#we were really on one when we were talking about theology in a critical way

[fuckmeyer]

hot take? but the Twilight fandom needs to stop citing Mormonism for everything that happens in this hell series.

the characters aren't Mormon. the plot isn't Mormon. the wardrobe isn't Mormon. this series was WRITTEN BY a Mormon woman whose religious indoctrination influenced her work. there are themes, plot points, characterizations, etc, that are related to or in line with LDS teachings. saying the book/characters are Mormon is not the same.

the more you label everything in text as Mormon, the less likely you'll be able to identify the actual religious influences

and if you think you are somehow immune to the influence of something you cannot correctly identify, think again

[star-anise]

So I've been watching this series of videos where a research-focused psychologist goes through Jordan Peterson's work to see which of his ideas and arguments are based on solid empirical evidence. I love it, even though she does mistakenly say his background is in counselling psychology (my field) when he's actually a clinical psychologist.

Anyway, that's got me thinking about Jordan Peterson, and how his response to criticism is, "People have been after me for a long time because I’ve been speaking to disaffected young men — what a terrible thing to do, that is. [...] I thought the marginalized were supposed to have a voice.”

So, here's my theory: Young men of the 21st century have grown up in a culture that is specifically hostile and punitive towards them. However, I think that while girls and women can participate in this culture, it is as much or more the work of boys and men. And I think that the problem with Peterson is that he's not particularly good at helping his audience escape the maze they are trapped in--and he's absolutely opposed to any attempt to dismantle a maze that is actually of fairly recent manufacture.

Case in point: The metrosexual.

The word "metrosexual" was coined in 1994 by Mark Simpson, a gay writer whose settings seem to be perpetually fixed at "critique the shit out of it".

"Metrosexual" describes heterosexual men who might be mistaken as gay, because they are interested in things very common among gay men, including: Caring about whether they're attractive; caring about how their hair is cut and what products they use in it; caring about what clothes they wear; working out to make their bodies look better; frequenting nightclubs. To be "metrosexual" was, in some people's opinions, to be a "man-boy" searching for his "inner girl".

To be metrosexual was, in some ways, to be called someone who looked gay.

The term didn't really catch on until the early 2000s, when media became briefly obsessed with talking about which celebrities were "metrosexual" or not. In that era of hotly divided opinions over the acceptability of homosexuality and queerness, it was implicitly asking, "Who looks gay? Is he gay? Tell me, fellow broadcaster: How gay does this guy look to you?"

(They got to have their cake and eat it too. A liberal audience, desperate to gather as many LGBTQ+ people and allies as possible in their race for 50% acceptance of gay marriage, cherished any signs that people with social clout might be on their side. And a conservative one, watching the same discussion, would heartily enjoy seeing a rogues' gallery of degenerate Hollywood types paraded before them, their every effeminacy pointed out in loving detail.)

Which of course got us: The Retrosexual!

When everybody's helpfully compiling lists of all the things a man can do that look gay or unmanly, dudes who don't want to get the shit kicked out of them by homophobes know all the things not to do!

Therefore, being "manly" became strictly defined by what was off-limits. To be a Real Man meant you shouldn't care about whether you're attractive, or what soap you use, or how your hair is styled. You shouldn't enjoy dancing or get too enthusiastic about music. A Real Man cares about sports and beer and being on top! Dominant!! A WINNER!!!

And, so like, here's a secret: In Anglophone culture, we are very affected by the Puritan legacy that says pleasure is inherently sinful. Vanity and pride--caring about how you look and whether you're attractive--are literal gateways to the Devil. Gluttony, and therefore seeking pleasure at all, is another such. And in Puritan religious theology, women are inherently more sinful. Yes, it goes back to Adam and Eve, and how Eve was tempted into sin first. Long story short, things associated with women became associated with sinfulness, and sinfulness became associated with effeminacy. And for centuries, you haven't even needed to be religious to drink these attitudes from the groundwater.

Okay, that's not the secret, this is the secret: Pleasure is not inherently sinful.

And liking how you look and feeling attractive and paying attention to your sensuality and your emotional life and connecting with art in a real and vulnerable way can feel really good, if you're able to handle it well.

Being raised to be a Real Man in a world where masculinity is perceived to be actively under threat is so uniquely painful, I believe, because every attempt to define yourself as "not gay" means denying yourself one of life's pleasures, and telling yourself you never even wanted it in the first place.

And then those desperate to be Real Men found a way to take some of those things back in what is surely the most painful context possible: They are allowed strictly as tools of your heterosexuality and masculine need for dominance. You are allowed to care about grooming and dancing, etc, purely as a strategy in playing a game called "Getting Girls", where you either score or you don't, where not scoring means you're worthless and unlovable, and scoring is often... strangely unfulfilling and certainly not enough to fill the aching void inside of you.

The mistake both Peterson and his fanbase make is that they get to this point, and then think: The reason I feel so empty inside is... I just haven't gotten enough girls!

Maybe some guys get out of the maze by finding a woman who is allowed to care about things like affection and love and dancing and looking nice, and their connection with her lets them express all the other parts of their souls that didn't fit in the Real Man box, but can come out in roles like Boyfriend or Father.

But humans aren't telepathic, so relationships can only "fix" you so much as you're willing to do the work of nurturing your own soul in a safe environment, so for a lot of men the maze never ends, and sometimes they don't even get the fleeting joys of relationships or sex, since they're so fucked up about them!

At this point, I as a queer woman am like, "Solution's obvious! Dismantle the maze."

And Peterson, who has worked his whole life to achieve the status of Best Maze-Runner in All of Christendom, is clinging to it like, "NO! DOWN, YOU DARK CHAOTIC MOTHER! THIS MAZE GIVES MY LIFE MEANING! THIS MAZE CONNECTS ME TO MY FOREFATHERS! I CANNOT LIVE WITHOUT THIS MAZE!"

At which point, like... what can you do but just leave him there?

At least he's not in my area of specialization. The world would be too unkind if I had to deal with him in any professional capacity. I wish Clinical Psychology all their continued joy of him.

[howtofightwrite]

Professional Monster Removal

So, you've been hired to clear out a monster (or monsters) infesting a building in (or around) a modern city. What do you do?

The first problem is that you can't trust what your client tells you. Not in the sense that you think they're intentionally lying to you, but rather, they don't know what they're talking about.

If they tell you it's a vampire, that's basically meaningless. As myths go, vampires are more of a catch all for a staggering number of monsters from folklore, and while you wouldn't want to deal with most of those critters, your options for disposing of them (or even identifying where they are in the building, and assessing how dangerous they are) are far more picky. It's a bit like working as a normal exterminator and when you ask what the client needs removed they only offer, “it's furry.” Yeah, that's not helping anyone, buddy.

Werewolves aren't much better. The modern bipedal wolf monster is basically a Hollywood invention, dating back to the mid-20th century. There's absolutely no folklore support for it. That doesn't mean that in your world that flavor of nine-foot tall snarling deathbeast isn't a reality, but it's going to be hard to research. More often, werewolves were humans who took the form of a wolf, usually through some form of magical ritual. Knowing what that ritual is would be critical to identifying and eliminating them. Of course, this does come with the problem of leaving behind a very human looking body (in some cases), and that could be an entirely different problem, depending on exactly how well job is.

If they tell you it's a demon, that's almost more worthless than telling you it's a vampire. First off, there is no way to know that they've actually got a demon, and not just some random spirit. If they do have a demon, I hope you've brushed up on your advanced theology, because this is going to get extraordinarily messy. And, there's a very real danger that whatever you've run into has the capacity for completely unmaking small parts of reality. Or it could just be an unusually malicious house cat. Really, demon is even more of a catch all term for, “something we don't understand, but we're pretty sure it scares us.”

If it's fairies? Run. Just run. You're not getting paid enough for this, they can have their deposit back. It'll be fine. They're smarter than they look, and way more malicious and vindictive than you realize.

Just walking away is also pretty good advice for any esoteric, “list of rules,” you may get handed. Sometimes, this is pretty obvious safety considerations, like don't wander around in darkened rooms while the critter is loose, but when you start seeing things like keeping to a schedule, that's a very good sign that, either, whatever you're dealing with is sophisticated enough that some simple rituals and a catch pole will not get the job done. Or, alternately, someone (probably your client) is using you as bait,  or planning to feed you to the critter. This overlaps pretty strongly with the warning about fairies above, the Venn diagram isn't a perfect circle, but there's a lot of overlap.

Now, this doesn't mean you should ignore your client, but it does mean, you're going to need to do a lot of footwork after they hire you. This is not the fun kind of research. If they say vampires, you're going to need to be conversant in the many, many, vampire myths throughout human history. Sometimes you can shoot them. Sometimes you need silver and garlic. Amusing, on the cliché of, “forget all you know about vampires...” there is one element of folklore that actually doesn't exist; vampires don't need your permission to enter a dwelling. Now, a lot of vampires are extremely obsessive compulsive (yeah, this is the hilarious moment where you realize Sesame Street's Count has a legitimate grounding in folklore), so, they may want that invitation for psychological reasons, but it's not a mystical barrier that will protect you. Get them angry enough and they will forget themselves, cross the threshold, and rip you to pieces. (Though, in some cases, churches and temples may repel them. It goes with the holy symbols thing in general.)

That said, the holy symbols isn't specifically a vampiric vulnerability, more just a general ward against monsters, when it pops up. So, this is one to be very cautious of, but it can be useful in a lot of situations if you're receptive to that.

When you're doing your initial walk through, of the residence, keep an eye out for certain tells. You'll pick this up with practice. The direct signs of the critter are always nice, but finding secondary evidence of regarding the site's residents shouldn't be ignored. Keep an eye out for large amounts of esoterica, evidence of objects having been recently removed from the site (or recently added to it), evidence of ritualistic practices (often these will originate from the human residents themselves, rather than the critter, but, obviously, that's not always the case), and other anomalies. You're not just looking for tufts of fur, or forensic evidence, you also need to know why the critter is there.

So, you've identified your pest, hopefully. Under the best possible circumstances, you should now have a roadmap for dealing with these things. Here's the bad news, in some cases, that won't actually give you any tools to deal with it. A distressing amount of folklore will tell you how to avoid dealing with the critter in the first place but then washes its hands of what to do after the critter has been provoked.

Worse, and more frustratingly, folklore will sometimes give you bad information. Yeah, the biggest problem with folklore is, the more dangerous the critter, the less reliable your information will be. If someone offers you to clear out a nest of crawlers, my advice would be to not do it alone, and don't get too attached to the people you work with. There is no reliable folklore on those things, and 99% of the, “lore,” that does exist is internet fiction, written by people trying to spook each other out. As for sifting out that last one-in-a-hundred? Good luck.

This brushes against a related topic, you cannot trust research you pull off the internet. Obviously, things are a little different when you're digging through well documented myths, but when you start getting into more esoteric topics, the signal to noise ratio hops off a cliff. This doesn't mean the internet is useless, it can be useful for a brief overview (if you have the time to sort things out), and of course it's amazing for communicating with your colleagues. However, expect that when you need to dig into local folklore, you're going to need to spend time in the city's libraries, digging through books no one cares enough to scan and post online. For the most part, newspapers have been saved and uploaded, though if you're in the middle of nowhere, you might run into a small town paper that hasn't kept up to date.

So, what do you need to do? Remember that your job is to remove the errant critter from the site, not necessarily kill it. (Try to avoid those stipulations when you can. It can result in really unfortunate situations when you're dealing with something that literally cannot die.) Prioritize elimination in cases where the creature cannot be moved, or will return to the site regardless what you do, but remember you're getting paid to remove it, not to play hero, and you're certainly not getting paid enough to die over a spelling error in someone's circle of protection.

This brushes against a (hopefully) rare problem; amateurs. Yeah, it doesn't matter how much research you do, if your perfectly baited trap gets trampled by some bumpkins who broke in with shotguns and flashlights because they heard some monster was on the loose. Mercifully, these guys are a self-solving problem more often than not. If the critter kills them, then they're not your problem. In some rare cases, amateurs can even be useful, either as bait, or as a new vessel to get the critter off the site and make it a problem for someone else. If that sounds callous, remember that between their poor trigger discipline, misplaced hero complex, and unpredictability, they're more dangerous to you than the monster you're trying to evict. Sure, a century old specter that preys on hope is going to be harder to kill, but these guys are just dumb enough to shoot you in the head if you startle them. Or if they get it in their heads, somehow, that you're the one responsible for the infestation in the first place.

If you're, “lucky,” enough to get repeat business, that's probably a bad thing and the client is not going to be happy about it. In these specific cases, (assuming it's actually a new critter, and not a case where the original one wandered home after being released somewhere distant), your priority changes to identifying what brought the creature back here. Some critters are extremely territorial, and will return home no matter what you do (these are times when you really do need to find a way to permanently eliminate it.) However, if various critters of the same variety found the place appealing, presumably independently of one another, then you need to identify why. Again, this going to take some research, and you might even need to bring in a specialist (if you have access to one.) These kinds of situations can be really frustrating because the client is likely to be pissed with you over the new infestation, and believe its due to your incompetence, not because they didn't disclose critical information the first time round.

Checking city records regarding the place, even land claims and the history of a place become significantly more important on a return visit. (Now, if you're being thorough, you should have checked this the first time, and sometimes you'll even have time to, but if we're being honest, that stuff is rarely relevant, and you won't often have the time to dig through city records.) On the bright side, in the 21st century, a lot of those kinds of records are now available online, and free, so the days of wandering around in some sub-basement of city hall are (mostly) a thing of the past.

