#note i am not christian

[heretherebedork]

The most crushing part of Marahuyo Project is seeing how Archie has turned against himself, turned to hating himself, out of loss and fear of losing himself in worse ways, out of the fear of the friend he lost and becoming another lost soul. Archie lost Christina and lost himself out of fear of that loss, trapped himself int this relationship with religion that keeps him locked away from himself, away from any chance of his own happiness. It's just so painful to see him like that in grief and pain, trapped by a loss too big to understand by the very people he looked to comfort him.

[denyjesuschrist]

without irony: we have got to start feeding these freaks to lions again

[cavegirlpoems]

They Think Empathy Is A Sin Because They Worship Satan, Literally, Not Metaphorically: an esay.

OK so. I am going to do something inadvisable and make a lengthy post about something other than game design, because I can and I want to.

It's a long one. Like, extremely long. So, to avoid "Do you like the colour of the sky [gone quaker, gone tolstoy, christian anarchist edition]", here's a convenient break so you can scroll past if lengthy religious diatribes aren't your thing.

To begin with, some baselines. I am writing from a Christian perspective. More specifically, I would describe myself as a Liberal Quaker. To me, at least, this involves Christianity as a communal mystical practice, with unprogrammed worship (IE no clergy) and an entirely flat religious heirarchy. Values associated with this branch of religion include honesty, charity, humility and peace.

I adopted Quakerism as a religious framework because it was the one that worked for me. I was raised in, and still live in, a culturally Christian society; as such, Christianity provided a religious framework of symbols and meanings that I was culturally fluent with, whereas other faiths would have required a steeper learning curve since I lack that baseline familiarity. That said, I try to study and understand other religions: I would say that what I've learned of Islam and Budhism - while I'm far from an expert - have been valuable to me.

Politically, I lean hard to the left and hard towards anarchy/libertarianism. I would describe my politics as antifascist first, and then largely anarcho-communist after that, but I'm a pretty big-tent progressive. I'm also a british trans woman who keeps ending up voting Lib Dem for lack of better options, if that gives you any context.

Now, let's define some terms as I understand them and intend to use them. These are all metaphors or symbols, that we can use poetically to better articulate certain ideas. I use Christian imagery here, because that's what I'm fluent with; if I was instead fluent with Jewish or Daoist or some other religious culture, I'd be expressing my ideas with those symbols instead. So.

God: A manifestation/personification/symbol of absolute perfect goodness. God is Love. That is God is absolute unconditional love for all of creation.

Jesus/Christ: Jesus is a representation of God's love for us humans taking tangible effect. Jesus is a sacrifice God made on our behalf to rescue us from Sin. Jesus is inspired by the historical figure Yeshua of Nazareth, a 1st-century Jewish religious thinker who was quite popular and then executed by the Roman occupation.

Sin/Original Sin: Sin is simple, it's when we do bad things that hurt people. Since God loves all of us and doesn't want us hurt, God doesn't want us to Sin. Original sin is part of us; the fact that we are capable of Sinning simply because we're human.

Satan/The Devil: Satan is the force that urges us to Sin.

Heaven/Paradise: A state of goodness, where - since we have escaped sin and embraced God's wishes for us, we do not suffer.

Hell/Damnation: The state of rejecting God and personally embracing Sin, and therefore suffering.

When I talk about these things, I do not mean them in the literaly sense that a fundamentalist might. I do not believe that there is an actual literal guy called Satan who is red with stylish little horns and a goattee who spends all day tempting people and poking dead souls with a pitchfork.

Rather, these are social constructs. By way of analogy, gender and money are social constructs; they're concepts that have no inherent existence in a world that's ultimately just atoms and energy in a vacuum, but because we believe in them and lend them social weight, they gain power in our lives. In the same way the concepts of God, Satan, Sin, etc clearly effect the world. Saying 'Sin' isn't real is like saying your bank account isn't real; it has a tangible effect on the world, so it's useful to discuss it.

Does this mean that I think God, Sin, etc are just made up arbitrary symbols? No. I happen to believe in them. I happen to actively choose to believe in them, because I want to invest them with meaning in my life. This is why it's called 'faith' and not 'rational observation'. But even if they were purely arbitrary ideas, then I think that - like other purely arbitrary ideas such as 'human rights' and 'love' - they're worth believing in anyway.

