#i cannot testify to the quality of anything i write | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

slashingdisneypasta · 4 years ago

Note

Hi! If you don't mind could you write me some headcanons about being bff with some female cp's? Like Jane, Nina, Clockwork, Nurse Ann...?

One of my best friends is called one of these names so it was odd to write XD Some headcanon’s were totally true about her as well, and some definitely were n o t. XD

Anyway I’m not sure how comprehensive this is since I just kinda spewed it all out so, uh… I hope you like them! 😅

~~~

Clockwork:

· Natalie stays at your house all the time and eats all your food. Girl has a FAST metabolism so you cannot tell, but she eats e v e r y t h i n g.

· She doesn’t even have a key to your home, you just come home from everyday activities and she’s slumped in your couch cushions watching TV and there’s a pool on your bathroom floor from her shower and- oh, she has also ordered pizza so get your wallet out.

· You just squint/glare at her before flopping on the couch beside her. She hands you the remote and gets comfier by you.

· Even when you have a romantic interest over, she is there at your house, comfortable on the couch playing games on your phone as you walk your ‘friend’ to your room.

· It’s not all frustrating though, she’s always there to protect you. There have been multiple burglaries that she has intercepted and ‘taken care of’. She’s honestly like a guard dog who also has an excellent sense of humour.

· And don’t think she just wants you around for your apartment and money. Nay nayyyyyy nay. She tells you all about the Creepypasta drama and what’s going on at the mansion, even though you aren’t apart of that life.

· And she calls when she’s away. Just calls up to talk to you.

· You two are the kind of friends that don’t need to talk to each other all the time. In fact, you agree that talking to people all the time is annoying and too much trouble, and you could totally go without each other for days (Weeks even) if either of you were busy! But… without either of you even realising, you always end up contacting each other in one way or another every day, anyway. Its easy with you two. No romantic relationship could compare.

· She was the groom and you were the bride in your make-believe weddings and mums and dads games as kids.

· On Toby: “Okay Nat, I like Toby but I hope you know, if he hurts you… well there is absolutely nothing I can do to wreak revenge on your behalf, as he is a duo hatchet wielding psychopath, except maybe give him a stink eye. … When he is looking away and therefore cannot see the stink eye.”

· More on the Toby subject: Clockwork once took you to Slender Mansion (Cuz you were targeted by a botched victim of hers because she cares about you and she wanted you close by to keep you safe until she could, like, finish killing the guy and all. Whatever though, no biggie. Pft, At least that’s how she made it out to be.) and she had to leave you for a moment so she handcuffed you and Toby together because he’s the only one she could trust to watch you.

· It was very awkward for the two of you, but definitely a bonding experience. You were both very happy to see Clocky come back though.

· HORROR. The world of horror is your favourite genre together. Supernatural horror, slashers, basement dwellers, vampires, werewolves, the blob, stalkers, murderers, psychological horror, black and white, colour, movies, tv shows, books- whatever. You two get so excited to experience new fictional horror.

Jane The Killer:

· If you’re into boys, let me tell you right away- Jane is very critical of their actions. She was at a very influential time in her life (Especially concerning boys and girls and romance) when she met Jeff and Liu. She met those boys, thought ‘Oh, they’re cute. Maybe budding crush?’, and then Jeff killed her family, burnt down her home and ruined her life and Liu became an asshole, and now the male species has been, sorta… tainted. She knows there are good ones (In fact, m a n y boys are lovely, of course.), but one’s that you’re in romantic cahoots with are always going to be under her very watchful eye anyway so she doesn’t really bother to hold back her fear (Which translates into dislike… or hate) with them. So if you have boy problems, be careful. Provided you like this/these guy/s, at least. If you don’t like them, then she’s the perfect person to go to!

· If you are a boy, then- of course, none of this applies to you. She loves you. Don’t worry. You’re her best friend!

· Girls are an entirely different situation though of course. Jane drinks that love women juice every single day.

· Jane is really good with altering clothes, so she’s the one you go to when you need help hemming something or taking something in. She likes to do it, too. Quality best friend time while not being lazy.

· Speaking of her hating to be lazy… This does not apply at night. Nighttime is a whole other ballgame. Its bedtime by 7 for her if you don’t lock her into plans a week in advance. If she is braless and in her P.J’s, you will not be able to peel her from her home. Except for snacks, but even if she goes to the grocery store, she’s not getting changed and she’s going to wear her bunny slippers.

· You two watch so many cartoons together. Gravity Falls, Star Vs The Forces of Evil, Over The Garden Hedge, Villainous, Looney Tunes, Ducktales, etc. Any and all that you can get your hands on.

· You two are prepared to get platonically married, for any reason. Like, you need to stay in the country? Married; You’re staying. You’re the only one who can testify against hr in the court of law? Married, so by law you don’t have to. One of you accidentally planted yourselves with a kid and (Cuz you’re ride or die for each other, obviously), you’re gonna parent the child together and cuz of religious beliefs one of your would feel better about raising them together with a wedding band? Married.

· Jane doesn’t drink, so when/if you get drunk she’s always there to keep you safe.

· Jane also gets friend-jealous, a lot. Like, that bitch just called you her best friend, Y/N. Is she your best friend? I thought I was. So who is it, Y/N? Me or her? HM? (She is prepared to turn up to wherever you and this person are hanging, all glamorous and cool as she is, and show off. Prove she’s a way better friend then this new person so they back off).

· When you were little, she was the bride and you were the groom in your wedding/marriage/mums and dads games.

Nina The Killer:

· You have known her for both your entire lives and there have been iffy, and dark times but through hell and high water you have stuck with her. You love her. She’s your girl, you are her person too. You will be with her, and protect her from anything.

· You are the only one in the world that loves her, really. You may not quite understand her weirdness, but you stick with her anyway because you love her.

· Just like- baseline of your friendship is being ride or die for each other.

· You were also really into Jeff, but at a more… healthy? Level? Like, you were still romantically interested in a real-life murderer, but you wouldn’t have done anything about it. You wouldn’t hurt anyone (Except to protect others) or victim blame, or contact the victims (Dear God) or whatever, but you would take peaks at fanfiction and gab with Nina about it. I mean, it’s not grand, but in comparison to Nina, hah… you were harmless.

· Now though, that you’ve met him and he is the reason your bets friend is so hurt and broken, you are not the fondest of him. I mean, you still have a place in your heart for the version of him you and Nina made up in your heads (The version that Nina still believes is real) but that isn’t the real him. Jeff Woods is an ass. You need to keep your friend safe from him.

· And uh… so nowadays… occasionally, you will find out where Jeff is (You keep an ear out) and, you know, just… lie your ass off to Nina. Yep. You tell her you heard that he’s in the opposite direction than he is so that she’ll unknowingly put more distance between him and her.

· Yes. It’s a lie, but… its for the greater good! It’s for Nina’s mental health and physical safety.

· Anyway, moving on to lighter things.

· In your make believe mums and dads/’grown up’ games that you would play together as kids, you were a single parent and she was the dog.

· She will lie for you in an instant. She’s also really good at it.

· You walked into a room once and saw she was drawing something, and it turned out to be your joint tombstone. She has not let this go- you will be buried in the same plot together, if it is the last thing she does. This is slightly concerning, but… also kind of cute. You can roll with it.

· “What if I get married or have kids?”

· “They will need to apply with me to join. There will be an interview process.”

· ‘What about pets?”

· “Oh, they can come in! No fee!”

· Do not underestimate her weight. If she doesn’t want you to leave, she will hold onto your leg and go deadweight, and you will s t r u g g l e.

· Nina talks to herself, but she acts like the person she’s talking to is another person, inside her mind. You both know its not, but you refer to the other girl as Agnes anyway. Super casual.

· Follows you when you go on dates (At least the first one with someone)to make sure all goes well and texts you rapid fire when she smells something fishy. Even the smallest thing.

· You two really love dystopian teen fiction. Divergent? Matched? Hunger Games? Maze Runner? Ugles? Alllllll. You consume them and then watch the movies/tv shows too.

Nurse Ann:

· Live-in medical services! This means you can get really cheap life insurance and not worry about it to much.

· And on the topic of insurance… Ann is super smart, and organised, and just really awesome at practical stuff like that. Insurance, bills, mortgages, any kind of forms and receipts. And she’s happy to sit down and help you go through it- and, as we all know, everything is better when it’s with a friend you feel comfortable with.

· You can tell Ann anything and she’ll just roll with it. No judgment. Either she takes it and lets you talk about it or she just acknowledges it and moves on.

· Like Jane, Ann has very little patience for boy problems. In fact, she has zero time for it. Boys? Girls? No thank you. So if you’re into boys, I have some bad news for you.

· Best friend maintenance. Occasionally, Ann will over work herself (with murder) and you will need to guide her to relaxation. Gently persuade her to sit down at the dinner table and just make idle chit chat with her every now and then as you make her a good, hearty meal (Or as good as you can do XD Anything between Beefy stew and a Cheese toastie will work fine, don’t worry. She’s not picky at all), and then watch some movies with her. No phones, no knitting, no drawing, no… whatever. No other activities except TV watching! She needs to rest. I’m always shocked at how relaxing just sitting and watching TV can be. There’s a big difference between doing that and multitasking.

· Ann will call you to pretend there’s an emergency if you want to get out of social engagement.

· A thing that two enjoy together is science fiction. Star Trek (Including the animation), The War of Worlds, the world of Star Wars, Dune, a Handmaids Tail, The 100, Eureka, etc. She loves the brainy stuff.

· Ann is the logical friend, who tries to give the most practical advice and make pros and con lists and everything. And then you go ahead and do the crazy thing, the thing she said definitely would not work and would probably make things worse, and she just face palms and says she’s never getting mixed up in your mess again. … Until the next time, when she totally does.

�� “I love you Y/N, but I am not about to walk into a police office and bail you out of jail so do not do that.”

· You trap her into resting by painting her nails (Hands and feet) in her sleep right before her alarm is about to go off so she has to take the morning SLOW or the paint will mess up. She just wakes up, you hold up a sign in front of her face that says ‘NAILS’ and she stops immediately. “You bitch.”

· As kids, of course, the two of you would play make-believe family games and you were both mums (/ or you were the dad). She was the working mum and you were forced to stay home take care the baby (large container of vitamins with a face drawn on).

40 notes · View notes

ottomanladies · 4 years ago

Note

Thanks! Basically I didnt check in these recent months your inbox is opened or not! Still very grateful to you! :) Anyway, I want to ask you details about Nurbanu Sultans reign during her son Murats period. How she acted and have impact on her sons decision! Please do write in detail! I herad that Pinaar"s book "atik valide sultan mosque" is a great source of her, if you can please do qoute from here! Have a good day! :)

I am sorry for the late reply but I am sick and writing basically a historiography essay is quite hard at the moment. Just so you know, I'm not even studying for my university exams, so that's where I am.

Now back to your question. I don't know how in detail I will be able to go because the dissertation you mentioned is not about her tenure as valide sultan but about her mosque complex.

That said, Nurbanu started out her tenure as valide sultan unofficially on the night of Selim II's death, when she decided to hide his body while sending out a messenger to call Murad back to Istanbul. This was done primarily because in Topkapi Palace lived Selim II's younger sons; while Murad had been proclaimed heir, he was the only prince far from Istanbul at the moment of Selim's death. This is the reason why Nurbanu was extra careful about it.

Upon the judgment of the mother of Sultan Murad—may God protect his felicity—no one was made privy to this secret [except Sokollu] and the blessed body was preserved in the ice room. On the advice of the Grand Vizier, full of prudence and sound judgment, a letter indicating the termination as well as the commencement of sovereignty was sent to Manisa through Hasan Çavuş. Meanwhile Admiral Kilıç Ali Pasha outfitted a frigate and a reserve and set out to sea [to pick up Murad from Mudanya]. — Selaniki

Murad arrived in Istanbul after 5 days, at night, and at dawn, everything was ready for his coronation. According to Finkel, Nurbanu had retired to the Old Palace when he docked at Istanbul, and that's where she met him.

