I’ve been working on this for at least three hours tonight.)

I’m very surprised you didn’t mention anything about “the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit”. I am prepared to argue against that rendition of verse 19, although I won’t get into it if you don’t.

However, you do bring up times when people bowed down before angels and were rejected. That doesn’t automatically make Yeshua God. Those angels were deflecting honor from themselves and onto God, but the Bible at least twice tells us to honor Yeshua in the same way that we honor the Father. I’ve already cited those verses earlier.

Fun Fact: Did you know that Solomon sat on God’s throne? “Then Solomon sat on the throne of Yehovah as king in place of David his father” (1 Chronicles 29:23). It only matters to the extent that every time someone bowed down to him, they were worshiping Yehovah. The same is true when we bow down before Yeshua. Worshiping Yeshua is worshiping God, because Yeshua is the Anointed One whom God has chosen to rule and reign in his place.

I really want to get to the halfway marker (21:17) before calling it quits tonight…

Hebrews 1:5-8

I knew this chapter would come up at some point. I had to skim back through my draft to make sure I hadn’t covered it already. Let’s break it down verse by verse.

For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son, today I have begotten you”?

I know the word “to beget” is pretty archaic, but do you know what it means? It means “to give birth”, by implication, “to cause to come into being”. If a man begets a son, he causes his son to come into being in his wife’s womb.

And I know Trinitarians are divided over the idea of “eternally begetting”—that is, is Yeshua the “eternally begotten son”, or did he become God the Son when he previously existed as “the Word”? But what does the word “today” mean to you? Does it mean anything at all? Or is it just there to confound the otherwise clear statement that the one whom God begat just so happens to also be God. God begat God. That’s nonsense.

Or again, “I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son”?

Two things.

It is ridiculous to think of God in Father/Son terms while citing this sentence. Read it clearly: “I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son.” If Yeshua is “God the Son”, then why this future-tense, prophetic language?

This prophecy was originally spoken to David of Solomon (2 Samuel 7:14). Solomon is portrayed as a foreshadowing of the Messiah. This prophecy is about a man, not God the Son.

And again, when he brings the firstborn into the world, he says, “Let all God's angels worship him.”

Of the angels he says, “He makes his angels winds, and his ministers a flame of fire.”

No disputes here in your interpretation of these verses. Yehovah made Yeshua greater than the angels, so they ought to worship him, as we see them do many times in Revelation.

But of the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.”

Given how, up to this point, Hebrews 1 is decidedly not saying that Yeshua is God, we can apply the principle of “Scripture interprets Scripture” to explain this. There are two equally valid, non-Trinitarian explanations to this verse.

God is legitimately calling Yeshua God in this instance, since Yeshua will be ruling on behalf of God. Just as Moses was God to Pharaoh (Exodus 7:1), Yeshua is God to us—although he is not the Creator. He only serves in that role and function as the intermediary between Yehovah and man. Or…

This verse could be translated incorrectly, both here and in Psalm 45:6.

In the psalm, the sentence reads, “kis-’ă-ḵā ’ĕ-lō-hîm ‘ō-w-lām vā-‘eḏ šê-ḇeṭ mî-šōr šê-ḇeṭ mal-ḵū-ṯe-ḵā”. That could legitimately be translated to say, “Your throne is God to the ages and ages, a scepter of righteousness, a scepter of royalty.” BibleHub actually says that all eight of these words are nouns. That is an impossible construct in English, but apparently it’s perfectly good grammar in Hebrew. Since every word here is a noun, there is a lot of flexibility in interpretation regarding how these nouns fit together.

As for the Greek, we have, “ho thronos sou ho theos eis ton aiōna tou aiōnos kai hē rhabdos tēs euthytētos rhabdos tēs basileias sou”. That could legitimately be translated to say, “The throne of yours the God is to the age of the age, and the scepter of righteousness, the scepter of your kingdom.” In other words, “Your throne is the God.” (BibleHub)

If we take this option of the verse being mistranslated in both Greek and Hebrew, then there is no confusion here whatsoever. I’ll grant that this is unlikely to be the case, but it is a possibility, and it doesn’t break the rules of Hebrew or Greek grammar. If the verses were really saying that God is the throne, then this would make perfect sense after the author quoted from a prophecy about Solomon being God’s son. As we saw, Solomon reigned from Yehovah’s throne. So his throne literally was God. And Yeshua, too, will reign from Yehovah’s throne. God will be his throne.

That said, I did ask one of the REV translators whether my speculative translation of this verse were accurate. He said it is possible, but certainly not necessary, and probably unlikely. Perhaps the takeaway should be that it is possible that this verse says that God is the throne of the king (David, Solomon, or Yeshua), but it could also be calling the king (David, Solomon, or Yeshua) “God” in a representational sense.

I’m rather impartial between those interpretations. Both are possible, and neither requires that Yeshua is the Creator God.

[As I was researching the usage of elohim to refer to those other than Yehovah, I came across an interesting note on this page (definition 2b) which agrees with my second interpretation, saying, “Your throne is God’s.” That’s a slightly different wording than I have, but the same meaning, and it doesn’t require Yeshua or any other king of Israel to literally be God.]

I just realized I’m past the halfway point. It’s almost midnight, so I’m wrapping it up for the evening.

Do you get why there was some confusion in the early Church history about the nature of God?

This confusion is utterly unnecessary. Apart from a few passages that seem to ascribe some aspect of creation to Yeshua (all of which can be explained according to biblical unitarianism), there is nothing that seems to require that Yeshua be God. The error comes from the poisoning of the faith from Greek pagan philosophy.

The Bible’s presentation of God is very simple. Yeshua’s presentation of God is very simple. Nobody in the Bible cared how many “Persons” God is or whether it was a “compound unity”. These terms are devoid of any spiritual value—and even linguistic value, as I hope to get to at some point. This exercise of pulling out key texts and ignoring others to prove the Trinity is pure eisegesis, of the same kind that led us to Christmas, Easter, “Jesus made all foods clean”, etc. At its root, the Trinity robs Christians of the necessity and ability to walk in obedience to Yehovah by saying it’s so impossible, only God himself can do it. That is not what Scripture says, and it’s a damning doctrine.

Because we have God the Father, and we have God the Son.

Oh really? Show me a single verse that mentions “God the Son” in that phraseology, as a title for Yeshua, and I’ll delete this blog post. “God the Son” is as foreign to the pages of the Bible as “Persons” or “hypostatic union” or “Trinity” or “three ‘whos’ and one ‘what’”.

And it says, Yeshua says, “If you’ve seen me, you’ve seen the Father.” He says, “I and my Father are one.”

Yup. But what does that mean? You’ve decided it means “one nature” or “one essence”. But I can prove to you beyond dispute that it means “one purpose” and has nothing to do with his nature. Turn with me in your Bibles to John 17:11,20-23.

Holy Father, keep them in your name, which you have given me, that they may be one, even as we are one. … I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me.

So, does Yeshua want us to become part of the Trinity? What would that make it then? A Multiplicity? An Infinity? Is our destiny to merge with the Godhead until we become Persons within God? That sounds like a mixture of Mormonism and Hinduism. I doubt that’s what Yeshua had in mind when he said “that they may be one, even as we are one.” If I had to guess, i’d imagine he’s pretty disappointed that people have come to such a bizarre conclusion.

Unless you believe that all Christians will be one with God as Persons in the Godhead, then you cannot interpret Yeshua’s other statements in the same manner. They are in the same context. There is no difference between “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30) and "Holy Father, keep them in your name, which you have given me, that they may be one, even as we are one” (John 17:11).

As for the other statement, “If you’ve seen me, you’ve seen the Father,” there is nothing confusing about that. God is invisible, but the Torah is his character distilled for us to know how to be like him. Yeshua perfectly obeyed the Torah, so he perfectly demonstrated the character and heart of Yehovah. Ergo, by looking at Yeshua and how he lived, we can clearly see Yehovah. Yeshua isn’t God, he’s a man who perfectly obeyed God.