Lastly, the Bible. I like the bible. It's an old historical text with some incredibly beautiful writing in it, that conveys some potent and meaningful messages. It is very obviously not an account of literal fact, but interpreted through a lens of metaphor or poetry it has a lot to teach. Not everything in it is perfect - it's a historical text that has been translated and retranslated repeatedly - but IMHO you can get a lot out of it, and its writers were, as a general rule, onto something.

You will notice that these ideas are wildly counter to the culturally conservative evangelical christian mainstream. They are, however, entirely unremarkable within the framework of liberal theology.

OK. These should be our base assumptions going in. Perhaps you disagree with them; if so, that's nice for you, but here I'm describing my worldview, not prescribing what yours should be.

It is perhaps notable that I've got this far in and only just finished defining my terms.

SO.

I have observed in the past that there are - effectively - two different, largely incompatible, religions both called Christianity. On the one hand, we have what I believe in, a belief structure that champions such virtues as mercy, forgiveness, peace and humility. On the other hand, we have the mainstream conservative evangelical christian right; this version of christianity values things like obedience, authority and (most of all) punishment.

These are fundamentally incompatible belief structures. As a stark illustration of this, consider what these two christianities want for wrongdoers. One branch wants them to repent, atone and be forgiven. The other wants them to be punished and suffer for their transgressions.

I am going to differentiate between these two beliefs. Because it's my essay and I'm on my side, I will call my beliefs Christianity, and the other side Christian Fascism.

I would argue that my values are more fundamental to the underlying message of Christianity (as derived from the teachings of that guy Yeshua I mentioned) than the other approach. In no particular order:

we have the parable of the prodigal son. Here, Yeshua teaches his followers that when somebody fucks up and then changes their mind, this is to be celebrated and they are to be welcomed back. The message of reconciliation and forgiveness is obvious.

we have the parable of the good samaritan. Again, the message is clear: we must seek to do right by even our enemies.

there are many other stories and teachings attributed to Yeshua with similar messages. Forgiveness and redemption are constant themes in his teachings. He praises the humble and the downtrodden consistently.

However, most importantly, we have the central facet of Christianity itself; the crucifixion. What happens here, and why?

God comes to earth as Jesus, and - after spreading his message described above - is publicly tortured to death in one of the most horrific execution methods available at the time. This sacrifice is made, knowingly, to absolve humanity of Sin. All of humanity. No exceptions. God loves us, He wants us to be forgiven when we sin, so he suffers and dies for us to offer us a way out.

It's right there. John 3:16: "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." God loves the entire world so much that He made this sacrifice, so that whoever wants it can be saved. No exceptions. Whoever you are, God loves you, and sent Jesus so you can be saved if you want it.

This is the single central pillar on which the entire rest of Christianity is built.

So, yes. The 'no true scotsman' argument gets used in discussions around Christianity, but in this instance I firmly believe that it is, in fact, possible to say that somebody is doing Christianity wrong, because the central message of Christianity stands for something (mercy, redemption, charity, etc) and when somebody acts in opposition to that, then whatever they are doing is not christian.

(an analogy: suppose somebody called themselves a communist, but in practice they voted for right-wing parties, assisted the owning-class over the class interests of the workers, espoused anti-communist rhetoric, and never did anything communist. They could claim all they want: the truth remains that they are failing to be a communist through their actual behaviour. likewise any other set of principles).

So. Christianity is not Christian Fascism. Christian Fascism is, instead, fascism wearing christianity as a disguise. They are not, meaningfully, christian, they just want you to think they are. They might believe it themselves, even.

Another example: terfs. Terfs are transphobic bigots who appropriate the name of feminism to advance their transphobic agendas. They want you to believe they're feminists. They might believe they're feminists themselves. But the things they say, and do, and seem to believe are profoundly unfeminist, and feminism as a movement has a duty to reject them. That terfs wear the mask of feminism doesn't discredit the actual feminist movement.

It's idealogical parasitism. Hollowing out one ideology and wearing its skin to advance the agenda of a different, opposing ideology.

Fascists do this a lot because the actual things they want are straightforwardly evil, and being evil on purpose tends not to be popular until you're, like, super indoctrinated, so they use appropriate the language of other movements as a trojan horse.

