#this is what i mean when i say 'humans cannot experience objective truth but our goal in seeking truth is to come as close as possible'

[beddhead-red]

We fit things into patterns to try and understand them, then those patterns change and we try to make new sense of them, either fitting them into the old way, or making up something new.

Our understanding is limited by the vessel in which we inhabit, but men are clever, and create theories and testable hypotheses and find ways to understand the universe in ways previously thought hopelessly out of reach.

We fit things beyond our comprehension into something we can comprehend, and adjust as needed when we find something new.

The universe is as it always has been, and will be. The universe is constant, though in flux, and our vessels are constant constraints on our understanding. We merely shift these constraints around and gaze through a blurred lens into all of the beauty that makes up the universe, and try to understand it.

human beings love to be like 'heres a thing with a finite number of variations' & then sort it into categories. & theyre always wrong. everything is multitudinous & unfathomable & theres nothing you can do about it. but the human desire to make sense of the universe is also boundless & inexorable & theres nothing you can do about that either.

[intrepid-fictioneer-7]

"[Mages] are liminal creatures at odds with their ineradicable humanity". What I spent thousands of words to say in a long ass post, someone managed to say more succintly and far shorter. While my verbous, pompous post argued that the idea the fandom has of a "perfect magus" is reductive and most the characters people think embodify it actually fail, the line I'm quoting is someone arguing that the very concept of "perfect magus" isn't real and isn't represented by *any* character in Type-Moon. The life of a magus is the story of how a person cannot avoid falling short of that ideal of a "perfect magus" - either because it becomes muddled by their humanity (Rin is the quintessential example, but you also have Kayneth and Gordes of all people), or because, in abandoning humanit,y they lose sight of their goal and cause their own downfall (Roa, Zepia, and Zouken being perfect examples).

Kinda like what Medea says in Fate/hollow ataraxia:

"Hmmm, the combination of magic and everyday life. Caster, what do you think about that?" Since I don't know a lot of magi, I'm a little curious. "That though in itself is incorrect, boy. 'Magic' and 'everyday life' cannot coexist. You should not even think about combing them. The fundamentals of magic are "distortion and reversal." No matter what kind of magic it is, when used, it will distort the norm. Therefore, if you want to live correctly, you have to separate magic from normal life." "You can't live in both worlds?" "You must wholly life in both worlds, that is. A magus is someone who crosses that boundary all the time. He is free to focus on either side, but he must never try to erase the line that separates both. In order to fully immerse yourself in magic, you must exclude your normal life. Once you choose that path as a human, you create an inner and an outer face in order to master it. Then you can start deciding how to live as a person divided between magic and real life." "Then what about you? You are Kuzuki-sensei's wife now, but what about your side as a magus?" "It's no different from what it used to be, naturally. I have no doubts about the magus side of myself. I just use my powers as I see fit. But it's true that nowadays, I don't turn into my magus self as often as I have in the past."

Or what Waver says in Case Files:

It wasn’t limited to magecraft. It wasn’t limited to those beyond humans (monsters). In a world of common sense (the obvious), it was something everyone understood. If you said that misunderstandings, miscommunications, disagreements, and false understandings are what connected them, then… “We are misrecognition. Our world itself is misunderstanding. We can experience a multitude of truths, not just one single reality. No matter how wise you are, or how much time you are given, you will never reach something like a single truth. Magi may just be those who continually reject that fact.” Speaking as if in self-deprecation, my master had pursed his lips at that. He had finally realized that his words and the objective that all Magi pursued, known as the “Spiral of Origin,” were in contradiction.

It's why Reines laments the Clock Tower focusing on petty political squabbles. The heart of the world of magecraft miring itself in human emotions and concerns, forgetting their original esoteric goals in the process. This, to me, is far more illustrative of magi than the often repeated "to be a magus means to walk with death". (An aphorism which, as far as I can tell, is mostly the result of fandom telephone. FSN does talk "magus having death right besides them" and "the essence of magi is in death", but the specific formulation of "walking" with death is nowhere in canon I think, and I checked Mahoyo and KnK to make sure. But that's for another post.) Ironically, what spurred this on is that, that post I mention? It was someone arguing Sanda is the *worst* TM writer for how he wrote magi, and I, as Sanda's strongest fighter, had to fight for his honor to mixed results lol.

[eternal-echoes]

Creativity, therefore, it is important for a Jesuit. Pope Francis, during a visit with the Jesuit priests and other staff members of La Civiltà Cattolica, had articulated a triad of important characteristics relevant to the cultural initiatives of the Jesuits. I turn my thoughts to that day, June 14, 2013. I recall that back then, in a conversation just before the meeting with the entire group, the pope had already informed me about this triad: dialogue, discernment, frontier. And he insisted particularly on the last point, quoting Pope Paul VI. In a well-known speech, Paul VI had spoken directly about the Jesuits: “Wherever in the church—even in the most difficult and extreme fields, in the crossroads of ideologies, in the social trenches—there has been and is now conversation between the deepest desires of human beings and the perennial message of the Gospel, Jesuits have been and are there.” I ask Pope Francis for a further explanation: “You asked us to be careful not to fall into ‘the temptation to tame the frontiers’: one must go out to the frontiers, not bring the frontiers home in order to paint them a bit artificially and tame them.” What were you referring to? What exactly did you wish to tell us? This interview, as you know, was organized by a group of magazines directed by the Society of Jesus: what invitation do you wish to extend to them? What should their priorities be? “The three key words that I commended to La Civiltà Cattolica can be extended to all the journals of the Society, perhaps with different emphases according to their natures and their objectives. When I insist on the frontier, I am referring in a particular way to the need for those who work in the world of culture to be inserted into the context in which they operate and on which they reflect. There is always the lurking danger of living in a laboratory. Ours is not a ‘lab faith,’ but a ‘journey faith,’ a historical faith. God has revealed himself as history, not as a compendium of abstract truths. I am afraid of laboratories because in the laboratory you take the problems and then you bring them home to tame them, to paint them artificially, out of their context. You cannot bring home the frontier, but you have to live on the border and be audacious.” I ask for examples from his personal experience. “When it comes to social issues, it is one thing to have a meeting to study the problem of drugs in a slum neighborhood and quite another thing to go there, live there and understand the problem from the inside and study it. There is a brilliant letter by Father Arrupe to the Centers for Social Research and Action on poverty, in which he says clearly that one cannot speak of poverty if one does not experience poverty, with a direct connection to the places in which there is poverty. The word insertion is dangerous because some religious have taken it as a fad, and disasters have occurred because of a lack of discernment. But it is truly important.” “The frontiers are many. Let us think of the religious sisters living in hospitals. They live on the frontier. I am alive because of one of them. When I went through my lung disease at the hospital, the doctor gave me penicillin and streptomycin in certain doses. The sister who was on duty tripled my doses because she was daringly astute; she knew what to do because she was with ill people all day. The doctor, who really was a good one, lived in his laboratory; the sister lived on the frontier and was in dialogue with it every day. Domesticating the frontier means just talking from a remote location, locking yourself up in a laboratory. Laboratories are useful, but reflection for us must always start from experience.”

-INTERVIEW WITH POPE FRANCIS by Fr Antonio Spadaro, August 19, 2013

[jesse-pinko]

Okay I am going to try and word this very carefully for the benefit of the internet strawman that lives in my head that is already playing telephone with what I’m trying to say butttt as an animal caretaker I’m not loving the way y’all talk about animal welfare. Don’t get me wrong (please) drawing comparisons between how white people treat people of color and how they treat animals is a totally valid way to illustrate how white people often view and treat people of color as subhuman, but lately I kind of feel like this sentiment is being reiterated over and over again without being expanded on in terms of either human rights or animal welfare. I think it’s valuable and even critical to examine the historical context behind white supremacy’s investment in animal welfare, but that it’s a mistake to view the two as inextricably linked. White supremacists will also claim to have a vested interest in children’s rights, which couldn’t be further from the truth if you take even a cursory look at their policies and practices, but the reason they pretend to give a shit about children and animals without bothering to extend this same courtesy to people of color, queer people, etc is because children and animals cannot advocate for themselves, which leaves room for racists to hawk their own agenda under the guise of charity. They are not interested in advocating on behalf of anyone they cannot completely control. Animals aren’t treated well, which I believe was the initial reasoning behind the comparison to racism; that white people abuse people of color even more fervently than they do animals. But that’s a call to end systemic injustice towards people of color, not to forego animal advocacy altogether. We should all care about animals! We should all be working toward educating ourselves about the literal millions of other living beings we share a planet with, whose habitats we are destroying without impunity, who are entirely at our mercy, who are disposed of and exploited and treated more as objects to facilitate human existence than living creatures in their own right, even when they fall into the very exclusive category of beloved. It’s imperative for safety reasons to educate ourselves about animal behavior, not to mention fundamental to indigenous activism to work toward the preservation of their habitats and continued existence on this planet. Also, I fully reject the fundamentally Christian idea that animals don’t have souls, that they don’t have feelings, that they were put on this earth to prop up humanity, that their behaviors and physiologies are all virtually the same because they all fall into the very broad category of Not Human. I agree that saying their mistreatment is somehow worse than racism is misleading, wildly ignorant and offensive, not because animals don’t deserve our protection, but because it demonstrates such little understanding of and willingness to understand the consequences of racism, and because these are really different issues altogether. Animals don’t want or need human rights; they’re not human. They prioritize differently, even the expectation of being eaten is just a normative experience for them, as ghoulish as that sounds. But not being human, or anything akin to human, doesn’t make them automatons, doesn’t mean they can’t feel pain or should be treated unfairly. They are an integral part of all of our lives even if you don’t consider yourself an animal person, and we should try and extend understanding and empathy towards them for no other reason than that they are alive.