You bring up the Shema. That’s awesome! We’re finally getting somewhere! And then—

But the word echad, it doesn’t mean singular. It means a unity.

Lex, “one” means “one”. Echad means “one”. “One” never means “more than one”. The plurality you occasionally find in Scripture comes from other words. “One couple”, “one pair”, “one flock of sheep”, etc. A collective noun is a singular noun that refers to multiple items within the collective. You can have “one collective” or “two collectives”, and in that sense, echad can modify a collective. The word echad itself is not plural, any more than the word “one” is plural. To argue otherwise is forcing a grammatical absurdity onto the text.

You cite Adam and Eve being “one flesh”. I don’t even think that’s an example of a collective noun. A man and woman literally become one flesh, restoring the flesh and bone that God took from Adam’s side. Eve was created from Adam’s flesh, so when they came together as husband and wife, they become one flesh again. And that is the template for all marriages. Two people become one couple. If you interpret echad to be plural in this sense, then saying “echad flesh” makes no sense. They aren’t two fleshes, they’re one flesh. I don’t know how to say it any more simply.

The word Eloheinu, Elohim, they’re plural words.

Yes they are. But in Hebrew, words can be pluralized to denote greatness. Behemoth in Job 40:15 is a plural noun, but it is clearly referring to one creature. I have no doubt there are more examples, but that one ought to be enough. As for elohim, it is used for other gods in a singular manner. It is used of Baal (1 Kings 18:24), Chemosh (Judges 11:24), and Dagon (1 Samuel 5:7). It is used of Moses (Exodus 4:16) and the spirit of Samuel (1 Samuel 28:13). For many more usages of elohim, read this page from BibleHub.

El is a singular. Elohim is a plural.

That is factually true. But you are imposing English grammar onto a Semitic language. The fact is, Hebrew employs plural to indicate plurality in number or superiority in essence. Behemoth is not a group of animals, it is a single, large animal (probably a sauropod dinosaur, but that’s unimportant at the moment). Here’s another grammatical difference: English has superlatives (-er and -est) to indicate how certain things rank compared to others by comparison. In Hebrew, though, there are no superlatives. Instead, Hebrew conveys this by using a grammatical pattern such as “king of kings”. In English, this expression could’ve been translated as “greatest king” without losing any of the idea that the author meant to convey. The point is, you cannot use English grammar as a playbook for how to interpret Hebrew. Hebrew uses plurality to indicate more than simply plurality in number, and we have to understand that to understand the text.

Lex, I’m very disappointed with this next turn in your sermon. You used the body+soul+spirit idea to argue for the Trinity. I’m disappointed because you should know better. You were the first person who got me to seriously question whether we go to heaven or not when we die. It was you who started me on the rabbit trail to investigate what the Bible actually teaches about us as humans. I don’t have a copy of your book on the subject yet, but I do plan on buying it sometime down the road. But now you’re eyebrows deep in Catholic anthropology. You say you don’t know how it all fits together, referring to us as humans. But just like the nature of God, this question has an abundantly simple answer if you just let the text speak for itself.

…then Yehovah God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature. – Genesis 2:7

God made a human shape out of dust. He breathed his spirit/wind/breath into it, and it became a living soul. Dust (body) + Breath (spirit) = Living Creature (soul). Your body and soul are practically synonymous, and they are energized by Yehovah’s spirit/breath. Watch this short video from The Bible Project to get a clear explanation of ruach in the Bible.

Anyway, you cannot speak of your spirit. The spirit that energizes you and gives you life is on loan from God, and he will take it back at the end of your days (Ecclesiastes 12:7). Yeshua even voluntarily gave up his spirit and breathed his last (Luke 23:46), which is kind of redundant since those two expressions mean the same thing.

If you take your body+soul+spirit analogy to its logical conclusion, that means that God the Father is only one-third of God. We cannot call the Father “God” because he isn’t God completely. He’s only a part of God—33.3%, to be exact. Does that make any sense to you?

We have such finite minds. How can we even try to grasp and comprehend the nature of our Creator?

We can start by not believing the absolute foolishness that is the Trinity. God is infinite—no dispute there. I wouldn’t claim in a million years to understand him fully. But he is not a God of confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33), and there is nothing confusing than the Trinity doctrine. It is complete word salad. Theologians create a new language when speaking about the Trinity, but insist that everyone uses their words on their terms. The Bible never speaks of God in terms of “Persons”. It never speaks of “God the Son” or the “God-man”. Yeshua is never said to be “fully God and fully man”. Trinitarians latch onto the four instances in Scripture where God speaks self-referentially in the plural (e.g., ”Let us make man in our image”; Genesis 1:26), but ignore the THOUSANDS of times when the Bible plainly speaks of him in singular terms. (There are multiple explanations for those four “Us” passages that do not require a Trinity, by the way.)

The Trinity is a logical impossibility. Since God created our minds to understand logic according to his own logical mind, he cannot be a logical impossibility. It is as impossible for him to contradict himself as it is for him to sin.

…to say, “Oh, I got it figured out. Let me write a doctrine for you. We’re gonna write this out and we’re outline it we’re gonna say, ‘This is what God is.’” I don’t think so.

Brother Les, I know from the last year or so of watching your videos and occasionally interacting with you on Facebook that you are not a proud man. Therefore, I’ll give you the benefit of a doubt and assume you don’t realize how arrogant this sounds. You claim God is beyond our comprehension, and yet you are the one peddling a doctrine about the Trinity that is 100% the product of human imagination. You think you have God figured out—enough to tell other people that they are wrong and believe in a false God if they don’t agree that Yeshua has to be God because you say so!

You cite from 1 Timothy 3:16, which I exegeted much closer to the beginning of this response. In short, we cannot prove whether Paul originally wrote “God” or “he” was manifested in the flesh because it comes down to a textual variant. If it says “he”, then it’s referring to Yeshua and cannot be spun into a claim of his deity. I’ll grant that it’s possible that Paul wrote “God”, but the other is just as possible. Even if he did say that “God was manifested in the flesh”, all that means is that he was revealed in the flesh. It doesn’t mean that God became flesh, but only that Yeshua revealed the invisible God to us. I’ve said many times before, that doesn’t many Yeshua God.

This is way beyond my understanding.

Yes, yes it is. That’s not because you’re stupid, but because it is literally impossible to understand. It not only isn’t true, but it is a logical contradiction. I cannot stress that point enough. The Trinity is asinine. It is word salad. Alphabet soup. If you run the Bible through a shredder a hundred times, you still wouldn’t arrive at anything as convoluted as the Trinity. It is not your fault that you can’t understand it.

And I should say that I am not trying to be rude. I wouldn’t have most of my evenings recently writing this if I were out to roast you. My heart wants you to come out of Babylon completely and understand the truth about our God and his Son. You led me into a greater understanding of the Scriptures, and I want to do the same for you. I know it is very hard to convey tone through text, and we humans have a tendency to suspect hostility and take things as meaner than they are. I want you to know, I’m not trying to insult or belittle you in any way.

At the 26:00-minute mark, I realized something. You spoke of the Father and the Son, but not the Holy Spirit. It’s at this point that I suddenly realized, I don’t know if you actually said you’re a Trinitarian or not. You’re pretty clearly a Binitarian, and they have all the same flaws in their logic and interpretation of Scripture. But I can’t rewatch the last 26 minutes all over again just to double-check. I don’t want to portray you as something you’re not, but if you aren’t a Trinitarian, just mentally replace “Trinity” with “Binity”.

And yet [Yeshua] prayed to the Father. He’s not talking to himself. He said, “I didn’t come to do my will, I came to do with will of the Father.” He’s God, but he’s not the Father. He’s God, but he’s not the Father.