This is just napkin math, but figure that about one in four infestations can be traced back to a human cause. Either someone moved into the critter's territory and it's trying to drive them out, someone did something “very bad” and now they have a critter focused on them, or (worst of all), someone deliberately brought the critter here, lost control of it, and now wants you to remove it. The first two can result in repeat business if you simply remove (or even eliminate) the infestation, first time around. The third can also result in repeat business as well, but with a critical tell, the client's going to be fine with bringing you back. This isn't necessarily a red flag, but it is something to be cautious of.

Note that, in cases where the critter is focused on hunting down a specific individual, it may be in your best interest to simply stay out of its way. Actively helping the creature is a major liability risk, as you'll now be implicated in their death, but again, your job was to remove the creature from the site, and if that's accomplished, you can point to your contract and move on with your day. Similarly, getting in the  critter's way can be a very bad idea. That said, there's no guarantee the critter will voluntarily leave after it's managed to satisfy whatever's driving it. So, this becomes just one more consideration you need to weigh.

So, what do you do? Pay attention to the details, identify the critter, use that information to formulate a plan, and never forget that you're not getting paid to die on the job.

-Starke

This blog is supported through Patreon, and this post was prompted by a Patron. Patrons get access to new posts three days early, and direct access to us through Discord. If you’re already a Patron, thank you. If you’d like to support us, please consider becoming a Patron.

[heniareth]

I was really curious about what your opinions on the DAO companions are :) I know we have talked about some, but I'd love to hear more and about the others as well :D I hope it's ok to pose this as an ask :)

Sure! That sounds like a ton of fun. This might be a long one tho. Mind you, this is not the finished version of the answer. I'd like to link stuff and add a cut, but rn that's not possible. I'll update it when I can.

Edit: I have updated it ^^

Let's go alphabetically bc why not.

Alistair:

Sweet guy. So sweet. There was a moment when I was hard pressed chosing between him and Zevran (alas, Zevran won). Also, he's weirdly tall according to the wiki? How did I not notice that before?

Let's get a bit more serious now, Alistair is a great guy. The only reason he's not the hero of the story is because he doesn't want to. He has all the qualities of a leader: he's good at dealing with conflict (as evident with the conversation with the mage at the beginning. He gets where he wants to get without antagonizing the mage, but without allowing him to trample all over him). He's a solid tactitian and knows how to make allies (he suggests to use the Grey Warden treaties, after all). I bet if he was in the leadership position, he'd even not bicker with Morrigan. His moral code is pretty tight; some might say too tight, but I think it's less about the moral code and more about learning to judge people by their actions, not by the labels they fit into (Morrigan is a proud apostate and therefore bad. Wynne is a humble circle mage and therefore good). He also has a bit of a black-and-white way of seeing the world. I empathize a lot with Alistair, especially with his experience with the Chantry and his subsequent reluctance to deal with it. I really wish I had gotten to know more about concrete experiences he had during his training as templar, but he seems reluctant to talk about it (gee, I wonder why).

Since I've only played the game once, I haven't really picked up on Arl Eamon's abuse towards him, which apparently exists (Isolde, however... I mean, even if he were Eamon's illegitimate son, he's a kid, ma'am, he didn't exactly get to chose his parents. So that's so not okay). Alistair's way of speaking about them both, however, is either sign that he has not come within a hundred miles of acknowledging how much it hurt him, or that he's already gone through the whole process and has decided to forgive them. The latter shows a very strong character; yes, he relies on the approval and leadership of others, he has his issues, but he's already started working on them.

That being said, irl Alistair would be like a little brother to me. I'd tease him relentlessly (all in good fun and I promise to stop if it makes him uncomfortable, but he's just so teasable). I still wish the videogame gave him the chance to take important decisions for himself. But that, of course, would somewhat defeat the point of the game.

Leliana:

Another sweet, sweet person. Her singing voice is amazing. Her belief in the Maker inspires me (I'm a religious person and seeing religious characters represented in a positive light is Very Cool. It's also sometimes a source of discomfort, because the Church has done a lot of very messed up stuff and positive representation can sometimes veer into apologetics for things that should not be excused, but that's a whole other can of worms. The bottom line is that religious characters sometimes work for me and other times don't and Leliana works for me very much bc she's an outsider inside the Chantry).

Leliana is best friend material, tbh. I'd love to get to know her irl, discuss theology and philosophy and maybe even politics? She makes mistakes and has prejudices, but, tbh, so do I. And I do get the feeling that she tries her best to learn. From the times she intervenes in a conversation between the Warden and an NPC, she shows herself to be compassionate and open to the needs of others. What I get from her character is that she genuinely wants to help, which is something that I adore of her. I suspect that she sometimes has a hard time deciding wether she's a good person or not. She has killed and seduced and worked for a morally dubious person, and she doesn't show the same nonchalance about it as Zevran (though they both do discuss their line of work in very... professional terms). This is, however, more of a headcanon than actual factual canon.

I also very much enjoy her girly side, like her interest in shoes and dresses. She's one badass woman who also looses her cool about the latest fashions in Val Royeaux. I like that. Between her and Alistair, a non human noble Warden has as good a help to navigate the Fereldan court as they're going to get. Leliana is also, I can't forget that, clever and insightful. It'd be easy to write her off as the innocent chantry girl, but she's so much more than that. Her kindness is paired with foresight, I think. She knows that taking on the trouble to help now can go a long way in the future. I just have a lot of respect for her.

Loghain:

This one's gonna be short bc I didn't recruit him. He's an amazing villain and would probably be a great Warden as well. He reminds me of Denerhor from LOTR; once a hero/stewart of his people, ambition and desperation have driven them both down a terrible path. I have also only little idea about his past. People say he lost a lot, and I believe it wholeheartedly; it doesn't excuse the fact that he plunged the country into a civil war in the middle of a Blight. I don't have a lot of sympathy for short-sighted politicians. I wish he hadn't made himself regent. That's what I take away from his character.

Edit: One thing I forgot to mention that really impressed me was his death. I had Alistair duel him (that was a rough duel), and then it kinda just jumped to a cutscene of my Warden nodding and Alistair executing him. That didn't sit well with me. I didn't want to kill Loghain, and less so in front of Anora. But what impressed me was that Loghain just accepted it. That takes a whole lot of guts. Compare that to Howe's death, and how he screams out that he deserved (more, probably, or anything but death) and it's crystal clear who the more noble of the two is. Loghain strikes me as very lawful neutral, and any neutral alignment has the particularity that it can be dragged towards good or bad, sometimes without the characters noticing it (which is interesting from a DnD perspective; neutral is often concieved of as just as stable as good or evil, but that may not be true. But that's a different post). Anyway, Loghain's death was impactful.

Morrigan:

I could kick myself for not maxing out her approval in the first play-through. I got to enjoy a bit of her friendship by the end of it and boy was even that little bit worth it. Friendship with Morrigan is something that is hard-won. It's all the more precious because of that.

Morrigan is full of paradoxes, I think. She's incredibly wise in some ways, yet also very short-sighted (”just kill them, don't solve their problems”. Morrigan, dear, I'm not going to gain a lot of allies if I kill everybody who poses a problem to me). She is so intelligent, but emotionally... not so. She knows so much about some things, and very little about the next. She's incredibly wilful and knows what she wants, but follows Flemeth's orders all the time through. She hungers for power and independence, yet craves closeness, but won't allow herself to have it. She asks you to prove yourself to her and is extremely critical of your actions, I think, because she's afraid. She bites the hand that feeds her because it might hit her next.

Like with Eamon, I haven't managed to catch the undercurrent of abuse that seems to permeate Flemeth's relationship with Morrigan. Except there are signs, because there must be something Morrigan is scared of and who has instilled all that rage in her, and that's Flemeth. Also, she clearly hates/does not care about her and wants her dead (unless killing Flemeth was part of Flemeth's plan as well? Hm.)

Morrigan is that one person who you are nice to, continuously, because nobody else is. And suddenly she becomes less cold. And then friendly. And suddenly you're asking yourself why everybody hates her, because she's a really good friend! I just wish the other companions came to a similar conclusion, especially Alistair and Wynne.

Oghren:

They did this man dirty. He has such great lines and I'm convinced he was a great person before Branka disappeared. He has that dwarven warrior spirit, and while he looks like Gimli, some of his most impactful lines remind me of Dwalin or even Thorin Oakenshield himself. He could be so noble had he gotten some character development, damnit!

Oghren as he is written is somewhat disgusting. I hate the lechering comments and the drunkenness. And still, I don't hate him because of those amazing lines he has when he's actually sober. It's frustrating and I'll give him that character development myself if the game won't. I strongly associate the song Whiskey Lullaby with him, bc that's how he would have ended up if the Warden hadn't taken him along (warning: the song talks about suicide and alcoholism). Like I said, they could have done such cool things with his character. As he is written now... it's just sad. Moments of lucidity drowned in alcohol and creepy jokes. As you can see, I don't blame the character for either. The alcoholism happens all too often irl. The creepy jokes... I put that one on the writers' tab.

I actually think Oghren could have been a great mentor figure (I know, I shock myself as well sometimes). Next to the Grey Wardens, the ones who know most about fighting darkspawn are the dwarves because they have to deal with them constantly. Especially a warrior caste dwarf like Oghren could have brought a lot of that invaluable knowledge to the team, especially since there are no Grey Wardens in Ferelden but two extremely green recruits. Next, you get the chance to give Oghren the command of the teammates you leave behind in the battle of Denerim with the reason that he has lead men into battle before. Where did that suddenly come from? Oghren should have been right up there telling my Warden that they were doing this wrong, that they needed more food (and booze) and a confident leader to keep the armies they've called together going. Oghren should have been able to tell my civilian city elf who got recruited into the Grey Wardens a six months ago how one leads an army. How one presents oneself to inspire confidence, how one doesn't crack under the pressure, how one gets the leaders of said armies (some who hate each others guts i.e. Dalish elves and humans) to work together. And, last but not least, Oghren could have had a great story about grief. This is a man who has lost most of what made him (and what he hasn't lost he's spilling down the drain with every mug of ale). This is a man who, if you take him into the Deep Roads, has to see what his wife did to his family, how his wife got absolutely obsessed, and can be forced to kill said wife or watch her die. All Wardens loose their home and families at the start of the story. It would really have rounded the whole narrative out if the Warden and Oghren could have recognised their grief in each other and hashed it out somehow. Such as it is, Oghren is a depressed drunkard and there is nothing we can do about that. I find that frustrating.

Rascal (a.k.a. Dog):

Best boy. 100/10. I wish we had gotten to see the reaction of the different origins to the mabari (because elves probably have a whole different experience with them from mages or humans. And dwarves just... I think they straight up have none? XD). Other than that, no complaints. The name Rascal was the one I gave my dog because you have to be a right rascal to survive what he did and play the pranks he plays. Smartest breed in the world indeed.

Shale:

Shale is one of those characters that I recruited rather late in the game, so I haven't had the chance to explore their personality and worldview, really. I didn't even get to take them to the Deep Roads (this will be ammended in playthrough nr. 2). As such, I don't have particularly strong opinions on them (or her? The wiki refers to Shale as 'it', but that sounds weird). But, because I know so little about Shale, I have a lot of questions. First, what were they like before they were a golem? Shayle, as she was called then, was the best warrior of her time if I remember correctly. Why did she become a golem? Was it to be able to eternally protect her people? Was the sarcasm the golem Shale exhibits also part of the dwarven warrior Shayle or did that come later (if for thirty years you have nobody to talk to but yourself, you better be entertaining. And I can imagine how it could make somebody terribly jaded as well).

Next, how attached is Shale to their golem form, exactly? According to the banter, they infinitely prefer it to a squishy fleshy form. If that is the case, however, why go to Tevinter to try and become a squishy dwarf again? It's not like that process could be reversed if they wanted to become a golem again; if Shale survives to the end of the game, the Anvil of the Void is destroyed and Caridin is dead. Was the whole spiel about their indestructible form a façade? It might have been, but not because Shale actually disliked their form. I think it would have more to do with the loss of their memories and with the very invasive experiments and alterations of Shale's body made by the mage Wilhelm. The loss of memories means that Shale is unable to remember life as a fleshy creature. They might be deflecting by pretending that they didn't care for that experience anyway because of the superiority of their golem form. The modifications made to their form by Wilhelm would have alienated them from their body. In light of this, it's significant that Shale asks the Warden to decorate their form with crystals.

All of this is, of course, pure speculation. I may have easily missed or forgotten details that would disprove the above thoughts. All in all, I like Shale and I hope we meet them again in DA4 (given that it's mostly set in Tevinter). It's a liking from a respectful distance, because Shale is tall and made out of rock and also way more experienced than I will ever be (they are literally the oldest member of the Warden's little Blight fighting squad).

Sten:

Sten is another person I'd keep a respectful distance from physically. That seems to be the what he would prefer, at least. I've enjoyed his character a lot, especially because he seems pretty clear-cut at first, but slowly lets the nuance of his person show (gruff and stoic, but then he has an eye for art, a sweet tooth and he likes cute animals). It's also very interesting that there's no moment when you learn "the truth" about him the way you do with Zevran or Leliana. There's no big reveal about his life under the Qun before coming to Ferelden. He says he was sent to monitor the Blight, but honestly? If neither Ferelden nor Orlais knew there was a Blight, how could the Qunari know? I think he's lying, and he takes his secrets back with him when he leaves Ferelden. And yet I think I know him enough to say that a Warden who has become friends with him has nothing to fear from Sten.

