#sin as slavery is such a good metaphor

[idylls-of-the-divine-romance]

-St Paul describing himself in Romans

[idylls-of-the-divine-romance]

The anti-evangelizing attitude prevalent on progressive christian tumblr is problematic. And part of it most definitely has to do with a lot of progressive christians being universalists.

Now. I know this is a bit rich coming from me because I do not typically evangelize. My interest is much more in discussing the faith with people already in it. That said, it is one thing to not evangelize and it is another thing to be anti-evangelism.

And if you're a universalist, it makes sense why you wouldn't evangelize: everyone is going to be saved anyway right? If everyone is going to heaven why evangelize to them?

Except that's ridiculous. Not addressing the problems I have with universalism, assuming it's true that would not be a reason not to evangelize.

One of the definitions for "evangelize" is "convert or seek to convert (someone) to Christianity". But that's, I think, a poor tho technically accurate definition. A better definition is: "preach the Christian gospel." The gospel, ofc, is "the good news". More accurately this is "the good declaration". Because this isn't good news like "Oh the weather is 75 and sunny" this is good news like "Omg we have a new king who is going to execute justice, righteousness, and holiness."

In a lot of thought, sin is something inside of you that is wrong and depraved and etc etc. But that is not the only or even main way it's discussed in the bible. In Genesis 4 (where sin is first mentioned), it is a monster or beast that wants to devour you. One of Paul's favorite metaphors is that of a "Cosmic Tyrant". Sin is something that humanity and society on large is enslaved to, and Jesus has come to liberate them from that slavery so they can be who they were created to be: glorified images of God who rule and reign in the world through the power and love of God.

What does it matter if everyone is going to heaven after they die? Ofc on a certain level that matters, but that is not Jesus's concern, nor is that the primary concern of any biblical author. "Going to heaven" is not even a phrase used in the bible!! The focus is on life right here and right now. Union with God, the experience of his life-giving love and presence - that is available right now! Liberation from slavery to sin, the renewing of the mind, the enjoyment of the family of God - that is available right now and that is what Christ is offering people.

I understand not wanting to evangelize if your conception is "God is angry so God killed Jesus and not you so you can go to the good place when you die and not the bad." That's stupid and unbiblical. Plus, nonbelievers don't even know what "Jesus died for your sins" even means, so any conservative christians reading you've got to stop that it's also unhelpful.

I do not sing forever the praises of the God who didn't kill me. I dedicate my entire heart and being - my entire everything to the God who liberated me from slavery to Sin and Death by dying the death of a slave though he had no sin.

That is the gospel and should be preached to the ends of the earth.

[abandoned-as-mustard]

Now I'm back on my 100 crap having actually read the ending, having only the vague knowledge that everyone was sterilised for some reason. I won't rehash what's been said already: what kind of bullshit 'happy ending'was that?'

I'll instead say that while our gaslighting showrunner insists it's a philosophically beautiful happy ending because 'they get to live together but they still have to pay for what they've done!', and that it's some metaphor for Moses not getting into the promised land, it instead highlights the flawed nature of having to be GOOD ENOUGH to GET to some kind of 'heaven', judged by some literal alien entity who doesn't know you and seems to set an acceptable threshold of murder, and that sterilising humanity was the only way to end violence and make things new.

I don't know about you, but that sounds accidentally Christian, like a cry for help.

Isn't it ironic? The wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23) and these dregs of humanity will die out for their sins or because they chose to reject becoming part of the alien hivemind (like humanity rejects the gift of God, yet in this case a Godless eternity).

Jason has unintentionally just instead highlighted key elements of Christianity: you don't earn heaven, your judge is actually fair, and you're never too far gone or too late to be saved.

Lol!

And the Moses metaphor completely misses out on the part where the people of Israel ACTUALLY lived, and lived in HOPE because God needed the messiah to come from them. Not to mention, comparing Clarke 'commander of death' griffin to a man that God used to righteously free his people from slavery WITHOUT KILLING INNOCENTS.

MOSES WAS ABOUT HOPE. The 100 is about death.

[bookoformon]

Ether 8, Part 2. "Looking Back."

The Kingdom is lost, cut in half because of the habits that divided the nation have not died out. In spite of the fact they are well documented, the government refuses to follow the laws and a secret combination forms and puts a halt to all the potential in the culture. This dramatically lowers the chances the nation will be able to observe Shabbos.

Even an army, a metaphor for the laws of the land all the religious duties one can name cannot restore Shabbos if the President allows scoundrels to run his government.

This is a lesson no one on this planet is willing to learn.

6 And it came to pass that when they had slain the army of Jared they were about to slay him also; and he pled with them that they would not slay him, and he would give up the kingdom unto his father. And it came to pass that they did grant unto him his life.

7 And now Jared became exceedingly sorrowful because of the loss of the kingdom, for he had set his heart upon the kingdom and upon the glory of the world.

8 Now the daughter of Jared being exceedingly expert, and seeing the sorrows of her father, thought to devise a plan whereby she could redeem the kingdom unto her father.

Sons are the fruits of the actions of their parents, daughters are their latent dreams for the futurere. A son will go forth from the home to find his fortune, but a daughter will do so at home in her immediate surroundings. Sons and daughters represent the kingdom to come, like the Castle and the Keep.

If there is corruption in the land, niether aspect of the Kingdom will influence the new generation and corrupt politics "the sins of the father" will visit the sons and Mashiach will skip a generation. The worst form of corruption named by the Book of Mormon is called a Secret Combination, which is an unholy union between the church, the state, private corporations, organizations and individuals whose goals are to undermine the primary purposes of civilization for the sake of personal gain.

Slavery was the result of a secret combination, as were 911, the recent election fraud, the Capitol Coup, and the October 7 terrorist attacks, all perpetrated by the Family Research Council, the Republican Party, and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, the alien queen mother of secret combinations in this world.

As a result of our tolerance of these things, life in America and all around the world has suffered. Even though we just passed the Aid Package To Ukraine because we debated about it for six months. Tens of thousands of Ukrainian soldiers died and many more became destitute. The Mormons and Evangelicals who attacked the Capitol were emboldened by the lackluster response to their offenses and now they are trying to put a man who molests children back in the White House. This, after a successful terrorist attack on Israel right in front of the police, FBI, and CIA who were warned about their intentions for years.

Americans have no charity, they have not one bit of good sense, they are violent, corrupt, foolish, cruel, lawless and without strategic direction. This is because the sons and daughters were subjected to rotten disgusting politicians who do not believe in God and act lawlessly with impunity.

We are not unlearning the sins of the past and disaster looms once again. The Book of Mormon says our only hope is to continue to pray for the Kingdom to Come for yet another day.

The Values in Gematria are:

v. 6: He pled with them that they would not slay him, and he would give up the kingdom unto his father. The Value in Gematria is 13652, א‎גו‎הב‎ "following the ego."

v. 7: He had his heart set on the kingdom and the world. Jesus said where the heart goes is where the treasure is. Our treasure in America must be hidden in a clogged porta potty toilet somewhere.

The Value in Gematria is 8648, חו‎ד‎ח "point of hudah", "the point of the message." =

"This is a nation without oppression."

v. 8: She thought to devise a plan to redeem the Kingdom. She is what is called Binah, "comprehension of reality" and certainly a little of that won't hurt this country. The Value in Gematria is 10081, י‎אֶפֶסחא, "The Passover."

Without a permanent plan to leave secret combinations and Mormons, Evangelicals, party politics, and their corrupt ways of life behind, our sons and daughters will be hand wringing over abortions and gays and whatnot like we are instead of engaging in proper legal governance of the nation.

I do not think the Gematria are a coincidence. It is definitely time for the people of America to do what is right and not look back.

[whatyourusherthinks]

Wonka Review

I fully admit up at the start that I went into this movie expecting not to like it. I thought the concept was stupid, the motives behind the making of this movie an obvious cash grab, and the trailers were bad. When the movie came to our theater, I did lose some of my cynical edge somewhat, as what bits I saw when working the showings were not so bad. But let's get into it.

What's This Movie About?

You know Willy Wonka? The sarcastic candy-maker created by a guy everyone thinks is racist in the 60s? There was that wonderfully imaginative and sinister movie in 1971 starring Gene Wilder? Ever wonder what he was like as a 20-something before he had a factory? No? Well they made a movie about it because the company who owns the IP was tired of not making more money from Willy Wonka.

