#i feel like earth makes the most sense but i see him as part aboriginal and the water tribe has inspo from native americans

[lecliss]

Started properly watching Atla cuz I'm bored out of my mind and going stir crazy and it's like, The Thing rn since its on netflix now(which I dont have so I'm committing a crime, everyone shush) and ofc the first thing I do once I get into it is start thinking about a YGO GX avatar au.

[poetlcs]

books I’ve read in 2020 (so far) + their ratings

non-fiction

crossing the line: australia’s secret history in the timor sea by kim mcgrath: important research into australia’s theft of oil in timor leste. didn’t rate

hood feminism: notes from the women that a movement forgot by mikki kendall: essay collection dissecting modern feminism, pointing out the exclusionary practices of mainstream feminism and offering new frameworks through which feminism should operate. really recommend. didn’t rate

the uninhabitable earth: life after warming by david wallace-wells: good introduction to environmentalism and the climate disaster. a little too introductory for me but good for those new to the topic. ★★★

homo deus: a brief history of tomorrow by yuval noah harari: it is simply not Sapiens nor as good as Sapiens. Looks at potentials for our future but, thought it was a little poorly researched. Some parts were still interesting though.  ★★★

SPQR: a history of ancient rome by mary beard: a little dense at times, but super interesting and detailed look at ancient rome. enjoyed it a lot. ★★★★

sister outsider by audre lorde: collection of audre lorde’s essays and speeches, about feminism, lesbianism, the queer community, being Black and a lesbian ect ect. outstanding, important collection anyone interested in intersectional feminism must read. ★★★★★

all boys aren’t blue by george m. johnson: memoir about johnson’s experiences growing up as a Black gay boy in a poor neighbourhood. Very poignant memoir, written in such accessible language which I liked. guarenteed to get you emotional, another one everyone should read. didn’t rate because it’s so highly personal that felt wrong but highly recommend. 

under a biliari tree i born by alice biari smith: memoir by an Aboriginal Australian detailing her life growing up learning traditional Aboriginal ways and how the lives of Indigenous Australian’s have been impacted through the years, specifically in Western Australia. Probably more aimed at school age people but still a 101 I think many Australian’s (and non Australian’s) can benefit from. didn’t rate 

classics

maurice by e.m forster: gay man coming of age story in college + themes around class and sexuality. forster’s end note saying he thought it imperative to write a happy ending because we need that in fiction, i love him. ★★★★★

emma by jane austen: read before seeing the movie. loved emma as a character but thought this was okay compared to other Austen I’ve read. ★★★½

perfume by patrick suskind: a man with an incredible sense of smell starts murdering young women to try and bottle their scent for a perfume. weirdest shit I ever read still don’t know how to feel about it. ★★★

the color purple by alice walker: follows the life of Celie, an Black woman living in rural Georgia. deals with her relationship with her sister Nettie, her lover Shug Avery, and with God. this tore my heart to shreds absolutely everyone must read it, like even just for the beautiful writing ALONE. ★★★★

a study in scarlet by arthur conan doyle: its sherlock holmes #1 no further explanation required. not my fave sherlock story, was the weird morman subplot needed? ★★½

dracula by bram stoker: yeah vampires!! this was way easier to read and also way funnier than I expected. we STAN gothic aesthetics and Miss Mina Harker here. ★★★★

fantasy

the diviners by libba bray: teens with magical powers/abilities solving mysteries in 1920′s new york. reread. ★★★★★

lair of dreams by libba bray: the diviners #2. reread. ★★★★½

before the devil breaks you by libba bray: the diviners #3. reread. best one in the series hands down.  ★★★★★

the king of crows by libba bray: waited so long for this series ender and it let me down lol. ★★★

clockwork princess by cassandra clare: the infernal devices #3. dont @ me this is my comfort reread series and I was travelling. ★★★★★

we unleash the merciless storm by tehlor kay mejia: we set the dark on fire #2. latinx inspired fantasy about overthrowing a corrupt government with an f/f romance. didn’t like as much as book one but still good, BEST girlfriends ever. ★★★½

wolfsong by t.j klune: basically feral gay werewolves and witches living in a town together. feels like a teen wolf episode but way more gayer. despite that hated the writing style and I don’t like age gap romances so yay the concept no the execution.  ★★

the fate of the tearling by erika johansan: the tearling #3. finally finished this series, dunno why everyone loathes the ending so much I thought it was cool. underrated fantasy because it’s very unique. ★★★★

girl, serpent, thorn by melissa bashardoust: persian inspired fantasy about a girl who is cursed by a div to kill anyone she touches. has an f/f romance. bashardoust writes the most aesthetically rich settings I love her. ★★★★

crier’s war by nina varela: reread. f/f enemies to lovers where the main character poses as a handmaiden in order to try and murder the princess whose father killed her family. PEAK gay content literally a modern classic. ★★★★★

we hunt the flame by hafsah faizal: I was so disinterested in this book I barely can describe the plot but basically it’s a prince and a hunter who are enemies but are forced to go looking for this magical artifact together anyway it was boring.  ★

ghosts of the shadow market by cassandra clare + others: short story collection set in the shadowhunter world. probably the strongest of her collections but they just don’t hit the same as her full length books. didn’t rate. 

a storm of swords: part two by george r.r martin: a song of ice and fire #3. I WILL finish reading these books eventually i swear !! probably the best one yet though. ★★★★

amarah by l.l mcneil: world of linaria #3. high fantasy with politics, dragons, warring races. tolkein/asoiaf vibes if they had more women with agency. didn’t rate because I haven’t decided my feelings on the end yet. 