One thing I find very interesting about Sten is how he thinks. His conversation about how women can't be soldiers has been analysed a lot on this page I think. He seems to be arguing based on a different paradigma than the one the Warden has. He also seems to have a very clear-cut view of the world. What is fascinating to me is that, when arguing with the Warden and learning about their culture, he is not necessarily becoming more lax about his worldview. I think it's more likely that he is expanding his paradigma, the structure of thought through which he understands the world. I don't think that he is now convinced that women can be warriors as well. I think he rather understands that, in Ferelden, the relationship between occupation and gender is different than under the Qun. Which of the two he thinks is more right or more agreeable, I have no idea. I'm also not very interested in that. But I find it fascinating how he always seems to be looking on quietly, gathering data, classifying it and trying to fit it into his understanding of how the world works. I wouldn't be surprised at all if his original party was a scouting party to see how vulnerable Ferelden was at that moment to outside forces. One thing I don't understand with all of this is why he urges the Warden to meet the Blight head on. No smart soldier would suggest that, except if they are foolishly proud (and Sten doesn't seem like that kind of guy tbh). I get that the Warden takes way longer to gather allies than expected because they first have to solve all of their allies' problems. But surely Sten sees the need to have allies? Is he just that impatient? Does he have a death wish (à la, I lost my sword and am without honour, better to die sooner than later and in glorious battle)? Was he his group's previous commander and is he now having trouble following somebody else's orders? Or maybe it's his way to make sure the Warden knows what they are doing? To push them into becoming the self-assured commander their allies will need once they're all gathered? I really don't know. I like the last option best, however.

For me, Sten is my fellow, more experienced soldier. Like Alistair, he can potentially be the Warden's brother in arms, but he's definitely the older brother here. He probably doesn't take kindly to tearful confessions of how hard everything is, but I feel like he's otherwise a solid rock to lean on. I feel like the Warden can trust him to do what is necessary and count on him no matter what, especially after they get his sword back. His devotion from that point on is honestly so powerful.

Wynne:

Wynne was such a support for my Warden (except with the whole conversation about love vs. duty and that she may have to choose between Zevran and ending the Blight and that she should therefore break up with him. Wynne had a point. Astala was so not willing to sacrifice her relationship with Zevran. But the whole conversation came at a point where she was already so disillusioned that she blew up in Wynne's face (”can i please just have one (1) nice thing????”)). But all in all, Wynne is great.

She has a lot of flaws. She was very marked by her life in the Cricle and, for all her age, she has little experience living outside of it. She is also a conformist despite her strong moral core. In a way, her ability to find peace with her lot in life impresses me deeply because it speaks to a lot of strength of character. Sadly, however, strength can be ill applied and used to suppress. I think she has convinced herself that the Chantry is right under (almost) all circumstances to be able to rationalize the life that mages live. She's had her son taken away from her as a baby and an apprentice killed. Her reaction seems to have been to convince herself that this was right, or for the greater good (and now I'm thinking about the Guardian's question at the temple of Andraste's Ashes; are you wise or do you just repeat what others have told you? The answer is not as clear-cut as it might be). This is why she is so irritated by Zevran and Morrigan. By aligning herself with the Chantry, she is, in her eyes, good. Zevran and Morrigan are not; they do not conform to Chantry morality and they defend themselves tooth and nails against somebody who would try and convert them. This is something Wynne never allowed herself to do; she always did the "right" thing and it has cost her so much. I'm not saying she was right (it would probably have done her some good to rebel from time to time, and to trust her own gut instinct more), but in light of this, it hardly surprises me that she's so judgamental. She has to be, or she would be forced to confront all the evil she has not fought against all those years and all the hurt that has been caused to her by the very institution she protects (and thank God she only tries to argue and can appreciate it when people have found a good life outside of her comfort zone. If she tried to convince by force or, for example, drag her former apprentice back to the Circle... boy oh boy that would get ugly). If you think about it, Wynne really is a good example for what happens if you live by a philosophy of always choosing the lesser evil.

Something that I keep forgetting over her grandmotherly and dignified character is how damn powerful she is. She has escaped the carnage at Ostagar; HOW!? She protected those mage apprentices in the Circle tower for God knows how long. In the battle of Denerim, she wades through an army and comes out alive on the other side. The wiki lists her age at 40, I think, but that doesn't make a lick of sense unless 75 years of age are the Fereldan equivalent to 100. This lady, about whom people make grandmother jokes, did all that. It's impressive.

Zevran:

You know, I would really love to know what Wynne thinks about the events at Kirkwall in DA2. It might be a disaster for her, or it might pave the way for one last bit of character development. She certainly didn't want to return to the Circle after fighting the Blight. That may be an indicator of some change in her stance on the Circle of Magi.

Edit: I forgot that she is what the Circle considers a literal abomination! Holy cow, how could I forget that?? Anyway, her conversation about what being an abomination means is so... heartbreaking, actually. It's so tentative. So careful. "Am I an abomination? Am I the same thing that has killed my students? The same thing as Uldred? Am I lost and damned? Did I invite this spirit in? Is this my fault?" Like wow, Wynne is going through something huge right there. I love it. I have to continue playing the game to see what it ends up as, but it's fascinating and such a huge thing that she allows the Warden in on that.

Ah, Zevran, my beloved (he has stolen my heart so much it's not even funny anymore). He's funny, he's charming, he's so so loyal and it breaks my heart. Zevran is the one about whom I've read most meta: these three wonderful posts for instance, as well as this one about his possible lack of scars, and this one about his lack of freedom. All of these have influenced my opinion of him and they are great reads.

I have talked about Zevran with you before, so I'll just skip to the new stuff. I have come to conclusion that Zevran is an artist at heart. This is totally not biased by the fact that I also do art, but hear me out. One of his preferred gifts are bars of silver and gold. While those have the obvious utility of basically functioning as money (they can be sold to any silversmith or goldsmith and their value is pretty stable through time and in different countries), there's also this from his codex: "Zevran shows an affinity for the finer things in life—hardly surprising for an Antivan Crow—but his appreciation can be more poetic than he lets on. A simple bar of refined silver or gold, uncomplicated by a craftsman's hammer, is elegantly valuable." Tell me that is not an artist's eye that sees that gold and sees the beauty in it. Then, there's also the meta about Zevran the Seducer which I linked above and link here again. It talks specifically about how he lets himself enjoy the target and be seen in his enjoyment. Tell me that is not an artist's eye that beholds the beauty of something he is set out to destroy. Even his talk about his assassinations show this. He talks about it as an art, the way somebody would talk about the brutal intervention in stone that produces a sculpture. Yes, it's a rationalization of the act of killing and yes killing is still wrong. But he doesn't go on about it on a moral tangent the way Alistair or Wynne would (”this person was bad, killing them was necessary”) or even through the argument of survival like Morrigan would (”it was either them or me and it sure as Hell wasn't going to be me”). He talks about the pleasure of a job well done, of the satisfaction of striking the precise point and executing a plan to the perfection so as to minimize chances of discovery and to make a clean death possible. And pleasure in seeing and in doing, this I firmly believe, is absolutely fundamental for an artist.

My favourite part about my Warden and Zevran as a pairing is that Zevran precisely brings out that ability to take your pleasures as they come and to really savour them. Fighting the Blight is tough; it's so important to find good things amidst the chaos to stay sane. If Astala saves Zevran from himself by offering him a place to stay and a purpose, Zevran saves Astala from herself by keeping her from running herself into the ground trying to save the world.

There are some things I don't like about Zev. The incessant flirting, for example, sometimes makes me uncomfortable (it becomes enjoyable for me once the Warden and him are in a relationship, but before that? Nah, no thanks). I wish he would also leave the other female characters alone (and there's so many more shameless comments of his aimed at Morrigan, Leliana or Wynne than at Alistair or maybe even Sten).

---

And that's my take on the Origins companions (this was rather long. Whew ^^' I hope it was still readable and that you enjoyed it!!) Thank you so much for the ask!! It's been a joy thinking about this. I was worrying at first that the less prominent companions like Sten or Shale wouldn't get as much content but... well XD

[blackstarising]

sometimes i don’t like making takes. and no one needs my take, honestly. quite frankly, i’m like a sponge when it comes to anxiety so whenever Big News™️ hits? listen, i love y’all, but i simply Cannot Be Here for a minute.

but i also have this big, honking ‘christian’ sign on my blog. and i still am, totally unironically. i know i don’t talk about it much, but the last few years have been uhhh rough, especially as a girlie of color.

so with all of that being said, i fully disbelieve the overturning of roe v wade is a win. it’s not a win, it’s not a fight for the children, it’s not a win for Christ. and i am speaking as someone who ascribes to a whole life theology.

but, to some of my literal siblings in Christ, we have to critically examine how the current political pro-life rhetoric is patchy at best. why are race and lgbtq rights ‘political’ and shied away from at service but abortion (let’s say each syllable) deserves a chunk of pulpit airtime? why can some of us only offer a ‘oh, let’s adopt more’ in response to this and not consider that the way that some of us vote against things like universal healthcare, contraception, sex education, tax credits, food access, are entirely antithetical to our supposed esteem of children? why do people mistrust the crisis pregnancy centers we set up? why does the rhetoric change when we discuss babies of color in addition to white babies?

this decision wasn’t made with discernment. it wasn’t made with wisdom. it was made for a clear disregard for the vulnerable, a population that God has commanded us to protect from the beginning. we are attempting to legislate the affairs of God, something that Jesus took the religious leaders of the day to task on when he walked here. we love to say smugly that ‘we’re not Pharisaical’ when we read the Gospels. are we sure about that? are we really on Jesus’ side, reaching the untouchable, the ones disenfranchised, unable to protect themselves? or are we the ones with cold stones in our fists, struggling under the weight of our own bounds we created, looking for anyone who walks free of them to step on?

i grew up with white men telling me, every sunday, that we need to ‘take back this country for Christ’, that ‘the family is under attack’, that ‘we need to protect family values’. fellow Christians, these were not pushes for His witness, these were the fighting gasps of white Christian nationalism. and here were are, one step closer to it. there is no interest in protecting anyone with overturning roe v wade. it is about domination. and that is NEVER how God has tried to work with us. and because we keep trying to go this route, we are actively damaging our witness.

so, this is bad. what do we do?

first of all, VOTE. vote to codify our civil liberties into law. inform yourselves about candidates, and make your voice heard. i am not saying that the candidates are perfect, i’m not saying you have to agree with them, but we are not working with 31 flavors, we are working with 2. you have to understand that the moral majority have been working ruthlessly and for decades to get to this point. we don’t have the luxury of errata. change is not instant, but we have to start somewhere. if you’re so online that you think that it’s not worth it to vote at all, it’s already a lost battle.

understand that this is a multifaceted issue. we don’t know how to talk about abortion well, and the truth is, it’s complicated. we can split it into a binary, but people on both sides have a panoply of emotions and motivations. people have different principles and convictions that inform them as well. faith, gender identity, values, race, income level. not everyone under the umbrella of pro-choice legislation feels comfortable with the ethics of abortion or would choose one themselves, for example. and we haven’t even stepped into the medical sphere yet, which makes it even more complicated. but it’s not a binary. be mindful of the diversity of thought when you’re talking to others.

white people especially, be mindful about how much oxygen you’re taking up in the conversation. i know, i know, when will we take the microscope off y’all, but I’m serious, you guys. yes, this affects white people. but we also have to understand that, even with our struggle to talk about abortion, our point of reference is usually a white cis woman with disposable income. the image needs to be expanded. to people of color. to trans people. to low income people. to non-binary people. to people of different faiths. to people of different immigrant statuses. and so on.

white people, your voice is necessary and valued because people will listen to you. don’t forget that. but also! y’all GOTTA stop with the white liberal existential dread. y’all gotta stop with the fatalistic takes. y’all gotta stop with the handsmaid’s tale costumes. it doesn’t mean that this isn’t distressing but yes, America doesn’t always act in its people’s best interests, welcome to the club. many minority populations have been dealing with this, our own apocalypses, for way too long. and there’s a time to mourn, but there’s also a time to get up and do something about it. your whiteness will automatically allow you to be centered in many cases, but if it’s all distress and sucking up the oxygen in the room, we won’t go anywhere. yes, it’s hard, unforgiving work. but it needs to be done.

finally, if you’re of faith, pray. pray for the protection of our freedoms. pray for protection of the vulnerable. pray that we find leaders with good judgment and compassion. pray for true justice.

[fortes-fortuna-iogurtum]

29, 35, and 73 for the spotify asks? <3

#29 is Lights On by Colony House!! I really like this song, tho I think I probably have a rather different interpretation of it's about than what the real meaning of it is 😅😂 "I thought I heard the welcome music playing/I thought I heard a voice say I was home/I didn't know it was so complicated/to read the signs that told me you were home/I thought I saw the lights on" I resonated a lot with this one when I first heard it bc those lines << felt a Lot like my struggles at the time--I was going through a lot of confusion and anxiety concerning my college plans, and try as I might, I just could not figure out what the best way forward was. but it had all seemed so clear just a few months before!! a bunch of doors opened and improbable things happened and I thought it was finally all coming together!! and then several spanners were thrown in the works and suddenly I had no idea what was happening anymore and none of it made any sense again. so yeah, that's definitely why this song got listened to a lot during the handful of months all that was happening, lol

#35 is Behold (Live) by Mission House, another one I listened to a lot in the car. I've already talked in another ask about how much I love Jess Ray's music, and as she's one of the key members of this band, it makes sense that this song and most of the others I've heard from them hit me the same way. this one's definitely much more Worship Music-y than a lot of the stuff I listen to on a regular basis (mostly bc I'm really picky about worship music and can be kinda critical of it if I feel like theology or artfulness is lacking, which is something I'm trying to work on lately lol 😅), but I love this one a lot. I just find it really hopeful and comforting, a reminder of how good everything is going to be eventually, when all the bad is undone. something I need to be reminded of a lot, especially after everything these last few years have been.

"the empty filled, the wounded healed, the broken back together/the poor are blessed, the weary rest, we will dance forever/the blinded see, the chained are free, the doubtful now believers/the outcast known, the orphan home, you are my redeemer/behold! behold! behold what love can do!/behold! behold! he's making all things new!"

