#no symbolism whatsoever my good man what on earth are you implying

[dazesanddoodles]

the people (me) said put lesbian stuilly in situations so chapter one is out now 𓆣

enjoyers of hyperlinked footnotes with information varying in levels of importance, this is for you

[f4liveblogarchives]

Giant-Size Fantastic Four #3

Wed Jul 31 2019 [02:16 PM] Umbramatic: LORGE [02:16 PM] Wack'd: The return of Rich Buckler! And special guest Marv Wolfman--a man who clearly has a lot of faith in his audience:

[02:17 PM] maxwellelvis: We've got another take on the Horsemen of the Apocalypse, haven't we? [02:17 PM] Wack'd: This is the Fantastic Four's first, I believe [02:17 PM] maxwellelvis: I mean in comics as a whole [02:18 PM] Umbramatic: this looks like it'd be a stained glass window in some really weird church [02:18 PM] maxwellelvis: And especially in Marvel. [02:18 PM] Wack'd: Given how much the Lee/Kirby years love giving them evil dopplegangers it's weird we're only just getting to this now [02:18 PM] Wack'd: Seems like a natural fit [02:19 PM] Bocaj: Are they less dumb than apocalypse’s? [02:19 PM] maxwellelvis: They've got the colors of the horses right, but outside of War I can only guess which is which. [02:19 PM] maxwellelvis: On the white horse is a guy with no discernible features whatsoever carrying a sword, which is War's weapon. [02:20 PM] maxwellelvis: War looks the part, but has a shield instead [02:20 PM] Wack'd: Ugh, we're in full-on Prince Valiant mode. Use speech bubbles, dammit!

[02:20 PM] maxwellelvis: The guy on the black horse has no weapon at all, which I associate with Death [02:21 PM] maxwellelvis: and on the pale horse is a cloaked guy with wings and a stick, so maybe THAT's Death [02:21 PM] maxwellelvis: Ahh, they're doing the common thing where Conquest is out, and Pestilence is separate from Death. [02:22 PM] Wack'd: Anyway, this prologue ends and our story starts in earnest. People are doubled over in the streets, being attacked by rats and monsters but not rat monsters [02:22 PM] maxwellelvis: Also, are the Horsemen implying that they've done this before? On our planet? [02:23 PM] Wack'd:

[02:24 PM] Wack'd: Oh, this is an "Earth is special" thing. Okay

[02:25 PM] Wack'd: Anyway these guys were exiled for failing to conquer Earth once and now they want another shot at it [02:26 PM] Bocaj: I hate Earth is special [02:26 PM] Bocaj: I hate it strongly for reasons both considered and irrational [02:26 PM] Wack'd: MARV: You didn't roll initiative! [02:26 PM] Wack'd: BEN: No, I get a surprise round, see?

[02:27 PM] Umbramatic: etti-kutt is my favorite marvel character [02:28 PM] Wack'd: Anyway. Pestilence tries to make Ben sick, but rolls badly, and Ben gets a Nat 20 on his constitution check, causing Pestilence to die instantly [02:29 PM] Bocaj: Sure [02:30 PM] Wack'd: So Reed and Ben take off after one Horseman, Johnny and Medusa after another, and agree to regroup for the fourth [02:30 PM] Wack'd: *insert joke about splitting the party here* [02:31 PM] Wack'd:

[02:31 PM] Wack'd: Africa! You know--all of it! [02:32 PM] Wack'd: Clearly the only explanation for Native Africans having heavy artillery

[02:34 PM] Wack'd: Oh good a Scientologist

[02:35 PM] Bocaj: Dooooooooon't you know you never split the party [02:36 PM] Wack'd: Anyway, Johnny defeats War and unmasks him, only to see HIS OWN FACE! And then Medusa sees HER OWN FACE! And then he rants for a little bit about war is all of us and then vanishes [02:36 PM] Bocaj: "I can't believe I was Darth Vader all along" [02:36 PM] maxwellelvis: Oh cool, I've seen Red Dwarf too [02:37 PM] Wack'd: Anyway, uh, Medusa concludes he's been defeated because "there was nothing more he can do" [02:37 PM] Bocaj: Sure [02:37 PM] Wack'd: Man turns out beating up the personifications of man's downfalls is super easy [02:37 PM] Wack'd: But they're not magic, they are ancient aliens, so *shrug* [02:39 PM] Wack'd: Meanwhile Hunger has set up base in Cambodia [02:39 PM] Wack'd: So let's see how much more racist this can get [02:40 PM] Wack'd: "There's no food crisis after a war! It's all in your head"

[02:40 PM] Wack'd: Reed solves this by force feeding the guy [02:43 PM] Wack'd: Okay well this is just incomprehensible

[02:43 PM] Bocaj: was that vore? [02:43 PM] Wack'd: ...symbolic vore, maybe? [02:43 PM] Bocaj: He ate his hunger, ha [02:44 PM] Wack'd: Anyway time to fight Death [02:44 PM] Bocaj: As ya do [02:44 PM] Umbramatic: famous last words [02:44 PM] Wack'd: Who's just Silver Surfer with a flashlight where his face should be [02:44 PM] Bocaj: I'll be so happy if thats literally what he is in universe [02:45 PM] Wack'd:

