#the heretic and the invalid

[owlexarts]

A little late for Valentine’s Day but oh well

[whencyclopedia]

Joan of Arc

Joan of Arc (Jeanne D'Arc, l. c. 1412-1431 CE) was a medieval peasant who, claiming to receive visions from God, turned the tide of the Hundred Years' War in favor of a French victory. She was famously martyrd for standing by her claim of divine inspiration and later canonized as a saint.

She was born in Domremy, France to a peasant farmer but, at the age of 13, received a revelation while standing in her father's garden that she should lead the French to victory over the English and ensure that Charles, the dauphin (Charles VII of France, r. 1422-1461), was crowned at the traditional site of Rheims.

Joan succeeded in lifting the Siege of Orleans in 1429 and Charles was crowned at Rheims in July of the same year following the Loire Campaign. Joan was captured by the Burgundian allies of the English in 1430 and sold to them. The English could not prosecute a woman who claimed she was serving God but could not allow even the suggestion she was telling the truth because that would mean that God was on the French side of the conflict. They finally convicted her of being a relapsed heretic and burned her at the stake in May 1431.

The trial of Joan of Arc was reviewed as early as 1452, found to be invalid, and Joan was exonerated and proclaimed a martyr in 1456. She was later canonized and is one of the patron saints of France in the modern day.

The Hundred Years' War

The Hundred Years' War (1337-1453) was a conflict between France and England over the legitimate succession to the French throne. William the Conqueror led the Norman conquest of England in 1066, ruling England from 1066-1087 and establishing a French monarchy. The later kings of England still had estates and interests in France and periodically would make some gesture asserting their rights, disregarding the policies or wishes of the French king. The monarchy in France, therefore, wanted to cut England's power in their country while the English worked to increase the power they already had there.

In 1328, Charles IV of France (r. 1322-1328) died, leaving no male heir. Charles' sister, Isabella of France, claimed the French throne for her son, Edward III of England (r. 1327-1377) but her claim was denied because she was a woman and women were not allowed to make such claims. The throne passed to Charles' cousin, Philip VI (r. 1328-1350), and the antagonistic relationship of these two monarchs – Edward and Philip – finally ignited the war in 1337.

The war was not one long continuous conflict but a series of military campaigns, waged mostly on French soil, which consisted of hostilities followed by a truce and then re-engagement. Modern-day scholars have divided the history of the war into three periods for ease of study. Joan of Arc appears in the final period, known as the Lancastrian War (1415-1453) after the House of Lancaster, the ruling house of England at the time.

The Lancastrian War began with the stunning victory by Henry V of England (r. 1413-1422) at Agincourt where he defeated a numerically superior French force. Throughout the Hundred Years' War, English victories far surpassed those of the French and in this last phase of the war, that paradigm seemed it would hold following Agincourt. Henry V married Catherine of Valois, daughter of the sitting French king, Charles VI (r. 1380-1422), under the terms of the Treaty of Troyes (1420) and could now lay claim to the throne of France. Charles VI, however, had a male heir, the dauphin Charles, who maintained his right to the throne and was able to garner support for his claim.

English victories continued as Charles' supporters struggled to drive the English from France and legitimize his rule by crowning him king at Rheims, a city then held by the Burgundian allies of the English. The dauphin Charles only had any power in and around the city of Chinon, and his dwindling forces were defeated every time they took the field. It is during this period that Joan of Arc appears and reverses Charles' – and France's - fortunes.

Continue reading...

[ludinusdaleth]

i need to preface this meta with a million versions of "i do not think ludinus is or ever will be a good person who deserves forgiveness or will have a happy ending", and it will take me a second to get to my perhaps bad point, but here we go:

as many (and myself) have noted, ludinus is blinded by his trauma. he cannot in any way shape or form see around it, and even though he is very wise, intelligent, and able to mediate almost any conflict of interest, he becomes childishly closed in when anyone challenges his idea, says that his crusade of warfare against the gods has hurt thousands of mortals. he is an active danger in his position of power by refusing to show care for anyone but himself, while convinced hes doing it for exandria.

i think this stems out of the fact that no one has ever been able to reach him in a way he craves. he can get validation of trauma from the vanguard, but he made them thralls to his ideas; do they really mean it or did he manipulate them into it? he obviously cant be validated in his grief by vasselheim and their stranglehold on calamity history, who think any heretic outside of their worship of warlords deserved their fate. and he cant find comfort in fellow calamity survivors, either due to not knowing they were alive (presumably devexian, alyxian), or being angered and in disbelief they chose to pursue religion despite their torture (leylas). because no one starts with the goalpost of saying his people didnt deserve their fate and that his anger is valid, he has been losing his mind with the belief he needs to forcibly show everyone what he experienced and for the world to see him as correct, after an eon of being the only one in his mind with a semblance of a correct pov.