#73 is The Arcadian Wild's cover of Never Die Young. love The Arcadian Wild and everything they release. they've been on my Top Favs Band list for several years now and I don't think they'll lose their place there anytime soon. in fact, I think they've actually had a prominent place on every Spotify Wrapped I've ever had?? plus I like James Taylor's music in its own right, so this combo was something I did not expect but absolutely did not complain about when it happened!! :D

[queerprayers]

Hi Johanna! :) I'm currently (and have been on and off for a few months) struggling with my view of Jesus' divinity. I have Christian friends who think Jesus = God and friends who think He was just a normal human like us and that's it,, and somehow i feel as if I'm somewhere in between rn? Learning that titles such as "the son of God" were used for normal human leaders at that time really threw me, and also that Jews now and I guess in Jesus' time think the Messiah will just be a normal human, and the "I am" statements in John's gospel were probably not actually said by Jesus but were written by John to kind of describe Him but also John said Jesus was "the word made flesh" not "God made flesh" and like what even is the word exactly??? now I'm thinking there's really nowhere in the new testament that claims that Jesus is God, but then there are things like Collosians 1:15-17 which sounds like it's suggesting it but doesn't explicitly say that Jesus is God...?? So essentially I'm just v confused and was wondering what your beliefs about it all are and why you believe what you believe?? and just really any information or resources you have on the topic would be v much appreciated, thank you so much (also I love your blog!) :))

Hello! This is such a wonderful question that I don't know a ton about, but I love thinking about it and I hope I say/find something that's helpful to you!

I grew up and still identify as Lutheran, so that theology is what I'm familiar with and am influenced by. I and my Lutheran siblings, as well as many other Christians, believe that Jesus was/is fully God and fully Man. Your phrase that you're "somewhere in between right now" makes so much sense to me, although for me it's not so much in between as both! Jesus on earth was born physically, had a human body and genes, ate, laughed, pooped, and died. I believe that, simultaneously, Jesus was God, fully divine. I don't have the words or the knowledge to spout perfect Trinitarian teachings right now (and probably never will), but my favorite description/representation of the Trinity is that God is love, and love is an interpersonal action. So love made manifest cannot be a sole being: God as Lover, Jesus as Beloved, the Holy Spirit as Love. That's only one way to look at it, but even looking a tiny bit into this kind of Trinity theology, you'll learn that we see Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three representations of the same God, three in one. This is batshit crazy to many people, including many Christians, and I acknowledge and respect that! It is crazy! Anyway, all that to say that I do believe Jesus is a manifestation of God, but that God took human form and saw through our eyes.

A thought about Martin Luther's opinion: "Luther repeatedly argues that the basis for attributing divinity to Jesus is that the person of faith understands that Jesus Christ has done for humanity what only God can do" ("Martin Luther: A Pure Doctrine of Faith" by Micharl Stoltzfus, Journal of Lutheran Ethics, 2003).

Whether you think anything Jesus said was Him verbally claiming to be God, He, over and over, places himself in the role of God, forgiving people, healing people, and making promises/interpretations for them. I realized this while watching Jesus Christ Superstar (yeah, sue me)— whether or not you believe Jesus is God, Jesus obviously thought so, or at least thought himself at the same level as God. C. S. Lewis has a great point about this in Mere Christianity.

I think your statement that something was ". . . not actually said by Jesus but [was] written by John to . . . describe Him" is a good point about how we look at the Bible— if one believes that every word in the Bible comes directly from God, then that is God describing Themself as Jesus, so Jesus saying something and God dictating it to John would be the same thing! This isn't a criticism, I was just pointing out that what you believe about the Bible will definitely affect how you look at this— just something to think about! I'm not a Biblical literalist (or whatever you want to call it) by any means, but I do lean towards divine inspiration and the Spirit having a hand in the writing of the Bible, as well as acknowledging that the human writers' personal perspective and prejudices shine through.

Your question "What is "the Word" exactly?" is a great one! John uses the Greek word logos in John 1, ("word," "discourse," or "reason") as a title for Jesus, and it's absolutely beautiful. In the Bible, "the Word" is used to describe something that God has decreed, something that God has said when addressing humans, words that God spoke through the prophets, God's written Word (the Bible), and Jesus Christ Himself. Jesus is referred to as the Word in John 1 and Revelation 19. Jesus is these things! He's something God decreed, He is God addressing humans, He has spoken through the prophets— Jesus is the physical manifestation of God's Word.

Oh, one more thing! It's so interesting to talk about what the early Church believed, but I think it's funny when people use it as a "gotcha" when the early Church didn't believe something, and other people do. Like, was the early Church perfect and right all the time? Why can't the disciples and early saints get something wrong that later people got right? So obviously it's important to learn about early Christian theology, but it's not some pure teaching that we have to get back to— it's proof that we're constantly evolving!

Here are some sources/resources/thoughts on stuff I've talked about!

What are the strongest biblical arguments for the divinity of Christ? (Got Questions)

Was the divinity of Jesus a Late Invention of the Council of Nicea? (Canon Fodder)

The Divinity of Jesus: An Early Christian Debate (Cynthia Stewart, Saint Mary's Press)

The Divinity of Jesus & 5 Reasons it Matters (David Guzik, Calvary Chapel)

What the Early Church Believed: The Divinity of Christ (Catholic.com)

What Does the Phrase "the Word of God" Mean? (Don Stewart, Blue Letter Bible)

Logos (Christianity) (Wikipedia)

Scholastic Lutheran Christology (Wikipedia)

A Lutheran-Orthodox Common Statement on Faith in the Holy Trinity

Who is God—The Trinity? (Holy Cross Lutheran Church)

The mystery of the Trinity (Delmer Chilton, Living Lutheran)

The Moody Handbook of Messianic Prophecy: Studies and Expositions of the Messiah in the Old Testament by Michael Rydelnik & Edwni Blum

Christology: A Biblical, Historical, and Systematic Study of Jesus Christ by Gerald O'Collins

Is Jesus Truly God?: How the Bible Teaches the Divinity of Christ by Gregory R. Lanier

I'm not sure that I actually answered any questions— I may have just created more, but that is the nature of theology, I'm afraid. Good luck in your learning and thinking, and may you come to your own idea of how to think about and relate to Jesus— there isn't one right way, don't worry. I'm not even claiming that I or my denomination's beliefs are "right," although I do think they're true. (I like differentiating those.)

Thank you so much for your support of my blog, and I hope you have a lovely day/night!

<3 Johanna

[nerdygaymormon]

Did you hear about last week's BYU devotional and the guy who said we have to love god more than we have to love our neighbor?

I saw the clip of Elder Whiting talking about the 2 great commandments. He said some people invert the 2 commandments and love their neighbor when really they should be focusing on loving God by keeping all of God’s commandments. (go to 23:03 and it lasts to 25:42)

I think this concept was introduced by Elder Oaks in a General Conference talk to say the two great commandments are in conflict with each other, and we should always choose the first commandment over the second. 

Here’s the thing, they aren’t in conflict. Over and over we’re told that they are the same thing. You wanna love God, you gotta love your neighbor. You wanna serve God, you better serve the least of those around you. There are many scriptural references I can give, and I’m sure you also can think of many. 

I think it’s clear the subtext in Elder Whiting’s talk is that loving LGBTQ people is problematic. Elder Whiting didn’t specifically name LGBTQ people, probably as a way to keep from having a wave of criticism come his way, but I think it’s clear what he’s speaking about. 

People should love their neighbor, but Elder Whiting is trying to explain why you should harm and injure your neighbor, and he says to do it in your efforts to love God. This is heresy and perverting a commandment to love. Elder Whiting is saying certain groups aren’t worthy of God’s love and are lesser. Well, he needs to read the scriptures again because he’s missed the key points. 

Oh, and one more thing, he speaks as if the commandments are set and never change. Do you remember polygamy? Do you remember Black people being banned from the temples? Do you remember that Christians used to have to be circumcised and be Jewish? Over and over, from the Bible and our own church history we see the ever-expanding circle of inclusion as we learn yet again that God’s love extends to more people than we had believed.

I would so love to sit down with Elder Whiting and watch a couple episodes of Queer Eye on Netflix. Can you imagine watching the episode that has Mama Tammye (episode 1 of season 2)? Mama Tammye said some real pearls of wisdom. 

“I’m on this planet not for myself but for the betterment of humanity.”

“I want it to be a place where we can feed people spiritually and naturally. Where everyone that walks in the door can feel love.”

“Even before you were formed in your mother’s womb, He knew you.”

“You can’t evangelize and antagonize at the same time.”

“How can I say that I love God but I cannot love the ones who are right there next to me? I will call myself a hypocrite.”

“Do I love God? Yes. Am I a believer? Yes. Do I love my (gay) son? Yes.”

Mama Tammye on Queer Eye taught better theology than Elder Whiting of the Seventy did at BYU.

[aion-rsa]

Midnight Mass: It’s Time to Talk About That Monstrous Twist

https://ift.tt/39I2zkp

This article contains huge spoilers for Midnight Mass. So help me God if you read this without watching the series first…

The version of Midnight Mass that Netflix advertised still would have made for a compelling horror series. 

An isolated, insular island community? Great. A young, charismatic preacher suddenly coming to town to shake things up? Perfect. That preacher proving capable of performing minor miracles? Love it, no notes! 

Of course, as viewers who have watched at least four episodes of the seven-episode series now know, Midnight Mass has one extra supernatural twist in mind that elevates an already interesting story to true mind-blowing status. Critics were understandably asked to keep this aspect of the show a secret before it premiered. So please indulge me as I finally slay these embargo demons and get it off my chest.

Vampires. Vampires! V-A-M-P-I-R-E-S. VAMPIRES! VAMPIRES VAMPIRES VAMPIRES! Literally like Dracula. And Nosferatu. Anne Rice’s Lestat. Stephen King’s ‘Salem’s Lot. Vampires. VAMPIRES, BRO, VAMPIRES.

For creator Mike Flanagan, a filmmaker influenced by all manner of classic horror, bringing the fanged bloodsuckers to life was a long time coming.

“My favorite vampire movie is (Werner) Herzog’s Nosferatu,” Flanagan told Den of Geek and other outlets prior to the premiere of Midnight Mass. “That film is the vampire story as high art. I also adore From Dusk Till Dawn. I read Dracula young enough for it to really burrow in for me. And I read ‘Salem’s Lot early enough to color an enormous amount of work that I’ll do for the rest of my life.”

Midnight Mass’s depiction of the mythological undead beast and how it can neatly fit into Christian dogma is one of the most satisfying horror twists in years. Now that the truth is out, let’s discuss Midnight Mass and how it conflates vampires and biblical angels. 

Mistaking a Vampire for an Angel

The interesting thing about Midnight Mass is that it clearly takes place in a universe where the average person has no knowledge of what a vampire is. Even Sarah Gunning (Annabeth Gish), arguably the most well-read person on Crockett Island, has to do some research into “porphyria cutanea tarda” (a.k.a. the real life “vampire disease”). This is similar to The Walking Dead’s approach to zombies, in which the “z” word and George A. Romero’s name are never spoken. This strategy in Midnight Mass allows for a truly fascinating case of mistaken identity.

While viewers immediately know that the creature Monsignor John Pruitt (Hamish Linklater) encounters is a vampire, he believes it to be an angel. Given how studied Pruitt is in the Bible and Cathloic theology, it’s entirely understandable why he would think a tall, muscular, bald-headed beast with fangs and leathery wings is an angel. As it turns out, the angels of the Old Testament can be truly terrifying. 

Not all angels are soft-featured human-like creatures with fluffy white bird wings. Some, like Seraphim, Cherubim, and Thrones are designed to intimidate God’s enemies. In the New Testament’s Book of Luke, an angel visits Zechariah and immediately asks him to “be not afraid” because the angel can see the poor guy absolutely shaking in his boots upon his arrival. Angels being terrifying is even something of an Internet meme, with users contrasting the phrase “be not afraid” with images of truly monstrous beasts. 

Not only does Pruitt’s vampire have the vague appearance of an angel, it also apparently holds the secrets to eternal life as promised in the Bible. By merely drinking some of the “angel’s” blood, a good Christian can live forever just like God says. Does that blood-drinking sacrament sound familiar? It did to Mike Flanagan.

“In Bible school I used to say ‘if the wine turns into Jesus’s blood literally and we’re drinking it so that we can live forever … that seems like a short leap to vampiric myth.’”

Of course, drinking the angel’s fluids in the case of Midnight Mass also leads to some unwanted side effects like a thirst for blood and extreme sensitivity to sunlight. Thankfully, good ol’ Bev Keane always has a Bible quote ready to go for that. When read through the proper perspective, the Holy Bible may as well be the original vampire story. 

The Rules of Vampirism

“The thing that I love about the vampire as a cinematic tool is how malleable it is,” Flanagan says. “We all agree that there is no canon. There are no rules. In fact, part of the joy is seeing what rules people cherry pick as they approach a vampire story.”

All depictions of vampires are indeed quite different. Vampires can range from the classic Stoker-ian monster to Twilight’s nigh-invulnerable sparkle bois. Midnight Mass’s version of the vampire leans towards the classic, albeit with some tweaks. In terms of appearance, The Angel (as we will be calling Midnight Mass’s O.G. vampire for simplicity’s sake) has a more bestial look like Nosferatu rather than an aristocratic one like Count Dracula or Anne Rice’s creations. 

“We winked at (Nosferatu the Vampyr actor) Klaus Kinski a few times when we designed our guy,” Flanagan says.

Though the Angel resembles Nosferatu in appearance, its vulnerabilities owe more to Rice’s The Vampire Chronicles. Religious iconography does not appear to hurt the Angel nor its thralls. Traditional human weapons like bullets or blades also do no harm (at least not mortally). These vampires are, however, tremendously susceptible to both fire and sunlight. Exposure to the latter for even a few seconds is enough to kill the Angel and his many acolytes. 