[02:45 PM] Umbramatic: ngl that's actually kind of a cool design for a psychopomp [02:46 PM] Bocaj: I lament I couldn't find a clip of Rimmer kneeing Death in the psychopomps [02:46 PM] Umbramatic: oof [02:46 PM] Wack'd: Johnny: Wait, does this mean that all four of us eventually die by having our faces melted off? [02:46 PM] Wack'd: Ben: Look, I'm just glad to know there's still a skull in there

[02:46 PM] Bocaj: hah [02:48 PM] Wack'd: Johnny: Is that true? About matter and anti-matter? [02:48 PM] Wack'd: Reed: Look, it was either bullshit some science, or spend five pages figuring out that each of our duplicates know all our moves

[02:49 PM] Umbramatic: pfff [02:49 PM] Bocaj: I mean. It almost makes sense [02:50 PM] Wack'd: So! Ben beats Johnny, Johnny beats Reed, Reed beats Medusa, Medusa beats Ben [02:50 PM] Wack'd: Medusa specifically throws Ben at Death, exploding him [02:51 PM] Wack'd: And then Reed explains that actually, after the Horsemen showed up the first time, Earth had some sort of planetary defense system put in place, so really any attack would've finished off any of the Horsemen [02:51 PM] Umbramatic: now nothing can die [02:51 PM] Umbramatic: earth will soon be overwhelmed by its own biomass [02:52 PM] Wack'd: Nah Death was just an ancient alien alien calling himself Death and having a Death theme [02:52 PM] maxwellelvis: I can't believe Roald Dahl ripped this off [02:52 PM] Umbramatic: oh good [02:52 PM] Wack'd: The real Death is a skeleton with tits who fucks Deadpool [02:52 PM] Bocaj: Ancient aliens sure love our mythological bullshit [02:52 PM] Umbramatic: oh [02:52 PM] Bocaj: "Earth had some sort of planetary defense system put in place, so really any attack would've finished off any of the Horsemen" Hey this warrants more explaining reed [02:53 PM] Wack'd: I truncated it because it's not really worth going into [02:53 PM] Bocaj: oh [02:53 PM] Wack'd: But if you need more than that there was another race of ancient aliens in caveman times who kicked the Horsemans' ass [02:53 PM] Wack'd: And then set up this "if someone lands of blow on you you teleport back to your home planet" thing [02:54 PM] Bocaj: Its like a one hit challenge run [02:54 PM] Wack'd: So they'll be back eventually maybe [02:54 PM] Umbramatic: one (1) hit point [02:55 PM] Wack'd: Alright I've got time for one (1) more [02:55 PM] Umbramatic: yay!

[wicked-messenger-tarot]

The Radiant Sun Redux

Introduction

Maybe I wouldn’t have realized the need for an extensive, plotted rewrite of the book and definitions accompanying the Oracle of the Radiant Sun if, in fact, my moon was not in Leo, and if I had not drawn the card representing the Moon in Leo on New Year’s Eve.

Here’s the card that made the decision for me, about whether or not to go forward:

Because even though I had already toyed with the idea, THIS card’s write-up was so egregious, and reminded me so much of those useless newspaper horoscopes that turned me off to astrology for decades, and highlighted such an extreme cultural difference between America and England, (and by the by affronted me and my Leo Moon personally), that something obviously had to be done.

So I am starting with this card even though I’ll be doing the rest of the deck in the order the authors gave them.  This card, APPRECIATION, is the begining for me, and so apt, in all regards.

Things I Appreciate about The Book

The idea of merging Horary Astrology and the form of an oracle on cards was, on the surface, pretty ingenious, and also incredibly complex.  The entire concept necessitated a lot of work, study, knowledge, and decision-making in two fairly incompatible directions, and despite the extreme drawbacks of the book, this shows-- Smith and Astrop put a lot of work into this.

John Astrop was an extremely experienced astrologer who designed some of the first computer programs for astrologers.  He was the author of over a hundred books on the subject of astrology, including a whole series for parents to help them understand their wee baby Scorpios or what have you.  So this guy was no slouch.  My beef with him and his book has nothing to do with my sense of his expertise or seriousness.  This wasn’t someone who threw something together carelessly. 

Another thing I like about the book is how well organized it is. 

And that’s pretty much it.

What I Do Not Appreciate

The idea just doesn’t work.  Merging two entirely disparate systems seems like a good idea at first but it becomes, pretty rapidly, an attempt to merge one set of things that are tangible with arbitrarily assigned meaning (astrology) and another set of tangible things with arbitrarily assigned meaning (cards), but the party of the first part is, you know, an actual thing that is happening regardless of what you think it means.  The moment you are born, the sky looks a certain way, period.  The moment you ask a specific question the stars and planets are in specific places, period.  That’s what horary astrology is-- the moment the question is “born” is the moment the stars are consulted, which is pretty neat and the basis for most ancient astrologers’ jobs with royal courts.