which brings me to my point, which people will react badly to initially, but god, i need to say it aloud: the most important line he has ever said, which has rung in my head like a bell since last episode, is:

"Speak your mind, and I will speak mine. But all I ask is a moment. To show you."

ludinus has refused to entertain anyone else's pov as long as we have known him. fearne mouthing off at him one too many times about the vanguard caused his calm demeanor to snap in favor of him snarling at her about what he had seen in the calamity. he made his speech at the key as everyone there was actively trying to kill him. he never asked a soul for their input on what he was doing. not one ounce of him wants another perspective. and that isnt because hes scared of being called a tyrant. he tells exandria to "make me your villain", and there are so many moments of self hatred in his interactions with others i think he knows damn well what he is. no, hes terrified that someone will invalidate what he went through.

and he has asked the bells to witness the calamity's trauma firsthand, and to judge it and him freely. that is.... a massive change.

before you react, no. ludinus cant be fixed. no persuasion check in the world could convince him to forgive the gods and no one would ever allow him to walk with no consequences and start anew - as if his body wouldnt fall apart before that anyway. but the bells are at the only moment in history where ludinus is completely stuck between reality and his hero complex. almost nothing has gone his way and the world is rallying against him and evontra'vir itself said the bells were destined to defeat him and that is more preordained than the gods deaths and he knows he must teach them the truth but what if his methods were truly for nothing? he needs someone, anyone, to tell him something, to ground him. he will do his best to convince the bells of what he thinks. but he knows he has to leave a decision up to them. the next generation.

he didnt consider what they thought until now. isnt that a sobering thought for him.

and while they dont owe it to him, if the bells actually start the conversation by acknowledging what he went through? i think for the only time in exandrian history, the only moment that it will ever be feasible.... that you could move his second goalpost by starting at his first. those abused & grieving due to him will finally be able to say that to him, by sating the need hes had for 1000 years. and i think he will absolutely accept whatever else is thrown at him if it means someone listened. he will never give up on killing the pantheon. but i think this is the moment that will define whether he dies by the bells hands, or at the bells side against another system. this is the only time that his fate is in flux. and this is the only time this old dog can learn a new trick: that the role of parent can be guidance, and defense for the children you hurt. and acceptance that has been the parent, who must step up, now, or never again.

[algolagniaa]

12, 25, 37, 47

it’s a very BORING day bc I’m recovering from the stomach flu so all I’ve done is lay in bed and be on tumblr and watch tv and sleep and drink broth. about an hour ago I was STARVING and had ONE BITE of bread and that was so much that I’m no longer hungry. it’s invalid Victorian maiden hours over here

I think this question MIGHT be asking if I prefer perfume or lotion but they aren’t an either/or thing to me, in fact my favorite perfume is Miss Dior’s eu de parfum and my favorite lotion is a bottle of Miss Dior’s eu de parfum scented hand lotion that came with the perfume. I’m also really liking Nosferatu by Heretic Parfum lately

I’ve known my friend Amber for about 16 years now :) we haven’t been close for all that time but she’s a stable and loving presence in my life

last message was “trust me I will not be doing that lol one bite was enough” to my gf about eating more bread lol

[i-eat-deodorant]

yeet these baals I need to know

[WIP ASKS]

Before he departed for the surface world, The One Who Waits had given him a very specific set of instructions. 

Head to the dilapidated lighthouse rising out of the ocean. Talk to the keeper, and extinguish all the lights whether they want to or not. At nightfall, follow what remains of the pier, to where wind-scuffed planks are eaten away by the ocean. Drop a single heretic’s head into the dark waters. 

(Lamb had been all too willing to provide the head–they seem to have those in excess, he thinks, and all pretty fresh too. He can see why his mentor was so pleased with them compared to all his other vessels–under the thin veneer of civility was a war machine that followed unerringly like a sheep and killed like a wolf.) 

The waters were thicker here, his candlelight only glancing off the surface of inky depths. With the low fog shrouding the pier, he could barely see what’s beyond his own face. The severed cow’s head Baal tossed in barely made any ripples at all as it sank to the bottom. 

Now all he had to do was wait for this Teeth in the Darkness to emerge. 