Read more

TV

Why Midnight Mass is Mike Flanagan’s Most Personal Work

By Alec Bojalad

TV

Midnight Mass Cast: Previous Credits From Hill House to Bly Manor, Legion & Sherlock

By Louisa Mellor

Like in Rice’s works as well, the path to creating a new vampire is quite simple. Step 1: Drink its blood. Step 2: Die. In Dracula and ‘Salem’s Lot, the method of vampire creation is merely being bit by one, zombie-style. Rice and Flanagan’s approach is quite a bit more intentional and interesting. It also opens the door for perhaps Midnight Mass’s most ingenious storytelling quirk: communion. John Pruitt is able to get nearly the entirety of Crockett Island to become a vampire by spiking the communion wine with his buddy’s blood. Then, all that remains is for them to poison themselves to death, Jonestown-style. 

The mass “resurrection” scene in which the congregation awakes as their new vampire selves also provides some insight to just how hard it is to contain the vampire’s overwhelming hunger. Riley Flynn was able to resist it when he turned because John Pruitt babysat him like a psychedelic mushroom guide. The plan for the rest of the congregation was to have their babysitters as well but that didn’t quite work out. Still, Riley’s dad Ed makes it clear to his wife Annie, that even if it’s hard to resist the call for blood, it’s not impossible. 

“When I saw them at the church, I thought it was something they really couldn’t help. Like something impossible not to do. But it isn’t, Annie,” he says.

Maybe if more vampires were like Ed Flynn, a whole island full of vampires wouldn’t be too bad of a thing in the first place. 

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

How to Defeat a Vampire

While every vampire story presents its own unique take on the creature, the answer on how to defeat a vampire is usually the same: by doing it together.

“We poor humans only have so much that we can give,” Flanagan says. “We’re ill-equipped as individuals to make any kind of meaningful stand. The only way evil in the world can be brought down is through collective effort. That’s something Stoker understands inherently. It’s clearly something King understands.”

Alongside the aforementioned Bram Stoker and Stephen King, Flanagan presents a small team of humans at story’s end who will do what it takes to defeat evil, even if it means dying in the process. Erin Greene (Kate Siegel), Dr. Sarah Gunning, Sheriff Hassan (Rahul Kohli), Annie Flynn (Kristin Lehman), Warren Flynn (Igby Rigney), and Leeza Scarborough (Annarah Cymone) are the six residents of Crockett Island brave enough to try to take down the Angel. All but two (Warren and Leeza) die. They do succeed in eliminating the immediate threat on Crockett Island but it’s possible the Angel made it away to suck blood another day, damaged wings and all.

What’s interesting about Midnight Mass’s “final crew” is that six appears to be the magic number when it comes to taking down a vampire. Stoker’s Dracula has six heroes: Jonathan Harker, Mina Harker nèe Murray, Arthur Holmwood (Lord Godalming), John Seward, Quincey Morris, and Abraham Van Helsing (of which, only poor American cowboy Quincey Morris dies). King’s ‘Salem’s Lot also has six: Ben Mears, Matt Burke, Susan Norton, Mark Petrie, Jimmy Cody, and Father Callahan (of which, decidedly more than one of them die). This strange bit of arithmancy is something we asked Flanagan about.

“The number was certainly not intentional,” he says. “Once it was clear that Riley was not going to be carrying the torch to the end it really was about asking ‘who are the characters who seem in the very beginning to be at a disadvantage and how do we empower them in the end?’ This was gonna be played out by Sarah Gunning, Sheriff Hassan, and everyone else who would get to just give a little piece.”

Considering that Erin and company were outnumbered about 117 to six, it was a pretty good showing for Crockett Island’s last humans standing.

All seven episodes of Midnight Mass are available to stream on Netflix now.

The post Midnight Mass: It’s Time to Talk About That Monstrous Twist appeared first on Den of Geek.

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

[starr-fall-knight-rise]

Humans are Space Orcs, “Proper Profanity.”

WARNING: Obviously this contains a lot of profanity, lol duh :) 

Hopefully it’s at least entertaining

Dr Krill was cleaning the infirmary.. He didn’t mind cleaning, it left his mind time to wander, to think more about the humans. Today he was thinking about linguistics and the complicated way in which humans spoke to each other. It was actually quite beautiful once you stopped being annoyed with it.

He had recently compiled a list of human idioms he found rather delightful. He especially liked ‘when I am ice skating in hell’ not only did it require knowledge of human theology, but also of human sports. Plus it was a great way to tell people no.

Made him want to wriggle a little inside when he thought about it.

Now that he had gotten the use of idioms. He was starting to think about the use of human exclamations. There were so many, he hardly knew where to start.

He was so distracted with his musings that he ended up knocking over a stack of bedpans. They fell to the floor with a clatter before spinning across the open ground.

He looked down and decided that this was the perfect opportunity to try out some of his new exclamations. He wasn’t entirely sure how they worked, but you didn’t get anywhere without trying, “Shit hat!”

He stared at the bedpans trying to determine what he was feeling at the moment.

He didn’t have long for his pondering as Dr. Katie poked her head out of her office. Behind her large square glasses she looked more than a little confused. Another head peered around the corner, and he was surprised to find the captain staring at him with a bemused expression. The door to the far end of the room slid open and a group of marines peered inside.

Hmm, perhaps he had done something wrong.

“Did you just say, shit hat?” Dr Katie wondered glancing between him and the captain.

“That’s what I heard.” he said stepping out from inside.

“Did I do something wrong?” krill wondered in bemusement.

The marines laughed, “What were you even trying to do/”

“I was trying to use an angry exclamation.” The doctor explained 

The captain walked over to sit on the edge of one of the beds staring at Krill with a critical eye, “Well, it was a good effort, but not exactly right.”

“What do you mean.”

The marines walked in to sit with them as did doctor Katie.

The captain shook his head, “Well Krill, you see cursing is a very delicate art, you can’t just throw them together like that. For instance what you were trying to say was likely either ust shit, or ass hat. You can’t just throw them together. Shit would have worked, but in this instance ass hat wouldn’t have.” 

“I do not understand.”

The captain cracked his knuckles, “I will demonstrate, let us first begin with the word ass

Ass/arse = your pretty much just calling them a donkey at this point

Ass hat = refers to a person who is usually stupid or annoying 

Ass wipe = a general insult for someone you don’t like 

Dumbass = an idiot

Asshole = someone who is mean or rude 

Smartass = can be a term of endearment, but otherwise it might be used as a term for someone who is sarcastic or a know it all 

Fatass = someone who eats a lot or is also fat 

Ass face = another general insult, but this is specifically an insult and a comparison on their face to someone’s butt.

So what you were doing doesn't exactly work because you  use ass hat is an insult for a person and not an exclamation.” 

He looked around at the others to make sure they agreed with him before continuing, “our next word is damn.

Damn = can be used as an exclamation of anger in general.

Daaaaaaaaammmnnn = is for general awe, like if I saw someone do something really cool.

Damnit = another exclamation of anger generally a bit higher than just damn 

God Damn it = is just a little higher than the previous two, but implies that you want the creator himself to come down and damn the thing that you are cursing.

As a general side note, you can use damn for inanimate objects.

Damn you = is similar but usually directed towards a person. The equivalent of telling someone to go to hell or flipping them the bird. 

Damn it all = We ramp it up a bit here. You just don’t want to damn the object, but you want to damn everything.

Damn it all to hell = see previous but more specific 

Hot Damn! = this is another good exclamation. You just saw something really cool or someone who is really hot, or something that you really want.

I don’t give a damn = is the fancy way of saying I don’t care.

Are you following me so far?”

Krill nodded eagerly doing his best to remember all of this on such short notice.

“Good, now we get onto another one which I am slightly less familiar but I will try

Bitch = used to mean a female dog, but now sort of means someone who is a coward or pathetic in some way.

Bitching = to complain 

Bitch ass = not entirely sure, but if i say to get your bitch ass over here, I don’t have respect for you, though it is often used as a term of endearment between women 

Bitchboy = calling someones masculinity into question

“Ok now we get to my favorite word shit, so beautifully versatile, but it means that you have to be careful because each one has a different connotation.

The noun Shit = literally means excrement but can be used as an exclamation of displeasure. It can also replace stuff or things. Like where’s my shit

To shit = a verb means to take a dump

The adjective shitty = means something really sucks

See, a little more versatile than before, now.

Shitter = a toilet or the location where the verb takes place

A shit = is exactly what it sounds like.

To take a shit = is the same as the verb 

I don’t give a shit = I don't care kind of like I don’t give a damn

I won't take this shit = means I am not going to put up with you 

Bullshit = information, generally a lie or something that is conflated or untrue 

Batshit = is a modifier to someone who is insane, it generally means they are really crazy

Shitthole = a place that is really horrible or dirty 

Shitstain = general insult for a person you hate

Shithead = see above

Shitfaced = really drunk

The shit = something or someone that is really good

Hot shit= same as the shit

You think you’re hot shit? = generally a challenge to someone who needs to get off their high horse.

A piece of shit = means you suck or your a lowlife 

Shitload = a lot of 

To lose your shit = to go crazy or get really mad

To be on someone’s shit list = means they don’t like you

My shit = it's mine my stuff my property

Your shit = your problems and I don’t want them 

Add an animal in the front  like chicken or horse to denote a situation or information that you don’t like. This is horse shit for example.

Shit hits the fan = things get real 

Shoot the shit = to talk with someone on a social level 

He knows his shit = means he’s smart on a certain topic 

You don’t know shit = you don’t know anything

To give someone shit = you .”mess with them or to give them a hard time

Dipshit = an idiot

I am honestly cutting back on the amount of uses in this situation because if we continued this, it might go on too long.

Kril leaned in a little, “how fascinating. I had no idea one word could be so diverse.”

The human leaned in, “Than you are going to love this next one 

Fuck = sort of an upper escalation of shit. I don't know if the noun means anything really but the verb technically means to do it.

Fuck that = I am not going to do that there is no way in hell 

Fuck you = I hate you go die 

Fuck it = might as well just do this thing regardless of the consequences 

Fuck me = an exclamation of annoyance. Kind of like how could my life get any worse. Generally used when things aren't going your way. Of course you could use it in it’s literal translation as a command form or a question.

Fuck it all = another exclamation kind of like damn it all 

Fuck this shit = generally a screw this thing or activity specifically 

Fuck this = see above but less intense 

Fuckery = like what kind of fuckery is this. A question used to ask about some sort of unsavory activity.

Fuck off = telling someone to leave or go away angrily.

Fucnking hell = just an exclamation

Fucking shit = also just an exclamation

Generally you can put fucking in front of any other curse word noun and you got yourself a good insult hell, damn et. etc 

Fuckwit = an idiot

Fuckface = general insult like shithead 

I dont give a fuck = i dont care

I dont give a flying fuck = i really don’t care

Thats fucked = that is screwed up 

Hes fucked = hes screwed as in a situation specifically

Lets get fucked up = lets go get drunk or high

Lets fuck him up = lets beat him up 

Well…. Fuck = an exclamation of distress 

A fuck ton = larger than a shitload 

If you get fucked over = you’ve been used or betrayed 

And the classic a motherfucker = sort of just a general term for someone, but I  want to say it definitely implies someone is having sex with their mom

Fucktard = an idiot. 

Krill looked on in fascination and delight, “Holy shit!”

The captain blinked and then grinned, “There you go, now you're getting it. Totally forgot about that one.” He patted Krill on the back, “Now go forth, be free in your newfound knowledge and the glorious art that is cursing properly. Make sure not to use it too much though or in certain types of company because it will either cause you problems or lose it’s power. Like for instance, don’t curse around my mother or she will kill me for teaching you. Don’t curse around superior officers unless they curse first, and even then try to avoid doing it too much. Got it.”

Krill nodded.

He was so excited to apply this new rule of human language

[church-history]

St. Philip Neri

Feast day: May 26

Patronage: Rome, US Special Forces, humor and joy

St. Philip Neri was a Christian missionary and founder of the Congregation of the Oratory, a community of Catholic priests and lay brothers.

He was born in Florence on July 21, 1515 as one of four children to Francesco Neri.

From a very young age, Philip was known for being cheerful and obedient. He was affectionately referred to as "good little Phil." He received his early teachings from friars at the Dominican monastery in Florence, San Marco.

At 18-years-old, Philip went off to live with a wealthy family member in San Germano. He was sent there to assist in - and possibly inherit - the family business. However, soon after his arrival, Philip experienced a mystical vision, which he eventually spoke of as his Christian conversion. This event was an encounter with the Lord and it dramatically changed his life.

He soon lost interest in owning property or participating in business. He felt a call from the Holy Spirit to radically live for and serve the Lord Jesus Christ and His Church.

So, Philip set out for Rome. Once in Rome, Philip was the live-in tutor for a fellow Florentine's sons. Under Philip's guidance, the two boys improved in all aspects of life and faith, proving Philip's special talent with human relationships and in bringing out the best in people.

During his first two years in Rome, Philip spent his time in a solitary life. He also dedicated a lot of time to prayer. He ate very small meals of bread, water and a few vegetables, practicing an ascetical life.

In 1535, Philip began studying theology and philosophy at the Sapienza and at St. Augustine's monastery. Although he was considered a "promising scholar," after three years of studies, Philip gave up any thought of ordination. He set out to help the poor people of Rome and to re-evangelize the city. Sadly, Rome had lost its first love and its inhabitants were no longer really living as Christians.

He began talking to people on street corners and in public squares; he made acquaintances in places where people commonly gathered.

Philip, compared to Socrates, had a knack for starting up conversations and leading his listeners to consider a new and better way of life, the Christian Way. He easily caught others' attention with his warm personality and incredible sense of humor. He encouraged groups of people to gather for discussions, studies, prayer and the enjoyment of music. His customary question was always, "Well, brothers, when shall we begin to do good?"

