#him and his bible against the world i think. and he doesn't actually read it very much

[evenstarfalls]

Potentially controversial take but I don't think Eli is homophobic. I think he doesn't know about gay people but if you told him he'd be like "oh that might be me actually." And then he'd strangle you with his bare hands.

[seriousfic]

The Satan Sleuth by Michael Avallone

I'm two books into this series now. They have the advantage of being short, but also a number of flaws that detract from a reading experience that should be a pulpy good time.

The premise is sound: Playboy wunderkind Philip St. George has his wife killed in a Manson-style slaying. He instantly becomes a vigilante against Satanism. Although not literally Satanism, but more all varieties of seventies, In Search Of... weirdness. You know, ESP, Stonehenge, the Loch Ness Monster, the Bermuda Triangle. Anything that might catch Leonard Nimoy's attention, he's on it. His wife wasn't even killed by sincere Satanists, but more crazed hippies who say "Hail Satan!" in the same way Metallica might.

Amusingly, Philip is characterized somewhere between James Bond, Doc Savage, Batman, the Saint, and only a little bit the Executioner. The narrative constantly goes on about how he's a man among men, good at everything, physically perfect, his wife was the hottest thing on two legs, and so forth. By the end of the book, he's straight-up being compared to Jesus Christ. It's a hoot. Shades of Rick Dagless M.D. from Darkplace.

He starts calling himself the Dragon Killer, but then I guess he doesn't find that name dorky enough, because he switches to the Satan Sleuth. Yes, he actually calls himself that. And he doesn't actually believe in Satan, so it's a pretty far reach for a name that, y'know, blows.

These books are pretty thinly plotted. The killers in the first book turn out to be hiding out not far from Philip's mansion and they decide to head back to his mansion, allowing him to pick them off one by one. And in the second book, he's trying to find a werewolf, which amounts to stumbling across someone the werewolf has killed, then following the werewolf's tracks to its lair.

Well, I don't think anyone picks up a book called The Satan Sleuth expecting a Robert Ludlum novel. The real issue to me is the prose. As short as these books are, they feel incredibly padded out. Every sentence is textually underlined and circled, repeated ad nauseum, draining all the propulsion out of the storytelling. Avallone never uses one sentence when he can use three and a dozen adjectives. I'll quote an excerpt to show my point:

St. George had far more curiosity than the average man. He had had that long before the tragedy of Dorothea Daley, when he always wanted to know what was on the other side of the mountain—and now that he had dedicated himself to something greater than his own life and safety, that curiosity had to be satisfied. It must be satisfied, at all costs. Most especially if he wanted to end the Fletcherville reign of terror and bring to earth the monster stalking its terrain, terrorizing and killing its populace—as well as any drifters who wandered into the vicinity. All innocently to meet death. Man or monster—he would learn that, too. It was the work, the task, the career he had sworn himself to. Forever. Until his own ultimate end, whenever that might be. Philip St. George's coming of age had simply been a matter of the savage murder of his wife, Dorothea Daley St. George. His life had begun from that day forward—christened in blood. Which was why, he, one of the richest young men in the world, was now sitting on a rumpled, four-postered bed in a meaningless little town in the middle of nowhere, fiddling with a soaked-through black Bible, disguised as a dull-faced salesman, instead of yachting off Majorca or dawdling with bikini-bare, bronze-skinned beauties on the French Riviera. Or clipping coupons in the London Hilton. He had turned his back on that world. Without regret, without fanfare, without a look back to see if he had missed anything. Fletcherville had become important to him. The people of Fletcherville, specifically. People, particularly. All people. Mankind, everywhere. Vulnerable mankind, so often victimized by hocus-pocus and the blinding magic tricks of their own fears, obsessions, and prejudices. Prey to the voodoo, hoodoo, mumbo-jumbo of cant, strange beliefs, false doctrines, which supposedly led to another god, some other truer god. All the fake astrology, phony mystic, Satanism-inspired behavior that evoked lunatic cultism of all kinds and yet brought nothing but ultimate failure, hypocrisy, lies, and more often sickness, brain decay, and—death. All those who used the occult and mysticism as a personal source of profit and gain or simply for the sheer cruelty and viciousness of it—those were the enemies of Philip St. George, quondam playboy-adventurer-explorer. The man who had grown up, almost overnght, to become a crusader with his own very special crusade. Those who used the Devil to mask their enterprises would have to pay the piper for the dance they called for. And that piper was Philip St. George, The Satan Sleuth. What other kind of man would have waited three long, crawling hours for the wet pages of an ancient Bible to dry? To become of use.

Narration by Mojo Jojo.

This kind of navel-gazing goes on for pages on end, grinding the plot to a crawl and making me want to shake the author and go "GET ON WITH IT!" At one point, the big fighting climax pauses so that we can follow an FBI agent realizing the Satan Sleuth is real. It leeched a lot of the campy fun out of the reading for me.

Now, I used Kindle Unlimited to read these, so I feel I got my money's worth, but Amazon is charging an unbelievable five bucks a pop for these ebooks, each of which hover around 150 pages. For my money, not a good bargain.

[miwhotep]

I am still thinking on White Knight especially that how similar Milverton and Whiteley are actually while being on the exact opposite sides on the moral scale. Whiteley is pure good at the start while Milverton is pure evil - that already offers an interesting face-off between the two. But there is more.

Whiteley has a good grasp about people's personalities what he calls "a hunch" - and Milverton is also well-versed in human psychology what he use to analyze his future victims' weak points. However, Whiteley's skill is a passive one: he can tell if people are trustworthy or not, what intentions they hold but he doesn't manipulate them, doesn't use this knowledge in bad ways, he is fully honest despite being a politician. Milverton's skill, on the other hand, is active: he manipulates people all the time through his media power, he search for the people's weaknesses to utilize and use them for his own purposes. When Whiteley looks at people to analyze them, he sees what type of people they are - when Milverton does it, he sees what type of people they can be with his "little help". Whiteley's judgment about Sturridge was right when he chose him to be his bodyguard: Sturridge was truly a good person - but Milverton knew how he could turn his morals upside down to achieve his goals, what could he use to force Sturridge to act like how he wants.

Another point is the impact they can have on people while being commoners in the world where class is everything. Whiteley is a politician and as one, he has an influence on public opinion - what Milverton can change completely with his media power, since as he said...

Whiteley gives hope to people with his speech, Milverton can take it away with how he presents it to those who haven't heard the speech in person. He plants doubt and fear into the people's heart through his news.

They both attempt blackmail. Whiteley has clearly never done it before, only attempted for a good cause... and the first person he blackmails happened to be the King of Blackmail - Milverton found it really amusing as it shown at the end of their discussion. He is also able to see through Whiteley that he is unable to publish those documents - Whiteley is not a person like this.

Other than that, Milverton is only an agent who doesn't care about the people who hired him - so Whiteley's blackmail fell flat. Unlike Milverton's, who blackmailed both Officer Fowler and Sturridge which resulted in the death of Whiteley's family.

Both of them are close to their secretaries and care about them - Whiteley has Marcus and Milverton has Ruskin.

Whiteley being pure good at the start and Milverton claims himself to be pure evil - he tells the story of how the devil tempted the first man to sin - whose name was Adam, just like Whiteley's name. Good Bible reference. (And we got Eve mentioned later as well - the woman who asked for Sherlock's help against Milverton the last time was Lady Eve - like the ACD story, but with this context, we can see that Milverton, like the serpent in the Bible - Sherlock compares Milverton to a snake in the Conan Doyle story - ruins both Adam and Eve.)

Thinking this through, Milverton is like an evil Whiteley... but it's even more interesting to view on the other way around. Whiteley being a good Milverton... Milverton wasn't always evil, he might have been someone like Whiteley once - and like Milverton turned Whiteley to commit a crime with getting him through a trauma first, Milverton might became a villain in a similar way as well - because of a trauma he couldn't deal with.

I really love the game between Whiteley and Milverton, especially when they finally met. I enjoy re-reading White Knight because I keep finding details to pay more attention to. It's my favourite arc.

[just-sp-in-inginthevoid]

Taijus faith is something that's very personal for him

Kokonoi is the first to make allusions to it. 1. Taiju doesn't show, or outright say he's christian 2. he goes to church (only on Christmas, mind you because I don't think he'd bring his men to church any other days) alone. He doesn't come when other Christians are around to listen to the mass. He just prays by himself

His abuse toward Hakkai and Yuzuha is both physical and emotional. But it's never shown to be religious. Not once is it explicitly stated that Taiju uses religion as an excuse to what he's doing to his siblings nor does he seem to push his beliefs on them. Hakkai and Yuzuha never comment on Christianity either.

Taiju doesn't have anything that screams "Hey, I'm Christian" or that he's religious at all. There's his cross tattoo of course but. It's the only tattoo he doesn't display for the whole world to see.

If he wanted people to see it, he wouldn't have chosen his back. And btw, some people seem to have succeeded to read what the sentences inked on his skins are and those aren't bible verses. It's about Asura, so a Buddhism belief (but then, we really can't see his tattoos well so who knows if it's really that)

Asura are non-gods. Devils kinda, but using a religion's word for another religion is not a good idea. Asura are proud, unpredictable, go against sacred laws, are extremely envious and torture living beings

Makes you wonder why Taiju decided to have something related to them inked on his skins (assuming it actually is and not bible verses like. Almost everybody thinks it is)

And you know, Christianity didn't spread in Japan. A bit more than 1% of Japanese people say they're Christian. Japanese people are mostly Shintoist and Buddhist because of their culture - whether or not they truly believe in these beliefs, they continue to follow traditions since they were raised that way.

Christians are out of this tradition and normality. Every religious person can be seen as too much; because of some unfortunate and awful stories caused by cults in the past, Japanese people have a bad view on Christianity - they may think of it as a cult and don't want to have anything to do with it. They can be disowned by their family if they convert and they know it. Christian foreigners are much more accepted, a kind of 'Gaijin pass'.

I don't know how the Shiba deal with Taiju being Christian, but for Japanese society as a whole - he is ostracized. Doesn't help that he doesn't seem to have any kind of relation with other Christians, he's alone.

[xxsakuragirlxx]

hii i've seen u in my notes and I want to be friends but I would like to know ur thoughts on lgbt+ first if u are comfortable with sharing

Hello, I don't mind sharing, but you might not like my views and that's perfectly fine. I'm being respectful with my words and honestly, you don't have too, because of the sensitivity of the topic.

I don't necessarily support the LGBT community. NOW, that doesn't mean I'm going to go around preaching saying "you're going to hell, REPENT!"., that just means our views are going to contradict, not me hating just because you aren't straight or cis. I have seen in real life and online those who like to make their sexuality or being trans, non binary the most prominent fact about them. Like I said, not going to hate. If you're a nice person, then I don't mind talking to you, but understand when it comes to these topics, your own being, we aren't going to see eye to eye and at least should converse like civil adults. (I had too many situations where I said the same thing and people threw a tantrum). For one, I'm a Christian, or at least trying to become one. Some of my views are based off the Bible and I'm trying to practice them, even if they seem stupid and out of date to the world. (I'm trying to force myself to read the Bible, but Christians don't joke that if the devil can feel change, he gets pissed and fucks with those who aren't in his grasp.) I have friends who are in the community (I know, that's a dumb excuse. That's like saying, "I'm not racist, I have black friends. 😏". Just because I associate myself with a specific person doesn't mean it my views can't affect them.) and I am respectful towards them despite my views. I told a mutual this: God is the epitome of love, but that doesn't mean He wants you to continue living the life you have. That's withholding your true potential for a life that won't even last for long. He's not going to force His way to you though, that goes against His nature of allowing free will and having a relationship with His creation, but actions/descions have their consequences and allowing free will brings that statement into work. I'm not going to condemn or shame anyone in the community because of this. Now to true Christians, that's me walking on eggs shells. That's me "confirming" to the world while trying to represent Christ. Basically, I'm lukewarm and it's a disgusting act towards God. I try to be nice to everyone and sometimes, that makes me a doormat: I say what people want to hear. Well actually, that just makes me a hypocrite. I was like that in the past because I wanted friends. I do my best to never do that again. I try to be blunt, gentle and stern with others because most can be worst. If others chose to respond in the opposite-well, nothing much I can do. I'm not going to grovel and change my beliefs for someone just like how others won't do the same to me, other Christians, and even God. If I choose to change, that's because I chose to and it's the same for everyone else as well; You indirectly helped. In the past, I use to support the community, then I slowly stopped. Did anyone force and belittled me(only ones who would do this are non supporters)? No, it came from personal reflection and was based off of what I read and experience. No one changed me, I chose to think differently and that means everything around me shift.

