#dr. wai in the scripture with no words

[linggluu]

bet ya never seen takeshi kaneshiro and jet li dressed up as ladies :D

[a-big-apple]

Gideon, Harrow, and "Wedding Vows"

i frequently see the interpretation that this:

"The land that shall receive thee dying, in the same will I die: and there will I be buried. The Lord do so and so to me, and add more also, if aught but death part me and thee," said Gideon. (GtN 438)

plus this:

"If I forget you, let my right hand be forgotten," her mouth was saying. "Add more also, if aught but death part me and thee." And, unsteadily: "Griddle." (HtN 360)

plus this:

It didn't even matter when Kiriona said, "Sure, Cam. Marry a moron, then die. I get the urge." (NtN 372)

equals Gideon and Harrow are married! crying face emoji!

i'm not disparaging that interpretation, i think it's valid and has some basis in the text, and even if it wasn't/didn't, i think fans should have all the fun they want. but for me, it doesn't fully capture the complexity of what Gideon and Harrow are to each other, and i want to explore a slightly less straightforward reading.

Catholic weddings, vows, and Ruth under the cut ;)

Gideon and Ninth House traditions

let's start with Gideon quoting Ruth. i've seen folks repeating the idea that this is a wedding vow. it's more accurate to say that this is a verse often used as a wedding vow, in other denominations of Christianity, and secularly as well. but in a (traditional) Catholic wedding, the couple can't write or choose their own vows--the Celebration of Matrimony has specific text, with one or two variations, that is always used.

now, we haven't seen a Ninth House marriage ceremony. if we do see such a thing in AtN and discover that Ruth 1:17 is part of that tradition, i will cry a million happy queer tears about it. but i think it's somewhat likely that Gideon has never even seen a Ninth House wedding, given how small and trending elderly the population is, and that we know no couples in her lifetime have had kids other than the Reverend Parents.

what i'm getting at here is that this quotation from Ruth doesn't seem, to me, to represent something that's religiously or traditionally binding in Ninth House culture. it uses some similar language to Catholic marriage vows, "until death do us part" etc, but i don't think these are words that make them married in the eyes of the Ninth or the Houses at large, i think these are words Gideon has chosen as a specific expression of her devotion. and where does she get them from, if not some Ninth House ceremony or scripture?

well, this is a slightly longer stretch, but at the point in the story when Gideon says this, she's already dead. Harrow has begun to absorb her--and thanks to "The Unwanted Guest," we know that souls are porous, permeable, and rub off on each other when they're in contact. Gideon's soul is at this moment being integrated into Harrow's; Harrow has certainly read all kinds of books on the Ninth ranging from usual to totally heretical, some of them probably extremely old, and it's not unreasonable to think writings from before the Resurrection might have been copied and recopied into something Harrow could access. And speaking of soul permeability, Harrow's had Alecto's soul clinging onto hers for seven years, and Alecto's soul is in intimate contact with John's soul--there are so many ways for this bit of scripture to make its way into Gideon's non-corporeal mouth. the STI (Soulfully Transmitted Infection) of biblical knowledge.

Ruth in context

now let's talk a little about Ruth, the book of the Bible and also the character of the Bible, and Naomi, who she is swearing her devotion to. tl;dr, Naomi and her husband and two grown sons are Israelites who immigrate to Moab, a "pagan" nation, to escape famine. Naomi's two sons marry Moabite women; then the sons both die, as does Naomi's husband. Naomi, having lost everything, decides to return home where she'll be penniless and have a bad life but at least she'll be among her people; she tells her two daughters-in-law to go back to their families. One of them goes.

The other, Ruth, refuses, and swears beautiful devotion to Naomi, as we've heard Gideon quote: "She answered: Be not against me, to desire that I should leave thee and depart: for whithersoever thou shalt go, I will go: and where thou shalt dwell, I also will dwell. Thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God. The land that shall receive thee dying, in the same will I die: and there will I be buried. The Lord do so and so to me, and add more also, if aught but death part me and thee."

in a biblical context, this has nothing to do with a wedding vow. Ruth is promising to leave the comfort of her own people, religion, and homeland to stay with her mother-in-law Naomi, even though the connection they had (Naomi's son, Ruth's husband) is gone, and all they have to look forward to is a terrible life of grief and bitterness. this is frequently interpreted as a parallel to Jesus, who (in the religious perspective) made the sacrifice of leaving his place with God and becoming human out of devotion to humanity, in order to live and suffer and redeem us. woof, this is giving me flashbacks to CCD.

of course, many Christians resist interpreting what passes between Ruth and Naomi as resembling a wedding vow for homophobic reasons too--making it about Jesus is a way to make it less queer--but i think the point still stands that this is a more complicated, and less marriage-related, expression of love than it seems taken on its own.

Harrow's lamentation

when Harrow later echoes it back, she conflates it with a different biblical quotation: "On the willows in the midst thereof we hung up our instruments. For there they that led us into captivity required of us the words of songs. And they that carried us away, said: Sing ye to us a hymn of the songs of Sion. How shall we sing the song of the Lord in a strange land? If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand be forgotten. Let my tongue cleave to my jaws, if I do not remember thee: If I make not Jerusalem the beginning of my joy."

it's a lament, an expression of mourning, a longing for home from someone who has been forcibly removed from it. when combined with the Ruth quotation, in which Ruth is giving up her home in her devotion, this really reads to me as both Harrow's grief, immediate and overpowering, and a realization that Gideon is her home, and failing to acknowledge that is as disabling as the loss of a hand or of the power of speech. Gideon is the beginning of her joy, and Harrow is, in this moment, putting Gideon above the Ninth House in her devotion. above Alecto. above everything.

and again, i'm not saying all of that can't be about marriage, but it's about a relationship much more complicated than marriage can encompass in the context House cultural norms.

Kiriona Gaia, saddest girl

this brings me to Kiriona, and "marry a moron, then die." consider the context of this, and the tone. Kiriona's deeply, deeply hurt. the saddest girl in the universe. she died for Harrow, avowed her devotion to Harrow, and then (from her perspective) was rejected; buried; excised from Harrow's brain and then from her body. Kiriona, as she did when she was Gideon, covers her emotions with humor and sarcasm. i suspect she's even less able to handle being vulnerable as Kiriona than she ever was before. she's making light of Canaan House and what happened there, and it's only in sarcastically downplaying what she's been through that she recounts her relationship to Harrow as a marriage--something she has almost no positive examples of, something that is in her experience frequently political and joyless. also notably, she frames it as a marriage that occurred before she died.

Their actual vow

what Gideon (and Kiriona) really wants--she tells us over and over again--is to be a true cavalier.

and what does Gideon's ghost repeat right before she devastates us with Ruth 1:17?

"One flesh, one end," said Gideon, and it was a murmur now, on the very edge of hearing. Harrow said, "Don't leave me." (GtN 438)

it's taken me a dozen paragraphs just to propose that this is their vow. "One flesh, one end" are the actual words that need to be spoken, in Gideon and Harrow's cultural context, to bring them into an official union with each other; a union that is arguably more fundamental in the Houses, and certainly more complicated, than a marriage. a union Gideon specifically wants, and has seen in action.

in the pool, they vow to each other as cavalier and necromancer. in the moments before Gideon's death, she forgives Harrow again, and exposes her heart: "'You know I only care about you,' she said in a brokenhearted rush" (GtN 430). then she repeats their oath again, acknowledges the pain she's about to cause for Harrow, and rededicates herself to the Ninth--a place she never really belonged, Harrow's home and people more than her own, as Ruth dedicated herself to Naomi's home and people. Gideon "married" her moron in the pool, and now she dies to fulfill that vow.

and as we saw above, after Gideon's death, she reminds Harrow again of their union--of its importance, of how she's fulfilling what she has interpreted to be her whole purpose as a cavalier--and it's in response to Harrow's "don't leave me" that Gideon offers a final reassurance of her devotion. in her mind, this sacrifice is its ultimate expression, the most inextricable and undeniable union two people can achieve.

Gideon believes she'll be part of Harrow forever.

