#gay people and their need to have biblical parallels | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

semi-imaginary-place · 2 years ago

Text

random trigun thoughts from discord

trigun is heavy on the genderqueer themes in regards to otherness and how the relationship between one's body impacts the formation of identity. read some posts about knives over the last few days and how his experience with othering which began from his body contributed to the formation of his identity as something separate from humans. There's also the parallel readings of Trigun as being about dual identities, for example people of mixed ethnicity or diaspora culture

Roberto de Niro is the babygirl of the party. vash is my little sweetiepie. (no seriously studio orange kidnapped acclaimed A list hollywood celebrity actor robert de niro using a time machine to 2009). Followup on why roberto is in stampede: to die and give meryl character growth. So that she has an angsty backstory of course, and to give her a gun.

dmc came out in 2001 so it and trigun are from the same era, so the similarities might be more a 90s 2000s thing. A lot of 90s stuff was grimdark edgy cyberpunk-esque so that would explain vash and dante's leather strap bdsm gear outfits. Gotta love a man decked out in bdsm gear. red blue twins, one of them is evil and the other on the side of humanity. Oh there is the whole dual identity thing with both twins too and the christianity. But atmosphere and concept are very different. Dmc is more gothic and demon hunting. Trigun is a space western mad max style. Both series: dead mom no dad lol. Stronger similarities to dmc in the manga where Plants have angel imagery (both the common dove wing and the biblically accurate eldritch). Vash and dante red/black devil imagery to knives and virgil white/blue angel imagery. Though this is fairly common, devilman's ryo and asuka, berserk's guts and griffith, the two gays from world ends with you. Vash and knives in stampede have additional contrasts with knives powers being sharp mechanical and vash's organic. Knives never wears clothes made by noman land's humans. Vash only wears clothes made on no mans land. Both have stuff from the spacefaring age/lost technology.

Plants in stampede instead emphasize the competing strategies of surviving on a desert world: plants (terraforming) vs. Plants (magic generators). Manga Plants are so weird there like a dozen plucked rotisserie chickens growing out of a girls neck and 2 human bodies attached to 1 head. there isn't just the sheer amount of energy Plants produce but magic portal dimensioning organic matter (which if you think about it is also a form of slow terraforming since you are adding organic matter and water into the biogeochemical cycles of the planet).

Speaking of trigun, all this talk of human survival and terraforming reminds me of the red mars movement which is a fictional movement from a novel of the same name. Say humans do terraform mars/gunsmoke/nomansland and make it more hospital to humans. Sure that's good for humans but in a way its bad for the planet as its pre-human characteristics would be lost forever. Being better for humans isn't the same as ethically good and just because something is useless to humans doesn't mean it doesn't have intrinsic value in just existing. This is more significant in stampede where vash was a "useless" Plant that didn't produce anything (as opposed the manga where vash and naj were of equal power). In making planets more like earth all we get are half baked earth clones and what is lost is what make those inhospitable planet unique and different from Earth. The humans of trigun stampede see nomans land as a resource to be used and molded to their needs, just as they see Plants, even "good" characters like rem or luida.The manga has (or at least stampede is yet to have) the layer that terraforming projects are seen as both literal and metaphorical gardens of eden/a good thing for gunsmoke

Studio orange renaming the planet nomans land reminds me of the fictional town nowhere. Gunsmoke wasnt a bad name either i mean we have a dude calling himself millions knives. I find these fiction english lang names to be charming

"While showing the twins the geranium flower, Nai turns to Rem and asks if it's just ornamental, like the one in the Plant room. Rem's face pauses into a Wait, What? expression before she masks it praising Nai for his observational skill. When Knives shows Vash the next memory from that incident, there is a geranium flower being held in a vase, but it's in the room where Tesla's body is being kept implicitly as a memorial for her. Nai is already showing signs of distrust towards humans and Rem's true intentions towards him and Vash. The geraniums being ornamental also offers parallels to the suspended remains of Tesla, as red things kept in glass to be admired and looked at. It parallels how he comes to view Vash as well — useless, fragile, without volition of his own, but still precious and to be protected. Sealed away, if necessary, from whatever might consume him. Of course, 'something to be consumed' is how he believes humans view both him and Vash, even as he uses Vash for resources himself." (Someone on tvtropes). The connection of red flowers in glass cases to dying Plants or Plants in general in cases

Idk about 98 since it looked like filler to me but between maximum and stampede they changed up the twins childhoods. (I like both, both takes are interesting and compelling). In stampede they had an unequal childhood dynamic with nai being the powerful useful one that had Plant powers and vash the weak useless one who could generate anything and didnt have plant powers and he did was eat and sleep, just like a human. This sets up in both their minds as knives being the protector and vash the protected. Vash as the weak human one, nai as the powerful greater than human one. As the weaker more human one a few of us fans extrapolate that its likely vash got more attention and care than nai (gifted child neglect). Because vash was the weaker one he need more care and since nai was powerful, self sufficient, and independent of course he'd be fine on his own

I dont have a preference between stampede wolfwood and manga wolfwood (mostly because im not a shipper, they seem to prefer manga wolfwood). Stampede sets up an interesting character contrast where all the main characters look 25. Vasha and knives are older than they look and are like in their 150s while by contrast wolfwood is younger than he looks, stampede is vague on the age but he acts like a sassy middle schooler so idk he might actually be 12 (which i find very funny and alao why). And then we have meryl who is a normal 20 something. (23? I dont remember). Manga sets up a different contrast with wolfwood actually being 25 (maybe time isnt real on gunsmoke) but looking like he's 40. I will say wolfwood and vash have infinitely more chemistry in the manga like they have an actual dynamic thats touches core parts of both characters while also being entertaining to watch. Shippers are wack and can spin cotton from nothing so the presence of shippers really only ever indicates 2 male characters exist but oh there is definitely something going on in the manga where there isn't in stampede. Manga wolfwood also has a more unique concept in the manga than in stampede (so far) as the manga fans like to say: they took his melanin, they took his nose, they took his tits, they took his job, they took his scoliosis, and they took his boyfriend

#trigun #trigun stampede #trigun maximum

9 notes · View notes

stormyoceans · 2 years ago

Note

what are your impression of midnight museum?:) did you like it as a whole? who's your favourite character? what didn't you like?

OH I LOVED MIDNIGHT MUSEUM!!!!!! i mean, okay, let's be honest.. it was an absolute mess and if you asked me to explain what the hell happened in the last two episodes i probably would not be able to do it, BUT STILL!!!!!!! I LOVED IT. sometimes being able to entertain your viewers is more than enough to make a show both memorable and likeable, and i think midnight museum is the perfect example of this

the show is a mixture of fantasy, science fiction and mystery, which are three genres im personally very weak for. the first half also has an episodic nature to it that i miss in television a lot: it can be boring when there isn’t a strong horizontal narrative getting advanced in the background, but if you can make it work it’s really fun for the viewers, and in this particular case i do believe the show was at its strongest when it fully embraced this format. the ‘artifact of the week’ with the enigma of dome’s identity was really entertaining to me, and i loved how creepy and disturbing some of the storylines were. the decision to throw in an abundance of biblical symbolisms as well in the second half of the show probably wasn't a good idea for the plot as a whole, but that's something i find incredibly fascinating so i'd be lying if i said i didn't love every (confusing) second of it

the real strength of the show lies in its cast, though. i already knew that gun and nanon are incredible actors, but i wasn't familiar with tor before midnight museum and i will always be grateful to it for introducing him to me because he is phenomenal. he showed up on that set every single day and decided to give so much yearning longing pining aching worrying agony anguish guilt restraint with the twitch of his mouth alone, and i respect him so much for it. honestly there aren't many people who are able to convey so many emotions in such an effective way. the supporting cast was also pretty solid and some of the guest actors gave an outstanding performance, like fah and tu in episode 5 for example

the other strong point of the show is the relationship between khatha and dome/chan/one. it’s basically on the level of chinese censored gay romance, and even when the writing didn’t give it justice, gun and tor’s on screen chemistry still managed to make it incredibly compelling to watch (an anon once told me that gun would have insane chemistry with literally anyone he got paired with and you know what? I COULDN’T AGREE MORE). the choice of not making their relationship a romantic one does baffle me a little tbh, especially because they were trying to push the brothers agenda while also giving explicitly romantic elements and parallels, but i can easily overlook this since the ending was very satisfying to me (i also don’t think this was queerbaiting btw, but that’s another story)

as for the things i disliked, my main issue with the show is the execution. the premise was original and had a lot of potential, but it’s obvious that the writing team lacked an overall vision of the (overcomplicated) story they wanted to tell: the moment they abandoned the episodic structure to focus on the larger narrative, the events start missing a sense of unity and direction, and the characters feel aimless too. i find every member of the main gang really interesting and likeable, but with the exception of khatha (love that old man btw, he is my absolute fave) they’re all criminally underdeveloped

MDL originally had midnight museum listed as having 15 episodes, and im not sure where did that information come from, but i actually think they did need those 5 extra episodes to make the plot more coherent, give more depth to the characters and explore the relationship between them (we should have had AT LEAST another june focused episode, a couple on triphob and bam and their relationship, one on anthika and boon, and one to let dome gain a little more sense of identity). if we ever get a season 2 they better fix this and fully develop all the characters BEFORE they try to explain what the hell is going on

ANYWAY. TL;DR:

#making reviews isn't a talent i possess but im trying ;;;;;#also i didn't mention this because it's a spoiler but another thing i disliked is [SPOILER][SPOILER][SPOILER] anthika dying #you don't make a character who is taught from a young age that she has to sacrifice herself to god finally learn to believe in herself #and LIVE just for herself #only to kill her off the next episode by sacrificing herself #i understand the predestined doomed 'you can't escape your fate' narrative but to work they should have given her way more emotional depth #ANYWAY I NEED TO STOP RAMBLING #thank you for wanting to know my opinion anon that's so sweet 🥺💜#hopefully you're not regretting it ;;;;;#midnight museum #m: ask #monica watches

11 notes · View notes

homopessimist · 3 years ago

Text

Okay so I’m in the process of writing a fic comparing the binding of Isaac (the biblical story, not the video game) to Jason’s relationship with his father that’ll be uploaded on Father’s Day but it had me thinking about Isaac parallels with bare.