I also had another mutual come to me about the topic of LGBT because of a personal situation. As I told her, you can't change a person's sexuality. Like conversion therapy. That's you playing God in my opinion. Forcing someone to be something they are not will not only piss them off, it takes away the chance of them trying to love God. If anything, God will come to them. Whatever happens at that point is between Him and the individual.

There are some people who changed from LGBT+ to straight. I don't know anyone personally, but I have seen some state that as a testimony when they became Christian. Is it true, can your sexuality be changed by God? To be honest, probably, but I will personally never go through that journey. I'm straight. Sometimes women do look a little bit more... pretty in my eyes, but I try to stray away from those thoughts.(I fail at times because if you look through my blog, I go crazy over this OC a mutual has. That's only with that particular OC however.) When you see someone change like that, it's offensive and it's hurtful because you are changing who you are for a being most don't want to believe in. Like I tell some, you'll never know until you actually go through the experience, and to go through the experience, you actually have to have faith in God, read the Bible, and humble yourself to understand His perspective and why everything is the way it is.

Anyway, sorry for that. You asked for my views on the community and I'm here going into a different topic. Here's a summary: I may not support the LGBT+ community, but I'm not going to change you. That isn't my job. As a Christian, the job is to preach the Gospel so all that hear can gain a chance of salvation. If you hear and decide to ignore, well-that's you. I can't force you to actually listen. If you do become curious, know what all comes in the package of being Christian. Being lukewarm sucks because the further you go in, the harder it is to leave the lifestyle and it's you walking on extremely thin ice. (I did it again, going off topic, good Lord...)

As I said in another paragraph, I try to be blunt, gentle and stern. If my words offend you, then it does. I can't change how many will view me from this point forward.

I don't know who you are since you're on anon, but honestly if you want to block me or if any of the mutuals I have see this and decide "damn, Sakura actually kinda sucks. I should stop talking to her and block :/", I understand. I have in my bio that if you don't support my views, you are free to block.

I had it happen before. I'm sensitive to these things, but that isn't your problem, it's mines. That's how it is. I don't expect others to coddle or pity me just because I seem nice in how I explain things. If I ever decide to take Christianity seriously, I'll lose all what I had. I had a vent post saying the same exact thing. However, as the the end goal for most Christians are, they just want to go home. Home as in with God, in a New Heaven and Earth, where everything is the way God designed. If that means losing everything, so be it. They're tired and honestly, I'm tired as well. I just want peace and I'm already in a conflicted state of it I'll ever get that peace.

Anyway, like I said, perfectly fine it you would like to block me. Thank you for the ask and I hope you have a blessed night/day.

[thevagueambition]

Les Mis 1.1.4 thoughts

a lot of this post is about things that annoy me about christianity just fyi lol

Re Geborand, I'm reminded of something biblical scholar Dan McClellan has talked about (e.g. in this 2 min video) called the "prophetic critique" where various performances of piety are criticised in the old testament/tanakh. The context of that being that when the rich and powerful perform piety through these offerings and festivals while at the same time violating religious principles of mercy and charity, their offerings become sinful.

"There is M. Geborand purchasing paradise for a sou." is not quite the same thing, but it hits on this same idea of the public performance of piety with an ulterior motive in mind (whether social propriety or a ticket to paradise) not being paired with moral behavior

(I guess the text doesn't mention if Geborand starts behaving more morally alongside his charity, but how paltry said charity is certainly suggests not)

The bishop's use of local dialects contrasts with the FRev's dogmatic desire to define a french citizen as a speaker of standard french

Myriel's religious views frankly seem fairly similar to the sort of Christianity I was raised with (there are shitty conservative priests in my area as well, but not in my immediate community).

His virtue lies in correctly identifying the miserable as the inheritors of the earth and in acting according to his principles

The description of Myriel's beliefs does hit on a part of Christianity that deeply annoys me, though: the body as something bad which must be subordinated to the mind/soul ("Man has upon him his flesh, which is at once his burden and his temptation. He drags it with him and yields to it. He must watch it, cheek it, repress it, and obey it only at the last extremity.")

Why should the body be bad? It can cause you pain, of course. You can fall ill, you can get injured. But you can also embrace others, you can smell the smells of your home, you can eat your favourite dish. The body that hurts loves and feels pleasure, too. But then of course "pleasure" is exactly what's "dangerous" about the body – as if all pleasure was selfish and destructive 🙄

(I don't agree with the Descartean body/mind split in the first place. Imo you are your body. Your mind is part of your body.)

It relates somewhat to this other thing that irks me about Christianity -- and which I think might also actually be relevant to Myriel's development in this chapter, lol -- which is Christianity as a cope religion. It identifies the problems of the world -- illness, oppression, war -- and says "but if you're kind, if you dont break our rules, the afterlife will be wonderful." Like we don't have to fix the problems we have in the world because in the afterlife you will be free from suffering. Enduring the world piously is the goal, not making it better

(I'm aware that there are many Christians who don't think that way. My dad believes firmly in God and (his own personal interpretation of) the Bible and that's certainly not how his morals shake out. But that is an element in many permutations of Christianity)

Anyway where I think this might actually be relevant to Myriel is re "It is wrong to become absorbed in the divine law to such a degree as not to perceive human law." One interpretation of that is that if you focus exclusively on piety and the solace of divine judgement, it precludes you from perceiving injustice and brutality in the world and acting against it. An injust ruler may be condemned in the afterlife, but you should do something about him in this life, too

I think Hugo is probably right in saying that the death penalty is the sort of thing one can't be neutral on once one has seen it in action

Becaise it's one of the few pieces of leftist theory I actually have read and (mostly) understood, Walter Benjamin's Critique of Violence (Zur Kritik der Gewalt) it probably occupies an outsized prominence in my thinking on several things, buit in it Benjamin argues that the death penalty is the ultimate form of law establishing -- that the threat of violence(/force) behind law is what makes that law into a reality rather than a piece of writing and that in control over life and death being the ultimate form of violent power to hold over someone, capital punishemtn is useful for a legal system less because of its literal function and more because it so concretely manifests the law

"The opponents of these critics [of capital punishment] felt, perhaps without knowing why and probably involuntarily, that an attack on capital punishment assails not legal measure, not laws, but law itself in its origin. For if violence [...] is the origin of law, then it may be readily supposed that where the highest violence, that over life and death, occurs in the legal system, the origins of law jut manifestly and fearsomely into existence. In agreement with this is the fact that the death penalty in primitive legal systems is imposed even for such crimes as offenses against property, to which it seems quite out of "proportion." Its purpose is not to punish the infringement of law but to establish new law. For in the exercise of violence over life and death, more than in any other legal act, the law reaffirms itself." (online PDF version of source)

[joeys-piano]

An-tag-onist game

Tagged by @words-after-midnight, whom I'm currently beta-ing one of their oldest projects and have only read two original fiction works for pleasure this decade and I'm happy to say that theirs is one of them. The other one is "On Earth, We're Briefly Gorgeous" by Ocean Vuong. Which says something about the things I actually read, but that is neither here nor there.

Tagging (if you'll like to play along because y'all have interesting tastes): @feu-eau, @somuchanemoia, @voxofthevoid, @paleborza, @bowties-are-cool3000, @astralalmighty, @rebrandedbard, @hellfridge, and @walkinaroundtheuniverse and any of the rest of y'all who stumble upon this!

---

Rules: Have some fun by making an antagonist/villain, morally gray, or otherwise complicated character answer for their (alleged) fictional misdeeds, horrible and/or hilarious. BONUS: Add a poll to let public opinion decide what should be done with them. (Or just do it in the tags. Up to you.)

The accused: Kni | Nai | Millions Knives | "Hundreds Spoons" from Trigun Stampede

Evidence Against Him (in no specific order)

Chad™ body

Evil™ snuggy

Knife tentacles

Vaulting through a window through the thrust of his own pelvis

The voice of someone you'd spill your guts to and he'll sell you out for one (1) potato chip

Started a neo-catholic cult to enslave humanity under desperation, featuring himself and his twin brother as Adam and Eve-esque, Revelation-style angels here to deliver humanity to its end and blah blah blah blah blah

Kept a man alive for 150+ years to genetically modify and enhance the remaining BIPOC and disabled denizens of Noman Land to carry out the violence deemed "necessary" to show his twin brother that people aren't worth saving

Forces his brother into ultimatums where the end result is the same: his brother doesn't save anyone or keeps the promises he intends to keep and this further isolates him from the people he cares about until Knives is the only one he's certain with

Gaslight Gatekeep Girlboss

Manslaughter

Loves his brother

Obsessed with his brother

Judges humanity on one (1) readthrough of the entire Bible, disregarding vast literature and actual history of what humanity can do and done

Has a body count in the thousands + the left arm of his brother, that he personally chopped off and is probably in preservation somewhere

Then gave his brother a bloody gun

Taunts him to kill a woman who is by no means a substitute to the mother figure he lost, but is an important person in his life whom he cares for and is cared back

Evil™ piano soundtrack whose title is his own name, that three notes into the song his twin brother knows shit is about to go down and rushes to where the music is the loudest to try to protect everyone from this madman

The horrors™ of the last two episodes of season 1, enough said

The intentional, institutional, and personal robbery of other's autonomy -- that any action not premediated in his grand game is a fault that lies outside of his own jurisdiction and should by no means exist, that there is no concept of free will or free choice because it's his way or the highway

Loving an idea of his brother so much that he violates said brother's memories and personal well-being, re-alters it into his image, and kills the things about his brother that makes his brother -- well, his brother

The audacity

Speaking as an asexual, I think a lot of his conflicts could be resolved if he got laid every now and then

Worst birthday present ever™

The way he slowly, deliberately, caresses down line that shot out from his brother's mechanical arm before he cuts it with a knife -- like there was some unresolved tension of an ambiguous but not ambiguous nature going on there; like, what a power move and a choice to just, just thread a finger over the one thing that seperates from your brother from your ideals and from the world he wants to live in before you take it -- and take him -- under

He alive

In His Defense

Loves his brother

The last three or four minutes of season 1 episode 3, where he unleashes the millions of knives like the mouth of armageddon and then it swallows an entire city -- it was cruel, it was badass, and it was a stunning animation sequence

Also that entire first confrontation with Vash in episode 3??? He has the air of someone truly frightening, just killed someone in a saloon, bathes his feet in dirty blood as he walks up to Vash -- voice soft, low, and saccharine; unafraid that there's gun on him, lightly touches the nuzzle, that I'm very convinced that if these two were not related there would be fanfics about the lovers to enemies tension going on in that saloon. And fuck, I know Knash or whatever the ship name is is a thing, and I'm frankly shocked that there aren't any fics I could find that focuses on the brothers to enemies to vaguely twisted lovers vibes that was in that scene. Were we all just sleeping on that, or what???