To my mind, there is a fairly simple litmus test for these things. There are two groups in the Bible that we are repeatedly, consistently, unequivocably told to treat well. One is Widows. The other is Refugees. These two groups were hilighted by the writers for a reason; they're vulnerable demographics with fewer social connections to support themselves, who can easily be neglected or actively victimised by a society that doesn't make an active choice to support them. When Yeshua says "Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me", they are 'the least of these'.

Luckily, widows are not in the modern day at the centre of a huge culture war. Refugees, however?

So. A good litmus test. How somebody believes we should treat refugees, and immigrants more broadly. The message of the Bible is consistently to help foreigners who come to your country, to provide for them and help them settle. Jesus doesn't make any exceptions about visas or 'legal immigration' or contributing to the economy. He tells you in no uncertain terms that you must help refugees, always, every time. If you disagree with that... you're not a Christian, you're a Fascist appropriating Christianity.

(There is a massive discussion that could go here about the bible's position on sexuality, queerness, divorce, etc etc. I cannot be bothered with all that. The christian-fascist reading of these verses tends to get the most visibility, because the translations of the bible with the most visibility leaned into these interpretations. there are other interpretations and other translations that don't have these problems. I could go into more detail, but I have better things to discuss. Two key points:

the bible was written in societies where the family was incredibly reliant - socially and economically - on the husband's support. If the husband casts aside his wife and family, or stops giving a shit about them, they're totally fucked. This is the same society where 'do not let widowed women starve if they no longer have a husband to support them' is reiterated constantly. So, many admonishments against adultery etc should be read in this light: your family rely on you, do not abandon them. Many other passages - eg sodom & gomorrough - are likewise condemnation of things like sexual abuse.

more importantly, remember, the central message of christianity is one of absolute universal love so powerful that Jesus personally sacrificed himself to save us. All of us. 'The world' that God loved includes the gays and the divorcees etc. That central message takes precedent over any edge-case reading you might find that suggests that God's love has exceptions.)

There is an asymetry in public discussions of christianity (and, I think, religion more broadly).

If you have a set of beliefs that value everybody's intrinsic worth, that values considers charity and mercy good, that tells you to embrace foreigners and outgroups more generally, you will tend to the left. You will tend to adopt other left-wing ideas alongside it. Among these are ideas like cultural sensitivity, inclusivity, etc. If you believe Jesus commands you to embrace foreigners, then you will do your best not to reject them or their practices, even if they practice a different religion to you. This is doubled when christianity is a culturally hegemonic force, and you wish to do right by the meek and the humble who are being oppressed (often by that hegemonic force of christianity).

What this means is that on the left - where those following the message of Christianity properly should end up - there is an understanding that making explicitely Christian arguments is alienating and disrespectful to those you should have solidarity with. So, as a result of following (Christian) moral principles, the leftist Christian will generally not express their principles in explicitely religious terms, even when they could do so.

Not so on the right. The right doesn't have a problem with making the outgroup feel alienated or disrespecting them. Often, it quite likes this. So, they will use christian language to express their ideas.

So, even if both sides are balanced in numbers - heck, even if the christian fascists are significantly in the minority - the majority of people being vocally christian will be the christian fascists. And this presentation will reinforce the issue.

If this pattern continues within christian circles as well as in public forums - and it does in my experience - then this likewise gives the christian fascists a dispropportionate influence over what christianity becomes. So, it becomes important that in internal discussions, christian fascism be vocally opposed, and opposed in explicitely religious terms.

The fascists are not doing christianity. They do not speak for christianity, and they are not representative of the entirety of christianity. Their hollowing-out-and-puppetting of christianity to promote evil is itself an act of evil; people like this are why we have the word blasphemy.

Seeing somebody spewing hatred that results in actual, material harm to actual, real vulnerable people, and claiming that this is done in the name of Christ, is a profoundly horrific and perverse thing. It makes me feel ill to witness it.

(A further thought: traditionally, Christianity has held that Salvation is through both belief and works. That you must not only want salvation, you must act on it - which is to say, be a good person. If you claim to be saved but continue to willfully sin, that isn't good enough. So, christianity is what you do, not just how you label yourself. There is a correlation between discarding the belief in salvation by works, and christian fascism. John Calvin's spanner remains in the works to this day).