So to preface, I’ve pretty much been an atheist my whole life and wasn’t raised in a Christian environment. I even went through an annoying reddit phase when I was in middle school, largely in part to being gay, but in current day I have a lot of respect for religion and religious people. More on that later. The point is, despite my atheism, the story of Isaac has always fascinated me, and the fucked up nature of the story kind of reinforced my early dislike of God. What kind of loving God would make a father hurt his own child? And later I realized this hit very close to an experience many have. Parents hurting and disowning their own children for being queer and justifying their actions through religion isn’t a strange concept for many.

In very early drafts of bare there are a few references to Isaac in the text. In Claire’s introduction in Epiphany in a 2000 workshop, she says:

Our first reading today is the story of Abraham and Sarah In which Sarah learns she's to bear a child

Referring to how despite their old age, (Abraham is about 99 I think?) Abraham and Sarah manage to have a child. As a result of the absurd circumstances of his birth, the child is named Isaac, which is roughly translated to something along the lines of “he who laughs” from Hebrew. This also reflects Peter’s firstborn and only child status, which is important to Claire because if he’s gay then she won’t have grandchildren. (Mind you, I’m not a fan of this Claire presented in LA 2000 because she’s written a lot less sympathetic)

In bare’s very early 1999 demos, Are You There and Confession are replaced by Cut From The Same Cloth, which changes the scene to Peter confessing being gay to the Priest. In this version, the Priest is gay and is conflicted about whether or not to give Peter the assurance he needs or to follow the doctrines of the church (much like how his future iterations would hide behind a screen, knowing how much empathy might mean to Jason). The song basically serves the role of God Don’t Make No Trash where Peter receives positive assurance from an authoritative religious figure. In it, The Priest uses Isaac as a metaphor for his struggle with what to do with Peter.

I still can feel young Isaac's fear as if I held the knife That'd slash the heart that beat for boys which I said was a crime He gave his plea on bended knee A young me in his prime

“That'd slash the heart that beat for boys” Incredible lyrics, thank you Jon Hartmere. Are You There and Confession make more sense for the overall narrative, and the Priest being an antagonistic figure to Jason in Cross makes more sense for the thesis and the Romeo & Juliet parallels, but this is still a really good lyric I can’t help but gush over.

Anyways, I know I’m writing a fic about Jason as Isaac, but the idea of Peter as Isaac is so fascinating to me. I can’t find the source for it, but one interpretation I found regarding the sacrifice of Isaac went something like, “The world will try to sacrifice you, but God won’t,” and it stuck with me. God stays Abraham’s hand at the end, after all. The fact that Peter remains faithful in God and keeps his idealistic outlook despite everything that happens in the opera is such an important message, especially for queer audiences who feel like Isaac, about to be sacrificed on the altar. His moment in Absolution where he forgives The Priest reinforces that his love for Jason isn’t sinful but is in fact the conclusion of his faith. I said before that I respect religion despite being an atheist. It is my utmost belief that what is most important is that you find something that you believe in. Whether that’s religion, or politics, or whatever. Something that makes you believe that life is worth preserving, and that happiness and kindness are things you should cultivate in others. And Peter does exactly that. In a world that’s so cruel and unkind to people like him, Peter sings. Peter’s unwavering optimism is so necessary and is a large part of why he’s one of my favorite fictional characters.

He who laughs, indeed

#bare a pop opera #bare: A Pop Opera #bapo #peter simmonds #the priest #father flynn #although i hesitate to call The Priest father flynn because that's supposed to be a Notre Dame faculty guy but whatever!!#isaac bible #jason mcconnell #short essay

35 notes · View notes

redeemed-wren · 2 years ago

Note

i think you would be interested to learn that god's word when it comes to lgbt people was a mistranslation: it is supposed to be man shall not lie with boy in reference to pedophilia, not man shall not lie with man. so again i ask you: why do you think you know better than god when he creates all perfectly in his image, which includes a good portion of us being gay. this is not a sin. please look inside your heart and choose love rather than hatred.

I'm not sure if you saw the answer I made to the last ask (I'm assuming you're the same person) cos it sounds like you just saw I disagreed and went on to a new argument.

Translations aside, let's take a look at the overall biblical picture of what marriage is. Having a good understanding of biblical marrage will show you why I think those verses still refer to homosexuality and not solely pedophilia.

In Genisis, God created Adam and Eve. God saw that 'it is not good for man to be alone' and so made Adam a suitable helper. Man and woman, male and female. The man to lead, protect, sacrifice for and love his wife, and the woman to support, help, advise and love her husband.

Now, I have not actually read Song of Solomon, but my understanding of that book is that it's a poem of two lovers, and that it parallels God's love for His people. Male and female, husband and wife - Jesus and the church.

The Church is seen as the bride of Christ throughout the Bible. Man and women were created differently but equally ans marrage is a combining of these different but equal talents and skills to create a family. The Bible makes this clear - this is how God created the world, and to go against God's natural order is sinful.

If I'm being honest, I don't really care what your sexuality is. I'm not here to yell at you and to say stop being gay or you'll go to hell. I want to remind you that everyone has sinned. I've sinned, you've sinned, the most righteous person you know has sinned. The only person sin free is Jesus and the only way escape damnation from that sin is through His sacrifice.

I acknowledge that the church has let people down in the past. The church has acted out of fear and anger and alienated those struggling with identity and with sexual impulses instead of embracing them and loving them and supporting them. I'm sorry. Christians have done a lot of damage. We've focused on some sins more than others and we've failed to convey the freedom of Christ clearly.

But that doesn't change the truth. That everyone is a sinner. That we all need salvation and a change of heart.

If you are a Christian, anon, then I want to ask you this. God is the creator of the world, the highest authority. He has given us His word as the authority. Do you believe this?

If you do, then are you willing to bow the knee to God in all situations? And I'm not just talking about sexuality - you are on your own walk with God, and you are a stranger. I'm not here to change your mind. But I do want to challenge you and ask if God is the highest authority in everything you do, or are you trying to make God fit your narrative. Doing it God's way is better, trust me.

And to address your last comment - it isn't love to continue to let someone live in sin without warning. If a friend was spiralling into drug addiction and alcoholism and didn't see it as damaging, would you encourage them, give them more drugs and alcohol and cheer as they ruined their life? Or would you lovingly warn them against these actions?

#wren rambles #anon #i hope this makes sense #i didnt go too in depth into the marriage thing so other christians who understand it better please add on #maybe i find an artcile or something to fill some of the gaps in my knowledge

12 notes · View notes

notebooks-and-laptops · 5 years ago

Text

I was tagged by the wonderful @le-chardonneret

do you make your bed?

I don’t really feel in the right head space if I don’t make my bed...but that doesn’t mean I always do! My mum always used to say that making the bed could make a room look 90% tidier though and that’s a rule I live my life by.

what’s your favourite number?

64 cos of the lil rhyme me and my friends came up with to remember 8 x 8 (also a big fan of 3 and 12 and 21 but idk why)

what’s your job?

I’m a university student (I study theology)! But my last ‘proper’ job was over the summer (we’re not allowed a job during term time at my uni cos it’s...a pretentious ass uni) was as a cleaner and I started work at 5AM. It was intense, but the views that early in the morning out near the harbour were really beautiful

If you could go back to school, would you?

Y e s - I guess uni technically counts as school but like, God I just love learning

can you parallel park?

i’m gay and cannot drive

a job you had that surprised people?

people were surprised I could get up at 5AM for my cleaning job haha - but hmm, a lot of people find it really interesting that I worked as a volunteer for Whitby Abbey altho I’m not sure if they find it surprising considering how much I love theology and history

what’s your guilty pleasure?

oh definitely watching greys anatomy. it is trash and I love it.

tattoos?

Not yet but I hope to get some! I want a biblical quote, all of the major world religious symbols done small and in black in a line, and the ‘I don’t want comfort, I want God, I want poetry, I want real danger, I want freedom, I want goodness, I want sin’ line from Brave New World

favourite colour?

blue like the sea or like anything in pastel

favourite type of music?

s h o w t u n e s b a b y

things that people do that drive you crazy?

when bones click (I know people can’t help it but please I don’t want to be reminded of the skeleton that's inside us all - even my own!)

do you like doing puzzles?