In their adulthood at 150+ years, Knives has never personally touched his brother. Like, skin to skin contact. Until the very last episode of season 1. It's always been personally impersonal. Like the touch of Vash's nuzzle. Skimming a finger over the steel line from Vash's mechanical arm. Knife tentacles stabbing Vash through the back. So close, yet so far. In that he wants to, really wants to, wants to bridge the gap from their childhood. And it's a sad thing, narratively, that the only first time he touches Vash -- like to skin to skin -- is when it looks like he's going to kill his brother for an ideal he wants Vash to believe in and it's like Knives accepting that of all the people he sent to hurt Vash, he will be the final person to hurt him the most.

[the-resurrection-3d]

So I got pointed towards the Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer, which is a midrashic work (if you don't know what midrash is, it's a type of/collection of a certain kind of Jewish exegesis) that contains a retelling of Jonah and it is. a lot.

Highlights:

Jonah takes place on the 5th day of creation?? somehow?? I know in the Jewish tradition "day" isn't always a literal day but also. bro

Jonah fled because God had punk'd him before and he was worried God was going to make him a clown on an international stage. Literally: "It is assumed by our Midrash that this prophecy is referred to by Jonah (4:2), “Was not this my saying when I was yet in my country… for I knew that thou art a gracious God… and repentest thee of the evil.” So Jonah has quite literally seen this film before and had his reputation as a prophet ruined. Now, keep in mind, the only other time Jonah is named in the Bible is 2 Kings 14:25, but this is saying that Jonah was also the prophet mentioned in 2 Kings 9.... even though the version I've read said that prophet is Elijah. Then again, the beginning says that Elijah's protégé Elisha sends one of their students out to go actually give the prophecy of the coup, so that might be what they mean. I'm looking in the original article for the midrash where Jonah is the boy Elijah resurrects, as this would actually make a good throughline. Still, was a little Shook TM when I read this part.

Really just thinking about the implications of Jonah being raised from the dead by one of God's prophets and then growing up as the student of said prophet, Always Knowing that he wasn't originally meant to live.

The sailors try and dip Jonah a little bit in the water to calm the storm, but realize that the storm starts up again every time they pull him back in, so on the third try they just throw him overboard.

GOD MADE THE GIANT FISH SPECIFICALLY TO EAT JONAH. This makes me crazy. What the fuck.

No seriously read this

They also say Jonah "entered its mouth just as a man enters the great synagogue, and he stood (therein)." So he just walked in?

The idea of standing is interesting though in the context of Zornberg's article saying that standing=praying: " Elijah’s first words describe his relationship to God: “As the Lord God of Israel lives, before whom I stand ….” (1Kings 17:1) . . . For Cain, to be unable to find a stable place on earth from which to pray to God is, essentially, to be cast out, denied the pivotal spot between death and life: “Anyone who finds me will kill me.” For Jonah, to evade that place is to deny his vulnerability, to prefer death—the foregone conclusion—to the anguish of the human place between … “The heart of standing,” wrote William Empson, “is you cannot fly.” But Jonah, the “dove,” flies, he flees; he is poreach, boreach. Fear leads him to deny his own fear."

Oh also there's a pearl inside the fish that lights up and that Jonah somehow uses to see the ocean. Just so you know.

The fish talks to Jonah and is apparently destined to be eaten by Leviathan, but Jonah tells the fish he has a plan, goes to Leviathan (while still in the fish) and tells Leviathan he's going to beat his ass and cook him for a great feast and flashes his Covenant seal, which freaks Leviathan out enough to get it to fuck right off

The fish then goes Jonah a whole bunch of different wonders, including the Eben Shethiyah, or "Foundation Stone," upon which the world is built

Jonah is basically in Hell now and sees the "sons"/"company" of Korah, who led a rebellion against Moses. They tell him to pray at the Foundation Stone and God will hear him, because they are under the Temple of God

Jonah prays to be brought back to life (again the text specifies standing to pray), but God doesn't answer until he SPECIFCALLY vows to kill the Leviathan on Judgement Day

Which is.... you know.... literally not at all what God told Jonah to do in the first place.

And this retelling ends with Jonah being vomited out of the fish and the sailors of Jonah's ship being SO impressed they all convert and go get circumcized.

Riveting stuff.

[snowcoveredsunflower]

This is something I've been thinking about talking about for weeks but haven't really come up with what to say about, but since it's the last day of the year I figure I should talk about it and if anyone will hear it then I'll assume I've done something right.

Cw animal death, religion

This is my baby Iggy

He was my polite young man who was a lil dumb but always eager to please and the most loving and laid back dog I've ever been blessed with. He died back in September due to sepsis from an internal injury.

This destroyed me, he was only 2 and had his whole life ahead of him. I cried for days over it and kept asking "Why?" to God and the void, I don't even know which. At some point this spiraled into an existential crisis because I couldn't bear the possibility of never seeing him again in this life or the next. I'd had constant thoughts of there being nothing after this life, and it shattered me if it meant that I couldn't see him and pet him ever again.

I'd always considered myself Christian but because of a lot of the louder negative voices claiming it and the way I've seen it be used to traumatize others, I never really felt close to the faith and continuously avoided it. But then this happened. So at some point I earnestly asked God if there was any hope at all that Iggy was okay and in heaven somewhere and that that would be enough for me. A few hours later I was sitting outside after work reading a book and a black damselfly landed on the page and sat there. It felt so profound, I couldn't help but conclude that it was God's answer. It could've been any other insect and I would've swatted at it. But it wasn't. It felt like too much of a coincidence.

In the months since then I've tried to dedicate myself more to God, I actually started digging deeper into Christian faith than I ever did when I was living with my religious mother or when I went to church with her. I've been reading the gospels and praying, and I've come to know Jesus as my Lord and savior. I've felt my anxieties of the world melt away, not entirely, mind you, but I've felt a peace that I don't think I've ever really felt before, not even my meds or edibles made me feel this way (I still take my meds tho. Depression lingers but I fight the good fight with spiritual help alongside my synthetic chemicals).

That being said I understand that plenty of people would poopoo me, say that my faith is a crutch, say that Christians are inherently bigoted or whatever, and to that I say I get it. I was there too. Even when I falsely thought I was a Christian in some form, I was turned from it and didn't really care. But I care so much now, my life depends on it. I've given up plenty for it in just the few months I've been reading the bible and learning about The Word.

That doesn't mean I'm deaf to the criticisms, however. I myself have plenty of criticisms with how a lot of Christians act holier than thou when that is what Christ preached against to begin with. I want to try to be a voice of compassion from in the church, a small voice for sure, I'm just one person, but a voice nonetheless. And those criticisms at the end of the day are against the church itself, not the Lord. Others can take their complaints up with the Lord Himself if they want but I'm not gonna be part of that.

I made this post because if there's any hand I could stretch out to someone who feels empty in life, anyone who feels hopeless, anyone who wonders if there's a purpose to it all, like I felt for over a decade, I want to help them back into the boat of being Okay with it all. No I'm not asking anyone to commit to anything or join anything, but I'm putting out the invitation to ask questions about it if they wish to learn more (but don't desire to be clobbered upside the head for their feelings on it). I'll answer questions, comments, concerns, even criticisms if it means even one person learns something that leads them to want to learn more for themselves. I don't guarantee I have the answers for every possible question, cuz even I have questions that I still don't have answers to, but I'll try to answer as truthfully, biblically, and kindly as I can, cuz that's what I would've wanted when I was skeptical.

If you've read this far, thank you a lot, I'm happy that you even heard me out at all (though no shame to people who skipped, I get it). Have a good rest of the year and I hope everyone has a good 2025, God bless and stay frosty.

[fortressofserenity]

Worse Off

When it comes to a band like the Backstreet Boys, they're actually spiritually worse off because they have this one Christian member, but said member doesn't bother praying for his fans' salvation and finding a way to have them turn to God, especially if they're new or not yet in the faith themselves. I don't think Brian Littrell ever bothered making his fans read the Bible and devotionals, listen to sermons and have them attend church or something, despite calling himself a Christian.

Maybe I'm biased and projecting here, but I really don't get the impression of Littrell actually sharing his faith with people in a substantive way. I even think he's afraid of sharing his faith with others for fear of looking weird, to the point where he'd rather cave into the world and not risk backlash like what Hanson ended up doing. Maybe backlash already happened to an extent, but when Zac Hanson dedicates himself to God as a deacon after reeling from such a backlash, that it seems it's God's way of drawing Zac back to him as he may've backslided.

So he's getting back on track, serving God more as a deacon this time. He's still got a lot of work to be done and work to do as a Christian, but he's faring off better than Littrell really. It's spiritually better to do something risky in the name of God, than it is to kowtow to people whose wants for you are far from spiritual. God does allow people to have authority over us, if theirs isn't far from what he wants us to do and if we go against them, then it's on us for it (as it is did to me before).

Hard to admit it, but that's what got me into trouble many times over. It's getting better now, but I have to better myself to appease God more. I don't think Littrell ever comes off as the sort of person who'd actually do anything to appease God, even if he may not always get it right himself (as it's a battle between spirit and flesh). Perhaps more disturbingly, Littrell would rather dance with the Devil whilst proclaiming himself to be a Christian, because he compromised his values.

Well, the more to appease the world and his fans with. To the point where it's on him why Nick will be outed for adultery and AJ for sex trafficking. You sow what you reap.

[spiritsoulandbody]

#DailyDevotion Can Christians Pray This? It Doesn't Sound Very Nice.

#DailyDevotion Can Christians Pray This? It Doesn't Sound Very Nice. Psalm 94 God of vengeance; O LORD, God of vengeance, shine! 2Rise, Judge of the world, give the proud what they deserve. 3How long, O LORD, how long will the wicked rejoice? 4Gushing and talking boldly, all who do wrong brag about themselves. 5They trample on Your people, O LORD, and make Your own suffer. 6They kill the widow and the stranger and murder orphans, 7saying, “The LORD doesn't see it; Jacob's God doesn't even notice it.” Gee Psalmist, that doesn't sound very Christian. Jesus, however, prayed this prayer too. We can pray this prayer. It is asking God to do what He said He would do. God is patient and long-suffering with the wicked, not wanting any to perish but wanting all to repent and inherit eternal life. But there is coming a day of judgment upon the earth. The day is set. God's people since the beginning of creation have been calling mankind to repent. Israel was called to call the nations to repent. John the Baptist and Jesus have called the world to repent. Jesus commissioned the Church to call the world to repent and be saved. We have warned the world, turn from your wicked ways and trust in Jesus to escape the terrible day of the LORD. They think we are unloving and unchristian doing that. God, the LORD, is a God of vengeance. This isn't just for the Old Testament. God has shown His love for us in His Son, Jesus Christ. Those who refuse this love and go and do all their wicked hearts want to do will eventually experience God's wrath since they despised God's love. So the Church joins with Jesus in praying this Psalm. We too cry out with the martyrs under the alter, “How long will the wicked rejoice?” The wicked of the world, we have seen them exposed and become all the more bolder against Christians, at least here in the United States, taking pride in their sin and parading it before the world. They have caused much suffering among Christians here. Other wicked people have caused the LORD's people to suffer in other parts of the world. All the wicked, no matter their peculiar sin, sin and think the LORD doesn't see it or notice because the LORD is being patient with them. But God's judgment will fall upon them one day, quickly and swiftly. Even in the midst of that, they will not repent but curse God. 8You mindless ones among the people, understand; you fools, when will you get wise? 9He planted the ear — can't He hear? He formed the eye — can't He see? 10He disciplines nations — can't He correct? He teaches people — doesn't He know? 11The LORD knows that what man thinks is nothing. Well that doesn't sound very nice or winsome either, psalmist. Where do you get off calling these people mindless and fools? (I ask this sarcastically) Can you believe some Christians actually respond like this. It's like they never have read the bible or they just skip all the parts they don't like. We as Christians are to call the mindless and foolish people of the world to understand. We are called to be faithful to Jesus and call the people of the world, the people we meet who are sinning, to turn from their sin and to turn to Jesus for the forgiveness of their sins and a new life in Christ. God had created them with ears to hear and eyes to see. Yet, they are too blind to truly recognize the acts of God in the world which are calling them to repentance. As it is written in Revelation 19:9 “When they were badly burned, they blasphemed the name of God, Who controlled these plagues, and they did not repent to give Him glory.” And again, Rev. 16:11 “People gnawed their tongues in anguish, llcursed the God of heaven for their pains and their sores but did not repent of what they had done.” The LORD has taught the nations through the Church to correct and discipline the nations. He knows what man thinks is nothing. What He thinks is all that matters. Conform your mind to Christ and how He thinks, turn from sin and turn to Him and live. Heavenly Father, grant Your Church boldness to call the world to repentance so they may live and escape Your judgment. In Jesus' name we pray. Amen. Read the full article

[lifeandtimesoftrying]

my theory/answer got a little too long for the tags, so you're getting it in a reblog

Aziraphale loves books, loves the acts of reading and care and collection and all the other goodies too. So presumably he'd also be really into other forms of written text, too--scrolls, clay tablets, that sorta thing.

