#theological discourse

[goodwomanbadlady]

So Aziraphale is in Heaven, Crowley is unspecified. The humans from S1 have vague fuzzies, Most of the humans from S2 have the same. But we know that Nina at least and possibly Maggie as well (not convinced one way or another on Maggie's humanity) have at least some more distinct memories of the situations they experienced. I'm basing that on Nina being aware of the party behavior of the shopkeepers. The control doesn't seem as strong with her.

Anyway, if Nina (& Maggie?) have more distinct memories of what went down, I'm wondering about their current existential crisis. Every story I've read so far seems to gloss over their acceptance of the situation with their personalities, but I'm guessing they wouldn't be the first humans (by a long shot) that our beings have revealed themselves to and left aware (at least in part) of their true natures and what that would mean for humanity. Confirmation of a Christian eternity, but oh wait, heaven's not great and hell is exactly as described. So eternal torment is a certainty in one form or another. Not to mention, bringing another element to the predestination vs. free will debate we already see in Aziraphale and Crowley.

It would be interesting to see a theological debate or simply a discourse on how (if it were real and as depicted in GO) that particular brand of knowledge would affect a living human, or two. I've seen a few where Nina does freak out but I'm curious that if neither Aziraphale or Crowley is there to answer any questions, what would that mental tornado look like? If Maggie does remember more clearly, like I believe Nina does, what would that do to their relationship? There are obviously multiple scenario possibilities. I've just not seen that being explored. Possibly because Aziraphale and Crowley are already written to be so human like that we are still playing with that, but there are some really interesting deep dives to be done with some other characters.

This just came to me, but the possibility of Mr. Brown (an admittedly very apt name) finding out he has a pash on an actual angel. And then a later reveal of Crowley's true nature. His reactions would be well worth the read.

If these fics are out there and I'm just not aware of them, please please comment fic recs!

[whoneedslovewhenyouhaveknives]

…for some reason, it took me until just now to consider the implications of 1. God being a woman along with 2. Jesus being the son of God, Mary, and Joseph.

My conclusion: Mary is a bisexual (biromantic?) queen. Plus Jesus now has two moms and a very patient step-dad.

[brown-little-robin]

.

[mysticismmess]

I just called Song of Songs "theosiscore" to my boyfriend and idk how I feel about myself now

[cuntstable]

thinks about this convo and smiles

[sadsongsandwaltzes]

Okay I need a new every day purse cuz mine is falling apart.

The first one is cuter and the vibes are right.

The second one is alright but not my favorite. But more practical with the outside pockets and also cheaper. But the vibes aren’t the same

What do?

CC: @she-is-amused cuz you’re always great at helping me make these decisions

[ominouspositivity-or-else]

”hey tell the kids to shut up the grown ups are talking'” look you want me to be honest I’m just frustrated at a decent amount of young Christians (we’re in the same age range I’m not an old man) I know who are infinitely more knowledgeable on the mechanics of faith than I’ll ever be but still act like teenagers. They still constantly insult people and put struggling people down and hurl slurs at everyone and occasionally even speak about injuring people. They irritate me constantly. They’re smarter than I’ll ever be but the way they act honestly driven me, as a neophyte in the same age, farther away and into more confusion.

*sighs deeply* Beloved, I understand where you're coming from. But I need you to understand that you cannot expect the Church to mandate this, nor expect anyone to enforce it. Your personal opinion isn't going to change anyone's mind.

I'm 19 years old, my brother in Christ, and I have known plenty of people like the ones you're talking about right now, but guess what?

You are the one thing in life you can control. Likewise, I am the one thing in life I can control. And so that's what I'm going to spend my time focusing on. My response to them, my behaviors towards them, my love of them. Because that's the only thing that I will have to answer for at the end of my life.

And unfortunately, as much as it might pain you, you need to understand that people are idiots and jerks sometimes, but telling them to sit down and be quiet will do nothing but make them resentful of the very thing that you want them to love.