A thought on Idolatory. What is idolatory? In my view, the treatement of a man-made, worldly thing with the same reverence as holy things. If there is an object or symbol that represents a worldly, human thing that you insist must be treated with reverence and ceremony - as if it was holy - then you have made an idol of that thing.

You know, when I first learned about the way americans treat their flag, I was horrified. Because that flag is an idol. It is so obviously and clearly an idol, and yet. And yet.

Patriotism and nationalism - the revering of the state - is idolatory.

The way we fetishise cops and the military is idolatory.

Even discounting that these symbols are things that do horrific evil as their stated goals, you have taken a human thing - a political body - and treated it like its sacred.

When we consider that an Idol can be a concept or a structure, and not just a literal graven image, we start to see idolatory everywhere on the political right. This is, after all, the entire concept of 'civil religion'. The american founding fathers are not saints, the american constitution is not a holy text, and the american flag is not a holy relic, and the treatment of these things like they are is obvious and flagrant idolatory.

Read up on Tolstoy's thoughts on christian anarchism, as a logical end point of these ideas.

A little diversion on the Antichrist. I dont think Revelations is a literal predictive prophecy, I think it's a warning. It describes - through poetic and symbolic language - pitfalls the faithful might encounter, and encourages them to stand firm against them, and promises that however dire things get, good will triumph over evil in the end. It says 'things will get bad, here are some specific ways they might get bad, but you should hold onto hope'.

Who is the Antichrist in this text? It describes a type of person. Somebody wealthy and politically powerful, who achieves a position of global power and unifies disparate nations under his banner. He isn't christian, but he makes a pretence at piety and convinces the masses to treat him as a religious figure, even as he perverts and distorts religion towards his own hateful ends. He's supported by powerful cultural entities, and combined with his charisma this makes his ascent to power seem inevitable. He is utterly, utterly evil, but he also has really powerful branding that people willingly adopt. He will rise to power in a time of turmoil, sickness and widespread disasters.

Remind you of anybody?

His mark goes on the forehead and the right hand. The red maga hat, and the roman salute. I know I'm doing a paradoelia here, but surely I'm not the only one seeing this shape in the inkblots?

In times like these, I keep coming back to Revelations, and its message that even though things will get really bad, there is always hope, and God's love wins out in the end.

So. The christian fascists are not doing Christianity. They are not following Christ's agenda, which is one of universal love, mercy, and redemption. So, what are they doing, and whose agenda are they serving?

I think you see where this argument is going.

I have not discussed Satan much yet, because while I'm cogniscent of Satan's influence, my faith focusses on Christ; on mercy and redemption and fundamentally goodness rather than evil. But discussing satan becomes pertinent.

Satan is not simply a red guy with a goatee scheming to take over the world like Bible-Skeletor. Indeed, satan is not really a 'guy' at all; it's a tendency. It's the urge to sin, the temptation to not be your best self, or to be your worst self. Every time somebody pisses you off and you have that little spiteful urge to fuck them over? That idea is satan. Every time you want to take something for yourself when somebody else needs it more? Satan.

It is, I think, useful to have a concept of satan that you can personify, so you can (internally) argue against those urges.

Anyway. God loves us universally and absolutely, and wants us to flourish and prosper and do right by each other. Not doing that is Sin. So, here are some things that are sins:

the pursuit of material wealth and power at others expense (see; camels and needles, the meek and their inheritence, etc).

the defining of outgroups against whom cruelty is acceptably or encouraged.

the belief that some people are lesser; less deserving of God's grace and mercy, and so your own kindness too.

raising worldly human powers - states, laws, militaries, flags - into idols.

the - as established - blasphemous perversion of God's will towards evil ends.

These are pretty central patterns we see over and over again among the christian fascists.

They see the outgroup (queers, sluts, immigrants, muslims, people who get abortions, jews, leftists, and so on and so on) as lesser, as deserving of punishment, and they embrace the thought that God will punish them with eternal hell. (See that time pope franky said he hoped Hell was empty, and a lot of these people were furiously angry at the thought.)

They think 'prosperity gospel' isn't a blasphemous oxymoron.

They treat human authorities - cops, armies, nations - with reverence. They fucking love flags, they get extremely patriotic.