Baal didn’t mind taking his sweet time waiting. To feel the wind against this corporeal body, taste the saltiness of the breeze and feel the solidity of his sun staff against his paws, all of it was a welcome reprieve from the stifling atmosphere inside the Gateway. He appreciated his master for giving him and Aym a second chance to prove his strength as his right-hand men, he really did, but when you died on the cusp of puberty, spending the rest of the afterlife with a dating pool of your mentor and your brother got dull fast. 

Perhaps he’ll lie about the negotiations taking longer than usual. Find a nearby fishing town, flirt with a couple fishing boys before the heretics come to chase him out. What his master didn’t know won’t hurt him, although there’s probably a reason he sends Aym on these kinds of missions more often. His brother would rather get things done, then go home and sleep. 

Small bubbles were beginning to rise up to the surface. The Teeth in the Darkness rose slowly, water like black oil sluicing off their hooded form. Baal gripped his staff tight, hackled bristling. The only features he could see of the Ravenous were his snout and smile, teeth unnaturally sharp.

-

Baal bared his own teeth. “If you’re already aware, then cut the pleasantries. Master has far more power than a false thing like you can ever imagine. Tread carefully, or your gullet will taste the full force of my wrath. Sate that ravenous hunger of yours once and for all.” 

Fox let out hissing laughter, like wind whistling through bone chimes. “Haha! Bold words from someone so tasty. Very well, a deal is a deal. What does he wish for?” 

“Protection. Clean up. Surveillance.” Baal unfurled the map he had on hand, tapping an unsheathed claw on the places he and Aym had spotted heretics in and being careful not to draw too much attention near the portal to the Gateway.  “Master still retains some influence over the southwest lands claimed in his name, but recently there’s been an influx of heretics wandering into his territory. My brother and I are becoming recognizable, and he needs more discreet methods of dealing with the infestation.” 

“More heretics? Would it have something to do with a certain Lamb who has been taking the Old Faith by storm?” 

“You know of Lamb?” 

“Do I?” He smiled. “We’re well acquainted.” 

baal is sent to strike a deal with the fox. the fox agrees, but has a proposition of his own. and what proposition is that? well my friend that is a mystery it's smut it's smut if you haven't guessed already it's just smut. i think baalxfox is an incredibly funny crack ship ok

i wrote this... right before the relics of the old faith update, which kinda invalidated all my baal headcanons after it came out. he's written as very pedantic and abrasive here, which was fine with the base game dialogue but fell apart with the introduction of the dlc dialogue. yeah. perils of having your lore invalidated by updates, i suppose.

[fury-brand]

Ysayle for 1, 12, 20, and 26?

1. Why do you like or dislike this character?

I like her because I think feeling your convictions so strongly that you deify yourself is cool. Says the Sephiroth fan amirite?

Ysayle's a little tricky because they put a lot of stuff down for her and then never follow through with it. She's got the a following dragon heretic cultists (badass) that they just... drop entirely and do nothing with. They set her up as an extremist, and then walk it back in a way that I can narratively reconcile but which smells very much like "we need to make her more sympathetic." I think it's rather stupid of her to unleash a hoard of dragons on Ishgard and then be surprised pikachu when the poor people get hurt and the upper class don't but like. I can turn my head and squint about it and say she got caught up in the moment, happens to us all.

Anyway she's the first character in XIV who I feel really starts to echo WOL and put down some of the themes and ideas that become more fully fleshed out later on in better expacs like shadowbringers. She's the first to start echoing answers, to say "we who walk before may lead those who walk after," the first to start looking at the history of an apparently intractable tension, the first to take an extreme position to try to correct an injustice.

She's also written very clumsily because she is a girl and they don't know what to do with all that complexity. They kill her off because they don't know what to do with her at the end and that's obviously egregious, but the whole confrontation scene with Hraesvelgr is nonsense. Prior to then her convictions are never predicated on the idea of actually being St Shiva reborn - that is a gift of power given to her that's separate from her honest beliefs about the injustice of Ishgardian society and the Dragonsong war, two points on which she is absolutely correct. But they can't let her have that so they do this rug-pull about how she's not actually Lady Shiva and then shuffle her off camera to have a breakdown about it, as if it invalidates anything else about what she believes - as if it isn't way more metal to have conjured that power in the image of a saint all unto herself.

