#popular christian websites

[anushaarticles]

In this Article we see about Fearless women in the Bible, the way they faced every challenge prayerfully with faith. Here are the few inspiring women…

[hopalongfairywrens]

Hot take but those “trans inclusive misogyny” jokes are not funny

[gothhabiba]

do you know where are the the best places or mosteffective to donate to help palestinians atm? like charities ect

In terms of direct aid it is better to give money directly to families in Ghazza than to a charity. Charities, governmental and nongovernmental organisations &c., are seldom able to use funds to distribute aid right now, as few trucks are getting through, and none to the north of Ghazza.

ETA on Charities in Ghazza:

Taawon Association (in partnership with the Bank of Palestine) are distributing hot meals in Ghazza.

The World Food Programme (WFP) is getting food parcels into Ghazza, though I can't find them sharing a more specific location anywhere. Donate here.

The Palestinian Children's Relief Fund (PCRF) is providing medicine, food, and water. Their website specifically mentions food relief in north, central, and south Ghazza, and water delivered to north and south Ghazza.

Direct aid to Ghazza:

Money given directly to families in Ghazza is used to help them cross the Rafah crossing into Egypt, and/or to purchase plane tickets and apply for visas so they have somewhere to go after arriving in Egypt.

Help Christians in Ghazza get visas to leave

Help Hala Abu Ramadan's family of six leave Ghazza (organized by Mohammed Samhouri, vouched for by @psychoticgerard)

Help Dr. Intimaa AbuHelou's family of 22 leave Ghazza (organized by professer Steve Tamari)

Help Shayma and her family of 16 leave Ghazza (organised by Fardowsa. You may remember a link to a paypal going around to help Shayma; however, paypal has frozen those funds)

Help Shaymaa's family of 13 leave Ghazza (organised by Shaymaa herself, who is in Canada)

Help Sanaa and her family of 5 leave Ghazza and establish themselves in Belgium (organised by Eyad M, vouched for by Motaz Azaiza)

Help sisters Duaa and Deena leave Ghazza and get medical treatment in Cairo (organised by Shereen Alhayek, @.littlestpersimmon's friend's acquaintance)

Help Ahmed (@90-ghost) and his family leave Ghazza via ko-fi, paypal, or gofundme (@unionfish is offering stickers and prints in exchange for donations)

Help a family of Ghazzan refugees in Egypt get medical care and relocate

Buy an e-sim for use in Ghazza

Interruption of arms sent to Israel:

Palestine Action targets arms manufacturers in the US and UK

Palestine Legal offers legal defense for those who get arrested &c. in the course of protest or sabotage on behalf of Palestine

If you have some barrier to donating or to buying e-sims yourself (someone looking through your transactions, no room on your phone for new apps, don't want to mess up the instructions, don't have time to keep up with what's being called for at the moment, literally whatever), I can buy e-sims and move funds on your behalf. My venmo is @gothhabiba; paypal paypal.me/Najia; squarecash $NajiaK; DM me for Zelle information. Feel free to leave a note about where you want it to go (specifically for e-sims; aid to people in Ghazza; &c.)

BDS (Boycott, Divest, Sanctions)

You asked specifically about donations, but if you haven't looked into the boycotts being called for by the Palestinian Campaign for Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI) and the Palestinian BDS National Committee (BNC), I urge you to do so.

BDS chapters in your locality may be calling for their own boycotts, so look into that as well. Think creatively about how to minimise purchase of boycotted goods (e.g., getting your union to refuse to shelve Israeli groceries).

Monday strikes

The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) has called for weekly strikes on Mondays. Talk to your union or coworkers about strikes or work stoppages on Mondays, if you can. At least avoid making any purchases (goods, recreation, entertainment, food, &c.) on Mondays.

[ftmtftm]

Feminism has always, always had a history with Racism and White Supremacy - particularly in a way that promotes fascist leaning "Protection for Me and Mine" type "activism".

There have always been several Upper Class, White, Women at the helm of Feminist movements and it is something Poor, Working Class, Women of Color have been vocally criticizing since the First Wave.

I mean, US Americans, did you not learn about Sojourner Truth? Have you not read "Ain't I A Woman?"? It is one of the most famous early accounts of the racialized nature of gender. It perfectly highlights the way the social aspects of gender have always been barred from People of Color in a way they aren't barred from White People in a firsthand historical account.

Women's Suffrage, and subsequently the First Wave of Feminism was an actively Racially Segregated movement. White Suffragettes intentionally campaigned for themselves and themselves only because they thought that campaigning for Black, Immigrant, and Indigenous Women would undermine their own movement. They did not seek liberation for women, they sought the Systemic, Institutional Power of their White Male Peers and they got it - by intentionally leaving Women of Color behind them.

This is most evident in the fact that White Women received the right to vote in 1920, but Black Women did not receive the right to vote until 1965 with the Voting Rights Act. Almost 50 years later. That is over half a lifetime. This was also only approximately 2-3 years before Radical Feminism and the Second Wave began around 1967~1968.

If you think racial segregation and racism in the Feminist Movement ended with Black Women's suffrage and completely dissipated within the two years it took for the Second Wave to pick up it's feet, you are naïve at best and actively racist yourself at worst. The Women's Liberation Movement / Radical Feminism have always been White Woman's movements riding the coattails of the Suffragette's racism.