What I Like.

Honestly, if you remove all context from this movie, it's fine. Good even. The music is catchy. The story and acting aren't terrible. I like some of the ideas in the film, like the chocolate being magic because of fantasy ingredients Willy uses. I also like the idea of a Wonka candy store being like the chocolate waterfall room of the factory, where all the product is like chocolate flowers and mushrooms you'd have to pick around a giant chocolate tree. There were some jokes that made me laugh. The romance between Scubitt and Bleecher, while intended to be a joke, I actually though was sweet and I was happy that they ended up in love in the mid-credit scene. And I kinda like the ending, how it becomes a miniature heist movie in the climax.

What I Didn't Like.

Timothée Chalamet is not very good. He spends most of the movie whispering his lines, except for like three random parts when he suddenly yells. It annoys me that chocolate is basically Willy's whole thing in the movie. Like I get it, it's Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, but I remember gobstoppers being just as important chocolate. Also, I'm like 95% certain that chocolate is supposed to be a metaphor for meth in the movie. Seriously, not only do two background characters get married because of the power of chocolate, the bad guys are the Chocolate Cartel who are bribing the chief of police with chocolate. Yeah, the Chocolate Cartel. That's the whole joke, hilarious until you realize that they're a real thing and they actually bribe police to cover up their shady business practices and child slavery. Their whole motivation of the Chocolate Cartel is that they try to use shady methods to prevent Wonka from selling his magic chocolate while they sell boring regular chocolate. Yep, that's right, Wonka in this movie is basically a tech start-up innovator douchebag. And since we're back on him, I kid you not when I say that Willy Wonka is the least cynical and most gullible and optimistic character in the movie. Seriously, there's a little kid and kindly old man who are more sarcastic. Than Willy Wonka. I thought at first they were leading up a more dramatic ending, like this is a tragedy with chocolate, but nope. He succeeds at pretty much everything, and everyone except the bad guys get a happy ending. Including all the cops except the one bad apple, so the thin blue line stands in what ever non-descript European town where half the people have American accents the movie is supposed to take place in. It's so bad it made me question whether this movie is actually supposed to be a prequel to the original Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, but it must be since they played Pure Imagination at both the beginning and the end of the movie. Because 'member? 'Member the one song from the good movie? But the biggest, absolute worst sin of this movie is what they did to poor Hugh Grant. He plays an Oompa Loompa. And by plays I mean they horrifyingly CGIed his face onto a computer model. And poor Hugh Grant is so bored in this movie. He does a good job, but I'd honestly watch paint dry if Hugh Grant was the painter. But his face doesn't look the same between shots at all. This is probably the only time having less Hugh Grant in a movie improves it. Honestly, why didn't they just have him play an Oompa Loompa by dressing him in the funny clothes, painting his face orange, and giving him a green wig? That visual alone would have been hilarious. And it's not like the Oompa Loompas are the same size as in the original movie anyway, they are way too small! It also insane that Hugh Grant looks so bad, because the rest of the effects in the movie are completely fine. Not amazing, but fine.

Final Summation.

So I obviously have a lot of problems with the movie. But you're correct is recognizing that most of them are nitpicks. If I were to relay this to Joe Buggknutz, he'd scratch his head. Both he and Mrs. Buggknutz took their three kids to see it over winter break, and they had a good time, even their surly ass teenager. That's kinda the biggest issue with reviewing Wonka though. Without the context of the business behind films, and with the original movie as a distant memory, this is a good film. And you might have a good time watching the movie, even without turning your brain off.

But I don't believe in engaging in art without context. Fuck this movie.

This movie is soulless. Nothing about it shows that the filmmakers actually wanted to make this movie. Nothing in this movie feels like it exists because someone had a good idea. Or because they thought it would be cool. Or sweet. Or funny. Everything is well constructed, but in a professional sense. Like all the filmmakers and actors were being paid and their integrity prevented them from adding an roguish mischief into the movie. There's not even a lack of care that makes some movies funny to watch. It's corporate mush.

In conclusion, Wonka is the Fleshlight of movies. It does a job, and does that job well, but it exists solely because somebody thought they could make a lot of money from it and it is not a replacement for the real thing. I would argue that it isn't even a replacement for a bad version of the real thing. I hope capitalism flames out before the inevitable sequel is made. Or at the very least whoever makes the sequel actually wants to make a Wonka movie.

[starfieldcanvas]

The french version ends:

Peuple debout ! Chante ta délivrance, Noël, Noël, chantons le Rédempteur, Noël, Noël, chantons le Rédempteur ! People stand up! Sing of your deliverance, Christmas, Christmas, sing of the Redeemer, Christmas, Christmas, sing of the Redeemer!

So there's the fairly direct bit in the verse before this about "he sees a brother where before there was only a slave" and "love unites those who once were chained by iron", but the end of the song is also leaning on the way Christianity uses slavery metaphors to discuss sin—scripture says humans are prisoners of sin, that Christ delivers people from sin, that Christ redeems people from the bonds of sin—to emphasize Christ the Redeemer is to position Christ as the guy who sets people free from slavery. You know, the thing we constantly compare sin to? Because slavery is bad????

By contrast, take another very popular and very good Christmas hymn, Joy to the World, which leans instead on the metaphor of Christ as King: "Let earth receive her king," "The savior reigns," "He rules the world with truth and grace," and so on.

Or "O Come all ye faithful," which likewise goes in on the King thing: "King of the Angels, "Christ the Lord." Or Hark the Herald Angels Sing: "Glory to the newborn king," "Christ the Everlasting Lord." We Three Kings: "King forever, ceasing never." And so on.

A lot of the others are just real excited about a baby and don't have any particularly obvious angle. Here or there is usually a line about Jesus coming to save us from death and hell, but emphasizing redemption and deliverance is definitely not a given. You get "Christ the Savior is born" in Silent Night, but "Savior" is just not quite as slavery-coded as "Redeemer."

The only other slavery-themed Christmas song I can think of is O Come O Come Emmanuel, with its second line "and ransom captive Israel" and subsequent lines about freeing people from Satan's tyranny. Redeeming prisoners and ransoming prisoners are essentially the same concept: spending your own money to buy a prisoner's freedom. But the song overall is more pro-victory than it is anti-slavery.

The English version of O Holy Night loses the "deliverance" and "Redeemer" bits, but as mentioned it goes a lot harder on the anti-slavery verse:

Truly He taught us to love one another His law is love and His gospel is peace Chains shall He break for the slave is our brother And in His name All oppression shall cease

It's a good song!!!

O holy night?? Tbh I didn’t know anybody under the age of fifty liked that song lol

Oh no anon, O Holy Night is the BEST. Listen.

First, it’s gorgeous and so moving. You can sing it in church on Christmas or while caroling, but still be blown away by an exceptional performance of it. The Romantic rises and falls, and the way it builds…it’s perfect. It’s been described by several ppl as the “lord of the rings” of xmas carols.

Second, it’s an explicitly very religious Christmas song written by a Jewish atheist composer who was trying to capture what he thought Christmas was like for christians. He created this incredible hymn of hope and the dawn of a new world during the darkest days of the year, and the coming of a person who would protect the meek and overthrow the powerful oppressors.

And then it was translated into English by a Unitarian Transcendentalist who used it as a rallying cry against slavery and racial discrimination. His translation somehow skewed even MORE hopeful and awed. I feel like it truly conveys what it feels like to celebrate a spark of hope in the middle of winter.

Third, it has an incredible history. Once the French churches found out it was written by an atheistic jewish man (in French), it was banned. However, it continued to be people’s favorite hymn, and the ban was universally ignored to the point it became known as the “religious Marseillaise.” There are stories of French peasants filing out of Christmas mass to stand outside of the church and sing the song in defiance of Churches’ prohibition of it.

Additionally, the lines in French are implicitly, and the lines in English are deliberately and explicitly, in favor of abolitionism, which is why it spread through North America so quickly: “chains shall He break, for the slave is His brother / and in His name all oppression shall cease.”

It was also the first song to ever play over airwaves (via violin) one Christmas Eve, as part of a chemist’s experiment. And it was allegedly sung by French, English, and German soldiers all together on Christmas during the Franco-Prussian War and in the trenches during WWI.