And what the sky looks like when you ask your question will have, most likely, ZERO to do with which cards you pull from this oracle deck.  The two things are operating on a totally different wavelength.  There’s nothing wrong with either of those wavelengths, but there is also nothing whatsoever connected between those two things.

That said, it’s not that there’s zero connection symbolically between astrology and, say, Tarot.  Tarot cards have a lot of interconnections to astrology.  There’s no reason these cards can’t be utilized in that fashion, perhaps even more directly.  The germ of the idea isn’t terrible, but the way the book attempts to carry it through is kind of a disaster.

The main thing I do not appreciate is the fact a PERSONAL HOROSCOPE makes no sense to include on a card that anyone can pull out of the deck.  There is no good context in which this will work, hence my comparison to cheesey newspaper sun sign horoscopes that are largely useless.

Example:  APPRECIATION

At the top of the page it reads:  APPRECIATION.  Moon in Leo.  [Shows the astrological symbols.]  MOON-Security.  LEO-Creative Self-Expression.

Take a good look at that card.  Here’s the description in the book:  “...a rich and elegant lady performs on a lute.  Her audience is a swift symbolizing spring and new creation.  Below is a cornucopia bursting with fruit symbolizing man and woman, Sun and Moon.”

And now the book definitions:  “PERSONAL.  The emotions of somewhat prima-donna-ish Moon/Leo characters require affection, appreciation, and lots of good opportunities for over-dramatic expression.  This card indicates a need to be center stage as regards feelings, because for Leos big is beautiful, and they can be as emotionally generous as they are bullying.  Emotionally, Moon/Leo people are great romantics.  Feelings are important to them and must be apreciated and respected if Moon lions are to maintain their usual warm optimism.  Children can be an important part of their life and, whether they have any of their own or not, people with th is planet/sign combination are fond of the company of young-thinking people.  This basically emotionally optimistic person has a tendency to over-impulsive actions where loved ones are concerned.  He or she often has a good natural feeling for art and can benefit from developing latent talents in this area.”

Okay, it’s New Year’s Eve, a traditional time to consult an oracle.  Usually I use Tarot but this year I got funsy and used this deck.  One of the three cards I pulled was APPRECIATION.  A word that has a definition, and a word that, when it appears on a card, by itself with specific images, gives you a very particular feeling, idea, advice even?  You know, the main reason people consult an oracle on the New Year, combined with wanting to know what might lie ahead?

And instead you get a whole slew of ideas about... Moon Leos.  Say you are a Moon Leo, you’re nothing like any of that, and you are aware that your entire chart is in play so that’s probably why, but how is any of that helpful?  That’s a lot of real estate taken up on a page to make a bunch of general commentary on someone with their Moon in Leo, and emphasis on “general” and “commentary” because

None of that commentary is implied by the card, either in terms of image, the word it is illustrating, or even the notation at the top of the page about the astrological symbols and their meanings.  But say you are NOT a Moon Leo-- what does any of that have to do with you?  Was this entire process of consulting your oracle deck a waste of your time?  Sure seems like.

He goes on:  “When this card appears in a reading, it can indicate a powerful need for recognition in some aspect of life.  There may be a feeling that those around are not responding appreciatively enough, provoking an unhelpful over-the-top response”  Imma stop him for a sec, how on earth is anyone going to get that from this card?  From the image?  From the word APPRECIATION?  In context with many cards in a traditional Tarot type reading maybe the first sentence, okay, but the rest of it?  And in a single-card draw?

He continues:  “The card can also indicate emotional dependency on a partner or close friends.  Positively, if the card does not refer to the questioner, it can portray someone popular, generous, and much admired by others.”  So if this card is drawn by you for you, you’re a mess, but if you want to know about someone else, they’re awesome, and also if neither of you has a Moon in Leo it still somehow applies to you for reasons, or it doesn’t and you need to find a card that does.  Got it.

And last:  “EVENTS:  A lavish occasion;  theatrical event, children’s performance; pride in an achievement;  short-lived fame, excessively dramatic behavior;  family party or gathering.”  Three of these things are not events, by any stretch of the imagination.

(Sigh.)

This is what makes any book accompanying any deck, what’s the word, BAD.  It is a bad book if it doesn’t mesh with the cards.

One of the constants throughout this book is how resolutely negative each of his definitions are compared to the images on the cards.  Some of this negativity is really excessive, especially for a deck that doesn’t use reversals (I do, so we’ll get into that a bit.)

Also many of his definitions don’t fit the card at hand but will fit another card that actually means the thing he ascribes to another card.  For example, OPTIMISM is for no apparent reason also about “extreme and immovable fundamentalism”, and yet this deck literally has a card called EXTREMISM.  You’ll note the repeated references to “drama” and “over the top” and such with APPRECIATION-- yet there is literally, in this deck, a card called DRAMA.

