#particularly their attitude toward doubt and sin
Explore tagged Tumblr posts
karinyosa · 1 year ago
Text
okay the website of my local church w the pride flags out front actually really slaps they have like 5000000 choirs and a page on their specific beliefs that is pretty slay actually, unfortunately for the part of my brain that thinks choosing to do this is insane for me
#like to be honest it seems very tailored to the things i would like to get out of going to church if i were to actually follow through on#this#particularly their attitude toward doubt and sin#doubt is welcome and even an expression of faith? intriguing!#sin is a part of what makes us human? thats what i think!#i however relish in sin and this may make me incompatible with ANY church#perhaps their response would be that what i was taught was sin is not actually sin and we will see if that sticks to me or not#i dont really like the concept of sin regardless of whether god is forgiving about it or not but i guess that would lead me to the last tag#like if we can agree that certain things are bad then sure i guess theoretically i can get on board with the concept of sin#there are some reads of the bible that lean more leftist or queer that intrigue me but which i don't know much about#if anywhere's gonna be open to that it'd probably be this church#they've got a food pantry as well which is nice. like as a church you SHOULD be doing mutual aid i think but you know#i think i would always relish in being a little blasphemous though. thats the spice of life thats why im alive#im rereading this. who the fuck says relish#thank god for the industriously cautious part of my brain though because i'm doing so much fucking research before even daring to step foot#in there#on the sect and on the church itself#i think this would be very much a me reading the bible to shape it to my life and beliefs thing rather than the opposite#maybe the real reason i want to go to church is so i can dom god#karinyo.txt
7 notes · View notes
allastoredeer · 9 months ago
Note
I just had a hilarious thought I needed to share. After thinking about it, of all the Sins we've met so far, I'd be willing to bet that Alastor would hate Beelzebub the most! For multiple reasons!
First, she's a canid demon, already enough of a reason for Alastor to dislike her.
Second, Alastor has been described by Viv as a food snob, he doesn't like greasy processed food or sweets. And Bee is all about junk food! She sings a whole song about it! She and Alastor would surely bump heads in the kitchen.
Third, Alastor is all about hiding his emotions and being a mystery. A rather difficult task to accomplish when there's someone who can smell/taste emotions around! Alastor wouldn't be able to hide his true feelings about things from Bee! What's worse, Bee has little to no filter. So not only could she sniff out his true emotions, she could just as easily blab about what he's feeling to everyone! Which Alastor certainly wouldn't appreciate.
Forth, of all the Sins we've been introduced to so far, Bee seems the one least willing to take any shit. When Alastor and Lucifer started butting heads, the result was a musical dick measuring contest. When Millie bashed Fizz over the head with a guitar, all Ozzie did was kick her and Moxxie out of his club. When Blitzø roasted Mammon in front of a crowd of his fans, all Mam did was insult him and tell him to shut up.
When Loona started mouthing off to Beelzebub however, Bee went full beast-mode and was ready to throw down! Now, if Alastor (shit-talker extraordinaire with a nasty habit of biting off more than he can chew) were to try and pull the same shit with Bee that he pulled with Lucifer, she absolutely would not hesitate teaching him the definition of "fuck around and find out".
And finally, to add a dash of radioapple into the mix (bc ofc😏🤭) you just know that Beelzebub, aka Miss "Satan's like a brother to me, but I could totally still hit that", would be at least a little flirty towards all her fellow Sins. Including Lucifer. Imagine Bee's visiting Lucifer at the hotel, maybe for a Deadly Sin reunion or maybe she's just visiting by herself. And the whole time she's there, she's just being so affectionate towards Lucifer, picking him up and spinning him around, holding his face in her hands, nuzzling him cheek to cheek or nose to nose, giving him quick pecks on the cheek or forehead, running her hands through his hair, calling him cute nicknames and telling him how adorable he is. Just giving him so much verbal and physical affection that toes the line between flirty and platonic. And Lucifer, knowing that that's just how Bee is, thinks nothing of it. He just laughs it off, no big deal.
Meanwhile, Alastor is off to the side witnessing all this and is just seething.
Imagine she's doing it on purpose too! Like Alastor has already made an ass of himself and she's getting back at him by flirting with his "totally not" crush!
Without a doubt, Alastor would absolutely despise Bee!
Hm, I don't know if Bee's was necessarily about junk-food. Like, yes, she references a lot of junk-food, but I think it really was just a song about indulgence as a whole using sweets as a metaphor. I mean, food--especially junk food--is usually the first thing that comes to mind when someone thinks of gluttony. What I got from her song was just giving in to your desires, going all out, no inhibition.
Although, she does favor cotton-candy as the food she hands out, and Alastor definitely wouldn't eat that XD I love that he's a food snob and a rotten deer carcass counts as a high quality dish to him.
I would LOVE for Bee and Al to meet so she could pick up on his emotions, particularly his negative emotions regarding his deal. I want her to look at his smiling face, his care-free attitude, but sense massive amounts of stress from him. Just a big ball of negative emotions, especially surrounding the deal he's trapped in and how cornered and helpless he feels.
I don't think she would say something in front of everyone. (Making this radioapple ;] ) Like Bee did with Blitz, I think she would go to Lucifer about it, maybe because she knows him the most. She wouldn't go into too much detail, because that's Alastor's business, but she mention that she's sensing a lot of negative emotions from him and to check on him because he is definitely not doing well (I love how caring and sincere Bee is, shes one of my favorite Sins).
And I think if Alastor knows that Bee can sense emotions like that, he would try to avoid her at all costs.
But also, I know you said Bee doesn't put up with shit, but I think Bee would see Alastor's shit-talking as a challenge, also like she did with Blitz, and knowing Alastor, I know he would step up to that challenge (if its a drinking contest--not with Beezle-juice because that's WAY to potent for Sinners), he'll lose, but considering Alastor "drinks like a sailor" he lasts longer than she expects).
I don't know if Alastor would despise her, but I think he'd be intimidated by her ability to pick up on peoples real emotions, and considering how guarded he is about himself, I can see him doing everything in his power to avoid meeting her face to face.
57 notes · View notes
leavingthepcg · 2 years ago
Text
Lifton's Eight Criteria helps to identify high control groups, or cults. The eight criteria include:
Milieu Control Perhaps the most important aspect of what makes a "high-demand group" is information and communication control. Members are often isolated from "outsiders", including outside sources not approved by leaders within the group, and family or friends that are not part of the group. Members are often made to "cut off" family and friends that are considered hostile toward the group.
Mystical Manipulation High-demand groups, particularly religious ones, will often use or manipulate events in order to further their message and bolster their doctrine. Examples of this are making prophecies or predictions that get repeatedly altered or forgotten about, or pointing to past predictions as being confirmed by a current event.
Demand for Purity Humans are flawed, and high demand groups exploit this fact by demanding perfection of their members. Sometimes, groups will even acknowledge that perfection is unachievable, but that individuals are perpetually at fault for being the only reason they cannot achieve it. This enhances feelings of guilt and shame, leading the member to feel as if the only way to improve themselves is to seek help from the group.
Confession High control groups exploit their members emotionally by having them "confess" supposed wrongdoings to another member or members. This makes the member vulnerable and constantly alert to their own and others' "sins". It is the promotion of hyper-policing of self and peers.
Sacred Science The group's ideology is held as the ultimate, capital-T "Truth"; it is the one standard by which all aspects of life must be measured. This often leads to science-denial, conspiracy-minded thinking, and isolating oneself based on the belief that others are unenlightened.
Loaded Language Members of cults will often reveal that they are a member of an in-group in the use of language. The group creates unique vocabulary, or changes/enhances the use of a term in order to create a doctrine of thought. This tactic helps to reform the member's thought process by embedding concepts into their minds that can be easily repeated and recognized through the repeated use of a simple phrase or word.
Doctrine Over Person Group belief is held as the ultimate "truth", trumping personal experience, beliefs, values, or reasoning. If the member feels or believes that something about the group is "off" or "untrue", they are taught to dismiss those thoughts and to internalize guilt about having "doubts".
Dispensing of Existence This describes the portion of thought control that creates an "us vs. them" attitude in the member. The member may be convinced that those outside the group are "sinful", "damned", "unenlightened", "ignorant", etc.
71 notes · View notes
siftedaswheat · 14 days ago
Text
List Of Sins In Strongs Concordance - Greek Transliteration - Greek Word Study
Greek Word Studies | Precept Austin
Englishman's Greek Concordance
Matthew 15:19
διαλογισμός 1261. Dialogismos [thoughts]: Evil thoughts - thoughts that are troublesome, injurious, pernicious, destructive, baneful. Malicious, wicked, evil thoughts. The word, “thoughts” comes up in the concordance but the word, “evil thoughts” in Matthew did not..
The term "dialogismos" refers to the process of reasoning or deliberation, often involving internal thoughts or debates. It can denote both positive and negative connotations, such as thoughtful consideration or skeptical questioning. In the New Testament, it is frequently used to describe the inner thoughts and doubts of individuals, particularly in relation to faith and understanding of God's will.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, reasoning and debate were highly valued as means of discovering truth and understanding the world. Philosophical schools often engaged in dialogismos to explore various ideas and beliefs. In the Jewish context, reasoning was also important, but it was expected to align with the wisdom and revelation of God as found in the Scriptures. The New Testament reflects this tension between human reasoning and divine revelation.
Φόνος 5408. Phonos: [murders.] φονεύω 5407. Phoneuó: [murder.] φονεύς 5406. Phoneus: [a murderer.]  slaughter, killing. commit intentional (unjustified) homicide. Depriving one of life by illegal or intentional act. 
Usage: The term "phonos" is used in the New Testament to denote the act of murder or unlawful killing. It is often associated with acts of violence and is considered a grave sin. The word emphasizes the intentional and malicious nature of taking another person's life.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, murder was a serious crime, often punishable by death or exile. The Jewish law, as outlined in the Old Testament, also strictly prohibited murder, reflecting the commandment "You shall not murder" (Exodus 20:13). The New Testament continues this tradition, condemning murder as a violation of God's law and an act contrary to the love and respect for life that believers are called to uphold.
μοιχεία 3430. Moicheia: [adulteries.] μοιχεύω 3431. Moicheuó: [adultery.] μοιχός 3432. Moichos: [adulterers.]  describes an act of sexual intercourse with someone not one's own spouse. Lust of the eyes can be adultery of the heart.  
Usage: In the New Testament, "μοιχεία" refers to the act of adultery, which is the violation of the marriage covenant by engaging in sexual relations with someone other than one's spouse. It is considered a serious sin and a breach of the moral law as outlined in the Ten Commandments.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the ancient Jewish context, adultery was a grave offense against both God and the social order. The Mosaic Law prescribed severe penalties for those caught in adultery, reflecting the importance of marital fidelity in maintaining family and community integrity. In Greco-Roman society, while attitudes towards sexual morality varied, adultery was often viewed as a violation of social norms and personal honor.
Κλοπή 2829. Klopé: [thefts.] κλέπτω 2813. Kleptó: [steal.] κλέπτης 2812. Kleptés: [thieves.] thievery done secretively (not out in the open or with violence.) A thief. To unlawfully take what does not belong to you. 
Usage: The term "klopé" refers to the act of stealing or theft. It is used in the New Testament to describe the unlawful taking of someone else's property. The word emphasizes the act of stealing itself, rather than the identity of the thief or the value of the stolen item.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, theft was considered a serious offense, often punishable by severe penalties. The act of stealing was not only a violation of personal property rights but also a breach of social and moral order. In Jewish law, as outlined in the Torah, theft was condemned, and restitution was required. The cultural context of the New Testament reflects these values, viewing theft as a sin against both God and neighbor.
Ψευδομαρτυρία 5577. Pseudomarturia: [false witness.] ψευδομαρτυρέω 5576. Pseudomartureó: [bear false witness.]  one who gives false testimony, a false witness.  The telling of lies about another so as to make them appear guilty when they are innocent. Perjury. 
Usage: The term "pseudomarturia" refers to the act of giving false testimony or bearing false witness. In the biblical context, it is often associated with lying or deceit, particularly in legal or judicial settings. This concept is strongly condemned in both the Old and New Testaments as it undermines justice and truth.
Cultural and Historical Background: In ancient Jewish and Greco-Roman societies, the legal system relied heavily on the testimony of witnesses. Bearing false witness was considered a serious offense because it could lead to unjust outcomes, including wrongful punishment or the acquittal of the guilty. The Ninth Commandment in the Decalogue explicitly prohibits bearing false witness against one's neighbor (Exodus 20:16), highlighting the importance of truthfulness in maintaining social order and justice.
Mark 10:19
Ἀποστερέω 650. Apostereó: [Defraud.]   to cause another to suffer loss by taking away through illicit means, rob, steal, despoil, defraud.  
Usage: The verb ἀποστερέω (apostereó) is used in the New Testament to convey the act of depriving someone of what is rightfully theirs, often with a sense of injustice or moral wrongdoing. It implies an unethical withholding or taking away of something, whether it be material possessions, rights, or due honor.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, the concept of justice and fairness was integral to societal norms. The act of defrauding or depriving someone was not only a legal issue but also a moral one. The early Christian community, influenced by Jewish ethical teachings, emphasized fairness, justice, and the proper treatment of others, reflecting the broader biblical mandate to love one's neighbor and act justly.
Mark 7:21-23
πονηρία 4189. Ponéria: [wickedness.]  iniquities. Malice: the desire to harm someone or the feeling of pleasure at someone's misfortune. Depravity. State or condition of a lack of moral or social values, wickedness, baseness, maliciousness, sinfulness.
Usage: In the New Testament, "ponéria" refers to a state or quality of moral corruption and depravity. It encompasses a broad spectrum of evil behaviors and intentions, often highlighting the inherent wickedness in human nature apart from God. It is used to describe actions, thoughts, and conditions that are contrary to God's holiness and righteousness.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, moral and ethical standards were often influenced by philosophical schools of thought, such as Stoicism and Epicureanism. However, the biblical concept of "ponéria" transcends these philosophies by rooting the understanding of evil in the character of God as revealed in Scripture. The Jewish understanding of evil, as seen in the Old Testament, also informs the New Testament usage, emphasizing the covenantal relationship between God and His people and the consequences of straying from His commandments.
δόλος 1388. Dolos: [deceit.] taking advantage through craft and underhanded methods, deceit, cunning, treachery. An attempt to deceive or lead into error; a falsehood; any declaration, artifice, or practice, which misleads another, or causes him to believe what is false. It is a desire to gain advantage or preserve position by deceiving others.
Usage: In the New Testament, "dolos" refers to deceit or guile, often highlighting the moral and ethical implications of deception. It is used to describe actions or intentions that are dishonest, misleading, or treacherous. The term underscores a lack of integrity and sincerity, often in the context of relationships or communication.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, deceit was a common aspect of social and political life, often used to gain advantage or manipulate situations. However, within the Jewish and early Christian ethical framework, deceit was condemned as contrary to the nature of God, who is truth. The early Christian community was called to live in truth and sincerity, reflecting the character of Christ.
ἀσέλγεια 766. Aselgeia:[lasciviousness.] licentiousness, wantonness. (outrageous conduct, conduct shocking to public decency, a wanton violence), lewdness.  Sensuality. This is a disregard of accepted moral rules and standards, lack of moral restraint, dissoluteness, lasciviousness. originally referred to any excess or lack of restraint but came to convey the idea of shameless excess and the absence of restraint, especially with sexual excess. 
Usage: The term "aselgeia" refers to unrestrained, shameless behavior, often associated with sexual excesses and moral depravity. It denotes a lack of self-control and a disregard for moral boundaries, often manifesting in actions that are openly indecent or offensive. In the New Testament, it is used to describe behaviors that are contrary to the holiness and purity expected of believers.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, "aselgeia" was often associated with the hedonistic lifestyles prevalent in certain segments of society. The term captures the essence of living without regard for moral or social norms, often in pursuit of personal pleasure. Such behavior was not only common in pagan religious practices but also in the broader cultural context, where indulgence in sensual pleasures was sometimes celebrated.
ἀφροσύνη 877. Aphrosuné: [foolishness.] want of sense, levity, impiety, wickedness. inconsiderateness, folly;, boastful folly. Ignorant. Marked with, or exhibiting, folly; void of understanding; weak in intellect; without judgment or discretion; silly; unwise. the state of lack of prudence or good judgment, foolishness, lack of sense, moral and intellectual. The term "aphrosuné" refers to a lack of wisdom or understanding, often characterized by irrational or thoughtless behavior.
Usage: The term "aphrosuné" refers to a lack of wisdom or understanding, often characterized by irrational or thoughtless behavior. In the New Testament, it is used to describe actions or attitudes that are contrary to God's wisdom and righteousness. It implies a moral and spiritual deficiency, rather than merely an intellectual one.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, wisdom was highly valued, and foolishness was often seen as a moral failing. The concept of "aphrosuné" would have been understood as a significant flaw, not just in reasoning but in character. In Jewish thought, wisdom is closely associated with the fear of the Lord, and foolishness is often equated with wickedness and rebellion against God.
Acts 13:10
Ῥ���διουργία 4468. Rhadiourgia: [mischief.] sloth. ease in doing, laziness, recklessness, craftiness, villainy, cunning. Fraud. Self indulgence. levity or easiness in thinking and acting; love of a lazy and effeminate life. suggests an easygoing approach to things in contrast to serious acceptance of responsibilities: ‘frivolity’, then an endeavor to gain some personal end through clever or tricky means, in effect a mild expr. for chichanery, wickedness, villainy, deceit, fraud, unscrupulousness (one who looks for an easy and questionable way of doing things to make money may be said, in American parlance, ‘to con’ others.) 
Usage: The term "rhadiourgia" refers to acts of villainy or deceitful behavior. It conveys a sense of moral laxity and unscrupulousness, often associated with cunning or underhanded actions. In the New Testament, it is used to describe the deceitful practices of individuals who oppose the truth and righteousness.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, moral character was highly valued, and terms like "rhadiourgia" would have been used to describe those who acted contrary to societal norms of honesty and integrity. The concept of deceit and villainy was often associated with those who sought personal gain at the expense of others, reflecting a broader cultural disdain for such behavior.
Romans 1:29-32
ἀδικία 93. Adikia: [unrighteousness.] injustice, hurt. a violation of God's standards (justice) which brings divine disapproval. an act that violates standards of right conduct, wrongdoing. The term "adikia" refers to a state or condition of being unjust or unrighteous. It encompasses actions, thoughts, and behaviors that are contrary to God's standards of justice and righteousness. 
Usage: The term "adikia" refers to a state or condition of being unjust or unrighteous. It encompasses actions, thoughts, and behaviors that are contrary to God's standards of justice and righteousness. In the New Testament, "adikia" is often used to describe moral wrongness, wickedness, or iniquity, highlighting a deviation from divine law and ethical conduct.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, justice (dike) was a foundational concept in both legal and moral contexts. The prefix "a-" negates the word, thus "adikia" signifies a lack of justice or righteousness. In Jewish thought, righteousness (tzedakah) was closely tied to one's relationship with God and adherence to His commandments. Therefore, "adikia" would be seen as a serious breach of covenantal faithfulness and community ethics.
κακία 2549. Kakia: [maliciousness.] κακοήθεια 2550. Kakoétheia: [malignity.]  (a) evil (i.e. trouble, labor, misfortune), (b) (c) vicious disposition, malice, spite. malignity, malice, ill-will, desire to injure. evil-mindedness, malevolence. the quality or state of wickedness, baseness, depravity, wickedness, vice. 
Usage: In the New Testament, "kakia" refers to a state of moral corruption and wickedness. It encompasses a broad range of evil behaviors and intentions, including malice, ill-will, and a general disposition towards wrongdoing. The term is often used to describe the inherent sinful nature of humanity and the moral depravity that opposes God's righteousness.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, "kakia" was understood as a fundamental flaw in character, often contrasted with "aretē" (virtue). The concept of moral evil was not only a philosophical concern but also a practical one, as societies sought to define and uphold standards of good conduct. In the Jewish context, "kakia" would have been associated with behaviors and attitudes contrary to the Law of Moses and the ethical teachings of the Hebrew Scriptures.
φθόνος 5355. phthonos: [full of envy.] describes pain felt and malignity conceived at the sight of excellence or happiness. It means not just wanting what another person has, but also resenting that person for having it. 
Usage: In the New Testament, "phthonos" refers to a resentful awareness of another's advantages or possessions, often accompanied by a desire to possess the same. It is considered a destructive and sinful attitude that can lead to further wrongdoing. The term is used to describe a negative emotion that contrasts with the virtues of love and contentment.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, envy was recognized as a common human vice, often associated with discord and strife. Philosophers like Aristotle discussed envy as a harmful emotion that could disrupt social harmony. In Jewish thought, envy was similarly viewed as a vice that could lead to moral and spiritual decay, as seen in various Old Testament narratives.
ἔρις 2054. eris: [debate.] strife. contention, wrangling. variance. a readiness to quarrel (having a contentious spirit), affection for dispute. The definition of strife is — conflict, antagonism, quarrel, struggle, clash, competition, disagreement, opposition, fight. Engagement in rivalry, esp. w. ref. to positions taken in a matter, strife, discord, contention. 
Usage: The Greek word "eris" refers to a state of conflict, disagreement, or rivalry. It is often used in the New Testament to describe interpersonal conflicts and divisions within communities, particularly within the context of the early Christian church. The term conveys a sense of contentiousness and a spirit of rivalry that disrupts harmony and unity.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, "eris" was a common term used to describe disputes and rivalries, both in personal relationships and in larger societal contexts. The concept of strife was often associated with the breakdown of social order and was seen as a destructive force. In the context of the early Christian church, "eris" was particularly concerning as it threatened the unity and witness of the Christian community.
ψιθυριστής 5588. Psithuristés: [whisperers.] ψιθυρισμός 5587. Psithurismos: [whisperings.]   secret slanderer. Evil speaking. a sneaky gossip; a backbiter. Detraction: the sin of revealing another person's real faults to a third person without a valid reason, thereby lessening the reputation of that person. rumormonger, tale-bearer. an evil tongue which secretly conveys information, whether true or false and which is detrimental to the character or welfare of others. 
Usage: The term "psithuristés" refers to a person who engages in secretive or malicious whispering, often spreading rumors or gossip. In the New Testament, it is used to describe individuals who cause division and strife within a community by speaking ill of others behind their backs.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, as in many cultures, gossip and slander were seen as destructive behaviors that could undermine social harmony and trust. Whispering, in particular, was associated with deceit and cowardice, as it involved speaking in secret rather than addressing issues openly. The early Christian communities, striving for unity and love, would have viewed such behavior as contrary to the teachings of Christ.
κατάλαλος 2637. Katalalos: [Backbiters.] καταλαλιά 2636. Katalalia: [backbitings.] a railer, defamer. To censure, slander, reproach, or speak evil of the absent. those who speak evil against of others with the intent to injure the one spoken about.  
Usage: The term "katalalos" refers to someone who speaks ill of others, often behind their backs, with the intent to harm their reputation. It is used to describe a person who engages in slander or malicious gossip. In the New Testament, this behavior is condemned as it goes against the principles of love, truth, and unity within the Christian community.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, reputation and honor were highly valued, and slander could have serious social and legal consequences. The early Christian communities, influenced by Jewish teachings, emphasized the importance of truthful and edifying speech. Slander was seen as a destructive force that could divide communities and damage relationships, contrary to the teachings of Christ.
θεοστυγής 2319. theostugés: [haters of God.] hateful to God. Impious. This rare term refers to people who totally turn against the Lord. 
Usage: The term "theostugés" is used to describe someone who is hateful towards God or detestable in the sight of God. It conveys a strong sense of enmity or hostility against the divine. This word is used to characterize individuals or behaviors that are in direct opposition to God's nature and commands.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, where polytheism was prevalent, the concept of being "God-hating" would have been particularly striking. The early Christian community, living amidst a culture that often worshipped multiple deities, would have understood "theostugés" as a severe indictment of those who reject the one true God. This term underscores the gravity of turning away from God and embracing a lifestyle contrary to His will.
ὑβριστής 5197. Hubristés: [despiteful.] an insolent, insulting, or violent man. someone "damaging" others by lashing out with a nasty spirit. This kind of individual is insolent (delights in wrong-doing) – finding pleasure in hurting others. Either heaps insulting language upon others or does them some shameful act of wrong. 
Usage: The term "hubristés" refers to a person who is insolent or violent, characterized by arrogance and a lack of respect for others. In the New Testament, it is used to describe individuals who act with extreme pride and disregard for moral or social norms, often leading to abusive or violent behavior.
Cultural and Historical Background: In ancient Greek culture, "hubris" was a significant concept, often associated with excessive pride or self-confidence that leads to retribution or downfall. It was considered a serious offense, especially when it involved disrespecting the gods or other people. In the context of the New Testament, "hubristés" reflects a moral failing that is contrary to the humility and love encouraged by Christian teachings.
ἀσύνετος 801. asunetos: [without understanding.] unintelligent, without wisdom, unwise, undiscerning (implying probably moral defect). describes a person failing to structure information in a meaningful way, and therefore unable to reach necessary conclusions. This person is illogical because unwilling to use good reason. void of understanding, senseless, foolish, implying also a lack of high moral quality. This person is without insight or understanding and is descriptive of unredeemed man's heart. 
Usage: The term "asunetos" is used in the New Testament to describe a lack of understanding or discernment. It characterizes individuals who are unable or unwilling to comprehend spiritual truths or moral principles. This adjective often conveys a moral deficiency, indicating a willful ignorance or rejection of God's wisdom.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, wisdom and understanding were highly valued, often associated with philosophical and ethical living. The biblical use of "asunetos" contrasts the wisdom of God with the folly of human reasoning apart from divine revelation. In Jewish thought, wisdom was closely linked to the fear of the Lord and adherence to His commandments, making "asunetos" a serious spiritual shortcoming.
ἀσύνθετος 802. Asunthetos: [covenantbreakers.] untrue to an agreement, treacherous.  refusing to abide by "covenants" made. describes covenant breakers or men and women who are “non-covenant-keeping.” Such individuals break promises, treaties, agreements, and contracts whenever it serves their purposes. 
Usage: The term "asunthetos" is used to describe individuals who are unfaithful or treacherous, particularly in the context of breaking covenants or agreements. It conveys a sense of being unreliable or untrustworthy, especially in relationships or commitments that require fidelity and integrity.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, covenants and agreements were foundational to social and economic interactions. Being labeled as "asunthetos" would have been a serious accusation, as it implied a lack of honor and integrity. In Jewish culture, covenants were sacred, often involving solemn promises before God. Breaking such covenants was not only a social offense but also a spiritual one, reflecting a breach of trust with God Himself.
ἀνελεήμων 415. Aneleemon: [unmerciful.] unpitying, unmerciful, without compassion, cruel. Want of mercy; want of tenderness and compassion towards those who are in one's power; cruelty in the exercise of power or punishment. 
Usage: The term "aneleemon" is used to describe a lack of mercy or compassion. It characterizes individuals or actions that are devoid of kindness, empathy, or forgiveness. In the biblical context, it often highlights a moral deficiency, contrasting with the divine attribute of mercy that believers are encouraged to emulate.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, mercy was sometimes seen as a weakness, especially in the context of justice and power. However, the Judeo-Christian tradition places a high value on mercy as a reflection of God's character. The concept of mercy is central to the teachings of Jesus, who emphasized compassion and forgiveness as key virtues of the Kingdom of God.
Romans 2:22
ἱεροσυλέω 2416. Hierosuleó: [dost thou commit sacrilege?] rob a temple. thou who abhorrest idols and their contamination, dost yet not hesitate to plunder their shrines.
Usage: The verb ἱεροσυλέω refers to the act of committing sacrilege, specifically the act of robbing temples or desecrating sacred places. In the context of the New Testament, it implies a violation of what is considered holy or set apart for divine purposes.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, temples were not only places of worship but also served as treasuries and repositories for valuable items. The act of robbing a temple was considered a grave offense, both legally and religiously. Such acts were seen as direct affronts to the gods and were punishable by severe penalties. In Jewish culture, the Temple in Jerusalem held immense religious significance, and any act of desecration was viewed as a serious violation of the covenant with God.
Romans 3:14
πικρία 4088. pikria: [bitterness.] an embittered (resentful) spirit. anger and disappointment at being treated unfairly.  state of being bitter in an affective sense, bitterness, animosity, anger, harshness. in a metaphorical sense to describe animosity, resentfulness, harshness or an openly-expressed emotional hostility against an enemy. Pikria defines a settled hostility that poisons the whole inner man. Somebody does something we do not like, so we harbor ill will against him. Bitterness leads to wrath, which is the explosion on the outside of the feelings on the inside. 
Usage: The term "pikria" refers to a state of sharpness or acridity, often used metaphorically to describe a deep-seated resentment or harshness in one's spirit. In the New Testament, it is used to denote a condition of the heart that is contrary to the fruit of the Spirit, often associated with anger, wrath, and malice.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, bitterness was often seen as a destructive emotion that could lead to personal and communal discord. The early Christian teachings emphasized the transformation of the heart and mind, urging believers to rid themselves of bitterness and embrace forgiveness and love, reflecting the character of Christ.
ἀρά 685. Ara: [full of cursing.] a prayer; more commonly: a prayer for evil, imprecation. Malediction: a magical word or phrase uttered with the intention of bringing about evil or destruction; a curse. Cursing refers to wanting the worst for someone and publicly expressing that desire in caustic, derisive language. It represents open, public expression of emotional hostility against one’s enemy. 
Usage: The Greek particle "ἄρα" is used to draw a conclusion or inference from a preceding statement or context. It often serves to connect thoughts logically, indicating a result or consequence. In the New Testament, it is used to emphasize the logical outcome of a discussion or argument.
Cultural and Historical Background: In ancient Greek literature, particles like "ἄρα" were essential for constructing logical arguments and narratives. They helped speakers and writers to guide their audience through complex reasoning. In the context of the New Testament, "ἄρα" is used by authors to clarify theological points and to lead readers to a deeper understanding of spiritual truths.
Romans 13:13
κῶμος 2970. Kómos: [rioting.] a village festival. a feasting, reveling, carousal. a carousal, such as a party of revelers parading the streets, or revels held in religious ceremonies, wild, furious, and ecstatic. komos generally refers to feasts and drinking parties that are protracted till late at night and indulge in revelry.
Usage: The term "kómos" refers to a festive procession or celebration, often characterized by excessive feasting, drinking, and licentious behavior. In the New Testament, it is used metaphorically to describe a lifestyle of indulgence and moral laxity, often in contrast to the virtues of self-control and sobriety expected of believers.
Cultural and Historical Background: In ancient Greek culture, a "kómos" was a common feature of religious festivals and social gatherings, where participants engaged in revelry and merrymaking. These events were often associated with the worship of Dionysus, the god of wine, and were marked by a lack of restraint and moral boundaries. The New Testament writers, aware of these cultural practices, used the term to caution against the dangers of such excesses and to promote a life of holiness and discipline.
κοίτη 2845. Koité: [chambering.] Desire for the forbidden bed. sexual promiscuity. The word brings to mind the man who sets no value on fidelity and who takes his sexual pleasure when and where he will. 
Usage: The Greek word "κοίτη" primarily refers to a bed or a place of lying down. In the New Testament, it is often used metaphorically to denote sexual relations or the marriage bed. The term can carry both neutral and negative connotations, depending on the context, such as in discussions of marital intimacy or illicit sexual behavior.
Cultural and Historical Background: In ancient Greek and Jewish culture, the bed was not only a piece of furniture but also a symbol of intimacy and rest. The marriage bed, in particular, was considered sacred, representing the union between husband and wife. The use of "κοίτη" in the New Testament reflects these cultural understandings, often highlighting the sanctity of marriage or warning against sexual immorality.
πάροινος 3943. paroinos: [given to wine.]  The picture is of a man who always has a bottle on the table, which is an indication that he is not having a casual drink but that he is addicted.  It was used to describe the one who tends to be quarrelsome because he habitually drinks too much. 
Usage: The term "paroinos" is used in the New Testament to describe someone who is habitually overindulging in wine, leading to drunkenness. It is often associated with a lack of self-control and is used to describe a character trait that is not suitable for church leaders or those in positions of spiritual authority.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, wine was a common beverage, often consumed with meals. However, excessive drinking and drunkenness were frowned upon, especially among those who were expected to lead by example, such as elders and overseers in the early Christian church. The cultural context of the time placed a high value on moderation and self-control, particularly for those in leadership roles.
ζῆλος 2205. zelos: [envying.] contentious rivalry. Emulation: effort to match or surpass a person or achievement, typically by imitation. Jealousy describes envy of someone else’s possessions, achievements, or advantages. It describes the spirit which cannot be content with what it has and looks with jealous eye on every blessing given to someone else and denied to itself. 
Usage: In the New Testament, "zelos" can have both positive and negative connotations. Positively, it refers to an intense enthusiasm or fervor for something good, such as devotion to God or a righteous cause. Negatively, it can denote jealousy or envy, where one's fervor is misdirected or self-centered.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, "zelos" was often associated with the competitive spirit and rivalry, especially in athletic and political contexts. In Jewish culture, zeal was a highly regarded trait, especially in religious contexts, where it was seen as a passionate commitment to God's law and covenant. The Zealots, a Jewish political movement, exemplified this fervor in their resistance against Roman occupation.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10
μαλακός 3120. Malakos: [effeminate.] a male who submits his body to unnatural lewdness. to being passive in a same-sex relationship, effeminate esp. of catamites, of men and boys who are sodomized by other males in such a relationship. 
Usage: The term "malakos" is used in the New Testament to describe something that is soft or luxurious. In a moral context, it refers to effeminacy or moral softness, often implying a lack of self-discipline or moral fortitude. It is used to describe individuals who are morally weak or indulgent.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, the term "malakos" was often associated with luxury and decadence. It could describe clothing, lifestyle, or behavior that was considered overly indulgent or lacking in traditional masculine virtues. In a moral sense, it was used to criticize those who were seen as lacking the strength of character expected in a patriarchal society.
ἀρσενοκοίτης 733. Arsenokoites: [abusers of themselves with mankind.] engaging in same-gender sexual activity; a sodomite, pederast. 
Usage: The term "arsenokoites" is used in the New Testament to refer to men who engage in sexual relations with other men. It is often translated as "homosexuals" or "sodomites" in English versions of the Bible. The word is understood to denote a specific type of sexual immorality, particularly male same-sex relations, which are viewed as contrary to the biblical sexual ethic.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, homosexual practices were known and, in some contexts, accepted or even celebrated. However, Jewish and early Christian teachings, rooted in the Old Testament, consistently condemned such practices. The term "arsenokoites" likely draws from Levitical prohibitions against male same-sex relations (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13), reflecting the continuity of moral teaching from the Old Testament to the New Testament.
2 Corinthians 12:19-21
ἀκαθαρσία 167. akatharsia: [uncleanness.] impurity. a state of moral corruption. Immorality. Vileness. moral uncleanness in thought, word, and deed.
Usage: The term "akatharsia" refers to a state of moral or physical impurity. In the New Testament, it is often used to describe moral corruption, particularly in the context of sexual immorality, idolatry, and other behaviors that are contrary to God's holiness. It conveys a sense of defilement that separates individuals from the purity and sanctity expected by God.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, concepts of purity and impurity were significant in both religious and social contexts. Jewish law, as outlined in the Old Testament, had strict regulations regarding cleanliness, which were both ceremonial and moral. The early Christian community, emerging from this Jewish context, understood impurity not only in terms of ritual but also as a moral and spiritual condition that needed to be addressed through repentance and sanctification.
ἀκαταστασία 181. Akatastasia: [tumults.] instability. upheaval, revolution, almost anarchy, first in the political, and thence in the moral sphere. confusion. unsettled state of affairs, disturbance, tumult. opposition to established authority, disorder, unruliness. Insurrections.
Usage: The term "akatastasia" is used in the New Testament to describe a state of disorder, confusion, or instability. It often refers to situations where there is a lack of peace and order, whether in a community, a person's life, or in the broader context of spiritual or moral conduct. The word suggests a disruption of harmony and an environment where chaos prevails over order.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, order and stability were highly valued both in society and in personal conduct. The concept of "akatastasia" would have been understood as contrary to the desired state of harmony and peace. In the early Christian communities, maintaining order was crucial for the effective functioning and witness of the church. The presence of disorder could hinder the church's mission and the believers' spiritual growth.
ἐριθεία 2052. Eritheia: [strifes.] ; means self seeking, strife, contentiousness, extreme selfishness, rivalry and those who seek only their own. In a word, eritheia is the desire to be number one no matter the cost! It usually conveys the idea of building oneself up by tearing someone else down, as in gambling, where one person’s gain is derived from others’ losses. The word accurately describes someone who strives to advance himself by using flattery, deceit, false accusation, contentiousness, and any other tactic that seems advantageous.
Usage: In the New Testament, "eritheia" is used to describe a self-seeking attitude that leads to division and conflict. It denotes a spirit of rivalry and ambition that prioritizes personal gain over communal harmony and the well-being of others. This term is often associated with negative behaviors that disrupt unity within the Christian community.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, ambition and competition were often seen as virtues, especially in political and social contexts. However, the early Christian community, influenced by the teachings of Jesus and the apostles, viewed such self-centered ambition as contrary to the values of humility, service, and love. The term "eritheia" reflects a departure from the communal and sacrificial ethos that characterized the early church.
θυμός 2372. thumos: [wraths.] a state of intense displeasure,  angry tempers, fierce, indignation, rage. passion, heat, anger forthwith boiling up and soon subsiding again. described as the intoxication of the soul, that sweeps a man into doing things for which afterwards he is bitterly sorry.
Usage: In the New Testament, "thumos" is often used to describe a passionate, intense form of anger or wrath. It conveys a sense of boiling agitation or a sudden outburst of emotion. This term is frequently associated with divine wrath or human anger that is intense and often destructive. It is distinct from "orge," another Greek word for anger, which implies a more settled or abiding state of mind.