[creature-wizard]

Hii genuine question. Are Christian holidays not actually from a basis of paganism? I felt like from what I’ve read about it before made sense to me

So like, a lot of people basically jumped to conclusions whenever a Christian holiday was either celebrated near the time of an old pre-Christian holiday, or its name sounded superficially similar to something pre-Christian, or its popular celebrations included elements that didn't seem quite Christian enough.

So, let's take Easter, for example. At one point, this guy Bede mentioned that the holiday got its name from "Eostremonath," IE, Eostre Month, which was named after an old goddess, Eostre. Now, that may very well be true, but it doesn't demonstrate that the holiday had pagan origins. See, when it comes to words for the holiday celebrating Jesus's resurrections, English is an outlier. Most European languages use words that derive from Pascha, which is ultimately derived from the Hebrew word Pesach, as in Passover.

There's also no evidence that Eostre's symbols included eggs or hares. In fact, everything we know about Eostre comes from Bede. Anything else is just guesswork. Dr. Andrew Henry of ReligionForBreakfast on YouTube, by the way, has a decent video on the topic of Eostre.

So why eggs, anyway? Well, back in the day, eggs were forbidden during Lent, so by the time Easter rolled around people had like a month's worth of eggs stacked up. So like, why not eggs?

And then of course, Alexander Hislop completely pulled the Easter/Ishtar connection out of his ass, because he was an anti-Catholic conspiracy theorist who did not care about scholarship, only about demonizing the Catholic Church.

Christmas has been claimed to have been derived from Saturnalia or Sol Invictus based on similarities in dates, but scholars have found that there was this belief that holy men died on the same day they were conceived. So if we start with Good Friday and fast forward nine months, that puts us either in December or January, depending on when exactly you believe Jesus was crucified. So Western traditions, which went for March 25, settled on December 25, whereas Eastern traditions, which went with April 6, got January 6. Dr. Andrew Henry talks about this here.

Christmas trees are also claimed to be pagan, but in reality they weren't a thing until the late medieval period. The earliest known reference to a decorated tree goes back to 1419. Or, it might be a tree; the word used ("Bom") could also mean a pole, as in a decorated pole like a maypole. It was shortly after this that people began erecting trees out in public squares. Again, Dr. Andrew Henry has a video on this.

And yes, it's true that Christmas is called something like Yule or Jol in other languages, but as we've determined from Easter, a name doesn't necessarily tell us where something came from. Most languages don't use anything like Yule; for example, English uses Christmas, as in, "Christ's Mass," while many languages use a word deriving from the Latin natalis, as in "birth," as in "Jesus's birthday."

Just about every attempt to link a Christian holiday to a pre-Christian one is operating on similarly poor methodologies. People just kinda drew conclusions based on things looking kinda similar without looking closer to see if they were really actually connected, or based on things not lining up with their personal ideas of how Christians ought to behave. (This whole idea that pure, true Christianity is sourced 100% from the Bible and the Bible alone is very Protestant, btw. It's also a position that would have baffled the earliest Christians, who didn't even have a New Testament and didn't regard things like the the epistles as holy scripture yet.)

Now of course, the Christianization of Europe didn't overwrite its cultures entirely, and local cultural beliefs and traditions ultimately did influence holiday traditions in some way; Christmas elves are a pretty clear example of this. But this whole idea that the Catholic Church just stole all these pagan holidays and remade them into Christian ones is pseudohistory.

[blessedarethebinarybreakers]

Hey I don’t mean to further flood your inbox and I know I sent an ask a week or so ago. But in church this morning the sermon was on the 1 John passage about how if you hate your brother or sister you don’t love God, and I just. I bet you can guess which political figure immediately comes to mind. I know we’re supposed to love and pray for and forgive our enemies, and it’s not supposed to be a thing where you only do it if you know you’ll get an apology/changed behavior/etc. But the most positive thing I can say where he’s concerned is if he showed up on my doorstep bleeding and starving I would work past my anger to bind his wounds and feed him cuz that’s what you’re supposed to do for fellow human beings. Other than that I have no love for him (or people like him, really). Just anger and immense disdain. Maybe even hate. What do I do with that??

Hey there, I feel you on this. I can also think of maaany political figures I feel this about lol.

I have an old post delving into what it means to love one's enemy and what forgiveness is (and isn't) that I recommend to you.

I'll start with a TL;DR from that post, and then add some other stuff about working through feelings like anger and hate, and close with some reading recs <3

When we find it desperately difficult to love, or to forgive, we can ask God to feel and be what we find ourselves unable to feel and be.

We can remember Christ's words on the cross about the soldiers crucifying him: he does not say "I forgive them," but asks, "Father, you forgive them, for they know not what they do."

He cannot himself forgive them in that moment — not while they are in the act of torturing and killing him, not while they hold all power over him, not even when his compassion allows him to understand that they do what they do out of ignorance — so he asks God to be that forgiveness for them.

When I struggle to feel love for someone who is doing great harm and seems completely unrepentant of that, I turn to God the way Jesus did: "God, I'm struggling to see the spark of You in them. Please love them the way I can't in this moment."

Next point:

Throughout the Bible, the concepts of love and hate are much more about action than sentiment.

If you feel love for someone, yet don't come to their aid when they need it most, what use was that love to them? Meanwhile, if you fear or disdain someone, yet help them in their direst need, you have acted with love.

Furthermore, when it comes to difficult emotions, the good news is that we are indeed invited to bring all our feelings — anger, disdain, even hate — to God. We can be real about what we're feeling.

Scripture shows us this over and over: There are so many psalms, and passages from the prophets, where someone has been hounded and terrorized enough to wish pain or even death upon the ones who oppress them. In one of the most infamous, Psalm 137, the psalmist even goes so far as to wish that their oppressors' children might be "dashed upon a rock" — that everything Babylon has made them suffer might be enacted on Babylon.

These are not pretty feelings, yet they are preserved in holy poetry, because they are part of the human experience. (And tantamount to understanding them is realizing that those praying such things will happen almost never have the power to enact them. The psalmist who wishes Babylon's soldiers experience what they've put the psalmist's people doesn't have the army, the weapons, the power to actually make that happen. They're just honest about wishing it in a moment of collective trauma and grief.)

In all this, I'm not saying God "wants" us to feel loathing or hate — any thought or feeling that puts us at risk of denying another person's humanity is one we do need to work on; but we do that work by being honest about feeling it, rather than being too ashamed to face it or to share it with God.

No pressure to read any of these of course, but here are texts I'd recommend on these topics:

James Baldwin's The Fire Next Time, a brief but rich text in which (among other things) Baldwin grapples with the need to love his oppressor (namely white people) — to affirm their humanity in a way they have denied him. Only in recognizing one another's humanity can we have any hope of something like justice and peace for the generations to come. Baldwin believes this vehemently, but he still acknowledges that it's still not easy, in fact it's one of the hardest things, to love one's oppressors in such a way. .

Cole Arthur Riley's This Here Flesh, another short book rich in meaning. I especially recommend the chapters on lament, rage, justice, and repair for this topic. One thing she discusses is that love is not "niceness," that rage can be righteous, that sometimes the most loving thing we can do is to let a harmful person witness our rage, to call them out. .

The same link from the beginning to that post about what forgiveness is and what it is not

[yourfaveisqueerandreligious]

Sorry if this sounds disrespectful or rude, but isn’t it against Muslim faith to be LGBT, I’m not Muslim or sapphic so I’m sorry if I got this wrong, it’s just a thing I’ve heard from Muslim friends, again I’m not meaning any disrespect or harm it’s just a genuine question :]

hi!! important disclosure: i am not muslim. i don't know many aspects of muslim faith or really anything about interpretations or readings of the quran. if anyone who is muslim or has a muslim background wants to provide their perspective and knowledge, i would greatly appreciate it (but by no means are you forced to).

from my very barebones understanding, the quran can be interpreted non-affirming, or affirming. while it does not have translation issues (because the quran is not translated), some believe that the words used to condemn queer people in the modern were used to mean queer people after the quran was penned. furthermore, islam encourages the diversity of creation, with some taking this to be related to sexuality and thus supportive of queer identities. a sort of "God makes no mistakes" rhetoric.

islam has many followers, and as a result, there will a diversity in views. individual life experiences and backgrounds will play a role in interpretation of the scripture that individual holds as holy, so many different muslims will have many different interpretations.

again, i am not muslim. this is not my area of expertise, and i, unfortunately, cannot be the person to give you a detailed answer. thank you for asking genuinely and i hope this can help in one way or another :)

tl;dr - no, it's not against muslim faith to be lgbtq <3

[hamliet]

Love your blog, Hamliet and also your take on theology. What do you think about Jezebel and Vashti? Now, as Christian myself, I've been told since childhood to not grow up to be like both queens above but become like Eshter and Ruth. But as I grew older, I started to think differenly of those two queens. I grew to like their characters and think they are more interesting than Eshter and Ruth (not that I think badly of the later, I also like them).