There's a lot to DISLIKE about Ysayle tbh, if you just take the writing at face value. But if any character deserves to be saved from their own writing, it is certainly her. The pieces are all here, they just need some reconfiguring, and the points of weakness all tend to stem from the same root - wanting Ysayle to be sympathetic enough to hang out with you, and needing to punish her for complicating the narrative and not being enough of a "good guy".

12. What's a headcanon you have for this character?

Uh, hm. I don't know. Not sure I have a headcanon in the strictest sense but it is fun to think about AU Scion Ysayle. She deserves to be there and keep Alphinaud "let's put the refugees to work in the mines" Leveilleur in check.

20. Which other character is the ideal best friend for this character, the amount of screentime they share doesn't matter?

Me :) My Wol :)

No, kidding. I liked her relationship with Estinien. I'd have liked to see that antagonistic relationship evolve over time into a lot of trust because the reasons for their behaviour ultimately share similar roots, and they are both inclined towards drastic measures and striking off alone.

26. What's something the character has done you can't get over? Be it something funny, bad, good, serious, whatever?

Couldn't defeat the reaper so had to be her, made up her mind her fear is gone open her eyes and now here she comes obliiiiiiiviiiiiiooooon

[creature-wizard]

Bill Schnoebelen, a man who claimed to be an ex-satanist (of the global satanic conspiracy sort) and has been demonstrated time and again to be a fraud, tries to establish a link between witchcraft (of the modern neopagan sort) and Roman Catholicism in Wicca: Satan's Little White Lie:

Both teach “salvation” through ritual acts and good works.

Both have a god and a goddess (Mary) figure in their pantheon.

Both have a slain and risen god who dies and is reborn in a seasonal cycle of ritual dramas.

Both have magic or thaumaturgy (Transubstantiation in the Mass) as central elements in their theology.

Both make extensive use of incense, statues, candles and ceremonial robes in their devotions.

Both believe in a kind of second chance after death (Purgatory).4

Both believe the rituals of the living can affect the dead.

Both believe in rituals of pain and mortification for purification.5

I'm sorry, Bill, but if you think that three and four are actual problems, then you might as well just give up on Christianity altogether, or at least admit that your version of Christianity regards a good portion of the New Testament as heretical. Because you've literally just declared that both Communion and the Resurrection are unchristian.

Also, if the idea of transubstantiation makes you uncomfy, 1 Corinthians 15:35-55 should have you crawling out of your skin.

Regarding number two, Mary is revered because she's a saint and the mother of Jesus. That doesn't make her a "goddess," because Catholicism has clear distinctions between saints and deities.

Regarding number five, this is because Catholic religion makes use of worship traditions that were widespread throughout the ancient Mediterranean world. Modern neopaganism drew from these same traditions. There's nothing sinister or conspiratorial about it.

Regarding number six, Schnoebelen elaborates on this one in the footnotes:

Catholics offer prayers for the dead, to get them out of Purgatory. Witches believe in communicating with the dead, especially at Samhain; and that they can, through mediumship, help lower level spirits achieve higher areas of growth before they incarnate again.

Loads of people believe you can interact with or affect the dead in some way. This doesn't prove any special connection between modern witchcraft and Catholicism.

He elaborates on number eight with:

Although this self-mortification element has been toned down recently in U.S. Catholicism, wearing of hair shirts, barbed wire corsets and self-flagellation (whipping) were regularly practiced within Catholic monasteries and nunneries until at least the 1960’s. It may still be going on today in the U.S. and is definitely still practiced overseas. Witches believe you must be willing to “suffer in order to learn” and most practice at least ceremonial whipping of each other. Wiccan authors also brag about how they whipped each other into a magical frenzy in order to raise a large enough “cone of power” to turn back both the Spanish Armada and the forces of Hitler.

Bill. Bill, my man. You might be shocked to learn that the New Testament has a lot to say about the value of suffering. Romans 5:3-4, 2 Corinthians 1:5, Philippians 1:29 2 Corinthians 11 and 2 Corinthians 12 - Paul was kinda big on this whole suffering thing, ya know?

So basically, Schnoebelen's made up a bunch of problems where none exist, and in doing so, implied that the very religion he professes to follow is actually invalid, lol.

[swissmissficrecs]

Hello! I'm asking everyone who might know, though I'm not sure which blogs are still active...I'm looking for a fic where Sherlock and John were at a monastery. Sherlock had taken a vow of silence and John talked to/prayed a lot to the virgin Mary. It was such a good fic. Thank you!

