#this is precisely what daniel and gabriel have in common

[ageofxail]

[licncourt]

Any headcanons about vampires playing the monopoly board game? Or Uno, singing karaoke, or playing video games or anything like that? I think it would be really funny to see what happens! Loving your blog! ❤

Thank you!! And oh my God I love this concept. Silly head canons about serious media >>>

The only game Louis enjoys enough to initiate is chess, but no one wants to play with him because he takes it way too seriously. He has no sense of humor about it, he's out for blood. Russian grand master intensity

Marius is a total buzzkill in Monopoly. He's either making ruthless business decisions that get him death threats or he's bitching about how it's unfair that any of this is up to chance dice rolls instead of just smart brokering. ("That's just work, Marius. You're describing a job.")

Lestat is obsessed with karaoke (any opportunity to be an attention whore and remind everyone that he had a band). The best part of group karaoke at Night Island is torturing Louis with serenades and his favorite song for that purpose is Louie Louie by Joan Jett

When Gabrielle is in civilization visiting her son, she likes hunting simulators and CoD. Anything with lots of guns, preferably POV

Armand is the guy who flips out when he loses at Wii bowling and puts the controller through the TV. He does love video games though (the more violent the better) and it's his and Daniel's favorite night-in activity

When Louis and Lestat are alone together, sometimes they play old French and colonial card games like piquet. It's nostalgic and mindless and sometimes it's nice to recapture the feeling of their quieter nights together before the world got so loud and complicated

Louis is very anti-video game (he finds them overstimulating) but he does take to Animal Crossing. He'll sit almost motionless on the couch for hours, totally engrossed and not blinking, with only the faint sound of AC music and the taptaptap of the buttons to fill the silence. He probably also has one of those virtual aquariums or garden simulators on his phone

Nothing is overstimulating for Lestat, a toddler at heart, and his favorite games are whatever is loudest and most colorful. Mario Kart is a common favorite and his vampire reflexes and precision mean he has Rainbow Road times unattainable by the human hand. Just Dance is also not unheard of and it turns him into a public nuisance

Sometimes Daniel and Armand have all-nighter gaming marathons with bagged blood as sustenance (don't ask where Armand gets it, no one knows). On those nights, they do one-player adventure games and take turns, swapping off between playing and backseat driving for maximum efficiency. Armand is the puzzle master, but Daniel fights the bosses

Marius wants to try D&D but no one will open that can of worms with him once they realize what it entails

There used to be a ping pong table in the Night Island private rec room, but everyone kept putting dents in the wall. None of them can keep their strength in check when things get heated. Billiards only. Louis is very good at billiards. He says he likes it because it's a "gentleman's game" but it's actually because Lestat stares at his ass bending over the table and it's a nice ego boost

[royalynx]

(   *  💀  /  daniel ezra, cis male, he/him  )  —  is that kingsley shacklebolt i just saw rushing down the corridor? i hear they’re a twenty two year old gryffindor, returning for their seventh school year, but their friends would tell you that they are grounded & commanding as well as opinionated & strong-willed. if you want to know more about them, i guess i could tell you that they’re pureblood, and from what i hear, they’re currently allying with the order. when our divination professor looks into their crystal ball, they see: the calming presence in the back of the room, muggle records hidden in drawers, steaming mugs of tea, the warmth of a hug, the burn of quiet fury.

CHARACTER INSPIRATION: Luke Cage (Jessica Jones), Kingsley Shacklebolt (Books: Order of the Phoenix through Deathly Hallows), Jake Reilly (Private Practice), Terry Jeffords (Brooklyn Nine-Nine), Alphonso ‘Mack’ Mackenzie (Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.), Matt Simmons (Criminal Minds), Odafin Tutuola (Law and Order: SVU), Spencer James (All American).

TRIGGER WARNINGS: ???

LINKS: Pinterest (Coming Soon). Playlist (Coming Soon).

𝐒𝐓𝐀𝐓𝐈𝐒𝐓𝐈𝐂𝐒

I N T R O

full name ➵ Kingsley Akiel Shacklebolt

nicknames ➵ King; Kings; Kas; Shack; Shacklebolt; Royal

pronouns ➵ he/him/his

orientation ➵ bisexual biromantic

birthdate / age ➵ May 8th, 1957, 15:32 am / 22 years old

birthplace ➵ Birmingham, England

childhood home ➵ Birmingham, England

current residence ➵ Hogwarts, Scotland

religion ➵ atheist

occupation ➵ full - time student at Hogwarts School for Witchcraft and Wizardry

P H Y S I C A L

height ➵ 5 feet, 10 1/2 inches / 179 cm

weight ➵ 78 kg / 171lb

body type ➵ mesomorph ( athletic; generally hard body; well defined muscles; rectangular shaped body; strong; gains muscle easily; gains fat easily )

hair ➵ black, shaved/cropped 

eye color ➵ dark brown

dominant hand ➵ ambidextrous

FC ➵ Daniel Ezra

voice ➵ Daniel Ezra

special characteristics ➵

tattoo of a lion on the back of his neck that roars when danger is near

acne scars on cheeks

perfect posture

smells of ➵

broom wax

toothpaste

lavender, anise, basil, bergamot and lemon; geranium, ylang-ylang and jasmine; oakmoss, vetiver, tonka bean, patchouli, vanilla and sandalwood - Brut by Faberge

E M O T I O N A L

zodiac ➵ taurus sun (x); virgo rising; virgo moon

MBTI ➵ ISTJ (“The Logistician”)

positive traits ➵  grounded; commanding; courageous; considerate; observant; dedicated; forbearing to an almost mind-boggling degree; put-together; knowledgeable; self-reliant.

neutral traits ➵ fearless; calming; stolid; diplomatic; paternalistic.

negative traits ➵ opinionated; strong-willed; quiet; stubborn; high-minded; aloof to some; reticent; stoic; overcritical; has very high expectations of himself & others.