Books on oracles and Tarot often step into the role of a professional reader to ostensibly help the amateur who is trying a deck of cards for the first time to have a successful reading, and that’s fine.  But it’s often unclear when an author’s opinions are just that, opinions, and not a hard and fast definition.  It would be more useful to add an example of the card in a reading so the person excitedly trying out their first or second or thirtieth new deck will clearly see there are myriad ways of interpreting the card, and this deck would have benefitted from this.  Then the author, a man of experience and a wide knowledge base, could have put his opinions of Moon Leos or whatever in there without ruining what is probably a perfectly good and perhaps brilliant divination tool.

So let’s fix this.

My Rewrite

When this card appears upright in a reading, it can indicate a powerful need for recognition in some aspect of life and that it is time to pursue this.  It can mean that the querant is appreciated more than they realize, or are unaware of how much they should appreciate about themselves and their circumstances.  It is time to be thankful and show your gratitude for this.  If the card does not refer to the querant, it can portray someone popular, generous, and much admired by others, or someone the querant should appreciate more.

When this card appears reversed, it can indicate emotional dependency on others to show appreciation for the querant-- for example, if this card appears reversed in a reading with cards indicating jealousy, insecurity, and drama, the meaning might be that the querant needs to take a step back and remember they cannot find in others what they cannot find in themselves. This card might indicate a need to be center stage, and there may be a feeling that those around are not responding appreciatively enough.  Acknowledge these feelings.

PERSONAL.  Moon/Leo characters require affection, appreciation, and lots of good opportunities for self expression.   Moon/Leo people are great romantics. Feelings are important to them and must be apreciated.  He or she often has a good natural feeling for art and can benefit from developing latent talents in this area.

EVENTS:  A lavish occasion;  theatrical event, children’s performance; pride in an achievement;  family party or gathering;  awards ceremony;  promotion or congratulations

See how I moved and shortened “Personal” so those who might have a Moon in Leo (and know about it) can see a general newspaper-horoscope definition and find something useful in the context of the card?  I’m a big fan of usefulness in a reading.  It does nothing to tell someone a bunch of general opinions about something they can’t change-- it’s perfectly fine to tell someone the consensus opinion, sans judgement, and let them see if it fits them.  (No, this definition still largely doesn’t fit me, but that’s okay, because in the context of my overall chart I can see where the parts that do fall into place.)

Conclusion

So that’s where I’ll be going with this over the course of the year.  As I go I’ll be writing each of my rewrites out and putting them in the book, possibly even gluing over the pages, so I can consult it when I need to.

Because above all, I deeply appreciate the feel of this deck, the images, the energy of the ideas behind it, and the couple who put it together as what was probably an exciting labor of love.  That energy wasn’t destroyed by my objections to the follow-through that is the book, and that alone is a testament to how worthwhile this deck really is.

Thank you for reading.

[scifimagpie]

Put a Cross on It: Christianity, Capitalism, and Appropriation

I'm taking a quick break from my series about sugar scams to revisit an old hobby-horse: appropriation and cultural theft. This nightmare of the left won't stop cropping up. People can't keep their hands or their inspirations to themselves, so here we go again. 

Ceci n'est pas un croix.

Why the yin-yang? Keep reading.

For example, it's no secret that Ariana Grande has joined the ranks of pop starlets getting flak for doing something in a weird/inappropriate way. In her "Seven Rings" music video, the actress and Disney Channel alumnus used the visual language of Nicki Minaj or Cardi B to add a little flair and flash to her style. 

Here's the thing - a white girl (Ariana is Italian; despite previous prejudices, Italians have been bundled into the artificial construct that always has been and currently still is "whiteness") talking about buying her hair, having everything, and draping herself in diamonds and consumables has a different meaning than, say, a black woman, Latinx woman, or another person from a similar background making those same statements. And dressing oneself up in the subtle visual language and signifiers of another group for the sake of borrowing their "cool" and prestige is, at best, impolite. 

But this kind of weird impersonation and cultural thievery - not exchange; that would imply some sort of trade and equality, or a voluntary element to the transaction - is common in whiteness. Now, I'm sure it won't escape readers that I, obviously, am white. But I don't intend this and my other musings to represent some kind of internalised self-hatred - instead, I want to ask, why are we like this? And how can we be better? 

Put a yin-yang on it 

(Or rather, please don't.) Anyone who was alive in the 1990s might recall the prevalence of "hippie" imagery spattering the cultural landscape. "Girl power" and other commodified phrases were printed on lunchboxes, jewelry, or bejeweled onto denim clothes. Among the various decorative symbols that attained prominence - the peace sign, smileys, suns, hearts, and a plethora of flowers and daisies - were yin-yang symbols. 

Now, a good friend, Joych Chng (Jolantru on Twitter) posted a frustrated note about white people using the yin-yang willy-nilly. Having studied religions of the world in a cursory way, I knew the yin-yang wasn't merely decorative, but had symbolic meaning in Taoism - but I was surprised at the thought of its decorative use being offensive or bothersome. 