science fiction

This is How You Lose the Time War by Amal El-Mohtar and Max Gladstone: f/f enemies to lovers between spies on rival sides of a time war. good book but writing style wasn’t for me (others love this so eh take my opinion with a grain os salt:  ★★★

not your sidekick by c.b lee: main character is from a superhero family but has no powers herself, so she takes an internship working with a superhero corp. has an f/f romance with a villain character. so much fun and super cute

speculative fiction:

the deep by rivers solomon: speculative fiction wherein pregnant African women thrown overboard by slave ships gave birth to babies that became mermaids. main character holds all the memories of her people’s past but runs away after being unable to deal with the burden. about self discovery, intergenerational trauma and the burden of remembering. a little short imo but still all round excellent book ★★★★

how long ‘til black future month? by n.k jemisin: short story collection, many with an afro-futurism focus. hard to explain because there is such a wide variety of stories but this is an AMAZING collection. didn’t rate because I don’t like rating short story collections but wish more people would read it. 

mystery

the family upstairs by lisa jewell: woman inherits an english house and starts to unravel the secrets of a mass cult suicide that happened there years ago. loved it because it was wild. ★★★★★

the hand on the wall by maureen johnson: truly devious #3. boarding school mystery where the main character has to solve a murder that happened in the 1920s at her school while another mystery is happening in present time. my least favourite of the series but satisfying conclusion nonetheless. ★★★½

contemporary fiction

maybe in another life by taylor jenkins reid: dual timeline book showing the two outcomes of a decision the main character makes. cool concept but ultimately boring book because I didn’t care about the main character at all.  didn’t rate because I didn’t finish it. 

girl, woman, other by bernadine evaristo: vignette stories of various women whose lives are vaguely interconnected. incredibly well written with such vivid characters. deserves the hype. ★★★★

tin heart by shivan plozza: australian YA, the recipient of a heart transplant wishes to connect with the family of her donor, after she discovers the identity of her donor. good story but didn’t like the writing style. ★★★

a little life by hanya yanigahara: follows the life of a group of friends living in life, especially that of jude, a closed off and damaged man with a troubling past. a little too torture-porny/Tragic Gays but I cannot deny the author has a beautiful writing style and I went through all the emotions. didn’t rate

a girl like that by tanaz bhathena: explores the events leading up to the main character dying in a car crash. set in Jeddah, saudi arabia and explores expectations on women, feminism and expressions of sexuality and relationships between women during teenage years. kinda no good characters but I loved it for it’s messy depiction of teen girls (whilst not condemning them for this). underrated. ★★★★

little fires everywhere by celeste ng: drama in white american suburbs when a new family moves in and the neighbours start investigating their past. eh, I heard a lot about this and thought it was just okay. ★★★

stay gold by tobly mcsmith: trans boy decides to go stealth at his new school and falls for a cheerleader, georgia. about navigating being trans and definitely felt like it was written to educate cis people. it was okay but ultimately not my thing and not really the story I was looking for, even though I respect it being written by a trans author and still would recommend to certain people. ★★½

everything leads to you by nina lacour: main character and her best friend have to unravel a hollywood mystery, all while the main character is trying to get over her ex-girlfriend and find work as a set designer. f/f romance and loved the focus on movie making and the power of stories. ★★★½

the falling in love montage by ciara smyth: a girl meets another girl at a party, but she’s not looking to date due to the amount of family issues she has going on. so her and the girl decide to spend the summer having fun, renacting scenes from rom-coms, but never dating. awesome family dynamics and the relationship between the two girls was sweet also set in ireland which is fun. 

normal people by sally rooney: explores the relationship between connell and marianne, who meet in school, date secretly, and then are inexplicably drawn to each other for the rest of their lives. explores power dynamics, relationships, love and trust, and what we owe to eachother. great book, great mini-series, love it to bits. ★★★★★

the glass hotel by emily st john mandel: impossible to explain this book, but there’s a mystery about grafitti, a ponzi scheme and a character falling to their death on a boat under suspicious circumstances. honestly idk what happened in this book but I liked it. ★★★½

historical fiction

half of a yellow sun by chimamanda ngozi adichie: historical fiction about the biafran war loosely based on adichie’s family experiences. incredibly well written with an ending that punches you in the gut. ★★★★

hamnet by maggie o’farrell: explores the shakespeare family after the death of their child, Hamnet, from the plague, and how this leads to Shakespeare writing Hamlet. cool as fuck concept and boring as fuck book with such tropey female characters. ★★

all the light we cannot see by anthony doerr: WW2 fiction, dual perspective between a blind girl living in france and a german boy forced into nazi youth. I cannot believe this book is award winning it’s so boring and predictable and i reget the time i wasted on it. ★

poetry:

on earth we’re briefly gorgeous by ocean vuong: poetry memoir. vuong writes a letter to his illiterate mother, knowing she’ll never read it, exploring their relationship, his experiences growing up as second generation Vietnamese-American, and hers during the Vietnam War. My favorite book I’ve read so far this year, just too good to explain, genuinely just feel like everyone is better off for having read this. ★★★★★

currrently reading:

girls of storm and shadow by natasha ngan

meet me at the intersection: edited by rebecca lim & ambelin kwaymullina

stamped from the beginning: the definitive history of racist ideas in america by ibram x. kendi

get a life, chloe brown by talia hibbert

[automatismoateo]

My theology teacher failed me because she didn't like my truthful answers on the semester exam via /r/atheism

Submitted May 23, 2019 at 11:00PM by -SENDHELP- (Via reddit http://bit.ly/2WmPacH) My theology teacher failed me because she didn't like my truthful answers on the semester exam

This is going to be a LONG post, guys. It's pretty juicy tho. Names and stuff replaced with [REMOVED] for privacy.