Look at the website for the Women's Liberation Front. WoLF is one of the original Radical Feminist organizations. It was founded in the late 60's and is one of the largest Radfem organizations to date. Now. Look at their board. Look at the photos of women they choose to include across their site. Look at the women who are speaking at their events. Beyond one or two token Black Women, it is a sea of Whiteness.

You know who is a special advisor to WoLF and the founder of the group "Standing for Women"? Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull, aka Posie Parker. Kellie-Jay is the woman who popularized "Woman means adult human female" as an anti-trans slogan. Kellie-Jay is also real good buddies with - you guessed it! Neo-Nazis and White Supremacists!

WoLF also takes money from the Alliance Defending Freedom, (ADF) a Right Wing Christian Organization, and it's members have worked directly with the Heritage Foundation, a Conservative organization founded during the Reagan Presidency.

Radical Feminism as a political movement cares about the lives and held power of White Women under the guise of "Women's Liberation" in the exact same way as their foremothers, the Suffragettes. It's a foundationally White Supremacist movement. Black Feminists, Indigenous Feminists, Immigrant Feminists, and Colonized Feminists have been talking about this for over a century but it falls on White ears so why would they listen.

[headspace-hotel]

"the babylon bee" documents, in such a damning and ugly way, the transformation of american conservative christianity from "group that claims to value love and caring for humanity while behaving the opposite" into "group that expressly values hatred and cruelty for its own sake"

around the time it launched the babylon bee was a christian satire site that primarily satirized intra-community issues (mega church pastors, 'trendy' worship services) and occasional jabs at Teh Liberals, with equal amounts of mocking evangelicals for supporting Trump

now it's like *"I hate my wife" joke* *joke about violent immigrants* *"women be shopping" joke* *joke about trans people grooming children into a sex cult* *racist joke* *calling women sluts* *calling women fat and ugly* *rape joke* *racist joke*

babylon bee was always making garbage "blue hair and pronouns" type jokes but this is a whole other fucking level.

back in 2015 i was in a conservative christian homeschool group and I cannot IMAGINE being shown the above screen shots and being told they are from The most popular christian satire website. the level of naked cruelty and prejudice would have been completely shocking.

[genderkoolaid]

insane takes from transphobes #72636363: trans jewish converts only convert because trannies are sooooo insecure and narcissistic and desperate for identity, not because of any positive qualities in judaism that might attract trans people looking for affirming spirituality. clearly this has nothing to do with tumblr being a website popular amongst both trans people and jews. also apparently trans people never convert to islam or bahai or buddhism or christianity, because that's definitely an unbiased observation and not just because this transphobe does not talk to trans people enough to experience spiritual diversity amongst trans people

(also, Islam has the Shahadah, & it's entire purpose is a (generally public) affirmation of identity, but uhhhh ignore that I guess)

[herashymn]

A Deep Dive Into Disney’s Most Underperforming Princess

Princess Aurora can’t even be described as controversial. To most, she’s simply boring, too passive, and a continuation of the bland cycle of white princesses who wait around for magic or a prince to save them. Although no one hates her, they find her irritating at the worst, uninteresting at best. In the fifties, they must have thought the same thing. Sleeping Beauty was a commercial failure, and led to company wide annual loss. Sleeping Beauty had followed several other financial flops, such as Bambi and Alice in Wonderland, the latter costing Disney around half a million dollars. Due to her lack of popularity, Aurora may be one of the most neglected Princesses. Many cling to her out of nostalgia, or because she has a nice design, and they find it hard to defend their love for the movie. But the movie’s turbulent history and the amount of detail that went into Aurora herself is what really makes her so incredibly fascinating.

Starting with her design, Disney hired Marc Davis as the supervising animator for Aurora. He also animated Maleficent. The intention was for them to be realistic enough to be placed against the heavily detailed backgrounds of the movie. Davis had embraced this artistic direction, while many of the animators found it, and especially Aurora, laborious and tiring to work on. Both Maleficent and Aurora had to be refined and dynamic. Davis was Disney’s go-to animator for ‘pretty girls’, examples being Tinkerbell and Alice. His knowledge of anatomy and the human body brought both Aurora and Cinderella to life, two of Disney’s most visually iconic characters. Davis had also incorporated Art Nouveau and Art Deco into Aurora’s design, while the tapestry-like art style of the movie was chosen by Eyvind Earle, who was inspired by pre-Renaissance European art. The score and songs were based on Tchaikovsky’s ballet.

Aurora alone required more effort and attention to detail than any princess before her. It took Walt Disney and his team three years to choose a voice actress. They nearly scrapped the project until they discovered Mary Costa, but Disney himself avoided interacting with her in person early on in the project, fearing that she’d influence his vision of the movie.

Aurora was loosely based on her voice actress. Her appearance and her habits (such as gesturing when speaking and singing) were both incorporated into Aurora’s animation. She was also drawn to resemble both her live action model, the same one as Cinderella’s, Helene Stanley, and actress Audrey Hepburn. Davis took inspiration from Audrey Hepburn’s slender physique and elegant demeanour.

In the book Multiculturalism and the Mouse: Race and Sex in Disney Entertainment, author Douglas Brode referred to Aurora as “a model of modern (50’s) female glamour” and compared her to Brigitte Bardot. He also compared her gown to the work of Christian Dior.

As a character, she was described by Nerve as being “the apex of women who made no choices for themselves.” Aurora is a member of the “Golden Era” of Disney heroines, the original Princess trifecta. Her dreams are the same as those before her. But it’s possible that Aurora’s dreams of true love derived from the need for companionship outside of her three fairy godmothers.