Losing no time in converting good conversation to good actions, Philip would lead his followers to hospitals to wait on the sick or to the Church, to pray to and encounter Jesus Christ.

In short, Philip was an evangelist. He loved to share the Gospel and help people to find or rediscover their faith in Jesus Christ.

His days were dedicated to helping others, but his nights were set aside for solitude spent praying in the church or in the catacombs beside the Appian Way.

In 1544, on the eve of Pentecost, Philip saw what appeared to be a globe of fire. It is said the fire entered his mouth, causing Philip to feel his heart dilate. Philip was filled with such paroxysms of divine love that caused him to scream out, "Enough, enough, Lord, I can bear no more." Philip then discovered a swelling over his heart, though it caused him no pain.

In 1548, with the help of his confessor, Father Persiano Rossa, Philip founded a confraternity for poor laymen to meet for spiritual exercises and service of the poor, the Confraternity of the Most Holy Trinity.

Philip's appealing nature won him over friends from all societal levels, including that of Ignatius of Loyola, Pius V and Charles Borromeo.

At 34-years-old, Philip had already accomplished so much, but his confessor was determined that his work would be more effective as a priest. Finally convinced, Philip was ordained to the diaconate and then to the priesthood on May 23, 1551.

From there, Philip went to live with Father Rossa and other priests at San Girolamo and carried on his mission, but mostly through the confessional.

Before sun up, until sun down, Philip spent hours sitting and listening to people of all ages. Sometimes Philip broke out informal discussions for those who desired to live a better life. He spoke to them about Jesus, the saints and the martyrs.

Influenced by St. Francis Xavier, Philip thought of going to India to join the foreign mission field, but was dissuaded by his peers because Rome still needed Philip's ministry and influence.

A large room was built above the church of San Girolamo to tend to Philip's growing number of pilgrims and other priests were called on to assist him. Philip and the priests were soon called the "Oratorians," because they would ring a bell to call the faithful in their "oratory."

The foundation of the Congregation of the Priests of the Oratory would be laid a few years later with members who encouraged others to deepen their faith. Philip's rule for them was simple - share a common table and to perform spiritual exercises. Philip didn't want his followers to bind themselves to the life with a vow and he did not want them to denounce their property.

Philip's organization was officially approved by Pope Gregory XIII in 1575.

The Congregation was given an ancient church, but Philip made the quick decision to demolish it because the structure was in ruins and the size was not large enough. He had plans of rebuilding on a larger scale. People from all over, including Charles Borromeo and Pope Gregory, contributed financially toward the rebuilding.

By April 1577, the New Church was completed enough for the Congregation of the Oratory to be transferred there, but Philip stayed at San Girolamo for another seven years.

Philip was constantly in a crowd of people; he allowed his followers free access to him and continued hearing confessions and engaging in ministry and prayer.

In the words of one of his biographers, Philip was "all things to all men.... When he was called upon to be merry, he was so; if there was a demand upon his sympathy, he was equally ready..."

Philip was respected and loved throughout Rome; he became a trusted advisor to popes, kings, cardinals and equally as important to the poor.

He whole-heartedly desired the reform of the Catholic Church and worked toward that with a sense of gentleness and friendship, rather than criticism and harshness.

His efforts to reach out to the lay people of Rome and not simply associate with the clergy made him one of the great figures in the Counter Reformation of the Catholic Church. Sadly, the Catholic Church had fallen into clericalism. He soon earned the title, "Apostle of Rome."

On the Feast of Corpus Christi, May 25, 1595, Philip was told by his physician that he was not healthy. He had not looked well for ten years. Philip realized his time had come to pass on to the Lord. For the remainder of the day, he listened to confessions and saw his visitors as normal.

Before heading off to bed, Philip stated, "Last of all, we must die."

Around midnight of May 26, 1595, Philip suffered from a hemorrhage and passed away at 80-years-old. His body lays in the New Church, where the Oratorians still serve.

St. Philip Neri was beatified by Pope Paul V on May 11, 1615 and canonized by Pope Gregory XV on March 12, 1622.

[uncloseted]

i’ve read that you don’t believe in subliminals and it was very refreshing to hear , because it’s getting more and more popular and all around r kinda religiously believing in it. As a skeptical person obviously this sound for me unbelievable and delusional af , but i’m not gonna lie that i’ve never tried to listen to them , so just to give them a chance , especially when one of my friend suggested to listen “money subliminals” and that they work on her magically 100% . in what i responded to her that i don’t want “lie to myself” , i think if you wouldn’t do anything and just seat in one place and kept listen to this 24/7 , nothing would happen , it’s your work and probably kind of confidence (which could be or not be boosted by this subliminals ) that helped you . and this is very similar to placebo effect . but she was in denial and she honestly truly believing in it . Also the fact that she said it’s all because you’re not believing in it enough your brain is going against of the massage. like wtf ? which if you think is really scary , because it’s shutting down the critical thinking/analyzing and if something doesn’t happen then it’s your fault, you’re not doing it enough.. So it’s interesting to hear your opinion ? and also why do you think a lot of ppl believe in it , almost all comment section are positive and i don’t think that they’re all bots ? and why they’re not any big exposure of bs if it so this far ? it’s so suspicious . (sorry for my bad english)

No worries at all, your English is great! I'm so happy that you asked this question because it's something I've thought a lot about but never have an opportunity to talk about.

I think the idea of manifestation and subliminals actually trace back to Protestant Christianity, and Calvinism in particular (I know this seems random, but stay with me here 😂). Within Protestantism, there's this concept of the "Protestant work ethic". Essentially, the idea is that in Protestantism, hard work and frugality are seen as indications that a person would be saved by God. Then, we get this idea that anyone can become rich through hard work, an idea that's still present in the "American Dream" narrative. This got flipped on its head at some point- as opposed to work being a sign of grace that's inherent to a person, work became a way of achieving grace. I think this accompanied the switch from people believing in pre-destiny to believing in free will, and I think it was also used to explain why some people were poor while others weren't.

There's a lot of history to talk about here- especially the 19th century "New Thought" movement (which was essentially about manifesting) and how it influenced Protestant Christianity- but that's a longer conversation and one kind of tangential to the larger point I'm talking about here, so I'm going to skip it for now. There's a more in depth look at the history of the Protestant work ethic and how it led to the idea that "if you believe, God will provide" here if you're interested in this kind of thing.

Eventually, we get the idea of prosperity theology in the 40s- the Protestant idea that when good things happen to you, they're the will of God, and that the more you pray (or, increasingly, the more you money you pay to the Church), the more good things will happen to you. The more work you do to prove your faith in God, the more security and prosperity he'll give you.

Here's where I think Protestantism connects with your question. Most of "The West" is culturally Protestant, even if we're nominally secular. Protestant Christianity is the majority religion in many Western countries, such as the US, UK, and Scandinavia, and is historically significant in other countries such as Germany, the Netherlands, Canada, and Switzerland. Protestantism has shaped the way our culture views work, prosperity, and "worthiness", and those cultural values exist even in countries that have become more diverse or think of themselves as secular. This comes through in the research- a recent Dutch study found that "Protestants and citizens of predominately Protestant countries tend to conflate labor with personal satisfaction more than those of other religious traditions".

So when you have a secular country with Protestant values, you need to find a way to justify those same beliefs in a non-denominational way. I think that's where manifestation and subliminals come in- they allow people to engage in the same kind of prosperity gospel beliefs that are pervasive in our societies while remaining secular. Instead of praying hard enough so that God blesses them with prosperity, people have to "truly believe in subliminals" or "manifest more" in order for the universe to give them what they want. In terms of why this has become so popular recently, I think it's because we're in a very tumultuous moment culturally. A lot of things are beyond our control, and when that happens, we want to look to something more powerful than us to fix our problems. Since a lot of Millennials and Gen Zs feel alienated by major world religions, in moments of spiritual crisis, they turn to New Age beliefs like manifesting instead. It's filling the cultural void where religion used to be.

And it works sometimes, kind of sort of. I think your insight that if you believe that God or The Universe are on your side, you're more likely to believe in yourself and project confidence. You're more likely to take risks that you wouldn't otherwise, and to persist when you run into obstacles- to have a "growth mindset". There's a lot of research that supports the idea that the stories we tell ourselves about who we are can change the ways that we interact with the world and that people interact with us. I think people like prayer/manifestation/subliminals because they're seeing the results of that change in perspective. But those kind of impacts are short lived and pretty limited in their scope- they're not going to magically alter your appearance or get you a job you didn't apply for. I think there's also an attention bias at play here- people notice when the subliminals "work", but they don't notice when the subliminals have no effect. Which is why I think it's so hard to convince people that they don't work- if they notice good things happening to them, subliminals work, and if bad things happen to them, subliminals work but they're not believing in them enough. There's no way to prove to people who believe in subliminals that they don't work, because there's no way to prove how much people "believe".

But even if it does kind of sort of work, this mindset has the potential to be incredibly damaging, because it indirectly blames people who are struggling for not "doing the work" to change their situation. You're homeless? You should have prayed harder/manifested/believed harder in money subliminals. If you ask, the universe will provide. You're a kid with cancer? You should have prayed harder/manifested/believed harder in subliminals for health. There's this belief that the issue definitely isn't systemic, and it's definitely not institutional. They believe that your problems are yours alone, and as a result, they're your fault. And that's super damaging, because it leads the individual who's struggling to believe that they've failed, and it lets everyone else ignore the structural inequities that need to change in order to give everyone the same opportunity to be prosperous. There's no need to have universal healthcare if God will just save the people who are worthy from their illnesses.

[blackswaneuroparedux]

Anonymous asked: Do the intellectual elites basically set the direction of how society thinks? Over the centuries, the general public has followed philosophical trends in the academic world so how do these beliefs and academic theories filter down into the mainstream? Is there anything we can do to stop it?

It may seem like in our current turbulent times that the elites do the thinking for the masses. And if one stands back to look at the flash points of intellectual history that indeed feels true. But equally one can stand back and ask critically if this is really so? 

Who are you actually talking about? Who are these intellectual elites? I dislike these generalisations because they are unhelpful. How does one define elite? Is it intellect? Is it cachet of social position? I think our so-called university elites - professors etc - are in their own existential crisis because of how commodified a university education is becoming. They are beholden to students as consumers. It’s a worrying trend.

Of course it didn’t use to be like that because then our intellectual elites had both recognised intellectual prowess and a social cachet. In other words they had power. I think the modern day academic is many ways a powerless and even pitiful figure at the mercy of university managers and money men.

Nor do I think one thinker dominates over others as they might have done in the past.

A case van be made that ideas today are democratised. Power resides wherever their is a vacuum. It doesn’t reside in the class room but on social media.

In our more recent times intellectual trends like post-modernism and now social critical theory have been seeping into the mainstream. Even Donald Trump has brought up critical race theory to the wider watching populace as a beating stick over the left.

But many ordinary people would be hard pressed to name the actual thinkers (outside of just lumping people together as an amorphous mass e.g. cultural marxists or far right conservatives). It’s more true to say that all ideas now fight in the market place of ideas as a product for people to consume blindly.

But why one idea takes off and another doesn’t is something I don’t have answer for. Or where is the point where ideas from top down meet reality from bottom up and create some kind of intellectual and social momentum? I don’t have time to get into that here.

Another thing is that like an MP4 download the compression size of the complexity gets eroded the more it is downloaded and passed around. In other words people start arguing over labels and top line arguments than actually grapple with the deeper and more complex ideas contained.

This isn’t to say there are no problems with such theories - e.g. critical race theory - because there are. For the record, I am hostile to such philosophies as a Tory as I am towards many lefty isms plaguing the modern university campus that find their way into the public square.

Rather than attack the messenger (ie people) one should critically examine the arguments from every side. This is true for any theory and wherever it comes from. We engage ideas not people.

I don’t want to sound like a broken record so let me play devil’s advocate and suggest an alternative if only to muse upon on it.

I was having a stimulating series of conversations with a professor of intellectual history and other academic historians and political scientists from prestigious French institutions at a friend’s dinner party not so long ago. Like any French dinner good conversation is expected along with good food and wine. Arguments are meant to be robust and even heated but never personal. Arguments are won as much by charm and wit as it is by intellect. It’s all very convival and civilised.

Anyway, we touched on many things from the sorry state French politics, Brexit, Trump, and Covid of course. The usual stuff I imagine. But because of who was around the table the discussion enjoyably explored much wider issues.

For me it’s always interesting to hear the premise from where people build their arguments. For the left secularist the Enlightenment becomes the cornerstone from which the lens of history is viewed and interpreted. For the conservative it’s anything before the 1789 Revolution. Both actually looked at change and the ideas therein as from top down. The ground up (or the view from below) was given short thrift.

I suggested an alternative premise more from a playful motivation than absolute empirical evidence - if only to liven things up a little as the conversation was becoming stale and even predictable.

Perhaps the direction of influence could also be seen the other way round? That is to say that philosophical theories formalise and develop ideas that are already in circulation in society and culture.

Did you get that? Let me explain.

Remember Hegel's beautiful and profound observation that 'the owl of Minerva spreads its wings only with the falling of the dusk. In the words what Hegel was saying was that philosophical theory comes afterwards, reflectively, when a development of ideas or institutions is complete and (he would add) in decline.

Plato's 'Republic', at least its political portion, was as the late Michael Oakeshott once put it, 'animated by the errors of Athenian democracy'. Any citizen could participate in politics and help determine policies and legislation without any knowledge of the relevant matters. Plato saw democracy as the politics of ignorance. If every other human inquiry or activity recognised expert knowledge - in his famous example, you wouldn't let just anyone, regardless of their lack of specialist skills, navigate a ship - why not politics, too ? Why should politics be special in not requiring knowledge of the proper ends and means of political action as a condition of participation. Think of this what you will, but the 'Republic' was rooted in its contemporary context and was a response to it.