What do you think?

Hi! Thank you for this ask; I love talking about Biblical narrative!

To start with, I'm gonna chat about Vashti-Esther, and Jezebel, under the cut. But first I'm gonna go to bat for my girl Ruth, because she is so not the "good girl" modern Christians depict her as. Her story is so much more complex, and there's a reason a lot of modern churches ignore talking about the Jewish context.

Ruth: Brave, Bold, Thirsty

Ruth is a go-getter. Ruth didn't patiently wait like a meek girl. Ruth took her destiny into her own hands--with her mother-in-law's guidance.

See, when Ruth goes to lie down with Boaz at night and uncovers his "feet," she didn't uncover his feet. Feet is a euphemism. It is indisputably his penis.

Like, Christians rarely talk about this because they don't want to acknowledge it because it goes against their image of Ruth. But they also don't have a counter for it because it factually is Ruth, y'know, having agency.

So, Ruth is trying to seduce Boaz, because she knows he likes her. And being crafty about it, because if someone catches her there, Boaz (being an honorable man which she already knows he is), even if they haven't had sex he'll have to marry her because everyone will think they have. Genius.

And despite people trying to say Boaz and Ruth are too honorable so clearly it was just about marriage and nor her actually attempting to initiate premarital sex, the Bible expressly has another widow called honorable for initiating premarital sex that actually happens (with her father-in-law no less) specifically to ensure her survival when she would else wise have been left childless and abandoned. tl;dr: Ruth was attempting to seduce Boaz. That's the obvious meaning of this, and whoever wrote the story wasn't obsessed with getting the audiece to think otherwise.

Thematically, also, Ruth going outside of the norms of what is considered moral (via asking for sex before marriage, even if there is an understanding that sex would lead to marriage) is kind of a major tie-in with the other aspect of Ruth's story: she's a foreigner. The Law frowns on marrying foreigners for the most part. Yet, by going outside the normal parameters, they get King David and later, for Christians, Jesus himself.

Ruth left her homeland after losing her husband and stuck with her mother-in-law, knowing that doing so meant that she had no future (she would need children to provide for her in her old age; as a foreigner, she likely wouldn't be able to marry again and have kids. But she went with Naomi so that Naomi wouldn't be alone, because she could ensure Naomi had someone to take care of her at the very least, without any hope for herself).

But when she saw a chance to secure her future, she took it. And Naomi encouraged her to do so. Ruth is brave, and smart, and kind. And Boaz is also a good man who not only helped Ruth, but didn't take advantage of her desperation on the threshing room floor. He didn't have sex with her, and he forbade others from talking about her coming there. Instead he went about it the honorable and human-affirming way--marrying Ruth according to traditional cultural customs, at the city gates.

In other words, Boaz said this isn't going to be a shameful, backroom thing. He says, I'm going to make it public, because I'm proud to have you as my wife.

Honestly, healthiest couple in all of Scripture.

Others below!

Esther and Vashti: Bringing Good from Bad

Esther and Vashti I see as a story about making the best of a terrible situation. Vashti deserves no hate, and I do see Christians coming around to that as well. I mean, her husband essentially said come parade yourself naked in front of all my drunk friends. Sounds like he wanted an orgy, or at the very least public sex with her. And she said no, like she should have. King, you're gross. Vashti did nothing wrong.

But Ahasuerus is kinda portrayed like a... very passionate but not very wise person throughout the story. So not really surprising. But the point also is that while he doesn't want to acknowledge his stupidity or allow a woman to counter his authority, he does eventually not only pardon Esther when she flouts his authority by entering without permission, but comes up with a counter to his previously issued decree to slaughter the Jews. A king can't go back on his word, but he can give others power to counter it when he's wrong. Which is kind of the main theme--making the best out of a shitty situation.

Esther is then taken from everyone she's ever known and forced to become a concubine wherein most of the girls around her will be used once, probably not get pregnant, and live the rest of their lives alone and untouched in the king's harem. But Esther, like Ruth, is clever. She asks for advice from the eunuchs to endear herself to the king because she wants more than a life of luxury and loneliness. Because of her attempts to save herself from a fate that, on the surface, isn't nearly as terrible as what Ruth was facing but is still emotionally devastating, she ends in a perfect position to save all of her people from annihilation.

Jezebel (and Athaliah): A Critique of Power

Jezebel... well, she's kind of portrayed as vain and cruel. Plus she murders some people whenever they flout her authority. So she's not like, a morally awesome person.

That said, I always felt sorry for her. She also clearly wanted power and lived in a society where women had little say and little power, even as queen, which is probably why she lashes out so brutally at those who threaten her power and position--the vineyard owner, the prophets, etc.*

But instead of Jezebel being seen as a sign for how marriages to foreigners is a way of corrupting the Israelites with foreign gods, I wonder whether the story would be different if people had treated Jezebel more of as a potential Ruth, as a human being, instead of just a symbol of political power.

Because that's what she was--her marriage is a symbol of power for King Ahab and for her father. I see her corruption and cruelty as a condemnation far more of what happens when we focus on gaining political power than what happens when we marry the wrong person or whatnot. And also, like, maybe the way women were treated may have led to her desperation for power. Just maybe.

Along those lines, I also wonder if the prophets had been less condemning of her as a person and more corrective (and if her husband wasn't himself such a spineless meatbrain), if her story might have been more of an Esther's.

But patriarchy is far more interested in condemning Jezebel as a whore despite like, there being no record of that, rather than in, like, examining their own human desire for control and political power and how that can corrupt (but also! doesn't! have! to! see Esther).

*Like, Jezebel's flaw being her focus on power is very clear not just in her actions but her daughter Athaliah's--Athaliah marries the king of Judah and then massacres all his sons to take the crown for herself, with only one son, a baby, surviving thanks to a princess named Jehoshabeath, who was married to the chief priest, smuggling him out. Later on there's a coup and Joash, the son, reclaims his father's throne. Yes, the classic fantasy trope of secret son reclaiming a father's throne is partially Biblically based.

[sapphosremains]

@imorepizzanow asked me this great question in a comment, and my answer was way too long to post there:

"I have a question!🙋‍♀️ Why do people oppose the suggestion that Jesus was queer (I personally think that He had a relationship with John the Beloved) and think it’s wrong but people are fine at the interpretation of Jesus and Mary Magdalene’s relationship and even encourage it?"

answer under the cut bc this will be fairly long :)

i think this is super interesting! i think there are a lot of nuances here to be unpacked.

tl;dr: rejecting homosexuality

firstly, i would argue that most christians disagree with the idea of a relationship between mary magdalene and Jesus. there is no scriptural evidence for this (we only have the apocryphal and gnostic gospel of philip, which is not accepted by the church in general. our other evidence is the gospel of the 'wife of jesus', but most scholars agree this is fake. if you're interested in either of these controversies, there is a wealth of academic literature on them to be found online - this is a very brief and simple overview.) what we learn from this is that the official position of 'the church' overall (i know, referring to all churches sharing an opinion is ridiculous, but bear with me! i don't want this to be too long! the individual positions of each church can be found online, but this is the general idea) is that Jesus did not marry or have a relationship with anyone. the bride of Christ is His Church.