Before widespread printing presses, manuscripts were often how things--especially important things--got written down. "Manuscript" is a little vague, since the technical definition is just "something that was handwritten, not automated," but in this case, I'm thinking of specifically vellum manuscripts.

(Note: my knowledge of this is pretty firmly tied to the UK and a little bit of the rest of Europe, so keep that in mind when reading my generalizations. This is what happens when you befriend a professor of English Medieval law)

Vellum typically refers to treated sheep skin. The rest of these manuscripts are also heavily animal-based and body-based (calf skin for the cover, tendons for binding), and people were very aware of this. (shoutout to Riddle 26 in the Exeter Book)

Now. Another thing. You need a whole lot of sheep to make a full vellum manuscript. Like, at least a hundred sheep. Usually more. (This is cause the part of the sheep skin that can be made into a flat, squared-off piece of vellum is smaller than it has any right to be, but if you want to skip the infodumping, just know that a lot of sheep are dying to make a manuscript)

But! Vellum's actually really really neat because it's practically indestructible! Yeah, please keep it away from fire and water, but aside from that? It's practically got plot armor. You don't have to wear gloves to handle vellum, since the vellum itself won't be harmed by the oils (don't touch the ink, though). And because when you see these texts in full manuscripts, they're really carefully bound, the pages stay together as well. Medieval Bibles are often made this way, and you'll end up with later notes about legal cases, because people wanted them to be remembered, and a vellum manuscript Bible is gonna be cared for (sacredness, but also it's really expensive, remember all of the sheep that had to die) and also isn't gonna disintegrate.

Aziraphale obviously cares for his books, in both the TV and the book. He has first editions, and doesn't want them to ever get even damaged. This is part of the reason that the burning bookshop scene works so well--his feelings about books have already been established to the point where seeing this physical manifestation of his love being destroyed is heartbreaking for the audience.

Aziraphale's also old fashioned ("Tartan? Really?" "It's stylish :)") and considering how worn his clothes are, I'd bet that he's fully against fast fashion. My headcanon's that he's got several books on mending, darning, decorative wrapped buttons, tailoring techniques from 1837--you get the point. "Oh, but he's an angel, couldn't he just miracle it?" yes! He could! But (again, in my headcanon) he doesn't because he enjoys the feeling of physically interacting with the world around him. This is the angel who likes sushi and dancing and sitting down with cocoa to read (oh i love your url btw).

So, manuscripts? With the heaviness of the pages and the hand-drawn illustrations and the capsule back in time because they don't seem like they've ever aged? The importance people bestowed upon them? The sheer quality of the work? I bet Aziraphale loves them. Thinks they're the best thing since sliced bread and lanky demons.

And if you translate this to Aziraphale's opinions on clothes, I think that a very strong case can be made for him liking leather (and wool, and fur, and other various materials made from animals). Not necessarily because he's a snob (though that's certainly true as well), but because he loves the care and the connection to the body. He likes wool because it keeps him warm, even though he doesn't need to be warmed. He likes leather because Crowley wears it because it lasts forever. He likes fur because it's soft. He likes earthly comforts, and he especially likes earthly comforts that stick around for a while. You can darn a wool sweater, and reuse the material from a fur coat, in ways that you can't with plastics.

Now do you think Aziraphale wears faux fur and vegan leather because of the lack of animal cruelty or do you think he only wears real animal skin because he Has Standards?

[docmothra]

There's an acquaintance of mine who's conservative, and so there's a lot of reasons I don't really agree with him, but one of the things he tends to say is 'rude'. Any situation where one person is being what he sees as impolite to someone else, he'll call it out as rude. Which is fine and dandy in concept. But his concept of rude is weirdly selective. He won't call it rude if someone is making fun of gay people, for instance, or autistic people. But he will call it rude if someone is saying 'yeah you don't know this guy but he's kind of unironically racist and just a dick for the record'. Which sorta reveals it's not really about rudeness, or politeness, because he doesn't actually oppose those in practice. It almost looks like it's about social exclusion - but he pretty much tries actively to exclude the kind of person he thinks should be excluded from society (gay, autistic, furry, trans). It's completely selective. He'll hang the groups he politically disagrees with out to dry, and he'll act as if any other instance of hostility is uncalled for. I don't even know if it's conscious malice, exactly. You could say he never crosses the line of admitting malicious intent, but I don't think that changes the severity of what he's doing. In his head he's built some kind of barrier between things it's okay to be passively hostile towards - including queer people, autistic people, atheism, furries, and left-wing politics in general - and things that it isn't okay to be hostile about - including racism and sexism. Which ties into a different opinion he has that anyone in that category that should-be-outcasts: -Are morally degenerate (due to a warped understanding of what is okay and/or good) -Do not perceive the world correctly (due to their moral degeneracy/warped worldview) -Are dangerous to listen to because they might convince you their worldview is correct -Have no basis for their beliefs at all (because they didn't actually think about them) -Need to be fixed, but don't think they need to be fixed, so they should be tricked into fixing themselves Which plays into a whole long-term disingenous dynamic of goalpost moving where he'll poke and prod at your beliefs, make you feel bad about them, and complain if you: -assert a belief without proof ('lol why would I believe that') -assert a belief with scientific proof ('academic papers are so biased against conservative views they can't be trusted') -assert a belief with theological proof ('like I would trust a non-theology major to read the bible') -assert a belief with anecdotal proof ('you need a peer-reviewed academic paper to have a sample size that's trustworthy') -assert a belief with abstract moral proof ('it isn't biblical so it's fundamentally the wrong basis') -assert a belief with conceptual logical proof (he isn't reading that) -assert a belief as an unproven but personally meaningful concept (that's unconvincing, so you're wrong and you should feel bad about having your wrong opinion) -expect him to read or remember anything you say; express memory of anything he has said in the past (he's not terminally online like you, go touch grass) -express any failure to remember any detail of anything he has said in the past (lol your memory doesn't even exist, why would he listen to you?) -respond to his comments at all (he wasn't here for a big long conversation...) -fail to respond to his comments (very rude how do you expect communication to even happen here if you don't talk???) Anyway, like, that's how this kind of stuff shows up? People are just people, and over time you realize that some of them are dicks. And you also realize that they think anyone who isn't like them is just. Bad. On an inherent level. And then you realize 'holy crap I need new friends'. End rant?

[angelthefandomobsessed]

Danganronpa Project Eden's Garden: Animal Symbolism

Okay, so I just finished the prologue (adored it, the writing is impeccable), and noticed that each character features an animal on their clothing. I'm sure tons of people have pointed it out already, but I thought it'd be fun to go through the symbolism of each, alongside any other observations I had.

Damon Maitsu:

Damon's signature animal is one of the more obvious ones - it's the big snake on his tie. Biblically, snakes are kind of a big deal... Just one snake, really, which gave all of the others a bad name. In 'Garden of Eden' arc of the Bible (which is relevant for obvious reasons), a snake tempts Eve to eat the forbidden fruit. The snake basically says "Hey queen, the apple won't kill you, it'll show you the truth, God's a liar." Adam and Eve eat the fruit, condemning humanity to eternal suffering.

Painting Damon as the snake tells us a lot about his role in the narrative and his characterisation. The main theme for Eden's Garden seems to be 'head vs heart', or 'logic vs emotion'. While some characters lean towards emotion, Damon leans towards logic... But based on the Pathos system, he doesn't fully condemn emotion - it can be a good tool when it comes to winning arguments, after all.

At the end of the prologue, Damon disagrees with seeing the good in everyone. He argues that the ultimates are more likely to stab each other in the back than to help each other unconditionally... In other words, he argues that ultimates are ambitious, to the point of throwing away their morals - because he himself is ambitious to a fault.

While a lot of people see snakes as creatures of evil (particularly when it comes to THE snake in the Bible), it could be argued that the snake is an agent of the greater good. Yes, the snake was the catalyst for the fall of humanity, but you could argue it was also the catalyst for the first critical thought. Adam and Eve questioned the word of their creator and chose to go against him. That didn't end very well for them, but you could argue it liberated them.

Would you rather be a sheep, at the mercy of your shepherd, or a snake that sees the world for what it truly is?

Wolfgang Akire:

Speaking of sheep... Wolfgang has a pretty neat (very symbolic) sheep pin. The idea of him picking out a sheep pin in like... a Claire's Accessories is very funny to me.

Much like snakes, sheep are also very Biblically relevant. In the Bible, God's people are usually cloaked in sheep imagery. God is the shepherd (fun fact: 'shepherd' derives from 'sheep' 'herd'), and the sheep are at his mercy. In that light, a sheep is a truly powerless thing.

Perhaps Wolfgang's sheep pin denotes him as a follower rather than a leader. Not to a specific person, but rather to an ideology - to his own morals, which he seems very attached to. Sheep are often seen as weak, existing only to be devoured by stronger, more predatory animals.

But this symbolism might exist here to be subverted. One of the most popular sheep-based phrases is (drum roll please): "Wolf in sheep's clothing".

Lawyer man is, quite literally, a wolf in sheep's clothing. His name has the word 'wolf' in it. He has a sheep on his clothing.

Does Wolfgang obsess over justice due to a guilty conscious? Is it a cover to mask his deepest, most despicable thoughts? Only time will tell, but I'm onto you, lawyer man... If that's even your real name.

Eva Tsunaka:

Okay, so I'm not 100% sure if Eva's animal is a raven or a crow, but I don't think it matters too much, people tend to perceive 'ominous medium-sized black bird' in a similar way, regardless of the specifics. Eva has a black feather in her hair and a badge with a bird's head on it. The badge looks a little bit emu-ish (which would be really funny), but the general vibe is more in line with a crow/raven.

For simplicity's sake, I'll mostly talk about ravens, because I think (don't quote me on this, I have not read the actual Bible) crows are never actually mentioned... but ravens are, so we'll go with that.

SO, ravens, black birds. Apparently, the first bird to be mentioned by name in the Bible is the raven, which... lines up with Eva being the first named bird character we meet (there are a lot of bird people, we'll get to it). During the whole Noah's Arc debacle, Noah sent out a raven to scout for dry land - it didn't come back (I think? It gets mentioned, 'tos and fros' and then doesn't get mentioned again, so I think it dipped which honestly, girlboss move).

Other than that, a raven was used as a divine messenger at one point, but I think the much more interesting (and relevant) aspects of the raven is the general symbolism.

Ravens are usually seen as bad news - much like the snake, they get a bad rep. While they are often seen as bad omens, they can also be seen as beings of spiritual wisdom. They see more than others can, much like Eva. When the others start to do the whole 'We'll never kill each other!' it's Eva who disagrees, seeing the reality of the situation.