Ymmv anon, but MAN this song with its sweeping and building Romantic tone, explicitly defiant lyrics, and incredible history make it - for me - a very transcendental piece that really does seem to promise a “new and glorious morning” in the new year.

[dayshoroscope]

Symbolism of food dreams in the Old Testament

Food plays a significant symbolic role in many parts of the Old Testament of the Bible. These symbolic representations often convey deeper spiritual, moral, and cultural meanings. Here are some common examples of symbolism of food dreams in the Old Testament:

Manna: In the book of Exodus, the Israelites are sustained in the wilderness by manna, a miraculous bread-like substance that falls from heaven. This can be seen as a symbol of God's provision and sustenance for his people, highlighting their dependence on Him for their daily needs.

The Passover Meal: The Passover meal, which includes unleavened bread and lamb, is a central part of the Old Testament. It symbolizes God's deliverance of the Israelites from slavery in Egypt. The blood of the lamb on the doorposts serves as a symbol of protection.

The Bread of the Presence (Showbread): In the Tabernacle and later in the Temple, there was a special table with twelve loaves of bread, known as the "Bread of the Presence" or "Showbread." This symbolized God's presence among His people and the sustenance He provides.

Fasting: Fasting, the deliberate abstention from food, is often used as a symbol of repentance, humility, and seeking God's guidance. Prophets and individuals in the Old Testament frequently engaged in fasting as a way to draw closer to God and seek His forgiveness or favor.

Forbidden Foods: In the Old Testament, dietary laws were given to the Israelites, specifying which foods were clean and unclean. These laws were not only about physical health but also about spiritual purity and obedience to God's commands. Avoiding certain foods symbolized separation from pagan practices and rituals.

The Promised Land Flowing with Milk and Honey: The concept of the Promised Land flowing with "milk and honey" symbolizes a land of abundance and prosperity that God promised to the Israelites. It is a representation of the blessings God would bestow upon His people.

Feasts and Sacrifices: Various feasts and sacrifices in the Old Testament, such as the Feast of Weeks (Pentecost), Feast of Tabernacles (Sukkot), and animal sacrifices, had food-related elements. These symbolized worship, gratitude, and dedication to God.

The Vine and the Fig Tree: In the Old Testament, the vine and the fig tree are often used metaphorically to represent prosperity, peace, and the blessings of God. These symbols are associated with the hope of a better future.

The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil: In the story of Adam and Eve, the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil is a symbol of disobedience and the consequences of sin. Eating the forbidden fruit led to the fall of humanity.

Food as a Metaphor for God's Word: In passages like Psalm 19:10, God's word is likened to honey, signifying its sweetness and nourishment for the soul.

These are just a few examples of how food is used symbolically in the Old Testament to convey spiritual and moral messages. Food and eating often serve as tangible, relatable metaphors for deeper theological concepts and the relationship between God and His people.

[cotyschwabe]

A Soul Redeemed: Embracing the Power of Redemption in Christian Faith

Understanding Redemption

Redemption is a fundamental concept in Christian faith, symbolizing the deliverance and salvation of the human soul through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. The Bible portrays redemption as the act of paying a price to set someone free from sin and its consequences. In the Old Testament, redemption is foreshadowed through various events and rituals, while the New Testament reveals the ultimate redemption through Jesus Christ.

### Redemption in the Old Testament

In the Old Testament, we witness glimpses of redemption through significant events and practices. For example, the Israelites' deliverance from slavery in Egypt, known as the Exodus, serves as a powerful metaphor for redemption. God redeemed His people from bondage, leading them to the Promised Land. Additionally, the sacrificial system, where animals were offered to atone for sins, prefigures the ultimate sacrifice of Jesus on the cross.

### Redemption in the New Testament

The New Testament reveals the fulfillment of redemption through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The apostle Paul explains in Ephesians 1:7, "In him, we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God's grace." Jesus' sacrificial death on the cross paid the price for our sins, offering redemption and reconciliation with God. Through faith in Christ, believers experience the transformative power of redemption and are granted eternal life.

## The Journey of a Redeemed Soul

### The State of Brokenness

Before redemption, every soul faces a state of brokenness. As descendants of Adam and Eve, we inherit a sinful nature that separates us from God. Romans 3:23 reminds us, "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." The awareness of our brokenness compels us to seek redemption and restoration.

### Divine Intervention

Redemption is not something we can achieve on our own. It is a divine intervention rooted in God's grace and love. Ephesians 2:8-9 emphasizes this truth, stating, "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works so that no one can boast." God, in His infinite love and mercy, took the initiative to redeem humanity, offering forgiveness and reconciliation through Jesus Christ.

### Repentance and Transformation

Repentance plays a vital role in the journey of a redeemed soul. True repentance involves acknowledging our sins, turning away from them, and aligning our lives with God's will. Acts 3:19 encourages us to repent and turn to God, experiencing times of refreshing. Through repentance, we open ourselves to the transformative work of the Holy Spirit, who empowers us to live in accordance with God's purposes.

## Embracing Redemption in Daily Life

### Living with Gratitude

Gratitude is a natural response to redemption. When we realize the magnitude of God's love and sacrifice, our hearts overflow with thankfulness. Colossians 3:17 reminds us, "And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him." Living with gratitude becomes a way of honoring God and acknowledging His redemptive work in our lives.

### Extending Forgiveness

As recipients of God's forgiveness, we are called to extend forgiveness to others. Ephesians 4:32 instructs us, "Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you." Forgiveness is a powerful expression of the redeemed soul. By forgiving others, we reflect God's love and invite healing and reconciliation into our relationships.

### Sharing the Good News

The redemption we experience is not meant to be kept to ourselves. As believers, we are entrusted with the responsibility of sharing the good news of redemption with others. Mark 16:15 commands us, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation." Through our words and actions, we have the opportunity to introduce others to the transformative power of redemption and invite them into a relationship with Jesus Christ.

## The Eternal Promise of Redemption

### Hope for the Future

Redemption offers us hope for the future. Titus 2:13 speaks of our blessed hope, "while we wait for the blessed hope—the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ." As redeemed souls, we have the assurance of eternal life in the presence of God. The hope of redemption sustains us through life's trials and challenges, reminding us that our ultimate destination is the heavenly kingdom.

### Overcoming Fear and Doubt

In moments of fear and doubt, the promises of redemption provide comfort and reassurance. Isaiah 41:10 assures us, "So do not fear, for I am with you; do not be dismayed, for I am your God. I will strengthen you and help you; I will uphold you with my righteous right hand." Knowing that we have been redeemed and that God is with us helps us overcome fear and find peace in His presence.

### Embracing a Life of Purpose

Redemption empowers us to live a life of purpose. Ephesians 2:10 declares, "For we are God's handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do." As redeemed souls, we are called to walk in the good works God has prepared for us. Our lives take on new meaning as we align our purposes with God's kingdom agenda, impacting the world around us for His glory.

## FAQ

### 1. What is the significance of redemption in Christianity?

Redemption holds immense significance in Christianity. It represents God's act of delivering humanity from sin and its consequences through the sacrificial death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Through redemption, believers are forgiven, reconciled with God, and offered the gift of eternal life.

### 2. How does repentance relate to redemption?

Repentance is an essential aspect of redemption. It involves acknowledging our sins, turning away from them, and aligning our lives with God's will. Repentance opens the door for God's transformative work in our lives and allows us to experience the fullness of redemption.

### 3. Can anyone be redeemed?

Yes, redemption is available to all who believe in Jesus Christ. The offer of redemption extends to every individual, regardless of their past or present circumstances. God's grace is sufficient to redeem anyone who comes to Him in faith.

### 4. How can I live a life of gratitude as a redeemed soul?

Living with gratitude involves recognizing the magnitude of God's love and sacrifice in redeeming us. It means cultivating a heart of thankfulness and expressing gratitude in our words, actions, and prayers. Regularly reflecting on God's redemptive work and counting our blessings can help us maintain a grateful attitude.

### 5. How can I effectively share the message of redemption with others?

Sharing the message of redemption requires a combination of words and actions. Building genuine relationships, demonstrating Christ's love, and being sensitive to the Holy Spirit's leading are crucial. By sharing our personal stories of redemption and explaining the gospel message, we can invite others into a transformative encounter with Jesus Christ.