I wish you could see the error in calling Yeshua God. All this confusion and mystery that you see in the Bible evanesces when you drop that fallacious premise. Yeshua prayed to God because he was a man who needed God’s presence in his life in order for him to accomplish the monumental task that God set out before him.

I have no problem with John 5:23, as I explained before. I will gladly worship Yeshua because he is the perfect representation of God to men. Yeshua is not God, but he is the humblest of servants, and he has been magnified to the very throne of God himself.

Here’s another question for you. If Yeshua were “God the Son”, why does he command us to honor him alongside the Father without explaining what “God the Son” means? Yeshua never explained the Trinity/Binity. Not once. The only mention of it in the Gospels comes from Matthew 28:19, and verse is likely a forgery. Since Yeshua never explained what “God the Son” actually means, then he couldn’t fault his audience for thinking he was speaking of himself as God’s LITERAL son, now could he? If he were God, why didn’t he say so? Why bother instructing us to honor him? If he were blatantly obviously God, then we shouldn’t need to hear him tell us to honor him.

“Should we pray to Yeshua? Should we only pray to the Father, or should we pray to Yeshua?” The Bible says that he intercedes for us on our behalf. It says, “All who call upon his name will be saved.”

We should probably only pray to God, but Yeshua did say we can ask things in his name. Personally, when I pray, I often reference Yeshua because I am appealing to him as my rabbi, my judge, my high priest, and my Salvation. Not that God needs reminding of anything, but I still make much mention of Yeshua in pleas for God’s forgiveness for sin or aid in a struggle. In fact, I pray in Yeshua’s name much more than I ever did as a Trinitarian. As a Trinitarian, I never knew how to pray. Was I being sinful by only directing my prayers to the Father and not the Son or the Holy Spirit? Should I pray to all three equally? Would the Holy Spirit get jealous if I left him out of the equation? I seriously had these thoughts multiple times in my life, especially as a kid. There was nothing special about Jesus in my prayers because he was just God. I’d thank Jesus for dying on the cross for me, and thank the Father for sending Jesus on my behalf. But it was all just meaningless jargon because nothing added up in my mind. I was just reciting doctrines and creeds.

As for Yeshua interceding for us, he intercedes on our behalf concerning our sin. When the Adversary accuses us in God’s face, Yeshua stands in the gap and intercedes. What on Earth does it mean for God the Son to intercede with God the Father? We’re getting into Logos/Demiurge territory again. The Father/Demiurge is this ancient, evil god, while the Son/Logos is this benevolent deity bent on our blessing. Once you realize that Yeshua is only a man, then his intercession makes perfect sense and holds much more gravitas.

God appointed this man to be our sacrifice for sins—and to be our high priest! God himself cannot be tempted by sin, but since Yeshua was, he can sympathize with our weaknesses when he appeals to God on our behalf (Hebrews 4:15).

Most of the verses that speak of calling on the name of the Lord are referring to the name of Yehovah, not Yeshua. However, 1 Corinthians 1:2 does speak of calling on the name of our Lord Yeshua the Messiah. If this means praying to him, then I have no issue with that. He is our mediator, so I can pray to him, so long as it is biblically justified. It seems it is.

That said, Joel 2:32 specifically speaks of calling on the name of Yehovah for salvation. Of course, Yeshua is the yeshuah of our God, so he is quite literally the answer to the prayer of Joel 2:32. But it is still Yehovah who does the saving. Yeshua is just his tool to do so.

Even though the Bible does speak in one verse of calling on the name of our Lord Yeshua, every other time it speaks of calling on the name of the Lord, it is quoting from Joel, or speaking in similar language. I’m going to go on a brief tangent before wrapping up for the night, but this is one problem with the rabbinical ban on speaking God’s name. I don’t really care whether you call him Yehovah or Yahweh or Yahuah, but calling him “the LORD” is needlessly confusing. Even though it isn’t expressed in Greek, there is a difference between Yehovah and Adonai. I sincerely wish the Besech were written in Hebrew, if for no other reason than to see those distinctions clearly illuminated. Is “kyrios” here referring to the Lord Yeshua or to Yehovah? But every time the Tanakh speaks of calling on the name of Yehovah, it is unambiguous, and never did they call on Yeshua’s name. They called on Yehovah’s name to bring yeshuah, but nobody was praying to “God the Son”. They weren’t even aware of his existence, seeing as he didn’t exist.

In all things, he may have preeminence.

I already tackled this earlier, but since you started going into the definition, let’s see this word defined.

In what way does this require that Yeshua be God? You say that his being superior makes him the greatest and most superior, but then you jump cut without explaining any further. I don’t know why you edited this sermon down the way you did, because there was probably some useful information there. But since I can only work off the material you have on YouTube, I’ll do the best I can.

I don’t want to be rude, but citing this verse as proof of Yeshua’s deity without any further examination is lazy researching. There are clear and unambiguous verses throughout the Besech that clearly say that Yeshua is inferior to God. He is superior over all other created beings, but he is not equal with God.

But I want you to understand that the head of every man is the Messiah, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of the Messiah is God. – 1 Corinthians 11:3

And,

Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. For “God has put all things in subjection under his feet.” But when it says, “all things are put in subjection,” it is plain that he is excepted who put all things in subjection under him. When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all. – 1 Corinthians 15:24-28

This passage explains the mission of Yeshua in a broad scale. He was appointed to bring all of creation back under the authority of Yehovah. When he has completed his purpose, then he will turn back over his authority to God—when God himself will live among men in the new creation.

And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God. He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.” – Revelation 21:3-4

If Yeshua were God, then why would Revelation say God lives among men only after the new creation has come?

My browser crashed after spending about half an hour delving into more detail on Colossians 1:16-19, so I don’t think I’ll try to retype it all from memory. I will say that I used to agree with you fully on your interpretation of this passage. I was positive it referred to Yeshua as the Creator God. I now see that fails to make sense of the broader context of this passage and the rest of Scripture. When you isolate three verses from the text, you can interpret them to mean a lot that they don’t mean. This passage actually has very little to do with the first creation, and is all about the new creation.

[The Father] has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.

This is the setup for the next paragraph (which is really an editorial decision not found in Greek). This present creation is the “domain of darkness”. It belonged to Adam as the original son of God (Luke 3:38). But he surrendered his authority to the serpent, who is now the god of this world (2 Corinthians 4:4). The “kingdom of his beloved son” is the new creation, which, as we saw earlier, Yeshua will surrender back to God once he has brought all of the original creation into his subjection.

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.

Adam was created in the image of the invisible God. Adam wasn’t God. Why would the same language mean something different when applied to Yeshua, the second Adam? There is no textual justification to interpret the phrase “image of God” in two different ways.

He is the firstborn of all creation because he was literally the firstborn of the new creation. Since Paul is speaking of the new creation, we should not try to twist this into some sort of convoluted idea that Yeshua preexisted this current creation. If you believed Yeshua were merely a created being as the Jehovah’s Witnesses claim, then this could make sense in speaking of the current creation. But if Yeshua were God, then calling him the “firstborn of all creation” would be meaningless at best, a lie at worst. No, Yeshua is the firstborn of the new creation.

I explained near the beginning of this post what it means that “all things were created” by him. Paul qualifies “all things” by saying, “Whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities.” These are specifically the “all things” he has in mind.

And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the assembly. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent.

Nothing confusing here. Since this entire passage is describing the new creation, the “all things” which hold together in him must also describe the order of the new creation. And that makes sense, since none of it would have been possible without him. He is God’s means and method of bringing about the new creation.