​

My theology teacher emailed my parents and principal (sadly, I go to a private, Catholic school) and these are the contents of the email. I was pretty blunt, to be fair, but she wanted honesty and to be fair, the 9th commandment is to not lie, so what does she want me to do, bReAk tHe NiNtH cOmMaNdMeNt?

​

Mr. and Mrs. [REMOVED], I am writing you let you know that [REMOVED] made a 62.5 out of a 100 on his Theology exam, however, he could have passed had he answered his essay questions appropriately.  I know you would want to know that on the exam, students were asked to write three 500 word essays about different aspects of faith and Scripture based on concepts taught in this class.  Instead, [REMOVED] chose to write a 1500 word essay stating his opinions against every aspect of faith and Scripture that I have taught, including comparing the Bible to a book about "Mr. Rainbow Fish."  While I believe students are entitled to an opinion, I feel he has taken this too far and in a manner that is disrespectful and somewhat defiant.  I have made [REMOVED] aware, and I hope this will allow an opportunity for discussion at home.  I appreciate you support and encouragement.  Please let me know if you would like to discuss this further.   Here is the first essay that he wrote: The following should include a well-formed essay which includes at least 500 words about God's love for us as told through Scripture.  Answer all of the below questions in your essay.  The Bible is often referred to as "a love story from God."        (a)  What do we learn about real love, sacrificial love from Scripture.  Use specific examples.         (b)  How do we know we can trust the words in Scripture?  Weren't these men just fishermen?       (c)  Retell the story of Salvation History in your own words.  Your Answer:"Before writing this, I would like to make it clear that I am going to answer this question from an atheist's point of view. It is the last day in your class, and I figured at this point I might as well be completely honest about what I think about Christianity and the Bible etcetera. You probably want a certain answer, but I am going to answer honestly and with my own opinions.

A: Reading through the Bible, I do not see very many examples of true love. God apparently loves all of his creations equally, but he is perfectly fine kicking regular people out of their homes to make room for someone that he "equally" loves to move in. By this I am talking about when the Jews finished wandering in the desert for 40 years and God kicked the people living in the promised land already out. Also, let's talk about God making his people that he loves (more, apparently) walk in the desert for 40 years. In class, I've heard it explained that he did this in order to remove their egyptian ideals and gods and stuff from them so that they would trust him. He's omnipotent and omniscient, yes? He can always create the best situation possible with the least amount of harm to his creations that he loves, yes? Then why did force his people to wander in a desert for 40 years and basically just kill off (with old age) all of the ones that remembered things about egypt and still thought that thosegods might be real? Why couldn't he just wipe their memories, or something? He's God. He can do it. I've heard the excuse that it removes their free will, too. I don't believe that. If that's removing their free will, then forcing them to wander in the desert instead of letting them make their own decisions and forcing them to live in the "promised land" instead of letting them make their own decisions is removal of free will, too- much more so, in fact. There are endless situations just like this one in the Bible that make me doubt that God knows much about real love.

B: That's the thing actually. You can't trust the word in scripture. "well that's stupid, of course we can! It was written by God!" is probably what your immediate response to that statement was. That's the thing though: how do you know that it was God/ the holy spirit that inspired it? "Because it says so in the Bible" Is probably your answer for that one. Basically, this means that you read a book, the book says that it was written by God, therefore God wrote it and everything in it is undeniably true. Let's try a hypothetical situation, shall we? An archaeologist 2000 years in the future finds a book inside of a house that he dug up. He sees that it is titles "Mr. Rainbow Fish's Undeniable Guide to Get to the True Fish Tank" and opens it up to read it. He reads everything in it, the story of Mr. Rainbow Fish, what he did for his people, and what the archaeologist himselfhas to to in order to get to the True Fish Tank. The book also states that it was written by Mr. Rainbow Fish. The archaeologist sees this and thinks "everything in there must be true! Fish really must be intelligent and created people to be like guinea pigs in an experiment on earth! We have to worship the fish otherwise we won't find our way to the True Fish Tank!" He goes back home and tells all of his friends. Every single time he gets told that he can't trust what's written in it and it doesn't make sense anyways. His response is usually something like "Of course I can! It was written by Mr. Rainbow Fish!" His friends always ask him, "how do you know that Mr. rainbow Fish actually wrote it though?" and the response is always "because it says so right there in the book!" Do you see the similarities between the Bible and "Mr. Rainbow Fish's Undeniable Guide to Get to the True Fish Tank?" They're scarily similar. Moral of the story? Don't believe everything that you read. Things that affect your entire life and that you base your whole existence off of actually need proof. 