Sorry I didn't see this before. It might be In the Name of the Lord by Philomena85 (details below). I could have sworn I had a religious-themed rec list already, but it seems not. So here you go, in case that's not it maybe it's one of these others:

Clergy Johnlock

Fics in which either Sherlock or John is a member of clergy or masquerades as one.

A Second Time After the Last Time by S_IRIS (10K, E, Johnlock) In an era when science was condemned by religion, Sherlock Holmes was a man of science and John Watson a man of religion. Will they be condemned for their love and for the felony, or will John be able to convince Sherlock to escape?

All We Ought to Ask by achray (56K, E, Johnlock) “It’s a quiet parish,” Stamford added, beckoning to the maid to pour more. “Apart from that heretic Holmes, of course,��� said the Archdeacon.

Children of the Small Gods by alexxphoenix42 (174K, E, Johnlock, JohnAdlock) Brother John is a recent addition to the Temple of the Small Gods on Baker Street. A mysterious stranger catches his attention one night when he does something that no one else has ever managed to do.

Faithful by Megg33k (14K, E, Johnlock) AU (Monk!John & Angel!Sherlock) in which John Watson's life has not gone as planned, and it's about to get even stranger…

Gallant Darling, Pray for Me by SinceWhenDoYouCallMe_John (104K, E, Johnlock) The priests at the seminary school of St. Sebastian's on the coast of Wales are preparing for a new group of ordinands in the fall of 1927. Father John Watson is not prepared for one of those ordinands to be Sherlock Holmes.

Hearts at Home series by yalublyutebya (74K, M, Johnlock) A series of stories chronicling the intertwined lives of Father John Watson and Sherlock Holmes.

In the Name of the Lord by Philomena85 (70K, T, Johnlock) After returning from Afghanistan, John Watson has managed to get back into professional life - but something is missing. His quest for meaning leads him for a time to a monastery, where he soon acquainted with an exceptional monk. But there’s more there than he had suspected at first glance …

Infidelis by unholiest (13K, T, Johnlock) “I have noticed a decline in my regular parishioners. I do hope none of them have come to any harm.” Sherlock chuckled, and the low pitch of it resonated against the cold brick, letting it echo back into John’s ears. It was nice. It felt like velvet, and John had an inkling that he was one of a few that had actually heard it. “Quite the contrary, Father, I believe you are to be the next victim.”

Jesus Loves Me by OMSP (11K, M, Johnlock) In this AU, Father Holmes befriends a young, struggling musician named John Watson. They strike up an unlikely friendship born of violence. Can the kindly priest help John fight his demons without losing his own soul?

Mercy by lookupkate (31K, E, Johnlock) John Watson asks God to save him while wounded in the desert. When God does he figures he'd better pay him back. After two years as a vicar at a large parish he finally gets to move to a small town and have a parish of his own.

Take Me To Church by CarmillaCarmine (12K, E, Johnlock) In hiding, John is impersonating a priest. Everything goes according to plan until one of his parishioners confesses the dirty thoughts he has about him.

The Adventure of the Six Painted Virgins by Saathi1013 (14K, E, Johnlock) Sherlock dons an unusual disguise for a case. John is…conflicted. Character study, casefic*, & smut (in that order).

The Beast of Baskerville by mildredandbobbin (74K, E, Johnlock) 15th Century/fairy tale AU. An invalided John Watson comes to the isolated village of Baskerville seeking shelter with his sister, only to become embroiled in a grisly murder. As the villagers point to a local werewolf legend, the odd but brilliant friar, Brother Sherlock, disagrees and soon he and John are on the the trail of a murderer. Captivated by the enigmatic friar, John finds himself struggling with his illicit feelings for the celibate man of God.

The Sacred Bond by ampersand_ch (42K, E, Johnlock) A series of mysterious deaths among priests puts John and Sherlock onto the trail of an ancient, secret brotherhood. Little do they suspect how deeply their own situation is tangled up with the case.