Two days afterwards, Nurbanu was ceremoniously brought to Topkapi Palace as Valide Sultan.

Tradition also places in Murad's reign the inception of what became in later years the processional transfer, shortly after a sultan's accession, of the valide sultan and other members of the new sultan's harem from the Old Palace to the harem quarters in the New Palace. Known as "the procession of the valide sultan" (valide alayı), this event developed in later centuries into an elaborate ceremonial. Virtually all echelons of the governing elite were represented in the procession: the palace hierarchy as well as the outer administration, the military establishment as well as the religious institution. As the procession made its way across the city of Istanbul, the valide sultan received the obeisance of the agha of the Janissaries and in turn distributed bonuses to his troops (much as the sultan, upon his accession, customarily granted an accession bonus to these troops). The valide sultan was received in the palace by her son, who awaited her on foot and greeted her with obeisance (an honor accorded by the sultan to no other person). She marked her installation in her new office and residence by dispatching to the grand vezir on the day after the procession an imperial order giving him formal notice of her arrival, which she accompanied with the gift of a ceremonial robe of honor and a dagger. The symbolism of this ceremonial suggests that its purpose was to give public sanction to the valide sultan's role not only as the head of her son's private household but also as a partner in sultanic sovereignty. While this ceremonial as it was constructed for Nurbanu (if indeed it did occur as such during Murad Ill's reign) may not have been of the scale it later acquired, the fact that tradition accepted the valide sultan's procession as having originated with her testifies to the authority she exercised. — Leslie P. Peirce, The Imperial Harem: Women and Sovereignty in the Ottoman Empire

Foreign relations

An undated letter from Catherine de' Medici was sent to Nurbanu (presumably early in Murad's reign); in it, the regent of France hoped to have the Capitulations confirmed (every time a new sultan acceded to the throne, foreign treaties had to be re-confirmed).

It is not known whether Nurbanu actually responded to this letter, but from the continual laments of Catherine’s ambassador Jacques de Germigny to the effect that he mustered scanty attention from the Queen Mother, it appears that the relations between the two realms never rose to the level it had attained in the first half of the century. — Pinar Kayaalp-Aktan, The Atik Valide Mosque Complex: A testament of Nurbanu's prestige, power and piety

A warmer relationship was Nurbanu's with Venice and its ambassadors. She was on amicable terms with Jacopo Soranzo but most especially Paolo Contarini. It was him who convinced the Venetian Senate to send Nurbanu gifts.

In that letter, Contarini reminds the Senators how lucky they should consider themselves that this powerful Sultana cherished the most cordial memories for the land in which she was born, to which sentiment the Most Serene Republic ought to respond with commensurate generosity. Contarini’s position did not change in the aftermath of the delivery of the presents and his eventual return to Venice. [...] In Contarini’s opinion, the Valide Sultan should be regarded as the most appropriate recipient of such gifts, since she “is interested not in the quality of the donatives, but in the attestation of your esteem, which she yearns to be shown to her from all [foreign] princes, but especially from Your Serenity, since she was born in this city.” — Pinar Kayaalp-Aktan, The Atik Valide Mosque Complex: A testament of Nurbanu's prestige, power and piety

Nurbanu's relationship with Venice remained warm throughout her life, even after Murad's had cooled down.

Shortly before her death, the valide sultan may have performed her greatest service to her homeland by preventing a possible Ottoman invasion of Crete, a Venetian possession. Upon learning that the admiral Kilıç Ali Pasha planned to propose such an invasion as one of a number of possible plans for the following year, Nurbanu sent word to him that under no circumstances should war be waged against Venice, since that would bring more harm than good to the sultan's realm. In addition, she warned that in no way was the admiral to raise the possibility with Murad. On his way to his audience with the sultan, the admiral dropped the paper carrying the proposal, and when one of his attendants picked it up and returned it to him, he tore it up, saying that it was no longer of any use since the valide sultan opposed its contents." — Leslie P. Peirce, The Imperial Harem: Women and Sovereignty in the Ottoman Empire

Political involvement

Not everyone liked that Nurbanu counselled Murad on basically everything: both the army and the ulema said to Venetian ambassadors that the sultan trusted the government of the empire "to those who are not meritorious, just because he heeds the counsel of women". The ulema, on the other hand, said that the sultan "was of little intelligence, unpredictable, and one who could not do anything without the counsel of women". This what the French Ambassador said of Nurbanu:

[the valide sultan] who is currently called Queen, for her great prudence, authority, and esteem at this Porte in managing the affairs of importance ... allows the pashas to mete out all the favors and principal offices of this state, taking away and sharing with her Highness the [concomitant] payments, with which the said pashas enrich themselves without remitting even one asper to the treasury. The aforementioned Seigneur, [Murad], does not see any wickedness in all this, out of his love and respect that he has for his mother, as well as his avarice and desire to accumulate money. — French ambassador Jacques de Germigny

It must be said, though, that he was particularly bitter because at the Ottoman court he was largely ignored.

Nevertheless, Murad III continued to trust her mother's advice:

Of the post-Suleymanic sultans, Murad III was one of the most devoted to his mother and dependent upon her counsel. According to Paolo Contarini, who submitted his report to the Venetian government shortly before Nurbanu's death in December 1583, Murad's mother was the person on whom he most relied for guidance: "[He bases] his policies principally on the advice of his mother, it appearing to him that he could have no other advice as loving and loyal as hers, hence the reverence which he shows toward her and the esteem that he hears for her unusual qualities and many virtues. — Leslie P. Peirce. The Imperial Harem: Women and Sovereignty in the Ottoman Empire

Nurbanu also secured appointments for members of her faction: two were particularly frowned upon because they had been two cooks. Ferhad and Çiğalazade Yusuf were first elevated to the rank of Paşa and then appointed "serdar of the eastern campaign and beylerbeyi of Revan".

Safiye Sultan

According to Paolo Contarini, the main reason why Nurbanu decided to neutralise Safiye was purely political: Safiye had begun to gather a faction around her (most notably Ayşe Hümaşah, Mihrimah's daughter, and her husband, the second vizier). The dismissal of Grand Vizier Sinan Paşa in 1582 was done for the same reason:

I personally believe that the Sultana’s reason to ruin Sinan Pasha was not so that she could promote this favorite Agha in his place: it was because she wanted to take vengeance for the words uttered by Sinan that empires cannot be governed through women’s counsel, [and moreover that authority did not rest with her, even though she might try to make it seem so, but rather with the sultana consort.] Thus, to conclude this argument without further divergence, I say that all the good and all the bad depends on the Valide Sultan.

I combined Peirce's and Kayaalp-Aktan's translations because Peirce's lacked the first part of the sentence and Kayaalp-Aktan's had mistakes in the middle.

Probably around this time as well, Nurbanu and her daughter Ismihan successfully divided Murad and Safiye's monogamous relationship:

A vexing incident of some importance has occurred these days concerning the Most Serene Signor [Murad] and his wife ... [I]t is common knowledge that... this Most Serene Signor ... has never wished to get intimate with any other woman though he has been constantly solicited by his mother and sisters to have children from another wife. Not succeeding to achieve this objective, they resorted to presenting beautiful female slaves to excite [Murad]. However, they have not succeeded to persuade him to change his will, since he is very much in love with his wife ... [Ismihan], seeing that [Safiye] got ugly and could no longer have children—not to mention that she is in great favor of the Gran-Signor and that she challenges the authority of the Mother Sultan, which is [considered] a very insolent thing among this people— invited [her brother] on the day the Mother Sultan would return from the baths to sojourn in a palace of [Ismihan’s] a little outside the walls of Constantinople. The Most Serene Signor, having received the invitation, immediately showed up to see his mother and to spend that night with her and his sister, leaving his wife with his son in a palace called Cinque Case [Beşevler] belonging to Her Majesty [Nurbanu]. The occasion of having her son unaccompanied by his wife helped the Mother Sultan to renew the proposal she made on many cases previously that he should produce male children with other women, since [Safiye] could have no chance of having any. And seeing that [Murad] was firm in the same decision, [Ismihan and Nurbanu] began saying that this resolution was the result of a spell cast by his wife, reminding him that many women dealing in witchcraft frequented [the Harem]. The Gran-Signor laughed it off...

In any case, when Murad returned to Topkapi the following morning, he prohibited Safiye to have visitors from outside. Nurbanu then produced a letter for Safiye in which it was mentioned an aphrodisiac; at this point, Murad started believing the accusations of witchcraft and ordered Safiye, her daughters and her servants to move to the Old Palace.

Thus Safiye was dealt with, and Nurbanu was now the only high ranking woman in the harem.

Mehmed's circumcision fest

In this same period, Şehzade Mehmed - the future Mehmed III - was circumcised.

Nurbanu is reported to have arrived in a procession of fifty-three vehicles to watch the celebration through the red lattices of the raised pavilion facing the first courtyard allocated for the female members of the imperial harem. In the following year, Nurbanu witnessed the ceremony inaugurating the commencement of her grandson’s political career and the completion of her grand philanthropic work, the Atik Valide Mosque Complex. The year 1583 simultaneously marked the high point of Nurbanu’s hegemony over the Harem, having banished Safiye and her faction to the Palace of Tears. Unfortunately, however, the Valide Sultan’s health took a bad turn. — Pinar Kayaalp-Aktan, The Atik Valide Mosque Complex: A testament of Nurbanu's prestige, power and piety

Nurbanu's death

On 6 December 1583, the Sultan, clad in black, hurried to Bahçesaray the moment he received the word that his mother was in her deathbed. There Nurbanu made her last testament, leaving two thirds of her wealth to Murad and the rest to her pious foundation, not counting some miscellaneous bequeathals. She died the following morning, with Murad at her bedside. He was inconsolable at the loss of his mother, as demonstrated by his throwing off his turban on the floor and sobbing that he was now an orphan, without help and counsel to carry the heavy burden of the empire. The news of Nurbanu’s death spread rapidly throughout Istanbul. The public reaction was that which would be accorded to the death of a padishah to the extent that Murad ordered the Head of the Janissaries and high-ranking officers to take measures against their troops’ looting the capital as they customarily would upon a sultan’s passing. A citywide curfew was simultaneously declared requiring the immediate closing of all stores and the Bedesten. The funeral procession was also of the magnitude accorded to a sultan. Murad, in his black mourning robe, led his mother’s coffin on foot up to the front gate of the palace, where he mounted his horse and trot behind the procession, with his viziers, commanders, and the ulema behind him. The black eunuchs carried the Queen Mother’s coffin on their shoulders from Nurbanu’s palace in Yenikapi to her final resting place. — Pinar Kayaalp-Aktan, The Atik Valide Mosque Complex: A testament of Nurbanu's prestige, power and piety

Nurbanu was buried next to Selim II in his mausoleum, the first consort to have been accorded this honour.

Please do not ask me again such questions, it took me at least 4 days and at the end I was pretty tired, as you can tell. I understand that not everyone has the chance to read these papers but I cannot make a summary of a 300-page dissertation and go in detail. It's like doing homework

#ask post #ask: ottoman history #nurbanu sultan #sultantahsin

29 notes · View notes

46ten · 4 years ago

Text

“...the desire I have to justify myself in your opinion,” Philip Schuyler and AH, part 3

See Part 1 and Part 2.

In the year 1780 I married the second daughter of General Schuyler, a Gentleman of one of the best families of this Country; of large fortune and no less personal and public consequence. AH to William Hamilton (uncle), 2May1797

Since almost all of his letters to his father-in-law were destroyed, we’re left with only glimpses and speculation for how AH felt about Philip Schuyler. He obviously considered Schuyler an important man and boasted about their connection in the letter above, but what else did he note about PS?