C: Salvation history. I'm guessing that you mean the whole Jesus thing, by this. Here's my retelling of it and (afterwards) an explanation about it: God saw Mary, a human, who was perfect because he made her this way (which apparently didn't affect her free will.) He sends an angel to approach her and tell her what is essentially, "My boss wants you to have his baby and there isn't really anything that you can do about it." (which apparently didn't affect her free will either) Mary basically has to agree to this happening, and gives birth to Jesus, who was father by Himself, who was ordered to Father Himself by the other Himself. I'm talking about the holy trinity, if it wasn't obvious. Jesus wanders around for a while, being human, growing up, and eventually gets older and starts a whole preaching thing. He gains a lot of followers, spreads a pretty decent message (even in my own opinion) and generally is a cool dude. Eventually though, because other people (the Jews of the time) were so wrapped up in their own religious values, they decided that it was perfectly morally right to murder someone because they said a few words that they didn't like ("I am God") or didn't relax on the sabbath. To me, neither of these things is worth murder, like, at all. But they did it anyway, and basically Jesus died for our sins, rose again, apostles spread the word, etcetera etcetera. Christians are all super thankful that he did that stuff for them, sacrificing his life and all. Except there are some serious issues with that. First of all, he didn't sacrifice his life. He was only planning on staying on Earth for a good 30 years or so anyways Even though he did die on the cross, he basically just took a 3 day long nap. Sure, it hurt being on the cross, but to him, a literal timelesscosmic being that created the universe, it was nothing and not even any real amount of time. It wasn't a sacrifice, it was just a show to make himself look good. There was no real need for Jesus to die on the cross anyways! God is all powerful, all knowing, and all other stuff etcetera. There was no actual reason for Jesus to have died on the cross when God was perfectly capable of essentially (for lack of a better metaphor) pulling a Thanos and snapping our sins away, then popping up in front of everyone globally at the same time and saying something along the lines of "Yo, dudes. I'm God, nice to meet you. I just saved your life because I removed your sins, and also you can stay with me in heaven forever and have fun and stuff. Cool, right?" It probably would have worked much better than trusting literally the most important message in the world to a few dudes who ran around the middle east trying to convince people that they weren't crazy. That leads me to my next can of worms. If the message was so important? Why just leave, like, literally every single thing that ever happened in the Bible in just the middle east? What about the other continents around the earth? What about even just the same continent but in other parts of it? According to the Bible (the church sort of says differently now, but the Bible also says you aren't allowed to give interpretive meaning- everything is literal and unchanging) those who don't worship God go to hell, even if they were unlucky enough to ever find out about him. What about the people below northern africa? What about Europe pre-Christianity-spreading-there? What about the aborigines? What about east Asian empires? What about native north americans? The list goes on and on and on. God condemned all of these people to suffer in hell for eternity just because he decided he didn't want to spread his message anywhere but the middle east.That's all for that one." *In his second essay, he refers to God as "selfish" and faith as being "all fake."  See below: The following should include a well-formed essay (which includes at least 500 words) about the early church comparing or contrasting it with your church today.  Answer all of the below questions in your essay.  (a) Why was the Temple important to the Jerusalem community after the exile? Give some of specific examples of how we know this. (b) What is the importance of worship spaces today?  Describe your church or a church where you have visited.  In what ways could you tell that this worship space is important to you or to the community.  (c) How might looking to "other gods" in our culture result in a spiritual exile from God?  How can our church building and church community help strengthen our spiritual identity?Your Answer:I've already written almost 1500 words and am tired of writing, so I'm just going to keep it simple here even if you take points off for it. Besides, these aren't as interesting to answer as the previous question anyways.

A: It was so important to them because it was a central unifying force for the Jewish people. They rebuilt it for the same reason that they stopped worshipping all of their other gods and limited it to just Yahweh (not even his wife!) You might not believe me, but look it up, it's a real thing. There is legitimate historical proof that "God" was only one of many ancient Jewish gods.

B: It's pretty much the same thing. It unifies people of said religion and is also basically a big advertisement for the religion. I don't go to church, but I've visited many and used to be forced to go to one. They all follow the same format- pews, altar, everything on it, etcetera. They were never important to me, but it was important to the people that went because it was pretty much their whole life. Even if (my personal opinion) they're wrong and it's all fake, it still matters to them.

C: God is selfish (aside from being perfect and all) and doesn't like when your life does anything but revolve completely around him (isn't that a pretty good example of limiting your free will? lol) so he will "exile" you. I can't answer that question as I don't believe in spirits, souls, etc. The answer you probably want is something like "come together, blah blah blah, etc etc"

Edit: parents are home, we haven't talked about it yet.

[travelerbypage]

Book Review: A Room Full of Bones

Book: A Room Full of Bones

Author: Elly Griffiths

Genre: Fiction/Mystery

Summary: When Ruth Galloway arrives to supervise the opening of a coffin containing the bones of a medieval bishop, she finds the museum's curator lying dead on the floor. Soon after, the museum wealthy owner is also found dead, in his stables. These two deaths could be from natural causes, but once again Ruth and DCI Harry Nelson cross paths during the investigation. When threatening letters come to light, events take an even more sinister turn. But as Ruth's friends become involved, where will her loyalties lie? As her convictions are tested, Ruth and Nelson must discover how Aboriginal skulls, drug smuggling, and the mystery of "The Dreaming" hold the answers to these deaths, as well as the keys to their own survival. -Mariner Books, 2012.

I'm sorry again for being so late in getting this review out. This book was very easy to read in terms of technical ability, but, in terms of enjoying it, this book was a trial.

I'm afraid I'll have to use spoilers this time in order to explain some of my problems with the book so if you don't want to be spoiled, you may not want to read this review. Also, there's going to be some heavy language in here.That being said, let's begin.

It's hard to describe my feelings about this book in a way that isn't completely unkind. To put it simply, if I thought Carolyn Hart's Dare to Die was the worst mystery novel I've ever read, I made a huge mistake. Dare to Die was better than this. I once again took the gamble of reading a book that's in the middle of a series. This time, I gambled poorly.