If Yeshua is the “firstborn from the dead” then he cannot be God, since God cannot die (Deuteronomy 32:40). Death is the wages of sin (Romans 6:23), and it was introduced to this present creation through Adam (ibid. 5:12). Since God cannot sin or even be tempted to sin (James 1:13), there has never been a point in time when God was subject to the curse or could die. But Yeshua was born under the law (Galatians 4:4), so by virtue of his humanity, he had to die. Even though he did not sin (Hebrews 4:15), he was born into a world subjected to futility (Romans 8:20). But with his resurrection, he became the firstborn from the dead and the Anointed One of God’s kingdom.

For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross. – Colossians 1:13-20

This shouldn’t even need explaining. If the “fullness of God was pleased to dwell” in him, then he was not himself God. It would be ludicrous for me to say, “In Lex the fullness of Lex was pleased to dwell,” as if you had a choice of where your spirit dwelt. No, the fact that God’s spirit dwelt within Yeshua is proof that Yeshua was not God.

And Paul says that God chose to reconcile all things to himself through Yeshua. That kind of sounds like Yeshua is the mediator between God and man, not God himself.

Regarding Titus 2, I spent three whole paragraphs (plus a paragraph quotation) explaining why verse 13 does not prove that Yeshua is “our great God”. The translation of this verse is disputed based on the grammatical structures of a dead language. That is pretty poor proof that Yeshua is supposedly God.

Do you guys get why this is important?

Yes, Lex, I do. I get why it is vitally important to understand the true nature of God and his son, Yeshua. There are enormous theological problems with Yeshua being God, from claiming that God was tempted to sin to saying that he died. Belief in the Trinity or Binity or whatever view you espouse requires ignoring or reinterpreting many verses to say something other than what the plain language says because they don’t fit within the God-man paradigm. The primary reason anyone ever concluded that Yeshua is God is because of the influence of pagan Greek philosophy in the second generation of Christians. Is that really something you want to court? I’m sincerely worried that everyone who says Jesus is God will be held guilty of the First Commandment (Exodus 20:3), ESPECIALLY among anti-Torah Christians who think Jesus somehow saved them from God-the-Father’s wrathful law. I hope this is not the case. I hope they will find mercy in their ignorance.

And so when people come along, and they say, “Yeshua’s not God,” that tells me they’re not reading their Bible.

On the contrary, Lex, it wasn’t until I really began studying my Bible as I began to understand the Torah that I realized the truth about this. I know you are seeking truth, so I pray that God will lead you out of convoluted Constantinian Christianity and into the light of the truth. Had anyone told me back when I first encountered a New2Torah video about eating unclean meats that I would reject the Trinity only a little over a year later, I would’ve ran back to my Baptist church and never explored the matter again. But the longer you spend out of Babylon, the less it clouds your perception.

I don’t say this to be patronizing. It is very easy to get stuck on one track of interpretation and not even realize there is another side to consider. But just remember: There isn’t a single verse that hangs your salvation on the deity of Yeshua. Your soul is not at risk of Gehenna for pursuing these questions thoroughly. If a rigorous study of the Scriptures (without Trinitarian bias) leads you back to the God-man, hallelu-Yah! But I suspect it won’t.

Because over and over and over, it says he is God.

Not really. Thomas called him God once (John 20:28), and a possible translation of Psalm 45:6/Hebrews 1:8 calls him a god (distinguished from the God; Psalm 45:7). Other than that, I can’t think of any explicit statements calling Yeshua God that aren’t hotly debated even by Trinitarians because of the Granville Sharp Rule.

What does he say? He says, “Before Abraham was, I am.” Right there he is claiming to be God. “Before Abraham existed, I am.” What did Yahweh say to Moses in the burning bush? Moses said, “Who do I tell them has sent me?” He said, “I am that I am.” “I am”—it’s his statement of fact that he exists.

I figured you’d bring this up at some point. The phrase ego eimi is a very common expression in Greek. Yeshua is hardly the only one in the Bible who says it. It is not a claim to deity. Now, the way he used this phase could be taken in that manner, and I’ll admit, it’s pretty strong evidence for his deity when taken on its own. That’s why context is so key.

Throughout John 8, Yeshua is speaking about God. He calls himself the light of the world and the Son of Man. We know from John 1:4 that the word of God is the light of the world, and that Yeshua is the embodiment of the word of God (verse 14). The Son of Man is a purely Messianic title—one which God himself staunchly refuses (Numbers 23:19; I know this isn’t in reference to the Messiah, but if God is not a son of man, then he cannot be the Son of Man).

The Pharisees are having none of it. They are getting angrier and angrier because Yeshua is accusing them of being slaves to sin and children of the deceiver. They assert that Abraham is their father, and yet he died. When Yeshua says, “Before Abraham was, I am,” he is saying he is superior to Abraham since Abraham died and is awaiting the resurrection like everyone else. He is not making a claim to deity.

In 10:31-38, the Pharisees actually accuse him of calling himself God (why didn’t they do that earlier in chapter 8?). Yeshua flat-out refutes that idea by insisting that he is only calling himself the son of God. He also brings up Psalm 82:6, wherein God refers to other people as gods and sons of God. Yeshua is distancing himself from the accusation of blasphemy. Maybe that’s why no one thought to accuse him of this claim during his trial…

Yeshua the Messiah is the same yesterday and today and forever. – Hebrews 13:8

Why is this proof of his deity? In his earthly life, he never sinned, so he was utterly consistent in his devotion to Yehovah. At the start of his ministry, he was filled with the Holy Spirit (Matthew 3:16-17), empowering him to perform the miracles he did (John 5:36) and to speak the words he did (John 12:49). And in his resurrection, he has poured out that same spirit upon us (Romans 8:9), that we might do even greater works than he (John 14:12). Think of Elijah giving a double-portion of his spirit to Elisha (2 Kings 2:9-14).

Now as for the specific context of Hebrews 13:8, we must look at verses 7 and 9. In verse 7, the author encourages us to imitate our leaders, their way of life and their faith. In verse 9, we are warned not to be led away by false teachers. What does this mean for verse 8? The author is providing an example of what we should look for in a teacher and leader. If we are going to be someone’s disciple, we should pick someone who was discipled by Yeshua himself. Since Yeshua never changes, the things he taught never change either. That is the author’s point. It’s very similar to what Paul said in 1 Corinthians 11:1, “Be imitators of me, as I am [an imitator] of the Messiah.” Yeshua is no longer on this earth, but the idea was for us to have an unbroken chain of succession of disciples that traced back to him. Had this been kept up, we could say the same thing as Paul and the author of to the Hebrews. But we don’t have an unbroken chain of disciples of the Messiah to learn from, so we need to be faithful students of the Bible instead.

It is absolutely true that God does not change. And if God doesn’t change, then neither will his son, since his son does everything he does (John 5:19). Just as God never changes and his word never changes, neither does the one who does his word. Consider the words of A.W. Tozer,

For a moral being to change it would be necessary that the change be in one of three directions. He must go from better to worse or from worse to better; or, granted that the moral quality remain stable, he must change within himself, as from immature to mature or from one order of being to another. It should be clear that God can move in none of these directions. His perfections forever rule out any such possibility. – The Knowledge of the Holy

Now the Scriptures plainly testify that Yeshua had to grow and learn obedience just like every other child (Luke 2:52; Hebrews 5:8; Isaiah 7:15). So by Tozer’s own description of immutability, he has accidentally invalidated his own chapter on the Trinity. But as Yeshua learned obedience, he consciously chose to obey and walk in the Torah of Yehovah. Since the Torah teaches us how to be holy as Yehovah is holy (Leviticus 11:45), Yeshua was completely holy just as Yehovah is because he never sinned. He was still born under the law and suffered the effects of the curse—even death—but he was completely perfect and steadfast in his halakha.

So why does all of this matter? Because of Yeshua is the Savior, he has to be God.

No, Lex, why do you keep returning to this conclusion? It isn’t a mere choice between A and B. Option C is perfectly valid and fits the totality of Scripture much more consistently, but you have written it off already.