On their website, Disney describes her as, “graceful and kind. She knows that a wonderful future awaits, if you just have the courage to dream it. Aurora enjoys using her imagination and sharing stories with her forest friends. She is also loyal in her relationships -- to her animal friends, her fairies, and her kingdom. Aurora believes in a wish and remains hopeful that she will find the adventure she is looking for.”

Walt Disney himself described Aurora as being “a very layered character/different. She’s calm, yet playful. She has a sense of humour, and she has an imagination.” We can not argue that she was considered layered through the lens of the fifties, because many critics disliked all three of the original princesses for their passive personality, or lack thereof. But from the perspective of the team working on the show, they saw much more to her.

This was the film that Walt Disney worked his hardest on, it took ten years to complete. It was also the very last Princess film he was involved in. Her ‘layers’ were very much intentional. Disney tried to do the same thing with Cinderella.

With Cinderella, they attempted to make her less passive than Snow White, and they showed this through her rebelling against her abusive stepfamily. Maurice Rapf said, "My thinking was you can't have somebody who comes in and changes everything for you. It can't be delivered for you on a platter. You've got to earn it. So in my version, the Fairy Godmother said, 'It's okay till midnight but from then on it's up to you.' I made her earn it, and what she had to do to achieve it was to rebel against her stepmother and stepsisters, to stop being a slave in her own home. So I had a scene where they're ordering her around and she throws the stuff back at them. She revolts, so they lock her up in the attic. I don't think anyone took (my idea) very seriously."

The toned down version of Cinderella, although rebellious in her own way, is still toned down. That part of her character was written out. In comparison to what she would have been, she is passive. Aurora and Cinderella are both less passive than their predecessors, but passive nonetheless. All three of them are the staple damsels in distress.

However, Mary Costa described Aurora as “very strong”, citing her urge to defy her guardians as a display of independence and an example of her strength. Aurora was raised by three women, and had never met a man in her life. Costa believed that because of this, she was ‘innately romantic’ as opposed to lonely or depressed with her sheltered life. To quote, “there was a certain part of her that maybe she didn’t realise, that was just so romantic and maybe expecting something that–she didn’t even know what.”

She believed that her being raised by three older women rather than her parents made her “a little bit older, and yet, she…had this young, outreaching spirit.” Author Douglas Brode points out that the fairies’ independent raising of Aurora mirrors “precisely that sort of women’s commune numerous feminists experimented with throughout the seventies.” Aurora living in an isolated, female-only space, with female authority, is reminiscent of the bold and liberating radical feminist movement. In her own way, as a peasant, she was independent. And that independence and autonomy was taken from her upon discovering that she was royalty and betrothed to a prince. She was leaving her home and the presumed man of her dreams behind, and not of her own free will.

Aurora had enjoyed her simple life, it had fulfilled her, even if she desired more. She had dreams of finding romantic love, which she talks about in the movie’s song ‘I Wonder’. Additionally, her close relationship with animals demonstrates her loving and kind personality. She has a whimsical imagination, and it’s scenes like the ones from Disney’s Enchanted Tales series and ‘Once Upon a Dream’, that would support Costa’s claim of her being a romantic. Where she’s changing in and out of pretty gowns with a magical wand, and giggling to herself. Or dancing happily with the forest animals, thinking about her imaginary prince. In ‘Keys to the Kingdom’, she proudly sings about wishing to make decisions with her heart.

Her independence is demonstrated on multiple occasions in Disney’s discontinued Enchanted Tales: Follow Your Dreams. Aurora graciously accepts responsibility of her kingdom while both her and Philip’s parents travel away for a business trip. All on her own, she is determined to get all of her Princess duties finished on time, the hard way. She refuses to take the easy way out, time and time again, even when she doubts herself. She works harder than even her father, who would take the easy way out by signing royal documents without reading them. Even when Meriwether gives her a magic wand to help her out, she reads and fills out every royal form diligently, and helps out all of her subjects. She manages to complete her tasks on time and throw a banquet for her family and Philip by the time they return. The lesson here is to ‘stick to it’ and to ‘persevere’. But her insistence on doing everything on her own is shown once again in A Kingdom of Kindness, where she must plan a surprise party for Philip. The three fairies attempt to help her, but she continues to tell them that she wants to do it on her own. This series was cancelled, and it is difficult to find any clips of it online. But this short-series gives us some insight into Aurora’s character.

She is assumed to be the protagonist by most, but many consider the three fairies to be the protagonists. They help move the story along, they protect Aurora, and they have distinct, in-your-face personalities. Many consider Aurora authentic, or the title character, but whether she is the protagonist or not has never been agreed upon. Her lack of role in the story has been criticized by many. But some take it as an allegory for the lack of control

The most lengthy debate surrounding Aurora has to do with how feminist her character is. She may have been an improvement from the previous princesses, but she is not regarded as a particularly feminist character.

The three original princesses, all being pale-skinned European princesses with a naive and endlessly forgiving (an unrealistic standard), sends a message to their viewers that this is what princesses should look like, how they should behave. All three classic princesses are deeply intertwined with Disney’s long history of racism and bigotry. In an attempt to amend this, Disney has released back to back live action remakes of their movies, all receiving mixed reviews. Maleficent was Sleeping Beauty’s remake, focused on a maternal relationship between Maleficent and Aurora. Many people interpreted the scene where Maleficent’s wings get cut off in her sleep as sexual assault. This inclusion made many survivors of sexual assault feel represented by the character.