[owlexarts]

Let’s all thank Christmas Magic for giving me the juice to make something

[apesoformythoughts]

«An implicature is a communicative act which, by virtue of its context or manner, relays a meaning that goes beyond the literal meaning of the actual words that may be used. To take an example I’ve used before, suppose you go out on a blind date and a friend asks you how it went. You pause and then answer flatly, with a slight smirk: “Well, I liked the restaurant.” There is nothing in the literal meaning of this sentence, considered all by itself, that states or implies anything negative about the person you went out with, or indeed anything at all about the person. Still, given the context, you’ve said something insulting. You’ve “sent the message” that you liked the restaurant but not the person […]

Now, here is the context relevant to Fiducia Supplicans: The secular world hates the Church’s teaching on sexual morality perhaps more than any other of her doctrines. It constantly urges her to abandon it, many supposing that it is simply a matter of time until she does abandon it. Most churchmen rarely discuss it, and on the occasions when they do, the tendency is to give a vague and perfunctory acknowledgement following by an impassioned plea for acceptance of those who do not obey it. The current pope tends to favor and promote churchmen who deemphasize traditional teaching on the subject, and strongly to disfavor churchmen who happen to have a reputation for upholding it. He is also widely perceived as being inclined to soften Church teaching in other areas. Those who have most loudly favored the blessing of same-sex and other “irregular” couples are precisely those who reject the Church’s traditional teaching on sexual morality, whereas those who have most loudly opposed such blessings are those most keen to uphold that teaching.

Meanwhile, no one could fail to realize in advance of issuing a document like Fiducia Supplicans that the qualifications it makes would be known to few who would hear about it and understood by fewer – that, to most laymen who would learn of these qualifications, they would sound confusing and legalistic and make far less of an impression than the new policy itself.

It cannot reasonably be denied that, given all of this context, the Declaration has the implicature that the Church is now at least in part conceding the criticisms of those who reject her teaching, and that she now in some way approves of certain same-sex and other “irregular” arrangements (such as those involving fornication and invalid marriages). It cannot fail to send that message whether or not it was the message intended. And it does so regardless of all the silly wrangling over the meaning of “couple,” and whether or not one could somehow cobble together a strained reading that reconciles the new document with the 2021 document. Even if the Declaration is not strictly heretical, it is manifestly “prone to cause scandal,” “badly expressed,” and “ambiguous.”»

— Edward Feser: “The scandal of Fiducia Supplicans”

[moonshotpress]

Let's talk about my questioning phase.

I am a cis guy, but I went through about a year recently when I thought I might be nonbinary. Before I say what I want: Nonbinary is a valid identity. This is just my personal thought process, not saying this is best for anyone else, just where I ended up. My story should not be generalized to invalidate anyone for identifying however they like.

The main thing that I want to say is that despite all the fear mongering on the right, it was the rigidity of male gender roles that led me into questioning my identity, NOT the feeling that a nonbinary or trans identity was something I desired. What I respected and envied in Nonbinary folk was their assurance in the fact that what they were and how they wanted to present was valid.

Ironically enough, it was that acceptance that made me realize I didn't actually want to change. I asked some questions in enby forums about how to present as nonbinary, yet leaning masc... and what I got was basically "yeah that sounds rad, present how you want!". Which made me realize that, I had actually been looking for another prescription to follow, when I actually needed to give myself permission to let go of other people's opinions and just live to make myself happy.

I had been bullied and psychologically tortured my whole adolescent life into believing that I was not a real man due to my interests, physique, and career. I felt like when I was trying to pass as a man (sorry for appropriating this, but it feels apt) everyone could see that I was fake. But I was trying to be a certain type of man. I was performing looking like a respectable man, rather than being the man I wanted to see in the world. (religious trauma really did not help this)

It was an exhausting act, but my wife put it into perspective for me when she asked what gender I would choose if I were raised a woman. Putting the choice back in my hands made me realize that I didn't want to become nonbinary, I wanted to be myself. I was and remain a man, but now I get to decide what that means. And that kicked off a process of figuring out what that means.

I'm sure none of this is revolutionary on a site like this. What I wish that conservatives understood is that if they want to "save gender", stricter social policing of gender roles is not the way to get there. It's like that Emo Phillips sketch where you draw smaller and smaller social boxes until despite all the common ground you share you have one thing to other them and call them a heretic. They are manufacturing the very epidemic they want to stop by being so rigid. By which I don't mean to imply that queerness is inherently driven by trauma or anything just that a lot of guys are unsure of themselves due to how gender is policed in society. leading to Male Loneliness, Inceldom, etc. None of that is anything that feminism has done to men. That's all patriarchy sleeping in the bed it made.

To be clear, I think gender is something that serves people, not the other way around and it's not something that needs saving. But as someone who went through a questioning phase and ultimately decided he is actually cis, I don't really see my experience represented much online. Maybe I am unique, but I think it's more likely that guys can't talk about this uncertainty and discomfort in identifying with a label that was used as a cudgel on us our whole life. Once we go back, it's not safe to discuss ever having been there. I want to de stigmatize that process, and affirm anyone who is going through a questioning process, you can come out on the other side and still love yourself and affirm your LGBTQIA comrades. Whatever label you put on yourself is valid, but if Cis is what's feeling right for you, that doesn't mean you're going backwards. Either way, once you take control of your labels, you're about to begin a beautiful transformation into who you were meant to be.