I'll begin with the tense that Griffiths chose to write in. She writes in simple present, which, to my memory, I have not encountered in a published novel in my life. It's possible that I may have encountered it in some novels I read as a child, but I highly doubt it. Regardless, it bothered me immensely. I felt like I was more of a omnipresent observer looking over the events of the story, rather than being immersed in it and feeling as if I was experiencing the events with the characters. Because of that, I felt absolutely no connection to the characters at all. I couldn't sympathize or empathize with any of the events in the story and that can be a huge problem when your audience can't even lose themselves in your story.

I'm also going to borrow from the Guest Column on Brian Klem's The Writer's Dig on The Pros and Cons of Writing a Novel in the Present Tense to help explain my issues with the choice of present tense for a mystery novel.

First, the Guest writer on Klem's column says that present tense restricts our ability to manipulate time. This is painfully obvious whenever Griffiths tries to talk about a past event. Instead of having the ability to seamlessly move between a memory/recollection and a present moment, she's restricted to talking about the memory in a way that sounds childish. It doesn't even sound like a memory - it sounds like it's something that is going on right now so it confuses the reader.

Next, the Guest writer says that it is more difficult to create complex characters using present tense.This is painfully true in this case. The characters in this story had no personality. Besides the fact that this wasn't even a mystery novel and more of a soap opera drama with a side helping of supernatural deus ex machina and a haphazardly constructed murder plot, the characters were one-dimensional and stereotypical. Ruth, the supposed main character of the novel, is barely involved in the mystery and is annoying to the point where removing her from the novel would've been an improvement. More on that later. She's the fish-out-of-water single mom who is torn between hating and desiring the baby's father. I believe she does her actual job only in one scene in the entire book. Nelson is the father of Ruth's one-night-stand-miracle-child torn between his desire for Ruth and his love for his wife. All of Nelson's co-workers are your standard cop drama investigators. We've got the hero-worshiper cop, the lady cop no one takes seriously and is undermined at every turn, the wise crack cop, and the coroner whose only purpose is to crack a witticism, explain how the victim died, and leave. Cathbad is the Drosselmeyer-like druid who turns out to be the ultimate deus ex machina. More on that later. All in all, these characters have no blood.

The most important note in relation to this story is that, as the guest writer says, the present tense can diminish suspense. A mystery novel's life blood requires suspense. When scary things were happening in the novel, particularly in the novel's climax, there was absolutely no feeling that there were stakes involved. There was no feeling of danger or urgency, even when two characters were being chased on a foggy estate by the culprit! The very idea of that is terrifying, but when written in present tense, I didn't get any sense of terror whatsoever. There were many scenes that could've been written better if the book was in past tense. I would've actually been more concerned and disturbed had there actually been some genuine suspense involved. You can't have a good mystery without good suspense and that's one of the many reasons this book was a bad mystery.  

Finally, the guest writer says that the use of present tense encourages us to include trivial events that serve no plot function simply because such events would actually happen in the naturalistic sequence of time. Reading this point made so many of the book's events make sense to me. I kept thinking, 'Why on earth is the author spending so much time on Ruth's morning routine with her kid than on the actual mystery? Why am I seeing so little of the solving of the mystery?' Like I said before, because the plot was more like a soap opera, the author spends little time on the actual solving of the mystery and more on Ruth and Nelson's daily routines. So much of the book was extra fluff that cutting it all away to only include information relative to the mystery would reduce the book to the size of a novella.

The most important thing though is that Griffiths doesn't show. She tells. Ruth feels this. Nelson thinks that. What happened to describing body language or writing actions that show how the character is thinking or feeling instead of just telling the reader? This also is a giant hint to me that the writer isn't very good. Normally, I can forgive that if the story is interesting enough, but it wasn't this time around.

Ruth as a character annoyed me a lot. She couldn't decide whether she wanted to be a strong, independent woman who don't need no man or a weepy, pining ex-lover who wants her one night stand to become more than that. Griffiths also tried WAY too hard to convince us that Ruth is an atheist. I get it Griffiths. Ruth is anti-religion because her parents are hardcore religious zealots. I don't need to be reminded of this every chapter. The more you say it, the more I'm thinking that Ruth is trying to convince herself that she hates religion more than it actually being a reality. It's not good writing when we have to be bashed over the head with this fact every chapter; sometimes multiple times in a chapter. Also, the cover literally says "A Ruth Galloway Mystery". How can it be a Ruth Galloway mystery when she doesn't even investigate or solve said mystery? This is the first (and only book) I've read in the series. Is she always a passive player like this or does she actually get involved in the mysteries of the previous books? If anyone knows, please feel free to tell me as I genuinely am curious.

As for the mystery itself...I think the mystery was figuring out what genre Griffiths decided to go with here since it couldn't honestly be called a mystery. The murders were a background to Ruth and Nelson's domestic troubles and they don't even do much in the way of the mystery. Nelson does more than Ruth, but he's ultimately deprived of the pleasure of solving the mystery because he falls mysteriously ill in the third act.

Now, here's the part with spoilers and strong language involved. Nelson becomes deathly ill while on a trip with his wife to celebrate his birthday and to try to patch up their marriage. The reader might think he's been poisoned like the museum curator and the museum owner. Is that the case? No. Instead, we're told by Cathbad that Nelson was ACCIDENTALLY CURSED. Nelson is stuck in "The Dreaming". The Dreaming, according to the Encyclopedia Britannica, is a period of time that has no beginning or end and where creation and life were first formed. It's part of Aboriginal mythology. For Griffiths’ purposes, the Dreaming is the Aboriginal mystical space between life and death - limbo basically. Cathbad has to go save Nelson by taking drugs and entering the spirit world to save him. He succeeds and saves Nelson, but we're also told that Nelson saw a mutual friend of his and Ruth's guarding the doorway to the afterlife.