## Bible Verses

1. Ephesians 1:7 - "In him, we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with

the riches of God's grace." 2. Acts 3:19 - "Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord." 3. Colossians 3:17 - "And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him." 4. Ephesians 4:32 - "Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you." 5. Titus 2:13 - "while we wait for the blessed hope—the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ."

These verses highlight the themes of redemption, repentance, gratitude, forgiveness, and the hope we have in Christ. They serve as powerful reminders of the foundational truths of redemption and can provide encouragement and guidance in our journey as redeemed souls.

[bernardo1969]

The epistle to the Romans is a letter addressed to the believers in Jesus who lived in the capital of the empire, and in this epistle Paul focused on the question of the new man, of the new life in Christ with the eternal life, and the uselessness of the law for overcome the slavery of sin. Although the apostle Paul was originally a practicing Jew, when he received the Holy Spirit, he understood in his heart that the Kingdom of God, the dominion or empire of God's perfections, was an invitation to a new type of freedom, and not an imposition of rules that were very difficult to comply with. For Paul, the law was insufficient for man to receive that grace that brings men closer to God: "The law was brought in so that the trespass might increase" Romans 5:20. According to Paul's thought with the sacrament of baptism, man dies to his old nature, the sinful nature, to accept the new life in Christ, according to this idea baptism means a spiritual change, the transition from a life full of sins to a righteous life, and Paul to deepen in the importance of this change metaphorically compared the baptism with the death and resurrection of our Lord: "We are those who have died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?" Romans 6:2-3. And Paul continued in his explanation, and in a similar way to Jesus, he spoke to us about the problem of the two masters, with baptism we left a master, the love for the things of the world that are fleeting, to accept that love that is unconditional and that leads us to true freedom and supernatural life, we have to choose: "You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness. I am using an example from everyday life because of your human limitations. Just as you used to offer yourselves as slaves to impurity and to ever-increasing wickedness, so now offer yourselves as slaves to righteousness leading to holiness. When you were slaves to sin, you were free from the control of righteousness" Romans 6:18-20.

[nommads]

thoughts on robotics in star wars:

-surface level; droids as analogues for slavery, prosthetics as metaphor for losing one’s humanity

-what interests me is that nobody seems like they’re ever given a choice when it comes to body modifications as a means of recovery, (see luke/anakin’s hands being replaced) yet it’s supposed to symbolize death of self, scars of war, alongside, in several cases, a departure from the moral “goodness” of bioauthenticity and the natural order (maul returning from the grave with spider legs, grievous replacing parts of his body over time with his armor until almost no organic tissue remains)

-i would like to see a jedi with missing limbs, eyes, etc. who is so dedicated to preserving the sanctity of life that they willingly forego possible solutions that involve cyborg prosthetics. that foil would be compelling in a world where it seems like within the universe itself they don’t even seem to recognize the ethics behind these ideas, all the while we as the audience are being told to question said values or apparent lack thereof

-not to even get into the seemingly intentional avoidance of the morality associated with AI developing sentience but in the last movie they fully just make a punchline out of c3po’s memory wipe when it was essentially a metaphor for the death and rebirth of jesus christ. in short 3po died for your sins and you don’t even care

[testudoaubrei-blog]

I mean, or fuck, non-religious belief systems being co-opted to serve the same power structures. There is no belief system too good or correct or true that it can't be co-opted by power, and those with social power will promote and shape beliefs (not even by design, just by believing things that help them sleep at night and promote their social goals).

I do think that Tumblr's insistence on some essentialist sinful nature of Christianity is not just about identity categories but a manifestation of the kind of historical idealism that is so popular among a certain kind of business/technological elite (and has filtered down and been popularized) - a view that the driving force, indeed the historical actor of history, is 'culture' and 'beliefs' and 'ideas' and not human beings and human institutions (who are shaped by their beliefs but also shape them to fit their needs). This idea is most completely and stupidly expressed in Dawkins idea of Memetics, which conceives of human minds as a carrier for 'memes', the unit of 'cultural evolution' - a cultural gene. If this sounds like a house of cards built on shitty metaphors you are correct! If you can spot 10 reasons why Darwinian evolution and Mendelian genetics are particularly unlike the development of history and culture, you are also correct! My favorite thing about Memetics is that the journal of Memetics shut down because the entire concept 'lacked explanatory power' - it doesn't actually describe the way people actually work in a useful way.

Anyway the alternative view of the above historical idealism (or perhaps better, cultural determinism) is to view human beliefs as a two way street. They shape what people do and how they live, but people will in turn change and shape and apply their beliefs to suit their lives, and then teach these beliefs to others.

The classic example of this is American Christianity in the South. Nominally black and white southerners were part of the same theological traditions of the same religion. But while White southern Christians emphasized and embraced everything in their religion and it's scriptures that sanctified tradition, power and authority - drawing heavily from the books of law and the Pauline Epistles - (and just...made up other elements of their theology to justify slavery like the curse of Ham), black Christians emphasized elements on the faith that were liberating, egalitarian, and even revolutionary, drawing heavily from the gospels, the prophetic books, Exodus and other elements of the Pauline Epistles. So by the 1960s Martin Luther King was nominally not only the same religion as Bob Jones but the same type of Christian (they were both Baptists).

Or we could look at how differently George Taney, author of Dred Scott v Sanford, viewed the American constitution compared with Frederick Douglas. I could go on. The American example is particularly illustrative because different people with the same cultural and intellectual touchstones interpret those completely differently. People are not computers and culture, religion and ideology are not software.

This isn't to say that beliefs and ideas don't matter, they do. Some ideas, are better than others - I don't think that the idea that the way to figure out how to do what is right lies in literal readings of 1700 or 2500 or 1300 year old collections of heterogeneous texts is the optimal belief for promoting human flourishing, especially when those collections of texts themselves were collected by those with social power in their own day. Of course, a lot of people from a lot of different religious traditions agree with me here. And beleifs can live on in other ways and do harm for centuries. The theological descendent of the slaveholder's Christianity mentioned above endorsed Donald Trump. The ideological descendant of Taney's constitutional originalism is once again in power at the US Supreme Court. Though it is worth emphasizing though while times have changed, the power structures that American conservative Protestantism and Constitutional Originalism were developed to defend are still around and still dominant!

This matters in part because we are seeing a redoubled effort to secularize justifications for the powerful and wealthy to continue dominating society - whether we are talking about billionaires or random white cis male heterosexuals. People like Stephen Pinker and Sam Harris are very much peddling modern versions of 18th and 19th century ideologies created to justify capitalism. Meanwhile James Lindsay, a former Atheist activist, has literally joined forces with fundamentalist Christians because they share an interest in protecting the power and privelege of white cis men from feminists, black activists and us queers. Many of these people like Pinker are -also- promoting the kind of cultural determinism I am critiquing, and that is not an accident, I think. Focusing on culture and beliefs means that we are not critiquing the power structures that are at the root of most of the world's problems - the power structures they profit from.

I don't know how to yell you this, but Tumblr's insistence that Christianity is uniquely bad amongst world religions is itself an incredibly blinkered and Western-centric perspective. Like the fact of the matter is that there are certain patterns to how religious belief systems get used and co-opted by dominant power structures across human societies; but we can't have that conversation because Tumblr is obsessed with essentializing identity categories.

[idylls-of-the-divine-romance]

Submitting some Theophany Matins for your analysis and enjoyment and my enjoyment of your analysis.

At Your epiphany at River Jordan, O Christ, when by the Forerunner, O Savior, You were baptized, the voice from heaven testified that You are the beloved Son. Therefore You were shown to be with the Father beginningless, and the Holy Spirit came down as a dove and alighted on You. In Him we are illumined and cry out, Glory to God in Trinity.

Jordan River, tell us do: What did you see and were amazed? I saw naked Him Whom none can see, and shuddered in fear. And how was I not to shudder at Him and be frightened? The Angels, when they saw Him also shuddered in awe. And heaven was astonished, and astounded was earth. The sea recoiled along with all things both visible and invisible. For Christ appeared in the River Jordan, to sanctify the waters.

You who are God, uncircumscribed, without beginning, and ineffable, came to earth, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men, because in Your tender mercy, O Master, You did not bear to see the human race being tortured by the devil; so You came and saved us. We acknowledge Your gift, we proclaim Your mercy, we do not hide Your goodness. You freed the offspring of our nature. By being born You sanctified a virgin womb. All creation extolled You at Your epiphany. You, our God, were seen upon the earth and lived among men. When You sent down Your all-holy Spirit from heaven and crushed the heads of the dragons who were lurking in the water, You sanctified the River Jordan.