Based on the word 'Danganronpa' being associated with the game, we can assume she's correct, and that the bodies will start hitting the floor very soon.

Eva is wise and holds a lot of knowledge, but she is distrusted for reasons outwith her control. She didn't ask to be the ultimate liar - some random organisation sent her a letter one day putting that label on her.

Interestingly, ravens are the natural enemies of farmers... and Wolfgang has a distinct agricultural reference on his lapel.

To summarise: people don't like ravens, but they're very smart birds who can (in certain mythologies/cultures, at least), see beyond the surface level).

Toshiko Kayura:

Toshiko's assigned animal is a little harder to spot. Two flamingos are on her skirt as a decal, making them less obvious (especially during waist-up shots).

Okay, so I'm no expert on this, but I'm pretty sure there aren't any flamingos in the Bible. Flamingos played a part in Egyptian beliefs, being associated with Ra, and they might actually be the original inspiration for phoenixes which... is kind of hilarious? The Aztecs saw them as sacred, and in Hindu culture they symbolise hamsa, a divine vehicle, which symbolises the realise from samsara, aka the cycle of suffering.

So... that could be a thing relating to Toshiko. She could be destined to act as a turning point in the narrative (either through death or through character development, same difference).

Or, we could go with the really obvious interpretation of 'flamingo = romance'. Which is very on-brand. Additionally, flamingos represent balance and elegance - mainly because of their 'standing on one leg' trick. Toshiko most likely strives to embody the qualities of a flamingo in these regards.

The use of flamingos in Toshiko's design might point to her being 'the heart' of the group. She's shown to be quite emotional (becoming flustered when challenged, avoiding the investigation, getting into an argument over gremlin-hood with Grace), despite trying to emulate a mature aura. She speaks in frivolous, convoluted imagery, which is peak fourteen-year-old behaviour, and if anything bad happens to her I will cry :D

Ulysses Wilhelm:

Rather than having a picture of an animal, Ulysses wears an owl pendant. Owls represent wisdom, and are particularly fitting for Ulysses due to him being more of a night owl.

Biblically, owls are seen as unclean birds, alongside ravens. They aren't overly relevant, but are (allegedly, according to some random Bible forum) used to symbolise loneliness, desolation, guilt and mourning. In a broader sense, owls are seen as wise, critical-thinking creatures, and independent.

Because of this, I think Ulysses will fall into the Damon/Eva camp of thinking, due to his historical knowledge. Because if history's taught us anything, it's that people can't be trusted, they will self-sabotage, and murder is inevitable.

I don't have much else to say - Ulysses feels like an early victim/blackened candidate, unfortunately, so I don't think he'll be playing a major role narratively.

Desmond Hall:

This one's a little hard to spot immediately (and when I did spot it, I wasn't sure which animal it belonged to), but according to the concept art Desmond has a shark tooth earring.

There are no sharks in the Bible. Sharks, apparently, symbolise protection and guidance, so I think Desmond will probably pair up with another character... which will lead to an untimely death, with a very sad flashback scene at the end of a trial. Or he'll survive, who says Biblical relevancy matters? Sharks are pretty cool and so is Desmond.

I think he'll be an optimist in the situation, but I... don't have much to say regarding his animal motif.

Grace Madison:

This one is pretty up there for the 'easiest to spot award'. Grace's animal is a rabbit, which can be seen by her (adorable) rabbit-eared visor.

Biblically rabbits are pretty irrelevant, but symbolically they're very prominent. Rabbits are probably most famous for their easter connotations (you'd think they'd be Biblical, but no, it just says not to eat them). Rabbits are also known as lucky animals - 'rabbit feet' are seen as lucky talismans...

If Grace ends up with a severed foot, I'm going to lose my mind.

Anyway, since Grace is the resident 'reckless and crude' character, I would theorise her link to rabbits would be 'rebirth'. Rabbits are associated with spring, which is associated with rebirth. I think Grace (who is described as someone who burns every bridge she makes) will undergo the Fuyuhiko treatment and see a lot of character development.

Not much else for me to say here, but rabbits are generally seen as active animals (energiser bunny, the Scorbunny line), so... yay sports..?

Diana Venicia:

I do not trust this girl as far as I can throw her. I saw her across the room and thought, "No, you're evil", and the chameleon bracelet did not help her case.

Like... not only does it suggest she's hiding something, or that she's a social chameleon, but it looks like a handcuff, that cannot be comfortable. And oddly enough, chameleons do feature in the Bible... and it's very odd, and very interesting.

Basically, chameleons conform to their surroundings through their unique abilities. God likes that for them, but not for humans - apparently, they should challenge things rather than just conforming to them. Which like, okay, someone changed their tune from "Don't do this one thing, no I will not elaborate". In actuality, what this means is "you should not be different on Monday to how you were on Sunday", aka, be #authentic.

Also, chameleons are seen as 'not standing up for what's right', so I guess that's where Diana falls on the morality spectrum, maybe possibly?

Diana is hiding something, she's on my mastermind radar but it feels a little too obvious? If she's not a mastermind, she hiding something and is a killer, nothing can redeem her from being shady in my eyes. I'm onto you, make-up girl...

(My guess is the beauty industry/Hollywood requires a degree of fakery, and she hates it, but she wanted to be successful so she gave into the fakery, and lost her true self in the process. And hey, maybe at some point she decided that she had to see the true twistedness of humanity via a killing game, who knows? Plus, make-up, that's very Junko-ish of her, just saying-)

Jean DeLamer:

Okay, so some people got 'owl' or 'flamingo', but this man got a whole dragon. And he cannot be more deserving of it, fly high king.

I really didn't think there were dragons in the Bible, but apparently they get a mention (in all fairness, it's a real big book). Fun fact: Biblically, they are usually mentioned to reference sea monsters. On brand for our sea captain. Bad news though, dragons are pretty exclusively evil (sometimes straight-up Satan), and are vanquished by God. So... Not great for Jean, honestly, that's concerning.

Could he have a connection to the killing game? He could be a traitor of some sort, or he could try to rise up against the KG and get struck down.

Basically: Jean has no power here, he will lose every time, if the Bible-dragons are anything to go by.

Anyways, dragons are pretty relevant in... most cultures, so this is probably the most interesting thing I can dig up.

Jett Dawson:

In my original post, I mislabelled Jett's animal as a wolf. Somebody in the comments corrected me, pointing out that it's a coyote. Coyotes are closely related to wolves, so there's some symbolic overlap, but I'll rewrite the section anyways, because the original didn't shed much light on anything.

Biblically, coyotes are in a bit of an odd spot. They're seen as cunning and dangerous for the most part, but in Isaiah's passage (disclaimer: I haven't read it, I'm doing the deeply unacademic thing of trusting 'straightforwardguidance'.com) he complains that coyotes and lizards are more grateful to him than humans. This is used to demean the coyote; a wild animal is better than people in Isaiah's eyes, placing them at the low end of societal importance (not literally, ofc).

Apparently, the bible also describes these animals as being wise, due to their hunting tactics. Coyotes will hunt rabbits as a team, with one tiring a rabbit out and another finishing it off. This little tidbit does not bode well for Grace, our rabbit. But, to be fair, the presence of a coyote wouldn't go well for most small animals.

I don't have too much to say about coyotes, beyond their obvious similarity to wolves. Wolves tend to hunt sheep (which gave them a bit of a negative biblical rep), but let's be real, a sheep isn't winning many battles out in the wild.

Jett strikes me as a 'tragic killer', like our usual chapter 2/4 killers. There's wildcard energy to him, though - I could see him killing, surviving or dying, but whatever happens, there'll be a plot point surrounding his face, it seems too interesting to not be a thing.

Kai Monteago:

Butterfly, on chest, let's go.

Most obvious interpretation: social butterfly, he's an influencer.

Biblically, they're pretty irrelevant, but symbolically they're all about transformation. This could indicate character development, a change in tune, etc. Not much to say here, it could represent vulnerability (butterflies are fragile), but it's most likely a reference to the phrase social butterfly.

Mark 'Mayhem' Berskii:

His hat is, indeed, an alligator. At first I thought it was a dragon, then a crocodile, but the concept art confirms it to be an alligator.

Google couldn't tell me much about Bible alligators, which was expected. What it can tell me is the symbolism behind them, though.

Alligators are cunning and wise. Which adds up here, Mark seems way smarter than he lets on. He makes a comment at the end of a non-stop debate (something about setting the trash fire) which suggests he's a critical thinker, seeing the misguided logic in the room.

They are also apex predators with a lot of strength which... is concerning, in terms of potential murderers. Since they've been around since the prehistoric age, alligators are seen as having an ancient, primal aura about them.

I feel there's more than meets the eye with Mark - he'll carry a key discovery or two, just you wait.

Wenona:

Wenona is the girlboss we need, as well as the girlboss we deserve, no further questions. Her animal decal is a little less obvious than others', being bear pawprints at the bottom of her coat.

My favourite Bible story ever (because it's hilarious out of context) is the one about Elisha and the bears, where two bears maul forty-two children because they made fun of a guy. So, maybe don't get on her bad side via mockery.

Interestingly, bears are used to symbolise cruelty and self-servedness which... adds up here, I guess.

Symbolically, bears are a little more cuddly than the Bible makes them out to be. They're known for hibernation, making them quite patient and cautious animals. Bears are grounded animals and represent strength, being fearsome predators.

Wenona is very set in her views, and appears to be unwavering, much like a bear.

Eloise Taulner:

Eloise wears a swan pin in her hair, making that her signature animal. Swans are graceful and vicious; a fascinating combination for a character like Eloise.

In the Bible, swans are everything you'd assume a white bird to be. It's all very 'this bird is the serene love of god, do not eat it, but for different reasons'.

Symbolically, swans are loyal birds, being of the 'mates for life' variety. Something interesting to mention is the concept of a swan song - a song that laments death, said to be the most beautiful song ever sung by a swan, despite the birds being far from natural singers. In Greek mythology, swans were sacred to both Aphrodite and Apollo, with Apollo being the god of music.

Which presents the possibility of a friendship between Mark and Elodie, with him being 'music' and her being a swan.

Swans are very powerful birds, so Eloise's character arc will probably involve her becoming stronger in terms of willpower and confidence.

Ingrid Grimwall:

This one's a little harder to spot, but Ingrid's animal symbol is on her bag, in the form of a lion.

Lions are generally seen as brave, proud animals. The main Biblical story that comes to mind is the story of Daniel, who was thrown into a den of lions. A lion's roar is intended to paralyse its foes with fear, but can its bite match its bark? I suspect Ingrid will be a big talker, but less keen to take actual initiative. Male lions are known for being less active than their pride members, with the female lions doing the hunting.

Although, you could argue that a lion is a natural leader. These qualities don't need to be exclusive though - why not be a leader and a layabout?

Besides that, there's pride and family and strength, but the less prominent placement of Ingrid's emblem tells me she'll be less fearsome than her classmates.

Cassidy Amber:

Cassidy's a little bit different from the others. Her animal motif doesn't have a specific portrayal of the animal (much like Wenona's and Ulysses'), and hers is repeated as a pattern - Cassidy wears tights with a spiderweb pattern.

Now, spiders are pretty well known for trapping things. It's kind of their whole deal. This gives Cassidy some serious mastermind vibes to me, especially when coupled with the fact that she's married to the content grind, loves games, and has a lot of money to throw around.

But anyway, the Bible just kind of complains about their webs being fragile, which could be interpreted as 'her fanbase isn't a true connection to others, they'll abandon her the second someone new catches their attention'. In reality, the Bible doesn't hold up for most of these, but like... it's interesting, right?

Spiders could be described as patient killers. They weave intricate webs for their victims and wait for the opportune moment to strike. Spiders are often feared, with arachnophobia being one of the most popular phobias. Cassidy herself is capable of projecting an unsettling aura and might be described as unnerving.