likes ➵ playing Quidditch; freshly baked bread; playing Gobstones at 3am; a warm bed; muggle record players; purple; watching the sea; forehead kisses; DADA; organized notes; wearing rings; honeycakes; David Bowie; dragonhide boots; chocolate frogs; firedrakes; Charms; Firewhiskey; watching the fire in the Gryffindor common room; twenty; red wine; laughing with Frank and Alastor; Transfiguration; The Beatles; his sister

dislikes ➵ legilimency; bigotry; raisins in chocolate; Divination; messy desks; foggy London; Sacred 28; people flaking on him; his team losing Quidditch matches; pumpkin juice; using school brooms; sushi; magic quills; pixies; History of Magic; the treatment of squibs by wizarding society; muddy orange; gigglewater; the texture of mushrooms; feeling unsettled; licorice; rollercoasters; toads; the word mudblood; Turkish delight

amortentia ➵

freshly cut grass

roast chicken dinner

aftershave

sandalwood

M A G I C

blood status ➵ pureblood

wand ➵ Alder wood with cherry trailed over the front like the path of a river, or a lightning bolt, White River Monster spine core, 14 and a 1/4 inches, solid

whilst Alder makes for an unyielding wood, its ideal owner is not stubborn or obstinate, but often helpful, considerate and most likeable. Whereas most wand woods seek similarity in the characters of those they will best serve, alder is unusual in that it seems to desire a nature that is, if not precisely opposite to its own, then certainly of a markedly different type. When an alder wand is happily placed, it becomes a magnificent, loyal helpmate. Of all wand types, alder is best suited to non-verbal spell work, whence comes its reputation for being suitable only for the most advanced witches and wizards. (Cherry, a very rare wand wood creates a wand of strange power, most highly prized by the wizarding students of the school of Mahoutokoro in Japan, where those who own cherry wands have special prestige. The Western wand-purchaser should dispel from their minds any notion that the pink blossom of the living tree makes for a frivolous or merely ornamental wand, for cherry wood often makes a wand that possesses truly lethal power, whatever the core, but if teamed with dragon heartstring, the wand ought never to be teamed with a wizard without exceptional self-control and strength of mind.) The use of a  White River Monster spine produced spells of force and elegance. 

patronus ➵ Lynx

E D U C A T I O N

Hogwarts class ➵ Gryffindor, 1981

extracurriculars ➵

Gryffindor Prefect / September 1980 - June 1981

Captain of the Gryffindor Quidditch Team / September 1979 - June 1981

Gryffindor Chaser / October 1975 - June 1981

Charms Club / September 1975 - June 1981

Toothill Duelling Club / September 1978 - June 1981

Slug Club / December 1977 - June 1981

courses & exams ➵

Ancient Runes - O

Charms - O

Defense Against the Dark Arts - O

Herbology - O

Arithmancy - O

Muggle Studies - O

Potions - O

Transfiguration - O

Care of Magical Creatures - O

now studying Alchemy ( predicted an O )

M I S C E L L A N E O U S

health ➵

strawberry allergy

pets ➵ 

Archimedes; the family owl ( great horned owl )

handwriting ➵ Sebastian Bobby

F A M I L Y

Ora Shacklebolt (nee Kayoude) ➵ paternal grandmother; socialite; alive

Kingsley Shacklebolt I ➵ grandfather; Wizengamot member; alive

Yara Audley (nee Idowu) ➵ maternal grandmother; homeschooled; apothecary worker; alive

Akiel Audley ➵ maternal grandfather; homeschooled; Quidditch supply store owner; alive

Alaric Shacklebolt I ➵ father; Gryffindor; Senior Auror for the DMLE; alive

Meera Shacklebolt ➵ mother; homeschooled (opted out of attending Ilvermorny / Hogwarts); apothecary worker; alive

Eralia Audley ➵ maternal aunt; homeschooled; Senior Assistant to the Jamaican Minister of Magic; alive

Gabrielle Shacklebolt ➵ paternal aunt; Hufflepuff; Ministry employee; alive

Edward Shacklebolt (took wife’s name) ➵ paternal uncle; Hufflepuff; job; alive

Khenan Shacklebolt ➵ paternal uncle; Ravenclaw; curse breaker for Gringotts; alive

Kingsley Akiel Shacklebolt (II) ➵ self; Gryffindor; Future Senior Auror for the DMLE; alive

Bianca Omnira Shacklebolt ➵ sister; fifth year Ravenclaw; unknown future; alive

𝐅𝐑���𝐄𝐅𝐎𝐑𝐌

his parents used to say he was born for diplomacy. that’s what they’d drilled into him since he was born: fight the good fight, be honest and good and stay calm, always. they can only catch you off guard when you aren’t. he’d always been somewhat of a natural diplomat — the oldest child, expectations hung from his shoulders as if they were coats and he, a coat rack. he’d always been a quiet child, somewhat unassuming, almost shy, content to play and be alone, often found even as a baby, simply amusing himself with his fist over crying, wailing for attention. when they attended the galas and balls befitting of a family part of the sacred 28, little changed. in fact, he was praised for it — how level-headed he was, even when all he wanted to do was scream and shout and set fire to the curtains by the window to stop them yammering on about the importance of blood purity and their precious, precious privilege, how he smiled politely and shook hands and never, ever made a scene. he hated them. he hated every last one of them. their fake smiles and empty eyes, how they hated for no reason and believed themselves to be superior — a kernel of a fallacy that kingsley, even as a child, could never subscribe to.

but kingsley was nothing if not a good man, and a good son, and so, he stayed silent — at least, to everyone who never crossed the boundaries of their home. to them, kingsley was a young wizard who showed particular promise in their circle, but to those who saw him at home, his internal torture over it was obvious. he had muggle neighbours, even muggle friends, people who made him laugh and gave his parents presents when his beloved baby sister was born, and he could not abide the dual life his parents were living. when they were home, they were tolerant — amused, even, by the muggles they surrounded themselves with, something his mother always said was to keep them grounded, because she’d already lost one sibling to pureblood mania and refused to lose herself, or her husband, or either of her children. when they were at the galas, they were cold, a little aloof, they laughed along with jokes at muggles expenses, they shook hands, ate appetisers, danced and never seemed to show any remorse for the roles they had to play those nights, though he knew they had to feel guilty (he hoped they felt guilty.) he knew they felt they had to do it to survive — to thrive, even, in a world in which they weren’t always welcome, but he hates it.

he loves his family. kingsley loves them with every part of him, loves his younger sister with his entire heart, is never not seen at home without her practically hanging off his ankles, and then his knees, and then his hips, until she’s too tall and too old for that, he loves his mother and relishes her hugs and the way she always knows what to say to make him feel better, he loves his father and that deep, slow river of calm that seems to run through him, the same river kingsley has always felt took root in him, but he hates their legacy. he hates their part in the sacred twenty eight. he hates every part of it. he hates that they agreed to this — to what feels like a mortal lock, an unbreakable vow, tying themselves to this until the end of time. he hates that he understands why — their blood runs pure, he knows, in other wizards standards, but knowing what the sacred twenty eight stands for? what it really represents? kingsley thinks that their blood is the blood that’s dirty, that they’re the ones who ought to be ashamed of themselves for their existence, that they’re the ones who value opulence and power over people’s lives and that makes them wrong and evil and undeserving of their magic. it’s the first time — the only time — his parents have ever seen him truly angry — he remembers it well, being fourteen and all uncontrolled fury for the first time, how the quiet anger had burned and swelled under his skin until he couldn’t hold it in anymore, and how he’d made all the glass windows in the dining room shatter, the glass raining like sand when his father waved it away with a swish of his wand, kingsley’s chest heaving as he yells, raging against their indifference, feeling oddly soothed when his mother pulls him into his arms and whispers that she’s sorry. she’s sorry. she knows, she knows. he wishes that were enough — that apology, that acknowledgement that they were — are — hypocrites.