You are our God, who by water and the Spirit renewed nature that was worn out by sin. You are our God, who by the flood waters in the days of Noah washed away sin. You are our God, who through the sea by Moses freed the Hebrew people from slavery to Pharaoh. You are our God, who split the rock in the desert, and waters flowed, and brooks flooded, and You gave the people water to drink and satisfied them. You are our God, who with water and fire by Elijah disabused Israel of the deceit of Baal.

You revealed Yourself today on earth, O Master, and Your light was stamped on us, who in the knowledge of the truth, O Lord, extol Your epiphany. You came; You revealed yourself, O unapproachable Light.

Okay so I’m late but everyone knew I was going to be. That said, I really do enjoy these. Analyzing literature is one of my favorite things to do and theopoetics is the best. 

Also spoiler alert: I really enjoyed these.

“At Your epiphany at River Jordan, O Christ-” Okay so I’ve told you this before but this passage in the gospels is so important for me. The Father declaring his love for the Son by the means of the Spirit. This is actually why I am still a trinitarian (I was binitarian for like a week last year), why I don’t believe in the filioque, my answer for the question of “Who is God?” — like I said, very beloved passage of mine. “In Him [the Holy Spirit] we are illumined and cry out, Glory to God in Trinity.” Whoa. That is so cool. Reminds me of Moses on Sinai, glowing after his intimacy with God. 

“Jordan River, tell us do:“ WERE TALKING TO THE RIVER??? AND THE RIVER TALKS BACK!!!! Did not see that coming. Very cool. “The Angels, when they saw Him also shuddered in awe. And heaven was astonished, and astounded was earth. The sea recoiled along with all things both visible and invisible. For Christ appeared in the River Jordan, to sanctify the waters.” I love this. It’s very cosmic. From the angels to the to the river — all of creation trembles at the unveiling of God to the world. Also the seas: very popular biblical metaphor (and one I often use) to talk about the nations. So in the sanctification of the waters is God coming to dwell in all of humanity, Jew and nonjew.

“You who are God, uncircumscribed, without beginning, and ineffable, came to earth, taking the form of a servant” OMG THE KENOSIS!!!!! One of my favorite NT poems. Oh my goodness how could it not be! That God would become man!? The king, a slave!? Son of the Heavenly Father, son of a poor girl and a carpenter?? “taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men, because in Your tender mercy, O Master, You did not bear to see the human race being tortured by the devil” okay this is good. I love the juxtaposition of God taking the form of a servant and being called “Master”. Nice. Also the contrast between the “tender mercy” (I will restrain myself but. Chesed.) and our torture at the hands of the accuser. “We acknowledge Your gift, we proclaim Your mercy, we do not hide Your goodness.” Okay this gives me Jonah vibes. I talk a lot about how Jonah found the chesed of God to be so horrifying he’s rather die (mood). But here, we as the church have none of that terror. We receive his gift of love with open arms and proclaim it to the ends of the earth — delighting in it! Because again how could we not: “You freed the offspring of our nature.” “By being born You sanctified a virgin womb. All creation extolled You at Your epiphany. You, our God, were seen upon the earth and lived among men.” I like how this once centers on the incarnation. God redeeming matter via his incarnation; I imagine the beasts surrounding the divine babe as bowing down to him as they do in classical art. This matin really comes full circle in an amazing way: begins by extolling the transcendence of the God Most High; revel in the glory of the kenosis and the magnitude of divine love; delight in the incarnation; and finally "sent down Your all-holy Spirit from heaven and crushed the heads of the dragons who were lurking in the water, You sanctified the River Jordan." Oh my freaking goodness. Idk if i've told you this but i kind of have a thing for dragon imagery in scripture. It’s just really, really cool. Anyway, the “you crushed the heads of the dragon” is a reference to either (or both) the psalms and Isaiah but either way those are riffing on the serpent crusher/dragon slayer from Gen 3:15. I need to meditate on this though. In this matin it links the crushing of dragon’s head to the coming of the Holy Spirit rather than the crucifixion. The only thing that comes to mind is the association of violent empires (i.e Babylon/Rome) to dragons and the fact that at Pentecost (and all the other occasions of mass Spiritual baptism) happen when barriers of nationality and ethnicity are transgressed. Like I said tho, I need to meditate on this. Edit: okay, I’m back, so the connection is between the Jesus baptism, at which the Spirit descended upon him (like at the flood and in Gen 1), and that is when he crushes the heads of the dragon and sanctified the River Jordan . The narrative following this in all of the Synoptics is the tempting in the wilderness (Matthews version is the best. Mark’s version is cool because of the beasts. Luke’s order is weird imo). Interestingly, when the slanderer quotes the psalm (idr which one) he quotes verses 11 and 12 (“the messengers will not allow your feet to stumble upon a stone” etc etc). Conveniently, and hilariously imo, he doesn’t quote the next verse which is about how God will empower the psalmist to crush the chaos monsters (lions and scorpions specifically). Which is ofc what Jesus goes on to do. I still haven’t quite connected this to the rest of the matin but progress 

“water and the Spirit” is this about something other than just baptism? It’s making the chord in my brain go off but I can’t place it. Sounds like a psalm or a latter prophet. Anyway. This might be my favorite because — I’m not gonna quote because I’d have to just quote the whole thing it’s so good — the connection of Jesus baptism with the cosmic baptism of the flood that brought cleansing and the baptism of Israel that liberated them from slavery and then also the splitting of the rock (that phrasing is amazing. Need to meditate on that) — actually let me rest on this bit: the rock is split and the waters flood. This language is creation and decreation language (the waters split in Gen 1). And with that strange mixture the people are given life in the death-land. Something something this is about the cross and the side wound which is split as the water of life pours forth. So, a baptism that brings cleansing, liberation, life by means of death, and then finally Elijah. Who with water and fire (a phrase that speaks of spiritual baptism to me) brings enlightenment to those who are deceived. One final thought because this has been on my mind: the use of “You are our God” (like in the Our Father prayer) gets rid of any feelings of individualism. God is not just “my God” but “Our God”. I’m just pointing this out because of been thinking about this recently. 

“You revealed Yourself today on earth, O Master, and Your light was stamped on us, who in the knowledge of the truth, O Lord, extol Your epiphany. You came; You revealed yourself, O unapproachable Light.” Oh my goodness this reminds me of the “Logos” hymn in John. The emphasis on light and knowledge. But also, this is epiphany and so ofc this is also about Matthew: when that nations followed the light to worship at the City of God (Isaiah 61 I think), who had become a baby boy. “You revealed yourself, O unapproachable Light” reminds me of the kenosis again. Our God and King became a baby and a slave. Word become flesh.

[adrianasunderworld]

The second Kailms dad tries to stand up to headmistress Rosehearts he gets humbled real quick.

“Sir I refuse justify my reasons for expelling your son, not that I would expect a slave owner to understand.”

“We have no-“

“Then what my I ask is Jamil’s relationship with your son? They’re not friends sir. You own his family. You expect him to die for your son, am I wrong?”

There is a painful silence. The Vipers and Alsams can’t speak. Mrs rosehearts smirks, “tell me if seven forbid, Jamil did die from being his taster- would you make his sister die for your son? Will you expect Mrs viper to have more children? Would you even pay for the funerals? Or would have them pay for your sins?”

“My son is a good student! I am good man- I will not tolerate-“

“I can report your family you know. Slavery is illegal in the scalding sands, and with your closeness to the Royal family I can only imagine the flood gate that scandal would cause. Slavery- and owning some of the Animals you have as pets are serious crimes that warrant you and your wifes arrest.” Handing the paper work to the shaking Man her smile is like venom. “A good man wouldn’t bribe a school knowing this was the only for his child to ever be accepted.”

Jamil can’t look at Kailm Mrs. Rosehearts continues, “I am being nice when I say Kailm is expelled. Bribe another school. Hire as many toutors as you want. That boy should’ve never been allowed to attend this school. Jamil however is an exemplary student. He truly embodies Scarabaina excellence. Even with his family’s unfortunate fate- he deserves the chance to excel.”