Fun fact: Red spiders specifically symbolise wealth, passion and excitement, which lines up pretty well with our pro-gamer.

In Conclusion:

I spent way too long making this.

Also, the Bible was pretty useless for most of these BUT the Bible reflects a lot of general perceptions (because it set quite a few of them), so it was sometimes interesting, I think, I'm tired, send help, goodnight!

(If you've made it this far, say hi or something, this took three hours and for what?)

[dejwritesarchived]

❪ ♡ ❫ ─── ⠀ ⠀⠀ sinners ⠀ 〳 ⠀ s.ryomen ‵

❪ ♡ ❫ ─── ( synopsis ) with her sweetened breath, and her tongue so mean. she's the angel of small death and the codeine scene.

♡ ˙ ˖ ✧ — ft sukuna ryomen, afab reader, her/she pronouns, feminine pet names (doll), reader implied to be black (mentions of skin complexion), grim reaper!sukuna, priest au, sacrilege, heavy mentions of religion, mentions of death, not so innocent church girl!reader, descriptions of a hand job, oral (m.receiving), sukuna has a duty and he doesn't follow it at all (he literally hates his job), priest!sukuna, mentions of true form sukuna, profanity usage, slight age gap (reader in her twenty's while sukuna is rumored to be in his early 30's well he's actually 1000+ years old lol), told in third pov, minors dni ! thank you to @gabzlovesu & @maydayaisha for beta reading for me.

❪ ♡ ❫ ─── theme song: angel of small death and the codeine scene, hozier

DEATH KNOCKS ON PEOPLE’S DOORS EVERY DAY. According to Georgetown University Bioethics Research Library, a total of 178,000 people die every day. Sukuna wasn’t the best at math, actually, he hated the god forbidden subject, but that could account for over 50 million people dying each year. It was a bit stressful when you were the grim reaper collecting the souls of each person whose life drained out their eyes when they get hit by a truck or when they bleed out to death after being shot or his personal favorite, slipping in the shower and hitting your head so hard it cracks in multiple places.

He had a duty, go undercover, collect as many souls as he could, and move on. When the case file was thrown on his desk in the darkest pits of a different dimension, he wanted to scold. How could such a small town be having an alarming increase in deaths in such a short period of time? He hasn't seen people die that quickly since his first job collecting the souls of Europeans when the Black Plague traveled through the continent.

“I think it’s a cult. Lately, the deaths have stopped since the priest of the only church in the small town has passed away. Well actually, it’s suspected he’s been murdered.” His assistant, Azriel stated.

“Murdered?” Sukuna would question as he glanced up at the file. His red-colored eyes stared at her as she stared right back at him, taking in his features. From the pastel pink shaded hair to the tattoos that embedded his face, and of course his two pairs of arms.

“Yes,” Azriel sighed. She rubbed at her temple before placing some pictures on the desk.

The gruesome sight of the preacher’s head being blown off didn’t phase Sukuna. He’s seen the worst. He cleared his throat before speaking, “So if the deaths stop why do I need to go undercover? I can collect the souls of people who have died in under five minutes.” He questioned. His head fell back in annoyance. Sometimes, he wished he could just stay in his home drinking while a curious angel stumbled out the gates of heaven and sucked him off until he was screaming Mary’s name.

“Well because for one you know who would be highly upset at you not doing your job,” Azriel mentioned.

So much for not doing his job.

That conversation with Azriel was a month ago. He spent a whole week preparing to transition into the real world and live among humans for a month or two. Collecting souls so they could properly transition into whatever fate the lord above had planned for them. He hated the fact that Azriel set his cover story for him to be the one to replace the one man whose brains were blown out by someone in the small town. Sukuna had no type of preaching experience. He hasn't even picked up a bible before. But he was good at pretending, he was good at hiding. So he tried his best.

Until he met her. (Y/N).

It was against the rules to have any relations with a human. Something along the lines of messing up their fate that God had planned for them. Blah blah blah. Sukuna dozed off when the higher-ups explained that to him. But she was addicting. The daughter of the priest whose brain residue decorated his living room walls like an ancient painting in an art gallery. She welcomed Sukuna with open arms compared to the other people in this town. She sat front and center on Sunday mornings when he was preaching words that caused his tongue to burn as they tumbled out his mouth. Each Sunday, her eyes alluded to things her father would be rolling around in his grave if he saw it. Each Sunday, the dresses got shorter, exposing more of her brown skin under the church lights. Every night, Sukuna found himself palming his cock thinking about her. Mumbling alongside the words of god will forgive him for the explicit thoughts he thought about.

But it was that night that Sukuna could remember even if he slithered his way on this planet for thousands more years. The moonlight shined down on the church as he was getting ready to leave after a long meeting about the finances in the church. He could care less, especially considering that he had learned that previous priests before him had pocketed many funds for themselves. So much for doing the lord’s work.

He had changed his clothes from the black clerical clothing to something simple, hoping to pop his head into the bar to sneak a drink while the town was laying low to pray and sleep. His car keys to the black pickup truck in his hand as he was walking towards it, his exhausted eyes soon landing on (Y/N). Due to her father’s former role before his death, she still had a huge say in a lot of things in the church. She attended the meeting and just sat and observed. Sukuna remembered vividly when one of the men commented how she would be such a perfect wife before she was obedient. That her father trained her well. Then soon later, Sukuna was collecting his soul in a tragic freak accident off route 95.

“Didn’t know you were still here Ms. (L/N),” Sukuna said as he tapped the button on his key causing the car to unlock.

“I was wondering if I could talk to you,” She said. She switched from one foot to another as she fiddled with the gold necklace that had a cross pendant on it.

If this was another annoying person in this town, Sukuna would have kindly told them to fuck off. That whatever conversation they wanted to have, could happen in the morning. But it was her. The woman he just couldn’t stop thinking about. “Get in and we can talk about it,” He motioned to his pickup truck behind her.

She gave him a small smile before turning around, tugging on the patient side car door, and climbing in. Quickly buckling her seatbelt and waiting for Sukuna. Sukuna climbed into the driver's side and soon drove off. “You should put your address in the GPS.” He motions to the small monitor.

“Just drive,” (Y/N) said as she looked ahead.

Sukuna’s lips parted to speak, but his throat went dry before he eventually did just that. He didn’t know where he was driving to, but his foot never left the gas pedal.

“I want to confess somethin’,” She admitted.

Sukuna’s eyebrows furrowed together in confusion. They weren’t really in the proper setting to admit your sins. He wasn’t even in the correct attire for that. He had to think quickly. He had to respond like a priest. “This isn’t the appropriate setting for this.” He admitted.

“I would rather do it here than in that church where I can feel my father’s presence next to me,” She soon adds. “But before I admit my sins, I want you to admit somethin’ to me.”

Sukuna had stopped at a red light. The roads being so empty, you most likely could hear the crickets outside. He still stopped so he could read her facial expressions. He has seen so many facial expressions within his years of collecting souls, he could tell if something was bothering her. However, when his eyes traveled over to the passenger seat he didn’t see anything. Her face was as dead as the elder lady's soul he collected two days ago. The light turned green and he was forced to continue driving down the long narrow road.

Sukuna had visited hell countless times to play poker with Satan himself and he never felt as hot as he was feeling in this car once he felt (Y/N)’s hand travel up his thigh.

“Do you want me Father Ryomen?” (Y/N) asked.

Sukuna could feel her fingertips tapping at his toned thighs and he instantly got hard. She had a charm on him and she knew it. She knew it ever since he first moved into this lousy town filled with possible incest cases and horrible reception. He could hear her unbuckle her seatbelt to move closer, her hands rubbing the inside of his thigh before feeling at the tent in his pants. Sukuna let out a hiss at the friction, his foot accidentally pressing down on the gas causing the car to jerk.

“(Y/N), this is extremely inappropriate,” Sukuna commented. But he didn’t stop her. His hands still gripped at the steering wheel so tightly that his knuckles were losing their color.

“It’s inappropriate to look at me the way you do while you’re preaching about god Father Ryomen,” She says as she unbuttoned his pants with a quick motion. Her lips curled into a smirk hearing the sigh of relief when Sukuna’s pants were unbuttoned. “So, I’ll ask again. Do you want me, Father Ryomen?”

“And if I say yes. Will you admit your sins? Or are you just here to tease me?” Sukuna questioned as he kept his eyes on the road.

There was silence before (Y/N) brought her hand to her mouth spitting in it. She soon let her hand glide into his pants to palm his hardened member. Sukuna let out a low groan as he was driving. His thighs instantly spread like a horny teenage boy experiencing the lewd events he watches on porn sites. She collected the precum that glistened on Sukuna’s pretty shaped mushroom tip and placed those same fingers that collected his cum in her mouth.

God forgive me for the sins we’re about to commit, was the only thing that was running laps around Sukuna’s mind.

Sukuna pulled over on the side of the road, instantly turning on his hazard lights. The sound of them blinking and the nightly owls that lurked in the woods could be heard as he leaned his seat back slightly giving her more room. His head fell back to meet with the headrest. The young woman's hand wrapped around the shaft of his dick and began to stroke it slowly. She inched herself closer to be able to be more comfortable. Her thumb rubbed at the tip of his dick before she’s speaking once again, “I did something really bad.” She says,

She flicked her wrist upward and downwards while she was palming his cock. (Y/N) leaned over, pooling up all the saliva that was in her mouth before spitting on Sukuna’s cock and repeating the process of jerking Sukuna off. “Shit,” Sukuna uttered as his eyes shifted closed.

He couldn’t focus like that. He couldn’t let his mind wander to talk over her sin while her hands were full of his thick cock. His teeth nibbled at his lower lip as he held back the pornographic groan he wanted to let out.

“Like, I don’t think God can forgive me for what I did. But it was bound to happen. If it wasn’t going to be me, it was going to be someone else,” (Y/N) adds as she gripped at Sukuna’s dick.

“God forgives all his children,” Sukuna uttered. Mentally he was saying how much that could be an argument. However, he was acting like a priest. He had to say comments like this.

When (Y/N) let go of his cock, Sukuna's chest heaved upwards and downwards as he tried to regain his composure. His cock rock hard from the intense pressure that was placed upon and it was aching for more. He watched as (Y/N) would make herself more comfortable before she’s leaning over gasping at his dick once again.

“I killed my father.” She admitted before her mouth was full of Sukuna’s dick.

So much for admitting your sins, huh?

TAGS — @hellavile @ry0m3n @nanaminshousewife @hhawkz @21-06-1996 @thicksimpx @luffysthickwaifu @gabzlovesu @indiecursor @festive @rinhoes @maydayaisha @tyga-lily @novaresque @gojosmari @fiona782 @warmchick @fairiechuu @svlims @yuujilove @itzgabz22 @gardenof-venus @bontensbabygirl @po3ticb3auty @babe-im-bi @sleepy3 @littlemochi @celi-xxmoon @gaiasmight @plussizeficchick @caramelanins @thenerdyrebel @woahhajime @reiners-milkbiddies @rowsn @maideneyes @himboslayer @simpingforwakasa04 @massivelynervousprincess @stunnababyyabyyy

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

There is more historical evidence for Jesus Christ than there is for Alexander the Great

This is a Xian talking point which is completely baseless. We have busts of Alexander the Great which date from the time he was alive, we have records that are reliable, non-contradictory and sourced. We don't have convenient 30 year gaps in between his notable appearances, for example.

And they never actually produce this mountain of evidence. They just mumble about Tacitus and Josephus, while having no idea who they are or even when they were born (we'll get to that in a moment). Nobody can find Jesus Christ in history. Nobody can say where he was on any particular date. Or what he did. Nobody outside of a particular cult testifies to his existence. There are no articles, no letters, no papers, no documents, no records, nothing which actually says that this person existed in the real world. Never mind his crucifix or his shroud - he was a carpenter, and yet nobody can find an artefact of something he built, much less his hammer. Nobody has any names of any of these throngs of witnesses.