I was a professor Layton kid so yep - ‘a gentleman never leaves a puzzle unsolved’

any phobias?

hmmm I don’t think so? Other than like...spiders, but that’s pretty normal.

favourite childhood sport?

mountain biking!

do you talk to yourself?

all the time

what movie do you adore?

ooooh there are a few? A toss up between Ferris Bullers Day Off, Stardust and The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel

coffee or tea?

hot chocolate why is this never an option on these?

first thing you wanted to be when you grew up?

a mermaid. In fact, one time I laid on the floor of my school playground and told them I was drying up because I didn’t have water and I was a mermaid and I needed to go to the local pool so I didn’t die (I was...a strange kid sometimes)

Okay! I tag @thegirlinthetardisat221b, @toss-a-coin-to-your-bard, @bards-rights-activist, @meliteles-tits, @jaskierlute and honestly just anyone else who wants to (yes that means YOU)

#asks #personal

9 notes · View notes

lemonsknees · 6 years ago

Text

Is the Bible clear on Homosexuality?

reposting this here cause apparently while i was off learning about the Bible my other account got flagged, go figure ¯\_(’-’)_/¯

I have been attending a bible college for a year now. Why? Because I have a passion for the Lord and have an unhealthy desire to know all the things. Now I would have attended regardless but I had some ulterior goals in mind when I started attending. I wanted to know what caused people to be homophobic. I myself am bisexual (though at the moment i’m very firmly at the back of the closet like I’m hanging out with C. S. Lewis in Narnia rn). So the school doesn’t know about this. But I also have close family member who is apart of the LGBT that had a large hand in raising me and the school does know about them. so when I question into things like this the other students and the teachers think it’s on the basis of concern for them.

Now I could go on about the homophobic behaviors I noticed during the year, in fact I have a copy in which I tried to go through it and it just took to long to try to go over exactly what they were getting wrong every time. so instead of doing that I’d like to go over something that people said repeatedly which got on my nerves and kill it.

“The bible has a very clear view of homosexuality and if a church accepts people of the LGBT it means that they aren’t a Biblically accurate church”

The Bible doesn’t actually discuss homosexuality often at all. People like to look at verses about marriage but the Biblical examples of marriage aren’t exactly meant to be the ‘ideal.’ The book which supposedly the best example of what marriage is supposed to be like, The song of Solomon, was written by a man with multiple wives.

The occasions where the bible does talk about homosexuality it isn’t talking about a loving relationship between two people the way we understand it today. I’ll be looking at three (fourish) places where its talked about.

Sodom: this is one most people don’t really get caught up on if they’ve actually read the story instead of just thinking they know what sodomy means (it actually means any form of sexual activity which isn’t meant to produce children not specifically homosexual) the story of Sodom and Gomorra is that two angels entered the city and found lodging in Lot’s house. After they’d entered the house however they had to struggle to keep the people of the city out of the house because they wanted to drag the men out and rape them. lot’s response is to offer up his two daughters to them instead (an example of how even the people the Bible roots for aren’t people who we are meant to model our lives after) the crowds don’t accept Lot’s offer and God ultimately decides to destroy the city. Now having read this is it safe to assume that God destroyed the city because the people there were gay? Or was it maybe because they tried to gangrape foreigners?

This isn’t even the last instance in which we see this. In judges there’s a story that is very similar to this. A man is visiting and stays in someone’s house, the people of the town descend on the house and demand to be allowed to rape this man. The man who owns the house instead offers them the visitors mistress. This time they accept the offer and the woman is raped to death. This story is an awful one to read, and the narrative treats it as such, a war is started over the death of this woman. Because of the parallels between this story and the one of Sodom and Gomorra and how no one ever sights this as a story against homosexuality but against rape and the mistreatment of foreigners I think it is safe and Biblical to assume that Sodom was destroyed for the sins of such, rape and mistreatment of foreigners.

Leviticus has a law specifically against a man sleeping with another man, this is easily dismissible as another law that was only applicable to the Jewish people, but let’s look at why this would have been in place. Culturally woman were seen as lower than men, to sleep with another man would be seen as him lowering his partner to the status of a woman. Sexual relationships were barred outside of marriage, marriages were arranged for the purpose of bringing children, thus two men had no chance of ever getting married, thus making it unlawful by default. A man would be likely be cheating on his wife to do so. A woman sleeping with another woman would be seen as ruining her value as a virgin in an arranged marriage or other wise she would be cheating on her husband.

Now all this to say that what is being described here is a far way off from committed gay relationships that are seen today and that cultural views have a huge impact on things like this. A lot of these things can be said about other points against gay marriage but I will try to avoid repeating myself.

It is also worth noting that the church has historically not taken the other Levitical laws which fall into the same category as seriously as they’ve taken this one.

Lastly for this I’d like to discuss Paul’s comments on the subject. Again we need to look at the cultural meaning of what he is saying. A lot of it is the same as before but now Paul is talking to the Greeks, who have a different culture than the Jewish people. Non Jewish people,(gentiles) were allowed into the church after the death and resurrection of Jesus. When this decision was made the church had a large debate on whether or not gentile converts had to follow Levitical law. The ultimate decision was that they didn’t, (again a point against the Levitical law against this) the laws which the gentiles were however to follow were the ten commandments, they were to follow laws against idolatry (such as not eating any meat that had been offered to idols or other gods) and that they were to avoid fornication, or sexual intercourse between people not married to each other (again a main point here is that gay marriage wasn’t a thing even conceived at that time

Now those of you who know your history will know that the romans and Greeks were pretty gay. Paul knew this too and came against this pretty harshly. Why? Because being gay is a sin? Maybe. Or maybe because people were sleeping with one another at temples as a form of worship to the Greek gods, or maybe because all gay sex was extramarital. Or maybe because the view of sexuality at the time wasn’t I fall in love with such and such type of people. Instead people, when a person slept with a person of the same gender saw it as that person being so lustful that they wanted to sleep with everyone.

There’s also the point that the apostles were convinced that the end was coming any day. Paul was working as quickly as he could under the assumption that the end could be any day, going so far as to tell people it was better to just not get married unless you absolutely needed to in order to avoid fornication. He didn’t exactly think he had time to fix the social climate beyond declaring the Lord and condemning those who continued to sleep with those they were not married to.

So can the argument be made from a Biblical perspective against gay marriage and homosexual relationships? I won’t say no. in fact I’ve met plenty of people in my life who have committed themselves to being single in order to avoid being in sin. And if a persons convictions lean to that view I’d honestly recommend the same. If you’re convinced something is wrong you shouldn’t do it. But if you don’t have that sense, I want you to know that the Bible is in fact not clear on this issue. I was watch a video an atheist made about why he became so. One of the reasons he listed was he realized that if people are born gay that means being gay is the only sin that a person is born into. Don’t let this be the thing that destroys your faith. Don’t let the church be a stumbling block to Jesus. Don’t let them dismiss you in this way. The Bible isn’t clear on this. There are other arguments out there with as much biblical validity as the argument that it’s wrong. I’d recommend that a person prayerfully listen to both sides of this if they are looking for which is true. I obviously have a preference but you shouldn’t just accept what I say, instead please go and do your own research on the subject and find people who are respectful and willing to talk to you about this. if you wanna talk to me i’m definitely open to listening. (actually i’d be really excited that someone wanted to talk to me)

sorry that this is more an argument against homophobia than something like against Transphobia, i’ve sort of been hyper focusing on the subject,but if you’re trans and want some encouragement then i suggest you read Galatians 3:28!

i’m not on tumblr often anymore but my discord is lemons knqueezies#6065 so feel free to talk to me there, or if you didn’t like this feel free to send me funny and clever insults to my character!

have a great day :D God Bless!

#Bible #Biblical Argument for homosexuality

3 notes · View notes

lemonsknqueezies · 6 years ago

Text

Is the Bible clear about Homosexuality?

k so i know i don’t exactly know what else to do with this. i just really need to get this out of my head and i think it might be helpful to somebody out there.

“The bible has a very clear view of homosexuality and if a church accepts people of the LGBT it means that they aren’t a Biblically accurate church”

It is also worth noting that the church has historically not taken the other Levitical laws which fall into the same category as seriously as they’ve taken this one.

have a great day :D God Bless!

#Biblical Argument for Homosexuality #the bible on Homosexuality #Bible #the church

2 notes · View notes

howwelldoyouknowyourmoon · 6 years ago

Text

Why I Am Not A Unificationist

I’ve been a Unificationist since childhood. From then, until I was around 19, I had to eat all of the sadomasochism fed by Rev. Moon. My new Father. My new Messiah. I’ll take some time to go through them, but please be patient. I had been told that God was some sort of compulsive crybaby whose universe was forever torn asunder because two naked teenagers had pre-maritial sex in a garden. A step up from the apple and snake, I admit, but the Garden of Eden is still a myth no matter how you spin it.

Anyways, I was also told that human history was a convenient series of failures on behalf of the human race to understand the infinite sorrows of God. The Church painted said God, interestingly enough, as quite impotent. He was a servant to some pseudo-scientific law, called the Divine Principle: a lugubrious, confusing, absurd, and comical attempt to plaster Moon’s idiotic theology onto human history. Neon Genesis Evangelion’s myths made more sense.

I’m not quite sure if the Divine Principle was supposed to be a moral law or not, but I certainly was given that impression. I would be horrified and disgusted if the Principle was by any stretch of the imagination considered moral. This so-called morality dictated that again, because two naked teenagers had pre-marital sex in a garden, the Biblical wars against various tribes, the Crucifixion of Jesus, the Fall of Rome, both World Wars, the Holocaust, the Korean War, and numerous other tragedies, in the Bible and in history, were ordained by the Divine Principle to occur as payment for indemnity, or global karma. The Principle has weird ideas on proportionality. I don’t think that even Zeus, at the height of his maliciousness, would have approved of such a doctrine, so it would be doubly discouraging if a loving and compassionate God did.

Why then does Moon praise the Principle with such fervor? Even it was true, it should have been condemned and resisted, even if the effort was futile. Of course, there’s always the idea that the Principle is brutally objective, but then, I don’t recall Newton’s Three Laws of Motion or the Pythagorean Theorem bluntly putting persons into sides of God or Satan.