A quick Wikipedia research trip affirmed what I already knew about its symbolic meaning, but also deepened my knowledge. Clearly, the symbol has nuances, and it's not just a pretty shape with interlocking curves. It represents several philosophical constructs, and isn't meant to be tossed about. The issue isn't all interlocking designs - after all, there are tons of Celtic ornamental squiggles that look similar, but don't have the association - but rather, that the yin-yang has an actual meaning. 

Throwing it into designs at a whim because it's symmetrical and attractive is a bit like plastering random quotes from "Thus Spake Zarathustra" or "Man's Search for Meaning" onto lunchboxes because they sound pretty, completely disregarding any context. (I'm not a Nietzsche fan, but I did like Frankl's work. That aside, you get the point.) 

What's god got to do with it? 

But then I asked myself - why am I surprised by this? Why would I assume that a sacred symbol needs to be confined to its proper use, rather than proliferating or being thrown around? 

Obviously, I'm culturally Christian, even though I'm a non-believer. I have grown up in a society with Easter, Christmas, and Biblical iconography in abundance. But part of modern Christianity interlocks with capitalism in an unsettling fashion. In addition to proclaiming and recruiting new followers to the religion and philosophies, Christianity makes use of branding in very strong ways. 

It doesn't take any work whatsoever to find something cross-patterned at a local store. Even completely secular items, like jewelry, clothing, wall decorations, and similar things will often feature either directly or indirectly Christian iconography. Anything angel-related or with a cross on it is technically making use of Christian iconography. A sacred symbol is rendered not merely prosaic, but ubiquitous - and purchasing and displaying goods that feature such iconography is accepted as demonstrative of belief. 

Let's sit with that for a minute. Someone who shows off their faith with accessories is performatively more Christian. Capitalism makes strong use of branding as it is - and the cross is just another brand. It's a way to showcase loyalty and affiliation - and more importantly, to demonstrate correctness and adherence to one's beliefs. But even though it's professed to be sacred, it's also completely acceptable to use in totally decontextualised situations. 

What's sacred?

In non-Christian cultures, the sacred actually has a space of its own, sometimes apart from worldly cares. However, remembering that other people don't just slap symbols of their beliefs onto everything in reach can sometimes feel vaguely offensive to Westerners who crash into this conflict of beliefs. 

As the poet Bryan Thao Worra once put it, not everything is meant to be known or shared. We were talking about Lovecraft at the time (Worra's work on transformative interpretations of weird horror is stellar; check it out) but it feels applicable to many other cultural topics. 

 "Well, some things no one on any corner of the earth is meant to know, other than that it's there to not be known, contradictory as that sounds." 

So if any of my fellow folks are going, "Oh no, what do I do with this beautiful thing that I now understand is Bad?" I would say - try to spend some time understanding it. Approach things from other cultures with reverence and politeness. Maybe you already bought the problematic item, sure - but you don't have to buy more, and you can try to research or learn about something. Recontextualise, don't rob. Find out what the thing means. We live in the era of information, with ubiquitous smartphones and internet access, and it is foolish not to make use of those resources. Even a skim-read of an article or two can enrich your life and make you a better person. 

 In the meantime, if someone says you should keep your hands off, maybe listen to them. It's hard not to be offended by refusal when one's grown up with a sense of entitlement - and even had that entitlement rewarded! - but we must be better than our greedy and acquisitive impulses. If we are not, nothing will change, and frankly, that would just suck. 

***

Michelle Browne is a sci fi/fantasy writer and editor. She lives in Lethbridge, AB with her partner-in-crime and Max the cat. Her days revolve around freelance editing, knitting, jewelry, and learning too much. She is currently working on other people's manuscripts, the next books in her series, and drinking as much tea as humanly possible.

Find her all over the internet: * OG Blog * Mailing list * Magpie Editing * 

* Amazon * Medium * Twitter * Instagram * Facebook * Tumblr * Paypal.me * Ko-fi

[asinglebulb]

Tastes just like cherry cola

I’m going to try and write down some of my thoughts regarding this whole Methodist mess. Messodist. Ha. 

Every conservative Christian I know purports to love their LGBT brothers and sisters. They love them, they affirm them, they welcome them into their congregations. They just can’t let them get married or be ordained or do a whole load of other things that their hetero counterparts are allowed to do. This is because the Bible states clearly that their lifestyle (God, I hate that word) is a sin and, therefore, is in opposition to Christian beliefs and values. 

I do not argue that the Bible provides a clear statement condemning homosexuality. The most well-known examples are found in Leviticus, chapters 18 and 20.

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. (18:22)

If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them. (20:13)

So. Pretty cut and dry. Here’s the thing, though. There are a couple of different camps concerning the reading of the Bible. Either you believe that the Bible was written during a certain time period for a certain audience in a certain context, and it’s important to update our own interpretations based on a modern audience and context. Or you believe that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant Word of God and can therefore only be interpreted in one way, and that is to the letter. (Spoiler alert: everyone in the second camp is wrong.)