To the letters:

The second step I would recommend is that Congress should instantly appoint the following great officers of state—A secretary for foreign affairs—a President of war—A President of Marine—A Financier—A President of trade; instead of this last a board of Trade may be preferable as the regulations of trade are slow and gradual and require prudence and experience (more than other qualities), for which boards are very well adapted.

Congress should choose for these offices, men of the first abilities, property and character in the continent—and such as have had the best opportunities of being acquainted with the several branches. General Schuyler4(whom you mentioned) would make an excellent President of War, AH to James Duane 3Sept1780 [politicking for his father-in-law-to-be right away!]

I have received my beloved Betsey your letter informing me of the happy escape of your father. He showed an admirable presence of mind, and has given his friends a double pleasure arising from the manner of saving himself and his safety. Upon the whole I am glad this unsuccessful attempt has been made. It will prevent his hazarding himself hereafter as he has been accustomed to do. He is a character too valuable to be trifled with, and owes it to his country and to his family to be upon his guard. AH to EH, 16Aug1781

Your father has been as usual kind. He has offered me an order for money on Mr. Morris, and has given me liberty to draw upon him, though I shall probably not make use of it. If you have occasion for money you can draw upon Messrs. Stewart & Totten, Philadelphia. I will desire them to pay your drafts. 25Aug1781, AH to EH

Your father and mother are both anxious to visit you. I join with them in wishing for snow in time to enable us to set out together. They are as kind to me as ever and seem to have discovered the full extent of your worth. 26Jan1800, AH to EH

The reception he gave me was more than usually cordial;.. 22Jan1800, AH to Angelica S. Church

---------------------------------------------------

How did AH want to be thought of by Philip Schuyler?

I leave it to my conduct rather than expressions to testify the sincerity of my affection for [Elizabeth Schuyler], the respect I have for her parents, the desire I shall always feel to justify their confidence and merit their friendship. AH to Catherine VR Schuyler, 14April1780

AH uses the phrase “justify myself in your opinion” twice in this draft to his new father-in-law, when accounting for why he is leaving Washington’s family:

I have given you so particular a detail of our difference from the desire I have to preserve your approbation justify myself in your opinion.

...[George Washington’s] estimation in your mind, whatever may be its amounts, I am persuaded has been formed on⟩ principles which a circumstance like of the present nature this cannot materially affect; but if I thought it could diminish your friendship for him, I should almost forego the motives that urge me to attain my own justification justify myself to you. I hope wish what I have said to make no other impression than to satisfy you I have not been in the wrong.

...You are too good a judge of human nature not to be sensible how this conduct in me must have operated....

...At the end of the war I may say many things to you concerning which I shall impose upon myself ’till then an absolute, inviolable silence.

I have written to you on this subject with all the freedom and confidence to which you have a right and with an assurance of the interest you take in all that concerns me. AH to PS, 18Feb1781, in the draft of AH’s account of his break with G. Washington.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

As a beloved son-in-law (well, the only beloved in-law, haha), AH had the standing to counsel PS on family matters:

Already have I addressed the consolation, I mentioned to you, to your Father. I have no doubt the arguments I have used with him will go far towards reconciling his mind to the unexpected step you took. AH to Angelica S Church, 8Nov1789

My fathers letters have releived me from the dread of having offended him. He speaks of you with so much pride and satisfaction, that if I did not [love] you as he does, I should be a little Jealous of his attachment. Angelica S. Church to AH, 4Feb1790

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

And then we get glimpses of PS as a confidant for AH:

I have hitherto been much averse to the determination you mentioned to me, but when I reflect on the danger which your health is exposed to, an[d] the incompetent reward for the most Arduous and Important Services, and the chagrin you experience from the weakness and wickedness of those you have to contend with, I am reconciled to your Intentions. PS to AH, 5Jan1794.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chernow (hahaha!) has suggested that P. Schuyler and AH were not close based largely off of interpretation of this quote: “By our advices from Albany I have great reason to apprehend General Schuyler is no more. This I consider as a great loss to his family, friends and the public.” (to Jeremiah Wadsworth, 7Apr1785). Chernow reads this as a cool assessment reflective of a lack of personal attachment. I think it’s more likely that since this was a business letter, AH was formal (and he states PS’s death as “a great loss.”

AH several times expressed concern for PS:

But this morning your papa has an attack of the Gout, not particularly severe, one indeed which in a different situation would give no uneasiness—but as his strength has been of late somewhat diminished, it is impossible not to feel anxiety about him. On the whole I advise Cornelia and you to come up. He will be very glad to see you & I hope you will find him better. AH to EH, 19Apr1797

...court avocations and distress in the family have prevented anything better - General Schuyler has been critically ill, though now, as I hope, out of danger. My brother in law, Mr. Rensselaer, has just lost a favorite daughter, one and the eldest of two children, without a prospect of more. The whole has thrown a gloom upon the family and my health is not the stoutest.” AH to McHenry, 29April 1797.

It is a great comfort to me and I hope will not be marred by bad weather; so that you may all speedily arrive and without too much fatigue to sooth and console your affected Father. Now you are all gone and I have no effort to make to keep up your spirits, my distress on his account and for the loss we have all sustained is very poignant. God grant that no new disaster may befal us; entreat your father to take care of himself for our sakes, and do you take care of yourself for mine.

I write your father by this opportunity & press him to accompany you back with Kitty. This appears to me a sine qua non. Your Sister & you must not be refused. AH to EH, 13March1803

PS in turn appreciated AH’s sentiments (”Every letter of yours affords a mean of consolation) PS to AH, 16Apr1803

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I was at one point going to get into PS’s political skills (sorely lacking in AH), but am not sure I want to finish that post. But I’ll note this bit of smooth crisis control (PS to GW, 25Feb1781 - PS wrote this on the same day he wrote a letter to AH discussing the latter’s break with GW):

Your Excellency draws too favorable a conclusion when you suppose me competent to the business of the war department, but altho I feel myself far from able to conduct the charge in the manner it ought to be I would venture to accept relying that assiduity & perseverance would carry me thro, and with the less reluctance as I should have it in my power to ease you in some degree of that load of business, which with whatever facility you discharge it, cannot but be embarrassing and disagreeable as well as prejudicial to the public; but I cannot suppose, altho some may mention me for the office, that congress will be so imprudent, with respect to themselves, or indelicate in regard to me, as to offer it, since I have explicitely on another Occasion and in writing too, declared my intention never to hold any office under them, unless accompanied with a restoration of my Military Rank, And candidly pointed at the inconveniences which would result of themselves, from such a restoration, as It must necessarily give umbrage to many Officers.

I am perfectly in sentiment with you My Dear Sir that every good Citizen ought to evince his affection for his country in this awful Crisis by contributing his aid I am incapable of witholding mine where it can be given without a Sacrifice of honor, but to accept an office after what I have Stated to congress, and which you did not know, would render me compleatly contemptable.

We are exceedingly sorry that our hopes of a Speedy visit from Mrs Washington are diminished we cannot however give up the expectation of that pleasure.

Mrs Schuyler was delivered of a daughter on the 20th instant, She enjoys a share of health much beyond what is usual in such a situation, Had it been a boy I should have taken the liberty to have honored with Your name—permit me that of requesting you & your Lady to be entered as Sponsors for the Girl.

After getting a letter from AH re. the latter’s break with GW, PS states his refusal of leading the War Dept, but then follows it up with, “I wanted to name my baby after you! Will you and your wife be her godparents instead?!” Who knows what the original intention was - the PS/CVRS naming pattern was very much family names/relatives and one very close family friend (John Bradstreet) - so I think it unlikely that they were going to name their kid “George Washington Schuyler,” and it’s awesome that he throws that in there! [The kid is Catharine V R Schuyler, the younger.]

#Philip Schuyler #Alexander Hamilton #Angelica S. Church #Elizabeth S. Hamilton #George Washington

13 notes · View notes

rheaitis · 7 years ago

Text

Writing has been #difficult this week. I was gonna write about my own mental state as part of Mental Health Awareness Month, but apparently I'm not well enough to be able to write that stuff out for strangers yet. Moving on, then.

Today marks the first day of US Pride Month, so the five media posts this month are all gonna be queer as hell. And, like, happy; no dead queers here, so buckle in that rainbow seatbelt, cause this is gonna be one gay-ass ride.

Today's media is some 38 episodes long, and both diverse and diversely queer. It's got transformative work, it's got early eighteenth-century politics, it's got pirates, it's got treasure, it's got lesbians and bi women and genderqueer historical figures, it's got long-term committed poly folk, it's got blood, it's got gore, it's got amaaaazing black women ruling their own communities with care and compassion, it's got disabled folk being given focus and allowed agency, it's got conspiracies and alliances and mentoring between people of all genders and generations, it's got really lovely cinematography and music, it's got Toby Stephens' fabulous micro-expressions.

That's right, gentlefolk, today's media consumption is Black Sails. This is more of a weekend binge project, or a month-long thing if you're inclined to be sensible about things. It is also aimed at creasedknees, because I want her to watch it so we can squee.

Black Sails is a prequel of sorts to Treasure Island, dealing with the adventure that leads to the discovery and burial of that treasure. It takes up Captain Flint (Toby Stephens), Billy Bones (Tom Hopper) and of course John Silver (Luke Arnold) from the novel, and peoples itself with various fictional and fictionalised historical figures of the time, most significantly Jack Racham, Anne Bonny, and Charles Vane, who function as foils to our heroes throughout the show. I'm going to talk about them in just a bit but first Our Hero Captain James Flint, whom I adore entirely. (I want to like John Silver, but as in the novel Silver is a marvelously done character, without ever being someone it's safe to trust wholeheartedly or really at all.)

Captain Flint kills someone in the very first episode, and he doesn't actually get any nicer. (Even that killing is preceded by the pirate crew taking a ship with due savagery, so if you dislike gore I sadly cannot recommend watching this series.) In fact he escalates considerably, up from individual acts of piracy to cannonades directed at cities, and the show doesn't particularly gloss over this violence or the human cost entailed. Flint is the most consistently Slytherin character I have ever seen (and the fact that he resembles his mother to the last and most infinitesimal degree is often jarring): a man of vaulting ambition and enormous rage, with a capacity to hold onto grudges undiminished over a decade and longer. I love him. I love him absolutely, and not just because he is so wonderfully tender with all the women around him without ever doubting or trivialising their personhoods or capacity for doing what they set hands and minds to, though that is admittedly a very large part of why. Flint is always furious, always hurting, always ruthless with himself and his crew and associates, groaning away from a primal wound.

Primal wounds are maybe a good way to talk about this show without showering people with spoilers, as so many of the main characters have such wounds, inflicted by living in systems characterised by ills ranging from slave trafficking, bonded labour, debt prisons, early marriage, sexual violence, weaponised misogyny and institutionalised homophobia, and too often and deeply realistically by the rutted interstices of such injustice. Again realistically, the show's leads do not emerge from these experiences as noble crusaders, but rather as a den of Slytherins desperate to get ahead in whatsoever manner they can, and find whatever they think of as safe harbour: from Max (one of the characters original to the show and superbly played by Jessica Parker Kennedy) who wants to leave behind her miserable childhood and exploited adulthood by gaining entry into the Big House where life is soft and easy, to Madi who wants to lead her enslaved people into liberty, to Rackham who wants to make his mark on the world through narrative instead of having his story told as one of crushing poverty and debt. Our villains have stories as well, but even the few delineated in any detail are effectively subsumed in the institutional machines of which they are privileged cogs.

But important as all these stories are in motivating and substantiating the show, Flint's is the wound at the core of Black Sails. There are problems with this centering of white queer trauma in a show that, set in West Indies, could and almost certainly ought to have instead centered PoC and enslavement. It does deal with these issues, and inarguably allows Max and Madi Scott together as much space as Flint. Still, one has to accept at the start that this is a show about queer resistance that includes other aspects of marginalisation, rather than being a show of marginalised resistance against the institutions perpetrating and perpetuation said marginalisations. Significantly, Max and Mr. Scott are not initially characterised as being interested in working towards liberation, but the viewer complaints about the slow reveal of Mr. Scott's plans in this regard seem as facile as the screaming about Flint being queer.