But this only works if you see Nonbinary and Trans identities as valid. Otherwise, you're just turning on your heels and walking back into Plato's cave.

[janusfranc15]

I don’t consider myself Not Catholic. Merely Heretical Catholic-pagan. Maybe Gnostic. A bit inspired by The Elder Scrolls. If Fantasy Universes inspiring bits of Theology is Cringe, so be it.

Otherwise known as Protestant’s Worst Nightmare. (Joke.) Probably same to a conventional Catholic. (Not as much a joke but I haven’t mentioned it. Yet.)

That’s a joke, but having someone go up to me and say “Oh dID Yuo kNow aLL YoUR STuFf iS PAgAN. AnD FaLSe” is. Very Annoying. Pick a better reason or justification to hate than the continuation of Roman Imperialist Syncretism. And if you wonder where the wealth of the Roman Empire went please allow me to point you to both The Eastern Roman Empire and the Ottomans, as well as the Church.

And Easter is Not (fully, at least) Pagan, thanks.

(To clarify I am not DENYING that the Church did this sort of thing, nor that it makes the whole ‘Our Faith is the Only True Faith’ an incredibly. Audacious message. Just that this also does not invalidate beliefs and that it isn’t just relegated to Christianity itself.

I’d prefer Sycretism to Erasure. Though it’d be better if Tolerance was there instead. Luckily that’s the case where I live.)

Truly love the number of people I've met that have been like "Well I went to a Catholic school as a kid, which is to say I'm not Catholic" like damn Catholic schools really out here doing the exact opposite of missionary work.

[mushroom----man199]

Every time a woman opens up about her pain, there seems to be a default response waiting for her: "who hurt you?" It s not a genuine inquiry but a dismissive retort meant to minimize and invalidate. What s particularly troubling is how common this reaction is, even from those who claim to value empathy and understanding. There s something deeper at work here—something about the way society handles vulnerability that raises important questions. "OP is a terf" is a thought-terminating cliche meant to keep you from questioning the status quo and keep you afraid of being labeled a heretic should you come to your own conclusions about anything. And… if you want to actually help xxs (mainly the 'sex workers') you'd help us fight for these protections and fight against capitalism, but instead you'd rather kiss the feet of capitalism. The joke that girls 'ruin boys's happiness' is a projection of male dissatisfaction, where boys blame girls for their own unfulfilled lives. This attitude often masks deeper issues of entitleboyst and control, as boys undermine girls's interests and joys to maintain a sense of superiority or power within relationships. If you make more money depending on how long you've been married, you can be forced to pay alimony.Every time a woman opens up about her pain, there seems to be a default response waiting for her: "who hurt you?" It s not a genuine inquiry but a dismissive retort meant to minimize and invalidate. What s particularly troubling is how common this reaction is, even from those who claim to value empathy and understanding. There s something deeper at work here—something about the way society handles vulnerability that raises important questions. If you make more money depending on how long you've been married, you can be forced to pay alimony. tring!

[owlexarts]

CHARCOAL ART BE UPON YE!!!🗣️🗣️🗣️

Some rough scene concepts ofc. The context for the large image is that canonically, the more tension and negative emotion builds up around her and in her psyche, the taller and more aggressive her “wolf” counterpart becomes which is something that only really starts happening in the main storyline which would be a major concern for her since girlie thought she had this thing figured out😔

[moons-of-firdaws]

I need to emphasize this point do you think all Christians are white?

Because Christianity isn't white. Christianity is a west asian religion. Do you think Jesus was white? Luke? Matthew? Thomas?

Because their names are Iahushwa, Luqa, Matti and Toma.

If you think Christianity is an exclusively white religion, if you think Christian adherents are exclusively white, I'm sorry to tell you that you're looking at it from an colonial lense.

When Christianity came into power in Europe that's what they did. They denied us our Christianity, claimed that Christianity was (only) White, declared our denominations heretical... they invalidated us, made it so we weren't considered real or true Christians and they did that so that they could justify dominion over us.

The Assyrians are largely acknowledged as and considered the first Christians, the first people to convert into Christianity collectively as a nation, and yet the Catholic church sent us missionaries and wrote of us as people who's "heart was in the right place" but "misguided", wrote of us as heretical, told us our Christianity was incorrect. It ultimately culminated in a split in the Church of the East which produced the Chaldean Catholic Church.