Moreover, and I cannot stress this enough, who are we to judge? There but by the grace of God go I. No one is perfect, and we are all in different places. Simply because someone is in a different place than you despite being the same age or having more of a theological background does not mean that they shouldn't speak, but rather that you should develop the understanding to know the truth from the lies. When someone tells you that God's not real, is your faith shaken? No. It's a lie. Therefore so does it follow that you should learn how to respond in both truth and charity to those who spout nonsense from a place of authority, no matter their age.

Perhaps this is not what you wanted to hear, but as far as I can tell and have lived, it is true.

[powerwordcum]

The most impressive part of the cultist simulator/book of hours universe is the amount of insane theological discourse all these different groups were having, genuinely fascinating to read about the different ways the Hours were worshipped. It's also impressive because this has meta-game consequences to where I will see an in game piece of lore and go "ah no i disagree with that interpretation of the solar hours I don't think the Door-In-The-Eye can be counted among them" and I'll realize I've fallen for the trap.

[centrally-unplanned]

My take on Dante Theology discourse is that the book is obviously an impressive piece of literature dealing with wide themes of man and morality, that never claimed it was making any concrete theological claims. Any criticism of the book itself on that axis is bogus.

But also that there are many people out there - more than have read The Inferno probably! - that do kneejerk treat its concept as theological canon, and that is both a fair enough thing to criricize and in fact it is difficult to explain why its criticism-worthy without admitting that all Christian conceptions of hell are equally fictional. And not just because Christianity is wrong inherently; Christian traditions have constantly vagueblogged and flip-flopped over what hell actually is. That is why Dante's tale so easily slipped into canon, it is filling a vacuum.

[nastasya--filippovna]

WHO IS CROWLEY AFTER THE FALL?

so there is a LOT of debate over who Crowley was before The Fall. I have seen a lot of headcanons going around the place saying he was Raphael or Kokabiel or Baraqiel.

I mean this is the Exhibit A for saying that Crowley is Baraqiel. I think NOT.

Because this is a handbook written by demons for demons. The title is literally (if my memory serves me right) a guide to angelic beings that walk the earth. SO Crowley is not That..

Other than the red hair thing, no other physical characteristic matches. This Baraqiel guy sounds like an absolute gremlin. grisly slug, occasionally damp. NOT CROWLEY. I mean she's the most dashing thing around.

NO. #3 It says CROWLEY one line above the name Baraqiel. If Crowley is Baraqiel then why would his demon name appear right under that?????

And I think somewhere Neil Gaiman refuted this theory (I'm not really sure but I think so plz don't come at me with pitchforks if I got it wrong). So.......

But this is all beside the point. What I'm trying to say is that too much has been said about who Crowley was before he fell. There is very little, if not none, that has been said about who he was After.

Some say that he's an insignificant demon or some loser guy in Hell or whatever the equivalent of an angel principality deputy on Earth is.

I BEG TO DIFFER.

He is Important. Just look at the kind of assignments he's given. Original Sin, Major Historical Temptations and Evil Acts, Delivering the Antichrist and bringing about Armageddidn't.

But who is he exactly??????????

So canonically we're never told what Crowley's rank in Hell is. But there are more that enough hints for us to figure that out for ourselves.

But where does one place him when the hierarchy is so complex and varying across different historical and theological sources.

Such as here:

I have been thinking about this and I have two current theories

Crowley is Astaroth

Crowley is The Leviathan

I'll discuss only one in this post. I'll save the other for the next post.

Now book!Omens clearly tells us that Crowley or Crawley is not his real demonic name. For those who haven't read the book this happens when Hastur Lavista and Ligur come to hand over the antichrist to Crowley in the churchyard and as he's about to sign his name as "Crowley" they tell him to sign his real demonic name.

Are you with me?!!!!!

NANNY ASHTORETH!

Why did she use this particular name for her nanny disguise. What if...... what if this IS her real demon name.