And if Yeshua is God, he is the one that gave us the Torah.

This is a logical conclusion to reach, but I can disprove it with a single, indisputable verse:

Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. – Hebrews 1:1-2

If Yeshua is the son of God, then he cannot be the one who gave the Torah to Moses. To argue otherwise would require you to say that

Hebrews is wrong; or

Yeshua is God (the Father), not the son of God.

Are you suggesting either of those things?

What does it say? If you love me, keep my commandments.

Why does this mean Yeshua personally gave the Torah to Moses? Need I remind you of Deuteronomy 18:15-19? I will regardless, because it’s become one of my favorite passages in the Tanakh lately.

Yehovah your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your brothers—it is to him you shall listen—just as you desired of Yehovah your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly, when you said, “Let me not hear again the voice of Yehovah my God or see this great fire any more, lest I die.” And Yehovah said to me, "They are right in what they have spoken. I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers. And I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him. And whoever will not listen to my words that he shall speak in my name, I myself will require it of him.”

Yeshua is the prophet like unto Moses in whose mouth were the very words of Yehovah! He spoke God’s commandments and explained them perfectly, after they had been corrupted over 1,500 years of rebellion and idolatry. His commandments are Yehovah’s commandments because God put his words in Yeshua’s mouth. If Yeshua were God, then this prophecy in Deuteronomy would be utterly meaningless.

All throughout the Old Testament, that is what God said: If you love me, keep my commandments.

Actually, God never said that in the Old Testament. It is the undertone of the entire Torah (e.g., Deuteronomy 6:4-5), but God never said those words. I wouldn’t be nitpicky about it, except that you are trying to use it as another point to claim that Yeshua is the God of the Tanakh, and that isn’t true.

Let not your hearts be troubled. Believe in God; believe also in me. – John 14:1

Why, if Yeshua is God, does he speak in such a cryptic way? Why on Earth would he consistently say things that suggest that he is someone other than God if what he actually meant is that he is God? Why not say, “Let not your hearts be troubled. Believe in God; and believe that I am God in the flesh?”

Why did you stop reading halfway through verse 2, then skip ahead to verse 6? Verses 2-4 are greatly important to understanding the things that play out in Yeshua’s ministry, including his absence for the last 2,000 years. He is a young man who proposed to a young woman. She accepted by drinking from his cup of wine (Luke 22:18), and then he returned to his Father’s house (Luke 24:51) to prepare a place for her (John 14:2-3). When his Father decides he is ready (Matthew 24:36), then he may return for his bride, to catch her up to his Father’s home (1 Thessalonians 4:16-17) for the wedding feast (Revelation 19:6-9). God is the Father, so Yeshua is not God.

“Show us the Father.” “Have I been with you so long that [sic] you don’t know me?”

It baffles me that we can read the exact same passage of Scripture and walk away with two vastly different interpretations. Even more, I’m amazed that I used to believe what you are teaching. Yeshua consistently differentiates between himself and the Father. Moreover, he called the Father his God (John 20:17). God cannot have a God. The Father never mentioned having a God (cf. Isaiah 45:23). But I digress.

All throughout John 14, Yeshua constantly distinguished between himself and God. He revealed God to us because he perfectly walked out the instructions of God, but he himself is not God—and he never claimed to be.

I want to return to the point about Yeshua having a God. If he has a God, namely Yehovah, and he affirmed the Shema, then he surely also stood by the command to not have any other gods before Yehovah. If Yehovah is Yeshua’s God, and Yeshua himself is somehow (a) God, then he is the ONLY person in history capable of keeping the First Commandment. The rest of us necessarily must have a god besides Yehovah. And that is exactly what the Christian Church has done with Jesus.

How can you read a verse like John 14:24 and think Yeshua is saying anything other than that he is the Prophet? He literally affirms in this verse that he is speaking the Father’s words, which is what God promised would happen when he sent his Prophet. This isn’t difficult to understand, but Trinitarian pagan philosophy has taken something very simple and made it more confusing than nuclear physics.

James chapter four, James chapter four verse twelve. There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy. There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy. So if Yeshua is the one who is able to save, that means that he’s the lawgiver, right?

No… no, Pastor Lex. This verse is unquestionably speaking about God. I’m sure James would be quite offended to know you’ve reinterpreted it to be a claim for Yeshua’s deity. And you’re ignoring Yeshua’s own words in Matthew 10:28!

Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in Gehenna.

Where in this passage does Yeshua identify himself as the one who should be feared for this power to judge? Certainly, he has been given the authority to judge by God (John 5:22-23), although so have other saints (cf. 1 Corinthians 6:2; Revelation 20:4). But Yeshua is our Savior by virtue of being God’s agent for salvation. On his own power, Yeshua could never save. That’s why he had to pray, “Not my will, but yours be done” (Matthew 26:39).

You bring up Yeshua’s words in Revelation 22:13, where he said, “I am the Aleph and the Tav, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.” The other instances of someone speaking this were from the Father specifically, not Yeshua. And I’ll admit, it would present a very strong case for Yeshua’s deity—perhaps the strongest in Scripture—were it read in isolation. Scripture must interpret Scripture. In this case, I believe his words here hearken back to Philippians 2:11. I can’t remember if I mentioned this before or not, but I believe this verse should be read, “…and every tongue confess that Yeshua the Messiah is Yehovah, to the glory of God the Father.” I could be wrong (although I doubt you’d disagree with me on this verse). But I believe that God gave Yeshua the name of Yehovah because, for all intents and purposes, he is God on Earth. Until the new creation comes, when Yeshua surrenders the kingdom to God (1 Corinthians 15:24-28). So there is nothing wrong with worshiping Yeshua and ascribing to him the glory and honor due to Yehovah. He can even say such grandiose things as he did in Revelation 22:13 without blaspheming, because he was given that right and glory by God himself (John 8:54).

So if we somehow say, no, Yeshua’s not God, he’s not deity, he’s just a man sent by God. He’s a good teacher, maybe a prophet. Yeah, sure, he’s our Savior, he’s our Messiah. He’s not God. That’s false! Because if you say he’s not God, you’re saying he cannot be our Savior. If he’s God, he’s the lawgiver. If he’s God, he’s the Savior. If we call him Lord, it demands our obedience. Why do you call me lord and do not what I command you, he says?

I am starting to get a little fired up again, Lex. I’m kind of shocked by what you said in this quote.

"He’s just a man sent by God.” – Acts 2:22

“He’s a good teacher.” – Mark 10:17 [2]

“Maybe a prophet.” – Acts 7:37

“He’s our Savior.” – Titus 3:6

“He’s our Messiah.” – Matthew 16:16

“He’s not God.” – Mark 12:29

Yeshua is all these things because the Bible says so, regardless of what you try to shoehorn into the text to fit your preconceived theology. Let the Bible speak for itself rather than forcing it to say what the Catholic Church wants you to think it says.

Yeshua is a man sent by God because the Bible says so. He’s a good teacher because the Bible says so. He’s a prophet because the Bible says so. He’s our Savior because the Bible says so. He’s our Messiah because the Bible says so. He is NOT the Creator God, since the Bible never says so.

As for calling him Lord, in what way does that make him God? He is our adon—our Master. David was Israel’s adon. David was also the messiah, as was Saul. These men were adonim and messiahs because they were appointed by God to rule over Israel on his behalf (1 Chronicles 29:23). The same is true for Yeshua, the Son of David, who is the fulfillment of all those promises to King David.

This whole sermon, you’ve only strung a bunch of verses together with minimal commentary and claimed they teach a cohesive doctrine. I can’t speak regarding all the material you cut from the YouTube video, but you rarely went into depth explaining why your interpretation of the verses you cited is the correct interpretation. You just took for granted that you’re right, and claimed those who disagree are in danger of walking away from the faith!