Again, I swallowed this nonsense in my elementary years – I didn’t know any better. I think that I was still watching Power Rangers. So all of this made me very terrified of sex. Moon had a cute obsession with sex. If you don’t believe me, just look up the instructions for the 3-day ceremony. It’s quite revealing. He also said that if a pretty woman attempts to touch your penis, you should kick her 1,000 miles and God will praise you for it, but I’ll touch on his sexism later.

He just could not stop going on about the sexual organs and how they were at the center of the universe, or something like that. Easy enough to pledge abstinence when you’re young, but after puberty, I felt like I was walking in a nightmare. No sex until after I married, and Lord knew when that was going to happen. No choking the chicken, either, but when I did get the occasional slip of the wrist, so-to-speak, my whole being filled with guilt, as if I had committed a crime against God and joined the ranks of Satan.

I realize that abstinence is quite common among many Christians and even Muslims in this country, but at least they are allowed to date! Yes, because God certainly doesn’t want His Children engaging in the evil of DATING. Okay, so women were off limits until I married. At least I got to choose my wife. Oh, what’s that? My wife could be chosen for me? We might barely know each other before getting married? She might not even speak English? There could be a waiting period before having SEX? You know, there’s a word for people who have a peculiar interest in other people’s sex lives, they’re called perverts, and Rev Moon was certainly among them. Lord knows the countless unintentional pregnancies, STI infections, and abortions his teachings may have prevented had he taught instead about the options of masturbation and birth control.

Speaking of sexuality, Rev Moon was diseased with homophobia. I am sorry to say that I caught this disease as well. Moon referred to homosexuals once as dung-eating dogs and homosexuality as an activity that attracts Satan. He also said that those who love dung eating dogs, ergo people who support gay rights, will produce that quality of life. I’ve heard some homophobic statements from Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, but Moon’s hate speech sounds like something you’d hear from Neo-Nazis. Yeah, I went there, but Moon’s words were straight up dehumanizing and condemnable. NO group of people deserve to be described in that fashion. Also, Moon himself said that Hitler and Stalin were reborn as new beings, and they declared him the messiah. So he seems to think quite a bit of their opinions.

In any case, many religions still have trouble with treating homosexuals as equals, and that’s a shame. I repeat, a shame. Moon could have learned a thing from Desmond Tutu. Even the 14th Dalai Lama supports gay marriage and Pope Francis, who does not like homosexuality, says that the Church has no right to interfere with the spiritual lives of gays and that he has no authority to judge gay Catholics. I grew out of homophobia after I grew out of Moon.

Then there’s this whole damned idea of Rev Moon being the Messiah. Hell, anyone can claim that. Just ask Father Divine, Marshall Applewhite, Elijah Muhammad, Jim Jones, or L. Ron Hubbard. We all know the story. Jesus asked Moon to take up the cross and suffer for humanity as the first True Parent. The whole idea being that Jesus was supposed to get married as opposed to being crucified. Now I wouldn’t force crucifixion on my worst enemy, but marriage on the other hand, should be a choice, not a requirement for joining heaven, as Moon teaches. I think that most people are comfortable with the parents that they already have, and don’t need fanatical ones from Korea.

What makes Moon so special that he should be the Messiah, anyways? It’s his word against mine. Surely, Jesus didn’t expect Moon to convince people on word alone. Except that he apparently did. To be honest, I believed that Moon was the Messiah out of pity. He does deserve some. His home country was torn apart before his eyes, and he had to suffer atrocious accommodations in a North Korean prison camp. No one should have to go through that. The pressure was all around me to convert. Certainly I wouldn’t turn against a man who suffered so much. Before I knew it, I was bowing before photographs and reading books I could hardly understand at six in the morning. For those who want a better idea of what I am talking about, check out the film, “Ticket To Heaven.” Moon, however, had a habit of romanticizing Korea as the center of the world. I don’t hate Korea. It’s a fine nation, but not a holy one. Since Moon cast North Korea as Satan and South Korea as God, he probably forgot to mention that “God’s” nation had brutal dictators like Park Chung-hee.

I could also go on about how, in face of separation of church and state, Moon crowned himself like a king in the Dirksen Senate Office Building, how he implored Americans to forgive Nixon who sabotaged the Vietnam Peace Talks in 1968, how he founded the Washington Times which spews climate change denial, and how he had at least one affair while dictating other people’s sex lives, but I think I’ve made my point. Moon is no more of a messiah than my dead goldfish. If you still want a Korean to admire, try Kim Dae-Jung.

In closing, you may wonder what exactly liberated me from my slave-masters? It was a woman named Nansook Hong, whose book I would implore all of you to read. She married Moon’s first son, Hyo Jin, and suffered unspeakable abuse, both mental and physical. When Moon was told of these things, he blamed her for not being a good wife. This is the sexism I was referring to earlier. Moon was more concerned about his magnanimous legacy than about the domestic abuse of his daughter-in-law. As I read her testimony and followed her journey, I found myself going through a similar one. By the last page, I left the church and freed myself from the depressing theology of Rev Moon. I live a happy life now. I’m not very religious, but I don’t hate religion.

Moon didn’t learn a lot from religion. Many Jewish scholars see the Old Testament stories as metaphors to learn from, not literal historical events representing the Cain and Abel dichotomy. If Moon really understood Jesus, he would have lived more like Gandhi, Tolstoy, or even Shaliene Woodley, as opposed to Donald Trump or John D. Rockefeller. The Qur’an opposes collective punishment for crimes done by others and would be disgusted with ideas like indemnity. While both Buddhism and Hinduism see atheism or agnosticism as acceptable spiritual paths, Buddhism more so. Moon denounced godlessness as Satanic.

I would like to thank HWDYKYM for giving me a healthy space to express these thoughts. As you can see by the length of this, they’ve been bubbling beneath the surface for some time now. I know that I may not have not have gotten everything right as far as Moon’s doctrine is concerned. I simply speak from my own experience – what I was taught, what I had believed. I hold no ill will towards current members, by the way. Many of them are still beloved members of my friends and family, just don’t expect me to go to workshops.

Sun Myung Moon’s theology used to control members

Divine Principle – Parallels of History

Sun Myung Moon – Restoration through Incest

Moon’s Theology of the Fall, Tamar, Jesus and Mary

Nansook Hong, transcripts of three interviews

Nansook Hong In The Shadow Of The Moons, part 1

#Nansook Hong #Divine Principle #Sun Myung Moon

5 notes · View notes

ramajmedia · 5 years ago

Text

10 Facts Behind The Making Of The Handmaid’s Tale | ScreenRant

The Handmaid's Tale just finished up its third season which, as always, left audiences at the edge of their seat. Margaret Atwood’s famed novel adaptation has been revisited time and time again, but none as effective as the original Hulu series. While the showrunners have Atwood's penned ideals to thrive off of, the show does much more to find its way into the hearts of modern audiences.

It takes viewers with a strong stomach and a sturdy mindset to get through the dire circumstances that surround June in her role as a handmaid. Elisabeth Moss takes the lead as June a.k.a Offred, showing audiences exactly what it takes to survive Gilead. The rest of the nail-biting rhythmic that comes from the show is thanks to the intricate details embossed by the show's creators. Take into consideration these 10 facts about the making of The Handmaid's Tale.

RELATED: The Handmaid's Tale: 10 Things That Only Make Sense If You Read The Book

10 Margaret Atwood Makes A Cameo

Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale was published in 1985. At the time, the novel's plot was righteously taboo, bringing forth old school values that subsequently paralleled the rising concerns of equality. Still, the topic didn’t stop schools from assigning the novel as a read for high school students. It even caught the attention of film producers who fastened it into the 1990 film of the same name.

That being said, the Hulu series is the first time that Atwood actually makes a cameo in her own work. She appears in the first episode of the pilot season. The author appears as an Aunt who slaps Offred during the group shaming circle.

9 Everything That Happens Is Based On History

Atwood prides her novel on the fact that most of the atrocious circumstances are based on real-life events. Believe it or not, the patriarchal theocracy is only a supposed work of science fiction. In fact, the author adamantly dismisses the genre of sci-fi, stating that “every building in the book has its counterpart in reality.”

The harsh murders (hangings, stoning, etc) and the laws concerning the women of Gilead all came directly from Atwood's research in the Thomas Fisher Rare Book Library at the University of Toronto. In other words, many of these situations are derived from real-life occurrences that are recorded in several books.

8 Offred Doesn't Actually Have A Name

In the Hulu version of The Handmaid's Tale, audiences learn that Offred has a real name. She goes by June, although this name is “forbidden now." In the book, however, Offred doesn't actually have a name. She is only referred to by her handmaid's name (i.e. Offred). And in the 1990 film, her name is Kate.

The Hulu show gives her the name of June because that is what many readers had interpreted her name to be based on Atwood's writings. Atwood admitted in an article for the New York Times that the name “was not my original thought but it fits, so readers are welcome to it if they wish."

7 Inspiration For The Handmaid's Clothes

The handmaid's uniforms are absolutely outdated, and what's more, they are an astonishing, deep red color. There are actually a few different reasons for these styling choices in the Hulu show. The color and styling are drawn from Mary Magdalene. Mary is a Biblical figure who walked alongside Jesus.

However, she is better known as a repentant prostitute. Red is also, of course, representative of blood. Plus, the brilliant colored garb makes it easier to spot any handmaid trying to run away. Likewise, the Wive's costumes are blue as a symbolic measure of purity and the Virgin Mary.