Felicity look thought full for a moment, “or is that why you’re trying to get Jamil removed as well Mr. Alasim? Because you know Jamil is meant to be more then your sons little toy until the day he dies? Did you think maybe if you kept him in metaphorical chains his whole life your son would succeed? Truly you are a depraved man…”

To be fair, I don't think Jamil tastes the food for poison, he just makes all of Kalims food or makes sure it came from someplace safe so he doesn't get poisoned. (though all the other points still stand) But then again in this au, even if Mrs.Rosehearts knew that, she would still spin it that way if the Asims gave her trouble.

[bookoformon]

Helaman Chapter 14, Part 2. "Hiding."

The Book of Mormon (1830) was written by nine prophets who resided in Nauvoo, Illinois who call themselves Seekers. Seekers believe this rambunctious world incapable of following the Gospels. There was, there is no evidence of this. So they wrote a Newer Testament in an attempt to recast the Gospels using a modern metaphor in hopes the world would see the error of its ways and change its mind.

They say in earlier in the Book they are in fact Jews, and there is plenty of evidence they were exceptionally competent at their Judaism. The superlative narrative, Gematria, the structure are proof of this. The distillation of Christianity is also quite excellent and brilliant as we are about to see as the Book begins to transition out of its own brand of Old Testament into an era predominated by the Birth of Christ.

Prior to this the Book states we should all be able to understand and implement the Words of Christ and live Godly lives, it's not that difficult. But for some reason, we can't do it. The Seekers that wrote the book said the root driver of anti-Christian behavior was something called a Gadianton, in Hebrew, a person who obscured the truth the purposes of net gain.

Let us not focus on them, but on the Christ itself as the section dictates. Are the Gospels and their bold and bizarre statements about life on earth and the life everlasting correct or not? Without proof of a world that is unwavering from peace and goodwill, that has eradicated poverty, slavery, profanity, bigotry, war, violence, and weapons, there is no way to know for sure. It is not enough to say "Jesus is good let us eat the food."

It is possible the Gospels are real and true, but honestly, we don't know. It is just not enough to say they are, there must be amazement and wonder as the Book of Mormon says:

7 And it shall come to pass that ye shall all be amazed, and wonder, insomuch that ye shall fall to the earth.

8 And it shall come to pass that whosoever shall believe on the Son of God, the same shall have everlasting life.

9 And behold, thus hath the Lord commanded me, by his angel, that I should come and tell this thing unto you; yea, he hath commanded that I should prophesy these things unto you; yea, he hath said unto me: Cry unto this people, repent and prepare the way of the Lord.

10 And now, because I am a Lamanite, and have spoken unto you the words which the Lord hath commanded me, and because it was hard against you, ye are angry with me and do seek to destroy me, and have cast me out from among you.

11 And ye shall hear my words, for, for this intent have I come up upon the walls of this city, that ye might hear and know of the judgments of God which do await you because of your iniquities, and also that ye might know the conditions of repentance;

12 And also that ye might know of the coming of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Father of heaven and of earth, the Creator of all things from the beginning; and that ye might know of the signs of his coming, to the intent that ye might believe on his name.

13 And if ye believe on his name ye will repent of all your sins, that thereby ye may have a remission of them through his merits.

14 And behold, again, another sign I give unto you, yea, a sign of his death.

15 For behold, he surely must die that salvation may come; yea, it behooveth him and becometh expedient that he dieth, to bring to pass the resurrection of the dead, that thereby men may be brought into the presence of the Lord.

16 Yea, behold, this death bringeth to pass the resurrection, and redeemeth all mankind from the first death—that spiritual death; for all mankind, by the fall of Adam being cut off from the presence of the Lord, are considered as dead, both as to things temporal and to things spiritual.

17 But behold, the resurrection of Christ redeemeth mankind, yea, even all mankind, and bringeth them back into the presence of the Lord.

18 Yea, and it bringeth to pass the condition of repentance, that whosoever repenteth the same is not hewn down and cast into the fire; but whosoever repenteth not is hewn down and cast into the fire; and there cometh upon them again a death, yea, a second death, for they are cut off again as to things pertaining to righteousness.

19 Therefore repent ye, repent ye, lest by knowing these things and not doing them ye shall suffer yourselves to come under condemnation, and ye are brought down unto this second death.

Repentance and redemption are the mainstay of modern Christianity. They are said to be the path to salvation and the life everlasting, but this would mean there would be no sin remaining on earth. There must not be sin. Sins corrupt the self, they erode at society, they degrade the soil, foul the air, spill blood, pollute the seas, they are torture.

We have supposedly committed to a torture free, violence free world but the planet is being pock marked by bombs and the stench of unburied dead bodies fills the air in many parts of it. So there is no remission of sin is there? Sin is everywhere.

The section above says the remission of sin and the salvation of the soul is "expedient." The coming of the Christ was the inform us of the conditions for the remission of sin and we know these conditions well, but the need for their expediency has not dawned on us.

The Narrator says "You have not repented because it is hard on you."

Nothing is harder than war, and we are all now involved in one, so surely repentance and the remission of sin is going to be worth a try and in our best interests, and these things are pleasing to God, and through them He offers salvation to those He adores.

The Values in Gematria explain how Salvation in Christ is a process, but so is ultimate damnation. All Judeo-Christian scriptural discussions require Gematria.

v. 7: the Value in Gematria is 4925, ד‎טבה, "goodness." ‎

v. 8: the Value in Gematria is 6443, ודדג‎ ‎ ‎"and fished."

To fish is to go looking for the "school" of merits Jesus demonstrated and spoke of, the ones that prevailed in spite of the currents in the media around him. In Christ's time, the care of the poor, the healing of the sick, the feeding of the needy was considered lower class and frowned heavily upon by the Roman aristocracy who had decidedly unchristian rules and customs about such things. We do, too.

v. 9: the Value in Gematria is 8557, ח‎ההז‎, h,

"The noun אח ('ah), means brother. Its proper plural is אחים and its construct form is אחי (brother(s) of). Occasionally, our word occurs in singular while multiple brothers are implied (Genesis 31:37, 37:16), in which case our word denotes brotherhood (which in the Old Testament denotes one's actual brothers). Variations of the term איש אל־אחיו — which literally means 'a man unto his brothers' — are commonly interpreted as 'one onto another' (Leviticus 26:37, 2 Kings 7:6, Ezekiel 24:23)."

v. 10: the Value in Gematria is 12882, יבחחב‎‎, "I will bark, I will hide." We can't turn Jesus into a barking dog, hiding under the table, hoping for our scraps and crumbs of goodness. There is no pretend with any of this.

v. 11: "the Conditions of Repentance" ; the Value in Gematria is 14101, ידאאֶפֶס‎א, yadaepsa, "complete knowledge of God and open eyes towards humanity."

"The Hebrew verb ידע (yada') means to know. This very important root occurs 944 times in the Old Testament and is found across the Semitic language spectrum. Its Greek counterpart is γινωσκω (ginosko).

This verb is used in all the expected ways, but most notably in Proverbs 1:7, where it reads: "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge". Since knowledge is typically obtained through the senses, the mere act of observation appears to be equal with fearing God.

Another notable usage of our verb is in the procreative sense: when a man "knows" a woman, he's having sex with her (Genesis 4:1, Judges 11:39), and this says quite a bit about how the Hebrews saw marriage and the process of learning. The Word of God was of course personified, and so learning about the laws of nature was deemed equal to being in a marriage relationship with the Creator.

Our verb may also describe knowledge that is not so much cognitive but rather empirical or experiential. Ecclesiastes 8:5 states that 'he who keeps the commandment will know no evil', which refers to the experience of bad things rather than a cognitive examination of vice.

In that same vein, the dire consequences of eating from the 'tree of knowledge of good and evil' obviously does not refer to the dangers of learning or scientific rebellion (learning and science are held in the highest possible regard in the Bible) but rather the notion that chomping off the wrong branch is going to make bad things happen to you."

v. 15: the Value in Gematria is 9509, טהאֶפֶסט "the phaest." = the Eucharist. The word for Eucharist in Hebrew is berkah, "to pay homage."

"The verb ברך (barak) may either mean to bless or to kneel. It's not clear which of the two meanings came first; whether the action of kneeling came from the action of blessing or blessing came from kneeling, but in the Bible the two are thoroughly intertwined.