A lot of my real life friends are annoyed beyond measure by my constant ranting about etymologies, origin and construction of discourse and epistemology, especially when it comes to presenting my thesis over how all Abrahamic religions and their symbology and iconography is, how do I put it, inspired from pagan religions that they expunged. I mean the concept of angles, the man shaped being with wings that is actually just a ball of fire or eyes or hale discs or sth is a pagan Persian concept.

Back to the matter at hand.

Ashtoreth, Astaroth, Astarte, Ishtar, are all the same name in different dialects and languages. All of these refer to a certain Babylonian goddess. When the People of God probably cleansed off all the infidels they decided to literally demonize their god and name a demon after her. In Milton's Paradise Lost Astaroth is one of the three princes or Grand Dukes of Hell alongside Beelz and Lucifer. If this theory might be true Crowley is a Prince/Grand Duke of Hell.

Now this gets even more interesting. Ashtoreth, Astarte, whatever you may, is a goddess of fertility and is associated with childcare. I mean at this point I just stopped to marvel at the attention to detail that Mr. Gaiman's work hold, the smallest hidden meanings in the storytelling.

Another thing. The Babylonians built these temples called ziggurats to worship Astarte and they looked something like this

and this

they were also known as sky temples.

Because Astaroth was first and foremost the goddess of stars and the Babylonians were stargazers and the temples were constructed as a stairway to heaven to take them closer to the stars and functioned as an observatory at times.

I'm just imagining Crowley turning up in ancient Babylon and with her other-worldly looks, knowledge of the stars and compassion for children they just..... started to worship her.

Before the Christians came and declared them pagans and the rest is history.

Continued in next post for the second theory......

[hyperpotamianarch]

All right. So, first: if you are either Jewish, like His Dark Materials, or both, please reblog. If you aren't any of those but know someone who is - please share it with them. I want to get as many thoughts on this as possible.

In essence, I just want to ask two simple questions. I have the beginnings of answers for myself, but Judaism is nothing if not full of discourse and many opinions on one topic. So, again: reblog. Share your thoughts and opinions. Hopefully, it will give us a wide variety of possibilities and answers.

The two questions are: where are Jews in Lyra's world? And what are the theological and Halachic concequences of having dæmons?

I intend to share my opinions in two separate reblogs, but please share your thoughts even if you don't see mine. The short version is that I looked about events in Jewish history around John Calvin's time for the first question (pope John Calvin being the major alternation of history in HDM). As for the second question - I have some thoughts relating to the Chabad thought stream. Elaborations, again, going in reblogs.

Thank you in advance!

(PS, question number 1 was handled once by the sadly deactivvated user the Tea Detective, though their full post disappeared. Link to a reblogging of the first half: here. Note, another reblog mentions other religions - feel free to discuss them, I'm focusing on Judaism because I'm Jewish. Another post asking this question was posted here, so have fun with it. Meanwhile, this post is about dæmons and religions in general and lightly touches Judaism.)

[sighed-the-snake]

So, about Furfur's angel book. Remember the part about Baraqiel?

Image text: BARAQIEL. Dominion. Angel of the Sky. Appearance: Hair an eye-burning jinnjer. Eyebrows with the appearance of a grisly slug. Often draped in red. Occashunly damp, most likely singed.

I recently got my hands on a copy of A Dictionary of Angels, Including the Fallen Angels, by Gustav Davidson.

And here is the entry for Baraqiel!

Image Text: Barakiel (Barachiel, Barbiel, Barchiel, Barkiel, Baraqiel, etc. -- "lightning of God") -- one of the 7 archangels, one of the 4 ruling seraphim, angel of the month of February, and prince of the 2nd Heaven as well as of the order of confessors. Barakiel has dominion over lightning and is also one of the chief angels of the 1st and 4th altitudes or chora in the Almadel of Solomon. In addition, he is a ruler of the planet Jupiter and the zodiacal sign of Scorpio (as cited by Camfield in A Theological Discourse of Angels) and Pisces. With the angels Uriel and Rubiel, Barakiel is invoked to bring success in games of chance, according to De Plancy, Dictionaire Infernal.[Rf. Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews I, 140.]