I can go on about this show endlessly, as T, poor child, can easily testify, because I love everything about it, from the cinematography, to the gore, to the wlw relationships and just Anne Bonny queen of my heart and every violent impulse. And I do think that if I was a better person I would dwell longer on the gorgeous and deeply complex relationships between Charles Vane, Jack Rackham Anne Bonny and Max, and how I want them all to be alive and married but for Charles and Max to never ever ever touch, OR for Charles to scrub himself raw and bleeding before he's ever allowed to be near Max, and also Max's brilliance and subtlety and compassion and ruthlessness, how she's clung on to kindness in a deeply unkind existence and how that in no way signifies a lack of Nature, red in tooth and claw, and the way her change of clothing reflects and reiterates her change of status and and just. Her faaace, her golden glowing beauty and that heart-stopping smile. But the thing is my interests were set early and I imprinted on exactly one sort of character as a child and I continue to love them more than anything, and much as I adore Max, and much as I worship Madi Scott's regal compassion and strategic mind and her trust in and friendship with Flint and her renewed affection for Eleanor (whom I love also! and who is so sharp and such a merchant-prince and so tramelled by her gender), well. Look. I love Flint. I love his anger, and his sorrow, and his everything. I think it's remarkable how Flint’s story goes from Achillean (my lover is dead I will go to war, my lover is dead I will burn down this town, fight this empire, challenge fate/gods) to Odyssean (I am home from the wars and here is my lover who has longed for me as I for him). But what I love the most is how in a story that is almost entirely about stories and how and when and by whom they are told, Flint gets to say, angry and wounded and betrayed again,

This is how they survive. You must know this. You're too smart not to know this. They paint the world full of shadows... and then tell their children to stay close to the light. Their light. Their reasons, their judgments. Because in the darkness, there be dragons. But it isn't true. We can prove that it isn't true. In the dark, there is discovery, there is possibility, there is freedom in the dark once someone has illuminated it.

I love it so much, so intensely, so much more than Rackham's playing around with narratival style and truth, I love my sad bi ginger pirate uncle, and so would you if you gave the show a chance. It's all on directseries.net, at fairly good quality, with subtitles and everything. Please pretty please?

#Black Sails

5 notes · View notes

vincentcheungteam · 5 years ago

Text

SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY (1): Theology

Theological reflection is the most important activity a person can perform. This statement may astonish some readers, but an explanation of the theological enterprise will provide justification for the claim. We shall consider the nature, possibility, and necessity of this field of study.

THE NATURE OF THEOLOGY

The word THEOLOGY refers to the study of God. When used in a broader sense, it can include all the other doctrines revealed in Scripture. God is the supreme being who has created and now controls all that exists, and theology seeks to understand and articulate in a systematic manner information revealed to us by him. Thus theology is concerned with ultimate reality. Since it is the study of the ultimate, nothing is more important. And because it is a study of the ultimate, it defines and governs every other area of thought and life. Therefore, as long as God is the ultimate being or reality, theological reflection is the ultimate human activity.

This book is a presentation of several major biblical doctrines that come under the study of systematic theology. A doctrine consists of a set of ideas or propositions on a topic, so a biblical doctrine is the biblical teaching on a subject. Theology refers to the study of the Bible or the systematic formulation of doctrines from the Bible. A biblical doctrine is always binding, and a system of theology is authoritative to the extent that it reflects the teachings of the Bible.

Many Christians think it is wrong to study theology for its own sake. An anti-intellectual spirit has so infiltrated the church that they refuse to believe that intellectual activity possesses intrinsic value. But this implies that even knowing God must serve a greater purpose, probably a practical or ethical one. Although the knowledge of God ought to affect one's conduct, it is a mistake to think that the intellectual enterprise of theology serves a purpose that is greater than itself. Rather, since to study theology is to know God, and to know God is the highest purpose of man, theology possesses the highest intrinsic value. As Jeremiah 9:23-24 says:

This is what the LORD says: "Let not the wise man boast of his wisdom or the strong man boast of his strength or the rich man boast of his riches, but let him who boasts boast about this: that he understands and knows me, that I am the LORD, who exercises kindness, justice and righteousness on earth, for in these I delight," declares the LORD.

There is no higher purpose for which the knowledge of God intends to reach, and there is no higher purpose for man but to know God. Theological knowledge can produce moral virtues and other effects in a person's life, but we should not regard them as higher purposes than the knowledge of God and his revelation.

THE POSSIBILITY OF THEOLOGY

Prior to the construction of a theological system, it is necessary to establish that theological knowledge is possible. "God is Spirit" (John 4:24) – he transcends the spatiotemporal existence of man. Thus the question is whether man can know anything about God, or how man can know anything about him. The Bible's answer is that it is possible for man to have knowledge about God because God has revealed himself to man.

The Bible teaches that the universe displays God's glory. The magnitude and excellence of the things that God has created offer testimony to his power and wisdom:

The heavens are declaring the glory of God, The vast expanse displays his handiwork. Day after day they "pour forth speech"; Night after night they display knowledge. They have no speech, there are no words; No sound is heard from them. Their "voice" goes out into all the earth, Their words to the ends of the world. (Psalm 19:1-3)[1]

However, man does not directly perceive this testimony, and he does not logically infer information about God from it. As Paul writes, "For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe" (1 Corinthians 1:21). God has made a point of preventing non-Christians from knowing him through their own wisdom.

Therefore, although the testimony of creation is strong and evident, man cannot gain knowledge about God by an observation of the world. This does not mean that some men have no concept of God in their minds. In fact, the Bible teaches that every man knows about God, but this knowledge does not come from observation. Rather, Paul writes that it has been "written" into the mind of man – it is an innate knowledge:

Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them. (Romans 2:14-15)[2]

Theologians call the testimony of creation and the innate knowledge in the mind of man God's GENERAL REVELATION.[3] Although all men know about God in this manner, it does not mean that all men consciously acknowledge him. In fact, since all men are sinful, they refuse to acknowledge this God that they know, but attempt to suppress the truth:

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. (Romans 1:18-21)[4]

Nevertheless, this knowledge is indestructible and undeniable, so that it surfaces in distorted forms in non-Christian religions, philosophies, and ethical principles. Thus God has revealed his existence, attributes, and some of his moral demands to every person by including this information in the human mind. This knowledge is innate and is not derived by reasoning from sensation. Man does not infer from what he observes in nature that there must be a God; rather, he knows the God of the Bible before he has any access to empirical data. Interaction with creation, including the act of observation, stimulates the mind of man to recall this innate knowledge, which has been suppressed by sin.

Every person has an innate knowledge of God, and everywhere he looks nature reminds him of it. His every thought and every experience testifies to God's existence and attributes; the evidence is inescapable. Therefore, those who deny the existence of God are suppressing the truth because of their wickedness and rebellion. Although they claim to be wise, they have become fools (Romans 1:22). God's general revelation of his existence and attributes through his creation – the innate knowledge in man and the characteristics of the universe – renders without excuse those who deny that he is and what he is, and so they are rightly condemned.

Although every person has an innate knowledge of the existence and attributes of God, and the universe serves as a constant reminder, general revelation excludes much information about God and his creation, and in particular it does not contain information necessary for salvation – it does not contain the gospel. Thus God has revealed what he has decided to teach us by verbal revelation, that is, the Scripture. In other words, he talks to us and tells us what he wants us to know: "The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may follow all the words of this law" (Deuteronomy 29:29). Theology is possible because God has revealed himself to us through the words of the Bible.

This is his SPECIAL REVELATION. It contains rich and precise information about God and the things that he has decided we should learn. It is from the Bible that we obtain knowledge that is necessary for salvation. It is from the Bible that we come to know the message about Jesus Christ, that we need to be saved from sin and hell, and how we can be saved through him:

But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. (2 Timothy 3:14-15)

It is possible for man to know God through his revelation because God has made man in his own image, so that there is a point of contact between the two despite the transcendence of God. Animals and inanimate objects cannot know God the way man can even if they are presented with his verbal revelation, since they cannot receive and understand it.

God has chosen to reveal information to us through the Bible – in words rather than in images or experiences, to tell instead of to show. His revelation to us is rational and intellectual in nature, and not mystical or empirical. Verbal communication is superior because it can be precise, accurate, and extensive. Since the Bible assumes this form of communication, a worthy theological system must be derived from biblical propositions, and not from a non-verbal basis such as religious feelings and experiences, or irrational constructions such as scientific theories.[5]

Every system of thought begins with a first principle, and on this basis derives the rest by inductive or deductive reasoning, or a combination of the two. Induction is a formal fallacy, since due to the form or structure of the reasoning process, the conclusion is never a logically necessary result of the premises. The fallacy occurs when one reasons from particulars to universals. Now, reasoning on the basis of empirical data requires induction, since sensations are particulars, and every worldview must contain universal concepts and propositions, such as man, car, red, size, and so on. Therefore, induction and empiricism are irrational, and a system that places any dependence on either must inevitably collapse into skepticism. Skepticism is the position that knowledge is impossible, but it is selfcontradictory, since it maintains that we can know that we cannot know.

Deduction is the only valid form of reasoning. It proceeds from premises to conclusions by logical necessity. However, since deductive reasoning never produces information that is not already implicit in the premises, the first principle of a deductive system must contain all the information for the rest of the system. This means that a first principle that is too narrow will fail to provide a sufficient number of propositions to produce a comprehensive and coherent worldview, or a system of thought that is able to answer all necessary questions. Thus knowledge is impossible on the basis of induction, empiricism, or any inadequate first principle.

Even if a first principle appears to be sufficiently broad and contains enough information to construct a worldview, there must be justification for it, or some reason for affirming it over another. The justification for a first principle cannot come from a higher authority or a prior premise, for then it would not be the first principle. A lower authority or premise within the system cannot justify the first principle, since it is on this very first principle that this lower authority or premise depends. Therefore, a first principle of a system of thought must be self-authenticating – it must stand on its own authority.

The Bible is the ultimate authority of the Christian system; therefore, our first principle, our starting point, or the foundation of our thinking, is the Bible itself. This may be expressed by any proposition that represents all the contents of the Bible, such as "The Bible is truth" or "The Bible is the word of God."

Although empirical, inductive, and scientific arguments have been formulated in support of biblical revelation, and although they seem to be forceful given empirical assumptions, so that no empirically inclined non-Christian can refute them, the Christian must regard these arguments as unreliable because – as I have extensively argued elsewhere – all empirical, inductive, and scientific methods are irrational and prevent the discovery of truth.[6] Moreover, if we were to depend on empirical arguments and procedures to justify the Bible, the empirical assumptions would then stand as judge over the very word of God, so that Scripture would no longer be the ultimate authority in our system. As Hebrews 6:13 says, "When God made his promise to Abraham, since there was no one greater for him to swear by, he swore by himself." Since God possesses ultimate authority, there is no higher authority by which one may pronounce the Bible as infallible and inerrant.

That said, not every system that claims divine authority has within its first principle the content to justify itself. A sacred text might contradict itself and self-destructs. Another might admit dependence on the Christian Bible, but the Bible condemns all other alleged revelations. In any case, if the Bible is true, and it claims exclusivity, then all other systems of thought must be false. Therefore, if one affirms a non-Christian worldview – any worldview other than strict biblical Christianity – he must at the same time reject the Bible.