secondly, where people believe in Jesus having relationships anyway, there's two things at play here. people can have opinions, and think He had a relationship with john and not mary, or vice versa, and that's fine. people are welcome to believe what they want and find supporting evidence for this, and i think it is easy to find evidence that can be interpreted in this way for both. at the end of the day, i don't think we can ever be truly sure how exactly Jesus 'loved' each of his disciples etc, so everyone is welcome to their own opinion. where this becomes a problem is when people are attacked for their opinions. disagreeing with the idea of Jesus in a queer relationship can come from a place of personal preference (believing in his relationship with mary, believing he wasn't in a relationship, believing he wasn't queer, all of which are completely valid personal opinions and beliefs), or from a place of homophobia, whether explicit or internalised. for the latter, we find ourselves back in the 'is homosexuality okay' argument, which i won't even begin to get into. there is so much nuance and so many different opinions here, and although i believe that homophobia is wrong, i can understand (as much as it hurts my heart) the opinions of those who think it is and their scriptural grounding, and i can understand why they wouldn't want God to be linked to what is in their eyes a sin. however, this does not justify them attacking you or anyone who believes in a relationship with john.

at the end of the day, we are all entitled to our own opinions, and we can understand that some of those come from places of intolerance, and some are unfounded. all i can say is that the best we can do as christians is pray for those who are intolerant and pray that they might find peace. i personally believe that jesus was never in a relationship, but i wouldn't see a difference between him being with john or mary. i won't try to defend this belief now as it honestly doesn't come from a place of deep research etc, just from my personal belief and what sits with me right now.

in the interest of turning the other cheek and informing oneself, i would recommend looking into the sides of opinion on homosexuality (side a, b, x, y - i did begin defining these but they're so nuanced again there's not point trying to define them in a few words). however i would warn against this if you're not in a strong place spiritually! i fell down a bit of a side x/y thing a while ago and found it super tricky. i would recommend justin lee's side a defence essay and his recommendation for the side b defence essay to start to understand these two sides.

if you don't want to look at morals of homosexuality, but you do want to think about both sides from a theology pov, there is definitely literature on whether or not mary was the wife of jesus to be found online, and although i couldn't immediately find anything on whether john was in a relationship with Jesus, there is a lot about his role as a disciple and identity all to be found on google scholar, and i'm sure other places (jstor, archive etc) too.

this was obviously more a question and response of why do people act like this, as opposed to theologically what is the grounding for both, but if anyone would like an academic theological dive into the scriptural support for either, lmk!

i hope this is somewhat clear - it's definitely a difficult topic to discuss, so please let me know if you have any questions or criticisms! open to debate and discussion as always :)

[rolkientolkien]

In view of God's sovereignty, is it correct to say that God allows bad things to happen, or that he causes bad things to happen? To disambiguate this a little, assume we are talking about a natural disaster rather than something that is the direct result of human sinfulness. When should we say that God "allowed" something, and when should we say that God "caused" something? Does God cause some disasters but merely allow others? Is "allow" merely a semantic way to place emphasis on another causative agent (Satan, man, random chance) or is God's role in disasters he "allowed" actually different than his role in disasters that he caused?

Sorry for sitting on this ask! So I would say that this falls under the secret will of God mentioned in Deuteronomy 20:20. There are just some things we will not fully understand this side of Heaven and probably in the New Heaven and Earth. That being said, Scripture makes it clear that God does ordains the beginning from the end. Isaiah 45 opens up with God saying that Cyrus, before he was even born, will be his instrument and his anointed one, and that He, YHWH, creates light and dark, calamity and peace, and that there is no one else besides Him. God's sovereignty is a mystery, all that's been revealed to us by His word is that He ordains the ends and means to bring about His purposes and yet isn't the author of sin. Smarter men than me have thought over this question (particularly the Westminster Divines, and some modern Theologians like Dr. Sproul, Dr. White etc) but I think it's best to say with Joseph, "you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today."

[mybeautifulchristianjourney]

What is the motivation of theologians who compromise Genesis with the belief in millions of years?

by Ken Ham

Sadly, my experience has shown that many theologically conservative theologians have in reality adopted two different hermeneutical principles by which they interpret Scripture. This inconsistency causes problems.

Now, I do have great respect for many such theologians. Take the late Dr. Norman Geisler. He was a prolific author who for many years contended for the faith and equipped Christians with some excellent apologetic arguments to defend the Christian faith against many secular attacks.

At the same time, I assert that he and many others in Christian leadership (contrary to their sincerely good intentions) have unwittingly undermined the reliability and authority of the Scriptures they have loved and worked so hard to uphold. Can such a serious allegation be substantiated?

After my evolution/creation debate with Bill Nye, TV’s “The Science Guy,” on February 4, 2014 at the Creation Museum, there was a plethora of articles and blogs on the origins issue in secular and Christian media.

On February 12, Dr. Geisler wrote an opinion piece for the online Christian Post titled, “Does Believing in Inerrancy Require One to Believe in Young Earth Creationism?”

In this commentary, Dr. Geisler attempted to use various arguments to discredit those (like those of us at Answers in Genesis) who insist that God’s Word clearly teaches a creation week of six approximately 24-hour days (followed by a day of rest), and a relatively young age for the universe (about 6,000 years).

Even though Dr. Geisler briefly discussed the meaning of the Hebrew word for day (yôm) and biblical genealogies (e.g., in Genesis 5), I suggest that his column was really an attempt to justify a particular motivation he held as many other conservative theologians also hold.

For instance, Dr. Geisler in his Systematic Theology book states:

“In addition to the biblical evidence for long periods of time, there are scientific arguments that the world has existed for billions of years. The age of the universe is based on

1 the speed of light and the distance of the stars; 2 the rate of expansion of the universe; 3 the fact that early rocks have been radioactively dated in terms of billions of years; 4 the rate that salt runs into the sea and the amount of salt there, which indicates multimillions of years.

“While all of these arguments have certain unprovable presuppositions, nonetheless, they may be true and, hence, point to a universe that is billions rather than thousands of years in age.” (end of quote).

In some of his other writings, Dr. Geisler made similar statements regarding a billions-of-years-old universe. I suggest that his ultimate motivation for attempting to discredit a literal six-day Creation Week was because he had been influenced by an authority outside the Bible: the majority view among scientists of very old ages, so that he could allow for a belief in billions of years. Thus, he went to great lengths in an attempt to justify various efforts by Christians to fit billions of years into the biblical record. I do believe this was his ultimate motivation.

He had been influenced by an authority outside the Bible: the majority view among scientists.

Also keep in mind that the belief in billions of years actually came out of naturalism, as fallible humans, using autonomous human reasoning, attempted to explain the origin of the earth and universe.

When I study the writings of numerous contemporary Christian scholars, I find they propose a variety of ways to interpret Genesis. But they all have the same motivation. Somewhere in their writings, they will admit to believing in, or allowing for, the supposed billions of years for the age of the universe.

Now when I read Dr. Geisler’s writings where he dealt with the New Testament, I discovered that he never started with beliefs from secular scientists and take them to the Bible to interpret, say, the account of Jesus’ resurrection or virgin birth. He accepted those Scriptures as written. But when he looked at the account of origins in Genesis, Dr. Geisler did not take it as written, but allowed ideas outside of God’s Word to be reconciled to Scripture. As a consequence, he reinterpreted the plain meaning of God’s written revelation.

I strongly and respectfully suggest that Dr. Geisler and many other Christian scholars have one hermeneutical principle for Genesis chapters 1–11 (eisigesis) and a different one for the rest of Scripture (exegesis).

Because of this approach, Dr. Geisler misrepresented biblical creationists who believe in a young earth/universe. For example, here is what he stated in his Christian Post commentary:

“'For some, the belief in a Young Earth seems to be based on a kind of intuition or faith in what they believe an omnipotent God should do. It reasons that if God is all powerful, then certainly He would not have taken millions of years to make the earth. However, by reduction ad absurdum, one could ask why God did not create it in six minutes or six seconds rather than six days? If He is all-powerful and can make something from nothing, then why did He not create the whole thing lock-stock-and barrel instantaneously!' Furthermore, it is not a question of what God could or should do; it is a question of what God actually did do. And it is presumptuous for a mortal to divine what God should have done.”