And this isn't even in dispute among bible scholars.

“In the entire first Christian century, Jesus is not mentioned by a single Greek or Roman historian, religion scholar, politician, philosopher or poet. His name never occurs in a single inscription, and it is never found in a single piece of private correspondence. Zero! Zip references!” – Bart Ehrman

The primary document, the bible, is completely inconsistent about this person. It says conflicting things about where he was, what he did, his motivations, who supposedly saw him. This becomes obvious when you compare the gospels side-by-side, rather than reading them one after the other and thinking they sound pretty much the same.

"More historical evidence" is unambiguously false. Nobody ever points to this mountain of evidence, without gesturing vaguely to people who were not even alive at the time this supposed person was supposedly alive.

Women were the biggest growing force behind Christianity because it encouraged marrying for love rather than to expand tribal families.

This is the same bible that said that rape of a virgin was a property crime against her father, and to be addressed by paying 50 shekels and marrying her off to her rapist?

This is the one?

The one that says that women are to be silent (1 Corinthians), they are not to teach but learn in silence and subjugation (1 Timothy), their hair is to be covered in the temple or else shaved? The one that says that "the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man."

This is the bible?

The one that says a woman is unclean for 7 days after birthing a boy, and 14 days after birthing a girl? The one that says "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord" (Colossians), and "be in subjection to your own husbands" (1 Peter, Titus)? "Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord" and therefore females are not (Luke)?

This is the one?

You haven't read the bible, have you?

What you said doesn't refute the charge anyway. It just demonstrates its effectiveness. That men and women would be so scared of damnation, so manipulated by the doctrine that women would engage in and facilitate their own subjugation, and men would do so because it was god's command, is testament to its effectiveness, not its egalitarianism.

All you said is that it worked.

It's astonishing how ignorant believers are not just about their own doctrine but about the world in general. That the bible and Xianity are somehow the source of love-based marriage. I found this with literally 20 seconds looking:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage#Germanic_tribes

Among ancient Germanic tribes, the bride and groom were roughly the same age and generally older than their Roman counterparts, at least according to Tacitus: The youths partake late of the pleasures of love, and hence pass the age of puberty unexhausted: nor are the virgins hurried into marriage; the same maturity, the same full growth is required: the sexes unite equally matched and robust, and the children inherit the vigor of their parents.

Your religion takes false credit. How tiny is your understanding of the world, that you don't know anything about marriage and bonding traditions throughout the world, only the silly claims in one book? What are they teaching you in school?

Poor people have always been uplifted to better standards of living by Christian charity, and still are to this day.

Yes, Xianity does indeed exploit the vulnerable, the desperate, by convincing them that they'll be better off after they're dead.

This isn't the argument you think it is.

Didn't I see this movie? What was it called? Dimlo? Dambo? Hmm...

People can - and do - uplift themselves without religion. Because religion is the feather, not the wings. If it was the religion, we would see far more success, far more charity from the believers. Unsurprisingly, we do not.

Atheists more generous than religious when helping others: study

It’s Social Ties—Not Religion—That Makes the Faithful Give to Charity

Rats Display Altruism - Rodents sacrifice sweets to jailbreak their friends

We already know that this is because humans, like most species, are social creatures. Because we studied it. Instead of having the jaw-dropping arrogance to presuppose that their superstition uniquely imbued humans with these qualities.

I noticed that you switched from "my religion is true" to "my religion is useful." This is an admission. If it was true, you would have said something like, "even the poor have access to the evidence for my savior and god." Instead, you justified by, well, if it helps someone, then that's good enough.

It's not. Meth makes people feel good too.

You've reduced your profound spiritual faith down to a placebo.

Placebos without Deception: A Randomized Controlled Trial in Irritable Bowel Syndrome

You should really think about that.

Whenever the flood happened, the societies we see today would have to have been born after it. Simple.

Someone who thinks that the Genesis Flood actually happened is like a grown adult who thinks Santa Claus is real. It didn't happen.

Geologists agree that the sedimentary rock all over the world was formed by flooding, but they dispute that all of the world was flooded. It's weird.

It's not that weird. Local significant floods happened all the time, but they do not qualify for a worldwide, global disaster. The people in China with an unbroken record of history and culture would like a word with you. Not to mention South America, or the 45,000 years of Australian Aboriginal lineage.

If there was a global flood, we would expect to see evidence of it in the strata. We do not. What we see is exactly what we expect from a very old Earth that has undergone billions and millions of years of changes. Pointing vaguely to isolated flooding does nothing to bolster the claims of the bible, and undermine it drastically. If you have to point to local floods, you're admitting the bible isn't correct. Worse, your god either got it wrong or was lying.

And what about the many layers of sedimentary rock that can be dated to millions of years ago? You want to pick and choose one tiny, tiny subset of Earth geology and pretend that it backs up your mythology. It doesn't. Let's start with mountains. Takes millions of years for them to form. We know this because we find the remains of ancient sea creatures at the tops of mountains, because the plates of Earth have pushed together and lifted to create mountains. Like when you find a bumper bar at the top of a car crash. If there had been a flood, all the remains would have sunk to and collected at the bottom of the ocean.

The Noah's Ark flood never happened. This is a fact. One which is unsurprising considering it's in the same book that says plants and days existed before the sun, which, like the moon, is just a "light" which passes over the top of Earth and one point "stopped" for more than 24 hours. This is obviously a book of fairytales.

You must also be unaware that the flood myth is stolen, like most of the bible. In this case, it's uncontroversial that it's lifted from the Epic of Gilgamesh, which also influenced the Creation myth, by the way.

You should read about the origins of the bible some day. It's not the book you think it is.

The gospels were absolutely written (or at least dictated) by people who met Jesus, and there are several Roman sources that mention Him too.

No, they weren't. And this isn't even controversial among bible scholars. Mark didn't emerge until at least 30 years after the supposed death of the supposed Jesus. That's like if the first writings of the attacks on the World Trade Center towers didn't emerge until 2034. John wasn't written likely until about the second century. And as the graph above shows, there were people who we know were around who should have written about Jesus, but didn't. Imagine if say, Anderson Cooper never wrote or broadcast about the 2020 election. And Jesus was supposed to be a literal magic man. It should have drawn every writer, every scholar, every intellectual to him to find out what's up, is this guy for real, what's going on here? There is no trail of medical records of miraculous healing far beyond the knowledge and technology of the time, demonstrating his pathway through the land.

There is nothing. Nobody noticed Jesus.

The authors don't even claim to have been there themselves. Do you actually think that Mark was written by the character Mark, Matthew by the character Matthew, etc? Hoo, boy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel

The canonical gospels are the four which appear in the New Testament of the Bible. They were probably written between AD 66 and 110. All four were anonymous (with the modern names of the "Four Evangelists" added in the 2nd century), almost certainly none were by eyewitnesses, and all are the end-products of long oral and written transmission.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel#Composition

Like the rest of the New Testament, the four gospels were written in Greek. The Gospel of Mark probably dates from c. AD 66–70, Matthew and Luke around AD 85–90, and John AD 90–110. Despite the traditional ascriptions, all four are anonymous and most scholars agree that none were written by eyewitnesses.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_reliability_of_the_Gospels#Scope_and_genre

The genre of the gospels is essential in understanding the intentions of the authors regarding the historical value of the texts. New Testament scholar Graham Stanton states that "the gospels are now widely considered to be a sub-set of the broad ancient literary genre of biographies." Charles H. Talbert agrees that the gospels should be grouped with the Graeco-Roman biographies, but adds that such biographies included an element of mythology, and that the synoptic gospels also included elements of mythology. E.P. Sanders states that "these Gospels were written with the intention of glorifying Jesus and are not strictly biographical in nature."

The historical function of "biography" was not to reliably tell someone's life, but to be inspirational.

https://www.wondriumdaily.com/synoptic-gospels-historians-approach/

The term “Gospel” comes from the Old English word for “good news.” These books do not claim to be objective histories; they claim to be proclamations of good news. In other words, these books are not historically accurate accounts of things that Jesus said and did. These are books that are proclaiming information about Jesus that is meant to provide information needed for salvation. These books are the good news of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biography#Historical_biography

In the early Middle Ages (AD 400 to 1450), there was a decline in awareness of the classical culture in Europe. During this time, the only repositories of knowledge and records of the early history in Europe were those of the Roman Catholic Church. Hermits, monks, and priests used this historic period to write biographies. Their subjects were usually restricted to the church fathers, martyrs, popes, and saints. Their works were meant to be inspirational to the people and vehicles for conversion to Christianity (see Hagiography).

It's only a very recent phenomenon of biography being accurate historical record.

Oops.

The authors of the gospels even say this up front. The author of John says outright that he wrote it "that you may believe," not because it's true or because it's historically accurate. The entire point of the bible is conversion, not historical record or (accurate) biographical record. Paul openly states that he lies to convince people to believe.

Philippians 1:18

But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice.

Why would it be necessary to lie about something that is true? Instead of simply showing them that it's true?

How do you not know this? Wikipedia is free, you know.

The author of Luke, for example, admits openly up front to not being there, but to have looked into matters.

Luke 1

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

Have you really not read Luke? What did you think was going on here? Why would someone who was there need to say any of this?

And haven't you ever noticed it's written in the third person? Even structurally, the whole thing is written as stories, like The Tortoise and The Hare, not like an eyewitness recounting what they'd observed. It's told from the perspective of a storyteller, who's making shit up, not a historian or a biographer or an eyewitness.

It even has stories where Jesus was alone or with the Devil. This appears in both Matthew and Luke. So the implication is that Jesus went out alone, met the Devil, and both Matthew and Luke were both eyewitnesses to this, despite not being there. Matthew and Luke both repeat elements of Mark verbatim. The only time you get such word-for-word consistency is when witnesses are colluding to falsify their statements. Even verified eyewitnesses to the same event will use different language, phrases, terminology, sentence structure to convey the same information, not behave as exact copies.

Open any modern biography or history book and notice how they convey information. It's not through silly stories of magic.

There are infinite numbers, but there is only one correct solution to 2 + 2. If someone said 4 was also the wrong answer and threw it away with all the other numbers, they'd be wrong.

This is vacuous nonsense. You have to prove your "answers" are correct, rather than use silly platitudes to pretend you get to keep your myths in the game. We know 2+2=4 because we can verifiably reproduce it. A small pinch of rice is all that's needed to provide a proof of 2+2=4.

And we don't need to know all the correct answers to identify wrong answers. 2+2=jump is a wrong answer, for example. Your wrong answer doesn't win by default just because a valid one has not yet been tested and verified. "I don't know" is a justifiable answer.

And if you think Jesus Christ is no different than any of the false gods, I'm not convinced you've studied Christ or His positive influence in the world. Perhaps you find it simpler to disregard pondering a higher power altogether and not dwell on it?

We don't have to think anything. Again, it's up to you to prove the existence of your savior. We can conclude, based on Xianity's abject failure to do so, that he didn't exist. We kind of have no other choice. If we ask for 1700 years and we keep getting nonsense, what other conclusion can we come to? How long do you people need? When do we get to call time on this farce?

Nobody in history can find this person. They can't tell you anything about him that doesn't come from the same fabricated myths of the bible.

It should be suspicious to you that the only source of all the information about your Jesus is entirely in the bible. Nobody else wrote a book about him. The Jews and Egyptians, for example, were exemplary record keepers, even when it didn't look favorably on them. The Jews should have recorded Jesus' antisemitic attack in the Cleansing of the Temple which, if it was actually real, would have been a scandal as big as Harvey Weinstein. Nothing. Dead silence.

Worse, the book that does exist is overtly fictitious.

I'm not convinced you've studied Christ or His positive influence in the world. Perhaps you find it simpler to disregard pondering a higher power altogether and not dwell on it?