From my perspective, the original Sleeping Beauty is technically a movie centred around women. A teenage girl lives with her three surrogate mothers, who end up saving her in the end from the female antagonist. Although Prince Philip’s role in the story is still a large part of what moves the plot along. It is Philip who is captured, as Maleficent knew that he would go looking for her. He courted Aurora, defeated Maleficent with the help of the three fairies, and kissed the princess awake. But he still doesn’t get as large of a role, or nearly as much screen time, as the three fairies.

In short, both the movie and the princess fascinate me. And although there is depth if you squint, a character does not need to be fleshed out to be lovable, or at least endearing. Aurora is my favourite Disney Princess, and I find the history behind her and the film to be more interesting than what meets the eye.

[bringmemyrocks]

Are the gospels antisemitic. Also I remebered one time jumblr went around and said Jesus trashing the temple is antisemitic

Noting first that this is an abbreviated response–scholars have dedicated their entire careers to exploring this question. Christian history, especially but not limited to Western Europe and Russia is rife with persecution of Jews, from the Inquisition to Luther and beyond. It’s worth learning about, but this post will focus on the New Testament. If this interests you, I have bolded resource recommendations where you can learn more, because there is simply too much to summarize in one post. Others are welcome to comment suggestions and I can add them in. 

TL;DR: It is perfectly fine to answer the question “Is the New Testament antisemitic” with “no” because that’s correct in context and also because that question is almost never asked in good faith (at least not on this website). 

Sorry in advance for the formatting. Gone are the days when you could copy and paste from a document to Tumblr, I guess.

No, the New Testament is not antisemitic, especially not in the context of today’s modern racialized antisemitism, which is a modern invention. If you’re looking for a scholarly Jewish look at the New Testament, I recommend the Jewish Annotated New Testament. The Oxford biblical commentaries are also interesting to look at. You didn’t ask about Paul’s letters (also part of the New Testament, along with Revelation and the Gospels), but I also recommend you look up the New Perspective on Paul (largely created by Krister Stendhal, popularized by NT Wright). The New Perspective postulates that Paul never intended to de-Judaize Christianity but rather have Jewish Christians maintain practices like kashrut, circumcision, etc. You don’t have to buy this (and the New Perspective is neither necessary nor sufficient for anyone, Christian or otherwise, to not be an antisemite) but it’s an interesting idea.  - I particularly recommend re-reading the Books of Romans and Galatians with the Oxford and Jewish Annotated commentaries. If you don’t have a copy, send me a DM. The Vatican’s Nostra Aetate is also available online for free and is relatively short, detailing the vatican’s rejection of antisemitism, including the former accusation of deicide (killing God) levied against Jews. 

Christians have used parts of the New Testament (eg. passages from John, Matthew, Paul’s letters) to justify antisemitism, but this does not make the New Testament as a whole an antisemitic document. It was written for a Jewish audience from the perspective of a Jewish offshoot sect during the Second Temple period. Some anti-Christian chauvinists will mock Christians for how they interpret the Old Testament, but then said chauvinists will purposefully take New Testament verses out of context just as they claim Christians do with the Old Testament.  - Re: Jesus overturning tables in the Temple. This story is in the Gospels for a number of reasons, depending on the Christian tradition:  - Jesus as a liberator, rejecting the corrupt religious institutions of his time. Liberation theologians may go further than this, calling Jesus anti-capitalist, anti-authoritarian, etc.  - Jesus referring to the Temple as “my father’s house” emphasizing his status as the son of God/divine himself (depending on who you ask)  - Broadly: Jesus forever changing the means by which Christians receive forgiveness from God (prayer, fasting, etc. rather than animal sacrifice) (Jews also changed how they worshiped after the destruction of the Second Temple, but this wasn’t due to Jesus, at least not directly.) - This story is used in antisemitic ways, largely because in the Temple there were people who changed people’s money so they could buy an animal for sacrifice. This was necessary if someone was poor and didn’t have their own livestock, or if they had traveled a long distance and couldn’t keep a living dove in their pocket for months at a time. Money was changed like it is at customs today because the people selling animals around the temple might not accept currency from out of state. Jesus didn’t like this, either the fact that there was money being exchanged, anything being bought at all, or general financial corruption in the temple.   - The antisemitism in this story comes in because in many places in history, particularly in Europe, Jews were forbidden from owning land or practicing trades other than money-lending. Thus the image of the Jewish banker/moneylender became an antisemitic trope, used to push anti-Jewish hatred and generally keep Jews from being fully emancipated members of society. Some depictions of Jesus chasing out the money-changers show Jesus attacking very stereotypically-Jewish-looking people. (There’s also a cartoon of Bernie as Jesus driving out corrupt politicians–a bit tone deaf but imo quite funny.) 

Texts need to be read in context, both historical (current and historical audience/setting, etc) and textual (what comes before and after in the text). Jews who argue the entire New Testament is antisemitic almost never take full context into account. There are verses in the New Testament that can absolutely be read as antisemitic in today’s world. This does not mean that this is how they were intentionally written at the time, and there are plenty of Christian communities throughout history and today that do not interpret them in an antisemitic way. These communities span across the world and different traditions, from theological and political liberals to conservative evangelicals. 