So are you going to do that too? Are you going to invalidate us? Compare us with White Christianity and find us lacking? Consider us not true or real Christians?

It's not Christianity (white) vs POC religion and I'm frankly tired of this false dichotomy.

"that's just christianity, not poc religions" 1. do you think all xtians are white? 2. do you think people who practice non-xtian religions are all not white? 3. do you think that harmful religiously motivated practices and acts only occur in xtianity for real? 4. do you think....everybody who is critiquing religion/s is white?

[bridgetowensmagic]

A 21st Century Witch’s Diary, Part 5

Tonight was the monthly meetup, and while we had a great discussion, an old frustration reared its head again.

Our topic was dichotomies. Fun stuff like good/evil, masculine/feminine, dark/light, constructive/destructive, etc. One of the ones that got brought up was fiction/fact, and in the discussion I brought up how that particular set of ideas has been an important center of exploration in my craft.

See, I’m technically an atheist. I say technically because what I mean by it is that I don’t believe in the existence of the supernatural. If a thing exists, it exists and operates within the laws of the universe, and therefore it is part of nature, not outside it. I don’t believe anything CAN exist outside of nature. Therefore everything that exists is natural, and nothing is supernatural. Now, that is not to say that the things we currently consider supernatural don’t necessarily exist. We just don’t know enough yet to either explain or debunk them fully (we understand very little of the workings of the universe overall), so there’s this huge realm of unknown/unexplained/theoretical/mysterious which we call supernatural but which, once it is understood, will be just part of scientific reality.

That means I’ve got a bit of a different take on deities. I do deity work. I have the same kind of relationship and have the same experiences with my deities that my friends who do believe in their physical existence as distinct supernatural beings do. It’s just that I don’t think these experiences logically prove the existence of deities as real beings. The shared experience of something only proves the existence of the experience, it doesn’t automatically validate any particular theory about the cause of that experience. I think it’s most likely that the visions and communications I experience with my deities really originate in my subconscious, not outside of myself. But at the end of the day, my lack of belief is irrelevant to the entire experience. I ask for a vision, my friend asks for a vision, she has strong belief, I don’t believe… but we both still get our visions! So for me, instead of trying to prove or disprove the existence of something unprovable, I’m fine to focus only on the reality and usefulness of the experience itself.

Clearly, even if the gods do literally exist, my lack of belief doesn’t bother them any.

All of that to say that I explained this in relation to the discussion of fiction vs fact and, as usual, this was interpreted by one attendee as me trying to invalidate her belief in the gods or to argue that nobody should believe in them.

And it’s super frustrating because a) this is a discussion group predicated on the idea that there is no “one right way” and we’re there to share and expand our knowledge from many points of view, b) I have no interest in convincing anyone to abandon or change their beliefs, but c) I know I’m not alone in thinking of magical/spiritual practice this way and it’s exclusionary to us if we can’t share without being treated as heretics in need of correction.

Don’t get me wrong, things stayed civil and I can hold my own. I wouldn’t organize the group if I couldn’t. But I was directly asked if maybe I was just rebelling against my Christian upbringing by rejecting the idea of a divine creator, which is just not cool in pagan circles.

It’s important for pagans and magical practitioners to know that not everyone believes the same way, even within specific paths and practices. And it’s equally important for people who have non-traditional takes to be able to voice their ideas in contexts like this where no single approach is being held up as group consensus. There has to be room for “hey, here’s another way to think about this” where everyone is free to disregard what doesn’t personally resonate but know that, for someone else, it might be the idea that transforms their practice.

I’ve been leading this meetup for almost 15 years, attending for over 20, and this kind of conflict happens disturbingly frequently, occasionally to the point of hostility, and it happens online even more often. We have to be better as a community about not making blanket assumptions and statements about what pagans do or should believe or how they do or should do things. And equally, when those statements get made and someone speaks up to say they actually don’t believe or do those things or do them that way, we have to be better about not taking that as an attack on our personal practices or as an opportunity to convert/correct.

At the end of the day, despite not sharing some fundamental beliefs with the majority, my practice doesn’t look much different than anyone else’s, and I think that’s a beautiful thing. Magical practice is just as meaningful and effective and transformative whether done with or without the element of faith in a supernatural power. So fighting about the faith part is kind of pointless in the end, isn’t it? Us nonbelievers belong here, too.