[aithusarosekiller]

This isn't an attack as much as an alternate perspective but I would disagree with the black-and-white perspective here and the somewhat implicit implication that the characters in question must be perfect depictions of the objective events of their environment.

I think the nuance here comes where you consider that their perspective on their family relationships is not necessarily what their sibling or an omniscient narrator would think it looks like from outside, so altering the validity of their feelings as inferior is null because people are not omniscient, they are biased and blinded to the perspectives others may take on the scenario. The characters are people and therefore are not privy to every truth of the situation, their only have their own experiences and biases to rely on when making a judgement, unlike a reader who has an unbiased outside perspective.

The perspectives you are using as evidence here are those of their siblings. This does not mean that they are wrong, but it also does not succeed in disregarding any feelings Reg or Lily may have regarding their worth in their parents' eyes. We are only granted with one side of the story, there is no way for us to see the other side as they are dead and cannot speak for themselves, but denying their perspective entirely is strange. Both Sirius and Petunia are biased with their own experiences with their parents and their own view on their siblings, as both Lily and Regulus would be. If I thought that my sister was the favourite child because our parents her praised but she disagreed because she did not feel she had ever personally received such praise or though it was disingenuous, neither of us are inherently wrong.

Regulus may have been praised constantly in front of Sirius to try and bend him into shape; but that does not mean regulus ever heard any of that praise, or that the thought the praise was from a place of genuine admiration. In families like that, it is highly likely he would end up seeing himself as nothing but a to to shape Sirius up properly. He could not look at the world with any perspective other than his own and as goes human nature, would assume it was about him.

Lily may have been held to high regard for her parents for being a witch and an intelligent woman but that does not rid her from any feelings of isolation or guilt with her family. She may have felt distanced from them as her sister gets to spend most of the year with them while Lily is limited to letters and late updates on what they jane been doing. Lily thinks her sister gets more of their parents than her because she is away, Petunia is blinded by jealousy at her sister's advantage and assumes their parents' pride in Lily is hatred of her. That how the mind works, especially when it comes to sibling bonds. Why is Lily's perspective any less valuable than Petunia's? Why would either of them be taken as word of god?

I think what is needed here is a knowledge that ahah the characters say and feel is never necessary what we would consider the hard truth. People are nuanced and biased and they can have their own views of their experiences even if we don't believe it is the 'solid truth' as a reader outside the story and above the situation. You can't look at a character's actions as definitive or you will never gather anything from reading. Every narrator who lives within the story is an unreliable narrator and cannot be taken at face value as a facet of truth.

Characters cannot see from the outside of the story like you can.

kinda hate how some people totally misrepresent regulus and lilys relationships with their families. like no, they were not stuck in the shadow of their older siblings, they were the ones that their parents preferred. they were both the golden child of their families, not the child their parents cast aside

sirius makes it very clear that walburga and orion liked regulus far more than they liked him (though i highly doubt they actually liked either of them, much less loved) and the entire reason why petunia was so jealous of lily was because their parents doted on her since she was magic

you can totally have regulus and lily relate about their experiences with their siblings and parents (which are arguably similar!) but you dont need to do it by changing them!

[sofipitch]

what if lestats side of the story is an important part of the path forward to make lestat worthy of louis again?

I think Lestat's side of the story would only matter if it is post being murdered he goes on like a journey of becoming better. Like having a shitty childhood and trauma does not excuse inflicting that trauma on others, so personally Magnus trauma is not gonna cut it when Lestat also used Claudia's SA against her.

IN TVL we honestly don't get a lot of that, Lestat does a lot of excusing/denying rather than explaining how he has changed. However the part that convinces most fans he is worthy of redemption is when Lestat says that he deserved to have his throat slit.

From the epilogue "Interview with the Vampire" in TVL:

I betrayed him when I created him [Louis] , that is the significant thing. Just as I betrayed Claudia. And I forgive the nonsense he wrote, because he told the truth about the eerie contentment he and Claudia and I shared and had no right to share in those long nineteenth-century decades....

But what had I done to Claudia? And when would I have to pay for that? How long was she content to be the mystery that bound Louis and me so tightly together, the muse of our moonlit hours, the one object of devotion common to us both? Was it inevitable that she who would never have a woman's form would strike out at the demon father who condemned her to the body of a little china doll? I should have listened to Marius's warning. I should have stopped for one moment to reflect on it as I stood on the edge of that grand and intoxicating experiment: to make a vampire of "the least of these. " I should have taken a deep breath. But you know, it was like playing the violin for Akasha. I wanted to do it. I wanted to see what would happen, I mean, with a beautiful little girl like that! Oh, Lestat, you deserve everything that ever happened to you. You'd better not die. You might actually go to hell. But why was it that for purely selfish reasons, I didn't listen to some of the advice given me? Why didn't I learn from any of them-Gabrielle, Armand, Marius? But then, I never have listened to anyone, really. Somehow or other, I never can. And I cannot say even now that I regret Claudia, that I wish I had never seen her, nor held her, nor whispered secrets to her, nor heard her laughter echoing through the shadowy gaslighted rooms of that all too human town house in which we moved amid the lacquered furniture and the darkening oil paintings and the brass flowerpots as living beings should. Claudia was my dark child, my love, evil of my evil. Claudia broke my heart. And on a warm sultry night in the spring of the year 1860, she rose up to settle the score. She enticed me, she trapped me, and she plunged a knife over and over again into my drugged and poisoned body, until almost every drop of the vampiric blood gushed out of me before my wounds had the precious few seconds in which to heal. I don't blame her. It was the sort of thing I might have done myself. And those delirious moments will never be forgotten by me, never consigned to some unexplored compartment of the mind. It was her cunning and her will that laid me low as surely as the blade that slashed my throat and divided my heart. I will think on those moments every night for as long as I go on, and of the chasm that opened under me, the plunge into mortal death that was nearly mine. Claudia gave me that.

Honestly just rereading that section breaks my heart, how much Lestat loves Claudia, you can see why book fans were broken hearted by Lestat hating Claudia in the show instead, which I think is further made worse/exacerbated by Claudia being black and Lestat being white, as if that could potentially be a reason he doesn't want her/love her

[qedavathegrey]

I think that quite often people focus far too much on the ~~"Objective Reality"~~ of a thing. What do you truly gain from proving or disproving existence? Why is it so important?

Every day we touch, see, experience, are guided and limited by things that have no "objective" reality: money, time -- constructs. But none would say to a dollar, "Because you are subjective, you have no power." We know that isn't true. You would not say of the billionaire, "Money isn't really real, so thus they are without real power." Even if we -- individually -- assign no power to the dollar, our world does. We can laugh at the billionaire for his folly, but so will he laugh at us from his mansion bought with riches "unreal." Money has power because we agree that it does, because we believe that it does. Certainly subjective power is more fragile than "objective" (a majority could collectively rescind their belief and devalue it), but so long as belief in it remains, it will never be without.

None of this is to say there is no value in seeking out the "objective" reality of a thing. There is. But understand that entering the objective into the subjective will not have the results you think it will, especially when the thing's power has only ever been subjective. This is because the subjective has power of its own -- for better or worse. It is a contractual power, but it is still power.

The lesson here, or perhaps my caution, is to say: the subjective must be undone by the subjective. The subjective can be bolstered by the objective, but rarely is it undone by it. The objective does not magically reframe the subjective when it is "discovered." A new subjective must be built around it and must eclipse the old by way of contract, by way of acceptance. For example: fact may be fact, but if no one believes it, does it matter? Objectively, yes. But we are not objective instruments, we are not objective beings, despite whatever emphasis on Logic and Reason we have been fed. You can wave facts and figures in as many faces as you like, but until you find and sell and contract the subjective to the subjective, whatever objective discovered will be more a danger to you than it is transformative on the minds of others. And even if you construct a flawless argument, build a flawless subjective reality, that does not mean it will be accepted. Not broadly, anyway. And no anger or fury or insistence will undo that, only patience. Even then, there is no guarantee.

This is why I say I think too much time is spent on a thing's ~~"Objective Reality"~~. It does not have the inherent power over the subjective you've been told it does. In truth, it has lesser power than the subjective -- again, "for better or worse." Many will call this a failure, a disservice, a tragedy. Namely those whose subjective is most rigidly informed by (to the point of masquerading as) the objective. And perhaps it is. But I think there is also a wisdom in understanding that most (if not) everything having to do with humanity is subjective and that's okay. Only through acceptance and acknowledgement of this, might we come to understand the power and value in it. And might we come to change the things we feel need changing. That is the magic of the subjective: it is not static, it can be changed and is ever-changing. The river flows subjective and its course can be adjusted.

So, yes, seek objective but understand that its value extends only as far as can it be framed subjectively to the subject. And do this framing through recognizing and understanding your own role as subject: you cannot escape bias, but you can be conscious of it, you can be plain about it. Find me a man without bias and I'll tell you he is no longer man at all, he is nothing.

[pilgrimdrewbert-blog]

Of Cults & Counterfeits

Dear Fellow Sheep,

Cults claiming to be Christian always have their beginnings in a transfer of authority away from the objectivity and sufficiency of Scripture. The spiritual authority is transferred to men and women who claim to hear directly from God. These self appointed prophets and apostles invent new doctrines and obscure the clearest teachings of Christ with their dreams, visions, angelic visitations, and purported trips to Heaven. They preface their new revelations with “I feel the Lord saying” and “I think God wants me to say”.

  But this is not how the Biblical prophets speak. The authors of Scripture did not have to tune into the right frequency or sit in silence waiting for heavenly whispers. God doesn’t have problems being heard. When He spoke, they heard Him loud and clear. There was no guesswork or ambiguity.