My reaction was to literally shout, "What the fuck?!" Griffiths, you can't take what appears to be a contemporary setting with no firmly established confirmation of magic and the supernatural being real and expect readers to accept MAGIC as the reason for the deaths of the victims and the near death of a main character. You cannot pull some magical bullshit deus ex machina without establishing magic as a legitimate part of the world that you're writing in! What, Judeo-Christian and Eastern religions are implausible, but paganism/nature religions are legitimate? You spend this whole story telling us that your main character is an atheist, implying that magic and the supernatural have no legitimacy in this world, but you use magic and religion as the reason for the deaths? That's not how storytelling works! If anyone read this ending and accepted it as believable, I would be speechless. I cannot believe Griffiths won a Mary Higgins Clark award. I cannot believe that more than one person thought she was a good enough writer to win an actual award. It honestly baffles me.

After all of this, I can only say that I deeply regret reading this book and that I will never read any of Griffiths’ books again.

For all of the reasons listed above, I give A Room Full of Bones a D.

~*~

For the first time ever on this blog, I am not recommending purchasing the book. If you want to subject yourself to this book, please borrow it. I wouldn't buy it. It's not worth the money.

The book I'm reading next is also not turning out the way I hoped, but it's not as bad as this so, hopefully I'll be out with the next review sooner than later.

Thanks for reading.

[levaire]

New Post has been published on https://levaire.com/questioning-doctrine-hell-fairness-god-part-1/

Questioning the Doctrine of Hell and the Fairness of God | Part 1

In his November 2016 video, “Is HELL REAL or an Invention of the Church?” former Christian pastor and missionary, Joshua Tongol, sounds off on his problems with the doctrine of hell and eternal damnation. He opens with the example of a loved one who doesn’t believe Christianity but still has a loving heart. They die suddenly. “Where are they now?” he asks. Fundamentalists would say, “Hell. Forever. Eternal conscious torment.”

Of course, most Christians trying to be soft in their response would say, “Well, that’s for God to judge.” Theologically speaking, however, most Christian fundamentalists still silently feel—without the salvation prayer (an invention within the past 100 years)—the unregenerate “unsaved” will be going to hell. Even if one says the prayer, without true repentance and a heart-felt desire to pursue Christ, can’t they still be counted as “still-born”?

Tongol poses some tough questions. I was completely unequipped to answer the same questions in my late teens when a Jehovah’s Witness friend fired them at me. My inability to answer these questions in the face of my staunch Catholic upbringing marks my own launch into personal apostasy. That fall would last over two decades before I returned to the faith. The questions:

What kind of loving parent would send their children to eternal damnation? For not believing? For having little context for believing?

How to reconcile God’s unconditional love and everlasting mercy with eternal damnation? Preachers push this concept often when they posit “God loves you so much, but if you don’t love Him back, you’re going to burn.”

If God is omnipresent, how can the common explanation that hell is “existence without God’s presence” hold any water?

My Children Are Destroyed By Lack of Knowledge

When you can’t reckon the gap with logic, folks rebut with, “What does the Bible say?” Well, which Bible? Certain bibles don’t mention the word “hell” at all. Furthermore, the images of hell don’t seem to coincide. Are we talking about the verses that support an eternal hell, the verses that support the destruction of sinners, or the verses that support a temporary hell? So, which is it?

If God is all-knowing, as the Bible affirms, why create people who are simply destined for eternal hell? As a parent, say you’re able to clearly see the future for your children. You see that your next child will have less than 100 years to live on the planet, and then will burn in eternal conscious torment afterwards. Would you still bring them into existence? Our lowly, natural minds would say certainly not. If we can agree that God is way more just, way more loving and way more merciful than we are, it’s safe to assume we don’t have the whole picture.

Does it seem fair to be eternally punished for believing the wrong thing about God? Maybe you’re born in the wrong place, at the wrong time or into the wrong religion. A common response to the remote aborigine who never hears the Gospel is, “Well, God will take that into account then.” Essentially, they’ll be graded on a curve because of their ignorance. So then are missionaries doing a disservice to proclaim the Gospel to indigenous people, placing them in the path of eternal damnation by risking their rejection of Jesus? Why make them responsible and put them at risk? Wouldn’t ignorance over a span of less than 100 years and a higher likelihood of union with the Father be better than risking them making a bad decision and landing in eternal torment? This same argument has been applied to abortion providers, as if abortion simply jettisons the unborn into the lap of God.

Will we really be infinitely punished for finite sin and understanding? This possibility is hard for our fallen minds to swallow. Yet, if we believe the Bible, we can expect God is fair. Not only is He friend and father, but also judge.

And so, the questions continue to brew.

What’s the Big Idea?

Tongol asks, “Does God’s loving pursuit of humanity end at death?” If love is patient, does one’s physical death mark the end of that patience? What of the many who live short lives?

The common retort is, “God gave us all free will. God doesn’t send His people there; we send ourselves.” And if that is true, and it was our free will that landed us in hell, can we not use our free will to get back out of hell? Does our free will stop at physical death? Isn’t the concept of hell dangerously abstract to those with no experience of it?