Some Jews argue that Christians believing that only Christians are saved is itself antisemitic. (There are plenty of verses in the New Testament implying universal salvation and plenty that don’t.) This broadens the definition of antisemitism quite a bit, and I don’t think it’s particularly useful, particularly because non-Jewish non-Christians would also not be saved. The Assemblies of God are a conservative evangelical pentecostal Christian denomination, they believe all people must believe in Jesus to be saved, and they put out a statement in 2022 against antisemitism last year (look at the text and ignore the header image). It’s not perfect, but it’s far from the “evangelicals only like Jews because of the rapture/Israel” accusation you see thrown around. You can be an evangelical and a friend to Jews, and you can be a theological liberal and an antisemite. 

Replies/tags on this post are not allowed to blame Christian antisemitism singularly on any one of the following: Catholicism, Protestantism, Evangelicalism, Premillennial Dispensationalism/Rapture theology, Constantine, Augustine, Luther, or Christian/Jewish Zionism. Religion and history are more complex than that. (Zionists f off this post is not for you.)

Feel free to ask follow-up questions. It’s a hard question to answer briefly.

[actual-changeling]

I have written many meta posts and s3-theories, and read even more, but I got hit by an idea I have not seen before. (If there is another post, please link it!)

After vibrating for an hour and losing my mind in my dms, I have no scraped together enough brain cells to present what is probably my first actual 'main-plot meta'.

Welcome to another edition of Alex's unhinged meta corner, today with a title to honour Crowley's James Bond obsession and the possibility of another heaven heist.

I give you:

From Jesus with Love - You Will Live Twice

Now, let's get right into it.

I think Neil might have told us more about the main s3 plotline in the announcement article than we previously thought. We all got stuck on 'they're not talking'—for good reason—but it is the part before that which has been bugging me ever since then.

The plans are going wrong—and this time that is a problem for earth and humanity. Turning that around, it means that whatever that plan consists of would be the way to go and beneficial for everyone, the opposite of the main plot of s1.

"They need to prevent the Second Coming (SC)" is pretty much the only and most popular idea I have seen, hundreds of fics and metas and whatnot have been written about it, but I think there's a good chance we're wrong. If we're not, well, I will honestly just be happy to be watching season 3.

Whatever the Metatron is planning will have negative consequences for everyone, or as Michael puts it: "And so… it ends. Everything ends. Time and the world is over, and we begin Eternity… forever and ever."

It sounds very much like Apocalypse #1 - Same Old Plan, same expected result, yet if we look at different interpretations of scripture we find that the SC is not entirely about complete destruction and death for all of humanity—it is about creating a new world/migrating to the kingdom of God.

This is taken from the Wikipedia article about the SC

Resurrection and life in a world to come are a direct contradiction to the result Michael is explaining—total annihilation of humanity.

Now, I am neither religious in any way nor have I ever received any sort of biblical education. Luckily, Christians seem to love talking about the bible because there are dozens of bible website to wade through. If I get anything wrong, please point it out, I have never touched a bible in my life.

So, after reading many, many quotes by a bunch of different guys, I tried to create a somewhat coherent picture of what the SC might look like based on the assumption that the end result is positive. I will talk about how they can be interpreted more in-depth later, otherwise this would turn into a string-net very fast.

Additionally, we can also see where these points overlap with the statement Jimbriel gave in the bookshop in episode three.

What is Jesus' job description?

only God knows when and how exactly it will begin/happen, no one else does, including Jesus and the Metatron

a lot of different catastrophes are mentioned or quoted as something Jesus said, like earthquakes and storms -> Jimbriel mentioned a tempest and great storms

there is also the line "All these are the beginning of birth pains." Birth pains dictate that there will be a birth—birth of the world to come perhaps?

dead people will be resurrected/leave their graves so that they too can be judged (I'd say participate in it but that sounds like the Second Coming is a summer camp activity)

there are also mentions of stars and the heavens in general falling from the sky and the sun going dark -> Jimbriel also mentions darkness as one of the signs

great lamentations, as Jimbriel says, are also a part of many different passages, with humans mourning the world as it was

the Lord will descent with the voice of an Archangel and the sound of a trumpet/the trumpet of God; the grammatical structure of that sentence seems to be interpreted differently depending on who you ask, but the voices of angels/an Archangel and some sort of trumpet are common terms

once everyone is in heaven/wherever the 'main even' will take place, a judgement call will be made for every single person in relation to the book of life, which decides whether they will be punished forever or not (one passage talks about a lake of fire and mentions it several times in a row)

And this is where it gets tricky. To figure out what the SC looks like, we first need to understand a) what the Metatron's capabilities are, b) what he has to lose, and c) what exactly would be a threat to him.

If you ask me, all of this comes down to the Metatron wanting to stay and be in power for eternity with full control over angels so he can do as he please, aka keeping the system running as it is.

We know the book of life (bol) is a thing in the Good Omens universe, whether it does what Michael said is an entirely different question. So far, we have also only got confirmation that hell collects and tortures souls—in such large amounts that they are understaffed—while heaven looks completely empty.

The Metatron runs heaven as an institution, he seems to be the highest power any of the angels have access to and the one they defer to. He refers to himself as the voice of God and combines judge, jury and executioner, making him one great celestial dictator.

From what we know of hell, they do things a lot more democratically, having different councils, dukes, and ranks that are responsible for different levels of command.