The same duality occurs in cognate languages but some scholars insist that the common Semitic root ברך (brk) should be split into two separate verbs that have nothing to do with each other.

Whatever the true etymology, our verb occurs with the meaning to kneel only about three times (2 Chronicles 6:13, Psalm 95:6, and - of camels - Genesis 24:11) and hundreds of times with the meaning of to bless.

From these many occurrences, we learn that to the Hebrews, the act of blessing had to do with "to endue with power for success, prosperity, fecundity, longevity, etcetera," as HAW Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament puts it.

Hence people bless God (Genesis 24:48), or bless the name of YHWH (Psalm 96:2); God blesses a people (Numbers 23:20), the Sabbath (Genesis 2:3), labor (Deuteronomy 28:12), a field (Genesis 27:27) and food (Exodus 23:25).

Men bless men in honor (Deuteronomy 10:8) in meeting (Genesis 47:7), or in departing (Genesis 24:60), in congratulating (Genesis 12:3), or in homage (2 Samuel 14:22).

Note that in legislative Scriptures, this verb occurs often juxtaposed with the verb ארר ('arar), meaning to curse, or rather to bind or restrict (sometimes by means of a spell).

If these verbs are truly each other's opposites, we may conclude that the verb ברך (barak) conveys a liberation or unrestrictedness. Its core idea is possibly the freedom which truth brings about (JOHN 8:32).

The derivations of this verb are:

The feminine noun ברך (berek), meaning knee. Although the verb rarely means to kneel this noun occurs frequently (Genesis 30:3, Judges 7:5, Ezekiel 47:4). The knee was known to the Hebrews literally as a free-one, perhaps because of the agility of the knee, but probably more so because nimble knees give freedom to a person. Worn or seized knees are literally a curse: they restrict a person from moving about freely.

Another feminine noun, ברכה (beraka) means a blessing (Genesis 27:12, Isaiah 19:24).

The similar noun ברכה (bereka) means pool or pond (2 Samuel 2:13, Ecclesiastes 2:6) but the relation to the verb is unclear. Perhaps a pond was reckoned as a blessing (see our article on the Greek noun ουρανος, ouranos), or perhaps the moniker arose from having to kneel for a drink.

v. 16: the Value in Gematria is 6373, ו‎ג‎ז‎ג‎, "and 33", or DD which is not a bra or ball size:

"The verb דוד (dwd) isn't used in the Bible, so we don't exactly know what it means, or even how it was pronounced. But judging from its derivatives and equivalents in cognate languages, it possibly expressed an action that reflected affection: to gently swing, dandle, fondle, etc. This root additionally appears to have a nuance of containing something.

The derivatives of the verb דוד (dwd) are:

The masculine noun דוד (dod), meaning beloved or loved one (Song of Solomon 1:13, Isaiah 5:1). This word also typically describes an uncle (Leviticus 10:4, Numbers 36:11). Sporadically, this word is spelled דד (dd), also pronounced as dod (Leviticus 10:4, Esther 2:15)

The feminine version of the previous noun is דודה (doda), which means aunt (Exodus 6:20, Leviticus 18:14).

The masculine noun דודי (duday), literally meaning a "love-bringer", and denoting a mandrake (Genesis 30:14).

The masculine noun דוד (dud), meaning pot or jar (1 Samuel 2:14, Jeremiah 2:2). Scholars assume that this word reflects the original meaning of the root, namely that of some kind of gentle movement, reminiscent of the idea of boiling. But this word is used as often for a cook pot as for a mere receptacle or carrier. It's probably just as logical to assume that the act of loving was seen as "containing" something, or keeping something within oneself. And since general anger was equated with heat, perhaps arousal was seen kindred to that.

"Behold these things redeemeth mankind, and prevent the death of the soul at the time of death of the body."

Who doith them not:

v. 18: the Value in Gematria is 13162, יגאוב‎‎, yagaub, "God will gather and cover with dark clouds."

The root עוב ('wb) shows up in various Semitic languages with meanings such as to be absent or hidden. In the Bible, occur two derivatives of this root:

The masculine noun עב ('ab), meaning cloud, but in the sense of a complete, dark cover of clouds. (Judges 5:4, Isaiah 25:5).

The denominative verb עוב ('ub), meaning to becloud. This verb occurs in Lamentations 2:1 only.

v. 19: the Value in Gematria is 13162, 10746, יאֶפֶס‎ז‎דו‎‎, japhethzdo, "to grow in knowledge of nonsense, that which causes blemishes."

"The verb פתה (pata) appears to describe the process of slowly but surely growing wider without investing much critical thought in the quality of the substance that is acquired.

It's the process that makes a mud flat or sand bank grow bigger, until it even begins to yield dry land and perhaps to support an island ecosystem.

In much the same way a human mind will grow, if one does not separate useful from useless information, and eventually yield certainties and perhaps even forms of creativity that are all based on mostly garbage and loose debris.

This verb's sole derivative is the noun פתי (peti), which describes a non-critical mind that grows ever larger with nonsense: forever learning but never understanding."

This is a quintessentially Jewish thought at the end of this section: Do what is understandable upon reading the scripture, avoid doing what is wicked or dumb."

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

Then neither of you understand what "sin" is.

Picking up sticks on the Sabbath was a sin. Stoning to death a man who picked up sticks on the Sabbath was not a sin. Blasphemy is a sin. Eating shellfish was a sin. Slavery was not a sin, it was even prescribed and included instructions on how to do it correctly.

Leviticus 25:44-46

Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

Stoning to death women who weren't virgins on their wedding day was not a sin. Jesus scolded people about not stoning their disobedient children to death as they had been commanded to do. "Honor thy father and thy mother" is even in the Ten Commandments.

But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

Which is all anyone in Xianity actually teaches any more, since everything is now "iNtErPrEtATiOn" and "iT's A mEtAPhOr!" as the Xians disassemble and erode their own doctrine, and their god becomes increasingly metaphorical himself. The bible, for example, opens with Genesis 1, which we are now assured by the Xians who "believe" in evolution, to be a "metaphor," thereby firmly establishing the bible from its very first page as occupying a metaphorical, fictional universe.

You should actually read the bible sometime and see what is a sin and what is not. Or even simply what was a sin. Let your god himself tell you that "sin" and morality are disconnected things, because they can change on a god's whim. And that an "objective morality" can't exist where you regard "sin" and "morality" as the same, given the "sins" have changed. You don't get to claim an "objective moral standard" from a (i.e. your) god and then disregard everything in the Old Testament.

Even in the New Testament, xenophobia, for example, is not a sin. Racism is not a sin.

Matthew 15:22-26

And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil. But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us. But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me. But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs.

By definition, I am without sin.

sin1 | sin | noun an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law: a sin in the eyes of God | the human capacity for sin.

"Sin" is not morality or good deeds or right and wrong. "Sin" is the arbitrary wishes of a capricious god. It is a "transgression against divine law." No divine being, no sin. You might well say, "well, there is a god, but you don't acknowledge him." But you don't acknowledge Allah or Odin or Anubis, and lose no sleep. The purported existence of your god is not my burden, it's yours. In the 1700 years or so since Xianity was concocted, none of y'all have been able to actually substantiate your claims.

Conflating "sin" with morality, right and wrong, or things that are legal or illegal is dishonest and ignorant of what Xianity says, which is thoroughly on brand for a religion which has spent hundreds of years pretending it is the moral compass for morality while perpetrating the worst atrocities throughout history.

Societal standards such as not murdering each other, not stealing from each other, and not raping each other were established long before your fairytale book or your god were invented. Humans only exist as a species because we evolved moral traits. If we had not, we would have destroyed ourselves long before we invented any gods, or even the language to describe such a concept. Even animals exhibit similar traits. Chimps have police who break up fights and keep the peace, for example.

There is no "sin" which provides any new, novel moral knowledge. Every single one of them is either redundant and merely retelling what humans already knew (murder, theft), or had nothing to do with human wellbeing and everything to do with a god's narcissism and OCD (shellfish, mixed fibers, endless obsequiousness).

Even the supposedly "good" commandments, are gross.

Mark 12:29-30

And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.

Believers are forced, at the threat of "everlasting fire," to "love" the being who sends tornados and baby cancer, who created evil, who made humans imperfect, and demands they be faultless. Compulsory, commanded, forced "love" is wicked and gross, and demonstrates a being who does not understand that love is a reaction, not an action, much less an action that can be compelled.