Cultural and Historical Background: In ancient Greek culture, "thumos" was understood as a powerful force within the human psyche, often linked to the soul's spirited part. It was seen as a driving force behind courage and action but also as a potential source of destructive rage if not controlled. In the context of the New Testament, "thumos" reflects the intense emotions that can lead to sin if not tempered by the Holy Spirit.
1 Corinthians 12:25
σχίσμα 4978. Schisma: [schism.] the condition of being divided because of conflicting aims or objectives, division, dissension, schism in the church.. Disagreement in opinion, usually a disagreement which is violent, producing warm debates or angry words; contention in words.
Usage: In the New Testament, "schisma" refers to a division or split within a group, often implying a discord or separation among people who were once united. It is used to describe both physical and metaphorical separations, particularly within the context of the early Christian community.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, unity and harmony were highly valued, especially within social and religious groups. The early Christian church, emerging in this context, faced challenges of maintaining unity amidst diverse cultural, ethnic, and theological backgrounds. The term "schisma" captures the tensions and divisions that could arise within the church, threatening its witness and mission.
Galatians 5:19-21
φαρμακεία 5331. Pharmakeia: [witchcraft.] φαρμακεύς 5332. Pharmakeus: [sorcerer.] φάρμακος 5333. Pharmakos: [sorcerers.]  the use of medicine, drugs or spells, properly, drug-related sorcery, like the practice of magical-arts, etc. Involvement With The Occult: Sorcery: Witchcraft: Magic Practice:  Magicians, Enchanters, Divination, Wizards, Spiritism, Soothsaying: Casting Spells: Drug Use: of or relating to magic, astrology, or any system claiming use or knowledge of secret or supernatural powers or agencies. 
Usage: In the New Testament, "pharmakeia" refers to the practice of sorcery or witchcraft, often involving the use of potions, spells, and enchantments. It is associated with idolatry and the manipulation of spiritual forces through illicit means. The term is used to describe practices that are contrary to the worship of the one true God and are often linked with moral corruption and deception.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the ancient Greco-Roman world, "pharmakeia" was commonly associated with the use of drugs and potions for magical or religious purposes. Sorcerers and magicians were believed to have the power to influence the spiritual realm, often for personal gain or to harm others. Such practices were prevalent in pagan religions and were condemned by Jewish and early Christian teachings as they were seen as attempts to usurp God's authority and engage with demonic forces.
ἔχθρα 2189. Echthra: [hatred.] enmity, hostility. alienation. unfriendly dispositions. The quality of being an enemy. describes that extreme negative attitude that is the opposite of love and friendship.
Usage: The Greek word "ἔχθρα" (echthra) is used in the New Testament to denote a state of enmity or hostility. It often refers to the deep-seated animosity or opposition that exists between individuals or groups. In a spiritual context, it can also describe the hostility between humanity and God due to sin.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, enmity was a common aspect of social and political life, often resulting in feuds, wars, and divisions. The concept of enmity was not only personal but also communal, affecting relationships between different ethnic groups, political factions, and religious sects. In the Jewish context, enmity could also be seen in the division between Jews and Gentiles, as well as between different sects within Judaism.
διχοστασία 1370. Dichostasia: [seditions.]  a standing apart which is a picture of dissension, discord, disunity, contention, division into opposing groups. The idea of dissension is disagreement which leads to discord. Dissension is strife that arises from a difference of opinion and stresses a division into factions (especially factions in the early church).
Usage: The term "dichostasia" refers to a state of division or dissension, often implying a separation into opposing factions or parties. In the New Testament, it is used to describe the discord and lack of unity that can arise within a community, particularly within the body of believers. It is often associated with works of the flesh and is contrasted with the unity and harmony that should characterize the Christian community.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, unity and harmony were highly valued in both civic and familial contexts. Division and factionalism were seen as threats to the stability and peace of society. In the early Christian church, unity was especially important as believers sought to live out the teachings of Jesus in a diverse and often hostile environment. The apostles frequently addressed issues of division, urging believers to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
αἵρεσις 139. Hairesis: [heresies.] a self-chosen opinion, a religious or philosophical sect, discord or contention. Factions, heresies. a body of men separating themselves from others and following their own tenets.
Usage: In the New Testament, "hairesis" primarily refers to a group or faction that arises from a division or choice, often implying a departure from established doctrine or practice. It can denote a sect or party within a larger religious context, sometimes with a negative connotation of causing division or promoting false teachings.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, "hairesis" was used to describe philosophical schools or sects, such as the Stoics or Epicureans, which were groups formed around particular teachings or beliefs. In the Jewish context, it could refer to different sects like the Pharisees or Sadducees. In early Christianity, the term began to take on a more negative connotation, referring to groups that deviated from apostolic teaching and caused division within the church.
Ephesians 4:31
ὀργή 3709. Orgé: [anger.] ὀργίλος 3711. Orgilos [soon angry.] state of relatively strong displeasure, with focus on the emotional aspect, anger.  impulse, wrath, passion; punishment, vengeance.
Usage: In the New Testament, "orgé" primarily refers to a settled and abiding condition of mind, often with a view to taking vengeance. It is used to describe both human and divine anger. Human anger can be sinful, but divine wrath is always just and righteous, reflecting God's holiness and justice.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, anger was often seen as a powerful emotion that could lead to destructive actions if not controlled. Philosophers like Aristotle discussed the importance of moderating anger. In Jewish thought, God's wrath was understood as a response to sin and disobedience, a theme that is consistent throughout the Old Testament and carried into the New Testament.
Κραυγή 2906. Kraugé: [clamour.] (a) a shout, cry, clamor, (b) outcry, clamoring against another. A great outcry; noise; exclamation; vociferation, made by a loud human voice continued or repeated, or by a multitude of voices. It often expresses complaint and urgent demand.
clamor is "noisy shouting" and describes those who "become loudly insistent" making a vehement protest or demand.
Usage: The term "kraugé" refers to a loud cry or shout, often expressing strong emotion such as distress, fear, or fervent appeal. It is used in the New Testament to describe both literal and metaphorical cries, including those of people in need, crowds, or even the cries of Jesus.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the ancient Greco-Roman world, public speaking and vocal expression were significant aspects of communication. A "kraugé" could be a spontaneous outburst or a deliberate call for attention. In Jewish culture, crying out to God in prayer or lament was a common practice, reflecting a deep reliance on divine intervention.
Ephesians 5:3-5
αἰσχρότης 151. Aischrotés: [filthiness.] behavior that flouts social and moral standards. Indecent, indecorous, dishonorable, inappropriate conduct, ugly, shameful, base, disgraceful) describes impropriety or improper conduct whether in action or word or even thought and intent. It means indecorum of any kind. Aischrotes is an "ugly" sounding word which describes ugly, shameful conduct of any kind, specifically conduct which is contrary to a person who is inhabited by the Spirit of Christ and is called to follow after his Father in heaven.
Usage: The term "aischrotés" refers to behavior or speech that is considered shameful, indecent, or morally offensive. In the New Testament, it is used to describe conduct that is unbecoming of a believer, particularly in the context of speech that is vulgar or inappropriate. It emphasizes the importance of purity and integrity in communication among Christians.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, public speech and conduct were often scrutinized for their moral and ethical implications. The early Christian community, living within this cultural milieu, was called to a higher standard of holiness and purity, distinguishing themselves from the surrounding pagan practices. The use of "aischrotés" in the New Testament reflects the early church's emphasis on maintaining a testimony that honors God, both in word and deed.
μωρολογία 3473. Mórologia: [foolish talking.] Silly talk means that kind of talk which is insipid, senseless, stupid, foolish; which is not fitted to instruct, edify, profit--the idle chit-chat which is so common in the world. The meaning is, that Christians should aim to have their conversation sensible, serious, sincere remembering the words of the Lord Jesus, "that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.
Usage: The term "mórologia" refers to speech that is senseless, foolish, or lacking in wisdom. It is used to describe conversations or words that are trivial, frivolous, or devoid of meaningful content. In the context of the New Testament, it often carries a negative connotation, warning believers against engaging in such speech.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, rhetoric and speech were highly valued, and the ability to speak wisely and persuasively was considered a mark of education and virtue. Foolish talk, therefore, was not only seen as a lack of wisdom but also as a failure to live up to societal standards of communication. In the early Christian community, speech was seen as a reflection of one's inner character and spiritual maturity.
εὐτραπελία 2160. Eutrapelia: [jesting.] scurrility. 
This includes facetiousness, course wittiness, ribaldry. It refers to the "turning" of one’s speech for the purpose of exciting wit or humor that ends in deceptive speech, so formed that the speaker easily contrives to wriggle out of its meaning or engagement (John Eadie). Since such persons can easily manipulate circumstances, they are apt to deteriorate into mischief–makers and clowns. Therefore, the noun form eutrápelos which can mean a witty person, is also used in a bad sense meaning a scoffer, one who sneers, or one who offers coarse jokes.
Usage: In the New Testament, εὐτραπελία refers to inappropriate or coarse jesting, often involving vulgar or indecent humor. It is used to describe speech that is unbecoming of a Christian, focusing on humor that is morally questionable or offensive. The term suggests a turning of good-natured wit into something that is improper or harmful.
Cultural and Historical Background: In ancient Greek culture, wit and humor were highly valued, and the ability to engage in clever conversation was considered a social skill. However, this could sometimes devolve into crude or indecent jesting. The New Testament context reflects a call for believers to maintain purity in speech, avoiding the kind of humor that would be considered offensive or degrading, especially in a community setting where moral integrity was paramount.
Philippians 2:14
γογγυσμός 1112. Goggusmos: [murmurings.] muttering, grumbling. complaint. is an audible expression of an unwarranted dissatisfaction = expression of one's discontent. Expression in low tones of disapprobation (act or state of disapproving). Grumbling, grudging, murmuring, complaining (= making formal accusation or expressing dissatisfaction, resentment, displeasure or annoyance).
Usage: The term "goggusmos" refers to a low, muttered complaint or expression of discontent. It is often used in the New Testament to describe the murmuring or grumbling of people who are dissatisfied or rebellious against God or His appointed leaders. This term conveys a sense of secretive or subdued discontent, often expressed in a communal or collective setting.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the ancient Greco-Roman world, public discourse and open debate were common, but "goggusmos" reflects a more private, often subversive form of dissent. In the context of the Bible, it is frequently associated with the Israelites' complaints during their wilderness journey, as well as the early Christian communities' struggles with internal dissatisfaction and division. Grumbling was seen as a lack of faith and trust in God's provision and leadership.
διαλογισμός 1261. Dialogismos: [disputings.] a calculation, reasoning, thought, movement of thought, deliberation, plotting. argument, dissension, doubts, motives, opinions, reasonings,  speculations,  thoughts. a questioning mind and suggests an arrogant attitude by those who assume they’re always right. Arguing with others in the body of Christ is disruptive. 
Usage: The term "dialogismos" refers to the process of reasoning or deliberation, often involving internal thoughts or debates. It can denote both positive and negative connotations, such as thoughtful consideration or skeptical questioning. In the New Testament, it is frequently used to describe the inner thoughts and doubts of individuals, particularly in relation to faith and understanding of God's will.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, reasoning and debate were highly valued as means of discovering truth and understanding the world. Philosophical schools often engaged in dialogismos to explore various ideas and beliefs. In the Jewish context, reasoning was also important, but it was expected to align with the wisdom and revelation of God as found in the Scriptures. The New Testament reflects this tension between human reasoning and divine revelation.
Colossians 3:5-8
πάθος 3806. pathos: [inordinate affection.] suffering, emotion, depraved passion, lust. strong feelings (emotions) which are not guided by God (like consuming lust). A passion is a drive or force that does not rest until satisfied. These are internal desires (emanating from our fallen sin nature) cause the victim to suffer and that have to be satisfied or they drive you crazy. A passion describes intense emotion compelling action; intense, driving, or overmastering feeling or conviction; ardent affection; sexual desire or an emotion that is deeply stirring or ungovernable. The word "desires" (when used as noun as in the present context) means to have a longing for and stresses the strength of feeling and often implies strong intention or aim; conscious impulse toward something that promises enjoyment or satisfaction in its attainment. 
Usage: In the New Testament, "pathos" is often used to describe strong emotions or desires, particularly those that are sinful or lead to moral corruption. It conveys the idea of uncontrolled or excessive desires that can lead to sinful actions. The term is generally used in a negative context, highlighting the need for self-control and purity in the life of a believer.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, "pathos" was understood as a powerful emotion or passion that could dominate a person's reason and lead to irrational behavior. Philosophers like the Stoics viewed pathos as something to be controlled or eradicated to achieve a virtuous life. In the Jewish and early Christian context, such passions were often associated with the sinful nature and contrasted with the virtues of self-control and holiness.
ἐπιθυμία  1939. Epithumia: [concupiscence.] passionate longing, desire, eagerness for, inordinate desire, lust: is a neutral term denoting the presence of strong desires or impulses, longings or passionate craving (whether it is good or evil is determined by the context) directed toward an object. 
Usage: In the New Testament, "epithumia" is often used to describe a strong desire or longing, which can be either positive or negative depending on the context. It frequently refers to sinful desires or lusts that are contrary to God's will. However, it can also denote a strong, earnest desire for something good, such as the longing to see Christ or to be with fellow believers.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, desires were often seen as powerful forces that could lead individuals astray if not properly controlled. The New Testament writers, influenced by Jewish teachings, emphasized the importance of aligning one's desires with God's will. The concept of "epithumia" was particularly relevant in addressing the moral and ethical challenges faced by early Christians living in a pagan society.
αἰσχρολογία 148. Aischrologia: [ filthy communication.] abusive language, filthy speech, foul language. low and obscene speech.
Usage: The term "aischrologia" refers to speech that is considered shameful, indecent, or obscene. It encompasses language that is morally degrading or offensive, often associated with vulgarity or profanity. In the New Testament, it is used to admonish believers to avoid such speech, emphasizing the importance of purity in communication.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, rhetoric and speech were highly valued, and the use of language was seen as a reflection of one's character. The early Christian community, living within this cultural context, was called to a higher standard of speech that reflected their new identity in Christ. The use of "aischrologia" would have been seen as contrary to the virtues of holiness and purity that were expected of believers.
1 Thessalonians 2:5
κολακεία 2850. kolakeia: [flattering.]  with a view to advantage or gain. Kolakeia contains the idea of deception for selfish ends. It is flattery not merely for the sake of giving pleasure to others but for the sake of self interest. It is deception by "slick" eloquence (sounds like many politicians we know doesn't it?) with the idea of winning over the listener's heart in order to exploit not edify.
Usage: The term "kolakeia" refers to insincere praise or excessive compliments given with the intention of gaining favor or advantage. In the biblical context, it often carries a negative connotation, highlighting deceitful or manipulative speech that lacks genuine love or truth.
Cultural and Historical Background: In ancient Greek culture, flattery was often viewed with suspicion, as it was associated with manipulation and deceit. Philosophers like Aristotle criticized flattery as a vice, contrasting it with genuine friendship. In the Greco-Roman world, flattery was commonly used in political and social contexts to gain influence or favor from those in power. The early Christian community, valuing truth and sincerity, would have been wary of such practices, emphasizing honest and loving communication.
1 Timothy 1:6, 9-10
ματαιολογία 3150. Mataiologia: [vain jangling.]  idle or foolish talk, vain speaking. fruitless discussion.  empty, profitless, aimless. These people in Crete could talk glibly but all their talk was ineffective in bringing anyone one step nearer goodness. Their talk produced no spiritual benefits, and in fact robbed the hearers of the truth which led them into error. The Cynics used to say that all knowledge which is not profitable for virtue is vain.
Usage: The term "mataiologia" refers to speech that is empty, futile, or devoid of substance. It is used to describe conversations or teachings that lack truth and are ultimately unproductive or misleading. In a biblical context, it often pertains to false teachings or discussions that distract from the core truths of the Christian faith.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, rhetoric and speech were highly valued, and the ability to speak persuasively was a prized skill. However, the early Christian community was cautioned against being swayed by eloquent but empty words that did not align with the teachings of Christ. The term "mataiologia" would have been understood as a warning against engaging in or being influenced by such fruitless discussions.
ψεύστης 5583. Pseustés: [liars.] ψευδής  5571. Pseudés[liars.] deceiver. a person who falsifies, misrepresents (distorts, misleads). false, deceitful, lying, untrue. A person who knowingly utters falsehood; one who declares to another as a fact what he knows to be not true, and with an intention to deceive him. The uttering of falsehood by mistake, and without an intention to deceive, does not constitute one a liar.
Usage: The term "pseustés" is used in the New Testament to denote someone who speaks falsehoods, a deceiver, or one who is untruthful. It carries a strong moral implication, often used to describe those who are opposed to the truth of God and His Word.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, truthfulness was a valued virtue, and lying was seen as a vice. In Jewish culture, truth was deeply connected to the character of God, who is described as the God of truth. Therefore, being labeled a "liar" was a serious accusation, implying a fundamental opposition to God's nature and commandments.
ἐπίορκος 1965. Epiorkos: [perjured persons.] sworn falsely, a perjurer. 
Usage: The term "epiorkos" refers to someone who swears falsely or commits perjury. In a biblical context, it denotes a person who breaks an oath or makes a false promise, thus violating the sacredness of their word. This term underscores the importance of truthfulness and integrity in speech, especially when invoking God's name in an oath.
Cultural and Historical Background: In ancient Greek and Jewish cultures, oaths were considered solemn and binding. They were often made in the name of a deity, which added a divine witness to the promise. Breaking an oath was not only a legal offense but also a moral and spiritual transgression. In Jewish law, perjury was condemned, and truthfulness was a key aspect of righteous living. The New Testament continues this emphasis, urging believers to let their "yes" be "yes" and their "no" be "no" (Matthew 5:37).
ἀνδραποδιστής 405. Andrapodistés: [menstealers.] a slave dealer, an enslaver, one who forcibly enslaves, a kidnapper.
Usage: The term "andrapodistés" refers to a person who engages in the act of capturing and selling individuals as slaves. In the New Testament, it is used to describe those who exploit others for personal gain, particularly through the abhorrent practice of human trafficking.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the ancient Greco-Roman world, slavery was a common institution, and individuals could become slaves through various means, including war, piracy, and kidnapping. Slave traders, or "andrapodistés," were those who profited from the buying and selling of human beings. This practice was widespread and accepted in many ancient societies, although it was contrary to the ethical teachings of the early Christian church, which emphasized the inherent dignity and worth of every individual as created in the image of God.
1 Timothy 3:3, 8
πλήκτης 4131. pléktés: [striker.] contentious person, brawler. pugnacious. is literally a striker (one who hits another with force), a fist fighter and figuratively one who is a violent, contentious and quarrelsome.
Usage: The term "pléktés" is used in the New Testament to describe someone who is violent or a bully, particularly in the context of physical aggression. It conveys the idea of a person who is prone to striking others, either literally or metaphorically, and is often associated with a lack of self-control and a propensity for conflict.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, physical violence and aggression were not uncommon, especially among those in positions of power or authority. The term "pléktés" would have been understood as a negative trait, particularly for leaders within the early Christian community, who were expected to exhibit self-control and gentleness. The cultural expectation for leaders was to be examples of moral integrity and peace, contrasting with the often harsh and violent leadership styles seen in secular society.
αἰσχροκερδής 146. Aischrokerdés: [greedy of filthy lucre.] fond of sordid gain. Greedy. shamelessly greedy, avaricious (excessively acquisitive especially in seeking to hoard riches), a seeker of gain in disgraceful ways. It describes a man who does not care how he makes money so long as he makes it.
Usage: The term "aischrokerdés" is used in the New Testament to describe a person who is motivated by shameful or dishonest gain. It characterizes individuals who prioritize personal profit over integrity, often at the expense of ethical or moral standards. This term is typically used in the context of leadership within the church, warning against those who might exploit their position for financial gain.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, where the early church was established, financial gain was often pursued aggressively, sometimes through unethical means. The early Christian community, however, was called to a higher standard of conduct, emphasizing integrity, generosity, and selflessness. Leaders within the church were expected to model these virtues, avoiding any semblance of greed or exploitation.
δίλογος 1351. Dilogos: [doubletongued.] double-tongued, deceitful. double-saying," i.e. deceitful by saying one thing but meaning another – literally, "two-sayings." ("double-speaking") describes someone leaving a deliberate misimpression – acting like a spiritual "weathervane" by reversing their position (taking different sides of an issue whenever it is convenient or expedient). This person is unstable (vacillating), "speaking out of both sides of their mouth." It means saying one thing and meaning another, and making different representations to different people about the same thing.”
Usage: The term "dilogos" is used to describe someone who is insincere or deceitful in their speech, often saying one thing to one person and something different to another. It implies a lack of integrity and consistency in communication, often for manipulative purposes.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, rhetoric and speech were highly valued, and the ability to speak persuasively was a prized skill. However, being "double-tongued" was seen as a negative trait, as it indicated a lack of honesty and reliability. In the early Christian community, integrity in speech was crucial for maintaining trust and unity among believers.
1 Timothy 5:13
ἀργός 692. argos [idle.] inactive, lazy, thoughtless, unprofitable, injurious. Careless. free from labor, at leisure. being unwilling to work, wanting nothing to do, shunning the labor which one ought to perform - idle, neglectful or lazy.
Usage: In the New Testament, "argos" is used to describe a state of idleness or laziness, often with a moral or ethical implication. It conveys the idea of being unproductive or not fulfilling one's duties, whether in a physical, spiritual, or moral sense. The term is used to admonish believers against a lifestyle that neglects responsibility and diligence.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, work was often seen as a virtue, and idleness was frowned upon. The early Christian community, influenced by Jewish teachings, also valued hard work and diligence as expressions of faithfulness to God. Idleness was not only seen as a personal failing but also as a potential threat to the community's well-being and witness.
περίεργος 4021. Periergos [busybodies.] overly careful, curious, meddling, subst. a busybody. of things: over-wrought; superfluous; uncanny. busy about trifles and neglectful of important matters. of people who scurry about fussing over, and meddling in, other peoples' affairs being overwrought with unnecessary care." It was also a standard term for black arts or magic.
Usage: The term "periergos" is used in the New Testament to describe individuals who are overly concerned with matters that do not pertain to them, often involving themselves in the affairs of others in an intrusive or unnecessary manner. It conveys a sense of being meddlesome or engaging in activities that are not productive or beneficial.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, social order and community harmony were highly valued. Individuals who were considered "periergos" disrupted this harmony by involving themselves in matters that were not their concern. Such behavior was frowned upon as it could lead to gossip, division, and unnecessary conflict within the community. The early Christian church, emphasizing unity and love, discouraged such behavior to maintain peace and focus on spiritual growth.
1 Timothy 6:4
λογομαχία 3055. Logomachia [strifes of words.] contention about words, an unprofitable controversy. dispute about words, war of words, or about trivial and empty things. Empty, fruitless talk.
Usage: The term "logomachia" refers to a contention or strife involving words. It implies a focus on verbal disputes, often characterized by arguments over semantics or trivial matters rather than substantive issues. In the New Testament, it is used to caution against engaging in fruitless debates that do not edify or promote godliness.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, rhetoric and debate were highly valued skills, often used in public forums and philosophical discussions. However, the early Christian community was warned against engaging in pointless arguments that could lead to division and distract from the core message of the Gospel. The emphasis was on maintaining unity and focusing on the transformative power of the Word of God rather than getting entangled in endless debates over words.
ὑπόνοια 5283. Huponoia [ evil surmisings.]  a supposition, suspicion. Evil surmising consists in imagining evil motives to be behind the words and the acts of others. Proceeding out of the heart not fully consecrated, evil surmising will attribute some selfish or evil motive to every good deed.
Usage: The term "huponoia" refers to an underlying thought or suspicion, often implying a deeper or hidden meaning behind what is apparent. It can denote a conjecture or an interpretation that goes beyond the surface level, suggesting an insight into the true nature of a matter.
Cultural and Historical Background: In ancient Greek culture, the concept of "huponoia" was significant in philosophical and rhetorical contexts. It was often used to describe the process of discerning deeper truths or meanings that were not immediately obvious. This idea was important in the interpretation of texts, speeches, and events, where understanding the underlying intentions or implications was crucial.
παραδιατριβή 3859. Paradiatribé [Perverse disputings.] wrangling, constant arguing. useless debate. waste of time in unimportant matters, useless occupation.
Usage: The term "paradiatribé" refers to a form of discussion or argument, often implying a prolonged or contentious debate. In the context of the New Testament, it can denote a situation where individuals engage in verbal exchanges that may involve differing opinions or interpretations.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, public discourse and debate were common practices, especially in philosophical and religious contexts. The term "paradiatribé" would have been understood as a form of intellectual engagement, where ideas were exchanged, challenged, and defended. Such discussions were integral to the educational and rhetorical traditions of the time.
Titus 1:6-7, 16
ἀσωτία 810. Asótia [excess.]  wantonness, profligacy. Dissipation. spiritual wastefulness due to excessive behavior and the dire consequences it brings. describes indulgent or wasteful living, especially excessive drinking. Asotia is strictly speaking a description of the disposition of an ásotos or prodigal. Literally it is the picture of having no hope of safety, then describing the act of one who has abandoned himself to such reckless behavior.
Usage: The term "asótia" refers to a lifestyle characterized by excess, indulgence, and a lack of moral restraint. It implies a squandering of resources, both material and spiritual, in pursuit of hedonistic pleasures. In the New Testament, it is used to describe behaviors that are contrary to the disciplined and righteous life expected of believers.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, "asótia" was often associated with the behavior of those who lived extravagantly and without regard for societal norms or personal responsibility. Such lifestyles were typically marked by excessive drinking, sexual immorality, and wastefulness. The term would have been understood by early Christians as a warning against adopting the hedonistic practices prevalent in the surrounding pagan culture.
ἀνυπότακτος 506. Anupotaktos [unruly.] not subject to rule. not submissive; disobedient (unruly), unwilling to come under Christ's Lordship; refusing to "fall in line with" (fit in with) God's plan; uncooperative, with a defiant attitude towards duly-appointed authority; uncontrollable, refractory (unsubjected); anti-authoritarian (rebellious).
Usage: The term "anupotaktos" is used in the New Testament to describe individuals or groups who are not submissive to authority, whether it be divine, ecclesiastical, or civil. It conveys a sense of rebellion or refusal to be governed by established order. This word is often used in contexts that emphasize the importance of submission to rightful authority as a reflection of one's relationship with God.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, societal order and hierarchy were highly valued, and insubordination was often met with severe consequences. The early Christian community, while advocating for spiritual freedom, also emphasized the importance of order and submission to authority as a testimony to their faith. This was particularly relevant in a context where Christians were often viewed with suspicion and needed to demonstrate their integrity and respect for societal structures.
αὐθάδης 829. Authadés [selfwilled.] describes a man who has a self loving, self seeking spirit, who is so pleased with himself that nothing else pleases him and he cares to please nobody. He is preoccupation with his own interests. His is so dominated by self–interest and lack of consideration of others, that he arrogantly asserts his own will He is self-satisfied, self-centered, self-complacent, arrogant, proud, haughty, stubborn, willful, inflexible, presumptuous, unaccommodating, harsh, despising others, dictatorial, dogmatic, impatient of contradiction, and unyielding. 
Usage: The Greek word "authadés" is used to describe someone who is self-willed, obstinate, or arrogantly stubborn. It conveys a sense of self-pleasure or self-interest that disregards others' opinions or authority. In the New Testament, it often carries a negative connotation, highlighting a character trait that is contrary to the humility and submission encouraged in Christian teachings.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, virtues such as humility and self-control were often esteemed, especially in philosophical circles. However, the culture also celebrated individualism and personal achievement, which could lead to self-willed behavior. In the context of the early Christian church, being "authadés" was seen as a vice, as it opposed the communal and selfless nature of Christian life. The early church emphasized the importance of submission to God's will and the needs of the community over personal desires.
James 2:1
προσωποληψία 4382. Prosópolémpsia [respect of persons.] partiality, favoritism. The idea is looking to see who someone is before deciding how to treat them. Stated another way, the idea is judging by appearance and on that basis giving special favor and respect. It pertains to judging purely on a superficial level, without consideration of a person’s true merits, abilities, or character.
Usage: Prosópolémpsia refers to the act of showing favoritism or partiality, particularly in judgment or treatment of others. It implies making decisions or forming opinions based on external appearances or social status rather than on merit or justice. In the New Testament, it is used to emphasize the impartial nature of God's judgment and the call for believers to emulate this divine attribute.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, social status and external appearances often influenced judgments and interactions. Favoritism was common, with people often receiving preferential treatment based on wealth, citizenship, or social connections. The early Christian community, however, was called to transcend these societal norms, reflecting the impartiality of God who judges not by outward appearances but by the heart.
James 5:9 
στενάζω 4727. Stenazó [Grudge .] literally describes an internal squeezing and denotes a feeling of sorrow which is internal. It means to sigh or groan either inwardly to ourselves or outwardly because of undesirable circumstances or oppression under which the individual suffers. Stenazo means to express grief by inarticulate or semi-articulate sounds. A groan is an audible expression of anguish due to physical, emotional, or spiritual pain.  
Usage: The verb "stenazó" conveys a deep, often involuntary expression of distress, longing, or burden. It is used to describe both physical and spiritual groaning, reflecting a sense of suffering or anticipation for relief. In the New Testament, it often signifies the groaning of creation, believers, or the Holy Spirit in response to the fallen state of the world and the longing for redemption.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, groaning was a common expression of human suffering and longing. It was understood as a natural response to pain, oppression, or deep emotional turmoil. In Jewish thought, groaning was also associated with the anticipation of God's deliverance and the coming of the Messiah. The New Testament writers, particularly Paul, use this term to articulate the tension between present suffering and future glory.
1 peter 2:1
ὑπόκρισις 5272. Hupokrisis [hypocrisies.]  The idea is to pretend, to act as something one is not and so to act deceitfully, pretending to manifest traits like piety and love. It means to create a public impression that is at odds with one’s real purposes or motivations, and thus is characterized by play-acting, pretense or outward show. It means to give an impression of having certain purposes or motivations, while in reality having quite different ones.
Usage: In the New Testament, "hupokrisis" refers to the act of pretending or feigning to be what one is not, particularly in terms of moral or religious integrity. It denotes a discrepancy between one's public persona and private reality, often involving deceit or insincerity.
Cultural and Historical Background: In ancient Greek culture, "hupokrisis" originally referred to the art of acting or playing a role on stage. Over time, it came to be associated with the idea of pretense or insincerity in everyday life. In the context of the New Testament, it is used to criticize those who outwardly display piety or righteousness but inwardly harbor sin or deceit. This concept was particularly relevant in the religious context of first-century Judaism, where Jesus often confronted the Pharisees and religious leaders for their hypocritical behavior.
1 Peter 4:3, 15
οἰνοφλυγία 3632. Oinophlugia [excess of wine.] drunkenness, debauchery. Wine-bibbing. 
Usage: The term "oinophlugia" refers to excessive indulgence in wine, leading to drunkenness and a lifestyle characterized by debauchery and moral laxity. It conveys a sense of overindulgence that results in a loss of self-control and a departure from righteous living. In the New Testament, it is used to warn against the dangers of such behavior and to encourage believers to live sober and disciplined lives.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, wine was a common part of daily life and social gatherings. However, excessive drinking was often associated with moral decay and was frowned upon by philosophers and moralists of the time. The early Christian community, living within this cultural context, was called to distinguish itself by practicing moderation and self-control, avoiding the excesses that were prevalent in society.
πότος 4224. Potos [banquetings.] a drinking bout. a drinking bout. a social gathering at which wine was served, drinking party.
Usage: The term "potos" refers to a drinking event or banquet, often associated with social gatherings where wine or other alcoholic beverages are consumed. In the New Testament, it is used to describe occasions of revelry or excessive drinking, which are often cautioned against in the context of Christian living.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, banquets and drinking parties were common social events. These gatherings were not only for celebration but also for discussing philosophical ideas, forming political alliances, and enjoying entertainment. However, they could also lead to moral excesses and were sometimes criticized by philosophers and moralists of the time. In Jewish culture, while wine was a common part of meals and celebrations, excessive drinking was generally discouraged.
ἀλλοτριοεπίσκοπος 244. Allotriepiskopos [a busybody in other men's matters.] one who meddles in things alien to his calling or in matters belonging to others; factious. Trouble some meddler.  t may refer to the officious interference of Christians in the affairs of their Gentile neighbors, through excess of zeal to conform them to the Christian standard.
Usage: The term "allotriepiskopos" is used to describe someone who takes it upon themselves to oversee or involve themselves in matters that do not concern them, often in a disruptive or unwelcome manner. It carries a negative connotation, suggesting interference in the affairs of others without invitation or authority.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, social order and respect for personal boundaries were important cultural values. The role of an "episkopos" (overseer) was a respected position within both civic and religious contexts, implying authority and responsibility. By contrast, an "allotriepiskopos" was someone who overstepped these boundaries, intruding into the lives and responsibilities of others without rightful cause. This behavior was generally frowned upon, as it disrupted community harmony and personal autonomy.
Jude 1:18
ἐμπαίκτης 1703. Empaiktés [mockers.] a mocker, by implication a false teacher. Scoffer. To deride means to laugh at contemptuously or to subject to usually bitter contemptuous ridicule.
Usage: The term "empaiktés" refers to a person who mocks, ridicules, or scorns others, often with a sense of derision or contempt. In the New Testament, it is used to describe those who deride or scoff at spiritual truths and godly living.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, mockery was a common rhetorical device used in public discourse and literature. Philosophers and orators often employed satire and ridicule to challenge opponents or highlight perceived foolishness. In a biblical context, mockers are often portrayed as those who reject divine wisdom and authority, choosing instead to follow their own desires and understanding.
Revelation 21:8 
δειλός 1169. deilos [the fearful.] cowardly, timid, fearful. Not all fear is wrong, but Jesus rebuked the disciples because their fear was excessive. Some fear is useful because it leads us to take prudent caution for our safety. Sometimes fear makes us spring into immediate action to save our own lives or the life of a loved one who is in danger. But fear is excessive and wrong when it causes us to panic so that we are not thinking carefully in light of God’s promises. If we’re so focused on the problem that we cannot see God’s control over it, then we’re not trusting Him.
Usage: The Greek word "deilos" is used in the New Testament to describe a state of fearfulness or timidity. It often carries a negative connotation, implying a lack of faith or courage in the face of challenges. In the context of Christian teaching, it is contrasted with the boldness and confidence that comes from faith in God.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, courage was highly valued, especially in the context of warfare and public life. Fearfulness or cowardice was often looked down upon as a character flaw. In the early Christian context, believers were encouraged to stand firm in their faith despite persecution and trials, making "deilos" a significant term in discussions about faith and courage.
ἄπιστος 571. Apistos [unbelieving.] unbelieving, incredulous, unchristian; sometimes subst: unbeliever. Without faith. Lack of trust. Suspicious. 
Usage: The term "apistos" is used in the New Testament to describe individuals who lack faith or belief, particularly in the context of faith in God or the gospel of Jesus Christ. It can refer to those who are skeptical, doubting, or outright rejecting the message of Christ. The word can also imply a lack of trustworthiness or reliability in a broader sense.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, faith (pistis) was a significant concept, often associated with trust and loyalty in relationships, whether between individuals or between humans and deities. The early Christian community emphasized faith as central to salvation and relationship with God. Thus, "apistos" would denote a serious spiritual deficiency, as faith was the foundation of the Christian life.
βδελύσσομαι 948. Bdelussomai [the abominable.] it is being utterly offensive or loathsome, abhored, detested.
Usage: The Greek verb "bdelussomai" conveys a strong sense of disgust or revulsion. It is used to describe an intense aversion or repulsion towards something considered vile or abominable. In the New Testament, it often refers to moral or spiritual abhorrence, particularly in the context of idolatry or practices that are detestable to God.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, the concept of abhorrence was often linked to religious and moral purity. Practices or objects deemed unclean or offensive were to be avoided to maintain personal and communal sanctity. For the Jewish people, this was deeply rooted in the Mosaic Law, which outlined various abominations that were detestable to God, such as idolatry, unclean foods, and immoral behaviors. The early Christians, emerging from this Jewish context, carried forward the understanding of spiritual purity and the rejection of idolatry and immorality.
1 Timothy 1:4
Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.
1 Timothy 4:7
But refuse profane and old wives' fables, and exercise thyself rather unto godliness.
2 Timothy 2:23 But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.   
Titus 3:9 But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.
2 Timothy 2:16 
But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.
βέβηλος 952. bebélos: [permitted to be trodden, by implication unhallowed] godless, profane, worldly, irreverent.
Usage: In the New Testament, "bebélos" is used to describe something that is irreverent or unholy, often in contrast to what is sacred or holy. It conveys a sense of crossing boundaries into what is common or secular, lacking the sanctity or reverence due to God. The term is used to warn against behaviors, teachings, or attitudes that are contrary to the holiness expected of believers.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, the concept of "profane" was understood as something that was outside the temple or sacred precincts, thus common or unclean. In Jewish thought, the distinction between holy and profane was significant, with strict laws governing what was considered clean or unclean. The early Christian community, emerging from this context, was keenly aware of the need to maintain holiness in both belief and practice, distinguishing themselves from the surrounding pagan culture.
κενοφωνία 2757. kenophónia: [empty talk] empty disputing, worthless babble. discussion of vain and useless matters.
Usage: The term "kenophónia" refers to speech that is devoid of substance or value, often characterized by idle chatter or meaningless talk. In the context of the New Testament, it is used to caution against engaging in discussions that are fruitless and do not contribute to spiritual growth or edification.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, rhetoric and oratory were highly valued skills. However, the early Christian community was warned against the prevalent cultural tendency to engage in verbose and superficial discussions that lacked depth and truth. The emphasis was on meaningful communication that aligned with the teachings of Christ and promoted godliness.