We also know that that the Metatron wants the world to end, his goals can probably be summarized as the statement Michael makes, which would leave him in charge without any opposing forces.

We also also know that he sees Crowley and Aziraphale as a threat—why exactly remains a mystery for now—and that the success of his plan hinges on having a Supreme Archangel (SA) he can control. Gabriel decided to become princess of hell and Beez' sugar baby, so he was out of the equation, and after the Armageddon disaster, I don't think he wants to risk failing because of an unfamiliarity with earth (plus, y'know, getting our two idiots away from the plan).

It's interesting to me that right at the end, he says to Aziraphale "We call it the Second Coming"—call, not it is or it will be, CALL. We know that nothing Neil writes is a coincidence, definitely not with such an important line.

Just because you CALL something a specific name doesn't mean it IS what you call it, e.g. Aziraphale calls Crowley a foul fiend when we know he very much isn't.

The Metatron is selling his plan as part of the "Great/Ineffable Plan", so any questions can be blocked by saying it's God's will, it's ineffable. Whatever his plan is, he hides it behind the concept of the Second Coming, which angels know just enough about to understand the basics without having in-depth knowledge of what exactly it entails.

It is a good fucking strategy, I'll give him that, and it WORKS because angels—even if they have doubts—do not question. They simply don't; fear of punishment and millennia of conditioning have left them in a horrible place. When they encounter something unknown, their response is "I already knew that" as to not ask questions.

Crowley questions, we know that, and Aziraphale, ohhhhh, Aziraphale ALSO questions, but he does it in a less dangerous and obvious way. The Metatron is vastly underprepared for that.

(Side note: That alone would be its own meta post, but the gist is that he questions heaven's plans and then adjusts his assumptions of what God might want to what he WANTS God to want, e.g. Job, the Arch)

To summarize everything I just said, the Metatron wants to do what Armageddon failed to do—destroy earth and the universe—so he can be supreme dictator of all remaining celestial beings and gorge himself on power.

But instead of calling it his Big Evil Plan, he calls it the Second Coming, making everyone play along without resistance.

We cycle aaaaall the way back to the sentence I quoted—the ACTUAL plans are going wrong since the Metatron's would mean total destruction.

But what is the SC supposed to be if not the Apocalypse 2.0?

When I look at all the different aspects of the SC and assume a positive outcome, then the end result to me would be a new world that is pretty much like the old world, or maybe even literally the old world but with any destruction reversed. Heaven and hell get dissolved since now that everyone has been "judged", they as institutions are no longer needed, they have fulfilled their purpose.

No more judgement means there is no reason to keep track anymore, so why do you need to run celestial corporations whose only job is doing exactly that? You don't—and THAT is what I believe is the biggest perceived threat to the Metatron, losing full control over everyone and everything, losing his position, his title, and whatever else he has.

On top of that, Good Omens has told us again and again that God doesn't seem to give a fuck about good and evil anymore, and that without heaven and hell being all wrapped up in it, humanity would have 100% free will without any consequences.

Maybe the BoL is empty, maybe it isn't real, maybe Jesus stole it to straighten a wobbly table, who knows. There is a chance it is what Michael says, but I would admittedly find that a bit. too obvious and boring since it would boil the plot down to "they save their own asses again" and not "they save humanity at all cost".

Regarding Crowley and Aziraphale's role in this—I have Thoughts TM but those definitely need their own post. In short, they have to get the SC back on track, the real one.

-

If you have made it this far, thank you for working through what I hope are more or less coherent rambles. Any spelling or grammar mistakes are my own.

Questions? Thoughts? Corrections? Expansions and additions?

Feel free to add to this post however you like (and I can't believe I have to mentions this but if you clown on my post or behave like an asshole you will be blocked).

[lesbianchemicalplant]

there are jews who leave the communities they were raised in btw, including jews who leave to escape homophobia, transphobia, misogyny / restrictive gender roles, to have a less insular social existence, because that insular social existence was a site of abuse and their abuser being protected, etc.

Footsteps is a New York -based org for haredi jews leaving their communities: their website has some basic information that you can get an idea from (they state that about 20% of their members are LGBT fwiw. and many join other jewish communities, but not all do so)

there are a lot of posts on here are extremely dismissive of even just the concept that these could be real problems in jewish communities and our religious institutions, let alone enough for people to leave—a lot of knee-jerk “rejecting your religious upbringing is just a White Christian Atheist thing”, responding to posts about abuse in insular religious communities with “other religions aren’t just copies of christianity [and therefore can’t possibly have those issues]”, sometimes word games along the lines of “ummm ‘religion’ is a western christian concept, so speaking of ‘religion’ means this obviously can’t apply to jews”, etc.

and a lot of the posts that get popular with philosemitic gentiles on here present a specific image of jewish life as innately progressive (“judaism is about arguing with god!!” or w/e), which is beyond the scope of this post but is very weird and probably gives a lot of onlookers a warped perspective

in short, yes, judaism too

[anushaarticles]

This is the very rare topic we find in the Holy Bible. God wanted us to be Salt of the earth always. Like salt which is presesrvative and endures.

[the-devils-library]

At Satan's Altar: A Collection of Prayers, Chants, Affirmations, Hymns, and Rituals by Marie RavenSoul

Title: At Satan's Altar: A Collection of Prayers, Chants, Affirmations, Hymns, and Rituals

Author: Marie RavenSoul

Publisher: ‎ In Satan's Honour Press

Publishing Date: February 28, 2018

ISBN-10‏: ‎ 1775262405

ISBN-13: ‎ 978-1775262404

Last post was a popular atheist text, so I suppose it's appropriate that now we move on to a popular theist text.