  The refrain of Scripture is “Thus says the LORD”. And all of Scripture is ultimately about the redemption of sinful humanity in the person and work of Jesus Christ. Prophets profiting off of your hunger for an experience are no spokesmen for God. He hasn’t authorized them or sent them. They sent themselves. They prophesy financial increase, healings, breakthroughs, shifts, anointings, and deliverances, but they do not preach Law and Gospel. They speak of glory and destiny and reigning in life, adding so many glittering distractions that the whole point of Christianity is lost.

  Christianity isn’t about your personal breakthrough into a happy and prosperous life. Christianity is about Christ crucified for the forgiveness of sins…to bring guilty sinners to God.

  Christianity is also not about making a difference….It’s more specific than that…It’s about making disciples in all that Christ commanded.

If you are sitting under a ministry that doesn’t leave you with the Gospel ringing in your ears, then ask yourself why. What has taken first place in the pulpit? Is God’s Word being twisted to say something other than its clear meaning? Is it being handled in its immediate and broader context?

  We must take very seriously those who claim to have a fresh word from God. If they are sent from God, we had better pay close attention, because all God’s utterances are equally authoritative. But if they are not sent by Him, then our job is clear: mark and avoid them. Do not fear them.

  Those who continue to twist God’s Word after being confronted must also be marked and avoided. Truth matters. For the sake of their souls we cannot agree to disagree when it comes to the issue of divine revelation.

  Jeremiah 23:25-32 “I have heard what the prophets have said who prophesy lies in my name, saying, ‘I have dreamed, I have dreamed!’ How long shall there be lies in the heart of the prophets who prophesy lies, and who prophesy the deceit of their own heart, who think to make my people forget my name by their dreams that they tell one another, even as their fathers forgot my name for Baal? Let the prophet who has a dream tell the dream, but let him who has my word speak my word faithfully.

  What has straw in common with wheat? declares the LORD. Is not my word like fire, declares the LORD, and like a hammer that breaks the rock in pieces? Therefore, behold, I am against the prophets, declares the LORD, who steal my words from one another. Behold, I am against the prophets, declares the LORD, who use their tongues and declare, ‘declares the LORD.’ Behold, I am against those who prophesy lying dreams, declares the LORD, and who tell them and lead my people astray by their lies and their recklessness, when I did not send them or charge them. So they do not profit this people at all, declares the LORD.”

Dear friends, please hear me. 

Jesus warned that false prophets would always be with us but that their deceptions would increase as the end of the age approaches. These days, there are thousands of people on the internet and television claiming to be Christian prophets. They conduct seminars on how to hear God’s whispers. They promote their books that contain secrets to hear from Heaven. The question we must answer without delay..... Did God send them to us? 

Today’s prophets gathered together on Zoom calls to prophesy the end to Covid and that Trump would win re-election in 2020. Many of them doubled down after the election, saying God would still reinstate Trump before Biden’s inauguration. But this is just one massive piece of evidence. Even the honest ones among them say that their accuracy in prophetic words is 20% at best. Does God have trouble speaking or being heard? Is He only 20% accurate? Does He endorse these people? No. No. No.

God has made it very plain to the world that He is NOT speaking to these men and women. He has not sent them or authorized them to speak on His behalf. They have prophesied falsely and they grossly twist Scripture. Listen to any of their teachings with an open Bible and see for yourself. 

God’s prophets are still speaking today through the Holy Scriptures. They speak of the Messiah coming to save His people from their sins. He HAS come and HE IS the message of God to dying humanity. 

Hebrews 1:1

“God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom He also made the world.”

2 Peter 1:19-21

“And so we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts. But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture becomes a matter of someone’s own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.”

I’ve listened to countless hours of teachings and prophecies from the modern day prophets. They twist Biblical texts into whatever shape fits their unbiblical theology. Absolutely none of it edifies the soul by pointing to Christ and His Everlasting Gospel. It’s all about tapping into your divine potential, unlocking your destiny, and finding your purpose. It’s about YOU. 

Christianity is Christ. 

Just last week, I took the following screenshots straight from the online bookstore of Bethel Church in Redding, California. Does this resemble Biblical Christianity to you? 

This Is Not From God

There’s not enough time in my busy life or yours most likely to unpack all that those screenshots contain. But know one thing for certain. These false prophets are peddling Gnostic Mysticism to Evangelicals. They aren’t giving you Jesus.

Instead of preaching the Word of the Cross, they encourage you to “press in to the more of God”. They entice with smooth words, “There’s so much more in God for you to experience. His secrets are waiting to be discovered. There is a power and an anointing that you need in order to change your world. Don’t settle for the unsupernatural life.”

When pressed on it, these teachers can often give you an orthodox Gospel outline, but the Gospel is not the content of their teachings. They put words in God’s mouth and misrepresent His nature and His will. They would have you believe that God demands that you prophesy and work miracles in order to be a Spirit-filled Christian. They would have you be discontent with the Bible so they can sell you hundreds of books on how to unlock new levels in your anointing and how to use God’s authority to rule your world. 

If you follow them, the Gospel fades into the background as you endlessly pursue glittering counterfeits. You’ll become like them, always needing more. More new revelation. More lying signs and wonders. More me-centered revivals. More emotion. More surrender. 

You’ll never surrender enough and you’ll never be satisfied. It’s an addiction to a deadly substance that God hates. He hates it when people misrepresent Him. False prophets claim God’s authority as their own. They use “Thus says the Lord” to create new doctrines that lead to more new doctrines. Before you know it, you’re stuck in a cult with unaccountable leaders. Once you try to escape, they will invoke God’s authority and God’s name to bind you and keep you in place. 

So, dear ones, open up your bibles and read EVERYTHING God says about true prophets and false prophets. You’ll find pretty quickly that today’s prophets are counterfeits. They aren’t hearing from God. They are hearing from themselves, or worse, different spirits. True prophets don’t twist God’s Word. They don’t have to learn to hear God. They don’t have to try. God chose and personally appointed His prophets. He spoke to them clearly and understandably. 

Compare and contrast. Be good Bereans. Cling to Christ. Cherish the Gospel. Mark and avoid false teachers and false prophets. 

You don’t have to be nasty about it. Stay focused on souls and God’s glory. 

For the record, I would be first to rejoice if a false prophet repents and finds mercy from our wonderful Savior. I pray for that! Look up Dawn Hill. She was a false prophetess in the Charismatic Movement (New Apostolic Reformation specifically). She repented, and as promised, she received mercy. It’s wonderful to see God’s work in her heart. 

So, be discerning. God doesn’t want you chasing a counterfeit version of Him and His gifts. He also doesn’t want you in a cult. 

Pray for wisdom and get into a faithful Church. God wants you to be planted in Biblical soil, growing in grace, and thriving in Gospel sunshine. This is His way. The truly Spirit-filled way. 

Dear fellow sheep, Keep the Faith.

In His Grip,

Just Another Sheep

[straighttohellbuddy]

is it too much to expect? that i would name the stars for you?

A/N: 1151 words. No Love Interest specified, but he/him pronouns for the L/I. No pronouns specified for the reader. This came to me very suddenly and I’m not quite sure what it is. Part imagine, part meta, part think piece about the nature of rpf x reader imagines. It’s a love letter to the genre, it’s a love letter to the poet Richard Siken, who’s quotes I’ve taken and sprinkled throughout, it’s love letter to you. I don’t remember when I started writing x reader fics, all I remember was that I needed to feel loved, and I put out my work in case someone else needed to feel loved too. (also this was definitely written and posted within a single hour)

----

You find him in a coffee shop.

You find him through your screen.

You find he’s been your best friend this whole time.

You find him through a series of crazy random happenstances.

Over and over again you find him, and you love him. You learn to love him each time, from friendship, from hatred, maybe you’ve loved him all along, maybe in this new world, all you focus on is a moment, is a feeling, is the undeniable truth that is your love for each other. 

Sometimes he breaks your heart. Sometimes he can’t say the words you want to hear until the very last minute. Sometimes you spend so long denying your feelings that the words feel alien on your tongue.

You’re in a car with a beautiful boy, and you’re trying not to tell him that you love him, and you’re trying to choke down the feeling, and you’re trembling, but he reaches over and he touches you, like a prayer for which no words exist, and you feel your heart taking root in your body, like you’ve discovered something you didn’t even have a name for.

But you’ll find him again, and love him again, and suspend your disbelief, mould your self perception to fit this universe, to fit this character that he loves back, because they’re almost you, or similar enough that it’s not jarring, and you let yourself be taken along for the ride. 

You know that he loves you like he loves everyone who needs to feel it enough to be reading it, to be sharing it; a piece of understanding and comfort that you know is both yours and the world’s, but it’s okay. Loving them doesn’t mean he loves you any less, so you come back, time and again, and can hear him say it every time; I love you. 

You love him, yes, though in each universe you love the idea of him that’s been so lovingly handcrafted by the writers who love him too. This love is a shared experience; this love is something you need or want in the moment you’re searching for it. It’s not wrong to need love. It’s not wrong to want love. 

The enormity of my desire disgusts me. 

Because this world isn’t built from an authority, this world is built from love, from passion, from people just like you, and people are so self critical, so worried that people like them will not do the things they love justice. But you trust the writer. You let yourself fall in love, you let yourself be loved. Maybe you keep your mouth shut about it, maybe they won’t understand the rush of suspending your disbelief, believing, if only for a moment, that the people you look up to might see you as an equal, might see you as a something they could love too. 

Wish fullfilment comes in all forms; don’t be afraid to wish to be in love. I’ll tell you a secret; I wish it too.

I made this place for you. A place for to love me. If this isn’t a kingdom then I don’t know what is.