They take their hunger for power and their hatred, and they wrap it in the bible - they take God's name in vain - and sully holy things with their evil.

Plus, if we scroll back up to my tangent about the antichrist, there's a pretty good contender for the role currently, and they've embraced him whole-heartedly.

So, their worldview promotes sin.

And they are obsessed with the Devil.

But they don't see it as something they must struggle with; after all, they tend to reject the idea of salvation through works, and claim their saved because they're saved. According to them, rather than doing Christ's work making them christian, because they claim to be christian whatever they do - no matter how evil - retroactively becomes Christ's work. The things they do are good because it's them doing them, and the exact same things done by their enemies would be evil.

So they ignore that little satan-urge in their head, and displace it. They see Satan in everything else, in the outside world, in everything that isn't christian fascism. And then they do Satan's work, by seeking to punish the people they project this satan onto.

What does Satan want? He wants you to hate, he wants you to hurt others, and to profit at their expense. And their religion teaches them to hate and punish others and profit.

They serve satan. And they do it in the name of faith. They are clearly worshipping. So, who do they worship? They worship the one their actions serve.

That is to arrive at the thesis statement of this whole essay, and something I sincerely and wholeheartedly believe, in a literal sense:

the right-wing evangelical Christian mainstream worships and serves Satan.

And then what? I will confess, I am as fallible as any other human. These people - due to their hatred - hurt me and people I love. I am angry at them. I am incandescently angry at the things they do. There is a slippery slope leading from righteous indignation to hatred, and I am struggling emotionally to stay at the top of the slope, and not become actively hateful.

But rationally, how I want to feel? What my better self feels? I feel pity. Hell isn't a place with lots of bats and fire, it's seperation from God's love, and - even if they don't realise it - they turn away from God, and they suffer, and their spread their suffering. They are profoundly spiritually sick, and I want them to get better. I want them to fucking stop. I want them to step out of the dark place they've gone to and return to God's side, and to repent, atone for their actions, and find the same Mercy I want for everybody.

It's fucking hard to look at somebody who viscerally hates me for existing, and want them to recieve salvation, but I try.

I don't know how to fix them or save them. They don't want to be saved. They think our attempts to reach out to them are corruption. They think mercy is weakness and pity tempts you.

They warn each other not to give in to the sin of empathy. It's fucking heartbreaking.

[queenlucythevaliant]

Just to clarify my thoughts (since I've had a number of people ask me about it) re: Job and cursing God. There's a big difference between cursing God as used in Scripture and how we generally would think of cursing at God today.

Cursing someone, in the Bible, has a lot of depth to it. It's not just saying "screw you " in anger, it's got a sense of forsakenness to it. It's the opposite of a blessing, a removal of blessing. If the blessing is presence, your face shining on the person you're blessing, then a curse is absence. In some translations, Job's wife tells him to "renounce God and die," which I honestly think makes a lot more sense to modern ears.

Job says a lot of unpleasant things to and about God in his anger and grief. So do the Psalmists. A number of the Prophets. So can we. God can take it if we come to him with honest expressions of our emotion, including those not-so-nice ones directed at him. I don't think there's anything wrong with getting mad at God and saying, "How dare you, you bastard" when you suffer unjustly. You can say much worse, I think, without sinning, though I don't feel particularly inclined to give examples. But as long as it's an honest expression of your heart, I think you're doing exactly what prayer is for. You're presenting him your heart with an open hand. He can use that. Opposite of love is not hate but indifference, etc.

Job doesn't renounce God. Neither should we. But I think when you're truly suffering, you're gonna have those feelings toward God either way. He'd rather you address them with him directly than try to avoid them. Cursing at God in the modern sense is actually a great way to keep the relationship strong and not end up cursing/renouncing him in the Biblical sense.

[starry-bi-sky]

I am of the DPxDC belief/headcanon that any variation of Danny who grew up poor in Gotham during his formative years before moving to Amity Park would not be friends with Sam without friction at first. It makes things more interesting and imo allows for more exploration of different themes plus character growth for Sam that she doesn't really go through in canon.

(this doesn't only apply to a DPDC au where Danny grew up in Gotham poor, but it was the first thing that I thought of where this might happen considering my Childhood Friends au.)