1 Corinthians 5:11
Do not keep company with those who confess to be a brother or sister in Christ yet commit such a sins. Do not even eat with them.
πορνεία 4202. Porneia: [fornications.] πόρνος 4205. Pornos: [a fornicator.] originally referred to any excessive behavior or lack of restraint, but eventually became associated with sexual excess and indulgence, of every kind of extramarital, unlawful, or unnatural sexual intercourse. prostitution, unchastity, fornication. homosexuality, intercourse with animals, intercourse with close relatives, adultery with a divorced man or woman. Lust of the eyes.
Usage: In the New Testament, "porneia" is used to describe various forms of sexual immorality, including fornication, adultery, and other illicit sexual practices. It is often used in a broader sense to encompass any sexual activity outside the bounds of a biblically defined marriage between one man and one woman. The term is frequently associated with moral and spiritual unfaithfulness.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, sexual immorality was prevalent and often accepted as part of daily life, including practices such as temple prostitution and extramarital affairs. The early Christian community, however, was called to a higher standard of sexual purity, reflecting the holiness of God. The use of "porneia" in the New Testament underscores the call for believers to live counter-culturally, adhering to the moral teachings of Scripture.
πλεονεξία 4124. Pleonexia: [covetousness.] πλεονέκτης 4123. Pleonektés: [with the covetous.] covetousness, avarice, aggression, desire for advantage. the desire for more (things), i.e. One eager to have more, especially what belongs to others. The state of desiring to have more than one’s due, greediness, insatiableness, avarice, covetousness.
Usage: In the New Testament, "pleonexia" is used to describe an insatiable desire for more, often at the expense of others. It is a form of idolatry, where material possessions or desires take precedence over God. This term is often associated with moral corruption and is considered a serious sin that leads to various forms of unrighteousness.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, the pursuit of wealth and material gain was common, and greed was often seen as a vice that disrupted social harmony. The New Testament writers, influenced by Jewish teachings, viewed pleonexia as contrary to the values of the Kingdom of God, which emphasized contentment, generosity, and trust in God's provision.
εἰδωλολάτρης 1496. Eidólolatrés: [with idolaters.] εἰδωλολατρεία 1495. Eidólolatria: [idolatry.] a server (worshipper) of an image (an idol). a worshipper of false gods, an idolater, especially one who attends their sacrificial feasts and eats of the remains of the offered victims. a covetous man, as a worshipper of Mammon. Those who consult false prophets for things like soothsaying.
Usage: The term "eidólolatrés" refers to a person who worships idols, which are physical representations or images that are revered as gods. In the New Testament, this term is used to describe individuals who engage in the worship of false gods, often in contrast to the worship of the one true God. The practice of idolatry is consistently condemned in Scripture as it leads people away from the truth and into spiritual adultery.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, idolatry was a prevalent practice, with numerous gods and goddesses being worshiped through statues, temples, and rituals. This cultural context posed a significant challenge for early Christians, who were called to reject these practices and remain faithful to the monotheistic worship of Yahweh. The early church faced pressure both from the surrounding pagan culture and from within, as some believers struggled to fully abandon their former idolatrous ways.
λοίδορος 3060. loidoros: [a railer.] reviler, abusive person. used of injuring another's reputation by denigrating, abusive insults. To abuse; attack with evil words.
Usage: The term "loidoros" is used in the New Testament to describe a person who is verbally abusive or slanderous. It characterizes individuals who engage in reviling or insulting others, often with malicious intent. This behavior is condemned in Scripture as it is contrary to the Christian virtues of love, kindness, and self-control.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, verbal abuse and slander were common in public discourse, often used in legal settings, political arenas, and personal disputes. Such behavior was seen as a means to assert dominance or discredit opponents. However, the early Christian community was called to a higher standard of conduct, emphasizing speech that edifies and builds up rather than tears down.
μέθη 3178. Methé: [drunkenness.] μέθυσος 3183. methusos:[a drunkard.] deep drinking. drunkenness/intoxication,  that causes someone to lose control of their faculties or behavior.
Usage: The term "methé" refers to the state of intoxication or drunkenness, often associated with excessive consumption of alcoholic beverages. In the New Testament, it is used to describe a condition that leads to moral and spiritual laxity, often contrasted with sobriety and self-control.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, wine was a common beverage, and social gatherings often involved drinking. However, excessive drinking and drunkenness were viewed negatively, as they led to a loss of self-control and were associated with various social and moral issues. The early Christian community, influenced by Jewish teachings, emphasized moderation and self-control, viewing drunkenness as contrary to a life led by the Spirit.
ἁρπαγή 724. Harpagé: [extortion.] ἅρπαξ 727. Harpax: [extortioners.] the act of plundering; pillage; plunder, spoil, robbery.  fueled by "violent greed." rapacious, ravenous; a robber, swindler. To take person by physical force, threats, or ay undue exercise of power; as, to extort money; to wrench away (from); to tear away; to wring (from); to exact; as, to extort contributions from the vanquished; to extort confessions of guilt; to extort a promise; to extort payment of a debt. the inner state of mind that leads to seizure, greediness, rapacity.
Usage: The term "harpagé" refers to the act of seizing or taking by force, often used in the context of robbery or plunder. It conveys the idea of something being taken away violently or unjustly. In the New Testament, it is used to describe both literal and metaphorical acts of taking or seizing.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, acts of plunder and robbery were not uncommon, especially during times of war or political upheaval. The concept of "harpagé" would have been familiar to early Christians, who often faced persecution and the confiscation of their property. The term also reflects the broader biblical theme of justice and the protection of the vulnerable from exploitation.
2 Timothy 3:2-5, 8
Those who commit such things, having a form of godliness, from such turn away. 
φιλάργυρος 5366. Philarguros: [lovers of money.] avaricious. meaning loving money or covetous. It describes a person obsessed with money, one who is "fond" of money, one who is avaricious (greedy of gain = excessively acquisitive especially in seeking to hoard riches) and implies obsessive acquisitiveness especially of money.
Usage: The term "philarguros" is used in the New Testament to describe a person who is excessively fond of money or material wealth. It conveys the idea of greediness and an unhealthy attachment to riches, which can lead to moral and spiritual compromise.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, wealth was often seen as a sign of success and power. However, the early Christian community, influenced by Jewish teachings, viewed the love of money as a potential idol that could lead individuals away from God. The New Testament frequently warns against the dangers of greed and the pursuit of wealth, emphasizing the importance of spiritual riches over material possessions.
φίλαυτος 5367. Philautos: [ lovers of their own selves.]  loving oneself, selfish, intent on one's own interests or concerned solely with one’s own desires, needs, or interests.
Usage: The term "philautos" is used to describe a person who is excessively fond of themselves, prioritizing their own interests and desires above those of others. It conveys a sense of selfishness and self-centeredness, often at the expense of community and relationships.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, virtues such as self-control, humility, and community-mindedness were highly valued, especially in philosophical circles. The concept of "philautos" would have been seen as a vice, contrary to the ideals of selflessness and communal harmony. In the context of early Christianity, this term would have been particularly poignant, as the teachings of Jesus emphasized love for others, self-sacrifice, and humility.
ἀλαζών 213. Alazón: [boasters.] vagabond, hence an impostor. one who gives one's self airs in a loud and flaunting way. boasting to anyone who is foolish enough to take him seriously! This kind of person claims many things he can't really do, so he must always keep moving on to new, naive listeners.
Usage: The term "alazón" refers to someone who is boastful or arrogant, often characterized by an exaggerated sense of self-importance or a tendency to make grandiose claims. In the New Testament, it is used to describe individuals who are prideful and self-centered, often in contrast to the humility and servitude exemplified by Christ.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, boasting was often associated with the sophists and rhetoricians who prided themselves on their eloquence and intellectual prowess. Such individuals were sometimes viewed with skepticism, as their claims were not always grounded in truth. The early Christian community, influenced by Jewish teachings on humility and the example of Jesus, viewed boasting as contrary to the virtues of humility and meekness.
ὑπερήφανος 5244. Huperephanos: [the proud.] 5243. Huperéphania: [pride.] arrogant, disdainful. over-shine, trying to be more than what God directs, i.e. going beyond the faith He imparts. showing oneself above others, overtopping, conspicuous above others, pre-eminent. with an overweening estimate of one's means or merits, despising others or even treating them with contempt. haughtiness,  arrogance. excessive shining, i.e. self-exaltation (self-absorption) which carries its own self-destructive vanity. 
Usage: The Greek word "huperephanos" is used in the New Testament to describe a person who is proud, arrogant, or haughty. It conveys a sense of self-exaltation and an attitude of superiority over others. This term is often used in a negative context, highlighting a character trait that is contrary to the humility and servitude encouraged in Christian teachings.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, pride was often seen as a vice, especially when it led to hubris, an overbearing arrogance that defied the gods and led to one's downfall. In Jewish and early Christian thought, humility was a virtue, and pride was considered a sin that distanced individuals from God. The cultural context of the New Testament emphasizes the importance of humility and the dangers of pride, aligning with the teachings of Jesus and the apostles.
βλασφημία 988. Blasphémia: [blasphemies.] 989. Blasphémos: [blasphemers.] Reproachful or scurrilous language, blasphemy.  is speech that is harmful, which denigrates or defames and thus refers to reviling, denigration, disrespect, slander, abusive speech (as against a person's reputation), evil speaking. Blasphemy is an injury offered to God, by denying that which is due and belonging to him, on attributing to him that which is not agreeable to his nature. 
Usage: In the New Testament, "blasphémia" primarily refers to speech that is irreverent or disrespectful towards God, His nature, or His works. It can also extend to slanderous or injurious speech against individuals. The term is used to describe both direct blasphemy against God and the broader concept of defamation or slander against others.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Jewish context of the New Testament, blasphemy was considered a grave sin, often punishable by death, as it was seen as a direct affront to God's holiness and authority. The concept of blasphemy was deeply rooted in the Jewish understanding of God's transcendence and the sanctity of His name. In the Greco-Roman world, blasphemy could also refer to slander against deities or individuals, reflecting the broader cultural emphasis on honor and reputation.
ἀχάριστος 884. Acharistos: [unthankful.] ungracious, ungrateful. Unpleasing. describes men who are utterly destitute of any gratitude toward God or others. They refuse to recognize the debt they owe both to God and to men.
Usage: The term "acharistos" is used to describe a person who is ungrateful or lacking in thankfulness. In the New Testament, it conveys a moral deficiency, highlighting a failure to recognize and appreciate the grace and blessings received from God and others.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, gratitude was considered a fundamental virtue, essential for maintaining social harmony and relationships. The concept of χάρις (charis) was central to Greek culture, encompassing not only grace and favor but also the reciprocal nature of giving and receiving. Ingratitude, therefore, was seen as a serious moral failing, disrupting the social and divine order.
ἀνόσιος 462. Anosios: [unholy.]  profane.  utter disregard of what is sacred, i.e. willful (arrogant) disrespect of the things of God; "impious; wicked." It means ungodly and without regard of duty toward God or toward man and carries the idea not so much of irreligion as of gross indecency. In other words this man not only breaks the laws of God and society, but even breaks the unwritten laws of common decency. 
Usage: The term "anosios" is used in the New Testament to describe that which is contrary to the sacred or holy. It denotes a lack of reverence or respect for what is considered holy or sacred. In a broader sense, it can refer to actions, attitudes, or individuals that are morally or spiritually corrupt.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, the concept of holiness was often associated with religious rituals and the gods. The term "hosios" was used to describe what was in accordance with divine law or sacred. Therefore, "anosios" would have been understood as a serious deviation from accepted religious and moral standards. In the Jewish context, holiness was central to the covenant relationship with God, and anything "unholy" was seen as defiling and separating one from God.
ἄστοργος 794. Astorgos: [Without natural affection.] unloving, devoid of affection. hard-hearted towards kindred. Just as the self-loving person is without common decency, he also is without common affection. He cares nothing for the welfare of those who should be dearest to him. His only interest in them is for what he believes they can do for him. To be unloving is to be heartless.
Usage: The term "astorgos" is used in the New Testament to describe a lack of natural affection, particularly the kind of love and care that should exist within family relationships. It denotes a deficiency in the natural bonds of love that are expected between family members, such as between parents and children or among siblings.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, family was a central unit of society, and familial affection was highly valued. The concept of "storgē" was understood as the natural love and affection that should exist within the family. The absence of such affection, as indicated by "astorgos," would have been seen as a significant moral failing and a sign of societal decay. This term reflects the broader biblical theme of the breakdown of natural relationships as a consequence of sin.
ἄσπονδος 786. aspondos: [trucebreakers.] without libation, i.e. without truce, hence admitting of no truce. An implacable person just can't be appeased. The thought is not that these men break a truce but that they resist all efforts to reconciliation. They cannot be persuaded to enter into a covenant or agreement. This is the picture of the absolutely irreconcilable person who, being at war, refuses to lay aside their enmity or even to listen to terms of reconciliation. It means "hostility which refuses truce."
Usage: The term "aspondos" is used to describe a state of being unwilling to make peace or come to an agreement. It conveys a sense of being unyielding or unforgiving, often in the context of personal relationships or conflicts. In the New Testament, it is used to characterize individuals who are obstinately opposed to reconciliation or resolution.
Cultural and Historical Background: In ancient Greek culture, a "spondē" was a libation or drink offering made as part of a treaty or agreement, symbolizing peace and reconciliation. The absence of such a gesture, as indicated by "aspondos," would imply a refusal to engage in peace-making or to honor agreements. This term would have resonated with early Christian audiences familiar with the importance of reconciliation and peace in both personal and communal relationships.
διάβολος 1228. Diabolos: [false accusers.] unjustly criticizing to hurt (malign) and condemn to sever a relationship. one who utters false charges or misrepresentations which defame and damage another’s reputation), backbiting (malicious comment about one not present), one given to malicious gossip or a calumniator (one who utters maliciously false statements, charges, or imputations about, this term imputes malice to the speaker and falsity to the assertions.
Usage: The term "diabolos" is used in the New Testament to refer to the devil, the chief adversary of God and humanity. It characterizes the devil as a slanderer and accuser, one who opposes God's purposes and deceives humanity. The word is often used to describe the spiritual being who tempts, accuses, and seeks to destroy.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, the concept of evil spirits and adversarial beings was prevalent. The Jewish understanding of Satan as an accuser and adversary is reflected in the New Testament usage of "diabolos." This term emphasizes the devil's role in opposing God's work and leading people away from the truth. The early Christian community understood the devil as a real and personal being who actively works against the followers of Christ.
ἀκρατής 193. Akratés: [incontinent.] impotent. lacking self-control, self-discipline, self-restraint. powerless, inclined to excess. inability to maintain control; figuratively, want of self-restraint,  without self-control, and therefore mastered by personal appetites (urges).
Usage: The term "akratés" is used to describe a person who is unable to exercise self-control or restraint, particularly in moral or ethical contexts. It conveys a sense of being overpowered by one's desires or impulses, leading to behavior that is not aligned with godly principles.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, self-control (enkrateia) was highly valued as a virtue, especially among philosophers like the Stoics, who emphasized mastery over one's passions. The lack of self-control, therefore, was seen as a significant moral failing. In the context of early Christianity, self-control was considered a fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:23), and its absence was indicative of a life not fully surrendered to the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
ἀνήμερος 434. Anémeros: [fierce.] not tame, savage. Brutal. These men are not just given to violence now and then; they are in fact, ferocious "savages" who pounce on whoever gets in their way, and have no regard for the rights or feelings of anyone other than themselves. Even a dog may be sorry when he has hurt his master, but these men in their malevolent treatment of others have lost natural human sympathy and feeling. This trait is the opposite of gentleness called for in the manners of the bondservant of the Lord.
Usage: The Greek word "anémeros" is used to describe something that is wild, untamed, or savage. It conveys the idea of being fierce or lacking the gentleness and control associated with domestication. In the New Testament, it is often used metaphorically to describe human behavior that is unruly or lacking in moral restraint.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, the concept of tameness versus wildness was significant in both literal and metaphorical contexts. Animals that were "anémeros" were considered dangerous and unpredictable, much like certain human behaviors that were seen as contrary to societal norms and virtues. The term would have resonated with early Christian audiences familiar with the moral teachings of self-control and gentleness.
ἀφιλάγαθος 865. Aphilagathos: [despisers of those that are good.] describes men who are hostile to or despisers of all that is good and of good men. These men lack of generous interest in the public good. They have no love of virtue. In their love of self they have become haters of good, hating what should be loved and loving what should be hated!
Usage: The term "aphilagathos" is used to describe a person who is indifferent or opposed to goodness and virtue. It characterizes an individual who lacks a love for what is morally good and righteous. This word is often used in a negative context to highlight a moral deficiency or a corrupt character.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, virtues such as goodness and moral integrity were highly esteemed. The concept of being a "lover of good" was associated with the ideal citizen who contributed positively to society. Conversely, being "aphilagathos" would have been seen as a significant moral failing, indicating a person who does not uphold the societal and ethical standards of the time.
προδότης 4273. Prodotés: [Traitors.] a betrayer. Treacherous. in the sense of giving forward into another's (the enemy's) hands. describes men who who betray another’s trust and confidence or are false to an obligation or duty.
Usage: The term "prodotés" refers to someone who betrays trust or is disloyal, particularly in a context of personal or communal relationships. In the New Testament, it is used to describe individuals who act treacherously, often in a spiritual or moral sense.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, loyalty and trust were highly valued in both personal relationships and civic duties. Betrayal was considered a grave offense, often leading to severe social and legal consequences. In Jewish culture, betrayal was seen as a violation of covenantal relationships, whether with God or within the community. The concept of betrayal is deeply rooted in the narrative of Judas Iscariot, whose act of betraying Jesus is one of the most infamous examples in Christian theology.
προπετής 4312. Propetés: [heady.]  proceeding from undue haste or lack of deliberation or caution. They plunge ahead without forethought in their impetuous deeds. Their behavior is rash, reckless, impulsive, headlong (without due deliberation, out of control), impetuous, thoughtless and precipitous.
Usage: The term "propétés" is used to describe someone who acts without careful consideration, often driven by impulsive or rash behavior. It conveys a sense of being headstrong or reckless, acting hastily without weighing the consequences.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, virtues such as wisdom, self-control, and prudence were highly valued. Recklessness or rashness was often seen as a vice, leading to poor decision-making and potential disaster. The biblical use of "propetés" aligns with this cultural understanding, warning against impulsive actions that can lead to sin or harm.
τυφόω 5187. Tuphoó: [highminded.] 5450. Phusiósis: [swellings.] to be conceited, foolish. puff up, make haughty; pass: puffed up, haughty. vanity, arrogance. moral blindness resulting from poor judgment which brings further loss of spiritual perception. Pride. They may think they are always right.
Usage: The verb "tuphoó" is used in the New Testament to describe a state of being blinded by pride or conceit. It conveys the idea of being enveloped in a cloud of self-deception, leading to an inflated sense of self-importance. This term is often used to warn against the spiritual and moral dangers of pride, which can obscure one's understanding and lead to error.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, humility was not typically seen as a virtue; rather, personal honor and status were highly valued. The concept of being "puffed up" or blinded by pride would have been a counter-cultural message in the early Christian community, which emphasized humility and servanthood as modeled by Jesus Christ. The metaphor of smoke (τύφος) suggests a lack of clarity and vision, which pride can cause in one's spiritual life.
φιλήδονος 5369. Philédonos: [lovers of pleasures more than God.] Voluptuous. These men are intent on pleasure, abandoned to (sensual) pleasure and pleasure-loving. This word describes well the self-absorbed, self-gratifying orbit of the ungodly.
Usage: The term "philédonos" is used to describe individuals who are excessively fond of or devoted to pleasure. It conveys a sense of prioritizing personal gratification and sensual enjoyment over spiritual or moral responsibilities. In the New Testament, it is often used in a negative context, highlighting a self-indulgent lifestyle that is contrary to godly living.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, the pursuit of pleasure was a common philosophical and cultural theme, particularly among the Epicureans, who believed that pleasure was the highest good. However, this pursuit often led to hedonism, where pleasure was sought without regard for moral or ethical considerations. The early Christian community, influenced by Jewish teachings and the life of Jesus, emphasized self-control, discipline, and the pursuit of spiritual rather than earthly pleasures.
ἀδόκιμος 96. Adokimos [a reprobate .] unapproved, counterfeit. castaway, that which is rejected after a trial or examination because it fails the test. It means to put to the test for the purpose of being approved, but failing to meet the requirements.
Usage: The term "adokimos" is used in the New Testament to describe something or someone that has been tested and found lacking, thus deemed unfit or disqualified. It often carries a moral or spiritual connotation, indicating a failure to meet God's standards or to live according to His will. The word suggests a state of being rejected after examination, akin to metals that fail to meet the required purity and are thus discarded.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the ancient world, the process of testing metals was a common practice to ensure their purity and value. Metals that failed the test were labeled "adokimos" and were considered worthless. This imagery would have been familiar to the original audience of the New Testament, providing a vivid metaphor for spiritual and moral examination. In a society where honor and shame were significant cultural values, being labeled "adokimos" would imply a serious deficiency in character or faith.
"Copyright Disclaimer: This content may include copyrighted material used under the doctrine of 'fair use' for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research, as permitted under Section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Act. No copyright infringement is intended."
0 notes
volcanicgold · 15 days ago
Text
King James Version - Strong’s Concordance - Greek Transliteration
Matthew 15:19
διαλογισμός 1261. Dialogismos [thoughts]: Evil thoughts - thoughts that are troublesome, injurious, pernicious, destructive, baneful. Malicious, wicked, evil thoughts. The word, “thoughts” comes up in the concordance but the word, “evil thoughts” in Matthew did not..
The term "dialogismos" refers to the process of reasoning or deliberation, often involving internal thoughts or debates. It can denote both positive and negative connotations, such as thoughtful consideration or skeptical questioning. In the New Testament, it is frequently used to describe the inner thoughts and doubts of individuals, particularly in relation to faith and understanding of God's will.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, reasoning and debate were highly valued as means of discovering truth and understanding the world. Philosophical schools often engaged in dialogismos to explore various ideas and beliefs. In the Jewish context, reasoning was also important, but it was expected to align with the wisdom and revelation of God as found in the Scriptures. The New Testament reflects this tension between human reasoning and divine revelation.
Φόνος 5408. Phonos: [murders.] φονεύω 5407. Phoneuó: [murder.] φονεύς 5406. Phoneus: [a murderer.]  slaughter, killing. commit intentional (unjustified) homicide. Depriving one of life by illegal or intentional act. 
Usage: The term "phonos" is used in the New Testament to denote the act of murder or unlawful killing. It is often associated with acts of violence and is considered a grave sin. The word emphasizes the intentional and malicious nature of taking another person's life.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, murder was a serious crime, often punishable by death or exile. The Jewish law, as outlined in the Old Testament, also strictly prohibited murder, reflecting the commandment "You shall not murder" (Exodus 20:13). The New Testament continues this tradition, condemning murder as a violation of God's law and an act contrary to the love and respect for life that believers are called to uphold.
μοιχεία 3430. Moicheia: [adulteries.] μοιχεύω 3431. Moicheuó: [adultery.] μοιχός 3432. Moichos: [adulterers.]  describes an act of sexual intercourse with someone not one's own spouse. Lust of the eyes can be adultery of the heart.  
Usage: In the New Testament, "μοιχεία" refers to the act of adultery, which is the violation of the marriage covenant by engaging in sexual relations with someone other than one's spouse. It is considered a serious sin and a breach of the moral law as outlined in the Ten Commandments.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the ancient Jewish context, adultery was a grave offense against both God and the social order. The Mosaic Law prescribed severe penalties for those caught in adultery, reflecting the importance of marital fidelity in maintaining family and community integrity. In Greco-Roman society, while attitudes towards sexual morality varied, adultery was often viewed as a violation of social norms and personal honor.
Κλοπή 2829. Klopé: [thefts.] κλέπτω 2813. Kleptó: [steal.] κλέπτης 2812. Kleptés: [thieves.] thievery done secretively (not out in the open or with violence.) A thief. To unlawfully take what does not belong to you. 
Usage: The term "klopé" refers to the act of stealing or theft. It is used in the New Testament to describe the unlawful taking of someone else's property. The word emphasizes the act of stealing itself, rather than the identity of the thief or the value of the stolen item.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, theft was considered a serious offense, often punishable by severe penalties. The act of stealing was not only a violation of personal property rights but also a breach of social and moral order. In Jewish law, as outlined in the Torah, theft was condemned, and restitution was required. The cultural context of the New Testament reflects these values, viewing theft as a sin against both God and neighbor.
Ψευδομαρτυρία 5577. Pseudomarturia: [false witness.] ψευδομαρτυρέω 5576. Pseudomartureó: [bear false witness.]  one who gives false testimony, a false witness.  The telling of lies about another so as to make them appear guilty when they are innocent. Perjury. 
Usage: The term "pseudomarturia" refers to the act of giving false testimony or bearing false witness. In the biblical context, it is often associated with lying or deceit, particularly in legal or judicial settings. This concept is strongly condemned in both the Old and New Testaments as it undermines justice and truth.
Cultural and Historical Background: In ancient Jewish and Greco-Roman societies, the legal system relied heavily on the testimony of witnesses. Bearing false witness was considered a serious offense because it could lead to unjust outcomes, including wrongful punishment or the acquittal of the guilty. The Ninth Commandment in the Decalogue explicitly prohibits bearing false witness against one's neighbor (Exodus 20:16), highlighting the importance of truthfulness in maintaining social order and justice.
Mark 10:19
Ἀποστερέω 650. Apostereó: [Defraud.]   to cause another to suffer loss by taking away through illicit means, rob, steal, despoil, defraud.  
Usage: The verb ἀποστερέω (apostereó) is used in the New Testament to convey the act of depriving someone of what is rightfully theirs, often with a sense of injustice or moral wrongdoing. It implies an unethical withholding or taking away of something, whether it be material possessions, rights, or due honor.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, the concept of justice and fairness was integral to societal norms. The act of defrauding or depriving someone was not only a legal issue but also a moral one. The early Christian community, influenced by Jewish ethical teachings, emphasized fairness, justice, and the proper treatment of others, reflecting the broader biblical mandate to love one's neighbor and act justly.
Mark 7:21-23
πονηρία 4189. Ponéria: [wickedness.]  iniquities. Malice: the desire to harm someone or the feeling of pleasure at someone's misfortune. Depravity. State or condition of a lack of moral or social values, wickedness, baseness, maliciousness, sinfulness.
Usage: In the New Testament, "ponéria" refers to a state or quality of moral corruption and depravity. It encompasses a broad spectrum of evil behaviors and intentions, often highlighting the inherent wickedness in human nature apart from God. It is used to describe actions, thoughts, and conditions that are contrary to God's holiness and righteousness.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, moral and ethical standards were often influenced by philosophical schools of thought, such as Stoicism and Epicureanism. However, the biblical concept of "ponéria" transcends these philosophies by rooting the understanding of evil in the character of God as revealed in Scripture. The Jewish understanding of evil, as seen in the Old Testament, also informs the New Testament usage, emphasizing the covenantal relationship between God and His people and the consequences of straying from His commandments.
δόλος 1388. Dolos: [deceit.] taking advantage through craft and underhanded methods, deceit, cunning, treachery. An attempt to deceive or lead into error; a falsehood; any declaration, artifice, or practice, which misleads another, or causes him to believe what is false. It is a desire to gain advantage or preserve position by deceiving others.
Usage: In the New Testament, "dolos" refers to deceit or guile, often highlighting the moral and ethical implications of deception. It is used to describe actions or intentions that are dishonest, misleading, or treacherous. The term underscores a lack of integrity and sincerity, often in the context of relationships or communication.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, deceit was a common aspect of social and political life, often used to gain advantage or manipulate situations. However, within the Jewish and early Christian ethical framework, deceit was condemned as contrary to the nature of God, who is truth. The early Christian community was called to live in truth and sincerity, reflecting the character of Christ.
ἀσέλγεια 766. Aselgeia:[lasciviousness.] licentiousness, wantonness. (outrageous conduct, conduct shocking to public decency, a wanton violence), lewdness.  Sensuality. This is a disregard of accepted moral rules and standards, lack of moral restraint, dissoluteness, lasciviousness. originally referred to any excess or lack of restraint but came to convey the idea of shameless excess and the absence of restraint, especially with sexual excess. 
Usage: The term "aselgeia" refers to unrestrained, shameless behavior, often associated with sexual excesses and moral depravity. It denotes a lack of self-control and a disregard for moral boundaries, often manifesting in actions that are openly indecent or offensive. In the New Testament, it is used to describe behaviors that are contrary to the holiness and purity expected of believers.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, "aselgeia" was often associated with the hedonistic lifestyles prevalent in certain segments of society. The term captures the essence of living without regard for moral or social norms, often in pursuit of personal pleasure. Such behavior was not only common in pagan religious practices but also in the broader cultural context, where indulgence in sensual pleasures was sometimes celebrated.
ἀφροσύνη 877. Aphrosuné: [foolishness.] want of sense, levity, impiety, wickedness. inconsiderateness, folly;, boastful folly. Ignorant. Marked with, or exhibiting, folly; void of understanding; weak in intellect; without judgment or discretion; silly; unwise. the state of lack of prudence or good judgment, foolishness, lack of sense, moral and intellectual. The term "aphrosuné" refers to a lack of wisdom or understanding, often characterized by irrational or thoughtless behavior.
Usage: The term "aphrosuné" refers to a lack of wisdom or understanding, often characterized by irrational or thoughtless behavior. In the New Testament, it is used to describe actions or attitudes that are contrary to God's wisdom and righteousness. It implies a moral and spiritual deficiency, rather than merely an intellectual one.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, wisdom was highly valued, and foolishness was often seen as a moral failing. The concept of "aphrosuné" would have been understood as a significant flaw, not just in reasoning but in character. In Jewish thought, wisdom is closely associated with the fear of the Lord, and foolishness is often equated with wickedness and rebellion against God.
Acts 13:10
Ῥᾳδιουργία 4468. Rhadiourgia: [mischief.] sloth. ease in doing, laziness, recklessness, craftiness, villainy, cunning. Fraud. Self indulgence. levity or easiness in thinking and acting; love of a lazy and effeminate life. suggests an easygoing approach to things in contrast to serious acceptance of responsibilities: ‘frivolity’, then an endeavor to gain some personal end through clever or tricky means, in effect a mild expr. for chichanery, wickedness, villainy, deceit, fraud, unscrupulousness (one who looks for an easy and questionable way of doing things to make money may be said, in American parlance, ‘to con’ others.) 
Usage: The term "rhadiourgia" refers to acts of villainy or deceitful behavior. It conveys a sense of moral laxity and unscrupulousness, often associated with cunning or underhanded actions. In the New Testament, it is used to describe the deceitful practices of individuals who oppose the truth and righteousness.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, moral character was highly valued, and terms like "rhadiourgia" would have been used to describe those who acted contrary to societal norms of honesty and integrity. The concept of deceit and villainy was often associated with those who sought personal gain at the expense of others, reflecting a broader cultural disdain for such behavior.
Romans 1:29-32
ἀδικία 93. Adikia: [unrighteousness.] injustice, hurt. a violation of God's standards (justice) which brings divine disapproval. an act that violates standards of right conduct, wrongdoing. The term "adikia" refers to a state or condition of being unjust or unrighteous. It encompasses actions, thoughts, and behaviors that are contrary to God's standards of justice and righteousness. 
Usage: The term "adikia" refers to a state or condition of being unjust or unrighteous. It encompasses actions, thoughts, and behaviors that are contrary to God's standards of justice and righteousness. In the New Testament, "adikia" is often used to describe moral wrongness, wickedness, or iniquity, highlighting a deviation from divine law and ethical conduct.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, justice (dike) was a foundational concept in both legal and moral contexts. The prefix "a-" negates the word, thus "adikia" signifies a lack of justice or righteousness. In Jewish thought, righteousness (tzedakah) was closely tied to one's relationship with God and adherence to His commandments. Therefore, "adikia" would be seen as a serious breach of covenantal faithfulness and community ethics.
κακία 2549. Kakia: [maliciousness.] κακοήθεια 2550. Kakoétheia: [malignity.]  (a) evil (i.e. trouble, labor, misfortune), (b) (c) vicious disposition, malice, spite. malignity, malice, ill-will, desire to injure. evil-mindedness, malevolence. the quality or state of wickedness, baseness, depravity, wickedness, vice. 
Usage: In the New Testament, "kakia" refers to a state of moral corruption and wickedness. It encompasses a broad range of evil behaviors and intentions, including malice, ill-will, and a general disposition towards wrongdoing. The term is often used to describe the inherent sinful nature of humanity and the moral depravity that opposes God's righteousness.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, "kakia" was understood as a fundamental flaw in character, often contrasted with "aretē" (virtue). The concept of moral evil was not only a philosophical concern but also a practical one, as societies sought to define and uphold standards of good conduct. In the Jewish context, "kakia" would have been associated with behaviors and attitudes contrary to the Law of Moses and the ethical teachings of the Hebrew Scriptures.
φθόνος 5355. phthonos: [full of envy.] describes pain felt and malignity conceived at the sight of excellence or happiness. It means not just wanting what another person has, but also resenting that person for having it. 
Usage: In the New Testament, "phthonos" refers to a resentful awareness of another's advantages or possessions, often accompanied by a desire to possess the same. It is considered a destructive and sinful attitude that can lead to further wrongdoing. The term is used to describe a negative emotion that contrasts with the virtues of love and contentment.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, envy was recognized as a common human vice, often associated with discord and strife. Philosophers like Aristotle discussed envy as a harmful emotion that could disrupt social harmony. In Jewish thought, envy was similarly viewed as a vice that could lead to moral and spiritual decay, as seen in various Old Testament narratives.
ἔρις 2054. eris: [debate.] strife. contention, wrangling. variance. a readiness to quarrel (having a contentious spirit), affection for dispute. The definition of strife is — conflict, antagonism, quarrel, struggle, clash, competition, disagreement, opposition, fight. Engagement in rivalry, esp. w. ref. to positions taken in a matter, strife, discord, contention. 
Usage: The Greek word "eris" refers to a state of conflict, disagreement, or rivalry. It is often used in the New Testament to describe interpersonal conflicts and divisions within communities, particularly within the context of the early Christian church. The term conveys a sense of contentiousness and a spirit of rivalry that disrupts harmony and unity.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, "eris" was a common term used to describe disputes and rivalries, both in personal relationships and in larger societal contexts. The concept of strife was often associated with the breakdown of social order and was seen as a destructive force. In the context of the early Christian church, "eris" was particularly concerning as it threatened the unity and witness of the Christian community.
ψιθυριστής 5588. Psithuristés: [whisperers.] ψιθυρισμός 5587. Psithurismos: [whisperings.]   secret slanderer. Evil speaking. a sneaky gossip; a backbiter. Detraction: the sin of revealing another person's real faults to a third person without a valid reason, thereby lessening the reputation of that person. rumormonger, tale-bearer. an evil tongue which secretly conveys information, whether true or false and which is detrimental to the character or welfare of others. 
Usage: The term "psithuristés" refers to a person who engages in secretive or malicious whispering, often spreading rumors or gossip. In the New Testament, it is used to describe individuals who cause division and strife within a community by speaking ill of others behind their backs.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, as in many cultures, gossip and slander were seen as destructive behaviors that could undermine social harmony and trust. Whispering, in particular, was associated with deceit and cowardice, as it involved speaking in secret rather than addressing issues openly. The early Christian communities, striving for unity and love, would have viewed such behavior as contrary to the teachings of Christ.
κατάλαλος 2637. Katalalos: [Backbiters.] καταλαλιά 2636. Katalalia: [backbitings.] a railer, defamer. To censure, slander, reproach, or speak evil of the absent. those who speak evil against of others with the intent to injure the one spoken about.  
Usage: The term "katalalos" refers to someone who speaks ill of others, often behind their backs, with the intent to harm their reputation. It is used to describe a person who engages in slander or malicious gossip. In the New Testament, this behavior is condemned as it goes against the principles of love, truth, and unity within the Christian community.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, reputation and honor were highly valued, and slander could have serious social and legal consequences. The early Christian communities, influenced by Jewish teachings, emphasized the importance of truthful and edifying speech. Slander was seen as a destructive force that could divide communities and damage relationships, contrary to the teachings of Christ.
θεοστυγής 2319. theostugés: [haters of God.] hateful to God. Impious. This rare term refers to people who totally turn against the Lord. 
Usage: The term "theostugés" is used to describe someone who is hateful towards God or detestable in the sight of God. It conveys a strong sense of enmity or hostility against the divine. This word is used to characterize individuals or behaviors that are in direct opposition to God's nature and commands.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, where polytheism was prevalent, the concept of being "God-hating" would have been particularly striking. The early Christian community, living amidst a culture that often worshipped multiple deities, would have understood "theostugés" as a severe indictment of those who reject the one true God. This term underscores the gravity of turning away from God and embracing a lifestyle contrary to His will.
ὑβριστής 5197. Hubristés: [despiteful.] an insolent, insulting, or violent man. someone "damaging" others by lashing out with a nasty spirit. This kind of individual is insolent (delights in wrong-doing) – finding pleasure in hurting others. Either heaps insulting language upon others or does them some shameful act of wrong. 
Usage: The term "hubristés" refers to a person who is insolent or violent, characterized by arrogance and a lack of respect for others. In the New Testament, it is used to describe individuals who act with extreme pride and disregard for moral or social norms, often leading to abusive or violent behavior.
Cultural and Historical Background: In ancient Greek culture, "hubris" was a significant concept, often associated with excessive pride or self-confidence that leads to retribution or downfall. It was considered a serious offense, especially when it involved disrespecting the gods or other people. In the context of the New Testament, "hubristés" reflects a moral failing that is contrary to the humility and love encouraged by Christian teachings.