I’m overwhelmed with love, with desire, with the need to script a world in which the person who gives me comfort will comfort me specifically; will comfort you specifically. Worlds of words sprawl in my mind, over and over I see new ways to hear the words I need to hear; more than anything I want to share those worlds with you. What good is understanding that in another universe, he’ll love me, if I can’t show you that in that universe, and so many more, he’ll love you too. We are pack animals, scrambling and searching for love, for a safe place to store our heart, our feelings, so I will write worlds where you can feel human, and feel loved, and feel powerful in equal measure.

I will write worlds where you are the star, where you are the object of desire, where he loves you, because each universe comes with an understanding, comes with a tweaked version of you, dear reader, so that you may find new things to relate to, new ways to fall in love, with him, with yourself. That rush of first love over and over again; that safety of a secure kind of love that comes from years of hard work, because sometimes you need that warmth without the build up, so I’ll give it to you for free. Here, I hand craft these worlds for you, so I suppose in my own way, I love you too.

Here is the part where everyone was happy all the time and we were all               forgiven -

And you’ll fall in love with more than just him, because these worlds are populated by friends and found family who you will grow to love too, because your life does not depend on romantic love, because you are worthy of more than just romantic love, you are worthy of a circle of people who understand you. Find allies in your idols time and time again, each universe has a new way to connect to them.

The worlds I write may not always be kind, for the world itself is not always kind, but the people who matter will love you, will understand you, and you’ll hold your own against the world because you are strong. 

You deserve love. You deserve a world where you can see as the object of desire by those you find desirable. I’ll write them for you; I’ll write my fantasies, let them become my legacy, and hope you understand the love I’m trying to put into words.

You see, I take the parts that I remember and stitch them back together to make a creature that will do what I say or love me back.

But please be kind to him, to the real him, be respectful; he has given comfort and given love, and given inspiration for all these worlds in which I can envision a version of him loving me, of loving you. 

Be kind to him, because I cannot imagine how terrifying, how overwhelming it would be to have a world that loves you, but that doesn’t respect, at least in part, that you are not the version that can love them all in return, in the way they deserve. He can appreciate us, so please, let’s appreciate him for who he is, and love the versions of him, the whole universes writers have been inspired to create just so he can love us in the way we deserve.

In the mean time, here; I know it’s not a lot, but I think it’s what you deserve. It’s the world. It’s his love. I made it just for you.

Who am I? I’m just a writer. I write things down. I walk through your dreams and invent the future.

[hyenahunt]

Conquest - Prologue

Writer: Akira

Season: Spring

Proofreading: royalquintet (JP & ENG)

Translation: hyenahunt

Hiyori: But the problem is, we're not enemies at all. We're allies, aren't we?

[Location: ES Breakroom]

[One day in late spring...]

Hiyori: "Eden Breaks Up?! The decisive battle fans have all been waiting for: Adam VS Eve —"

—Or so says this ridiculous performance plan I just received over HoldHands.

I'd greatly appreciate a detailed explanation of just what is going on. Depending on your answer, chances are I won't let you off.

Nagisa: ...Wow, Hiyori-kun, your expression is frightening.

Ibara: Aye-aye! Allow me to offer you an explanation. After all, it is my job to see to it that this incomprehensible world is dissected, cooked up and arranged for serving.

That being said, however, this appetising proposal came from the higher-ups themselves, and as such I myself am not too clear on how it came to be.

All the same, I do have some grasp of the overall outline.

Nagisa: ...I had no idea about this. While I did receive it on HoldHands, I leave all administrative matters to Ibara.

Hiyori: Nagisa-kun, you're pretty much the leader of both Eden and Adam, aren't you?

I do feel it would be for the best if you managed such things yourself, but well, everyone has their individual strengths and weaknesses, I suppose?

Nagisa: ...Yes. I'd rather not concern myself with the everyday world. It's troublesome.

...And having Ibara look over it results in a more accurate understanding. He's the right person for this.

Ibara: Ahahaha! Receiving such praise and trust from you is truly an honour, Your Excellency!

Nagisa: ...I simply state the truth. By the way, Jun, did you know about this proposal?

Jun: Ugh, please don't drag me into this, Nagi-senpai. Ohii-san's been in such a crazy awful mood all morning and I wanna have nothing to do with it, y'know~?

In situations like these, I'm the one who usually ends up as his stress outlet, after all —

But whatever, I guess. What'd that proposal say again...?

It sounds like something only the unit leaders receive, so there's no way an underling like myself would know anything about it, yeah~?

Nagisa: ...Ahh, it does seem like that's how it works.

...It's set up so that all messages I receive are immediately forwarded to Ibara, so it doesn't concern me, though.

Hiyori: Nagisa-kun, are you alright with that?

If you leave every little thing to Ibara like that — or grow dependent on him, I should say—then aren't you going to have trouble living on if he randomly drops dead one day?

Ibara: Worry not! I won't be dying any time soon — I cannot allow myself to die when we've gotten this far already!

Hiyori: Well, even if Ibara does kick the bucket, I can look after Nagisa-kun like how I used to so everything will be just fine.

Ibara: Indeed, should such a situation ever arise, I will leave him in Your Highness' capable hands.

...Anyway, to return to the topic at hand, I do believe the current proposal isn't completely devoid of points worth considering.

Hiyori: ... In what way, may I ask?

Jun: (Woah. Ohii-san's face is seeeriously scary as hell right now. He's usually all silly laughs and smiles, so when he's got a serious face on you know shit's gonna go down.)

(This time he seems kinda actually really upset about things, huh?)

Ibara: Right. Firstly, it is essential to note that this proposal is by the restructured top brass of CosPro, after the majority of its executives were fired due to the scandal at the end of last year.

They're all most eager to repair their damaged reputations — money is no object in their quest to prove their innocence and competence.

So in short, they intend to create something of great extravagance with this proposal. They'll pull out all the stops, no matter what it takes.

And since this comes right on the heels of the scandal, even the higher-ups will be careful not to attempt anything dubious behind the scenes — so everything should be safe.

Nagisa: ...Well, true fools tend to repeat the same mistakes over and over, though.

Ibara: All the same, it's common knowledge that after the last scandal, we as Eden collectively denounced and drove out the top brass.

Taking that into account, the fact that they've put out a proposal means that they're prepared to face such a situation once more.

This is a proposal of great importance—one that puts their lives on the line, if you will.

At the same time, if we were to reject this proposal, which is composed of the desperate desires of these higher-ups, they'll simply shrink away and believe anything they do or say will be pointless.

I'd greatly prefer to have some clumsy fools bumbling about their jobs rather than frightened figureheads cowering in a corner.

To be frozen in place is no different from being dead, after all. And corpses certainly can't be mobilised for war.

Simultaneously, always saying anything and everything is out of the question will never allow for growth in us humans.

...Well, such overprotective and motherly behavior seems to be a favorite of His Highness Hiyori.

Hiyori: ...In what sense? I certainly feel as though you're mocking me right now, you know?

Ibara: Of course not, I would never do such a thing... It is but a misunderstanding.

But in any case, for the sake of the top brass gaining experience, and to grant them that sense of self-confidence and achievement, I would dearly like for us to accept their proposal.

Nagisa: ...It's actually an interesting proposal, too.

...A confrontation between Adam and Eve... I've never considered such a thing before.

Jun: Well, it kinda feels like something guys would be pretty into. It's almost like pro-wrestling.

Seeing who'd win if Adam and Eve faced off... that might really catch our fans' interest, actually~

Hiyori: Ngh... A lion is still the king of beasts even if he doesn't go around proclaiming it, right?

Ibara: Certainly. That being said, a performance is essential in allowing the masses to actually understand this, as they are rather slow on the uptake.

And it is for that purpose that we now have this current plan: "Conquest".

For us of Eden, who were regrettably only the runner-ups for the idol world's greatest festival, Winter Live, at the end of last year...

Perhaps it's a rather ambitious event, to try and realise that domination that once slipped through our grasp —

That world domination, thwarted by Trickstar, or rather obstructed by traitors within our own camp.

Now is the time to see it through — that, I feel, is the current sentiment borne by the higher-ups of CosPro.

Conquer all, and we shall seize the world within our hands.

Hiyori: Well, in all honesty, I do have faint regrets that we weren't able to conquer the nation at the end of last year.

But we'd still be able to make the world ours just by doing things as we always have. Why make a show out of something so unsightly as an internal quarrel—

Ibara: That's not the case. ES has now been established, and in this new era of oligarchy between the four agencies, it'll prove difficult to stand out if we simply go about our days without aim.

If we are to use a single showpiece to launch ourselves to the top, then it is essential for it to be explosive in nature.

In that sense, I believe Conquest is the ideal plan for it. Since the earliest times, people have always been drawn to showdowns of destiny, after all.

Such as Holmes and Moriarty, Godzilla and King Ghidora, Goku and Vegeta... Would you understand those examples, Your Highness?

Jun: Oh, I totally get you.

Ibara: Good. Let's see... it would be something akin to the War of the Roses — does that make sense?

Hiyori: Mm... I can't deny that a showdown between age-old enemies would be exciting, of course.

But the problem is, we're not enemies at all. We're allies, aren't we?

No... I consider Eden a family, but am I the only one who feels that way?

Nagisa: ......

✦✦✦✦✦

✦ all ✦ next →

[t4t4t]

Modern English language quite literally comes from no place. No indigenous people spoke or speak it. It works as a conglomeration of languages, a mishmash made for one purpose: trade. If languages provide us with a context with which to perceive the world, then English programs people to see the living world through the lens of exploitation: trees as dollar bills, animals as units of meat, humans as slaves. English tells us from the moment we utter our first word to our last that the world exists for one purpose: commerce.

By now you may have noticed something weird or different about my writing style that you can’t quite put your finger on. I’ll let you in on a little secret. I’ve written this book in E-Prime (or English Prime), a version of the English language that excludes the use of the verb “to be.” You heard me right. I do not use is, was, am, were, be, been, are, or any of their contractions. Stop for a second and write a paragraph or two or three and see if you can write without using “to be.” Pretty hard, huh? Now just think how hard it would feel to write a whole book in it!