This generates a clash between the two worldviews. When this happens, the Christian can be confident that his system of thought is impervious to the attacks from others, but the biblical system itself provides the content for both defense and offense. The Christian can destroy the non-Christian's worldview by questioning the first principles and the subsidiary propositions of the system. Does the first principle of the system contradict itself? Does it fail to satisfy its own requirements?[7] Does the system crumble because it assumes the reliability of sensation, induction, and the scientific method? Does its subsidiary propositions contradict one another? Does it borrow Christian premises not deducible from its own first principle? Does the system provide coherent answers to the ultimate and the necessary questions, such as those concerning epistemology, metaphysics, and ethics?[8]

The first principle, the starting point, or the foundation of the Christian system is the Bible. From this first principle, the theologian constructs a comprehensive system of thought. To the extent that his reasoning is correct, every part of the system is deduced by logical necessity from the infallible first principle, and is thus equally infallible. And since the Bible is the verbal revelation of God, who demands our worship and commands our conscience, a system of theology validly deduced from revelation is authoritative and binding. Therefore, to the extent that this book is accurate in presenting what Scripture teaches, it represents what Christians have pledged to believe and what all men ought to believe, because it represents universal and objective truths that God has revealed.

THE NECESSITY OF THEOLOGY

Theology is necessary for all of thought and life. Since God is the beginning, the ultimate, and the omnipotent creator, he has the authority to address all aspects of our lives, and he has the power to enforce his commands and his wishes. Therefore, when he speaks, we must listen, believe, and submit. Christian theology systematizes his verbal revelation, and it is authoritative to the extent that it reflects the teachings of the Bible. The necessity of theology is a question of the necessity of communication from God. Since this is God's universe, divine revelation is the infallible and binding source of information and interpretation regarding all of thought and life. Since God has spoken, and since it is necessary to hear him, to believe him, to obey him, and to declare him, theology is necessary.

Theology is central to all of thought and life because it deals with the verbal revelation that comes from the supreme being – the essential reality that gives existence and meaning to everything. To illustrate, ignorance of musical theories has no direct relevance to one's ability to do algebra or to reason about moral issues. A lack of athletic abilities is unlikely to hinder a person's performance in the kitchen. But ignorance of divine revelation affects all of thought and life, from one's view toward history and philosophy, to one's interpretation of music and literature, to one's understanding of mathematics and physics.

Since this is God's universe, only his interpretation about anything is correct, and he has revealed his thoughts in the words of the Bible. It follows that an ignorance of theology means that a person's interpretation of every subject will lack the defining factor that puts it into the proper perspective. When it comes to ethics, for example, it is impossible to derive or establish any universal moral principle without an appeal to God. Even the very ideas of right and wrong remain undefined without his verbal revelation – he must define these concepts for us, and only his definitions are authoritative, relevant, and binding on all people. And since the Bible is the only objective and public divine revelation, the only way to appeal to God's authority – the only way to construct a public theology, philosophy, or apologetic – is by an appeal to the Bible.

There is intrinsic value in knowledge about God. Whereas every other kind of knowledge is a means to an end, knowledge about God is a worthy end in itself – we do not know God in order to know or to do something more important. Since theology is the study of God, or the systematization and articulation of knowledge about God, in terms of its value, it is self-justified. Of course, the knowledge of God is the foundation for a right knowledge of all other things, and it is the foundation for right purpose, right action, and so on. But its value does not depend on the effect that it has on these other things. It is important and its study is justified just because of what it is. To say that theology is not an end in itself carries the blasphemous implication that God is not the ultimate. And since God has revealed himself through the Scripture, to know the Scripture is to know him, and this means to study theology.

Many Christians have succumbed to the anti-intellectual spirit of the world, and as a result they make a sharp distinction between knowing God and knowing about God. If to "know about" God represents the study of theology, then to them a person may know much about God but not know God, or he may know God but not know much about God. A person's theological knowledge is disproportionate to how well he knows God, and some people seem to think that the more one knows about God, the less one knows God. That is, knowing about God is not only distinguished from knowing God, but in some cases, and certainly when it is very emphasized, knowing about God may even hinder a person from knowing God.

This is anti-intellectualism. Another name for it is insanity. Yet, in various forms, it is rampant among those who call themselves Christians, and even those who claim to oppose anti-intellectualism are often infected by this way of thinking. The assumption that poisons theology is that piety is at least somewhat, if not entirely, non-intellectual and non-rational. This assumption is unbiblical, arbitrary, false, and very dangerous.

If it is possible to know God without knowing very much about him, then what does it mean to know God? If knowing God means to have some kind of fellowship with him (1 John 1:3), then it entails at least recognition – one must know that he is, what he is, and how to fellowship with him. A person who fellowships with God must know that there is a God, that God is a Trinity – Father, Son, and Holy Spirit – and not Allah, or Buddha, his neighbor's cat, or the tree in his backyard. He must know the conditions under which he must relate to this God, and he must know the means and methods that make this fellowship with the Deity possible. All of this entails knowing things – many, many things – about God. Fellowship also involves communication, which requires the exchange of thoughts, and this again entails knowledge about many, many things, and about many words and ideas. One cannot communicate with another without exchanging information in the form of propositions, or in a manner in which the information conveyed is reducible to propositions.

How does a person know God, if not through knowing about him? Some people might answer that we know God through religious experience. But religious experience is defined and interpreted by theology, or knowledge about God. What is a religious experience? How does a person know he has received one? What does a particular feeling, sensation, or even apparition or encounter mean? Is the experience from God or Satan? The Bible warns that the devil can appear as an angel of light. Answers to these questions can only come by studying God's verbal revelation. And even if it is possible to know God through religious experience, what one gains is still knowledge about God, or intellectual information reducible to propositions.

A person may claim to know God through prayer and worship. But what does this mean? Is this just another way of asserting that we know God by religious experience? Do we sense something or undergo a process that permits us to know him better? But again, what is this "better," if it is not a fuller knowledge about God? If knowing about God and knowing God can be sharply distinguished, then one must define knowing God in a way that avoids any overlap with knowing about God. We already know what knowing about God means. If knowing God remains undefined, then it might be only a pious-sounding way to say the same thing as knowing about God, and the distinction adds nothing to our faith except confusion and false spirituality.

In any case, the object and practice of prayer and worship remain undefined until a theological formulation about them is established. Before a person can properly pray and worship, he must first determine to whom he offers prayer and worship. Afterward he must determine the way in which he must offer prayer and worship. All this means that a systematic study of Scripture is necessary, because it is Scripture that informs and governs all aspects of Christian beliefs and practices. Therefore, knowledge of God comes from his verbal revelation, and not from non-verbal means of religious exercises. Most people who resist theological studies have not thought through these questions, but they perform prayer and worship by assuming, often without understanding and in error, the object and manner of these spiritual practices.

Still another person might say that we get to know God by walking in love. But again, the idea of love remains undefined until there is theological reflection on the matter. Even the relationship between knowing God and walking in love originates from the Bible:

Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. (1 John 4:7-8)

Without biblical passages like this, a person cannot justify the claim that to know God is to walk in love, or that to walk in love is to know God. Also, does John say that we are born of God and know God before we love one another, or that we love one another before we are born of God and know God? It is clear that we are born of God and that we know God before we love one another. It is precisely because we are born of God that we are able to love, and it is because we know God that we realize what love means. Many of those who claim to know God through walking in love are doing nothing other than being kind to others, and they define kindness according to non-Christian norms rather than according to scriptural principles. They possess only an illusion of knowing God.

Once a person attempts to answer these questions about how one comes to know God, he is doing theology. Theology is unavoidable. The matter then becomes whether his theology is correct. Whereas an erroneous theology leads to spiritual disaster, an accurate one leads to genuine worship and godly living.

There is one slogan that says, "Give me Jesus, not exegesis." The anti-intellectual attitude is evident. But it is the Bible that gives us information about Jesus, and it is through biblical exegesis that we ascertain its meaning. Therefore, we cannot know Jesus without exegesis. One can illustrate this assertion by questioning those who affirm this slogan on what they know about Jesus. If their version of Jesus differs from the biblical account, then this means that they do not know him after all. Still less can we expect them to grasp other important topics such as biblical inspiration, divine election, and church government. But if they offer an accurate account of Jesus, how did they learn it if not from the Bible? What we need to say is, "Give me Jesus through exegesis."

A repudiation of theology is also a refusal to know God through the way he has prescribed. Knowing the Scripture – knowing about God – assumes preeminence over all of human thought and life. Theology is the systematic study and expression of the teachings of Scripture. It defines and interprets all that a person thinks and does. It ranks above all other necessities (Luke 10:42); no other task or discipline approaches it in significance. Therefore, the study of theology is the most important human activity.

_____ [1] Robert L. Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith; Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson, Inc.; p. 396. The NIV reads, "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard." [2] "So, when gentiles, not having the Law, still through their own innate sense behave as the Law commands, then, even though they have no Law, they are a law for themselves. They can demonstrate the effect of the Law engraved on their hearts, to which their own conscience bears witness…" (v. 14-15, NJB). [3] This is also called natural revelation – God's disclosure of himself through nature, or God's mark in his creation. A system of theology allegedly derived from general or natural revelation is called natural theology. To express biblical teaching in theological terms, we would say that there is a general or natural revelation (Psalm 19:1-3), but it is impossible to derive a natural theology on the basis of this revelation (1 Corinthians 1:21). [4] “…ever since the creation of the world, the invisible existence of God and his everlasting power have been clearly seen by the mind's understanding of created things. And so these people have no excuse…” (v. 20, NJB). [5] Science is irrational because it commits the fallacies of empiricism, induction, and affirming the consequent (experimentation). [6] See Vincent Cheung, Ultimate Questions, Presuppositional Confrontations, and Captive to Reason. [7] For example, a principle stating that every assertion must be empirically verified cannot itself be empirically verified. The principle self-destructs. [8] For instructions on biblical philosophy and apologetics, see Vincent Cheung, Ultimate Questions, Presuppositional Confrontations, Apologetics in Conversation, and Captive to Reason.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ Vincent Cheung. Systematic Theology (2010), p. 4-12.

#SystematicTheology #VincentCheung

0 notes

quotespicture · 6 years ago

Photo

https://quoteswithpicture.com/90-helpful-death-quotes-on-the-ways-we-grieve-2019/

90 Helpful Death Quotes On The Ways We Grieve (2019)

Looking for helpful death quotes that will bring you calm? These quotes about death will help remind you that each and everyone of us grieves in a different way.

Death is one of the most difficult things that any of us will have to deal with in our lives.

It is personal, unique, and very different from person to person.

Often times, people will judge the way someone else grieves because it is not the same as the way that they would personally mourn.

Some folks even go as far as to assume that someone is NOT anguished (by their definition), because they do not show it in a way that fits into this individual’s view of what grief should look like.

Here are some thoughts and quotes about death, as well as the unique view we each take of it.

Inspirational Death Quotes About Mourning

1.) “Guilt is perhaps the most painful companion to death.”- Elisabeth Kubler-Ross

2.) “You will lose someone you can’t live without, and your heart will be badly broken, and the bad news is that you never completely get over the loss of your beloved. But this is also the good news.

They live forever in your broken heart that doesn’t seal back up. And you come through. It’s like having a broken leg that never heals perfectly — that still hurts when the weather gets cold, but you learn to dance with the limp.” – Anne Lamott

3.) “There is something you must always remember. you are braver than you believe, stronger than you seem, and smarter than you think.”- Winnie the Pooh

4.) “If I can see pain in your eyes, then share with me your tears. If I can see joy in your eyes, then share with me your smile.” – Santosh Kalwar

5.) “Deep grief sometimes is almost like a specific location, a coordinate on a map of time. When you are standing in that forest of sorrow, you cannot imagine that you could ever find your way to a better place.

But if someone can assure you that they themselves have stood in that same place, and now have moved on, sometimes this will bring hope.” – Elizabeth Gilbert, author of Eat, Pray, Love

6.) “And we wept that one so lovely should have a life so brief.” – William Cullen Bryant

7.) “There is an hour, a minute – you will remember it forever – when you know instinctively on the basis of the most inconsequential evidence, that something is wrong.