ἀσύνετος 801. asunetos: [without understanding.] unintelligent, without wisdom, unwise, undiscerning (implying probably moral defect). describes a person failing to structure information in a meaningful way, and therefore unable to reach necessary conclusions. This person is illogical because unwilling to use good reason. void of understanding, senseless, foolish, implying also a lack of high moral quality. This person is without insight or understanding and is descriptive of unredeemed man's heart. 
Usage: The term "asunetos" is used in the New Testament to describe a lack of understanding or discernment. It characterizes individuals who are unable or unwilling to comprehend spiritual truths or moral principles. This adjective often conveys a moral deficiency, indicating a willful ignorance or rejection of God's wisdom.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, wisdom and understanding were highly valued, often associated with philosophical and ethical living. The biblical use of "asunetos" contrasts the wisdom of God with the folly of human reasoning apart from divine revelation. In Jewish thought, wisdom was closely linked to the fear of the Lord and adherence to His commandments, making "asunetos" a serious spiritual shortcoming.
ἀσύνθετος 802. Asunthetos: [covenantbreakers.] untrue to an agreement, treacherous.  refusing to abide by "covenants" made. describes covenant breakers or men and women who are “non-covenant-keeping.” Such individuals break promises, treaties, agreements, and contracts whenever it serves their purposes. 
Usage: The term "asunthetos" is used to describe individuals who are unfaithful or treacherous, particularly in the context of breaking covenants or agreements. It conveys a sense of being unreliable or untrustworthy, especially in relationships or commitments that require fidelity and integrity.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, covenants and agreements were foundational to social and economic interactions. Being labeled as "asunthetos" would have been a serious accusation, as it implied a lack of honor and integrity. In Jewish culture, covenants were sacred, often involving solemn promises before God. Breaking such covenants was not only a social offense but also a spiritual one, reflecting a breach of trust with God Himself.
ἀνελεήμων 415. Aneleemon: [unmerciful.] unpitying, unmerciful, without compassion, cruel. Want of mercy; want of tenderness and compassion towards those who are in one's power; cruelty in the exercise of power or punishment. 
Usage: The term "aneleemon" is used to describe a lack of mercy or compassion. It characterizes individuals or actions that are devoid of kindness, empathy, or forgiveness. In the biblical context, it often highlights a moral deficiency, contrasting with the divine attribute of mercy that believers are encouraged to emulate.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, mercy was sometimes seen as a weakness, especially in the context of justice and power. However, the Judeo-Christian tradition places a high value on mercy as a reflection of God's character. The concept of mercy is central to the teachings of Jesus, who emphasized compassion and forgiveness as key virtues of the Kingdom of God.
Romans 2:22
ἱεροσυλέω 2416. Hierosuleó: [dost thou commit sacrilege?] rob a temple. thou who abhorrest idols and their contamination, dost yet not hesitate to plunder their shrines.
Usage: The verb ἱεροσυλέω refers to the act of committing sacrilege, specifically the act of robbing temples or desecrating sacred places. In the context of the New Testament, it implies a violation of what is considered holy or set apart for divine purposes.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, temples were not only places of worship but also served as treasuries and repositories for valuable items. The act of robbing a temple was considered a grave offense, both legally and religiously. Such acts were seen as direct affronts to the gods and were punishable by severe penalties. In Jewish culture, the Temple in Jerusalem held immense religious significance, and any act of desecration was viewed as a serious violation of the covenant with God.
Romans 3:14
πικρία 4088. pikria: [bitterness.] an embittered (resentful) spirit. anger and disappointment at being treated unfairly.  state of being bitter in an affective sense, bitterness, animosity, anger, harshness. in a metaphorical sense to describe animosity, resentfulness, harshness or an openly-expressed emotional hostility against an enemy. Pikria defines a settled hostility that poisons the whole inner man. Somebody does something we do not like, so we harbor ill will against him. Bitterness leads to wrath, which is the explosion on the outside of the feelings on the inside. 
Usage: The term "pikria" refers to a state of sharpness or acridity, often used metaphorically to describe a deep-seated resentment or harshness in one's spirit. In the New Testament, it is used to denote a condition of the heart that is contrary to the fruit of the Spirit, often associated with anger, wrath, and malice.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, bitterness was often seen as a destructive emotion that could lead to personal and communal discord. The early Christian teachings emphasized the transformation of the heart and mind, urging believers to rid themselves of bitterness and embrace forgiveness and love, reflecting the character of Christ.
ἀρά 685. Ara: [full of cursing.] a prayer; more commonly: a prayer for evil, imprecation. Malediction: a magical word or phrase uttered with the intention of bringing about evil or destruction; a curse. Cursing refers to wanting the worst for someone and publicly expressing that desire in caustic, derisive language. It represents open, public expression of emotional hostility against one’s enemy. 
Usage: The Greek particle "ἄρα" is used to draw a conclusion or inference from a preceding statement or context. It often serves to connect thoughts logically, indicating a result or consequence. In the New Testament, it is used to emphasize the logical outcome of a discussion or argument.
Cultural and Historical Background: In ancient Greek literature, particles like "ἄρα" were essential for constructing logical arguments and narratives. They helped speakers and writers to guide their audience through complex reasoning. In the context of the New Testament, "ἄρα" is used by authors to clarify theological points and to lead readers to a deeper understanding of spiritual truths.
Romans 13:13
κῶμος 2970. Kómos: [rioting.] a village festival. a feasting, reveling, carousal. a carousal, such as a party of revelers parading the streets, or revels held in religious ceremonies, wild, furious, and ecstatic. komos generally refers to feasts and drinking parties that are protracted till late at night and indulge in revelry.
Usage: The term "kómos" refers to a festive procession or celebration, often characterized by excessive feasting, drinking, and licentious behavior. In the New Testament, it is used metaphorically to describe a lifestyle of indulgence and moral laxity, often in contrast to the virtues of self-control and sobriety expected of believers.
Cultural and Historical Background: In ancient Greek culture, a "kómos" was a common feature of religious festivals and social gatherings, where participants engaged in revelry and merrymaking. These events were often associated with the worship of Dionysus, the god of wine, and were marked by a lack of restraint and moral boundaries. The New Testament writers, aware of these cultural practices, used the term to caution against the dangers of such excesses and to promote a life of holiness and discipline.
κοίτη 2845. Koité: [chambering.] Desire for the forbidden bed. sexual promiscuity. The word brings to mind the man who sets no value on fidelity and who takes his sexual pleasure when and where he will. 
Usage: The Greek word "κοίτη" primarily refers to a bed or a place of lying down. In the New Testament, it is often used metaphorically to denote sexual relations or the marriage bed. The term can carry both neutral and negative connotations, depending on the context, such as in discussions of marital intimacy or illicit sexual behavior.
Cultural and Historical Background: In ancient Greek and Jewish culture, the bed was not only a piece of furniture but also a symbol of intimacy and rest. The marriage bed, in particular, was considered sacred, representing the union between husband and wife. The use of "κοίτη" in the New Testament reflects these cultural understandings, often highlighting the sanctity of marriage or warning against sexual immorality.
πάροινος 3943. paroinos: [given to wine.]  The picture is of a man who always has a bottle on the table, which is an indication that he is not having a casual drink but that he is addicted.  It was used to describe the one who tends to be quarrelsome because he habitually drinks too much. 
Usage: The term "paroinos" is used in the New Testament to describe someone who is habitually overindulging in wine, leading to drunkenness. It is often associated with a lack of self-control and is used to describe a character trait that is not suitable for church leaders or those in positions of spiritual authority.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, wine was a common beverage, often consumed with meals. However, excessive drinking and drunkenness were frowned upon, especially among those who were expected to lead by example, such as elders and overseers in the early Christian church. The cultural context of the time placed a high value on moderation and self-control, particularly for those in leadership roles.
ζῆλος 2205. zelos: [envying.] contentious rivalry. Emulation: effort to match or surpass a person or achievement, typically by imitation. Jealousy describes envy of someone else’s possessions, achievements, or advantages. It describes the spirit which cannot be content with what it has and looks with jealous eye on every blessing given to someone else and denied to itself. 
Usage: In the New Testament, "zelos" can have both positive and negative connotations. Positively, it refers to an intense enthusiasm or fervor for something good, such as devotion to God or a righteous cause. Negatively, it can denote jealousy or envy, where one's fervor is misdirected or self-centered.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, "zelos" was often associated with the competitive spirit and rivalry, especially in athletic and political contexts. In Jewish culture, zeal was a highly regarded trait, especially in religious contexts, where it was seen as a passionate commitment to God's law and covenant. The Zealots, a Jewish political movement, exemplified this fervor in their resistance against Roman occupation.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10
μαλακός 3120. Malakos: [effeminate.] a male who submits his body to unnatural lewdness. to being passive in a same-sex relationship, effeminate esp. of catamites, of men and boys who are sodomized by other males in such a relationship. 
Usage: The term "malakos" is used in the New Testament to describe something that is soft or luxurious. In a moral context, it refers to effeminacy or moral softness, often implying a lack of self-discipline or moral fortitude. It is used to describe individuals who are morally weak or indulgent.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, the term "malakos" was often associated with luxury and decadence. It could describe clothing, lifestyle, or behavior that was considered overly indulgent or lacking in traditional masculine virtues. In a moral sense, it was used to criticize those who were seen as lacking the strength of character expected in a patriarchal society.
ἀρσενοκοίτης 733. Arsenokoites: [abusers of themselves with mankind.] engaging in same-gender sexual activity; a sodomite, pederast. 
Usage: The term "arsenokoites" is used in the New Testament to refer to men who engage in sexual relations with other men. It is often translated as "homosexuals" or "sodomites" in English versions of the Bible. The word is understood to denote a specific type of sexual immorality, particularly male same-sex relations, which are viewed as contrary to the biblical sexual ethic.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, homosexual practices were known and, in some contexts, accepted or even celebrated. However, Jewish and early Christian teachings, rooted in the Old Testament, consistently condemned such practices. The term "arsenokoites" likely draws from Levitical prohibitions against male same-sex relations (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13), reflecting the continuity of moral teaching from the Old Testament to the New Testament.
2 Corinthians 12:19-21
ἀκαθαρσία 167. akatharsia: [uncleanness.] impurity. a state of moral corruption. Immorality. Vileness. moral uncleanness in thought, word, and deed.
Usage: The term "akatharsia" refers to a state of moral or physical impurity. In the New Testament, it is often used to describe moral corruption, particularly in the context of sexual immorality, idolatry, and other behaviors that are contrary to God's holiness. It conveys a sense of defilement that separates individuals from the purity and sanctity expected by God.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, concepts of purity and impurity were significant in both religious and social contexts. Jewish law, as outlined in the Old Testament, had strict regulations regarding cleanliness, which were both ceremonial and moral. The early Christian community, emerging from this Jewish context, understood impurity not only in terms of ritual but also as a moral and spiritual condition that needed to be addressed through repentance and sanctification.
ἀκαταστασία 181. Akatastasia: [tumults.] instability. upheaval, revolution, almost anarchy, first in the political, and thence in the moral sphere. confusion. unsettled state of affairs, disturbance, tumult. opposition to established authority, disorder, unruliness. Insurrections.
Usage: The term "akatastasia" is used in the New Testament to describe a state of disorder, confusion, or instability. It often refers to situations where there is a lack of peace and order, whether in a community, a person's life, or in the broader context of spiritual or moral conduct. The word suggests a disruption of harmony and an environment where chaos prevails over order.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, order and stability were highly valued both in society and in personal conduct. The concept of "akatastasia" would have been understood as contrary to the desired state of harmony and peace. In the early Christian communities, maintaining order was crucial for the effective functioning and witness of the church. The presence of disorder could hinder the church's mission and the believers' spiritual growth.
ἐριθεία 2052. Eritheia: [strifes.] ; means self seeking, strife, contentiousness, extreme selfishness, rivalry and those who seek only their own. In a word, eritheia is the desire to be number one no matter the cost! It usually conveys the idea of building oneself up by tearing someone else down, as in gambling, where one person’s gain is derived from others’ losses. The word accurately describes someone who strives to advance himself by using flattery, deceit, false accusation, contentiousness, and any other tactic that seems advantageous.
Usage: In the New Testament, "eritheia" is used to describe a self-seeking attitude that leads to division and conflict. It denotes a spirit of rivalry and ambition that prioritizes personal gain over communal harmony and the well-being of others. This term is often associated with negative behaviors that disrupt unity within the Christian community.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, ambition and competition were often seen as virtues, especially in political and social contexts. However, the early Christian community, influenced by the teachings of Jesus and the apostles, viewed such self-centered ambition as contrary to the values of humility, service, and love. The term "eritheia" reflects a departure from the communal and sacrificial ethos that characterized the early church.
θυμός 2372. thumos: [wraths.] a state of intense displeasure,  angry tempers, fierce, indignation, rage. passion, heat, anger forthwith boiling up and soon subsiding again. described as the intoxication of the soul, that sweeps a man into doing things for which afterwards he is bitterly sorry.
Usage: In the New Testament, "thumos" is often used to describe a passionate, intense form of anger or wrath. It conveys a sense of boiling agitation or a sudden outburst of emotion. This term is frequently associated with divine wrath or human anger that is intense and often destructive. It is distinct from "orge," another Greek word for anger, which implies a more settled or abiding state of mind.
Cultural and Historical Background: In ancient Greek culture, "thumos" was understood as a powerful force within the human psyche, often linked to the soul's spirited part. It was seen as a driving force behind courage and action but also as a potential source of destructive rage if not controlled. In the context of the New Testament, "thumos" reflects the intense emotions that can lead to sin if not tempered by the Holy Spirit.
1 Corinthians 12:25
σχίσμα 4978. Schisma: [schism.] the condition of being divided because of conflicting aims or objectives, division, dissension, schism in the church.. Disagreement in opinion, usually a disagreement which is violent, producing warm debates or angry words; contention in words.
Usage: In the New Testament, "schisma" refers to a division or split within a group, often implying a discord or separation among people who were once united. It is used to describe both physical and metaphorical separations, particularly within the context of the early Christian community.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, unity and harmony were highly valued, especially within social and religious groups. The early Christian church, emerging in this context, faced challenges of maintaining unity amidst diverse cultural, ethnic, and theological backgrounds. The term "schisma" captures the tensions and divisions that could arise within the church, threatening its witness and mission.
Galatians 5:19-21
φαρμακεία 5331. Pharmakeia: [witchcraft.] φαρμακεύς 5332. Pharmakeus: [sorcerer.] φάρμακος 5333. Pharmakos: [sorcerers.]  the use of medicine, drugs or spells, properly, drug-related sorcery, like the practice of magical-arts, etc. Involvement With The Occult: Sorcery: Witchcraft: Magic Practice:  Magicians, Enchanters, Divination, Wizards, Spiritism, Soothsaying: Casting Spells: Drug Use: of or relating to magic, astrology, or any system claiming use or knowledge of secret or supernatural powers or agencies. 
Usage: In the New Testament, "pharmakeia" refers to the practice of sorcery or witchcraft, often involving the use of potions, spells, and enchantments. It is associated with idolatry and the manipulation of spiritual forces through illicit means. The term is used to describe practices that are contrary to the worship of the one true God and are often linked with moral corruption and deception.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the ancient Greco-Roman world, "pharmakeia" was commonly associated with the use of drugs and potions for magical or religious purposes. Sorcerers and magicians were believed to have the power to influence the spiritual realm, often for personal gain or to harm others. Such practices were prevalent in pagan religions and were condemned by Jewish and early Christian teachings as they were seen as attempts to usurp God's authority and engage with demonic forces.
ἔχθρα 2189. Echthra: [hatred.] enmity, hostility. alienation. unfriendly dispositions. The quality of being an enemy. describes that extreme negative attitude that is the opposite of love and friendship.
Usage: The Greek word "ἔχθρα" (echthra) is used in the New Testament to denote a state of enmity or hostility. It often refers to the deep-seated animosity or opposition that exists between individuals or groups. In a spiritual context, it can also describe the hostility between humanity and God due to sin.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, enmity was a common aspect of social and political life, often resulting in feuds, wars, and divisions. The concept of enmity was not only personal but also communal, affecting relationships between different ethnic groups, political factions, and religious sects. In the Jewish context, enmity could also be seen in the division between Jews and Gentiles, as well as between different sects within Judaism.
διχοστασία 1370. Dichostasia: [seditions.]  a standing apart which is a picture of dissension, discord, disunity, contention, division into opposing groups. The idea of dissension is disagreement which leads to discord. Dissension is strife that arises from a difference of opinion and stresses a division into factions (especially factions in the early church).
Usage: The term "dichostasia" refers to a state of division or dissension, often implying a separation into opposing factions or parties. In the New Testament, it is used to describe the discord and lack of unity that can arise within a community, particularly within the body of believers. It is often associated with works of the flesh and is contrasted with the unity and harmony that should characterize the Christian community.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, unity and harmony were highly valued in both civic and familial contexts. Division and factionalism were seen as threats to the stability and peace of society. In the early Christian church, unity was especially important as believers sought to live out the teachings of Jesus in a diverse and often hostile environment. The apostles frequently addressed issues of division, urging believers to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
αἵρεσις 139. Hairesis: [heresies.] a self-chosen opinion, a religious or philosophical sect, discord or contention. Factions, heresies. a body of men separating themselves from others and following their own tenets.
Usage: In the New Testament, "hairesis" primarily refers to a group or faction that arises from a division or choice, often implying a departure from established doctrine or practice. It can denote a sect or party within a larger religious context, sometimes with a negative connotation of causing division or promoting false teachings.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, "hairesis" was used to describe philosophical schools or sects, such as the Stoics or Epicureans, which were groups formed around particular teachings or beliefs. In the Jewish context, it could refer to different sects like the Pharisees or Sadducees. In early Christianity, the term began to take on a more negative connotation, referring to groups that deviated from apostolic teaching and caused division within the church.
Ephesians 4:31
ὀργή 3709. Orgé: [anger.] ὀργίλος 3711. Orgilos [soon angry.] state of relatively strong displeasure, with focus on the emotional aspect, anger.  impulse, wrath, passion; punishment, vengeance.
Usage: In the New Testament, "orgé" primarily refers to a settled and abiding condition of mind, often with a view to taking vengeance. It is used to describe both human and divine anger. Human anger can be sinful, but divine wrath is always just and righteous, reflecting God's holiness and justice.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, anger was often seen as a powerful emotion that could lead to destructive actions if not controlled. Philosophers like Aristotle discussed the importance of moderating anger. In Jewish thought, God's wrath was understood as a response to sin and disobedience, a theme that is consistent throughout the Old Testament and carried into the New Testament.
Κραυγή 2906. Kraugé: [clamour.] (a) a shout, cry, clamor, (b) outcry, clamoring against another. A great outcry; noise; exclamation; vociferation, made by a loud human voice continued or repeated, or by a multitude of voices. It often expresses complaint and urgent demand.
clamor is "noisy shouting" and describes those who "become loudly insistent" making a vehement protest or demand.
Usage: The term "kraugé" refers to a loud cry or shout, often expressing strong emotion such as distress, fear, or fervent appeal. It is used in the New Testament to describe both literal and metaphorical cries, including those of people in need, crowds, or even the cries of Jesus.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the ancient Greco-Roman world, public speaking and vocal expression were significant aspects of communication. A "kraugé" could be a spontaneous outburst or a deliberate call for attention. In Jewish culture, crying out to God in prayer or lament was a common practice, reflecting a deep reliance on divine intervention.
Ephesians 5:3-5
αἰσχρότης 151. Aischrotés: [filthiness.] behavior that flouts social and moral standards. Indecent, indecorous, dishonorable, inappropriate conduct, ugly, shameful, base, disgraceful) describes impropriety or improper conduct whether in action or word or even thought and intent. It means indecorum of any kind. Aischrotes is an "ugly" sounding word which describes ugly, shameful conduct of any kind, specifically conduct which is contrary to a person who is inhabited by the Spirit of Christ and is called to follow after his Father in heaven.
Usage: The term "aischrotés" refers to behavior or speech that is considered shameful, indecent, or morally offensive. In the New Testament, it is used to describe conduct that is unbecoming of a believer, particularly in the context of speech that is vulgar or inappropriate. It emphasizes the importance of purity and integrity in communication among Christians.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, public speech and conduct were often scrutinized for their moral and ethical implications. The early Christian community, living within this cultural milieu, was called to a higher standard of holiness and purity, distinguishing themselves from the surrounding pagan practices. The use of "aischrotés" in the New Testament reflects the early church's emphasis on maintaining a testimony that honors God, both in word and deed.
μωρολογία 3473. Mórologia: [foolish talking.] Silly talk means that kind of talk which is insipid, senseless, stupid, foolish; which is not fitted to instruct, edify, profit--the idle chit-chat which is so common in the world. The meaning is, that Christians should aim to have their conversation sensible, serious, sincere remembering the words of the Lord Jesus, "that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.
Usage: The term "mórologia" refers to speech that is senseless, foolish, or lacking in wisdom. It is used to describe conversations or words that are trivial, frivolous, or devoid of meaningful content. In the context of the New Testament, it often carries a negative connotation, warning believers against engaging in such speech.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, rhetoric and speech were highly valued, and the ability to speak wisely and persuasively was considered a mark of education and virtue. Foolish talk, therefore, was not only seen as a lack of wisdom but also as a failure to live up to societal standards of communication. In the early Christian community, speech was seen as a reflection of one's inner character and spiritual maturity.
εὐτραπελία 2160. Eutrapelia: [jesting.] scurrility. 
This includes facetiousness, course wittiness, ribaldry. It refers to the "turning" of one’s speech for the purpose of exciting wit or humor that ends in deceptive speech, so formed that the speaker easily contrives to wriggle out of its meaning or engagement (John Eadie). Since such persons can easily manipulate circumstances, they are apt to deteriorate into mischief–makers and clowns. Therefore, the noun form eutrápelos which can mean a witty person, is also used in a bad sense meaning a scoffer, one who sneers, or one who offers coarse jokes.
Usage: In the New Testament, εὐτραπελία refers to inappropriate or coarse jesting, often involving vulgar or indecent humor. It is used to describe speech that is unbecoming of a Christian, focusing on humor that is morally questionable or offensive. The term suggests a turning of good-natured wit into something that is improper or harmful.
Cultural and Historical Background: In ancient Greek culture, wit and humor were highly valued, and the ability to engage in clever conversation was considered a social skill. However, this could sometimes devolve into crude or indecent jesting. The New Testament context reflects a call for believers to maintain purity in speech, avoiding the kind of humor that would be considered offensive or degrading, especially in a community setting where moral integrity was paramount.
Philippians 2:14
γογγυσμός 1112. Goggusmos: [murmurings.] muttering, grumbling. complaint. is an audible expression of an unwarranted dissatisfaction = expression of one's discontent. Expression in low tones of disapprobation (act or state of disapproving). Grumbling, grudging, murmuring, complaining (= making formal accusation or expressing dissatisfaction, resentment, displeasure or annoyance).
Usage: The term "goggusmos" refers to a low, muttered complaint or expression of discontent. It is often used in the New Testament to describe the murmuring or grumbling of people who are dissatisfied or rebellious against God or His appointed leaders. This term conveys a sense of secretive or subdued discontent, often expressed in a communal or collective setting.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the ancient Greco-Roman world, public discourse and open debate were common, but "goggusmos" reflects a more private, often subversive form of dissent. In the context of the Bible, it is frequently associated with the Israelites' complaints during their wilderness journey, as well as the early Christian communities' struggles with internal dissatisfaction and division. Grumbling was seen as a lack of faith and trust in God's provision and leadership.
διαλογισμός 1261. Dialogismos: [disputings.] a calculation, reasoning, thought, movement of thought, deliberation, plotting. argument, dissension, doubts, motives, opinions, reasonings,  speculations,  thoughts. a questioning mind and suggests an arrogant attitude by those who assume they’re always right. Arguing with others in the body of Christ is disruptive. 
Usage: The term "dialogismos" refers to the process of reasoning or deliberation, often involving internal thoughts or debates. It can denote both positive and negative connotations, such as thoughtful consideration or skeptical questioning. In the New Testament, it is frequently used to describe the inner thoughts and doubts of individuals, particularly in relation to faith and understanding of God's will.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, reasoning and debate were highly valued as means of discovering truth and understanding the world. Philosophical schools often engaged in dialogismos to explore various ideas and beliefs. In the Jewish context, reasoning was also important, but it was expected to align with the wisdom and revelation of God as found in the Scriptures. The New Testament reflects this tension between human reasoning and divine revelation.
Colossians 3:5-8
πάθος 3806. pathos: [inordinate affection.] suffering, emotion, depraved passion, lust. strong feelings (emotions) which are not guided by God (like consuming lust). A passion is a drive or force that does not rest until satisfied. These are internal desires (emanating from our fallen sin nature) cause the victim to suffer and that have to be satisfied or they drive you crazy. A passion describes intense emotion compelling action; intense, driving, or overmastering feeling or conviction; ardent affection; sexual desire or an emotion that is deeply stirring or ungovernable. The word "desires" (when used as noun as in the present context) means to have a longing for and stresses the strength of feeling and often implies strong intention or aim; conscious impulse toward something that promises enjoyment or satisfaction in its attainment. 
Usage: In the New Testament, "pathos" is often used to describe strong emotions or desires, particularly those that are sinful or lead to moral corruption. It conveys the idea of uncontrolled or excessive desires that can lead to sinful actions. The term is generally used in a negative context, highlighting the need for self-control and purity in the life of a believer.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, "pathos" was understood as a powerful emotion or passion that could dominate a person's reason and lead to irrational behavior. Philosophers like the Stoics viewed pathos as something to be controlled or eradicated to achieve a virtuous life. In the Jewish and early Christian context, such passions were often associated with the sinful nature and contrasted with the virtues of self-control and holiness.
ἐπιθυμία  1939. Epithumia: [concupiscence.] passionate longing, desire, eagerness for, inordinate desire, lust: is a neutral term denoting the presence of strong desires or impulses, longings or passionate craving (whether it is good or evil is determined by the context) directed toward an object. 
Usage: In the New Testament, "epithumia" is often used to describe a strong desire or longing, which can be either positive or negative depending on the context. It frequently refers to sinful desires or lusts that are contrary to God's will. However, it can also denote a strong, earnest desire for something good, such as the longing to see Christ or to be with fellow believers.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, desires were often seen as powerful forces that could lead individuals astray if not properly controlled. The New Testament writers, influenced by Jewish teachings, emphasized the importance of aligning one's desires with God's will. The concept of "epithumia" was particularly relevant in addressing the moral and ethical challenges faced by early Christians living in a pagan society.
αἰσχρολογία 148. Aischrologia: [ filthy communication.] abusive language, filthy speech, foul language. low and obscene speech.
Usage: The term "aischrologia" refers to speech that is considered shameful, indecent, or obscene. It encompasses language that is morally degrading or offensive, often associated with vulgarity or profanity. In the New Testament, it is used to admonish believers to avoid such speech, emphasizing the importance of purity in communication.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, rhetoric and speech were highly valued, and the use of language was seen as a reflection of one's character. The early Christian community, living within this cultural context, was called to a higher standard of speech that reflected their new identity in Christ. The use of "aischrologia" would have been seen as contrary to the virtues of holiness and purity that were expected of believers.
1 Thessalonians 2:5
κολακεία 2850. kolakeia: [flattering.]  with a view to advantage or gain. Kolakeia contains the idea of deception for selfish ends. It is flattery not merely for the sake of giving pleasure to others but for the sake of self interest. It is deception by "slick" eloquence (sounds like many politicians we know doesn't it?) with the idea of winning over the listener's heart in order to exploit not edify.
Usage: The term "kolakeia" refers to insincere praise or excessive compliments given with the intention of gaining favor or advantage. In the biblical context, it often carries a negative connotation, highlighting deceitful or manipulative speech that lacks genuine love or truth.
Cultural and Historical Background: In ancient Greek culture, flattery was often viewed with suspicion, as it was associated with manipulation and deceit. Philosophers like Aristotle criticized flattery as a vice, contrasting it with genuine friendship. In the Greco-Roman world, flattery was commonly used in political and social contexts to gain influence or favor from those in power. The early Christian community, valuing truth and sincerity, would have been wary of such practices, emphasizing honest and loving communication.
1 Timothy 1:6, 9-10
ματαιολογία 3150. Mataiologia: [vain jangling.]  idle or foolish talk, vain speaking. fruitless discussion.  empty, profitless, aimless. These people in Crete could talk glibly but all their talk was ineffective in bringing anyone one step nearer goodness. Their talk produced no spiritual benefits, and in fact robbed the hearers of the truth which led them into error. The Cynics used to say that all knowledge which is not profitable for virtue is vain.
Usage: The term "mataiologia" refers to speech that is empty, futile, or devoid of substance. It is used to describe conversations or teachings that lack truth and are ultimately unproductive or misleading. In a biblical context, it often pertains to false teachings or discussions that distract from the core truths of the Christian faith.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, rhetoric and speech were highly valued, and the ability to speak persuasively was a prized skill. However, the early Christian community was cautioned against being swayed by eloquent but empty words that did not align with the teachings of Christ. The term "mataiologia" would have been understood as a warning against engaging in or being influenced by such fruitless discussions.
ψεύστης 5583. Pseustés: [liars.] ψευδής  5571. Pseudés[liars.] deceiver. a person who falsifies, misrepresents (distorts, misleads). false, deceitful, lying, untrue. A person who knowingly utters falsehood; one who declares to another as a fact what he knows to be not true, and with an intention to deceive him. The uttering of falsehood by mistake, and without an intention to deceive, does not constitute one a liar.
Usage: The term "pseustés" is used in the New Testament to denote someone who speaks falsehoods, a deceiver, or one who is untruthful. It carries a strong moral implication, often used to describe those who are opposed to the truth of God and His Word.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, truthfulness was a valued virtue, and lying was seen as a vice. In Jewish culture, truth was deeply connected to the character of God, who is described as the God of truth. Therefore, being labeled a "liar" was a serious accusation, implying a fundamental opposition to God's nature and commandments.
ἐπίορκος 1965. Epiorkos: [perjured persons.] sworn falsely, a perjurer. 
Usage: The term "epiorkos" refers to someone who swears falsely or commits perjury. In a biblical context, it denotes a person who breaks an oath or makes a false promise, thus violating the sacredness of their word. This term underscores the importance of truthfulness and integrity in speech, especially when invoking God's name in an oath.
Cultural and Historical Background: In ancient Greek and Jewish cultures, oaths were considered solemn and binding. They were often made in the name of a deity, which added a divine witness to the promise. Breaking an oath was not only a legal offense but also a moral and spiritual transgression. In Jewish law, perjury was condemned, and truthfulness was a key aspect of righteous living. The New Testament continues this emphasis, urging believers to let their "yes" be "yes" and their "no" be "no" (Matthew 5:37).
ἀνδραποδιστής 405. Andrapodistés: [menstealers.] a slave dealer, an enslaver, one who forcibly enslaves, a kidnapper.
Usage: The term "andrapodistés" refers to a person who engages in the act of capturing and selling individuals as slaves. In the New Testament, it is used to describe those who exploit others for personal gain, particularly through the abhorrent practice of human trafficking.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the ancient Greco-Roman world, slavery was a common institution, and individuals could become slaves through various means, including war, piracy, and kidnapping. Slave traders, or "andrapodistés," were those who profited from the buying and selling of human beings. This practice was widespread and accepted in many ancient societies, although it was contrary to the ethical teachings of the early Christian church, which emphasized the inherent dignity and worth of every individual as created in the image of God.
1 Timothy 3:3, 8
πλήκτης 4131. pléktés: [striker.] contentious person, brawler. pugnacious. is literally a striker (one who hits another with force), a fist fighter and figuratively one who is a violent, contentious and quarrelsome.
Usage: The term "pléktés" is used in the New Testament to describe someone who is violent or a bully, particularly in the context of physical aggression. It conveys the idea of a person who is prone to striking others, either literally or metaphorically, and is often associated with a lack of self-control and a propensity for conflict.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, physical violence and aggression were not uncommon, especially among those in positions of power or authority. The term "pléktés" would have been understood as a negative trait, particularly for leaders within the early Christian community, who were expected to exhibit self-control and gentleness. The cultural expectation for leaders was to be examples of moral integrity and peace, contrasting with the often harsh and violent leadership styles seen in secular society.
αἰσχροκερδής 146. Aischrokerdés: [greedy of filthy lucre.] fond of sordid gain. Greedy. shamelessly greedy, avaricious (excessively acquisitive especially in seeking to hoard riches), a seeker of gain in disgraceful ways. It describes a man who does not care how he makes money so long as he makes it.
Usage: The term "aischrokerdés" is used in the New Testament to describe a person who is motivated by shameful or dishonest gain. It characterizes individuals who prioritize personal profit over integrity, often at the expense of ethical or moral standards. This term is typically used in the context of leadership within the church, warning against those who might exploit their position for financial gain.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, where the early church was established, financial gain was often pursued aggressively, sometimes through unethical means. The early Christian community, however, was called to a higher standard of conduct, emphasizing integrity, generosity, and selflessness. Leaders within the church were expected to model these virtues, avoiding any semblance of greed or exploitation.
δίλογος 1351. Dilogos: [doubletongued.] double-tongued, deceitful. double-saying," i.e. deceitful by saying one thing but meaning another – literally, "two-sayings." ("double-speaking") describes someone leaving a deliberate misimpression – acting like a spiritual "weathervane" by reversing their position (taking different sides of an issue whenever it is convenient or expedient). This person is unstable (vacillating), "speaking out of both sides of their mouth." It means saying one thing and meaning another, and making different representations to different people about the same thing.”
Usage: The term "dilogos" is used to describe someone who is insincere or deceitful in their speech, often saying one thing to one person and something different to another. It implies a lack of integrity and consistency in communication, often for manipulative purposes.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, rhetoric and speech were highly valued, and the ability to speak persuasively was a prized skill. However, being "double-tongued" was seen as a negative trait, as it indicated a lack of honesty and reliability. In the early Christian community, integrity in speech was crucial for maintaining trust and unity among believers.
1 Timothy 5:13
ἀργός 692. argos [idle.] inactive, lazy, thoughtless, unprofitable, injurious. Careless. free from labor, at leisure. being unwilling to work, wanting nothing to do, shunning the labor which one ought to perform - idle, neglectful or lazy.
Usage: In the New Testament, "argos" is used to describe a state of idleness or laziness, often with a moral or ethical implication. It conveys the idea of being unproductive or not fulfilling one's duties, whether in a physical, spiritual, or moral sense. The term is used to admonish believers against a lifestyle that neglects responsibility and diligence.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, work was often seen as a virtue, and idleness was frowned upon. The early Christian community, influenced by Jewish teachings, also valued hard work and diligence as expressions of faithfulness to God. Idleness was not only seen as a personal failing but also as a potential threat to the community's well-being and witness.
περίεργος 4021. Periergos [busybodies.] overly careful, curious, meddling, subst. a busybody. of things: over-wrought; superfluous; uncanny. busy about trifles and neglectful of important matters. of people who scurry about fussing over, and meddling in, other peoples' affairs being overwrought with unnecessary care." It was also a standard term for black arts or magic.
Usage: The term "periergos" is used in the New Testament to describe individuals who are overly concerned with matters that do not pertain to them, often involving themselves in the affairs of others in an intrusive or unnecessary manner. It conveys a sense of being meddlesome or engaging in activities that are not productive or beneficial.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, social order and community harmony were highly valued. Individuals who were considered "periergos" disrupted this harmony by involving themselves in matters that were not their concern. Such behavior was frowned upon as it could lead to gossip, division, and unnecessary conflict within the community. The early Christian church, emphasizing unity and love, discouraged such behavior to maintain peace and focus on spiritual growth.
1 Timothy 6:4
λογομαχία 3055. Logomachia [strifes of words.] contention about words, an unprofitable controversy. dispute about words, war of words, or about trivial and empty things. Empty, fruitless talk.
Usage: The term "logomachia" refers to a contention or strife involving words. It implies a focus on verbal disputes, often characterized by arguments over semantics or trivial matters rather than substantive issues. In the New Testament, it is used to caution against engaging in fruitless debates that do not edify or promote godliness.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, rhetoric and debate were highly valued skills, often used in public forums and philosophical discussions. However, the early Christian community was warned against engaging in pointless arguments that could lead to division and distract from the core message of the Gospel. The emphasis was on maintaining unity and focusing on the transformative power of the Word of God rather than getting entangled in endless debates over words.
ὑπόνοια 5283. Huponoia [ evil surmisings.]  a supposition, suspicion. Evil surmising consists in imagining evil motives to be behind the words and the acts of others. Proceeding out of the heart not fully consecrated, evil surmising will attribute some selfish or evil motive to every good deed.
Usage: The term "huponoia" refers to an underlying thought or suspicion, often implying a deeper or hidden meaning behind what is apparent. It can denote a conjecture or an interpretation that goes beyond the surface level, suggesting an insight into the true nature of a matter.
Cultural and Historical Background: In ancient Greek culture, the concept of "huponoia" was significant in philosophical and rhetorical contexts. It was often used to describe the process of discerning deeper truths or meanings that were not immediately obvious. This idea was important in the interpretation of texts, speeches, and events, where understanding the underlying intentions or implications was crucial.
παραδιατριβή 3859. Paradiatribé [Perverse disputings.] wrangling, constant arguing. useless debate. waste of time in unimportant matters, useless occupation.
Usage: The term "paradiatribé" refers to a form of discussion or argument, often implying a prolonged or contentious debate. In the context of the New Testament, it can denote a situation where individuals engage in verbal exchanges that may involve differing opinions or interpretations.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, public discourse and debate were common practices, especially in philosophical and religious contexts. The term "paradiatribé" would have been understood as a form of intellectual engagement, where ideas were exchanged, challenged, and defended. Such discussions were integral to the educational and rhetorical traditions of the time.