even still, his love for his family, flaws and all, remains, though he’s slowly pulled back from any engagement with the pureblood world over the years. he’s very proud to be his father’s son — the son of an auror, recipient of the order of merlin second class — and his mother’s. he’s proud to be his sister’s big brother, her protector. he’s even more proud when he gets his letter to hogwarts, confirming what they all already knew — magic is strong in the shacklebolt family. he picks up the family wand, purchased in america in the early 1920s — alder with cherry trailed over the front like the path of a river, or a lightning bolt, white river monster spine core, fourteen and a quarter inches, solid — and he feels a piece of himself slots firmly into place. hogwarts is where his father went, where his father’s father went (over ilvermorny), and though he can no longer pretend to be complacent to their every whim in regards to the sacred twenty eight (something which both his parents have since begun to shun), he knows getting sorted into gryffindor would make them both proud, and that’s what he wants, so that’s what be did — the bat barely touched his head before declaring him a gryffindor. even now, as a twenty two year old seventh year on the brink of graduating into a fully fledged war, he wants to make them proud. he wants to be a pillar of strength, safety, tolerance, love, support, he wants to be the friendly face ushering people to safety, he wants to be the one raining hellfire down on the prejudiced idiots who think that they’re any different to anyone else, with magic or without, on this planet, that they’re superior in any way because of their blood.

[thevividgreenmoss]

For present purposes, it will be enough to cite a particularly compelling example to illustrate how this discourse is now being applied to what used to be called the "Third World." That example is found in the work of Gayatri Spivak, who once remarked that "Class is the purest form of signifier," implying that class is a "pure" linguistic symbol in the sense that it has no concrete referent in the material world.(1) From the vantage point of the sort of linguistic theory on which so many postmodernist discourse analysts draw, the quality of the referent is less important than the location of concepts like class in relation to other "signifiers." So Spivak is able to say, for instance, that "socialism" has "no historically adequate referent" in India, by which she means that Indian socialism did not originate in a truly indigenous tradition of socialist discourse. Aijaz Ahmad has recently commented on this observation in a way that nicely captures the postmodernist notion of "history." To be told that socialism has no "historically adequate referent" in India, he remarks, would come as a big surprise to all those millions of Indians who, for reasons having to do with their own experience of their own domestic capitalism and their own situation in its class divisions, regularly vote Communist. The "historical referent" for Indian socialism, in other words, is not some disembodied imperial "discourse" but Indian capitalism and a political practice "undertaken within India by Indian political subjects."

Other essays in this issue outline the main characteristics of postmodernist "discourse." For present purposes, it will be enough to cite a particularly compelling example to illustrate how this discourse is now being applied to what used to be called the "Third World." That example is found in the work of Gayatri Spivak, who once remarked that "Class is the purest form of signifier," implying that class is a "pure" linguistic symbol in the sense that it has no concrete referent in the material world.(1) From the vantage point of the sort of linguistic theory on which so many postmodernist discourse analysts draw, the quality of the referent is less important than the location of concepts like class in relation to other "signifiers." So Spivak is able to say, for instance, that "socialism" has "no historically adequate referent" in India, by which she means that Indian socialism did not originate in a truly indigenous tradition of socialist discourse. Aijaz Ahmad has recently commented on this observation in a way that nicely captures the postmodernist notion of "history." To be told that socialism has no "historically adequate referent" in India, he remarks, would come as a big surprise to all those millions of Indians who, for reasons having to do with their own experience of their own domestic capitalism and their own situation in its class divisions, regularly vote Communist. The "historical referent" for Indian socialism, in other words, is not some disembodied imperial "discourse" but Indian capitalism and a political practice "undertaken within India by Indian political subjects."

That is one way of summing up the difference between postmodernism and Marxism. It isn't that Marxism is uninterested in language, discourse, or meaning, and the best historical-materialist work deals precisely with the many different concrete referents that words like "class" or "work" can have in specific historical conditions. But here I simply want to underline that Marxism can understand the practices through which meanings are produced in relation to the actions of people on and in the world and not just in relation to other meanings. Practices are undertaken in particular places at particular times by particular subjects in particular conditions, and these have to be studied historically.

Say, for instance, we want to analyze Mexican society, whether viewed through the prism of the Mexican revolution of 1910, or the neo-Zapatista revolution in Chiapas starting on January 1, 1994, or the crisis of the state and the ruling party in recent months. A starting point would be to recognize that Mexico has long been a "postcolonial society." Mexico has moved along temporally - if not developmentally - from an earlier colonial condition for almost two centuries. Yet one of the most striking features of the ways in which political power is organized socially and experienced subjectively throughout Mexico - whether in the "advanced" northern state of Chihuahua or the "backward" southeastern state of Chiapas - is that it is and remains a profoundly colonial or, in a pinch, neocolonial rather than unequivocally postcolonial form of power. Neither the Wars of Independence and the Wars of the Reform during the nineteenth century, nor the revolution of 1910 and the "re forms" of Salinastroika in the period 1988-1994 during the twentieth century, signalled irreversible, radical breaks with the past. Rather, they are moments in a sustained process of transformation. That series of political transformations was associated with a series of economic transformations that established the specific form of Mexican capitalism. The language of "pre" and "post," which pretends to be about historical change, actually disguises these processes of transformation by carving up history into discontinuous and disconnected units.

Nevertheless, the lure of intellectual fashion is so great that scholars who two decades ago worked with peasants in Mexico, and wrote about social movements, rural class formation, and the permanent character of the primitive accumulation of capital in dependent, peripheral states, now author postmodernist essays and books with titles (e.g., Hybrid Cultures) and themes (the metaphor of a salamander to organize reflections on Mexican history) that have more in common with magical realist literature than with historical materialist analysis. This is not to suggest that magical realism - say, the novels of Gabriel Garcia Marquez or Isabel Allende - has nothing to tell us, and that only historical materialism can reveal the Truth. It is only to underline the radical differences between literary and historical ways of relating to social reality.