Marie RavenSoul is a modern Satanic author and youtuber, her channel can be found here. Her website, In Satan's Honour, can be found here. To my knowledge she is not affiliated with any group but her dedication in this book gives thanks to a "Brother Nero," who I believe may be the same Brother Nero who authored Satanism: A Beginner's Guide to the Religious Worship of Satan and Demons.

At Satan's Altar's subtitle is an apt summary of its content. RavenSoul is not here to provide moral counsel or wax poetic about philosophy, but to provide the tools of a theistic Satanic practice, including hymns, prayers, and rituals. The cover and interior also feature several illustrations, by artists Amanda MacNeil and Letitia Pfinder.

The book is divided into two sections, the first half being dedicated to devotional writings such as chants and prayers, and the second half being more instructional, revolving around rituals and practices the theistic Satanist might partake in. The instructional portion may prove useful to newcomers who have basic questions, such as how to pray, or how to structure a ritual. The Nine Days of Solitude Devotional may be difficult for anyone who is young or in a controlling environment, but could prove beneficial for more experienced Satanists who wish to do something more intensive than daily prayer or a one-off rite.

It is worth noting that RavenSoul calls Satan by other names, such as Lucifer and Baphomet, which some theistic Satanists may consider to be separate demons, rather than other names for Satan himself. She also refers to Satan as "father," a dynamic which may or may not ring true for other Satanists. At Satan's Altar is available through Amazon and Barnes & Noble. [DISCLAIMER: The Devil's Library is not affiliated with any of the previously mentioned groups or authors. It is an independent project by a single Satanist. Do not mistake my mentioning of an author or group as endorsement for their beliefs and practices.]

Click below for my personal thoughts on the book.

RavenSoul is a talented writer and her dedication to Satan is admirable. While her rather fatherly interpretation of Satan isn't for me personally, I'm sure those Satanists who do see our lord as a father figure would take great comfort in certain pieces of her writing.

However there is an aspect of the book which rubs me the wrong way personally, and that is the matter of cultural misappropriation. RavenSoul conflates Satan with religious figures from a couple of other faiths, namely Iblis and Tawûsî Melek (spelled Melek Ta'us in the book). While I can see why someone would compare these figures to Satan at first glance, my research tells me it is inaccurate and perhaps unwise to do so. Iblis comes from Islam, and while he is a fallen angel and the leader of devils, equating him with the Christian Satan is ignorant and potentially appropriation. More seriously, equating Tawûsî Melek, the peacock angel of the Yazidi religion, to Satan is directly racist and harmful. Yazidis have a history of persecution, and being wrongfully accused of being devil-worshipers is part of that history. Furthermore, Yazidism is very much closed to outsiders (one cannot even marry into the religion, but must be born into it), so making use of their religious figure for Satanic writings is rude and inconsiderate, at the very least. RavenSoul doesn't just make use of Tawûsî Melek's name and image, but references the Al Jilwah, a book which claims to hold authentic Yazidi scripture, but is of dubious origins.

In addition to these comparisons, RavenSoul also conflates Satan with gods like Pan and Set, and while those gods come from open religions, some may not enjoy such comparisons.

I know RavenSoul's work is popular amongst my fellow theists, and I never aim to tell my readers what to do in these review sections. These are my thoughts and only my thoughts, not instructions on where you should draw the line on which books you will or won't make use of.

[aleprouswitch]

I've debated whether I should make this post, but here it goes:

A few weeks back, I reported several openly f4scist and neo-n4zi blogs and to my surprise, some of them actually got nuked by Tumblr. Unfortunately, a few are still up and running. I don't want anyone following this blog to interact with these losers, so I'll just discuss the kind of content I saw being posted:

Incredibly disgusting racist and antisemitic cartoon illustrations,

Lots of pictures of their favorite führer smiling, hugging kids, etc.,

Greco-Roman statues. So. Many. Greco. Roman. Statues,

Pictures of Swiss milk maid looking girls with text on top that said things like "I only want to live around white people!" and "Make beautiful white babies",

Pictures of physically attractive white women wearing or standing next to f4scist symbols,

The most batshit insane conspiracy theories, including one guy who sincerely thought the earth was flat,

All these posts about European identity and unity, which is so beyond fucking stupid because it actually erases cultural individualism more than immigrants and refugees ever could (and they actually don't want to!),

Christian Identity hogwash, ie f4scists who think white Europeans are the "real" Israelites, which once again is so fucking stupid because the historical Jesus of Nazareth was a brown-skinned Palestinian Jew,

An extreme dislike of Ben Shapiro - not because of his right-wing propaganda, mind you - but solely because he's Jewish,

Rock Against C0mmunism sk1nh3ads who've been listening to the same shitty bands for 30 years,

NSBM musicians posting their asinine Third R31ch worship jams ("Empire of a Thousand Years" and yet your shit got wrecked in less than twelve years 🤡),

Some sad female f4scists who seriously try to argue that women were treated better under f4scistic regimes, and

Fundamentally unfunny "humor" via stale Pepe memes .

Overall, it's a bunch of sad, pitiful goobers who probably want to blame their shortcomings in life on anybody but themselves.