Titus 1:6-7, 16
ἀσωτία 810. Asótia [excess.]  wantonness, profligacy. Dissipation. spiritual wastefulness due to excessive behavior and the dire consequences it brings. describes indulgent or wasteful living, especially excessive drinking. Asotia is strictly speaking a description of the disposition of an ásotos or prodigal. Literally it is the picture of having no hope of safety, then describing the act of one who has abandoned himself to such reckless behavior.
Usage: The term "asótia" refers to a lifestyle characterized by excess, indulgence, and a lack of moral restraint. It implies a squandering of resources, both material and spiritual, in pursuit of hedonistic pleasures. In the New Testament, it is used to describe behaviors that are contrary to the disciplined and righteous life expected of believers.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, "asótia" was often associated with the behavior of those who lived extravagantly and without regard for societal norms or personal responsibility. Such lifestyles were typically marked by excessive drinking, sexual immorality, and wastefulness. The term would have been understood by early Christians as a warning against adopting the hedonistic practices prevalent in the surrounding pagan culture.
ἀνυπότακτος 506. Anupotaktos [unruly.] not subject to rule. not submissive; disobedient (unruly), unwilling to come under Christ's Lordship; refusing to "fall in line with" (fit in with) God's plan; uncooperative, with a defiant attitude towards duly-appointed authority; uncontrollable, refractory (unsubjected); anti-authoritarian (rebellious).
Usage: The term "anupotaktos" is used in the New Testament to describe individuals or groups who are not submissive to authority, whether it be divine, ecclesiastical, or civil. It conveys a sense of rebellion or refusal to be governed by established order. This word is often used in contexts that emphasize the importance of submission to rightful authority as a reflection of one's relationship with God.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, societal order and hierarchy were highly valued, and insubordination was often met with severe consequences. The early Christian community, while advocating for spiritual freedom, also emphasized the importance of order and submission to authority as a testimony to their faith. This was particularly relevant in a context where Christians were often viewed with suspicion and needed to demonstrate their integrity and respect for societal structures.
αὐθάδης 829. Authadés [selfwilled.] describes a man who has a self loving, self seeking spirit, who is so pleased with himself that nothing else pleases him and he cares to please nobody. He is preoccupation with his own interests. His is so dominated by self–interest and lack of consideration of others, that he arrogantly asserts his own will He is self-satisfied, self-centered, self-complacent, arrogant, proud, haughty, stubborn, willful, inflexible, presumptuous, unaccommodating, harsh, despising others, dictatorial, dogmatic, impatient of contradiction, and unyielding. 
Usage: The Greek word "authadés" is used to describe someone who is self-willed, obstinate, or arrogantly stubborn. It conveys a sense of self-pleasure or self-interest that disregards others' opinions or authority. In the New Testament, it often carries a negative connotation, highlighting a character trait that is contrary to the humility and submission encouraged in Christian teachings.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, virtues such as humility and self-control were often esteemed, especially in philosophical circles. However, the culture also celebrated individualism and personal achievement, which could lead to self-willed behavior. In the context of the early Christian church, being "authadés" was seen as a vice, as it opposed the communal and selfless nature of Christian life. The early church emphasized the importance of submission to God's will and the needs of the community over personal desires.
James 2:1
προσωποληψία 4382. Prosópolémpsia [respect of persons.] partiality, favoritism. The idea is looking to see who someone is before deciding how to treat them. Stated another way, the idea is judging by appearance and on that basis giving special favor and respect. It pertains to judging purely on a superficial level, without consideration of a person’s true merits, abilities, or character.
Usage: Prosópolémpsia refers to the act of showing favoritism or partiality, particularly in judgment or treatment of others. It implies making decisions or forming opinions based on external appearances or social status rather than on merit or justice. In the New Testament, it is used to emphasize the impartial nature of God's judgment and the call for believers to emulate this divine attribute.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, social status and external appearances often influenced judgments and interactions. Favoritism was common, with people often receiving preferential treatment based on wealth, citizenship, or social connections. The early Christian community, however, was called to transcend these societal norms, reflecting the impartiality of God who judges not by outward appearances but by the heart.
James 5:9 
στενάζω 4727. Stenazó [Grudge .] literally describes an internal squeezing and denotes a feeling of sorrow which is internal. It means to sigh or groan either inwardly to ourselves or outwardly because of undesirable circumstances or oppression under which the individual suffers. Stenazo means to express grief by inarticulate or semi-articulate sounds. A groan is an audible expression of anguish due to physical, emotional, or spiritual pain.  
Usage: The verb "stenazó" conveys a deep, often involuntary expression of distress, longing, or burden. It is used to describe both physical and spiritual groaning, reflecting a sense of suffering or anticipation for relief. In the New Testament, it often signifies the groaning of creation, believers, or the Holy Spirit in response to the fallen state of the world and the longing for redemption.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, groaning was a common expression of human suffering and longing. It was understood as a natural response to pain, oppression, or deep emotional turmoil. In Jewish thought, groaning was also associated with the anticipation of God's deliverance and the coming of the Messiah. The New Testament writers, particularly Paul, use this term to articulate the tension between present suffering and future glory.
1 peter 2:1
ὑπόκρισις 5272. Hupokrisis [hypocrisies.]  The idea is to pretend, to act as something one is not and so to act deceitfully, pretending to manifest traits like piety and love. It means to create a public impression that is at odds with one’s real purposes or motivations, and thus is characterized by play-acting, pretense or outward show. It means to give an impression of having certain purposes or motivations, while in reality having quite different ones.
Usage: In the New Testament, "hupokrisis" refers to the act of pretending or feigning to be what one is not, particularly in terms of moral or religious integrity. It denotes a discrepancy between one's public persona and private reality, often involving deceit or insincerity.
Cultural and Historical Background: In ancient Greek culture, "hupokrisis" originally referred to the art of acting or playing a role on stage. Over time, it came to be associated with the idea of pretense or insincerity in everyday life. In the context of the New Testament, it is used to criticize those who outwardly display piety or righteousness but inwardly harbor sin or deceit. This concept was particularly relevant in the religious context of first-century Judaism, where Jesus often confronted the Pharisees and religious leaders for their hypocritical behavior.
1 Peter 4:3, 15
οἰνοφλυγία 3632. Oinophlugia [excess of wine.] drunkenness, debauchery. Wine-bibbing. 
Usage: The term "oinophlugia" refers to excessive indulgence in wine, leading to drunkenness and a lifestyle characterized by debauchery and moral laxity. It conveys a sense of overindulgence that results in a loss of self-control and a departure from righteous living. In the New Testament, it is used to warn against the dangers of such behavior and to encourage believers to live sober and disciplined lives.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, wine was a common part of daily life and social gatherings. However, excessive drinking was often associated with moral decay and was frowned upon by philosophers and moralists of the time. The early Christian community, living within this cultural context, was called to distinguish itself by practicing moderation and self-control, avoiding the excesses that were prevalent in society.
πότος 4224. Potos [banquetings.] a drinking bout. a drinking bout. a social gathering at which wine was served, drinking party.
Usage: The term "potos" refers to a drinking event or banquet, often associated with social gatherings where wine or other alcoholic beverages are consumed. In the New Testament, it is used to describe occasions of revelry or excessive drinking, which are often cautioned against in the context of Christian living.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, banquets and drinking parties were common social events. These gatherings were not only for celebration but also for discussing philosophical ideas, forming political alliances, and enjoying entertainment. However, they could also lead to moral excesses and were sometimes criticized by philosophers and moralists of the time. In Jewish culture, while wine was a common part of meals and celebrations, excessive drinking was generally discouraged.
ἀλλοτριοεπίσκοπος 244. Allotriepiskopos [a busybody in other men's matters.] one who meddles in things alien to his calling or in matters belonging to others; factious. Trouble some meddler.  t may refer to the officious interference of Christians in the affairs of their Gentile neighbors, through excess of zeal to conform them to the Christian standard.
Usage: The term "allotriepiskopos" is used to describe someone who takes it upon themselves to oversee or involve themselves in matters that do not concern them, often in a disruptive or unwelcome manner. It carries a negative connotation, suggesting interference in the affairs of others without invitation or authority.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, social order and respect for personal boundaries were important cultural values. The role of an "episkopos" (overseer) was a respected position within both civic and religious contexts, implying authority and responsibility. By contrast, an "allotriepiskopos" was someone who overstepped these boundaries, intruding into the lives and responsibilities of others without rightful cause. This behavior was generally frowned upon, as it disrupted community harmony and personal autonomy.
Jude 1:18
ἐμπαίκτης 1703. Empaiktés [mockers.] a mocker, by implication a false teacher. Scoffer. To deride means to laugh at contemptuously or to subject to usually bitter contemptuous ridicule.
Usage: The term "empaiktés" refers to a person who mocks, ridicules, or scorns others, often with a sense of derision or contempt. In the New Testament, it is used to describe those who deride or scoff at spiritual truths and godly living.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, mockery was a common rhetorical device used in public discourse and literature. Philosophers and orators often employed satire and ridicule to challenge opponents or highlight perceived foolishness. In a biblical context, mockers are often portrayed as those who reject divine wisdom and authority, choosing instead to follow their own desires and understanding.
Revelation 21:8 
δειλός 1169. deilos [the fearful.] cowardly, timid, fearful. Not all fear is wrong, but Jesus rebuked the disciples because their fear was excessive. Some fear is useful because it leads us to take prudent caution for our safety. Sometimes fear makes us spring into immediate action to save our own lives or the life of a loved one who is in danger. But fear is excessive and wrong when it causes us to panic so that we are not thinking carefully in light of God’s promises. If we’re so focused on the problem that we cannot see God’s control over it, then we’re not trusting Him.
Usage: The Greek word "deilos" is used in the New Testament to describe a state of fearfulness or timidity. It often carries a negative connotation, implying a lack of faith or courage in the face of challenges. In the context of Christian teaching, it is contrasted with the boldness and confidence that comes from faith in God.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, courage was highly valued, especially in the context of warfare and public life. Fearfulness or cowardice was often looked down upon as a character flaw. In the early Christian context, believers were encouraged to stand firm in their faith despite persecution and trials, making "deilos" a significant term in discussions about faith and courage.
ἄπιστος 571. Apistos [unbelieving.] unbelieving, incredulous, unchristian; sometimes subst: unbeliever. Without faith. Lack of trust. Suspicious. 
Usage: The term "apistos" is used in the New Testament to describe individuals who lack faith or belief, particularly in the context of faith in God or the gospel of Jesus Christ. It can refer to those who are skeptical, doubting, or outright rejecting the message of Christ. The word can also imply a lack of trustworthiness or reliability in a broader sense.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, faith (pistis) was a significant concept, often associated with trust and loyalty in relationships, whether between individuals or between humans and deities. The early Christian community emphasized faith as central to salvation and relationship with God. Thus, "apistos" would denote a serious spiritual deficiency, as faith was the foundation of the Christian life.
βδελύσσομαι 948. Bdelussomai [the abominable.] it is being utterly offensive or loathsome, abhored, detested.
Usage: The Greek verb "bdelussomai" conveys a strong sense of disgust or revulsion. It is used to describe an intense aversion or repulsion towards something considered vile or abominable. In the New Testament, it often refers to moral or spiritual abhorrence, particularly in the context of idolatry or practices that are detestable to God.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, the concept of abhorrence was often linked to religious and moral purity. Practices or objects deemed unclean or offensive were to be avoided to maintain personal and communal sanctity. For the Jewish people, this was deeply rooted in the Mosaic Law, which outlined various abominations that were detestable to God, such as idolatry, unclean foods, and immoral behaviors. The early Christians, emerging from this Jewish context, carried forward the understanding of spiritual purity and the rejection of idolatry and immorality.
1 Timothy 1:4
Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.
1 Timothy 4:7
But refuse profane and old wives' fables, and exercise thyself rather unto godliness.
2 Timothy 2:23 But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.   
Titus 3:9 But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.
2 Timothy 2:16 
But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.
βέβηλος 952. bebélos: [permitted to be trodden, by implication unhallowed] godless, profane, worldly, irreverent.
Usage: In the New Testament, "bebélos" is used to describe something that is irreverent or unholy, often in contrast to what is sacred or holy. It conveys a sense of crossing boundaries into what is common or secular, lacking the sanctity or reverence due to God. The term is used to warn against behaviors, teachings, or attitudes that are contrary to the holiness expected of believers.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, the concept of "profane" was understood as something that was outside the temple or sacred precincts, thus common or unclean. In Jewish thought, the distinction between holy and profane was significant, with strict laws governing what was considered clean or unclean. The early Christian community, emerging from this context, was keenly aware of the need to maintain holiness in both belief and practice, distinguishing themselves from the surrounding pagan culture.
κενοφωνία 2757. kenophónia: [empty talk] empty disputing, worthless babble. discussion of vain and useless matters.
Usage: The term "kenophónia" refers to speech that is devoid of substance or value, often characterized by idle chatter or meaningless talk. In the context of the New Testament, it is used to caution against engaging in discussions that are fruitless and do not contribute to spiritual growth or edification.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, rhetoric and oratory were highly valued skills. However, the early Christian community was warned against the prevalent cultural tendency to engage in verbose and superficial discussions that lacked depth and truth. The emphasis was on meaningful communication that aligned with the teachings of Christ and promoted godliness.
1 Corinthians 5:11
Do not keep company with those who confess to be a brother or sister in Christ yet commit such a sins. Do not even eat with them.
πορνεία 4202. Porneia: [fornications.] πόρνος 4205. Pornos: [a fornicator.] originally referred to any excessive behavior or lack of restraint, but eventually became associated with sexual excess and indulgence, of every kind of extramarital, unlawful, or unnatural sexual intercourse. prostitution, unchastity, fornication. homosexuality, intercourse with animals, intercourse with close relatives, adultery with a divorced man or woman. Lust of the eyes.
Usage: In the New Testament, "porneia" is used to describe various forms of sexual immorality, including fornication, adultery, and other illicit sexual practices. It is often used in a broader sense to encompass any sexual activity outside the bounds of a biblically defined marriage between one man and one woman. The term is frequently associated with moral and spiritual unfaithfulness.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, sexual immorality was prevalent and often accepted as part of daily life, including practices such as temple prostitution and extramarital affairs. The early Christian community, however, was called to a higher standard of sexual purity, reflecting the holiness of God. The use of "porneia" in the New Testament underscores the call for believers to live counter-culturally, adhering to the moral teachings of Scripture.
πλεονεξία 4124. Pleonexia: [covetousness.] πλεονέκτης 4123. Pleonektés: [with the covetous.] covetousness, avarice, aggression, desire for advantage. the desire for more (things), i.e. One eager to have more, especially what belongs to others. The state of desiring to have more than one’s due, greediness, insatiableness, avarice, covetousness.
Usage: In the New Testament, "pleonexia" is used to describe an insatiable desire for more, often at the expense of others. It is a form of idolatry, where material possessions or desires take precedence over God. This term is often associated with moral corruption and is considered a serious sin that leads to various forms of unrighteousness.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, the pursuit of wealth and material gain was common, and greed was often seen as a vice that disrupted social harmony. The New Testament writers, influenced by Jewish teachings, viewed pleonexia as contrary to the values of the Kingdom of God, which emphasized contentment, generosity, and trust in God's provision.
εἰδωλολάτρης 1496. Eidólolatrés: [with idolaters.] εἰδωλολατρεία 1495. Eidólolatria: [idolatry.] a server (worshipper) of an image (an idol). a worshipper of false gods, an idolater, especially one who attends their sacrificial feasts and eats of the remains of the offered victims. a covetous man, as a worshipper of Mammon. Those who consult false prophets for things like soothsaying.
Usage: The term "eidólolatrés" refers to a person who worships idols, which are physical representations or images that are revered as gods. In the New Testament, this term is used to describe individuals who engage in the worship of false gods, often in contrast to the worship of the one true God. The practice of idolatry is consistently condemned in Scripture as it leads people away from the truth and into spiritual adultery.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, idolatry was a prevalent practice, with numerous gods and goddesses being worshiped through statues, temples, and rituals. This cultural context posed a significant challenge for early Christians, who were called to reject these practices and remain faithful to the monotheistic worship of Yahweh. The early church faced pressure both from the surrounding pagan culture and from within, as some believers struggled to fully abandon their former idolatrous ways.
λοίδορος 3060. loidoros: [a railer.] reviler, abusive person. used of injuring another's reputation by denigrating, abusive insults. To abuse; attack with evil words.
Usage: The term "loidoros" is used in the New Testament to describe a person who is verbally abusive or slanderous. It characterizes individuals who engage in reviling or insulting others, often with malicious intent. This behavior is condemned in Scripture as it is contrary to the Christian virtues of love, kindness, and self-control.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, verbal abuse and slander were common in public discourse, often used in legal settings, political arenas, and personal disputes. Such behavior was seen as a means to assert dominance or discredit opponents. However, the early Christian community was called to a higher standard of conduct, emphasizing speech that edifies and builds up rather than tears down.
μέθη 3178. Methé: [drunkenness.] μέθυσος 3183. methusos:[a drunkard.] deep drinking. drunkenness/intoxication,  that causes someone to lose control of their faculties or behavior.
Usage: The term "methé" refers to the state of intoxication or drunkenness, often associated with excessive consumption of alcoholic beverages. In the New Testament, it is used to describe a condition that leads to moral and spiritual laxity, often contrasted with sobriety and self-control.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, wine was a common beverage, and social gatherings often involved drinking. However, excessive drinking and drunkenness were viewed negatively, as they led to a loss of self-control and were associated with various social and moral issues. The early Christian community, influenced by Jewish teachings, emphasized moderation and self-control, viewing drunkenness as contrary to a life led by the Spirit.
ἁρπαγή 724. Harpagé: [extortion.] ἅρπαξ 727. Harpax: [extortioners.] the act of plundering; pillage; plunder, spoil, robbery.  fueled by "violent greed." rapacious, ravenous; a robber, swindler. To take person by physical force, threats, or ay undue exercise of power; as, to extort money; to wrench away (from); to tear away; to wring (from); to exact; as, to extort contributions from the vanquished; to extort confessions of guilt; to extort a promise; to extort payment of a debt. the inner state of mind that leads to seizure, greediness, rapacity.
Usage: The term "harpagé" refers to the act of seizing or taking by force, often used in the context of robbery or plunder. It conveys the idea of something being taken away violently or unjustly. In the New Testament, it is used to describe both literal and metaphorical acts of taking or seizing.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, acts of plunder and robbery were not uncommon, especially during times of war or political upheaval. The concept of "harpagé" would have been familiar to early Christians, who often faced persecution and the confiscation of their property. The term also reflects the broader biblical theme of justice and the protection of the vulnerable from exploitation.
2 Timothy 3:2-5, 8
Those who commit such things, having a form of godliness, from such turn away. 
φιλάργυρος 5366. Philarguros: [lovers of money.] avaricious. meaning loving money or covetous. It describes a person obsessed with money, one who is "fond" of money, one who is avaricious (greedy of gain = excessively acquisitive especially in seeking to hoard riches) and implies obsessive acquisitiveness especially of money.
Usage: The term "philarguros" is used in the New Testament to describe a person who is excessively fond of money or material wealth. It conveys the idea of greediness and an unhealthy attachment to riches, which can lead to moral and spiritual compromise.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, wealth was often seen as a sign of success and power. However, the early Christian community, influenced by Jewish teachings, viewed the love of money as a potential idol that could lead individuals away from God. The New Testament frequently warns against the dangers of greed and the pursuit of wealth, emphasizing the importance of spiritual riches over material possessions.
φίλαυτος 5367. Philautos: [ lovers of their own selves.]  loving oneself, selfish, intent on one's own interests or concerned solely with one’s own desires, needs, or interests.
Usage: The term "philautos" is used to describe a person who is excessively fond of themselves, prioritizing their own interests and desires above those of others. It conveys a sense of selfishness and self-centeredness, often at the expense of community and relationships.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, virtues such as self-control, humility, and community-mindedness were highly valued, especially in philosophical circles. The concept of "philautos" would have been seen as a vice, contrary to the ideals of selflessness and communal harmony. In the context of early Christianity, this term would have been particularly poignant, as the teachings of Jesus emphasized love for others, self-sacrifice, and humility.
ἀλαζών 213. Alazón: [boasters.] vagabond, hence an impostor. one who gives one's self airs in a loud and flaunting way. boasting to anyone who is foolish enough to take him seriously! This kind of person claims many things he can't really do, so he must always keep moving on to new, naive listeners.
Usage: The term "alazón" refers to someone who is boastful or arrogant, often characterized by an exaggerated sense of self-importance or a tendency to make grandiose claims. In the New Testament, it is used to describe individuals who are prideful and self-centered, often in contrast to the humility and servitude exemplified by Christ.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, boasting was often associated with the sophists and rhetoricians who prided themselves on their eloquence and intellectual prowess. Such individuals were sometimes viewed with skepticism, as their claims were not always grounded in truth. The early Christian community, influenced by Jewish teachings on humility and the example of Jesus, viewed boasting as contrary to the virtues of humility and meekness.
ὑπερήφανος 5244. Huperephanos: [the proud.] 5243. Huperéphania: [pride.] arrogant, disdainful. over-shine, trying to be more than what God directs, i.e. going beyond the faith He imparts. showing oneself above others, overtopping, conspicuous above others, pre-eminent. with an overweening estimate of one's means or merits, despising others or even treating them with contempt. haughtiness,  arrogance. excessive shining, i.e. self-exaltation (self-absorption) which carries its own self-destructive vanity. 
Usage: The Greek word "huperephanos" is used in the New Testament to describe a person who is proud, arrogant, or haughty. It conveys a sense of self-exaltation and an attitude of superiority over others. This term is often used in a negative context, highlighting a character trait that is contrary to the humility and servitude encouraged in Christian teachings.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, pride was often seen as a vice, especially when it led to hubris, an overbearing arrogance that defied the gods and led to one's downfall. In Jewish and early Christian thought, humility was a virtue, and pride was considered a sin that distanced individuals from God. The cultural context of the New Testament emphasizes the importance of humility and the dangers of pride, aligning with the teachings of Jesus and the apostles.
βλασφημία 988. Blasphémia: [blasphemies.] 989. Blasphémos: [blasphemers.] Reproachful or scurrilous language, blasphemy.  is speech that is harmful, which denigrates or defames and thus refers to reviling, denigration, disrespect, slander, abusive speech (as against a person's reputation), evil speaking. Blasphemy is an injury offered to God, by denying that which is due and belonging to him, on attributing to him that which is not agreeable to his nature. 
Usage: In the New Testament, "blasphémia" primarily refers to speech that is irreverent or disrespectful towards God, His nature, or His works. It can also extend to slanderous or injurious speech against individuals. The term is used to describe both direct blasphemy against God and the broader concept of defamation or slander against others.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Jewish context of the New Testament, blasphemy was considered a grave sin, often punishable by death, as it was seen as a direct affront to God's holiness and authority. The concept of blasphemy was deeply rooted in the Jewish understanding of God's transcendence and the sanctity of His name. In the Greco-Roman world, blasphemy could also refer to slander against deities or individuals, reflecting the broader cultural emphasis on honor and reputation.
ἀχάριστος 884. Acharistos: [unthankful.] ungracious, ungrateful. Unpleasing. describes men who are utterly destitute of any gratitude toward God or others. They refuse to recognize the debt they owe both to God and to men.
Usage: The term "acharistos" is used to describe a person who is ungrateful or lacking in thankfulness. In the New Testament, it conveys a moral deficiency, highlighting a failure to recognize and appreciate the grace and blessings received from God and others.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, gratitude was considered a fundamental virtue, essential for maintaining social harmony and relationships. The concept of χάρις (charis) was central to Greek culture, encompassing not only grace and favor but also the reciprocal nature of giving and receiving. Ingratitude, therefore, was seen as a serious moral failing, disrupting the social and divine order.
ἀνόσιος 462. Anosios: [unholy.]  profane.  utter disregard of what is sacred, i.e. willful (arrogant) disrespect of the things of God; "impious; wicked." It means ungodly and without regard of duty toward God or toward man and carries the idea not so much of irreligion as of gross indecency. In other words this man not only breaks the laws of God and society, but even breaks the unwritten laws of common decency. 
Usage: The term "anosios" is used in the New Testament to describe that which is contrary to the sacred or holy. It denotes a lack of reverence or respect for what is considered holy or sacred. In a broader sense, it can refer to actions, attitudes, or individuals that are morally or spiritually corrupt.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, the concept of holiness was often associated with religious rituals and the gods. The term "hosios" was used to describe what was in accordance with divine law or sacred. Therefore, "anosios" would have been understood as a serious deviation from accepted religious and moral standards. In the Jewish context, holiness was central to the covenant relationship with God, and anything "unholy" was seen as defiling and separating one from God.
ἄστοργος 794. Astorgos: [Without natural affection.] unloving, devoid of affection. hard-hearted towards kindred. Just as the self-loving person is without common decency, he also is without common affection. He cares nothing for the welfare of those who should be dearest to him. His only interest in them is for what he believes they can do for him. To be unloving is to be heartless.
Usage: The term "astorgos" is used in the New Testament to describe a lack of natural affection, particularly the kind of love and care that should exist within family relationships. It denotes a deficiency in the natural bonds of love that are expected between family members, such as between parents and children or among siblings.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, family was a central unit of society, and familial affection was highly valued. The concept of "storgē" was understood as the natural love and affection that should exist within the family. The absence of such affection, as indicated by "astorgos," would have been seen as a significant moral failing and a sign of societal decay. This term reflects the broader biblical theme of the breakdown of natural relationships as a consequence of sin.
ἄσπονδος 786. aspondos: [trucebreakers.] without libation, i.e. without truce, hence admitting of no truce. An implacable person just can't be appeased. The thought is not that these men break a truce but that they resist all efforts to reconciliation. They cannot be persuaded to enter into a covenant or agreement. This is the picture of the absolutely irreconcilable person who, being at war, refuses to lay aside their enmity or even to listen to terms of reconciliation. It means "hostility which refuses truce."
Usage: The term "aspondos" is used to describe a state of being unwilling to make peace or come to an agreement. It conveys a sense of being unyielding or unforgiving, often in the context of personal relationships or conflicts. In the New Testament, it is used to characterize individuals who are obstinately opposed to reconciliation or resolution.
Cultural and Historical Background: In ancient Greek culture, a "spondē" was a libation or drink offering made as part of a treaty or agreement, symbolizing peace and reconciliation. The absence of such a gesture, as indicated by "aspondos," would imply a refusal to engage in peace-making or to honor agreements. This term would have resonated with early Christian audiences familiar with the importance of reconciliation and peace in both personal and communal relationships.
διάβολος 1228. Diabolos: [false accusers.] unjustly criticizing to hurt (malign) and condemn to sever a relationship. one who utters false charges or misrepresentations which defame and damage another’s reputation), backbiting (malicious comment about one not present), one given to malicious gossip or a calumniator (one who utters maliciously false statements, charges, or imputations about, this term imputes malice to the speaker and falsity to the assertions.
Usage: The term "diabolos" is used in the New Testament to refer to the devil, the chief adversary of God and humanity. It characterizes the devil as a slanderer and accuser, one who opposes God's purposes and deceives humanity. The word is often used to describe the spiritual being who tempts, accuses, and seeks to destroy.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, the concept of evil spirits and adversarial beings was prevalent. The Jewish understanding of Satan as an accuser and adversary is reflected in the New Testament usage of "diabolos." This term emphasizes the devil's role in opposing God's work and leading people away from the truth. The early Christian community understood the devil as a real and personal being who actively works against the followers of Christ.
ἀκρατής 193. Akratés: [incontinent.] impotent. lacking self-control, self-discipline, self-restraint. powerless, inclined to excess. inability to maintain control; figuratively, want of self-restraint,  without self-control, and therefore mastered by personal appetites (urges).
Usage: The term "akratés" is used to describe a person who is unable to exercise self-control or restraint, particularly in moral or ethical contexts. It conveys a sense of being overpowered by one's desires or impulses, leading to behavior that is not aligned with godly principles.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, self-control (enkrateia) was highly valued as a virtue, especially among philosophers like the Stoics, who emphasized mastery over one's passions. The lack of self-control, therefore, was seen as a significant moral failing. In the context of early Christianity, self-control was considered a fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:23), and its absence was indicative of a life not fully surrendered to the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
ἀνήμερος 434. Anémeros: [fierce.] not tame, savage. Brutal. These men are not just given to violence now and then; they are in fact, ferocious "savages" who pounce on whoever gets in their way, and have no regard for the rights or feelings of anyone other than themselves. Even a dog may be sorry when he has hurt his master, but these men in their malevolent treatment of others have lost natural human sympathy and feeling. This trait is the opposite of gentleness called for in the manners of the bondservant of the Lord.
Usage: The Greek word "anémeros" is used to describe something that is wild, untamed, or savage. It conveys the idea of being fierce or lacking the gentleness and control associated with domestication. In the New Testament, it is often used metaphorically to describe human behavior that is unruly or lacking in moral restraint.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, the concept of tameness versus wildness was significant in both literal and metaphorical contexts. Animals that were "anémeros" were considered dangerous and unpredictable, much like certain human behaviors that were seen as contrary to societal norms and virtues. The term would have resonated with early Christian audiences familiar with the moral teachings of self-control and gentleness.
ἀφιλάγαθος 865. Aphilagathos: [despisers of those that are good.] describes men who are hostile to or despisers of all that is good and of good men. These men lack of generous interest in the public good. They have no love of virtue. In their love of self they have become haters of good, hating what should be loved and loving what should be hated!
Usage: The term "aphilagathos" is used to describe a person who is indifferent or opposed to goodness and virtue. It characterizes an individual who lacks a love for what is morally good and righteous. This word is often used in a negative context to highlight a moral deficiency or a corrupt character.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, virtues such as goodness and moral integrity were highly esteemed. The concept of being a "lover of good" was associated with the ideal citizen who contributed positively to society. Conversely, being "aphilagathos" would have been seen as a significant moral failing, indicating a person who does not uphold the societal and ethical standards of the time.
προδότης 4273. Prodotés: [Traitors.] a betrayer. Treacherous. in the sense of giving forward into another's (the enemy's) hands. describes men who who betray another’s trust and confidence or are false to an obligation or duty.
Usage: The term "prodotés" refers to someone who betrays trust or is disloyal, particularly in a context of personal or communal relationships. In the New Testament, it is used to describe individuals who act treacherously, often in a spiritual or moral sense.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, loyalty and trust were highly valued in both personal relationships and civic duties. Betrayal was considered a grave offense, often leading to severe social and legal consequences. In Jewish culture, betrayal was seen as a violation of covenantal relationships, whether with God or within the community. The concept of betrayal is deeply rooted in the narrative of Judas Iscariot, whose act of betraying Jesus is one of the most infamous examples in Christian theology.
προπετής 4312. Propetés: [heady.]  proceeding from undue haste or lack of deliberation or caution. They plunge ahead without forethought in their impetuous deeds. Their behavior is rash, reckless, impulsive, headlong (without due deliberation, out of control), impetuous, thoughtless and precipitous.
Usage: The term "propétés" is used to describe someone who acts without careful consideration, often driven by impulsive or rash behavior. It conveys a sense of being headstrong or reckless, acting hastily without weighing the consequences.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, virtues such as wisdom, self-control, and prudence were highly valued. Recklessness or rashness was often seen as a vice, leading to poor decision-making and potential disaster. The biblical use of "propetés" aligns with this cultural understanding, warning against impulsive actions that can lead to sin or harm.
τυφόω 5187. Tuphoó: [highminded.] 5450. Phusiósis: [swellings.] to be conceited, foolish. puff up, make haughty; pass: puffed up, haughty. vanity, arrogance. moral blindness resulting from poor judgment which brings further loss of spiritual perception. Pride. They may think they are always right.
Usage: The verb "tuphoó" is used in the New Testament to describe a state of being blinded by pride or conceit. It conveys the idea of being enveloped in a cloud of self-deception, leading to an inflated sense of self-importance. This term is often used to warn against the spiritual and moral dangers of pride, which can obscure one's understanding and lead to error.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, humility was not typically seen as a virtue; rather, personal honor and status were highly valued. The concept of being "puffed up" or blinded by pride would have been a counter-cultural message in the early Christian community, which emphasized humility and servanthood as modeled by Jesus Christ. The metaphor of smoke (τύφος) suggests a lack of clarity and vision, which pride can cause in one's spiritual life.
φιλήδονος 5369. Philédonos: [lovers of pleasures more than God.] Voluptuous. These men are intent on pleasure, abandoned to (sensual) pleasure and pleasure-loving. This word describes well the self-absorbed, self-gratifying orbit of the ungodly.
Usage: The term "philédonos" is used to describe individuals who are excessively fond of or devoted to pleasure. It conveys a sense of prioritizing personal gratification and sensual enjoyment over spiritual or moral responsibilities. In the New Testament, it is often used in a negative context, highlighting a self-indulgent lifestyle that is contrary to godly living.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, the pursuit of pleasure was a common philosophical and cultural theme, particularly among the Epicureans, who believed that pleasure was the highest good. However, this pursuit often led to hedonism, where pleasure was sought without regard for moral or ethical considerations. The early Christian community, influenced by Jewish teachings and the life of Jesus, emphasized self-control, discipline, and the pursuit of spiritual rather than earthly pleasures.
ἀδόκιμος 96. Adokimos [a reprobate .] unapproved, counterfeit. castaway, that which is rejected after a trial or examination because it fails the test. It means to put to the test for the purpose of being approved, but failing to meet the requirements.
Usage: The term "adokimos" is used in the New Testament to describe something or someone that has been tested and found lacking, thus deemed unfit or disqualified. It often carries a moral or spiritual connotation, indicating a failure to meet God's standards or to live according to His will. The word suggests a state of being rejected after examination, akin to metals that fail to meet the required purity and are thus discarded.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the ancient world, the process of testing metals was a common practice to ensure their purity and value. Metals that failed the test were labeled "adokimos" and were considered worthless. This imagery would have been familiar to the original audience of the New Testament, providing a vivid metaphor for spiritual and moral examination. In a society where honor and shame were significant cultural values, being labeled "adokimos" would imply a serious deficiency in character or faith.
"Copyright Disclaimer: This content may include copyrighted material used under the doctrine of 'fair use' for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research, as permitted under Section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Act. No copyright infringement is intended."
0 notes
that-starlit-wanderer · 2 years ago
Text
Finished my currently reading!
The goal of this book was to examine political attitudes and orientations within late Byzantine society (from c. 1370 to the end of the empire) towards the Latins (i.e. Roman Catholics, and mostly Italians in this period) on the one hand and the Ottoman Turks on the other. The book examined the three remaining geographic areas still under Byzantine rule at the start of this period - Constantinople itself, Thessalonike, and the Despotate of the Morea located in the Peloponnese.
(Note that although all three of these places were ostensibly under the emperor's jurisdiction, I noted earlier that it seemed to me like Thessalonike and the Morea often seemed to be acting somewhat independently, whether out of necessity or otherwise. Different emperors also undertook lengthy journeys through western Europe in the 15th century trying to round up Latin support for the empire, without success, and this book didn't really explain who was running the empire during that period. It was certainly not a narrative history.)
The author's conclusion seems to be that, particularly in Constantinople and Thessalonike, the urban aristocracy and merchant classes all had strong ties to the Italian republics, which are well-documented in surviving primary sources, and that this led them to adopt a strongly pro-Latin orientation. Rural landowners tended to be more pragmatic, responding favorably in some cases to conciliatory Ottoman policies to those who were willing to work with the Turks and mostly interested in avoiding conflict that could ruin them financially. Ultimately this group of mostly seemed mostly concerned with their own financial well-being, which is not really that surprising.
The poorer people of the big cities, on the other hand, seemed to be much more in favor of surrendering to the Turks, openly clamoring for Thessalonike to surrender on several occasions. Again, this seems to have been partially motivated by Ottoman policies that were generally lenient and conciliatory to those who surrendered. There also seems to have been a strong element of anti-Catholic and/or anti-Italian sentiment among some parts of the poorer population that led them to abhor close ties with the Latins.
Finally, the only group that consistently took a stance which was both anti-Latin and anti-Ottoman were the Orthodox clerical and monastic establishment, who were just as opposed to making peace with the "infidel" as they were with the Catholic heretics. Their stance seemed to boil down to "God is punishing us for our sins and if we want to save the empire we need to pray really hard and everything will be fine." Fortunately no one in power seems to have listened to them much.
As for who was right, I think my initial belief that by 1370 it was already too little too late proved fairly accurate. The pro-Latin camp were asking for a miracle that no western European monarchs were interested in providing, and even if they were the history of crusades for the last 250 years suggests that they wouldn't have been able to help even if they'd wanted to. The pro-Ottoman camp was more realistic, but it's hard to believe that the Ottomans would have tolerated an independent Byzantine Empire any longer than they had to, no matter how enthusiastically they licked the sultan's boots.
So this was an interesting book that spent a lot of time with the surviving primary sources. I enjoyed it, I doubt casual history readers would. At some point I think I would definitely benefit from a more narrative history of the later (post-1204) Byzantines, and the century from ~1270-1370 in particular is kind of a blank for me tbh.
1 note · View note
goddesswritings · 4 years ago
Text
Sins of Lovers - Colby Brock | Part One
Title: Sins of Lovers – Part One
Pairing: Colby Brock x Reader
Summary: Y/n has had a crush on Colby since middle school and now it’s ten years later when he comes back into her life. He’s back in the most unexpected way and the most unexpected of things happens between the two of them.
Word Count: 4.8 k
Warnings: Cheating parents, divorce, bullying, horrible parenting, moody Colby. 
This is an old fic that I think fits Colby. Enjoy.