E-Prime came about because some very clever scientists realized that B-English (“regular” English, which does not exclude “to be”) creates a false projection of reality. The world constantly changes, and B-English interferes with this change by attempting to fix reality in stone. It seems only natural that a sedentary culture that resists change would eventually evolve a language that projects our perception of control into the natural world. We do it with the plow, and we do it with our words.

While doing who knows what kind of experiments, these nerds discovered that an electron, when measured with one instrument, appears as a wave and when measured with a different instrument appears as a particle. We have a problem here: in Aristotelian B-English, an electron cannot “be” both a particle and a wave, as surely as a table cannot also “be” a chair. He realized that by “be-ing,” we label something as it “is,” fixing it into an unchangeable object.

For example, I cannot simultaneously “be” both stupid and smart. But what happens when Person A observes with a set of instruments (Person A’s senses) that I have intelligence, and Person B observes through a different set of instruments (Person B’s senses) that I say idiotic things? Our linguistic world eats itself, and arguments ensue. “To be” prevents us from experiencing a shared reality—something we need in order to communicate in a sane way. If someone sees something differently from another, our language prevents us from acknowledging the other’s point of view by limiting our perception to fixed states. For example, if I say “Star Wars is a shitty movie,” and my friend says, “Star Wars is not a shitty movie!” We have no shared reality, for in our language, truth lies in only one of our statements, and we can forever argue these truths until one of us writes a book and has more authority than the other. If on the other hand I say, “I hated Star Wars,” I state my opinion as observed through my own senses. I state a more accurate reality by not claiming that Star Wars “is” anything, as it could “be” anything to anyone. Similarly one could say, “I’ve seen Urban Scout act like an idiot before,” while another person could say, “Man, Urban Scout has really made me think. I really appreciate him.” We have two perceptions that do not contradict one another but that came about from different perspectives.

“To be” plays god. It attempts to chisel reality in stone and works as the backbone of the civilized paradigm. Of course it does: its birthplace lies in the land of economic commerce, not a biological community. English works to domesticate the world as much as tilling means to domesticate it. Every element of our culture urges for domestication, for slavery. If language shapes how we perceive the world, nothing stands more fundamental (aside from the practice of agriculture itself) to this process of domestication than our own language.

Some people believe that language marked the beginning of hierarchy and we should walk away from language as well. But where do you draw the line? At vocalization? Birds vocalize. Body language? Every animal uses body language. Every animal has a language. If I run from a bear it will chase me. If I stand my ground and avoid eye contact, I let the bear know I don’t mean harm. The bear will huff and gruff and bluff to test my stance. Eventually the bear will walk away and let me go. This confrontation has a language to it. Peaceful confrontations do as well. Birds use songs, companion calls, and alarms to communicate, to emphasize their body language.

We know that indigenous peoples lived sustainably with beautiful, poetic spoken languages. We also know that no indigenous cultures used the verb “to be.” Knowing that, and understanding what “to be” does to our perception of reality, it makes sense that the first step to rewilding the English language should involve eliminating Aristotle’s mistake. Willem Larsen has taken this concept much further and created “E-Primitive,” a version of E-Prime that stresses verb-based sentences (among many other changes). Most indigenous languages based themselves in verbs rather than nouns. This shows us their focus on a fluid, ever-changing perception of reality. Our noun-based sentence structure shows us another symptom of our fixed-reality language.

E-Prime hardly fixes English (pardon the pun!). But it greatly defangs it. It tears down many of the language’s footholds on control and allows for a more chaotic, changeable paradigm to fall into place. The more I write in E-Prime the more I see how “is” takes control of the world and how fluid English can sound. Of course, I speak B-English and use it in most of my other writings. I also have no illusions that E-Prime could ever stop civilization from destroying the planet. Rather, E-Prime works as a means of reconnecting myself to the wild through language. It merely helps me to see the world through a more dynamic, accurate linguistic paradigm.

[ficsex]

in an ask you mentioned that fetishization can be positive. in my understanding, fetishization is an inherently bad thing, so if you're up to it, could you elaborate on that?

I can, but get ready for some early 20th century Jewish philosophy! :D

So, there's this guy named Martin Buber, one of the most famous Jewish philosophers, who posited a specific kind of existentialism: the theory of the I–It relationship and the I–Thou relationship (or Ich–Es and Ich–Du). Definitely read up on it, I'm going to do a shitty job of explaining it.

In essence:

The I–It relationship is a transactional, objectifying relationship. It's one where a person sees another being for what they are, and not who they are. There's no real connection between spirits, because each person only sees a representation of the other person in their mind.

The I–Thou relationship, conversely, is about seeing another being in truth, without any filters based on preconceptions, what they can do for each other, or what they want out of the encounter. It's the most true meeting, because you get to experience who a person actually is, instead of all of the mental and relational fog that we build around others.

Buber goes on to explain that I–Thou relationships are rare, and that each person may only have a handful of fleeting moments in their life where they get to experience a connection like that.

*****

Okay, so. What does this look like in practice?

(this explanation is mine, and is structured for ease and simplicity. Don't @ me, I know I'm deviating from Buber's purposes.) (He can @ me, you guys can't)

Imagine you board a specific bus for the first time. New job, new house, whatever. It's your first time on this bus line. You step on the bus, and there is a bus driver. You pay your fare and say thank you, and sit down. What kind of relationship do you have with this bus driver? It's an I–It relationship - your whole interaction is through a lens of purpose. They are there to drive you to their destination, you are there to pay your fare and be transported. There is no true connection there.

Now, imagine you take that bus every week day, for months and months, and you've started chatting with that bus driver. Now you know about their kids, what kind of coffee they like. They know about your job and what makes you smile. You like each other as people. This could be the beginning of an I–Thou relationship (Buber would disagree - whatever, it's my blog).

You had no way to develop that I–Thou relationship, though, if you hadn't interacted first through the I–It lens.

*****

"Mx. Ficsex, when do we get to the part about sex?"

Now, dear reader. Now.

*****

When it comes to sex and relationships, we often meet people through a lens of fetishization. The only reason you notice them is because they exemplify something sexual. They are a role or an object, but in the sense that Buber describes (and I bastardize).

We cannot control our desires. We can certainly control our behaviors, and we might be able to put in work to expand our view of what's considered "attractive", but we can't have a conversation with our subconscious to say "hey, I need you to turn off that fetish, please". That's a recipe for repression.

If you have a fetish for large breasts, you might view someone with large breasts as a role, as opposed to as a person. Their role is "sexy person that I look at". Their role is not "person who owes me sex" or "person I can demean" or even "person I can hit on", but your brain assigns them a box that they fit in, just like "bus driver" fits into the box of "I pay, they get me somewhere".

It's not that someone with large breasts is actually an object, of course, but the fact that they fit into the role of "sexy person that I look at" may be what connects you. Maybe it gives you a reason to say hello, or send a drink down the bar to them, or send the first message in OkC. This opens the door to a true and meaningful connection.

*****

This gets trickier when we discuss identities that are typically fetishized. I'm not going to go into the downsides of fetishization here (and there are many), as that would make this post a lot longer.

It can be empowering to be seen as sexual and desirable when you are part of a group that is frequently seen as deviant, undesirable, or non-sexual. It's not even a "well, no one regular likes me, so I guess I'll take someone gross who fetishizes part of my identity" (though that happens too). It's more "wow, this aspect of myself that society tells me / others is undesirable is a major turn-on for this person. If they are also a nice/good person that I get along with, this could work out really well for both of us!

(get ready for the thesis statement. drumroll, please....)

Fetishization is by nature dehumanizing, but that doesn't necessarily mean that there is no humanity to be found in potential connections. I–It relationships are all dehumanizing, to some extent, but we can use the "person as role" introduction as a foundation to create a "person as person" relationship.

If you are a person who is uncomfortable being fetishized at all, that is okay! You don't have to stand for it! I'm not being sarcastic, that is a genuinely good line to draw. But your point of view is not the only one.

There are trans women - especially older trans women - who are in relationships with men who are primarily sexually attracted to trans women (also known as chasers), and they can be good and healthy relationships. Yes, the relationship is built on an objectification of a marginalized identity, but the two people in that relationship have decided together that they are happy.

There are people missing limbs, either from congenital abnormalities or amputations, who have found love and companionship with people have have a fetish for their limb difference.

What is important to keep in mind is consent and power dynamics.

For example, race-based fetishization is almost always unethical, as it's based on a concept of privilege versus marginalization. So is fetishization based on cognitive ability, as it's based on being more powerful and able than a partner with an intellectual disability. People can't just say "I cannot control my desires", and use that to excuse bad intentions, bad practices, and bad behavior. But people can say "this aspect of a person attracts me to them, and puts them into a role of "sexy person I want to look at", and I therefore will see if I can get close to them.

*****

This post is getting way, way too long, so I'm going to cut it here now.

I want to wrap up by saying that this is ONE view, that I am presenting in ONE way. I am generally against the concept of fetishization, and only intend here to explain how it can be positive or powerful. If individual people with marginalized identities find value or desirability in being fetishized, that is not ours to police.

Enjoy my brutal butchering of Martin Buber's philosophy, and feel free to share nuanced takes in the replies.

[walkswithmyfather]

“Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. ” —Hebrews 11:1 (NIV)

“What Does Hebrews 11:1 Mean?” By Knowing-jesus.com

“This is the faith that unquestioningly takes God at His Word, knowing that all He has promised to us in Christ is more secure than the rising of the morning sun and more certain than the daily passage of time. It is the firm persuasion, unshakable confidence, and indisputable expectation, that all God has said, in and through His WORD, is established forever and does not take refuge in the a 'maybe' or a 'perhaps'.