Perhaps it should come as little surprise that some postmodern/postcolonial critics seem, or pretend, not to know that the arenas of discourse in which their work circulates are at several removes from the social reality they purport to represent. The privileges now enjoyed by intellectuals in the North have been so reduced that many seem to be compensating by providing to themselves an inflated sense of their own importance and the significance of purely intellectual or "discursive" practices. Nonetheless, the distinction between what is being talked about and how it is being talked about remains important. As Gabriel Garcia Marquez is reported to have said to Carlos Fuentes while discussing the turn taken by internecine struggles within the ruling party in Mexico in the early months of 1995, "We are going to have to throw our books into the sea. We've been totally defeated by reality." If a litterateur can get the point, why can't a literary theorist?

[...]

Why not interject some remarks of a Chihuahuan peasant, asked whether people in northern Mexico, followers of Francisco Villa, had joined the revolution in 1910 to recover control of their land? "Put it that we now have land," replied Cruz Chavez in 1986, but that was a fight. And justice? And freedom? When will we get that? Can you tell me? Look, we're gonna die of old age without seeing them, because the more time that passes, justice and freedom only get worse in our country.

Now I can imagine at least two different ways of connecting these remarks to what is happening in Chiapas today. We could simply take Cruz Chavez's words with those of Subcomandante Marcos and measure them both against some abstr-act repertoire of signifiers to find out, for example, whether they are pre- or postmodern discourses. Alternatively, we could consider these discourses historically, comparing the ways in which words like "freedom" and "justice" figure in their respective vocabularies, and how they relate to their concrete and changing historical referents, their material and social conditions, their political practices and struggles. We could consider as well how the labor process in Mexican agriculture has or has not changed since 1910, how political democracy has or has not advanced. And we could explore the ways in which the EZLN is trying in practice to answer the questions posed by Cruz Chavez in a different region of Mexico, under different historica l conditions, and building differently on a long history-including the 1910 revolution-of political struggle.

In the first case, it is hard to see how our objective as intellectuals could be anything else than to appropriate those discourses, to claim them as our own. In the second, we would simply be trying to understand and explain. The latter objective is in some ways more modest. At least it is less likely to exaggerate the power of intellectuals, because it acknowledges that we are talking about social and political practices undertaken by specific people other than ourselves, instead of claiming that our own discourse is the only real practice, our academic discourse the only real politics.

Daniel Nugent, Northern Intellectuals and the EZLN

[aion-rsa]

Lucifer Season 5 Episode 14 Review: Nothing Lasts Forever

https://ift.tt/3g0hnxU

This Lucifer review contains spoilers.

Lucifer Season 5 Episode 14

“Heaven’s never been a democracy.”

You’d think the return of God and Tricia Helfer would be enough to carry any television episode, but Lucifer’s parents also seem to confirm the veracity of the multiverse theory. Still, it’s the heartwarming scenes within the celestial circle that drive “Nothing Lasts Forever,” and once again, Lucifer reveals another facet of its titular hero as his dark side continues to recede and his light shines more brightly than ever. But do we really need Michael redux?

The central storyline centers around whether or not Lucifer is prepared for the full time job commitment that being God will require. The combination of the patently absurd notion that the Devil should take over God’s throne and Chloe’s understandable worry that their relationship might suffer make for some marvelous exchanges. Whether he wants to deflect the potentially uncomfortable conversation or just get down to business, Lucifer lets Chloe know now is not the time and suggests a “nice little murder to take your mind off things.” Perfect.

Season 5B continues its entertaining trend of revisiting past characters, and while God’s retirement party provides an ample setting for all his children to pay homage to their father, it’s Lucifer’s matchmaking that gives Chloe’s B-movie actress mom Penelope (Rebecca De Mornay) a chance to reconnect with her daughter and engage in the light-hearted dramatic irony as she flirts with God. In retrospect, while it may be true that Lucifer’s main focus at this point is to move his father aside, we see the Devil’s true nature later on in the episode. And to be fair, God’s dry sense of humor makes the scene even more delightful as he drops hints, whether intentional or not, about the true nature of His identity.

Visual humor has always enjoyed a prominent place in Lucifer, but God at the grill has to rank among the show’s finest moments. While we’ve moved past any notion that God is everyman, Lucifer’s dad flipping burgers with a spatula is just too delicious to ignore. There’s little question that spear carrying Remiel’s  (Vinessa Vidotto) appearance seems wonderfully out of place amongst LA’s finest celestials, but her previous interactions with Lucifer and Amenadiel in season four remind us this is not a family with which to trifle. While it’s not at all surprising that Maze asks Lucifer to appoint her to sit on Hell’s throne because “I want to control who does the torturing,” when she suggests she’ll be known as “Mazikeen: Queen of Hell,” it’s easy to conjure up the image of the demon in charge.

Read more

TV

Lucifer Season 5 Episode 13 Review: A Little Harmless Stalking

By Dave Vitagliano

TV

Lucifer Season 5 Episode 12 Review – Daniel Espinoza: Naked and Afraid

By Dave Vitagliano

In the past Lucifer obsesses over what he perceives as his father’s manipulation of his life, and now, the Devil seems to be fashioning his own plans for others, not the least of whom is God himself. Was Lucifer’s orchestration of Dan’s little tragicomedy just a precursor for orchestrating the next stage in his parents’ relationship, thereby opening a spot for him to occupy? Of course, the irony here is that Lucifer has been wickedly played by his brother Michael’s plan to usurp their father’s job, but more to the point, Lucifer fails to anticipate not only his evil twin’s seditious behavior but his sister Gabriel’s as well. Has the Devil lost his focus?

The subject of Michael’s apparent return to the narrative leaves me less than thrilled since I’ve never really cared for the “mistaken identity” trope that invariably leads to some cringeworthy dialogue and forced plot developments, all of which we’ve already experienced on Lucifer. It’s too late now to alter his appearance, so we’ll just have to watch where the writers go with this sibling betrayal thread that develops at Michael’s doing and is aided by Gabriel (Kimia Behpoornia), whose introduction brings with it much promise in the coming battle for the universe’s top job. Well, this universe at least.

However, with all of the duplicitous behavior taking place behind the scenes, the love and devotion some of the characters display towards one another reminds us what’s really important. Lucifer’s come a long way since he first meets Chloe in the pilot episode, and while his feigned concern that Dear Old Dad lacks a solid retirement plan, we don’t often see him place himself second when it comes to family issues. It’s not clear whether Lucifer’s acknowledgement that he hasn’t been listening to his father’s desires about retirement is sincere, but his admission that he’d like their renewed connection to last a bit longer rings true.

One of the concepts this biblical reimaging asks viewers to accept is that God makes mistakes and truly needs a do-over when it comes to his relationships with his children. While his admission to Lucifer that “I love you, son, and I’m very proud of the man you’ve become,” is precisely what Lucifer needs, it’s the Devil’s suggestion that God let Amenadiel know that he feels the same about his older son that speaks loudly to Lucifer’s personal growth. However, at the end of the day, are all of these heart-to-heart talks and offers of devotion simply part of the Big Guy’s plan after all? 