MASTERLIST
********
Tumblr media
Colby Brock. A guy that had been your crush since eighth grade, when he’d moved to town. There was something about him that called you back to him time and time again. He was a kind soul with a passion for life. He was someone you felt you could get along with.
But his whole attitude changed when the two of you started high school. He quickly became cold and rude. Quickly climbing the social ladder to join ranks with the most popular students in the school. These were the same people who bullied you and your friends.
It should have ended your crush on him, but it didn’t. The crush only seemed to grow as you watched him from afar. You would catch glimpses of the old him from time to time, which gave you hope that he was still in there.
Sophomore year, his attitude worsened, and he grew meaner to the people around him. News got around that his parents had divorced because his dad had been having an affair behind his mother’s back. It was also known she left town and now he was stuck with his father. He began to join in on the bullying, proving his new standing in school. During this time, you still watched him and searched for glimpses of the old Colby. They were becoming far and few.
Junior year, he started dating Paige Marcus, the IT girl of the school. All the boys wanted her and most of the girls wanted to be her. She was your personal tormentor and she had been for years. She’d taken a dislike to you in fourth grade, when you got the lead in the class play that year. That girl hated you more than anyone thought was possible.
It was a real heartbreak the first time you’d seen Colby and Paige walking hand in hand down the hallway. Your smile had faded, and you wanted to just cry. All over a boy who had never taken a notice to you. Especially because you were just some nerdy girl and he was now popular.
One day, you had been late to school, so you had to rush to get to class. As you ran through the hallway to get to class in time. You ran into Colby, literally. You collided hard with his built form, falling onto your ass.
Colby just simply looked down at you and laughed. “You should watch where you’re going, nerd.” He growled when anger flashed through his eyes.
Paige was hanging on his arm and glaring at you, as per usual. “Yeah loser, you really should watch where you’re going. My boyfriend didn’t need to be inconvenienced by you.” What was she? Colby’s parrot?
Paige laughed and kicked my books across the hallway. Colby laughed along with her, and pain flashed through my chest. “There better not be a next time.” He grumbled before stepping over you and walking away with Paige beside him.
Tears welled up in your eyes, misting up your glasses. You had been so embarrassed that day. You’d hoped it would end your crush on him, but it didn’t.
Senior year, Paige set out to personally destroy you at every chance she got. Colby was by her side each time, laughing along with her. That year was absolute hell for you. There was no escape from Paige’s wrath.
The worst day nearly broke you.
It was the middle of January and it had just snowed, making the town a frosty wasteland. There was a fire drill shortly after third period began and everyone was ushered out to the cold.
You stood with your class minding your own business when Paige approached you, dragging you from the other students. You’d struggled against her, not knowing why she had pulled you away.
“What do you want?” You asked while her nails dug into your arm.
“Just teaching you a lesson.” She said as you stopped next to a huge frozen snow bank.
“Why do you have to do this to me, Paige?” You questioned when she stole your glasses from your face. “No, give those back.” You attempted to reach for them, but the blurriness had taken over. As you were about to grab them, she threw them to her friend, Cassie. So you moved to get them from her, but she was keeping you from being able to retrieve them.
“Give me my glasses!” Your voice was loud because you were angry the snickering bitches had stolen them from you.
Suddenly, Cassie dropped them to the ground and stepped on them. A crunch could be heard as she ruined your chance for clear vision.
“Oops, my bad.” Cassie spoke while she continued to wreck your glasses.
“Stop! Why are you doing this?” Tears had begun to gather in your already blurry eyes.
“Oh look, we have a cry baby on our hands.” Paige taunted before pushing you towards the ground.
Your left hand went out to catch you, making contact with the frozen ground before your body weight came crashing down onto it. A sharp pain shot through your wrist, making you cry out as the pain hit. Paige and Cassie were just cracking up the whole time.
The world was blurry around you as you lifted your hand from the ground. Pain radiated through your arm, starting from your wrist.
“What are you guys doing?” A familiar voice cut through the two girls’ laughter. It was Colby and you were afraid he was here to join in on the torture.
“Oh baby, we were just teaching Y/n a lesson.” Paige answered in a supposedly sweet voice, but anyone could hear the venom hidden in her words.
“By breaking her glasses and hurting her?” He suddenly sounded mad.
“It’s just a joke.” Paige tried to sound like it wasn’t as big problem.
“Hurting people isn’t a joke, Paige!” He was yelling now. Then he was beside you, bending down to your level. “Are you okay, Y/n?” You couldn’t really see him all that clearly, but you could tell he was looking at the wrist you were clutching to your chest.
“No, it hurts a lot.” You whimpered as the pain continued to shoot through your arm.
“Okay, let’s get you to the nurse.” He was gentle as he helped you up from the ground.
“Why are you helping her?” Paige was now frustrated.
“She needs help.” He stated as he bent down to pick up your broken glasses from the ground.
“She’s not one of us, Colby, just leave her alone.”
“No, get out of the way.” He pushed by her and Cassie while leading you towards the school. The fire drill was over at this point.
It was quiet between the two of you as he led you through the hallway full of students who were headed back to class.
“Thank you for helping me.” You said to Colby, in a soft voice.
“Don’t mention it. Paige is a bitch a she needs to be put in her place.” He spoke as you walked into the nurses office. Once again, you had seen a glimpse of the old Colby which only proved to you that he was still in there.
You ended up having to go to the hospital, much to your mothers dismay. It was a serious inconvenience for her to leave work to take you to the hospital. She practically yelled the whole drive there. Your broken glasses were another yelling point for her. At the hospital, it was determined your wrist had been broken, which only angered her further. Not that any of it had been your fault, but she claimed you’d been the one to evoke the girls in the first place. Your mother and you weren’t particularly close.
After that incident, Paige and Colby had called it quits and Paige blamed you, of course. The rest of your senior year was pure hell for you, thanks to Paige and her friends.
You were more than happy to get away from there, luckily. You had received a scholarship to a college three hours away and your father’s house was twenty minutes from it, so you stayed with him. College was lonely for you, though. Because you weren’t all that great at making new friends and your father was always away for work, or on vacation with his new wife. A wife who didn’t like you much either.
Throughout it all, your crush on Colby never once faded. You didn’t know if it ever would.
****
10 years from the time you first began to like Colby, you were returning back to your mother’s house. You’d graduated from college and found a job close to her place, and thankfully she was letting you come back. You promised yourself you wouldn’t be there long before you found a place for yourself. You couldn’t help but to feel nervous about being back at her home. It would bring back memories of high school and Colby, but you highly doubted that he still lived in town.
You pulled into your mother’s driveway, staring at the sage green house in front of you. You’d grown up in this house. Your father had once lived in this house with you. The house held so many memories for you. Good and bad.
Sighing, you finally got out of the car and grabbed your bags from the back. You slowly made your way to the front door and let yourself into the house. Immediately, the aroma of cooking food filled your nostrils. Odd. Your mother hated to cook. You put your bags by the stairs and went to the kitchen. You found your mother standing in front of the stove wearing a blue dress. She never wore dresses.
“Hi mom.” You said getting her attention.
She turned around with a huge smile. “Hello honey. How was the drive back?” She had abandoned the stove to pull you into a hug.
“The drive was fine. What are you dressed up for?”
“Oh honey, I’m so excited. I’ve been seeing this man for a few months now and I’ve invited him and his son to dinner to welcome you home.”
This surprised you. Your mother had never successfully dated since your father left her.
“Yes okay, wow. Congrats mom. I look forward to meeting them.” You honestly were.
“I think you will like him, and his son is about your age and just a sweet young man.”
“Well I’m happy for you.”
“Thank you baby. You should go get settled in. They will be here in about an hour.” She then sent you off towards the stairs. The person you were just talking to was definitely not the person she was before you left for college. You purposely didn’t come home to visit all that often because you were afraid of who you would come home to.
After a quick shower, you sat at your counter to do your makeup. You were happy that you no longer had to wear glasses, because two years ago, your dad had gifted you laser surgery as a sorry for never being around. He still wasn’t around after that though, but you learned to expect that from him. After he left, you weren’t really much of a thought in his head.
You decided on a nice purple dress of yours and a pair of flat black booties for your feet and left your room. When you were halfway down the stairs, the doorbell went off.
“Y/n, could you get that?” Your mother asked from the kitchen.
“Yes.” You said, stopping in front of the door.
You flung open the door, instantly panicking as you saw who was on the other side. Colby Brock beside an older man, that must be his father. Your mom was dating his dad.
“Hello, come on in.” You moved out of the way so they could enter the house. Colby’s eyes were glued to you, which sent chills through your body. Oh god, tonight was going to be hell.
Your mother exited the kitchen and pulled Colby’s dad into a kiss. You grimaced and turned away from the scene. “Y/n sweetie, I want you to meet John Brock and his son Colby.” She introduced the men to you.
“I went to high school with Colby.” Colby was way hotter than you remember him being. He was sexy, tall, and muscular. He had this really sexy dyed blue hair upon his head. The man was perfect.
“Oh really? Do you remember her being so clumsy in high school? Her senior year, she broke both her glasses and wrist all in one day.” Your mother’s words made you blush in pure embarrassment.
“If I remember correctly, Y/n had her glasses stolen before she was pushed into a snowbank. So it wasn’t her fault.” Colby defended you, shocking you.
“Oh, looks like you had a friend in high school, Y/n.” You face grew red now.
“I think dinner is done. I’m going to go set the table.” You quickly dismissed yourself and ran off to the kitchen to grab the plates and silverware. You desperately hoped your mom wasn’t going to keep embarrassing you throughout dinner.
You were setting up the plates when your mother entered the room, followed by Colby and his father. You idly wondered if Colby had a girlfriend.  He had to have a girlfriend with how sexy he was.
“Thank you, Y/n. Can you grab the food for us?” She questioned while already being seated next to John.
“I’ll help you.” Colby said while following you into the kitchen. “How are you doing, Y/n?” He questioned.
You pulled the food from the oven and set it on the stove. “I’m alright. Not too thrilled to be back at my moms, but it’s okay.”
“I know what you mean. Living with my dad is hard. But I haven’t seen him much since he’s been seeing your mom.”
You began to put the other food into bowls for the two of you to carry. “How long have they been dating?” Your mother never said a length of time, only that she was dating someone.
“I’m not too sure, but I know it’s been over six months.”
“She kept it a secret from me.” You concluded. To be honest, it hurt that she kept something that big from you.
“My dad is the same, but he’s been that way all my life. I found out about his affair from someone at school. So that should tell you everything you need to know.”
That was rough. “I’m sorry, Colby.”
He just shrugged. “I’m over it now.” But you didn’t know if he was, but you weren’t going to push him.
The both of you carried the food into the dining room, where your mom and his dad were deep in conversation. The two of them looked up when you entered the room. You placed the food onto the table and took your seats, which happened to be right next to each other. Your mom and his dad were on one side and you and Colby were on the other.
You were still in shock that your crush was right here in front of you. You were double shocked that your mom was dating his dad. How in the world did that happen?
“It’s good to have you home, Y/n.” Your mom said as you started to plate the food.
“Thanks mom. It’s good to be home.” You didn’t know how truthful she was being though because the two of you haven’t gotten along for all of your life. She’s blamed you for your dad leaving and treated you like crap for it.
Dinner went on like that, with idle conversation and moments of silence. Truth be told, it was awkward as hell. You kept stealing glances at Colby, to find him pushing his food around before he would glance your way as well. You would always look away while a light blush appeared on your face.
“Alright kids, now that we have finished dinner, we wanted to talk to you about something.” John said once all the plates had been cleared.
“Sure.” Colby said, while you just nodded.
“We wanted to take a family vacation, so we can get to know each other’s family. So we booked a vacation to Boca Raton for a week.” Your mom said catching the two of you off guard.
“Oh, okay. But you know I have a job to start, right?” You stated.
“Yes sweetie, I know your job doesn’t start until next month and we leave in two days.”
“Great.” Colby’s voice was void of emotions. Like you, he wasn’t thrilled about your parents attempts to mesh the families together.
“You don’t sound too thrilled about this, Colby.” John noticed.
“I’m not. I’m being forced to get to know your new girlfriend and her daughter when I would rather not be involved. It’s not going to go anywhere, just liked the rest of them. You will probably cheat again.”
His words were harsh, but you could definitely see where he was coming from. But you couldn’t help but feel he had a dislike for you simply because your mom was dating his dad.
“That’s where you are wrong. I love Susanne and we are going to make this work whether you like it or not.” John was defensive against his moody son.
“Whatever you say. Are we finished here? I have somewhere to be.” He pushed his chair from the table and got up.
“I’m sorry, Sue, I don’t know where he got the attitude from. I promise he will be better on the trip.” You just rolled my eyes and stood up and started gathering the empty plates. Your mother followed John and Colby out while you started to clean up.
You were washing the dishes, when your mother entered the kitchen behind you.
“So Y/n, did you like John?” She questioned while you glanced over at her.
“I don’t know him enough to know whether I do or not.” You said truthfully.
“Well you should like him. He makes me happy and I’m in love with him.”
A sick feeling formed in your stomach.
“How long have you two been dating?” You needed to know how long she kept it a secret from you.
“Ten months.”
“You kept it a secret from me for 10 months!” You raised your voice as the anger took over. You put the sponge down and turned to face her.
“Yes, we didn’t talk much, and I didn’t think it was that big of a thing to keep from you. Besides, you were busy with college and whatever else you were doing at your fathers, I didn’t want to bother you.”
Her excuse was pure bullshit to you. “Save the shitty excuse and admit you didn’t think about telling me.” You growled turning away from her.
“What? No honey, why would you think that. You’re my daughter and you mean a lot to me.”
Once again you faced her, “I mean a lot to you? That’s a fucking lie. You blamed me all my life for my father leaving you, but you didn’t stop to think about that fact that he left me too. You made my life hell because you weren’t happy with yours. What kind of mother does that?”
She just laughed it off. “You’re overexaggerating it. Now finish the dishes, I’m going to relax.” Before you could say another word, she was out the door.
****
Two days later, you were sitting in an airport, with Colby beside you and both your parents in some seats across from you. Both of you were equally unhappy to be here, while both parents acted like lovebirds. It was honestly gross to watch.
“Holy fuck, do they ever stop.” You groaned, taking your eyes away from them.
“Nope, they are constantly all over each other.” Colby stated looking down at his phone. “You seem angry.” He noticed.
“I am.” You grumbled, thinking about the conversation you had with your mother the other day. Like always, she managed to make you feel like shit instead of acknowledging her wrong doings.
“What did she do?” His focus was now strictly on you.
“She didn’t think telling me about her new boyfriend was important. She practically admitted to forgetting I existed once I was out of the house. Growing up with her as my mother was hell and she has never once apologized for the shit she did to me. For years, she blamed me for her and my fathers divorce. I was 4 when they divorced.” You said making sure your voice was low, so she wouldn’t hear it.
Colby was silent for a little while. “That’s horrible. What kind of mother blames their child for a divorce?”
“Mine apparently. Now she wants to suddenly act like it didn’t happen.”
“Well I think that’s bullshit. I can see right through them, you know. They are just using each other for company. My father has never been able to be faithful, every woman he has dated were all just an excuse to have some fun. He also resents my mom for moving on from him and marrying someone whose better to her.”
“That’s fucked.”
“You’re telling me. My father is immune to commitment.”
“We have some fucked up parents.” He nodded and sent a glare to both your parents who were giggling to themselves.
The flight was called shortly after that, so the two of you followed your parents onto the plane. Colby and you were going to be sitting next to complete strangers, while your parents snuggled up together. It was not fun. Your flight was annoying, because the middle-aged man beside you kept checking you out and trying to talk to you, despite you politely telling him you weren’t interested in conversing. It was complete hell.
Arriving in Boca Raton was a godsend because you couldn’t stand being next to this guy anymore. The last half hour of the flight, he spent it trying to guess your name and persuade your number out of you. You were seconds away from punching him, but luckily the plane landed, and you were able to get out of there quickly. Colby sent you a look as you exited the plane, you just grumbled under your breath.
“Well that flight was wonderful, wasn’t it kids?” Your mother asked as John waited for the luggage to come around.
“Fuck no. That was the worst flight I have ever taken.” You said, holding your anger back.
“Oh sweetie, lighten up. We’re on vacation.” Her words sparked even more anger.
“The old guy next to me kept hitting on me and wouldn’t shut the fuck up the whole flight.”
“Watch your language.” Was all she said before she strolled up to stand beside John.
Colby just chuckled from beside you. You sent him a glare and walked away from the group. You didn’t want to be here with them. You didn’t want to spend a whole week with your mom and her boyfriend that you knew nothing about. You didn’t want to spend the whole week pining over Colby when you knew he would never like you the way you liked him. He and you were still in completely different circles and he liked his women blonde and gorgeous. You were anything but that. Okay maybe you’re pretty, but you still thought of yourself as the nerd from high school and you didn’t doubt he did as well.
John and your mother ushered all of you to a rental car, and you were off to the hotel. Colby and you were in the back, silently sitting beside each other. He was on his phone, probably talking to a girlfriend or something.
“Oh, I almost forgot. John upgraded his and I’s room to a suite, but you and Colby will be sharing a regular room.” Your mother said with a huge smile on her face.
“That’s great.” Colby grumbled from beside you, voicing your thoughts out loud.
“Don’t sound so sad. It will be good for you to get to know each other.” John stated sternly, showing authority over Colby.
“Sure, whatever.” Colby said under his breath. you hid your smirk from his words. He nudged your side when he saw that.
You were nervous as hell now. You would be sharing a room with Colby. The man you’ve had a crush on for nearly 10 years. This was going to be one hell of an experience; you were sure of it.
The car pulled up to the hotel, which was this huge building that looked like it had been here for a while. It was beautiful and right on the beach as well. It was surely a resort and perhaps it wouldn’t be a horrible place to stay. But your nerves were still on edge about this whole vacation. Your moms attachment to Colby’s dad scared you.
Colby and you were given the keycards to the room before your parents left both of you alone to fend for yourselves. Honestly, their behavior was disgusting to you.
“Let’s get to our room I guess.” Colby grumbled, picking up his suitcase and heading towards the elevators in the opposite direction of where our parents had gone. You quickly grabbed yours and followed after him.
The two of you stepped into a gold-plated elevator and he hit the eighth floor, where your room was located. You felt like he was resenting you, because he would have to spend the whole week with you.
“I’m sorry that you have to stay with me.” You mumbled as the elevator moved up floor by floor.
The angry scowl left his face as he glanced towards you. “No, I don’t mind staying with you. I’m mad at our parents for just springing all of this onto us last minute.”
You let out a sigh of relief when he said this. You really thought he hated you or something.
“Oh, I thought you hated me.” You admitted while looking towards the carpeted floor of the elevator.
“I don’t hate you, Y/n. I haven’t ever really hated you, even when I was dating Paige.” His words surprised you.
“Really? Then why was I treated like crap when you dated her?” There was no way he didn’t hate you then.
“Because Paige was always a huge bitch and blackmailed me into treating you that way.”
“Oh, well it’s okay then.”
He shook his head. “It’s not okay at all really. I should have never done some of the things I have done. But I was horrible in high school after my parents’ divorce.”
“Well it’s good to know you didn’t and don’t hate me. Also, don’t blame yourself for the way you acted as a result of the divorce. It was traumatic to you and you only did what helped you feel better.”
“I guess so. I wish I could take so much back.”
“That’s impossible, but you can continue to be a better person from now into the future.” It wasn’t good that he was beating himself up over the past.
He sent you a kind smile. “You’re right. Thank you for that, Y/n.”
You sent him a smile as well. “No problem. Now, should we get this vacation started?” You questioned as the two of you stopped in front of the door to the room.
Colby opened the door and the two of you entered the room. It was a surprisingly nice room for it being a regular room. There was two queen sized beds, covered in crème sheets and comfy looking pillows. There was a decently sized sitting area with a nice flat screen TV. The bathroom was gorgeous, with a huge, jetted tub and a beautiful walk-in shower. The best part was the private balcony we had that overlooked the beautiful blue ocean. Staying here wasn’t going to be so bad.
“This is way nicer than I expected.” He spoke your thoughts.
“Yes, I agree. But this is an upscale hotel.” You stated as you set your bags down on one of the two beds. The beds looked so comfy, you wanted to just take a nap at the moment.
“True.” He answered when his phone went off. He was silent as he checked it. “Our parents want us to meet up in the Lobby at 7 for dinner.” His voice was flat when he mentioned the parents.
“Oh great. Well, that means there’s time for a nap.” You moved your bags from the bed and pulled your shoes off. You pulled back the covers and got into the comfy bed. Your body was in bliss the minute you laid down on the bed. It was absolutely perfect. Your eyes grew heavy as soon as your head hit the pillow. The nap was much needed.
PART TWO >>
408 notes · View notes
dreamkidddream · 4 years ago
Note
I really enjoyed your writing on the ADA members with a younger sibling like partner <33 I was wondering if you could write the same scenario but with Chuuya and Fyodor? Except the younger partner in question has a rough past and cheery/joking personality similar to Dazai(?) I'm super excited to see more of your writing!! c:
Hi anon! Thank you for the compliment and for reading (here’s the scenario for those that want to read it)! The only difference is that instead of this reader being pure, they’re going to be like a mini Dazai (or at least similar to him). One change that I did make was that Reader isn’t as suicidal as Dazai (ie. constantly trying to find a way to end their life), but Reader is ready to go whenever and wherever, whether it’s on their terms or not. Reader is gender neutral and hope you enjoy!
Also ayyyeeee my first time writing for Fyodor! Hope I did him justice cause his part took a while lol
TW: Mentions of suicide, dark moments (Reader is a bit sadistic, but nothing graphic is mentioned) small spoilers for Dark Era arc and Season 3
Acting as a Younger Sibling with a Rough Past and Personality Similar to Dazai with: Chuuya and Fyodor
Chuuya
Well he was extremely disturbed to say the least. Okay extremely may be over exaggerating, but the way you acted got underneath his skin bad
You reminded him too much of Dazai, minus the suicide attempts and the animosity towards him. Although that didn’t stop the morbid jokes from happening
“Hey Chu-Chu, what did the librarian say to the guy that wanted to check out a book on how to commit suicide?”
“How many times do I have to tell you not to call me that!-“
“Go away, you’re not going to bring it back. HA! A knee slapper, am I right?”
He wondered if Dazai got to you first like he did Akutagawa, and if he did, that was just another reason to strangle him
You were his partner, and you were young. So seeing the way you interacted with everyone and everything with such a pessimistic attitude while still being cheery was alarming
Not to mention how easy it is for you to just readily accept death at every turn. You’re the literal embodiment of “guess I’ll die” and it drives Chuuya up the wall every time
He remembers the one time an enemy held you hostage how you were so cheerful to finally be rid of this joke you called a life, and that you told the guy who was holding a gun to your head to “put it between the eyes, it looks 10x better that way.” And “don’t be afraid to blow my brains out either! But you do you, but I think it’s a rather stylistic choice if I do say so myself.”
The man thought you were trying to distract him at first, but when he figured out that you were serious he honestly got so nervous he was ready to just let you go and suggest therapy lmao
After he handled the situation, he took you directly under his wing. Sure, you were already his partner, but he was really going to look out for you including outside of work. If it meant that he had to “babysit” you, then oh well
Plus he didn’t want to face Mori if he just let you die while under his care
You realized what he was trying to do when you two would go off to “collect information” and would be doing the complete opposite. “Hey, I’m kinda hungry, let’s take a break and grab a bite to eat.”
“I thought we had to get this info back to Mori ASAP. Not that I care if he’s mad, he’s been holding out on me and this is the perfect way to take revenge.”
“Holding out how?”
“I told him that since he’s a doctor he would be the perfect teacher to show me some new techniques.”
“...on?”
“Torturing, duh! My methods are getting kinda stale, and I do want to perfect my craft after all. I want to be good at something before I kick the bucket, Chu.”
Poor man is honestly in so much distress because of you please help him
And the way you interacted with the other members was both entertaining and horrifying to watch at times. Majority of the time, you were this happy go lucky kid with a dark sense of humor (you still made people smile, although sometimes it was tense or apprehensive, but whatever a smile is still a smile). But when you were having a bad day or a mission was going wrong, everyone knew to steer clear of you.
A new recruit tried to cheer you up one day, telling you that “it could always be worse”. You then got pulled into the office with a very angry Chuuya and a mildly disappointed Mori.
Chuuya finally had enough after months of this occurred. It was like a never ending cycle: except your behavior was getting increasingly more reckless and dangerous. It was driving him crazy trying to figure out why you were this way and if it was any way to snap you out of it
He wasn’t a stranger to death, he’s seen it with his own two eyes, end even killed people with his bare hands. But the huge difference between you two is that he didn’t particularly enjoy killing, if it had to be done then he had no problems doing so; it comes with the job y’know? But with you, you took actual pleasure in killing. It filled you with a sick sense of glee, and it even made his stomach turn
The bond between you two grew from just a typical work relationship (as far as working in the mafia goes). He knew that from underneath your rather concerning persona, you were just troubled. Someone or something made you this way, and while he had his own troubles growing up, he was able to deal with it and overcome his issues. It just seemed like you just...gave in to yours. And it made him feel pity for you.
You didn’t mind Chuuya at all. You actually liked being his partner! He was pretty much the only person that you didn’t feel a need to harm or kill. And he was fun to be around, when he wasn’t being such a party pooper (I mean what’s the point of being in the mafia when you can’t purposely spill some blood every now and then for fun?). The only thing you didn’t like was how he would try and get you to talk about your past. You honestly didn’t see a point in it, it’s called the past for a reason, why didn’t he understand that?!
But no matter how many times you would shut down or try to change the subject, he would always try again, and again, and again. It was very annoying. And you didn’t like to talk about it. Why didn’t Chuuya understand that?!
Eventually, his pestering worked. One day after a rough mission when he had to patch you up, you opened up to him. You didn’t immediately tell him everything, but you gave him small insights to what happened, to what lead you to be this way
You could tell that he was grateful that he was finally getting somewhere with you. And you yourself was surprised that your dynamic didn’t change. He didn’t look at you with sympathy in his eyes, he didn’t baby you, he wasn’t disgusted by you, everything was normal. The only difference is that Chuuya told you that it was okay to talk to him, and that you shouldn’t be scared to approach him (psh you scared, yeah okay)
Chuuya felt like a weight lifted off his shoulders once you opened up. You were still a bit sadistic (but you did tone it back after the recruit incident, and after you saw how repulsed he looked, so you just did everything behind closed doors now) and had your cheery persona on, but it felt a little bit more real now. It felt genuine. It gave him a good feeling to see some spark in your eyes instead of the full he felt himself getting used to. And he would never say it to you, but it also gave him a warm feeling with him being your role model (you knew but didn’t want to burst his bubble yet)
Your change wasn’t very noticeable at first, but that’s okay. No one needed to know, it was fine with just you and Chuuya. You still felt the desire to just be done with life, but it wasn’t your focus whenever you were with him. You hadn’t made peace with your past yet, but you felt you could one day with him by your side. He was someone that you didn’t knew you needed (or wanted to admit to), but it worked out in the end. You had doubts that you could or would ever change, but if you did, growing to be someone like Chuuya would’nt be the worst possible outcome
Plus, whenever he did run into Dazai with his new sidekick, he is 10000% bragging about how much better and cooler you are, with him being the superior between them both. He can’t WAIT till you guys can whoop their ass
Fyodor
Well weren’t you such an interesting character
To see someone as young as you ready to just leave this world in an abrupt way was intriguing, and he realized that he could use this to his advantage. Maybe even give you something to gain in exchange
He found you hiding inside a disgusting abandoned building (a fitting place for a rat if he would say so himself), drenched in blood. Fyodor didn’t necessarily care why, but he was curious about one thing: why were you smiling? Your eyes were so lifeless, yet here you were smiling so bright, as if you weren’t covered in someone’s blood
Fyodor found himself smiling down at you. Did you think he was prey, that he was going to be your next target? He wanted you to try, he wanted to see what you were really capable of
“Tell me, what is going to be your next move? Do you wish to attack me?”
“If you do something that I don’t like, then yes, that’s the plan. Why are you here Mister? You wanna have some fun too?”, your smile turned into a smirk, twirling your very sharp knife in your hand. “You’re not even from here, so why are you trying to bother such an innocent kid like me?”
He matched your smirk, “You are from innocent, child, even a blind man can see that. To see just how full of sin you are. This wasn’t your first atrocity that you committed nor would it be your last. Which is a shame, it might be too late for me to cleanse you of your filth.”
Oh, he was going to be very amusing to mess with. But you weren’t stupid. Something wasn’t right with this man. No one would walk up to someone with copious amounts of blood on them, holding a weapon that caused said blood, while berating them about being “full of sin”. What was his ability? Did he have people with him? Was the building surrounded or booby trapped? These questions swirled around your head, all while he just kept smirking at you. He was pissing you off, who the hell did he think he was?
But you kept your anger at bay, plastering a cheerful smile on your face. “Sin? Cleanse me of my filth? I guess I do kinda stink but who exactly do you think you are, some type of God?”
“That’s exactly what I am. I’m here to free this world from this wretched curse that has been brought upon.”
...huh? Did-did he escape from the asylum or something? Did he seriously believe himself to be a God (not even a prophet but an actual God)? Seeing your confusion, he continued on, “The curse of ability users. They plague this Earth, and they need to be eliminated.”
“Why is that? What’s wrong with having abilities? Hellooooo, some people’s abilities are actually pretty cool! If you just have a terrible ability, it’s your problem, not the world-“
“Why not let me show you why it’s indeed a curse?”
“And how would you do that? You must be crazy if you think I’m going anywhere with you. I may be dangerous but I’m not dumb!”
“You poor, misguided soul.”, he tutted at you. “Look at where you have ended up at. These people with these so called “cool abilities” have failed you, have they not? Yet you still idolize them, not believing that they are the reason for your misfortunes. If they were truly your idols, they wouldn’t have left you to fend for yourself, to live among the rats. They left you to rot, do you not see that?”
He was hitting too close to home, he was getting too personal, too close. He didn’t know you at all, you’re a complete stranger to him, but why did his words hold some truth to them?
“Come with me, and I will prove to you first hand why this has to be done.”, he was now physically close to you, staring you deep into your eyes. “It would be such a waste for you to die without knowing the truth, wouldn’t you agree?”
You didn’t have much, he wasn’t wrong. But if he could take you somewhere with real food and not scraps you had to fight to find, and to have real shelter, then fine. You agreed. And if you felt that something was up, you’ll just kill him, run away, or both
After he took you away, he kept to his word. It seemed like he was really was telling the truth, you getting first-hand experience like he promised. It was scary that he was right, but you were also indebted to him. He not only allowed you to live in luxury (at least it was luxury to you considering what you had before), but he opened your eyes to what the true problem is. He gave your life a new purpose. If you two were able to successfully complete his goal, then your problems would be gone forever right? You would finally be able to feel a sense of peace, and you can’t wait till that could happen
You and Fyodor, after he opened your eyes, bonded easier than in the beginning. You were smart enough to not fully trust him after leaving with him, but after just a couple of pulled strings to cause certain things to happen, you slowly melted and molded into the way that he planned. You would be an excellent pawn in his grand plan, and you would do well in keeping him entertained at the same time
You were a joyful child, even when carrying out his dirty work, you did so gleefully. After joining the Rats in the House of the Dead, you tried to spread that joy among the other members. They didn’t find it very amusing, but you didn’t care and neither did Fyodor. You were far too important to let go of now
You were always by him, it seemed. Always in the same space, whether he was planning his next move, and playing the cello, you were always there with this look of awe directed at him. Every time he would catch you staring, he would simply chuckle and softly reprimand you about, “how rude it is to stare, but you simply can’t help it.”
He even taught you how to play the cello!
You sounded terrible but practice makes perfect
As time went on and the end goal seeming to be closing in, he came to see you as more than just an expendable tool. He found out about your past, but simply proved to you once again why you two had to make sure the curse was ridden as soon as possible. No one wanted a repeat of what happened to you to happen to anyone else, so the mission had to be success. Failure was not an option
Fyodor didn’t see himself as a cruel man towards you. He just didn’t mince his words and he made sure that you were dealing with the truth, and not some lie that was attempted to be twisted as reality. If anything, that was the way that he showed that he held some compassion for you, he wasn’t willing to let you be lead astray from the truth again, not while he was here. You had somehow wiggled your way into his mind, where he had been accepting of your close bond, and he took that into consideration
Once his goal is achieved and he has truly made his place known as a God, he’ll make sure that you gain your rightful place among him as well. You were worthy in Fyodor’s eyes, and as long as nothing came in between your bond and the end goal, then everything will work out. He will make sure of that.
290 notes · View notes
wisdomrays · 4 years ago
Text
QUESTIONS & ANSWERS: Why is Atheism So Widespread?
Atheism means denying God's existence, which of course involves rejecting His commandments, as well as religious reflection and seriousness, and believing in the possibility of total self-independence apart from God. As such beliefs negate the concept of sin, people imagine that they can live as they please. Therein lies in the corruption of people's hearts and minds. Atheism spreads because education is misused, young people are neglected, and schools actually defend and foster it.
Ignorance about the essentials of faith and religion is the primary reason why atheism starts to grow and develop. People whose minds, hearts, and souls have not been directed to the truth inevitably become vulnerable. Only God's help and grace can save them. If a community does not confront this trend decisively and successfully, its members' hearts and minds become open to other influences that lead to deviation.
Atheism first manifests itself as a lack of interest in the principles of faith. People with this attitude often claim that it is positive, for it represents a desire for the mind's independence and freedom of thought. As the demands of faith are strenuous, indifference turns toward what is easier. It seeks any pretext to excuse it from honest and serious reflection, and so falls easily into neglect, then heedlessness, atheism, and even contempt for religion.
In fact, atheism is neither grounded on sound reasoning nor supported by human intuition or experience. Still less is it based upon "scientific" truth. It is no more than a mood, typically lazy but sometimes active and militant, of not caring and of rebellion.
The countless manifestations of God within and outside ourselves testify that there is only One Creator and Governor who administers, directs, and sustains this universe. We may think of each manifestation as a letter or book from God to us, reflecting His Divine Attributes in a way that we can understand. These Attributes can be traced everywhere in creation, which is no more than a vast area for testing and teaching humanity. However, some people with incorrect concepts have erred greatly in their understanding and observation of these signs. As a result, they have presented nature, as well as it principles and relationships, it such a way that many people (especially the young) have abandoned true faith.
Much has been said and written about the natural world's delicate balance and innumerable subtle harmonies. Such an order can be attributed only to the All-Mighty. Planets and stars move within an interrelated complexity of drifts and orbits that are infinitely more precise than anything we could ever design or make. If what we make is accepted as evidence of intelligent design, why is the far more vast and complicated universe considered an exception to this rule?
Nature resembles a huge factory of enormous (actual and potential) generative power. Its working principles are astonishingly subtle and supple, yet firmly established in reassuring patterns and rhythms. From where does nature get these operating rules? Some say that nature is self-created, but how can that persuade anybody? Of course one of the operating rules is a measure of self-organizing power. But we want to know the origin of this rule.
Principles are non-essential attributes of a thing or being and, as such, are secondary and dependent on substance and essence. Attributes cannot exist before or independently of the compound or organism of which they are attributes. Thus, if a plant demonstrates a measure of self-organizing power by seeking light, moisture, and nutrients for its growth, it means that a measure of self-organizing power has been embedded in its seed. Similarly, the principle of attraction in physics operates in and through existent masses, distances, and forces. To claim that such principles are the origin or source of existent things or beings is untenable.
Just as untenable is the confidence with which such claims are asserted. To claim that this extraordinarily subtle and ordered universe is the outcome of haphazard coincidences is absurd, contradictory, and quite unscientific, for all the evidence points to the exact opposite.
As the result of long experiments and reflection, Muller declared that reason could not explain the origin of life. He established, on the behalf of science and scientists, the absurdity of "coincidence" as a possible explanation. Similarly, after a 22-year series of studies, the Soviet Institute of Chemistry, under the chairmanship of Oparin, proved that the laws of chemistry and chemical reactions shed no light on the origin of life, and that science still has no answer to this question.
When these scientists acknowledged the limitations to human inquiry, they did so on behalf of all science and scientists. Yet such work has not undone the damage done by earlier, less careful scientists, who offered only guesses as reliable scientific theory. Unfortunately, general attitudes and values continue to be shaped by such guesses and not by the realities established by better scientists.
For example, many textbooks and encyclopedias continue to present humanity's evolution from apes to human beings as fact instead of theory. In reality, a growing number of scientists, most particularly evolutionists, argue that Darwin's theory of evolution is not a truly scientific theory at all. Many critics of the highest intellectual caliber admit that we still have no idea of how this "evolution" took place. While there is a great deal of divergent opinion among the experts about probable causes and the actual process, the general public and less-informed scientists continue to believe in it.
Various research projects and published studies cast doubt on evolution and seek to give a truer picture of nature as creation and our place in it. Works like Why Do We Believe in God? help those who considered non-believers in evolution as rather odd people reconsider their opinion and reflect more wisely on the matter.
Given the fact that a sound, reliable understanding of the natural world leads to belief in a single, universal Creator, atheism has more to do with obstinacy, prejudice, and a refusal to give up illusions than with the mind's independence or freedom of thought. Young people remain vulnerable, for their understanding of their behavior's nature and consequences is incomplete, their awareness of their spiritual being and their resulting deep-seated spiritual needs is limited, and their grasp of the balance between material and non-material values that characterizes a total human existence is deficient. Thus they are easily deceived by outdated concepts presented as "scientific" truths, although scientists know (and have said) that they are no more than theories. This is why teaching and learning about the truth are more important today than other duties and obligations.