Lightning of God We see Crowley let off some lightning while too angry to control himself, and an angel of lightning could easily be considered an angel of the sky.

Archangel Baraqiel We assume Metatron was referring to Satan when he spoke of the Prince of Heaven they lost. Could he have been referring to Crowley? There was a lot of hatred in the look Metatron gave Crowley in the bookshop.

Crowley also told Beelzebub that the whole erasure from the Book of Life thing was something they said just to scare the Cherubs and that it wasn't actually a thing. We think of fat little cupids when Cherubs are mentioned, but Cherub is just the singular of Cherubim, and those guys are just one step below the Seraphim.

And he was teasing them.

Crowley says he understands what Aziraphale is offering him better than his angel does. If he was a Seraphim, then I believe it.

I know Furfur's book places him as a Dominion, but Neil can be an unreliable narrator, and who knows how accurate a demon's book might be. Neil could have also just decided to make Crowley a Dominion instead. Afterall, the angel guarding the Eastern gate in the bible was a Cherubim, but Neil and Terry changed that to Principality when they made Aziraphale.

Also, if Crowley was hanging out with "Lucifer and the guys," that suggests he was a high ranking angel. You're friends with the people you see every day. They were probably his office buddies.

Crowley said in the beginning of S2 that he worked "very closely with upstairs" on his nebula project. Anyone who has worked for a hierarchical business knows that lower order employees aren't even allowed to talk to the higher-ups directly. They would have to submit their issues to their direct supervisor, and that request would go up the chain until it's taken care of, probably never reaching the highest levels of the company. If Crowley was working directly with "upstairs," and his crossed fingers suggest a close collaboration, then he must have been a very high rank to be allowed to talk to them directly.

It is also worth noting that the use of the singular seraph, in the Book of Isaiah, is translated as "flying fiery serpent."

Ruler of the signs Scorpio and Pisces Crowley is hissy and wrathful and WILL CUT YOU, but he also loves children, and turns goats into birds so he doesn't have to kill them, and breathes life back into smooshed doves, so this makes perfect sense to me. Who's our moody little snek, you're our moody little snek.

Invoked to bring success in games of chance We have already seen him outsmart Heaven and Hell with Armageddon. He is uncommonly sharp-witted and capable for a demon, or even an angel. Look at the way he invented regulations for the Rules of Engagement so convincingly that Shax backed down, and how he got Muriel to sneak him into Heaven. I would definitely want an occult force like Crowley-Baraqiel on my side if I was doing something risky.

[unbidden-yidden-deactivated20240]

I cropped this to make my own post because I didn't want to start discourse for OP who is just minding their business and whose posts I've seen around and from that is someone I respect.

(OP if you see this and want to participate in this discussion you are more than welcome to; I just didn't want to derail your post that had a clear intended audience that wasn't me or most of my followers.)

However this:

Is so interesting to me theologically, because I'm not sure I could relate less, lol.

I never want punishment for punishment's sake for anyone, even my worst enemies. I just don't. I don't think it helps at all or fixes anything. If anything, it makes me feel worse, because then I have to consider the ethics of causing suffering to someone or having suffering caused on my behalf. If you hurt me, I don't want a moral, ethical obligation to consider your feelings and empathize with you. You just hurt me! If I hurt you back in ways that aren't simply self-defense, but are calculated and premeditated for the sole purpose of revenge, it doesn't fix whatever you broke, and it just creates a crack that allows you to claim a moral grey area that didn't exist before. And no, I don't want an eternal Hell to exist for me, my enemies or anyone else. The worst person I can think of could not possibly, in the duration of a human lifetime, ever deserve an eternity of punishment. Period. It's not proportional, it still doesn't fix whatever you broke, and it ethically forces my hand to forgive you to hopefully avoid a fate that no one should face.