RELATED: The Handmaid's Tale: 10 Times Serena Joy Waterford Was The Worst Person On Earth

6 Joseph Fiennes Refused To Do One Scene

Joseph Fiennes plays Commander Waterford in the disturbing television series. He has had to procure a few damaging scenes, the most intense of which involves the atypical rape of his handmaid. Even though Fiennes is no stranger to filming these atrocious scenes, he refused to film one that was written into the script. It involved Commander Waterford raping his wife.

This was supposed to happen in season two, but Fiennes argued that it was out of character for Waterford in that particular moment in time. Fiennes told the showrunners that, although Waterford is a rapist, he does not do it spontaneously or without reason. Whatever else he may have said apparently won the showrunners over because the scene was cut from the script.

5 Why Serena Names The Baby Nicole

Another behind-the-scenes fun fact is the reason behind the Waterford baby‘s name. Immediately after giving birth to her first Gilead child, June names the baby Holly after her mother. However, by the end of the second season when she gives up her baby to freedom, she insists that the baby is called Nichole, which is what Serena Joy (Waterford) names the baby.

It isn't abundantly clear why June switched the name, but it could be because she saw the irony in the name that Serena gave her. The name Nichole is strikingly similar to Nicholas, which is the name of the baby‘s biological father. Apparently, Serena gives her this name as a passive aggressive measure to remind her husband that he isn't really the baby's father.

4 Gilead Comes From The Bible

Like many of the Easter eggs in Atwood's novel, the term Gilead is derived directly from the Bible. Gilead is the purgatory remnants of what was once the United States. Atwood named the new regime after the Biblical source called “The Republic of Gilead.” It’s a geographic location in the Bible, which is associated with segregation and immortality. In the Book of Hosea, it says, “Gilead is the city of those who work in equity, it is stained with blood.“

RELATED: The Handmaid's Tale: 10 Things We Still Need To Know About Nick Blaine

3 Amanda Brugel's Deep Connection To The Story

Amanda Brugel, who plays Rita in the Hulu version of The Handmaid's Tale is a fan of Atwood's story, to put it mildly. When she was in high school, she was assigned to read The Handmaid's Tale She was only fifteen at the time, but she was so enamored with it that she wrote short stories about it. Brugel then applied to a university with a thesis on the novel and subsequently received a full scholarship. The entire essay mainly focused on one character from Atwood's book.

The character was Rita.

2 The Original Characters Weren't So Diverse

In the original story of The Handmaid's Tale, any race other than white is sent away to the Midwest, which essentially eliminated all non-caucasian races from the novel. Although the concept falls in line with Gilead's racist agenda, TV producers thought it would be best to eliminate this concept from the screen adaptation.

Likewise, there were no explicitly gay characters in the book. Emily a.k.a. Ofglen didn’t have a wife or any sexual orientation in Atwood's book. However, the author is now delighted at these changes. She told Vanity Fair, “It’s very now. In the series, she, number one, gay, and number two, she had a wife. You could have said that in 1985. It wouldn't have made any sense. People were talking that way. But they are now, so that makes sense.”

1 The Toughest Set Was The Grocery Store

One of the main disassociations in this story is that women lose their eligibility to read and write. When set designers were put to the task to create the world of Gilead, they had to ensure this rule remained cohesive, even in the background. This meant they were put to the difficult task of creating the grocery store. If you look closely, you’ll notice that every single label negates the use of words and instead uses pictures and original labels to identify the products. This took a lot of tedious work, but it helps make the world of Gilead more realistic.

Apparently, the juxtaposition of a modern, real-world grocery store with the condemning structure of the new realm was jarring to some of the cast who found the grocery set to be “creepy."

NEXT: The 10 Best Music Moments On The Handmaid's Tale

source https://screenrant.com/10-facts-behind-making-handmaids-tale/

#screenrant

0 notes

to-learn-of-living · 7 years ago

Text

A Handmaids Tale Tells an Awful Story Not So Different To Today's World

Trigger warning: This post discusses sexual, physical and emotional abuse.

This post contains massive spoilers for ‘A handmaids tale’.

source: Google Images

I don’t even know where to begin with this post.

The other night I watched the first four episodes of a handmaids tale, and I just found myself getting angry.

Angry for what was going on in the show, but also angry at the amount of parallels I saw in today’s society.

The premise of the show is that something has caused the majority of the human population to become sterile (Global warming? Nuclear war? I’m not sure yet). Low birth rates led to violence led to the US congress being murdered by ‘terroists’, led to marshal law, led to a whole new society's being set up.

This new society seeks to bring America back to it’s biblical roots. They see the evils of what brought them to this place. Hookup culture. Abortions. Tinder. Sound familiar?

They seek to start a new society based on the bible. Men and woman are divided into classes. The powerful men become ‘commanders’ of their households. The rest of the men become guards/drivers/work as normal in the workforce.

The women are no longer allowed to work for a living. They are required to wear conservative clothing, all homogenous to represent their positions in society. This of course, as we're often told today, stops men lusting after women. The women have different functions. There are ‘Martha’s’ (I presume based on the biblical Martha) who cook for their households, the sterile ‘wives’ to the commanders, and the ‘aunties’ who train up the ‘handmaids’. Anyone who rebels against this new world order is executed, or sent to the ‘colonies’ where their skin will burn off within a year - possibly because of the same thing that caused the sterilisation, I'm not sure.

When marshal law began all the women were rounded up and tested. Those who were still fertile were given the ‘illustrious honour’ of becoming a handmaid.

They were told how wonderful it was that God granted them this amazing gift! Once their training was complete, they would be sent to a house where they would be loved and respected for the gift they are! No one would care if they were pretty or intelligent or any of those terrible things they used to get judged for (book learning and fashion was banned). They were the blessed women of God! Praise be!

Their duties were quite simple, they were to do the shopping and some basic cleaning for their household. All pretty easy stuff leaving plenty of time for spiritual reflection. Oh, and they got the honour of being raped once a month by their house’s commander.

source: Google Images

But it wasn’t actually rape. How could it be? Rape was one of the worst crimes in their society, punishable by death. Handmaids had the honour of participating in a biblical tradition!

Once a month the handmaid would ritually wash herself. Then she would present herself to the wife’s bedroom and kneel on the floor. The wife and house staff would come in to help prepare for the ‘ceremony’. Then the commander would knock on the door, as it’s only fitting for the bedroom to be the wife's domain. There can’t be any sexual impurity in this Godly community!

The commander would then read the following scripture:

“And when Rachel saw that she bare Jacob no children, Rachel envied her sister; and said unto Jacob, Give me children, or else I die. And Jacob's anger was kindled against Rachel: and he said, Am I in God's stead, who hath withheld from thee the fruit of the womb? And she said, Behold my maid Bilhah, go in unto her; and she shall bear upon my knees, that I may also have children by her.” ‭‭Genesis‬ ‭30:1-3‬ ‭(KJV)

So they followed the bible to the letter. The handmaid would lie with her head on the wife’s knee while the wife held down her wrists. The husband then had intercourse with her, and promptly exited the room. Everyone was fully dressed conservatively during the entire ‘ceremony’. The husband even took great care not to flash his penis to anyone. After all, they wouldn’t want to invite sexual immorality or lustful thoughts.

Yeah. See why it made me mad?

But why would the handmaids accept this fate?

‘Blessed are the meek dear’ the Aunties would croon in their ‘training centre’.

The handmaids soon learned to chant along with them, or else be on the receiving end of a taser dished out to anyone who acted/spoke/thought ‘wrong’. Argue and you get tasered. Raise your voice, you get tasered. Cry at your circumstances, tasered.

How often are women in our society told what they can and can’t do? How many times do they need to hear it before they believe it, or at least learn not to fight it?

Blessed are the meek...

One girl was made an example of. She fought back so hard that the aunties gouged out her right eye. After all, the bible clearer says this is how to deal with sin. She was later put in a chair, surrounded by the other girls, and made to recount the time three collage students gang raped her. The other handmaids were asked by Aunty ‘who’s fault was this girls? The girls had to point at the poor victim and chant ‘her fault, her fault, her fault...’

‘That’s right’, Aunty explained. ‘She was a slut, and dressed provocatively, and God chose this way to punish her for her sins. But God is forgiving and chose to bless her through child bearing.

Were you wearing that? were you drunk? Why were you there alone? How often do we find ways to blame victims for their abuse, instead of the abuser?

Blessed are the meek...

source: Google Images

That particular girl went completely insane, and is seen throughout the rest of the show always smiling, always completely happy with her lot. When asked the fate of another handmaid, she responded ‘Oh she was killed. Blessed are the meek’, with the biggest brightest smile you'll ever see on her face.

How often do we point to individual women, queer people, or people of colour who publicly say they are ok with the way things are, to ‘prove’ everyone from that minority should be happy with their lot? How many have been brainwashed by society into thinking what they have is ok?

Blessed are the meek...

Other girls killed themselves to escape their fates. The commanders responded by installing unbreakable windows in their houses, and took great care to take away all shoelaces, ropes, bedsheets, anything that could be used in a suicide attempt.

When someone attempts to take their life, how often do we assume they are weak, or seeking attention. How often do we look at the real reasons why they are taking that option?

Blessed are the meek...

If you were accused of being gay, you would be given a kangaroo court trial where you were read romans 1. Then you would be sentenced to death, unless you were an all so precious handmaid. Instead, you'd have the honour of an unrequested female circumcision to prevent you from having those sinful desires. It was ok though, God had saved you through childbearing.

Almost all my LGBTIQ+ friends at some point have been taken out for coffee by Christians, only to have Romans 1 and other verses thrown in their faces, and given no opportunity to explain themselves. All in the name of ‘church discipline’.

Blessed are the meek.