If this vital task is not taken up, we may be unable to rectify the worsening situation in the future. Some of those evil consequences are with us already. This may be the major reason for our suffering over the years. We are the unlucky generation that was deprived of good teachers—teachers who had attained inward unity and harmony of mind and heart, truly knew themselves in their deepest thoughts and feelings, desired to teach others, and were willing to suffer to promote others' happiness and welfare. We hope such noble-minded teachers will arise among us and undertake this truly humane mission to rescue people from them current moral and spiritual suffering.
If this can be done, present and future generations will acquire the necessary stability in their thinking and reasoning about life's great questions. They will be able to resist the lure of false beliefs and illusions, and thereby be saved from the anxiety of constantly doubting the nature and purpose of their lives. They will be immunized, at least partially, against atheism and its attendant self-centered and neurotic behaviors. Atheism is caused by a lack of knowledge and learning, an inability to synthesize one's inner and outer life, and is the result of an undernourished heart and soul. People cling to what they know, and resist what they do not know—or at least try to remain uninterested and unconcerned.
The mass media continually presents ideas, lifestyles, and character types that encourage self-indulgence and self-abandonment. Thus it is no surprise that many young people try to become hippies or punks or whatever the latest craze is; seek immediate gratification and pleasure; and do not bother to cultivate their minds or their tastes, but prefer triviality and banality, loudness and vulgarity.
People quickly adopt ways considered exciting and attractive. What they do not know becomes even more strange and alien, and eventually a matter of total indifference. Thus we have to find effective ways to introduce young people to the deeper ways of religious life, ways that lead away from anxiety and toward tranquillity, away from darkness and toward light.
Young people are excitable and susceptible. They crave limitless freedom and have an abundance of unsatisfied appetites and desires. Their overly generous hearts and minds cause imbalance and disharmony, which can lead them toward atheism. They prefer immediate pleasure, however slight or brief, to the misery and distress that come in the wake of indulgence. They jump at the pleasures and enjoyments that Satan displays to them, and so prepare their own calamity. They fly to the fire of atheism just as moths are drawn to light.
While ignorance and unfed hearts and souls increase, materialism and carnality gradually subvert the desire for truth and annul any nobility of purpose. This is what happened with Faust. This man, who desired extraordinary powers to do whatever he wished for a limited period, sold his soul for a very cheap price to Mephistopheles, Satan's agent. But when he received these powers, his noble aims of serving humanity left him and he wasted his years of power by pursuing trivial pleasures.
When the soul is dead, the heart dies, compassion disappears, and the mind and reason become so bewildered and confused that people become helpless victims of their own passing whims or the worst fads. Anyone who becomes obsessed with carnal passion and sensuality will suffer crises and change direction continually, applaud every new fashion in thought as if it were the truth, and swing from one ideology to another—from confusion to doubt and back again. They will find no attraction in faith, in a steady sense of duty, or in a patient, enduring heart.
Nor will they find any merit in moral education, self-discipline, contemplation, the soul's improvement, or in strengthening their morals and manners. Wholly addicted to triviality and self-indulgence, they will deny any achievement to our ancestors and remain willfully ignorant of what real culture and civilization can make possible: a balance between spirituality and sanity, between virtue and happiness.
Not everyone can be saved. Therefore, we should direct our efforts toward educating those young people in whom the worst habits have not become firmly established. They must be taught the fundamental principles of the system on which we depend and to which our existence belongs. They must be led to a systematic, straight, and honest way of thinking. Those who fail in this effort will see their community or nation continue to sink into moral and spiritual corruption until it can no longer be rescued.
An additional cause of atheism is the deliberate rejection of all constraints and prohibitions. Such undesirable and unrestrained indulgence has entered Muslim societies from western Europe via a degenerate form of existentialism (mainly French) that rejected traditional values and formal religious education in favor of absolute individual freedom. The theory was that the individual would (and could) mature and develop into a noble, moral being through personal experience.
This theory, regardless of where it has been applied, has never produced sane, caring, and compassionate human beings. Rather, it has intensified misery and selfishness by isolating individuals from their families, traditions, and even from themselves. Its adherents do not cultivate their morals or tastes, but rather live shallow, private lives and make no effort to find the truth. In short, they simply survive from moment to moment in the illusory hope that they may yet find happiness.
These few reflections do not cover the whole subject. Yet I hope that future guides, teachers, and leaders with discernment and foresight will consider them when trying to stop the spread of deviation and atheism. I have presented a brief insight into the problem, with the prayer that some people may be alerted to the truth, conquer the self, and regain the means to do what is good.
4 notes · View notes
jackambrosemodeling · 4 years ago
Text
Task: Character Playlist Deep Dive
Playlist: Jack Ambrose’s Character Playlist
Number of Songs: 16 (as of August 2021)
Length: 59:28 (as of August 2021)
Triggers: Religious trauma, homophobia, homelessness, drugs, alcoholism 
Track 1: Holy- PVRIS (religious trauma tw)
After her conversion to Seventh Day Adventism, Jack’s mom took on a “holier-than-thou” mentality. From a young age, Jack questioned her attitude, as well as the attitudes of other members of the church. The Bible encourages loving others despite their differences, yet the Church was always trying to change those who had differing opinions. This song is meant to express Jack’s frustration with being surrounded by hypocrisy. 
Track 2: Run Away With Me- Carly Rae Jepsen (homophobia tw)
Despite the upbeat tune of the song, the situation Jack was in as a teenager was anything but cheery. When Jack came out as gay, they were given an ultimatum: go to conversion therapy or leave. Jack chose the latter. Jack and their boyfriend at the time made plans to run off to California. Even though they both grew up being told that their love was sinful, they were willing to risk it all to start a life together. They were young and in love, and felt they’d be okay as long as they had each other.
Track 3: California- Petey (homelessness tw)
Jack left their home in Wilmington, North Carolina, for the hustle and bustle of Los Angeles, California, shortly after their 18th birthday. However, life didn’t become easier when they set foot on the west coast. Jack and their ex-boyfriend lived in a homeless shelter for two years before getting on their feet. Despite struggling mentally, financially, and romantically, the two chose to stay where they were. Struggling in California was better than being completely miserable in North Carolina.
Track 4: Unholy- Miley Cyrus
As Jack entered their 20′s, they were presented with the opportunity for a career in modeling. Their modeling gigs introduced them to the L.A. party scene, and they were hooked from the start. Now that they were single and working as a model, Jack took the opportunity to hook up with anyone and everyone. With these escapades also came drinking and recreational drug use. They didn’t care that it was “sinful” or “unholy,” because everyone else around them was doing the same exact thing. 
Track 5: Fluids- Michael Medrano (drugs tw)
As Jack started experimenting more with drugs and alcohol, they also started experimenting sexually. They initially identified as a gay man, but after numerous encounters with people all across the gender spectrum, they started to question this. They knew they weren’t straight, but they weren’t fully gay either. At first, they thought it was the alcohol, but eventually they came to terms with the fact that they’re sexually fluid all the time; the alcohol just gave them the courage to act on it. 
Track 6: successful- Ariana Grande
By the age of 23, Jack was able to pursue modeling as a full-time career. While they aren’t the biggest name in the game, they’ve found a lot of success, especially in queer circles. This song is a celebration of their success, as well as the success of people around them. Jack has taken pride in being able to travel all around the world and live lavishly. They also want to share this success with their loved ones and uplift them in any way possible. 
Track 7: Lowkey As Hell- Waterparks
On the flip side of enjoying their youth and success, being famous can be stressful. Jack is a materialistic person and wants to have nice things, but at the same time, they still struggle emotionally like everyone else. They know that things could be much worse, but that doesn’t make their struggles feel any less real. This song is an expression of feeling depressed and disconnected, despite constantly working and having material success.
Track 8: Androgyny- Garbage
Jack currently uses the term “genderfluid” to describe their gender, but it wasn’t until their mid-20′s that they started to experiment with their gender presentation. Up until then, they had only ever worn men’s clothes because they were taught from a young age that “cross-dressing” was unacceptable. Once they got past their fears and internal biases, they realized that it didn’t matter who wore what. Fabric was fabric no matter who was wearing it. Meeting gender non-conforming models and experimenting with their own style helped them come to terms with their femininity, masculinity, and androgyny. 
Track 9: Bad Romance- Lady Gaga
Jack had a turbulent relationship with their ex-fiancé, Sage, from the very beginning. Jack and Sage met through work and started off as friends, but things heated up quickly between the two. Despite being on-and-off for five years, Jack always went back for more, even though they knew on some level that it wasn’t good for their mental health. The couple wanted to be right for one another, but never were. 
Track 10: Best Part of Me- Ed Sheeran & Yebba
After getting back together for the third time, Jack proposed to Sage. Despite Jack’s flaws and self-doubt, Sage said yes to getting married. Even though their relationship was open sexually, they felt romantically bound to one another. Jack was fully committed to spending the rest of their life with Sage and thought that they were the best part of their life. Little did they know that their own actions would lead to the demise of the relationship. 
Track 11: Talia- King Princess (alcoholism tw) 
Sage and Jack’s relationship ended after a drunken fight in October 2020. After Sage quit drinking, they started to see that Jack had a drinking problem. They begged Jack to get help, but they refused to acknowledge their problem. After a particularly bad fight, Sage left the apartment and left their engagement ring on the nightstand. The next morning, they texted Jack and said they could no longer be together. Sage had walked out before, but this time was permanent. Before beginning on their journey towards sobriety, Jack had a week-long period of binge drinking where they wallowed in self-pity and imagined that Sage was still by their side.
Track 12: decide to be happy- MisterWives
With the encouragement of their manager, Jack quit drinking and started attending therapy, not as a way to win Sage back, but as a means of self-care. Jack had been struggling with depression for years, but they used alcohol to hide it. As much as the breakup hurt, Jack needed this pain in order to grow as a person and take steps towards finding true happiness. Being happy doesn’t always come easy, but now, they wake up every morning and decide to continue on the path of self-growth.
Track 13: Sober- Kelly Clarkson (alcoholism tw)
This song is a reflection of living life without alcohol and without their ex-fiancé. They hit a low point in January 2021 and flip-flopped between contemplating relapse and contemplating begging their ex for forgiveness. However, they toughed through this rough patch and continued flourishing. They made it this far, and they didn’t want all of that progress to go to waste. They started to reevaluate their friendships, weeding out the negative influences from L.A. and nurturing the new friendships they were making in Santa Monica, thus picking all their weeds but keeping the flowers.
Track 14: Sober- P!nk (alcoholism tw)
Upon a lot of self-reflection, Jack realized just how many issues alcohol created in their life. They received a reputation from the paparazzi as a wild party animal and attention seeker. Many friends and acquaintances didn’t know who Jack was sober. This isn’t who Jack wanted to be any more. They’re relearning themself and learning how to properly enjoy life without the vices that dragged them down. However, this doesn’t mean that the cravings have stopped.  
Track 15: Sleeping With A Friend- Neon Trees
Jack slept with their now-girlfriend, Vivian, for the first time in February 2021 at Santa Monica’s first Masquerade Ball. The two met each other when Jack moved into the apartment next to Vivian’s in December 2020. The attraction was there from the start, but the two didn’t want to risk messing up the budding friendship they had. This night changed all of that. They gave into temptation and took the risk, despite the possible consequences. Little did they know that they would both soon catch feelings for one another. 
Track 16: Official- Charli XCX
After Jack returned from Fashion Week in March, they started seeing Vivian much more often. They began having overnight hangouts multiple times per week. It was at La Playa Music Festival that they confessed their feelings for one another. It wasn’t any grandiose gesture that made Jack develop feelings for Vivian, but rather a combination of all of the little things they had been doing together, like pizza dates on her couch, kissing in the kitchen, and sharing their fears and emotions at all hours of the night. 
2 notes · View notes
arcticdementor · 5 years ago
Link
There’s no nice way to say this: a certain subset of (mostly) white people have lost their minds online. These people wake up to a vast insurrection crossing all racial and national boundaries – and contrive to make this all about themselves. Their affects, their unconsciouses, their moral worthiness. How can I be Not Complicit? How can I be a Better Ally? How do I stop benefiting from white supremacy in my daily life? How do I rid myself of all the bad affects and attitudes? Can I purify my soul in the smelter of a burning police precinct? Occasional ratissages out into mainstream culture (we’re decolonising the Bon Appétit test kitchen!), but mostly what this uprising calls for is an extended bout of navel-gazing. Really get in there, get deep in that clammy lint-filled hole, push one finger into the wound of your separation from the primordial world, and never stop wriggling. Maybe there’s a switch, buried just below the knot, and if you trip it your body will open up like a David Cronenberg nightmare to reveal all its greasy secrets to your eyes. Interrogate yourself! Always yourself, swim deep in the filth of yourself. The world is on fire – but are my hands clean? People are dying – but how can I scrub this ghastly whiteness off my skin?
You could set aside the psychosexual madness of this stuff, maybe, if it actually worked. It does not work. It achieves nothing and helps nobody. Karen and Barbara Fields: ‘Racism is not an emotion or state of mind, such as intolerance, bigotry, hatred, or malevolence. If it were that, it would easily be overwhelmed; most people mean well, most of the time, and in any case are usually busy pursuing other purposes. Racism is first and foremost a social practice.’ Social practices must be confronted on the level of the social. But for people who don’t want to change anything on the level of the social, there’s the Implicit Associations Test. This is the great technological triumph of what passes for anti-racist ideology: sit in front of your computer for a few minutes, click on some buttons, and you can get a number value on exactly how racist you are. Educators and politicians love this thing. Wheel it into offices. Listen up, guys, your boss just wants to take a quick peek into your unconscious mind, just to see how racist you are. How could anyone object to something like that?
See, for instance, the form letters: How To Talk To Your Black Friends Right Now. Because I refuse to be told I can’t ever empathise with a black person, I try to imagine what it would be like to receive one of these. Say there’s been a synagogue shooting, or a bunch of swastikas spraypainted in Willesden Jewish Cemetery. Say someone set off a bomb inside Panzer’s in St John’s Wood – and then one of my goy friends sends me something like this:
Hey Sam – I can never understand how you feel right now, but I’m committed to doing the work both personally and in my community to make this world safer for you and for Jewish people everywhere. From the Babylonian Captivity to the Holocaust to today, my people have done reprehensible things to yours – and while my privilege will never let me share your experience, I want you to know that you’re supported right now. I see you. I hear you. I stand with the Jewish community, because you matter. Please give me your PayPal so I can buy you a bagel or some schamltz herring, or some of those little twisty pastries you people like.
How would I respond? I think I would never want to see or hear from this person again. If I saw them in the street, I would spit in their face, covid be damned. I would curse their descendants with an ancient cackling Yiddish curse. These days, I try to choose my actual friends wisely. Most of them tend to engage me with a constant low level of jocular antisemitic micoaggressions, because these things are funny and not particularly serious. But if one of my friends genuinely couldn’t see me past the Jew, and couldn’t see our friendship past the Jewish Question, I would be mortified. Of course, it’s possible that the comparison doesn’t hold. Maybe there are millions of black people I don’t know who love being essentialised and condescended to, who are thrilled by the thought of being nothing more than a shuddering expendable rack for holding up their own skin. But I doubt it. Unless you want me to believe that black people inherently have less dignity than I do, this is an insult.
If you want to find the real secret of this stuff, look for the rules, the dos and don’ts, the Guides To Being A Better Ally that blob up everywhere like mushrooms on a rotting bough. You’ve seen them. And you’ve noticed, even if you don’t want to admit it, that these things are always contradictory:
DO the important work of interrogating your own biases and prejudices. DON’T obsess over your white guilt – this isn’t about you! DO use your white privilege as a shield by standing between black folx and the police. DON’T stand at the front of marches – it’s time for you to take a back seat. DO speak out against racism – never expect activists of colour to always perform the emotional labour. DON’T crowd the conversation with your voice – shut up, stay in your lane, and stick to signal boosting melanated voices. DO educate your white community by providing an example of white allyship. DON’T post selfies from a protest – our struggle isn’t a photo-op for riot tourists.
Žižek points out that the language of proverbial wisdom has no content. ‘If one says, “Forget about the afterlife, about the Elsewhere, seize the day, enjoy life fully here and now, it’s the only life you’ve got!” it sounds deep. If one says exactly the opposite (“Do not get trapped in the illusory and vain pleasures of earthly life; money, power, and passions are all destined to vanish into thin air – think about eternity!”), it also sounds deep.’ The same goes here. Whatever you say, it can still sound woke. Why?
This stuff is masochism, pleasure-seeking, full of erotic charge – and as Freud saw, the masochist’s desire is always primary and prior; it’s always the submissive partner who’s in charge of any relationship. Masochism is a technology of power. Setting the limits, defining the punishments they’d like to receive, dehumanising and instrumentalising the sadistic partner throughout. The sadist works to humiliate and degrade their partner, to make them feel something – everything for the other! And meanwhile, the masochist luxuriates in their own degradation – everything for myself! You’re just the robotic hand that hits me. When non-white people get involved in these discourses, they’re always at the mercy of their white audiences, the ones for whom they perform, the ones they titillate and entertain. A system for subjecting liberation movements to the fickle desires of the white bourgeoisie. Call it what it is. This is white supremacy; these scolding lists are white supremacist screeds.
But systems of white supremacy have never been in the interests of most whites (‘Labour cannot emancipate itself in the white skin when in the black it is branded’), and they have never really fostered any solidarity between whites. Look at the stories. I had a run-in with the police, you announce, and a black person might have died, but I’m fine, because I’m white. No – you’re fine because you’re white and rich. You’re fine because you look like someone who reviews cartoons for a dying online publication called The Daily Muffin, which is exactly what you are. Bald and covered in cat hair. Frameless glasses cutting a red wedge into the bridge of your nose. The white people who get gunned down by police don’t look like you. Their class position is stamped visibly on their face, and so is yours. And you’ve trained yourself to see any suffering they experience as nothing more than ugly Trump voters getting what they deserve.
Why aren’t there protests when a white person is murdered by police? Answer 1: because, as John Berger points out, ‘demonstrations are essentially urban in character.’ Native Americans are killed by cops at an even higher rate than black people, but this too tends to happen very far away from the cities and the cameras; it becomes invisible. Answer 2: because nobody cares about them. Not the right wing, who only pretend to care as a discursive gotcha when there’s a BLM protest. And definitely not you. Sectors of the white intelligentsia have spent the last decade trying to train you out of fellow-feeling. Cooley et al., 2019: learning about white privilege has no positive effect on empathy towards black people, but it is ‘associated with greater punishment/blame and fewer external attributions for a poor white person’s plight.’ A machine for turning nice socially-conscious liberals into callous free-market conservatives.
The rhetoric of privilege is a weapon, but it’s not pointed at actually (ie, financially) privileged white people. We get off lightly. All we have to do is reflect on our privilege, chase our dreamy reflections through an endlessly mirrored habitus – and that was already our favourite game. You might as well decide that the only cure for white privilege is ice cream. Working-class whites get no such luxuries. But as always, the real brunt falls on non-white people. What happens when you present inequality in terms of privileges bestowed on white people, rather than rights and dignity denied to non-white people? The situation of the oppressed becomes a natural base-state. You end up thinking some very strange things. A few years ago, I was once told that I could only think that the film Black Panther isn’t very good because of my white privilege. Apparently, black people are incapable of aesthetic discernment or critical thought. (Do I need to mention that the person who told me this was white as sin?) This framing is as racist as anything in Carlyle. It could only have been invented by a rich white person.
Give them their due; rich white people are great at inventing terrible new concepts. Look at what’s happening right now: they’re telling each other to read White Fragility: Why It’s So Hard For White People To Talk About Racism by Robin DiAngelo. You should never tell people to read White Fragility: Why It’s So Hard For White People To Talk About Racism by Robin DiAngelo – but we live in an evil world, and it’s stormed to the top of the Amazon bestsellers list. You maniacs, you psychopaths, look what you’ve done. I’m not saying people shouldn’t read the book – I read it, and I don’t get any special dispensations – but you should read it like Dianetics, like the doctrine of a strange and stupid cult.
The book is a thrill-ride along a well-paved highway – ‘powerful institutions are controlled by white people;’ true, accurate, well-observed – that quickly takes a dive off the nearest cliff – ‘therefore white people as a whole are in control of powerful institutions.’ Speak for yourself, lady! All a are b, DiAngelo brightly informs us, therefore all b must also be a. She doesn’t advocate for her understanding of the world, she simply assumes it. So it’s not a surprise that the real takeaway from White Fragility is that Robin DiAngelo is not very good at her job.
Imagine a devoted cultist of Tengrism, who sometimes gets invited by company bosses to harangue the workforce on how the universe is created by a pure snow-white goose flying over an endless ocean, and how if you don’t make the appropriate ritual honks to this cosmic goose you’re failing in your moral duty. But every time she gives this spiel, she always gets the same questions. Exactly how big is this goose? Surely the goose must have to land sometimes? Geese hatch in litters – what happened to the other goslings? Something must be wrong with these people. Why don’t they just accept the doctrine? Why do they hate the goose? We need a name for their sickness. Call it Goose Reluctance, and next time someone doesn’t jump to attention whenever you speak, you’ll know why. Of course, the comparison is unfair; ideas about eternal geese are beautiful, and DiAngelo’s are not. But the structure is the same. Could it be that Robin DiAngelo is a poor communicator selling a heap of worthless abstractions? No, it’s the workers who are wrong.
(By the way, how did you feel about that phrase, racial humility? I didn’t like it, but her book is full of similar formulations – she also wants us to ‘build our racial stamina’ and ‘attain racial knowledge.’ Now, maybe I’m an oversensitive kike, but I can’t encounter phrases like these and not hear others in the background. Racial spirit. Racial consciousness. Racial hygiene. And somewhere, not close but coming closer, the sound of goosestepping feet.)
I didn’t seek out any of the material I talk about here. It came to me. And it’s making me feel insane. The only social media I use these days is Instagram – because if I’m going to be hand-shaping orecchiette all night, and serving it with salsiccia, rapini, and my own home-pickled fennel, it’s not for my own pleasure, and I demand to receive a decent 12 to 15 likes for my efforts. (I will not be accepting your follow request.) A week ago, on the 2nd of June, my feed was suddenly swarming with white people posting blank black squares. People I’d never known to be remotely political, people whose introduction to politics was clearly coming through the deranged machine of social media. Apparently, that was ‘Blackout Tuesday.’ I don’t know whose clever idea this was, and I don’t want to know, but it came with a threat. If all your friends are posting the square, and you’re not, does it mean you simply don’t care enough about black lives? Around the same time, I was helpfully made aware of a viral Instagram album titled Why The Refusal To Post Online Is Often Inherently Racist. I honestly can’t imagine how terrifying it must be to live like this – always on edge, always trying to be Good, always trying to have your Goodness recognised by other people, in a game where the scores are tracked by what you post on the internet, and the rules are always changing.
3 notes · View notes
apptowonder · 6 years ago
Text
“Scribbling in the Sand” -- CCM and Liturgical Catechesis Pt. IV: Steve Taylor
Tumblr media
Go to Pt. III  Go to Pt. V
From the 1980s to the early 1990s, Roland Stephen “Steve” Taylor emerged in the CCM scene as a unique, prophetic and rare satirical voice. Dubbed the “Clown Prince of Christian Rock”, Taylor’s work is known for its topical themes, emulation of various musical styles, and biting but insightful critique of...pretty much every meaningful target for a Christian musician to comment on. Without going into too much detail, Taylor’s work particularly towards the end of the 90s fell victim to what is known as “the satire paradox”, in which satirical media is often only properly recognized as such by people who are already aligned with the message or ideology of the satire. Many conservative Christian media curators were put off by his work, particularly when he tackled such topics as abortion. This eventually led to his disillusionment with the Christian music scene (though he remains a devout Christian and has in recent years returned to CCM as a collaboration partner). He formed the secular band “Chagall Guevara” in the 90s and eventually returned to writing Christian music when he produced songs for the Newsboys, as well as a couple of solo projects with Peter Furler once the latter left the band.
Taylor is an interesting example to talk about, because his music is very decidedly non-liturgical for the most part. He doesn’t write “worship music”, and while his world-focused commentary is in some ways similar to Petra, he is much more topical and specific. In this respect, he does actually embody I would argue one aspect of liturgy: the lifting up of the needs of the world to God and for the community to see. In a way, his music resembles an irreverent litany.
A sample of his titles should give a sense of the tone of much of his work: “Steeplechase,” “Whatever Happened to Sin,” “I Blew Up the Clinic Real Good” (his critique of militant pro-life activists), “Since I Gave Up Hope I Feel A Lot Better”.
The song I want to examine, however, is atypical of Taylor’s satirical work but falls more in line with the later work he would do producing for the Newsboys and co-writing songs with their frontman, Peter Furler. The song is a haunting, poignant piece entitled, “Harder to Believe Than Not To”.
The song opens with an achingly beautiful sample of a choral piece by Rachmaninoff. The title and concept of the song itself are taken from a letter by Flannery O’Connor in which she responds to critics who were surprised that she was a woman of faith, critics who referred to faith as a “crutch”. O’Connor responded in her letter that it was “harder to believe than not to believe.” One beauty of this song is the way it weaves in other works of art and culture in an organic way that contributes to the song’s message. In this way, Taylor offers a blueprint for building upon a kind of Holy Tradition, something that more contemporary Christian artists could stand to emulate. We all exist in a context, whether we know it or not, and Taylor draws on the talent and thought patterns of faithful Christian artists while making the song his own.
“ Nothing is colder than the winds of change/Where the chill numbs the dreamer till a shadow remains/Among the ruins lies your tortured soul/Was it lost there Or did your will surrender control?”
The song then moves to the plaintive chorus:
“ Shivering with doubts that were left unattended So you toss away the cloak that you should have mended Don't you know by now why the chosen are few? It's harder to believe than not to”.
This song is both a critique and an exhortation. We are encouraged to consider that the life of faith will be costly, and that discipleship is not easy. But we are also encouraged to carry on boldly and bravely, understanding that enduring and persevering through trials (without inviting them) is a sign of faithfulness, not failure (as secular society and some prosperity gospel preachers claim).
Taylor also subtly but insightfully names the forces both inside and outside the church that seek to keep us from Christ our goal:
“ Some stay paralyzed until they succumb Others do what they feel, but their senses are numb Some get trampled by the pious throng Still they limp along “
Before flowing into the final chorus, Taylor offers a sly but gentle jab at those who think faith is for the weak:
“Are you sturdy enough to move to the front? Is it nods of approval or the truth that you want? And if they call it a crutch, then you walk with pride Your accusers have always been afraid to go outside”
This is a laugh at the expense of the darkness, and the words of a faithful person who knows that though the battle against evil and suffering rages on, God has already won the war. It is indicative of the “upside-down Kingdom”* of God’s economy, where weakness is strength.
In this piece, Taylor offers a liturgical prayer infused with kenosis, the emptying of the self in order to receive fullness from God. Brilliantly, the song not only provides a compelling formative model for self-emptying, but also frames such kenosis as, in its own way, revolutionary. Many CCM songs talk about humbling oneself before God, but it is sadly (particularly in American evangelicalism) done in a way that equates to self-loathing. Here is a perfectly poised counterbalance to that attitude, a song which rejoices in the foolishness of the Way of Jesus in the eyes of the world while simultaneously framing faithfulness as a source of spiritual strength. Contemporary churches would do well not to shy away from the prophetic, kenotic elements in their liturgy, and to employ gifted artists and musicians who have this kind of “iconographic vision”, a vision that sees all human endeavor not in worldly terms of power, prosperity and influence, but in Kingdom terms of weakness, humility and love.
*to borrow a phrase from Donald Kraybill, Anabaptist author and theologian.
2 notes · View notes
care-devil · 6 years ago
Note
Do you believe there’s a parallel when Matt said to Maggie that he doesn't think it's possible that someone can change for the better, particularly because of a woman, and then later on Matt changes his outlook and attitude for the better partially because of Karen opening up to him and pleading for him to not kill?
See, that one’s definitely complex. When I first watched this season, I definitely thought it was a parallel. But I think it’s even more complicated than that.
Now, I feel like we have to break this down before commenting on it. Buckle up, it’s gonna take a while haha
So, I think you’re referring to 3x03, and more precisely to these bits:
39'32 
Matt: "Do you believe people can change?" 
 Maggie: "I'm still holding out hope." 
Matt: "I don't think we can. Not really. I think we come into this world who we are. And maybe we get a little nicer. Or a little angrier. But we can't change our fundamental nature." 
Maggie: “Well, you’d actually have to try to know.”
Matt: “I was talking about Wilson Fisk.”
 [...] 
41'07 
Maggie: "And according to you, people can't change." 
Matt: "'Cause he's claiming to have changed over a woman." 
Maggie: "I see. Well, if there's anything that can redeem a lost soul, love would have to top the list." 
Matt: "Oh, come on. Even a monster like Fisk?" 
Maggie: "You're talking to a nun, kiddo. Love and redemption are pretty much our sales pitch." 
Matt: "Yeah. Well, I'm not buying."
Here, Matt just came back from his little trip to Fisk’s hotel. And what is really, really interesting, is that right before this scene, we got to see Karen arguing with Ellison about whether or not she should be the one to write something about Fisk getting out of jail. 
“What I give a shit about, is Fisk getting out of prison. We have to do something, I have to do something about this. So don’t tell me to back off, because I won’t.” (Karen, 38′36).
Why is that interesting? Because in the very same episode, in the very scene you mentioned, Matt says he finds it odd that he should regain his hearing just in time to hear that Fisk got out of prison. So that’s a definitely a parallel. And I would go as far as to say that the whole episode is paralleling Matt and Karen. 
1) Karen and Matt: toward the same goal
Here, Karen is hellbent on writing about Fisk because a) she thinks it’s the right thing to do and b) I think she wants to do this for Matt. She might think he’s still alive, she doesn’t know it for sure, and there must be this little voice in her that tells her he’s not coming back, and that the least she can do is carrying out his legacy and corner Fisk. They’re connected. And it’s not a coincidence if the writers decided to have these two scenes follow each other.
Another parallel is, of course, when Matt’s incognito and passes by Karen in front of Fisk’s hotel:
Tumblr media Tumblr media
“You’ll never keep Karen safe.”
Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media
She can feel his presence, just like he literally felt hers. I know we’ve already talked about this scene, but I think it’s so important. Fisk is Matt’s conscience, he crystallizes Matt’s inner demons, his deepest fears. One of them is losing Karen, or worse: not being able to save her. Get her killed, somehow. He is the Devil of Hell’s Kitchen. He’s got the devil in him. He who’s doubting his purpose, his faith. He’s afraid of tainting her soul, and lose her to another real-life demon, namely Fisk.
This might seem off-topic, but I think it’s important to pay attention to the context (the context being the whole episode), especially because the episode’s title is “No Good Deed.” Now, this might be the English major in me, but “no good deed” can be read a standalone phrase OR as a phrase which needs other words to form a sentence. It’s like something’s missing. Which makes sense, because it’s reminiscent of the well-known phrase “No good deed goes unpunished.” And this echoes such concepts as karma, or redemption. If you think people can’t change... then you don’t believe in redemption. And knowing that Matt’s going though a faith crisis, this is a logical interpretation.
2) Redemption
Redemption is one of the key themes of season 3. Matt’s fighting his demons, but so is Karen, who’s haunted by her past. So is Maggie, so is Father Lantom, so is Dex... Everyone has a past. “The past is never dead. It’s not even past,” William Faulkner said. Well, here, it shows. For all these characters, past = sins, and the only thing that differentiates them is how they choose to deal with that. They ALL embrace their sins and accept the fact that they are sinners who can’t be redeemed (which is part of the Catholic doctrine, all humans are born sinners). But when some think doing more harm won’t change anything (Dex), others try to do some good (Karen, Maggie, Father Lantom) and Matt is trapped between these two options, as he plans to cross the line and kill Fisk but still has morally good intentions. All but the villains are looking for redemption, which is, I think, a way to tell the bad guys from the good guys (even though the lines are very blurry in Daredevil, which is why it’s such a great show). 
But what is redemption, exactly? Well, first know I’m treading carefully here because I’m not a believer and I’ve never been to Sunday school or anything, all I know is from what I’ve read online and in books. But basically, all humans are born sinners because of Adam’s sin, and have to be reborn to have access to God’s kingdom: 
“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” (John 3:3)
Knowing this season was heavily inspired by the Born Again arc by Frank Miller, I think that redemption is definitely one of the season’s key motifs. And for most of the season, Matt doesn’t believe he’s worthy of being saved, and neither does Karen, who says “there’s no atoning for what [she] did” (3x11).
So, in 3x03, Matt basically states he thinks nothing can redeem Fisk and, by extension, nothing can redeem him. He makes clear to Maggie he’s talking about Fisk, because she thought he was talking about him... And I think he is, even though he denies it. Take a look at the way the scene was shot:
Tumblr media
The focus is clearly on Matt, and even when she’s speaking, Maggie remains blurry in the background. This creates a sense of intimacy, the viewer’s in Matt’s mind. The focus is on Matt’s words, Matt’s face, Matt’s inner stuggle. It wouldn’t be the first time Matt and Fisk are paralleled.
In the second bit, Matt says that one of the reasons why he thinks Fisk can’t change is because the origin of that change sounds ridiculous to him:
Tumblr media
"'Cause he's claiming to have changed over a woman."  - Matt
Notice the smirk. Matt doesn’t buy it. It’s already hard enough to believe that such a monster would be capable of love, so changing because of the woman he loves? 
3) The power of love
Love is not powerful enough to change who you are. Love will make you happier, or angrier, but it won’t change you fundamental nature.
See how it works when you include love in that quote?
In my opinion, Matt thinks that way because he considers his own experience. His love life has been a disaster. 
Karen couldn’t change who he was. He told her, in The Defenders, that he didn’t want to change (after lying to her about it): 
Karen: "God. I don’t understand. After everything you’ve worked for? You were finally rebuilding your life."
Matt: "Karen this is my life. I have to go.” (1x07)
With El*ktra, he didn’t have to change who he was, and this is partly why it felt so good to be around her. But if you look at their relationship through the prism of change... She couldn’t change him either. She couldn’t get him to kill Sweeney, for instance. She even tells him she’s glad she couldn’t in 2x08: “There’s a light inside you. I tried to snuff it out in college. I’m so lucky I failed.” So, you see, it goes both ways. And Matt couldn’t get El*ktra to change, despite all his efforts. The one thing that never changed in her is her love for him. But they almost fought until the bitter end. The only thing they could agree on was that they loved each other (and even though I don’t ship them, I can’t deny there’s something truly beautiful and tragic in their relationship, and their last moments together killed me). However... love wasn’t enough to make her change, and it wasn’t enough to make him change. Which why he can’t believe Fisk changed for Vanessa. Which is why he believes love is not THAT powerful.
4) People can’t change... but they can be forgiven.
So maybe Matt is right. Maybe people can’t change their fundamental nature. But one of the teachings of season 3 is that our mistakes don’t have to define us:  “Yeah. You’re right. His mistakes don’t need to define him. Neither do yours.” (Matt to Karen, 3x12). 
That’s a huge change in Matt’s philosophy. I can’t even begin to imagine all the effort it took him to say that. Because he’s made a lot of mistakes. And for him to say that... It must mean that, somehow, he believes this could apply to him as well. 
To conclude, I would say that people can’t change, but they can be redeemed. If not by God, then by people. And that is called forgiveness. 
Here’s the other bit you referred to, from 3x13:
Karen: “That was nice, what you said.”
Matt: “Yeah, it wasn’t just him, you know. It was you, too. You helped me see the truth about myself.”
Karen: “Ouch.That had to hurt.“
Matt: “Well, maybe one of these days, I’ll forgive you, too.”
Karen: “Before my funeral, I hope.”
Matt: “I’m glad you told me, Karen. About Wesley and your brother.”
Karen: “Yeah. Well, uh I couldn’t live with that lie forever.”
Matt: “We’re all just trying to do more good than harm. And I’d say you’re ahead on that score.”
Matt saying that she helped him see the truth about himself echoes this blessed scene from the eulogy:
Tumblr media
“For me, personally, he spent many years trying to get me to face my own fears. To understand how they enslaved me, how they divided me from the people that I love. He counseled me to transcend my fears, to be brave enough to forgive... and see the possibilities of being a man without fear.” (Matt, 3x13)
Catholicism is about sins... but it’s also about forgiveness. It’s about darkness, but it’s also about light. So I think that, indeed, seeing that Karen, whom he always put on a pedestal, is also guilty, has even done the thing he swore he’d never do... Must have changed his mind. More than that, I think it has changed him. She shook his beliefs. And, after all, it’s her own love for justice, truth, and people in general, that redeem her. Karen has never been bad at core. She’s made mistakes. Terrible, painful mistakes. Mistakes that cost people their lives. But still, mistakes. Sins have become mistakes, in a way. And mistakes can be forgiven.
In a nutshell, I think that, indeed, this is a parallel. Karen has an impact on Matt, just like Matt has an impact on her. I truly think they make each other better persons. Which is why I love them so much: they are so alike, and yet, have such a hard time understanding each other. 
Thank you soooo much for this question, anon. I hope I answered it! :) 
37 notes · View notes
creepingtowardstheedge · 6 years ago
Text
Dawn Hayes | Deputy
Tumblr media
The Basics:
Full name: Dawn Hayes Meaning: ‘Awakening’ in Old English Nicknames: Day (Aiden), D (Aiden), Miss Know-It-All (Pratt), Birth date: January 30, 1989 Age: 29 years old Height: 5’6” inch | 173 cm Gender: Female Zodiac: Aquarius Sexuality: Heterosexual MBTI: ENTJ Alignment: Lawful Good Temperament: Melancholic Phobia(s): Deep waters Guilty pleasures: Drinking juice straight from the carton, junk food, cigarettes Language(s) spoken: English, German, Spanish and French Hobbies: Running, hiking, cycling, reading, playing the piano, cooking Side: Resistance John’s tattoos: Pride (chest), Envy (right upper arm)
Tumblr media
Background:
Hometown: Hope County, Montana Current location: Joseph’s Island, Hope County Nationality: American Ethnicity: American, as far as she knows. Family: Cynthia Hayes (adoptive mother) Pet(s): Daisy (her dog) Education: Degree in Modern Languages Occupation: Hope County’s Deputy Past job(s): She worked for a few summers as a babysitter for the children of her mother’s friend. Brief story: Being abandoned when she was a child, she grew up in an orphanage. She had no memories of her parents, but was told that the caretaker of the orphanage found her on the doorstep of the building and no-one ever reclaimed her. When she was 10, she was placed in a foster home and moved from one home to another until she turned 14, then was taken by a widow who later she became very attached to, and who treated her like a daughter. When she came of age, she started looking for her parents, seeking for answers, determined to know the truth. She found out that her father left her mother when she was pregnant and her mother started drinking and died after a few years. She never looked for her father, realizing that she didn’t want to have a relationship with him, since he abandoned her and her mother. After school she enrolled in the police academy and graduated successfully after a few years.