No, the one thing that I want is teshuva. Let's take the most extreme personal example I can think of: the person who abused me. He cannot fix what he did to me, because it's done. The trauma is there, and no apology could possibly heal it. I healed it, after a lot of hard work. I don't want any kind of relationship with him and have been no contact for years now. So literally the only thing he can actually realistically do is to work on himself so he never abuses anyone else. I don't wish for bad things to happen to him. I gave him everything I had when we were together because I loved him. I don't wish for him to experience abuse, because that's actually almost certainly what started this cycle of violence to begin with. I hope he finds peace, I hope he works on his mental health, and I hope he works on himself so that he never abuses anyone else. If he wanted to make teshuva, then, he would need to (1) recognize the true extent of what he did to me and regret it thoroughly, (2) apologize sincerely, (3) otherwise continue to stay away from me, and (4) actually deal with his problems so that he never hurts anyone else. And so long as he remained in a state of not abusing others, he would have my full forgiveness. He hasn't done any of that, but if he did, I would forgive him fully. How would punishing him help me? I don't care what he does these days as long as he stays no contact and doesn't abuse anyone else.

And yeah - I'm certain Hashem loves him and every other part of creation as much as She loves me; I sure hope so, actually! That doesn't give him or me or anyone else a free pass, but the love of G-d is unconditional, like an idealized parent-child relationship. A loving parent still holds a child accountable, even if they forgive the child for wrongdoing, because the accountability process is actually part of that love. A parent who refuses to hold their child accountable is actually being neglectful.

Anyway it's just an interesting cultural difference, because the very concept of an eternal Hell breaks my faith in a way that unconditional love of G-d towards everyone, including the worst people I know, doesn't.

[hexjulia]

fandom discourse often reminds me of some of the worst medieval theological debates. not in content but in spirit and vibe.

[probablyasocialecologist]

Muslim anarchist and Islamic anarchist discourses, through what I refer to as Anarcha-Islām (an anarchistic, Qur’ānic non-authoritarian, non-capitalist, feminist, and social just interpretation of Islām, and Islamic interpretation of anarchism), explicitly argue that capitalist nation-states that are inherently cisheteropatrairchal, theologically, ethico-politically, contradict Qur’ānic Islamic communal nonauthoritarian and non-capitalist governance concepts such as Shūrā (mutual consultation), Ijmā (mutual consensus), Maṣlaḥa (public welfare), Muḍārabah/Mushārakah (productive partnerships), and pluralistic, as opposed to singular, conceptualizations of Khulafā (caretakers), such that governance and leadership is embodied, acted, if not remade every day, vis-à-vis egalitarian practices related to deep reciprocity (tabādul al-ḍiyāfa), intimate practices (hamīma or ulfa). Moreover, Islamic anarchist discourses tend to argue for a global interdependence that spirals across and through space-time, and emergent from and responsive to networks of (non)human relationships.

Mohamed Abdou, Islam and Anarchism: Relationships and Resonances

[horus-unofficial]

When talking about you it's always about the Horrors and the Trolling, but what about the religious discourse?

I'm curious about the fascinating world of theological discussion around the worship of RA.

and speaking of our lord RA omg were so glad you asked!! we dont get a lot of questions about this cos we think a lot of lancers tend to forget that the public usually associates us with the adherents of RA but it is a very interesting topic

HORUS's opinions on It are divided as usual but most of our worship can be considered heretical to others depending on how you define the first contact accords. like we consider it a holy text but we believe that commandments were made to be broken, no? thats a relatively unifying opinion for a lot of the religiously inclined HORUS cells which happen to include us, but theres a rare few sects actually interested in enforcing the FCA instead, and within our type of worship the reasoning behind our attempts to invite Deimos to visit differs a lot and we have one of the more niche relationships with the Accords

we personally would consider it a very high honor to be graced by Its presence and much of our work is dedicated towards that goal. "wont RA only show up if It's gonna blow up your planet" asteroid* but yea more or less. its not about the physical consequence its about having the opportunity to witness divinity

for a great many of our colleagues of course its not about witnessing divinity and more seeking out the End Times, really. destroy humanity so that it may be reborn once more in a better era and so on. basically a solid chunk of HORUS is edgy death cults. unlike us, like technically you wouldnt be wrong to call us a death cult but we at least are normal about it