If the residents of hell (angelic and human) have–through their own free will–resisted the love of God, can God’s love be resisted forever? Wouldn’t even a loving earthly parent try to snatch their child out of eternal torment? If God is love (as Christians claim) why would God do anything less for His children?

The scenario can be irreverently described like this:

Humanity starts with two people who trip over themselves in the garden of Eden and commit all subsequent generations (billions and billions of people) to sin-driven lives, losing most of the Father’s creation to hell. God, being smart and loving, has a plan. He sends His Son to die on the cross to take our sin from us and model the Way, the Truth and the Life, BUT still only a few people will find salvation. “Narrow is the path, but wide is the road to destruction.” (Matthew 7:13)

So, what would be the point to losing most of your creation to the devil; to free will; to sin?

If eternal hell does exist, shouldn’t Christians be more passionate about witnessing to the world? How can we even sleep with millions of people dying everyday with little or no knowledge of the Gospel? Do we not care? Do we not believe in hell? Are we just lazy?

In the Nazi holocaust of World War II, millions of people were tortured and killed. Fair to say most of those were not evangelical Christians. The unsavory question: Should we believe that most of those people are in hell along with their persecutors because they didn’t believe and convert during their time on earth?

Many fundamentalist Protestants may even say Mother Theresa herself has been swept into to hell. As a Catholic, the Protestants may argue she would have been works-based and not operating under grace. But if we believe our eternal salvation hinges upon accepting Christ or saying a salvation prayer before our physical death, isn’t that works? Both contingencies are actually marketed by churches as steps we have to take in order to become “saved.” Does your chance to accept Christ as Lord and Savior end upon physical death?

Retribution, Restoration or Both?

Tongol goes on to ask, “Is true justice retributive or restorative? Is it all about getting what you deserve or is it about restoring a person?” If unending punishment is the solution, then evil is not overcome by love, not overcome by good. In fact, it would appear evil would have won. An eternal hell keeps the cycle of evil and penance going forever. It keeps the cycle of evil demons doing evil things to evil people going forever. If that is the case, there is nothing redemptive in that. Was Jesus’ example to us an example of retributive or restorative love? (Hint: John 3:17 NKJV, “For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.”)

When our Lord stood down the crowd wanting to stone the woman for fornication, most of us agree He disqualified them from casting the first stone. Maybe fewer of us notice that—in doing so—He qualified Himself at the same time. He did not cast stones but simply told her to go and sin no more. (John 8:11)

Do we not know the will of the Father through the life of the Son?

Here is where the opposing comments arise:

“It doesn’t matter how you feel on this topic.”

“It doesn’t have to make sense.”

“While you may not be willing to send people to hell forever, you’re not God.”

“So even people you love may be burning in hell forever,” Tongol says.

Love heals. Love restores. We know the will of the Father through the restorative life of the Son. Did Jesus not teach we are to forgive our neighbor not seven times but seventy-times-seven? Will not a loving, infinite God do even more for us?

Is It Wrong to Even Ask the Question?

Rejecting the notion he is a Christian Universalist (who says everyone is going to heaven,) Tongol makes the point: Once he lands in the afterlife, he “would rather be guilty of overestimating the love of the Universe rather than underestimating it.”

The “Universe”? An apparent nod to pantheism and the notion that the Creator and the creation are all one. While Tongol’s questions are well-constructed, he���like the rest of us—has room to grow in the understanding of God’s character. The potter is not the clay.

I believe there was way more accomplished through Christ’s atonement than we can intellectually grasp. I believe Jesus taught on hell and that it certainly exists, but my jury is still out on how many will be lost to the grave and how many will be lost to eternal conscious torment or everlasting destruction.

Of course, maybe that’s the problem with the whole question. I’m placing questions about salvation into my own court instead of keeping them in God’s. We’re counseled by God’s response to Job and by verses like:

Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor? (Romans 9:21 NKJV,)

And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter; so he made it again into another vessel, as it seemed good to the potter to make. Then the word of the Lord came to me, saying: “O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter?” says the Lord. “Look, as the clay is in the potter’s hand, so are you in My hand, O house of Israel! (Jeremiah 18:4-6) and

Surely you have things turned around! Shall the potter be esteemed as the clay; For shall the thing made say of him who made it, “He did not make me”? Or shall the thing formed say of him who formed it, “He has no understanding”? (Isaiah 29:16.)

Is it darkened and audacious to even ask questions then? Yes, we are to seek His face and grow in our understanding of His character, but far be it from us to push an “ought” or “should” onto the Father. It is surely a darkened mind that seeks to pass judgment over the methods and intentions of our infinite Father.

Questions Bought by Eternal Conscious Torment

To summarize some of the questions provoked by the doctrine of eternal conscious torment:

Are your deceased loved ones exposed to eternal conscious torment for not saying a salvation prayer?

What kind of loving parent would send their children to eternal damnation? For not believing? For having little context for believing (e.g. born at the wrong time, in the wrong place or into the wrong religion?)

Will we really be infinitely punished for finite sin and understanding?

How can we reconcile God’s unconditional love and everlasting mercy with eternal conscious torment?

If God is omnipresent, how can the common explanation that hell is “existence without God’s presence” hold any water?

Will our loving God sustain spiritual torture for all eternity? The Bible says all are sustained through God. We cannot exist apart from him.

Are the punished granted eternal life as well as the redeemed? According to the doctrine of conscious eternal punishment, they are.

If God is all-knowing, why create people who are destined for eternal hell?

Does God stop pursuing us upon physical death? Does your chance to accept Jesus as Lord and Savior end upon physical death?