Tell me, where in the Bible does it say we must believe that Yeshua is God to be saved? And why, if this mental assent is so vital to our faith, did no one actually spell it out unambiguously? Why must that doctrine be pieced together from cherry-picked verses that depend on a particular translation choice from Greek?

You know, if you were to—if we lived in some country where there’s a king or a queen, and you were to go up to the king and say, “O king, I worship you. You are my king, you are my lord. Do whatever—I’ll do whatever you command me,” and he tells you to do something, and you say, “Eh, I don’t think I’ll do that,” what would he do? “Off with his head!” Right? You’re a traitor! Treason!

Forgive me, but what the heck does this have to do with Yeshua supposedly being God? I’m a little confused…

I kept on listening as you went into Romans 8:5-8, and I still fail to see what this has to do with the deity of Yeshua. I agree with everything you’re saying in the closing regarding obedience to his Torah. It is the constitution of the kingdom, and we must obey it.

How dare some man on Earth stand up and say, “No, he’s not, he’s not God. I’m not gonna bow before him”! How dare anyone say that!

Brother Lex, you need to repent for slandering. I know this is directed toward Scott Shoob, but you are painting with a broad brush here, and it is uncalled for. Scott might’ve walked away from Yeshua completely, but you are accusing ALL those who follow Yeshua yet don’t believe he was God of rejecting him as the Messiah. You are denying all of us our salvation, if such were your right. There have been millions of Christians and Messianics who would gladly worship Yeshua without blaspheming by calling him the Creator God.

You don’t get the implications of this, do you? The Bible says God can’t be tempted. Yeshua was tempted in all things. The Bible says God can’t die. Yeshua died. You must deny Scripture itself to maintain the Catholic teaching that Yeshua is God. I don’t like accusing anyone of blasphemy because it is such a strong accusation, but that’s what you’re accusing us of doing, even though I don’t think you’ve used that word yet.

It doesn’t matter how much Torah you keep; if you don’t have Yeshua, you’re lost. He is our salvation.

AMEN! I’m glad we can end on a positive note. This must be our commonality.

You said at the beginning of the sermon that you’ve seen this all over the internet lately. I’m sure that’s how Reformed evangelicals feel concerning Torah observance. If there is an awakening in the body of the Messiah regarding our Hebrew Roots, why shouldn’t we also at least be open to abandoning our Hellenistic traditions concerning the nature of God and at least examine the issue from a Hebraic perspective? The Reformers stopped short in many important ways. Let’s get it right with this New Reformation.

Footnotes:

[1] I use the term Besech to refer to the New Testament. It was developed by Blaine Robison, M.A., M.R.E., as a parallel to Tanakh. BSX is an acronym formed from the words Besorah (News), Sepherim (Letters), and Chazoth (Visions).

[2] This verse requires a longer exposition that would interrupt the flow of what I was writing. Yeshua questions the young man for calling him “Good Teacher”, saying, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone” (Mark 10:18). I’ve been at this post for so long, I don’t remember if we’ve covered this passage before or not. I used to think it was clear proof Yeshua is God. But considering he says repeatedly in other places that everything he does is by God’s power, I think this verse means something else. Yeshua isn’t trying to persuade the young man into calling him God (which would be bizarre, since he doesn’t elaborate upon that point at all). Instead, he’s showing the young man that we are only good when we mimic God by obeying his commandments. Yeshua wasn’t good on his own; he was good because he obeyed God’s commandments perfectly.

[denisricardo]

Queer as Fuck: Beyond Binary Thought

This is an essay I wrote as part of my pursuit of an Ethnic Studies degree at Cal State East Bay during the Fall Quarter 2017. This will be part of a series of essay posts from my classes at the end of my school quarters. This and all of my essays were written under my legal name, Dennis Camargo.

African American queer theorist E. Patrick Johnson said about the identification “queer”: “I love queer... It is an extremely polemic term because it is who we say we are, which is, ‘Fuck You.’” This “Fuck You” identity is an essential part of Susan Stryker’s “transgender rage” and Anzaldua’s “mestiza consciousness” in that it exemplifies transgender people’s, anger and resistance to society’s binary thought of gender. These three concepts queer/“Fuck You,” transgender rage and mestiza consciousness are keystone to oppositional consciousness, or the action of thinking outside the societal binary. It is with “Fuck You” that an “other” is created.

Stryker’s transgender rage is begins with her reclamation of the word “monstrosity” to refer to the bodies of transgender individuals who have undergone gender confirmation surgery, a “physical alteration of the genitals” (qtd. in Roen 265). In doing so, one has said “fuck you” to the body they were given and defied what “our makers intended us to be,” (qtd. in Roen 265). These “makers” can be referring to deities, parents or more specifically, the binary society that one is born into. Stryker further embodies “Fuck You” by refusing to fall along societal definitions of male or female. Surgical procedures and medical science impose the correction of monstrosity that is transgender by attempting to normalize the “unnatural” (Roen 256). Stryker notes that medical science “seeks to contain and colonize the radical threat” of objective consciousness with “physical alteration of the genitals.” A transgender individual cannot be defined strictly by

their physical body. Medical science reduces gender to performance, staking that, “If it looks the part, it plays the part,” dismissing personhood and individuality. According to Stryker even if one pursues a “transsexual means of embodiment,” there is no certainty that said individual will up- hold societal standards of male or female behavior.

By embracing the moniker “monstrosity” Stryker is able to radically change her position in society outside of a gender binary. The term “monstrosity” also reflects back to Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, not just because gender was defied and recreated on an operating table like life with Dr. Frankenstein’s monster, but because gender can be seen as a fictional subject created by society. In F2M: The Making of Female Masculinity Judith Halberstam brings forward the argument that we all live in a fiction of gender, whether we are transgender or not. She writes “masculinity or femininity may be simulated by surgery, but they can also find other fictional forms like clothing or fantasy” (qtd. in Roen 265) By looking at gender as fiction one breaks the molded idea that gender is true and in reality this binary rule that cannot be broken.

In an interview with Petra Dierkes-Thrun for boundry 2, Stryker continues this idea of “monstrosity” by describing the reason for violence towards transgender bodies. She says that when a child is born we declare this nonhuman a “boy” or a “girl” and we “move a body across a line that separates a mere biological organism from human community,” (“Transgender Studies Today” Stryker). This violence is not limited to physical altercations, it also manifests itself in the heightened scrutiny on unconventionally gendered bodies because of an increase of sur- veillance and security in the post 9/11 world (“Transgender Studies Today” Stryker). Much of the violence against transgender individuals comes from other’s inability to see trans people as hu- man because they live their lives as their true “monstrous,” “Fuck You” selves.

As our society grows ever more fearful of queer bodies, we have seen the increase of so called “bathroom bills,” which are legislation that would prohibit transgender people from using the bathroom of their identity and even have them face fines and jail time if they do so. In an op-ed for the Los Angeles Times titled Everyone poops. No one should be stigmatized or criminalized when they answer nature's call, Stryker says “Our culture is in the midst of a profound reevaluation of how we understand gender, and public toilets have long been sites for staging anxieties about such social change” (“Everybody Poops” Stryker). Stryker argues that the current solutions for having gender-neutral bathrooms are not radical enough in thinking. Currently, bathrooms that can accommodated people with children and disabled people are labeled “gender-neutral” or bathrooms are de-gendered and labeled “with stalls and urinals” and “with stalls,” which still lies within the binary thought of society. These solutions as a stop gap, as they do not accommodate an ever increasing way people identify outside of society’s gender binary (“Everybody Poops” Stryker).