For biblical creationists, however, it has never been a “question of what God could or should do.” And it is really not primarily a “question of what God did do.”

At Answers in Genesis, we have always stated that it’s a question of what God said he did! The priority is taking the Word of God naturally. There are many biblical and contextual reasons for concluding (as almost the whole church did for 1,800 years and much of the church holds to today) that Genesis 1–11 is straightforward literal history. Genesis teaches us more than mere history, but not less than history. And the literal history is critical to what it teaches us about God, man, sin, marriage, etc. We must let God speak to us and not in any way allow fallible man’s ideas to be imposed on Scripture.

Answers in Genesis has published numerous articles on the meaning of the Hebrew word for day in Genesis (“yom”), the supposed gaps in the biblical genealogies, and the problems with trying to determine the age of the earth using the various “scientific” methods. Perhaps one of the most thorough analyses we have of the Hebrew word for day comes from chapter 5 of my book “Six Days.”

It is true that many of the church fathers and the early creeds did not deal with the age of the earth/universe. But that is simply because almost all of them were young-earth creationists, such as Augustine. He held to a global flood, the great lifespans of the pre-flood patriarchs, and that Adam lived less than 6,000 years before Augustine. He was only confused about the days in Genesis 1 (thinking creation was in an instant, not over millions of years) because of his faulty Latin Bible and his ignorance of the Greek and Hebrew languages.

In addition the famous reformer John Calvin believed that the world had not yet “completed its six thousandth year” (Calvin 2009, p. 90). Luther and Wesley also held to the young-earth view. In fact, this was the overwhelmingly dominant view in the church till the early 1800s, when the idea of millions of years was developed in geology and so much of the church accepted it. Frankly, Dr. Geisler was mistaken regarding beliefs about Genesis in the history of the church. The church quickly compromised with the idea of millions of years in the early 19th century (not because of new more careful exegesis of the biblical text, but because Christians made the geologists their final authority of the subject). And sadly, most Christian leaders (including Spurgeon, Hodge, Scofield, Warfield, and the authors of The Fundamentals) have followed suit with an equally shallow analysis of the Genesis text and other relevant passages.

I assert that many great men of God in today’s world are contributing to a generational loss of biblical authority because of their insistence on accommodating man’s belief in billions of years with the infallible Word of God. Such a loss of biblical authority is contributing enormously to a massive exodus of young people from the church (see our book “Already Gone”) and an increasing decline of Christian influence on the culture. Of course, for all Christians, compromising God’s Word is a very serious matter.

“Do not add to His words” (Proverbs 30:6).

[sambhavami]

Dushyanta & Shakuntala

Personally, this story as documented in Mahabharata is a cautionary tale against verbal-only contracts. You should always get things in writing/have neutral witnesses.

The way Dushyanta mansplains, manipulates and basically coerces Shakuntala into being intimate with him is a terrifying read. This is a testament to how women must be overly cautious even now while negotiating any deal.

The first thing Dushyanta does (after finding Shakuntala alone, and gauging exactly how long her father will be gone), is that he confirms her caste status.

Laughable, considering the glass house he has in his skeleton closet (this part is not his fault, but it sure is ironic how he uses the same regressive logic to evaluate the worth of Shakuntala, which can be used to disqualify him from his throne itself if one was feeling vile enough).

The moment that he is assured of her 'good breeding', Dushyanta starts cornering her. While his tone is sweet and polite, it's clear that he intends to fully exploit the fact that he's the local King and Shakuntala is just a law-fearing subject (a young and naive one at that).

Shakuntala however isn't completely clueless. Once it is clear that Dushyanta is in no mood to wait for her father to return (rather he wishes to finish the 'deed' as soon as possible and then run), Shakuntala exacts a promise that Dushyanta will make their future offspring the yuvaraja.

Solid plan. Only one problem, Shakuntala didn't think Dushyanta would be so brazen as to completely deny the whole encounter.

So, when she presents herself and her Sarvadamana in Allahabad, Dushyanta's words hit her like a metaphorical kick in the teeth.

Dushyanta, among other grossly misogynistic comments, calls into question the character- both Shakuntala's and her mother's. He penalizes her for her father's dodgy track record and her mother's perceived lack of morals, by invoking their names and stories to discredit both her honour and honesty.

It is then, that Shakuntala becomes a (n unnecessarily) strong heroine, standing up for both herself and her mother, all the while defending her son's right to his father's throne.

In doing so, dishing it right back to Dushyanta, she brings up the disparity in their births (it's nice to see Shakuntala being proud of her mum...even though that relationship too is a can of worms). She asserts that Dushyanta would not be doing her son a favour if he accepts him now and here, because her son is perfectly capable of taking, in due time, what is owed to him.

Just as she is about to leave, there is this shloka.

In Dr N P Bhaduri's research, he mentions that this shloka is old and unchanged in multiple scriptures. In fact, as per his understanding, it might be pre-Vedic.

Bharasva Putram Dushyanta |

Mavasangstha Shakuntalam ||

Tanchasya Dhata Garbhasya |

Satyamaha Shakuntala ||

In essence, in breaking the metaphor, I assume Dushyanta's ministers remind him of the social clout of Kanva (and that he so callously dragged one of the most powerful rajarshis' name through the mud) and by extension the damage Shakuntala can really do with (both of) her father's help in a Brahman-dominated society, and hence they advise him to give up the ruse and accept both mother and son.

In fact, that is where Bharata gets his name (the bold portion of the shloka)....Bhara (Bharasva) + Ta (Dushyanta).

After the fact obviously Dushyanta gives a very Rama-like excuse...wanted to test her piety, gods' approvals blah blah. As a headcanon, I like to believe that Shakuntala never really forgave him (because that sets a terrible precedent), and neither did Bharata.

As a moral, I would repeat, have written contracts, pre-nups+post-nups, read all the pages, call witnesses and make sure you're actually legally married. Basically, know your rights or you may end up fighting your own case in a biased court sans lawyer.

[futureplayboibunnie]

I’ve got a fluff request for Stephen Strange/female!reader. The two of them are friends and getting very close. One day the reader falls asleep on Strange and he is quite pleased with the situation, so he snuggles up with her and has a lovely nap. Reader wakes up completely embarrassed because she assumes she’s overstepped in their friendship, but strange assures her that he’s really enjoying getting more intimate with her. Maybe he tells her how he wants more intimacy, maybe he makes a move, maybe there’s more fluff! Definitely up to you where it goes!

‘Overstepping’

Dr Strange x fem! reader

I LOVE IT <3 this one is fluffy and smutty best of both worlds hehe 18+

You always found yourself merging into the nooks and crannies of the library. Immersing yourself in the ancient spellbooks and sacred scriptures, you curled into one of the sofas there. It was far too late for anyone to distract you from your reading, far too late for anyone to find you in your cute vest and shorts. Silence covered the entire room and vou've never felt more at peace in your internal habitat.

‘’It's like sleep is never on the cards for you.’’ Stephen's voice slashed through that silence, your peace would normally be seen as distrupted but since it was Stephen you immediately put your guard down. Your lips couldn't help but curl into a smile at his cosy presence. He was obviously getting ready for bed until he heard your scuffling, his hair was messy and his eyes were full of curiosity

What could you say? Stephen's kindness seemed to extend only to you. You were shocked that people thought of Stephen as cold and unforgiving; considering he was the most powerful sorcerer in the world it was expected, but you only ever experienced a certain type of sweetness of him. Intense warmth. Incredibly dorky when he wanted to be. It was adorable when he would do that small half smile when vou couldn't pronounce a name of a spell correctly, even more so when you come up with a smart ass remark to his pompous all knowing nature. It's like you could truly be yourself around him as soppy as that sounds. You were getting close to him, really close. It was almost too relaxed.

‘’Why sleep when I can be better and smarter than you?’’ You joked as he padded his way over to you on the antique sofa. The presence of you was overwhelming to him, the air of you was so familiar and foreign to him and he could just drown in you.