Aristotle's 'Politics' is a theorisation of the Greek polis, which was already passing out of independent existence under the impact of Alexander the Great's conquests. Athens was a city-state, and a democracy (albeit a limited one). Even though Aristotle was not born in Athens his views were accepted until he was shunned after the death of Alexander.

Aquinas' 'Summa' was a response to the recovery of Aristotle's writings and to the ongoing beliefs and practice of the Catholic Church - as well, of course, to movements which he opposed in theology.

Hobbes' 'Leviathan' is clearly a recipe for avoiding the kind of political and social chaos caused by the French Wars of Religion and the English Civil Wars. They were in his rear-view mirror when he wrote his tome.

Hume's 'atomistic' view of the nature of experience as composed of distinct impressions and ideas drew on the model of Newtonian 'corpuscular' physics.

Kant's Critique of Pure Reason asks how knowledge is possible, with the glories of Newtonian physics in the background. His emphasis on the place of reason in ethics is fully in the spirit of the Enlightenment's celebration of reason.

John Stuart Mill's 'On Liberty' was a counter-blast to the pressure toward conformity which he thought he saw in the England of his day.

Logical Positivism was a response to the huge, brilliant developments in science - relativity and quantum theory - and took the form of scientism, the view that scientific knowledge is the only form of deep and accurate knowledge (of all real knowledge).

Marxism was a response to the embryonic birth of the modern capitalist system after the industrial revolution in Britain. Both Hegel and Marx formulated their theories by what they observed was happening with the birthing pains of modern industrial capital society. Cultural Marxism is a different beast entirely.

I could go on.

I am not suggesting, of course, that there was anything crude or mechanical in the way these philosophies emerged from their contexts. They all added independent thought of great subtlety. But their problems and the terms of their solutions were set by their times, at least as they understood them. It’s plausible but may not be completely true. But that’s part of the enjoyment of musing upon whimsical thoughts without the conceit of being certain.

Anyway something to think about.

Thanks for your question.

[humansofhds]

Don Abram, MDiv ’19

“In the same way that the Black Church has been queer through its very existence—by operating on the undersides of power, by existing in the margins, by advocating for the least of these—me advocating for LGBTQ rights is simply an extension of that tradition. It is an extension of that Black, freedom-loving tradition. I want to be able to walk congregants through this as we center the lived experiences of LGBTQ+ folks in the Black Church.”

Don Abram, MDiv ’19, is the founder of Pride in the Pews, a nonprofit that seeks to amplify the voices and experiences of queer Christians in the Black Church.

A Call to Identity and to Faith

I grew up on the far South Side of Chicago, and I was raised by a single mother and a very active Jamaican grandmother. Every Sunday I attended a hand-clapping, toe-tapping Black Church right down the street from my house, within walking distance. I attended every Sunday, initially reluctantly because I didn’t like waking up in the morning. I would come up with a myriad of excuses and reasons for why I could not attend on Sunday, including not being able to find matching socks or not being able to find the right tie. It never worked. 

At the age of 14, I was called to preach. I moved from the pews to the pulpit, which was really a paradigm-shifting change, especially in the Black Church, wherein the Black pulpit is often centered over and above other positions and places in the congregation. At the same time that I was called to preach, I was also introduced to my sexuality. But what I knew instinctively was that I could not embody both of those identities without losing both my community and my calling. 

So to put it simply, I did not embody both of those identities, at least not on Sunday mornings. When I would preach in my church or go to different churches for revivals, I was a straight preacher. Outside of the four walls of the Black Church, I was able to explore my queerness – still in the shadows, but not nearly as tucked away as when I was in the pulpit. Frankly, I didn’t have an opportunity to explore the theological foundations I was brought up under until I arrived at HDS. That was the first time I was able to take a deep dive into toxic theologies, unpack them, and reconstruct a theology that spoke to the fullness of who I am. And I did all of that from within the radical Black religious tradition. 

I was reading folks like James Cone and Martin Luther King Jr., as well as folks like Fannie Lou Hamer—all of these amazing scholars who took seriously the Black Church as an institution. Not just what transpired at the spiritual level, but the ways in which the Black Church showed up in the public square. And the Black Church historically showed up pursing justice and pushing back against systems of oppression. I was able to reconstruct this theology and I loved it. I was able to reconcile my faith and my sexuality. There was no distinction between the two. I saw them as inextricable. 

An Invitation In 

I would also travel back home, to the far South Side of Chicago, to the same old hand-clapping, toe-tapping Black Church, where folks did not have access to the same sort of conversations I was having at HDS, or to the same thinkers or luminaries who were engaging in prophetic critique of Black Church theology. I wrestled with how to invite my church into these conversations around the intersection of race, religion, and sexuality. 

At HDS, we didn’t talk a whole lot about how to translate what we were learning, or how to engage in conversations with folks who didn’t have access to that space. And that’s really where Pride in the Pews emerged. I wondered, how might we think of a sustainable way to engage congregants, on the South Side of Chicago and in cities like it across the country, in these conversations that are central to our theology and our understanding of ourself as an institution? That is where it began. 

And then came the George Floyd murder, after which I was protesting. Alongside me were Black pastors and clergy, and they were chanting along with me, Black Lives Matter. My immediate retort was, does my life matter to you? As a Black queer man who shows up Sunday after Sunday to a sanctuary where my sexuality is demonized and condemned? I realized that now is a great time for the Black Church to recommit itself to pursing justice for all people—for those who exist at the margins of society, for those who are on the underside of power. I launched Pride in the Pews in the hopes that in this particular socio-political moment, we would be able to take a deeper dive into our commitments and the way we carry them into the world. 

Different Faiths, Same Justice

Religious communities like the one I come from—Black Baptist, fundamentalist communities—are quite skeptical of “out-there,” liberal places like HDS. There’s this fear that you’re bringing folks of all different faiths together, and they’re just going to steer you away from Jesus. Steer you away from God. But what I found was that being in conversation with Buddhist, agnostic, and atheist colleagues, with folks who practice Indigenous African religious traditions, did not bring me away from my faith, but actually brought me closer to it. My colleagues were asking questions and framing the pursuit of justice in ways that pushed me to ask, how might Jesus see this? In doing so, it actually gave me permission, or offered an invitation, for me to think more critically about the values that I hold as a Black Christian—and more specifically, a Black, Queer Christian in the Black Church. 

For me, this was an opportunity to take a deep dive into my convictions, both theological and philosophical and spiritual, and begin to ask the scary questions. The questions that would lead to answers that I didn’t already have. Being willing to engage in that humble inquiry, that audacious questioning, presented an opportunity for me to say, ok, let me re-imagine the way I’ve interpreted the gospel. Let me reimagine the way I understand harm and violence and white supremacy and homophobia. 

I got to the place where I was able to see both my queerness and my faith as inextricably connected, but also where I was able to go broader than that. I was able to say, when I’m talking about the injustices caused by queerphobia in the world, those are intimately connected to white supremacy. Those are intimately connected to patriarchy and homophobia and transphobia. These things are not separate and independent from one another. What we are really talking about is interlocking systems of oppression. My colleagues from different faith traditions and I, we were able to work together and agree on the fact that we should be pursuing justice. We should be doing good in the world. Whatever it is that we deem ministry or our calling or the philosophical tenets that we subscribe to, it should all work toward a world where we are safer, more whole, and more free. 

“Can I Get a Witness?” 

I started Pride in the Pews not only when this country was confronting a racial reckoning that was catapulted by state-sanctioned violence against Black bodies. It also happened when we were seeing unprecedented and historic attacks against the Black community, with a specific emphasis on attacks on the rights of trans-folks to exist. At the same time as we saw this racial reckoning, we saw these concerted attacks across the country on LGBTQ folks. That’s the intersectional context that Pride in the Pews emerged into. That intersectionality makes Pride in the Pews so powerful. We recognize that we’re fighting on multiple fronts. We’re fighting for our right to exist as Black people, and we’re fighting for our right to exist as queer-embodied people. For me, that context was key. It gave this push power. 

Context is important. Since I’m trying to reach folks in the Black religious tradition, any content that I create, any story that I tell, any voice that I lift up, needs to reside within that tradition. One thing that is central to our tradition is storytelling. It is with this in mind that we started with the Can I Get a Witness Project, which aims to capture the stories of 66 Black Queer Christians within the Black Church. Whether it’s my enslaved ancestors who didn’t have access to the scriptural texts to be able to read them, who accessed the word of God through story; or whether it is my African ancestors who were passing on sacred religious traditions, not by writing them down, but through word of mouth—that oral tradition is rich. That’s the one I’m centering in this project. 

When we’ve collected all 66 stories, we hope to take all of the wisdom, all of the insights we’ve been able to gleam from our conversations with Black queer Christians, look at the trends and salient points, and turn that into a curriculum. A curriculum that is shaped and fashioned by the Black religious tradition. 

The Black church was born fighting systems of oppression and dehumanization. I want to bring that history in. I want to bring in the history of folks like Reverend Jesse Jackson, who was the first Democratic politician in this nation’s history to ever advocate for LGBTQ rights. That’s a part of our tradition. And I want to bring in the history of Dr. King, the freedom fighter, truth-teller, and table-shaker who decided to speak truth to power, and in doing so, lost his life. These are the traditions we are part of. I want to lift that up and say, in the same way that the Black Church has been queer through its very existence—by operating on the undersides of power, by existing in the margins, by advocating for the least of these—me advocating for LGBTQ rights is simply an extension of that tradition. It is an extension of that Black, freedom-loving tradition. I want to be able to walk congregants through this as we center the lived experiences of LGBTQ+ folks in the Black Church. 

We are going to turn some of these stories into case studies. We are going to read and hear the stories of the Black queer folks as sacred texts. We’re going to take them seriously, to wrestle with them, and to create tools that combat queerphobia and transphobia and homophobia as it shows up historically in the Black Church context. 

A Call to Action 

I would like to invite folks to participate in the Can I Get a Witness Project. If they identify as Black, Queer, and Christian, we’d love for them to be a part of this work and of this project. We have just over 30 folks that we’ve interviewed, and we have just over 30 to go. And of course, for all the allies out there who don’t identity as Black or Queer, you can support us by following the work that we’re doing, contributing financially to the work we are doing, and sharing our work. Our work will spread by the willingness of folks to share their stories and to open up those spaces where liberation and love do not abound, so that we can make it abound.

Interview by Gianna Cacciatore; photos courtesy of Don Abram

[queertheology]

What I Learned About Faith & Justice From My Transgender Friends

I’m sitting in the Carnegie Mellon dining hall with my friend and Sanctuary Collective co-conspirator Micah talking with two young guys from Campus Crusade for Christ.

“Oh your name’s Micah? Is your family Christian too?”

Micah looks flummoxed for only one second before replying, “Yeah… they are.”

In this moment, these two guys who have spent and will spend hours talking with us about why they think we’re wrong, why they think being LGBTQ is wrong, so clearly get it. In this moment he doesn’t realize that Micah’s parents didn’t give him the name Micah because he sees Micah as he truly is: male.

Before Micah and I were best friends, we were accidental roommates. We did the Equality Ride the same year but on different buses and he needed a place to crash when he moved to New York while looking for an apartment and I lived alone and offered up my futon.

Sometimes folks ask why I’m so passionate about transgender issues—here at Queer Theology and through Legalize Trans*—and it’s because of Micah. A few weeks after he moved in, Micah shared his new name with me and the world and began publicly transitioning. “Transgender issues” stopped being “issues” and they started becoming “shit my best friend has to deal with that he really shouldn’t.”

There’s a saying we used to share a lot at my evangelical church growing up, maybe you’ve heard it, it’s that “all other faiths are religions, but Christianity is a relationship.” I don’t think I buy that anymore but I do know that what I continue to value about the value systems that guide my life, including Christianity, are relationships.

My relationship with Micah transformed the way that I see the world and gave me new tools for organizing for justice. The issues we face are different: he can legally marry his wife in every state in the country, I don’t have to run an ad in the newspaper so that my gender is correct on my government documents. But they are interconnected because the same systems hold us down: gender expectations and policing, patriarchy, religious fundamentalism.

When I first came out, I wanted to keep everything the same. On my Equality Ride application, I opened with a proclamation that I was gay, American, and an evangelical Christian. I wanted my whole world to stay exactly the same, except for the small tweak that now it’s OK to be gay. If I’m honest with myself, 18 year old Brian probably would have been content to throw trans folks under the bus.

But making the world a little bit easier for cisgender, gay, white, males, from upper middle class educated families with law degrees isn’t good enough.

Working on intersectionally on issues that cut across identities—race, religion, immigration status, gender identity, economic access, physical & mental ability, HIV status, body size—has given me glimpses of what the Kingdom of God looks like.

Jesus hung out in the margins. With the outcasts. With the ones the religious elite deemed “outside” and “undesirable.” He didn’t do that because he felt sorry for them. He did that because God is, literally, there.

I say that for queer Christians, it’s not about asking of straight folks “please, let us in to your churches,” it’s about offering “Hey, you’re invited to come hang out us with us because this is where God is.” And the same is true of cisgender LGB Christians. We shouldn’t care about transgender people and issues because we pity them or because it’s fashionable and we can get a book deal or speaking gigs or a lot of likes on our Facebook posts… We should be invested because transgender people bring something critical to the table and we are not whole without them.

But back to Micah. When I didn’t know where to start, Micah helped me get pointed in the right direction. Not in a “here, I will teach you everything that you need to know” sort of way but instead in a “you are my friend and here’s something that I’m dealing with” sort of way. And then I had to do the work myself of connecting the dots, of seeing how that fit into larger structures. I had to humble myself and accept that he had a right to be mad at me in the times that I fucked up.