This show absolutely disgusted me, yet I couldn’t look away, because it was a very timely piece on the extremes Christians have gone trough both in history, and today.

It tells the cautionary tale of taking bible verses literally without any cultural/historical/scientific/meditative consideration. And they didn’t even use some of the really bad verses, like:

“If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.” ‭‭Deuteronomy‬ ‭22:28-29‬ ‭(NIV‬‬) emphases mine

“Were you a slave when you were called? Don’t let it trouble you” ‭‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭7:21‬a ‭(NIV‬‬)

“When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it.” ‭‭Deuteronomy‬ ‭20:10-13‬ ‭(NIV‬‬) emphases mine

Select bible passages can be used as a ‘how to’ guide to subjugate women, conquer and enslave other countries, rape women, and kill anyone who disagrees with you.

All with God’s blessing!

And if they complain about their circumstances, just remind them God ordained it! Blessed are the meek!

Hell, you could make a biblical argument that all Christians must be communists, based solely on Acts 4:32-5:10. God killed 2 non-communists in that story!

...But that’s the problem with the bible - It’s not a tight knit set of texts that perfectly agree with each other.

I’ve personally found only two types of people who hold that view: those who haven’t spent much time reading the bible, and those who spend a ridiculous amount of time doing mental gymnastics trying to prove how things that contradict each other actually don’t.

But if we honestly look at the bible, there are many contradictions. Like the different genealogies for Jesus in Matthew and Luke. Or that both Satan and God seemed to orchestrate Israel’s census depending on whether you read Chronicles or Samuel.

In some ways I really respect Calvinist theology. Don’t get me wrong, I disagree with the majority of it. But in general, true Calvinists try to literally follow the bible to the best of their abilities. They are against same sex marriage, but also women preaching etc.

The rest of us tend to view the bible through the lens of battles that have already been won before our time. Even the common lectionary used in many churches skips over some of the more... problematic... texts. Worst, many Christians act as if Christianity has always championed women’s rights, antislavery and interracial marriage. And those are just the big ticket items the majority of Christians were on the wrong side of in the last 2 centuries!

source: Google Images

As a young Christian I was very worried when I discovered some very troublesome passages in Corinthians:

“A man should not wear anything on his head when worshiping, for man is made in God’s image and reflects God’s glory. And woman reflects man’s glory. For the first man didn’t come from woman, but the first woman came from man. And man was not made for woman, but woman was made for man. For this reason, and because the angels are watching, a woman should wear a covering on her head to show she is under authority.” ‭‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭11:7-12‬ ‭(NLT‬‬) emphases mine

“Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.” ‭‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭14:34-35‬ ‭(NIV‬‬) emphases mine

As a brand new Christian I was very worried about the stories of a ‘wrathful God’ I’d heard about growing up. I had long hair at the time (in some translations that’s a no-no for males), and was scared I was breaking God’s rules.

I was also confused why women were allowed to preach in my church when the bible clearly forbade it. So I asked my only friend at the time who had been to bible school, ironically a woman.

She told me that these were culturally specific commands that shouldn’t be applied to modern life.

I wrestled with that for a long time. I felt like God wanted all of us to be equal, and couldn’t see why women were any different to men. But these and other passages seemed to clearly state otherwise. And the ‘cultural’ explanation didn’t make any sense to me, considering Paul's reasoning for these rules:

“If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God.” ‭‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭11:16‬ ‭(NIV‬‬) - emphasis mine

“Or did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached? If anyone thinks they are a prophet or otherwise gifted by the Spirit, let them acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command. But if anyone ignores this, they will themselves be ignored.” ‭‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭14:36-38‬ ‭(NIV‬‬) - emphasis mine.

Paul’s reasoning seems to be that these are rules for all times in all places. No exceptions. How can we ignore that?

As I came to read the bible more, I discovered a lot more problems. The overwhelming bible consensus seems to find nothing wrong with owning slaves and subjugating women (provided they’re treated a certain way), forbidding interracial marriage, and all same sex practices.

And yet most denominations only practice the latter.

It took me years of wrestling with these issues to finally discover the problem. Christianity since the late 19th century has increasingly locked onto the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. Basically the belief that the bible is perfect and has no errors.

The basic claim of biblical inerrants is that God essentially took over the thoughts of each biblical author to make sure what came out was exactly what He wanted and nothing else. I've written an in depth analysis of why I think this is a false doctrine in the past. But the short answer is this claim is utterly ridiculous and doesn't line up with the majority of Christian Theology.

Almost every denomination holds to the idea that God has gifted us all with free will, which is His greatest gift to humankind. Yet inerrants claim that He took away this precious gift just to make sure the bible was perfect.

Ok... maybe that makes sense for other religions where it was the only possible way to write a perfect holy book. But this glosses over the most important hallmark of the Christian faith.

We have a God who literally came to earth in human form!

Jesus could have personally written a perfect holy book and signed it with ‘this is the exact unquestionable word of God’. He could have written it in a way that made sure there was no ambiguity, that all races at all times could open it and know for certain exactly what God wanted - the claim of many inerrants, and most conservatives in the LGBTIQ+ debate.

Instead we have a hot mess. A strange grouping of books from many different authors who often can't agree on facts and sometimes downright oppose each other!

But God shows us something remarkable in the way he chose to give us a holy book.

He showed us that he values human free will far more than a perfect text!

He would much prefer humans to write about Him, knowing they will get things wrong, and offering grace for their mistakes, rather than violating their free will.

He would rather give us an inadequate book that causes us to wrestle with what it says, and grow deeper in relationship with God and others in doing so, than give us a how to guide that can't be questioned.

Ok I know at this point you're probably jumping up and down and calling me a heretic.

But think about it.

Really think.

How did Jesus spend his days on earth?

Did he go around giving perfect answers that 100% accurately sum up what we need to know about God and life that can't be questioned?

Or did he speak in horribly ambiguous parables that can very easily be taken to mean many different things, causing us to think deeper and seek His answers?

Now ask yourself, why would God make scripture, the created thing, be any more clear than the living Word of God, Jesus Christ?

I know the Jesus of the bible.

Do you?

#the handmaid's tale #Christianity #christians #australian christian #mystic #mysticism #christian mysticism #Biblical Inerrancy #lgbt #lgbt+ Christian #LGBT Rights #women's rights #racisim #women's suffrage #indigenous #australian aboriginal

1 note · View note

jeepcrs · 7 years ago

Photo

FUTURE IDEAS.

THE NEW PROPHETS ARE ALWAYS SCREAMING --- alright, so because i’m a sucker for symbolism, i started looking into what his name meant. and it really stuck with me, the meaning of daniel and its ties to the biblical prophet, as well as what the book of daniel was composed of. “rising to prominence by interpreting the king’s dreams [...] the book also presents daniel’s four visions of the end of the world.” i found that really fitting for him and it gave me the idea of tapping into his strong beliefs in the paranormal and his desire to find the truth of it all. i think it would be fascinating to dive into how him opening himself up to these experiences changes him and makes his ties to that plane stronger. not make him clairvoyant by any means, but do some development that might hint at him being more sensitive to it all, like in terms of hearing/experiencing things during investigations. it could also be a fun thing to use to tie him and vanessa together, like her being able to speak to ghosts and her more mystical connections, as well as him maybe experiencing some things that back up what she hears or senses, building up to some potential bigger point. ( if that makes sense at all, it’s hard for me to articulate what i’m imagining here ) BUT ALSO okay, so the post you made including the clueless detective trope really inspired me here. so keep aspects of what i was mentioning above --- whether he’s more sensitive or just experiencing the things that back up what vanessa could be seeing, and just being unable to put it all together. slowly getting all the pieces of the puzzle, but not realizing there’s a puzzle at all. alternatively, having all the pieces to solve one mystery, but instead solving a different one than what the pieces spell out for him. he’s a big picture thinker, when faced with small details one at a time, he’s not so quick to figure out what’s being given to him.

HOMESICK GHOSTS KEEP YOU AWAKE --- of course, i want to mess around with him trying to redeem himself and build back up his relationships. i feel like some character regression AND development came through silverwood, and i want to see how he improves himself as well as his dynamics with the others. and it’s his senior year of college, so i would love to dive into his plans for the future. figuring out where he wants to take himself in life, sorting out his problems here. maybe even eventually caving and deciding that, perhaps, it would be smart for him to get some actual help coping. even if i would also love to see how his improper coping mechanisms effect him further.

HANDS STAINED WITH THE GOLDEN SINS OF SAINTS --- OKAY BUT PARALLELS WITH ELIJAH AND DANIEL. that’s one connection that really stuck out to me because they’re so similar yet so different and diving into future and past parallels between the two and how meaningful it is would be something really fun to explore.

THE BRIGHTEST SUN MUST ALWAYS CAST A SHADOW --- with my aforementioned love for symbolism, i would also love to explore potential modern ties to him and the banshee myth mentioned further back on this blog. also something involving his dad or grandma. i have no idea what, but i think it would be interesting if there was some belonging of their’s that had some kind of relevance to any future plot points for him as a character. like maybe his grandmother used to be a professor that focused on history of religion and with her taste for ghost stories, how religion and these different planes of existence aren’t mutually exclusive, but are instead coexisting and all in all just him maybe finding some of her studies in christianity and the spiritual ties that go with the occult etc etc etc. sort of going back to the first future idea.

SOMETHING ABOUT THIS REGION IS MAGNETIC --- are you ready for me to get into all my potential ideas for where connections can go bc i’m not

BLAIR: so they broke up. they’re friends now. etc etc etc. but of course four years of feelings doesn’t go away with nothing to show for it --- i would love to play around with what’s lingering there between them and how they’re making this friendship work. or even the potential of what their future could hold if they fall into that age-old trap of going back to each other, yadda yadda yadda. there’s a lot of ways this could go and i dig it.