Does judgment and subsequent delivery to heaven or hell occur immediately upon physical death? If so, how do we rectify the resurrection and judgment during the Second Coming? (Matthew 25:31-46)

If eternal hell does exist, shouldn’t Christians be way more committed to saving the lost than they are?

The doctrine of eternal conscious torment—a stumbling block that brings emotional distance and confusion to believers and unbelievers alike—seems to be far out of character with the Father of unconditional love and unending mercy. Jesus even went to his death without chastising his accusers. “You will be with Me in Paradise,” He told the believing thief.

In our confusion over this issue, are we as wrongly accusing God as the Jews did Jesus?

If I’ve established anything on the doctrine of hell, it is to continue to seek understanding and intimacy, but to do so with a heart hungry for communion—not with a heart rife with intellectual judgment or emotional confusion surrounding my prospects for the afterlife.

References

Amirault, Gary. Tentmaker. Bible Translations That Do Not Teach Eternal Torment. Retrieved from http://www.tentmaker.org/books/GatesOfHell.html.

Jones, Erik. Life Hope & Truth. What Is Hell? Retrieved from https://lifehopeandtruth.com/life/life-after-death/what-is-hell/.

Tongol, Joshua. YouTube. Is HELL REAL or an Invention of the Church? – Joshua Tongol (Former Pastor/Missionary). Retrieved from https://youtu.be/54KoNT-19Bk.

[captainmatthansen-blog]

Culminating part 1

Background: Art Wolfe was born in Seattle to two commercial artists. He was educated in the arts and graduated from the University of Washington with a Bachelors in fine arts and art education. He has been photographing for fifty years, and enjoys photographing the environment and native aboriginal culture. He has worked all over the world, and his style is mainly wildlife/nature. At times he has some macro shots of smaller animals, such as frogs and leaves. His aim is mostly to educate the viewer, and he gives seminars and speeches on photography to a wide variety of people. Wolfe also created a conservation themed photography contest in 1997 and publishes at least one book a year, sometimes about wildlife and mostly about photography.  He still photographs and gives seminars up until today, as well as takes photographs. He holds Nature’s best Photographer of the Year Award, and has even hosted two photography shows about technique and taking Safari photos. Wolfe’s major subject matter is wildlife, as he takes a lot of photos of the environment and animals. However, many colours make their way into his shots in the form of indigenous artwork and cultural photos. His style seems to be bringing awareness to the beauty of nature through his photographs, and he uses as much color as he can in his nature shots to emphasize the natural beauty of wildlife. Colour also makes its way into the photos of the Indigenous Tribespeoples, because their face paint and decorative wear involves many bright hues of red, orange and white. He is part of a bigger movement, which is that to draw attention to the importance of wildlife on our planet. Wolfe was actually recognized for his support of the national wildlife refuge system, and it shows in his work because you can see how much he really loves taking pictures of animals. The theme of his work seems to be to show the viewer how precious nature can be, and perhaps through his photos he can remind us to take care of our planet. Because he also tours around and does speeches on his photography, it makes me think that he hopes to influence others to take similar photos so that we can all appreciate nature the same way he does. David Attenborough, the narrator for Planet Earth, even said that “Art Wolfe’s photographs are a superb evocation of some of the most breathtaking spectacles in the world”, which makes me think that the community around him respects the efforts he makes. Wolfe has also toured the entire world and taken photos on every continent, showing that he is serious about his job and actually experiencing the world for what it is. I really like how he uses color in his photographs, and how he takes photos of nature to actually support it. I enjoy how he does philanthropic work, but my favorite part about him is his shots of the animals. I love wildlife and animals and would love to be able to take pictures like him one day, but most importantly I would like to have the ability to travel to the places that he has gone to and take my own shots there. I want to put my personal spin on it, however. The fact that he is so serious to get in a helicopter and take his pictures really makes me respect him and his art, and I would like to be that serious about my work in the future.

This picture involves the rule of thirds because the point of interest, the seal, is in the bottom left of the picture and the horizon is above the middle of the picture. The mountains in the background are also a point of focus, but not so much as the seal. Wolfe uses colour in this shot, and form because you see the 3D shape of the nice brown seal. Texture is also used, because you see that the seal is nice and soft. He used a high aperture, because the background is visible and you can see the other seals, penguins and mountains. Wolfe would have had to set up this shot (composition) so that he could capture one seal along with everything in the background. He would have had to also use a good angle so that he could capture the background. Lighting is used in terms of the darkness in the corners, perhaps because of the photo shop he could have used. Either way, it emphasizes the middle of the shot. Line is used in terms of the horizon and the mountains, and patterns can be seen because of the rocks on the beach.

My favorite part about this photo was the shutter speed that was slowed down, and because you can almost imagine the butterflies flittering around. I believe that it captures the essence of life and movement through its beautiful orange and calm blue background. The colors complement each other, and I think he used a low F-stop which made the butterflies blurry. I feel like he put himself into a herd of butterflies and took the picture, which makes me believe that this was a quick snapshot. It would be hard to recreate this exact photo, but something similar could be composed if one had a lot of butterflies and a clear sky. I believe it would have had to have been a very nice day out to take this shot, because although the sky is blue there are no clouds or glare from the sun. The butterflies are well lit and you can see their wonderful orange glow, even though there isn’t a specific place where the sun might be coming from. There is a bit of a push in balance in the sense that the blue surrounding the butterflies cascades over the brighter color, and in some places the butterflies are so blurry that you only see blue and black – almost as if the blue has overcome them.

References: http://artwolfe.com/