If you happen to be among the folks who believe that every statement in the Bible requires immediate and unqualified acceptance, more power to you. It’s definitely a way to live. I imagine it’s safe to assume that, after reading this entry, you’ll be emptying out your checking account and 401k, selling your home, and giving every penny to the needy. We are commanded to do this, and a number of other uncomfortable things, repeatedly throughout scripture. 

When Jesus heard this, he said to him, “There is still one thing lacking. Sell all that you own and distribute the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.” (Luke 18:22)

Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust consume and where thieves break in and steal; but store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust consumes and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. (Matthew 6:19-21)

So we’re all agreed to go ahead and update our understanding of the Bible for a modern audience, right? Good. This leaves us with the possibility that, even in a modern context, the Bible still argues that homosexuality is a sin. Let’s unpack that.

The aforementioned Book of Leviticus is, for the most part, a code of conduct dictated to Moses by God on Mt. Sinai. It’s basically “Ten Commandments: The Director’s Cut.” In reality, it’s a list of rules, written down over a very long time, governing things like hygiene and societally acceptable behavior. Throughout the text, it’s made clear that this code is to prevent the Israelites from behaving as the Egyptians and Canaanites historically had. This behavior included fertility rites consisting of sexual rituals. During these rituals, whole families, including husbands, wives, mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, cousins, aunts and uncles would sometimes have sex. Also included was sex with temple prostitutes. In short, every kind of sexual practice imaginable was performed at these rituals, including homosexual sex. They liked to party.

Historians have concluded that, in Canaanite culture, long-term homosexual relationships did not exist. A tribal culture where there were strict divisions between men’s and women’s work, and offspring were considered essential for survival, simply would not have allowed for that sort of development. It’s unreasonable, therefore, to believe the author of Leviticus intended to prohibit a form of homosexual relationship that did not exist at the time. When read in textual and historical context, the "abominations” mentioned in Leviticus 18 and 20 are clearly directed at homosexual temple prostitution, and that is how they should be interpreted.

So maybe the Bible doesn’t specifically condemn homosexuality as a lifestyle (that damn word again, ugh), but does that mean it’s explicitly supported? Fortunately for us, there is scriptural evidence to answer this question, unlike, for example, abortion, which has no material whatsoever for reference, meaning the right-wing evangelicals arguing a pro-life case based on religion have no Biblical leg on which to stand. But I digress.

When he entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him, appealing to him and saying, “Lord, my servant is lying at home paralyzed, in terrible distress.” And he said to him, “I will come and cure him.” The centurion answered, “Lord, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof; but only speak the word, and my servant will be healed. For I also am a man under authority, with soldiers under me; and I say to one, ‘Go,’ and he goes, and to another, ‘Come,’ and he comes, and to my slave, ‘Do this,’ and the slave does it.” When Jesus heard him, he was amazed and said to those who followed him, “Truly I tell you, in no one in Israel have I found such faith. I tell you, many will come from east and west and will eat with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, while the heirs of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” And to the centurion Jesus said, “Go; let it be done for you according to your faith.” And the servant was healed in that hour. (Matthew 8:5-13)

A quick lesson in Greek vocabulary: there are two words used in the original translation of this scripture that are noteworthy - pais and doulos. Doulos is a generic term for “slave”, which lines up with the English translation used above (NRSV, for anyone curious). Pais, however, has three different meanings. It could mean “son or boy;” it could mean “servant,” or it could mean a particular type of servant - one who was “his master’s male lover.” When the centurion referred to this particular slave, he used the word pais. When referring to any other slave, he used the other term, doulos, as if to draw a distinction. The clear implication is that the sick man was no ordinary slave. And when pais was used to describe a servant who was not an ordinary slave, it meant only one thing — a slave who was the master’s male lover. Jesus knew this and still healed the man, taking time to remark on the exemplary faith displayed by his lover. 

Then they wept aloud again. Orpah kissed her mother-in-law, but Ruth clung to her. So she said, “See, your sister-in-law has gone back to her people and to her gods; return after your sister-in-law.” But Ruth said,

“Do not press me to leave you    or to turn back from following you! Where you go, I will go;    where you lodge, I will lodge; your people shall be my people,    and your God my God. Where you die, I will die—    there will I be buried. May the Lord do thus and so to me,    and more as well, if even death parts me from you!”

When Naomi saw that she was determined to go with her, she said no more to her. (Ruth 1:14-18)

A Hebrew lesson this time. The word translated into the English “clung” was originally dabaq. There’s another place in the Bible that word is used.

And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. Then the man said,

“This at last is bone of my bones    and flesh of my flesh; this one shall be called Woman,    for out of Man this one was taken.”

Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh. (Genesis 2:22-24)

That’s Adam and Eve, by the way. A man clings - dabaq - to his wife. The very same way that Adam felt about Eve, the same way a husband is supposed to feel about his wife, is the way Ruth felt about Naomi. That love is what led her to proclaim, “Where you die, I will die - there will I be buried.” 