CRISTIAN: I LOVE M/M FRIENDSHIPS. i love how these two are so different --- light to dark, yin and yang, mike and sully --- while still really being there for each other and having each other’s backs. cristian means a lot to him and i definitely think this would be a super fun connection to explore and build up more backstory for.

NAOMI: the guilt!!! the blaming of himself!!!! reemerging feelings!!!! so much potential and i would love to see if the chemistry’s there for that back and forth will-they-won’t-they and the repercussions of where the dynamic could go. especially since his efforts into helping initially started as a way of him trying to redeem himself in his own eyes, so there’s a vein of selfishness and need there where it’ll make him question what he’s starting to feel for her again. plus daniel around children is iconic.

MICAH: the dodginess!! i love it. daniel being absolutely clueless and not reading between the lines enough to tell that something deeper is going on with micah and exploring that and what could happen when truth comes out.

VERENA: i can see him slightly getting obsessive over trying to make things up to verena, but in the end realizing it’s a lost cause if he can’t forgive himself? a sort of development point on a personal level because while he’ll carry around his mistakes forever, he needs to realize that he can try as hard as he can, but if he doesn’t think he’s deserving of her forgiveness, there’s nothing he’s going to do that’ll fix their friendship. plus i love tension and suffering and i can see this being a really fun and complex dynamic to play around with.

DAMARIS: i love awkward dynamics, so this really caught my eye tbh. i’m really excited to see how he overcompensates for the awkwardness and how he tries to get their friendship back to where it was because they have so much potential and i love it. there’s not enough male/female platonic relationships in rp and i’m completely in love with the potential this dynamics has.

BRYCE: two bros, chillin’ in a hot tub, five feet apart ‘cause they’re not gay.

ASHLEY: i’m a weak bitch for childhood friend dynamics, so i’m all about this, especially since she’s abusing that friendship to get away with pitching in less work hahaha. he’s absolutely blind to it because he trusts her and his friends almost to a point where he could be considered naive ( he could have been running away from a cop at one point during their excursions and if one of the team members told him to turn right, he might listen and run head on into a tree, that kinda naive ). anyway, reconnecting with her and a part of his childhood like that would be a lot of fun to explore.

ISAIAH: okay so my gut instinct is to say i want them to find a way to move past where they’re at odds, but honestly? having the tension between them grow even MORE would be a lot of fun. like in life some people just don’t click, just aren’t meant to be friends, and while daniel actively tries to get isaiah to like him, sometimes people just don’t succeed.

KIMBERLY: he’s honestly so oblivious half the time that it gives me chest pains. i like the idea of there being someone who's not quite a friend, but also not someone avidly pissed at him, y’know? that sort of in-between where they’re sorta cordial is an interesting dynamic that i don’t see much in rp and would love to see play out and develop in whatever way it flows.

TREVOR: MY SON. i love this connection a lot, it really spoke to me and the concept of seeing it in action appeals to me, ha. all in all getting into how trevor grows on daniel would be so much fun, sort of embracing the back and forth, learning from each other, etc etc.

VANESSA: listen daniel being a total fanboy over her is all i ever needed and wanted in life. he’s curious above all and probably asks her an unnecessary amount of questions --- i feel like there’s really good potential for friendship here, once he gets past the initial awe. which will happen. eventually. i think.

JULIAN: there’s so much room for friendly banter here and i am absolutely all about it. i feel like his slight agitation over julian’s stance on the matter of the paranormal would eventually pass when he sees that having skeptics like julian and isaiah around could really benefit the team and their reputation? like having two non-believers there to offer potential other explanations that an entire team of believers could not, ensuring that their viewers know that they would never lie to them or aren’t considering every alternative they can think of beyond the paranormal. i think there’s a lot of room here for them to become really close friends.

LANA: i feel like there’s room for this dynamic to go one way or the other, like mentioned on the post you made in regards to his connections. whether she’s harder on him because of what happened or the opposite, i feel like there’s a lot of fun to be had here exploring them --- especially considering her dad and the conflict that will inevitably rise due to that aspect of her character. i feel like this connection is harder to offer future ideas for without talking deeper into the two characters.

#THIS IS SO EXTRA #this entire mock blog is extra #n e wayz i'm off 2 a dog's first birthday party thank u for reading #( cstudy. )

0 notes

1189books-blog · 7 years ago

Text

How Wide the Divide: Sexuality at the Forefront, Culture at the Crossroads

By Ravi Zacharias July 15, 2015 (full article here)

Excerpt:

The decision of the Supreme Court of the United States sent tremors around the globe and I have received scores of messages asking whether we, at RZIM [Ravi Zacharias International Ministries], are going to say anything in response. What more is there to say? The spectrum of views that were immediately expressed said all there was to say. When the law passed, the first thought that came to my mind was Chesterton’s prophetic comment more than half a century ago: “For under the smooth legal surface of our society there are already moving very lawless things. We are always near the breaking-point when we care only for what is legal and nothing for what is lawful. Unless we have a moral principle about such delicate matters as marriage and murder, the whole world will become a welter of exceptions with no rules. There will be so many hard cases that everything will go soft.”

That breaking point is here. ‎

After hours of pondering and praying, I would like to say something to my fellow believers and followers of the Lord Jesus Christ. Naturally, some who disagree with my views will probably be reading this as well so I have to expand the justification a bit. I am keenly aware that on this subject winning the approval of all is not only impossible but if done, would be at the risk of substance. I shall try to walk through this minefield.‎

As Christians, we often look outside of ourselves and wonder why the world is so different from us. We seldom pause and ask how the Church of today has become so different from what it was and so indifferent to the world around us. Liberalism is not just a political term. What has happened in our world was foreseen a few decades ago. Changes were underway then and we were taken by a storm from within. Culture at large moved unabashedly towards the mockery of the Christian worldview; Eastern religions were spared that, either because of the cowardice of the Western critic or simply to not be seen as attacking another ethnic group. But the Church is really where the titanic shifts in the culture started. As the liberal church swung to the extreme of religion without absolutes, the evangelical church flirted with emotionalism without intellect, while some of the mass distributors of spirituality peddled a cosmetic version of truth that was hollow and hairstyles became more important than what was going on in the head itself.

Of course, there are exceptions to these generalities. Some of the most thriving churches today are those that have a deep allegiance to the gospel message. I am honored to often be in their midst and I have hope because of them. But for now, let me just talk about how wide is the divide between secular society and the Church, and why it is. ‎ ‎

There are three starting points that separate the historic Christian view from those who called for the legalizing of gay marriage that is now the law of the land, albeit by one vote.

One, we come from two different definitions of what it means to be human. For the Christian, life is in the soul. The body is the temporal home. George MacDonald said it well: “You do not ‘have’ a soul; you ‘are’ a soul, and ‘have’ a body.” For the one living with a secular worldview there is no such thing as the soul. To be sure, that is not true of all in that disposition. I know many who would not deny the essential spirituality of human life and will admit to a deep struggle between their attractions and their cautions. Strangely, there has also arisen a strained view that seeks to justify the marital bond between any two consenting adults as biblically permissible. I shall not wander into an apologetic countering that. But there are those within their own ranks who seriously challenge such distortion. Fine theologians have argued and demonstrated the cracks in their foundations.‎ ‎

For the most part, in secular terms NOW is all we have and NOW is the moment to enjoy whatever one pleases. A soul-less existence makes the body the sole means of fulfillment. When one starts that way, sexuality is a thing to be restricted only by parameters that are materially referenced. As the songwriter said, “In the dark it is easy to pretend that the truth is what it ought to be.” Touch becomes defined by feel and taste, nothing more than that. “I feel I enjoy it so please stay out of my way.”

The contrast here between the Christian worldview and the secular is a big one. For the Christian, not only is life in the soul, but the body, in Jesus’s words, is the temple of God. That is the highest locus of communion between a human being and God. For the one who recognizes no such thing as the sacred, the body is the playing field of life and pleasure sets the rules. This is a significant difference as a starting point.

Two, the Christian believes in absolutes. For the secular person, moral relativism is the only absolute. No one ever really says what something is relative to, but the implication here is that there is no boundary for behavior. Even the economic destruction of those with whom they disagree can become the water-boarding and the slow kill of the secular armory. For the relativist, no decision is determined by a transcendent definition of life, and where there are no absolutes, there had dare not be any prohibition by anyone else. The banner of the atheistic society in England during Christmas two years ago said it all: “There probably is no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.” Relativism is the open door to fun, absolutes the closed door that destroys fun. That is the way it is seen.

Three, the defender of sexual freedom sees a parallel between what is seen as anti-gay prejudice today and racial prejudice as it was practiced at its lowest point decades ago. Here, a word game has entered the vocabulary. Relativist convictions are supposedly prejudice-free, while absolute convictions are branded as phobias. Any stigma can lick a good dogma, it is said. With that verbal deconstruction of a worldview, all questioning of sexual freedom is castigated as a phobia. Quite amazing that atheists are not called “theophobes” or that those against Christians are not called “christophobes.” Pejoratively, the counter positions have been appended with phobias till we may have a whole new polyphobic dictionary.