Notice, of course, that the first commandment, the gravest "sin," is not about humans and each other, but about the insecure god who needs your applause and veneration more than anything.

The only unforgivable "sin," according to your Xian god, is not murder, genocide or raping children in a worldwide organized child molestation ring, but simply not believing.

Matthew 12:31-32

Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.

That is not being good, that is being submissive, compliant and obedient.

So everything you have to say about the state of the world is irrelevant. Your concept of "sin" has absolutely nothing to do with that. Considering the world is getting less religious and more peaceful, happy and prosperous over time, attempting to correlate your religion with peace and morality isn't going to do you any good. Indeed, it's more puzzling (but only in a sarcastic way) why the world wasn't a utopia when Xianity was running everything, why Xianity brought us the Dark Ages and medieval torture devices. Why are we getting more peaceful, more healthy, more moral, the more we disregard religion? The more you disregard your own scripture, the knowledge that was confirmed to be absolutely true for 1700 years, that even you regard as not literally correct only in the light of modern secular morality and scientific discovery.

Your "sins" are not codified into law. The Ten Commandments - in which the first four are just about a god declaring itself and conspicuously lacking any edicts against, rape, slavery or child molestation - are not the basis for laws or morality in any developed society. Indeed, the Ten include thoughtcrimes such as the "covets"; don't covet other people's slaves, for example. Nobody but Xians give a shit about what Xians consider "sin." Just as you don't give a shit about the haram rules of Islam.

It's absolutely hypocritical and completely dishonest of you lecture me about "sin" under a god that I don't believe in, when you remain unconcerned about what "Allah" will do to you for not completing the obligatory five prayers each day, for eating bacon, and for wiping your ass using your right hand. "But I don't believe in Islam or Allah," you may be thinking. If so, maybe there is hope for you. Maybe.

If you cannot be guilty of haram under an Islamic religion you don't believe in, then I cannot be guilty of "sin" under a Xian god I don't believe in.

I will not be told by people who follow a delusion that has held humanity back for hundreds of years, and has fought human progress every step of the way - from heliocentricity to slavery to inter-racial marriage to inter-religious marriage and beyond - that they are the moral gatekeepers. And that I am guilty of an imaginary space wizard's imaginary crimes that have nothing to do with human wellbeing and everything to do with the fragile narcissism of a desert god invented by bronze age primitives who didn't know the Earth is round.

You don't get to have it both ways. If you are haram-less, I must necessarily be sinless. If I must account for my "sins" under Xianity, then you must account for yours under Islam. And Judaism. And pronouncements by every deity. Your conformance to the 42 Precepts of Ma'at before Anubis and Ammit. Your warrior honor before Kahless. Your noble deeds qualifying or disqualifying you from Valhalla and Fólkvangr. Choose.

If you don't stone disobedient children to death, don't come lecturing me about "sin."

No gods, no "sin."

A world without "sin" is a world without gods.

#sinless

[crows-and-cookies]

SPOILERS ABOUT ALL GRISHVERSE BOOKS

What strike me when you read the Grishaverse books in order is how much Leigh Bardugo grew while writing them. Don’t get me wrong with this bit of analysis—I love all of them, and they’re all good. It’s just occurring to me as I read them how her style improves as we go on.

The shadow and bone series is a bit clunky, moving in fits and starts, with a tiny bit of a gap between each story. Personally, I don’t think the Mal/Alina relationship is as well developed as others to come. And there’s some things that Alina doesn’t explain, but not in the mystery way of the crows, but in like the way that she’s describing the action with not as much emotional depth as she could (think in the second book in the church with the Darkling). Also, it’s purely Alina’s POV (with the exception of the first and last chapters).

In SOC, we start to get that alternating POV, which gives us more insight into other characters, fully fleshing out the issues and events. Even with Kaz, who doesn’t think he likes to show emotions (which he does show emotions, just under the guise of Dirtyhands’ violence), we have his internal dialogue of what he’s feeling, fully giving us the scene/scene reaction.

Additionally, the diction is more poetic than the glimpses of poetry we saw in Shadow and Bone. ‘Her heart was a river that ran towards the sea’, ‘I will have you with armor, Kaz Brekker, or I will not have you at all’, and don’t even get me started on the sheer magnitude of metaphors packed into SOC.

Not to mention the way Kanej grow towards each other in SOC, how they do the same things but for different reasons. Malina is growing, but it’s Alina growing and Mal chasing her, and he ‘grows’ in the sense of dedicating himself to her, but not in the sense of himself as much as Alina does. Kaz grows from wanting revenge to wanting to build something, to wanting Inej. He finally wants something for himself, but not under the guise of money, for the reality that he loves her. He has growth outside of her, but she helps it along. Inej moves from wanting forgiveness for the sins forced upon her (I think) to wanting to change the system. Inej gave Kaz the space and want to build something, and Kaz gave her the strength and skills to want to fight not just for herself, but for others.

Additionally, the scale of everything is increased in SOC. The violence and stakes seem greater, even though the Shadow and Bone was about a war, and SOC was about criminals. Alina does eventually kill people and works through that emotionally and notes how it conflicts with her image as a martyr—the crows kill people and it’s a backdrop for other problems. Kaz kills Oomen (after ripping out his eye) for what he did to Inej, for risking the safety of his people. It’s him ‘making him pay’ and keeping his reputation on the surface, but underneath it’s about him having feelings that he doesn’t understand about Inej and about protecting what he’s built. Inej kills Dunashya as a way of killing her ‘shadow’ and moving forward with the idea of doing harm to do good (killing slavers to stop slavery). While the setting is smaller (just Ketterdam and the Ice Court, mostly), the stakes feel much more fleshed out and higher. It’s something they all want, for a variety of reasons. Alina didn’t get that until halfway through the series at least, as she was fighting herself. Also, Alina’s want is mostly Mal, which is strengthen by the fact that he’s an amplifier, but for me that doesn’t feel as deep as the crows wants and needs. Finally, Shadow and Bone is about someone learning to become Grisha—Six of Crows says fuck that, we’re all equal here, and makes a fulfilling story and plot with several Grisha and non-Grisha, challenging the world view that was presented in Shadow and Bone.

And now for King of Scars and Rule of Wolves. We're focused on two people who need each other to survive logistically (for ruling the country), but romantically it has to be pushed into the background of their lives. It's not the one sided pining of Alina for Mal, nor the denial we see with all three of the relationships in SOC. There is denial, but their positions of power add depth to their reasons why they can't be together, with logistical issues (Nikolai having to marry a princess) getting in the way, instead of just feelings. We see a little bit of that logistical issue for Mal and Alina in the first book (the letters never sent) and are introduced to Matthias and Nina as being separated due to Nina, but the fact that Zoya and Nikolia literally use the rumors about them to protect Nikolai but actually can't be together? Ouch. And again, we're hit with the Grisha and non-Grisha being on equal footing, but not just as criminals--as royalty. The circumstances for their relationship have been elevated.

I will say I don't find KoS and RoW as poetic as SOC, but that doesn't mean it's not well written. Her dialogue was always good, and it continues to be great as the books go. Where Bardugo really shines is in being able to play with characters we've already met, and really dig deep into them. We've seen Zoya grow from the sidelines, and then she makes her literally more badass that Alina was. Nikolai accepts his darkenss and monster. The Darkling actually has an ending that feels more satisfying than if he was just killed, because we thought we already got that! And Nina? Her relationship with Matthias actually grows in the reader's eyes postmortem. Even minor characters, like Adrik and Leoni, Tamar and Tolya, and David and Genya! She really gave herself the space to flesh out these characters and let them grow as people who've survived one war and don't want another.

I will say I loved that Zoya accepted queenhood as a Suli queen, but it could have been gone into more, instead of hinted at a few times. (Also, I'm a mixed, white passing brown woman, so I identified with her in those few moments.) And Nikolai's choice to step down and do what we're introduced to him as (an adventurer) is perfect. This book shines because the ending speaks for itself and ties up a lot of loose ends.

In all, SOC and CK are my favorite. I'm sure I could find other things, but I wrote most of this at work in early December and then found it again in the new year and added the part about RoW and KoS. Bardugo's growth through the series is evident, and I wholly recommend rereading them all in order if you haven't.