Clearly, you haven't. You don't know, for example, that originally Mark ended with the women running away from the tomb. The resurrection myth is a forgery added later; the original author never put it in there. Don't you find that strange and suspicious? The most important plot point in Jesus' story, upon which Xianity itself pivots, and the author of Mark just never bothered to write about it? Why would an eyewitness not put that in? It's like leaving out "I am your father" from Star Wars.

The nativity was a much later addition as well (~300s CE) and the crucifixion is ahistorical; crucifixions were not conducted that way. For example, the Romans would have left Jesus' body up to rot on the crucifix on a public roadway as a warning to others. It's absolutely historically false for the claim of him being taken down and buried in a tomb. That would never have happened.

I'm not convinced you've studied Muhammad and Allah and their positive influence in the world.

How does that sound to you? Does that sound reasonable? Are you obliged to have extensively studied the quran, the hadith and all the tafsirs to be able to say, "sounds made up"? No, you don't. There are reasons enough to disregard Muhammad, Islam and the quran, just as there are reasons enough to disregard Jesus and the bible without ever reading a single page of the bible.

Humanity is cursed by a magical fruit (lifted from Gilgamesh, by the way), and through genocide after genocide, the god who set it all up finally gave birth to himself through a virgin in order to be sacrificial goat for the curse he set in motion to appease his own anger about the things knew would happen, so he was nailed to a cross, died, undied, then few up into space, where he'll come back at some point in the future riding on a cloud to destroy the world. And he wants payment for the "gift" he gave which nobody asked for, or he'll set you on fire for eternity.

Sounds completely made up to me. It only gets worse once you open the bible and read the details. But we don't even need to go that far.

It's amazingly hypocritical that you demand atheists be experts in the bible. Not just because you yourself are obviously not, but because you reject other religions without having expertise in their mythology. That makes you intellectually dishonest. You're a hypocrite who demands from others what you will not do yourself.

If you reject Islam without having studied all its scriptures, then for you to demand that non-believers study the bible in order to reject the unbelievable claims of Xianity makes you a sanctimonious fraud.

We don't need to have expertise in your bible to say "I don't believe you" when you tell us of the gross, immoral, bizarre and absurd stories of your silly book. Or even that the primary character wants to save us from his own threat to burn us. We can spot at a distance that they're silly myths and/or evil extortions.

And again, I must point out that you've resorted to "my religion is useful" rather than "my religion is true."

We don't need to ponder a "higher power" when there is no evidence of such a creature's existence. We can look up at the infinite universe around us, around a planet your book described as a flat region covered by a dome with tiny lights set into the dome that can fall down.

We can be inspired by the work being done to uncover the secrets of the universe from the birth of stars down to quantum particles.

“The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there’s no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there’s little good evidence.” “There are wonders enough out there without our inventing any.” “For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.” – Carl Sagan

We don't need fairy tales. We don't need gods and monsters and talking bushes and talking donkeys to be inspired. We don't need threats of eternal torture to be good. We don't need commandments from a genocidal god to figure out what's right. We don't need "gOd dId iT" to figure out how the world works - that's never worked, not once. There's already not enough to do during the 80-ish years we get if we're lucky, without wasting time on imaginary creatures.

The fact you do is terribly sad. Look around you at the natural universe around you. Look up into the sky at night. That goes on forever. There are stars and planets out there that you're looking at which no longer exist. There are systems and bodies that will coalesce and form long after our own star has consumed our planet and collapsed. You can't be inspired by that without inserting a magical wizard? That's so sad. And it has 100% failure rate of being the correct answer. It wasn't "god" when we figured out lightning, thunder, earthquakes or rain.

"God" has never been the correct answer... ever. And every time it's not, your god gets smaller and smaller.

If God appeared right in front of you and told you to go to church, I think you would still deny Him. Maybe you'd just say you've had a hallucination and you should stop eating nachos before bed. You have to seek God diligently and earnestly to find Him. If you've already resolved yourself to not believe something right from the get-go, you could deny that the sky is blue.

This is such as stupid statement. Firstly, you would have to demonstrate that it was actually a god, and not alien technology, a hallucination, a hologram or any of thousands of explanations. You don't get to just designate any new phenomenon as "god." That's on you, and it hasn't worked in the past, so I don't like your chances in the future. We don't have to take your claim of "this is god" at face value, any more than you take "you owe $500" at face value. This is your job.

But if it was a god, then you would have FINALLY provided evidence. What took you so long? Yes, I would believe it existed. That doesn't mean I'm going to worship it. But not only do you have to prove that this creature is a god, but you have to prove that it's yours. You don't get "a god exists," and jump straight to "therefore the bible is true." That's not how this works.

If it is yours, then we're going to have a conversation about his attitude, and why he's so fragile that he needs so much applause from lesser creatures. And if he's as eternal and unchanging as you people say he is, then we're probably going to need to figure out a way to kill him or block him from this dimension. I will acknowledge his existence, but I will worship nobody; worship is a response to fear. A good god wouldn't want worship, and a god who wants worship wouldn't be good.

You should read the bible some day. You want to live in a world where this creature actually exists? The same creature who commanded genocide and slavery, who killed Job's family over a bet, tricked Jephthah into murdering his own daughter, and thought Lot, who wanted to offer his daughters up for rape was the most righteous man in the village?

However, none of this even means anything. It hasn't happened, and as you believers describe the god of the bible, he's not even possible. He's both good and inscrutable = self-refuting. He's perfect and needs worship = impossible. He knows all and grants free will = mutually exclusive. All-loving yet vengeful = non-existent. Good and wants worship = oxymoron.

This is not our fault. It's yours. I've personally asked multiple times for your god to show up. I even posted that I had a whole weekend of nothing planned and that it would be a good opportunity for him to appear. He didn't. You might be aware of that weekend. It was the weekend where "god is real" was not on every news channel in the world for every moment.

We don't need to "deny" what you haven't proven, any more than you "deny" the love of Bigfoot. We don't need to worry about creatures we must conclude are fictional.

You're misunderstanding my tape measure analogy. All I was saying there is that if current tools and methods in science don't prove something to be true, that doesn't automatically make it false. More research with different methods and tools is needed.

So, you can't prove your god exists, even in principle.

All this means is that you've surrendered all known, verifiable methods of demonstrating your god is real. You don't get to claim that it's real and then defend its absence by claiming it can't be detected or found. You're asserting you have detected it. You can't have it both ways, as much as you dishonestly try it. Science loves learning new stuff. Show the scientists how you detected "god." Whenever you're ready.

Scientists are competitive. They'd love to be the first to prove a universe-altering phenomenon. They're all ears. Lay out your method of reliably detecting "god."

You seem to be admitting that you were lying about your god being real. You've discounted every single method of detection - including all the ones you don't know or understand, since I'm guessing you're not a quantum physicist or a cosmologist - and declined to supply your reliable, repeatable, verifiable method.

Hell, you don't seem to have even know the gospels weren't written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, so your reliability is sketchy at best.

You've left us with nothing. If I wasn't already a non-believer, you've made a great case for why nobody should think any of this is true.

You may be implying something different with your "Christians ignoring their own book" comment than what I'm picking up, but I agree we should know what the Bible actually says if wish to discuss it with others. I am working hard at studying the Bible and constantly learning from it.

I know what the bible says, and I don't especially care. You have to demonstrate that your bible is true first, without using the bible to justify the bible, as that's circular, fallacious and frankly, insane.

But since you seem to be leaning back on it as the source for your belief and for all your justification, you seem to be admitting that contrary to your original assertion, evidence for Jesus does not exceed that of Alexander the Great. Why would you have to keep coming back to the same one book, the same book that is the source of the claim in the first place. What about all this "evidence" you were touting? You should be able to set the bible completely aside, yet you don't. Suspicious.

What this amounts to is an inescapable conclusion that your Jesus only exists between the front and back pages of the bible. If we have to keep going back into the bible to figure everything out, then we must conclude that's the entirety of his existence. A fictional character in a book of stolen, plagiarised and fraudulent stories.

And you're tacitly admitting that you don't believe in your god, you believe in your bible; the god is contingent on, and subservient to, the bible. A real god could be found in the world without the bible. But your belief starts with the bible as primary, not the god.

If you are secular, why is convincing religious people to give up their faith a "good thing", as you put it? Do you believe there is an objective good? What do you base it on? It would have to be a higher axiom than whatever you make up for yourself. Do you believe there is oblivion or an afterlife after me die? Do you believe life has purpose, or not? What is your reason for caring what we believe before we die (this question is especially important if you believe in oblivion)? A lot of questions, I know. But I think that in particular is the heart of the issue here.

The irrational cannot be convinced. You already admitted you don't believe because it's true but because it's useful and helpful. You have needs other than truth that your superstitions meet. It's just sad, is all. And not something we should be encouraging in others. If you need to believe in lies in order to give your life meaning and purpose, then you can't find any meaning or purpose of your own.

We should all aim to have as many true beliefs as possible, and as few false beliefs as possible, as that helps us accurately understand and navigate the world, and therefore influence it as it really is, not as some fairy story tells us.

Believing that a magic man will sweep you up to his castle when you die diminishes this life, and it's sad that you're looking forward to death so you can spend eternity in bliss, instead of making the most of this one and only life. Wasteful.

Believing that a magic man can be convinced to grant you wishes through a magic spell (prayer) makes actually doing anything useful in the world unnecessary. Tragedy? Pray. Atrocity? Pray. Strife? Pray. You can feel good about you, but it helps literally nobody else. Making it boldly narcissistic. Children starving, being abused don't merit your god's attention, but he'll grant you a parking space, entry to your preferred college, or save you from the tornado he sent? Perverted.

Believing that a magic man will absolve you of all your guilt with a quick spell into the clouds, and you need never make amends with the one you wronged. Thinking you're "covered by the blood of Jesus" wherein someone else is punished for your own culpability is perverted and immoral. It's an old pagan myth called scapegoating, or more formally, substitutional atonement or vicarious redemption. You put the sins of the town onto a goat and drive it out of the town to die in the wilderness, and the townsfolk wash their hands of their responsibility. Immoral.

"Isn't it interesting that people only look for a doctor when they're sick or injured? It's when you're hurt that you look for someone to heal you. Medicine is predatory!"

Medicine can be proven to work. We also accept that it is not always 100% effective, because it's been tested. We know contraindications, we know side effects, we know dosage, we know conditions that might make it ineffective, we know it might not be suitable for pregnant women, we know it might affect your ability to operate heavy machinery.

And nobody wants to set you on fire for not believing medicine is real.

Your analogy is completely idiotic.

Your religion may be real in the sense that there are people who believe it's true, but none of you can actually back up your claims, and you just got done admitting that it's not even possible, even in principle. Your religion is not medicine. If it was, the followers of your religion would recover from illness faster or at a higher survival rate than the "others" or none at all. They don't. Indeed, prayer as a strategy for medical intervention is demonstrated to be ineffective.

--

Xianity really has fallen, that even its adherents have no idea what's in it or where it came from. The invention of the printing press allowed people to have their own bible and study and interpret it themselves. But now they don't even bother. They just regurgitate nonsense from bad apologetics sites or just make baseless assertions, most of which contradict the other assertions.

Here's a tip for the future: never debate the bible with an atheist. It will never work out for you. We know it better than you do, and importantly we know where it came from. We don't have to in order to defend our disbelief, but we run into you people and your steadfast refusal to understand what we're saying so often that it just happens naturally.

Most of y'all have never even read it.

[ Source: LifeWay Research ]

I am working hard at studying the Bible and constantly learning from it.

I would encourage you to keep doing so. I always tell every Xian to read their bible. In particular, read the gospels side-by-side, not one after the other. And then study the origin of the bible.

We need more atheists, and this is one of the most reliable methods of creating them.