Even within queer spaces have transgender people been under attack for their defiance to the binary. In Stryker’s (De)Subjugated Knowledges: An Introduction to Transgender Studies she writes about the space that she and other transgender activists needed to carve our of the exclusionary gay and lesbian academia and activists. She recalls a time in 1995, the infancy of queer theory, where she attended a Center for Lesbian and Gay Studies panel on “Gender and the Homosexual Role” that had failed to address any transgender issues or have any transgender panelists. The panel was then “questioned” by a Stonewall Riot activist Jim Fouratt, who went on about how transgender individuals were “sick” and trying to edge into queer theory ( “(De)Subjugated) Stryker). This exclusion of trans people from the conversation of queerness was commonplace, despite queerness being a space for others beyond binary thought.

Transgressing outside of this binary and occupying an “other” position is reflective of mestiza consciousness. Mestiza consciousness was a term coined by Gloria Anzaldua which is “a break down of the subject-object duality” to show physically and psychically “how duality is transcended” (Anzaldua 80). The duality in this consciousness could easily be the binary thought of western society. For some transgender Chicanas/os their oppositional thought may very well be mestiza consciousness. In Polynesian society, cultural background challenges binary thought with the fa’afafine identity. The fa’afafine identity exists as a “third gender” encapsulating masculine and feminine behavior (Roen 257). This creates an intersection of transgender identity and cultural background, that functions outside of society’s binary. Similar to Anzaldua’s la mestiza, there is an inner war where one struggles to maintain their cultural identity while remaining recognized by society as fa’afafine. This generates a dichotomy for individuals where cultural gender liminality struggles to survive both separate and alongside the ever-evolving queer identity. This offers a “fuck you” to society’s gender binary while rejecting the homogenization that western definitions of transgender impose on their distinct cultural history.

Anzaldua said “The queer are the mirror reflecting the heterosexual tribe’s fear: being different” (Anzaldua 18). There is power behind embracing queer, being immersed in transgender rage and understanding the duality of mestiza consciousness, as these modes of thought transcend one above the binary thought set forth by white hetero society. Being consciously queer acknowledges the opposition to society’s construct of gender and sexuality and screams “Fuck You” in the face of a society that actively works to colonize and contain.

Works Cited

Anzaldúa, Gloria. “Borderlands / La Frontera: the New Mestiza.” Borderlands / La Frontera: the New Mestiza, Aunt Lute Books, 2012 pp. 18, 80.

Roen, Katrina. “Transgender Theory and Embodiment: the Risk of Racial Marginalisa

tion.”Journal of Gender Studies, vol. 10, no. 3, 2001, pp. 253–263. Stryker, Susan, and Stephen Whittle. “(De)Subjugated Knowledges: An Introduction to

Transgender Studies.” The Transgender Studies Reader, Routledge, 2006, pp. 1–17.

Styker, Susan. “Everyone Poops. No One Should Be Stigmatized or Criminalized When

They Answer Nature's Call.” Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles Times, 30 Apr. 2016, www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-stryker-gender-neutral- bathrooms-20160501-story.html.

---. Interview by Dierkes-Thrun, Petra. “Transgender Studies Today: An Interview with Susan Stryker.”Boundry 2, Duke University Press Journal, 30 Aug. 2014, www.bound ary2.org/ 2014/08/transgender-studies-today-an-interview-with-susan-stryker/. Accessed 4 Oct. 2017.

[nicklesthename]

This entire post is completely inspired by a single image I saw on Pinterest.

Are you KIDDING ME? Are you really going to try and tell people that if they just eat celery and lemon they can replace their diabetes medication? Are you insane? I think single, solitary image drove me to write a whole article about the absolute worst people you will find online. These people go beyond the average troll, doing more than just insulting you or undermining you. These people perpetuate very damaging and dangerous ideas. They should be avoided at all costs.

Self-officiated doctors

This is the person who made the above image. They will claim that their home remedies will cure your incurable disease. The least dangerous of these people are the ones who just use vague terminology to make it seem like they have a miracle cure when really they don’t. That would be like if the above image was referring to only Type 2 diabetes which can be “cured” with a healthy diet and restricting alcohol. However, to get more clicks and attention, they just said “diabetes” instead of specifying, and put two random foods to make you wonder what could lemon and celery possibly do that is so magical to cure diabetes! It’s not honest or kind, but it’s not the most dangerous thing.

What changes the above image from that into true evil, is the part that says “replace your medication.” They are blatantly claiming that whatever their magic recipe is can manage your diabetes better than actual prescribed medicine from a doctor. Not that it can help in addition to the medication, but that you should stop taking your medication and instead use their crap. This is insanely horrible, immoral thing to do and will result in death. If someone goes into a diabetic shock, and then drink lemon and celery water, they will literally die.

  Let me also be clear about something: I am not against natural treatments for some illnesses. Ginger ale always helps my stomach aches and lemon tea feels great on a sore throat. But the fact of the matter is, you cannot cure most illnesses with natural ingredients. Some herbs may help reduce symptoms, changing your diet will generally improve your health, and teas can have an effect on your body, but to claim that a leafy vegetable will completely cure lupus is cruel.

Neurotypical Karen

This is a term I’m borrowing from Tumblr. Neurotypical Karen is a meme that is used when mentally ill people are dismissed or criticized by mentally healthy people. This person is someone who tells you that all you need to do to permanently cure your depression is do yoga and green tea will erase your anxiety. This person is similar to the first, but they go so far as to blame the ill person for their ailment. She says to just stop being all the time and that happiness is a choice, you just have to make it!

This post basically sums up this type of person perfectly. While no one in real life is actually textbook Neurotypical Karen, there are so many people like her. They rush you and criticize you for not making progress how they think you should. They are ignorant but present themselves as mental health professionals. Meanwhile they reject most of the actually medical recovery options, such as medication and professional therapy. Most importantly, they ignore the scientific and anecdotal proof that mental illness is a combination of mental and physical conditions that are beyond the complete control of those affected.

  As with the arm-chair doctors, I don’t think that there’s anything wrong with using these suggestions to assist in your recovery. Natural ingredients and some hobbies can help cope with  mental health. The issue is when these people claim they can completely cure these illnesses instantly, and blame you for doing it wrong when it doesn’t work that way. By all means, start practicing yoga, take up watercolour painting, and buy that smoothie with fresh fruits. But telling people that they are just lazy and selfish for not wanting to do those things is wrong.

Total expert on everything, ever

Sometimes it can be hard to get the facts online. There is no end to the amount of false information. And usually they are easier to see than the truth. Part of that is due to these types of people. They share hard facts without double checking the information, which often leads to spreading lies and ignorance. Sure, they sometimes hit the mark, but that occasional success is almost more dangerous because then you build trust in them as a source and then makes the impact of their not reliable content deeper. This is why it’s important to fact check pretty much everything you read online.

The image above is a perfect example of what I’m talking about. This post is the bane of my existence. I’ve seen multiple people and family members share or reference this stupid image and it’s just not true! These numbers are completely made up and in fact, any money that refugees receive to facilitate their move to Canada has to be paid back, with interest. This is actually a burden on many refugees since this debt can follow them for years. My student loan debt is bad enough and I’m not moving across the globe, possibly leaving my family behind in a war torn country and trying to build a new life. So it’s blatantly not factual that Canadian government is treating their refugees better than their pensioners.

And that is the major problem. This image has a lot of numbers and math. It claims to know the dollar amount being given by the government to each and every refugee and pensioner, with no room for individual circumstance. They are not only stating these as facts, but they seem to back up these claims with numbers. Numbers can be very impressive to the passive Facebook scroller, so they assume it’s legitimate and share it along. But it’s not real at all. It’s just a dangerous, xenophobic message meant to create an us versus them mentality.

When false information is so widely agreed upon, it starts to shape people’s opinions. Not that people need help being pessimistic about accepting refugees, but if you also tell them that they are basically stealing money from the pockets of your grandparents, then you start to truly hate them. And the government for letting them. And it’s this change of opinion that makes Liar Liar so dangerous. Most of these incorrect posts come from a place of political messaging. Whether it’s race or class or gender, usually the information is emotionally-charged. That’s another way they make you less likely to question it: you’re so mad you aren’t thinking straight.