But he said to them, “Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.” (Matthew 19:11-12)

Last one, promise. Although I could do this all day. This particular passage is Jesus’ response to the permissibility of divorce. Hi answer is, more or less, you’re not allowed to get divorced - another thing that folks who argue strict Biblical adherence might struggle with - but clarifies these three groups as people who should not marry women. What’s a eunuch, you ask? The short version is that it’s a man who has been castrated. Generally, we assume this castration is a physical act, but in this case, historical context implies a more symbolic meaning.

In reverse order: eunuchs who "have made themselves” eunuchs. It stands to reason that there aren’t many people out there who would castrate themselves, so we’re meant here to understand that these are men who have foregone marriage in order to better serve God. Sort of like Catholic priests. Well, the non-creepy ones, anyway.

Next, eunuchs who were “made eunuchs by others.” Yeah, that’s... that’s a regular old-fashioned castrato. Ouch.

Finally, eunuchs who “have been so from birth.” In ancient Jewish culture, “natural” or “born” eunuchs were not associated with missing testicles. Rather, they were associated with stereotypically effeminate characteristics and behavior, not unlike modern gay men. I’m not saying the stereotype is accurate, just that it exists. Moreover, eunuchs were commonly associated with homosexual desire. Jesus would have been well aware of this common view, yet states in no uncertain terms that some people are just born that way. You’re welcome, Lady Gaga. 

Finally, my favorite piece of evidence that the Bible doesn’t really give a shit who you love: There was no word in Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek for "homosexual" or "homosexuality." These words were invented near the end of the 19th century when psychoanalysts began to discover and understand sexuality as an essential part of the human personality in all of its diversity. Consequently, it cannot be claimed that the Bible says anything at all about it. The writers of the Bible had neither the understanding of it nor the language for it.

There’s a church here in town, part of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, with the following statement on their website:

The Scriptures clearly proclaim homosexual behavior as contrary to God's will and therefore sinful. The EPC affirms a life-changing gospel which can heal and transform even such a deep-rooted and serious deviation as homosexuality. A position paper on homosexuality is available.

This is wrong on so many levels, and I don’t even really want to tie it into the rest of this post, but it makes me so angry every time I think about it that I couldn’t not include it.

The United Methodist Church’s brand promise, since 2001, has been:

Open hearts. Open minds. Open doors.

However, they have just made it clear to the world that members of the LGBT community are second-class citizens. They are not worthy of marriage or ordination. Pastors who officiate same-sex weddings will be stripped of their titles. Churches that do not certify adherence to this position will be removed from the denomination. Time to find a new slogan.

Almost all Christians claim to love everyone, gay or straight, black or white, you name it. But claims and actions can be very different, and any belief which serves to diminish other people is clearly not born from love. Homosexuality is not a lifestyle, it is an important part of a person’s identity. Any position which states that God loves LGBT people but disapproves of this aspect of their identity is misguided. I don’t know much, but I know this: God created everyone, that creation was intentional, and it was deemed to be good. It is not possible, then, for God to disapprove of or consider sinful a fundamental part of this creation.

Bearing all of this in mind, I’m left with just one belief: “Christians” - and I use the quotes there with the maximum amount of snark available - who hold themselves in opposition to homosexuality or any other group on the gender or sexuality spectrum, do not do so out of any legitimate religious belief. Instead, these positions are rooted in a misguided morality and then justified via deliberately misinterpreted scripture. It breaks my heart to know there are so many who would pervert my faith to assuage their fears and increase their comfort. I mourn for my LGBT brothers and sisters, and I hope for a day when we can all agree that hatred has no place in the Kingdom of God. 

For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor rulers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Romans 8:38-39)

[loveofgodblog]

A Cord of Three is not Easily Broken!