It is an objective faith that is secured to the knowledge that our redemption rests on Who Christ is, and what He has already done on the Cross on our account. Our faith is not on who we are or what we have done to commend ourselves to God, but on Christ and His accomplishments. Objective faith is not based on sight or sense but rests its case in the arms of God's Word of Truth.

Faith is not based on experience, nor calculated through reason. True faith is anchored on scriptural facts. It is beyond man's intellect and cannot be penetrated through reasoning or discovered through scientific 'proof'. It has nothing to do with personal opinion or impressions. It is beyond the dimension of human thought because it is the substance of facts that are conceived in the mind of God. 

God is not a man, so He does not lie. The Lord is not a fallen being, so He does not flirt with fantasy or feasibility. He does not change His mind and has never spoken a word that He has failed to act upon. Has he never made a promise that has not been carried through to its fulfilment, and it is incumbent on us to know what His Word says and to believe the promises He has given.

The eye of faith sees beyond our present reality and places its feet firmly on divine revelation given by almighty God, through the Word-made-flesh. It believes God's Word of truth in the pages of Scripture, which was written for our learning, instruction, encouragement, and hope. The heart of faith enables us to treat as reality those things that are unseen, even when circumstances of life appear to contradict the truth of God's Word.

All that God has revealed to us through holy men of God is just and good and true, and Scripture is designed to be a sure foundation upon which to build. It has nothing in common with so many superficial apologies for faith, based on sight, experiences, opinions, fancies, dreams, or imaginations that excite the soul, feed the flesh, and pander to the human ego. Without faith it is impossible to please God and Jesus said, "blessed are those that have NOT seen - and yet have believed."

May the hope we have in Christ and the faith we have in God be built on the truth, of His Word and grounded on a sure conviction. May we never stumble when situations seem to go amiss, and may we be firmly persuaded that, "He who started a good work in each of our lives is well able to bring it to completion."

My Prayer: Loving Father, I can be so entrenched in my own thinking that sometimes I doubt Your Word and question Your promises, often wishing I had some concrete 'proof’ of Your love for me – and yet Your Word gives me all the affirmation of this absolute reality I need – for Your Word and Promises are sure and Your faithfulness stretches beyond the limits of time and space. Thank You for the gift of faith, and I pray that day by day my loving trust in You and the reality of Your Word will become increasingly established within my heart – for I long to please You in all I say and do and am. It is Jesus' name I pray, AMEN.”

[softinkshadows]

Shingeki no Kyojin Astrology: sun-moon-rising combinations

I was looking around tumblr for detailed astrology speculations of my fave anime characters, but there aren't that many! Being q well-versed in astro myself, i thought why not do my own version (very spoiler-free, don’t worry)! I followed the birth dates given by isayama:

Eren Jaeger - Aries sun, Scorpio moon, Cancer rising Aside from the fact that he can be hotheaded and impulsive, Eren's feelings of vengeance run deep and explosive. Remember that time he was chained to the bed after the attack on trost, and his eyes were wild with the need to violently eradicate all titans? He's so tenacious and emotionally stubborn too (a Scorp moon trait) to the point of being closed off from everyone else, especially towards the end where he seems to take the weight of the world's burden on his own shoulders. And all for the sake of protecting his community and ensuring the safety of his friends for the rest of their lives. His comrades and family are his motivation. This is his Cancer rising steering his life.

Mikasa Ackerman - Aries sun, Aquarius moon, Aries rising "Look that moody brat is running off on her own again." Mikasa is similar to Eren in her impulsiveness and determination, but different in two ways- what they aim to protect and their extent of fearlessness. Eren is aware of his own weaknesses and helplessness, but Mikasa's amazing physical prowess makes her act without any hesitation at all. She's hella fierce and driven to keep herself in shape too, doing all those sit-ups and chopping firewood post-injury. I think she deserves a double Aries! An Aries rising means a Libra descendant too, which is reflected her whole-hearted devotion in her close partnerships (Eren and Armin). Her aquarius moon really shines thru with her stoic independence, focus and perseverance.

Armin Arlet - Scorpio sun, Virgo moon, Pisces rising He's the brain of the 104th cadet corps, and is second to Erwin in terms of strategy! An intelligent planner with low self-esteem often found second guessing his own analytical abilities, Armin is a true blue Virgo moon. His emotional self stands out the most from the main three protagonists - Eren & Mikasa mostly express anger and desperation, whereas Armin is usually shrouded in fear and worry. He's a very soft bb, hence the Pisces rising, not to mention he gets so dreamy imagining the sea, the vast plains, and the magical world beyond the walled universe he knows. A spiritually-attuned and curious explorer :")

Levi Ackerman - Capricorn sun, Scorpio moon, Virgo rising Levi is such a complex person, thanks to Isayama's brilliance. Like many Cap suns, Levi is authoritative, cold and incredibly savage. That's not to say he doesn't feel anything either. Levi is an evolved Scorp moon (maybe even moon in 11th house) because his feelings are never for himself, but he hurts so much for others - you can tell every death hits him so hard, but he doesn't show this to anyone else. He also exudes this quietly intimidating aura of natural competence, a common characteristic of this sun-moon combo. He can take things personally as well (re: height issues) but it never snowballs into more than passing irritation. The turbulence of his emotions and habit for violence is balanced out by his earthy Virgo rising, which is emotionally subdued, quite thin and delicate in physique, and super neurotic and nitpicky when it comes to cleanliness and health. Cap, Virgo and Scorp are some of the most guarded signs, and a combi of all 3 are hellish. You can tell this poor beautiful man is always caught between feeling and thinking, between maintaining his humanity and forsaking it.

Erwin Smith - Libra sun, Capricorn moon, Leo rising In another life, Erwin Smith would be the damn CEO of a global conglomerate because he oozes so much charisma. Hell if charisma were energy Erwin Smith would be its prime, eternally renewable source. His stature alone is so commanding, and I find some strong Leonine traits in his thickset physique, strong eyebrows, beautiful hair, and that way he shouted in full glory atop wall Rose in that one episode to the cheering masses below. He might be a Libra sun, diplomatic in political affairs, but his Capricorn moon is what drives his decisions. Cap moon has a rep for being cold and unemotional, but i believe they are way more than that! Cap moons rarely boast about their long list of achievements, instead looking forward to the next goal. They struggle with emotional expression, and are super driven and disciplined. Erwin is capable of making the hardest decisions, putting aside emotions to strive for an abstract ideal, and this is to be expected of the commander who takes on the role of the devil.

Hange Zoe - Virgo sun, Sagittarius moon, Gemini rising All hail our favourite mad scientist!! Hange is such a breath of fresh air in the Survey Corps, balancing out the heaviness of missions with their wacky tales of titan research and experimentation. Their penchant for study and higher knowledge is typical of a Sagittarius moon, who is drawn to advanced academic study and spiritual truths. It's also a lighthearted and optimistic sign, true to Hange's upbeat personality. The Virgo in them contributes to their sheer intelligence and obsessiveness with research subjects. We also know they LOVE to talk, and once Eren asks Hange about experiments, they cannot stop (Gemini governs communication). Virgo, Sag and Gemini are the most intellectual signs, and because they are mutuable Hange tends to follow orders rather than give them, making it difficult to adapt to their new role towards the end of the series. Mutable signs also means rapidly-changing emotional states, and a whole lot of chaos, which suits our beloved squad leader.

Jean Kirstein - Aries sun, Virgo moon, Taurus rising Our third Aries on the list ohmygod. The snk universe is full of feisty hotheads. Jean is always seen clashing with Eren, fuelled by Eren's closeness with Mikasa and his own adorable jealousy. I mean, they had a full on fist fight right after dinner in the mess hall, although everything went downhill after the first few punches. Our first impression of Jean during his cadet days is coloured by his desire to work in the interior, and this favour for material safety and wealth is perhaps common to a Taurus rising. Also, Taurus is ruled by Venus, planet of beauty and harmony, and thus often figures in the charts of artists. If you've seen Jean's drawing skills in that special episode, you'll know that his artistic abilities are the finest we have seen, exceeding even that of isayama himself. Jean's strong principles such as being averse to killing people and oftentimes cynical nature, is also characteristic of the moral and cautious Virgo moon.

Sasha Braus - Leo sun, Gemini moon, Taurus rising Not all Leos are showmans. Sasha is the type of Leo who displays more of the quirky, unabrashed personality suited to her opposite sister sign Aquarius. Authority doesn't exist when food comes into play, as we see when she breaks potato with Shadis and later steals a slab of meat from the officer's warehouse. Unlike the visual artistry that Jean possesses with his Taurus rising, Sasha's Taurus centers around her love for food, and hell she can have fiery determination for it (rmb the wild night she mistook Jean's hand for meat?). I love that both of them were pitted with each other in that cooking special episode. I considered placing her as a Taurus moon, but Taurus moons are usually steadier and classier in emotion, whereas Sasha is often breezy, gets nervous and chaotic, with stellar intuition, making her likely a Gemini moon.

Connie Springer - Taurus sun, Cancer moon, Gemini rising Although not much attention is paid to Connie's growth, his character development reminds me a lot of Aang from ATLA. Cheery and happy-go-lucky at first, before the incident with his mother made him more prone to feelings of anger and vengeance, especially near the later chapters. His strong protective bond with his mother is what compels me to say he is a Cancer moon, which is a moon sign that is very homebody and drawn to family and traditions. His goofy self and him referring to Sasha as "his twin" puts him as the spunky Gemini rising, another sign he shares with her.