But that is the lesser problem. I contend that equating race with sexuality is actually a false premise and an unfortunate analogy.‎ In the matter of race it simply doesn’t matter how I feel about it; my ethnicity transcends my preferences or inclinations. In the Hindi language there is a mildly mocking expression to describe one who acts different to his or her essence in race: “Desi murghi pardesi chal” … “this is a local bird with a foreign walk.” As was recently established, a person may feel like one race, associate primarily with that race and think like that race, but that doesn’t change who she really is. Why is this analogy unfortunate? Because it moves the debate from what is right to what are one’s rights. Ironically, the political party now most aligned with arguing for rights was once the same party that argued against the emancipation of slaves because of the slave-owners’ “rights.” In that case, those rights were overruled by what was right. Interesting that a new word wasn’t coined then to describe those who made moral arguments against the slave-owners’ rights as “slaveophobes.” Thankfully, essential human worth and moral reason trumped existential and pragmatic preferences and by God’s grace, what was right was deemed to be right and the slave was freed.

There are absolutes. To the Christian, every person is made in the image of God and is loved by God. He sent his Son for the whole world, not just for those of a particular race or sexual proclivity. Sex is a sacred trust with deliberate boundaries. It is at once one of the greatest gifts and one of the greatest struggles. The 5000-year-old struggle in the Middle East has its roots in polygamy when two half-brothers shared a father but not the same mother. ‎The violation of race is a violation of the sacred and for the Christian, the violation of sex is seen the same way. The secularist does not see the latter as a violation where there is consent, but this is simply not so for the Christian. Desacralization is an emptying of essential purpose and meaning and leads to the loss of essential purpose in life itself. This is why it is vacuous to say that if two people love each other they may express it in any way they choose. Love is not defined in a way that is self-referencing. It ultimately hangs on the peg of God’s love and how He defines love.‎ ‎

But here a caution is critical. All violation of the sacred, not just sex, is ultimately in need of God’s grace and forgiveness. That is the Christian view. That is why the good news is that God’s gift of salvation and redemption is offered to all. That is why what is right has to win the day over what we may see as rights. As hard as this may seem to some, it is the only hope to avoid the misuse of reason for other attractions. Can we not, on the same argument presently used—adult consent—someday justify a multitude of proclivities? Even more, what is to keep Sharia Law from being brought into the culture to respect the rights of a particular group only to have it one day used by extremists to overrule our present laws? After all, extremists have ways of dictating for all. Isn’t that what we witness time and again? This is not a slippery slope. This is an irrational, runaway train driven in the name of rights and tendentious reasoning. It can happen. I suspect it will happen. The cultural plausibility can shift. Not everything that is fatal is immediate.‎

With these three chasms, the heart sinks and exclaims, how wide is the divide‎! This, then, brings me as a follower of Jesus Christ to the three most important bridges between all of us, regardless of our views on this issue. The gay community rightly cries out for identity and intimacy. These are, after all, the longings of the mind and heart of every human being, regardless of our position on this issue. This is where the gospel enters as the only way to bring us together.‎ Indeed, the first bridge of the gospel is that my identity is found in Jesus Christ because of whom I must tame my passions. My identity dictates my behavior. Before I committed my life to Jesus Christ, my identity within my culture was dictated by the status of my family: who my father was, how I did in school, what my grades were, how much money I had access to. All these were and are systemically woven into my culture. I had no choice. This is how I was viewed. Take a look at the matrimonial section in India’s newspaper today. Color, caste, education, wealth, beauty all are repeatedly mentioned as parents seek what they consider the best partners for their children. It’s so clearly discriminatory. When my sister married a Hindu convert to Jesus Christ, the challenge for his parents was huge. But amazingly, their understanding of what Jesus Christ had done for their son changed everything. This is the only bridge I know of that can change the human heart.

It is because of this relationship that we change our behavior from what attracts us to what we act upon. This connection is crucial. If I know what it is to be a man, I know how sexual attraction works. Over time you learn that giving in simply does not bring lasting happiness or purpose. It is only in the keeping of the body as the temple that the sacred is upheld and the grace of God brings conviction and restraint. The Bible says we are not to place our offerings on every altar. One psychologist describes indulgence as “short term fleeting relationships with long term bitter disappointments.” This is true of all behavior and of all sexual expression that runs afoul of God’s design. He has built this law into the human fabric. Deep inside we know this. Temporal allurements are ultimately unfulfilling without a spiritual bonding and binding. It is the eternal that must guide the temporal. ‎ ‎

The second bridge the gospel brings is intimacy. We all long for touch. This is true even in the most senior years of one’s life. I have talked to people working in homes for the aged and they have remarked on how much the elderly miss a physical touch and embrace. This is how we are made. Carrying that concept into sexuality, consummation is the all-embracing act of intimacy. Being as consummate as it is it demands exclusivity, otherwise it is rendered profane and common place. Experience tells us this repeatedly. Cultures that totally desacralize sexuality are non-existent. Even the polygamous guard the numbers. Even the unclad have boundaries. There are laws that govern against rapacious acts.

The biblical description of marriage is for one man and one woman in sacred commitment. So profound is this union that the relationship of God to the Church bears that comparison. He is the bridegroom; the Church is the bride. Is this so abstract that it doesn’t come down to where we are in our individual yearning for intimacy? Not in the least. According to the gospel, God offers us his indwelling presence where spirit touches spirit and the deepest, truest intimacy results. I am fully aware that to one who has never tasted intimacy with God this seems absurd. But it is here that I think we as Christians need to awaken to the unpleasant reality that we have not taught and proclaimed God’s Word faithfully and demonstrated true holiness.

How can my mind be transformed so that intellectually I understand perspectives and counter-perspectives? How do I so embrace God’s truth that it transforms my heart and my inclinations, or at least gives me the ability to control my inclinations? I have a colleague who confessed to having same sex-attractions. He went on to say that on a given day he thought and thought about the Christian message and finally and wholeheartedly surrendered himself to the Lordship of Jesus Christ. In his words, he “sensed a presence of being overcome from the top of my head to the soles of my feet…I have tasted a glimpse of heaven; why would I stoop to what is below?” Are there days of struggle for him? Is there a certainty of his new affections in Christ? “Yes,” he says to both questions. I have a huge respect for him and his sacrifice.

For the Christian, the question is this: How do I so walk with God that ALL my affections are brought under Jesus’s Lordship, whether my inclinations be same-sex or opposite sex or any other struggle? How may I love those with whom I disagree on these serious matters? The bridges will always be the identity and intimacy offered in the heart commitment to the Savior, first lived out then lovingly taught. ‎ ‎

Also, for the Christian we must remember that we cannot make this realm the eternal order. Our earthly cities are not what eternity alone will bring. Augustine’s two most memorable masterpieces are his Confessions and his City of God. As he lay dying in his home city, barbarians were already scaling the walls of Rome. Even as many churches were being destroyed, the main ones he had planted withstood the carnage. Incredibly, even though his mortal frame was breaking down, people continued coming to him so that he could pray for them. That is a glorious picture. His body was meeting its end. But his soul was not. He had confessed his need for his Savior and he looked to a city whose builder and maker was God. All earthly cities will at some time crumble and fall, as will our mortal bodies. Our eternal place of abiding is in God’s presence, no longer merely in a counter culture but in a place prepared for us. Augustine’s life enfleshed all those truths.‎ ‎

The third and final bridge of the gospel is that of community: the love of God working through us as a Church where worship brings together all our inclinations, surrendered to God’s sacred call for all of us. That is worked out in love and grace. Our worship will have to have theological integrity, not just in form but in substance; worship that is not just moments of exhilaration but is co-extensive with life itself and sermons that are not merely heard but are also seen. The outreach of love will then be embodied and not be mere talk. The Church must not be a fortress guarded by a constabulary but a home where the Father ever awaits the return of each of us who is in the far country. ‎ ‎

For those who follow Jesus Christ, our message to the world must be clear. God transforms the heart and mind and we become his children and his ambassadors. Let us so live that we will never be accused of hate or indifference. But let us also know that compromising the truth is a serious blunder and ends up celebrating that which is not in the will of our Father. This is a painful tension for a believer. To be seen as rejecting a belief or a behavior is not the same as rejecting the person. But God helps us to carry that burden.

By contrast, when Truth is lived out in love and grace, it will always make the faith attractive and even the one who opposes us will recognize the fearful symmetry of a conviction for the sacred that will swim against the tide and a commitment to the person that will find a bridge of hope. We must so live the gospel that men and women will call upon God’s name and make this body his home until we reach our Eternal City bought with the precious sacrifice of Jesus Christ. His body was broken for us so that ours might be mended for Him. ‎ ‎ ‎

#lgbt #christianity #ravi zacharias

0 notes

ramajmedia · 5 years ago

Text

10 Facts Behind The Making Of The Handmaid’s Tale | ScreenRant

RELATED: The Handmaid's Tale: 10 Things That Only Make Sense If You Read The Book

10 Margaret Atwood Makes A Cameo

9 Everything That Happens Is Based On History

8 Offred Doesn't Actually Have A Name

7 Inspiration For The Handmaid's Clothes

RELATED: The Handmaid's Tale: 10 Times Serena Joy Waterford Was The Worst Person On Earth

6 Joseph Fiennes Refused To Do One Scene

5 Why Serena Names The Baby Nicole

4 Gilead Comes From The Bible

RELATED: The Handmaid's Tale: 10 Things We Still Need To Know About Nick Blaine

3 Amanda Brugel's Deep Connection To The Story

The character was Rita.

2 The Original Characters Weren't So Diverse

1 The Toughest Set Was The Grocery Store

Apparently, the juxtaposition of a modern, real-world grocery store with the condemning structure of the new realm was jarring to some of the cast who found the grocery set to be “creepy."

NEXT: The 10 Best Music Moments On The Handmaid's Tale

source https://screenrant.com/10-facts-behind-making-handmaids-tale/

#screenrant

0 notes