Many years ago, there was a popular "aesthetic" blogger here who was an open neo-n4zi, and when I made a post about the kind of horrible shit he was posting (with screenshots ), I got anon messages from his pathetic fangirls saying "I hope you get r4ped by N-words". I traced their IP addresses and one of them lived in the Nashville area. All I could do was tell them to go fuck themselves and block them.

Now we have so-called Leftists on Tumblr trying to claim certain noise/industrial bloggers here are "crypto-f4sh" just to ruin reputations while ACTUAL f4scist pieces of shit on this site get ignored. Fuck those kinds of virtue signalers, too. Get your hands dirty and look for the actual n4zi scum on this website and report them instead of harassing people who aren't awful.

[theexodvs]

“Cult” (n.) and “cultic” (adj.)

There is great confusion when describing certain groups and movements as "cultic." Since the most famous examples of cultic groups and movements in living memory include the Manson Family, People’s Temple, the Branch Davidians and Heaven’s Gate, the popular conception of a cult has become a centralized group with one leader with a type-A personality. This is not how most cultic groups take shape.

"Cultic" and "centralized" are not synonyms. They are entirely different concepts, and whether one group or movement is one has no bearing whatsoever on whether it is the other.

The United Pentecostal Church International and Pentecostal Assemblies of the World are both cults. They are part of the Oneness Pentecostal movement*. Note, the UPCI and PAW are not in fellowship with each other and have no official relations. This is because this movement is decentralized, encompassing various different groups that are united in few if any ways besides (some) similar teachings. Whatever leadership and governance model they have, shared or contrasting, is secondary, because Oneness Pentecostalism as a set of doctrines is itself cultic, meaning any group that espouses it is a cult by definition.

Christian Identity is a more pronounced example of a cultic movement that is decentralized. It is a white supremacist group that teaches that white people are the descendants of the ancient Israelites, and that "gentiles" (people who aren't white) can never be saved. Its footprint is almost entirely made of websites, prison gangs, and local congregations, which are not in fellowship with each other or with any larger group. I would hope any decent person would be opposed to this movement and its teachings, but an attempt to treat "cultic" and "centralized" as synonyms might keep one from recognizing CI as something that should be avoided.

Other decentralized movements that are cultic include the Word of Faith movement, the Men's Right Movement, dispensationalism, neurodiversity, the Sovereign Citizens movement, BDSM, the New IFB, kinism, and the Black Hebrew Israelites. Every group that is part of these is a cult, thought they may not be in fellowship with other groups within the same movement.

*The Oneness Pentecostal movement is not representative of Pentecostalism as a whole. Most of the world's Pentecostals belong to the Assemblies of God which has taught the Trinity for its entire existence. Pentecostalism is not necessarily cultic. Oneness Pentecostalism is.

[nicosraf]

If someone wanted to do research on Lucifer where would you recommend starting? Any good books or websites you would suggest?

Hello! It definitely depends on what route you wanna take — the more theological route or historical (for ex., Judaism influences, theories about what mythologies his characteristics were snatched from, the way Satan developed from just a punisher angel figure to the All-Encompassing Creator of Evil devil) or occult.

Since I stick to theology, I started my research with the Bible, particularly the books of Genesis, Ezekiel, Job, and Revelation. I lift a lot from St. Augustine's City of God for my understanding of Satan (and other church leaders), Milton's Paradise Lost, and William Blake's writing (the latter two because of their cultural influence on Lucifer). I use a couple of Christian forums as a guide for how Lucifer/Satan is treated in modern religious circles. Also there's this one jstor article about Lucifers beauty that I like a lot and enjoying sharing: this one. I like reading commentaries on him in some old angeology texts, but you'll notice a lot of the same information is regurgitated in them.

If you want to go the more historical route, there are a ton of "where the idea of Satan came from" books, like The Origin of Satan by Elaine Pagels and Satan by Ryan Stokes. These will be less about "Lucifer" and more about the historical context to how the devil became a part of Christian doctrine.

For occult, I'm not really a good guide here but you can skim the most popular grimoires and find some Lucifers. I find that Lucifer and Satan are treated as separate entities in a lot of occult stuff, so keep that in mind. You'll also find more of the 7 deadly sin stuff here, if that interest you.

I hope this is helpful! I'm not at my computer so I can't go through my files for anything I missed, but yeah!

[shakespearenews]

Today is January 6th — and that marks the date on which we traditionally celebrate Sherlock Holmes's birthday.

We say "traditionally," because there is no definitive statement of his actual date of birth in the Canon, but beginning with Christopher Morley, the date of January 6th has become the de facto accepted date for Holmes' birthday. Why? Well, there are a couple of reasons.

Of all of the quotes in the Canon, William Shakespeare was the most oft-quoted author. There is but one Shakespearean play that Holmes quotes twice: Twelfth Night. In The Sign of the Four, Holmes concludes, "All is well that ends well." This is from from Act IV, Scene 4. And in "The Empty House," Holmes states "'Journeys end in lovers meetings,' as the old play says," from Act II, Scene 3.

The reason the date was chosen is that in Christianity, January 6th is the Feast of the Epiphany, or officially the twelfth day of Christmas. I suppose if we were being truly technical about it, the twelfth night of Christmas would fall on January 5th...

In addition, William S. Baring-Gould in his The Annotated Sherlock Holmes, posited that because Holmes was a little cranky on the morning of January 7th — the date on which The Valley of Fear began — he had a hangover, induced by birthday celebrations the evening prior.