You don’t know – can’t know – that it is the first of a series of “wrongful” events that will culminate in the utter devastation of your life as you have known it.”- Joyce Carol Oates, A Widow’s Story

8.) “When a friend of Abigail and John Adams was killed at Bunker Hill, Abigail’s response was to write a letter to her husband and include these words, ‘My bursting heart must find vent at my pen.’” – David McCullough

9.) “A feeling of pleasure or solace can be so hard to find when you are in the depths of your grief. Sometimes it’s the little things that help get you through the day.

You may think your comforts sound ridiculous to others, but there is nothing ridiculous about finding one little thing to help you feel good in the midst of pain and sorrow!” – Elizabeth Berrien, Creative Grieving: A Hip Chick’s Path from Loss to Hope

Beautiful Yet Profound Sayings and Quotes about Death

10.) “When your fear touches someone’s pain, it becomes pity. When your love touches someone’s pain, it becomes compassion.” – Stephen Levine

11.) “Anything that’s human is mentionable, and anything that is mentionable can be more manageable. When we can talk about our feelings, they become less overwhelming, less upsetting, and less scary.

The people we trust with that important talk can help us know that we are not alone.”- Fred Rogers

12.) “The reality is that we don’t forget, move on, and have closure. But rather we honor, we remember, and incorporate our deceased children and siblings into our lives in a new way. In fact, keeping memories of your loved one alive in your mind and heart is an important part of your healing journey.” – Harriet Schiff, author of The Bereaved Parent

13.) “What we have once enjoyed deeply we can never lose. All that we love deeply becomes a part of us.” – Helen Keller

14.) “She was no longer wrestling with the grief, but could sit down with it as a lasting companion and make it a sharer in her thoughts.” – George Eliot

15.) “Three things in human life are important: The first is to be kind. The second is to be kind. And the third is to be kind.” – Henry James

16.) “We can endure much more than we think we can; all human experience testifies to that. All we need to do is learn not to be afraid of pain. Grit your teeth and let it hurt. Don’t deny it, don’t be overwhelmed by it. It will not last forever. One day, the pain will be gone and you will still be there.” – Harold Kushner, When All You’ve Ever Wanted Isn’t Enough

17.) “Only people who are capable of loving strongly can also suffer great sorrow, but this same necessity of loving serves to counteract their grief and heals them.” – Leo Tolstoy

18.) “Honest listening is one of the best medicines we can offer the dying and the bereaved.” – Jean Cameron (dying of cancer)

Helpful Quotes About Death of A Loved One

19.) “When he died, all things soft and beautiful and bright would be buried with him.” ― Madeline Miller, The Song of Achilles

20.) “But she wasn’t around, and that’s the thing when your parents die, you feel like instead of going into every fight with backup, you are going into every fight alone.” ― Mitch Albom, For One More Day

21.) “Sadly enough, the most painful goodbyes are the ones that are left unsaid and never explained.” ― Jonathan Harnisch, Freak

22.) “The death of a beloved is an amputation.” — C. S. Lewis

23.) “For as long as the world spins and the earth is green with new wood, she will lie in this box and not in my arms. “— Lurlene McDaniel

24.) “If the people we love are stolen from us, the way to have them live on is to never stop loving them.” —James O’Barr

25.) “When you are sorrowful look again in your heart, and you shall see that in truth you are weeping for that which has been your delight.“ – Kahlil Gibran

26.) “Unable are the loved to die. For love is immortality.” – Emily Dickinson

27.) “Perhaps they are not the stars, but rather openings in Heaven where the love of our lost ones pours through and shines down upon us to let us know they are happy.” – Unknown

28.) “What is lovely never dies, but passes into other loveliness.” – Thomas Bailey

More Uplifting Death Quotes

29.) “You give yourself permission to grieve by recognizing the need for grieving. Grieving is the natural way of working through the loss of a love. Grieving is not weakness nor absence of faith. Grieving is as natural as crying when you are hurt, sleeping when you are tired or sneezing when your nose itches. It is nature’s way of healing a broken heart.” – Doug Manning

30.) “For some moments in life there are no words.”- David Seltzer, Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (1971 film adaptation)

30.) “Death is not the greatest loss in life. The greatest loss is what dies inside us while we live.” – Norman Cousins

31.) “One day your life will flash before your eyes. Make sure it’s worth watching.” – Unknown

32.) “Some people are so afraid to die that they never begin to live.” – Henry van Dyke

33.) “It is as natural to die as it is to be born.” – Francis Bacon

34.) “All men think that all men are mortal but themselves.” – Edward Young

35.) “To fear death is to misunderstand life.” – Unknown

Comforting quotes about death

36.) “Why should I fear death? If I am, death is not. If death is, I am not. Why should I fear that which cannot exist when I do?”—Epicurus

37.) “If life must not be taken too seriously, then so neither must death”—Samuel Butler

38.) “Death can come at any age, but the pride of life fools a person into thinking that day is far away.” – John Buttrick

39.) “None of us knows the day of our death. However, if we knew that death is actually our acquisition, we would remove the fear of death from our lives.” – Sunday Adelaja

40.) “It is the secret of the world that all things subsist and do not die, but retire a little from sight and afterwards return again.”—Ralph Waldo Emerson

41.) “Death is but a door, time is but a window. I’ll be back!”—Ghostbusters II

42.) “Death is nature’s way of saying, ‘Your table is ready.’”— Robin Williams

43.) “Men fear death, as if unquestionably the greatest evil, and yet no man knows that it may not be the greatest good.” – William Mitford

44.) “I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it.”— Mark Twain

45.) “The truth I have been seeking — this truth is Death. Yet Death is also a seeker. Forever seeking me. So — we have met at last. And I am prepared. I am at peace.”— Bruce Lee

Quotes about death of a friend

46.) “We go to the grave of a friend saying, “A man is dead,” but angels throng about him saying, “A man is born.” – Henry Ward Beecher

47.) “The death of a friend is equivalent to the loss of a limb.” – German Proverb

48.) “Those we love never truly leave us, Harry. There are things that death cannot touch.” ― Jack Thorne

49.) “But fate ordains that dearest friends must part.” – Edward Young

50.) “This passion, and the death of a dear friend, would go near to make a man look sad.” – William Shakespeare

51.) “Even the best of friends cannot attend each other’s funeral.” – Kehlog Albran

52.) “You cannot stop loving your friend because he’s dead, especially if he was better than anyone alive, you know?”-Jerome Salinger

53.) “When our friends are alive, we see the good qualities they lack; dead, we remember only those they possessed.” – Jean Antoine Petit-Senn

Inspirational quotes about death

54.) “If you ever lose someone dear to you, never say the words they’re gone. They’ll come back.” ― Prince

55.) “How can the dead be truly dead when they still live in the souls of those who are left behind?”—Carson McCullers

56.) “Death is a challenge. It tells us not to waste time. It tells us to tell each other right now that we love each other.” Leo Buscaglia

57.) “We all die. The goal isn’t to live forever, the goal is to create something that will.”— Chuck Palahniuk

58.) “I am prepared to meet my Maker. Whether my Maker is prepared for the great ordeal of meeting me is another matter.”— Winston Churchill

59.) “Death is something inevitable. When a man has done what he considers to be his duty to his people and his country, he can rest in peace.”— Nelson Mandela

60.) “Remembering that you are going to die is the best way I know to avoid the trap of thinking you have something to lose.”— Steve Jobs

Quotes about death to bring you calm

61.) “No one really knows why they are alive until they know what they’d die for.” – Martin Luther King Jr

62.) “I’m not afraid of death because I don’t believe in it. It’s just getting out of one car, and into another.” – John Lennon

63.) “A fact of life we all die. But the positive impact you have on others will be a living legacy.” – Catherine Pulsifer

64.) “I want to be thoroughly used up when I die for the harder I work the more I live. I rejoice in life for its own sake.” – George Bernard Shaw

65.) “No one here gets out alive.” – Jim Morrison

66.) “Death is an ending. Death is a closing. Death is idle words in the ebb and flow of life.”- Elizabeth Edwards

67.) “To live in the hearts we leave behind is not to die.” – Thomas Campbell

68.) “Life asked death, ‘Why do people love me but hate you?’ Death responded, ‘Because you are a beautiful lie and I am a painful truth.”—Author unknown

69.) “I would rather die a meaningful death than to live a meaningless life.” –Corazon Aquino

70.) “I am not afraid of death, I just don’t want to be there when it happens.” – Woody Allen

Death quotes to calm you

71.) “While I thought that I was learning how to live, I have been learning how to die.” – Leonardo da Vinci

72.) “Death is not the end of life; it is the beginning of an eternal journey.” – Debasish Mridha

73.) “Not only is death inevitable; death is necessary for us to inherit the new life we are to enjoy in Christ.” – Max Lucado

74.) “Death is nothing else but going home to God, the bond of love will be unbroken for all eternity.” – Mother Teresa

75.) “To die will be an awfully big adventure.” – Peter Pan

76.) “Death is only the end if you assume the story is about you”—Welcome to Night Vale

77.) “The boundaries which divide Life from Death are at best shadowy and vague. Who shall say where the one ends, and the other begins?”—Edgar Allan Poe

78.) “Death is nothing, but to live defeated and inglorious is to die daily.” –Napoleon Bonaparte

79.) “Life is for the living. Death is for the dead. Let life be like music. And death a note unsaid.” – Langston Hughes

80.) “Good men must die, but death cannot kill their names.” – Proverb

Other profound death quotes for loved ones

81.) “The idea is to die young as late as possible.” – Ashley Montagu

82.) “Life is like a very short visit to a toy shop between birth and death.” – Desmond Morris

83.) “It is nothing to die. It is frightful not to live.” – Victor Hugo

84.) “The day which we fear as our last is but the birthday of eternity.” – Seneca

85.) “As soon as you’ll realize that it was a gift, you’ll be free.” – Maxime Lagacé

86.) “Death is not the biggest fear we have; our biggest fear is taking the risk to be alive – the risk to be alive and express what we really are.” – Miguel Angel Ruiz

87.) “There is only one god and his name is Death, and there is only one thing we say to Death: ‘Not today’.” – Syrio Forel

89.) “After your death, you will be what you were before your birth.” – Arthur Schopenhauer

90.) “Death ends a life, not a relationship.” – Mitch Albom

What do you think about these quotes about death?

Something we should all remember is that each and everyone of us grieves in a different way.

Each one of us has a different memory and relationship with the person who has passed away.

While some grieve openly, (others keep it to themselves) and put on a stoic face.

The important lesson to learn is that death and grief are very unique and individual processes. What is right for us may not fit another.

Hopefully, these quotes about death will help you embrace and grieve as you need to, and let others do the same.

What do you think about these death quotes? Do you have any other inspirational quotes to add? Let us know in the comment section below.

#2019 #90 #Death #Grieve #Helpful #movie quotes #Quotes #Ways

0 notes

thepoeticwit · 6 years ago

Text

The Love of God: Love and Relationships CG Discussion

On 8 April 2019, IACT Christian Fellowship had a cell group discussion on Love and Relationships, following up from the Relationship Goals series sermon video that was watched in CF the previous week. The sermon was titled ‘Before the Person’ preached by Pastor Michael Todd from Transformation Church, and it was the first sermon that was the start of the entire Relationship Goals series. Pastor Michael Todd preached that often times we have no aim when it comes to relationships and we end up missing the mark and shooting all over the place, because we do not know what the prerequisites are to a relationship with someone else. Before we are given a person to journey with, we are first given by God a few things: a place, a purpose, provision, an identity, and parameters. Pastor Todd referenced Genesis 2, the creation of Adam—he was placed in the Garden of Eden; he was purposed to tend to the garden and work the ground; he was provided for his purpose, in all of the trees that God planted in the garden He gave the fruits to Adam for food and seed in them for new trees; in all of this his identity was realised, that being the image and likeness of God, all of earth and the creation on earth was to be ruled over by Adam as God’s authority on earth; Adam was finally given parameters, a command by God not to eat of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, to keep Adam secure. God gave all of this to Adam before He gave Adam a helper, that he should not be alone because it was not good. In the same manner we are made for relationship but are made as individuals first with our unique place, purpose, provision, and identity, with parameters God has placed to protect us.