You can’t just go find some transgender person to befriend so that they’ll magically teach you how to be a better person. But if you’re committed to justice, especially if you’re committed to the vision of justice you see in the Bible, than you are called to be in relationship. You are called to an embodied faith.

And as the prophet Micah said, you are called to “Do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly.”

Micah & Brian founded Sanctuary Collective in 2010 as a network of support for LGBTQ young adults and allies organizing for justice in Christian communities through resources, monitorship, and a year-long leadership development program. In 2015, Sanctuary Collective was revived as Queer Theology’s online community for LGBTQ Christians and straight, cisgender supporters. Learn more about Sanctuary Collective

LEARN MORE ABOUT TRANSGENDER THEOLOGY

This fall, we’ll be hosting a course completely dedicated to transgender theology. The course will be geared both toward transgender Christians and to cisgender folks who want to learn from and better serve transgender folks. In addition to the lesson materials, there will be both open and closed discussion spaces.

There’s nothing like this out there, so we’re creating it.

Hop on the waitlist to make sure you get a spot (and snag some exclusive extras)

[sunday-school-lessons]

The Church is United in the Essentials

(Note to readers: “If” you would rather watch a video of this lesson, you can find it here: https://youtu.be/jB7BcEjS2mQ ).

Today we're going to begin a new series of lessons under the general heading of:

Don't Forget.

 We will be drawing Scriptures from the 15th chapter of the Book of Acts.

  We're going to be discussing the nature of salvation with a focus on the subject of "justification."

 Now, even though we have discussed this subject of justification before, I think it would be a good idea to revisit the theological definition of the word again.

 In Christian theology,

justification is God's righteous act of removing the condemnation,

the guilt,

and the penalty of sin,

by grace, while, at the same time,

declaring the ungodly to be righteous,

through faith in Christ's atoning sacrifice.

 Lots of words get thrown around by the "religious" crowd.

Sometimes, when we get all in to it and use words like justification, sanctification, glorification, and others, and without realizing it, we’re talking over the heads of lots of people.

But before we get into the lesson, I'd like to talk briefly about something that often happens among groups of people who are "trying" to get something..... spiritual to happen.

We’ve all heard the word, "ritual"

casually used in conversation.

And, all of us perform rituals without giving them a second thought.

When you habitually do the same things every morning preparing for your day, it's said to be a ritual; you’re “routine.”

Yet, there are lots of rituals people perform in an effort to experience something......supernatural.

If you're watching this video, more than likely, you do believe in the supernatural.

And it's a good thing to believe in the supernatural.

In 1st Corinthians chapter 1 and verse 18 Paul writes:

"For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God."

But it's not "just" the message of the cross that the church is projecting to the rest of the world.

Thanks to modern technology, people from every culture can watch as Christians perform a variety of rituals throughout the year.

Rituals, defined, are solemn ceremonies that incorporate a series of actions that are performed according to a prescribed order.

It's kind of like following a recipe to end up with a dish you want.

I mean, you don't use tuna to make a strawberry cake.

It wouldn't be fair to single out any particular group here.

However, to the world at large, religious folks do some pretty strange things at times.

Here's a few of them.

This video that’s playing in the background here shows the holy fire ceremony of Easter in Jerusalem, …. Jewish people at the wailing wall, also in Jerusalem,… and a baptismal ceremony in the Jordan River.

I'm not condemning any celebration that lifts up our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

But at the same time, there's a big difference between commemorating a holy day and trying to perform something........ well..... magical.

There are tons of people in this world that know full well that magic, real magic, exists.

Magic is where you apply beliefs, rituals, or certain actions so that you can control and manipulate natural or supernatural beings or forces.

Magic's something that's not really science or religion.

But, the most important thing to remember about magic is that God hates it!

In Deuteronomy 18:10-12, Moses is inspired by God to write:

"Let no one be found among you who sacrifices their son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens,

engages in witchcraft, or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead. Anyone who does these things is detestable to the LORD;

because of these same detestable practices the LORD your God will drive out those nations before you."

(people really did offer their babies to Baal...through the fire; and they really did, and still do practice all of the things I just read to you...... and God hates it!)

On the surface, it would appear that God detests these sorts of things because they lure people away from Him.

And, I’m sure that’s part of it. But it goes much deeper than that.

Where do you think the power behind magical abilities comes from?

Right!

It comes from the ultimate liar!

It comes from Lucifer himself.

And, just in case you didn't already know it; Lucifer hates you!

On the other hand, God created man to ultimately be His companions far beyond time itself.

Lucifer is not invited to that party!

He had already been thrown out of heaven long before God created man.

And it's because of Satin's work to sully the purity that Adam and Eve lived in, that sin, ….. that rebellion entered the world of humans.

Now, God has made the way for individuals to make their way back to Him.

He has made a way to justify us.

 So, once again,  

justification is God's righteous act of removing the condemnation,

the guilt,

and the penalty of sin,

by grace, while, at the same time,

declaring the ungodly to be righteous,

through faith in Christ's atoning sacrifice.

  Section 1:

 The Church Debates the Nature of Salvation

 Acts 15:1-5;

 Some men came down from Judea and began to teach the brothers,

"Unless you are circumcised according to the custom prescribed by Moses,

you cannot be saved."

 After Paul and Barnabas had engaged them in serious argument and debate,

Paul and Barnabas and some others were appointed to go up to the apostles and elders in Jerusalem about this issue.

 When they had been sent on their way by the church,

they passed through both Phoenicia and Samaria,

describing in detail the conversion of the Gentiles,

and they brought great joy to all the brothers and sisters.

 When they arrived at Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church,

the apostles, and the elders, and they reported all that God had done with them.

 But some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said,

"It is necessary to circumcise them and to command them to keep the law of Moses."

 From the very beginning, different people had different understandings about salvation. It’s important that we be constantly vigilant of the things we accept as truth. We just can’t afford to allow things like legalism to creep into the church. So, what’s legalism look like? The 1st verse I just read to you: Some men came down from Judea and began to teach the brothers,

"Unless you are circumcised according to the custom prescribed by Moses,

you cannot be saved."

At the very heart of legalism, is the idea that ’unless you add so-and-so to your faith, you cannot be saved. The Bible teaches us that we are graciously accepted by God as righteous by faith alone in Christ alone; nothing else. I have attended churches over the years who preached and believed that unless you…… well, they were hanging

customs, rituals, and “procedures” onto this simple salvation that the Lord offers us. So, always remember, salvation comes ”by faith alone in Christ alone.” Nothing else. Seriously, adding any other means of seeking God’s acceptance is misguided, wrong, and, quiet frankly, it’s downright dangerous. That group of Jewish Christians that spoke up were insisting that the Gentile converts had to   become Jews through the rite of circumcision in order to become Christians. These Jews who resisted the idea that Gentiles were converting to Christianity without becoming Jewish believed that salvation was something that had been offered to the Jews alone. These very same people believed Jesus was the Messiah, and that salvation was in Jesus alone. Yet, they were trying to add ritual or custom to salvation in demanding the converts become Jewish as well. We just studied the subject of “unity.” Legalism is a device of the devil. When people among the congregation go down that road of legalism, their words and actions rob the members of their joy and unity. In adding their demands to the gospel of grace, these legalists begin to pass judgment on everyone who does not meet the new demands. Then, the legalists criticize the leadership for not imposing their standard on the rest of the body. Then, division begins as the legalist tries to gain support for their position. Now you have two sides. The demands and judgments of the legalists continue to tear the church apart. Never let your guard down. It’s so easy to be drawn in, and the truth is still as simple as I’ve already stated. Salvation is in faith alone, in Christ alone.

Legalism distorts our Biblical view of God. The root of legalism is our own distorted view of God. When we have a wrong view of God, we WILL have a wrong view of salvation. A wrong view of God is why sinners are still sinners. The world does not see our God as we do. This is why it is so very important that we live our lives in a way that others can Jesus in us.

 Section 2:

 The Church Affirms Justification by Faith Alone

 Acts 15:11, 14-18;

 The apostles and the elders gathered to consider this matter.

 After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them,

"Brothers, you are aware that in the early days God made a choice among you,

that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the gospel message and believe.

 And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them by giving them the Holy Spirit,

just as he also did to us.

 He made no distinction between us and them,

cleansing their hearts by faith.

 Now then, why are you testing God by putting a yoke on the disciples' necks that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear?

 On the contrary, we believe that we are saved thorough the grace of the Lord Jesus in the same way they are."

 ..................................

 Simeon has reported how God first intervened to take from the Gentiles a people for his name.

 And the words of the prophets agree with this, as it is written:

 After these things I will return and rebuild David's fallen tent.

I will rebuild its ruins and set it up again,

 so that the rest of humanity may seek the Lord..... even all the Gentiles who are called by my name.....

declares the Lord who makes these things

 known from long ago.

 What’s being described in these verses was the 1st church council; the Council of Jerusalem. The Apostles and the church elders convened together for the purpose of making an important decision concerning a matter of salvation through justification. In all, there have been 22 councils held. By the year 325, the year the Council of Nicaea was called by the Roman Emperor Constantine, the church was already calling itself “Catholic” (a word that means all-encompassing, universal, or all-embracing). The Council of Nicaea, and the following 20 councils were convened primarily because of, you guessed it, legalism that had entered the church. There was great division within the body of Christ on a variety of subjects that the church “fathers” felt they had to over and over again to settle the matters. By 1517 the German monk, Martin Luther, nailed his proclamations onto the church doors and started the Protestant movement. Today, there are those who claim that as many as 38,000 different denominations of the church exist. Churches have split over things as simple as whether to use the word, “is” or “as.”

 One that I’ve toyed around with for years, is often quoted from the pulpit. It’s: 2 CORINTHIANS 5:8 KJV "We are confident, [I say], and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord."

Preachers will misquote the Scripture and say something along the lines of: ”To be absent from the body IS to be present with the Lord.” The words “is” and “and” are not equal and they do not mean the same thing. But I’m not telling y’all this to divide us; it’s just an example. An example that illustrates how easily you can be drawn in to a “legalistic” argument. But, before moving on, I would like to point out that the example I just used has absolutely nothing at all to do with salvation. The important thing to always remember is that salvation comes by grace alone, in faith alone, in Christ….ALONE! This is not double-speak; it follows a very logical progression of thought.

This message of salvation is for everyone; whether Jew or Gentile.

 Section 3:

 The Church Advocates Freedom in Love

 Acts 15:19-21;

 Therefore, in my judgment, we should not cause difficulties for those among the Gentiles, who turn to God,

 but instead we should write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols,

from sexual immorality,

from eating anything that has been strangled, and from blood.

 For since ancient times, Moses has had those who proclaim him in every city, and every Sabbath day

he is read aloud in the synagogues."

 If memory serves me right, Moses issued a total of 613 laws.

There was a reason God gave these to Moses. It was to show the children of Israel that no matter how hard they tried, they could not save themselves, because they could not keep the law in its entirety. So why did the Jerusalem Council tack on four of the Mosaic laws? (abstaining from things offered to idols, from sexual immorality, from eating things that have been strangled, and from blood?) For one thing, these four things were tied to the pagan temple practices of their day. This was certainly the case for the people of Corinth at that time. It was there that some in the church believed that since they were saved by faith, it freed them to actually continue to sin. And, there are folks out there today who believe that justification by faith frees them to continue to sin. The Apostles mentioned these things because they understood that the gospel still has expectations for holiness and for love in the lives of believers. There’s a section of Scripture in the 1st chapter of 1st Peter entitled:

Living Before God Our Father.

 In it, Peter quotes from the Law of Moses by saying, As Christians, we’re to seek, to strive to live our lives in love and holiness; not because we’re attempting to gain God’s favor, but because He has clearly told us to be holy because He is. Paragraph from lesson: …………………………………………… The apostles and the elders, with the help of the Holy Spirit, maintained the unity of the church by not adding anything to the gospel of grace. But with their four commands, for the sake of the Jews, they did ask the Gentiles to obey the “law of Christ”, or ”the royal law”…… ”Love your neighbor as yourself.” Our obedience to God and His Son, Jesus, is out of love. If we love God, we will obey Him.

 If we love Jesus, we will keep His commandments. The doctrine of justification by faith does not free us to sin; it empowers us to love….. to love God and to love others. ……………………………………….

 The thing is, the Jews had been dispersed throughout the known world of their time. These people, God’s chosen people, though scattered, continued to take part in their traditions and their law-keeping in their synagogues. So, to maintain a faithful witness to the Jews and to maintain loving fellowship with their Jewish-Christian brothers, the apostles asked the Gentiles to abstain from those things that most offended the Jews. So, out of love, Gentiles were

To pursue holiness and leave off their old pagan ways. The gospel of grace frees us to love one another. We are no longer under the Old Testament and it’s myriad of laws. However, the Mosaic Law still has implications for believers because it’s God’s Word. The 10 Commandments were given under the law. Just because Christ came and fulfilled the law, does that mean it would be okay to murder, to steal, or to lie on your neighbors? Of course not! The Scriptures are an infallible guide to salvation. The Bible does use round numbers here and there, and varying perspectives of different events, but it is still completely truthful. As for Christianity, until Christ returns, there will always be disagreement over issues; both small and great. We really do have the freedom to disagree with one another over some things in our faith and understanding. But I like to think these are things that, in no way, affect our salvation. Our understanding of God and of the gospel of Jesus Christ just can’t be a point of divisiveness. Eternity lies in the balance. We should all be determined to contend vigorously for the foundational doctrines, like justification by faith alone. From Jesus to the apostles to us, the Holy Spirit has safeguarded the Christian faith over many, many generations. That’s how the Spirit keeps us united in faith and united for our mission to take the gospel to the ends of the earth. Let’s pray….