‘’That's impossible.’’ Stephen countered as he sat next to you, the warmth radiating off of your bodies made your mind melt. You were always finding him so close to you, so so close to you.

Stephen never really found himself drawn to anyone, then you came into his life propelling him into a sea of uncertainty. There was something about you- full of warmth and light when he'd isolate himself in darkness, you were a beacon of hope for him. But most of all a friend.

Although every single second he spent in your presence he came to the same conclusion: he was yearning for you, he wanted you to be his.

Stephen found himself to be carefree even though he had the weight of the world on his broad shoulders. It was a sentimental breath of fresh air, and he wanted to breathe you every single second of the day.

‘’Instead of berating me, wanna give me spoilers for this spellbook?’’ You raised an eyebrow, curling your legs and turning to face him with challenging eyes.

‘’It's not a fictional novel.’’ Stephen chuckled.

The night was, for a lack of better words, a dream wrapped in a fairy tale. With your feet in his lap he massaged them like a normal 'couple' would, it was vastly endearing the way you squeaked out your laughs at his unfunny jokes and your laugh made him feel on top of the world. You talked and talked and talked, straying away from the topics of sorcery and about normal mundane everyday activities. Poking fun at nothing and everything. All Stephen could think about was the hope that this could be something he could do with you every night. You noticed that he would stare at your side profile when he thought you weren't realizing, but you did and it made your heart murmur under his gaze. And now, your head was resting on his shoulder; it was 3 in the morning and you had laughed your way to tiredness, your throat was sore and raw with the way he made your troubles dissipate. Stephen could smell your perfumed hair and he had to question if any of this was real. 

He slowly wrapped an arm around you and you sighed in contentment, your eyes were now heavy and you honestly couldn't remember closing them. You were sleeping on him. Stephen's heart was beating at an impossible rate with every shallow intake and exhale of your breath, he was incredibly pleased with the outcome to say the least.

—

The quiet whispering of birds tweeting outside made your brows crease in irritation and your eyelids fluttered at the fact. You didn't remember going to bed last night and it was obvious due to your feet nipping cold, but your torso was heated and you felt cosy and warm. Your eyes darted open as you felt the hand that was wrapped around you.

Fuck.

You sat up straight and found that you were cuddling up against Stephen fucking Strange, his soft snores covered the room and the reality of it all was just sinking in.

You were panicking, fearful of overstepping a boundary that needn't be crossed. The fear of this mistake was souring your mood, you didn't want to ruin the sweetness of your friendship. Everything that you built would come crumbling down and it was all due to this. Your embarrassment was heating your cheeks.

Your shuffling made Stephen's eyes flit awake, you were stretching yourself away as you stood up, mind internally pacing

‘’Did we sleep here or..?’’ Stephen groaned, his voice soaked in tiredness as he leaned up from the sofa.

‘’What time is it?’’ You said curtly and dodged his question. He didn’t like the cold distant tone you were using.

‘’It's 6am.’’ He stared at his watch and when he looked up you were walking away from him. Stephen hated it, he was scared his selfishness may have ruined what he had with you. The light of you dimming away with every step you took.

Your embarrassment followed you everywhere you went that day, avoiding Stephen at all costs of course- afraid of the look of disapproval he'd give you if you ever accosted him again. Night fell upon you and you successfully avoided him for the entire day, you assumed you were safe in the library late at night once more.

Until Stephen found you again...on the same antique he held you in. Your eyes darted upwards and widned consequently as his frame was at the door. He shut the door and locked it, your heart dipped.

‘’Uhmm.. I'm just going to-‘’ You scrambled as your words stuttured, mouth and tongue unable to form anything coherent.

‘’Y/N.’’ Stephen said lowly, hands in his sweatpants pockets as he slowly stalked his way over to you. You barely caught a glimpse of his eyes, but you found that they were gleaming wickedly with some hail Mary idea. You knew this wouldn't be good.

‘’I need to...go.’’ You said with a panicked tone in your voice.

‘’Y/N.’’ Stephen repeated more sternly this time.

You got all your books together and attempted to speed right past him out of the door, but like the Adonis of a man he is- he grasped at your arm and stopped you, making your books clatter and thump loudly onto the floor. With any other person, he would be furious that such sacred books are on the floor but with you he'd let just about anything slide. He just wanted to sit you and talk to you.

‘’Please, just sit down.’’ Stephen ushered you back to the antique and your nerves were becoming more and more frayed by the second

‘’Stephen, please I-.’’ You pleaded but he didn't listen- his brash attiude was finally at a comeuppance and you were terrified for the words to come as he finally sat you down and placed himself next to you.

Your breathing was intense and erratic and you couldn't help but roll your eyes.

‘’Avoiding me now, huh?’’ Stephen said with a stupid smirk on his face and you rotated your head just enough to let him know your face was in a defeated almost scowl.

You sighed.

‘’Tell me.’’ He said softly as his fingers twirled at your hair slightly.

A gasp was stuck in your throat at the unexpected action.

‘’I just-‘’ You started and Stephen urged you to continue as he leaned his face forward. ‘’I didn't think you'd want me to be so close to you.’’

You admitted, your mouth finally spitting out the fated words that would seal your course.

‘’Is that it?’’ He guffawed adamently at your foolishness and how he literally thought the opposite. ‘’I think it's fairly obivous that I like being near you.’’

‘’What?’’ Your face couldn't contain your surprise, your eyes widened as yours met his glassy blues. They were vastly daunting and full of mischief, vivid with dark hues in a way you'd never seen.

Stephen traced his hands over yours lightly and you shivered at the touch, he finally caved and intertwined his fingers with yours and to his surprise you mirrored him. His gaze lingered on the soft curve of your lips and kissing you is all he could think about. You were sure this was an impossibility, the tension here wasn't platonic.

‘’Is this what this is about? You think that last night was a mistake?’’

You were seriously about to burst into hysterics. Your hands were flailing with a mind of their own and you felt your vocal chords were kicked into overdrive.

‘’I just felt like I overstepped and-‘’ Stephen cut you off with his lips, his soft lips that were hard against yours, his hands went to cradle the supple skin of your jaw and a gasp fell into his mouth. Your felt your inhibations leave you at an instant, your reality was crashing in on itself harder the longer his lips were on yours. As if time was warped, your hands finally scraped up into his hair and tugged on it. Stephen finally had that hit of you that he so craved from you, he was sentient enough to pull away however

He stared into the horizon of your eyes, blinking up at him in unbridled surprise. The fact he was inches away from your face made heat swell in your panties, you became increasingly aware you were wearing shorts. Very short and tight.

‘’Is this overstepping?’’ Stephen gritted out softly against your plump lips. You gawked at him.

‘’I wasn't sure if-‘’You whispered but he cut you off again.

‘’-I wanted you more than that?’’

You nodded.

‘’I think I've gone mad just thinking about you, thinking about how much I need your presence alone. I've gone mad with how much I missed you today.’’ Stephen's honesty was so exhilerating even though it surprised you completely. You were sure your eyes were black with need.

‘’Need me...?’’ Your fingers played with his hair as your arms rested on his shoulders.

‘’Mhm.’’ He mumbled.

‘’And.. miss me?’’ You smirked.

‘’Every bit of you.’’ He breathed and it made you kiss him in response, your lips were sealed against his. It was reaffirming. Stephen thought you tasted devine as your tongues tangled wetly like two snakes.

You climbed on top of him and straddled his lap, his large hands pinched at your waist and travelled down to your hips and ultimately the place he wanted to get his hands on the most- your ass. He slapped at it and it made you breathe a chuckle against his mouth. You had such a perky ass and he loved it when you would absentmindedly flaunt it around. Now it was his to play with. Your hands were pulling desperately tugging against the collar of his plain tee. He reached behind him and pulled it off and your nails scraped against his torso.

‘’We're in the library.’’ Stephen laughed at the compromising situation.

You responded by harshly stuffing your hand in his sweats.

‘’Oh, you're gonna ride me in the library? Brave girl.’’ He cooed and slapped your ass again, you groaned into his skin as you rapidly kissed his neck, peppering it with intense bites. Stephen groaned out raggedly. He could literally read your mind.