At times, the overly conspicuous tie-ins to the episodic murder investigation feel a bit forced, and it’s no different here, but this flaw almost never gets in the way of the deeper, emotional issues most episodes explore. Perhaps if we look at the situation Lucifer finds himself in as the celestial sharks circle and the archangels choose sides, we can accept the idea of an aquarium owner playing God with the fish a bit more easily. Nevertheless, it’s the real God that looks on with interest as forensic scientist Ella Lopez struggles with the evidence, but more importantly with her own self worth. Though it’s become a common plot device in the series, the examination of the internal conflicts the characters experience and the lengths to which they go to to cope with these, remain the show’s strength. 

In the episode’s most beautiful exchange, God tells Ella to accept her dark side as she falls deeper into a spiritual despair that no one around seems to see. “The darker the person, the brighter the light,” he reassures her, but it’s his insistence that he can see her goodness from Heaven that lays the groundwork for her to climb out of the hole in which she finds herself.

It’s difficult to say whether the bigger takeaway from “Nothing Lasts Forever” is that Gabriel brings Azrael’s blade to Michael or that God and the Goddess leave one universe for another under the assumption that the kids will work it out among themselves. Again, is this all part of God’s plan rather than an abandonment? Regardless, Azrael’s blade can kill an archangel which puts everyone in imminent danger. How far are Michael and his followers willing to go to put him in power, and does the weapon’s celestial lethality imply that one or more of Lucifer and Amenadiel’s siblings will die in the fight?

cnx.cmd.push(function() { cnx({ playerId: "106e33c0-3911-473c-b599-b1426db57530", }).render("0270c398a82f44f49c23c16122516796"); });

With only two episodes left in the season, “Nothing Lasts Forever” sheds light on the two sides set to vie for the heavenly throne God seemingly leaves vacant. Yes, an angelic battle surely looms over the horizon, but the question remains: Is this battle part of God’s plan?

Lucifer season 5 is available to stream on Netflix now.

The post Lucifer Season 5 Episode 14 Review: Nothing Lasts Forever appeared first on Den of Geek.

from Den of Geek https://ift.tt/3c11ENE

[mybeautifulchristianjourney]

The Privilege of Prayer

by James Hamilton

“Rejoice evermore. Pray without ceasing.” - 1 Thessalonians 5:16-17

Few expressions in theology are older than that which speaks of the "privilege of prayer." But nothing could be a greater novelty, in the history of some who now hear me, than to find prayer an actual privilege. Am I wrong? "The privilege of prayer!" Do not some feel that the burden of prayer, the obligation, the duty, would be a truer name for it? Do not some of you feel that to call it a privilege is just to give a pleasant name to an irksome thing? If so, instead of initiating you in a new science, that individual would do you a better service who should give you fresh light on this old truth, and make you feel that not only has prayer power with God, but [that it] is very nearly the highest privilege of man.

Let us make a supposition. Suppose that the individual in this kingdom, who combines in himself the greatest wisdom and goodness, were accessible to you. Suppose that when anything pressed upon you -- a difficulty from which your own sagacity could not extricate you, or an undertaking which your own resources could not compass -- you had only to send him a statement of the case, and were sure, in good time, to get his best and kindest counsel. Would not you deem this a great privilege?

Would not something of this sort just meet the case of many here? One is entering on a new course of occupation, and in its very outset meets with problems that fairly baffle him, but which a friend of a little more experience or perspicacity could instantly solve. Another is overtaken by a sea of troubles -- a concourse of trials which quite overwhelm him, but through which he perfectly believes that a stronger arm or a more buoyant spirit could carry him. But where shall he look for that wiser friend -- that stronger arm?

Suppose again that when in sudden danger or in deep distress there were some way by which you could make known your situation to a spirit departed. That spirit is now far wiser than he was when on earth. He has sources of knowledge that are not open to you, and he has powers not yet possessed by you. Suppose that in grief or in difficulty you could invoke him. Suppose that there were some process by which you could arrest his ear among the glorified, and in the lapse of a brief moment bring him, though unseen, to your side. And suppose that to this spirit made perfect (the spirit of your departed parent or of someone remarkable for his wisdom and sanctity) you could detail the whole matter that grieves and perplexes you; and though there should be no response from the viewless shade, you knew that he had heard you and was away to interpose effectively on your behalf. Would you not feel much comforted and lightened? Would you not resume your own active exertions with far greater hopefulness, assured that there would now attend them a power beyond what was proper to them or inherent in yourself?

But further, suppose that instead of any wise or influential personage on earth or any glorified spirit in paradise, it was possible for you to secure the ear and engage the help of one of the principalities or powers in the heavenly places, some being of such bright intelligence that he can smile at all our wisdom, and [of] such commanding might that he can do in a moment what would occupy our race for a millennium. Could you for an instant bespeak his attention and gain assurance of his willingness to help, would you not feel that your object was unspeakably promoted, or your burden amazingly lightened? To have enlisted such ability and skill upon your side [by means of] the few minutes spent in securing such superhuman help, would you not feel that they [those minutes] were a larger contribution towards eventual success than a lifetime of your personal efforts?

But rise a step higher -- an infinite step! -- and suppose that it were possible to arrest the ear and secure the help of the Most High. Suppose that you could, by any possibility, gain the attention of the living God, that you could secure not the cold and distant on-looking but the interested regard and the omnipotent interposition of Jehovah himself. Would not this be a privilege? But this is precisely what prayer is.

Some have no friend of extraordinary sagacity or power to go to. The spirits of the departed cannot come to us; and neither to them nor to angels are we warranted to pray. And even though we could evoke a Samuel from the sepulchre or bring down Gabriel from above the sky, the blessings which are most needful for us are such as neither Samuel nor Gabriel can give -- blessings of which the treasure lies within the light inaccessible, and of which Omnipotence alone preserves the key. That Almighty hand prayer moves. That incommunicable key prayer turns. That unapproachable treasure prayer opens. The blessings which Solomon in all his glory, and Abraham in the bosom of his God, and the seraphs who overshadow the throne, -- the blessings which these have not to impart, it is the privilege of prayer to procure.