Recognising the way we are made moves us to do what we ought to do, that we are made and purposed as individuals as well as for relationship. Being made in the image and likeness of God Himself, who in Himself is a community of co-equal Persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), causes us to seek and build relationships with one another. But what if we do not realise this? This would be due to the distortion of sin that is evident in our broken distorted human nature. Why we cannot fully comprehend, what more experience the true meaning of love, is because we are blinded by our sinful nature to view love as something else. We can say a lot of things when it comes to love. For instance: “I love my Mom”, or “I love my dog”, or “I love pizza”. We say ‘love’ very loosely like it could mean anything (if you love your mother with the same love you love your pizza with, your mother will be disappointed). Yet, we know there is a different kind of love when it is expressed relationally with other human beings—usually this is expressed in mainly five ways called “love languages” which include words of affirmation, acts of service, quality time, giving gifts, and physical touch. The ancient Greek philosophers understood relational love in four major categories: Agape (the love of God, unconditional, sacrificial), Philia or Phileo (deep friendship or brotherly love), Storge (familial, instinctive, protective love) and Eros (romantic or sexual love). In general understanding (and according to Google dictionary, which I would have to use as representative of the world’s definition of love) love is described as “an intense feeling of deep affection” (like the affection a parent feels for their child), “a great interest and pleasure in something” (like a man’s love for football), and yet also to “feel deep affection or sexual love for someone”. To the world, love is merely a feeling for people or things that one likes, but it is definitely so much more.

In Christian terms, the highest form of love or charity is Agape love. Agape is also known as the love of God for man, and of man for God. Agape love is the kind of love that loves without any conditions, unaffected by feelings. Agape love is love that gives the most sacrifice for the good will of the other. It is willing the best for the other above your own. The perfect example of that Agape love is in Jesus Christ: he gave his life as a sacrifice to pay the death penalty for the sins of many so that believers will be justified before God, and resurrected from the grave to show that He has overcome death by His life and love. Let us take a look at some Scripture. In 1 John 4: 7-19, it says:

7 Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. 8 Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. 9 This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him. 10 This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. 11 Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. 12 No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us

13 This is how we know that we live in him and he in us: He has given us of his Spirit. 14 And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world. 15 If anyone acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God, God lives in them and they in God. 16 And so we know and rely on the love God has for us. God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them. 17 This is how love is made complete among us so that we will have confidence on the day of judgment: In this world we are like Jesus.

19 We love because he first loved us.

From the text, we can see the extent of God’s love from sending His Son Jesus Christ as an atoning sacrifice for our sins but not only that, He also gives us His Spirit to abide in us. And His promise is that we abide with Him, and God in us when we love others.

This love is unconditional in the sense that it is not conditional on feelings but rather the will to give others what they need. As Christians, the same is expected of us. We love not only our friends but also our enemies—it may not be Phileo love but it is with Agape love. How do we characterise Agape love? The apostle Paul writes about Agape love clearly in in 1 Corinthians 13:

1If I speak in the tongues[a] of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3 If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast,[b] but do not have love, I gain nothing.

4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

8 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. 11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. 12 For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

It is evident that the kind of love that Paul talks about is Agape love. The characteristics of love that Paul describes are not with feelings but verbs, actions, things of the will, and what can be seen is the character of Christ. It is with these characteristics that prove love (or this kind of love) to be worth everlasting. This is the love that without which all other gifts and works are brought to naught. This is the love that is constant, that proves the perfection that is coming when we cannot see it now. This is the love that never fails. “For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears.” This shows that whatever we know, experience, and give of the love we have is only in part and imperfect. “When I was a child, I talked like a child, though like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me” The love the world proclaims to be feelings of affection and the love we understand before knowing God’s love, is childish, whereas God’s love and the Agape love we show to others is mature.

To conclude, just as we need to mature in our person knowing the place, purpose, provision, identity and parameters God has set before we meet the person that is going to be out life partner, so we ought to mature in our thinking about what love really is so that we can have mature and fruitful relationships. Our love without God is only superficial and can only last for so long, whereas true love is realised when you anchor and root yourself in the source of Love—God who is love Himself. This kind of love proves to be everlasting. With this, relationships can prove to be long-lasting since it is in a love that is steadfast. (Bible verses cited are from the NIV translation)

#christian #love #relationships #philosophy #religion #Christianity #agape #agapelove #iactchristianfellowship #Train of Thought #thepoeticwit #writeblr #writer on tumblr

0 notes

dagwolf · 8 years ago

Text

Child Trump

The 25th Amendment Solution for Removing Trump (Ross Douthat)

When the World Is Led by a Child (David Brooks)

You know you’re in trouble when your party begins to prepare an excuse (a grand narrative) for no longer defending you. Apparently, Donald Trump is a child. Not that I believe impeachment is likely, but this 25th Amendment Solution the conservative establishment is composing may be potent. Conservatives have a strange relationship with the concept of childhood. Trump is too childish to patronize. Trump is not worthy. (Conveniently, this all ties into their complaints about him prior to his primary victory.)

The argument that Trump is too childish to understand he’s doing anything wrong, even too naive to understand what it means to take the oath of office is not at all about finding a way to find Trump guilty, not at all about blaming Trump. Conservatives want to absolve themselves of responsibility for backing Trump. They’d like us all to believe Trump is an unfortunate slip in judgement. But Trump is not a temporary error. He’s a logical result. The conservative establishment has backed Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, Ted Cruz, Mitt Romney: that’s how we’ve ended up with Donald Trump. Let’s not forget Ronald Reagan.

Anyway, Brooks floated the idea the other day that Donald Trump is childish and David-Brooks-In-Training, Ross Douthat, ran with the idea. The links are above. Breitbart, the Trump Propaganda Outlet, is mad as hell and not gonna take it anymore about establishment conservatives turning on Trump (link), but I only see this argument growing in popularity. Basically, this narrative Child Trump absolves the establishment. Trump is being turned into his own failure.

We’re only weeks away from conservatives turning on the alt-right and its supporters, and everybody will blame poor working class people, like they always do. Trump is already in cozy with evangelicals and white nationalists, so they’ll back him to the end. Alex Jones has been waiting for this.

Douthat writes,

There is, as my colleague David Brooks wrote Tuesday, a basic childishness to the man who now occupies the presidency. That is the simplest way of understanding what has come tumbling into light in the last few days: The presidency now has kinglike qualities, and we have a child upon the throne.

It is a child who blurts out classified information in order to impress distinguished visitors. It is a child who asks the head of the F.B.I. why the rules cannot be suspended for his friend and ally. It is a child who does not understand the obvious consequences of his more vindictive actions — like firing the very same man whom you had asked to potentially obstruct justice on your say-so.

A child cannot be president. I love my children; they cannot have the nuclear codes.

But a child also cannot really commit “high crimes and misdemeanors” in any usual meaning of the term. There will be more talk of impeachment now, more talk of a special prosecutor for the Russia business; well and good. But ultimately I do not believe that our president sufficiently understands the nature of the office that he holds, the nature of the legal constraints that are supposed to bind him, perhaps even the nature of normal human interactions, to be guilty of obstruction of justice in the Nixonian or even Clintonian sense of the phrase. I do not believe he is really capable of the behind-the-scenes conspiring that the darker Russia theories envision. And it is hard to betray an oath of office whose obligations you evince no sign of really understanding or respecting.

Which is not an argument for allowing him to occupy that office. It is an argument, instead, for using a constitutional mechanism more appropriate to this strange situation than impeachment: the 25th Amendment to the Constitution, which allows for the removal of the president if the vice president and a majority of the cabinet informs the Congress that he is “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office” and (should the president contest his own removal) a two-thirds vote by Congress confirms the cabinet’s judgment.

The Trump situation is not exactly the sort that the amendment’s Cold War-era designers were envisioning. He has not endured an assassination attempt or suffered a stroke or fallen prey to Alzheimer’s. But his incapacity to really govern, to truly execute the serious duties that fall to him to carry out, is nevertheless testified to daily — not by his enemies or external critics, but by precisely the men and women whom the Constitution asks to stand in judgment on him, the men and women who serve around him in the White House and the cabinet.

Read the things that these people, members of his inner circle, his personally selected appointees, say daily through anonymous quotations to the press. (And I assure you they say worse off the record.) They have no respect for him, indeed they seem to palpitate with contempt for him, and to regard their mission as equivalent to being stewards for a syphilitic emperor.

It is not squishy New York Times conservatives who regard the president as a child, an intellectual void, a hopeless case, a threat to national security; it is people who are self-selected loyalists, who supported him in the campaign, who daily go to work for him. And all this, in the fourth month of his administration.

26 notes · View notes

eng251unvoicedthoughts · 5 years ago

Text

To all the seculars:

Marcus Aurelius, Roman emperor, wrote Meditations, thoughts on stoic philosophy between 161- 180AD. Although this book tends to be more popular amongst seculars than the Bible, the amount of similarities between the two books is unexpected.

“You entered the world as a part, and you will vanish back into that which brought you to birth; or rather, you will be received back into its generative reason through a process of change” (Aurelius 26). This strikes similarity with John: 3 in The Bible when Jesus is speaking to Nicodemus, ruler of the Jews. “Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God” to which Nicodemus answers, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born?” (p. 1328).

“Rarely is a person seen to be in a bad way because he has failed to attend to what is happening in someone else’s soul, but those who fail to pay careful attention to the motions of their own souls are bound to be in a wretched state” (Aurelius 12). When Jesus is preaching the Sermon on the Mount St. Mathew 7: 3, the same concept is taught, “And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?” (p. 1197).

Another comparison between the two accords can be made regarding Aurelius’s description of Maximus in his last days, “How he behaved to the tax-collector at Tusculum who asked for his forgiveness, and his general conduct in such matters. He was never harsh, or implacable, or overbearing-” (Aurelius 8). This is similar to the forgiveness shown in The Bible when Jesus is giving the parable of the self- righteous pharisee and the humbled publican. Within St Luke 18: 12-14 it reads, “I fast twice in the week I give tithes of all that I possess. And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner” (p. 1308). Both stories hold the emphasized motif of being kind to someone that debt is owed to.

At this point throughout Aurelius’s writings I begin thinking that Meditations, to me, reads as a characterless version of The Bible and in doing so, provides a stripped version of religion down to the basic beliefs of spirituality. Sam Harris, author of Waking Up: A Guide to Spirituality Without Religion explains the taboo structure behind defining or even comparing spirituality to religion, “They don’t always point to the same underlying reality- and when they do, they don’t do it equally well. Nor are all these teachings equally suited for export beyond the cultures that first conceived them… In one sense, all religions and spiritual practices must address the same reality- because people of all faiths have glimpsed many of the same truths” (Harris 20). Harris goes on to explain that the fact that many religions have quoted from or adopted other religion’s beliefs, testifies that human interconnections outweigh the strength of religion. I find the ties between these two blatantly different accounts beautiful and a witness of the similarities between all human hearts and intellect.

To all the religious Netflix lovers:

Waking Up: A Guide to Spirituality Without Religion by Sam Harris offers the audience methods of meditation to serve as proxy of religion. As the title of the book would suggest, spirituality is brought to the forefront, allowing the reader to delve into their own spirituality while questioning the methods of religion. Referenced in the annotation for Educated: A Memoir, Harris explains the perceived deception that can happen within hierarchies of religion, “A relationship with a guru, or indeed with any expert, tends to run along authoritarian lines. You don’t know what you need to know, and the expert presumably does; that’s why you are sitting in front of him in the first place (Harris 159).