This article was republished from WhiteRaimentEvangelism.blogspot.com. By John Foll, written between 9/15/2017 and 9/18/2017. © Copyright 2017 John Foll “And though a man might prevail against one who is alone, two will withstand him. A threefold cord is not quickly broken.” Ecclesiastes 4:12 RSV. This text is normally viewed as the bond between two or three people who are bound together in the ties of love or walking together in sweet accord, but we believe it has a deeper meaning. Our prayer for you is that you will live a successful Christian life and not be lacking in any good thing. We want to help equip you for this. What does it take? How do you overcome your trials and difficulties and problems? Let’s see what else ‘a cord of three that is not easily broken’ might mean, and how it will help you to be an overcomer. “Jesus answered and said to him, 'If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our abode with him.'” John 14:23 NASB. If you love Jesus, keep His word, He and His Father will come to you and make their abode in you. This is a most beautiful and precious thing that Jesus and His Father want to do for you! They want to come and make their abode in your heart, if you want it. Together, Jesus, His Father and you make three; this is a cord of three that is not easily broken! Unlike the friendships between two or three people on this earth, God is mighty to save and will never fail you! How does it happen, when Jesus and His Father will come and make their abode in you? Through the presence of the Holy Spirit. Symbolically, the Holy Spirit will dwell in your heart on behalf of Jesus and His Father, if you seek to keep and obey His word, like He says. But when this happens it is none other than the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit dwelling in your heart all together, a three-fold union! This three-fold union of divinity cannot fail, because God cannot fail, for there is no part of man in this union. This is the strongest cord that can ever exist, because it is built on Divinity alone, which cannot fail. You don’t have to depend on your own strength, but on God’s power which cannot fail. Jesus promised this three-fold union to all of His true disciples and those who would be, that is the Comforter, or the Holy Spirit. But who are His disciples? All that love and obey Him. You are never truly alone if you have Jesus and His Father dwelling in you, in the presence of the Holy Spirit or the comforter! Jesus said, “These things I have spoken to you while abiding with you. But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.” John 14:25-26 NASB. Jesus promised His disciples that He would not leave them as orphans. And He will give you the Holy Spirit forever if you would be His disciple too. He said, “I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever; that is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you and will be in you. I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.” John 14:16-18 NASB. From this we see that all who desire the Holy Spirit must get to know God. Implied in this is that all who would have the Holy Spirit must confess their sins, humble their heart before God, want to obey Him, and yield to Him fully. This can be shown by numerous Bible passages. Yes, Jesus comes to all that are His disciples, He will not leave them as orphans; He will come to them. How do you love Jesus and keep His word? Jesus told Nicodemus that to be saved he must have a change wrought in him: “Jesus answered and said to him, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.’ Nicodemus said to Him, ‘How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born, can he?" Jesus answered, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.’” John 3:3-5 NASB. The answer to this question is that God will provide this for you if you want it. You must allow God to work fully in your life to do His good pleasure. Paul reveals: “for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure.” Philippians 2:13 NASB. Since it is a work from God, the only part you play is to allow Him to do it for you, so yield yourself to God totally and allow Him to do this for you and it will happen. You will have to obey Him in what He has asked you to do at every point, without stubbornness. When doing what God asks you to do is an easy decision for you to make, then you will know that you are becoming or are born again! The answer to how you can love Jesus and keep His word, is to have this three-fold union of Divinity dwelling in your heart. God has made this provision for you, if you would have it and seek after Him with all your heart. Jeremiah 29:11-13. The way has been prepared for you at the cross by Jesus and given by God with the outpouring of His Holy Spirit, which started in Acts 2, and is to be forever. It is yours if you will claim it, and desire to love and obey God all the way. Don’t resist God, He loves you! You must prepare your heart to receive the power of God’s Holy Spirit if you would have Him dwell in your heart. Jesus said, ‘I have given you the Holy Spirit forever.’ John 14:16. What a precious promise! Jesus will not leave His disciples alone or as ‘orphans’ as He promised, He will come to them! This is indeed the way you can live a successful Christian life, and have all the peace, love, faith, joy, and happiness that you were meant to have! Jesus doesn’t want to leave you alone, but longs to be in your heart! He and His Father greatly love you! So you don’t have to cross over Jordan alone, as the song says. Jesus stands behind His word and will not take away this promise of the Holy Spirit to His disciples, He has given the Holy Spirit to His disciples forever. Why do we keep talking about this promise as being for His disciples? Because it’s true. The messages given in John 13 to 17 were given by Jesus to His disciples, and to them that would believe through their testimony (or through the testimony of others who received it from someone who traces back to the original apostles). Jesus in His special prayer to His Father, before He was arrested and crucified said (John 17:1): “For their sakes [His disciples] I sanctify Myself, that they themselves also may be sanctified in truth. I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word; that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me.” John 17:19-21 NASB. So we see from this that all who believe in Jesus through their word are to be His disciple too; it is implied. So if you have believed in Jesus through the testimony of the Bible or from another Christian, His prayer applies to you to! All who have been baptized as a Christian should be Jesus’ disciple, but sadly this is not true often enough. It is only for those who want to be His disciple and for those who truly love Him. If you love Jesus, you cannot help but be His disciple and keep His word. Jesus also gives the reason why the Holy Spirit is given when He said above: “so that the world may believe that You sent Me.” When you have the Holy Spirit in full, you cannot keep your love for Him quiet, but will want to tell everyone you can about it, and help everyone you can. Since Jesus died on the cross for our sins, and won the victory for us, all authority has been given to Him in Heaven and earth. Go and make disciples of all men, and lo, He is with you always, even to the end of the world. “And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.” Matthew 28:18-20 KJV. If you are a Christian, you should be Jesus’ disciple too, and if you are Jesus’ disciple you are to follow His command to go and preach and teach all things that He commanded you, and the promise if you do this is: Lo He will be with you always, even unto the end of the world! Amen! Is that what you want? The author of Hebrews also tells us that God will never leave or forsake us: “Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for He [God] hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.” Hebrews 13:5 KJV. This promise applies only if God is abiding in you (or you want Him to abide in you), and you are living God’s Law of love (or you want to live it). If you belong to Jesus and are His disciple, then you will have this three-fold union of Jesus, His Father and the Holy Spirit dwelling in your heart. This cord of the Trinity in your heart is a power that cannot be broken, and will guide and protect you as long as you allow them to dwell there. May the grace of God and the Fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all! Amen.

Click here for a Free PDF of this article!