But set it in another light. Imagine that there had been certain limitations on prayer. Imagine that there had only been one spot on the earth from which prayer could arise with acceptance. Imagine -- by no means inconceivable, for there was once something very like it -- imagine that the Lord had selected some little spot of earth, a Mount Zion or a Holy Land, and said that here and here only was the place to worship. Imagine that from this hallowed spot alone there had existed a passage into heaven for the prayers of earth, and that all supplications, however earnest, uttered on the profane soil of the common globe had gone for nothing. What a resorting we should have seen to this place of only prevalency! When there occurred some conjuncture [crisis] decisive of weal or woe to an individual or a family, or when a man became so anxious about his soul's salvation that nothing could content him save light from above, [then] we should have seen the busy trader arranging for his protracted absence, and the cautious untraveled husbandman preparing for the perilous pilgrimage, and multitudes on their own behalf or on behalf of others resorting to the place where prayer is heard and answered.

And imagine, further, that there had just been one day in the year when prayer was permitted; that those who arrived at the appointed place too late found the gate of access closed for the next twelve months; and however sudden the emergency and however extreme its exigency, that it was impossible to do anything for it till the weary year moved round and brought back the one propitious day. Even thus restricted, would not prayer have been felt to be a privilege worth a pilgrimage and worth a long on-waiting?

Just fancy that in our earth's yearly revolution round the sun there was disclosed a crevice in the sky; that on one night in the year and on one mountaintop there was a vista opened through the encircling vault and a sight of dazzling glories revealed to all who gazed from the favored summit. And fancy that through the brilliant gap there fell a shower of gold and gems, and that this recurred regularly on the self-same evening every year. What a concourse to that Pisgah might you count upon! How many eager eyes would strain the breathless hour beforehand till the first streak of radiance betokened the bursting glory! And how many emulous hands would rush together to catch the flaming rubies and the diamond-rain!

And just conceive -- the only other supposition we shall make -- that certain costly or arduous preliminaries were essential in order to successful prayer. Suppose that a day's strict abstinence or some painful self-punishment were exacted; or that each worshiper were required to bring in his hand some costly offering -- the choicest of his flock, or a large percentage on his income. And who would say that this was unreasonable? Would not access into God's own presence -- a favor so ineffable -- would it not be wisely purchased at any price? And might not sinful "dust and ashes" marvel that after any ordeal or purifying process it was admitted near such Majesty?

But how stands the case? Prayer is not a consultation with the highest wisdom which this world can supply. It is not intercourse with an angel or a spirit made perfect. But it is an approach to the living God. It is access to the High and Holy One who inhabits eternity. It is detailing in the ear of Divine sympathy every sorrow. It is consulting with Divine wisdom on every difficulty. It is asking from Divine resources the supply of every want. And this not once in a lifetime or for a few moments on a stated day of each year, but at any moment, at every time of need.

Whatever be the day of your distress, it is a day when prayer is allowable. Whatever be the time of your calamity, it is a time when prayer is available. However early in the morning you seek the gate of access, you find it already open. And however deep the midnight moment when you find yourself in the sudden arms of death, the winged prayer can bring an instant Saviour near. And this wheresoever you are. It needs not that you ascend some special Pisgah or Moriah. It needs not that you should enter some awful shrine or put off your shoes on some holy ground.

Could a memento be reared on every spot from which an acceptable prayer has passed away, and on which a prompt answer has come down, we should find Jehovah-shammah -- "the Lord has been here" -- inscribed on many a cottage hearth and many a dungeon floor. We should find it not only in Jerusalem's proud temple and David's cedar galleries, but in the fisherman's cottage by the brink of Gennesaret and in the upper chamber where Pentecost began. And whether it be the field where Isaac went to meditate, or the rocky knoll where Jacob lay down to sleep, or the brook where Israel wrestled, or the den where Daniel gazed on the hungry lions and the lions gazed on him, or the hillsides where the Man of Sorrows prayed all night, we should still discern the prints of the ladder's feet let down from heaven--the landing place of mercies because the starting point of prayers.

And all this whatsoever you are. It needs no saint, no [one] proficient in piety, no [one] adept in eloquent language, no dignitary of earthly rank. It needs but a simple Hannah, or a lisping Samuel. It needs but a blind beggar or a loathsome lazar [leper]. It needs but a penitent publican or a dying thief.

And it needs no sharp ordeal, no costly passport, no painful expiation to bring you to the mercy seat. Or rather, I should say [that] it needs the costliest of all. But the blood of atonement, the Saviour's merit, the name of Jesus -- priceless as they are -- cost the sinner nothing. They are freely put at his disposal, and instantly and constantly he may use them. This access to God in every place, at every moment, without any price or any personal merit, is it not a privilege?

[eli-kittim]

Have Any Aspects of Daniel’s Seventy-Week Prophecy Been Fulfilled?

By Author Eli Kittim 

To begin with, here’s an excerpt from my book, The Little book of Revelation: 

“The rebirth of Israel marks a turning point in apocalyptic expectations, and Christ’s message concerning end-time events seems to point toward this 1948 prophetic countdown: 

‘Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place’ (Matt. 24.34). 

But what on earth does he mean by this? In order to comprehend this terse remark, we must inquire into the standard time limit of a Biblical generation. The Book of Psalms makes known that a generation is equal to seventy actual years (90.10). Similarly, a noteworthy Hebrew soothsayer named Jeremiah exclaims that the Deity will intervene in earthly affairs after a seventy-year period has elapsed (25.12). Daniel, one of the most prominent seers of the Jewish Scriptures, also claims that the Deity has appointed a portent which consists of a seventy-week interval until the conclusion of all things is finalized (9.24). Among scholarly circles, this prophecy is known as The Seventy Weeks of Daniel… . The proof is found in a revered text called the Book of Daniel. In a vision, ‘The man [named] Gabriel’ appears before Daniel to grant him ‘insight with understanding’ (9.21-22). The angelic man imparts a cryptic scriptural clue which, in effect, equates the seventy weeks of Daniel with the seventy-year oracle revealed to Jeremiah (Dan. 9.2; cf. Jer. 29.10)… . Gabriel is basically showing us that the seventy years of Jeremiah’s prophecy must continue to be calculated as years within Daniel’s seventy weeks’ oracle. Clearly, more specific details are ultimately furnished by Daniel’s seventy-week vision, but the reason why Jeremiah’s seventy years are now termed as weeks is for the purpose of allowing us to perform calculations using weeks as the standard of measuring time in addition to using actual years. Taken together, both prophecies refer to an actual seventy-year period whose completion will signal the end of the world (Dan. 9.24). But the details at the micro level entail calculations, which combine measurements in both weeks and years.” 