He pulled off your vest and your tits bounced out. He instantly buried his face into your cleavage and started tugging on your nipples with his teeth. Your fingers carded through his hair as your head fell back in pleaure, mouth agape. Stephen knew exactly what to do with his mouth.

‘’Fuck..’’ You moaned out.

It was tricky getting your shorts off in this position but you finally worked your magic and got them off as well as your underwear. You were naked under his gaze and he was damn near salivating. The fact that he wanted you as much as you wanted him was only just starting to settle now.

As you tugged his cock out of the confines of his sweats, you were bewildered by the sheer size of it. Your mouth popped open as you witnessed firsthand Stephen's well endowed appendage. It was curved and thick and you were sure it would fill you up to the brim.

‘’Give me what I need.’’ Stephen challenged and you were more than willing to giveit.

You sunk down on him, slightly teasing him with your warm wetness before fully sitting on him. His grip on your waist was a tight burning sensation and it made your insides melt at the feeling. Stephen's head was hung back as you began grinding those malleable hips of yours on him, he was in you so deep it was bordering on painful. But the sting was delectable.

As you began bouncing and grinding harder, Stephen took your nipple in his mouth and tugged on it brutally again. He was filling you up to the hilt and the thought of being inside you was making him go insane. The beautiful look on your face as you just kept rutting against him made him go limp and tense at the same time- he wish he could get that expression of you tattooed on his body. He does have a photographic memory however, that was close enough. Stephen could revisit this moment any time he pleased. Your hair was a mess and so was his, probably due to the sex induced air.

‘’Stephen!’’ His name sounded so sweet on your tongue.

You kept calling out his name before he clamped his hand over your mouth so you didn't wake anyone. His skin buzzed as you began moaning and moaning like a broken record stuck on loop. The pleading look in your eyes was an indicator that you were about to finish and the way you were clenching on his cock only reinforced that delicious fact.

‘’You gonna cum sweetheart?’’ He breathed.

You nodded and moaned furiously, it sounded like a choked desperate gargle.

‘’Cum on me.’’

Stephen demanded through a growl, and like clockwork that did you in.

You gushed onto his cock and it was like you were leaking onto him like a faucet. Your sex filled gaze was maddening and intense, that look of pure unbridled need is something that will be etched in his brain forever that alone made him cum into you with a cuss.

Your pants were excessive but you have never been fucked that deeply before. It was understandble.

‘’I hope this is enough to convince you that I like being close to you too.’’ You said as you pressed your forehead against his, large arms wrapping around you tighter in the process.

‘’Did I overstep?’’ Stephen pouted in faux mockery

"You should overstep more often.’’

[linggluu]

nerdy ah wu

[guiltywisdom]

I’ve been inquiring into Orthodoxy for a few months (coming from protestantism) and I don’t know for certain yet if I will choose to convert, I guess because I have a few hangups. I attended Divine Liturgy at my local parish for the first time last week and intend to continue worshipping with them and talking to the priests there, but I figured I would bring my questions to you as well.

I’ve been watching interviews and talks from Dr. Jeannie Constantinou, who seems absolutely brilliant and I love her. I’ve heard her explain at least 5 different times now this notion of “phronema,” basically the mind of the Church (the mind of the Apostles, as taught by Christ) and how the Eastern phronema is so different from the West because of the West’s emphasis on human reasoning. I appreciate mystery; mysticism and apophatic theology is what attracted me to Orthodoxy in the first place. But while denouncing Western appeals to reason and emphasizing appeals to Tradition and the mysteries therein, two examples she brought up were same-sex marriage and universalism, basically saying that no matter how reasonable an argument one might make, it’s not Tradition and therefore invalid.

While I’m honestly not sure what to believe about homosexuality (I have pro-LGBT leanings personally but am unconvinced either way I guess), I believe in a “Biblical Universalism,” the idea that Hell is temporary and ultimately corrective rather than punitive, like a furnace to purify gold of any dross. It makes the most philosophical sense to me, I see it in the Scriptures, and (most importantly in this context) I see it as historical.

I’ve read a summary of the points brought up in the book “Universalism, The Prevailing Doctrine of the Christian Church During Its First Five Hundred Years” by John Wesley Hanson and found them to be very compelling. It seems to show that universalism ought to have been preserved in Tradition, but for many reasons did not, and instead the idea of eternal torment in Hell has solidified.

Now we’re in a spot where the likes of the brilliant Dr. Constantinou is saying that, no matter how reasonable a stance like this might seem, we cannot rely on our own reasoning, as she appeals to the Apostolic Tradition. Truly, I don’t want to be prideful or arrogant, and I wish to conform my thinking in all ways to Christ. But it seems that such a stance should have been Tradition all along.

Please, how can I reconcile this? I think I want to participate in the Orthodox life. I like your worship, your prayers, your fasting, your asceticism, your mysticism, and (the bulk of) your theology. I think Orthodoxy is likely the closest to ancient Christianity. But must I take your tradition as wholly infallible? Is this an issue I need to humble myself on and conform to, or can I truly be welcomed if this is my view?

Tradition isn't "wholly infallible" because, for the most part, it was created by man. In general Orthodoxy teaches that, although we do have all we need for Salvation, some things we do not know for sure and that sometimes we must rexamine said tradition for new truths. Homosexuality wasn't really explored by the early fathers because homosexuality as we know it didn't exist. I think people see the Bible (and the words of the Church Fathers) as too black and white rather than something nebulous and deep. A common belief in the Orthodoxy of the people is something called "Hopeful Universalism" wherein those who believe it (myself included) argue that because God is infinitely loving and good then he would likely wish to reconcile all sinners to him but that we cannot know for sure and that free choice presupposes that there must be an option for those who might never choose to reconcile. You'll find that Orthodoxy has a lot of variation in belief, just ask about our infinite arguments over if Toll Houses are literal, a metaphor or heresy! I think you're a lot like me my sibling in Christ and I'm still here! Keep at it my friend.

[globalworship]

The NT in Color: A Multiethnic Bible Commentary

Recently published:

The New Testament in Color: A Multiethnic Bible Commentary

"The New Testament in Color is a one-volume commentary on the New Testament written by a multiethnic team of scholars holding orthodox Christian beliefs. Each scholar brings exegetical expertise coupled with a unique interpretive lens to illuminate the ways social location and biblical interpretation work together. Theologically orthodox and multiethnically contextual, The New Testament in Color fills a gap in biblical understanding for both the academy and the church. Who we are and where God placed us—it's all useful for better understanding his Word." - press release

+++

One reviewer:

"Reading the New Testament, intentionally, through one's ethnic point of view (African American, Asian American, Hispanic, or Native American) does not violate an objective, traditional reading of Scripture. Rather, reading the Bible in and out of one's location exposes the bias of the (formerly so-called) 'objective' reading as a Euro-white reading and, at the same time, offers to the traditional readings fresh perspectives. Over and over. I thought the essays were worth the price of this book, but I was wrong. The commentaries interact with the essays in a manner that makes this book a required desk companion for anyone who wants to hear all the Word of God has to offer. A must-have for all Bible teachers and pastors."

-- Dr. Scot McKnight, author of The Second Testament: A New Translation and Julius R. Mantey Chair of New Testament at Northern Seminary

+++

Read more at https://www.ivpress.com/the-new-testament-in-color

The editors and writers come from African American, Asian-American, First Nations, Hispanic, and other cultural backgrounds.

Get a free 48-page 'sampler' download at https://www.ivpress.com/Media/Default/Downloads/Excerpts-and-Samples/The-New-Testament-in-Color-Sampler.pdf

It includes the Table of Contents, the names of all 20+ authors, and much more including essays on: African American Biblical Interpretation Asian American Biblical Interpretation Hispanic Biblical Interpretation Turtle Island [Native American] Biblical Interpretation

Read part of the editor's introduction at https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2024/august-web-only/esau-mccaulley-new-testament-color-multi-ethnic-commentary.html

[santmat]

The Spiritual Treasure of Kabir - Mystic Verses of the Bijak - Spiritual Awakening Radio Podcasts

Kabir Says: "Just as a coded document shows the way to a hidden treasure, just so this Bijak shows the way to realize the soul. It teaches such instructive words to the soul, but there is seldom anyone to understand them." (Sakhi of Kabir)

Commentary by Dr. Jagessar Das: "Bijak means a coded document that leads to a hidden treasure. In this Bijak, Guru Kabir explains the path to that hidden treasure that is within, and not visible by the objective senses. He teaches everyone to give up cleverness and argumentation, and become humble and accept the Divine Lord dwelling within."