The perfect __________

The perfect mom. The perfect employee. The perfect neighbor. I’m not talking about people who are actually good at those things. I’m talking about those who are always criticizing other people for not being perfect. They must be perfect in order to make all those claims and insults, right? May those without sin cast the first stone, right? Oh wait, no one is perfect and everyone makes mistakes and you should give other people a break when they mess up? Yeah that sounds way more realistic.

Apparently there is a Yiddish word for this exact thing. People think that giving advise is always a good thing. That people are inherently asking for your input when they post about their life online. But this is just as rude at blatantly saying to that person “You are a bad mother,” or “You’re a terrible artist.” You may phrase it as “You should be only feeding your children organic food” or “The proportions on your hands are too small.” But that is what that person is going to hear. Even if you think that you’re phrasing the advice in the most considerate way ever, if they didn’t ask for it, you don’t need to give it.

This type of person may not always be dangerous in the “perpetuating harmful ideas and behaviors” kind of way, but they are very threatening to personal self-esteem. Don’t get me wrong, constructive criticism can be an important part of bettering oneself. Without feedback, we can never know what we are doing well and what we should work on. But if all you are getting is unsolicited advice on things you don’t want to be reviewed on, then you are going to become less and less confident in yourself. Also, for a large majority of the time, you don’t know the whole story behind a post on social media. You don’t understand everything that is going on in that person’s life and the reality of their relationships. An example used below is when parenting advice is given. This father had been criticized for taking his children to McDonald’s. He explains that when it comes to children, letting them have the junk food is intensely easier and more placating than anything else you can do for them. In reality, they don’t always have the time to cook dinner or negotiate with their toddler for two hours in order to get them to each the home cooked meal. Not to mention for some families, all they can afford is the drive-thru. Making these assumptions that the parents are just being lazy or negligent is simply unfair.

RIP Trolls

So here is something I didn’t know existed until I was researching for this post. This isn’t just a troll, someone who abuses cap locks and slurs. This is a special kind of demon. These people go onto Facebook and find tribute pages. These are groups or pages that are dedicated to someone who passed away recently. Sometimes they double as awareness for whatever condition the person died too and sometimes they are just a place for people to share their condolences and memories of the deceased. They then flood the page with triggering content, meant to disturb those who are using the page to grieve. I know right? This sounds like absolute madness to me. What kind of monster takes a child dying to gun violence or a husband dying to cancer and throwing it in the face of their friends and family. Why?!

From posting gory images of people dying to writing out evil messages to tear at the hearts of those who cared, these people are very disturbed. Some of them claim that they do this to critique society’s way of publicizing personal matters such as deaths. But that is no excuse for the things these people post. One person commented on a photo of the deceased 14 year old “help me mummy, it’s hot in hell.” On top of that, they posted this on Mother’s Day.

I honestly don’t know what else to say about these people. They take trolling to a new level. And that’s why they are on this list. They can’t settle for just being mean or rude. They need to take someones grief and twist it and crush it. And you can bet that these people wouldn’t ever dream of saying those things to a mourning mother in person. They are cowards who hide behind their computer monitors and keyboards.

On that cheerful note, those are some of the worst people online. Watch out for these people, and for the love of all things good in this world, don’t be them!

      PIN ME:

The Worst People Online This entire post is completely inspired by a single image I saw on Pinterest. Are you KIDDING ME?

[petite-me-1393-blog]

Signed, An Engineer- Lesson 1

Writing this blog is not simple. Being a female engineer is not simple, especially if it is not a world you are specifically born into. The negative connotations associated with the term “feminist” are ones I wish to avoid at all costs while telling of my experiences (after all, the most “feminist” I get is refusing to wear a tight bra everyday of my life- especially as I have very little to push up or hold in place).

So if I appear to be stepping on toes, or you find yourself getting defensive while reading this, please do us all a favor, especially me, and… post your opinions on a social media site with a link to my blog so more people can read it! ;)

***************************************************************************************** I want to share a few lessons I had to learn the hard way when working and proving yourself competent as, not only an engineer, but a woman in a man’s world. 

I’m a child of the South, born and raised. I’ve shot a gun, drank beer, went four-wheel riding and horseback riding, have picked blueberries and strawberries from the side of the road, and yes, ladies and gentlemen, have even eaten alligator. 

This being said, I also have a college degree which I started my junior year of high school, am half Japanese, believe in stricter gun laws, have performed for Paula Abdul and placed in top 3 of my county’s Distinguished Young Woman Competition, and have traveled throughout a majority of the US and Europe.  

Always a tomboy and “daddy’s little girl,” I preferred to cartwheel in my prom dresses and work on cars over gossiping in the kitchen with my aunts and shopping with my sister. All my best friends were guys despite my years of being surrounded by girls while involved in dancing, soccer, and musicals (Yes, I realize now this meant most wanted to screw me rather than hangout and teach me how to program a TV or put together a wooden bench BUT there was a small handful that were genuinely friends). In the end, this lifestyle of constant curiosity, movement, and love for challenges, led me to my passion in mechanical engineering. 

My first taste of engineering and working in a man’s world began my high school sophomore year when I became the crasher of the all-boys construction team of our Robotics club. Immediately, I unknowingly got two labels 1) the attractive, new girl that everyone wanted to get with or 2) the cute little sister everyone wanted to baby. I wasn’t taken seriously by any means, even more so when I started dating the Leader of the construction team.  (A mistake I had to make multiple times before realizing that dating within your field will only immediately place you into the “only here because she slept with someone” category, even if you NEVER actually slept with them.)  I had to quickly learn that, unless I proved myself tenfold, my quirky little 5′ self would be the girl who is only here thanks to the Workplace Gender Equality Act which leads us to our first lesson…

LESSON 1) A majority of men will see you in 3 ways and act accordingly if you are a single, semi-attractive female: the potential affair and home wrecker (they will avoid you like the plague and do their best to ignore your presence when contact is unavoidable), the cute daughter they either have or never had (they will treat you like a child, but don’t take it too seriously- this is one of the better options), or the office slut (they will make inappropriate comments about your body and find any excuse to touch you).  DISCLAIMER! This is NOT to say that all are like this, just like the next person, there are good and bad. However, when you get a lot of testosterone together for long periods of time, the bad can be a bit more pronounced just as three women can never be best friends because two will always talk about the absent one. 

So how does one combat these views? As my sweet southern mother would say, “KISS- Keep it Simple Stupid.”

And the simplest way to approach it is ironically NOT to approach it. You let your work speak for itself and keep your dignity by separating personal life from work life. Be well aware that any form of physical contact or spending too much time with a male coworker can be misinterpreted. And try not to take personal offense to not being invited to the all-male outings to the bar or family gatherings where the stay-at-home wife will question why her husband spends ten to twelve hours at work each day and decide to blame you rather than the fact that maybe he just really wants that promotion (yep, something along these lines has happened to me before too- granted, in her defense, it was me asking her 50ish year old husband to teach me how to ride a motorcycle so now that I am older I can see her skepticism behind it- nonetheless, it has been 4 years since then and I am STILL trying to get someone to teach me how to ride a motorcycle so I don’t have to pay for a $500 class- any offers are welcome!).

After all, just like you judged which person to sit next to on the subway this morning or avoided that open space on the park bench because of the tired, dingy-looking teenager sleeping just across the way or even when you avoided that dark alley way, we all come with prejudices and fears engrained into us; most of us even come with the selfish delusion that the world cares enough to be “against” us.

The most important ideas you must take away from this lesson is that those prejudices lead to crucial moments, and those crucial moments we always remember, those times when we think everyone who is anyone in our lives has rejected us, or when we realize that no one is listening, THOSE moments are stepping stones; those moments are leading you to wisdom; and those moments are essential to a worth-while life of understanding and empathy.