Reiner Braun - Leo sun, Pisces moon, Capricorn rising Aside from his natural leader personality (Leonine), Reiner likes to take on the persona of the big brother of the group. His outward stoicism, decisiveness and task-oriented nature is typical of a Cap rising, who is often serious and solemn in appearance. He reminds me of that Cap rising workaholic who does his best in a corporate organization, working 9 to 5 plus overtime as it fulfills his sense of purpose. Beyond his stoic facade reveals a more troubled personality. Like a Pisces moon, Reiner is impressionable, and it's difficult to tell if his emotions and personalities are his own, wavering and absorbing traits from those around him. His internal war with his identity and the ensuing fatigue characterises him during the second half of the series.

Annie Leonhart - Aries sun, Aquarius moon, Virgo rising Annie is the kind of Aries that is so motivated to achieve her goals that everything else is sidelined, including her own emotions. She's quite ruthless in chasing her objectives, and her composure, focus and endurance is highlighted with an Aquarius moon. I'm guessing she has a 4th house influence somewhere because of her motivations to go home to her father and lead a normal life. I find the daintiness and delicateness of her features similar to Levi, who is also a Virgo rising. The Virgo effect also registers as a brutal, unfiltered honesty (also seen in Levi), and Annie doesn't hesitate to speak the truth about her own or her opponent's capabilities.

Other characters which I won't go into much detail about:

Bertholdt Hoover - Capricorn sun, Virgo moon, Pisces rising Bertholdt is quiet with an unobtrusive personality. His lack of supposed iniative and aggression can perhaps be attributed to the mutuability of Virgo and Pisces, which goes with the flow instead of charging forward. He keeps his feelings to himself, but reacts when the people he wants to protect are threatened.

Historia Reiss - Capricorn sun, Libra moon, Cancer rising Historia initially lives for the sake of others (esp Ymir), and is more co-dependent than many of her other squadmates. She also tends to put up a front of pleasantness, afraid of disappointing or offending people. She has a strong tie to family, and a profound sense of duty.

Ymir - Aquarius sun, Pisces moon, Aries rising Ymir is extremely astute when it comes to evaluating human behaviour. The religiosity of her background is also usually found in this sun-moon combination, which tends to attract paths of strong spirituality. She also has a bold and noble sacrificial streak for the sake of her companions.

Zeke Jaeger - Leo sun, Capricorn moon, Scorpio rising A headstrong, intelligent and radical character. In a way similar to Erwin in his ruthlessness, but emotionally darker and much more sinisterly private.

Kenny Ackerman - Aquarius sun, Sagittarius moon

Rod Reiss - Virgo sun, Libra moon

Dot Pixis - Virgo sun, Sagittarius moon

Hannes - Capricorn sun, Taurus moon

[flickeringart]

Thinking and Feeling -  What keeps you civilized?

In order to be able to live in a civilized manner, a person has to align with certain values and standards that enable behavior that doesn’t threaten, disturb or cause disruption in social interactions. The air signs in astrology represents the thinking function, the ability to formulate ideals and communicate with the environment. The air element is the function of deductive reasoning and it allows for a certain detachment from the emotional-physical reality. The thinking function allows us to interact with the world on an intangible level, through sublimating actual experience to conceptual reality. “Communication” is only possible when there’s separation present – where there’s a subject and an object present.

The air element is often referred to as the basis for “civilization”. It is uniquely human; it is what sets us apart from the animals. Without thinking, there are no ideas, no conceptual ideal to strive for. This is not to say that thinking on its own is productive – there needs to be a physical- emotional reality in order for thinking to have something to conceptualize of in the first place. As humans, we are only partly thinking creatures, and we can hardly be said be defined solely by our thoughts. Even though air dominant types might be more justified in basing their identity on their capacity to think and navigating conceptual reality, there is so much going on at a denser, subtler level, a feeling level that might or might not fit into pre-conceived conceptual framework, that might not be understood through concepts.

Thinking is undoubtedly powerful. In a “civilized” society the pen is mightier than the sword, if used skillfully. A lot can be done with a sharp intellect and a quick mind. However, thinking is not responsive, it is a conscious construction. Powerful emotion or overwhelming instinctual reactions are more organic and dynamic. People can hold values and ideals that are perfectly in line with civilized society, but it doesn’t mean that the instinct is ever “tamed” because it can’t be constructed. Thinking can’t hold emotion back and the thinking function can’t ever perfectly define or describe what is felt simply because emotion is subjective and not objective. No person can completely act and behave in accordance with ideas and ideals. Emotions prevent this from happening – they are immediate responses that are personal – not impersonal. This is why, on an intellectual level one can say, “it’s wrong to kill”, but it won’t prevent the person from affectively responding to a situation in a way that results in a killing. Reversely, on an intellectual level one can say, “I have to kill”, but it won’t prevent the emotions from moving in a different direction.

Does thinking really keep us civilized in a real sense then? It seems not; it only creates a façade of civilization, a light façade of connectivity and communion, a light façade of love that stems from detachment from actuality and idealization of potential. The intellectual ideal is impersonal, seemingly more pure than the ambiguous and powerfully primitive emotional response, but in a sense, also inhuman (superhuman?) and inorganic. The thinking function is indispensable, but it is shallow in its own way, less potent and less alive than emotion. Words only have true power in connection to emotion; on their own they are simply tools, empty and dead. Perhaps it is accurate to say that civilization cannot manifest without alignment of the soul and the mind. Thinking can’t control feeling and feeling can’t control thinking, inevitably one is operating separately from the other but they can align. Thinking and feeling are unable to reduce each other to nothing. Thinking doesn’t cancel out feeling and vice versa. Strong emotion might call for intellectual justification socially, yet, since thinking didn’t cause feeling in the first place (at least not consciously), one can only speculate as to what the emotion is or was in response to – why it was so intense and if it was reasonable and so on… In a sense, trying to conceptualize of emotion is like trying to conceptualize of life and it’s never productive because it won’t make the feeling nature be different than it is or prevent it from expressing itself.

Generally speaking, emotions don’t “fit in” socially and societally because they are strictly personal and untamed – often impossible to fit into a conceptual framework that everyone can understand and make sense of. There is no logic behind emotions because they are immediately experienced and are not part of some pre-conceived conceptual construct. In fact, many people find it insulting when others try to make sense of their reactions and responses, to make them fit into a neat intellectual-conceptual “box”. Emotions demands acceptance no matter what – they essentially reflects organic truth rather than conceptual truth. The feeling function is often devalued and deemed “less evolved”, but without it, we would lack deeper “personal truth”.

------

On a separate note, albeit connected to the text above,

Some claim that thought creates reality and emotional experience is a direct result of subconscious thought patterns and programming. I believe this is true in the sense that there’s a universal blueprint that is set up for us, however, I don’t think that thought creates reality in our own personal lives in the sense that we can separate ourselves from our personal blueprint (reflected by our birth chart) by “working on ourselves”. It is true that one can become more conscious of components and facets of the psyche, but it’s too presumptuous to believe that one could “change” the self for the better to fit a preferred mold. Some people seem to work well with the “law of attraction”, they are able to positively focus and manifest the personal reality they want. This ability is undoubtedly reflected in the birth chart of these people – optimism, a propensity to believe and receive effortlessly. Not everyone is set up that way, which is quite evident considering the struggles and hardships that people face, despite the effort to look on the bright side of life. Some charts are set up in order for the individual to experience pain and crises in order to discover something of value through the death and rebirth process. This is a valid path, although it might not seem blissful or peaceful in the least. For these types it is not realistic or rewarding to soar on the surface of life.

Take Esther Hicks for example, a famous channel, author and public speaker. She helps people to close the gap between their desires and the manifestation of them. She is channeling a “collective thought stream” (called Abraham) in her talks that is concerned with seeing humanity actualize its desires and dreams. Her chart, as shown below (from astrotheme.com) has a grand fire trine with Jupiter, Venus and Mars. This trine blesses her with a certain fundamental and natural faith in her own ability to receive what she wants from life. Her chart is not void of friction and trouble, but this grand trine has her back when the going gets tough. She would have a natural propensity for generosity and an “abundance mindset” as they call it.

The conjunction of Pluto-Saturn-Mars (all in retrograde which makes the energy experienced internally) in Leo points to a charged desire nature, a concentrated and powerful drive that is, for lack of a better word, ruthless and almost painful. As Mars is the fighter of the personality, this kind of configuration makes me think of an insatiable, prideful yet painfully contained fighter who can’t admit to any personal passions without feeling weakened, but at the same time can’t let go and has to have at all. It makes sense, that a person who helps people to get what they want through mental-emotional alignment would understand the pain and dissatisfaction caused by not being able to control life. The conjunction opposes Mercury, which is interesting since she writes and speaks for a living, or rather speaks for an autonomous “entity” of sorts. She lends her communicative ability to something other than herself. When she channels, she’s not in her Pluto-Saturn-Mars mode. Venus and Jupiter, the two benefics, and Uranus nicely support Mercury. She can convey ideas that are revolutionary and speak of happiness and abundance. It strikes me that when she speaks, she speaks to people with frustrated desires (Mercury opposite Pluto-Saturn-Mars) – it is as if she projects this cluster of energy and experiences it through her audience. I’m sure she avoids identifying with it and meets it through others that she encounters. The Pluto-Saturn-Mars conjunction is highly uncomfortable and the person would likely attempt to work around it in any way possible if the chart allows for it. In Esther’s case, she has a lot to lean on in order to avoid its harshness - the trine certainly helps and the Mercury opposition allows detachment. Nonetheless she meets it in her life because it’s part of her blueprint.

My point with all of this is to illustrate that certain “philosophies” and belief systems come easier to others because of the personal astrological setup and it being backed by experience in accordance with the planets. It always makes sense why a person thinks and feels a certain way from looking at the natal chart. Nobody’s wrong and nobody’s right, there’s only the chart and what it allows for and doesn’t allow for. I do believe that no one can act outside of his or her chart. All paths are ultimately valid from a universal perspective. Work with your own blueprint because that is the only way to live anyway.