Spiritual Awakening Radio Podcast - The Spiritual Treasure of Kabir, Mystic Verses of the Bijak @ the Podcast Website: 

https://SpiritualAwakeningRadio.libsyn.com/the-spiritual-treasure-of-kabir-mystic-verses-of-the-bijak

@ Apple Podcasts: 

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-spiritual-treasure-of-kabir-mystic-verses-of-the-bijak/id1477577384?i=1000610519953

Follow @ Apple Podcasts: 

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/spiritual-awakening-radio/id1477577384

@ Spotify: 

https://open.spotify.com/show/5kqOaSDrj630h5ou65JSjE

@ Google Podcasts: 

https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5saWJzeW4uY29tLzIwNzIzNi9yc3M

& @ Wherever You Subscribe and Follow Podcasts (Apple, Spotify, Google Podcasts, Amazon, Audible, Stitcher, PodBean, Overcast, Jio Saavan, iHeart Radio, Podcast Addict, Gaana, CastBox, etc...): 

https://linktr.ee/SpiritualAwakeningRadio

The term "Bijak" means treasure or treasure-map, in this case the treasure map of Guru Kabir. "Bij" means: the seed or essence. "Bijak" means treasure. The Bijak of Kabir is intended to be a treasure-map to the essence of reality: our soul and God.

In India the Bijak is the most popular sacred text containing the teachings of Guru Kabir, and as such is the main scripture for those who follow the Path of Kabir. Today we explore, "The Complete Bijak Of Kabir -- Guru Kabir's Mystical Teachings on God-Realization", by Dr. Jagessar Das, translating into English and commenting on the entire Bijak of Kabir. This is an impressive work, a true, grassroots "satsang template" of traditional Sant Mat, wonderful to have, featuring all eleven sections of the Bijak in one volume: the Ramainis, Shabdas, Sakhis, and other lesser-known sections.

"The Bijak tells of a treasure,

a treasure that doesn't show.

The word tells of a creature.

Only rare ones know." (Kabir)

From the Principals of Kabir Published in the Earlier Ahmad Shah Translation of, The Bijak: 

"To believe in One Avagat, Satya Purush [One God]. His bhakti [devotion, love] should be practiced.

Have faith in the Master and in his teaching.

True Sadhus should be served.

Show mercy and love towards all Jivas [souls].

To abstain from all kinds of meats.

No visible object in this world should be worshiped.

Do not tell lies.

Do not steal.

Do not gamble.

Do not curse anyone.

Repeat Satya Nam.

Practice bhakti of Satya Purush [God] and teach about him.

Hindu, Muslim and any other sect can join Kabir’s religion.

Without the knowledge of Sar Shabd [the True Sound], no one can attain jiva mukti (liberation, salvation).

Abuse, deceit and jealousy are enemies of jiva mukti.

Humility is a great virtue.

Give thanks for the gift of the Sat Guru.

Without true love of God the practice of bhakti is fruitless.

To read the Sat Guru’s words is a great virtue.

One should know the Supreme Spirit."

In Divine Love (Bhakti), Light, and Sound, At the Feet of the Masters, Radhaswami,

James Bean

Spiritual Awakening Radio Podcasts

Sant Mat Satsang Podcasts

A Satsang Without Walls

Sant Mat Radhasoami

https://www.SpiritualAwakeningRadio.com

https://www.facebook.com/SantMatRadhasoami

[holystormfire]

In addition to my studies on the "Lost and Excluded Books from the Bible." series.

INTRODUCTION TO THE LOST BOOKS OF THE BIBLE

The Lost Books of the Bible by Rutherford H. Platt, Jr., 1926 and By DR. FRANK CRANE

The great things in this world are growth. This applies to books as well as to institutions.

The Bible is a growth. Many people do not understand that it is not a book written by a single person, but it is a library of several books which were composed by various people in various countries. It is interesting to know how this library grew and upon what principle some books were accepted and some rejected. Of course we may take people's word for the reasons why certain books were chosen, but it is always satisfactory to come to our own conclusions by examining our own evidence.

This is what this Lost Books of the Bible enables us to do. We can examine the books of the Scriptures which we have in the authorized version, and then in this book we can read those scriptures which have been eliminated by various councils in order to make up our standard Bible. It is safe to say that a comparison of the accepted books with those rejected may be relied upon, for those books which were accepted are far superior in value to the others.

These others which are included in the Lost Books of the Bible comprise all kinds of stories, tales and myths. No great figure appears in history without myths growing up about him. Every great personage becomes a nucleus or center about which folk tales cluster. There are apocryphal tales about Napoleon, about Charlemagne, about Julius Cæsar and other outstanding characters.

It is impossible that a man representing so great a force as Jesus of Nazareth should appear in the world without finding many echoes of His personality in contemporary literature—many stories which grew up about Him as time elapsed. What these tales and stories are, just how He appears to the fictional minds of His day and afterwards, it is interesting to note.

Very often the fiction writer depicts life and the great truth of life better than the historian. He does not pretend to write down what is exactly true, but he tinges all things with his imagination. His feelings, however, may be just and reliable. The reading of this Lost Books of the Bible is interesting as a matter of course. All who in any way are attracted by the personage of Jesus are interested to know any stories that may have grown up about Him.

They are also valuable because they enable us to get many a point of view which otherwise would have been lost. History may be true, but in a sense tradition is even truer. It has been said that history records what has been, but tradition tells what ought to have been.

It must be remembered also that such a thing as historical accuracy is a comparatively novel product. The older writers never dreamed of it. They wrote in order to be interesting, not to tell the truth. And it is a remarkable fact that the events recorded in the Holy Scriptures, as far as we can find out, were most of them veritable, and the chroniclers were truthful. In this volume all these apocryphal volumes are presented without argument or commentation. The reader's own judgment and common sense are appealed to. It makes no difference whether he is Catholic or Protestant or Hebrew. The facts are plainly laid before him. These facts for a long time have been the peculiar esoteric property of the learned. They were available only in the original Greek and Latin and so forth. Now they have been translated and brought in plain English before the eye of every reader.

The ordinary man has therefore the privilege of seeing upon what grounds the commonly accepted Scriptures rest. He can examine the pile of evidence and do his own sifting. Thousands of people to-day look to the New Testament narrative as their leader and guide. It is important to know upon what authority this rests, and many a man will be delighted to find the evidence thus clearly presented before him.

The Lost Books of the Bible present all sorts of matter before the curious eye. There are stories about Mary and instances of her personal life. There are other stories about the boyhood of Jesus and instances about His crucifixion. All of these become important because of the central figure about whom they revolve. No man has ever appealed to the imagination of the world and so played upon its feelings as has Jesus of Nazareth. It is interesting to know what forms of stories and speculations about Him took place in the early period of the Christian era.

In other words, the ordinary man is invited to take his place in that council chamber which accepts and rejects the various writings of Scripture. It is safe to say that the conclusions desired can safely be left to his common sense. It can no longer be said that our Scriptures were accepted by learned men; you do not know that, but you must accept their conclusions. Now it is shown you upon what grounds these conclusions rest.

As a believer in the authenticity of our accepted Scriptures

I have no hesitancy in saying that I am perfectly satisfied to let the common sense of the world decide upon the superiority of the accepted text. The publication of this book will do good because it takes away the veil of secrecy that has hidden for many years the act of the church in accepting certain Scriptures and rejecting others. All of the grounds are rendered perfectly intelligible to the common man.

The Lost Books - http://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=losts.books.bible.AOVVOECGBSPCKJOZJR