As I will show, Daniel’s seventy weeks’ prophecy refers exclusively to the end-time and has nothing to do with the time of Antiquity. A common misconception is to assume that the starting point of this prophecy began after the Hebrews returned from the Babylonian exile during the 500’s B.C.E. However, there are many problems with this theory. For one, the Babylonian exile didn’t last for 70 years. Historically, if the first deportation came after the siege of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar II in c. 586 BCE, and the Jews returned to Judah in c. 538 BCE & began to rebuild the second temple in Jerusalem in c. 537 BCE, according to the Book of Ezra, then the Jews were actually held in Babylonian captivity for approximately 48 years, not 70! Thus, Jeremiah’s prophecy (29.10) is seemingly referring to the end-times Babylon of Revelation 18 (cf. Dan. 9.2). And that’s precisely what we find in the 70-week prophecy of Daniel. Daniel’s prophecy actually refers to the end of all visions and revelations, an end-time period that will in effect “seal both vision and prophet” (Dan. 9.24). The fact that John of Patmos continued to furnish us with additional visions and revelations many years later proves that the interim between the Babylonian exile and the coming of Christ in or around 30 CE cannot possibly be the timeline of Daniel’s prophecy. John MacArthur, in describing Dan.9.24, was once quoted as saying: “It’s got to be a final thing cause everything is a final… . Boy, that’s final stuff, isn’t it? The end, the finish, the seal, seal it up, close it up, that’s the way it is!” If it is “final stuff,” then the prophecy cannot possibly be referring to the time of Antiquity but rather to the time of the end! Note also that this prophecy refers to “times of distress” (Dan. 9.25 NASB), a phrase which is also used to refer to the time of the end (Dan. 12.1 NASB). 

The traditional Christian interpretation is further compounded by breaking up the prophecy into two parts: one part fulfilled during the time of Antiquity, the other referring to the last week of the great tribulation. In other words, exegetes assume that there is a two thousand-year gap between the so-called “sixty nine” weeks and the seventieth week. However, there is no indication of a long time-gap between these weeks, but rather a successive sequence of events, thus rendering the expositors’ imposition on the text unwarranted: 

‘Seventy weeks are decreed for your people and your holy city: to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision and prophet, and to anoint a most holy place. Know therefore and understand: from the time that the word went out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the time of an anointed prince, there shall be seven weeks; and for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with streets and moat, but in a troubled time. After the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off and shall have nothing, and the troops of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its end shall come with a flood, and to the end there shall be war. Desolations are decreed. He shall make a strong covenant with many for one week, and for half of the week he shall make sacrifice and offering cease; and in their place shall be an abomination that desolates, until the decreed end is poured out upon the desolator’ (9.24—27 NRSV). 

 Here are some further observations excerpted from my book, The Little Book of Revelation: 

“The terminology of Daniel’s prophecy suggests that we must use both weeks and actual years in calculating the Messiah’s advent within the overall context of the seventy-year time period… . Many experts have erred in their interpretations by either attributing the starting date of these prophecies to the period of time when the Jews returned to Palestine from their Babylonian captivity – sometime between roughly 538 and 536 B.C. – or by separating them (Jeremiah’s seventy years and Daniel’s seventy weeks) as if they are two mutually exclusive oracles that employ different calculation techniques. 

 At any rate, if we resume our discussion of Christ’s prophecy (Matt. 24.34)—as mentioned earlier in this section—the issue of the seventy-year generation will now become immediately apparent. Jesus is indicating that it will take one generation since the rebirth of Israel ‘until all these things take place’ (Matt. 24.34; cf. 1 Thess. 4.15). Modern Israel, then, becomes the preeminent sign as regards the end of days.” 

I should mention parenthetically that the original text was written without punctuation, thus making it difficult to determine where commas and periods should be placed. For example, some inferior translations of Dan. 9.25 do not separate the seven and sixty-two weeks, thus giving us the wrong impression that they comprise sixty nine weeks. However, the more accurate versions (e.g. NRSV; ESV) do properly separate them, implying that they represent two distinct time periods. Isaac Newton—in his Observations Upon the Prophecies of Daniel (published 1733)—notes that we should not combine the seven and sixty two weeks as if they were one number. That is a spot-on interpretation by Newton. Quite frankly, if the authorial intent was to impress upon us the notion that the numbers seven and sixty-two must be combined, using the same measurements, the author would have simply written sixty nine weeks. The fact that two sets of numbers are given in the text suggests that they are distinct. 

What is more—in stark contrast to the mainstream view—Newton also mentions in the aforesaid book that Daniel’s seventy weeks prophecy should not be confined to the time of Antiquity, but must be applicable to Christ’s eschatological coming. Just like in Revelation 12.3—4 in which the final empire is contemporaneous with Christ—(i.e. “a great red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns … stood before the woman who was about to bear a child, so that he might devour her child as soon as it was born”)—so in Dan. 9.26 the two princes of Daniel’s prophecy are juxtaposed to suggest that they are contemporaries: ‘After the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off and shall have nothing, and the troops of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its end shall come with a flood, and to the end there shall be war. Desolations are decreed’ (NRSV). According to the text, there does not appear to be a two-thousand-year gap separating these two figures or events. Moreover, the Old Greek Daniel form of the Septuagint (LXX) says in Daniel 9.27, ἕως καιροῦ συντελείας, (i.e. “until the time of the end”; cf. Dan. 12.4 LXX), indicating that the context of this verse is clearly eschatological. 

 First of all, Dan. 9.24—26 predicts the return of the Jews to Palestine, which occurred in 1948 (cf. Isa. 11.11). It also forecasts the atoning sacrifice of a forthcoming Messiah, an event which, according to the Danielic text, has not yet occurred. Furthermore, Dan. 9.26 informs us that the Messiah will be ‘cut off,’ which in Biblical terminology means slain (cf. Prov. 2.22; Ps. 37.9). In working out these calculations, one comes to realize the approximate date signifying the epoch of the forthcoming Messiah. So, if we apply Jesus’ prophecy (i.e. ‘this generation will not pass away until all these things take place’; Matt. 24.34) to Jeremiah’s seventy-year time frame (Dan. 9.1—3; cf. Ps. 90.10), we get one generation of seventy years after the rebirth of Israel (1948), which would bring us to 2018 CE! 