Now Sam's a compassionate girl, it's one of her defining character traits, but so is her hypocrisy and judgy-ness. She's the Not Like Other Girls' girl. This is in part of the show's narrative framing that makes her out like this, unfortunately though its still showing how she is as a character since its consistent enough to be part of her character description. There are also times where the show's depiction of her activism makes it look like she's performative about it. All of this makes her dynamic with a Danny who grew up poor in Gotham very interesting.

Anyways, Sam is aware of her privilege to an extent, but still has her blindspots - glaring ones, in some cases. Her self-righteous attitude would not go over well with a crime alley kid Danny. He'd like her, at first, but then she'd do something to make him mad - personally I think her judging people for not being vegan would annoy him the most, or at least would be the breaking point for him, because it was only recently that his family started actually being able to consistently put food on the table at all, good food nonetheless. And being vegan is expensive.

Any other behavior he noticed from her he'd slowly stop tolerating - her judging conventionally attractive girls and automatically assuming they're vapid and shallow for being feminine. Her anti-capitalist beliefs start coming off as superficial at worst, and Danny would eventually figure out that Sam either came from a family that was well off, or that she wasn't aware if her family was experiencing financial struggle.

He would still be friends with Tucker, but since Tucker imo is still friends with Sam, they'd still run into each other often enough to butt heads. Sam's got a nasty habit of refusing to take responsibility when she's wrong, but when Danny is arguing with her, and counterpointing her with stuff she can't retort back at without compromising her own beliefs, then forces her to start reflecting on herself. Especially when Tucker eventually starts siding with Danny and agreeing with him.

Does sam genuinely care about her beliefs and philosophies? Survey says yes. However that doesn't mean she's not ignorant, and she definitely is at times throughout the show (like when she released the purpleback gorilla thinking it 'wanted out of its enclosure' despite the fact that it was endangered and in an urban area) and I think it'd be a real fascinating dynamic between Danny and Sam to explore.

This isn't Sam hate btw, nor am I trying to make her out like "the worst person ever" bc she's not, i wanna make that explicitly clear. Sam Manson has a lot of positive traits about her but she also has an equal amount of negative traits that I think should be explored, she is not immune to the character development.

[cultivating-wildflowers]

single Christian ladies, let me be a warning. I didn't make a husband wishlist or pray for my future husband in high school, and look where it got me: alone, unloved, and perpetually single

[tired-pidgeon]

My conversation with the one Christian Nationalist has only further convinced me that the whole sum of the movement is wrong and really not Christ-centered at all

[beigetiger]

Something about how Skulduggery avoids the consequences of his actions. How he keeps on receiving divine punishment to such a degree that he’s convinced himself that it’s atonement for his crimes rather than just gods being cruel.

When he’s in the realm of the Faceless Ones, he’s so utterly convinced himself that he deserves it that he’s actually angry that Valkyrie would come and save him and force him to return to the “real” world where he has to live with all that he’s done. How she was the only person who was set on saving him while everyone else was willing to accept his loss.

In Death Bringer, he goes to fight Melancholia instead of Valkyrie because he’s decided in his head that fighting and dying to the Death Bringer in order to protect the girl he lied to made up for his deceitfulness and for all the damage he caused as Vile. Because it’s punishment. It’s what he deserves. And the only reason he doesn’t die right then and there is because Valkyrie saves him.

There are surely more examples of things like this happening to him as well, but I’m too tired to remember them right now.

I’ve talked a bit about this before, but Skulduggery HATES taking responsibility for his actions, and considering that he’s a very agnostic character, it’s interesting to see him repeatedly view punishment as something he deserves and would rather do instead of, say, admitting that what he did was wrong and accepting punishment from mortals for it.

There’s also something to be said about how it’s always Valkyrie’s responsibility to save him, even though she’s the person who causes him so much guilt. He’s not a good person, he doesn’t care if he hurts someone unless that someone meant something to him. And she means the goddamn world to him. And he spends a long time denying it, but I honestly think he’s often horrified by how much he hurts her without realizing it (think of his reaction in the scene in TFO where she only cries from her broken tooth when Kenspeckle shows concern over her) and he uses the divine torture he receives very often from protecting her as a way to sort of morally make up for it, even if it benefits neither of them.