[thejustmaiden]

Jaken = Rin's Dad?

Okay, is this how a daughter treats their so-called father?

Most definitely not.

Rin and Jaken's relationship clearly screams of your typical sibling rivalry punctuated with cute and silly moments of playful bickering.

Yes, Jaken may technically be her main provider, but that doesn't necessarily equate to him being more of a father than Sesshomaru. If anything, he demonstrates more of a brotherly love towards her. As we all know, parents (which Sesshomaru embodies more based on real life patterns and parallels) will leave their older more capable children in charge of looking after their younger brothers and sisters. In this case, that would mean making Jaken responsible for watching over Rin and protecting her if need be. Ah-Un offers protection, too. Think of it as Jaken as the big brother and Ah-Un as the family dog who are babysitting while Sesshomaru as the parent of the household is away at work or taking care of business. I mean, they literally fit that description to a tee and I'm dying at the accuracy of it all! 🤣👌

[Quick! Someone write up a modern au where Sesshomaru finally gets out to have a nice date night but everything goes wrong in the most spectacular way. Like maybe Rin and Jaken catch a ride on Ah-Un to go spy!]

I recently revisited some episodes from The Final Act, and I couldn't believe how many moments like this there were where Rin got after Jaken or when she would "put him in his place" so to speak. Obviously, all of it is mostly harmless. I was only surprised by how often it occurred, not to mention how Jaken would just stand there and take it. Towards a supposed father figure, Rin's behavior is downright unacceptable. There's a certain level of respect a child is expected to show their parents/guardians, and that's just not what I'm witnessing here between them. Like at all.

Rather their dynamic has the nature of some sibling relationships like I mentioned above. So I really wish fans would stop pretending otherwise, because based on what we know of father-daughter relationships- healthy ones at least- they don't appear anything like what Jaken and Rin have. If you could please provide me other examples of where we've seen similar portrayals in fiction or in real life, then perhaps I can get on board.

Look, that doesn't have to mean that because Jaken isn't her father then Sesshomaru must be. They can both be her caretakers without necessarily filling that traditional father role. I'm just saying that if we're going to start assigning titles to characters, let's make sure we are accurate and truthful in our assessments. If you're going to label anyone Rin's dad, then it needs to be Sesshomaru. Jaken doesn't have precedence over him in terms of fatherly attributes, that just wouldn't make sense.

After all, this isn't about what you want to see, this is about what Rin very likely sees. It's safe to assume that she views Sesshomaru more like a father than she does Jaken. She knows she's safe with him (broadly speaking lol) and that he'll come for her no matter what. That sense of security and comfort is what a child seeks and what they should always feel in a parent's presence. She trusts and even idolizes him, just as a young and innocent child tends to do with their parents. At that age, parents are perfect and could do no wrong in their child's eyes. Idk about you, but this describes perfectly how Rin is around Sesshomaru.

Rin adores him and will follow him anywhere- yes, even into danger! That's what the innocence and unconditional love of a child will bring them to do if necessary. Fortunately, at the end of The Final Act we learn Sesshomaru takes Kaede's advice when he realizes that leaving Rin with her in the village is in her best interests. That way she'd be able to lead a more normal and safer life alongside other humans. Remember, Sessrin shippers, that doesn't mean he wasn't still a part of her life and didn't witness her become a young woman over the years right before his very eyes. Therefore, if they eventually do become romantically involved, then most if not all of those gifts had intimate and seductive intentions and it essentially constitutes as child grooming.

I understand from a Sessrin shipper's point of view why it'd be so much easier to claim Jaken as the father. In doing so, they diminish Sesshomaru's role in her upbringing. By refusing to acknowledge the real role he had in helping raise Rin (short periods can be crucial and impressionable too esp. in a child's early years so yes they did assist in raising her not only Kaede), these shippers are better able to justify how their filial-like relationship evolved into a romantic one. So yeah, I get it, if I were a Sessrin shipper I'd probably do the same. It's one of the more plausible arguments available to them, after all. "Let's pin Jaken as the father to fend off antis!" is the best chance they've got, but even so, it's still not good enough. But if you insist Jaken is indeed like a father to Rin, then Sesshomaru is most certainly one too. Who says she can't have two fathers anyway?

The thing is however much you want to deny or downplay what Sesshomaru truly means to Rin and vice versa, nothing will ever change or hide the truth of the matter. Please, stop acting like they're only traveling companions and nothing more. Some of y'all even go so far as to say that they're like strangers. Knowing potentially little about a person is not equal to a lack of love and affection. Making big assumptions such as this to defend your ship is actually doing you more harm than good. Let me elaborate.

According to your reasoning, if that's all Rin ever was to him was a companion and Sesshomaru had no real attachment to her, then what precisely is the basis of your ship? Recall that Adult!Rin doesn't exist yet, thus we have no real idea what she will be like or if she's even alive. So how can you make comments like that but then go on later to say "they have such a unique and unbreakable bond" or "only Rin can be the mother because she's the only human he ever cared for" if all that time spent traveling together didn't amount to much in the first place like you claimed to believe beforehand? Do you see how your rationalizing is confusing?

Contrary to what some of you may think, I'm not just saying all this because I'm an anti and I'm obligated to disagree with you, or whatever other excuse you want to tell yourself. Believe it or not, I'm attempting to give as unbiased and objective of an analysis I can based on widely accepted interpretations of family dynamics, development, and any history we know of.

Of course I respect that at times fans will perceive things differently since that's bound to happen. What's hard for me to wrap my head around however is the unwillingness of some fans- not exclusively Sessrin shippers- to apply basic common sense and sound judgment to their observations and deductions.

Looking at all our facts, then taking the small handful of scenes Sesshomaru and Rin do share together into account, one can logically conclude that their dynamic is akin to one found in a typical parent-child relationship. If you still fail to recognize Sesshomaru as a parent to Rin, then that's fine too. In the end, that won't really change the fact that he'd still take on a role resembling an adult figure overseeing a young child's care and protection. Be it as a vassal, guardian, what have you. Plus, nobody is saying here that Sesshomaru doesn't make mistakes regarding Rin's general well-being, but so do all parents. Overall, I think the majority of us agree that Rin is in good hands. Whether it's in his direct company or in his occasional supervision from his frequent visits to the village.

In other words, it doesn't really matter what exact title you assign him in relation to Rin, as the distribution of power is all inherently the same with any and all adult-child relationships. That bond never changes once you've established it either, seeing as it's a special kind of connection one can only form with a child and a child alone.

I was a teacher for a few years, and speaking from personal experience, you don't need to be a parent, per se, to take on a role of authority in a child's life. I know without a doubt that I could never and will never view any of those kids I taught in a sexual/romantic light later down the road; yes, not even once they become grown-ups who are independent and more than capable of making their own decisions. Those of you who disagree are usually missing the whole point though, because we're not trying to dictate what Adult!Rin can and cannot do like many tend to accuse of us doing. This isn't a question of taking away from her autonomy nor does it fall under "purity culture," which is why people shouldn't continue jumping to these outrageous conclusions and really listen for a change. You're deflecting from the real issue here when you choose to misinterpret what we're saying by ignoring the problem we're actually referring to. You cannot present a valid counter-argument if you persist in twisting our words.

Bottom line: once these kids become old enough to pursue a sexual/romantic relationship, of course they have that right if they're ready. All we're trying to say is you guys ought to stop pushing forward this it's-completely-normal-to-want-to-bang-your-adoptive-dad-since-you're-an-adult-and-can-do-as-you-please agenda and not expect backlash. Ship it if you want, but please stop acting like their romance would be the epitome of a pure and healthy relationship.

Sesshomaru may not wear his heart on his sleeve, but it's foolish to presume he didn't actually care about Rin during their whole time together just because he didn't openly express his feelings until the very end. Surely everybody can comprehend that people handle and process their emotions differently. The way Sesshomaru chooses to is completely valid for the most part, so let's cut him some slack regarding this already.

What I'm trying to get at is that any child whose life you played an influential role in will always be a kid in a lot ways to you even when they're old and wrinkly. Just as they will always picture you as the loved one who guided and protected them when they were most vulnerable and couldn't always fend for themselves. Can't we relate this to children we know personally and apply it accordingly?

Finally, I want to end on this note. Could you kindly take a look at these two images below for a second?

The reason I ask is because of something I recently read that's relevant to the topic. There was this pro-sessrin tweet I saw that stated Rin trying to take care of Sesshomaru when they first met is what a mom would do for a child, which in their opinion, translates to Rin being more like a mother than a daughter if anything.

First off: are you freaking kidding me????

Seriously, so now children aren't allowed to tend to their sick or injured parents?! Parents are apparently superhuman and shouldn't be offered a helping hand from a child, even if they mean well and want to help their parent who's in pain?? Now this Twitter user was mostly being a smartass, but at the same time, it was evident they genuinely thought they offered a valid enough point that warranted no further explanation or clarification.

Secondly, by saying this Sessrin fans don't seem to realize that in actuality they're contradicting themselves and proving the point we've been trying to make all along. Glancing at the first picture and moving down to the second, the role of the one being cared for and the caretaker is reversed. So then by their own logic, Sesshomaru IS in fact like a father to Rin.

What it comes down to is the names you give to the roles these characters play aren't as crucial as the dynamic they share. The specific characteristics of that dynamic are what define the importance of said role, not so much the name in the role itself. So real father or not, Sesshomaru and Rin clearly mean a lot to each other. Close relationships are defined and solidified by the devotion and belonging they have to one another, not solely by the duration of time spent together and their proximity.

Well, that's a wrap! I hope you guys got something outta this blog, and that you enjoyed or found some portions of it interesting. I would love to hear your thoughts on the subject from this fandom, but only engage in conversation if you plan to be respectful. Thank you!