I recently was able to watch a couple episodes of Tiger King. Although I don’t fully understand the hype it’s generated, I couldn’t help but draw comparisons between the show, religion, and spirituality.

The staff working on these cat farms are paid $100 an hour, so other than working with exotic animals, why would they stay?

On Carole Baskin’s farm, she has organized a hierarchy through her employees through the color of shirts they wear. The longer they’ve worked there, the higher ranking of shirt they’re given, and the more attention received from Carole Baskin. This reminded me of the levels of priesthood within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Similar levels are given to the young women within the church as they progress through their teenage years. By being recognized through these levels, people are more likely to stay in particular organizations or cults.

Another element that stood out was the admittance to luring in those that only have that job as their last resort. They are in desperate need financially, emotionally or both. How many religious members are using their beliefs or their religious community as a refuge from what they’re dealing with and sometimes, because of this, refuse to believe anything else?

Within Marcus Aurelius’s Meditations, it reads, “Let this saying of Epicurus come to your aid, that ‘pain is neither unendurable nor everlasting, if you keep its limits in mind and do not add to it through your own imagination’. And remember this too, that many disagreeable feelings are really just the same as pain although we do not perceive them to be so-” (Aurelius 67). Harris writes about pain and the customary quality of pain being perceived as negative until it is suddenly associated to growth, such as after a workout. Harris goes on to write about the emotional difference it would make if people regularly associated all pain with progression.

One of Joe Exotic’s employees ends up losing their arm due to a tiger attack. Although her arm ends up needing to be amputated, she jumps right back into work after her surgery. She did this so that Joe Exotic’s business wouldn’t face the repercussions of her injury. How many times do people subconsciously force themselves to believe in a prayer or a blessing given to them because brief disappointment is better than no longer having something to believe in?

To all members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints:

Within Educated: A Memoir by Tara Westover, Westover outlines some of her earliest memories growing up in Idaho as a Latter-Day-Saint. Emphasis is placed on the eccentrics of her family due to a self-inflicted sheltered life and unconventional religious views. Although Westover disclaims her experiences to have any affiliation with the church itself, being a Mormon that grew up in rural Idaho as well, I recognized similarities between our lives that should be addressed. To preface these similarities, I’ll first shed some light on the parallels that can be drawn between Waking Up: A Guide to Spirituality Without Religion by Sam Harris and Educated: A Memoir. Harris unveils an authoritative manipulation approach within religion. The “self-deception” and “exploited trust” one is susceptible to when being taught by a spiritual teacher can be due merely to the setup of them being the intellectual superior in that given situation. “The bishop and I met every Sunday until that spring. To me he was a patriarch with authority over me, but he seemed to surrender that authority the moment I passed through his door” (Westover 200). Although Westover paints her bishop in a more forgiving light, the fact that he had authority over her is not shied away from, it is written barefaced to help explain the gaping hierarchy. The hierarchy within the Bishop’s office followed her into her own home. Westover was abused mentally and physically by her older brother and mentally by her father. Nobody within the household would stand up to either male figure, even Westover’s mother was described many times to back down to the will of her father due to it being “a man’s house”. Although my family is very loving now and I am very fortunate, my household was once abusive as well, leaving my mother, my two older brothers, and me running from my father, staying with different friends of my mother’s to avoid my father finding us. Maybe this is a coincidence and has nothing to do with the religion of my father, but I’ve always wondered if the hierarchy of males within the Mormon church has swayed the treatment of the women. Westover explains some of the teachings within the Latter-Day Saint church, “As a child I’d been taught-by my father but also in Sunday school that in the fullness of time God would restore polygamy, and in the afterlife, I would be a plural wife” (Westover 245). I, as well as most women within the church I’m sure, have always taken issue with this. Once, my sophomore year of college I asked my Bishop if it were reversed, and the men were told that in heaven they would be plural husbands to their wives, if he would still believe in the faith, to which he replied along the lines of, “Yes, if that were God’s will”. If the doctrine were changed, I honestly don’t see as many men being members of the church and I also don’t think sexism- against women, would be as prevalent. Harris writes of the account of Tibetan lama Chogyam Trungpa where he orders a young girl to be stripped of her clothing and paraded around. While this is sexual assault, Harris writes that Trungpa’s followers viewed this occurrence as “a spiritual teaching meant to subdue their egos” (Harris 160). Within The Last Podcast On the Left with Ben Kissel, Henry Zebrowski, and Marcus Parks also tackle a time when Latter-Day Saint prophet, Joseph Smith safeguarded his way through illegal, degrading actions. According to their findings, Joseph had an affair on his wife and was caught doing so, before announcing his revelation for polygamy. However, members of the Latter-Day Saint faith are told his reasons for polygamy were to ensure celestial glories for the women of that time since there were more women than men and the women would need to be sealed. How many other teachings of the church have subtly quieted women into uncomfortable acceptance? If not careful, will certain hierarchies within religions translate to feelings of superiority within the home?

Sources:

Aurelius, Marcus, et al. Meditations: Oxford University Press, 2011.

Bible: King James Version. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, 1979.

Harris, Sam. Waking up: a Guide to Spirituality without Religion. Simon & Schuster Paperbacks, 2015.

Kissel, Ben, et al. “Episode 378: Mormonism Part I - When You're Here You're Family.” Castbox, The Last Podcast on the Left, 2019, castbox.fm/episode/Episode-378%3A-Mormonism-Part-I---When-You%E2%80%99re-Here-You%E2%80%99re-Family-id1383024-id177828673.

Westover, Tara. Educated: a Memoir. Random House, 2018.

1 note · View note

dalsy-l · 5 years ago

Text

Smoke and mirrors: Willy Clarkson and the role of disguises in inter-war England.

MLA style: "Smoke and mirrors: Willy Clarkson and the role of disguises in inter-war England.." The Free Library. 2007 Journal of Social History 04 Nov. 2019 https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Smoke+and+mirrors%3a+Willy+Clarkson+and+the+role+of+disguises+in...-a0162457471

Questions of identity and disguise certainly fascinated late nineteenth and early twentieth-century English culture. A society made anxious by shifting class, gender, and racial relationships was naturally preoccupied by dress and role playing, by visual codes and clues. One has only to recall the stratagems used by those in positions of power to penetrate the underworld. This was the great age of "slumming" by members of the middle and upper classes including James Greenwood, Jack London, Beatrice Webb, and last but not least George Orwell. In the world of fiction Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes and E. W. Hornung's Raffles perhaps best embodied the elite's conviction that gentlemen detectives could easily "pass" as workers.

Homosexuals, who necessarily had to lead double lives, were perhaps the most appreciative of the multiplicity of roles one individual could play

"We are what we wear," was Virginia Woolf's optimistic view, "and, therefore, since we can wear anything, we can be anyone."

At the turn of the century disguises empowered, frightened, and amused. The anxious repeatedly warned the naive that confidence men and painted women employed false fronts to entrap their victims. (11) Yet in the music halls and early movies male and female impersonators who toyed with gender expectations and "swells" who appropriated the dress and manners of gentility were a staple form of entertainment. (12) In the arts the younger generation was tired of the nineteenth century's fixation on realism. In "A Defense of Cosmetics" which appeared in the Yellow Book in 1894 Max Beerbohm presented the fin-de-siecle interest in makeup as evidence of a cultural revolution. "Artifice must queen it once more in the town ... For behold! The Victorian era comes to an end and the day of sancta simplicitas is quite ended. The old signs are here and the portents to warn the seer that we are ripe for a new epoch of artifice."

"I am the great Clarkson," was the favorite boast of William Berry Clarkson, (better known simply as Willy or Willie Clarkson) a familiar theatrical personality of early twentieth-century London. Were he alive today he would no doubt be disappointed to discover that he has been almost completely forgotten, even by the historians of the theater.

A key complaint of those made anxious by a more urbanized, anonymous world was that it was increasingly easy for outsiders to assume false fronts. Clarkson actually made his living in providing just such deceptive dressing and accordingly my hope in tracing his activities was to gain insights into the process of how and why particular notions of sex, race, and respectability were "forged."

a man who knew more than most of the importance of being elusive

it was a skilled trade, nineteenth-century wigs being made of human hair which had to be purchased on the continent. (15) Clarkson would be best known as a wig-maker but extended his line into make-up and costumes.

He was always the self-promoter. His apartment was full of portraits of himself and inscribed photographs from the leading actors testifying to their friendship. When he was asked to write a chapter titled "On Making-Up" for A Guide to the Stage he took the opportunity of puffing the quality of "Clarkson's Lillie Powder" and his "well-known Kleeno" which, he boasted, was "used by Sir Henry Irving and most other theatrical celebrities."

supplying the wardrobes for the private plays and entertainments that Queen Victoria had her children and courtiers put on at Windsor and Balmoral. (18) Edward VII appointed him "Royal Perruquier and Costumier."

At the peak of his career he purportedly had on hand 50,000 costumes and on occasion employed a staff of close to a hundred.

he had a reputation for being pompous and vane. For half a century he was a fixture at every theatrical event, gossiping in his lisping Cockney accent to the cream of London society who had made of him a sort of pet. (25) His betters enjoyed laughing at the nervous, "queer little man."

Clarkson's funeral service took place at St. Paul's cathedral, his friends placing a "wig" of white flowers on the alter step.

It was only after his death that contemporaries found themselves asking "Who was Willy Clarkson?" It was, of course, fitting that a man who was an expert in wigs and make-up might not always show his true face.

Women of easy virtue who wished to pass themselves off as ladies were also reputed to have availed themselves of his services. In one of Marie Lloyd's music hall songs a prostitute was portrayed "bedecked with make-up and a wig from Clarkson's, the theatrical supplier."

Clarkson provided costumes and disguises for a variety of reasons and took his role as costumier and perruquier seriously. "Before an actor can act a part thoroughly," he asserted, "he must look it, and he cannot look it unless he knows how to make up." (68) The question which was posed after his death was, did he disguise himself? Those who wrote about him all mentioned that there were mysterious or unexplained aspects of his life. Did he take a personal as well as a business interest in the playing of roles?

Clarkson was a supplier of "nigger-black" and burnt cork for making up minstrels and nose-paste and crepe hair for "all the stage Jews." (93) He prided himself on being a friend of Beerbohm Tree whose portrayals of Fagin, Shylock, and Svengali continued to reinforce Jewish stereotypes on the London stage.

Homosexual acts could be punished by a two year prison term and the discreet accordingly tried not to draw attention to themselves. The barrister and legal historian C. E. Bechhofer Roberts believed that Clarkson was driven to arson because of his need to obtain hush money.

the theatre has been a safe-house for unconventional behavior. Although its public nature has required it to endorse norms, its space is specially licensed to harbor unorthodox individuals and otherwise inadmissible conduct. Commonly accepted reality may be inverted or parodied within this space." (97) Yet, if the London stage was quite liberal, everyone recalled how a charge of indecency had so swiftly destroyed Oscar Wilde's brilliant career. Noel Coward, for example, took great care to avoid any open avowal of his sexual orientation for fear that it might endanger his pursuit of fame and fortune.

Was Willy Clarkson an arsonist? a Jew? a homosexual? It is a testimony to his cunning that it is difficult to answer. Did it make any difference if he was any or all of these? He certainly thought so, as did respectable society. Arson was, of course, a crime but so too were homosexual practices. And evidence of flare ups of anti-Semitism at home and abroad necessarily worried English Jews. In a world in which identities--be they racial or sexual--took on an ever greater importance so too would the anxieties of those who hoped to "pass." Clarkson's story thus highlights the enormous importance modern societies attribute to questions of identity and disguise. It throws into relief several key cultural preoccupations of the inter-war period. The Clarkson case particularly reminds us how, in the twentieth century, both courts and blackmailers policed and punished sexual deviants. It foregrounds the teeming metropolis as the site where such encounters would most likely occur.

0 notes

marcusssanderson · 6 years ago

Text

80 Helpful Death Quotes On The Ways We Grieve