Surprisingly, a different calculation yields similar results. On June 7, 1967, Jerusalem (the holy city) was captured by Israel. Even if 1967 becomes the starting point of a different calculation, the result is identical. For instance, the seven weeks can be measured in weeks of years (cf. Gen. 29.27-28; Lev. 25.8), whereas the sixty-two weeks could be calculated using only days (cf. Lev. 23.15—16). Thus, the ‘seven weeks’ may represent fifty years (e.g. a jubilee), whereas the ‘sixty-two weeks’ would signify a period of approximately one year plus two and one-half months. In other words, both measurements would equal to 51 years in total. This is how the calculation looks like if we take Jerusalem as our starting point: 1967 + 50y (7 weeks) = 2017 + 1y (62 weeks) = 2018! Once again, we arrive at the same date (i.e. 2018), namely, one generation of seventy years after the rebirth of Israel! In fact, from June 7, 1967 to August 21, 2018 or thereabouts is approximately fifty one years and two and one-half months, using a 365-day calendar, which is the equivalent of seven weeks of years plus sixty two weeks of days. Could this be the initial fulfillment of the prophecy? Or is it perhaps the year 2019 or 2020, given that the prophecy must be fulfilled *after* the seventy years have elapsed? This would bring us to the starting point of the end-times, namely, 2019, in which began a terrifying era for the human race. 2019 brought about pandemics, lockdowns, passport mandates where “no one can buy or sell who does not have the mark” (Rev. 13.17), mass media censorship, mass hysteria & psychosis, the abolition of human rights, the totalitarian global control of the masses, the mass protests, and the starting point of the so-called “Great Reset” that has been planned by the elite & the heads of governments for some time. Whichever it is, the Bible warns us to be vigilant:

‘From the fig tree learn its lesson: as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near. So also, when you see all these things, you know that he is near, at the very gates. Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away’ (Matt. 24.32—35).

[seoexpart11]

What is the Way to cleaning” Best mop for tiles floor”?

Tiles have a name for being durable, whereas steam is commonly seen collectively as the harsher ways of cleanup. Steam mops square measure taking the planet by storm, and tiles, due to their resistance to water harm, square measure a favorite to use them on.

If you've got tiles reception, it’s important to grasp however you'll be able to profit from this satisfying combination.

Still, as powerful as steam could also be, if you don’t use it properly you may cause irreparable harm to your home. So, there square measure several factors to think about, and precautions you ought to take. That’s why we’re conjointly recommending the most effective the best steam mops for tiles floors and grout therefore you'll be able to clean absolutely, with no risk of laying waste on your floors.

What Is A Steam Mop?

Steam mops square measure a comparatively recent invention, however, their history is therefore fascinating, we have a tendency to can’t resist sharing it with you.

Back in 1999, Romi Haan, a Korean enterpriser, grew uninterested in cleanup onerous floors. most in order that she kicked off to free homemakers everyplace of this labor, by innovating a brand new thanks to clean.

As the story goes, she questioned if a mop that would harness the facility of steam would create her life easier. painfully overestimating however quickly her new invention would take shape, she encumbered her home to fund her plan. it had been solely in 2004 — 5 years later — that she had a product to point out for it (1).

Once she formed the technology, it didn’t take long for it to rise in quality. Romi’s straightforward plan grew into a staple device that eliminates exertions and saves homemakers vast time and energy. however, precisely do steam mops try this for you?

How Do Steam Mops Work?

There’s no got to break one open and study its engineering to grasp a steam mop’s edges. Simply put, they’re designed with reservoirs that may heat water up to 230 degrees Gabriel Daniel Fahrenheit (2). made steam travels through the mop, and is emitted from a textile (often microfiber) pad, to achieve your floor.

These soaked pads absorb dirt higher than customary mops can, whereas the steam sanitizes your floor as you go.

Technically speaking, it's not the vapor that kills germs, however, rather the warmth. Steam may be a powerful disinfectant as a result of it alters the structure of the bacterium. This method, known as denaturation, incapacitated and obliterates pathogens (3).

Another vast good thing about steam scrubbing is its ability to chop through grease and caked-on dirt. For a similar reason that it’s easier to clean dishes in heat water instead of cold, heat from a steam mop can break fats down (4).

You’ll conjointly realize that employing a customary mop simply doesn’t cut it during this space. It simply won’t unharness the maximum amount of heat, or do therefore as with efficiency.

You Might conjointly Like

Warning

Be careful once in operation a steam mop. to stop accidents, burns or harm, ne'er operate a steam mop if its pad isn't connected. Don’t take a look at the warmth of the steam together with your vacant skin, and forever follow manufacturer directions for assembly.

Will Steam Not Ruin Your Tiles?

Tiles, rigid as they will be, aren’t indestructible. Water stains, warping, cracking, and warmth harm square measure all still attainable, and can ruin your covered floor if given the prospect. The distinction is that compared to wooden flooring or carpets, tiles have a far higher tolerance for destruction.

Still, in spite of your kind of tile, none square measure 100% waterproof. Ceramic ware tiles shine during this look on AN insignificant quantity of water can create it through. However even then, water will still loosen tile grout, and excessive water might destroy your floor’s layout (5).

With heat, it’s abundant a similar. Tiles aren't entirely heat-proof, however, they're thought-about heat resistant.

Porcelain tiles will face up to heat up to 4352 degrees Gabriel Daniel Fahrenheit — well on the far side what a steam mop emits (6). Likewise, ceramics will bear temperatures up to 3725 degrees Gabriel Daniel Fahrenheit (7).

It’s all regarding temporal arrangement, though. If you were to utterly soak tiles in the plight for extended periods, you’d ruin them. Steam, on the opposite hand, evaporates quickly, therefore it won’t be absorbed into your floor.

Think of it within the same method you are doing your own body. A hot shower isn't any drawback, however, if you were thrown into a boiling lake, you wouldn’t create it.

Steam Mop Precautions

Steam isn't supposed to soak covered floors, however, rather skim their surface. That said, there square measure a couple of instances wherever it’ll be no sensible. As a precaution, keep subsequent in mind:

Steam and wax don’t mix: Wax isn’t oil, however, it behaves as fond of it, which means heat breaks it down (8). Tile wax isn’t extraordinarily common, however, if you utilize it, steam scrubbing may be problematic. If you don’t understand whether or not or not your floor is waxed, rub the sting of a coin aboard it, and see if it picks up waxy residue.

Don’t take into account them multi-floor machines: though your steam mop is intended for all onerous floors, do your analysis before you utilize it on alternative surfaces. Your tiles could also be super-resistant to heat, however, others like wood, lion, or bamboo might not be.

Beware of grout: whereas you ought not to worry most regarding wrecking your tiles with steam, the grout may be a totally different story. Steam is effective at cleanup grout, however excessive wetness will deteriorate its kind and performance. Therefore specialize in the tiles themselves instead of what’s in between them.

Best for glazed tiles: The strength and warmth resistance of tiles solely applies if they’re glazed. Therefore, raw, natural tiles square measure vulnerable each to water and warmth harm. In this case, it’s higher to use a custom or best dust mop.

Warning

Don’t use chemical cleaners in your steam mop unless they’re approved by the manufacturer. Steam mops square measure supposed to be used with water solely. Some users like water as a result of it lacks minerals, however, water can just do fine.