Tumblr media
Skills and Abilities:
Physical strength: 6/10 Offense: 7/10 Defense: 8/10 Agility: 8/10 Speed: 9/10 Intelligence: 9/10 Stealth: 8/10 Precision: 7/10 Stamina: 7/10 Teamwork: 9/10
Talents: 
Languages: She studied modern languages in university, so she can speak English, Spanish, German and French.
Diplomacy: At the station she was in charge of talking to the victims’ relatives, trying to talk some sense into them and to prevent the situation from going bad.
Teamwork: Always tries to resolve conflicts between people in a group.
Photographic memory and remembering details.
Shortcomings: 
Big heart: Could have never been in charge of interviews and talking to suspects, she would have bought whatever they said.
Trust issues: Though she’s kind to everyone and tries to help whoever she can, she doesn’t open easily to others and tends to push people away in an attempt to prevent herself from getting hurt.
Tumblr media
Physical appearance and characteristics:
Face claim: Emmy Rossum Eye color: Brown Hair color: Brown Glasses/Contacts: Contacts for work, glasses at home Dominant hand: Left hand Build: Slim Skin tone: Fair Tattoos: An orchid on her right calf and a dream catcher on her ribs. Piercings: None Marks/scars: When she was a child she accidentally poured boiling water on herself and since then she has a nasty burn on her shoulder. Notable features: None Clothing style: She doesn’t really care about what she’s wearing, everything is fine as long as she’s wearing something. Allergies: Pollen
Tumblr media
Relationships:
Earl Whitehorse: It’s like the dad she never had. She loves how grumpy he always is, and she mocks him sometimes, telling him that he’s getting old and should retire. She admires him, and would always try to take a leaf out of his choices.
Joey Hudson: At first they just didn’t get along, the both of them being stubborn and proud, but eventually learned to coexist and would sometimes join forces against Staci and Freya.
Staci Pratt: Staci is like a big brother to her. Sometimes they quarrel, but they always find a way to make peace. She looks up at him and sometimes asks him for some career and personal advice, because she knows she can count on him.
Faith Seed: She knows that the young lady has gone through some difficult times is her life, and sometimes would feel sorry for her, but, despite everything, she doesn’t sympathize too much with Faith, as she chose to be on Joseph’s side.
John Seed: According to her, John’s the most dangerous one of the Seed brothers, being so obsessed with sin, guilt and atonement. What scares her the most is that he would do anything for the Project, including sacrificing his own people without even blinking. He’s ruthless and sadistic, and she has a feeling he doesn’t care about any of his people, so she tends to be very careful around him, not knowing what he could do next.
Jacob Seed: She thinks he’s the most pragmatic and practical one of all the Seed brothers, but she tries to stay as far away as possible from him, because she knows that when he wants something he will sure as hell get it, so she tries not to underestimate him or any of his soldiers.
Joseph Seed: She doesn’t know what to think of him. His chilled and calm attitude scares her much more than the aggressive mask of the Baptist, and she thinks he could be capable of everything. He’s manipulative and charismatic, and she would sometimes have doubts whether he would be lying or telling the truth about the Collapse. She knows he’s a dangerous man, but sometimes she tends to forget how dangerous he can be.
Freya Williams: They get along pretty well, even though it’s not always easy to be around Freya. Dawn always tried to be kind and polite, but never passive, since she doesn’t let anyone push her around, and between the two girls started developing a sort of mutual respect and trust.
Aiden Lewis: Her best friend, her partner in crime. Aiden is like a brother to her, Dawn always having dinner at his house when they were younger. His family always treated her like a daughter,  they immediately bonded when they first met and since then they’ve become really close. He’s always able to cheer her up, telling jokes and making her laugh, but he also knows when to stop making fun of his friends and Dawn is grateful for that.
Riley Denvers: Dawn and Riley have a somewhat mother-daughter relationship. They sometimes fight, but always re-conciliate - mostly thanks to Hannah’s help - because they are not capable of being mad at each other for more than 10 minutes. They’ve known each other for a very long time and know they can always count on each other, no matter how angry or mad they can be.
Hannah Thompson: Dawn was the first person to stand up for Hannah in school, and since then they became really good friends, taking care of each other and always being there in times of need. Hannah always knows what’s the right thing to say, so Dawn knows that she can tell her anything and never be judged for it.
Hunter Davis: She likes to talk about serious things with Hunter, since he’s very smart and cultured. She admires her friend, he had to grow up fast and never relied on anyone else, and even though he’s not very good at socializing, he’s a good listener and knows when to be there for his friends.
Sasha Maxwell: They met a few times, when Dawn went to John’s bunker for the Confession or when Joseph visited his brother, and Sasha was always kind to her, treating her tattoos when John marked her, but Dawn couldn’t believe she was there by choice and not as a prisoner and always tried to convince her that she was on the wrong side of the war and that Joseph wasn’t as holy as he wanted others to believe.
Jake and Sean Denvers: soon
Judith Denvers: soon
Scarlett Reed: soon
Tyler Reed: soon
Tumblr media
Other information:
At the police station, she’s the diplomatic one. She always tries to talk things through, trying to avoid the fight as much as she can, but wouldn’t hesitate to use her gun if needed.
She always tried to stood up for those who couldn’t do it for themselves, even in high school, helping Hannah when no-one did.
She went through some difficult times in her childhood. She never forgave her parents for leaving her, and she still feels so much anger towards them. Most of all she felt abandoned, and during her time in foster homes she felt as if no-one cared about her.
After having found her real parents, she found out that her real surname was Monroe, but never even thought about taking it. She adopted Cynthia’s surname instead,
She was kind of a troublemaker in high school, always being in detention with Aiden for skipping classes.
She loves her Border Collie Daisy more than everything. She’s a dog person in general, though she also likes cats, but she never had one because Daisy tends to be very possessive and would never let a cat go near Dawn.
Her favorite drink is hot chocolate, she would drink it all day, possibly on the couch, listening to the cracking of fire and watching the snow falling outside her window.
When she was younger she wanted to be a social worker, as she wanted to help children who were not lucky enough to have a decent family, but eventually acknowledged the fact that she was too emotionally involved to do her job properly. She would have probably just punched all terrible parents in the face.
She’s not good at trusting people, so she tends to push people away because she doesn’t want to get hurt or to hurt others. For that reason, she never had long relationships. She’d really like to settle down, but due to her trusting issues she never allowed herself to be happy and to find that person she wants to spend her life with.
Dawn is a fan of post-apocalyptic and dystopian movies and books. She particularly loves The Walking Dead, Mad Max: Fury Road, and I Am Legend, and her favorite book is Lord of The Flies.
4 notes · View notes
writefasttalkevenfaster · 7 years ago
Text
Luke Alvez / Always and Forever
As requested by anon for 500 follower celebration: 
I would like to request a Luke Alvez imagine but I cannot think of anything. Maybe one where he first meets his wife? Like love at first sight type of deal?
Ahhh I really love Luke, but I have such a hard time writing him! Warning slightly NSFW (really slightly) and super fluffy! 
Tumblr media
“When did you first fall in love with me?” It was a question poised one early morning, after you had awoken to butterfly kisses against your neck and shoulders, prying you from the arms of Hypnos himself into a pair of much more comfortable arms. Or so he’d likely claim. But as you turned to face him, a finger running down his jawline, tracing the contours and crevices of his face, you had to admit he was right. His smile was more brilliant than Apollo’s sun chariot, his twinkling eyes more charming than Zeus’s himself, and he made you feel safer than any mere mortal or god had ever made you feel. But his question made you pause in your wanderings, before his hands skimmed lower, jarring you to reality.
“Luke,” You whined, as his head buried itself in your neck, starting another trail of kisses there. “I’m trying to think,”
“And I’m trying to help,” He murmured the words against your skin, making shivers reverberate up and down your spine.
Well, he wasn’t wrong.
It was inaccurate to say it was love at first sight. Lust at first sight would be more accurate. And Luke Alvez was just that on the surface: sin incarnate, with his tanned skin and toned muscles, along with his killer smile (no pun intended). You had tried to stave off feelings for the “newbie,” the name so aptly dubbed by Garcia, who had been passive-aggressive (though more aggressive than passive) towards Morgan’s supposed replacement. She ranted and raved about the man, who had done nothing to offend her besides tease her, and to his credit, mostly in retaliation for her cold demeanor. You would often have to cut her rants short so the two of you could get back to work, instead of dwelling on her “burning, eternal hatred” for the man (her words, not yours). But you on the other hand felt quite the opposite.
Undeniably, the man was attractive (you weren’t one to deny absolute facts). However, you weren’t one to rest attraction simply on looks either. But Luke had quickly proven himself, in a difficult situation, supporting the team through Hotch’s sudden departure, helping to protect Reid through his time in jail, and even helping to find Prentiss in the wake of Stephen’s death. He had rightfully claimed his spot as one of the profilers, no one could deny that, not you, not even Garcia. But still, the fact remained that he was only a co-worker, nothing more or less.
Until he wasn’t.
It was little things at first, the way he would catch your eye when Reid would go off on one of his spiels about something or other, or maybe the times his hands would brush against yours when he reached for the coffee at the same time, or was it when he would laugh at your lame jokes before boarding the plane and still would be smiling at you on the ride back. And you couldn’t deny how when the two of you would work late, when one of you would spot something, and he would only stand a breath away. You would catch sight of his lips and think if you leaned a bit closer... But the moment would pass, and you both would return to your respective spots, and the little things continued to pile on, reaching a breaking point when the two of you were forced to share a room.
The team had arrived in a hick town in the middle of nowhere, where a serial killer was slowly murdering the residents over the course of a decade. Not only was the motel the breeding ground for the killer, but it was also ridiculously small, forcing the team to double up. Prentiss and J.J. were sharing, while Rossi, Luke, and Reid ended up together, leaving you alone with your own room. And although, you were the lucky person to end up with the room key, but you didn’t know how lucky it was considering there was a serial killer in the hotel.
And of course, you couldn’t sleep. You paced the room, looking over the evidence file, feeling your nerves grate on you as you took in the room. Nothing particularly special: it was a single king sized bed, a painting hanging over the bed frame, and there was a dresser and bookshelf across from it. You had already perused the bookshelf, setting one of the books back in its place, when there was a sharp rap at the door.
You frowned, grabbing your gun from the table. Didn’t hurt to be cautious, but you didn’t think a serial killer would knock. Though you never knew with this job. “Who is it?”
“It’s just me, Luke,” You pulled open the door to reveal that was indeed Luke, bag in hand, as your gaze went from to his bag back to his sheepish expression.
“There was only one bed and one couch in Rossi and Reid’s room, and no one brought a sleeping bag, so I was wondering if you would be willing?” His casual attitude wavered as he realized the implications of his words. “I mean...willing to let me share the room with you,” You hesitated, but as he flashed a pleading smile, what choice did you have? You moved aside, letting him in, “Well this has a lot more charm than the other room; it had looked like someone had died in it-” He cut off, walking into another faux pas, much to your amusement.
“I think you’ve been spending too much time with Penelope,” You gave a small smile in spite of yourself, and he returned it with a laugh, a noise that made your stomach erupt in butterflies. Luke had a aura about him, a way of making people feel comfortable around him. It made you want to open up to him, to make him your shoulder to lean on, the person you went to for help. And you couldn’t quite decide if that was a good or bad thing.
“Yeah, you might be right about that,” He jabbed his finger towards the bathroom, “You mind if I take a shower first?” You shook your head, plopping down on the bed, as an obvious fact finally slapped you across the face, leaving your cheeks burning. There was only one bed in this room.
Shit.
You considered your options, you could join Emily and J.J. in their room, but considering the late hour, they were probably asleep. You could offer to sleep on the floor, but you knew it would only end in contestment. Then there was only one option: sharing the bed. Your nerves were on thin ice, but for a completely different reason. You were no longer alone, but you weren’t sure how particularly beneficial that was to your sleep.
A few minutes later and he emerged from the shower, wearing a sleeveless shirt along with a plain pair of sweatpants. Your eyes roamed his form, staring a bit too long at the faint outline of abs that his shirt teased at, and when you found his face, he had a smile tugging at his lips. “Like what you see?” You immediately huffed, rolling your eyes, as he laughed in response. “Don’t worry, I was just kidding,” clapping you on the shoulder with a grin. And in spite of yourself, you deflated, as you stared as his back.You didn’t get time to contemplate your feelings, as Luke turned to face you, catching sight of your frown before you could hide it. Just as you always did. “What’s wrong?” Once a profiler...
You shook your head, hand brushing against the bed. He raised his eyebrows, as he thankfully though you were concerned with the sleeping arrangements. “I can sleep on the floor if you’re not comfortable,” He reassured you, “Or we could share the bed?” Your gaze fell to your feet, feeling your heart thump hard at his words, the slight lilt at the suggestion of sleeping in the same bed giving you a hope of romance that you couldn’t believe yourself.  “Y/N, what’s wrong?” He sat beside you, as you tucked a hair behind your ear, unable to meet his gaze. “You can talk to me,” His hand was brushing against your own, until you pulled it away, rising from the bed.
“That’s just it, Luke,” You couldn’t stop the words once they began to pour out, your heart couldn’t bear it. “I know I can, and I want to. I know I could tell you anything and you would be there for me, just like you have for the rest of the team, but I’m just...afraid,” The last word came out barely a whisper, in hopes it would make it less real. But it was, as real as the creak of the bed as Luke got to his feet, taking a step toward you.
“What are you so afraid of?” His touch was gentle on your shoulder, as he made you face him. “Of me?” The words were not said, but forced out, as he almost seemed hesitant to know your answer. You almost could laugh. Scared of him? It was an absurd thought. The man was as innocent as his own puppy.
“What was there to be afraid of?” As you met his eyes for the first time. Sadness and regret dwelled there, along with hesitancy and doubt.
“There’s a lot, actually, a lot that you know,” A frown tugged at his lips. It was no lie that Luke Alvez was intimidating on paper. A fugitive hunter, a former Ranger, and now a current FBI agent, but that wasn’t him, or rather all of him. The Luke you knew was one that was always offering a hand, the one always cracking jokes (often at Garcia’s expense), and the one who was someone worth the risk. He always thought he deserved to be alone, but there was nothing further from the truth. He deserved everything and more. More than you, and yet...
You stepped forward immediately with conviction, now you two only stood a moment away, another step and…  “Luke, I never could be afraid of you, but I am afraid of us,” You breathed, as a stray hair fell in front of your face. “I like you, Luke, but not just as a co-worker or a friend, more than that.” You spotted his eyes widen ever-so-slightly,  his breath hitching in his throat. “And I can’t share a room before I know whether you feel the same or not,” You had put it all on the line, your friendship, your work relationship, and your heart. And while words did not fail you, it seemed to fail him, as his mouth hung open for a half-minute, as you started to turn away.
It was a mistake, feeling disappointment spread through stomach like poison, replacing the butterflies with sorrow, as tears pricked at your eyes. You managed a shaky sentence, said in a single steady breath:“It’s okay if you don’t, I just needed to kn-” And that’s when he caught you by the wrist, fear freezing you in place, but, ironically, as he pulled you close, your hand resting on his chest, you felt a heat radiating from his touch that spread throughout your body. And as he pulled you to his chest, you never felt more safe. And as his lips met yours, a wide grin against your own, you knew.
“That’s when you knew?” Luke propped himself on his elbows, giving a small shrug at your retelling of the first time you had kissed. “It sounds like you were in love with me a little before that,” His fingers traced lazy circles around your palm, and you shifted closer into his touch, leaning forward stare into his eyes, the small amount of light coming through the window illuminating the dark pools of brown along with his playful smirk.
“Well, that’s when I knew,” You sighed, pressing a kiss to his lips, before falling back on the bed. “I knew you would keep me safe,” As he pulled you against his chest, your head resting in the crook of his neck, you could feel his words rumble against you. “When did you know?” And his smirk turned to a smile, as he pressed kisses to the top of your head, before pulling back to look at you. Even with your long locks falling here and there, your eyes practically sinking into the bags beneath them, and your unmade face, he still looked at you as if you were the goddess Aphrodite herself.
“I knew from the moment I saw you in the bullpen, you had a blue navy shirt with a pair of slacks, and the way you looked at me, I knew...” He paused to press a kiss to your lips, “I always knew,”
“Always?”
He smiled gently, as he did the first time he saw you, the same smile that made your heart thump each and every time, “And forever, Y/N.”  
Tag List:  @procrastdanation, @mypretty-weeper, @elle88531 @iworldlywriter @aspiringyoungwriter @supermoonpanda , @occamybarnes, @iammostdefinitelyonfire26, @laneygthememequeen @meganlpie @sweetsummertime99
1K notes · View notes
antoine-roquentin · 7 years ago
Link
In many ways, Coates’s career manifests these collateral trends of progress and regress in American society. He grew up in Baltimore at the height of the crack epidemic. One of his own friends at Howard University in the 1990s was murdered by the police. Coates didn’t finish college and had been working and writing for small magazines when in 2008 he was commissioned by the Atlantic to write a blog during Obama’s campaign for president. Three books and many blog posts and tweets later, Coates is, in Packer’s words, ‘the most influential writer in America today’ – an elevation that no writer of colour could previously have achieved. Toni Morrison claims he has filled ‘the intellectual void that plagued me after James Baldwin died’. Philip Roth has been led to histories of American racism by Coates’s books. David Brooks credits him for advancing an ‘education for white people’ that evidently began after ‘Ferguson, Baltimore, Charleston and the other killings’. Even USA Today thinks that ‘to have such a voice, in such a moment, is a ray of light.’ Coates seems genuinely embarrassed by his swift celebrity: by the fact that, as he writes in his latest book, We Were Eight Years in Power, a collection of essays published in the Atlantic between 2008 and 2016, ‘I, who’d begun in failure, who held no degrees or credentials, had become such a person.’ He also visibly struggles with the question ‘Why do white people like what I write?’ This is a fraught issue for the very few writers from formerly colonised countries or historically disadvantaged minorities in the West who are embraced by ‘legacy’ periodicals, and then tasked with representing their people – or country, religion, race, and even continent (as in the New York Times’s praise for Salman Rushdie: ‘A continent finding its voice’). Relations between the anointed ‘representative’ writer and those who are denied this privilege by white gatekeepers are notoriously prickly. Coates, a self-made writer, is particularly vulnerable to the charge that he is popular among white liberals since he assuages their guilt about racism.
He doesn’t have a perch in academia, where most prominent African-American intellectuals have found a stable home. Nor is he affiliated to any political movement – he is sceptical of the possibilities of political change – and, unlike his bitter critic, Cornel West, he is an atheist. Identified solely with the Atlantic, a periodical better known for its oligarchic shindigs than its subversive content, Coates also seems distant from the tradition of black magazines like Reconstruction, Transition and Emerge, or left-wing journals like n+1, Dissent and Jacobin. He credits his large white fan club to Obama. Fascination with a black president, he thinks, ‘eventually expanded into curiosity about the community he had so consciously made his home and all the old, fitfully slumbering questions he’d awakened about American identity.’ This is true, but only in the way a banality is true. Most mainstream publications have indeed tried in recent years to accommodate more writers and journalists from racial and ethnic minorities. But the relevant point, perhaps impolitic for Coates to make, is that those who were assembling sensible arguments for war and torture in prestigious magazines only a few years ago have been forced to confront, along with their readers, the obdurate pathologies of American life that stem from America’s original sin.
Coates, followed by the ‘white working classes’, has surfaced into liberal consciousness during the pained if still very partial self-reckoning among American elites that began with Hurricane Katrina. Many journalists have been scrambling, more feverishly since Trump’s apotheosis, to account for the stunningly extensive experience of fear and humiliation across racial and gender divisions; some have tried to reinvent themselves in heroic resistance to Trump and authoritarian ‘populism’. David Frum, geometer under George W. Bush of an intercontinental ‘axis of evil’, now locates evil in the White House. Max Boot, self-declared ‘neo-imperialist’ and exponent of ‘savage wars’, recently claimed to have become aware of his ‘white privilege’. Ignatieff, advocate of empire-lite and torture-lite, is presently embattled on behalf of the open society in Mitteleuropa. Goldberg, previously known as stenographer to Netanyahu, is now Coates’s diligent promoter. Amid this hectic laundering of reputations, and a turnover of ‘woke’ white men, Coates has seized the opportunity to describe American power from the rare standpoint of its internal victims.
As a self-professed autodidact, Coates is primarily concerned to share with readers his most recent readings and discoveries. His essays are milestones in an accelerated self-education, with Coates constantly summoning himself to fresh modes of thinking. Very little in his book will be unfamiliar to readers of histories of American slavery and the mounting scholarship on the new Jim Crow. Coates, who claimed in 2013 to be ‘not a radical’, now says he has been ‘radicalised’, and as a black writer in an overwhelmingly white media, he has laid out the varied social practices of racial discrimination with estimable power and skill. But the essays in We Were Eight Years in Power, so recent and much discussed on their first publication, already feel like artefacts of a moribund social liberalism. Reparations for slavery may have seemed ‘the indispensable tool against white supremacy’ when Obama was in power. It is hard to see how this tool can be deployed against Trump. The documentation in Coates’s essays is consistently impressive, especially in his writing about mass imprisonment and housing discrimination. But the chain of causality that can trace the complex process of exclusion in America to its grisly consequences – the election of a racist and serial groper – is missing from his book. Nor can we understand from his account of self-radicalisation why the words ‘socialism’ and ‘imperialism’ became meaningful to a young generation of Americans during what he calls ‘the most incredible of eras – the era of a black president’. There is a conspicuous analytical lacuna here, and it results from an overestimation, increasingly commonplace in the era of Trump, of the most incredible of eras, and an underestimation of its continuities with the past and present.
In the sentimental education of Coates, and of many liberal intellectuals mugged by American realities, Obama is the culmination of the civil rights movement, the figure who fulfils the legacies of Malcolm X as well as Martin Luther King. In Jay Z’s words, ‘Rosa sat so Martin could walk; Martin walked so Obama could run; Obama is running so we all can fly!’ John McCain, hapless Republican candidate in 2008, charged that his rival was a lightweight international ‘celebrity’, like Britney Spears. To many white liberals, however, Obama seemed to guarantee instant redemption from the crimes of a democracy built on slavery and genocide. There is no doubt that compared to the ‘first black president’, who played the dog whistle better than the saxophone, a hip-hop enthusiast and the son of a Kenyan Muslim represented a genuine diversification of America’s ruling class. Obama offered his own ascent as proof that America is an inclusive society, ceaselessly moving towards a ‘more perfect union’. But such apparent vindications of the American dream obscured the limited achievement of the civil rights movement, and the fragility of the social and political consensus behind it. The widespread belief that Obama had inaugurated a ‘postracial’ age helped conceal the ways in which the barefaced cruelties of segregation’s distant past had been softening since the 1960s into subtle exclusions and injustices.
A ruling class that had been forced to make partial concessions to the civil rights movement subsequently worked, as Nixon blurted out, to ‘devise a system’ to deal with the black ‘problem’ without appearing to do so. With the wars on crime, drugs and welfare queens, the repertoire of deception came to include coded appeals to a white constituency, the supposedly ‘silent majority’. But the cruellest trick used by both Republicans and Democrats was the myth that America had resolved the contradiction at the heart of its democracy. For the conviction that African-Americans were walking and running and would soon start flying, enabled by equal opportunity, paved the way for an insidious ideological force: colour-blind universalism. Its deceit was summed up best by the creepy Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia: ‘In the eyes of the government, we are just one race here. It is American.’ The rules of colour-blind equality and the ‘level playing-field’, as they came to be outlined in the 1980s and 1990s, created a climate in which affirmative action came to look like reverse racism: unacceptably discriminatory against whites. With structural injustice presented as a thing of the past, what appeared to deform the lives of black people was their culture of single-parent households, scant work ethic, criminality and welfare dependency. This widespread attitude was summed up by a New Republic cover in 1996 urging Clinton to slash welfare: it showed a black woman, or ‘welfare mom’, bottle-feeding an infant while smoking. Blacks, in this politically bipartisan view, needed to get with the American programme just as various immigrant communities had done. As the original exponent of centrist liberalism, Arthur Schlesinger Jr, charged, they had become too prone to ‘nourishing prejudice, magnifying difference and stirring up antagonism’ – in other words, blacks were guilty of identity politics.
The detractors of ‘identity liberalism’ are still prone to the fantasy that the end of de jure racial inequality ushered in a new era of opportunity and mobility for African-Americans. In reality, even the black people admitted into the networks of prosperity and privilege remained vulnerable compared to those who had enjoyed the inherited advantages of income and opportunity over several generations. This became gruesomely evident during the financial crisis of 2008, when African-American families, deceived into home-ownership by banks peddling subprime loans, found themselves in economic freefall, losing half their collective wealth. When Coates and Obama simultaneously emerged into public view in 2008 the political and ideological foundations of racial progress ought to have looked very shaky. But this structural weakness was obscured by the spectacular upward mobility of an Ivy League-educated black lawyer and constitutional scholar.
There were signs during Obama’s campaign, particularly his eagerness to claim the approbation of Henry Kissinger, that he would cruelly disappoint his left-leaning young supporters’ hopes of epochal transformation. His actions in office soon made it clear that some version of bait and switch had occurred. Obama had condemned the air war in South Asia as immoral because of its high civilian toll; but three days after his inauguration he ordered drone strikes in Pakistan, and in his first year oversaw more strikes with high civilian casualties than Bush had ordered in his entire presidency. His bellicose speech accepting the Nobel Peace Prize signalled that he would strengthen rather than dismantle the architecture of the open-ended war on terror, while discarding some of its fatuous rhetoric. During his eight years in office, he expanded covert operations and air strikes deep into Africa; girding the continent with American military bases, he exposed large parts of it to violence, anarchy and tyrannical rule. He not only expanded mass surveillance and government data-mining operations at home, and ruthlessly prosecuted whistleblowers, but invested his office with the lethal power to execute anyone, even American citizens, anywhere in the world.
Obama occasionally denounced the ‘fat cats’ of Wall Street, but Wall Street contributed heavily to his campaign, and he entrusted his economic policy to it early in his tenure, bailing out banks and the insurance mega-company AIG with no quid pro quo. African-Americans had turned out in record numbers in 2008, demonstrating their love of an ostensible compatriot, but Obama ensured that he would be immune to the charge of loving blacks too much. Colour-blind to the suffering caused by mortgage foreclosures, he scolded African-Americans, using the neoliberal idiom of individual responsibility, for their moral failings as fathers, husbands and competitors in the global marketplace. Nor did he wish to be seen as soft on immigration; he deported millions of immigrants – Trump is struggling to reach Obama’s 2012 peak of 34,000 deportations a month. In his memoir, Dreams from My Father, he had eloquently sympathised with the marginalised and the powerless. In power, however, he seemed in thrall to Larry Summers and other members of the East Coast establishment, resembling not so much the permanently alienated outsider as the mixed-race child of imperialism, who, as Ashis Nandy diagnosed in The Intimate Enemy, replaces his early feeling for the weak with ‘an unending search for masculinity and status’. It isn’t surprising that this harbinger of hope and change anointed a foreign-policy hawk and Wall Street-friendly dynast as his heir apparent. His post-presidency moves – kite-surfing with Richard Branson on a private island, extravagantly remunerated speeches to Wall Street and bromance with George Clooney – have confirmed Obama as a case of mistaken identity. As David Remnick, his disappointed biographer, said recently, ‘I don’t think Obama was immune to lures of the new class of wealth. I think he’s very interested in Silicon Valley, stars and showbusiness, and sports, and the rest.’
Embodying neoliberal chic at its most seductive, Obama managed to restore the self-image of American elites in politics, business and the media that had been much battered during the last years of the Bush presidency. In the updated narrative of American exceptionalism, a black president was instructing the world in the ways of economic and social justice. Journalists in turn helped boost the fantastical promises and unexamined assumptions of universal improvement; some saw Coates himself as an icon of hope and change. A 2015 profile in New York magazine describes him at the Aspen Ideas Festival, along with Bill Kristol, Jeffrey Goldberg, assorted plutocrats and their private jets, during the ‘late Obama era’, when ‘progress was in the air’ and the ‘great question’ after the legalisation of gay marriage was: ‘would the half-century-long era of increasing prosperity and expanding human freedom prove to be an aberration or a new, permanent state?’ Coates is awkward among Aspen’s panjandrums. But he thinks it is too easy for him to say he’d be happier in Harlem. ‘Truthfully,’ he confesses, ‘I’m very happy to be here. It’s very nice.’ According to the profile-writer, ‘there is a radical chic crowd assembling around Coates’ – but then he is ‘a writer who radicalises the Establishment’.
For a self-aware and independent-minded writer like Coates, the danger is not so much seduction by power as a distortion of perspective caused by proximity to it. In his account of a party for African-American celebrities at the White House in the late Obama era, his usually majestic syntax withers into Vanity Fair puffs: ‘Women shivered in their cocktail dresses. Gentlemen chivalrously handed over their suit coats. Naomi Campbell strolled past the security pen in a sleeveless number.’ Since Clinton, the reflexive distrust of high office once shared by writers as different as Robert Lowell and Dwight Macdonald has slackened into defensiveness, even adoration, among the American literati. Coates proprietorially notes the ethnic, religious and racial variety of Obama’s staff. Everyone seems overwhelmed by a ‘feeling’, that ‘this particular black family, the Obamas, represented the best of black people, the ultimate credit to the race, incomparable in elegance and bearing.’ Not so incomparable if you remember Tina Brown’s description of another power couple, the Clintons, in the New Yorker in 1998: ‘Now see your president, tall and absurdly debonair, as he dances with a radiant blonde, his wife.’ ‘The man in a dinner jacket’, Brown wrote, possessed ‘more heat than any star in the room (or, for that matter, at the multiplex)’. After his visit, Joe Eszterhas, screenwriter of Showgirls and Basic Instinct, exulted over the Clinton White House’s diverse workforce: ‘full of young people, full of women, blacks, gays, Hispanics’. ‘Good Lord,’ he concluded in American Rhapsody, ‘we had taken the White House! America was ours.’
A political culture where progress in the air was measured by the president’s elegant bearing and penchant for diversity was ripe for demagoguery. The rising disaffection with a narcissistic and callous ruling class was signalled in different ways by the Tea Party, Occupy, Black Lives Matter and Bernie Sanders’s insurgent candidacy. The final blow to the Washington (and New York) consensus was delivered by Trump, who correctly read the growing resentment of elites – black or white, meritocratic or dynastic – who presumed to think the White House was theirs. Writing in Wiredmagazine a month before Trump’s election, Obama hailed the ‘quintessentially American compulsion to race for new frontiers and push the boundaries of what’s possible’. Over lunch at the White House, he assured Coates that Trump’s victory was impossible. Coates felt ‘the same’. He now says that ‘adherents and beneficiaries’ of white supremacy loathed and feared the black man in the White House – enough to make Trump ‘president, and thus put him in position to injure the world’. ‘Every white Trump voter is most certainly not a white supremacist,’ Coates writes in a bitter epilogue to We Were Eight Years in Power. ‘But every Trump voter felt it acceptable to hand the fate of the country over to one.’ This, again, is true in a banal way, but inadequate as an explanation: Trump also benefited from the disappointment of white voters who had voted, often twice, for Obama, and of black voters who failed to turn out for Hillary Clinton. Moreover, to blame a racist ‘whitelash’ for Trump is to exculpate the political, business and media luminaries Coates has lately found himself with, especially the journalists disgraced, if not dislodged, by their collaboration in a calamitous racist-imperialist venture to make America great again.
*
As early as 1935, W.E.B. Du Bois identified fear and loathing of minorities as a ‘public and psychological wage’ for many whites in American society. More brazenly than his predecessors, Trump linked the misfortunes of the ‘white working class’ to Chinese cheats, Mexican rapists and treacherous blacks. But racism, Du Bois knew, was not just an ugly or deep-rooted prejudice periodically mobilised by opportunistic politicians and defused by social liberalism: it was a widely legitimated way of ordering social and economic life, with skin colour only one way of creating degrading hierarchies. Convinced that the presumption of inequality and discrimination underpinned the making of the modern world, Du Bois placed his American experience of racial subjection in a broad international context. Remarkably, all the major black writers and activists of the Atlantic West, from C.L.R. James to Stuart Hall, followed him in this move from the local to the global. Transcending the parochial idioms of their national cultures, they analysed the way in which the processes of capital accumulation and racial domination had become inseparable early in the history of the modern world; the way race emerged as an ideologically flexible category for defining the dangerously lawless civilisational other – black Africans yesterday, Muslims and Hispanics today. The realisation that economic conditions and religion were as much markers of difference as skin colour made Nina Simone, Mohammed Ali and Malcolm X, among others, connect their own aspirations to decolonisation movements in India, Liberia, Ghana, Vietnam, South Africa and Palestine. Martin Luther King absorbed from Gandhi not only the tactic of non-violent protest but also a comprehensive critique of modern imperialism. ‘The Black revolution,’ he argued, much to the dismay of his white liberal supporters, ‘is much more than a struggle for the rights of Negroes.’
Compared to these internationalist thinkers, partisans of the second black president, who happen to be the most influential writers and journalists in the US, have provincialised their aspiration for a just society. They have neatly separated it from opposition to an imperial dispensation that incarcerates and deports millions of people each year – disproportionately people of colour – and routinely exercises its right to assault and despoil other countries and murder and torture their citizens. Perceptive about the structural violence of the new Jim Crow, Coates has little to say about its manifestation in the new world order. For all his searing corroboration of racial stigma in America, he has yet to make a connection as vital and powerful as the one that MLK detected in his disillusioned last days between the American devastation of Vietnam and ‘the evils that are rooted deeply in the whole structure of our society’. He has so far considered only one of what King identified as ‘the giant American triplets of racism, extreme materialism and militarism’ – the ‘inter-related flaws’ that turned American society into a ‘burning house’ for the blacks trying to integrateinto it. And in Coates’s worldview even race, despite his formidable authority of personal witness, rarely transcends a rancorously polarised American politics of racial division, in which the world’s most powerful man appears to have been hounded for eight years by unreconstructed American racists. ‘My President Was Black’, a 17,000-word profile in the Atlantic, is remarkable for its missing interrogations of the black president for his killings by drones, despoilation of Libya, Yemen and Somalia, mass deportations, and cravenness before the titans of finance who ruined millions of black as well as white lives. Coates has been accused of mystifying race and of ‘essentialising’ whiteness. Nowhere, however, does his view of racial identity seem as static as in his critical tenderness for a black member of the 1 per cent.
As long as Coates is indifferent to the links between race and international political economy, he is more likely to induce relief than guilt among his white liberal fans. They may accept, even embrace, an explanation that blames inveterate bigots in the American heartland for Trump. They would certainly baulk at the suggestion that the legatee of the civil rights movement upheld a 19th-century racist-imperialist order by arrogating to the US presidency the right to kill anyone without due process; they would recoil from the idea that a black man in his eight years in power deepened the juridical legacy of white supremacy before passing it on to a reckless successor. The intractable continuities of institutional brute power should be plain to see. ‘The crimes of the American state,’ Coates writes in one of the introductions to We Were Eight Years in Power, ‘now had the imprimatur of a black man.’ Yet the essays themselves ultimately reveal their author to be safely within the limits of what even a radicalised black man can write in the Atlantic without dissolving the rainbow coalition of liberal imperialism or alienating its patrons. Coates’s pain and passion have committed him to a long intellectual journey. To move, however, from rage over the rampant destruction of black bodies in America to defensiveness about a purveyor of ‘kill lists’ in the White House is to cover a very short distance. There is surely more to come. Coates is bracingly aware of his unfinished tasks as a writer. ‘Remember that you and I,’ he writes to his son in Between the World and Me, ‘are the children of trans-Atlantic rape. Remember the broader consciousness that comes with that. Remember that this consciousness can never ultimately be racial; it must be cosmic.’ Nowhere in his published writings has Coates elaborated on what this cosmic consciousness ought to consist of. But his own reference to the slave trade places the black experience at the centre of the modern world: the beginning of a process of capitalism’s emergence and globalisation whereby a small minority in Europe and America acquired the awesome power to classify and control almost the entire human population.
The black slave, captured early in this history, presaged the historical ordeal of the millions yet to come: dispossession and brutalisation, the destruction of cultures and memories, and of many human possibilities. Today, the practices of kidnapping, predation, extraction, national aggression, mob violence, mass imprisonment, disenfranchisement and zoning pioneered in the Atlantic have travelled everywhere, along with new modes of hierarchy and exclusion. They can be seen in India and Myanmar, where public sanction drives the violent persecution, including lynching, of various internal enemies of the nation. They can be seen in Africa and Latin America. They have returned home to Europe and America as renewed animus against migrants and refugees. All this reproduces to a sinister extent the devastating black experience of fear and danger – of being, as Coates wrote, ‘naked before the elements of the world’. Coates’s project of unflinching self-education and polemic has never seemed more urgent, and it has only just begun.
13 notes · View notes