It’s also interesting because she keeps turning into a god, and yet said god always shows no interest in hurting him because of what he did to her (yes Darquesse wanted to kill him, but that was less anger and more unhealthy obsession), even though she SHOULD feel angry.

I’ve probably said this a million times now but I think the religious aspect of their dynamic is extremely interesting and something that I have a difficult time putting into words, so I might continue trying to explain it over time. Do have patience with me, please

[bonefall]

NGL: Stuff like Brambleclaw being a terrible namer is like. really fun but also kinda hits with the 'he;s not some meglomaniacl villain hes just a shitty guy'. like. you could see squirrelflight finding that really endearing. IDK if this is some mastermind shit, or if i'm just reading wayyyyy to into this, but i like how you give characters that are pretty bad dudes very humanising qualities. Especially when they're silly/cute. Kinda reminds you that like. theyre like. a person. well. cat but yknow. and they chose to do bad shit, with influence from their past, rather than being inherently terrible. 👍

YEAH MAN, that's what I'm SAYING

Abusers, ideologues, and other terrible people are not masterminds. They aren't born evil. They're not inherently smart OR stupid. They can love, they can be funny and polite, they do things they believe are justified and want to be good people. They don't think of themselves as villains.

Evil isn't complex. It's really, really not. I feel like that's the #1 cause of confusion when I get a question like, "Why does this person do this malicious act, when it's bad/inconsistent/mean?" The answer is always simple;

They wanted to control someone.

They wanted something and didn't mind who they hurt.

Spite and short-sightedness.

Look for anything deeper and you will not find it. Heroics are complex, being a good person is ongoing and changes over time. We're in a constant state of growing. Malice is childishly simple; it feels good to get what you want.

With Bramblestar especially... it always goes back to what I said here, when talking about the idea of an Evil!Bramble. He's a person, and you ruin everything that's so interesting about him by stripping away that nuance. Squilf and Bramble loved each other, truly, and legitimately. He can be charming. He can be nice. He still hurts her. Reconcile with this.

He is not wiser for what he went through, as a child. His pain doesn't make him better. Man's just a jerk... that's it.

[outlying-hyppocrate]

i have officially returned. ask me anything.

[boxwinebaddie]

smhhhh not me makin my thottopic satanicmanicpanic pixiescreamboy girlypoppunk ( ily marj ) crimson dawn super band an entire fake religion, or rather…

a sacreligion ;) xx <3

[undaughtered]

i think this is controversial but i do legitimately think (and this trend is starting to emerge, very slowly but very surely, in religious and theological studies, especially among scholars of comparative religion) that judaism can wrestle christianity back from christians on some level. not practically, obviously, but it is really is about time christianity was reappropriated by the people it has been used to oppress including and perhaps most especially jewish people. not in a messianic way, obviously, but in the sense that jesus as a historical figure was a jew, a jew who loved his religion and culture passionately, and the jesus movement was, long before it was christian, a jewish movement.

[matsuxide]

The crossover we didn't know we needed. But the one we deserve. HAHAHA I'm really really sorry for this :')

Idk why, but I thought that it'd be funny to see Ide dressed as Patrick.. I don't even understand how I came up with this idea. Well, I hope this art will make someone smile at least :>

Also, I don’t claim to be an artist! I do it for fun :D

I'm actually not even familiar with anatomy, so don't take my work seriously

I love this app because I can publish all sorts of stuff I've got..

And btw, I think it would be sooo cute to see Matsuda dressed as Jean. I love her sm!! ♡ She is the only character I like in this movie. She's so kind and caring. And imho Jean was the only one who had humanity :< (ngl I hoped that Jean would fix Patrick...)

(I'm going to cry in the morning because I had the courage to post this [I already regret it])

[licorishh]

"The Bible is so sexist blah blah blah" okay. When it talks about how you can avoid doing stupid things in Proverbs it uses a man in its examples and personifies wisdom as a woman though which I think is pretty funny

[nebulations]

[ID: A tweet thread that reads:

bigolas dickolas wolfwood @/MaskOfBun: love when people into my replies ask me "i want to get into trigun where do i start?" like dude idk. the bible.

el @/eucchabe: start with therapy that's where you'll end up anyway. End ID]

Haven't seen anyone post my favorite reply to this tweet yet so

[beatheprincess]

praying really calms my nerves a lot <3